November 18, 2012

Twinkies will return... from Mexico.

There's a good chance:
Mexico’s Grupo Bimbo, the world’s largest bread baking firm, which already owns parts of Sara Lee, Entenmann’s and Thomas English Muffins.

Bimbo has already sniffed around the bankruptcy proceedings that have haunted Hostess for a decade, in a bid to further expand its North American portfolio and pad its $4 billion net worth. ...
With US sugar tariffs set artificially high to protect Florida sugar-growing concerns, a non-unionized shop with access to lower-priced sugar in Mexico could be the Twinkie lifeline, economists suggest.
Plus, the brand is getting all this free advertising coming out of the threat of extinction.

175 comments:

phx said...

But what about Wonder bread?

ndspinelli said...

With cananbis finally becoming legal Twinkie, is going to survive. You have to love capitalism.

AJ Lynch said...

So does this mean the unions are guilty of outsourcing jobs overeas?

AJ Lynch said...

Spinelli - that was really funny!

pm317 said...

Hostess goes Bimbo!

Tim said...

Ironic.

In Barack Obama's America, labor unions will offshore their own jobs.

Forward!

ndspinelli said...

AJ, Thanks. And like most humor, based in real truth.

Pogo said...

Step 1. Unions and government subsidies

Step 2. US business leaves our shores.

Step 3. Profit!

pm317 said...

Unions and Obama won't care. Union bosses are making 200+K salary. Obama and the Dimocrats have their votebanks by throwing crumbs at the 47%ers. People have to get smarter.

rcommal said...

I got to the words Bimbo has already sniffed around and simply couldn't continue. Laughing too darn hard. Will try again later.

rcommal said...

Bimbo to Rescue Twinkie

What a headline that would be.

Oh my God, help me.

deborah said...

We're headed toward a North American Union on the way to a globalized economy. Which is to be expected in the Technium.

edutcher said...

Slogan:

The snack cakes of Bimbos everywhere.

Willie will buy them by the truckload just in case it's true.

Maguro said...

For all the talk about the unions, our stupid policy of having high tarrifs on raw sugar (but not on finished candy/sweets) is probably more the culprit here. We're absolutely incentivizing dessert makers to set up shop overseas for the sake of protecting sugar company profits. Dumb.

jimbino said...

Too bad we can't move our bankrupt gummint, especially our welfare and healthcare systems, to Mexico.

At least we denizens of border states can still pop down to Mexico for cheap drugs and dental care.

Mian said...

Bimbo Bakeries USA is headquartered in PA, and owns lots of brands a US shopper will know, including Thomas', Entenmanns, Brownberry, Boboli, etc. They have been in the US market since 1997 and employ 27,000 and operate 70 bakeries in the US (per their website.)

I've dealt with them and know them to be very charitable, donating literally tons of baked goods to a regional food bank I'm associated with. They're great corporate "citizens."

We all live in a global economy and facile assumptions about off-shoring jobs are usually naive -- a complicated world yields complicated explanations.

pm317 said...

donating literally tons of baked goods to a regional food bank I'm associated with. They're great corporate "citizens."

We all live in a global economy and facile assumptions about off-shoring jobs are usually naive -- a complicated world yields complicated explanations.


Heh. They are giving food to your foodbank after benefiting from getting your jobs. You don't see the irony in this?

purplepenquin said...

So does this mean the unions are guilty of outsourcing jobs overeas?

The union workers don't accept yet another pay cut while the CEO gets a 300% raise, yet there is no blame at all for the management for the demise of Twinkies.

Next up: Conservatives are urged to "Buy Mexican" so they can really stick it to those union thugs. 'cause their hatred for organized labor is greater than love of country.

*rolls eyes*

Mian said...

Heh. They are giving food to your foodbank after benefiting from getting your jobs. You don't see the irony in this??

"They?"

As far as I know, the jobs "they" provide are to my fellow Ohioans and the taxes "they" pay are to local government.

I don't see any irony here -- only xenophobia.

Greg said...

Bimbo Twinkies -- two slurs in one snack!

pm317 said...

purplepenquin said...
--------------

We should fight for fairness and justice for the everyday workers which would mean going after corrupt CEOs (hey, why is Corzine still walking free?) and corrupt and thug union leaders (do you know how much Trumka gets paid?).

Chip S. said...

@PQ, HuffPo has posted a correction to that claim since you transcribed your comment.

jimbino said...

Hey, I don't care what CEO of what company pays himself how much, since, in the end, he has to sell his products to willing buyers, without using the law to force them to buy.

The situation of unions is entirely different: they have irritated me my entire life in the closed-shop states when I wanted to get a haircut, electrical or plumbing installation, etc; they use the law to force folks to negotiate with them; they are racist in effect; they are anti-growth and violent. Any usefulness they ever had has long-since lapsed.

I find it curious that, historically, almost all their leaders, starting with Samuel Gompers, were Republicans.

Chip S. said...

@PQ, there's been plenty of criticism of Hostess's management. Bankruptcy is a mechanism for reassigning the assets of a firm to better managers.

Chip S. said...

I find it curious that, historically, almost all their leaders, starting with Samuel Gompers, were Republicans.

Probably has something to do with the historical desire of shareholders not to lose their invested funds.

pm317 said...

As far as I know, the jobs "they" provide are to my fellow Ohioans and the taxes "they" pay are to local government.

Trickle down economics from foreign owned companies for the Ohio worker. How nice?! Shut down all the businesses here but wait for the crumbs. Stupid as stupid gets. There is no real manufacturing to speak of -- that all went to China. There is not much innovation and R&D going on, K-12 education is in the dumps. China and India are taking over knowledge sector jobs. If you don't see the red flags, you deserve what you get.

somefeller said...

If people still want to buy Twinkies, someone will buy the brand and provide them. If not, someone won't. Capitalism in action.

Also, Bimbo makes some good stuff. Anyone who has eaten some good Mexican cookies can tell you that. Maybe they can take sweet cajeta to the US mainstream like salsa.

LarryK said...

One more case where Mexicans do the jobs that Americans refuse.

Why has the President not bailed out America's confection industries? I'm guessing it's because Michelle would not approve. It would be a different story if arugula growers were threatened...

purplepenquin said...

there's been plenty of criticism of Hostess's management.

Not in this blog. The word "management" never even appeared in this thread until I brought it up. Instead, folks ('cept Maguro, who points to the sugar tariffs) are blaming only the union while staying completely silent about management.

But that does seem to be par for the course around here...when a company does bad it is always the fault of the workers who should have their pay cut even more, but when a company does good then it is because of an excellent CEO who deserves to be paid 300x what everyone else makes.

LarryK said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
chickelit said...

jimbino writes: I find it curious that, historically, almost all their leaders, starting with Samuel Gompers, were Republicans.

Why so? Republicans of his time invented Progressive politics as once practiced in Wisconsin.

Gompers' creed was to reward friends and to punish enemies: link

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Bimbo to Rescue Twinkie

What a headline that would be.


