Ford v. Toyota

[Flygurl 0]

I was very amused that NASCAR announced the entry of Toyota into the 2007 field the same day Ford announced 30,000 jobs cut in four plants.

No, I don't follow NASCAR and don't plan to. It was an interesting piece of business news for the American auto market, though.

I also found Ford's CEO's comments somewhat hopeful. In addition to cutting manufacturing jobs they are increasing R&D to come up with new vehicles that Americans want to buy.

What a concept!

What do YOU think?

[freethefly 6]

I think he and all CEO's should scale down their excessive salaries. Not a single one is worth what they get. The same with athletes and movie "stars".
As for foreign auto companies in NASCAR... Soon there will be a track in Japan, I would imagine. The cost to go to a race will be so outrageously high, only the rich will be able to afford the price. Fuck NASCAR...NHRA RULES!!!

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[Flygurl 0]

Quote

I think he and all CEO's should scale down their excessive salaries. Not a single one is worth what they get.

I couldn't disagree with you more. A CEO has the ability to lead the company to billions in revenues or losses.

The majority of senior executives have a reasonable salary with an incentive program. The more money the company makes, the more they make.

The more money the company makes, the more my stock value increases and the more money I make.

[hobbes4star 0]

The thing with Toyota is that they have very very very deep pockets and they really like to win races. It will be interesting to see how fast Toyota shows the american cars up.

if fun were easy it wouldn't be worth having, right?

[freethefly 6]

All to often CEO's perform far below what is expected of them yet still they can walk away from the smoldering wreckage of the companies that they ultimately ruin with a check that could had been put to better use. There is no incentive for them to do well when it is guranteed that they will become even richer while the factory workers are being laid off, shareholders lose their investment and the company drowns in debt.
From a paper written at Ohio State, 1999:
CEO Pay-Is it too high?

After doing extensive research, we have some to the overwhelming conclusion that the pay of corporate executives is becoming too high. This issue has generated a great deal of controversy among many people. In recent months, there has been an increasing concern that the growing pay gap between CEOs and workers has gone too far. The companies with the four highest paid CEOs are Travelers, Coca-Cola, HealthSouth’s, and Occidental. They have a total combined income of $550 million. In the following memo we will discuss the four major reasons used in support of our claim that CEO pay is in fact too high.

Pay vs. Performance

The biggest argument contributing to this notion is that CEO pay no longer reflects their performance on the job or the performance of the company they are working for. CEO pay is souring and has risen almost five times that of corporate profits. Many feel that there is no longer any risk financially to being CEO because no matter how poorly they perform, they are still rewarded handsomely. One reason for CEO pay rising in spite of poor performance is that most executives are being paid with huge stock option packages instead of cash salaries. Today, stock options make up two-thirds of a CEO’s pay, compared to one-third in 1960. Many CEO’s are benefiting from large stock gains because of the recent bull market.

Some examples of CEO’s who still made big bucks despite poor performance are Stephen Case of America Online, John Walter of AT&T, and Gilbert F. Amelio of Apple Computer, Inc. For instance, during Mr. Amelio’s 17-month tenure as the head of Apple, the company accumulated losses totaling almost $2 billion. Yet Mr. Amelio was given severance pay of almost $7 million, in addition to his salary of $2 million, when he was let go by the board of directors.

The Increasing Disparity between the Pay of CEOs and the Average Worker

The pay disparity between CEOs and U. S. workers is reaching alarming levels. In 1965, CEOs made 44 times the average factory worker while today they make 326 times the average factory worker. In comparison to minimum wage workers, the CEO makes 728 times more. It has been calculated that if the minimum wage had risen at the same rate as executive pay, it would stand at just about $41 per hour instead of $5.15. If this were actually the case, no working person in this country would be living under the poverty level. While CEO pay has been growing, employees have not only seen a decline in their real earnings, but they have also been increasingly facing the threats of layoffs. As a result, public discontent is on the rise and workers are feeling a sense of unfairness and betrayal, which is lowering their morale and loyalty and is further affecting their productivity.

