Twinkies Are Forever.

Prince Of Dorkness

Before you get TOO angry at those money-grubbing Union Thugs that killed Twinkies... earlier this year, the CEO of Hostess was awarded a 300% raise (from approximately $750,000 to $2,550,000) and at least nine other top executives of the company received massive pay raises.

One such executive received a pay increase from $500,000 to $900,000 and another received one taking his salary from $375,000 to $656,256.

Which pretty much underscores every one of the Occupy Wall Street talking points. The CEOs reward themselves with Golden Parachutes just before liquidating the companies.

Besides, this is just a ploy to liquidate the company, sell it and start again.

And in the mean time... Hostess is still in operation in Canada so the HoHos will just become the new contraband.

DS1119

Good for them. Take what you can get when you can get it within the parameters of the law. Zero wrong with that.

Halifax2TheMax

More concerning, to me, is that this is the norm. CEO salaries accelerating at breakneck speed over the past 30 to 40 years while the average worker's wages have basically stagnated. Reminds me of Catapiller where they were earning $37K per employee in profit and yet wanted their workers to take a 6 year wage freeze. How's that treating the 25 year employee who makes $55K per year?

You want to get this economy going? Start sharing the wealth with those who help you create it Corporate America.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/0 ... orker-pay/?

mobile=nchttp://www.kyklosproductions.com/articles/wages.html

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/0 ... ?mobile=nc

Peace.

brianlux

Don't worry, there will always be Winkies, Ho's and Dong's. And maybe when they reform they'll come out with Bunn Bunns and Doo Doos and and Coco Thongs to clog our arteries with.

We're just dying to shove this stuff down our gullets, eh?

DS1119

I just wonder how CEO's and management protecting themselves and like others is any different than unions that actually just do the same? Oh yeah, management doesn't pay any dues to an organization that hires it's own management team who then protect themselves. I'll save the union dues and worry about myself and let my work speak for itself.

Prince Of Dorkness

DS1119 wrote:

I just wonder how CEO's and management protecting themselves and like others is any different than unions that actually just do the same?

Yeah, because Unions give themselves raises to 2.5 million dollars per year as a reward for running companies into the ground.

Happens all the time.

Like here.

PJ_Soul

I really liked those fruit pies on the way home from the bar in middle of the night.

brianlux

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

I just wonder how CEO's and management protecting themselves and like others is any different than unions that actually just do the same?

Yeah, because Unions give themselves raises to 2.5 million dollars per year as a reward for running companies into the ground.

Happens all the time.

Like here.

lukin2006

I doubt many union leaders make even close to what most of these executives make ... thats just shameful ...

DS1119

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

I just wonder how CEO's and management protecting themselves and like others is any different than unions that actually just do the same?

Yeah, because Unions give themselves raises to 2.5 million dollars per year as a reward for running companies into the ground.

Happens all the time.

Like here.

No unions just protect lazy workers and employees who are easily replaceable. They also feel that all workers should be guaranteed a raise in spite of worker production our company success. And as far as increasing a salary to 2.5 million...I'm sure the union execs would do it for themselves if they actually had the power to do it. And if you believe it was the management's fault for the Hostess issue I suggest you look at your own tasteless link and substitute my picture for yours.

PJ_Soul

DS1119 wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

I just wonder how CEO's and management protecting themselves and like others is any different than unions that actually just do the same?

Yeah, because Unions give themselves raises to 2.5 million dollars per year as a reward for running companies into the ground.

Happens all the time.

Like here.

No unions just protect lazy workers and employees who are easily replaceable. They also feel that all workers should be guaranteed a raise in spite of worker production our company success. And as far as increasing a salary to 2.5 million...I'm sure the union execs would do it for themselves if they actually had the power to do it. And if you believe it was the management's fault for the Hostess issue I suggest you look at your own tasteless link and substitute my picture for yours.

I understand what your perception of unions is, but you are just plain wrong. You've embraced some very twisted views of what most unions are about. Those twisted views are propagated by the execs because it feels their own interests. It's just a propaganda war and you have fallen for their side of it.

DS1119

PJ_Soul wrote:

I understand what your perception of unions is, but you are just plain wrong. You've embraced some very twisted views of what most unions are about. Those twisted views are propagated by the execs because it feels their own interests. It's just a propaganda war and you have fallen for their side of it.

ANd perhaps you have fallen to the propaganda of unions? :?

Cliffy6745

Anyone who defends CEOs taking massive raises when the company is going under is just a plain idiot.

Twinkies aren't going anywhere in the long run. Hostess may be gone, but there will be plenty of private equity's lining up to buy their assets.

DS1119

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Anyone who defends CEOs taking massive raises when the company is going under is just a plain idiot.

Twinkies aren't going anywhere in the long run. Hostess may be gone, but there will be plenty of private equity's lining up to buy their assets.

