Hostess to seek approval for executive bonuses

page: 1
9

log in

join

posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Failure does pay! I have to laugh at how the union is blamed while those responsible for managing the company ride off in the sunset with their pot of Gold!

This is an ongoing problem with failed corporations where the company gets driven into the ground and the executives who did it get rewarded. The rank and file employees get screwed cross-eyed why should those at the top be rewarded for their failures? This is not a fairness issue before some right-winger whines about that but direct "responsibility" of the managements failure......




NEW YORK (AP) -- Hostess Brands Inc. plans to ask for a judge's approval Thursday to give its top executives bonuses totaling up to $1.8 million as part of its wind-down plans.

The maker of Twinkies, Ding Dongs and Ho Hos says the incentive pay is needed to retain the 19 managers during the liquidation process, which could take about a year. Two of those executives would be eligible for additional rewards depending on how efficiently they carry out the liquidation.



hosted.ap.org...

Last year the former CEO tried to give 80 percent pay raises to executives and a $1.2 million with bonus retirement of about $1.5 million ......

No one in this failed company should get a bonus ...

edit on 29-11-2012 by fnpmitchreturns because: syntax




posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 08:41 AM
link   
This story just gets more ridiculous.

www.commondreams.org...



The true perfidy in this drama is not in the union, but inside Ripplewood's towering castle of high finance in New York City. After buying Hostess in a bankruptcy sale, these equity hucksters proceeded to feather their own nests, rather than modernize Hostess's equipment and upgrade its products, as the unions had urged. For starters, these profiteers piled an unbearable debt load of $860 million on Hostess, thus diverting its revenues into nonproductive interest payments made to rich, absentee speculators. Also, they siphoned millions of dollars out of Hostess directly into their corporate pockets by charging "consulting and management fees" that did nothing to improve the snack-makers financial health.

But it was not until this year that their rank managerial incompetence and raw ethical depravity fully surfaced. While the Ripplewood honchos in charge of Hostess were demanding a new round of deep cuts in worker's pay, health care, and pensions, they quietly jacked up their own pay. By a lot! The CEO's paycheck, for example, rocketed from $750,000 a year to $2.5 million.


This story is repeated a hundred times over in corporate America.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Your anti-business partisanship is showing.
These bonuses are retention bonuses to incentivize people staying who are over-seeing the liquidation of Hostess assets to pay creditors. Why else would these people stay rather than find another job?

If everyone left, and the assets were left to rot, then creditors could take the corporate board to court. That is why you must go to court when filing for bankruptcy: it is a settlement that has the legal backing of a court order that provides protection to prevent needless lawsuits and simplify the process.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 


Frankly any stockholders should demand a "claw-back" of that pay!

I got out of the Laborers International Union many years ago. Unions are necessary to balance out the power of the employers. I don't agree with everything the unions have done but the NLRB (National Labors Relation Board) is worthless from my experience dealing with them.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
Your anti-business partisanship is showing.
These bonuses are retention bonuses to incentivize people staying who are over-seeing the liquidation of Hostess assets to pay creditors. Why else would these people stay rather than find another job?

If everyone left, and the assets were left to rot, then creditors could take the corporate board to court. That is why you must go to court when filing for bankruptcy: it is a settlement that has the legal backing of a court order that provides protection to prevent needless lawsuits and simplify the process.


Actually what is showing is my belief that corporations should not exist except for the good of the people and limited in how long their charter is for ...... just like the founding fathers of this country wished not as the courts and corrupt government have deemed .....

I am a small businessman ... FYI

If those executives need a retention bonus then they should move on ....




bonuses are retention bonuses to incentivize people staying who are over-seeing the liquidation of Hostess


They failed to run the company for a profit... Why would anyone think they are capable of winding down something they clearly couldn't run? They are not trained for that job.... I imagine you could hire experts for the millions paid to the failed executives.
edit on 29-11-2012 by fnpmitchreturns because: add s



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
Your anti-business partisanship is showing.
These bonuses are retention bonuses to incentivize people staying who are over-seeing the liquidation of Hostess assets to pay creditors. Why else would these people stay rather than find another job?

If everyone left, and the assets were left to rot, then creditors could take the corporate board to court. That is why you must go to court when filing for bankruptcy: it is a settlement that has the legal backing of a court order that provides protection to prevent needless lawsuits and simplify the process.



