Hostess files for bankruptcy again.

[quote name='camoor']I guess it could be worth it if it was your idea of a dream job in a traditionally low-paying field like archaeology or philosophy, but if you're just looking at the money side of things it's not worth it to take on crippling student loan debt for a 38K job.[/QUOTE]

Definitely not. But you can often get a doctorate with no debt as you can usually get assistantships with stipends for master's and doctorate degrees in most fields. Especially those that have lower paying careers as it's a way to get more people to pursue the degrees.

The stipends can be tough to live on if one doesn't have a spouse/partner working or isn't willing to keep living with roommates like in undergrad as they tend to be $12-20k depending on university/location.
 
[quote name='SynGamer']Ditto. As previous said, the problem currently are all the factory jobs where compensation was extremely high, while the rest of the industries have essentially leveled out and even lowered considerably. I see plenty of jobs that require a BA/BS and pay between $25k and 35k. It all depends on the market and the type of job. That said, I see no reason why factory jobs should be making $34,000 and complaining that it's too little when they can easily be replaced.[/QUOTE]
Listen you little shit stain, before you go blowing hard about the pay of unskilled laborers, let me tell a little personal story.

My father worked most his life in a powder coatings factory. A unionized factory. Were it not for that union, he wouldn't have been able to provide my mother and me the life that he did. That meant her not having to work, providing us with a safe place to live, providing us with health insurance, and enabling me to be able to go to college in the first damn place rather than having to immediately go to work to help the family. He couldn't have done any of that had their union not fought to get them that wage and those benefits.

In closing, you don't know shit about shit, fuck you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='SynGamer']Ditto. As previous said, the problem currently are all the factory jobs where compensation was extremely high, while the rest of the industries have essentially leveled out and even lowered considerably. I see plenty of jobs that require a BA/BS and pay between $25k and 35k. It all depends on the market and the type of job. That said, I see no reason why factory jobs should be making $34,000 and complaining that it's too little when they can easily be replaced.[/QUOTE]

2 Things:

1)There'd be more for the bottom if the top didn't take so damn much. You want to see a massive increase in annual salaries, look at CEOs.

http://www.epi.org/publication/ib331-ceo-pay-top-1-percent/
From 1978 to 2011, CEO compensation increased more than 725 percent, a rise substantially greater than stock market growth and the painfully slow 5.7 percent growth in worker compensation over the same period.
Click to expand...

But yeah, blame the factory workers trying to support their families.

2) A 40 hour a week job at minimum wage is about $15,000/year. You want to have a talk about how minimum wage is set so that it is below the poverty level then we can do that but don't use minimum wage as your high water mark for those who choose not to, or simply can't, go to college.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Definitely not. But you can often get a doctorate with no debt as you can usually get assistantships with stipends for master's and doctorate degrees in most fields. Especially those that have lower paying careers as it's a way to get more people to pursue the degrees.

The stipends can be tough to live on if one doesn't have a spouse/partner working or isn't willing to keep living with roommates like in undergrad as they tend to be $12-20k depending on university/location.[/QUOTE]

That's true - if he was talking about working as a TA or something of that ilk then it makes total sense. Plus he did say part time, if that's >20 hours then the person with the job could potentially double their salary.

But honestly in any other situation it's kind of pointless to offer 38K to someone with a degree because at the first hint of a better offer they are going to bolt and when talking about skilled labor, turnover is a bitch.
 
[quote name='Clak']Listen you little shit stain, before you go blowing hard about the pay of unskilled laborers, let me tell a little personal story.[/quote]

Lol, "shit stain", great start, very mature. Now, let me tel YOU a story...

My father worked most his life in a power coatings factory. A unionized factory. Were it not for that union, he wouldn't have been able to provide my mother and me the life that he did. That meant her not having to work, providing us with a safe place to live, providing us with health insurance, and enabling me to be able to go to college in the first damn place rather than having to immediately go to work to help the family. He couldn't have done any of that had their union not fault to get them that wage and those benefits.
Click to expand...

My family has been with the UAW for roughly three decades. My grandfather worked in the factory for 25 years working 18 hours shifts 7 days a week to provide for his family...oh, and was exposed to asbestos. He made an honest living and during that time conditions and benefits improved, as they should have. My grandmother stayed home and watched the five children they had which was their choice.

