Those unions watching out for their workers...

TeddyReceptus · Nov 30, 2012

kermit said:
But rewarding their failure is?

Remember: the executives are "good" people. You can tell because they were paid more and were able to give themselves raises even while they were drawing up the paperwork for bankruptcy of the company.

That's a sign of "goodness" in American circa 2012.

The unions who could only demand raises but not actually give themselves raises and who had to "trust" that taking deals from people who would do such things are actually "bad" people. You can tell because they didn't get paid as much.

So in a just and rational America (circa 2012) we reward good people and punish bad people with wishes that they get no unemployment.

Selah!

TeddyReceptus · Nov 30, 2012

MachZer0 said:
If you are a union member refusing to work for a company on the verge of liquidation, you are the problem

So it wasn't a problem that while they were drafting up the paperwork for bankruptcy the executives were able to give themselves a raise?

I don't know why this point does seem to register. When one is forced into bankruptcy it is predicated on their inability to meet fiscal demands.

If I am down to my last $2000 and I have to pay my mortgage do you think the bank is going to be happy if I use that money to go buy a sweet 51" plasma screen tv?

Am I acting in good faith?

What if I decide instead of paying my full mortgage each month I was going to pay $30/month and use the rest of the money to buy toys for myself. But I also promised them that in 6 years I'd start paying the full monthly loan payments.

Is the bank in the right to foreclose on my house? Because then they will have a house which they will likely have to sell at a loss and I won't have a house. Does that make the bank the bad guy in that scenario? They could have been getting a steady stream of income from me, but now they have nothing but a building which they will have to likely spend money on getting off their books and ultimately be at a loss.

And when I'm being asked to move out of the house by the sheriff, should I demand that the bank give me more money as an "incentive" to pack my stuff up?

MachZer0 · Nov 30, 2012

kermit said:
Yet you continually ignore why the company was in liquidation in the first place.

They're in liquidation because union members refused to work.

MachZer0 · Nov 30, 2012

kermit said:
But rewarding their failure is?

You haven't specified the failures of these executives. Please do so

MachZer0 · Nov 30, 2012

TeddyReceptus said:
Remember: the executives are "good" people. You can tell because they were paid more and were able to give themselves raises even while they were drawing up the paperwork for bankruptcy of the company.

That's a sign of "goodness" in American circa 2012.

The unions who could only demand raises but not actually give themselves raises and who had to "trust" that taking deals from people who would do such things are actually "bad" people. You can tell because they didn't get paid as much.

So in a just and rational America (circa 2012) we reward good people and punish bad people with wishes that they get no unemployment.

Selah!

Just for the record, the executives stayed on the job, accepting pay cuts hoping to bring the company through the bankruptcy. The union members walked off the job refusing concessions forcing the liquidation

MachZer0 · Nov 30, 2012

TeddyReceptus said:
So it wasn't a problem that while they were drafting up the paperwork for bankruptcy the executives were able to give themselves a raise?

I don't know why this point does seem to register. When one is forced into bankruptcy it is predicated on their inability to meet fiscal demands.

If I am down to my last $2000 and I have to pay my mortgage do you think the bank is going to be happy if I use that money to go buy a sweet 51" plasma screen tv?

Am I acting in good faith?

What if I decide instead of paying my full mortgage each month I was going to pay $30/month and use the rest of the money to buy toys for myself. But I also promised them that in 6 years I'd start paying the full monthly loan payments.

Is the bank in the right to foreclose on my house? Because then they will have a house which they will likely have to sell at a loss and I won't have a house. Does that make the bank the bad guy in that scenario? They could have been getting a steady stream of income from me, but now they have nothing but a building which they will have to likely spend money on getting off their books and ultimately be at a loss.

And when I'm being asked to move out of the house by the sheriff, should I demand that the bank give me more money as an "incentive" to pack my stuff up?

It's a matter of being able to keep people on board through difficult times. If your top management leaves while you're in trouble, things will likely get worse

kermit · Nov 30, 2012

MachZer0 said:
You haven't specified the failures of these executives. Please do so

As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, you specified their main failure. You said:

When you are making a product tat people no longer want, you go out of business. That appears to be what is happening to Hostess.

Failure to offer products that people want is a management failure.

whatbogsends · Nov 30, 2012

TeddyReceptus said:
Remember: the executives are "good" people. You can tell because they were paid more and were able to give themselves raises even while they were drawing up the paperwork for bankruptcy of the company.

That's a sign of "goodness" in American circa 2012.

The unions who could only demand raises but not actually give themselves raises and who had to "trust" that taking deals from people who would do such things are actually "bad" people. You can tell because they didn't get paid as much.

So in a just and rational America (circa 2012) we reward good people and punish bad people with wishes that they get no unemployment.

Selah!

Obviously, they're good people. They're quite Randian in terms of looking out for their own needs, and only their own needs. If only everyone were so selfish, our marketplace would be a perfect ideal.

whatbogsends · Nov 30, 2012

MachZer0 said:
It's a matter of being able to keep people on board through difficult times. If your top management leaves while you're in trouble, things will likely get worse

As it turns out, it's even worse when your employees leave then when your top management leaves. Perhaps they should've taken that into consideration when determining wages.

kermit · Nov 30, 2012

MachZer0 said:
It's a matter of being able to keep people on board through difficult times. If your top management leaves while you're in trouble, things will likely get worse

Yeah, they might have to file bankruptcy....oh wait.

