Tndeer Logo

Page 4 of 5 <12345>
Topic Options
#3043555 - 11/21/12 11:18 AM Re: good bye Twinkie. thanks unions [Re: Wildcat]
ncslickslayer
4 Point


Registered: 09/08/02
Posts: 182
Loc: raleigh,nc

Offline
Fair enough regarding your other example, Wildcat, but I think most folks with a little sense would not believe some cockamamy 9/11 plot theory involving Bush/Cheney, but WOULD possibly believe that the bigwigs at Hostess were rolling in the dough to the bitter end while whittling away (or trying to) at the peons at the bottom. Sound plausible in the least ? I know nothing of the website I posted from other than I saw a link to it, read it, felt the anti GOP venom (anti business, anti capitalist, whatever you want to call it), but also saw a very believable (to me) example of what I think hurts our economy. Greed at the top, pure and simple. Again, my opinion only, and Im sure you dont agree, Wildcat. Ive been on this site a long time, dont post much, but have read alot of your posts, and always thought you were very intelligent, and I still do. Happy holidays to you.
Top
#3043563 - 11/21/12 11:24 AM Re: good bye Twinkie. thanks unions [Re: BMan]
BlountArrow
10 Point


Registered: 07/13/12
Posts: 2586
Loc: SouthEast Tenn

Offline
 Originally Posted By: BMan
 Originally Posted By: BlountArrow
 Originally Posted By: Vermin93
...You can't change your competition and the economy, but you can try to change the union contracts that have you sending more money out the door than you are bringing in with sales of your products.

That article is in denial of the fact that Hostess was simply losing too much money and needed to right size it's cost structure or die...


So, let me ask because I don't know. Was the senior management/executive staff/supervision/etc willing to take cut backs themselves or did they just want to cut back the pay/incentives/benefits of the "union man"? Sometimes there really can be two sides to the story which is why I ask and you seem to be pretty knowledgeable about the whole ordeal.
Thanks.

At the beginning of this year, senior management agreed to a salary of $1 each per year, until the company was profitable again.

For those jumping on the "CEO got a $1.5M pay raise, that's why the company died!" bandwagon, note that the total payroll with benefits included is well over $1BILLION. The CEO's raise was roughly $81 per employee, which would have made virtually no difference.

The article bemoans Hostess closing plants that were unprofitable or no longer needed. That's called BUSINESS and MANAGEMENT, and is how companies become long-term concerns. The author obviously has neither experience, nor knowledge, of how to run a business.


For the record, I'm not jumping on the CEO band wagon that it was the CEO's $alary to fault the whole show going down the drain. However, for example, the VP where I'm at could take a $1/year salary and still get hundreds of thousands of dollars in incentive pay/bonuses but that isn't considered "salary". I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, but like you eluded to you have to look at these articles further than just face value and not get fooled by the play on words that sometimes occurs. Maybe a bitter, selfish union is to blame though. I've been around long enough to see the good and bad of unions and they all seem to be different and differ greatly some more cooperative than others to say the least. With some companies, with some management, there is, unfortunately, still a need for them.
_________________________
"The world is so dreadfully managed, one hardly knows to whom to complain."
-Ronald Firbank

Top
#3043570 - 11/21/12 11:27 AM Re: good bye Twinkie. thanks unions [Re: BlountArrow]
Vermin93
12 Point


Registered: 12/11/10
Posts: 5741
Loc: Dallas, TX & Signal Mtn, TN

Offline
 Originally Posted By: BlountArrow
 Originally Posted By: Vermin93
...You can't change your competition and the economy, but you can try to change the union contracts that have you sending more money out the door than you are bringing in with sales of your products.

That article is in denial of the fact that Hostess was simply losing too much money and needed to right size it's cost structure or die...


So, let me ask because I don't know. Was the senior management/executive staff/supervision/etc willing to take cut backs themselves or did they just want to cut back the pay/incentives/benefits of the "union man"? Sometimes there really can be two sides to the story which is why I ask and you seem to be pretty knowledgeable about the whole ordeal.
Thanks.