Why should these guys receive a bonus? They are being paid a salary. This is bad business
period. No one is anti-business this should be illegal. 18,000 people out of work and these guys want more money. This country deserves better.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
Your anti-business partisanship is showing.
These bonuses are retention bonuses to incentivize people staying who are over-seeing the liquidation of Hostess assets to pay creditors. Why else would these people stay rather than find another job?

If everyone left, and the assets were left to rot, then creditors could take the corporate board to court. That is why you must go to court when filing for bankruptcy: it is a settlement that has the legal backing of a court order that provides protection to prevent needless lawsuits and simplify the process.


I was going to respond similarly - it comes out to roughly 95k per manager over the course of the year, which I suppose is reasonable. But my question would be - why does it take 19 people an entire year to "wind down" the company?



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by redtic

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
Your anti-business partisanship is showing.
These bonuses are retention bonuses to incentivize people staying who are over-seeing the liquidation of Hostess assets to pay creditors. Why else would these people stay rather than find another job?

If everyone left, and the assets were left to rot, then creditors could take the corporate board to court. That is why you must go to court when filing for bankruptcy: it is a settlement that has the legal backing of a court order that provides protection to prevent needless lawsuits and simplify the process.


I was going to respond similarly - it comes out to roughly 95k per manager over the course of the year, which I suppose is reasonable. But my question would be - why does it take 19 people an entire year to "wind down" the company?


SO, failed company executives should get $95K to end their own jobs? I think it is funny that people actually believe this is acceptable on any level....

The court can dispose of the assets .. why do you need company managers execept for a few months of wind down....



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Sort of off topic, but kinda not....


I thought that I heard or maybe read somewhere that the employees ( not mgmt )
are not eligible for unemployment.

Is this true ?



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by fnpmitchreturns
 


More platitudes than fact in your comment. Hostess was a cultural institution, but it was dragged down by the unions.

Thus your conclusion is false. They didn't mismanage the company, the Unions destroyed it. For instance Hostess bread could not be shipped on the same truck as cupcakes per the union. There were over 300 various agreements the Union had with hostess, which inflated the original price of pensions from $1K to $20k per year in employer contributions.

I am guessing your definition of "good of the people" is people robbing a company blind.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by fnpmitchreturns

Originally posted by redtic

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
Your anti-business partisanship is showing.
These bonuses are retention bonuses to incentivize people staying who are over-seeing the liquidation of Hostess assets to pay creditors. Why else would these people stay rather than find another job?

If everyone left, and the assets were left to rot, then creditors could take the corporate board to court. That is why you must go to court when filing for bankruptcy: it is a settlement that has the legal backing of a court order that provides protection to prevent needless lawsuits and simplify the process.


I was going to respond similarly - it comes out to roughly 95k per manager over the course of the year, which I suppose is reasonable. But my question would be - why does it take 19 people an entire year to "wind down" the company?


SO, failed company executives should get $95K to end their own jobs? I think it is funny that people actually believe this is acceptable on any level....

The court can dispose of the assets .. why do you need company managers execept for a few months of wind down....



Well, that was pretty much my point. I'm guessing these managers could easily go elsewhere to work - Hostess isn't paying salaries anymore, so they need some means to keep them on to close out the company. BUT, as you say, why do they need that many for so long - that seems fishy. I'm guessing there's a more efficient way to do this. I think some here are misled by the term "bonuses" - no one's going to do whatever needs to be done for free, so that "bonus" money is just being used to pay for that work.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
reply to post by fnpmitchreturns
 


More platitudes than fact in your comment. Hostess was a cultural institution, but it was dragged down by the unions.

Thus your conclusion is false. They didn't mismanage the company, the Unions destroyed it. For instance Hostess bread could not be shipped on the same truck as cupcakes per the union. There were over 300 various agreements the Union had with hostess, which inflated the original price of pensions from $1K to $20k per year in employer contributions.

I am guessing your definition of "good of the people" is people robbing a company blind.


Funny, how many other union contracts are broken in BANKRUPTCY ... Like I said before, I don't agree with everything unions do ... and I don't agree with what business management does all the time either ....

facts remain ... with the bankruptcy the union contract of 2004 was thrown out .... I also guess that since increased competition and shrinking profit margins had nothing to do with it either.

