Purpose of any Company is Profits - screw the workers
 

From the Washington Post of 20 Apr 2009:
This cannot be true. After all, everyone knows their problems are only traceable to greedy and lazy union workers, unfair Japanese competition, tax laws, environmental laws, the education system ...

Or maybe the only problem has always been overpaid executive who know the purpose of a corporation is its profits - especially top management profits.

Reason why Chrysler is all but gone - its executives. But again, a fundamental fact is demonstrated. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. That increases to 99% when management casts blame elsewhere.

They would rather destroy the company than take reduced pay packages more in line with what they deserve.

Nardelli demanded $200million to leave Home Depot - to save the company. Now he is doing same to Chrysler? Of course. He is a business school graduate. He has no idea how cars work or how a product is designed. But he knows what is most important - his pay package.

Screw America is taught in the business schools. No wonder military academies do not graduate business school majors. They need people who are responsible, informed, and understand who is the reason for failure.

Chrysler has so been destroyed by MBA management for so long that even Fiat cannot find enough worth buying. Especially when getting rid of management will cost them how many more hundreds of $million? Only part of Chrysler that has any value is its dealer network. Chrysler does not even have one new product in the innovation pipeline – as any good business school graduate would do to cut costs. Chrysler is gone. Lying once worked when a president routinely protected defective and anti-American companies (ie big steel, First Energy, etc). Those days are over.

Dear God, man. Its 420 day - have one and lighten up a bit.

Right. We should be laughing because so many more Americans will have no jobs thanks to greedy MBA executives. How many tens of thousands will be unemployed because Nardelli and his peers are not paid enough?

Ha Ha Ha. It's that funny? Especially management that says they are paid too few $million annually? Greed is good. It must be true. Gordon Gekko said so.

Another knife has been pushed deeply into the backs of Chrysler employees - who were blamed by myths for being too greedy.

Yeh Beestie 'ere.

Hey, I just lost my job of ten years thanks to the greedy dumbasses at Fannie Mae.

So I can laugh if I damn well want to.

damn B

Ugghh - that sux. Maybe if there was an equal outrage about the damn Bonus's that Fannie and Freddie paid out (yes, actual bonus's) then they could have kept Beestie.
Forkin GD Gov't Mf POS AH

They didn't restrict the bonuses there either?

Good grief. I really hope Congress decides to cap how much pay anyone in this country can make as an executive. It is the only way to rein it in.

That would be good? You want the government to control the private market? Be careful what you wish for.:neutral:

Yes, I do want Congress to restrict executive pay, because it is out of control, and at the expense of everyone else in society. By the Gods, they always whine about regulation, but if they would police themselves and regulate themselves then we wouldn't have to. But you can't regulate greed. So, no, I don't have a problem with Congress putting a cap on how much they can earn.

Also, if they want bonuses, it should be in the form of stocks to be paid out 4 quarters after it is given, so the bonuses are tied directly to the health of the company and how well it does.

OMFG - Are you serious? Please do a little looking into this. They paid out more in bonus's than AIG in retention payments.

I think that will be the end of America as we know it. I'd be hard pressed to think of a worse thing that could happen.

Maybe we should start there. Anyone see a problem with that?

It should not be necessary. But something changed. Boards of Directors no longer represent the interest of stockholders. That is their job. But many companies have subverted their Boards for the benefit of management and at the expense of all others.

For example, a CEO (president) should never be Chairman of the Board. Chairman represents stockholders. His job is to keep the CEO in line. In troubled company after company, the CEO is also the Chairman.

For example, Robert Allen of AT&T perverted the Chairman's function. Fiorina of HP also had too much power. Same with Akers of IBM.

Stunning is how much information was denied outside Board members in GM. For example, much financial information available to insider board members was withheld from outside Board members. Outside Board member were limited to how long they could study the financials - ie 45 minutes.

Executives should answer to the Board - not be the Board. Having perverted the function, executive compensation has skyrocketed at the expense of employees and stockholders.

One stunning example was AT&T. The CFO quietly whispered to Sandy Weil (an outside Board member) that AT&T could not meet its short term debt payments. That is about the most chilling fact in any board room. However AT&T was literally on the verge of complete meltdown before any outside Board members realized that AT&T was only months from complete disintegration. That also would never happen if executives truly answered to the Board.