I'm still snickering at the idea that Little Debbie's would buy the company and we would have

Little Debbie's Ding Dongs.

/tee hee

Michael said...

PurpleP. The union workers in this case are crowing about their toughness in forcing the company to liquidate. They certainly are giving themselves the credit. Management's big mistake in this company was in being very pro union and capitulating to multiple wage increases. You can read about the Democrat pro union private equity guy who took the company if you are curious. Too bad for the tough union guys who are sitting jobless in Maine with winter coming on and these jobs gone. Forever. And if they think this is an encouragement to companies to come to Maine they are very very wrong.

Conserve Liberty said...

@purplepenguin

In a case such as Hostess there's plenty of failure to go around.

1. For years the government-nutrition / medical establishment has railed against the empty Calories in Hostess' products
2. Management failed to diversify their baking skills into healthier foods in order to preserve the company and capital for future owners and workers.
3. Union laborers, perhaps sensing a mature and declining company, milked the cash flow for as much short term return as possible.

This will be a textbook case of systemic failure. Blame everyone.

Bankruptcy is a fair, court-adjudicated process to allocate any remaining value to lenders and eventually (if any is left) equity owners. FWIW, the employees pension fund has a very large seat at the bankruptcy table.

David said...

Tim nailed it. Unions exporting jobs to Mexico.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Fucking bullshit sugar tariffs are killing children. This is a Big Business War on Kids, not just because of the heatlh concerns either, but because of the corruption being a structural threat to justice anywhere.

Mian said...

It seems like a point that everyone's missing is that Bimbo USA has been operating in the US as a US company since the late 1990s. It's a fallacy to think that the jobs baking Wonder/Twinkies/Beefsteak Rye, etc. will be moving to Mexico, when in all likelihood, these will just be brands that will be added to the existing portfolio of brands that they already own and operate here in the US and will be produced by their US workforce.

McTriumph said...

"Bankruptcy is a fair, court-adjudicated process to allocate any remaining value to lenders and eventually (if any is left) equity owners. FWIW, the employees pension fund has a very large seat at the bankruptcy table"

With the exception of the General Motors bankruptcy.

But. you are correct, the offer made to the Baker's union was the only way out according to the bankruptcy judge, he approved the plan, there by making it his plan. I believe he stated that there was no alternative.

FYI, the evil "Bain" capitalist,as described by the White Al Sharpton union thug Richard Trumka is a fund which includes Senator Gephardt, a once Democratic presidential hopeful.

Maguro said...

It seems like a point that everyone's missing is that Bimbo USA has been operating in the US as a US company since the late 1990s. It's a fallacy to think that the jobs baking Wonder/Twinkies/Beefsteak Rye, etc. will be moving to Mexico, when in all likelihood, these will just be brands that will be added to the existing portfolio of brands that they already own and operate here in the US and will be produced by their US workforce.

It's not guaranteed that Bimbo would move production to Mexico nor is it guaranteed that it would remain in the US. Presumably they would weigh all the economic factors - access to cheap labor and sugar in Mexico vs the cost of building new Mexican factories, etc. - and make a decision. Perhaps they've already decided, but if so, they haven't made their decision public.

purplepenquin said...

@Conserve Liberty

Excellent points and I agree with most of what you say, the exception being #3. From what I've read, the unions just gave up "substantial concessions", to the tune of $110million, in order to get the company out of bankruptcy less than 4 years ago. Is that really considered milking the cash flow?

@Micheal

I haven't heard anything about multiple pay increases for workers (Tho, that link above also makes mention of the many raises top executives received) that have been given in the last four years, but if you have a link I'm always happy to learn more.

@All

When you get down to it, labor was told to accept 30% cuts in wages/benefits (after having just accepted huge cuts a few years ago) or the company would have to close down, yet the CEO was given a 300% pay raise. Nevermind how ya may feel about unions in general...does that really pass the smell-test?

Patrick said...

Interesting to think about the political power involved in these issues, which confirms for me how I feel about tariffs. One tariff, supported by the sugar industry and its unions hurts another industry and its unions. Why does one industry get the favorable treatment? It has political power, nothing else. How do they get political power? They pay the politicians. I suppose you could make a policy argument supporting sugar tariffs, but it would be bullshit. The sugar growers and their unions are more powerful than the candy/banked goods companies and their unions because of their political donations.

We will not rid ourselves of this problem until we recognize that this is the inevitable result of large, intrusive government. The more government, the more of this BS you get. Every time.

Patrick said...

"Banked Goods Industry." Ha! I love my typos.

karlpoppersghost said...

I grew up on Butterscotch Krimpets and other TastyKakes.

I wouldn't touch a Twinkie with Chris Christie's mouth.

Alex said...

I love it when lefties get all outraged about CEO pay when it's maybe 0.001% of the labor cost.

Alex said...

When you get down to it, labor was told to accept 30% cuts in wages/benefits (after having just accepted huge cuts a few years ago) or the company would have to close down, yet the CEO was given a 300% pay raise. Nevermind how ya may feel about unions in general...does that really pass the smell-test?

Yet out of spite, they preferred to lose 1800 jobs to stick it to the "man".

Bartender Cabbie said...

I will only buy the products if they are made at a plant in the United States. I do not knowingly buy products of Mexico w/the possible exception of tequila.

If it can be made here fine. If not? I will keep my money.

McTriumph said...

It's going to be a hoot to see who the left blames for General Motors' future return to the bankruptcy court. Their only rhetorical way out will to blame the American people and their ignorance for not dry humping the Volt. Can't blame the government management or unions, they're pure.

garage mahal said...

So why didn't Hostess just hire some cheap scab bakers and keep the company running?

Strelnikov said...

Viva la Bimba!

Hagar said...

I don't see that it says bankruptcy proceedings. Hostess is folding its tent and holding a going out of business sale, selling the pieces, material and paper, for whatever they will bring.

But the buyers will not be unionized businesses.

Freeman Hunt said...

I thought this might happen. Bimbo has been doing very well, and Hostess has so many iconic brands; seems like an obvious next move.

Clyde said...

And who knew that Sara Lee, Entenmann's and Thomas English Muffins were owned by Grupo Bimbo? I always got a chuckle when I walked by the Bimbo cakes display at the local Wal-Mart, but I didn't know they owned those other companies.

No hay ninguna que no le gusta Sara Lee, as they say!

Inga said...

And the CEO gets a golden Twinkie.

Cedarford said...

jimbino said...
Hey, I don't care what CEO of what company pays himself how much, since, in the end, he has to sell his products to willing buyers, without using the law to force them to buy.

The situation of unions is entirely different: they have irritated me my entire life
================
And you are a textbook case of why Marxism and socialism have had such power over the years.
Societies always have factions that lick the boots of the Noble hero jobs creators. Owners who only care about what their personal take is...
While in turn despising the worker proles who would be NOTHING without beneficence the hero jobs creator.

