Xceler8x wrote: A lesson the CEO making 380x the average worker's salary could learn as well. How many people could remain employed if the leadership hadn't hogged all the rewards for themselves? Avg CEO makes 380 times the average worker.
Only that article seems to be (1) about 300 of the Fortune 500 CEO, not a respective sample of all CEOs, and (2) it's not clear from the article if that's actual pay, or what they're making on company stocks and the like. If the guy who runs the company is also one of its biggest shareholders, the CEO could be making way more money as an investor in the company than wages.
It appears that figure may not be for general CEO pay, but just the biggest of the big leagues.
And, as Oldopelguy noted, it is understandable that there are times a struggling company might conclude what they need is a CEO that's as good as they come, and pay through the nose for one. On the other hand, paying through the nose for a bad CEO isn't just something to stir up the Occupy crowd, it's bad capitalism.
carzan wrote: Canadian Twinkies Unaffected By US Bankruptcy
Gotta love the media.
Saputo (also makers of Vachon) doesn't make Twinkies. It's not one of the licensed products.
mad_machine wrote:Xceler8x wrote:I see this all the time at work. I mostly work at two casinos here in AC. The Borgata and Harrahs/ Both are top three in profits out of the 12 or casinos here on the Island. 1: Borgata. They give generous raises, feed us well (all casinos feed their employees) and generally do their very best to make us feel like people who can actually do something to make the casino a better place to visit and work at. 2: Harrahs: Bottom of the list for employee food, has cut staff to the bone (and then some), had us take pay cuts, and rather than making the employees part of the solution, do their best to make us feel like part of the problem. One casino gets it.. and there is a reason the Borgata is THE number one casino in Atlantic City.carguy123 wrote: So for those of you trying to misdirect all the blame for Hostesses demise to some nameless company that purchased it and was stripping it at the expense of the worker, here's a little Financial history. I hardly think owning the company since 1995 and trying to run it to make a profit for years would constitute buying the company just to strip it and try to make themselves a fortune. Financial History Founded in 1930, the Interstate Bakeries Corporation launched and acquired dozens of other brands over several decades, including the 1995 acquisition of Taggart Bakeries, the original creator of Wonder Bread and Hostess snack cakes including Twinkies, Ding Dongs and Ho Hos. After recovering from its first bankruptcy that lasted over five years from 2004 to 2009, the company rebranded itself as Hostess Brands, Inc. However, just over two years later in January 2012, the company filed for a second Chapter 11 bankruptcy. After some executive changes, the company had to reevaluate their employees’ wages and benefits, attempting to make large cuts in their employees’ pay in order to save their pensions.[2] However, these talks did not go well and in November, approximately 6,600 employees who are members of the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers’ International Union went on strike. The moral to this story is you can't get blood out of a turnip.Conveniently there is no mention of upper management pay increases. Despite their troubles, Hostess’ CEO got a 300 percent raise, from $750,000 to $2,250,000. Other top executives have also gotten raises worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Hostess workers made numerous concessions, including this year when the company stopped making contributions to their pensions. They went on strike because management offered a contract cutting wages and benefits by 27-32 percent.wbjones wrote: it's never part of the plan ... just that the union hierarchy never seem to understand that the golden goose can't keep producing more and more golden eggs just 'cause they tell them toA lesson the CEO making 380x the average worker's salary could learn as well. How many people could remain employed if the leadership hadn't hogged all the rewards for themselves? Avg CEO makes 380 times the average worker.poopshovel wrote: Because the evil villain capitalists just WANTED the company to fail, and for everyone to lose their jobs. DUH. A SMART business man would've just given everyone raises.That or taken a pay cut him/herself instead of giving him/herself a raise. All while asking the workforce to cut back and do with less. All while he/she lives high on the hog thanks to his worthless so-called leadership. Keep in mind this lack of leadership and accountability evidently goes back decades with this particular company.
I've never, EVER, heard of the Borgata.
oldopelguy wrote: Heck, weren't the twinky drivers not allowed to deliver Wonder bread and vice versa, even if their truck were only part full?
that's all part of the Legacy costs.. which if Hostess had been trying to stay alive.. would have worked something out with the Unions.
oldsaw wrote: In reply to Xceler8x: I think some (not all) CEO's are overpaid. The blame, however, should be placed on the boards that decide their compensation packages; and the shareholders, too. I can't speak for anyone else, but I also think union bosses and their mid-level underlings are more responsible for the perceived failures of organized labor than those who perform the actual work. Richard Trumka, head of the AFL-CIO, is one of those thugs. He (and the organization he leads) is to be no more trusted than CEO's - IMHO. <--- former union dues payer and one who hasn't tasted a Hostess product in decades.
