|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 30, 2009 20:30:20 GMT -5
That's right, it's now Government Union Motors....and WE are going to pay for it. How long will this black hole of a company disapperrs for good? Why the hell is Harper going along with this sham? And talking about shams, has anybody seen the Fiat dieal? It's nothing more then a con job for Onamy to justify his support for the unions.......and we are going along with it. How stupid is that? Thoughts? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ money.cnn.com/2009/04/30/news/companies/chrysler.fiat.fortune/?postversion=2009043015~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Chrysler won't get much help from Fiat NEW YORK (Fortune) -- "I have every confidence that Chrysler will emerge from this process stronger and more competitive," President Obama said today as the automaker filed for bankruptcy and entered into an alliance with Fiat. Bankruptcy was necessary because the vultures circling over Chrysler, hedge funds and other investors, couldn't come to an agreement, each trying to get as much of the carrion as possible. However, a point must be made. They are still circling over carrion--Chrysler is dead. There was a reason why Cerberus Capital Management agreed to forfeit its entire equity stake, to waive its share of Chrysler's $2 billion of second lien debt, and to transfer its ownership of Chrysler headquarters to the new Chrysler alliance. And why Daimler (DAI) agreed to give up its 19% equity interest, to waive its share of Chrysler's $2 billion of second lien debt, and to pay $600 million to Chrysler's pension funds. The future of any car manufacturer is new product. According to some Chrysler managers who have "retired" in recent months, chairman Robert Nardelli focused on cash flow at the expense of product development. Most of Chrysler's recent offerings have been badge engineered: essentially old products given new nameplates. Chrysler trashed the Jeep name with the Patriot and the Compass; the Dodge name with the Caliber and Nitro; and the Chrysler name with the Sebring and Aspen. Reportedly there is hardly anything in the pipeline, future-product teams have only half the numbers of engineers necessary, and these people are constantly being second-guessed by the finance types. This is one reason why Chrysler has the noisiest cars on the market and the cheapest-looking interiors. While the agreement with Fiat is helpful, Chrysler doesn't get much in return. Fiat will contribute a license to use all of its intellectual property and "know how" in exchange for 20% of the equity of the reorganized Chrysler. In exchange for up to 15% in additional equity, Fiat will have to introduce a vehicle produced at a Chrysler factory in the U.S. that achieves 40 mpg, provide Chrysler with a distribution network overseas, and manufacture state-of-the-art, next generation engines at a U.S. Chrysler facility. In Europe, Fiat is a marginal player outside of Italy. The only cars it manufactures that can get 40 mpg will have to be extensively and expensively modified to meet U.S. safety and emission standards. That just can't be done before the 2012 model year. The Fiat 500, for example, is shorter, narrower, and taller than the Mini Cooper, dimensions that make it well suited for the narrow lanes and traffic-clogged streets common across Europe. But there is a very limited market in the U.S. for "cute," especially when many Americans still think Fiat stands for "Fix it again, Tony." And even then, it is unlikely that these cars can be sold at a profit, especially when Honda and Toyota already sell hybrids with even better mileage for as little as $19,800. Meanwhile, Chrysler dealers can only look forward to the modestly freshened 2010 Jeep Grand Cherokee and Chrysler 300. As far as distribution overseas, that is ridiculous. Fiat adds distribution only in markets which wouldn't consider buying full-size pickups, minivans and American cars. Yes, Fiat is a leader in diesel-engine development, but that technology is primarily of use overseas, where emissions requirements are diesel-friendly. When all is said and done, the "new" Chrysler will be owned by the United Auto Workers, which understandably will try to maximize jobs, wages, and benefits in the short term. We saw how well that worked when the unions owned 55% of United Airlines (UAUA, Fortune 500). |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Apr 30, 2009 21:20:54 GMT -5
3 billion on the books and a 2 percent stake in a money siphon. Hooray. Where is the "conservative" part of Harper's ideology? As far as I can tell he's a rebranded Liberal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 30, 2009 23:28:05 GMT -5
