Factcheck

Manhattan, IL

#102 Nov 20, 2012
This topic actually disgusts me. I know many good men that put in 50-60 hour weeks for less than 40k a year who are being called out and dragged through the mud here. You people who are anti worker should be ashamed.
Truth707

Frankfort, IL

#103 Nov 20, 2012
OK let's not believe Greg Rayburn the Hostess CEO. Then why didn't the teamsters dispute the claims? Why didn't the BCTGM dispute the claims? Frank Hurt has 1000's of union membership he represents and he didn't dispute the claims. CNN didn't challenge Rayburn or call him out on his statements. There isn't a single publication that you can cite which supports what you've posted here. However, you're expecting this forum to believe with 25 years at various grocery stores you and your friends are privy to something that nobody but you can support? Come back with something factual and believable.
Factcheck wrote:
<quoted text> here's how I dispute it
In my 25 year career I have worked for cub foods, jewel, dominick's, wise way, and strack & van till, plus I have many friends in the industry and we have discussed this current topic with great interest lately. None of us have ever seen a helper on a hostess/wonder truck.
Go ahead and believe a CEO that bled its company dry, he has far more direct knowledge that people who do the job every day.
Truth707

Frankfort, IL

#104 Nov 20, 2012
hold on wrote:
<quoted text>
Why dont you answer my question, I have asked it several times now. You stated that all the trucks are required to have a helper. Well I have seen with my own two eyes that this is not the case. Your explanation please.
Refer to the previous post or check out the CNN video with the Hostess CEO...

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/20/news/companie...
Factcheck

Manhattan, IL

#105 Nov 20, 2012
Yes. They only have helpers in major accounts such as select walmarts which demand it.

Have you ever seen the bread guy deliver? Did he have a team?

No, he didn't. And everyone here can support this.
Factcheck

Manhattan, IL

#106 Nov 20, 2012
Btw Rayburn made tons of money in this loss as did high ranking officials in the teamsters so its not really union vs non union, it's rich vs everyone else.

But please. Take their word for it, they would never lie.
hold on

Wheaton, IL

#107 Nov 20, 2012
Truth707 wrote:
<quoted text>
Refer to the previous post or check out the CNN video with the Hostess CEO...
http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/20/news/companie...
And you read an article for me. google Forbes article, who killed hostess brands its from 11-16-12

And believe me, many many hostess drivers in the cube vans work alone. If you really believe that they have a helper and a driver for these vans delivering to the local 7-11s etc then you are way off the mark. Those drivers not only work alone, they load their own trucks with the products and then drive the routes. They haul the product in and fill the displays and leave alone still. Sorry if this does not fit your beliefs but its the truth. You want to believe a guy who just went into court and asked for permission to give his management an 80% bonus to their salary in order to stay on and help "wind down" the company, then be my guest.
Neighbor

Wheaton, IL

#108 Nov 21, 2012
Appalled wrote:
<quoted text>
Not trying to start anything with you Neighbor, but the highly skilled, highly educated, hard working people that I know who had to look for a job in recent years would tell you to stuff your advice where the sun don't shine.
I am told that your kind of comments, though well meaning, are extremely condescending to those who have faced the worst job market in recent history.
Many people like Okthan have been forced into situations like his to simply survive. There was a day when your formula promised success, but the rules are all different now. The competition is fierce and some of the best of the best have had to face failure in spite of their efforts.
The rules you and I lived by and the promises that were made to us do not apply in this economy. Just ask any recent college graduate who is still looking for a job. Through no fault of their own, people are failing themselves and their families and people like you who say "just try harder" only add to the pain.
It is hard to achieve success when everything around you is failing.
Have faith Appalled.... You just look those doubters in the eye, and encourage them, give them belief in themselves, and the strength to keep trying. The only way to lose is to quit trying in the job game today, it is hard work finding a job for sure. Every one of those doubters you cite will agree with that, I can assure you. And after 5 months it gets lonely & discouraging...and persistance can be hard and painful I know. Still "Skills, education, and hard work bring success. You can only go so far without them or with a limited amount of them. That goes for Union or non-Union." <So just encourage those you cite to find the strength to "keep working hard" at finding a job.(if you see the point I make for you there).
Truth707

