Yellow Freight Bankruptcy in District Court

[gounion]

Typical liberal worrying about what the other guy makes.
Aka coveting thy neighbors property

So those 30 000 out of workblue collar workers are better off today . Because the big shots won't get their golden parachutes.

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I can't get over how ridiculous your thinking process is. 30,000 people losing their jobs is a good thing.

Oh, yes, the big shots WILL get their golden parachutes. The bankruptcy courts always allow it. The judges want them to stay on to close out the books and all that.

You don't know what you're talking about.

[Glennfs]

Oh, yes, the big shots WILL get their golden parachutes. The bankruptcy courts always allow it. The judges want them to stay on to close out the books and all that.

You don't know what you're talking about.

I know that 30 000 people are out of work. People who probably could have worked for another year or two before the company finally went under.
But, liberal logic tells us they are better off out of work today.
Choice 1 You can take less
Choice 2 you can take nothing

The liberal mind take 2 take 2

[gounion]

I know that 30 000 people are out of work. People who probably could have worked for another year or two before the company finally went under.
But, liberal logic tells us they are better off out of work today.
Choice 1 You can take less
Choice 2 you can take nothing

The liberal mind take 2 take 2

Then why don't YOU go in and tell YOUR employer you'll take a cut in pay?

What if they told you business was bad, and they needed to cut YOUR pay by 25%?

I KNOW what you would do - you'd look for another job.

In the eigties, I was laid off a lot. Once I got my three years experience as a toolmaker, I always had another job lined up - just in case!

[Glennfs]

Then why don't YOU go in and tell YOUR employer you'll take a cut in pay?

What if they told you business was bad, and they needed to cut YOUR pay by 25%?

I KNOW what you would do - you'd look for another job.

In the eigties, I was laid off a lot. Once I got my three years experience as a toolmaker, I always had another job lined up - just in case!

No I would make sure I had no job and no paycheck coming in.
As opposed to taking the cut and looking for my next job.

Also in my case I always have my next job lined up. Except for right now. I need my current position to last 3 more years.

However if it doesn't I do have a plan of action.

[gounion]

No I would make sure I had no job and no paycheck coming in.
As opposed to taking the cut and looking for my next job.

Also in my case I always have my next job lined up. Except for right now. I need my current position to last 3 more years.

However if it doesn't I do have a plan of action.

And they don't have their next job lined up? You bet they do - just like I always did. That's what professionals do. They've had their resumes out there for months. They aren't idiots.

[Toonces]

According to the posted article, the union had accepted previous concessions and canceled a proposed strike.

It seems unlikely that the company was in a position to continue operations regardless of the concessions. The actions of the unions likely made no real impact on the outcome, nor was it likely that the company was truly interested in a resolution. I mean, could they have continued to operate with a reduced workforce? If so, why wouldn't they try? If part of the executive's remuneration included stocks then that could be a good reason why they wouldn't deal. Get a larger payout now as opposed to later.

Companies are also known to not be forthcoming with the workers in terms of the financial stability of the company and concessions given by the union are rarely regained.

How much would you (general you) be willing to give up to the company without fully knowing if making those concessions is necessary, especially knowing you're not getting them back?

To be sure, contractual agreements with unions can have a negative effect on the solvency of a company but the company needs to operate within the confines of those agreements. If they fail to navigate things and the business fails, labor may contribute but it's management that owns the failure.

[JoeMemphis]

Typical liberal worrying about what the other guy makes.
Aka coveting thy neighbors property

So those 30 000 out of workblue collar workers are better off today . Because the big shots won't get their golden parachutes.

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I can't get over how ridiculous your thinking process is. 30,000 people losing their jobs is a good thing.

Contracts pre petition fall under the jurisdiction of the court. They can and often are objected to by the unsecured creditors. I highly doubt the unsecured creditors will let management walk away with an unreasonably high compensation package. I have seen instances where the court allows certain managers to continue. But their wages,salaries and bonuses have to be approved by the court and unsecured creditors get to weigh in on that decision.

