UAW wants limits on carmakers' executive pay

[Blue Oval Guide]

UAW wants limits on carmakers' executive pay

 

The Big Three U.S. automakers should tell Congress they will limit corporate pay, bonuses and severance packages in return for government loans, the president of the United Auto Workers union said on Sunday.

 

On CNN's "Late Edition," UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said carmakers only need a loan to tide them over a tough period and insisted high union wages were not the key cause of waning sales at General Motors Corp and Chrysler LLC.

 

READ MORE HERE.

[ANTAUS]

He's right, it's not wages, it's the benefits. Although this loan isn't enough to "tide them over for a tough period" because we've been at this for decades.

 

Nice try though....

[Noah Harbinger]

And it's not even benefits, it's benefits to former employees...

[Pioneer]

And it's not even benefits, it's benefits to former employees...

 

 

Yeah. How dare Ford and the rest of the automakers have to pay for their obligations. It's not their fault they underfunded their pension accounts when they were raking in Billions during the '90's. :rolleyes:

[Pioneer]

He's right, it's not wages, it's the benefits.

 

 

Maybe if they cut down on free company cars and unlimited air travel for executives and their families, they might be able to save a few bucks.

[wish4newstang]

UAW wants limits on carmakers' executive pay

 

The Big Three U.S. automakers should tell Congress they will limit corporate pay, bonuses and severance packages in return for government loans, the president of the United Auto Workers union said on Sunday.

 

On CNN's "Late Edition," UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said carmakers only need a loan to tide them over a tough period and insisted high union wages were not the key cause of waning sales at General Motors Corp and Chrysler LLC.

 

READ MORE HERE.

 

 

so the finger pointing starts.

[Pioneer]

so the finger pointing starts.

 

 

I suggest the middle one. Straight up.

[macattak1]

Yeah. How dare Ford and the rest of the automakers have to pay for their obligations. It's not their fault they underfunded their pension accounts when they were raking in Billions during the '90's. :rolleyes:

 

 

I agree with some of that sentiment. But just how realistic are those bennifits? I mean. Negotiate what you can get during the good times. But know that you will be back at the table negotiating during the tough times right?

 

That is the name of the game right? The only ones that probably do not default on any bennifits is the US govt/military. They just cut them for future retirees. They also pay those bills with our tax money.

 

Peace and blessings

[ANTAUS]

I think they should do, just as I do when sending out bids to renovate a property...Who can do the job, and cheaper?

 

Joe quoted me $15hr, and Max the other bidder is desperate and he can do it for $10hr because alot of people are out of work.

 

Max said he would take care of his own insurance because his wife has a group policy thru her job. And he doesn't care about doing retirement benefits on his own because he seems to be responsible and thrifty, he lives in a modest home with a nice take care of yard, and the cars are a bit older, but paid for. Max, which seems to be more complacent. he's eager to go, in good shape, and is taking care of those other little things (insurance, retirement that slows me down). All he asked from me was 2 weeks of paid vacation like everyone else, which I'm ok with.

 

Now Joe only has a HS diploma, and while he has been doing this line of work for while, he needs me to take care of his retirement benefits because he's irresponsible. He bought a big SUV for their family of only 3, and is eating McD's for lunch everyday. Poor Joe has gained so much weight he's about to have a heartattack any day now, such a risk I tell ya. If I provide him with insurance, it'll make all my group policy jump off the roof because he has had a history of that before. And he doesn't do much yard work, his house looks like crap. Yeah it's a large home, about 5 bedrooms, in about 4000sq.ft., but at first he had yard service, but since his interest rate on his mortgage flunctuated, he had to cut the service out... so now the yard is getting worse by the day. Pool is turning green too, he never even used it, but because all the neighbors had one, he wanted one too... Joe wanted 3 weeks of paid vacation, an extra bonus if he had no sick days, a certain number of paid sick time, all holidays off, including Jewish ones even though he's Christian and non-practicing.

 

(Sigh)... When I speak to Joe, it's like I HAVE to give him a job. He's making it seem that I HAVE to pay for the luxuries that he can't afford, as if I'M responsible for his bad decisions and spending habits. I keep hearing about "They've done this to me, they are screwing me, yadda yadda".