Like I said mismanagement killed this company ....

I am also sure that when the numbers finally come out the facts will remain that vulture capitalists loaded them up with debt and sucked off as much as they could off the bones of the broken company ....



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by elevatedone
 


Yes that is true to a point .... There are always exceptions to the rule ..... but today people consider a crew leader management but it is not true ....

self employed don't get it either
edit on 29-11-2012 by fnpmitchreturns because: add



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by redtic
 


I know an employee from a telephone company who was in the position of closing down the accounts and keeping the books straight as they closed down ....

These were retention bounses not salary ... they will still get their pay + bonus



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
You know these CEOs and executives can't have it both ways... if they want to take the pure capitalist mentality that increased taxes penalize them for being successful hardworking Americans that have earned every penny, then they must also embrace the concept that if you fail miserably at running a company, you get NOTHING.

Yes, the bakers strike did cause problems, but really everything boils down to poor management, and a mismanagement of funds....



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
Your anti-business partisanship is showing.
These bonuses are retention bonuses to incentivize people staying who are over-seeing the liquidation of Hostess assets to pay creditors. Why else would these people stay rather than find another job?

If everyone left, and the assets were left to rot, then creditors could take the corporate board to court. That is why you must go to court when filing for bankruptcy: it is a settlement that has the legal backing of a court order that provides protection to prevent needless lawsuits and simplify the process.


So what. Thats the way it should be. If you run your business into the ground you should not be able to reward your upper management. So what if people quit and not stick around for the liquidation process - thats expected if your managing the company so badly. Screw Hostess. let them suffer and get whats coming to them - which is only fair.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by fnpmitchreturns
 


The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Fox Business, and the New York Post have all covered this. Hostess went through 10 CEOs in 10 years. Their mismanagement was not rebranding Hostess with products that Americans want. There was an 80% increase in management salaries in 2011, but that was rescinded in April of this year with a new CEO. Instead he made them all work for a salary of $1 until they emerged from banrkruptcy or the year ended.

So management finally ate what they were selling. However, the bakers union maintained their strike. baking is the heart of Hostess. Managment explicitly stated they cannot go on with the current agreement and the strike. They wanted to reduce wages and have employees pay 17% of their benefits

Those were the facts: hostess dies without reform. unfortunately the union was unwilling to compromise. The parent company did not Bain them. They lost $100 million so far on the deal

Here you are outraged that management will not continue to work for $1 while they liquidate.


I hope the Mexican company Bimbo buys the brand. They have expanded into the US from Mexico under their own brand and make cheap products Americans want. They also ship their goods on the same truck.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   
This should be a rather simple thing but people get too emotional based on their personal views or experiences.

The company is in bankruptcy...which means they have no money. They cannot pay their debt. Whatever liquid capitol they acquire from the sell off of patents, copywrites and recipes should first go to those they owe money to and whatever is left...regardless how much or how little, is then equally divided among the stockholders...rich, poor...doesn't matter.

This is how business is done...at this stage, it has nothing to do with unions or greedy CEO's...once you are in Bankruptcy, there are things that are supposed to happen. You don't get to screw over the people you owe money to in a bankruptcy claim and then skate off with a winfall.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor

So management finally ate what they were selling. However, the bakers union maintained their strike. baking is the heart of Hostess. Managment explicitly stated they cannot go on with the current agreement and the strike. They wanted to reduce wages and have employees pay 17% of their benefits

Those were the facts: hostess dies without reform. unfortunately the union was unwilling to compromise. The parent company did not Bain them. They lost $100 million so far on the deal

Here you are outraged that management will not continue to work for $1 while they liquidate.




And here you are outraged that the union workers only agreed to 110 MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR IN PAY CUTS. Wait, no you aren't, in fact you don't even mention that little fact. Hmmm, not very objective are you?



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   
Somehow hanging the CEO's just wouldn't seem right.
Making them eat their bonuses till they choke would though.
This is one of the most singularly disgusting stories I've ever read.
They don't have a place in Hell hot enough for these bastards.

And the lying SOS media parrots the line:
"It's the Union's fault!"
We wonder why people go postal.
I'm amazed more actually don't.





new topics
top topics
 
9

log in

join