To avoid violent revolution, all parts of society must believe they have a common stake in matters. And no small faction gain too much power over all the people - unions, hero jobs creators & jobs exporters, community activists, bankers, jews in the media, an imperial judiciary. A Congress and State Legislature system now thoroughly corrupted by both Parties serving themselves and a small coterie of cronnies over the general public.

Burn the US Constitution. Start fresh.

LilyBart said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alex said...

Union workers would rather lose their jobs in spite.

McTriumph said...

garage mahal said...
So why didn't Hostess just hire some cheap scab bakers and keep the company running?

I believe the Teamsters ratified their contracts with Hostess, but would not cross the Bakers' picket lines, so no deliver, no production.

The Teamsters' contracts continued to prohibit deliveries of bread and "Twinkies" in the same truck. Evidently in reality, there is no free lunch, shocking.

LilyBart said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
LilyBart said...

For the record, I think senior management compensation in the country is a scandal. I don't believe in government intervention, but we who invest in companies through our funds / retirement vehicles need to begin to hold the Board of Directors accountable for the Management compensation.

Patrick said...

The Teamsters' contracts continued to prohibit deliveries of bread and "Twinkies" in the same truck.

Really? What on earth could ever have justified that? Is this really true?

Cedarford said...

My guess in the Hostess Twinkies jobs are lost for good.

The key is shelf life.
Bread has a short shelf life - needs to be fairly local, or with a rapid transport system from distant locales with no security, border hangups.
Twinkies and Ding Dongs last for months and months and probably are still as edible and nutritious as the day they were baked, years later.

Meaning Mian will see Mexican companies provide jobs to amnestied hispanics here in America...with some blacks and Anglos also hired...for JIT products.
But the other long or unlimited shelf life stuff will be made with cheap Latin labor, sugar south of the Border as long as Free Trade and NAFTA exist - and Elites here and in Mexico can burn the workers and reap the profit harvest.

Alex said...

Lily - it's really none of your business what the board decides to pay ITS employee the CEO. Really none at all.

Chip S. said...

Would it be too inconvenient to base this discussion on facts instead of bullshit?

The new contract cut salaries across the company by 8% in the first year of the five-year agreement. Salaries were then scheduled to bump up 3% in the next three years and 1% in the final year.

Hostess also reduced its pension obligations and its contribution to the employees' health care plan. In exchange, the company offered concessions, including a 25% equity stake for workers and the inclusion of two union representatives on an eight-member board of directors.


The Teamsters--not exactly a bunch of pussies--agreed to these terms. The Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers, and Grain Millers International Union did not.

IOW, the members of the BCTW&GM union declined to opportunity to bear some of the risks that owners bear every day.

Patrick said...

but we who invest in companies through our funds / retirement vehicles need to begin to hold the Board of Directors accountable for the Management compensation.

Agreed. Boards need to be much more accountable. I can understand the logic of the business judgment rule, but Boards need to be more than a rubber stamp for their good pal the CEO.

Alex said...

Patrick - please tell me how you will keep the board accountable. Really it's nobody's business but the shareholders.

Patrick said...

Alex, it is absolutely the business of the shareholders what the Board decides to pay the CEO. Not sure on what basis you would disagree, except to stir the pot a bit.

Patrick said...

Ah, Alex, you got me at the end of my time on Althouse, but suffice it to say a reduction in the business judgment rule which allows the Board to escape consequences on most shareholder lawsuits. That is put too simply, but it's all I've got time for.

Alex said...

If the shareholders are outraged enough they can sue the board.

Patrick said...

To be clear, though, and I guess I wasn't: boards need to be accountable to shareholders.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

For the record, I think senior management compensation in the country is a scandal. I don't believe in government intervention, but we who invest in companies through our funds / retirement vehicles need to begin to hold the Board of Directors accountable for the Management compensation.

First of all unless you are a stock holder [a share OWNER] of the company, it is none of your business.

Just investing in mutual funds, does not give you ownership of the company. You own a portion of the mutual fund and the mutual fund is the share owner of record. If you take the time to read the prospectus of your mutual fund [ha ha as if you would ever read it] you will know how many shares, as of the time of the printing of that prospectus, your fund owns. It changes from moment to moment. When the company issues their annual reports and the shareholders are eligible to vote, your fund company votes FOR you.

Take it up with them, the mutual fund company. Or break down and buy some actual shares, get together with other share owners and vote in block.


Chip S. said...

@PenQ, Please stop posting lies in this thread.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of as well as an earlier headline of this post incorrectly stated that Greg Rayburn received a 300 percent raise as CEO of Hostess as the company approached bankruptcy. Rayburn wasn't CEO of Hostess until after the company filed for bankruptcy.

Alex said...

DBQ - Take it up with them, the mutual fund company. Or break down and buy some actual shares, get together with other share owners and vote in block.

That would require real actual work, diligence, perseverance and ambition. Much easier to vote for a socialist Democrat who will force the company to do things your way.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I suppose that Lily Bart thinks that she should also have control of the supply side of the companies that she has her several hundred dollars invested in. Tell them where to buy sugar, how much to buy, fine tune the recipe for the company, oversee the costs of flour, shortening, transportation, utilties cost etc. Maybe get in there and do some taste testing? They would never be able to do it without you /sarcasm.

Running a business is hard and even the smallest variation in costs will have an effect on the profit margin. For a large company the profit margin is really pretty small per manufactured item. Even a few pennies change in something integral to their product, like the cost of sugar, can make or break a company.

If your component costs are going up, either your price for the end product goes up....or something has to give. There is only so much the market will bear in your pricing structure. People will stop buying Twinkies or Volts or whatever, if the price is not acceptable. So you go out of business or find a way to make your price acceptable.

This is a function of the free market and if the Government and the Unions, both of which exist to crush the free market, would just get the fuck out of the way.....Hostess would probably still be in business

Gary Rosen said...

It's so cute to see C-fudd babbling as if he knows jack shit about economics. Kinda like his phony "profile" where he talks about his daughters, or is it sons today?

Michael said...

The SEC requires a non binding "Say on Pay" rule in company proxy filings. Most companies are taking heed of negative votes.

Michael said...

Patrick. "To be clear, though, and I guess I wasn't: boards need to be accountable to shareholders."

They are.

garage mahal said...

This is a function of the free market and if the Government and the Unions, both of which exist to crush the free market, would just get the fuck out of the way.

I would curious to hear what the commenters here are doing [on their own] to ensure the profitability and solvency of their employers. I'll assume they have all turned down raises and work for minimum wage, come in on holidays and work for free, voluntarily pay more for health insurance, etc.

Just think what your employer could accomplish IF YOU WEREN'T SO FUCKING SELFISH.

Alex said...

Just think what your employer could accomplish IF YOU WEREN'T SO FUCKING SELFISH.

Why don't you picket in front of every corporate HQ with that sign.

Phil 3:14 said...

Why didn't our President save the American baking industry. Bankruptcy will destroy it!

Rusty said...

purplepenquin said...
So does this mean the unions are guilty of outsourcing jobs overeas?