Senior Hostess executives were given large pay raises by the Hostess board prior to the most recent bankruptcy filing. The justification that was given for the pay raises is that a large portion of the compensation packages for the Hostess executives was tied to incentive performance bonuses that were not realistically achievable due to the company's degrading financial position. Think of it as a NFL player who signs a contract that has a certain guaranteed base salary but who also gets significant performance incentive bonuses if he scores a certain number of touchdowns, catches a certain number of passes, gets selected to the Pro Bowl, etc. (these type of incentive bonuses exist in the NFL). That player's team may end up being really bad that year and he might never have a realistic chance of reaching the performance incentives in his contract, in which case he would only make his base salary and probably be pretty unhappy. In the case of Hostess, the board decided that since the company was doing way too poorly for the executives to have a chance to achieve their incentive performance bonuses, they would instead increase the executive salaries to make up for it. The thought was that this would make their total compensation packages competitive with senior executives at other companies and that it would ensure the Hostess executives would stay on board to help navigate the company through bankruptcy instead of quitting and going elsewhere. Basically, the Hostess board gave them pay raises to get them to stay. I understand the philosophy of what they were trying to do and I agree with it to an extent because you have to have seasoned executives in place to run a company even in bankruptcy, but some of the salary increases seemed excessive and they looked bad to the rest of the Hostess employees.

What happened next is that a new CEO (Gregory F. Rayburn) came in earlier this year and rolled back most of the executive pay raises. Even though Mr. Rayburn came in and took away most of the pay raises for the executives and gave himself and his four top executives a salary of only $1 for 2012, he is still being vilified by the unions and liberals.

Now, you have to look at the math. If you look at the Snopes link below it shows you which executives were given pay raises (most of which have since been taken away) and it shows you have much the pay raises were. If you add them all up it's an extra $3.85 million a year. Hostess's financial troubles were (are) many magnitudes more than that. Whether the executive raises happened or not, it was not going to save Hostess. The union contracts are many, many, many more times larger than the combined executive pay because of the sheer number of union employees at Hostess.

This whole liberal argument that tries to pin the blame on 10 executives and their combined raises of $3.85 million for Hostess's problems, which are in the many tens of millions of dollars, is just a smoke screen to try to protect the union brand. It's an emotional position that's not supported by simple math or Hostess's financial books.

Now, whether or not Hostess executives did a poor job of managing the overall business over the past several years is entirely another question. I'm sure they made some decisions that turned out to be bad ones. However, that doesn't change the reality that the company simply couldn't afford to keep paying the union what it was paying them. The union didn't want to accept reality and keep their jobs and live to fight another day with a new executive team.

You can read more about it here....

Creditors Say Hostess Pay Is Questionable

Hostess Rolls Back Some Executive Pay Raises

Snopes: Hostess with the Mostest
_________________________
“The more I read and the more I listen, the more apparent it is that our society suffers from an alarming degree of public ignorance” - Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor

Top
#3043605 - 11/21/12 11:48 AM Re: good bye Twinkie. thanks unions [Re: Vermin93]
Wildcat
Non-Typical


Registered: 06/10/00
Posts: 42206
Loc: Western Ky.

Offline
Several people on here are right on the "money".

Every single time the "unions" talk about the "CEO'S" of companies they will NEVER talk abut the "weekly payrolls". A CEO's YEARLY pay is LESS than the unions WEEKLY PAYROLL. Far, far less. Think about how much 18,500 people were making a week ina UNION SHOP, add them up and you are talking real money here.
_________________________
Obama, “the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid." Liberal law professor Jonathan Turley.




Top
#3043614 - 11/21/12 12:03 PM Re: good bye Twinkie. thanks unions [Re: Wildcat]
Crappie Luck Moderator
Non-Typical


Registered: 01/29/03
Posts: 61021
Loc: Smith Co.

Offline
If the CEO was able to turn the company around, his salary would have been money well spent. He wasn't so his salary is a moot point. He's out of a job also.

I specially like this line "Hostess’s failure was compounded by having six CEO’s in 8 years who had no experience in the bread or cake baking industry"

What do they think CEO's do, mix matter and ice cakes? I guess a runner up from cupcake wars would have been a wiser choice to manage a $billion industry.....