Thanks for the reply Old Saw. I know that we don't live in a neat little black and white world where all CEO's are crooks and all Unions are the good guys. In this case I identify with the worker because that's my background. There's not a wealthy branch in my family tree or forest! 
I also think that the management should have lead from the front in cutting their inflated salaries and benefits first. It's a horrible situation for all involved but I do think the Union tried to do the right thing. I know that doesn't happen in every case and in some cases the Union does make unrealistic demands.
oldopelguy wrote: So a company is failing, and all the CEO-type guys who are good at turning companies around are being scarfed up by other companies for millions of dollars. Do you: -Continue to pay your CEO $100k a year and hope he suddenly becomes someone who can save your business? -Pony up the cash to pay for someone with a proven record of saving companies to come in and maybe do it for you, even if it costs you $5million to get him? The problem with CEO salaries is how few good people there are at the top compared to how many companies need good leadership. And in both cases the word "good" is meant convey effective, and not at all a reflection on morality. Hostess died in '04. The people who were investing in it since then hoping to turn it around and make some money gave up because the labor force was not willing to make the changes that were perceived as needed to become competitive. Heck, weren't the twinky drivers not allowed to deliver Wonder bread and vice versa, even if their truck were only part full? I'd be willing to bet the fall out of this is that all the same people end up working at all the same jobs for all the same managers but with a new name and all with one set of pensions and contracts when it's all said and done.
If you're the CEO of a company I expect you'll take a financial hit before any line worker or blue collar guy. You're the leader. You're responsible. The guy driving a truck makes no strategic decisions. The CEO in the big office makes all the strategic decisions and should benefit/suffer accordingly.
Again with blaming the labor force aka the average working Joe that makes up almost all of us here on this board. Please read my previous posts. The Union gave concessions the first time around to save the company. I'm sure that hurt. What did the leadership team do? Give themselves raises. One guy, at least, got a raise equivalent to 300% his normal salary. Other leaders merely doubled their pay all while asking the Union to sacrifice again and further. IMO they should've been the ones who had a mass meeting with the employees and said:
"This company is going under. We're asking you and your families to do more with less. To show that we're in this together we're all taking pay cuts equal to what we're asking you to take as a show of solidarity and team work. We're in this together. We'll sink or sail as one. Please help us save all our jobs."
...but they didn't. The rich guys raided the bank account and made sure they never suffered all while asking the average working stiff, already making a fraction of their salary, to cut even further.
Think what you want about Unions but treating your company's employees in this fashion, whether a venture capital group or not, is unamerican in my eyes. Each and every one of those jerks is a walking affront to the common contract between the American worker and the leaders they put their faith in.
mad_machine wrote:oldopelguy wrote: Heck, weren't the twinky drivers not allowed to deliver Wonder bread and vice versa, even if their truck were only part full?that's all part of the Legacy costs.. which if Hostess had been trying to stay alive.. would have worked something out with the Unions.
I, personally, would love to see some proof of this claim. I'm not saying it's impossible but I'll see it verified before I hang my hat on this sound bite.
racerfink wrote: I've never, EVER, heard of the Borgata.
Do you live anywhere near Atlantic City? Have you been in or near Atlantic City in the past 10 years? I don't even like AC nor do I go there often but the 3 times I've been there in the past 10 years it's been for events at The Borgata. It is definitely the top dog in AC at the moment.
FIAT!
Zomby Woof wrote:carzan wrote: Canadian Twinkies Unaffected By US BankruptcyGotta love the media. Saputo (also makers of Vachon) doesn't make Twinkies. It's not one of the licensed products.
Funny, the ones I just picked up in Toronto say distributed by Saputo on them. Got three three packs and a Jos Louis. The JL tasted a lot like a Little Debbie swiss roll. Should I resell the Twinkies?
Xceler8x wrote: If you're the CEO of a company I expect you'll take a financial hit before any line worker or blue collar guy. You're the leader. You're responsible. The guy driving a truck makes no strategic decisions. The CEO in the big office makes all the strategic decisions and should benefit/suffer accordingly.