The union workers don't accept yet another pay cut while the CEO gets a 300% raise, yet there is no blame at all for the management for the demise of Twinkies.

It's a private company. What are you going to do? regulate executive compensation?
Many of the stockholder and directors of hostess are heavily involved with the democrat party.

It's not a good idea to call a strike on a company in bankruptcy.

Rusty said...

Cedarford said...
My guess in the Hostess Twinkies jobs are lost for good.

Not in this country

Michael said...

Garage. I for one receive no salary and pay for insurance out of pocket along with paying the salaries of employees, rent, license fees, legal,401k matching, health and dental and vision insurance, security, computers, printers, printing paper, postage machine, scanners, internet service, both cloud and server based, pens, pencils, parking, overtime, furniture,

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I would curious to hear what the commenters here are doing [on their own] to ensure the profitability and solvency of their employers. I'll assume they have all turned down raises and work for minimum wage, come in on holidays and work for free, voluntarily pay more for health insurance, etc.

We are self employed. S Corp and draw a salary from the corporation. There are many times that we skip salaries to be able to put money back into the Corp. Buying parts, supplies, repairing equipment.

Holidays, paid vacations.....what are those? Health insurance paid for by someone else???....what is that?

We have to rely on ourselves to be profitable. Unlike you who seem to think that other people owe you a job, owe you top wages, owe you time off, vacations, retirement and free health insurance. Must be nice to be a parasite.

Fleas like it...until the dog is dead, that is.

Cedarford said...

Alex said...
Lily - it's really none of your business what the board decides to pay ITS employee the CEO. Really none at all.

=================
On that laissez faire logic - if it is really none of our business how much execs can get out of the mutual backscratching society of Board members appointed by the execs and beholden to the execs or by other execs from other firms that will jack up bonuses and options as long as it comes back to them ---

You should have no fucking problem with unions extorting whatever they can finagle out of the system via their pals and mutual backscratchers.

Or bankers who believe it is none of your business what they and the regulators placed in position after all those PAC dollars bought them - decide on.

Truth is that you can't be globally competitive with a workforce that has seen the proles gain nothing in real wage growth since the 1st year Reagan was in office, while the Owner class reaped nearly all the wealth creation and productivity gains. Where CEOs with the same sort of cronies on Boards as existed 30 years back saw a 600% increase in real compensation.
You can't be globally competitive if workers and profesionals make 6 times what their counterparts in Japan, France, or Brazil make. And you cannot if your CEOs make 6 times that of other advanced nations CEOs.

jr565 said...

Tim wrote:
Ironic.

In Barack Obama's America, labor unions will offshore their own jobs.

It couldnt happen to a more deserving group of people. And, it might help with our immigration problem too. Maybe Mexicans will find better job opportunities in Mexico than here.

Cedarford said...

Gary Rosen said...
It's so cute to see C-fudd babbling as if he knows jack shit about economics. Kinda like his phony "profile" where he talks about his daughters, or is it sons today?

=================
Rosen, if you really cared about your kin, you would either be willing to step up and put yourself in harms way when it comes to blows with Iran...or offer to help with security for Wall Street financiers.

But we both know you are too craven a person for that.

Tim said...

"I would curious to hear what the commenters here are doing [on their own] to ensure the profitability and solvency of their employers. I'll assume they have all turned down raises and work for minimum wage, come in on holidays and work for free, voluntarily pay more for health insurance, etc."

The left side of the IQ bell curve weighs in, and we're all worse off for it doing so.

Hostess's offer to its union was significantly better than your depiction (don't trust me - you could do this novel thing and "google it").

Regardless, that union sure taught that greedy, grasping CEO a lesson, didn't they?

Six months from now, he'll have another, multi-million per year job, and they'll be getting Obama's food stamps, phone and looking into foreclosure, short-sale and section 8 housing.

Total win for the union!

Forward!

gsgodfrey said...

For LilyBart and others who are outraged about their lack of voice, keep in mind that Hostess Brands is a private company. They do not have publicly traded shares, so it really is none of your business.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

@ Cedarford

There is a distinct difference between a privately owned company like Hostess that makes a product that we are free to purchase or not purchase and Government controlled agencies and businesses like Banking or critical industries where there is a monopoly and they are also controlled by governmental regulations [gas, oil, utilities]

You can't be globally competitive if workers and profesionals make 6 times what their counterparts in Japan, France, or Brazil make. And you cannot if your CEOs make 6 times that of other advanced nations CEOs.

You are right we can't compete.

If Hostess prices itself out of the market by overpaying it's executives or is crippled by extortionate employee costs, wages, and benefits packages, then so be it. They go out of business. People who refuse to compromise lose their jobs. And BFD...Twinkies are no more or are manufactured elsewhere.

Either we learn to compete. Lower expectations from the hey days of American industrialization, wake up and smell the coffee, realize that our country is declining and the rest of the world economy isn't doing so well either....get competitive or die.

LilyBart said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
LilyBart said...

DBQ said, I suppose that Lily Bart thinks that she should also have control of the supply side of the companies that she has her several hundred dollars invested in. Tell them where to buy sugar, how much to buy, fine tune the recipe for the company, oversee the costs of flour, shortening, transportation, utilties cost etc. Maybe get in there and do some taste testing? They would never be able to do it without you /sarcasm

I think no such thing. As I stockholder in a company, I have a right to be concerned about management compensation, or the overall financial or strategic decisions of a company (just like any company owner). I wouldn’t ‘tell them what to do’, but rather be selective about which companies to invest in – the better managed companies. BTW, companies are required to post Senior Management compensation as part of their financial reporting – so that its transparent to the investors.

Senior Management compensation has risen markedly over the past few decades – in some cases, in ways that don’t make financial sense, and too often appear insufficiently tethered company financial performance. And BODs are supposed to provide oversight , but in modern companies, there is often too cozy relationship between BODs and Senior Management. I’m all for paying well for good talent, but not for overpaying.

I am suggesting that we, who own shares in companies through our investments and retirement accounts, start paying more attention to what is going on - we'd be foolish not to. For the record, Retirement Funds were heavily invested in Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities. Fund managers were investing peoples' retirement money in these highly risky instruments, and I doubt that these future retirees understood the true nature of these investments. (I’m not sure the fund managers did either). We should be paying more attention to our investments. Whether you have a few hundred dollars, or a few hundred thousand dollars invested, you need to pay attention to what you’re invested in. Its to you own benefit.

(And BTW, I think the sarcasm was unnecessary – please state your point without the snark)

Alex said...

Notice the most successful American companies are 100% non-union. Companies that rake in billions in profits. Apple, Intel, Microsoft, Google, Oracle.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I am suggesting that we, who own shares in companies through our investments and retirement accounts,

And I'm telling you that unless YOU own individual shares of stock you don't own any portion of the company. If you have mutual funds, your mutual FUND company owns the shares and will likely vote your proxy for you.

You can pay attention all you want, but you have no say so or control if you don't own the stock.

LilyBart said...