 

Hmmm...such decisions I gotta make....

[lquidspine]

so the finger pointing starts.

It really never has stoped.

/bird

/bird

The UAW has done their share to help out, contracualt obligation that was underfunded but yet the workers are the cause of all the auto companies problems.... Ya right

[RangerM]

The UAW negotiate (with that general strike trump card in their pockets) for ever greater benefits for themselves and retirees.

 

The American people vote for "change" so the Government will pay for things that they believe should not be their responsibility.

 

 

The Auto Companies defer a portion of the contractural funding obligations (per Lquidspine), to line their executives pockets

 

The Government takes its (excess) revenue, and replaces it with IOUs to pay for the pet projects that (ultimately) line their campaign coffers.

 

 

The Auto Companies, now facing bankruptcy, claim they need a bailout (rather than reduce their costs via the bankruptcy process), and the UAW says it's to save 3 million jobs and avoid another Great Depression (a form of coercion).

 

The Government, now facing a budget crisis, claim they need to increase taxes (rather than reduce spending), and so many (incapable of taking care of themselves) will vote to take from those more successful than they at the point of a gun (another form of coercion).

 

 

The UAW claims it's the executives fault, even though they imposed their will under threat of strike. They see no connection between their contract (particularly legacy costs) and the drag on the auto companies.

 

The American people claim it's the politicians' (read: Bush) fault, and vote for "change". They see no connection between greater Government spending (on retiree benefits, as well as new social welfare programs), and higher taxes and the resultant decrease in economic activity and higher unemployment.

 

 

So many parallels.

 

Thank God the UAW can't use force, but we should all be afraid the Government can. If there is a lesson to be learned from all of this, it's what America is facing, but it seems noone is paying attention.

Edited December 1, 2008 by RangerM

[NickF1011]

I wonder how much Ron Gettelfinger made last year?

 

[mnm]

I think they should do, just as I do when sending out bids to renovate a property...Who can do the job, and cheaper?

 

Joe quoted me $15hr, and Max the other bidder is desperate and he can do it for $10hr because alot of people are out of work.

 

Max said he would take care of his own insurance because his wife has a group policy thru her job. And he doesn't care about doing retirement benefits on his own because he seems to be responsible and thrifty, he lives in a modest home with a nice take care of yard, and the cars are a bit older, but paid for. Max, which seems to be more complacent. he's eager to go, in good shape, and is taking care of those other little things (insurance, retirement that slows me down). All he asked from me was 2 weeks of paid vacation like everyone else, which I'm ok with.

 

Now Joe only has a HS diploma, and while he has been doing this line of work for while, he needs me to take care of his retirement benefits because he's irresponsible. He bought a big SUV for their family of only 3, and is eating McD's for lunch everyday. Poor Joe has gained so much weight he's about to have a heartattack any day now, such a risk I tell ya. If I provide him with insurance, it'll make all my group policy jump off the roof because he has had a history of that before. And he doesn't do much yard work, his house looks like crap. Yeah it's a large home, about 5 bedrooms, in about 4000sq.ft., but at first he had yard service, but since his interest rate on his mortgage flunctuated, he had to cut the service out... so now the yard is getting worse by the day. Pool is turning green too, he never even used it, but because all the neighbors had one, he wanted one too... Joe wanted 3 weeks of paid vacation, an extra bonus if he had no sick days, a certain number of paid sick time, all holidays off, including Jewish ones even though he's Christian and non-practicing.

 

(Sigh)... When I speak to Joe, it's like I HAVE to give him a job. He's making it seem that I HAVE to pay for the luxuries that he can't afford, as if I'M responsible for his bad decisions and spending habits. I keep hearing about "They've done this to me, they are screwing me, yadda yadda".

 

Hmmm...such decisions I gotta make....

boy it sure is easy to paint such broad, assuming strokes aint it? i assume you believe that all blacks are lazy and all jews are penny pinchers dont ya?

Edited December 1, 2008 by mnm

[atomaro]

[lfeg]

The relationship between the UAW and the automakers has been one of MAD - Mutual Assured Destruction. There are only 2 possible outcomes - both sides cease to exist, or they make peace, usually at the last moment when both are so weak that they can barely survive.