[gounion]

Contracts pre petition fall under the jurisdiction of the court. They can and often are objected to by the unsecured creditors. I highly doubt the unsecured creditors will let management walk away with an unreasonably high compensation package. I have seen instances where the court allows certain managers to continue. But their wages,salaries and bonuses have to be approved by the court and unsecured creditors get to weigh in on that decision.

No, the judge has the last word.

[Bludogdem]

Contracts pre petition fall under the jurisdiction of the court. They can and often are objected to by the unsecured creditors. I highly doubt the unsecured creditors will let management walk away with an unreasonably high compensation package. I have seen instances where the court allows certain managers to continue. But their wages,salaries and bonuses have to be approved by the court and unsecured creditors get to weigh in on that decision.

No one will cash out big. They have no cash. The stocks is pretty much worthless. Transportation people don’t like uncertainty so with the company saying they were cash poor and couldn’t restructure their debt plus the ongoing threat of a strike the customer base left. Yellow had lost 80% of their business. Oh yeah, the Treasury Department owns 30% of the company.

[gounion]

No one will cash out big. They have no cash. The stocks is pretty much worthless. Transportation people don’t like uncertainty so with the company saying they were cash poor and couldn’t restructure their debt plus the ongoing threat of a strike the customer base left. Yellow had lost 80% of their business. Oh yeah, the Treasury Department owns 30% of the company.

They always get their golden parachutes. They’ll also get their pensions.

I remember when United declared bankruptcy to jettison their worker’s pensions - sent it to the PBGC, where they got less than 50 cents on the dollar they were owed. But the management team’s pensions were kept separate, and couldn’t be touched. After the bankruptcy went through, the management team all got big bonuses.

[JoeMemphis]

No one will cash out big. They have no cash. The stocks is pretty much worthless. Transportation people don’t like uncertainty so with the company saying they were cash poor and couldn’t restructure their debt plus the ongoing threat of a strike the customer base left. Yellow had lost 80% of their business. Oh yeah, the Treasury Department owns 30% of the company.

True, if there’s no money in the company, nobody gets paid. What money is available is paid according to bankruptcy laws and procedures under the supervisor of the court. It is all public information and is subject to questions and objections of the creditors committee.

[gounion]

True, if there’s no money in the company, nobody gets paid. What money is available is paid according to bankruptcy laws and procedures under the supervisor of the court. It is all public information and is subject to questions and objections of the creditors committee.

Top leadership is always at the top of the list. Otherwise they might quit before everything is shut down and paid out. They often get bonuses on top of everything else to stay on.

[Toonces]

From what I read in this article, https://www.freightwaves.com/news/yello ... the-making, it would seem that management was full of incompetence and hubris. It's hardly any wonder they failed.

[JoeMemphis]

Bankruptcies are designed to protect the interest of the unsecured creditors. The judge and/or trustee is under no contractual obligation to employ the current management team. The list of who gets paid and how much is paid is based on the type of debtor, whether the debtor is pre or post petition. The rules are pretty well established.

Trustees and judges often employ certain members of management in bankruptcy although they aren’t obligated to do so. I have personally fired an owner. Often managers are retained for a while to transition the company to new owners, to reorganize or to liquidate. But it is up to the court acting on behalf of the creditors. If the unsecured creditors strongly object, the court could terminate the agreement or could modify it downwards.

[gounion]

Bankruptcies are designed to protect the interest of the unsecured creditors. The judge and/or trustee is under no contractual obligation to employ the current management team. The list of who gets paid and how much is paid is based on the type of debtor, whether the debtor is pre or post petition. The rules are pretty well established.

Trustees and judges often employ certain members of management in bankruptcy although they aren’t obligated to do so. I have personally fired an owner. Often managers are retained for a while to transition the company to new owners, to reorganize or to liquidate. But it is up to the court acting on behalf of the creditors. If the unsecured creditors strongly object, the court could terminate the agreement or could modify it downwards.

Courts always take care of the bosses FIRST. And the judge's word is FINAL.

