 
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 577
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2008 - 3:00 pm: |    |
This should be great news for employee morale:
Axle CEO awarded $8.5-million bonus
http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll /article?AID=/20080628/BUSINES S01/806280304
In modern American corporate culture, the people at the top are rewarded no matter what their performance. Only the workers suffer the effects of bad management. |
Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 2602
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2008 - 3:06 pm: | |
Novine: Are you aware that the executive COULD HAVE BEEN COMPENSATED MORE? We need to pay millions of dollars to attract bright, effective, wealth-creating managers. And we might not have had all these problems if the company could have afforded to PAY MORE. Higher executive pay is needed, to bring in better managers.
And who's holding us back? It's those greedy, money-grubbing unions, so their dope-smoking, mouth-breathing, chronically late work force can suck up the money that THOSE EXECUTIVES DESERVE!
*** SATIRE *** SATIRE *** SATIRE *** |
Alan55
Member
Username: Alan55
Post Number: 1880
Registered: 09-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2008 - 3:15 pm: | |
So much for the "dire economic situation" AAM was suppossedly in. The following sentence was especially poinant:
"The bonus, which the board postponed during the UAW's three-month strike against the company, comes as American Axle is shedding about 2,000 hourly jobs and considers layoffs in its salaried workforce."
- Add to that a 50 percent wage DECREASE for the employees.
So what Dauch is saying to his employees is, "Hurray for me, and fuck you." |
Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 36
Registered: 06-2008
| | Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2008 - 3:29 pm: | |
Novine:
While I share your sentiment to an extent, I think too many people tend to measure a CEO's performance only in terms of profit or loss...
i.e., if the company makes a profit one year, then the CEO should be rewarded...but if it posts a loss, then the CEO should not be rewarded...
The problem is, the business world is not that simple.
If you are an investor in a company that is trying to weather an uncertain economy and a tough business environment, then hiring a good CEO could mean the difference between posting a loss $225 million instead of a loss of $500 million, for which you as an investor would gladly compensate someone in the form an $8 million bonus.
But you're right that this type of thing hurts morale since few blue collar workers tend to see things this way. |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 578
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2008 - 3:37 pm: | |
I'm sure there are many people in the corporate world that think that this bonus was well-earned since the outcome of the AA strike was to force the union to accept deep cuts in wages. But long-term, the growing disparity between the pay of those at the top and what they pay their workers is a bad thing for American business. When you treat workers as nothing more than cogs in a machine, don't expect those workers to do any more than the minimum required to get a paycheck. |
Alan55
Member
Username: Alan55
Post Number: 1882
Registered: 09-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2008 - 4:01 pm: | |
"...hiring a good CEO could mean the difference between posting a loss $225 million instead of a loss of $500 million, for which you as an investor would gladly compensate someone in the form an $8 million bonus."
Actually, the business world IS that simple. AAM told the workers, "Hey, were paying you too much, you gotta take a huge pay cut so we can come closer to breaking even. Otherwise, we're sending our plants to China." Doesn't take a doctorate to understand that threat. Additionally, the company didn't say anything about a bonus to the workers if the loss was a lot less.
Secondly, the article says that Dauch already has a GUARANTEED bonus of three times his pay. Perhaps you might say to a CEO, "This year, you are coming closer to earning that mandated bonus, but you're not there yet. Keep working at it." Either that, or say "Hey, times are tough, we gotta cut costs, and your bonus is part of the cuts." If he thinks he can get a job somewhere else that pays him $1.5 million in salary a year, then he should go after it. |
Retroit
Member
Username: Retroit
Post Number: 249
Registered: 04-2008
| | Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2008 - 4:16 pm: | |
How much does a Japanese or Chinese axle company CEO make? Maybe we should outsource management to a foreign country and keep the factories here! |
Pffft
Member
Username: Pffft
Post Number: 1555
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2008 - 4:22 pm: | |
Where are all the posters here who complained about the UAW and how these overpaid American Axle workers needed to wake up and smell the coffee, and accept a lower wage, like their competitors get.
Where are the usual suspects? Come on, come forward and defend this CEO bonus. |
Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 37
Registered: 06-2008
| | Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2008 - 4:27 pm: | |
Alan:
The problem for the workers is that they have to compete with people who are willing and able to do the same work for peanuts.
