It's understandable that these executives are seen as a 'hot commodity' but of all the CEOs, how many actually achieve good results? The only CEOs that I'm aware of who have actually turned companies around (from near death experiences) in the automotive industry are Carlos Ghosn, Lee Iaccoca and Bob Lutz.

What a lot of us are tired of hearing is the way the board awards themselves some nice bonuses in light of the company's string of disasterous financial performances... There are many CEOs who have failed dismally, only to walk away with millions. It's a cultural thing, not necessarily confined to CEOs in the auto industry. It's no good saying to workers we can't afford to... when you, yourself, are lining your pockets with riches.

I would like to see a more equitable performance based salary for CEOs in general, minus bonuses and retirement payouts and no tax breaks. I doubt it will ever happen.

 

look up the book "good to great". It is written by a guy who researched companies performances for the past 100 years. Out of ALL the companies that were just good for a long period of time, then became truly great, NONE had a high profile CEO or a quick fix.

Also none changed overnight, the average time span was 5 years. Many also made business decisions that were ridiculed and dropped stock prices drastically, but in the long haul they paid off and they overwhelmed the industry average and the Wall street average.

 

You turn that kind of profit with a salary like that and you would be bombarded with offers that would make your jaw drop. You may not accept an offer like that. I hope I wouldn't. But we would be in the very small minority. These companies know how to get what they want and they would pay for that kind of profitability.

To add on to my previous post:
5. It sounds like union bashing but I really don't mean it that way. The union has major problems and is not only causing problems for the company but I think it will cause problems for the workers in the long run. GM really needs to be downsizing right now. What would help everyone would be to get rid of some of the dead weight in the workforce, white collar and blue collar. The current state of GM dictates that GM not base its firing descisions on keeping the best workers and getting rid of the bad apples but rather look at how much it costs to fire worker X versus worker Y regardless of their performance. Thats no way to run a buisness.

Just my opinion

 

I agree completely. CEO's shouldn't be making the kind of pensions, salaries, and benefits they are when there companies are in this kind of shape. I thinke if you cut out these compensation packages you would find that most of these CEO's really don't want to be there that bad. But I don't think most people in the auto industry really want to start losing all of their upper management until they are ready to replace them.

 

I wouldn't.

But taking an offer that would line the pockets of 20 generations of my family would
1. ruin my family and create a whole bunch of people exactly like those I despise.
2. completely nullify the entire reason I would take a lower salary in the first place, making me a complete hypocrit.

I would publicly decline any offer, saying, this is my job, I am happy here and I love my job.

After being homeless before and completely broke for extended periods of time, I have learned there is more than money out there.


I'd also be the CEO that would hear about an hourly employee having tough times and help him out without anyone knowing about it except he and I. I'd be the CEO fighting for the hourly employees, the salary employees and the executives, while still firing those who are dead weight.

 

shoot, after 5 years of working there I'd have enough saved up to take a drastic pay cut ad live off interest. Live very well too.


oh and back to the point of the thread, this will make Wagoner's salary a paltry 1.2m or higher. Poor SOB.

 

sorry to keep posting but I keep thinking of things I forgot to say.

If I was CEO and got those offers, I would say to anyone who would listen.... "I did not turn this company around. Every one of the 150,000 employees that I work with every day turned GM around, and I have the privilage of working with them, so why would I leave? "

 

I think the last time I looked up transplant CEO's salaries they were a little above $500K, about 6 months to a year ago. Even if our CEO's made this type salary, it's misleading, mainly b/c of the bonuses that come in the $Mills per year. So a CEO with a salary of $650K, could still easily make several million dollars per year plus stock options. A $2.2mil salary, may be cheap, if the bonuses were lower and the stocks were performance earned.
Like said, I don't think anyone would have a problem with their salaries if, the company was doing well, and they weren't making the bulk of their cuts from those least able to absorb them.

 

even when Lucent was doing well, when I heard how much the CEO was making I choked on something I was eating.

 

That's a really important part and not an easy one right now in the state that GM is in.

I agree with that one.

 

This nonsense has GOT to stop...
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...602110370/1014

"Delphi Corp. can give its executives as much as $38 million in bonuses to keep them from leaving at the same time the auto supplier wants to cut the jobs of 24,000 hourly workers and pay remaining workers less than half their wages."

un-freakin-believable.

 

I agree that it sounds rather outlandish...but.... consider this:

You are a high-payed exec at Delphi.... you have an oppourtunity elsewhere for more, the same... or heck, even a little less money at another company if you leave. With Delphi's stability issues... that looks pretty tempting... perhaps even at a lower rate of pay.

If you offer these bonuses to these guys to stay on, they might just do that.

Now, you can say "let them go"... but... who are you going to replace them with? How many executives are going to want to leave the greater stability of...just about ANY other company and risk it all by coming to Delphi? Not many.

So... I can understand where they are coming from.


On the flip side of that coin... you have the union worker. You might say... "why don't THEY get the bonus offer too?" Well, I'd say that's because there aren't a whole lot of other company's super-eager to pull away an assembly line worker and pay them $25-$35 dollars per hour. There's just not a lot of places that are going to pay that kind of money for that kind of work... therefore, there isn't going to be a mass-exit of the hands-on labor folks.

 

On the other side of the whole CEO pay thing, they should want to be there.

Leave because of instability? A real CEO would be able to turn things around with the right people on the executive leadership team. A real CEO does not have to be bribed to stay.

These kinds of salaries reward them for staying on after failure.

IF it goes up a little then goes back down, he'll get way more than of it goes up and stays up.

This is ridiculous. The CEO should not be payed to stay. If he wants to go and values money more than the company, he should leave.

look at all your "celebrity status" and "celebrity pay" CEOs, how many of them have sustained above average growth and stability? Here's a shocker for you, ZERO. THey all crash while still in tenure, or after they leave. Celebrity CEO = sometimes short term success, but no long term success.

If a CEO does not want to be there, then he will not be a good CEO, and he should leave.

 

To a degree, I would say you are right...

But....

You are focusing on one very publicly viewed key position... the CEO.

I think this incentive bonus structure would apply to many exec's throughout the company, the way it reads... I imagine that it will be much more likely to be applied to these people than the actualy CEO of the company.

 

Well the CEO is the one who achieves Celebrity status, i.e. when things go great, he is on the cover of Forbes. When things go bad, he is the blame.

We were talking about CEO pay, so that's what I commented on. I do agree that it applies throughout the company.

I think the max a CEO should make is 500k, no perks, no bonuses. Become a rapper or B-Ball star if you want to make 100m. But the CEO shoul dbe the highest paid, meaning everyone under makes less. The farhter down the ladder, the less you make.

Over 150k is a very comfortable living. I'd say most execs would be in the 400 to 500k range, that is roughly 6000 to 8000 dollars, per week, AFTER TAXES.

8k a week? I'd be able to buy a used car I want every month, while also paying a mortgage and putting away 1/2 of my money and spending 5k on BS.