GREED IS GOOD

[Bob Owens]

Well, if you're right and eolesen is wrong, then why don't execs make even more?

Well that just goes to show how you've become conditioned to think that outrageous compensation-isnt, simply because others are paid even more outrageous sums.

Why is Arpey paid less than many other CEOs?

Perhaps you should look at the performance of the company.

If my comp was set by a compensation committee made up of my back-scratching friends, I'd make sure I was paid more straight salary and less variable comp, right?

Well they dont want to be too obvious now do they? The fact is if your base salary is half a million a year you can afford to wait a year or so for the big bonuses.

Give us your explanation as to why executive compensation is outpacing everyone elses. There is no shortage of MBAs, nor people who will work for millions of dollars a year. The basic job function has not changed and despite ideal circumstances(pro-corporate goverment and weak labor movement) they havent really shown spectacular performance. So its not supply and demand and its not performance yet we see the same faces bounce around from one corporate boardroom to the next getting paid more and more as they ruin the lives of millions.

 

[Hopeful]

Really? Then what exactly is the purpose of the CBA process?

"Scratch your back" propaganda makes for good rhetoric, but that's not how it works in the real world. Go ahead and believe it if you want, but the only thing factual about that myth is it's bound to pump your blood pressure up better than a bottle of Viagra...

Are you seriously comparing the CBA process where management and labor hammer out an agreement to the CEO pay process where his/her executive peers determine it?

How many union people sit on the board of directors compensation committee?

 

[eolesen]

How many union officials? None. The board's purpose is to protect shareholder interests first and foremost. When employees hold enough shares, they can put people on the board like UAL did. And the results of that were a disaster...

Maybe you should look at who sits on AMR the board of directors before deciding it's a giant circle-jerk...

If it were all CEO's, perhaps you'd have a point. But they're not. A good board has a cross section of people from all walks. AMR has 8 'C' level officers of for-profits. A third head up public corporations, a third lead privately held companies or partnerships. And a third are heads of non-profits.

Boren (Educational Institution), Miles (Investment Banking), Purcell (Private Investment Services), and Rodin (Private Philanthropic Institution) make up the compensation committee. Half the committee doesn't have a dog in the CEO-pay game since they're with non-profits. The other two aren't CEO's.

But that's probably not convenient for your argument, so maybe you didn't bother to notice that....

 

[Hopeful]

How many union officials? None. The board's purpose is to protect shareholder interests first and foremost. When employees hold enough shares, they can put people on the board like UAL did. And the results of that were a disaster...

Maybe you should look at who sits on AMR the board of directors before deciding it's a giant circle-jerk...

If it were all CEO's, perhaps you'd have a point. But they're not. A good board has a cross section of people from all walks. AMR has 8 'C' level officers of for-profits. A third head up public corporations, a third lead privately held companies or partnerships. And a third are heads of non-profits.

Boren (Educational Institution), Miles (Investment Banking), Purcell (Private Investment Services), and Rodin (Private Philanthropic Institution) make up the compensation committee. Half the committee doesn't have a dog in the CEO-pay game since they're with non-profits. The other two aren't CEO's.

But that's probably not convenient for your argument, so maybe you didn't bother to notice that....

All one needs to notice is that there are no union people on the board... what don't you understand?

education institution? there's a laugh probably teaches UNIONS BAD FOR THE COUNTRY 101

investment banking and private investment services? F### THE EMPLOYEES SO THE SHAREHOLDERS CAN MAKE MORE RETURN ON THEIR INVESTMENT..

private philanthropic institution? im sure they provide the services necessary for a place for greedy CEO's to give grants and get their name on a plaque at some college along with a tax writeoff.

 

[eolesen]

I'm not the one having the hard time understanding -- y'all have been claiming for years that it's just a good 'ol boy network, and the board is just a bunch of CEO's who look out for each other.

You obviously don't like facts getting in the way of opinions.... The board represents shareholders. Period. They're not there to look out for the employees at the shareholders expense.


But let's shift gears a bit... Do you really want union members on the board?

Go look at UAL from 1995 to 2000. The ESOP took 55% of the company and put it into the employees hands. As a result, they had representatives on the board who simply couldn't make the distinction between protecting -all- the shareholders they represented and protecting the union members who paid their salaries.