Frankfort, IL

#109 Nov 21, 2012
hold on wrote:
<quoted text>
You want to believe a guy who just went into court and asked for permission to give his management an 80% bonus to their salary in order to stay on and help "wind down" the company, then be my guest.
Bainamania wrote:
<quoted text>
Even in failure, the executive management enriched themselves and took pay raises while demanding concessions from their workers.
Factcheck wrote:
Btw Rayburn made tons of money in this loss as did high ranking officials in the teamsters so its not really union vs non union, it's rich vs everyone else.
But please. Take their word for it, they would never lie.
All three of you must be sucking on the same gas pipe. Reference: Sheeple (a portmanteau of "sheep" and "people") The term is used to describe those who voluntarily acquiesce to a suggestion without critical analysis or research.

First, Rayburn has been with Hostess since early 2012. He has taken no bonuses or made no monies other then the salary as agreed to in his contract. Second, Rayburn had the top four executives working under him cut their annual salaries to $1 until the company emerges from bankruptcy or Dec. 31, whichever comes first. The executives—Gary Wandschneider, John Stewart, David Loeser and Richard Seban—had seen their salaries increase by 75% to 80% last July (PRIOR to Rayburn being hired on at Hostess). Third, if Rayburn raided the company like all 3 of you claim then why on earth would the teamsters have agreed to his cutbacks? Like I have repeatedly stated both management & the unions are responsible for the downfall of Hostess. A series of bad decisions over the past 30 years has brought Hostess to where it is today. You can disagree with me all you want but these are the facts.
Rubio2016

Merrillville, IN

#110 Nov 21, 2012
Neighbors Dream World wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you happen to catch 60 Minutes on November 11? They did a story on this very subject. Here's a link for the transcript. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-5754734... Click on page 5 of the story and read the final sentence for the "big" payoff for training to be a machinist. I'll save you the time. It's twelve dollars an hour, the same thing Caterpillar pays a starting machinist these days. Twelve dollars an hour is what my starting pay as a non-union, maintenance electrician was 30 years ago. Twelve dollars an hour is now considered a fair wage for skilled labor? How can anyone raise a family on 25K per year? When I started out, machinists were some of the most skilled and highest paid guys around. In fact, they were the highest paid trade at the company I worked for. Now they get around four dollars an hour more than a fast food worker. Since training alone is obviously not enough to score a job that pays above the poverty line, can someone explain to me how any job that can be done in a third-world country, will remain here without some sort of corporate patriotism on the part of the employer? Even if their tax rate was cut to zero, we still couldn't compete with what is practically slave labor. Please clarify where a blue-collar worker can find a job that pays a living wage these days. Outside of the trade unions or the few places like oil refineries, health care and public sector employees that wouldn't be practical or possible to move over seas, I can't think of many. While we're at it, I'm curious to know what you consider to be a living wage? The scary part is, that even a person like me, who's highly skilled, highly experienced and hasen't missed a day of work in the 15 years that I've worked for my present employer would be looking at an over 50% pay cut if I had to start over today. That's how valued skilled workers are these days.
I guess the point I'm making is illustrated by your case unfortunately. I don't know what the 60 minutes piece said but I consider machinists to be manufacturing jobs so yes, they will continue to have problems. I'm not saying people should get retrained to be machinists. Healthcare would be a better choice obviously. And yes, I understand that that is difficult for someone like you who is trained as a machinist to make a complete change. The point is, there isn't much you or anyone else can do about it. If taxes were zero on these companies, I think it would help but probably not solve the problem completely.