In closing, you don't know shit about shit, fuck you.
Click to expand...

Classy, I'm sure your parents would be proud. Good to see they brought up a mature "man" who is able to debate in a civilized fashion.

Unlike you, my mother, single parent, brought me up with respect. She worked two jobs early on to provide all while going to school to get a degree. Much of that said respect came from my grandparents' influence. My grandfather showed me the value of honest living, but is quick to point out that unions, the UAW in particular, are greedy bastards today. They no longer fight for [deserved] better wages and benefits. They are no longer needed to fight for better conditions with so many laws and agencies in place to watch for these issues.

Today is a completely different beast altogether. Many families see BOTH parents working. I firmly believe in BOTH parents providing income, even if that means the children need to be in daycare OR the parents work alternating shifts. There is no reason only one of the parents should be the sole provider if both parents are capable of working and providing an income. Should a family decide to have only one parent work, don't fucking get all high-and-mighty because your father worked in a factory while your mother stayed at home and watched the kids. That was a choice your family made. If he worked long shifts in a factory, so be it. I'm not saying anything bad, I'm merely pointing out that is a choice. A choice that SHOULDN'T require said factories/companies to overcompensate so that said one parent can support the entire family.

That's what you clearly don't understand. We live in a society and economy today where both parents generally need to work to support the family. It is NOT the responsibility of the company to compensate for one parent staying home.
 
Do you have any idea how much day care costs? If both parents are unskilled laborer's the day care will likely more than eat up the second income making it pointless.

For the middle class and up, sure both parents working to make extra income is valid. For the working class and poor, not so much as they can't get jobs to make enough money cover the cost of full time day care.
 
[quote name='dohdough']
rabble rabble rabble
[/QUOTE]
I'm done discussing this with you, but I want to drop this before I go, written back in July. It completely breaks down every facet of the problems Hostess faced. Maybe you'll read it and learn something. Then again, I'm not sure reading comprehension is your strong point...

http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/26/hostess-twinkies-bankrupt/

The unions are to blame. The management is to blame. Everyone who let this company go bankrupt is to blame. The unions made the decision to strike. The unions APPROVED the CEO's and upper management getting those 80-300% raises FYI.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Do you have any idea how much day care costs? If both parents are unskilled laborer's the day care will likely more than eat up the second income making it pointless.

For the middle class and up, sure both parents working to make extra income is valid. For the working class and poor, not so much as they can't get jobs to make enough money cover the cost of full time day care.[/QUOTE]
And that is why most states offer assistance to help pay for childcare if they fall below a certain household income.
 
And like most government assistance programs there are millions of families that make just enough to not qualify, but still can't afford day care on their salaries.

The choices people face aren't as simple and cut and dry as you make them out to be as there are millions of families that just scrape by, don't qualify for any government assistance and don't have any real options to change their life situation as they're stuck in their job (if they're lucky enough to have one), don't have time or money to go back to school and learn new skills while raising kids etc.

Now the one choice they did control, is having kids in the first place. And I'd agree that far too many people have kids when they don't have the financial stability needed to justify starting a family. But on the other hand, shouldn't society be as such that everyone who's willing to work hard can afford to raise a couple of kids? So it's not just an irresponsible decision problem, but also the problem of living in a shitty capitalistic society where people just care about getting as much as they can and don't care hardly at all for others or the common good.
 
[quote name='mtxbass1']I'm done discussing this with you, but I want to drop this before I go, written back in July. It completely breaks down every facet of the problems Hostess faced. Maybe you'll read it and learn something. Then again, I'm not sure reading comprehension is your strong point...

http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/26/hostess-twinkies-bankrupt/ [/quote]
So in other words, you can't refute my points. And FYI, the article doesn't either especially when you don't understand some key factors highlighted actually work. Your lack of understanding some very of those important concepts is the reason why you don't understand what the article is saying.

The unions are to blame. The management is to blame. Everyone who let this company go bankrupt is to blame. The unions made the decision to strike.
Click to expand...
You might as well blame the dead for not being alive to buy more Hostess products too!:roll:

The unions APPROVED the CEO's and upper management getting those 80-300% raises FYI.
Click to expand...
LOLOLOLOL Proof? This is one of the most outlandish things I've ever read.:rofl:
 
[quote name='SynGamer']And that is why most states offer assistance to help pay for childcare if they fall below a certain household income.[/QUOTE]

Lol, because if you have two working parents, you totally quality for childcare assistance. And that money comes from the middle class anyways. So now you have the factory workers getting paid less, but the ones with degrees get taxed more. And the salary disparity stays roughly the same. Big whoop.

