TWINKIES!!!

From: Chad Smith 
------------------------------------------------------
That is all.

*- Chad W. Smith*

=============================================================== From: Ed King ------------------------------------------------------ Does this mean those union guys who sit across from the county courthouse will change their sign to read: Shame on Ding Dong ------------------------------

=============================================================== From: Rod-Lists ------------------------------------------------------ If they know hostess wants to pay $1.75 Million in bonuses to the execs as they file for bankruptcy, they might. ----- Original Message -----

=============================================================== From: John Aldrich ------------------------------------------------------ Quoting Rod-Lists : But it's to keep competitive with salaries in other companies in the snack food industry!

=============================================================== From: Lynn Dixon ------------------------------------------------------ Rod, in all fairness, that 1.75 million is probably contracted salaries bonuses. Salaries are always higher priorities in the payouts during bankruptcy filings. As much as it sucks, legally the C level execs have fair claim on those salaries bonuses since they were contracted before the bankruptcy filings began.

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ The CEO received a 300% raise shortly before filing for bankruptcy

=============================================================== From: Tim Youngblood ------------------------------------------------------ Let's not let the rule of law get in the way of 'fairness' and everyone 'getting their fair share.' Both are the new code phraseology for communism. It is so fashionable though! How else are the young collegiates supposed to get laid on a Saturday night? Sarcasm with turkey, Tim

=============================================================== From: Lynn Dixon ------------------------------------------------------ Yeah what I was referring to is that the contracts were written and signed before the bankruptcy filings began, so legally, the company was bound to those payouts. The payouts were safe under bankruptcy law because they could have been considered wages and salary. Maybe I read your intentions wrong in your message, but I have no idea how what I said earlier could be construed as communism. If those bonuses contracts were written before the bankruptcy, then they are legal and binding. 'getting their fair share.' Both are the new code phraseology for communism. to get laid on a Saturday night? bonuses. Salaries are always higher priorities in the payouts during bankruptcy filings. As much as it sucks, legally the C level execs have fair claim on those salaries bonuses since they were contracted before the bankruptcy filings began. as they file for bankruptcy, they might.

=============================================================== From: Tim Youngblood ------------------------------------------------------ Response was to the thread and not you specifically, Lynn.

=============================================================== From: Rod-Lists ------------------------------------------------------ stephen is right. As to lynns point, I would reply that the union also has a contract. The question is which contracts should be honored in bankruptcy. ----- Original Message -----

=============================================================== From: Chad Smith ------------------------------------------------------ It is my understanding that the union actually did not have a contract, that is what they were striking about - they did not like (and therefore did not sign) the contracts they were being offered. *- Chad W. Smith*

=============================================================== From: Rod-Lists ------------------------------------------------------ I've been off the net and been in a news blackout so I haven't had time to dig. But it seems to me that if a company is in bankruptcy by definition it has been badly run. So why are executives getting a bonus? I found this article on huffpo on the labor column. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-macaray/labor-union-hostess-twinkies

=============================================================== From: Chad Smith ------------------------------------------------------ That is a question of contract law. If the contract was written in such a way that the execs were guaranteed a bonus, then they are guaranteed a bonus. It doesn't matter how well or how poorly the company was run. If bonuses were performance based, then you would have a point. But if the contracts merely stated that they were to get an annual bonus of X amount or Y percentage of some metric or whatever, then they are legally owed that money. Morally? That's a different question - but contractually and legally - they are owed that money. Might not be "right" or fair - but it's the law. *- Chad W. Smith*

=============================================================== From: Rod-Lists ------------------------------------------------------ except they are in bankruptcy all liabilities should be on the table. Point is the meme is the union drove them into bankruptcy, but facts are far different. And it points to a bigger problem in business in this country these days. Can we truly remain competitive in this country if we continue with the golden parachutes for execs who drive a company into the ground? ----- Original Message -----

=============================================================== From: John Aldrich ------------------------------------------------------ Quoting Rod-Lists : Exactly! Why do we continue to put up with golden parachutes for executives who drive their companies into the ground? I say we need to tell these executives, if you pull all the money out of the company and drive it into the ground, you, PERSONALLY, pay the price by having to give back a portion of your last 12 month's salary. Maybe that would stop the so-called "Vulture Capitalism." I'm not against venture capital, but it needs to be *reasonable,* so that everyone makes money, not just the bankers and lawyers!