AT&T continued to disintegrate while richly rewarding executives. Therefore all that was left was a mobile phone operation using obsolete frequency division multiplexing and the name. AT&T's remains were purchased only for the name - while its Board remained completely ignorant of the destruction.

Today, the Chairman too often is the CEO. #1 symptom for trouble. Nobody represents the stockholders. Executives simply reward each other.

Nope, not at all.

Capping executive salaries is a good idea in theory, and I've put some thought into it. From where I'm standing, the only way you could do it fairly would be to make executive salaries only a certain percentage higher than their lowest paid full time employee. That percentage would be the issue, but it would certainly limit the amount multi-national corporations could pay their execs, but still allow them to pay the sort of money which is usually comensurate with the knowledge and experience required to fill such positions.

eta: This system would obviously very likely improve the salaries paid to lower income earners which could be a good thing. Kind of like re-distributing the wealth. ;)

Only that in a free market the government can't steal the profits made by the company. So even if the salaries are capped, the profits will go to the shareholders. Many employers and employees are shareholders.

I don't have any issue with shareholders reaping the benefits of their shares. I wouldn't consider the issue of profit from shares to be the same as salary.

eta: Major shareholders should be held accountable for the decisions they influence though.

Limiting pay is not a good idea in any way.

Sounds like a good idea, but those who work the system the way it is now, would find a way to do it again. Not saying something shouldn't be done, but I think if we were to put a limitation on executives at all companies, we would have to limit wages all the way down to the janitors or we would end up finding a lot of slimy personnel records ten or twenty years down the road (I'm thinking instead of executives, they would take different titles, but have the same influence on the company behind the scenes.) And really, nobody wants to be limited to what they can earn...not by some other entity like the government. Would it be fair to limit the wages an admin makes? Or a sales person? Once we go there, we have fallen pretty far down that slippery slope and we are still stuck to stagnant wages for everyone.

Maybe I am just cynical, but I don't think we can force the kind of people who have that much greed to change.

I do think we should change things like not allowing CEOs to be chairmen of the board. I worked for HP when Fiorina was in charge and always felt there was something wrong with that. Too much trust put into one person who hadn't really proved she deserved it.

From what I can tell, most lower paid and middle income workers already have to suffer the pay limitations of their job, regardless of how good they are or how hard they work.

Why should the same not apply to all levels?

And I think that is actually going to get much worse as more people are out of work, people will be forced to put up with more crap from the boss and poor work conditons just to put food on the table.

Yep. absolutely.

It's a crying shame how much bullying goes on in the workplace!

Yes, I agree to a point. A lot of wages for lower and middle income earners have have remained stagnant. And not because they don't work hard enough. But not all have been this way. And not for as long as it seems. For instance, my husband makes significantly more than he did 10 years ago, but he has the same title and does the same thing. There are some in his field that make more then he does and some that make less. Now, if someone came in and said "Hey, XXX is the new limit to what Sys Analysts can make" and it was less than his wage? Yeah, he and everyone who makes what he makes or more get a cut in pay. Sucks. So, how motivated is he going to be to get better at what he does? What kind of pride will people have in their work if there is no hope for advancement? I agree that the salaries are out of wack and I know that was anecdotal, but I believe there are a lot of those people out there, too.

I agree. Employers are pretty terrible sometimes...and they get away with a lot, even with laws and limitations.

That's a good point case.

I think the issue still needs addressing, although it's very likely that executive salaries will be normalized in due course thanks to the financial situation we're all facing.

I am already seeing and hearing fallout over the current economic conditions.

Ask anyone in the work force today how many times they have heard, "It's good to be employed." in the last 4 months.

Hey, I agree about Congress. But the people in Congress don't make millions of dollars. I think BOTH Congress and the market need some serious adjusting.

No one has to suffer the pay limitations of their job. Each and every person is free to believe they are worth more. Some people just decide to do something with that belief.

I have actually proposed this before, because the real problem is that fact that executives in the US now make almost 500x more than the average worker. Bring that back down to where it should be and where it is in other countries, which more like 30%. And that is where it used to be in this country as well.

Maybe we could just put them all in prison for a few years. Doing hard labor.