Cheap childcare here is like $1300 a month. A kid. Two kids and you'd need to make like $40000 just to pay for daycare. But you want factory workers to make less than $38k and to put their kids in daycare? Lol.
 
[quote name='SynGamer']And that is why most states offer assistance to help pay for childcare if they fall below a certain household income.[/QUOTE]

Do you have any idea how long it will take to get in something like that? My city has free child care for low income, but there is such a long waitlist you probably won't get in until your kid starts school. And this is one of the most liberal city in the country.

Instead many people rely on family or relatives for childcare, unlicensed but usually not a problem. However not everyone has those kinds of network.
 
[quote name='elessar123']Lol, because if you have two working parents, you totally quality for childcare assistance. And that money comes from the middle class anyways. So now you have the factory workers getting paid less, but the ones with degrees get taxed more. And the salary disparity stays roughly the same. Big whoop.

Cheap childcare here is like $1300 a month. A kid. Two kids and you'd need to make like $40000 just to pay for daycare. But you want factory workers to make less than $38k and to put their kids in daycare? Lol.[/QUOTE]

So what about people who recently graduated from university that were forced to take any job they could find, even if it undercompensated for their field or they were overqualified for the position. What if they are only making $40k? Why should I or the rest of the working class care of a single factory working makes less than $38k just so the wife can stay at home and watch the kids? Perhaps my wife and I are too responsible and our CHOICE to not have kids until we are financially able to support them is a poor choice... :roll:
 
[quote name='SynGamer']So what about people who recently graduated from university that were forced to take any job they could find, even if it undercompensated for their field or they were overqualified for the position. What if they are only making $40k? Why should I or the rest of the working class care of a single factory working makes less than $38k just so the wife can stay at home and watch the kids? Perhaps my wife and I are too responsible and our CHOICE to not have kids until we are financially able to support them is a poor choice... :roll:[/QUOTE]
Why pay now? Because it'll be more expensive if you don't, regardless of your "choice."

In case you don't know, a lot of those people making a lot more than you do are saying the exact same shit about you. Instead of railing against your fellow workers, a little solidarity would serve you well.
 
[quote name='SynGamer']So what about people who recently graduated from university that were forced to take any job they could find, even if it undercompensated for their field or they were overqualified for the position. What if they are only making $40k? Why should I or the rest of the working class care of a single factory working makes less than $38k just so the wife can stay at home and watch the kids? Perhaps my wife and I are too responsible and our CHOICE to not have kids until we are financially able to support them is a poor choice... :roll:[/QUOTE]

While that blows (I graduated at the downturn as well, and knew lots of people in that boat), it's also not really the factory workers' fault that the economy turned the way it did. So asking to punish them so you can get what you worked for isn't the right way, imo. Fixing the problem requires fixing the very top earners, but the poorest people tend to vote Republican for whatever reason.
 
[quote name='SynGamer']Why should I or the rest of the working class care of a single factory working makes less than $38k just so the wife can stay at home and watch the kids?[/QUOTE]

Yet you seem to care deeply. You seem downright angry that these workers had the balls to stick it to the man on Thanksgiving.
 
[quote name='camoor']Yet you seem to care deeply. You seem downright angry that these workers had the balls to stick it to the man on Thanksgiving.[/QUOTE]
No, I'm angry that they "stuck it to the man", cost 18,500 jobs, and then had the balls to complain and act like they had no choice/it wasn't their fault. Very large difference.
 
I'll try and perhaps break through the flame wars with this:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-judge-hostess-union-agree-to-mediation-20121119,0,2355592.story

In a nutshell, Hostess and the union are going into mediation starting tomorrow.
 
Horray? But will this actually solve the problems that plagued the company in the first place? From terrible management, executives not funding pensions yet taking money from it, unions demanding more pay etc. etc?
 
[quote name='SynGamer']No, I'm angry that they "stuck it to the man", cost 18,500 jobs, and then had the balls to complain and act like they had no choice/it wasn't their fault. Very large difference.[/QUOTE]

But why are you angry at the working folks?

Management is suing for their bonuses and they'll probably get them.