This is the new economy we live in unfortunately.
yeah Neighbor sure

Mount Prospect, IL

#111 Nov 21, 2012
Neighbor wrote:
<quoted text>
Have faith Appalled.... You just look those doubters in the eye, and encourage them, give them belief in themselves, and the strength to keep trying. The only way to lose is to quit trying in the job game today, it is hard work finding a job for sure. Every one of those doubters you cite will agree with that, I can assure you. And after 5 months it gets lonely & discouraging...and persistance can be hard and painful I know. Still "Skills, education, and hard work bring success. You can only go so far without them or with a limited amount of them. That goes for Union or non-Union." <So just encourage those you cite to find the strength to "keep working hard" at finding a job.(if you see the point I make for you there).
You are such a phony. Are you not the same person who was making negative and insulting comments about people who work at McDonalds and other lower paying jobs. What if they are just doing it to get by until something better comes along.
Unincorporated

New Lenox, IL

#112 Nov 21, 2012
No, that was me.
Neighbor

Aurora, IL

#113 Nov 21, 2012
DesPlaines? Welcome back! UNI told me you were working at Michey D's, good for you my friend! BTW: Nothing better just comes along today, you have to go after it no matter what it takes. Lots of people just like you DesPlaines, are taking starter jobs at minimum wage, just to earn an income. Nothing wrong there. Hang in there DesPlaines, keep looking and chasing that next job. Competion is tight, and Obama is inhibiting growth. These are very tough times, but don't give up!
Little Debbie

Mount Prospect, IL

#115 Nov 30, 2012
A federal bankruptcy judge has approved bonuses for executives of Hostess, the maker of Twinkies, who stay on as the company is broken up and sold off.

On Thursday, as part of a plan to liquidate the company and lay off 18,000 workers, a federal judge in White Plains, N.Y., approved paying 19 Hostess executives bonuses totaling $1.8 million. Hostess has said it has interest from at least 110 firms who want to buy pieces of the operation.

The decision comes as the company, known for its iconic snack cakes like Ho Hos and Ding Dongs, says it doesn't have enough cash on hand to pay retirement benefits to some former employees.

The bonuses do not include pay for CEO Gregory Rayburn, who was brought on as a restructuring expert earlier this year, according to The Associated Press. Rayburn is being paid $125,000 a month.

Former employees are outraged over the bonuses handed out to high ups.

"Anybody's got a reason to be upset who lost their job if there handing out large amounts of money," Paul Carroll told ABC News.

In a statement overnight, Hostess said the bonuses are designed to keep top brass from leaving before winding down what's left of the company "quickly and cost-effectively."

"I was qualified to draw my pension, with no notice I lost about 70 or 75 percent of it I didn't work 34 years to lose it," Carroll said.

Hostess was given interim approval for its wind-down last week, which gave the company the legal protection to immediately fire 15,000 union workers. Hostess said last week it will retain about 3,200 employees "to assist with the initial phase of the wind-down," which is expected to last about a year.
Neighbor

Wheaton, IL

#116 Dec 1, 2012
The sad facts are, these Union Bakers knew before hand that their demands could force the company to close. I've read their interviews. The strike did exactly that. IMO, they then made an informed decision, and live with the consequences of it. They gave up all rights to having a say so, or complaining about how the shut down process is executed. The strike was the business risk they themselves accepted, now they have to live with the results. Sorry, if the results include Executive retention bonusus, it is what it is. So now they will live off our tax dollar support until 18,000 new Baker jobs open up. No one ever said Bakers have to be smart right?
Why

Frankfort, IL

#117 Dec 1, 2012
Truth707 wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
All three of you must be sucking on the same gas pipe. Reference: Sheeple (a portmanteau of "sheep" and "people") The term is used to describe those who voluntarily acquiesce to a suggestion without critical analysis or research.
First, Rayburn has been with Hostess since early 2012. He has taken no bonuses or made no monies other then the salary as agreed to in his contract. Second, Rayburn had the top four executives working under him cut their annual salaries to $1 until the company emerges from bankruptcy or Dec. 31, whichever comes first. The executives—Gary Wandschneider, John Stewart, David Loeser and Richard Seban—had seen their salaries increase by 75% to 80% last July (PRIOR to Rayburn being hired on at Hostess). Third, if Rayburn raided the company like all 3 of you claim then why on earth would the teamsters have agreed to his cutbacks? Like I have repeatedly stated both management & the unions are responsible for the downfall of Hostess. A series of bad decisions over the past 30 years has brought Hostess to where it is today. You can disagree with me all you want but these are the facts.
Why are you trying to make it all about Rayburn? The other posters are 100% correct about ALL previous Hostess management. And just because you can't explain how Rayburn is getting paid doesn't mean he isn't going to make a bundle of money in the Hostess fire sale. This makes you wrong. Yet you are claiming to be correct, why?
Truth707