The way I look at is this, if the wage disparity is addressed as a % of what the top can earn over the bottom, then the majority of the workforce would actually enjoy higher pay. The only ones who would suffer, if you can even call it that, are the ones who are making really, really high salaries. I honestly believe if the company shared the wealth more evenly with the workforce, they would have a happier, more loyal workforce who would be willing to work harder to make good things happen. A happy, respected, well-paid employee is a GOOD employee. And unhappy, disrespected, under-paid employees, not so much.

Without honest accounting practices it wouldn't much matter.

If you believe that your view of the situation must be very simplistic, and I don't believe it's a simple issue. There are so many contributing factors to wages and why people 'settle' for the things they settle for. Sure people can decide to go and get more qualified or change jobs or be more entrepreneaurial (sp?), but sometimes it all just comes down to dumb luck, or being in the right place at the right time or knowing the right people etc. Usually it takes a lot more than just hard work.

So that corporate president (after too many beers) said to me, "Jason makes the accounting say what it has to say."

Some people did decide to do something with that belief - especially when there is no chairman and independent Board of Directors representing stockholder's interests.

Management that must work for their stockholders (and customers) must have honest accounting and have pay packages restricted to reasonable amounts. With so many companies where the executive is also Chairman of the Board, no wonder highest paid executives are also running some of this nation's worst performing companies. No wonder spread sheet games are now routine and acceptable.

Anyone ready yet for big steel running to the government for protection? Symptoms are there.

Meanwhile, because he was doing good for GM, Rick Wagoner got a 34% increase in 2006 and a 67% increase in 2007. Wagoner was both the CEO and the Chairman of a Board that approved those pay packages. GM's outside Board members were heavily restricted in what they were permitted to know. Again explains why executives are so grossly overpaid (and not held responsible for the resulting disasters).

Raping a company is now acceptable. Then blame union workers for being overpaid. You even saw some in The Cellar agree. But how many noticed nobody to represent stockholder's interests - now the even the SEC was denuded.

Severe wage disparity is a real issue to contend with for sure. It is irresponsible for a company to force workers into low wages that are not at all proportional with the cost of living. Greed at the top can be astronomical and at times has resulted in the loss of thousands of jobs, homes, and cause undue stress and harm to countless families. However, it is just as irresponsible to assume every company, every executive, is this way and to call for artificial caps on all executive salaries because of the misdeeds of some, not all. There are moral and immoral people on every rung of the socio-economic ladder, executives and janitors alike. One thing to keep in mind is the exponentially increased responsibilities, not necessarily in terms of number but also weight, that come with many executive positions. I hate to use anecdotal evidence, but I can't help it in this case to at least just use a particular man as an example of an executive who does not at all fit this perceived mold of the greedy, money loving executive pig that lives off the work of others, in no way deserving of large salaries. My father is vice-president of sales & marketing and also head of the automotive division of the skin care company he works for. He is responsible for millions of dollars of sales a year, as well as product development and continued growth for the automotive division. He earns a tidy sum for his work, but he does in fact earn every penny of it. Our family enjoys upper-middle class wealth because of the hard work he puts in at the office every day and more often than not at home every weekend. He is constantly pouring over data, making reports, keeping up with market trends, staying in touch with distributors, clients, and keeping tabs on potential areas for growth as well as the competition. No he does not do the manual labor, drive the warehouse forklift, or come home dirty and sweaty like many of the workers at the plant do. But in no way does that reflect on the amount of time and effort he puts into his work, sometimes at the expense of time with the family because that's what his job requires.

What I am saying is that though he is compensated very well for his work, and there are undoubtedly some in this country who would like to see executives like him not make as much as they do just because of the principle of wage disparity, he is compensated in a manner that is proportional to his value to the company as a whole. His responsibilities and decisions weigh heavily on the direction and success of the entire company. He has acquired specific skills and experience over the years working his way up the corporate ladder that make him the right tool for the requirements of his job. It would be extremely unfair to him to cut his salary just to diminish wage disparity. Of course a company should reward its employees generously, including everyone at the bottom. But I find fault in allowing that mindset to blind a person to the fact that many executives actually deserve high pay. Not all of course, there are many that will bleed a company dry for their own personal benefit and toss its employees around with no regard for their income needs. But not every executive is like that, and I object to any sweeping assertion that every executive in corporate America should have an artificial wage cap. My father may make almost 6 times what the average worker in the plant does, but he again earns every penny of it. To artificially deny him that fair compensation, dictated by the head of the company, is greed in the opposite direction. Greed by those who think his work is just making powerpoint presentations and playing golf all day. Greed by those who assume an executive's job is among the easiest professions in the world, and because of that executives owe everyone below them a piece of their salary pie. I assure you, there are highly paid executives of some companies that deserve the pay they are rewarded.