It's simple economics. If I as an investor can move my factory to Mexico for much less money, then American workers have to make it worth my while to keep my plant here, or else my competitors will price me out of business.
But as far as CEOs go, you won't find many people able to do the same type of work for peanuts, so CEOs get to call their shots to a much greater extent than workers do.
Bottom line is that you can't blame the companies for these situations. It makes a lot more sense to blame the government for not providing companies with enough incentives to keep their factories here, but even then there's only so much that can be done since American companies more and more are competing with foreign companies who benefit from cheap labor. |
Sean_of_detroit
Member
Username: Sean_of_detroit
Post Number: 954
Registered: 03-2008
| | Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2008 - 4:40 pm: | |
I'm tellin' you, something is wrong with some of these CEOs and higher ups.
Could any of you guys except this knowing you were also laying off workers at the same time? |
Flanders_field
Member
Username: Flanders_field
Post Number: 585
Registered: 01-2008
| | Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2008 - 4:47 pm: | |
Eventually all of the outsourcing and offshoring, along with the skyrocketing cost of living, will economically cripple if not kill off the targeted golden goose, that being the majority of US middle class consumers, who were prone at one time, to buy the very products that they made.
So let those companies try to make a profit off the newly prosperous consumers in Mexico, SE Asia, India, and China instead.
Good Luck, LOL!! |
Charlottepaul
Member
Username: Charlottepaul
Post Number: 2574
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2008 - 5:06 pm: | |
There was much to do about Charlotte's United Way president getting a raise to a million dollars a year. That is quite a bit and unexpected for a non-profit org., but then the more you think about it, they need to attract talent. Not everyone volunteers their career for a non-profit.
http://www.charlotte.com/112/s tory/684895.html |
Frankg
Member
Username: Frankg
Post Number: 354
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2008 - 5:08 pm: | |
It all has to do with "Tournament Theory." Using this theory, Tiger Woods makes 3x what the next place player makes, who makes 2x what the next player makes, etc. Normally we think of pay for performance as a linear function, for instance produce 20 widgets you get paid 2x producing 10 widgets. But in tournament theory, pay for performance is essentially an exponential curve.
Why? My pet theory is that everybody has a price they will push their grandmother down the stairs for the insurance money. On the shop floor, supervisors will make 1.25 times what the floor worker makes. Why? So they will do the "dirty work" of the company that way. Out of a dozen guys on the floor there is one who is willing to screw his buddies so he can bring home that extra .25x for his family (or ego).
Now that this guy is promoted he wants to make it to the next level. So, he screws his buddies laterally as well as vertically under him. This way, he will get promoted again and gets another 1.25-1.5 times what he is making now.
Take this up the chain and it gets worse, because as you become wealthier it will cost more in relative terms to get you to push your grandmother down the stairs for the insurance money. So the CEO might make 2,3, or even 4 times what the next level executives make in a company. So those executives are more than willing to push their grandmothers down the stairs so they can be the next CEO, the rewards are just too high not to.
I think this is the fundamental reason that companies or even shareholders don't appear to be too anxious to rein in CEO pay. They like the tournament theory pay structure because it makes people at ALL levels of the company willing to push their grandmother down the stairs for the insurance money. CEOs no longer care about employees or communities, when the rewards are so high for not caring about them. And lower-levels don't say anything, either, the rewards are too high if/when they become part of "The Club."
I think this raises serious problems in a democracy. By giving the CEO's that much money, we are consolidating way too much power in their hands. Now we have businesses that have more power than citizens in many respects. It will only get worse as CEO pay runs rampant like this.
I reject the Agency Theorists view that CEO pay should be largely a percentage of profits. Different industries and companies have widely different structures and problems, and I don't see that skills or performance of a CEO are directly related to profits unless controlling for industry and company specifics. |
Alan55
Member
Username: Alan55
Post Number: 1883
Registered: 09-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2008 - 5:11 pm: | |
The fault in your argument, Thejesus, is that you are not applying the same global economics to the CEOs and execs that you are for the workers. When you say this,
"But as far as CEOs go, you won't find many people able to do the same type of work for peanuts..."
You are assuming that the CEOs (and other execs) you are talking about are of course over-paid Americans. Why? Actually, there ARE execs willing to work for "peanuts". You don't think that there are talented execs in India or Malaysia that would be willing to work for say, $400,000 per year (a king's ransom in their countries) as opposed to $10,000,000 combined salary and bonus for Dauch? (This doesn't even touch the money for the rest of the dozens of American execs.)
