about friggin time

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184088,00.html

 

Good! I am sure they are still making millions more then they deserve but at least to them they probably feel like they are suffering too.

 

While I like to see them do this, since I think it shows a lot of character....

I have no problem with Corporate Executives making big bucks. They have huge repsonsibility, and a lot of hard work. They earn their money.

 

$500,000 is a ton of money per year, it would buy you a 700HP saleen s7 or a huge place to live.
Beyond that there is no point to paying these people millions more then brain surgeons or a scientist that found a vaccine for some serious diesease.

In fact the only reason a saleen s7 is able to cost that much money is because there are like 1% of the population making a billion dollars a year who can afford it.
If there was a bigger middle class and the upper class was still rich but not filthy rich the price would be forced to come down and people like you and I might actually be able to afford some of these kinds of things in our lifetimes.

It's one thing to pay someone a huge amount of money for a service that only they are smart enough to do.
But CEO's are as common as companies. There is nothing special about them. Half of them do a horrible job and still get payed millions. (kind of like professional sports players hmmm)

 

I personally feel it is not my business to know what they make, but I admire them for taking the hit to make things better.

 

They're not exactly hurting. Pre-cut salaries:

G. Richard Wagoner: $ 4.66M
Robert A. Lutz: $ 2.95M
Mr. Thomas A. Gottschalk (Exec. VP - Law and Public Policy and Gen. Counsel): $ 1.69M
Mr. Gary L. Cowger (VP of Global Manufacturing and Labor of North America): $ 1.51M
Mr. John M. Devine (Advisor): $ 2.95M

And this does not include stock options, expense accounts, or bonuses.

They should all cut their pay to zero until they get GM back on course

 

They would but their name isn't on the door like Bill Ford. Why would an executive not directly tied to a company with anything other than a piece of paper work for nothing.

 

This is only one small part of the problem though, they still need to cut labor costs and build better cars.

 

As usual, I am RIGHT BEHIND this guy.

Also, this is not ground-breaking or trend-setting...
Bill Ford has not collected a salary since he took the CEO office in 2001, claiming that he will not take a salary or options until the company is headed in the right direction and profitable.
Bill Ford: No cash, stock until Ford profits rise

"WILMINGTON, Del. -- Ford Motor Co. Chairman and CEO Bill Ford will not accept a salary, bonus or stock compensation until the company restores the profitability of its car and truck business.
Bill Ford's decision, announced Thursday at Ford's 50th annual shareholder meeting, signals his willingness to share the pain during a time of falling profits, layoffs and cost cuts at the Dearborn automaker."

He did it voluntarilly, and he did it 5 years ago.

BFD that these guys are losing a few bucks while the company is laying off THOUSANDS of people who will get NOTHING. Again, I'm with centric.

 

Proud you know those people go into the jobs bank and get 70+% of their salary for doing NOTHING, with full benefits! Also they still get part of their pensions. It isn't like GM is throwing them out on the streets with the cloths on their backs. They have it good, to good in some cases, and they just want more. BTW what do the heads of other huge global companies make?

 

Proud/centric: On the other hand, one could argue that by laying off thousands (who get more than 'nothing', don't they Proud, since they are mainly UAW?), they are doing what is right to get the companies back on track (i.e. doing their jobs). In today's market, no single company is going to command 35-50% of the market, so GM and Ford NEED to be smaller. Have needed to be for a while. Of course, their jobs ALSO need to be stopping the decline in market share, so I'm not implying that they have just done everything rosy.

It would be cool to see them go to the level Bill Ford did, but if anyone thinks he isn't sitting on loads of money just by being a Ford, I've got a bridge to sell you... Not saying Wagoner, Lutz, etc. aren't rich too (of course they are, by any modest definition, but they don't have 100 years of Ford family money behind them, like Bill does). Again, I respect greatly what Bill Ford is doing, but I don't think he is scraping by during Ford's hard times. I think 91_z28_4me hits the distinction.

In any case, whether we plebians think they should be going a little farther or not, I still think it is a good gesture for them to make.

 

I make a VERY good living, but I could probably live off these guys' expense accounts ALONE and give them change back.

The difference between "them"--execs at large corporations--and "us"--leaders of small companies--is that when times get tough, we actually feel it.

When my company was doing poorly in 2002, I cut my pay to zero. The employees saw the books, and they knew it was real. As a result, we didn't lose some very valuable members of the team, even though they had to take cuts too. Now we're doing well, and redistributing profit amongst all employees.

When a company is underperforming, leadership should feel it first. And hardest. Especially leaders who are nothing more than talking heads and bean-counters, spouting the currently trendy business fads while looking for additional profit at any cost.

 

With respect to the line workers, their "job bank," and 70% of their salary for doing nothing, I'd submit that this is symptomatic of the prime problem with American society today: they want something for nothing.

CEOs of large corporations who want millions of dollars in salary and tens of millions of dollars in bonuses, even when the company is not performing = same problem, larger scale.

We need to get back to a place where the work ethic actually means something. Where people aren't constantly looking for a way to get free money. Where no work = no pay, and the top brass is REALLY judged by results, rather than being rewarded for poor performance.

HOW we do this is something I'm still not very clear on . . .

 

I don't contest any of your points... no problem with sharing the blame equitably. Truthfully, I'm sure there are some real duds on the line that drag things down and create more problems than benefit for the company, and they have needed to get the boot and are just now getting it - so I'm not defending 100% of the people with dirty hands and steel toes on.
But just for the record... not EVERY person being let go is going into the job bank. Also, the people at small shops supporting the main company may not be union and don't go into a job bank either, but they are losing jobs too, and when these people lose jobs, that can mean losing their homes, meals, and supporting their children, etc. That's not exactly the case with a guy who has made multi-million$ for the last 5 years.
Point is there are a lot of loses out here that do not fall into the job bank/crutch category. They MIGHT get 32 weeks unemployment, then again they might get a job at McDonalds making $7/hr.

My point was that the executives at the top SHOULD feel the pain as much if not more than anyone else in a company because they are the ones making the decisions.
I didn't see who asked/offered/ordered these guys to take a salary cut... was it them who asked for it? Or was it ordered to them by the BOD?

Either way - yes, it is nice to see them coming in-line with other companies who are being consciencious about the crazy money paid out to top execs.
It's a trend that MANY more companies need to partake of.

 

Some damn fine points being made here!