Dana Summers by Dana Summers

Dana Summers

Comments (12) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Robert Landers

    Robert Landers said, almost 2 years ago

    What on Earth is everybody going to do if the court ordered working out period actually leads to a settlement, and the Twinkies continue to roll?

    What an irony that would be after all of this!!

  2. narrowminded

    narrowminded said, almost 2 years ago

    @Robert Landers

    You mean that structured bankruptcies actually work?
    You mean the Govn. doesn’t have to steal the property of bond holders and give it to the union that is causing the company to go under. You mean political graft isn’t always the solution?
    Hmmm, must not be enough votes to be worth the effort.

  3. mikefive

    mikefive said, almost 2 years ago

    @Robert Landers

    If the money isn’t there, it won’t matter what the court orders. Once the well runs dry it’s an exercise in futility to keep trying to get water out of it and pouring water into the well so others can take it out is insanity.

  4. ruffinready

    ruffinready said, almost 2 years ago

    Than k God for Zingers!

  5. olddog1

    olddog1 said, almost 2 years ago

    Sell the brand name and make them in Mexico. Or, with their shelf life they could be shipped by slow boat from China.

  6. Adam Sperry

    Adam Sperry said, almost 2 years ago

    @ruffinready

    Dolly Madison and Zingers were bought by Hostess long ago.

  7. Adam Sperry

    Adam Sperry said, almost 2 years ago

    @olddog1

    That’s exactly what’s going to happen as a Mexican bakery company buys up the brand.

  8. Adam Sperry

    Adam Sperry said, almost 2 years ago

    @Mr. King

    Hostess got Baned- bought by some Mitt Romney-type, saddled with debt, CEOs given unreasonable raises DURING the bankrupcy, company sold for parts (while blaming the Union the whole way).

    Nothing new here and nothing the public doesn’t see through.

  9. mikefive

    mikefive said, almost 2 years ago

    @Mr. King

    Although the the pay increases and bonuses received by Hostess executives is insignificant (and legal) as a part of gross income it does seem immoral to give themselves those monies or for the board of directors to vote them those monies while asking the troops to take a pay cut and reduction in benefits.
    I don’t know if a change in work rules would have kept Hostess a viable company, but if those changes could have kept the company viable and the union officers rejected those changes then they didn’t do their members and favors.

  10. Rad-ish

    Rad-ish GoComics PRO Member said, almost 2 years ago

    Now Suzy Q will have to become one of the Ho Hos to make a living.

  11. dannysixpack

    dannysixpack said, almost 2 years ago

    @gricks
    take a pay cut, heavens no. this is the kind of thing bain did (only worse) and here’s what happened. it’s called a leveraged buyout. the LBO buys the company and puts it’s friends into the executive positions. they leverage every bit of equity then can. This means that they borrow money from the bank on everything, the plant, equipment, the good will from an on-going business. in this case they raised the executives (their friends) compensation from 750k/year to 2.1 million a year. Now the company is losing money, the banks (us taxpayers) are on the hook. They point to the unions unreasonable demands to not have their pay cut 30% as the problem. If they get the pay cut, they get the difference in bonus (which isn’t what they’re after). company goes bankrupt, the assetts are sold to another company that then starts up and makes twinkees in somalia for slave wages. the proceeds from the sale of the assetts goes to the payments guaranteed to the executives (because a contract is a contract!). workers out of work. bank settles for pennies on the dollar (taxpayer funded), executives are out of work too, but they have all that money to spend, and invest in the next LBO. It’s all legal. anyone think it’s ethical, moral and right?

  12. Jase99

    Jase99 said, almost 2 years ago

    @Tigger

    Why didn’t the Big 3 Auto CEO’s take pay cuts? Had they taken pay cuts, then Obama would not have had to bail them out.

    If executives had actually paid attention to the changing market place and adapted instead of putting every single egg into the SUV basket, they wouldn’t have needed a bailout or asked for worker pay cuts. And why can’t the executives take pay cuts? Just how much were they getting paid to make the poor decisions that lead to such a steep decline in market share?

  13. Refresh Comments.