If the jobs and factories are gone offshore, what the hell does the average American consumer (or automotive parts buyer) care if there are a group of American execs here stuffing money into their Swiss bank accounts? If it's only about cutting costs and getting the lowest price, then by all means cut the costs of the highest-paid employees.
If you want to use the the "global competition" argument, fine, but don't stop half-way. |
Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 38
Registered: 06-2008
| | Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2008 - 5:33 pm: | |
"Actually, there ARE execs willing to work for "peanuts". You don't think that there are talented execs in India or Malaysia that would be willing to work for say, $400,000 per year"
Alan:
If such people exist, then how do you explain the fact that investors and boards aren't hiring these people? Since they are only interested in their bottom line, why wouldn't they? |
Ladyinabag
Member
Username: Ladyinabag
Post Number: 613
Registered: 03-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2008 - 5:48 pm: | |
All big business cares about is the money they can save to keep for themselves. There is no soul in business. Can you imagine how much money this man saved them by having ALL of the workers take a $10.00 an hour cut....as well as cuts in benefits? They didn't give him enough of a bonus for that matter. |
Alan55
Member
Username: Alan55
Post Number: 1884
Registered: 09-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2008 - 6:38 pm: | |
"... that investors and boards aren't hiring these people?"
What makes you think that investors and especially boards, are only interested in the bottom line? These are the CEOs and execs buds, good old Fred, old Ralph, and Sandy, all three of which are good for a laugh at the 19th hole after a fantastic day of golfing, or grilling some steaks on the stern of the 68-footer on Lake St. Clair on a Sunday afternoon along with some 20-year old Scotch.
The board members were appointed because they were all reliable yes-men, never ones to rock the boat (literally or figuratively.) Boards are not selected to do the bidding of the stockholders, they are there to support the status quo, and to scratch each other's backs.
As to the investors, the real power rests with the institutional investors, the mutual funds and retirement funds; they work much the same way as the boards do, supporting the status quo. After all, if CEOs can effectively be sourced from lower-cost countries, so can mutual fund managers, can't they?
It is an exercise in irrationality to postulate that business works on rational guidelines, where excellence is the only motivation. If rational, sound decision-making was the only goal, the Enron, Worldcom, Global Crossing fiascos would never have happened. The key is sub-optimization - do what's best for ME and screw the rest.
"I got mine, and to hell with you."
That's why. |
Terryh
Member
Username: Terryh
Post Number: 825
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2008 - 10:40 pm: | |
The new CEO of ALLSATE, one of the companies I invest in, is already making close to 10million dollars a year. Considering wild up and down, fluctuations of the stock, as well as dividends paid, the pay is way too excessive. I knocked off an e-mail questioning the CEO pay and promptly recieved a notice to vote. One of the propositions I voted on was a shareholder proposal for an a shareholder advisory board on executive compensation. I voted in favor of the advisory board. CEOs and Boards of directors are running companies into the ground and bailing out after lining their own pockets. Two million isn't good enough? Why not spend the other 8 million on ALLSTATE employees? 8 million is a lot of preventative health care and spending power for a lot of people. There is a high tech Cat scan that takes detailed imaging of the human body.
BTW how many people actually make that much money in this country? Americans of all social classes downplay CEO pay because they are in a fantasy world of themselves or their children making that much money. Why is there so much hostility toward the working class in this country? Its plain old selfishness and greed. German execs in several companies, cant recall which, are capped at around 2million.
During the strike at American Axle, a man who lives in Bloomfield Hills complained that unions and strikeing workers cause the price of bread and milk to rise. Another writer from another affluent suburb suggested that union members should all obtain degrees and become doctors and lawyers. How do you attend college when you are working two jobs to survive? |
Alan55
Member
Username: Alan55
Post Number: 1886
Registered: 09-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 29, 2008 - 4:01 pm: | |
Even on a simpler level, Terryh -
How can an AAM worker afford to buy that $25,000 car that the parts he / she is making are being used to build, when their pay is cut from $56,000 to $35,000 per year? Answer: they can't; they end up buying a 6-year old used vehicle. The auto execs then wonder why new vehicle sales are down.
