All Over For Hostess

[sadbrownsfan]

It's still the unions. you can take every penny from every corporate executives and put it back into the company and it really wouldn't change things. It's just an easy thing to get riled up over like congressional pay.

Or welfare, it's not that big a portion of the budget.

WSS

 

So you are ok with the executives getting up to 80% pay rise when the company was about 6 months to returning to bankruptcy and then asking union employees to take a 8% pay cut?

[Westside Steve]

So you are ok with the executives getting up to 80% pay rise when the company was about 6 months to returning to bankruptcy and then asking union employees to take a 8% pay cut?

Look, I said it pisses people off. I understand that. Like I said when Congress vote themselves a raise or the bum next door is getting welfare and refusing to work.

But if you break down the numbers and compare executive pay to the entire operating cost of a company you will see it's meaningless.

Let's say you had that 80 percent in cash. How long do you think you could run the company with that money? Another day? Another week?

WSS

[Saint]

Hostess is only the beginning. May all blue states continue their own suffering and enjoy their ebt cards while they last.

 

[hammertime]

There cannot be 1 side who is abstained from fault in this Hostess debacle.

 

There is no harm in restructuring or renegotiating.

 

Although it appears the union did make cuts only to see management renig on marketing and production promises such as technology, equipment and transportation.

[sadbrownsfan]

Look, I said it pisses people off. I understand that. Like I said when Congress vote themselves a raise or the bum next door is getting welfare and refusing to work.

But if you break down the numbers and compare executive pay to the entire operating cost of a company you will see it's meaningless.

Let's say you had that 80 percent in cash. How long do you think you could run the company with that money? Another day? Another week?

WSS

 

Yes giving a few people an 80% raise or in one case a 300% raise if this article is correct http://www.sacbee.com/2012/11/13/4983174/hostess-continues-pattern-of-misinformation.html#storylink=cpy doesn't equal the amount that would be saved by having about 18,000 employees taking an 8% pay cut. But how can these same people turn and blame the same unions that last time they where in bankruptcy agreed to about $110mill in concessions to give more concessions? The unions and outdated rules do play a part in the companies collapse, but you can not just point the finger at one side and say its their fault.

[Browns149]

Yes giving a few people an 80% raise or in one case a 300% raise if this article is correct http://www.sacbee.com/2012/11/13/4983174/hostess-continues-pattern-of-misinformation.html#storylink=cpy doesn't equal the amount that would be saved by having about 18,000 employees taking an 8% pay cut. But how can these same people turn and blame the same unions that last time they where in bankruptcy agreed to about $110mill in concessions to give more concessions? The unions and outdated rules do play a part in the companies collapse, but you can not just point the finger at one side and say its their fault.

Exactly correct. The unions hurt Hostess as did management. You can't just blame one side for everything that went wrong