When Gerry Greenwald retired, John Edwardson was the most likely to succeed him. The ESOP board members decided to block Edwardson as CEO, since he was more of a hardliner, and instead picked jolly Jim Goodwin, who will go down as one of the weakest excuses for an airline CEO in the past 20 years. Even "they're coming to kill us" Dave Segal had more of a backbone than Goodwin did. Jim's responsible for the 48% pay increase given to UAL's pilots in 2000, not to mention increases for the IAM.

Backed by UAL's ESOP board members, Goodwin was busy writing checks the company couldn't cash when the Dot Com bust hit in late 2000, and they were effectively screwed by the one-two punch of 9/11 and SARS. Had they been a little more dilligent in not giving away the store to the employees over the previous two years, perhaps UAL wouldn't have been forced into bankruptcy, which wiped almost all of the value of the ESOP shares (some of the shares held in trust for active employees were able to be sold on the open market prior to the filing, but it was at a loss when you consider the 15-25% pay cuts that funded those shares...)

So, if you really want a seat at on the board, go ahead and buy it the way the UAL employees did. It's a risk, and it's a gamble, and UAL folks will tell you it's just not worth it.

 

[tech2101]

How many union officials? None. The board's purpose is to protect shareholder interests first and foremost. When employees hold enough shares, they can put people on the board like UAL did. And the results of that were a disaster...

Maybe you should look at who sits on AMR the board of directors before deciding it's a giant circle-jerk...

If it were all CEO's, perhaps you'd have a point. But they're not. A good board has a cross section of people from all walks. AMR has 8 'C' level officers of for-profits. A third head up public corporations, a third lead privately held companies or partnerships. And a third are heads of non-profits.

Boren (Educational Institution), Miles (Investment Banking), Purcell (Private Investment Services), and Rodin (Private Philanthropic Institution) make up the compensation committee. Half the committee doesn't have a dog in the CEO-pay game since they're with non-profits. The other two aren't CEO's.

But that's probably not convenient for your argument, so maybe you didn't bother to notice that....

Here is one member of the club:

Source

Mr. Goodwin served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of United Airlines, a worldwide airline operator, that is traded on the NASDAQ (NASDAQ:UAUA). Mr. Goodwin is also a member of the Board of Directors of AAR Corp.,

 

[Hopeful]

I'm not the one having the hard time understanding -- y'all have been claiming for years that it's just a good 'ol boy network, and the board is just a bunch of CEO's who look out for each other.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The board if filled with people who could care less about employees.. That, my friend, is a good ol' boys network
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You obviously don't like facts getting in the way of opinions.... The board represents shareholders. Period. They're not there to look out for the employees at the shareholders expense.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No argument there. And I say it's the employees duty to try their best and devalue the shareholders portfolio to worthless.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




let's shift gears a bit... Do you really want union members on the board?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No I don't. Even if there were 1,2, maybe 3 union board members, they would always be out voted by
the corporate CEO ass lickers.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


look at UAL from 1995 to 2000. The ESOP took 55% of the company and put it into the employees hands. As a result, they had representatives on the board who simply couldn't make the distinction between protecting -all- the shareholders they represented and protecting the union members who paid their salaries.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing different than what your traditional anti worker board does.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When Gerry Greenwald retired, John Edwardson was the most likely to succeed him. The ESOP board members decided to block Edwardson as CEO, since he was more of a hardliner, and instead picked jolly Jim Goodwin, who will go down as one of the weakest excuses for an airline CEO in the past 20 years. Even "they're coming to kill us" Dave Segal had more of a backbone than Goodwin did. Jim's responsible for the 48% pay increase given to UAL's pilots in 2000, not to mention increases for the IAM.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Weak CEO because he gave employees a fair share.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Backed by UAL's ESOP board members, Goodwin was busy writing checks the company couldn't cash when the Dot Com bust hit in late 2000, and they were effectively screwed by the one-two punch of 9/11 and SARS. Had they been a little more dilligent in not giving away the store to the employees over the previous two years, perhaps UAL wouldn't have been forced into bankruptcy, which wiped almost all of the value of the ESOP shares (some of the shares held in trust for active employees were able to be sold on the open market prior to the filing, but it was at a loss when you consider the 15-25% pay cuts that funded those shares...)