I hate liberals and their ignorant ideas of business.
_________________________
"To find out who your real rulers are, simply look to those whom you CANNOT criticize..."
--Voltaire

Top
#3043626 - 11/21/12 12:17 PM Re: good bye Twinkie. thanks unions [Re: BlountArrow]
BMan
16 Point


Registered: 02/06/06
Posts: 10562
Loc: Middle TN

Offline
 Originally Posted By: BlountArrow
 Originally Posted By: BMan
 Originally Posted By: BlountArrow
 Originally Posted By: Vermin93
...You can't change your competition and the economy, but you can try to change the union contracts that have you sending more money out the door than you are bringing in with sales of your products.

That article is in denial of the fact that Hostess was simply losing too much money and needed to right size it's cost structure or die...


So, let me ask because I don't know. Was the senior management/executive staff/supervision/etc willing to take cut backs themselves or did they just want to cut back the pay/incentives/benefits of the "union man"? Sometimes there really can be two sides to the story which is why I ask and you seem to be pretty knowledgeable about the whole ordeal.
Thanks.

At the beginning of this year, senior management agreed to a salary of $1 each per year, until the company was profitable again.

For those jumping on the "CEO got a $1.5M pay raise, that's why the company died!" bandwagon, note that the total payroll with benefits included is well over $1BILLION. The CEO's raise was roughly $81 per employee, which would have made virtually no difference.

The article bemoans Hostess closing plants that were unprofitable or no longer needed. That's called BUSINESS and MANAGEMENT, and is how companies become long-term concerns. The author obviously has neither experience, nor knowledge, of how to run a business.


For the record, I'm not jumping on the CEO band wagon that it was the CEO's $alary to fault the whole show going down the drain. However, for example, the VP where I'm at could take a $1/year salary and still get hundreds of thousands of dollars in incentive pay/bonuses but that isn't considered "salary". I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, but like you eluded to you have to look at these articles further than just face value and not get fooled by the play on words that sometimes occurs. Maybe a bitter, selfish union is to blame though. I've been around long enough to see the good and bad of unions and they all seem to be different and differ greatly some more cooperative than others to say the least. With some companies, with some management, there is, unfortunately, still a need for them.

The "jumping on the bandwagon" comment is intended for the authors of these articles who trot the same old class envy arguments that work so well on the feeble-minded, not (necessarily) anyone on this site.
_________________________
Rules are for people who lose fights.

Top
#3043636 - 11/21/12 12:26 PM Re: good bye Twinkie. thanks unions [Re: Crappie Luck]
Kirk
Cerebral Assassin
16 Point


Registered: 08/07/01
Posts: 10316
Loc: Cleveland, TN USA

Offline
 Originally Posted By: Crappie Luck
I specially like this line "Hostess’s failure was compounded by having six CEO’s in 8 years who had no experience in the bread or cake baking industry"

What do they think CEO's do, mix matter and ice cakes? I guess a runner up from cupcake wars would have been a wiser choice to manage a $billion industry.....

I hate liberals and their ignorant ideas of business.


I totally agree. They have had 8 CEOs because they are trying to find a way to stop the hemorrhaging. I would venture a guess that the Union leadership has not been as vigilant in reducing costs to insure their members continue to work. They just keep beating the same drum over and over.

As I stated in another post, the Snack Food industry is a low margin product category. You can't pay union wages and pensions and hope to earn a profit worthy of investor expectations. Once the investor dollars dry up, the only hope is to reduce costs or get lines of credit. The profit problem is also compounded by the super retailers that want to pay less than manufactured cost for the product. You basically donate profit to the super retailers if you want shelf space.

There are several variables at work in the Interstate brands bankruptcy, however, the Union issue is the one that is causing the current liquidation of assets.

_________________________
I make good money, I help the Family, but one thing must be understood, I would never go against the Godfather. Ruger is a man I respect. Luca Brasi

Top
#3043947 - 11/21/12 05:18 PM Re: good bye Twinkie. thanks unions [Re: ]
Dale3
8 Point


Registered: 09/14/03
Posts: 1362
Loc: Live in Mt.Juliet ,Hunt Jackso...

Offline
They didnt get to this point and in this mess, due to one side or the other. This happen due to one side asking for stupid and the other side agreeing to stupid.

Anyone who ask for stupid in contract's between two or more party's gets what they deserve sooner or later!