[lquidspine]

I wonder how much Ron Gettelfinger made last year?

 

Roughly $175,000

Edited December 1, 2008 by lquidspine

[NickF1011]

Roughly $175,000

 

More than I make, but wow, I figured it would have been more than that. Oh well.

[old_fairmont_wagon]

While in general I tend to stay away from these sorts of arguments, having witnessed smaller scale labor union activities locally for most of my life and having a father that lived through it for 33 years as an airline mechanic, the behavior of labor unions has always amused me. They are always quick to stump up to the table and demand their cut when business is good, but, heaven forbid the company ask for something back when times are tough. The unions usually dig in their heals and say "don't look at us. Even though we earn above the prevailing wage for people with our average amount of education and experience, we aren't going to give back one cent until all you overpaid executives, with your MBAs and years of experience at other companies in management roles or years of experience of working your way up the corporate ladder give back a big old chunk of what you're making, and then we'll think about it." Usually without any regard to the percentage of that income that's stock options that are almost worthless when the company is in the crapper.

 

I applaud the UAW for negotiating a deal that was more favorable to the Automakers in this most recent round of contract negotiations. Its one of the first sane actions I've ever seen a major union take in my life. However, pointing the finger at executives and singling out their compensation packages for ridicule as a solution to the problem is not going to make things better. I say, meet at the table, and everyone come up with a percentage of their base pay they're willing to cut in the short term to help the company through the rough patch. Let's say 5%. That means that many of the line workers will be giving up $2000 or so in pay for the year. While those highly compensated executives you scream about that make in excess of $1 million a year each give up at least $50,000 a year or more.

 

I want to ask one question, though. Why does it seem fair that a few should pay substantially more for the sake of the company than the many? I realize that you would answer "Well, its because they can afford it." But, why are you penalizing their success over yours? Many of them took a gamble on student loans and got their MBAs, managed to find a job here and there until they more than likely lucked into a decent position and hopped to where they are from there. Many many more than them, though, never make it out of middle management, never break the 6 figure barrier, wallow in student laon debt for half their working life then scrape together a retirement from what they can afford. This Us against Them mentality has never served us well. In the past, when corporations were closed books and the top positions were almost entirely treated as inherited royalty, it had its place. These days, the biggest fish for organized labor to fry were long ago cooked and eaten. That mentality needs to go.

[Extreme4x4]

The mentality, that you speak of, has been nurtured for decades................ by politicians.

 

It is this "those nasty rich bastards are at fault for my station in life, and they need to pay and be punished" us against them, that gets certain politicians elected.

 

Look at our current election as proof positive of this.

 

The definition of "rich" keeps getting lower, and reality rarely enters any of the rhetoric, such as........... lower wage earners already pay NO taxes, thus, how is it really possible to give them a tax cut??? Since they pay no taxes, and get no tax cut because of it, the percentage of cut is skewed to make those with more to lose................. and those who employ many.................. look even more heartless.

 

It makes me sick.

 

Old fairmont, I agree completely. Everyone screams about what the executive makes................. yet, if he makes $1, it really saves the company very little actual money.

 

That said, do we really want executives that come from the low end of the totem pole??? If you are really willing to work for much less than the status quo, I would really have to question your intelligence, and ability to actually do anything of value.

[goingincirclez]

I want to ask one question, though. Why does it seem fair that a few should pay substantially more for the sake of the company than the many? I realize that you would answer "Well, its because they can afford it." But, why are you penalizing their success over yours? Many of them took a gamble on student loans and got their MBAs, managed to find a job here and there until they more than likely lucked into a decent position and hopped to where they are from there. Many many more than them, though, never make it out of middle management, never break the 6 figure barrier, wallow in student laon debt for half their working life then scrape together a retirement from what they can afford. This Us against Them mentality has never served us well. In the past, when corporations were closed books and the top positions were almost entirely treated as inherited royalty, it had its place.

 

You answered your own question, and it still has its place.

 

Sure, many executives reach the top through no small amount of hard work, sacrifice, and risk. But for every success story there are hundreds if not thousands more struggles, borne by people who were not so fortunate or, more likely, didn't know the right favors to call.