3 billion on the books and a 2 percent stake in a money siphon. Hooray. Where is the "conservative" part of Harper's ideology? As far as I can tell he's a rebranded Liberal. Two percent stake for 4 billion in a company that was worth two pieces of manure. How stupid can one get? LET IT DIE! LET IT DIE! I'm sick and tired of all these vote suckers.....sucking away my money. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on May 1, 2009 0:19:04 GMT -5
I just realized this cost each Canadian about $80 to own 5.4 * 10^-8 each of Daimler Chrysler. But wait! It gets better. edit: I was trying to do a big fancy elaborate explanation of how our $80 likely got us each about $2 worth of stuff, but in the end because Chrysler is a privately held company and I can't really figure out how to weight Daimler holdings (who still have a 20% stake) and ditto Cerberus, I can't. My initial math was actually showing an arbitrage profit for us, which made no sense. So I'm just going to go to sleep. All you have to know is that FIAT stock plummeted when people got wind they were considering (and have now gone through with) a partnership with Chrysler. www.leftlanenews.com/fiat-stock-drops-over-chrysler-concerns.htmlFiat’s stock dropped to its lowest point in 24 years on the Borsa Italiana stock exchange in Milan yesterday over analysts’ concerns about the automaker’s planned alliance with Chrysler LLC. That's just from the PROPOSED alliance. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on May 1, 2009 4:21:48 GMT -5
My sympathies are for all the small companies of suppliers who made parts, stationery, tools, printed brochures; put out money for material & labour and never got paid. Some were large firms with long contracts, but many small firms were induced to help Chrysler out of it's quagmire and then not paid for months.
O'bama makes Putin look like a capitalist.
How is Ford supposed to compete when the government gives Chrysler money to sell their cars with $5,000 off MSRP, cripples suppliers and encourages citizens to support government and union owned subsidized failures. Now concessions give Chrysler a lower pay structure.
O'bama hands out TARP money and then blackmales companies that take it. He refuses to let banks give the money back.
I was prepared to endure 4 years of socialism but not this kind of authitorian communism.
There is a place for companies like Chrysler, in bankruptcy court with reorganization and adjudication by an impartial judge, not dictated by a dictator.
Suppliers and competitors will be forced to take TARP money or lose out on an uneven playingfield. Once they capitulate, they are in his power.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 1, 2009 11:59:53 GMT -5
3 billion on the books and a 2 percent stake in a money siphon. Hooray. Where is the "conservative" part of Harper's ideology? As far as I can tell he's a rebranded Liberal. Two percent stake for 4 billion in a company that was worth two pieces of manure. How stupid can one get? LET IT DIE! LET IT DIE! I'm sick and tired of all these vote suckers.....sucking away my money. HA, I heard about this earlier today, but what are the implications from a business standpoint and from an economic standpoint, of not bailing out Chrysler? Have to ask because I really haven't researched this at all. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Roggy on May 1, 2009 18:46:33 GMT -5
It sickens me to see some assembly line worker complaining about a $19/hour pay cut from $72/hour to $53/hour. Everyone talks about the money that was being made by oil and gas workers out west during the last boom, but I can guarantee there were no rig pigs making $72/hour! They were getting $30/hour and all the overtime they could handle, that's where they made their money, by working their tails off. Not some protected union job with scheduled breaks and complete job protection. No one out east is talking about the massive job losses in Alberta because drilling has ground to a halt.
The problem for Harper, if he doesn't help, Chrysler leaves town, the CAW loses their mind, thousands of Canadians are out of work and going to do everything in their power to make sure the Conservatives are voted out and then you get real Liberals back in power.
He's d*amned if he does and d*mned if he doesn't.
Sorry, I rambled and my thoughts are a little disjointed on this issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 1, 2009 19:30:29 GMT -5
To the number crunchers out there. Is the following true?
I heard this figure in regards to the overall cost of a vehicle. Labour makes up only 7% of the total cost...and that knocking it down to 6% isn't going to help sell another unit.
In other words, the problem goes way deeper (and higher up) than workers' wages.
The $19/hour concessions made were benefit cuts mainly.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 1, 2009 21:47:00 GMT -5
Actually, CH, cutting the cost of the car to a consumer by 50% isn't going to make a difference -- it's Chrysler -- the same company that almost bit the dust before it was saved by the K-Car. The K-Car!