The working folks and are now poor and unemployed, and the pension system that they paid into has been borrowed, except in this case it will never be returned. Back in grade school we had another name for borrowing without returning - stealing.

So the worker has been pick-pocketed, pilloried in the press, and kicked to the curb. And that still doesn't slake your anger? For the sake of argument let's say they were short-sighted, my god man, how badly do these folks have to get screwed before you show an ounce of compassion?
 
[quote name='detectiveconan16']Horray? But will this actually solve the problems that plagued the company in the first place? From terrible management, executives not funding pensions yet taking money from it, unions demanding more pay etc. etc?[/QUOTE]

We'll have to see. I believe the union has two board members, right? Surely there will be quite a few voting sessions regarding compensation on both ends. A company that brings in $2.5 billion annually surely must want to continue...
 
[quote name='camoor']But why are you angry at the working folks?

Management is suing for their bonuses and they'll probably get them.

The working folks and are now poor and unemployed, and the pension system that they paid into has been borrowed, except in this case it will never be returned. Back in grade school we had another name for borrowing without returning - stealing.

So the worker has been pick-pocketed, pilloried in the press, and kicked to the curb. And that still doesn't slake your anger? For the sake of argument let's say they were short-sighted, my god man, how badly do these folks have to get screwed before you show an ounce of compassion?[/QUOTE]
I guess I need to break it down a bit further. Yes, management has been terrible in this case, but not all the blame can be put on them. A LOT of companies have been negotiating to reduce wages and benefits after the economy collapsed in 2008. Hostess is no different. Management ran the company so poorly that when the union said they would strike, the company flatout replied that they would have to close if the union proceeds with said strike. So when it was first announced Hostess was closing up shop, the union only had themselves to look at. There's no way around it. Last I check Hostess was asking for an 8% wage cut, BUT would be giving that back over the next 5 years. All the wage bickering aside, all 18,500 employees would have still had jobs and would have started getting their pages back over the course of the next 5 years.

If they don't want to work for a struggling company, they can leave. But the fact still remains they were making well above minimum wage and would be making a short-term, temporary concession...the only compassion I have is for the people who had no choice regarding the strike and who showed up one day to work only to be greeted by picket lines.
 
[quote name='SynGamer']Last I check Hostess was asking for an 8% wage cut, BUT would be giving that back over the next 5 years.[/QUOTE]

Just like they gave back the pension money right?

I can see you like your working man to be poor AND stupid.
 
[quote name='dohdough']To be more accurate, the bankruptcy judge basically said that the company couldn't begin liquidation because the executives gave themselves huge payoffs in it.[/QUOTE]

Good for that judge, someone should buy him a box of devil dogs.
 
[quote name='crunchewy']Hostess snacks were really not very good. Tastycake is way better, as far as packaged snack cakes and such go.[/QUOTE]

This is also true.
 
[quote name='dohdough']To be more accurate, the bankruptcy judge basically said that the company couldn't begin liquidation because the executives gave themselves huge payoffs in it.[/QUOTE]

right. it's a court-enforced mediation, not a sudden change of heart for any involved party.
 
[quote name='crunchewy']Hostess snacks were really not very good. Tastycake is way better, as far as packaged snack cakes and such go.[/QUOTE]

True. Maybe it was inevitable, maybe Americans are just getting tired of so much sugary junk.
 
[quote name='camoor']True. Maybe it was inevitable, maybe Americans are just getting tired of so much sugary junk.[/QUOTE]

Have you taken a walk outside in the last 20 years? I don't think that is the case...
 
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/22/us-hostess-labor-idUSBRE8AL06U20121122
Hostess workers say they'd rather lose their jobs rather than take another paycut. Keep in mind that they've already had paycuts, and for some who worked already a quarter of a century, they earn about $35K. If you tried raising a family with that much money, you already know that's kinda tough, especially with so many expenses. You really can't expect them to go down to $23K can you? That's the poverty line.
 
[quote name='detectiveconan16']http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/22/us-hostess-labor-idUSBRE8AL06U20121122You really can't expect them to go down to $23K can you?[/QUOTE]

Sadly, there are many here in this thread who express nothing but utter disdain for the working poor. Halve that to $11/k per year (~$5.50 per hour) or quarter it to $5500 per year (~$2.75 per hour) and their arguments won't change. They don't care about the numbers in the end - unless they get too high, of course (which $34K appears to be "too high" for at least one poster here).

