Those unions watching out for their workers...

[MachZer0]

It definitely makes sense to give a reward to the people who managed the company into bankruptcy, after all, they're management. I mean, who wouldn't want to reward that kind of performance?

Pay cuts for the workers, increased bonuses for management. It's the American way!

Again, the workers are actually nonworkers. They refused to work while the executives are still working.

 

[Assyrian]

Again, the workers are actually nonworkers. They refused to work while the executives are still working.

Sounds like the captain on the Titanic, he stayed on the bridge, so the ship sinking can't have been his fault. Blame the people in the lifeboats.

 

[kermit]

Not surprising, about 100 potential buyers now reported; for employees of Hostess, this is encouraging. Maybe they can be employed by a real business, instead of a trainwreck-team.

On the bonuses, op piece in Forbes:

Why Should Hostess Executives Get The Bonuses They're Demanding? - Forbes

On general matters:
Wall Street Killed Twinkies – Not the Unions | Deadly Clear

Every time read a piece on Hostess it becomes more and more apparent to me that Hostess' Exec and managers viewed the company as a big piggy bank for them to loot.

From the first article:

Hostess wants to make two of those executives eligible for additional financial rewards, depending on how efficiently they carry out the liquidation

So, in other words, Hostess execs want to reward themselves for doing a good job of liquidating the company they destroyed.

Forbes' (hardly a bastion of liberalism) response:

It’s tough to see why managers should get bonuses for driving a company into the ground and sacrificing some 18,000 jobs.

[snip]

It’s also possible that managers could get job offers from purchasers. But they don’t deserve extra pay to oversee a liquidation that is at least in part a result of their own mistakes.

 

[Thekla]

Every time read a piece on Hostess it becomes more and more apparent to me that Hostess' Exec and managers viewed the company as a big piggy bank for them to loot.

From the first article:

So, in other words, Hostess execs want to reward themselves for doing a good job of liquidating the company they destroyed.

Forbes' (hardly a bastion of liberalism) response:

Exactly - and unfortunately not unusual.

I would hope a trustee would be assigned; and frankly, with that much interest in buying the H. lines, I don't see how valuable the execs would be in a wind-down (esp. given their track record).

 

[TeddyReceptus]

Again, the workers are actually nonworkers. They refused to work while the executives are still working.

LOL!

Yes, the guys who somehow found a way to give themselves raises while they were filing the paperwork for Chapter 11 (let that sink in), they are the honest and good people in this.

And of course when dealing with this type of square dealers it is wholly rational that they should have the last say.

Mach, your "defense" of these executives is growing more and more bizarre.

What, exactly, would these upright individuals have to do to get you to question their "trustworthiness" when making a deal like this.

REMEMBER: while they were drafting the paperwork to get them out of having to pay their debts they could scrape up millions of dollars for themselves.

If you were a stockholder in that company, would that make you happy? Would you then feel they needed further bonuses to oversee the last wrap up?

LOL!

 

[MachZer0]

LOL!

Yes, the guys who somehow found a way to give themselves raises while they were filing the paperwork for Chapter 11 (let that sink in), they are the honest and good people in this.

And of course when dealing with this type of square dealers it is wholly rational that they should have the last say.

Mach, your "defense" of these executives is growing more and more bizarre.

What, exactly, would these upright individuals have to do to get you to question their "trustworthiness" when making a deal like this.

REMEMBER: while they were drafting the paperwork to get them out of having to pay their debts they could scrape up millions of dollars for themselves.

If you were a stockholder in that company, would that make you happy? Would you then feel they needed further bonuses to oversee the last wrap up?

LOL!

Again, those salaries you bemoan were reduced to $1. The bankruptcy is not going to happen all by itself and the company is not going to wind down all by itself.

But here's an idea. Since so many of my liberal friends seem to have such better ideas about how the company should have been run, they should combine their finances to purchase the company and show us how it should have been done. Then, they can pay the workers based on the contribution to the value of the company and when the new owners get rich running the company, they can pay their fair share in taxes. The likely outcome of that scenario would be a boon to Little Debbie I'm sure

 

[MachZer0]

Sounds like the captain on the Titanic, he stayed on the bridge, so the ship sinking can't have been his fault. Blame the people in the lifeboats.

Bad analogy. The passengers were more akin to Hostess' customers, not the workers. A better analogy would be if the ship's crew members went on strike just before the ship struck the iceberg.

 

[[serious]]

Again, those salaries you bemoan were reduced to $1. The bankruptcy is not going to happen all by itself and the company is not going to wind down all by itself.