An ironically vicious circle. |
Sean_of_detroit
Member
Username: Sean_of_detroit
Post Number: 964
Registered: 03-2008
| | Posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 - 4:34 am: | |
I really like what Ben and Jerry did when they opened their factory. They had some policy that said that the highest paid employees could not make more than fifteen percent more than the lowest level employee working on the lines and such. I seem to remember it being said in their biography, that this caused them some problems finding top level help, and they eventually raised it to 20%.
I wounder if that policy is still in effect. They seemed to do pretty well in the long run, didn't they? |
Richie
Member
Username: Richie
Post Number: 11
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 - 7:59 am: | |
The important thing to remember is that America is on a race to reach the bottom. Talent.. talent, You call this talent? Cutting the wages of thousands of workers and pocketing the money "saved" as an undeserved bonus is considered talent? The guy living under the Eight Mile bridge could sit in that same chair and send work overseas, cut wages, benefits, lay off workers and close factories. What talent is that? In the not so distant past, essentially since the Bill Clinton sell out of America a CEO was rewarded for doing good job. A good job took a lot of talent and creativity and was measured growing a company, building factories and hiring workers. This was a measured sign of success since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Somehow in the past few years success on Wall Street was no longer in making a desirable product that would in turn bring up the stock value, success never was and never should have become one of making money by not spending money, by closing factories, by laying of workers or by mergers. The kind of mediocrity and "technique" in management we now have has finally caught up to us all. Don't believe me" Look at the stock market now facing the largest drop since 1930 and why shouln't it have? There is nothing to back up these stocks, we don't make anything anymore. I for one an tired of watching my country, my standard of living and that of everyone I know go down the toilet because the American CEO supports China, India and Mexico and American car buyer supports Japan. No one supports America. The lower wages, the inflation and the massive job losses because of all this has set the stage for the second great depression, only this time because of guys like this CEO, it is one we will not be able to get out of because we no longer have a manufacturing base. |
Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 4569
Registered: 06-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 - 8:09 am: | |
Thank Mr. Reagan and his advocation of "trickle-down" economics for starting it, and almost every piece of shit in a position of power in this country since. |
Craig
Member
Username: Craig
Post Number: 872
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 - 9:07 am: | |
Do you even understand "trickle-down" economics? Read something by Ludwig von Mises & learn that the theory is based upon the study of data by economists, not a cabal of business people or politicians. |
Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 4573
Registered: 06-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 - 9:09 am: | |
Theories don't mean anything until someone implements them. |
Oldredfordette
Member
Username: Oldredfordette
Post Number: 4913
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 - 10:18 am: | |
May Dick Dausch and everybody who supports him roast in a red hot hell. |
Higgs1634
Member
Username: Higgs1634
Post Number: 559
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 - 10:25 am: | |
quote:How can an AAM worker afford to buy that $25,000 car that the parts he / she is making are being used to build, when their pay is cut from $56,000 to $35,000 per year? Answer: they can't; they end up buying a 6-year old used vehicle. The auto execs then wonder why new vehicle sales are down.
Your logic demands, wrongly, that every level of worker should be able to afford all levels of a companies offerings. They may not be able to afford a 25,000+ car, but I bet they can swing a 12-18k car. All of our domestics offer many options in the less than 20k area (might I suggest the pontiac vibe starting at 15,900?). However, far be it for someone at AAM deign to consider such pedestrian offerings.
Also what is overlooked in your analogy is; what could they buy with zero dollars? Less pay is always better than getting all of no pay.
(Message edited by higgs1634 on June 30, 2008) |
Firstandten
Member
Username: Firstandten
Post Number: 230
Registered: 05-2006
| | Posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 - 10:27 am: | |
The CEO of a large multi-national business first loyalty is to the investors(stockholders). He has to show the quarterly results or he/she is out the door. In reality the workers are only the means to that end. At one time Japanese and other companies capped CEO compensation to x times the lowest paid employee. The problem with american business is that because the CEO is so focused on wall street short term they can't see or their boards won't let them take the long term view of their companies. They are under so much pressure to show a profit next quarter they will throw their mothers under the bus to do it.
However since our dollar is weaker we should see a lot of production being done here instead of overseas. A good thing I guess. |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 580
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2008 - 12:18 am: | |
"Your logic demands, wrongly, that every level of worker should be able to afford all levels of a companies offerings."
