Bakers’ Union has 8 Vice Presidents and 2 Million in Executive Salaries


The Bakers’ Union, aka the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers’ International Union (BCTGM), and that’s a mouthful, has kept blaming the plight of Hostess and its Twinkies on company executives who paid themselves too much money.

“Our members were aware that while the company was descending into bankruptcy and demanding deep concessions, the top 10 executives of the company were rewarding themselves with lavish compensation increases,” Frank Hurt, President of the Bakers’ Union said.

So let’s take a look at the number of executives in the Bakers’ Union, their salaries and titles. What does a humble baker president like Hurt rake in? A mere $262,654. His assistant, Harry Kaiser has to get by with a mere $149,764.

The Bakers’ Union (BCTGM) has 58 employees. 29 of them make more than $100,000 a year.

The Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers’ International Union has 8 Vice Presidents. (One is an Executive Vice-President).

These 8 Vice Presidents make anywhere from $218,989.00 to $161,789.00 for a combined total of over 2 million dollars. Additionally there’s a Secretary Treasurer who makes $244,396.00.

Does a union with 58 employees really need 8 Vice Presidents at a ratio of one Vice President to every employee?

BCTGM also has 12 representatives who make between $100,000 and $150,000. Its highest paid organizer makes $148,851.

While 18,000 workers may lose their jobs, the Bakers’ Union execs will keep their jobs and their six figure compensation packages. And even if BCTGM folds, they’ll just fetch up in another union.

Frank Hurt has worked as a Shop Steward at the United Auto Workers, with the Teamsters, a Union Trustee of the AFL-CIO Housing Investment Trust and President of the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations. Being a union boss is his job and as long as there are unions, there will be high paid compensation packages for union bosses. Companies may go out of business, but guys like Frank Hurt will always land on their quarter-of-a-million a year.

  • BS77

    Twinkies are garbage. Better for companies that make sensible, nutritious foods to excell. For your children's sake….give them apples, cranberries, natural foods….you know, real food with nutritional value.

    • Spikey1

      You do not believe in, or understand, freedom.

      • BS77

        yeah, you are right. a twinkie might be pretty nice right now……..

      • Deep_Space_

        His comment was simply about the nutritional value of the product which may be one reason it will cease to exist. This, if fact, is the exact same freedom that you cite, in action.

        • THELIGHTNIGHT37

          The ending of Twinkies has little to do with nutrition and lots to due with the union sabotaging them

    • Mary Sue

      Stoners aren't going to be eating carrot and celery sticks, dude.

      • Spikey1

        So, The union bosses not only took their pot money, they also took away their munchie items…

        Tomorrows headline – run with it.

  • Not clueless

    This article show how clueless you are about unions, business or any other organization. You are only stating the number of employees at the union HEADQUARTERS. It is like saying the only employees Ford has are the ones employed at their headquarters. There are 155 locals which also have employees and at least one shop steward at every place of employment. There are also 100,000 members of the union. You really ought stop writing about subjects you know nothing about without a heck of lot more research. It makes you look VERY bad.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      So

      high salaries for company executives = bad

      high salaries for union bosses= good

      • Dan Freysinger

        There is a big difference between a quarter of a million and 1.5 million. The Hostess CEO salary would pay the wages of 6 of these "union bosses".

        • Daniel Greenfield

          It's only a big difference if you're pulling down a six figure salary yourself.

          And the salaries of the 6 union bosses would pay the salaries of how many Hostess workers?

        • Spikey1

          How was the 6 "union bosses" wages paid exactly?

          A: By taking money from (this will be a new word for you) "working" peoples hard earned money.

          Yea, yea, yea, on your other point which you didn't mention but here is the reply anyway:
          Some people decided to be workers.
          Another person decided to get a education and run things.
          —Lefties always complain about that—

          • Sam

            An educated lefty here who approves of educated people running things if they do a good job. If not they should be replaced or maybe not elected. -Rightwingers always complain about that-

        • cew

          True… but they don't own the company do they. And what do they actually do?

    • Spikey1

      How many Vice Presidents does the USA have?
      (I better answer this for him because he may get confused)
      A = 1

  • C'villeLibertarian

    Mr. Greenfield, thank you for exposing Union fat cats. What product do they produce? None, they are parasites living lavishly of Union dues. Jobs, however "unfair"are better than being unemployed. The 4500 union workers in essence contributed to the job loss of the remaining 13000 non-union workers. Is it right to cause harm to others while trying to accomplish your own agenda? I am certain that Mr. Hurt will not be applying for unemployment. He will move on to mooch of some other poor Union worker.

  • cdnbn

    I guess you could say that,

    like the heads of corporations create value for their shareholders,

    the VP’s etc of the union create some sort of value for their ‘stakeholders’ (the union members),

    in the form of increased wages and benefits,

    and thereby earn their hefty packages.

    But, who catches sh!t when the companies that actually employ the workers become unsustainable?

    The union bosses, who led and counseled their members into becoming unaffordable?

    Ha. No, it’s always the Big Bad Businessman.

    If union members saw themselves as like shareholders,

    and their bosses as responsible for guiding them toward sustainable returns,

    they should be much more enraged at the union bosses,

    who sit pretty regardless of what happens to the workers.

  • Mary Sue

    Union bosses making 250 k a year? They ARE the 1%!

    Not to mention, they'd fall under Al Gore's ridiculous "If you make 250 k a year, you are a millionaire in 4 years" idea.

  • Tina Trent

    Another point: union employees often work very rarely. That's a fun sentence but an ugly reality.

    I've never met more lazy people. They show up twice a year, if that, to "negotiate," throwing their weight around and dining with the bosses. Then they do nothing, unless they're busy stealing the treasury — often to stick up their noses, if my experience of the building and convention industries are any measure.