Frankfort, IL

#118 Dec 1, 2012
Why wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you trying to make it all about Rayburn? The other posters are 100% correct about ALL previous Hostess management. And just because you can't explain how Rayburn is getting paid doesn't mean he isn't going to make a bundle of money in the Hostess fire sale. This makes you wrong. Yet you are claiming to be correct, why?
Rayburn like nearly every CEO has a contract with Hostess. This is a matter of record or check the CNN Money website. If the other posters are 100% correct like you say then show examples that back them up. Even the Huffington Post retracted its allegations. Don't just offer an opinion show some facts.
Why

Frankfort, IL

#119 Dec 1, 2012
Truth707 wrote:
<quoted text>
Rayburn like nearly every CEO has a contract with Hostess. This is a matter of record or check the CNN Money website. If the other posters are 100% correct like you say then show examples that back them up. Even the Huffington Post retracted its allegations. Don't just offer an opinion show some facts.
You are talking in circles and then trying to change the argument. Nobody said Rayburn never had a contract with Hostess. Your own post acknowledges previous CEO's received huge pay increases while demanding concessions from the workers. These are facts and not my opinion. Are you the same person as the Neighbor? Declaring victory all the time after getting trounced in debates?
Why

Frankfort, IL

#120 Dec 1, 2012
Truth707 wrote:
<quoted text>
Rayburn like nearly every CEO has a contract with Hostess. This is a matter of record or check the CNN Money website. If the other posters are 100% correct like you say then show examples that back them up. Even the Huffington Post retracted its allegations. Don't just offer an opinion show some facts.
This article from Forbes in July helps explain what was going on at Hostess. The Unions gave plenty of concessions over the years. Brian Driscoll was still CEO until March of 2012. Driscoll was indeed looking for a raise while demanding more concessions from the workers. Rayburn reduced the executive salaries to $1 but they were to be reinstated on Jan.1. You don't know as much as you think you do. Your are wrong to blame the Unions for the demise of Hostess. That's a fact not an opinion.

http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/26/...
Truth707

Frankfort, IL

#121 Dec 2, 2012
Why wrote:
<quoted text>
You are talking in circles and then trying to change the argument. Nobody said Rayburn never had a contract with Hostess. Your own post acknowledges previous CEO's received huge pay increases while demanding concessions from the workers. These are facts and not my opinion. Are you the same person as the Neighbor? Declaring victory all the time after getting trounced in debates?
You said the other posters are 100% correct about all previous Hostess management. So if that is the case then once again, answer the question. If Rayburn received more money the what he was paid per his contract then show the proof. Don't gloss over this... defend your position.
Neighbor

Naperville, IL

#122 Dec 2, 2012
Look... Unions "work" for Management, and Management works for the Board/Owners/stock-holders. Unions are at the bottom of the preverable hill...and sh%t rolls down not up. When you're at the bottom of the hill, you get screwed first with these things. Union contracts do not include "how the company" is managed, or shut-down right? Am I wrong?

So the Baker Union has no say in the shut down process! The Baker Union was the straw that broke the camels back. Life sucks, but it sucks more when you have no say. Why whine now?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Joliet Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Palin 2016 21 min Patriot 20
So, that pipeline will "Create Jobs" and lead t... 4 hr John Sanchez 41
More lies to try and deceive 5 hr In the Handbasket 51
Koch Brothers EXPOSED: 2014 • FULL DOCUMENTARY 5 hr Tubman 16
Investors never invest their own money (Apr '11) 5 hr Just Facts 8,129
Turner's Low Approval Raing 7 hr KTurner 9
Are these 4 people cyber stalking Turner? 7 hr KTurner 3
Joliet Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Joliet People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 10:04 am PST

NFL10:04AM
Richardson was suspended for two Colts playoff games
ESPN10:58 AM
Colts won't commit to RB Richardson for 2015
Yahoo! Sports11:49 AM
League conducts nearly 40 interviews into 'deflate-gate'
Yahoo! Sports11:50 AM
NFL: No decision yet on deflated balls
NBC Sports12:54 PM
Grigson goes silent on NFL investigation into Patriots