[JoeMemphis]

Courts always take care of the bosses FIRST. And the judge's word is FINAL.

You said the same this in the Detroit Bankruptcy case as I recall. And yet you were wrong on every count.

[gounion]

You said the same this in the Detroit Bankruptcy case as I recall. And yet you were wrong on every count.

Prove it. Show me the post.

[bengal59]

If you want to see how these POOR OLD CORPORATE PIRATES manage to make out like bandits when their companies are hemorrhaging money, read about Eddie Lampert of Sears Holdings. Even when K-Mart and Sears were losing hundreds of millions of dollars, dear old Eddie still managed to pay himself multi-million dollar bonuses! And the way he did it is he either sold off everything of value ie: Kenmore, Craftsman and along with other valuable assets he hid them in shell corporations! And if you don't think they can screw with the employees' pensions, just ask a few vested pensioners how much they collect now!

[gounion]

There's 11 Sears stores and 20 Kmart stores left in the USA. That's what a good CEO can do!

[JoeMemphis]

If you want to see how these POOR OLD CORPORATE PIRATES manage to make out like bandits when their companies are hemorrhaging money, read about Eddie Lampert of Sears Holdings. Even when K-Mart and Sears were losing hundreds of millions of dollars, dear old Eddie still managed to pay himself multi-million dollar bonuses! And the way he did it is he either sold off everything of value ie: Kenmore, Craftsman and along with other valuable assets he hid them in shell corporations! And if you don't think they can screw with the employees' pensions, just ask a few vested pensioners how much they collect now!

You may be correct pre bankruptcy. But post petition, different rules apply and things happen under the jurisdiction and supervision of a bankruptcy trustee, a bankruptcy judge, a creditors committee subject to bankruptcy laws and regulations. A CEO of a bankrupt company cannot do as he/she pleases.

As for pensions, IMO you are better off with your money in a 401k. It’s funded every pay period in a. Account with your name on it.

[gounion]

You may be correct pre bankruptcy. But post petition, different rules apply and things happen under the jurisdiction and supervision of a bankruptcy trustee, a bankruptcy judge, a creditors committee subject to bankruptcy laws and regulations. A CEO of a bankrupt company cannot do as he/she pleases.

It’s the judge that can do as he pleases.

As for pensions, IMO you are better off with your money in a 401k. It’s funded every pay period in a. Account with your name on it.

And if the bank rips you off or you lose it all in a stock market crash, you’re left with nothing. Even if the company runs the pension into the ground, you still get some money, instead of none.

Proof positive - people with 401(k)s are finding they can never retire.

Many of us remember - 401(k)s weren’t meant to be the only means to retire. They were meant to go along with pensions and Social Security.

Nice thing about a pension is I can live to be 100 and my money never runs out.

Good thing you aren’t my accountant. You sure don’t do your fiduciary duty for your clients.

[gounion]

Prove it. Show me the post.

Where’s the post, Joe? Play by your own rules.

And I knew you couldn’t keep from posting to me. That’s, what, ten or so times you swore you wouldn’t and came back anyway?

[JoeMemphis]

Where’s the post, Joe? Play by your own rules.

And I knew you couldn’t keep from posting to me. That’s, what, ten or so times you swore you wouldn’t and came back anyway?

I choose when and to whom I respond. You obviously are working much harder responding to me than I am to you. I find the less we post directly the better.

[gounion]

I choose when and to whom I respond. You obviously are working much harder responding to me than I am to you. I find the less we post directly the better.

Yeah, I thought so. You can dish it out, but you can’t take it. You want someone to treat you a certain way, you should first treat THEM a certain way.

And I said a long time ago I wouldn’t ignore you. I have no problem doing so. You’re the fucking whiner.

So, you made the accusation, so either prove it, or we all know you’re talking out your ass.

[Number6]

No it was poor management but those workers would be far better off had they accepted concessions and worked a while longer

From the links posted by myself and others, the union had made previous concessions so what you're saying is they should have worked for less wages? No doubt, there's a need for truck drivers and most will probably be picked up to drive for other companies.