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the workers their fair share, it's called "giving away the store." But when the executives get their fair share, it's called "market demand to keep the key management team on board."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So, if you really want a seat at on the board, go ahead and buy it the way the UAL employees did. It's a risk, and it's a gamble, and UAL folks will tell you it's just not worth it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't want a seat, don't want an ESOP. I want what was taken from me during the rape.

 

[The Goose]

One thing that would somewhat settle this argument is knowing what connections the AMR board members ahve to other business interests. While eoleson will disagree, I believe hopeful has been vindicated.

Check this out:

http://investing.businessweek.com/business....asp?symbol=AMR

This page shows rather plainly the quite numerous connections to other BODs and industries AMR's directors have. I guess this is what is referred to as "networking".

Sorry, eoleson - it's most definitely a 'good ol' boys' club', the definition of 'market' meaning "How much can I get without causing a full-scale shareholder mutiny?" That's why there are CEOs not paid as well as others.

 

[TIME FOR CHANGE]

I'm not the one having the hard time understanding -- y'all have been claiming for years that it's just a good 'ol boy network, and the board is just a bunch of CEO's who look out for each other.

You obviously don't like facts getting in the way of opinions.... The board represents shareholders. Period. They're not there to look out for the employees at the shareholders expense.


But let's shift gears a bit... Do you really want union members on the board?

Go look at UAL from 1995 to 2000. The ESOP took 55% of the company and put it into the employees hands. As a result, they had representatives on the board who simply couldn't make the distinction between protecting -all- the shareholders they represented and protecting the union members who paid their salaries.

When Gerry Greenwald retired, John Edwardson was the most likely to succeed him. The ESOP board members decided to block Edwardson as CEO, since he was more of a hardliner, and instead picked jolly Jim Goodwin, who will go down as one of the weakest excuses for an airline CEO in the past 20 years. Even "they're coming to kill us" Dave Segal had more of a backbone than Goodwin did. Jim's responsible for the 48% pay increase given to UAL's pilots in 2000, not to mention increases for the IAM.

Backed by UAL's ESOP board members, Goodwin was busy writing checks the company couldn't cash when the Dot Com bust hit in late 2000, and they were effectively screwed by the one-two punch of 9/11 and SARS. Had they been a little more dilligent in not giving away the store to the employees over the previous two years, perhaps UAL wouldn't have been forced into bankruptcy, which wiped almost all of the value of the ESOP shares (some of the shares held in trust for active employees were able to be sold on the open market prior to the filing, but it was at a loss when you consider the 15-25% pay cuts that funded those shares...)

So, if you really want a seat at on the board, go ahead and buy it the way the UAL employees did. It's a risk, and it's a gamble, and UAL folks will tell you it's just not worth it.

Weather or not the employees get the farm or upper management the fact remains executive compensation is out of control. Especially for the execs of the airlines. The airlines continue to fail but the execs still get rewarded. I will take my 48 percent increase if the company goes tits up at least I will have gotten something out of it.

Then file Ch 11 and we can do it all over again.

<_<

 

[Bob Owens]

Maybe you should look at who sits on AMR the board of directors before deciding it's a giant circle-jerk...

If it were all CEO's, perhaps you'd have a point. But they're not. A good board has a cross section of people from all walks. AMR has 8 'C' level officers of for-profits. A third head up public corporations, a third lead privately held companies or partnerships. And a third are heads of non-profits.

Boren (Educational Institution), Miles (Investment Banking), Purcell (Private Investment Services), and Rodin (Private Philanthropic Institution) make up the compensation committee. Half the committee doesn't have a dog in the CEO-pay game since they're with non-profits. The other two aren't CEO's.

But that's probably not convenient for your argument, so maybe you didn't bother to notice that....

They are all still executives and all stand to benifit from rising executive compensation. As executive pay goes up elsewhere it is used by them, even at Non-profots and philanthropic Institutions to try and justify pay increases for themselves. They are all on the same team.

 

[cooper43]

How many union officials? None. The board's purpose is to protect shareholder interests first and foremost. When employees hold enough shares, they can put people on the board like UAL did. And the results of that were a disaster...

Maybe you should look at who sits on AMR the board of directors before deciding it's a giant circle-jerk...

If it were all CEO's, perhaps you'd have a point. But they're not. A good board has a cross section of people from all walks. AMR has 8 'C' level officers of for-profits. A third head up public corporations, a third lead privately held companies or partnerships. And a third are heads of non-profits.

