They had none of their own money invested in the company? They just worked there?
They're salaried employees just like the people they are sacking, while they get raises and bonuses and are the last ones out the door. Why are they any different, other than the fact they wear nice suits and work in fancy offices and don't belong to unions?
See, I thought they were the struggling descendants of the founders of the Hostess company, struggling to keep the family firm together in hard times. It sounds to me like they're nothing but a bunch of corporate drones plundering the treasury, screwing the stockholders and the employees, leaving their suppliers up the river, while they steal all the silverware and help themselves to the best of the furnishings. This doesn't sound like a job for Mitt, its more like Bain's already been there.
Hey, if the company is going broke, then its going broke. Too bad. Declare bankruptcy, liquidate the remaining assests, and pay off as many of the creditors as you can. But it sounds like these guys just came in and looted the place before they snuck out the back door.
In my country, monsieur, we knew how to deal with these scoundrels...
Elisee Reclus
Current Events » in reply to The rest of the story
So these managers and ceos are not owners or entrepreneurs?
The whole thread (48 posts)
- Hostess collapse a union "win."
- Isn't that the sort of thing Romney's company did?
- For God's sake, get a grip!. Compare this to Enron, WorldCom, Madoff, etc.
- In case anyone's left who cares about the actual details...
- Anyone notice this is a microcosm for the Federal government. n/t
- Starting to look like it was just a bargaining tactic.
- Vulture Capitalism Ate Your Twinkies
- We finally killed that stooopid goose that leaves those gold eggs everywhere n/t
- The rest of the story
- Teamsters thought their jobs were more important
- How do you feel about the destruction of a union?
- Let me ask you, TB.