 

The problem with your logic, is idiots like Bob Nardelli can run a company like Home Depot into the ground and still get all of their executive pay AND a golden parachute. They basically get paid a bonus to leave, while you and I, the workers on the front lines, and the rest of the M&M's (Middle Managers) get FIRED oh and please don't let the door hit you, your 401K is all you can take...

 

Same with college coaches, university heads, top professional athletes, and most any other CEO-level position. They get theirs, and are entitled or able to do a piss poor job that would get anyone else disciplined or fired, but rarely see any sort of punitive result.

 

Even beyond the corporate world: College tuitions skyrocket beyond the pace of inflation, while at the same time their respective President / Provost / Chancellor / Head coach salaries do all they can to keep up and then some. How perfectly logical. Seems to me if these colleges are in such crisis where they need to keep fleecing for money, the people in charge should be held accountable.

 

A salary of $1 is a largely worthless, purely symbolic gesture, sure. Stock options or something else will cover the day-to-day comfortable life he/she is already used to, no doubt.

 

But 8-figure salaries are ridiculous in any field. Maybe they wouldn't be if the spread of wealth in this country wasn't so widely out of whack. But CEO-level pay has increased by what double-digit percentage in the last 50 years, while entry- and mid-level wages have remained stagnant or declined? It's sickening and unjustifiable on any level.

 

Just because someone racked up a few dozen K's worth of student loans and other professional development risk, is no reason to raid corporate coffers like they've hit the lottery. You spent 80K on your loans and a measurable chunk of time toiling your way to the top, congratulations. You deserve some sort of reward beyond the typical norm. But not 100 times more than the person who spent 80K on a similar degree and similar hard work and through no punitive fault of their own is making base-level wages. That's ridiculous.

 

It should be a company with tangible assets that real people depend on, not a personal jackpot for someone's expensive college lottery ticket.

 

 

Of course, it all goes back to the truism: "He who hath the gold maketh the rules". :shrug:

Edited December 1, 2008 by goingincirclez

[Catalepsy]

The same plague is killing American industries one by one, and sadly, there is nothing we can do about it. I don't blame UAW for getting as much as they can. If I only had a highschool education with no other skills than the ability to insert screws into hole A & B, I would fight like heck to keep a job that actually have to pay you to sit at home.

 

This is the first time I have serious doubts about GM's survival. Ford can probably fight it out for awhile, but it will not take another big bump on the road to derail the whole thing.

 

Who knows. The new products really can't arrive fast enough for Ford.

[grbeck]

Iacocca had the right idea...he cut his pay to $1 per year, until Chrysler returned to profitability. Granted, it was a symbolic move - he was already rich, so we knew that he would not be showing up at a Highland Park soup kitchen any time soon. But symbolic measures do have significance.

 

An even bigger problem than the executive pay is the complete isolation that top executives have from their customers. They get free cars regulary, said cars are carefully prepped, and they don't have to worry about maintaining them after the warranty expires. They have no idea what the customers who buy their cars experience as the odometer climbs toward 100,000 miles.

[NickF1011]

An even bigger problem than the executive pay is the complete isolation that top executives have from their customers. They get free cars regulary, said cars are carefully prepped, and they don't have to worry about maintaining them after the warranty expires. They have no idea what the customers who buy their cars experience as the odometer climbs toward 100,000 miles.

 

And the CEO of Merck has no hands-on experience knowing whether or not that new cancer drug works, and the CEO of Lockheed Martin has no idea how well the F-22 Raptor flies during a mach speed turn at 40,000 feet, and the CEO of AT&T has no freaking idea how to send text messages. I don't think any of that is relevant to how well they act as CEO of their respective companies.

[grbeck]

And the CEO of Merck has no hands-on experience knowing whether or not that new cancer drug works, and the CEO of Lockheed Martin has no idea how well the F-22 Raptor flies during a mach speed turn at 40,000 feet, and the CEO of AT&T has no freaking idea how to send text messages. I don't think any of that is relevant to how well they act as CEO of their respective companies.

 

Compare apples to apples, please.

 

A drug company must submit any new drug to extensive trials, and it essentially has a monopoly on that drug for an extended period. The drug is distributed to a limited audience and its use is monitored closely by physicians who provide instant feedback of any problems.