Boren (Educational Institution), Miles (Investment Banking), Purcell (Private Investment Services), and Rodin (Private Philanthropic Institution) make up the compensation committee. Half the committee doesn't have a dog in the CEO-pay game since they're with non-profits. The other two aren't CEO's.

But that's probably not convenient for your argument, so maybe you didn't bother to notice that....

You seem real loyal to CEO's, either you are too stuborn to process the info that is obvious to everyone else, or you have something to gain by supporting CEO's out of wack compensation. I would venture to say that CEO compensation in this industry and country has out paced worker compensation over 100% in the past few years. How can you defend that kind of discrepancy? Why cant you see that the wealth in this country is being concentrated more and more in just a few peoples hand. It is the workers in this country that produce the goods and services, and then the CEO's and hedge fund managers who rape us of our fair wages and use the very same money they stole from us and send our jobs over seas. Why should any CEO get a raise or bonus or stock options if they are not performing. And they should have to perform for the workers and the shareholders, not just the shareholders. A company is a team effort. It takes labor, capital and management to create a viable company. Wake up, before it is too late. Our future depends on a balance. When things get out of balance then that is when things go bad. IMHO

 

[FWAAA]

Y'all could have bought a majority of AMR stock for less than $300 million in early 2003 before the concessions were imposed. That amount is equal to some of the annual profit sharing payments to the employees in the late 1990s. Chump change. With a majority of the stock, you could have replaced the board. Your board could have fired all the bastards and replaced them with different management.

I'm not talking about the screwing the UA pilots and mechanics suffered with the ESOP-fraud. Outright ownership, just like a NW Washington State employee-owned cooperative.

And instead of the stock merely hitting $41/share late in January, 2007, it would have hit what with your expert leadership and decision-making abilities plus better directors who don't scratch anyone's back? $75? $100? $150? Y'all would have made out like bandits.

 

[Bob Owens]

Y'all could have bought a majority of AMR stock for less than $300 million in early 2003 before the concessions were imposed. That amount is equal to some of the annual profit sharing payments to the employees in the late 1990s. Chump change. With a majority of the stock, you could have replaced the board.

You've been making that false claim for years now.

You are making broad, unrealistic assumptions.

Just because the stock that was traded at that time was trading at that price it doesnt mean that a majority of the stock was available for sale at that price, plus if all of a sudden there was a demand for a majority of the stock the price most certainly would have gone up.

Besides if the employees had done that you could be sure that AMR would have filed BK, made our shares worthless, and reissued new shares to the creditors who were probably the same entities that would have held the stock the employees bought. Hey if you can do it so can I.

 

[limit]

Y'all could have bought a majority of AMR stock for less than $300 million in early 2003 before the concessions were imposed. That amount is equal to some of the annual profit sharing payments to the employees in the late 1990s. Chump change. With a majority of the stock, you could have replaced the board. Your board could have fired all the bastards and replaced them with different management.

I'm not talking about the screwing the UA pilots and mechanics suffered with the ESOP-fraud. Outright ownership, just like a NW Washington State employee-owned cooperative.

And instead of the stock merely hitting $41/share late in January, 2007, it would have hit what with your expert leadership and decision-making abilities plus better directors who don't scratch anyone's back? $75? $100? $150? Y'all would have made out like bandits.

But of course!After all the institutional investors were lining up to sell their shares at those prices.

 

[Hopeful]

Y'all could have bought a majority of AMR stock for less than $300 million in early 2003 before the concessions were imposed. That amount is equal to some of the annual profit sharing payments to the employees in the late 1990s. Chump change. With a majority of the stock, you could have replaced the board. Your board could have fired all the bastards and replaced them with different management.

I'm not talking about the screwing the UA pilots and mechanics suffered with the ESOP-fraud. Outright ownership, just like a NW Washington State employee-owned cooperative.

And instead of the stock merely hitting $41/share late in January, 2007, it would have hit what with your expert leadership and decision-making abilities plus better directors who don't scratch anyone's back? $75? $100? $150? Y'all would have made out like bandits.

I received 449 shares at $5 strike price. My total concession losses for the life of the rape, er I mean contract, is about $120,000.00. The stock need to hit around $300 for me to get that back.

I should not have had to invest more of my money in company stock after they took so much from me.