So pay them a third of the minimum wage, eliminate the safety net of the welfare state (for the working poor, mind - billions to war profiteers and industry is a-okay), and then express outrage if they dare complain.

We're living in a re-run of Dickens' "Oliver." You want *mooooooooooore*?

They hate the idea that someone who puts in 40 a week can afford a decent livelihood for themselves and their family because it might take away from their $1/box shit snacks. Externalities? They have no idea what that means. Only instant gratification and shameless hedonism.

We live in an era that has nothing but contempt for the working class. They would love for all factories to be run like Foxconn. Go whole hog and bring back the truck system.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Sadly, there are many here in this thread who express nothing but utter disdain for the working poor. Halve that to $11/k per year (~$5.50 per hour) or quarter it to $5500 per year (~$2.75 per hour) and their arguments won't change. They don't care about the numbers in the end - unless they get too high, of course (which $34K appears to be "too high" for at least one poster here).

So pay them a third of the minimum wage, eliminate the safety net of the welfare state (for the working poor, mind - billions to war profiteers and industry is a-okay), and then express outrage if they dare complain.

We're living in a re-run of Dickens' "Oliver." You want *mooooooooooore*?

They hate the idea that someone who puts in 40 a week can afford a decent livelihood for themselves and their family because it might take away from their $1/box shit snacks. Externalities? They have no idea what that means. Only instant gratification and shameless hedonism.

We live in an era that has nothing but contempt for the working class. They would love for all factories to be run like Foxconn. Go whole hog and bring back the truck system.[/QUOTE]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I15_KUsOzs
 
I was actually thinking of that while reading this the other day, although I was thinking of the Tennessee Ernie Ford version...;P
 
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hostess-20121130,0,1027676.story

Hostess Brands Inc., in the midst of winding down its business, won approval Thursday from a federal bankruptcy judge to give as much as $1.75 million in bonuses to its executives.

The money is intended as an incentive for 19 top-level managers to remain with the Twinkies and Ding Dongs maker to oversee its liquidation.

The payouts will be granted only if managers "achieve a set of specific tasks and goals within a specified time frame that are designed to speed and lower the cost of the wind-down," Hostess spokesman Lance Ignon said.
Click to expand...

The same management that ruined the company gets nearly $2 million in bonuses.

Keep pointing fingers at the unions folks. That pain in the back of your head? It's called cognitive dissonance.
 
To be fair, any company that goes out of business and sold off has to be dismantled and you pay the people doing it. That has nothing to do with what happened before the company goes bankrupt.

Though it sucks that the current guys are the ones who are doing it. Maybe hire a third party firm to handle it? Guess it depends on what that would've cost.
 
Good for them for milking the last bit of cash out of it that they could, do bad the company couldn't have continued on (and then none of the bonuses would have been needed).
 
The current guys that are doing this did it because that's what venture capital firms do. A company is sold to those firms, and it's their prerogative to gut the profit out of it for their own purposes. Never mind the stakeholders.
 
[quote name='BigPopov']you pay the people doing it[/QUOTE]

nobody's arguing that, though. this isn't pay, it's a bonus.

something about the financial culture of the wealthy is amazing. when we bailed out the banks, bonuses were paid out in the millions (if not tens/hundreds of millions) because the bonuses were "contractual obligations."

...never mind the absurdity of contractually obligated bonuses...

yet, historically, employee pensions are cut, blow up, killed off, eliminated entirely...and suddenly contractual obligations are no longer important.

"class warfare" indeed.
 
http://www.politicususa.com/betrayal-remedy-hostess-pensions-fund-bankruptcy.html

The main baker pension fund alone is missing $22.1 million. Because the money didn’t come directly from employees, it may not technically be illegal (theft), even though the employees agreed to have a certain part of their wages turned into pension funds by the employer. See, it’s not just the employer contribution, but also employee wages earmarked for the pension fund. Wages.

. . .

Even as Hostess blamed the unions, creditors accused Hostess of manipulating executive salaries in an attempt to get around bankruptcy laws, with then-chief executive Brian Driscoll’s salary going to $2.55 million from around $750,000 while “other executives’ salaries were increased by from 35% to 80%.”
Click to expand...

How is this type of behavior tolerated or defended?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top