Hostess is Toast

[nathalee81]

Toe be fair though, the top 4 executives have been paid $1 since March 2012. sucks to work 8 month for $1...

I'm sure the 2.5 million he made in his bonus will more than make up for that

 

[AngieMouse86]

I feel really bad for all the people out of jobs, especially right around the holidays.

There's a Wonder-Hostess Outlet just a couple minutes from me and the ladies that work there are so nice. Went today after work to find the place closed (it was before the usual closing time). There was still product on the shelves, not much Wonder bread or snack cakes though, mostly other stuff. No signs as to why it was closed, just older ones re: lack of stock due to the strike.

Saddening that even if the best of their brands get new life under another company, I can't imagine the outlets being revived under Hostess/any new Hostess venture.

 

[Bob NC]

Mike Hummell, a receiving clerk and a member of the Bakers' union working in Lenexa, Kan., said he was making about $48,000 in 2005 before the company's first trip through bankruptcy.

A receiving clerk making 48K? Maybe that is part of the problem.

 

[ilovemk76]

its okay... we still got these...

I doubt it. What bakery do you think made them?

 

[luvmy3]

A receiving clerk making 48K? Maybe that is part of the problem.

Notice how his pay scale gets defended, but not the big bad CEO's though.

 

[mnrose]

Doesn't effect me*, I don't own stock in them and personally, I feel their 'food', if you can call it that, contributes to all sorts of diseases and chronic conditions.

Then again, just like if someone wants to work a low paying job, I think people should be allowed to eat whatever they want. Even if I think it's 'poison'.



*beyond the fact as a taxpayer, now I'll have to pick up the tab for many fo these people going on unemployment and social welfare programs.

You also pay for the illnesses people get from their "free choice" to eat this garbage instead of real food. So, yes, the food choices people make affect all of us. I'm certain people will rush in to say that hey, they only eat them ocassionally, and it's none of my business. At the micro level, I agree. At the macro level, we are all paying for the incredibly poor health choices made by most Americans. Look at the escalating rates of obesity and diabetes (and the HUGE costs of both of these to our medical system).

 

[akhenaten]

Toe be fair though, the top 4 executives have been paid $1 since March 2012. sucks to work 8 month for $1...

I do not believe this... That my have been their " salary". But I would bet there were other forms of compensation.

So 18,000 are now out of work and the executives will leave with their golden parachutes to screw up another company ....

 

[ilovefh]

This thread got me curious so I did some digging. I don't know how accurate this is, as it is late and I am a little tired so haven't googled other results.

Apparently, earlier this year the CEO of Hostess was awarded with a 300 percent raise and other executives were awarded massive pay raises (at least, nine others that I saw).

It seems absurd to me that is you can't afford to pay the pensions you promised to your employees and your company is going belly up, you think you deserve a 300 percent pay raise. Yeah, that makes a ton of sense. Because, you know, you are doing such a great job!

Until, CEO's and big executives take some major pay cuts (and also take some personal responsibility when their companies profits take a nose dive), I don't see why their employees (who make significantly less) should have to take a pay cut or deduction in benefits, either. I know everyone says they should get paid more because they have more responsibility, I think that is bull. I have never seen a CEO take personal responsibility for any failed business. You know what they do? Take their golden parachutes, blame the unions (or the government, or the banks, or anyone else they can point the finger at) and move onto their yacht or vacation home.

I will never understand this hatred of unions in this nation. While they are not all perfect, you can thank them for your 40 hour work weeks, overtime pay and child labor laws. Sorry, they are not the root of all evil, as far as I am concerned.

Edited to add: I went back and saw on an earlier post that someone had already brought this up. I missed it in one of the pages.

This was posted before and I agreed with it then too. I'm sorry, if you're asking your employees to take an 8% cut, which was not the first cut in the last few years by the way, then you shouldn't be getting a 300% raise. I think if cuts are to be made then everyone sacrifices, including the CEO and top executives.

This just shows that the people in charge had horrible business sense and were terrible money managers.