But here's an idea. Since so many of my liberal friends seem to have such better ideas about how the company should have been run, they should combine their finances to purchase the company and show us how it should have been done. Then, they can pay the workers based on the contribution to the value of the company and when the new owners get rich running the company, they can pay their fair share in taxes. The likely outcome of that scenario would be a boon to Little Debbie I'm sure

Yes! they walked it back when they realized someone was watching! that proves they are honest and trustworthy. Oh, and don't worry about he undisclosed other bonuses which they may be collecting. Just focus on the $1 thing.

 

[MachZer0]

Yes! they walked it back when they realized someone was watching! that proves they are honest and trustworthy. Oh, and don't worry about he undisclosed other bonuses which they may be collecting. Just focus on the $1 thing.

We could also focus on the fact that the bankruptcy judge has approved these new bonuses, so he must believe that keeping the executives on board is important

 

[[serious]]

We could also focus on the fact that the bankruptcy judge has approved these new bonuses, so he must believe that keeping the executives on board is important

Well, anything that is legal is therefore ethical.Unless you are a union member. Then you are a parasite who is all that is wrong with America.

 

[MachZer0]

Well, anything that is legal is therefore ethical.Unless you are a union member. Then you are a parasite who is all that is wrong with America.

If you are a union member refusing to work for a company on the verge of liquidation, you are the problem, not the solution. And by the way, just because something is legal doesn't make it unethical.

 

[Thekla]

We could also focus on the fact that the bankruptcy judge has approved these new bonuses, so he must believe that keeping the executives on board is important

Or it could be that no trustee was appointed (which is why so many investors got bilked in the MF Global fiasco).

 

[Assyrian]

Bad analogy. The passengers were more akin to Hostess' customers, not the workers. A better analogy would be if the ship's crew members went on strike just before the ship struck the iceberg.

Your argument seemed to be that because the management weren't to blame because they were still working after the workers were unemployed. I showed you that this was irrelevant for showing who was at fault, since management, like the captain of the Titanic, can be the last people in their jobs even though they are the ones who have caused the company to sink.

 

[[serious]]

If you are a union member refusing to work for a company on the verge of liquidation, you are the problem, not the solution. And by the way, just because something is legal doesn't make it unethical.

Right, because being legal makes it ethical. That's why we can't blame CEOs and upper level management. You see, a judge said it was legal for them to make sure they got theirs. Unions looking out for their own interests though? well,legal or not, they are unions so they are unethical. Aftera ll, it's the unions that are specifically tasked with looking after the health of the company and no the management, so it's only natural that unions would be held accountable for a company's failure and the CEO would walk away from the sinking ship with millions.

 

[whatbogsends]

And by the way, just because something is legal doesn't make it unethical.

No one suggested that "because something is legal it is therefore unethical". We simply noted that in defending whether their actions were ethical, you used the legality as some sort of defense, whereas in reality the two are separated. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is ethical.

 

[MachZer0]

Your argument seemed to be that because the management weren't to blame because they were still working after the workers were unemployed. I showed you that this was irrelevant for showing who was at fault, since management, like the captain of the Titanic, can be the last people in their jobs even though they are the ones who have caused the company to sink.

Still a bad analogy.

 

[MachZer0]

Right, because being legal makes it ethical. That's why we can't blame CEOs and upper level management. You see, a judge said it was legal for them to make sure they got theirs. Unions looking out for their own interests though? well,legal or not, they are unions so they are unethical. Aftera ll, it's the unions that are specifically tasked with looking after the health of the company and no the management, so it's only natural that unions would be held accountable for a company's failure and the CEO would walk away from the sinking ship with millions.

What the judge said was that it was OK to pay bonuses to keep the executives on board to manage the company through a bankruptcy. Remember, there are at least 3000 employees still working. Everyone at Hostess should be seeking other employment, if the executives leave too son, the liquidation could collapse forcing more people into unemployment sooner than necessary.

 

[MachZer0]

No one suggested that "because something is legal it is therefore unethical". We simply noted that in defending whether their actions were ethical, you used the legality as some sort of defense, whereas in reality the two are separated. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is ethical.

And revenge on the executives, as is being suggested by some, is not ethical either.

 

[kermit]

If you are a union member refusing to work for a company on the verge of liquidation, you are the problem, not the solution.

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

 

[kermit]

And revenge on the executives, as is being suggested by some, is not ethical either.

But rewarding their failure is?