The company my father works for is doing very well through this economic crisis, and they see no reason that it would not continue to do so for the foreseeable future. He is an instrumental part of keeping this healthy company afloat and moving amid the economic wreckage littering the corporate landscape in America. One may look at the fact that he makes 6 times the average plant worker (15 times what I made there as a summer intern a few years back) and shout "capitalist pig!", but the company is healthy and growing while others are in decline or failing completely because of the smart strategy and decision making by those at the top of the company.

My parents are both children of divorced households, alcoholic parents, and very poor socio-economic environments. One grew up in the ghetto of San Diego, running around barefoot eating only plain white toast for breakfast everyday and a single egg for lunch for years. The other grew up with the weight of being among the poorest kids at school, 12 years old walking home from swim practice alone at night while dad is drunk in a bar downtown and who eventually wrote him out of his will because he didn't want to keep working at the failing family radiator repair shop in the desert. My parents know what it is like to work dead-end jobs and have worked their way up the ladder of prosperity through determination so they could provide a better environment for their children than they had growing up. And they succeeded. I say all this because my father is a real person, my parents are real people, and he is not some evil corporate menace that feeds off the backs of the poor and the uneducated. My parents give generously to charity because they believe in helping other people through tough times, because they know exactly what it is like; they experienced it at the worst possible time in life. Anyone who says that my father's salary is unfair, he should have his pay capped and the difference spread thinly amongst the general employees can straight go to hell in my book. He is a man if integrity and does not "hoard his wealth from the masses". He gives and gives because he was once on the receiving end of that kind of giving.

Painting all executives with this biased brush of "they make 6 times as much as the factory worker so they must just be greedy pigs, lets take their income and give it to everyone else" is not only incredibly cold and selfish, but it is also a misguided and over correctional attempt for a perceived wrongdoing represented by the executives' high salaries. I'll say it again once more: many executives, especially of healthy companies, do much more work that the average American does not see. And it is this hard work, these weighty decisions, this forward thinking and progressive mindset towards growth for the entire company, that grants many (not all) executives salaries, though they are large, that are actually proportional to the work done and the value of the results of said work obtained by the company from the efforts of those executives.

Ok I'm done now.

Which means he is not relevant to this topic. When executives were properly compensated, it was 17 times the average employee's salary. Today executives reap 50, 300, and higher times that average. Where the company is not productive, that number is highest.

Working hard says nothing. Sculley did same hard work for Apple Computer. Therefore Apple went into major decline.

Executives do not oversee $multimillion operations. Executives provide attitude and knowledge for those who oversee those $millions. That actual overseeing of those $millions are by the salesmen, production people, human resources coordinators, and other smaller people who actually do the overseeing. That is where real talent lies in a productive company.

The "6 times" was off the top of my head, can't give you precise wage statistics because I don't work for them anymore I'm in college. But the fact remains that he makes many times more than the average employee, but he does the work and has the responsibilities to deserve high pay as such.

You can call him whatever you want, executive or not doesn't matter one lick to me. I used the term executive because it is often thrown out there as a blanket label of highly paid white-collar professionals. I know what his job entails and he is a key part of determining the direction of the company, directing people and resources, making decisions that greatly affect the future of the company, not some goofball salesman in a plaid suit pitching ideas to a board. That's the way this company is structured, he manages a number of salespeople, market research folks, product prototype developers, etc., and uses these resources in collusion with other "executives" or whatever you want to call them, to make decisions about how the company should be run and where it is going. The point is, he is an example of a white-collar worker whose salary, purely due to it's size, is something of a target by people with an obsession to demonize anyone associated with those at or near the top of a large company. Lower vs. higher class, haves and have not's, however one wants to phrase it that is how these people see this wage disparity and wish to impose artificial caps on large salaries just because they are large.