And someone posted that an 80% raise isn't too much of a raise. Seriously?!?! Here is just an example of how much 80% is. Starting pay for teachers in my district is $38000. If they got an 80% raise they'd be making $68400. That's almost double. (Yes, I know 100% would be double, but sometimes people don't see what a 100% raise actually means)

Sorry, if your company is going out of business and you're cutting the workers salaries you should not be entitled to double your own pay. Even if your friends on the board say it's okay.

And truly, I think the union striking was just an excuse to sign the liquidation paperwork sooner rather than later and not look like the bad guy.

 

[luvmy3]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/16/gregory-rayburn-raise_n_2147043.html

CORRECTION: An earlier version of as well as an earlier headline of this post incorrectly stated that Greg Rayburn received a 300 percent raise as CEO of Hostess as the company approached bankruptcy. Rayburn wasn't CEO of Hostess until after the company filed for bankruptcy. The post also incorrectly stated that he was paid a salary of up to $2,550,000 per year. His salary when he joined the company was $100,000 per month, according to a company spokesman.

Hostess creditors accused the company in April of manipulating executive salaries with the aim of getting around bankruptcy compensation rules, the Wall Street Journal reported at the time. In response, Rayburn announced he would cut his pay and that of other executives to $1 until Dec. 31 or whenever Hostess came out of bankruptcy.

 

[ilovefh]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/16/gregory-rayburn-raise_n_2147043.html

Correct, it was the previous CEO, Brian Driscoll who received a 300% raise.

 

[donaldlovesdaisy]

You also pay for the illnesses people get from their "free choice" to eat this garbage instead of real food. So, yes, the food choices people make affect all of us. I'm certain people will rush in to say that hey, they only eat them ocassionally, and it's none of my business. At the micro level, I agree. At the macro level, we are all paying for the incredibly poor health choices made by most Americans. Look at the escalating rates of obesity and diabetes (and the HUGE costs of both of these to our medical system).

A Twinkie or treat every now and then is not going to kill you!! I wonder how many on here who are complaining about the nutritional aspects of Twinkies gorge themselves on free dinning in WDW or all the unhealthy food choices WDW offers. Both of my kids are super active and eat very healthy but are allowed some sort of small treat each evening maybe some cookies , snack size piece of candy, ice cream, or some sort of Little Debbie or snack cake thing and neither are diabetic obese or have teeth falling out of their mouth from sugar rot. Moderation is the key and many people practice just that and our right to feed out children what we want should not be infringed upon.

 

[pegrad1]

Every morning (Mon-Fri) with my coffee I have two vanilla Zingers. My co-workers will not like me much as I go through withdrawals & I'm starting to grow more & more concerned about the weight loss that will occur as a result of this! LOL!

 

[luvmy3]

Correct, it was the previous CEO, Brian Driscoll who received a 300% raise.

Yes, I wanted the pp who said the comment below that the current CEO and the other execs were prepared to take a major pay cut. (And he wasn't the one who got the 2.5 million bonus that she commented on in a pp).

Until, CEO's and big executives take some major pay cuts (and also take some personal responsibility when their companies profits take a nose dive), I don't see why their employees (who make significantly less) should have to take a pay cut or deduction in benefits, either. I know everyone says they should get paid more because they have more responsibility, I think that is bull. I have never seen a CEO take personal responsibility for any failed business. You know what they do? Take their golden parachutes, blame the unions (or the government, or the banks, or anyone else they can point the finger at) and move onto their yacht or vacation home.

 

[foreUT]

Brian Driscoll, who came in as CEO when Ripplewood Holdings invested $130 million in 2009, left in March, the same month Rayburn arrived (the guy who worked for $1.) Driscoll was the CEO who made the big dollar salary and bonus. Ripplewood pretty much left the table after that and left the two other funds, that had invested more than twice as much as Ripplewood, to continue the fight. The market is saturated with bakery options and the costs were too high. Unfortunately, the employees are the victims of those truths. Since GE's lending arm was involved in the 2009 reorganization, they will probably receive the lion's share of the assets.

 

[MolonLabe]

I'm sorry, if you're asking your employees to take an 8% cut, which was not the first cut in the last few years by the way, then you shouldn't be getting a 300% raise. I think if cuts are to be made then everyone sacrifices, including the CEO and top executives.

Considering the 300% doesn't apply to what happened to the people in charge this past week, that isn't germane to this latest... incident.

