Podcast for 11-19-2012

[Canada71]

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. What I'm referring to is not the current/impending bankruptcy, but the preceding one in which Ripplewood Holdings acquired Hostess. Its the increasing of the debt load after emerging from that bankruptcy that I was referring to.

If you can't see the difference between voluntarily reducing one's salary to $1 per year, effectively immediately, and having one's pay cut at some point in the future after having had it raised 80%, voluntarily or involuntarily (not every executive would have had a say in that decision), then I don't know what more I can say to refute your 'outright lie' accusation. But I think its fair to state that most reasonable people would treat those as different, very different, scenarios.

[MrBogosity]

but the preceding one in which Ripplewood Holdings acquired Hostess.

That never happened. Ripplewood got a 50% equity stake, that was it.

But I think its fair to state that most reasonable people would treat those as different, very different, scenarios.

Far from it. You consider them different only because you WANT them to be different. But complaining that the executives wanted to cut worker's salaries without cutting their own is just an outright LIE.

[Canada71]

That never happened. Ripplewood got a 50% equity stake, that was it.

That's quibbling, but fair enough. But regardless, that was the bankruptcy and debt load situation I was referring to.

Far from it. You consider them different only because you WANT them to be different.

Having a salary of $1 a year and having a salary which is to be drastically cut after having been drastically raised are substantively different, numerically and semantically.  Its the difference between getting paid and (effectively) being a volunteer.

But complaining that the executives wanted to cut worker's salaries without cutting their own is just an outright LIE.

Had I made that claim, then it would have been an outright lie. But I didn't make the claim. I simply didn't make a claim that they had no plans to cut their own salary, that's a straw man. My statement was that they didn't voluntarily reduce their salary to $1 per year in the same way that the CEO had.

[MrBogosity]

That's quibbling,

No, that's a fundamental difference in kind.

Having a salary of $1 a year and having a salary which is to be drastically cut after having been drastically raised are substantively different, numerically and semantically.

As I said, the executives were most likely looking at net losses, to start out with. How do you even CALCULATE a pay cut that goes into negative numbers???

Had I made that claim, then it would have been an outright lie. But I didn't make the claim. I simply didn't make a claim that they had no plans to cut their own salary, that's a straw man. My statement was that they didn't voluntarily reduce their salary to $1 per year in the same way that the CEO had.

AHEM: "I should note that there is no indication that other executives who received exorbitant raises for a moribund company did [agree to pay cuts]." You NEVER mentioned an amount with the executives; just that they didn't agree to cut their salaries. Now you're backpedalling to try and say you made a claim that would have been completely irrelevant to begin with. That's a fail if I ever saw one!

[Canada71]

No, that's a fundamental difference in kind.

I've already ceded the difference. I'll happily concede it again, if you'd like. And you've yet to address the core point about the debt load of that bankruptcy increasing.

As I said, the executives were most likely looking at net losses, to start out with. How do you even CALCULATE a pay cut that goes into negative numbers???

Hostess executive != Ripplewood Holdings stakeholder.

AHEM: "I should note that there is no indication that other executives who received exorbitant raises for a moribund company did [agree to pay cuts]." You NEVER mentioned an amount with the executives; just that they didn't agree to cut their salaries. Now you're backpedalling to try and say you made a claim that would have been completely irrelevant to begin with. That's a fail if I ever saw one!

Quote mining.  The full quote, in context was:

"After being paid $100,00 a month, he did, apparently, agree to lower his salary to $1 a year. I should note that there is no indication that other executives who received exorbitant raises for a moribund company did the same."

To simplify, A did X, there's no indication that B did X. And I've been very clear throughout the entire discussion that that was the claim I was making.

[MrBogosity]

Hostess executive != Ripplewood Holdings stakeholder.

Yes, I'm taking about the actual executives of actual Hostess. Try and keep up.

To simplify, A did X, there's no indication that B did X. And I've been very clear throughout the entire discussion that that was the claim I was making.

NOT FUCKING ONCE did you make it clear that you SPECIFICALLY meant the executives reducing their pay to one actual dollar (and that would have been a completely stupid point for you to make anyway). ONLY after I called you on it did the amount suddenly matter.

[Canada71]

Yes, I'm taking about the actual executives of actual Hostess. Try and keep up.

Then how would those executives have stood to lose money? To this point, you've only been talking how about Ripplewood would lose money, not how the Hostess executives would have lost money.

NOT FUCKING ONCE did you make it clear that you SPECIFICALLY meant the executives reducing their pay to one actual dollar (and that would have been a completely stupid point for you to make anyway). ONLY after I called you on it did the amount suddenly matter.

When I made the claim, you responded in your very next post with the statement that my claim was an outright lie.  Which I then responded to in my very next post with "As I stated, there is no evidence those other executives, whose salaries were raised 80%, voluntarily lowered their salary to $1 per year. Facing a pay cut, not of their own choosing, is very different from voluntarily lowering one's own salary to $1 per year." Short of time travel, there is no sooner that I could have made that explicit, which those two statements do, than in my next post.

To be fair, the original post didn't explicitly restate it, it relied on a common understanding of the word 'same', which is why in my next post, as quoted above, I made it explicit.

[Canada71]

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hostess-20121130,0,1027676.story

Yup, those poor executives...   

[evensgrey]

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hostess-20121130,0,1027676.story

Yup, those poor executives...   

Yes, being given rather less than is the norm to keep them from going and getting jobs with companies that haven't been deliberately destroyed by a single union and stay around to speedily wind up the firm.  (Did you even bother to READ this article before referencing it?  It's impossible to relate to your previous lies and evasions in any event.)