What's wrong with that logic? The more complex or finer quality product that a company produces, the more skilled or educated employee its going to require to make such a product. AA isn't making cheap plastic toys, they are making precision parts for fairly complex machines. If the people who do that kind of work aren't deserving of a decent wage, something's really wrong with our world. |
Alan55
Member
Username: Alan55
Post Number: 1905
Registered: 09-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2008 - 2:47 am: | |
"Also what is overlooked in your analogy is; what could they buy with zero dollars? Less pay is always better than getting all of no pay."
Sure, cut their pay down even lower to $7.15 per hour - that's better than zero dollars, right?. And then let them them have a $25,000-per-year medical deductible - some insurance, even extremely lousy insurance, is better than zero insurance, right? Maybe they could buy second-quality gloves and safety equipment - some protection is better than no protection, and look at the money that will be saved!
Funny, not a peep out of you about the CEO "settling" for ONLY $4.5 million bonus, instead of $8.5 million; after all, not all corporations are created equal; not every level of CEO should get all levels of corporate bonuses, right?.
Your logic says that while the execs are gorging on ever-larger bonuses, workers should be grateful for whatever crumbs are thrown at them, even if it means they can no longer afford to buy cars, homes, or send their kids to college.
You should read some Dickens novels, such as OLIVER TWIST, where the title character asks for more gruel, and is punished for his outrageous request by the supervisors. You will find your same sentiment there. |
Richie
Member
Username: Richie
Post Number: 13
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2008 - 6:59 am: | |
A foot note for you. In the 80's a CEO earned 40 times more than the average worker. Twenty years later it is 450 times more than the average worker. Are the CEOs we have now who's only talent seems to be shrinking companies, offshoring jobs and cutting wages and bennies better than those in the 80's who built up companies, increased the workforce and payrolls? |
Higgs1634
Member
Username: Higgs1634
Post Number: 562
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2008 - 9:33 am: | |
quote:if the people who do that kind of work aren't deserving of a decent wage, something's really wrong with our world.
Fair or not, that "complex" manufacture of said part can be delivered at a fraction of what they were demanding to be paid at AAM . Talk to Bill Clinton regarding NAFTA if you have a problem with it.
Alan55, how about you dial down the rhetoric for a second and look at the facts of the AAM deal. A deal that was ratified by 78 percent of the workers.
I am not saying a 30% pay cut (less of a cut for most as most didn't earn the highest wage) doesn't present challenges for wage earners. I'm not saying 'let them eat cake', I'm just saying drop the histrionics and recognize that even the lowest paid guy on the line at AAM is still making more than a new teacher. You also conveniently ignore the company will also provide buyouts and buy downs to compensate for lost wages. I have a little difficulty mustering the outrage as most of the numbers I've seen on the buy out and buy downs would be enough to pay off my mortgage and then some. But that is just me. I live within my means.
I happen to be 31. From the time I was old enough to understand the world around me..let's say early elementary school, I've understood that "manufacturing" as an industry was one to stay far away from. Further, from my earliest, getting an education was drilled into my head as the best way to ensure success in life. It helped that I had GM people in my family (not a rarity in these parts) telling us this on an almost daily basis. I mean, when did "Mr. Mom" come out? '82? '83? Then it was the Japanese, now it's "off shoring", but other than the bogey man's identity the story is still the same as it was 25 freaking years ago.
There is no excuse for anyone working today to be "surprised" at the fact they can't work cradle to the grave on the line with guaranteed overtime, earn 100k+ a year, have zero deductible medical care, and a huge pension as soon as you get your 30. If you've built you life on that shaky foundation, you've simply ignored reality for far too long and by sheer luck managed to make it this far. Reality has already sunk in everywhere else in the country, in every other sector, however, here in Michigan, the entitlement mentality still refuses to die.
That mentality is perfectly exhibited on this thread with the following;
quote:Why? My pet theory is that everybody has a price they will push their grandmother down the stairs for the insurance money. On the shop floor, supervisors will make 1.25 times what the floor worker makes. Why? So they will do the "dirty work" of the company that way. Out of a dozen guys on the floor there is one who is willing to screw his buddies so he can bring home that extra .25x for his family (or ego).
Now that this guy is promoted he wants to make it to the next level. So, he screws his buddies laterally as well as vertically under him. This way, he will get promoted again and gets another 1.25-1.5 times what he is making now.
