sprinter Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 from http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/ma...on-report_x.htm Median 2005 pay among chief executives running most of the nation's 100 largest companies soared 25% to $17.9 million, dwarfing the 3.1% average gain by typical American workers, USA TODAY found in its annual analysis of CEO pay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heywood Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 from http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/ma...on-report_x.htmMedian 2005 pay among chief executives running most of the nation's 100 largest companies soared 25% to $17.9 million, dwarfing the 3.1% average gain by typical American workers, USA TODAY found in its annual analysis of CEO pay. The CEOs are paid what the Boards of Directors and shareholders think they're worth. Attracting and retaining top management talent is a bit like attracting the best athletes to a particular team -- you have to pay to play. That's just the way it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PimpDaddy Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 The CEOs are paid what the Boards of Directors and shareholders think they're worth. Attracting and retaining top management talent is a bit like attracting the best athletes to a particular team -- you have to pay to play. That's just the way it is. Worked real well at ENRON, WORLDCOM,DELPHI ect., ect. ect. :angry: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unionj Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 Worked real well at ENRON, WORLDCOM,DELPHI ect., ect. ect. :angry: I bet they come to work everyday, on time and would get fired for telling their boss to F%$K off! It takes two to tango and all the players on a team have to play to win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heywood Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 Worked real well at ENRON, WORLDCOM,DELPHI ect., ect. ect. :angry: The difference is that the Enron and Worldcom guys were crooks. A Mark Fields, Rick Wagoner, or a Jack Welch is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goford Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 The difference is that the Enron and Worldcom guys were crooks. A Mark Fields, Rick Wagoner, or a Jack Welch is not. That's yet to be determined :happy feet: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glory_dayzd Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 That's yet to be determined :happy feet: Actually, I think of them as robber barrons. Someone mentioned shareholders, but in Fords case, shareholders are not that relevent. This system is set up so that 'the Ford family', will always have the shares that count. How many of us have invested in Ford stock extensively in our 401Ks over all these many years? I think we would all be amazed if we knew how many shares we own, but it is irrelevent. How many shares, or options (with low strike prices) have been given, just to Bill Ford, alone, while the media touts him as recieving no salary during lean times? While our japanese competitors limit their top 'talents' pay to ten times the assembler's pay... Maybe we should hire them. A Ford VP was at AAP friday. When asked how they could justify closing the #1 plant in America and the #2 plant in the world, he mentioned transportation costs, then said it all comes down to money: they can pay mexican workers $2 an hour. Sounds like Ross' great sucking sound to me... There is not ANY kind of manufactoring plant in this country that can compete with that. The so called talant 'ain't worth squat' to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparks will fly Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 The difference is that the Enron and Worldcom guys were crooks. A Mark Fields, Rick Wagoner, or a Jack Welch is not. You are a crook when you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, check for fingerprints. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PimpDaddy Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 The difference is that the Enron and Worldcom guys were crooks. A Mark Fields, Rick Wagoner, or a Jack Welch is not. Happy Happy Joy Joy.....Pass the collection plate :bowdown: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLORIDA RETIREE Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 Actually, I think of them as robber barrons. Someone mentioned shareholders, but in Fords case, shareholders are not that relevent. This system is set up so that 'the Ford family', will always have the shares that count. How many of us have invested in Ford stock extensively in our 401Ks over all these many years? I think we would all be amazed if we knew how many shares we own, but it is irrelevent. How many shares, or options (with low strike prices) have been given, just to Bill Ford, alone, while the media touts him as recieving no salary during lean times? I'm not certain I understand your point about the Ford family's stock being "irrelevent." Every employee with Ford stock in their 401-K has seen a tremendous drop in value for that portion of it. Are you saying that the massive holdings (40%) of the stock held by Ford family members has not taken the same hit? At this point, I see the Ford family's stock ownership as a good thing since they have more to lose than anyone if The Way Forward fails. Unlike GM, if the Ford Motor Company goes under, the Ford Family stands to lose much of their accumulated wealth. I believe that with his family's fortune and legacy on the line, Bill Ford's going to do everything possible to save the company and that includes working with the UAW every step of the way since that's the only way he will be successful. Anyone who has ever owned their own business understands that no one works harder to make it a success than the man or woman who's name is on the building. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davdog Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 They are paid what they think they should be paid. They vote for their own raises, just like Congress. As to the talent, take Delphi. The company is in bankruptcy, and they voted themselves bonuses to retain the very people that put the company in that situation. :P Just admit it, Wood. It's a cash grab. They will pay themselves as much as possible, for as long as possible until the shareholders wise up to the fact that they are overpaying a CEO to make the same decisions my 9 year old daughter would do for a new bike, but she would be better at it! Then maybe she ought to go to school to move into a career path that heads in that direction. I see no law that says only certain people can become one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilovemoney Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 The CEOs are paid what the Boards of Directors and shareholders think they're worth. Attracting and retaining top management talent is a bit like attracting the best athletes to a particular team -- you have to pay to play. That's just the way it is. how friggin great can they be if they drive us into bankruptcy? do you think if i screwed up my job my boss would say i'm doubling your pay! The CEOs are paid what the Boards of Directors and shareholders think they're worth. Attracting and retaining top management talent is a bit like attracting the best athletes to a particular team -- you have to pay to play. That's just the way it is. how friggin great can they be if they drive us into bankruptcy? do you think if i screwed up my job my boss would say i'm doubling your pay! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heywood Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 how friggin great can they be if they drive us into bankruptcy? do you think if i screwed up my job my boss would say i'm doubling your pay! You assume that their actions are the only cause of bankruptcy. You would be mistaken. They may have made some mistakes in hindsight, but there are other significant factors, such as the legacy costs, rising health care costs, and GEN pools for you UAW workers. For example, any business that cannot shed jobs when necessary is bound to go into bankruptcy. And paying people NOT to work is simply a crazy concession that should never have been made in the first place. Just admit it, Wood. It's a cash grab. They will pay themselves as much as possible, for as long as possible until the shareholders wise up to the fact that they are overpaying a CEO to make the same decisions my 9 year old daughter would do for a new bike, but she would be better at it! Perhaps, but it is not dissimilar to union bargaining techniques -- get as much as you can for as long as you can until something gives. I think its just human nature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Bennet Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 Actually, I think of them as robber barrons. While our japanese competitors limit their top 'talents' pay to ten times the assembler's pay... Maybe we should hire them. I LOVE that Idea In 2007 negoitations what are should the UAW trade for a 10 to 1 pay ratio to executives? End of GEN? End of benefits? End of seniority rights? company wide seniority rights? 10 plant closings? What do you think it would take? It would have to be pretty good, I cannot think if any other union setting pay for non-members, ecspecially their bosses GO FOR IT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glory_dayzd Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 I'm not certain I understand your point about the Ford family's stock being "irrelevent." Every employee with Ford stock in their 401-K has seen a tremendous drop in value for that portion of it. Are you saying that the massive holdings (40%) of the stock held by Ford family members has not taken the same hit? At this point, I see the Ford family's stock ownership as a good thing since they have more to lose than anyone if The Way Forward fails. Unlike GM, if the Ford Motor Company goes under, the Ford Family stands to lose much of their accumulated wealth. I believe that with his family's fortune and legacy on the line, Bill Ford's going to do everything possible to save the company and that includes working with the UAW every step of the way since that's the only way he will be successful. Anyone who has ever owned their own business understands that no one works harder to make it a success than the man or woman who's name is on the building. I said that the Ford family's sock was relevent, ours is not, due to the 'classes' of stock and the way it is structured. And I am curious as to how much stock employees own. I LOVE that Idea In 2007 negoitations what are should the UAW trade for a 10 to 1 pay ratio to executives? End of GEN? End of benefits? End of seniority rights? company wide seniority rights? 10 plant closings? What do you think it would take? It would have to be pretty good, I cannot think if any other union setting pay for non-members, ecspecially their bosses GO FOR IT You (Mr. Go Fo It) are the one who mentioned the UAW, I was talking about the stockholders, and the differences between the ways our competitors, whom we are trying to compete with, do business. Greed is limited. As I said, WE, as stockholders, are irrelevent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLORIDA RETIREE Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 I said that the Ford family's sock was relevent, ours is not, due to the 'classes' of stock and the way it is structured . . . As I said, WE, as stockholders, are irrelevent. I understand that the Ford family stock is structured in such a way that their per share voting power is something like 4-1 what yours or mine is. Perhaps you or someone else knows the answer to a question I have had for some time. If the Ford Motor Company were (heaven forbid) to end up in bankruptcy - would the Ford Family's "preferred" shares be protected while the millions of "common" shares owned by others become worthless? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IPITYDAFOOL Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 I understand that the Ford family stock is structured in such a way that their per share voting power is something like 4-1 what yours or mine is. Perhaps you or someone else knows the answer to a question I have had for some time. If the Ford Motor Company were (heaven forbid) to end up in bankruptcy - would the Ford Family's "preferred" shares be protected while the millions of "common" shares owned by others become worthless? Not to that extent that the preferred shares r protected fully. 1. The SEC would probably tell ford, no bankruptcy untill u divest and sell off your external assets. MAzda,volvo,ford trucks,etc. If no buyers then the company will have to shut down production. After this common shares and prefered shares will be targeted. Then I believe there r some kind of Bond annuity that is the Ford Family Untouchable. Correct me if im wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 Not to that extent that the preferred shares r protected fully. 1. The SEC would probably tell ford, no bankruptcy untill u divest and sell off your external assets. MAzda,volvo,ford trucks,etc. If no buyers then the company will have to shut down production. After this common shares and prefered shares will be targeted. Then I believe there r some kind of Bond annuity that is the Ford Family Untouchable. Correct me if im wrong. the starting point would be Chapter 11 "bankruptcy protection" This is not bankruptcy. Its quite the opposite. Its a guarantee that no creditor will/can force the company into bankruptcy. During this time, the company restructures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bored of Pisteon Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 (edited) I understand that the Ford family stock is structured in such a way that their per share voting power is something like 4-1 what yours or mine is. Perhaps you or someone else knows the answer to a question I have had for some time. If the Ford Motor Company were (heaven forbid) to end up in bankruptcy - would the Ford Family's "preferred" shares be protected while the millions of "common" shares owned by others become worthless? That's a damn good question! My 401K is virtually dried up due to hardships. But at least I was smart enough in 2000 to take the $20 per share cash out, cut and run deal. I knew the price was going to nosedive. Edited April 11, 2006 by Bored of Pisteon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.