[Canada71]

Yes, being given rather less than is the norm to keep them from going and getting jobs with companies that haven't been deliberately destroyed by a single union and stay around to speedily wind up the firm.

Being given a hefty bonus to stay around and clean up a mess that was in large part their own doing does not evoke sympathy from me.  It also goes counter to the claim that they could end up losing money, being paid less than nothing, effectively.

That does not mean that they might not have better options, which they are of course free to exercise.  What it does mean is that this option is not a bad one.

And, as noted in previous comments, the company was run into the ground through mismanagement and unyieldy debt loads incurred under peculiar circumstances. One union refused to knuckle under to a very bad deal in order to help keep it afloat longer, at which point management shut the company down.

  (Did you even bother to READ this article before referencing it?  It's impossible to relate to your previous lies and evasions in any event.)

Yes, I read it. And I have not lied or evaded on anything. If you believe I have, cite the case.

[evensgrey]

Being given a hefty bonus to stay around and clean up a mess that was in large part their own doing does not evoke sympathy from me.  It also goes counter to the claim that they could end up losing money, being paid less than nothing, effectively.

Yet ANOTHER lie of yours.  Had the Bakers Unions not scuttled the company, then this bonus wouldn't exist, because, as you would know had you actually read the article, it is for doing the work of winding up the company.

Incidentally, do you have ANY support for your claim that these are the same people who have been running the company for the last decade, or is that just another desperate attempt on your part to divert attention away from the fact that the Bakers Union didn't want any of the workers to have jobs any more?

That does not mean that they might not have better options, which they are of course free to exercise.  What it does mean is that this option is not a bad one.

Still making mistakes about the article that demonstrate you haven't read it, even after having been called on not having read it.  This IS a bad option, since the bonus is notably smaller than the norm for this situation.

And, as noted in previous comments, the company was run into the ground through mismanagement and unyieldy debt loads incurred under peculiar circumstances. One union refused to knuckle under to a very bad deal in order to help keep it afloat longer, at which point management shut the company down.

Nice of you top finally admit that you already knew that the Bakers Union is entirely responsible for the company collapsing.

Yes, I read it. And I have not lied or evaded on anything. If you believe I have, cite the case.

How can I possibly need to cite the lies and evasions Shane already demonstrated you to have made?

[Canada71]

Yet ANOTHER lie of yours.  Had the Bakers Unions not scuttled the company, then this bonus wouldn't exist, because, as you would know had you actually read the article, it is for doing the work of winding up the company.

There was no lie in my statement. The fact that the company being in a mess is in large part due to mismanagement is a generally accepted fact.

You do realize, of course, that "I believe your statement to be incorrect" is different from "you are lying", though, right? Accusing another of lying is a serious accusation which you appear to be making repeatedly and without merit/justification.

Incidentally, do you have ANY support for your claim that these are the same people who have been running the company for the last decade, or is that just another desperate attempt on your part to divert attention away from the fact that the Bakers Union didn't want any of the workers to have jobs any more?

I never made that claim. You do bring up a fair point, however, in that the extent of the blame for the company's long march to failure shouldered by executives is very much dependent on the extent of time they've been with it.

You make the claim that "the Bakers Union didn't want any of the workers to have jobs any more". I find that claim specious. At the very best, its incredibly poorly qualified, at the worst, its disingenuous.

Still making mistakes about the article that demonstrate you haven't read it, even after having been called on not having read it.  This IS a bad option, since the bonus is notably smaller than the norm for this situation.

Again, the existence of better options does not make an existing option bad. Winning $1,000,000 in a lottery is better than winning $100,000 in a lottery, but that doesn't make winning $100,000 bad. Having a viable option to continue in one's job for reasonable, if not strictly competitive, pay is not a bad thing, particularly in today's economy.

Nice of you top finally admit that you already knew that the Bakers Union is entirely responsible for the company collapsing.

Straw man, I admitted no such thing.

How can I possibly need to cite the lies and evasions Shane already demonstrated you to have made?

To the best of my recollection, he has accused me of lying once, and I have already rebutted it. To cite a statement which has already been made and refuted without addressing that refutation is intellectual dishonesty, be it in academic circles or everyday conversation.

[evensgrey]

As Canada71 is continuing to lie, and continuing to lie about having been caught and demonstrated to by lying repeatedly, and continuing to make the same false claims that tghe Bakers Union is somehow entirely not responsible for the outcome of their actions, I think we can put this paid Union employee to rest.

Wait until you see how badly unions screw over their own employees, Canada71.  Unions are the only employers worse than governments.

[Canada71]

As Canada71 is continuing to lie, and continuing to lie about having been caught and demonstrated to by lying repeatedly,

As I've noted before, you've yet to provide any evidence of this.

and continuing to make the same false claims that tghe Bakers Union is somehow entirely not responsible for the outcome of their actions,

The way you've phrased that makes it difficult to determine what your intent was.  I think the Bakers Union was definitely at least partially responsible for the outcome of their action, it was clear to everyone that that was a possible, even probable, outcome of them taking the stand they took.  But I would categorically state that they are not entirely responsible for the decline and eventual failure of the company.  If you are making such a claim, then you are ignoring the vast body of evidence to the contrary.

I think we can put this paid Union employee to rest.

I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of a union, nor paid by a union, directly or indirectly.

Wait until you see how badly unions screw over their own employees, Canada71.  Unions are the only employers worse than governments.

Unions typically employ very few people.