The big three [actually the not-so-big two -- Ford seems to be holding its own] is in trouble because to avoid strikes they caved to union demands of high salary, benefit, and retirement packages . . . built inferior vehicles that no one wants . . . and trid to become "the biggest" by acquiring troubled brands . . . becoming all things to all men they became nothing to noone.
Wages? One problem. Retirement benefits? Another problem. Ineptness and lack of foresight? The deepest problem. Unless that changes the company should just be let to die. Jobs lost? They'll be picked up as Toyota et al build more vehicles -- vehicles that actually sell.
|
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on May 2, 2009 0:19:24 GMT -5
I tried explaining this to my buddy tonight who actually works in a Toyota plant to no avail. He understood that it wasn't a great thing, but wouldn't accept that it was a flat out bad thing.
The ultimate irony is that many of the people who buy Chrysler would end up supplementing their Chrysler purchases with a GM or Ford, which effectively transfers the jobs within our own borders or at minimum save the jobs that are being cut at Ford and GM. The end result of letting Chrysler die is a more efficient industry and a greater workforce which will be able to re-train and supplement other industries where labour is in demand.
But nobody wants to think about that. If you get a job with Chrysler you should be able to work there your whole life without a single worry. I should have gotten into the car manufacturing industry when I had a chance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 2, 2009 17:06:01 GMT -5
It sickens me to see some assembly line worker complaining about a $19/hour pay cut from $72/hour to $53/hour. Everyone talks about the money that was being made by oil and gas workers out west during the last boom, but I can guarantee there were no rig pigs making $72/hour! They were getting $30/hour and all the overtime they could handle, that's where they made their money, by working their tails off. Not some protected union job with scheduled breaks and complete job protection. No one out east is talking about the massive job losses in Alberta because drilling has ground to a halt..... .....Sorry, I rambled and my thoughts are a little disjointed on this issue. Disjointed. That's one word. No one out east is talking about the massive job losses in Alberta? That BS with a capital B. Why? Because most of the job losses are easterners who moved west. I alone know of 10. Now getting back to the car issue. People can blame the unions until they are blue in the face. But, IMO, the are misplacing that blame. Just like hockey players, the unions are going to try and get the best deal for themselves. That's the name of the game. However, the reason the car industry finds itself in this mess is the economic crisis the world finds itself it, not the wages to the unions. For decades the union employees have been making good money and the car industry CEOs have been pulling in billions of dollars in bonuses. Business was good for everyone. Now the sub-prime mortgage fiasco has taken the arse out of the markets, people are afraid to buy big ticket items, and the economy is on shaking ground. Hmmmm people don't buy my product and I am suffering ... wow ... imagine that. I went to try and buy a car last month. These are the same companies now that are saying they can't sell anything ... of course they can't, because their prices are still asinine. It is actually cheaper for a Newfoundlander to fly to the States (Florida is the most popular for NLers) or Halifax and buy a car there and drive it home. We have had two car dealerships go belly-up and I went to both before they went under and they wouldn't drop the price a friggin cent for me .... that has nothing to do with the manufacturing unions. No one was complaining about their salaries when the economy was strong. Now the economy is weak and you are asking people to take massive wage cuts while the execs still strut around in fancy jets, corporate bonuses .... sure Congress finally reigned them in, but they already made their millions. They gonna have to give that back? Of course not. You ask a millionaire to live a few years more modestly... no problem... now ask a man who was living on $60,000, to make do with $40,000. Is he going to have a problem? You are damn right he is, and he didnt do anything wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on May 2, 2009 17:33:01 GMT -5
Now that Chrysler is owned by the government their books should become public, and we'll finally know where the money is going.