Take this up the chain and it gets worse, because as you become wealthier it will cost more in relative terms to get you to push your grandmother down the stairs for the insurance money. So the CEO might make 2,3, or even 4 times what the next level executives make in a company. So those executives are more than willing to push their grandmothers down the stairs so they can be the next CEO, the rewards are just too high not to.
Only in backwards-assed Michigan would getting ahead in life, working hard to become educated and working to excel at one's job be equated to "screwing your buddies" or "pushing your grandma down the stairs". Fucking tragic. |
_sj_
Member
Username: _sj_
Post Number: 2296
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2008 - 9:45 am: | |
quote:How much does a Japanese or Chinese axle company CEO make? Maybe we should outsource management to a foreign country and keep the factories here!
Because the CEO and management make less than the rank and file. You have to look at the whole picture.
For example, the 2,000 people laid off employeed by AAM @ $30 an hour with benefits comes to around $125 Million a year every year, where as this bonus is a one time pay off.
While it is nice to place blame and get upset at these bonus announcements when placed in the overall grand scheme of things compared to overall payroll, they would not have stopped AAM from laying those workers.
You need to stop looking at as if you are on level with management and your a 1:1 relationship with their pay and benefits becuase you are not. You are one of thousands who amount to one of the largest expenses to the company.
Americans used to strive to be better, now they are happy with the status quo and jealous of people who are in another income bracket.
When CEOs receive a large salary everyone is up in arms, but when an athlete or an actor does no one bats an eye especially when more than likely they are making more money than that CEO.
Somewhere we lost are way and it all started with petty jealousy and a superiority complex.
(Message edited by _sj_ on July 01, 2008) |
Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 4578
Registered: 06-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2008 - 9:58 am: | |
"When CEOs receive a large salary everyone is up in arms, but when an athlete or an actor does no one bats an eye especially when more than likely they are making more money than that CEO."
Contributing to an athlete's or entertainer's income is substantially more optional than to a typical CEO's. |
_sj_
Member
Username: _sj_
Post Number: 2299
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2008 - 10:32 am: | |
If believing that gets you through the night. |
Alan55
Member
Username: Alan55
Post Number: 1908
Registered: 09-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2008 - 10:58 am: | |
"For example, the 2,000 people laid off employeed by AAM @ $30 an hour with benefits comes to around $125 Million a year every year, where as this bonus is a one time pay off."
Hello? One-time? Sure, one-time EVERY YEAR. You are also forgetting the bonuses of the vice-chairman, CFO, Vice-President of Sales, Vice-President of Manufacturing, Vice-President of Engineering, Vice-President of Engineering, etc.
"You need to stop looking at as if you are on level with management and your a 1:1 relationship with their pay and benefits becuase you are not."
Thank you for stating the obvious. Is this the way it should be? NO! At one time in this country, EVERYONE was respected for their contribution, whether you were the head of the company, or the guy who swept the floors. Now, we have become a parody of one of those tedious British costume dramas - "You need to have more respect for your betters!" Bullshit. If times are tough, they should be tough for everyone, not just the low-level workers while the execs thumb thru the boating brochures looking for their next up-size. |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 7396
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2008 - 11:10 am: | |
Pretty ballsy move. Wonder if he gets nervous when he hears sounds in the night. |
Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 4580
Registered: 06-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2008 - 11:16 am: | |
And in many ways it isn't just excessive pay gaps that drive the labor/management hostility. It's this blatant lack of respect for employees that's been exhibited by management in some industries and some specific companies. Labor understands cost issues just as much as management does, but when management comes around telling labor they AREN'T WORTH anything that's the totally wrong approach. You don't see that in companies that are moving forward. Honestly I don't begrudge someone like Alan Mulally what he gets because he's handling things well, treating people as positively and respectfully as possible given the circumstances, but when an asshole like American Axle's Dauch kicks labor in the face, all he deserves in return is a chain upside the head.
(Message edited by lilpup on July 01, 2008) |
Craigd
Member
Username: Craigd
Post Number: 5248
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2008 - 11:20 am: | |
Boy, the class envy sure is rearing it's ugly head here. Kinda wish you stayed in school and became a CEO instead of wasting your time at college with that liberal arts degree.