"Who cares about what it takes to steer the direction of an international, multimillion-dollar company, can't be as hard as those suits who are off in Cabo/Greece/Napa Valley say it is". These people don't fully appreciate the responsibility that comes with many higher positions in large companies like my father's, and thus large salaries, because they have been jaded by the "robber barons" of the past and the Fannie Mae's of today. Pick apart the details of what I'm saying as much as you want, but that's what it boils down to: an over generalization of white-collar workers in upper division, high paying positions within large companies that none of them deserve to make what they do.

Simple as that.

Thanks for your comments Bullit. Quite appropriate. As we thread drift back into that stream of what is "rich" and "haves and have-nots" it is refreshing to hear your comments. I have worked hard to get to where I am and work many long hours to provide for my family and give them better than what I had. I can relate to much of your story. Thanks again.

really?

I try to stay out of the big long serious discussions ...partly because I really don't have the time to do the necessary research that would be required in order to not say anything really stupid, and partly because they fucking bore me. You, however, have repeatedly demonstrated that you are free from any such compunctions. huzzah!

Really.

As of January 2009, the annual salary of each Representative is $174,000.00.[7]

Senators 2008-present $169,300 per annum

Do they have any other benefits? Receive any other sources of income? How's their retirement plan?

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Hillary Clinton and former president Bill Clinton reported income of $109.2 million for 2000 to 2007, paying taxes of $33.8 million for that period, according to documents released Friday.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/stor...60FE8147D34%7D

Yeah, but not everyone comes from a town called hope.

:haha:

I have a college education with some post grad studies - ended up in the financial industry. Have done the same job for 15 years, moved my way up- as my bosses income increased so did mine. One year support staff was told we had to choose one of our own to let go, or not take a cost of living increase. We opted for no raise - this was the same year the company donated $100 million to Harvard. (Harvard was a write off -we weren't.)
December of alst eyar the company decided to cut back - 3,000 jobs. I wa sone. Had nothing to do with the boss I had worked my way up with for fifteen years - the Comapny saw me as expendible. (Probably because I was at teh top of my pay scale.) I found work with another company within three weeks - I al now studying for a test that will give me a chance to increase my pay back to the level it was in December. I have chosen to better myself in order to improve my quality of life.

I did not choose to make my position worse, but I have chosen to take action to make it better.

/Rant off.

all A BOARD!

~~The train to Stupidville is leaving on track 3!!!~~

allllllllllllll A BOARD!

chugga chugga chooo choo!!

End of the Line:

ELVERSON, PA

you're on report

Bullitt, kudos to your dad. You said he earned 6x what the average employee earns. That is in no way out of balance. I'm talking about the executives that earn hundreds x more. On average, a CEO makes close to 500x more than what the average employee earns. THAT is what I'm talking about. By the standards that I would apply, your dad would probably earn more, not less.

And ftr, I am demonizing ALL executives. I am only demonizing the greedy ones.

The people in Congress who have millions of dollars did not earn that money with their salaries IN Congress. Yes, there are a LOT of rich people in Congress. But their salaries are all under $400,000 a year. The president only earns $400,000 a year. Do you honestly think anyone's salary in Congress is more than the presidents?

what, now that you've changed what you said initially?

here's what you said:

now you add the 'with their salaries' part.


and now you've edited out asking who the idiot is. smooth. I guess you already know the answer to that question then.

I edited that out because it was uncalled for. I was being reactive, because you implied that I was an idiot, and I'm not. But, I don't appreciate people calling me that either. It still isn't right for me to call you one in return. So I was trying to be the better person.

As far as what I said, "people in Congress don't make millions of dollars," and then adding on the salary part, what the hell did you think I was talking about in the first place? They RAISE millions of dollars for their campaigns, but that is not the same thing as being paid millions of dollars.

ya might want to check out where ron paul's campaign funds went.

my point was simply that they DO in FACT make millions of dollars. well...they GET millions of dollars. one way or another.....

Also, I though it naive of you to differentiate between them and corporate execs based on that criteria in the first place.

let's just go back to being strangers.

/off/what's with the LJ persona?/topic/

oh, and the stupid train quip was pointed more toward spexxcock than you. He fancies himself my nemesis, and rushes to the defense of anyone he thinks I'm picking on unjustly. It's a proud service he does for the weak and defenseless of the cellar. You forgot to thank him, I noticed.

oops. i was going to add a couple things to my list as LJ, and got side tracked.

You didn't have to change on my account I was just wondering if there was some symbolic milestone approaching.

I am neither weak nor defenseless.