John Q. Assembler didn't do anything wrong except sign up with the wrong company. It happens every day to lots of people and they get laid off because the company goes belly-up. I don't really understand what John Q. Assembler did to be the benefactor of ending up on government payroll assembling cars, instead of being laid off.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 2, 2009 18:44:59 GMT -5
No one out east is talking about the massive job losses in Alberta? That BS with a capital B. Why? Because most of the job losses are easterners who moved west. I alone know of 10. But you aren't an easterner and neither are the people you know -- you're Newfoundlanders. No slam meant, btw . . . simple fact -- the east ends at the Ontario/Quebec border . . . and anyone who moves to Alberta to work isn't an easterner but a traitor, donchaknow. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 2, 2009 18:46:03 GMT -5
Now that Chrysler is owned by the government their books should become public, and we'll finally know where the money is going. fat chance of that happening. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 2, 2009 23:02:32 GMT -5
Two percent stake for 4 billion in a company that was worth two pieces of manure. How stupid can one get? LET IT DIE! LET IT DIE! I'm sick and tired of all these vote suckers.....sucking away my money. HA, I heard about this earlier today, but what are the implications from a business standpoint and from an economic standpoint, of not bailing out Chrysler? Have to ask because I really haven't researched this at all. Cheers. Who cares! NOTHING will happen. The sun will still come up in the west and fall in thee east, the bird will still be rapping and the dogs whisperer will still be whispering sweat nothings.... Any job loss at Chrysler will be replaced by another one in Toyota, Ford, or any OTHER car company. Job loses at Chrysler is not like we are losing the Picasso of workers. Not even close..... |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 2, 2009 23:05:25 GMT -5
Now that Chrysler is owned by the government their books should become public, and we'll finally know where the money is going. John Q. Assembler didn't do anything wrong except sign up with the wrong company. It happens every day to lots of people and they get laid off because the company goes belly-up. I don't really understand what John Q. Assembler did to be the benefactor of ending up on government payroll assembling cars, instead of being laid off. John Q. Assembler did NOTHING to deserve that benefit......other then holding politicians hostage to their demands....and those demands costing the taxpayer. For that reason alone, Chrysler should be burned to the ground and the ashes burried under a nuclear dump. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 2, 2009 23:14:33 GMT -5
No one was complaining about their salaries when the economy was strong. Now the economy is weak and you are asking people to take massive wage cuts while the execs still strut around in fancy jets, corporate bonuses .... sure Congress finally reigned them in, but they already made their millions. They gonna have to give that back? Of course not. You ask a millionaire to live a few years more modestly... no problem... now ask a man who was living on $60,000, to make do with $40,000. Is he going to have a problem? You are damn right he is, and he didnt do anything wrong. So that "worker" is ENTITLED to that $60,000? Since when? And why would that worker be entitled that through the taxpayer? Let's make it a brand new world. We are ALL entitled to $100,000 jobs and NO company should go under. Taht would be GREAT for me because I will be selling you wodgets for a million dollars a piece and you HAVE to by MY widgets. But then you will say it's "unfair" that you are forced to buy my million dollar widgets. Why? How can I keep those people in their 100 grand jobs? Either we have free market and enjoy the fruits of competition or we have socialism and EVERYBODY is forced to buy obscenely priced goods. Can't have it both ways..... |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on May 2, 2009 23:43:03 GMT -5
The best government is the least government possible.
No bailouts for anyone.
Winners and losers.
The problem is for years we bought cars from Japan, but they wouldn't buy our beef, apples or lumber. The US and Canada accepted Korean automobiles while they protected their farmers from our rice, fish and computers.
China has a 9 to 1 trade advantage and puts duties or outright band on many of our products.
We need to refuse to trade with countries that have closed markets or just allow trade in commodities where they have the advantage.
I can do without French wine and cheese for a long time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 3, 2009 17:35:17 GMT -5
No one was complaining about their salaries when the economy was strong. Now the economy is weak and you are asking people to take massive wage cuts while the execs still strut around in fancy jets, corporate bonuses .... sure Congress finally reigned them in, but they already made their millions. They gonna have to give that back? Of course not. You ask a millionaire to live a few years more modestly... no problem... now ask a man who was living on $60,000, to make do with $40,000. Is he going to have a problem? You are damn right he is, and he didnt do anything wrong. So that "worker" is ENTITLED to that $60,000? Since when? And why would that worker be entitled that through the taxpayer? I didnt say that .... but the resounding feel I get from most posts in this thread is that the CEOs and Management are entitled to make money, but the workers are not. Robert Nardelli, for example, became CEO of Chrysler last year. And God love him, he took a salary of $1. How wonderful for him to take this pittance. Such astute business aceumen ... I'd take a $1 salary too, if I received from my previous company $248.1 million the previous year!!! And that's just one of these CEO's. But these bonuses, I have to believe, are budgeted for (especially seeing how they continued to give bonuses when receiving government money) .... how many $50,000 - $60,000 jobs can you have with $250 million? 4100-5000. Chrysler just laid off 6000 people. So Nardelli's assets from one year of working basically saves all of Chrysler's jobs .... he may have done this to Home Depot, but these greedy execs are everywhere, and I am sure Nardelli didnt come to Chrysler out of the goodness of his heart. Nardelli angered Home Depot shareholders when he refused to take questions during a shareholder meeting in May 2006 as the stock was floundering. His rich pay package drew fire; he earned $38.1 million last year. Ultimately he was forced out of the company in January 2007, but left with a $210 million golden parachute in cash and stock options that included a $20 million severance payment and retirement benefits of $32 million.Maybe it is just me ... but change should come from the top down when trying to save money, since thats where most the money is. Not bottom up .... I dont think they are entitled to their jobs, and I agree with lay-offs when they are absolutely necessary. But this prevailing opinion of unions bad, I can't let go unchecked. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 3, 2009 18:30:25 GMT -5
Any job loss at Chrysler will be replaced by another one in Toyota, Ford, or any OTHER car company. Job loses at Chrysler is not like we are losing the Picasso of workers. Not even close..... I don't know what you're getting at here....but my brother works for Chrysler in Windsor and he's an exemplary employee.....capable of doing most every job on the line....so much so that's he's a swing guy....well-respected by all. He doesn't abuse the system in any way, shape, or form. Not that there aren't employees who do.....but I wouldn't paint them all with the same brush. I agree with Skilly....look at the obscene bonuses these top execs reap. They can't possibly be worth that kind of money, unless the company can afford it. Add in the downturn in the economy (in which people shy away from big ticket items)....and you have a recipe for disaster. Imagine the reserve funds for such tough times if the execs took only a quarter of their bonuses. They'd still be multi-millionaires....and the company would stand a better chance of remaining solvent, able to outlast this recession. Poor management...little foresight.....and the workers pay the price. --------------------------------------------------------- That being said, like Dis, I'd like to know the implications from a business standpoint and from an economic standpoint, of not bailing out Chrysler. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on May 4, 2009 8:18:35 GMT -5
Simply, we go deeper into recession, but in the end we end up with an efficient economy that can actually grow. By paying ourselves all we're doing is guaranteeing that our economy will stagnate for months, years and decades to come unless Chrysler makes some miraculous comeback (which I vehemently doubt) which prevents us from paying ANOTHER $4B to keep these $60k jobs around. And another, and another....
Dis' brother may be an exemplary employee, but people are paid relative to their skills, previous experience and abilities. Nardelli gets/got paid that much because of his previous experience and abilities, justifiable to some of us or not. I'm pretty sure Home Depot has taken a sharp decline since his termination (this is from memory, so it may not be totally true, but I recall reading this in the G&M). Multinational corporation CEO's don't grow on trees, and unfortunately assembly line workers for automotive plants do.
The whole corporation should be restructured, yes. But it should be doing that through bankruptcy and insolvency. Once Dis' brother gets a couple missed paychecks, he'll be able to re-train to become an exemplary employee in another plant or another field entirely.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 4, 2009 8:50:06 GMT -5
Simply, we go deeper into recession, but in the end we end up with an efficient economy that can actually grow. By paying ourselves all we're doing is guaranteeing that our economy will stagnate for months, years and decades to come unless Chrysler makes some miraculous comeback (which I vehemently doubt) which prevents us from paying ANOTHER $4B to keep these $60k jobs around. And another, and another.... Dis' brother may be an exemplary employee, but people are paid relative to their skills, previous experience and abilities. Nardelli gets/got paid that much because of his previous experience and abilities, justifiable to some of us or not. I'm pretty sure Home Depot has taken a sharp decline since his termination (this is from memory, so it may not be totally true, but I recall reading this in the G&M). Multinational corporation CEO's don't grow on trees, and unfortunately assembly line workers for automotive plants do. The whole corporation should be restructured, yes. But it should be doing that through bankruptcy and insolvency. Once Dis' brother gets a couple missed paychecks, he'll be able to re-train to become an exemplary employee in another plant or another field entirely. Red, you men CH's brother. As for your comment about CEO's growing on trees, well, it's a common myth of mythical proportions that CEO's are just some slobs who happen to be at the right place. Just ask any union member....  I have a friend who use to be a CEO and I was on his BoD (company bought by fund). As arrogant as I am and as smart as I think that I am, I simply could NOT do the job he did. Sure, I can take apart a rocket and put it back together again but he took a company into the three billion dollar range faster then I could take a company into the multi million dollar range.....and he can't fix a bicycle flat. His ability to recognize the market, the future of that markets as well as deal with borrowing and expansion was what made that company into a billion dollar multinational. On top of that, he surrounded himself with the RIGHT people who had talents he needed. But like I said, any union member can become a great symphony conductor.... |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 4, 2009 8:54:41 GMT -5
I don't know what you're getting at here.... Where am I going with it? I do NOT owe your brother my tax money. If MY company can not compete because of my incompetence, should I TAKE your tax money to prop it up? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 4, 2009 9:14:06 GMT -5
I didnt say that .... but the resounding feel I get from most posts in this thread is that the CEOs and Management are entitled to make money, but the workers are not. Robert Nardelli, for example, became CEO of Chrysler last year. And God love him, he took a salary of $1. How wonderful for him to take this pittance. Such astute business aceumen ... I'd take a $1 salary too, if I received from my previous company $248.1 million the previous year!!! And that's just one of these CEO's. But these bonuses, I have to believe, are budgeted for (especially seeing how they continued to give bonuses when receiving government money) .... how many $50,000 - $60,000 jobs can you have with $250 million? 4100-5000. Chrysler just laid off 6000 people. So Nardelli's assets from one year of working basically saves all of Chrysler's jobs .... he may have done this to Home Depot, but these greedy execs are everywhere, and I am sure Nardelli didnt come to Chrysler out of the goodness of his heart. Nardelli angered Home Depot shareholders when he refused to take questions during a shareholder meeting in May 2006 as the stock was floundering. His rich pay package drew fire; he earned $38.1 million last year. Ultimately he was forced out of the company in January 2007, but left with a $210 million golden parachute in cash and stock options that included a $20 million severance payment and retirement benefits of $32 million.Maybe it is just me ... but change should come from the top down when trying to save money, since thats where most the money is. Not bottom up .... I dont think they are entitled to their jobs, and I agree with lay-offs when they are absolutely necessary. But this prevailing opinion of unions bad, I can't let go unchecked. ANYBODY can spin a wrench. Very, very, very few people can run multibillion multinationals. If somone who can spin a wrench is worth $50 an hour with benefits, then CEO's are worth millions and tens of millions and hundreds of millions. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 4, 2009 9:46:37 GMT -5
I don't know what you're getting at here.... Where am I going with it? I do NOT owe your brother my tax money. If MY company can not compete because of my incompetence, should I TAKE your tax money to prop it up? I agree with that....because now you're talking about a company that can't compete because of incompetency....which speaks to overall management/employees......but that wasn't my point. I don't see the need to mock the work/value of the fabricators/assemblers in this case. i.e. non-Picassos of workers....ANYBODY can spin a wrench... Chrysler was mismanaged. The blame isn't ALL on the auto workers. And let's not paint all CEOs/top execs with the superior brush, either. Yes, they're extremely intelligent in their line of work, driven, ladder climbers, company builders, great motivators of work forces, etc. But many of them make sure their pockets are lined first...with salaries/bonuses that grow to be a detriment to the companies they're running. What do they say about absolute power? |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 4, 2009 10:04:05 GMT -5
I didnt say that .... but the resounding feel I get from most posts in this thread is that the CEOs and Management are entitled to make money, but the workers are not. Robert Nardelli, for example, became CEO of Chrysler last year. And God love him, he took a salary of $1. How wonderful for him to take this pittance. Such astute business aceumen ... I'd take a $1 salary too, if I received from my previous company $248.1 million the previous year!!! And that's just one of these CEO's. But these bonuses, I have to believe, are budgeted for (especially seeing how they continued to give bonuses when receiving government money) .... how many $50,000 - $60,000 jobs can you have with $250 million? 4100-5000. Chrysler just laid off 6000 people. So Nardelli's assets from one year of working basically saves all of Chrysler's jobs .... he may have done this to Home Depot, but these greedy execs are everywhere, and I am sure Nardelli didnt come to Chrysler out of the goodness of his heart. Nardelli angered Home Depot shareholders when he refused to take questions during a shareholder meeting in May 2006 as the stock was floundering. His rich pay package drew fire; he earned $38.1 million last year. Ultimately he was forced out of the company in January 2007, but left with a $210 million golden parachute in cash and stock options that included a $20 million severance payment and retirement benefits of $32 million.Maybe it is just me ... but change should come from the top down when trying to save money, since thats where most the money is. Not bottom up .... I dont think they are entitled to their jobs, and I agree with lay-offs when they are absolutely necessary. But this prevailing opinion of unions bad, I can't let go unchecked. ANYBODY can spin a wrench. Very, very, very few people can run multibillion multinationals. If somone who can spin a wrench is worth $50 an hour with benefits, then CEO's are worth millions and tens of millions and hundreds of millions. No CEO is worth 248 million in one year .... I don't care how many people can do it. And this one year he made 248 million the Home Depot stock plummeted!!!! No CEO should ever be rewarded for incompetence. I fully agree with having a contract that clearly states that a CEO get a bonus (say a percentage of the profit he helped pull in) ... but conversely, he shouldn't be GAURANTEED the bonus even if the company's worth goes south. If the assembly worker is incompetent or gets fired without cause, at most, he will receive a severence of one year's salary ... AT MOST .... this guy left with a golden parachute that was worth 7 times his one year's earnings. A little google search gives us the following on Robert Nardelli: CNBC named Nardelli as one of the "Worst American CEOs of All Time".[1]Nardelli was credited with doubling the sales of the chain and improving its competitive position. Revenue increased from $40.57 billion in 2000 to $85.15 billion in 2005, while profit rose from $12.6 billion to $25.8 billion. While this was a slower rate of growth than Home Depot had previously experienced (the company doubled in size every 4 years from 1979 to 2001)Some have criticized him for not maintaining the growth that the company had previously experienced, pointing to his huge salary as a sign that he was actually supposed to bring innovation to the company in order to help it maintain its historical growth. During Nardelli's tenure, Home Depot stock was essentially steady while competitor Lowe's stock doubled, which along with his $240 million compensation eventually earned the ire of investors |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on May 4, 2009 10:55:44 GMT -5
No CEO is worth 248 million in one year .... I don't care how many people can do it. And this one year he made 248 million the Home Depot stock plummeted!!!! No CEO should ever be rewarded for incompetence. I fully agree with having a contract that clearly states that a CEO get a bonus (say a percentage of the profit he helped pull in) ... but conversely, he shouldn't be GAURANTEED the bonus even if the company's worth goes south. I'm not sure if you meant this, or not, but the Home Depot stock plummet started immediately after Nardelli's departure (Jan. 3, 2007) and fell alongside every other home furnishing/building supply store due to a housing market downturn. Look at Lowe's stock, which fell from $34.93 (Feb 23 '07) to $22.66 (Dec 28 '07). |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 5, 2009 7:29:43 GMT -5
No CEO is worth 248 million in one year .... I don't care how many people can do it. And this one year he made 248 million the Home Depot stock plummeted!!!! No CEO should ever be rewarded for incompetence. I fully agree with having a contract that clearly states that a CEO get a bonus (say a percentage of the profit he helped pull in) ... but conversely, he shouldn't be GAURANTEED the bonus even if the company's worth goes south. I'm not sure if you meant this, or not, but the Home Depot stock plummet started immediately after Nardelli's departure (Jan. 3, 2007) and fell alongside every other home furnishing/building supply store due to a housing market downturn. Look at Lowe's stock, which fell from $34.93 (Feb 23 '07) to $22.66 (Dec 28 '07). Yes, I realized my mistake when I did the google search and pasted in the excerpts. Meant to edit the plummeted to "steady" ... ******************************************************************** The irksome point to me in this debate is "anyone can turn a wrench". Now I am a member of a union, and yes it sometimes is a little bothersome to see others in the union make so much. I fully agree that a person's education and skill level should be compensated on that basis ... BUT ... I also hold to a much higher standard the notion that EVERYONE should be paid more than the standard of living. Everyone. So either the janitors and the assembly line workers get paid more, or the engineers and CEOs get paid in exurberance. The latter means most companies could never exist. Canada is a socialist country, not a pure capitalist country .... thereby we try our best to ensure the "not so well off" can live a respectable life. Not just get by, but actually live .... I look at the arguement "There are not many CEOs of multinational companies" .... well thats true, there are only approx. 60,000 MNC worldwide. But is making a company 12 billion in profit worth $240 million? If it is, how much is making a country $12 billion worth? Jean Chretien pulled down $8-12 billion for this country every year in his last mandate ... he made, what?, $350,000? .... How many people can run a country? THIS country? Well technically, I guess the answer is 301. But only one PM every pulled in those numbers, the current PM certainly never .... so do we now cut Chretien a 240 million check? I mean there are less $12B surplus leaders in the world than there are $12B profit CEO's ... |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 5, 2009 9:56:20 GMT -5
this discussion is going to get interesting and I don't know how much I'll be able to participate -- year-end has hit. but here's a question, Skilly: where did Chretien "pull in" his billions? Two places: taxes [which we had no choice in participaing in] and "lowered costs". the lowered costs came from the fact that his government cut the amounts he transfered to the provinces for health care and infrastructure. looked good to the bottom line but the results meant that we were paying more and getting less [did he learn from Mike Harris, or did Harris learn from him?]. As to "how many people can run the country?" -- probably a lot more than have the opportunity. To be leader you have to have some intelligence, but you also have to know the right people -- and I don't hink in that order, either. As to "being paid more than the standard of living", two questions a question and a comment: 1. Whose standard -- or rather, who decides that the standard of living is? Kovalev's standard of living is higher than a Sudbury mine worker which is higher than a McDonald's employee. 2. Once that standard is ascertained and objectified and people are all living it, then all of a sudden the new floor [say, to be ridiculous, $10,000 a year] needs to be raised. If everyone is making "the standard" and if everyone should be making more than the standard, then there can never be a standard [did you follow that? If so, please explain it back to me  ] Don't get me wrong -- there are big problems, and I think one of the problems is indeed overcompensation. But on the other side of the scale is the demand for higher and higher compensation "just because I deserve it". Anecdotal story [not a rare case, either]: one family I worked with struggled with finances [in fact welfare was their constant means of support]. The guy had an opportunity to work for a little over $10 an hour [starting wage, chance to work his way up to more] but turned it down because he felt that "he deserved at least $20 an hour and wouldn't work for anything less". A high schoold dropout with no skills and he had this attitude? This is what Canada is becoming. OK -- he isn't the norm [at least I hope he isn't] -- but this attitude is not rare. I am not a rampant capitalist -- I have problem with big business taking advantage of wokers and consumers. But expectations that we deserve what we deserve ["I am entitled to my entitlements"?] is killing us. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 5, 2009 10:00:36 GMT -5
fwiw -- and I almost fell over -- Margaret Atwood was in town last night and suggested that the federal government did us all a disservice by propping up Chrysler . she said that if it were a mom-and-pop small business that did itself in by poor management decisions and by not meeting consumers needs it would have been hung out to dry long ago . . . but because of political expedience it will receive bucketloads of money.
I may have to rethink my thoughts of Margaret.
HA -- have you applied for any of that money? [my fee for helping you out will be a mere triffle of what we can get. just look --er, continue to look -- woeful].
|
|
]