Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SeekAndFind

I am so sick of the CEO getting a raise argument. It didn’t amount to squat compared to the amount of cuts required for the bankruptcy. It wouldn’t have saved them. It wouldn’t have saved enough even if the CEOs had worked for free.

It’s ridiculous! 2+2=5 with these people.


10 posted on 11/25/2012 7:46:00 AM PST by CommieCutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: CommieCutter
I am so sick of the CEO getting a raise argument.

I have no problem with the founder of a company paying himself whatever he wants. After all, the founder took all the risks, and should get all the rewards.

But I do have a problem with the CEO's who stuff the company's board with lackeys. The CEO makes sure the lackeys get paid $100,000 each to meet a couple of times a year, and the lackeys make sure the CEO's get obscene raises.

Union mindless greed can destroy a company. But so can CEO mindless greed. Sure, the union greed costs more. But the CEO greed tends to destroy the morale of the company.

26 posted on 11/25/2012 7:59:03 AM PST by Leaning Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: CommieCutter
THE FULL STORY HERE :

Hostess, which had been contributing $100 million a year in pension costs for workers, offered workers a new contract that would've slashed that to $25 million a year, in addition to wage cuts and a 17 percent reduction in health benefits. The baker's union rejected the offer and decided to strike.

Rayburn said that Hostess was already operating on razor thin margins and that the strike was the final blow. The baker's union said the company's demise was the result of mismanagement, not the strike. It pointed to the steep raises executives were given last year as the company was spiraling down toward bankruptcy.
One of the pieces of information circulated to support the latter point of view was the claim that several Hostess executives received hefty pay raises even as the company was preparing a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing, raises which included a tripling of then-Hostess CEO Brian Driscoll's salary. Court filings and company statements indicate that Hostess did approve large salary increases for its top executives, but how much additional pay those executives may actually have received is unclear, as many of them subsequently left the company, renounced some or all of their raises, or agreed to steep pay cuts.

According to an April 2012 report by the Wall Street Journal, Hostess' creditors claimed that in July 2011 the company had manipulated executive pay by approving large salary increases for top executives (in place of performance-based bonuses) in order to skirt bankruptcy rules:
Creditors of Hostess Brands Inc. said in court papers the company may have "manipulated" its executives' salaries higher in the months leading up to its Chapter 11 filing, in what the creditors called a possible effort by Hostess to "sidestep" Bankruptcy Code compensation provisions.

The committee representing Hostess's unsecured creditors alleges that information it has gathered suggests "the possibility" that the company converted a chunk of its top executives' pay from performance-based bonuses to salary, "at least in part to sidestep" rules designed to ensure that companies in bankruptcy aren't enticing their employees to stay on board with the promise of cash, according to documents filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in White Plains, N.Y.
A Hostess spokesman asserted that the raises in question were routine ones based on merit rather than manipulation:
According to the creditors' court papers, lawyers for Hostess maintain that modifications to compensation before a filing aren't subject to the bankruptcy provision regarding incentive compensation.

A spokesman for Hostess said the company doesn't believe the creditors' "theory has any basis in law." He said the executives' salaries were increased at a routine compensation review "to align them with industry standards and because the executives were being asked to take on significant additional responsibilities associated with trying to restructure the company outside of bankruptcy proceedings."
That article also provided a chart of Hostess executive salary raises which had been approved the previous July, while noting that court documents stated CEO Brian Driscoll had "renounced a portion of the increase":

Salary Increases at Hostess

Brian Driscoll, CEO, around $750,000 to $2,550,000
Gary Wandschneider, EVP, $500,000 to $900,000
John Stewart, EVP, $400,000 to $700,000
David Loeser, EVP, $375,000 to $656,256
Kent Magill, EVP, $375,000 to $656,256
Richard Seban, EVP, $375,000 to $656,256
John Akeson, SVP, $300,000 to $480,000
Steven Birgfeld, SVP, $240,000 to $360,000
Martha Ross, SVP, $240,000 to $360,000
Rob Kissick, SVP, $182,000 to $273,008
 

Five days after that article was published, the Wall Street Journal reported that Hostess' new CEO, Gregory F. Rayburn, had announced he was slashing executive compensation, and that the company's top four executives had temporarily agreed to cut their annual salaries to $1 while four other executives had agreed to return to their previous salary levels:
The chief executive of Hostess Brands Inc. said he is slashing executive compensation in the aftermath of creditor allegations that the company may have pushed management's salaries higher in the months leading up to its Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in an effort to skirt bankruptcy rules.

Gregory F. Rayburn, a restructuring expert who took the helm at Hostess last month, said in an interview that the top four executives working under him had agreed to 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, at a time when the baking company had already hired restructuring lawyers, according to creditors.

Further down the totem pole at the Twinkie maker, four additional executives agreed to return to the salaries they were receiving before the July increase.

CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE REST...

30 posted on 11/25/2012 8:01:03 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: CommieCutter

When a company is in trouble, all should be asked to give up some of their compensation.


72 posted on 11/25/2012 9:18:22 AM PST by rcofdayton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: CommieCutter

Bump


93 posted on 11/25/2012 11:18:14 AM PST by Gene Eric (Demoralization is a weapon of the enemy. Don't get it, don't spread it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson