Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 AustonT wrote:
And this is less "Hostess very publicly stopped paying pensions over a year ago" and more "In case you were wondering who put Hostess out of business"
January 19, 2012
http://www.businessinsider.com/a-cost-by-cost-breakdown-of-the-hostess-bankruptcy-shows-employee-retirement-funds-are-owed-big-2012-1

Hardly an exlusive list there. I don't see payroll listed anywhere, or rent/mortgage on property, or maintenance costs, or executive bonuses...

 AustonT wrote:

The maneuver probably doesn't violate federal law because the money Hostess failed to put into the pension didn't come directly from employees, experts said.

Does that make it more clear?

Yes.

To clarify, in order for this employer sponsored fund to exist, wouldn't it have to have been negotiated and argeed to in previous Union contracts, or was it just a goodwill gesture by the company to have this employer sponsored pension fund?

Vulcan: you'll note the column title is "kind of creditor"
Not all outlays.
Easy E: they specifically BROKE thier union contracts when they stopped paying. Big impetus behind the strike in the first place. The articles I linked towards Ouze explain it. It's called betrayl with no (synonym for fix). I think.

< Taken by the void dragon. >

 Che-Vito wrote:
Go figure; the old CEO makes off with ~$2,000,000 in severance...despite him raiding the employee's pension funds to keep the company operating longer. Somehow, that's 'legal'.

1. Call it 'Embezzlement' please.
2. There should be debate in the Congress regarding to this 'outrageous' and you view those six CEO actions on the pension fund as a 'transgression'

 AustonT wrote:
Vulcan: you'll note the column title is "kind of creditor"
Not all outlays.
Easy E: they specifically BROKE thier union contracts when they stopped paying. Big impetus behind the strike in the first place. The articles I linked towards Ouze explain it. It's called betrayl with no (synonym for fix). I think.

So, can we agree it looks kind of looks like the management of Hostess broke the contract, used the pension to keep the company afloat, and then paid themselves bonuses?

Can we also agree that this might not look good for the management types?

 Easy E wrote:


and then paid themselves bonuses?

Can we also agree that this might not look good for the management types?

We can agree up to this point. The executive will not recieve those bonuses automatically. They are continginent on benchmarks for the liquidation of the company. Ultimately they will recieve those bonuses by making the liquidation of Hostess fast and bringing in as much money as they can. Anything above the 860M that is secured debt will be funneled towards the 1B in pension fund debt. I'm sure your also torqued that Hostess will be doling out 4.36M to non-executives in the same period.
Does it look bad for the management? Kind of depends on who you are. If you believe that every manager is evil and make sure to repeating point out executive compensation then I'm sure it does. If you think people should get paid for thier work, and that keeping 18,000 people employed with less benefits is better than having 15,000 people unemployed with no benefits; then probably not.

 malfred wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid

That was not Kool-Aid, that was Flavor aid.

That does not make any sense.

The two are somehow connected you are saying?

Heard the expression before, but never knew what it meant. I still do not understand it, even though I read the wiki article on it.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 malfred wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid

That was not Kool-Aid, that was Flavor aid.

That does not make any sense.

The two are somehow connected you are saying?

Heard the expression before, but never knew what it meant. I still do not understand it, even though I read the wiki article on it.

It's not that hard of a concept. In the words of Cake "You're drinking what they're selling". The Republicans and the rich have been trying to blame the unions for everything. You have bought it.

 AustonT wrote:

 Easy E wrote:


and then paid themselves bonuses?

Can we also agree that this might not look good for the management types?

We can agree up to this point. The executive will not recieve those bonuses automatically. They are continginent on benchmarks for the liquidation of the company. Ultimately they will recieve those bonuses by making the liquidation of Hostess fast and bringing in as much money as they can. Anything above the 860M that is secured debt will be funneled towards the 1B in pension fund debt. I'm sure your also torqued that Hostess will be doling out 4.36M to non-executives in the same period.
Does it look bad for the management? Kind of depends on who you are. If you believe that every manager is evil and make sure to repeating point out executive compensation then I'm sure it does. If you think people should get paid for thier work, and that keeping 18,000 people employed with less benefits is better than having 15,000 people unemployed with no benefits; then probably not.

