Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IL, on the banks of the Muddy River
Originally Posted by bloodyspartan
So what they take a pay cut down the Road when the Country recovers, the Union can demand a raise.
They still had the right to strike.
When, then, in your opinion, is it okay for them to strike? What's the magic number?
Executive Salary changes at Hostess, approved in July - about 4 months before they said the company was insolvent. Now, some of these execs - AFTER this news became public - agreed to reduce their salaries, but can anyone honestly say experienced corporate execs didn't know what was happening just a few months before the "cliff"?
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
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.
From another article:
"They're just taking from us," said Kenneth Johnson, 46, of Missouri. He said he earned roughly $35,000 with overtime last year, down from about $45,000 five years ago.
If those numbers are accurate, that's 20%+ reduction in salary over 5 years. You say that "they still had the right to strike", but then blame them for striking. When is it okay to exercise that right? When, as an employee, do you say "enough is enough"?
"If you have something to say, now would be a perfect time to keep it to yourself." --Col. Chester Phillips
"If you believe everything you read, better not read." --Japanese proverb