Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views United Automobile Workers of America (UAW)
16710 messages, Last post on Dec 01, 2009 at 8:06 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: kipk (Feb 29, 2008 5:34 am) But, of course, the CEO has NO COMPETITION, so he can name his own price. I'll bet he also has the unmitigated BALLS to tell his employees that he has to pay for his own healthcare, so they should pony up some for theirs. |
|
The 3650 striking workers, IF they gave up the $40 in benefits to bring them down to $30/hr compensation would save $292 million (yes, I know, I have no life, the laundry is piling up downstairs, blah, blah)  Now, if the TOP 5 EXECS took the same 57.1% (?? 4/7 ths??) compensation cut that alone would be about $30 million (imagine that, the cost savings from just 5 EXECS is 11% of 3650 WORKERS). I find it hard to believe that ANY company would ask for a 57% compensation cut and have their employees roll over and say Oh,OK boss, gee thanks. I'm NOT saying that there isn't room for negotiating some more profitability to allow for more competitiveness, and I assume you start by saying all new hires get a lower wage tier, if pensions are involved, a VEBA, and so forth. But to demand that people who have been living at a certain standard take THAT BIG of a compensation cut is ludicrous. |
|
|
Replying to: cooterbfd (Feb 29, 2008 8:56 am) Which reminds me... Car Stock Exchange kicks off tomorrow for real (for real prizes that is).
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Feb 29, 2008 10:51 am) To put another way: If his plan were enacted today, by my math by the end of the year the companies profit would go up another $292 million. This would probably blow away any forecast Wall St has, possibly causing my stock to skyrocket. This would cause his option to be worth more than it is now, meaning his compensation would go even higher than $35 million.
|
|
|
Replying to: cooterbfd (Feb 29, 2008 11:00 am) 
|
|
|
Replying to: cooterbfd (Feb 29, 2008 8:56 am)
|
|
|
|
|
One guy gets $16826 per hour. Yup, it's really sinful the way those people on the workline get $70 per hour. The financial officer only gets $792 per hour. One thing that really rings true with a democrat presidential candidate is when he/she says in their ad that some executives make in 10 minutes what working people make in a year. Soooo, let's cut executive compensation to Japanese/Korean/Indian levels and then have them take a further cut to show their dedication to the future of this company in the US. Then the dirty workers can talk about cutting down that $70 per hour total which I'm sure includes the social security ponzie scheme that company pays along with toilet paper cost, pencils, etc., to raise it as high as possible. I agree the $70 per hour is much too high. |
|
|
Replying to: imidazol97 (Feb 29, 2008 6:50 am) I would venture a guess that their compensation will remain the same or even increase.  Those guys make entirely too much, but they have iron clad contracts written by very expensive tax attorneys. When they eventually leave, they take a bundle with them in stock options and move on to something else that pays way too much. In a nut shell, they live on the sweat of others. If you look at it from their point of view; why should a $35 million dollar executive take a $17 million dollar cut, when all he is asking of his employees is that they take a mere $29K cut?  Of course I'm being sarcastic, but unfortunately that is the way it is in the real world. Maybe the UAW could negotiate they would be willing to take the same percentage of cut as the executives do, and see if that would work. Kip |
|
|
Replying to: kipk (Feb 29, 2008 12:32 pm)  Now, while I am pro union, I can certainly appreciate giving some so the company, which SEEMS to be HEALTHY, (unlike Delphi), can better compete. But those CEO compensation figures are DISGUSTING!!!! My biggest bone of contention is the 57.1% decrease in standard of living they expect the employees to take. Think about it. You may have an employee w/ say 25 yrs service. Let's say he has it set up now where his mortgage will be paid off in 7 years, but his oldest enters college in 4, and youngest in 6. He will have saved up at his current pace enough to put them through state college until the mortgage is paid off, the he can pay their tuition w/ his salary thereafter. Cutting his compensation by that much may cause him to have to dip into that or even refinance the mortgage. I'm not talking about silly stuff like them now having to work (God forbid) until they are 65 instead of 55 because of cuts, i'm talking about more serious stuff, like that above, or maybe a couple having to sell their modest ranch and rent an apartment.
|
|
|
Replying to: cooterbfd (Feb 29, 2008 1:25 pm) It is very difficult when forced to have less usable income. We live on what we make. Easy to adjust when income rises. Not so easy the other way. Do you know anything, other than what we have been reading here, about the American Axle situation? I find it very difficult to believe AA would cut the pay of their senior workers by 1/2 with the swoop of a pen. Work quality would drop drastically from the disgruntled employees. There are better alternatives that wouldn't be so devastating. Freezing wages until the rest of the industry catches up, would be one. While that might seem harsh and offer a bleak future, it has some merit. Same income we are used to living on, and enough time to adjust toward the future. Time for more education, other souses of income, and so forth. The person that just started at $20, or so, is still probably making a good income compared to the market place of comparable jobs. He is still making his $20 and has learned to live on that. If it isn't enough, he can look at the market place for something better, go into a different type work, or get more education or training. New hires start at $10. Those that work best get better jobs and have earned more pay. Not just because they are "next". As attrition takes place, consider whether or not they really need to be replaced. Please don't misunderstand. If a given job requires exceptional skills, it is worth more pay. That is the type of thing a CEO worth his salt is supposed to deal with or contract outside "Experts" that can deal with it. Pay the CEO no more than 20X the salary of the highest paid wage earner, plus bonuses. Bonus to be based on his salary plus the % of increased profit the company did. Example: The highest paid wage earner gets $28 hourly, so pay the CEO $560. That would be $1,164,800 yearly plus bonus. If the company made 10% profit, he picks up an additional $116, 480 at Christmas. No profit = no bonus ! No profit for a while = no job! While we are at it, pay the same percentage of bonus to the wage earners. That $20 guy would get $416 at Christmas, if the profits were 10%. Have a suggestion program for wage earners that pays 10% of company savings or extra profits over a 2 year period, with no cap. Example: A suggestion saves the company $1,000,000 over 2 years. That "suggestor" picks up a check for $100,000 and the company is better off by $900,000 for that 2 year period and potentially another half million each year for years to come. Win Win!. Any suggestion that is adopted pays something. Have a minimum suggestion award of say $50 even if the suggestion doesn't save any money, but improves working conditions or safety. That way every employee has a "DOG IN THE FIGHT" ! Seem fair ? Of course, than isn't likely to happen!  Kip
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views United Automobile Workers of America (UAW)
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