They do not have publicly traded shares, so it really is none of your business.

We just watched an older company go out of business, with a loss of ~ 18,500 jobs.

I have an opinion about that.

jr565 said...

purplepenguin wrote:
Not in this blog. The word "management" never even appeared in this thread until I brought it up. Instead, folks ('cept Maguro, who points to the sugar tariffs) are blaming only the union while staying completely silent about management.

But that does seem to be par for the course around here...when a company does bad it is always the fault of the workers who should have their pay cut even more, but when a company does good then it is because of an excellent CEO who deserves to be paid 300x what everyone else makes.

With all respect, this is bull.
The unions destroyed Hostess. You might argue that management made bad business decisions throughout the years, which is fair, but the reason hostess is out of business now is because of the Union.
And you can get that right from the horses mouth.
The Teamsters Union said this about the bakers union:
The BCTGM chose a different path, as is their prerogative, to not substantively look for a solution or engage in the process. BCTGM members were told there were better solutions than the final offer, although Judge Drain stated in his decision in bankruptcy court that no such solutions exist. Without complete information, BCTGM members voted by voice votes in union halls. The BCTGM reported that over 90 percent rejected the final offer and three of its units ratified the final offer.
When one union says of another union that they aren't looking for a solution or even engaging in the process, take that to the bank. The bakers union deliberately got themselves all laid off ON PRINCIPLE. Some principle. I hope they enjoy the cold winter.
Meanwhile the Head of the bakers union essentially said they knew that their actions might bring about the end of Hostess:
Our members decided they were not going to take any more abuse from a company they have given so much to for so many years. They decided that they were not going to agree to another round of outrageous wage and benefit cuts and give up their pension only to see yet another management team fail and Wall Street vulture capitalists and ‘restructuring specialists’ walk away with untold millions of dollars.

Throughout this long and difficult process, BCTGM members showed tremendous courage, solidarity and devotion to principle. They were well aware of the potential consequences of their actions but stood strong for dignity, justice and respect.

And now they're going to stand on the the unemployment lines.

It's nice that they demagogue the wall street venture capitalists, which is so typical. Yet, without those ghouls, wouldn't Hostess have gone out of busines years ago? Now, because of the unions they are.
I hope the baking union enjoys not baking anything for a while. maybe they can get jobs at Walmart.



LilyBart said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jr565 said...

Lilybart wrote:
We just watched an older company go out of business, with a loss of ~ 18,500 jobs.

I have an opinion about that.

Plus, I kind of like Twinkies. Not every day of course, but once in a while, they are exactly what you need to fill your cravings.

Alex said...

Lily spewed...

We just watched an older company go out of business, with a loss of ~ 18,500 jobs.

I have an opinion about that.


Nobody cares about your opinion. Can I have an opinion about your private life?

McTriumph said...

"Notice the most successful American companies are 100% non-union. Companies that rake in billions in profits. Apple, Intel, Microsoft, Google, Oracle."


They're all Obama supporters, they know that national socialism tends to freeze winners and losers in place.

Alex said...

They're all Obama supporters, they know that national socialism tends to freeze winners and losers in place

They all were created decades ago and their success has nothing to do with Obama. Is that the best you can do?

LilyBart said...

And I'm telling you that unless YOU own individual shares of stock you don't own any portion of the company. If you have mutual funds, your mutual FUND company owns the shares and will likely vote your proxy for you.

If fund investors asked questions and paid more attention and voiced concerns - the fund managers would take note. They want to manage your money. They want your business. You can take your business elsewhere if you're unhappy. Even in most company managed planned, people are generally given some options.

But if we turnover our money, and don't pay attention to what's going on.... its just risky. But that's what we've been doing.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The BCTGM chose a different path, as is their prerogative, to not substantively look for a solution or engage in the process. BCTGM members were told there were better solutions than the final offer, although Judge Drain stated in his decision in bankruptcy court that no such solutions exist. Without complete information, BCTGM members voted by voice votes in union halls. The BCTGM reported that over 90 percent rejected the final offer and three of its units ratified the final offer.

Perfect. Uninformed union members, deliberately misled by their union bosses had 'voice' votes, not actual ballots, which means the loudest screaming asshole uninformed union lackeys carried the day.

I wonder what the salaries of the Union Bosses are/were? I imagine that their vested interest was not in saving Hostess or saving anyone's employment.....just in saving their own union paid salaries. Those who got shouted down and lied to, should be just a tad upset. Doncha think?

ambienisevil said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
McTriumph said...

Alex
You lost me there, what does when they became successful have to do freezing winners and losers at present?

jr565 said...

Garage Mahal wrote:
would curious to hear what the commenters here are doing [on their own] to ensure the profitability and solvency of their employers. I'll assume they have all turned down raises and work for minimum wage, come in on holidays and work for free, voluntarily pay more for health insurance, etc.

I used to work in IT for a law firm. The law firm initially paid for the Help Desk but at a certain point decided to use an outsourcing company. They came in and kept a handful of us, and fired the rest. Those that stayed on had a choice to take what the outsourcing company offered or find jobs elsewhere. I stayed on and took a pay cut for doing so. My manager went to another company. In retrospect, I should have left and found another law firm that hadn't resorted to using an outsourcing company. But the point being. My job wasn't guaranteed. And I didn't HAVE to accept the terms offered by the outsourcing company.

I wouldnt' turn down a raise, but by the same token, i recognize that sometimes companies have to outsource, and let go, and your job isn't there for a lifetime (nor would I want it to be frankly)

LilyBart said...

Alex said...Can I have an opinion about your private life?

Can I stop you?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

If fund investors asked questions and paid more attention and voiced concerns - the fund managers would take note

Oh Lily, bless your heart :-)

You assume that you can even communicate with a fund manager and you assume that they even care what you think.

LilyBart said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
LilyBart said...

Oh Lily, bless your heart :-)


I've read your comments over the past months, and find that we agree more than we disagree.

So we disagree on this point. No need to be petty.


LilyBart said...

You assume that you can even communicate with a fund manager and you assume that they even care what you think.

I know fund managers. They *want* your business. They want to manage your money. There is competition for your business.

I'm not sure you're right about that. My fund manager calls me to discuss my investments. Really. And I'm not a multi-millionaire. I'm just managing the retirement accounts I've built up. But I am a saver - my accounts are worth having.

gsgodfrey said...

Earlier, Lilybart said "... we who invest in companies through our funds / retirement vehicles need to begin to hold the Board of Directors accountable for the Management compensation." Then she watered that down to having an opinion.

As has been pointed out several times, Hostess Brands is a private company. The Board should only be accountable to shareholders, not opinion-holders.

Alex said...

Lily - unless you're a multi-millionaire nobody cares what you think.

Michael said...

LilyBart. You can have all the opinions a d anguish you want but if you desire to make a difference on executive pay you need to do the following. 1. Exit mutual funds who own stock in cos with executives you believe are over paid. 2. Buy stock directly in those cos, carefully read the CD&A in the proxy and vote yes or no on the pay proposal. 3. Make sure you carefully note the pay of peer group companies so you dont vote against a package you think is high but which is in line or below competitors.

