In article ,
says...

On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 20:11:04 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 18:26:12 -0500, Meyer wrote:

On 11/19/2012 5:28 PM, harry wrote:
Hostess management and union agree to private mediation. Federal trustee
not happy with payout to company management in face of management's
failures.

When a large company fails, it is the fault of management.

When Krause and Company failed, whose fault was it?

He said, "large company." Krause was obviously not much of a manager,
even of a small company. Or, more likely an incompetent
"proprietorship" hiding behind a corporate shield.

Krause had to be a large company, don't you remember his fat stubby
fingers from the picture in Coronado?


No, I really don't. I've never felt the need to sniff Krause's ass
every 30 seconds so that I could stay on par with about 3/4 of the
posters still here.

I have absolutely NO interest in Krause and I have NO idea why the
rest of you are SO infatuated with him.

If he is gone, count your blessings and move on.

He isn't gone. He still lurks in the dark corners.

On 11/21/2012 6:30 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 20:11:04 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 18:26:12 -0500, Meyer wrote:

On 11/19/2012 5:28 PM, harry wrote:
Hostess management and union agree to private mediation. Federal trustee
not happy with payout to company management in face of management's
failures.

When a large company fails, it is the fault of management.

When Krause and Company failed, whose fault was it?

He said, "large company." Krause was obviously not much of a manager,
even of a small company. Or, more likely an incompetent
"proprietorship" hiding behind a corporate shield.

Krause had to be a large company, don't you remember his fat stubby
fingers from the picture in Coronado?


No, I really don't. I've never felt the need to sniff Krause's ass
every 30 seconds so that I could stay on par with about 3/4 of the
posters still here.

I have absolutely NO interest in Krause and I have NO idea why the
rest of you are SO infatuated with him.

If he is gone, count your blessings and move on.

He isn't gone. He still lurks in the dark corners.


There's a pretty good chance you just responded to him.

On 11/21/2012 6:45 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:30:55 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 20:11:04 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 18:26:12 -0500, Meyer wrote:

On 11/19/2012 5:28 PM, harry wrote:
Hostess management and union agree to private mediation. Federal trustee
not happy with payout to company management in face of management's
failures.

When a large company fails, it is the fault of management.

When Krause and Company failed, whose fault was it?

He said, "large company." Krause was obviously not much of a manager,
even of a small company. Or, more likely an incompetent
"proprietorship" hiding behind a corporate shield.

Krause had to be a large company, don't you remember his fat stubby
fingers from the picture in Coronado?


No, I really don't. I've never felt the need to sniff Krause's ass
every 30 seconds so that I could stay on par with about 3/4 of the
posters still here.

I have absolutely NO interest in Krause and I have NO idea why the
rest of you are SO infatuated with him.

If he is gone, count your blessings and move on.

He isn't gone. He still lurks in the dark corners.


Walk towards the light.

Walk towards the tax collectors office.

On 21 Nov 2012 18:04:23 GMT, harry wrote:

GuzzisRule wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 04:43:19 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote:

http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/...s-on-line.html

That should make the unions and the rest of the liberals very happy.

Another company ruined by management

Yup, they should have busted the union when they had a chance.

Sent from my unpretentious desktop.

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 04:43:19 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/...s-on-line.html

This lesson is NOT about unions. This lesson is all about the evils of
indebtedness. MASSIVE indebtedness, with minimal demand for the
product, and little or no capital improvement.

The massive indebtedness is due to the unions.

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 04:43:19 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/...s-on-line.html

This lesson is NOT about unions. This lesson is all about the evils of
indebtedness. MASSIVE indebtedness, with minimal demand for the
product, and little or no capital improvement.

The massive indebtedness is due to the unions.

Bull****. Prove it.

http://tinyurl.com/b77zjyu

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 09:02:13 -0500, BAR wrote:

This lesson is NOT about unions. This lesson is all about the evils of
indebtedness. MASSIVE indebtedness, with minimal demand for the
product, and little or no capital improvement.

The massive indebtedness is due to the unions.

===

I'm not a particularly big fan of unions as you probably know but in
all fairness corporate debt is strictly a management decision. Every
business has to decide how to finance their operations and debt is
just one of the options. A business that has to repeatedly borrow
long term money to stay in business is either very capital intensive
or doomed to eventual failure.

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 09:02:13 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 04:43:19 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/...s-on-line.html

This lesson is NOT about unions. This lesson is all about the evils of
indebtedness. MASSIVE indebtedness, with minimal demand for the
product, and little or no capital improvement.

The massive indebtedness is due to the unions.


Check and see who's name is on the promissory note.

Why did they have to get a promissory note?

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 09:02:13 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 04:43:19 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/...s-on-line.html

This lesson is NOT about unions. This lesson is all about the evils of
indebtedness. MASSIVE indebtedness, with minimal demand for the
product, and little or no capital improvement.

The massive indebtedness is due to the unions.


Check and see who's name is on the promissory note.

Why did they have to get a promissory note?

Poor management, not keeping up with the times, etc.

On 11/23/2012 11:09 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 21:21:59 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 09:02:13 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 04:43:19 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/...s-on-line.html

This lesson is NOT about unions. This lesson is all about the evils of
indebtedness. MASSIVE indebtedness, with minimal demand for the
product, and little or no capital improvement.

The massive indebtedness is due to the unions.


Check and see who's name is on the promissory note.

Why did they have to get a promissory note?


Because they were spending more than they made.

You're pretty familiar with that scenario arncha Harry?