 

A defense contractor sells the thoroughly tested product to one customer, or a list of approved customers, and receives instant feedback from the final customer (the federal govermment).

 

There isn't much competition for these products. The final end-user can't easily take business elsewhere if the product is unsatisfactory. A completely different scenario from a product that is bought by customers from all walks of life and throughout the nation, and faces competitive products that can easily be bought as a substitute if the ownership experience proves to be unsatisfactory.

[lquidspine]

While in general I tend to stay away from these sorts of arguments, having witnessed smaller scale labor union activities locally for most of my life and having a father that lived through it for 33 years as an airline mechanic, the behavior of labor unions has always amused me. They are always quick to stump up to the table and demand their cut when business is good, but, heaven forbid the company ask for something back when times are tough. The unions usually dig in their heals and say "don't look at us. Even though we earn above the prevailing wage for people with our average amount of education and experience, we aren't going to give back one cent until all you overpaid executives, with your MBAs and years of experience at other companies in management roles or years of experience of working your way up the corporate ladder give back a big old chunk of what you're making, and then we'll think about it." Usually without any regard to the percentage of that income that's stock options that are almost worthless when the company is in the crapper.

 

I applaud the UAW for negotiating a deal that was more favorable to the Automakers in this most recent round of contract negotiations. Its one of the first sane actions I've ever seen a major union take in my life. However, pointing the finger at executives and singling out their compensation packages for ridicule as a solution to the problem is not going to make things better. I say, meet at the table, and everyone come up with a percentage of their base pay they're willing to cut in the short term to help the company through the rough patch. Let's say 5%. That means that many of the line workers will be giving up $2000 or so in pay for the year. While those highly compensated executives you scream about that make in excess of $1 million a year each give up at least $50,000 a year or more.

 

I want to ask one question, though. Why does it seem fair that a few should pay substantially more for the sake of the company than the many? I realize that you would answer "Well, its because they can afford it." But, why are you penalizing their success over yours? Many of them took a gamble on student loans and got their MBAs, managed to find a job here and there until they more than likely lucked into a decent position and hopped to where they are from there. Many many more than them, though, never make it out of middle management, never break the 6 figure barrier, wallow in student laon debt for half their working life then scrape together a retirement from what they can afford. This Us against Them mentality has never served us well. In the past, when corporations were closed books and the top positions were almost entirely treated as inherited royalty, it had its place. These days, the biggest fish for organized labor to fry were long ago cooked and eaten. That mentality needs to go.

 

As an houlry worker I do not blame everyone in management, but as ive stated in many other posts a company that is loosing money has no buisness paying any bonus's.

However for the last two springs Ford Managment has given out a $500 bonus to hourly workers simply because they where paying managment bonus's, it was basicly to hush the hourly or UAW up about the bonus's.

The company was not contractually obligated to these 2 bonus's.

 

Hourly workers have a profit sharing bonus already set up, If the company makes profits then we should get a bonus. If the company is not making money there should be no bonus's period.

 

Same should go with managment and exectutives no profit no bonus, does that not make sense ?

 

With regards to the first paragraph you wrote, I will simply say you are wrong.

Back in 2005 when Ford's trouble where really showing themselves the UAW opened the contract twice. Once for the VEBA ( retiree health care fund ) and a second time with COA's basicly changing attendance rules and also gave the company the right to outsource none core jobs( jobs not directly invloved with the line). So to say that organized labor is only there when they want more of something is just wrong, we all want to continue to go on.

 

If Ford does not do well and goes bankrupt then that directly effects myself and my family.

 

But rewarding failure is just stupid no other way around it.

Not planning for obligations is another form of failure, and proof Ford and the others of the Big 3 have failed is in the pension funding and retiree health care funding. While the health care costs have gone up the company can not be totally to blame. But with pensions they can be completly to blame, not saving the needed funding to properly fund obligations is totally the companies responsability.

 

If I want my kid to go to college I can choose to (1)start a saving for that only, (2) pray my child gets a scholorship or (3) re mortgage my house when the time comes. Which of those 3 options seems the most planed out to you ?

 

Same goes for pension funding.