Baron Zemo said...

This is the perfect time for you to support your local bakery that is owned by a small businessman. You can get tasty treats with all the sugar content you could want without most of the preservatives.
I bet you can search out a bakery near you where you could get some delicoious cookies or a freshly baked cake that would be a lot better than a twinkie.

LilyBart said...

Alex said...
Lily - unless you're a multi-millionaire nobody cares what you think


Actually, they start *caring* when you have $100,000 - $200,000 in investable assets.

Rusty said...

jr565 said...
Garage Mahal wrote:
would curious to hear what the commenters here are doing [on their own] to ensure the profitability and solvency of their employers. I'll assume they have all turned down raises and work for minimum wage, come in on holidays and work for free, voluntarily pay more for health insurance, etc.


Better question. What has the company done to insure my skills will be available to them. My company loyalty begins and ends with a paycheck.Skilled labor costs money.

Michael said...

LilyBart. The investment advisor cares about putting you in good investments. It is unlikely she cares about your view on executive comp

Alex said...

Lily has delusions of grandeur.

Michael said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dust Bunny Queen said...

I know fund managers. They *want* your business. They want to manage your money. There is competition for your business.

I'm not sure you're right about that. My fund manager calls me to discuss my investments. Really. And I'm not a multi-millionaire. I'm just managing the retirement accounts I've built up. But I am a saver - my accounts are worth having.


Lily. I'm not trying to be snarky or insult you here. You are confused.

You know investment advisors, securities reps. It it HIGHLY unlikely you know a "fund manager" unless you are a multi millionaire. Fund managers are rarefied and in a different stratosphere from us lowly peons.

Trust me on this. I was a financial advisor, stock broker and a portfolio manager for 20 years even for some who were actual multi millionaires. Your financial advisor, as stated by Michael [who I think is in the biz] also likely has no connection or direct line to a fund manager. Your advisor tries to put you into the best investments for your personal circumstances and doesn't give a rip about executive compensation as long as the stock, bond, reit or mutual fund is performing for you.

You can bitch all you want to your personal advisor about compensation of executives. I can guarantee you that he/she will nod their head and may even really agree with you while secretly thinking that you are wasting your time and their time. Because there is nothing that he/she can do about it.......UNLESS you are buying individual stocks and then you can pick and choose which companies to invest in based on executive compensation. This....btw....is a very stupid investment strategy.

sonicfrog said...

Viva La Twinkie!!!!!

LilyBart said...


Look, I think the Unions did themselves in on this one. But its easy to understand how the average employee wouldn't understand, and feel angry, that management got a raise around the same time they were being asked to take a major cut. Even if there was a reason for it, it LOOKS like bad faith to the employees with whom you are negotiating.

I do think sr mgmt compensation has gotten out of control (perhaps I'm the only one), but its not my raison d'être. Sure, one person's concerns don't make a diffrence. But, if they are too high, and *investors* were concerned, public companies would pay attention.

That's all.....

LilyBart said...



And, actually, I do know a Fund Manager.

Michael said...

LilyBart. Executive compensation is a big concern to investors and that is why say-on-pay exists. Just remember that what you think is high pay may not be high pay in the subject industry. And you do know the difference between a fund manager and a stock broker, I presume.

LilyBart said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
LilyBart said...



Yes, I do. I confess, I know this gentleman socially - our daughters go to school together. But I enjoy talking to him about his business at events we attend together.


Michael said...

LilyBart. A Fund Manager will call to solicit an investor with a hundred million to invest, not a hundred thousand. A Fund Manager operates on a discretionary basis and invests on behalf of the fund as a fiduciary, as if the money were her own. She will not seek the advice of an investor invested in the fund, nor will she follow unsolicited advice were she to speak with an investor.

Hagar said...

I don't quite know where this thread is going, however:

I think executive compensation - at least in some industries and at some financial level - is out of whack, but I think this is more a symptom of something more basic that is wrong with the system than a wrong in itself.

One can argue that it does not matter because the outrageous salaries and bonuses get reinvested and so stimulates the economy, but they do not get reinvested in the firms that generated those salaries and bonuses, so those executives are impoverishing their own firms, and that can't be right.

And such things as Robert Rubin announcing his availability for a mere $40 million/year plus perks, that is just bullshit. Can't be "real" money; just "monopoly money," or Treassury money," that these characters are passing around between themselves for bragging rights.

MadisonMan said...

I don't like Twinkies. They are dreadful confections. When one -- or more -- bakery folds, it's an opportunity.

Chip S. said...

But what about the cupcakes? Everybody talks about the twinkies, while completely ignoring the real victims here.

LilyBart said...

LilyBart. A Fund Manager will call to solicit an investor with a hundred million to invest, not a hundred thousand.

When I first met this man, and told him where I worked, he told me he managed my company's 401k plans. I worked for a large company at the time.

rcommal said...

I don't quite know where this thread is going, however:

I think executive compensation - at least in some industries and at some financial level - is out of whack, but I think this is more a symptom of something more basic that is wrong with the system than a wrong in itself.

One can argue that it does not matter because the outrageous salaries and bonuses get reinvested and so stimulates the economy, but they do not get reinvested in the firms that generated those salaries and bonuses, so those executives are impoverishing their own firms, and that can't be right.

And such things as Robert Rubin announcing his availability for a mere $40 million/year plus perks, that is just bullshit. Can't be "real" money; just "monopoly money," or Treassury money," that these characters are passing around between themselves for bragging rights.


Yup.

rcommal said...

Almost all of our retirement savings are currently in stocks, and the overwhelming majority of the money that purchased them was self-funded (i.e., due to self-employment for the overwhelming majority of our adult lives). So, yeah, it is our business, and not just in terms of all the individual companies in which we have bought shares, over time, but all the OTHER ones which help develop the investing climate. WTH are people thinking, arguing otherwise--especially if they're supposed to be oh-so-savvy, independent thinkers, much less "expert" financial planners. Are you kidding me?

(By the way, we've done quite well, thankyouverymuch, and almost entirely by doing our own research and directing our own stock investments, after having gotten bullshit info and bullshit philosophy early on from "certified experts"in both financial planning and retirement investments AND--most important--learning from the results. In turn, this produced both an allergy to certain kinds of expert pronouncements AND a retirement fund, so far, that has outperformed the market, even in bad times. We're not rich, but we're in control, and, so far, that is working damn well for us.

#1 rule: First, view all politico-philosophically based pronouncements of expertise with skepticism. Proceed from there.

(None of this should be taken as professional or official advice. I am not a financial or investment adviser of any sort, and nor should anyone pretend that I've said or implied otherwise. TBC.

Beware and aware, is all.)

rcommal said...