Envy is one of those 7 deadly sins. There are inequalities in capitalism. Get over it and do the best you can do, lest we submit to the equality of misery socialism has to offer. |
Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 4582
Registered: 06-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2008 - 11:36 am: | |
This is not class envy. No one is looking for Brooke Astor's Park Avenue apartment here. This is the rightful desire to be able to have a stable lifestyle when employed - access to healthcare, the ability to afford healthy, safe, and secure housing, access to a decent education that's affordable. BTW a degree assures nothing, no matter what the major is. Ask any lawyer how tight their job market is now for new graduates.
You're a prime example, Craigd, of the "I've got mine, fuck you" attitude that's destroying the nation. |
_sj_
Member
Username: _sj_
Post Number: 2301
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2008 - 11:55 am: | |
Yes it was a one time bonus payment, it is not a static payment unlike the $125 Million dollar example.
When is it your right to be gainfully employed and supplied benefits.
The only right you listed was an education, and that is free unless you choose to pay for one.
Your employer only has to pay you what they deem your task to be worth. They believe that the CEO is worth 8.5 Million and you are worth $45 and hour. |
Craigd
Member
Username: Craigd
Post Number: 5249
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2008 - 12:03 pm: | |
Lilpup, Prosperity is something you plan for. Do you save 10% or more of your income every week? Is it fair to steal from one group to give to another? A person of average income can retire with $ millions. All you need is a little common sense and systematic savings. |
Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 4584
Registered: 06-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2008 - 12:28 pm: | |
"you are worth $45 and hour."
You pay me $45/hour for a 40 hour week and I'll pay my own health insurance.
"Is it fair to steal from one group to give to another?"
Is it? Time, talent, or labor? |
Craigd
Member
Username: Craigd
Post Number: 5250
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2008 - 12:36 pm: | |
Lilpup, You are worth what your employer is willing to pay you. |
Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 4585
Registered: 06-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2008 - 12:43 pm: | |
My earning power is what my employer will pay me. My worth is no less than the wealthiest person in the world and no more than the poorest, just like everyone else.
Some people need to learn and understand the distinction. |
Craigd
Member
Username: Craigd
Post Number: 5251
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2008 - 12:55 pm: | |
Correct, Lilpup. But in an extreme socialist world you would give up all you earn above what the government decides you need to survive.
Neither system is perfect, however with capitalism you have opportunity and choice. Fathoms better than any thing else. |
Retroit
Member
Username: Retroit
Post Number: 266
Registered: 04-2008
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2008 - 2:04 pm: | |
_sj_, my point was that American WORKERS are often told that they are overpaid in relation to their foreign counterparts, but I believe there is a greater discrepancy between the pay of American and foreign EXECUTIVES. |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 581
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 02, 2008 - 12:05 am: | |
"Yes it was a one time bonus payment, it is not a static payment unlike the $125 Million dollar example."
Typical CEO response - the company only exists because of my presence. Without the workers, Dauch's just another overcompensated fat cat. |
Mrnittany
Member
Username: Mrnittany
Post Number: 28
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 02, 2008 - 12:34 am: | |
One of the above posts about "tournament theory" and how it explains compensation levels was excellent.
Many of us here say: "Where's the damn pride with this CEO? His company is struggling, he oversaw a process where many of his employees saw their standard of living reduced, yet he still accepts that $8.4 million bonus. He knows he doesn't deserve such an extravegant sum ... where is his pride to not accept some of that large bonus? AFTER ALL, THAT IS WHAT I WOULD DO."
But ... simply because we are those types of people and "that is what we would do" ... we never get in the position where we're the one being offered that $8.4 million.
It's just the way it is. |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 582
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 02, 2008 - 1:04 am: | |
"It's just the way it is."
Warren Buffett plans to give all of his money away to charity and we realize that that it's not "just the way it is", it's just that some CEOs are self-centered egotists and others are not. |
_sj_
Member
Username: _sj_
Post Number: 2303
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 02, 2008 - 10:14 am: | |
quote:Typical CEO response - the company only exists because of my presence. Without the workers, Dauch's just another overcompensated fat cat.
Just like the workers who believe they can't be replaced becuase they have a skill set that is so unique. Of course they have been sleeping while GM, Ford and Chrysler has shed thousands of jobs and are still producing at the same level.
He signed a contract, the workers signed a contract. They are both entitled to the terms of the contract during its life. Why does one group demand their contract gets honored and expect others to just ignore theirs.
Face it, you are not on his level nor his pay scale. His pay has no bearing on yours. |
|
New threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.