Executives set long term visions for companies. Since liquidation is little more than administrative tasks it's hard to understand why they are even needed much less deserving of any reward. Maybe keep the CFO around, but the rest can be kicked to the curb.

MachZer0 · Nov 30, 2012

kermit said:
As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, you specified their main failure. You said:

Failure to offer products that people want is a management failure.

It's not a management failure since management is not responsible for what people want and for market changes.

Thekla · Nov 30, 2012

MachZer0 said:
It's not a management failure since management is not responsible for what people want and for market changes.

It is their responsibility to respond to such things - it's pretty well accepted (and kinda obvious) that they didn't.

TeddyReceptus · Nov 30, 2012

MachZer0 said:
It's a matter of being able to keep people on board through difficult times. If your top management leaves while you're in trouble, things will likely get worse

Worse? Perhaps you didn't catch that Hostess is going away and that all the people you want to not have unemployment are now unemployed.

How much "worse" could it get?

(But I did notice you sidestepped the "mortgage" example I gave.)

TeddyReceptus · Nov 30, 2012

Thekla said:
It is their responsibility to respond to such things - it's pretty well accepted (and kinda obvious) that they didn't.

Give Mach a break! How could Mach know that in industry Marketing is crucial and understanding the customer needs is pretty much the only game in town for the management of a consumer company!

It's hilarious that folks like Mach think they know something about industry but then roll out stuff like that.

Of course consumers may, indeed, defy management expectations, but it ain't the UNION guys out there "pinging the market" to find out where to invest the next round of budget.

That's why we pay management lots of money.

But when they fail to do their primary job, suddenly it's everyone else's fault!

LOL!

MachZer0 · Nov 30, 2012

kermit said:
Yeah, they might have to file bankruptcy....oh wait.

Executives set long term visions for companies. Since liquidation is little more than administrative tasks it's hard to understand why they are even needed much less deserving of any reward. Maybe keep the CFO around, but the rest can be kicked to the curb.

The liquidation is expected to take at least a year so you downplaying the management needs doesn't seem to hold much water. Perhaps you can detail for us what the company needs to do in that year.

MachZer0 · Nov 30, 2012

Thekla said:
It is their responsibility to respond to such things - it's pretty well accepted (and kinda obvious) that they didn't.

By our liberal friends, yes. Of course, those are the same friends who refuse to recognize that companies using non-union labor like Little Debbie are still able to compete

whatbogsends · Nov 30, 2012

MachZer0 said:
It's not a management failure since management is not responsible for what people want and for market changes.

What exactly, do you think management is there for, if not to adjust product lines to meet the needs of the market? Your head is buried deeply in....the sand, if you can't even assign management one of their most obvious jobs.

Even more bizarre is that despite you making the claim that management isn't responsible for adjusting to market changes, you still think their exorbitant salaries are justified, although you have yet to cite any particular skill that justifies these salaries, and clearly, increased responsibility or "skin in the game" isn't the basis, as they profit when the company fails, and apparently have bear no responsibility of the success or failure of the company.

In fact, if the company's failure rests on the workers' shoulders, you have again demonstrated that they are even more underpaid, as the workers, and not management, are solely responsible for a company's success or failure - at least according to you.

kermit · Nov 30, 2012

MachZer0 said:
It's not a management failure since management is not responsible for what people want and for market changes.

Adapting the company to a changing market is exactly what management is responsible for.

I really want to know what you think management is responsible for. After reading through this thread it appears that you beleive they have not responsibilities which makes me wonder how you self-justify their larger salaries.

MachZer0 · Nov 30, 2012

TeddyReceptus said:
Worse? Perhaps you didn't catch that Hostess is going away and that all the people you want to not have unemployment are now unemployed.

How much "worse" could it get?

(But I did notice you sidestepped the "mortgage" example I gave.)

Hostess is not necessarily going away. The brands will likely be bought up by other companies and most of those interested apparently are no interested in the current labor force, which means the union workers will remain on the dole because of their own intransigence.

MachZer0 · Nov 30, 2012

TeddyReceptus said:
Give Mach a break! How could Mach know that in industry Marketing is crucial and understanding the customer needs is pretty much the only game in town for the management of a consumer company!

It's hilarious that folks like Mach think they know something about industry but then roll out stuff like that.

Of course consumers may, indeed, defy management expectations, but it ain't the UNION guys out there "pinging the market" to find out where to invest the next round of budget.

That's why we pay management lots of money.

But when they fail to do their primary job, suddenly it's everyone else's fault!

LOL!

OK, if you believe you have better knowledge of how Hostess could have remained solvent, tell us what you would have done as management to prevent not only the liquidation, but the bankruptcy. Better, yet, for a coop of buyers if necessary and buy Hostess outright and show us how it should be done.

Those unions watching out for their workers...

TeddyReceptus

Guest

TeddyReceptus

Guest

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

Legend

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Legend

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

Thekla

Guest

TeddyReceptus

Guest

TeddyReceptus

Guest

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

Senior Veteran

Legend

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency