Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Enormous salaries are one thing, but I think it's pretty crazy when they get huge bonuses while laying off thousands upon thousands of workers.

Why? They really don't have anything to do with each other.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 366
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I was under the impression that bonuses were to reward good work. Silly me.

It's not easy to lay off people. Sometimes it's necessary. It's just business.

 

The truth is that many of these guys are more qualified to run the country than those that we put in power. Not everyone is interested in giving up the allure of the private sector though.

truth

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not easy to lay off people. Sometimes it's necessary. It's just business.

 

I understand that it's sometimes necessary. I just don't understand why necessary = worthy of multi-million dollar bonuses.

 

If you need to go to the government for a bailout, and this applies to the financial sector as well as industry, then you have done a poor job of running your business and do not deserve a bonus. If your profits have fallen so severely that you have to layoff large segments of your workforce, then you've done a bad job and do not deserve a bonus. If you're being crushed by overseas competitors, then you're doing a bad job and do not deserve a bonus.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you need to go to the government for a bailout, and this applies to the financial sector as well as industry, then you have done a poor job of running your business and do not deserve a bonus.

Maybe you don't deserve a bonus, ok, but it doesn't necessarily mean you have done a poor job.

Link to post
Share on other sites
By what measure have they performed well or even mediocre?

 

No one could possibly argue that the situation of a company like GM or Ford isn't the direct result of poor management. But as has been said many times here, those companies are wrestling with incredibly difficult obligations to employees that put them behind their competition before the game even starts. Sort of like they have to compete with other car companies with one hand tied behind their back.

 

Not to mention, it's hard to blame GM or Ford for the absolute tsunami of a downturn we've seen. People are saving money at every step, credit is tight, etc. GM and Ford would be taking huge hits in this economy even if they hadnt put too many eggs in the SUV basket.

 

I dont know enough about the companies specifically to tell you what their senior management has done "well or even mediocre" but I also think it's a bit too simple to say "they layed off people so they did a bad job." (Not that you said this, but it seems sort of implied)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I look at it this way:

 

I work in sales. The economy has taken a turn for the worst. While I'm working just as hard, my commissions and standard of living have changed.

 

When you go asking for a bailout, shouldn't something relatively similar happen to you, especially if you're the head of the company?

Link to post
Share on other sites
No one could possibly argue that the situation of a company like GM or Ford isn't the direct result of poor management. But as has been said many times here, those companies are wrestling with incredibly difficult obligations to employees that put them behind their competition before the game even starts. Sort of like they have to compete with other car companies with one hand tied behind their back.

 

Not to mention, it's hard to blame GM or Ford for the absolute tsunami of a downturn we've seen. People are saving money at every step, credit is tight, etc. GM and Ford would be taking huge hits in this economy even if they hadnt put too many eggs in the SUV basket.

 

I dont know enough about the companies specifically to tell you what their senior management has done "well or even mediocre" but I also think it's a bit too simple to say "they layed off people so they did a bad job." (Not that you said this, but it seems sort of implied)

 

I

Link to post
Share on other sites
I look at it this way:

 

I work in sales. The economy has taken a turn for the worst. While I'm working just as hard, my commissions and standard of living have changed.

 

When you go asking for a bailout, shouldn't something relatively similar happen to you, especially if you're the head of the company?

Yes. At the very least, you should suck it up and fly commercial.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

So they're at it again. I make threats like this often, and this one if just as empty, but if even a single American falls for the showing up in a regular car stunt, I will lose faith in mankind. And the longer this whole thing drags on, the more I say we shouldn't even be considering this. Let the oil companies bail them out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So they're at it again. I make threats like this often, and this one if just as empty, but if even a single American falls for the showing up in a regular car stunt, I will lose faith in mankind. And the longer this whole thing drags on, the more I say we shouldn't even be considering this. Let the oil companies bail them out.

They wouldn't have to pull the showing up in regular car stunt if some dumb-ass congressman hadn't pulled the fly down in corporate jets hissy fit last month. The fact that every interview I have heard from Wagoner and Mulally ends with some interviewer bringing up this red herring infuriates me. The problems facing the Big 3 are serious, and the fact that these corporations use private jets for their top executives (like most other Fortune 200 companies) has such a miniscule impact on their bottom lines.

Link to post
Share on other sites
How did the bank execs get to Washington for their hearings? I don't think they rode Amtrak.

 

They drove there. Road Trip. Makes more sense.

 

Also.... The UAW dropped job banks since last meeting which is good thing. The CEOs mentioned they would work for a dollar a year which doesnt make sense to me. Ford seems to think they may now not need help. Seems like a good thing that Congress rejected the bailout last time, seems like a good thing for them to do it again.

 

Now instead of $25 billion they want $34 billion this time. How does that work? You know my opinion, forget it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...