In any case, they weren't "asking". They were telling.

Employees are subservient to the managers and owners. If you want to work for company X, you go by their rules or wages. If you don't like them, quit.

Pretty simple concept. If you don't agree with taking a 8% cut in pay while the CEO took a cut down to $1, then quit. If that's "unfair" go work for a fair company...

Oh wow, here is a novel concept, why don't YOU (collectively, anyone who thinks this) start your own company and run one how you see fit?

10-1 by the time you put in all the time, effort, stress and work you won't feel the same.

This just shows that the people in charge had horrible business sense and were terrible money managers.

Again, why would someone want to work for a group of people like that? It doesn't make any sense.

Sorry, if your company is going out of business and you're cutting the workers salaries you should not be entitled to double your own pay. Even if your friends on the board say it's okay.

"Entitled"? Do you even know what that word means?

They OWN / run the company. It is THEIRS. There is no "entitled" to it. They can do what they want with their THEIR company.

The only people feeling entitled were the striking workers. Looks like they learned a lesson. Consequences.

$48,000 for a receiving clerk with a HS diploma... there are areas in this country where a Nurse with a 4 year degree doesn't make $48,000 a year.

I'm surprised hostess stayed in business this long. Maybe you're right, the managers and CEO's were idiots. No one with any sense would pay a receiving clerk 48k a year.

FYI the Teamsters were telling the Bakers union to capitulate and take the 8% cut. Bakers union wouldn't budge. Consequences.

 

[SaraJayne]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/16/gregory-rayburn-raise_n_2147043.html

$100,000 a month??

 

[dakcp2001]

Considering the 300% doesn't apply to what happened to the people in charge this past week, that isn't germane to this latest... incident.

In any case, they weren't "asking". They were telling.

Employees are subservient to the managers and owners. If you want to work for company X, you go by their rules or wages. If you don't like them, quit.

Pretty simple concept. If you don't agree with taking a 8% cut in pay while the CEO took a cut down to $1, then quit. If that's "unfair" go work for a fair company...

Oh wow, here is a novel concept, why don't YOU (collectively, anyone who thinks this) start your own company and run one how you see fit?

10-1 by the time you put in all the time, effort, stress and work you won't feel the same.



Again, why would someone want to work for a group of people like that? It doesn't make any sense.



"Entitled"? Do you even know what that word means?

They OWN / run the company. It is THEIRS. There is no "entitled" to it. They can do what they want with their THEIR company.

The only people feeling entitled were the striking workers. Looks like they learned a lesson. Consequences.

$48,000 for a receiving clerk with a HS diploma... there are areas in this country where a Nurse with a 4 year degree doesn't make $48,000 a year.

I'm surprised hostess stayed in business this long. Maybe you're right, the managers and CEO's were idiots. No one with any sense would pay a receiving clerk 48k a year.

FYI the Teamsters were telling the Bakers union to capitulate and take the 8% cut. Bakers union wouldn't budge. Consequences.

According to your very own reasoning in your former post, if the guy making 1 dollar thought he deserved more than that he would have left, right?

Anti union people will blame the unions. Always. Regardless of all of the other obvious problems with the company. This company was circling the drain regardless of the strike or not. And not because of the 8% the bakers wanted.Because it was poorly run and the money was poorly managed, and let's face it, sales of crap food have not maintained like they used to. There are a lot of reasons this company failed, it is extremely short sighted to solely blame the union. There is plenty of fault here to go around. That is blatantly obvious.

 

[dakcp2001]

$100,000 a month??

The poor guy must have been suffering with such low pay. Vomit.

 

[foreUT]

$100,000 a month??

Rayburn arrived in March. As your article noted, in April he lowered it to $1 a month until the end of the year, so I am not sure he even received one month of that salary. He is a turn-around expert, which is what the company needed much earlier, imo.

 

[donaldlovesdaisy]

$100,000 a month??

The poor guy must have been suffering with such low pay. Vomit.

He runs a major company what do you expect!! It could be anyone of us if that was the path in life we had taken. Would you be equally as appalled if this were you or a family member? All this faux outrage is so silly when not a single one of us would turn that type of money down simply based on principle.