=============================================================== From: Chad Smith ------------------------------------------------------ Then you need to tell that to companies who are actively pursuing these executives and offering these benefits. I don't understand the logic at all, myself - but someone is hiring these people, and someone is putting those contracts together. Someone is making the decision that it is a good deal to hire this person at that salary with that benefits package. *- Chad W. Smith*

=============================================================== From: William Wade ------------------------------------------------------ Perhaps that right there is the actual problem. Companies keep looking for the executive that is going to save them, but in reality it is the culture of the company that is hurting them. The lack of developing leaders in the company for one example. I find it interesting out here in Silicon Valley that there is very little trouble with regards to exec pay, but I think the value they provide to the company is greater (not to mention they usually have a lot more of their own money or work in the company so it is important for long term success.)

=============================================================== From: John Aldrich ------------------------------------------------------ Quoting Chad Smith : No argument. But who's going to listen to "Joe Average" off the street when you tell them to stop giving golden parachutes without some sort of "you break it, you get no bonus" clause???

=============================================================== From: John Aldrich ------------------------------------------------------ Quoting William Wade : With the exception of HP, that is. :D

=============================================================== From: Dan Lyke ------------------------------------------------------ On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 08:39:59 -0800 William Wade wrote: By "Companies" you mean "Boards of Directors". And by "Boards of Directors" you mean "people elected by the stockholders". And by "stockholders" you mean people with their money in 401Ks who don't really care so they either ignore the elections or invest in mutual funds and let the people who run those participate in the elections. So the Boards are likely as vested in giving their friends big bonuses as they are in actually making sure the stock performs well. Dan

=============================================================== From: Chad Smith ------------------------------------------------------ Stockholders who don't care if the company does well or not... That's a new piece of FUD for the class warfare I haven't heard yet. *- Chad W. Smith*

=============================================================== From: Dan Lyke ------------------------------------------------------ On Sun, 2 Dec 2012 12:49:28 -0600 Chad Smith wrote: You're missing a nuance: There's a substantial amount of economic friction between the process of having money in a 401k mutual fund and taking an active interest in the running of a company. The management class we're all whining about is strip-mining that space. Dan

=============================================================== From: Chad Smith ------------------------------------------------------ I agree that very few stockholders do take an active interest in the companies they own stock in - however the Board, who is there on the behalf on the stockholders - has a vested interest in the company succeeding. While it is true that there is a difference between the company doing well and the stock doing well - if the company goes belly up the stocks are useless. So unless you believe the board of directors on multitudes of companies are receiving some sort of kick back from the Execs' Golden Parachute that is enough to screw over the stockholders that put them on the board in the first place - then I think there is another problem. Something perhaps more basic and less devious. Something like people really believe in the power of one person being able to come in and "save the company". I think that fairy tale - which, I admit, does have some real life examples of working - is destructive far more often than it is helpful. I mean, in the minds of the Board, if this one guy can come in and "save the company" then its worth 10% of a years profit to get him to sign up. I mean, if it ends up giving the company 50 more years of profit. Not every exec is Steve Jobs, Lee Iacocca, Thomas Edison, Sam Walton, or Bill Gates. Not every company needs an all powerful leader. They are looking for a magic bullet when they need to do some serious restructuring - and that doesn't mean just laying a bunch of the lowest paid people off - that means literally restructuring. Rebuilding the way the company does business. That takes hard work, good ideas, a willingness to try new things and let go of old things, and is just as likely to end in failure as not. But it's more likely to fix the problem than just hiring Mr. Hot Shot Big Wig CEO. *- Chad W. Smith*