I disagree. How is this any different than unions demanding raises for workers when the obvious business model is no longer working? If it going to go under, take what you can. Hope the 18,500 Hostess workers who put their faith in the union can find suitable employment.

Cliffy6745

DS1119 wrote:

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Anyone who defends CEOs taking massive raises when the company is going under is just a plain idiot.

Twinkies aren't going anywhere in the long run. Hostess may be gone, but there will be plenty of private equity's lining up to buy their assets.

I disagree. How is this any different than unions demanding raises for workers when the obvious business model is no longer working? If it going to go under, take what you can. Hope the 18,500 Hostess workers who put their faith in the union can find suitable employment.

Give me a break. A CEO who is set for life regardless needs to take what he can from the employees who have no real say in how things are going? How about better severance packages? How about thinking a little bit about the people working for you?

Just such a terrible attitude. Like I always say, your greed is good philosophy is exactly what is wrong with this country.

DS1119

Cliffy6745 wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Anyone who defends CEOs taking massive raises when the company is going under is just a plain idiot.

Twinkies aren't going anywhere in the long run. Hostess may be gone, but there will be plenty of private equity's lining up to buy their assets.

I disagree. How is this any different than unions demanding raises for workers when the obvious business model is no longer working? If it going to go under, take what you can. Hope the 18,500 Hostess workers who put their faith in the union can find suitable employment.

Give me a break. A CEO who is set for life regardless needs to take what he can from the employees who have no real say in how things are going? How about better severance packages? How about thinking a little bit about the people working for you?

Just such a terrible attitude. Like I always say, your greed is good philosophy is exactly what is wrong with this country.

Who's to say what is "set for life". Everyone works to better there own situation whatever that situation is. That's capitalism. Why should a company worry about severance packages for workers who are striking? Why should a company worry about severance packages at all? If the business stops being productive and profitable that's the way it goes. If the guy who pumps the crèam into the Twinkies wants the same privelages as the guy who sits behind the big oak desks perhaps he should go back to school and work to get into that position?

Cliffy6745

DS1119 wrote:

Who's to say what is "set for life". Everyone works to better there own situation whatever that situation is. That's capitalism. Why should a company worry about severance packages for workers who are striking? Why should a company worry about severance packages at all? If the business stops being productive and profitable that's the way it goes. If the guy who pumps the crèam into the Twinkies wants the same privelages as the guy who sits behind the big oak desks perhaps he should go back to school and work to get into that position?

But why should a CEO who runs a failing business get a raise? Go back to school and become CEO, HA. You sell Hondas right? Why aren't you the CEO if it's as easy as going back to school?

And yes, a person who has the title "CEO - Hostess" is set for life, regardless if they have to find another job.

PJ_Soul

DS1119 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

I understand what your perception of unions is, but you are just plain wrong. You've embraced some very twisted views of what most unions are about. Those twisted views are propagated by the execs because it feels their own interests. It's just a propaganda war and you have fallen for their side of it.

ANd perhaps you have fallen to the propaganda of unions? :?

No, I actually live the reality of it. I am in a union, and i am telling you that most of your perceptions about how things are within a union environment are bullshit, and that that perception has been created by those whose interests lie in spreading such bullshit in an effort to get rid of unions for the sole reason of making more money by giving as little as possible to the workers.

One thing I will say is that there are a few bad apple unions out there, but they are very much the exception, not the rule.

lukin2006

PJ_Soul wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

I understand what your perception of unions is, but you are just plain wrong. You've embraced some very twisted views of what most unions are about. Those twisted views are propagated by the execs because it feels their own interests. It's just a propaganda war and you have fallen for their side of it.

ANd perhaps you have fallen to the propaganda of unions? :?

No, I actually live the reality of it. I am in a union, and i am telling you that most of your perceptions about how things are within a union environment are bullshit, and that that perception has been created by those whose interests lie in spreading such bullshit in an effort to get rid of unions for the sole reason of making more money by giving as little as possible to the workers.

One thing I will say is that there are a few bad apple unions out there, but they are very much the exception, not the rule.

^THIS^

lukin2006

I'm not so sure someone who works/sells cars for a living should generalize or paint unionist with the same brush...after all isn't that what a majority of people do with car sales men...except the union worker gets far more respect.

DS1119

Cliffy6745 wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Who's to say what is "set for life". Everyone works to better there own situation whatever that situation is. That's capitalism. Why should a company worry about severance packages for workers who are striking? Why should a company worry about severance packages at all? If the business stops being productive and profitable that's the way it goes. If the guy who pumps the crèam into the Twinkies wants the same privelages as the guy who sits behind the big oak desks perhaps he should go back to school and work to get into that position?

But why should a CEO who runs a failing business get a raise? Go back to school and become CEO, HA. You sell Hondas right? Why aren't you the CEO if it's as easy as going back to school?

And yes, a person who has the title "CEO - Hostess" is set for life, regardless if they have to find another job.

I don't sell Hondas even though that's a very good gig but I'm wondering what your definition of "set for life" is?