In terms of retirement, specifically, we've taken risks, but not stupid risks, and above all, not risky risks based on pronouncements of whatever-the-hell experts who spend a lot of time grinding their own axes and pursuing their own commissions, fees & etc. I mean, I get that: They're taking care of their own. So am I.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

When I first met this man, and told him where I worked, he told me he managed my company's 401k plans. I worked for a large company at the time.


Lily!! You are confused. For the last time, you are talking about a financial advisor....NOT a fund manager. A fund manager is the person who buys and sells MASSIVE amounts of investments for the mutual funds that you invest in. He works directly for the investment companies Franklin Funds, American Funds etc. He is not the routine Financial Advisor who "manages" a simple 401K plan.

Waste of pixels. I don't know why I'm trying.

rcommal said...

I also, utterly and entirely, disagree that buyers into mutual and other funds ought to be told that what is done by the companies within those funds "is none of their business." Yes, I do understand that it is the fund itself that owns the shares and also how stockholder votes work in both that case as others. I still disagree. It still IS their business. Whether an individual whose money is in those funds has influence, or even can have influence, is an entirely different issue and question. But their business it certainly is. What, they don't have so-called flesh in the game? Is that what people really want to be saying?

What nonsense.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I also, utterly and entirely, disagree that buyers into mutual and other funds ought to be told that what is done by the companies within those funds "is none of their business."

You are also confused.

First Hostess is/was a non publicly traded company, so UNLESS you are a stock holder.....it is none of your business how they do business.

Second. You can have the vapors about executive compensation all you want, BUT unless you are an actual stockholder you have no control or say so. Not that it isn't your 'business' but there is nothing you, as a mutual fund shareholder, can do about the underlying investments in the mutual fund portfolio.

No one says that you shouldn't be aware of the companies in your mutual fund. In fact, your advisors love it when you are paying attention and educated. BUT...so what. You can't pick and chose the investments in your mutual fund. You either buy the WHOLE fund's underlying portfolio or don't. If you object to one or ten of the stocks in the portfolio....don't buy it. No one really cares.

As a self directed investor you are free to do your own research and decide what to buy or not to buy. That is commendable. But, once again, to predicate your financial decisions on a subjective idea of whether the CEO or CFO gets paid more than YOU think they should, is a really dumb investment strategy.

rcommal said...

Flexibility is good. Vigilance is better. Kicking back hard at cant of whatever sort, exercised with care and knowledge, is even better. But, mostly, do it for yourself when and where you can (and if you have the ability to move to cash ASAP, if ever deemed necessary, so much the better).

rcommal said...

DBQ:

You are stuck in groove.

First Hostess is/was a non publicly traded company, so UNLESS you are a stock holder.....it is none of your business how they do business.

I know this. I knew this before it came up in this thread or any other thread on this blog. Or even before the recent situation broke into the news. Not to mention a whole number of years ago.

What IS it with you, that you ALWAYS assume specific people don't know stuff AND then blithely label them as confused?

And why do you ALSO assume that I am PREDICATING my investment strategy on executive compensation? I said absolutely nothing of the kind. Jesus, DBQ, can't YOU stop for a moment and consider whether some--and yes, I said, some--of what you're saying is, well, to use your word, sorta dumb?


rcommal said...

I do NOT, by the way, think that you are dumb, by any stretch.

gsgodfrey said...

rcommal: Wrong again. The companies are accountable only to their shareholders, which would be the fund managers, not you. You are buying shares of a fund, not of any particular company. Your "flesh in the game" is with the fund, not any of the companies, so the operation of any company under that fund is not your business.

If you have an issue with the management compensation for a company owned by one of your funds, then (1) take it up with the fund manager, (2) vote with your feet and pull your money out of the fund, or (3) boycott the company (and maybe they will go bankrupt and the fund price will drop!).

rcommal said...

gsgodfrey:

You didn't actually read my comments, did you? You probably just skimmed or scanned them (which, in and of itself, is A-OK; that's your prerogative and I don't and wouldn't dispute that).

Otherwise, there wouldn't be the need for me to point out your mistakes, which, in the event, I'm not going to do.

Hint: Go back and read more carefully this time. (I won't even bother to ask you to do so more thoughtfully.)

If you don't want to, that's fine, too. Believe what you want from the assumptions that you just made if that's what you want to do. **Shrug**

LilyBart said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
LilyBart said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Maguro said...

When I first met this man, and told him where I worked, he told me he managed my company's 401k plans. I worked for a large company at the time.

Generally, corporate 401k plans offer a range of mutual funds to employees, who then choose the mix of funds for their personal retirement plans. So the guy you talked to wasn't a mutual fund manager, his job was to determine which mutual funds the employees in your company's 401k plan could invest in.

Mutual fund managers work for actual mutual fund companies like Vanguard and Fidelity and their job is to decide what mix of investments - stocks and bonds - make up the mutual fund itself.

LilyBart said...

Waste of pixels. I don't know why I'm trying

I'm not your enemy; I don't see why you're trying so hard to make one of me.

We disagree about somethings - I am sometimes wrong about the words I use. So what. You cannot possibly always be right - so why the utter lack of generosity of spirit?

gsgodfrey said...

rcommal: I specifically addressed the following from you: "Whether an individual whose money is in those funds has influence, or even can have influence, is an entirely different issue and question. But their business it certainly is. What, they don't have so-called flesh in the game?"

The "flesh in the game" is with the fund, not with the companies in which the fund invests. So no, an investor who buys shares in Fund X (which holds shares in Company Y) has no flesh in the game with Company Y. Thus, the "none of their business" comment. Instead Y is accountable to X, the legal holder of the shares.

If you are simply asserting how you think things should be, then clearly say so and we can stop correcting you by pointing out how things are. If you think I am mistaken, then clarify why.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I'm not your enemy; I don't see why you're trying so hard to make one of me

I'm not. Several of us have tried several times, to explain the difference between a fund manager and a financial advisor. We are trying to educate you and help you understand how things work. If you understand how things work, you will know how to work the system to get what you want (or try to anyway) and you won't be disappointed or surprised, unlike the Hostess Bakery workers who were misled and now are out of a job.

rcommal said...

OK. Now I see our point of disconnect. You entered later stream, whereas I was in earlier stream. If I'm right about the disconnect, perhaps this will clarify:

There is not just one but a couple of notions underpinning the discussion here that (unfortunately) both employ a number of common phrases--and those notions are separate, yes, but related also, however ill-fittingly and uncomfortably, even if only due to the common phrases.

Specifically, here are the phrases: It's not your business, it's none of your business, that's not your business, that's none of your business.

Looking back over the entire thread, I can see where some of the--not confusion, but perhaps discussion at cross-purposes has been frustrating, and the discussion itself less fruitful than it might have been.

rcommal said...

My just previous comment was in response to gsgodrey's 6:59.

rcommal said...

I was referring to both notions, for the record. Yes, businesses owned by public shareholders are owned by the direct shareholders (whether individual shareholders or institutional--of whatever type--shareholders), and to the shareholders the business belongs: that is, is THEIR business, and it does not belong to anyone other than direct shareholders (again, of whatever) type.

