Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Debt was the problem there Sir. The last owners of Hostess took on more debt than the company they took over. Thus they were deeper in debt from the get go and the money they borrowed was supposed to be for newer and better equipment and for the most part they didn't buy equipment they increased the management salaries and gave them large bonuses to get their loyalty. That is pretty much how it went i am sure i might be corrected abit .
They went bankrupt, and with bankruptcy, the debt goes away.. Debt, is a very poor excuse.
They went bankrupt, and with bankruptcy, the debt goes away.. Debt, is a very poor excuse.
So with all your knowledge on the inner workings of the Hostess business, including its supposed lack of debt, why didn't YOU buy it and keep those union people employed even with all their psychotic demands?
No one wanted to buy Hostess. Those that looked at it as a potential purchase ONLY looked at it due to brand recognition. Hostess is a bad investment.
So with all your knowledge on the inner workings of the Hostess business, including its supposed lack of debt, why didn't YOU buy it and keep those union people employed even with all their psychotic demands?
No one wanted to buy Hostess. Those that looked at it as a potential purchase ONLY looked at it due to brand recognition. Hostess is a bad investment.
I never claimed to want to own that type of company, and I'd NEVER buy one with union employees.
Are you telling me you know absolutely NOTHING about bankruptcy laws?
you dont think a person DIRECTING / CONTROLLINg / SUPERVISING, etc and earning the COMPANY 30 BILLION is worth 1/1000th of the companies earnings/profits ???
No. Even with all your caps, without which I never would have understood what you were asking.
There are a LOT more PEOPLE responsible for the SUCCESS of a COMPANY than the CEO and a HANDFUL of EXECUTIVES.
I happen to think everyone in the company deserves a good bump, as they all worked towards the success. However, with companies like WalMart, still raking in billions upon billions (with executives compensated as such), their employees are largely paid so little they require government assistance to survive. If you think that's a good thing, then I have nothing else to say.
I never claimed to want to own that type of company, and I'd NEVER buy one with union employees.
Are you telling me you know absolutely NOTHING about bankruptcy laws?
There are MANY forms of bankruptcy. Do you think Hostess was allowed by a judge to have ALL its debts just magically disappear, only to continue down the same psychotic business model?
So NO. I am not saying I know "absolutely NOTHING about bankruptcy laws". I am suggesting you know a lot less about bankruptcy laws than you think.
No. Even with all your caps, without which I never would have understood what you were asking.
There are a LOT more PEOPLE responsible for the SUCCESS of a COMPANY than the CEO and a HANDFUL of EXECUTIVES.
I happen to think everyone in the company deserves a good bump, as they all worked towards the success. However, with companies like WalMart, still raking in billions upon billions (with executives compensated as such), their employees are largely paid so little they require government assistance to survive. If you think that's a good thing, then I have nothing else to say.
Name a single WalMart employee that is forced to work for WalMart.
Besides... WalMart employees have EASOP. Profit sharing, stock options, insurance, etc. Part time employees may not have some of those items, but they still get profit sharing.
No. Even with all your caps, without which I never would have understood what you were asking.
There are a LOT more PEOPLE responsible for the SUCCESS of a COMPANY than the CEO and a HANDFUL of EXECUTIVES.
I happen to think everyone in the company deserves a good bump, as they all worked towards the success. However, with companies like WalMart, still raking in billions upon billions (with executives compensated as such), their employees are largely paid so little they require government assistance to survive. If you think that's a good thing, then I have nothing else to say.
...Well it's a good thing to the CEO.
People have the freedom to share or not to share. In many cases, the sharing is done with the stockholders.
A better way is to convert 25% of the salary to be paid in stock. That way the employee gets a piece of the pie by default.
Not every business has a stock, though.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