Exactly. It's easy to make decisions that only negatively affect other people. For this reason, I try to make the most concessions to my own schedule. It's why I work the fewest hours when hours are cut, work holidays when we are open, etc... We are open companywide on Thanksgiving day. I will be in 7 AM to 5 PM. I wonder what the CEO and VPs will be doing?
that doesn't sound very american, Mitchell
I do agree with you. as the man on top, you should be the one to most suffer and benefit from what your company is doing. The fact that so many of these CEOs are in a win/win situation no matter what the company does.. tends to insulate and isolate them from how the company is actually doing.
After all.. if you were to make 10 million taking your company to a profit or 10 million if it tanks and goes belly up.. are you really going to try?
The emotional football blame game of the evil money grubbing CEO vs the lazy union worker is really quite tiring.
Can't anyone do basic math?
Let me start with a disclaimer. I think the actions of the CEO and other management is disgusting.
Having said that, no amount of self sacrifice on the part of senior management would have had any impact whatsoever. NONE.
The CEO gave himself a huge raise. $2.5 million is a heck of a lot of money (although it's only 20% of the average salary of Fortune 500 CEO's, but whose counting?). Let's add to that... how about we figure the salaries of the ENTIRE management team that got big raises- about $7.6 million. Not their raises, their total salaries. Surely the fact that they make money is nothing short of despicable. 
So, let's take it. All. How about we make the wonderful self-sacrificing proposition that ALL of the senior management should work for FREE. Yep, in a perfect world they should set an example and refuse every single penny that their money grubbing sorry asses are stealing from the poor defenseless workers. There. That should fix the problem.
Oh wait... I forgot. Hostess Brands had 18,500 employees.
At an average salary of $43,000, Hostess was paying over $1 BILLION dollars in union wages (including the benefits). Add to this a $100 million annual obligation to their pension fund.
Their annual sales were $2.8 billion. So, the payroll plus pension expenses represented 41% of the total sales. That's pretty big.
But we can SAVE those poor friendly middle class union workers with our plan to ream the evil management and make them work for free. Yipee!
Only problem is that the ENTIRE amount paid to the ENTIRE management team totals only 1% of annual sales, compared to the 41% that represents labor.
Bottom line... the basic math of blaming management simply doesn't work. Yes, their actions send a terrible message to the employees, but their grossly over-inflated salaries won't save the company.
How come no one seems to mind that BCTGM union President Frank Hurt makes as much as some of those Hostess management members? Looks to me that the union negotiated 18,500 workers directly to the unemployment line while keeping their own fat salaries which they took directly from the worker's paychecks.
boy are going to get beat up on this forum ......
First off, let me say I have the utmost respect for your SVreX. While we disagree on some things I'd buy you a beer and tow your race car anytime.
SVreX wrote: Let me start with a disclaimer. I think the actions of the CEO and other management is disgusting. Having said that, no amount of self sacrifice on the part of senior management would have had any impact whatsoever. NONE.
I agree with all your points here. It is true that what the management did was disgusting. It's also true their salaries alone would not have saved Hostess.
SVreX wrote: The CEO gave himself a huge raise. $2.5 million is a heck of a lot of money (although it's only 20% of the average salary of Fortune 500 CEO's, but whose counting?). Let's add to that... how about we figure the salaries of the ENTIRE management team that got big raises- about $7.6 million. Not their raises, their total salaries. Surely the fact that they make money is nothing short of despicable.
Your premise is far fetched. No one here, including myself, is saying the management team should've worked for free. What I am saying is it's disgusting, as we agreed earlier, to ask your employees to take a pay cut all while voting yourself a pay raise. Obscene pay raises at that.
SVreX wrote: Oh wait... I forgot. Hostess Brands had 18,500 employees. At an average salary of $43,000, Hostess was paying over $1 BILLION dollars in union wages (including the benefits). Add to this a $100 million annual obligation to their pension fund.
This might address your thoughts on Hostess hourly pay rate and pension funding. Turns out Hostess was cutting salaries by upwards of 30% and "borrowed" the workers self-funded pension. That's right, "borrowed", which now that they're in bankruptcy will not be paid back. This is money they stole from the workers as the company did not contribute to that fund.
SVreX wrote: Their annual sales were $2.8 billion. So, the payroll plus pension expenses represented 41% of the total sales. That's pretty big. But we can SAVE those poor friendly middle class union workers with our plan to ream the evil management and make them work for free. Yipee! Only problem is that the ENTIRE amount paid to the ENTIRE management team totals only 1% of annual sales, compared to the 41% that represents labor. Bottom line... the basic math of blaming management simply doesn't work. Yes, their actions send a terrible message to the employees, but their grossly over-inflated salaries won't save the company.
The numbers don't lie. Management salaries alone wouldn't have saved Hostess. The point I'm trying to make is that management should've taken cuts commiserate to the cuts they were asking of the blue collar, common Joe, working the job. The same guy who had no control over how the company was run. Also the same guy who most likely wouldn't have benefited from a turnaround in any appreciable way besides continuing to work the job with lower pay and longer hours than before. The management team stood to benefit greatly from a turnaround and also benefitted from the company going bankrupt as evidenced by their raises, generous benefits, and being able to just move on to their next vulture capitalism style "turn around".
SVreX wrote: How come no one seems to mind that BCTGM union President Frank Hurt makes as much as some of those Hostess management members? Looks to me that the union negotiated 18,500 workers directly to the unemployment line while keeping their own fat salaries which they took directly from the worker's paychecks.
I tried to find a link or some data to backup this claim. I'm a bit skeptical but I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. I can't find anywhere on the net a number for Frank Hurt's salary. Could you provide that please? I would be interested to see if Frank Hurt is as over paid as the CEO's of Hostess.
~~~~~~~
I hate how this Hostess thing came out, for all involved. It straight sucks. What bothers me more is having rich guys, in leadership positions, blaming a Union for the demise of the company. If their leadership had no effect on whether the company lived or died then why did they compensate themselves so lavishly? If it was all up to the Union, all the time, then high priced CEO's weren't needed. Just an arbitration committee or fruitful and honest negotiations. But the workers are blamed in the media all because they had the balls to say "Enough. We're not sacrificing anymore while you guys give yourselves raises at our expense." It shouldn't be this way. This is the failure of American capitalism.
Also, I get tired of seeing us fall upon each other like a pack of dogs once the rich guys point to Union, aka the working men and women, as the cause of a failing company. Did those line workers have a say in how the company was run? Absolutely not. The leaders did and they should blame themselves for the failure they built over what looks like decades of poor decisions. Keep in mind we have more in common with those workers than we'll most likely ever have with the moneyed elite who claim CEO positions and hand those positions out to their friends and colleagues. Dr Hess alluded to this in his article I believe.
Leaders and management take the rewards for when a company succeeds. They should also take the blame when they fail and suffer the consequences accordingly. This would only be fair and equitable as the working class has suffered for failure and benefited very little from corporate success in the last ten years.
vwcorvette wrote:Zomby Woof wrote: Gotta love the media. Saputo (also makers of Vachon) doesn't make Twinkies. It's not one of the licensed products.Funny, the ones I just picked up in Toronto say distributed by Saputo on them. Got three three packs and a Jos Louis. The JL tasted a lot like a Little Debbie swiss roll. Should I resell the Twinkies?
Sure, but they don't make them, so they will no longer be available. Should have tried a Flaky.
Zomby Woof wrote:vwcorvette wrote:Sure, but they don't make them, so they will no longer be available. Should have tried a Flaky.Zomby Woof wrote: Gotta love the media. Saputo (also makers of Vachon) doesn't make Twinkies. It's not one of the licensed products.Funny, the ones I just picked up in Toronto say distributed by Saputo on them. Got three three packs and a Jos Louis. The JL tasted a lot like a Little Debbie swiss roll. Should I resell the Twinkies?
A guy I used to know would mug little old ladies to steal their Vachon flakey pies, or whatever they are called. I guess I should try one, but they are always near a Joe Louis, so they lose by default.
Leave it to Twinkies to create a five page long thread.
A certain company I may or may not contract for, may or may not be at the moment dealing with a company who may or may not buy products from said contractor to maybe or maybe not make hostess products such as Twinkies. Maybe.
I am actually surprised Margie let it go this long
mad_machine wrote: I am actually surprised Margie let it go this long
Because we're not throwing the Twinkies?
Wasn' there a union argument a page or two ago?
You'll need to log in to post.