    Which they are.

    I was once offered a bribe in exchange for not filing charges against the International Leather Goods, Plastics, and Novelties Workers Union (ILGPNWU). They were operating as a for-hire fake shop in southern states. You know, since demands for buggy-whips had gone down the pike.

    They wrote me a check made to look like a paycheck, with witholding, etc. and told me that I was now an employee of the union. I was briefly terrified, since I hadn't told anyone I was going to the union office after being summoned there. I watched over my shoulder as I walked to my car.

    Then I lost my job.

    Unions are the Mafia. If any of the simpering critics here wish to challenge this, I imagine it will be a short and highly imaginative conversation.

  • Not clueless

    That reply was the best you could come up with?

    Same old B.S.

    Why don't you address the fact that your article was extremely inaccurate.

    Why don't you prove me wrong?

    I'll answer that for you.

    You can't.

    • Mike

      I'll respond for him. Ford can afford to pay that 1.5 million because the company shareholders select the board members to elected him with the accompanying salary, paid by the fruits of their labor. The company is free to choose how much their own people are paid if the money comes from their own sources.

      Meanwhile, union groups gouge money from union workers (essentially the company), and in return, pose a hindrance to operations. Yes, unions are needed to fight for employee rights, but there must be some level balance between what employees deserve, and trying to squeeze everything they can out of the system. Not to mention, the union system creates no incentive for employees to work hard.

      Therefore, unions create what economists like to call, "dead weight loss", which in this case, exceeds the social benefit created from their presence.

      Moreover, the presence of unions creates a mentality of "us vs. them" when corporations look at their employees. If you tell me my employee is part of a group trying to squeeze every cent they can get out of me, then of course my reaction is to naturally defend myself. Meanwhile, you consider many tech companies with no need of unions. Do you see google employees complaining about their benefits? Thats because they have a sense of unity, where executives and employees understand they are in a mutual relationship. Unions create a divide, preventing any possible form of this 'unity' mentality.

    • LOL @ Not Clueless

      Obviously you know less about business entities. And second, it's impossible to prove a "close-minded" person wrong. So I have no intention to. (An assumption on my part about you being closed-minded, but I give myself great odds at being correct on my assumption, though.)

      But just for Ha-Ha's –

      The author is factually correct. Those 100,000 members collect their paychecks from either their employers, their State, or no check at all, but definitely not from the union. So, therefore, you can not double dip the numbers on their employment status. They don't get counted under the Union because they are members/clients, not employees. Employees don't pay for a service, members do with their dues, and that service is representation. Their number definitely does not count in your argument because they either work for someone else or they are unemployed, but they don't work for the Union. The members are clients or a customer to the Union.

      And just so I am clear, because your Ford example made no sense. If you receive a "PAYROLL" check from a company you are their employee. I.e. a check that has FICA deductions on it, social security, state taxes if applicable. If you get that type of a check, then you are an "employee." Otherwise you are an independent contractor.

      The locals are separate local business entities that affiliate with other locals and national, to give the: "power in numbers" purpose. (Except in the Hostess Brands case). If you look up each local in their respective state, they operate as a separate business entity that works in and with an agreement with national. The locals have their own expenses and overhead, so again, this number doesn't count in your argument.

      Based on the relationship perspective, It's a pyramid scheme really. :)

      So looking at the Union itself, nationally (the argument presented by the author), there are only 58 employees, 8 of whom are VPs, that make a really good salary (and good for them) off their membership, the people they represent. These national people are agents representing their clientele, the members. They are providing a SERVICE to their clients, the members NOT employees. And these agents would make more money if they were better at their job negotiating, too bad they suck at it.

      So, yes, the author is factually correct and you are utterly WRONG!

      Change your name to "Completely Clueless".

  • LarryInIowa

    Unions make money be spreading hate, fear and mistrust. If the employees don’t hate, fear and mistrust the company they can’t “organize” them and extract money in the form of dues. Often the company management does themselves no favors in that regard but it is the purpose of “organizers” to ensure it happens.

  • Chris

    That is absolutely RIDICULOUS that it takes 9 ppl to total $2 million in wages. If those Union VPs had any initiative, they would be making $2.25 millian EACH just like the Hostess exec's, or better yet… $29 million with another $59 million in bonuses like the Ford exec's. Yet another case of a lazy union worker who has no work ethic at all. This should finally show people what dinosaurs unions have become. C'MON PEOPLE/UNION WORKERS!!! GET WITH THE TIMES!!! Give your buddies a raise, max out the credit line buying yourself a couple of cars and a yacht, then file chapter 11 so the court has to raid the employee pension fund to pay your bills (because that's the only money left – you DID make sure to spend all the other money, right?). I mean why not, you sure as hell don't have YOUR money in that account! Its just BUSINESS!

  • CJL

    Its no WONDER employees want a professional to negotiate their wages and benefits or feel like they need an entity to protect them from unfair or unsafe work practices – they work for lyin' rotten sons a batches that would throw them under the bus in an instant!

  • CHL

    Compare to Toyota… when things get tough, the President of Toyota Japan takes a pay cut from $1.3 million to $890,000 and the pres of Toyota USA gets cut from $1.5 million to $890,000. At Ford (CEO makes $68 million) and GM (Ceo makes $22 million – because Obama capped GM execs after the first 27% raise tried to sneak through), just as soon as the ink dried on the union contracts taking huge cuts to the benefits with a 4 year wage freeze, they gave themselves along with managers of other divisions a 27% raise! At Toyota, it feels much more like a team effort, you feel like you can trust your boss to do the right thing.