Anyone one who agrees to stupid in contract's between two or more party's get what they deserve sooner or later!

Now they finally have someone on one side who says they cant do stupid anymore.
If someone had been that smart long ago, they not be where they are.
They didnt, both sides were and are to blame for what they asked for and what they agreed too.

Bad agreed to by both sides contracts are bad contracts period!
You dont need a company this size or a union.

If your in business for yourself, and you agreed to such contracts, no matter if you were being contracted for a job or the person agreeing to inter into and contract you for the job, you both be out of business before long, agreeing to such bad contracts.
If your requiring to be over paid or if your over paying, either way, either side, you will be out of business before long.

Now someone finally got smart here and said, Hey we cant do stupid anymore, we're both going to lose out if we do!
The other side chose to continue being stupid, so now it is the union to blame.


Edited by Dale3 (11/21/12 05:34 PM)

Top
#3044001 - 11/21/12 05:59 PM Re: good bye Twinkie. thanks unions [Re: ]
Kirk
Cerebral Assassin
16 Point


Registered: 08/07/01
Posts: 10316
Loc: Cleveland, TN USA

Offline
 Originally Posted By: youngandfree
I overheard someone from Hostess on a local radio show say the Unions had the company burdened with ignorant business practices. 2 sets of Union employees, one to shuttle, load, and deliver Twinkies and another to shuttle, load and deliver their wonderbread, even though they were both made at the same plant, and shipped to the same stores.


I heard the same thing. They were running DSD routes and were forced to use quadruple labor to deliver the products. By contract, the bread and cake could not occupy the same truck. By contract, the driver could not pull the product and had to have a helper pull and stock shelves.

In a non-union environment the truck would have one route driver and be loaded with both types of product. The driver would pull and stock the shelves.

Union Wage Scenario:
Lets say for instance the driver made $18.00 an hour and helper made $17.00. That is $35 an hour for each truck or $70 an hour for delivering the two products separately. They had an estimated 5000 DSD routes they ran daily. 5000 x $35 X8= $1,400,000 a day in DSD delivery labor charges.

Non Union Scenario:
Driver earns $18.00 an hour and delivers both products. 2500X $18 X8= $360,000 in DSD Delivery charges. PLUS 2500 less trucks are now needed to accomplish the same work load. Even if they require 4 hours of OT a day it is still only at $468,000

A million a day in labor savings.
_________________________
I make good money, I help the Family, but one thing must be understood, I would never go against the Godfather. Ruger is a man I respect. Luca Brasi

Top
#3045942 - 11/23/12 02:00 PM Re: good bye Twinkie. thanks unions [Re: Kirk]
TOW
10 Point


Registered: 06/29/05
Posts: 4246
Loc: Back 40

Offline
http://www.foxnews.com/recipe/ashton-warrens-perfect-twinkie-recipe
_________________________
HUNT-INDIANA

Top
Page 4 of 5 <12345>


Moderator:  Crappie Luck, Tennessee Todd, RUGER, Unicam, stretch, Cuttin Caller, Bobby G, Kimber45 
Hop to:
Top Posters
4105517
RUGER
87003
Deer Assassin
65411
BSK
61021
Crappie Luck
51376
spitndrum
Newest Members
Mik475, AaronB, Bad Wolf, jw3783, Jesse91
13279 Registered Users
Who's Online
21 registered (outdoors crazy, plinker22, Redwing, BraveScout, pastorbmp, THEdonkey0515, 2 invisible) and 121 anonymous users online.
Forum Stats
13279 Members
42 Forums
93199 Topics
1089413 Posts

Max Online: 788 @ 11/11/13 08:06 PM
Moon Phase
CURRENT MOON
September
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30
Forum Donations
The TnDeer.Com Deer Talk Forum is for Tennessee Deer Hunters by Tennessee Deer Hunters. If you enjoy using our Talk Forum and would like to contribute to help in it's up-keep. Just submit your contribution by clicking on the DONATE button below and paying with PayPal or a major credit card. Any amount is much appreciated. Thanks for your support!

TN Burn Safe

Generated in 0.985 seconds in which 0.001 seconds were spent on a total of 15 queries. Zlib compression enabled.