Remember what happened in 2004?

 Lone Cat wrote:


Remember what happened in 2004?

Yeah it was a leap year that started on a Thursday. A whale exploded in Taiwan. There was a hajj stampede in Saudi Arabia. Human Embryos were cloned in South Korea. Massachusetts legalized gay marriage. The Summer Olympics were held in Athens. SpaceshipOne won the X Prize. Pat Tillman, Ray Charles, and Ronald Regan died.
Ahhhh 2004.

^ I mean What happened to Hostess by 2004?

I don't know, what did happen to Hostess in 2004?

half a mil on donuts, those are Homer Simpson numbers.

Hostess in 2004? They would have been coming out of the bankruptcy they filed in 2003.

They filed bankruptcy because they had $600 million in debt.

The union allowed pay and position cuts to keep the company afloat, to the tune of 25% the total payroll.

The corporate executives 'earned' millions in bonuses.

The company came OUT of bankruptcy with $800 million in debt. Yes, more than they went in with.

I think that rather solves the whole mystery of why the company went under, don't you?

That's not a very funny joke.

 purplefood wrote:
That's not a very funny joke.

Looking back over the past page of posts... I don't see anything resembling a joke aside from the Homer Simpson comment.

 Vulcan wrote:
Hostess in 2004? They would have been coming out of the bankruptcy they filed in 2003.

They filed bankruptcy because they had $600 million in debt.

The union allowed pay and position cuts to keep the company afloat, to the tune of 25% the total payroll.

The corporate executives 'earned' millions in bonuses.

The company came OUT of bankruptcy with $800 million in debt. Yes, more than they went in with.

I think that rather solves the whole mystery of why the company went under, don't you?

And this event influences the workers recent vote to rejects the deal that requires workers to take another pay cut.
in 2004 Workers believed that the pay cut is 'for the common good', they hoped that the company will reinvest and came back on its own feet.
the 'promise' is not fulfilled however.

 Lone Cat wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
Hostess in 2004? They would have been coming out of the bankruptcy they filed in 2003.

They filed bankruptcy because they had $600 million in debt.

The union allowed pay and position cuts to keep the company afloat, to the tune of 25% the total payroll.

The corporate executives 'earned' millions in bonuses.

The company came OUT of bankruptcy with $800 million in debt. Yes, more than they went in with.

I think that rather solves the whole mystery of why the company went under, don't you?

And this event influences the workers recent vote to rejects the deal that requires workers to take another pay cut.
in 2004 Workers believed that the pay cut is 'for the common good', they hoped that the company will reinvest and came back on its own feet.
the 'promise' is not fulfilled however.

As I said, mystery solved, yes?

^ YES

so any 'anti-union' arguments here, any valid reason to justify the unchecked Corporate greed ?

Corporate greed is part of it. Corporate executive greed is another.

Corporate profits have risen 2000% the past 20 years, even as the purchasing power of the average American has decreased by something like 5%. But executive compensation has risen 5000% in the same period.

Anyone want to guess who sets pay rates for corporate executives? If you guessed the shareholders, you'd be WRONG. Shareholders are mushroomed to the maximum extent of the law - and given America doesn't have ANY laws saying corporations must keep shareholders informed, they know nothing they don't dig out of the corporation with their own two hands.

Executive pay is determined by the Corporate Board... made up of those very same executives. And there is NO ONE who has the authority to review their decisions.

Any wonder why things have gone sour in a hurry?

ok i will call it either 'Exec greed' or 'Robber Barony'

And the reason to increase the exec salary and bonuses is that these managers are also Stock Exchange investers too!

 Lone Cat wrote:
ok i will call it either 'Exec greed' or 'Robber Barony'

And the reason to increase the exec salary and bonuses is that these managers are also Stock Exchange investers too!

Not sure I'd call that a reason, it's more like an excuse...