What's new
By:

Lose $8 billion and walk away with $160 million

KCFlyer said:
That's the beauty of capitalism....you are rewarded for screwing up. Something is wrong here. Very wrong.
Click to expand...

I don't agree that capitalism is the reason, its simply the upper crust taking care of their own.

I do agree that something is very wrong with this picture and the masses just continue to tolerate it.

Go figure.......!
 
Did you read where TSA held a minister from the British Government for the 2nd time? I lost the link but they really are a bunch of incompetent thugs.
 
local 12 proud said:
I don't agree that capitalism is the reason, its simply the upper crust taking care of their own.

I do agree that something is very wrong with this picture and the masses just continue to tolerate it.

Go figure.......!
Click to expand...
My problem is this...in KC, Sprint is the largest private employer. When I worked there under their last CEO, we were told that, because of a lean year, raises were limited to no more than 3%. This fellow had a salary of $1,000,000 (not including bonuses or stock options) - and he was awarded a raise of 100%...to TWO million dollars. That was during the lean years. He almost guided them into a merger with now defunct WorldCom, where...oddly enough, wording was put it that if shareholders approved the merger (they did), then execs were FULLY vested in their stock options - worth at the time almost a hundred million dollars. Fortunatly, the SEC didn't approve the merger...but the verbiage in the agreement was that only the SHAREHOLDERS had to approve the merger. He was eventually fired and got a 20 some odd million dollar golden parachute. His replacement was hired in at a salary of THREE million dollars a year and he guided them to a merger with Nextel. Because of "redundancies" in the workforce, several thousand Sprint employees were laid off. The merger "hasn't been as successful as they had hoped"...and this guy was fired....and given a FIFTY million dollar parting gift.

Now...what pisses me off about Sprint or any other company (including or especially the airline industry) is that if it weren't for those "liabilities" called employees - the CEO's wouldn't have much in the way of a company. But I cannot name ONE SINGLE executive of a company who deserves a million dollar salary. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are among the wealthiest men in the US, yet their salary at the companies they work for was downright poverty level for a CEO. Yet they were rewarded for what they did. IMHO, CEO's should be paid no more than 10 times what the lowest paid employee makes - and if you want to give them stock options to reward them for the work they have done...then give them stock options...let them have as much "skin in the game" as the low level line worker. Then, more importantly - when the company DOES do well...REWARD THE PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY MADE IT POSSIBLE...not some figurehead.
 
The attitude in this country, by a TON of conservative voters, is CAPITALISM at ANY COST.
( I KNOW, that that is NOT a view that you share...local 12)(I'm being serious, NOT busting chops) !!!!

And that attitude is greatly supported by the "MORON in charge"...EL-CHIMPO (etc.)
 
I agree that these tyrants pay (shares) should be directly tied to performance and no CEO should be paid more than the Commander In Chief.......Period!
 
local 12 proud said:
I agree that these tyrants pay (shares) should be directly tied to performance and no CEO should be paid more than the Commander In Chief.......Period!
Click to expand...
That's not a bad thought. If the guy (or gal, whoever it is) in charge of the US is paid far less than a million a year to run the most powerful nation on earth, then why the HELL would anyone else deserve seven or eight figures to run one company??
 
local 12 proud said:
I agree that these tyrants pay (shares) should be directly tied to performance and no CEO should be paid more than the Commander In Chief.......Period!
Click to expand...


Well, then, let's just tie the Commander-in-Chief's pay to performance as well. If you take a look at the books, we are in the red... so how much should Bush Jr. owe the American stockholders??? The debate is still on-going as to whether his actions serve as a succesful long-term investment.

I don't mind hugh pay for Execs. But I definitely AGREE that it should be tied to the performance of the company. I am not neccesarily talking about stock options (or backdating)... I am in favor of the bonus. If revenues are up, expenses are down and, most importantly, profits are up, then the execs should be awarded for their hard work and good fortune. The employees should be awarded as well.

Also, paying bonuses rather than stock options (or backdating) and stock awards, helps prevent the CEO and other insiders for making bet-the-company financial transactions (i.e. sprint) that coincidentally do wonders for the stock options, but do little for the long-term financial horizon of the company.

Stock options, awards and all other unique golden parachutes have their place in our society, but I believe that they should be toned down and bonuses should be toned up. Firms like Goldman Sachs do this... there employees are treated fairly well financially too.
 
Gilding the Lily said:
I don't mind hugh pay for Execs. But I definitely AGREE that it should be tied to the performance of the company. I am not neccesarily talking about stock options (or backdating)... I am in favor of the bonus. If revenues are up, expenses are down and, most importantly, profits are up, then the execs should be awarded for their hard work and good fortune. The employees should be awarded as well.
Click to expand...

Here's my take...no CEO would make a nickle if they didn't have the lowly employees making or selling the product or service. So....if the company does gangbusters...give the CEO a bonus AFTER the lowly employees are given a bonus of their own. All too often a company might have a reasonably good year, and the CEO get a multimillion dollar bonus, while the workers are told that to remain "competitive", raises are limited or nonexistant. IMHO, the quest for "shareholder value" has come off the backs of the people doing the work. If times are looking tough, the FIRST thing most companies do is lay off. If that isn't enough, then employees pay and benefits are cut. If the end result is a bump in "shareholder value", the executive is rewarded.

If I had my way, I'd chuck the stock options...let them buy it like everybody else. There would be a "bonus pool" for the execs. If he achieves "shareholder value" without cutting jobs, he gets the entire pot. But...deduct $50,000 for every employee laid off to achieve this goal, and deduct $5,000 for every remaining employee who gave up pay and/or benefits. Use that money to reward the surviving employees and whatever is left gets split in the executive offices. It's a pipe dream, I know. But there are few companies where the execs have a fraction of the skin in the game as the line workers. Sure...it's stressful guiding a company thru a merger...but it ain't near as stressful as wondering if you will lose your $50k per year job tomorrow in a "cost cutting effort" and wondering where next months mortgage payment will come from. I could handle a helluva lot of stress if I knew that succeed or fail, I'm getting $160 mil at the end of the day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

autofixer
A Tale of Two Careers
Replies
3
Views
1K
GoldenRam94
GoldenRam94
F
AMR prices $400 million equity offering
2
Replies
18
Views
4K
Bob Owens
B
CaptBud330
  • Locked
Poor old JetBlue
2
Replies
20
Views
8K
Farley
F
eolesen
Obama's Campaign Promises
2
Replies
25
Views
4K
delldude
delldude
delldude
Democrat failures?
2
Replies
24
Views
4K
local 12 proud
local 12 proud

Latest posts

Back
Top