Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
User Settings
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Report this Comment
Use this form to report the selected comment to the moderators. Reporting should generally be used only if the comment breaks forum rules.

12. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 29, 2012, 11:39 Beamer
Creston wrote on Nov 29, 2012, 11:27:
Beamer wrote on Nov 29, 2012, 11:17:
No, in this case it's kind of valid.
Think of it this way, Creston: you're an executive at a company that is going out of business. They ask you to stick around for a year to help wind it down.

What do you do? You update your resume, call a headhunter, and take the next job offer to come your way.

These guys will not, under any circumstances, stick around. It's a bad decision. The only way to get them to do so is to overpay them to do what is ultimately a waste of their time, especially considering that they could find themselves unemployed for a long time afterwards and it's hard to convince them not to job hunt immediately to lessen that risk.

Your argument kind of already defeats itself. What would be better for these guys, to stick around for a year and still get paid their horribly overinflated salary, or to go unemployed immediately? And yeah, you do run the risk of them leaving for another job. (And sadly, plenty of companies always seem more than happy to pick up utterly failed executives. "He ran Hostess into the ground? Fucking HIRE that guy!!!!!")

So okay, in the case of hostess I can sort of see it, somewhat. Maybe. But this "motivation" card is now played for all fucking executives everywhere. The CEO makes 8 million in salary, but he really needs the 50 million dollar bonus to "stay motivated."

Fuck those assholes right down their windpipe.


I don't get your first point. They cannot get unemployed immediately - it's more or less impossible to sell this company without these guys. They're the ones that have actually been running it - they're needed to run it in the time being and whoever buys it will want to spend considerable time speaking with them as part of due diligence. There's more or less no way to move forward with this company without having many of these people in place.

Lots of these guys aren't the ones that ran it into the ground, either. Put the blame on the CEO for that. Many of these guys weren't in that decision-making position. Like I said, I'm sure many IT guys are part of this. Can you blame the guy maintaining the Exchange server for running Hostess into the ground?

Listen, I agree CEOs are way overpaid (again, I'll call this a function of taxation), and I agree that the management team for Hostess, while dealing with a brand that likely deserves to be dead, completely screwed everything up, greedily took as much from it as they could, and pointed their finger at the union when it blew up for the umpteenth time. Their pay raises, their raiding, is all inexcusable.
But, when a business is being wound down and is courting new buyers, you need at least a skeleton crew to keep operations going and you need some of the people that were in charge of functional areas (e.g., anyone in the upper half of marketing, whoever runs the IT infrastructure, all your field operations people) to stick around to answer questions for the due diligence so that a buyer is convinced that it's worth whatever asking price.

Hostess is a fantastic example of a poorly run company, of a product no one wanted anymore, of a company crippled by pension payments, and of greedy management calling everyone greedy but themselves.
But you cannot sell Hostess without overpaying its key people to stick around. Notably, the CEO doesn't have to be one of those people. Odds are whoever is buying doesn't have any interest in talking to him.
Music for the discerning:
Login Email   Password Remember Me
If you don't already have a Blue's News user account, you can sign up here.
Forgotten your password? Click here.


Blue's News logo