On that point, on that fact, on that reality, I don't have any disagreement. I thought I made that clear, but looking back, I can see where and that I didn't.

I do, however, still disagree on the other notion.

Hassell Anderson said...

Mexicans will bake the baked goods Americans won't bake any more.

rcommal said...

I also have already said, on another thread, if not in so many words, that the bakers cut their noses off to spite their faces, which would be fine, except that they also cut off the noses (and jobs) all of the rest of their co-workers, too, despite those co-workers being more numerous. This was dumb, at best.

Chip S. said...

If they start making Mexican-chocolate Twinkies, they'll have a SWPL product.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I also have already said, on another thread, if not in so many words, that the bakers cut their noses off to spite their faces, which would be fine, except that they also cut off the noses (and jobs) all of the rest of their co-workers, too, despite those co-workers being more numerous. This was dumb, at best.

It is also really sad, because there is a ripple down [if you will] effect, when a large employer in an area goes out of business. It isn't JUST the bakers, it is also all the rest of the ancillary businesses, suppliers, delivery services and so on, who suffer. Then it is the other people who used to rely on the discretionary income that is no longer spent by the, now unemployed workers....the people working at the local restaurant, bar tenders, grocery stores, auto mechanics, babysitters for example, there is less demand that cascades down through the whole system.

Velocity of money comes to a screeching halt.

LilyBart said...

DBQ said....If you understand how things work...


Gosh, thanks. And the dripping condescension is just a little something extra you throw in 'cause you're a giver, right?

Michael said...

LilyBart.
We disagree about somethings - I am sometimes wrong about the words I use. So what.

Well,because words have meanings your use of the wrong ones makes for confusion. Then when people try and help out you turn a bit snippy and passive aggressive. That is why being "wrong about the words" matters.

ndspinelli said...

ChipS, Bravo. I'm a much bigger fan of Hostess cupcakes. So is George Will[stated on This Week]. My bride also prefers the cupcakes. However, she insists on microwaving them for 7 seconds to get the filling warm. That's why men still rule the world and most everything in it.

LilyBart said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
LilyBart said...

...when people try and help out you turn a bit snippy and passive aggressive

And are you seriously trying to argue that DBQ's comments were not dripping with condescension?

LilyBart said...

Well,because words have meanings your use of the wrong ones makes for confusion. Then when people try and help out you turn a bit snippy and passive aggressive. That is why being "wrong about the words" matters.

Sorry, but I don't think really alters the point I was making.

I stated that I thought management comp was out of whack in large companies, and that if *investors* expressed concern and paid attention to these things, the companies in which we invest would care. (One person’s concern, I agree, would make no difference).


Attacking on me on people's official job titles is such a side issue as to not be relevant to the debate (in my opinion).

Danno said...

It seems that certain people on the thread cannot possibly believe that LilyBart knows a fund manager. Isn't it possible she does, as she says she knows the person from her personal life? I know that Wisconsin has many fund managers in the Milwaukee area that work for various Wells Fargo funds (dating back to the Strong funds) and these people just might know and talk to people they see in their personal lives. So why come down on her?

Robert Cook said...

"Union workers would rather lose their jobs in spite."

Once again, Alex says shit just to say shit.

Union workers are interested in keeping their jobs. (I was a union worker for a number of years in a previous job.)

At the same time, union workers are in unions precisely to gain leverage when it comes to negotiating their terms of employment, (pay, benefits, etc.). They are not union members simply in order to acquiesce to successive erosion of their terms of employment time and again.

Given the history in this case, where the unions had made concessions in the recent past, and where the management had enjoyed significant pay raises, one must assume the union members considered the claim by their employer that the company would "go bankrupt" if they did not agree to yet more concessions as simply a bluff, a threat to compel their surrender to poorer terms of employment.

Pendejo Grande said...

Bimbo also owns Mrs. Baird's bakery out of FW TX. The quality of Mrs. Baird's products has diminished significantly since the buyout.

Seeing Red said...

--Not in this blog. The word "management" never even appeared in this thread until I brought it up. Instead, folks ('cept Maguro, who points to the sugar tariffs) are blaming only the union while staying completely silent about management.--

ZeroHedge pointed it out a few days ago, I brought it over.

The PE firm which owns it is democrat connected. That's why no one will say boo.

Rusty said...

Robert Cook said...


Given the history in this case, where the unions had made concessions in the recent past, and where the management had enjoyed significant pay raises, one must assume the union members considered the claim by their employer that the company would "go bankrupt" if they did not agree to yet more concessions as simply a bluff, a threat to compel their surrender to poorer terms of employment.

They were wrong.

Seeing Red said...

--Truth is that you can't be globally competitive with a workforce that has seen the proles gain nothing in real wage growth since the 1st year Reagan was in office,---


But they gained in healthcare, subsicized chidren's daycare, and other bennies companies added.

Robert Cook said...

Rusty said,

"They were wrong."

So they were. But this does not mean they intended to vote the company out of business and themselves out of jobs, and particularly they did not vote as they did "out of spite" as Alex would have it.

Robert Cook said...

"Notice the most successful American companies are 100% non-union. Companies that rake in billions in profits. Apple, Intel, Microsoft, Google, Oracle."

Correlation is not causation.

The big American car manufacturers were hugely successful for decades, while employing union labor. Their domination of the global market for automobiles faltered as a result of bad management decisions over time and a failure to recognize and respond to the threat to them of competing car manufacturers from other countries...until it was too late.

Companies go out of business because of poor management.

kcom said...

Take a read of a New York Times columnist trying to be transgressive by admitting to enjoying Hostess products. Oh, the shame, the degradation, of letting a Hostess product pass your lips.

Back When a Chocolate Puck Tasted, Guiltily, Like America

There was a time; admit it. There was a time when, if given a choice between a warm pastry fresh from a baker’s oven and an ageless package of Ring Dings fresh from the 7-Eleven, you would have chosen those Ring Dings. Not even close.
...
Beyond the heart-aching loss of many, many jobs, a Hostess shutdown doesn’t necessarily mean that consumers, particularly the dietetically tone-deaf, have eaten their last Twinkie.
...
That is why, one night this fall, or maybe this winter, or perhaps in the spring — there’s no rush — I will wait until the kids are asleep, their tummies content with kale chips and quinoa. Then, basked in the bluish glow of some black-and-white television show, I will eat my faux-chocolate, crème-filled, Bloomberg-infuriating, chemical-rich, bad-for-me, really-really-bad-for-me, all-but-extinct Ring Dings.

rcommal said...

Robert: Please first list and then address each and every single one of the relevant aspects that might have to do with employee pensions with regard to the statement you made. Some of them will support your POV; some of them will support different POVs.

That latter stipulated upfront, Robert, I repeat the challenge.

List first. Then address.

rcommal said...

kcom: And how awesomely transgressive are you, in a different paradigm. Viva da ironie.

Robert Cook said...

Blaming the Unions for a failure caused by the bosses...as usual

james george said...

you people are confused... read up on flowers foods.