Foreign CEO Pay

CEO’s of American corporations are seeing their pay skyrocketing in comparison to their foreign counterparts. This is another important indicator to the fact that American CEOs are paid too much. On the average, European CEO’s make less that half of what U. S. CEOs make. Although the gap is slowly narrowing, it is believed that European’s CEO pay will never reach that of Americans because of their old-world attitudes, values, and tax systems. I n Japan, the average CEO pay is about $325,000, compared to the $1.2 million average of the CEO’s running in the United States’ Fortune 500 companies. There seems to be no logical reason why American CEOs receive higher pay than foreign executives.

Structure of the Board

Increasing evidence is pointing toward a relationship between CEO pay and the changing structure of the corporate board. Directors on the executive boards have the responsibility of determining the pay of CEOs and other top executives. These directors are supposed to be independent of management in order to protect the best executives. These directors are supposed to be independent of management in order to protect the best interests of its shareholders. However, recently boards are being made up of relatives of CEOs and CEOs are increasingly sitting on each other’s boards. This concept of maintaining independence is being eroded, as the board members are continuing to have more personal, financial, and business ties to top executives. For example, Mike Eisner, CEO of Disney, has his personal lawyer, his children’s formal elementary school principal, and architect who has done a considerable amount of work for him, and three former Disney executives sitting on his board. It does not seem justifiable that a CEO’s personal friends are determining his or her exorbitant salary.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I couldn't disagree with you more. A CEO has the ability to lead the company to billions in revenues or losses.

The majority of senior executives have a reasonable salary with an incentive program. The more money the company makes, the more they make.

The more money the company makes, the more my stock value increases and the more money I make.

How would you defend the golden parachutes that pay CEOs tens of millions for doing a lousy job? A good CEO can do what you say, but a bad one can do the opposite, yet the pay is still pretty amazing.

Did Chainsaw Al ever improve stock value past the market timers and short sellers?

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

How would you defend the golden parachutes that pay CEOs tens of millions for doing a lousy job?

Easy -- those deals are signed at some point before the exec screws up, like when he is brought aboard the company. And, short of more government regulations, there's no way around it.

If you could legally negotiate a guaranteed contract like that, would you not?

. . =(_8^(1)

[godfrog 2]

Quote

Quote

I think he and all CEO's should scale down their excessive salaries. Not a single one is worth what they get.

I couldn't disagree with you more. A CEO has the ability to lead the company to billions in revenues or losses.

The majority of senior executives have a reasonable salary with an incentive program. The more money the company makes, the more they make.

The more money the company makes, the more my stock value increases and the more money I make.

yeah! and what about the golden parachute clauses and when times get tough because of their great decisions they put the axe to the labor force or give them a pay cut while they still collect their bonuses and stock options....when a company has financial troubles start axing from the top down not the bottom up!!! Inron is a perfect example of what corp ceo`s think of their labor force. when was the last time anybody in upper mgnt came to the bar, bought you a beer and just bullshitted about the job?

Experience is a difficult teacher, she gives you the test first and the lesson afterward

[freethefly 6]

Quote

If you could legally negotiate a guaranteed contract like that, would you not?

Myself? (even though you did not ask me) I would not. I am for the people as I am one of the people. Only the greedy and morally corrupt would take millions while the working class get the axe and lose everything in the process. Those at the top close their eyes to what else is involved when they screw the workers. People have families that need to eat and be clothed and sheltered. They also need the medical attention that a good job can provide for them and their children. How can a CEO justify the exorborant pay they swindle while the workers struggle and fight for a decent check and benefits that will provide for their loved ones.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[jumper03 0]

I 'on't thank any self respectin' red neck gonna like watchin' them thar rice burners goin' 'round a track down alabama way....

Scars remind us that the past is real

[billvon 3,119]

>How would you defend the golden parachutes that pay CEOs
>tens of millions for doing a lousy job?

Do you defend medical insurance companies that pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical costs to people for doing something stupid, like driving their car into a pole? Why should they get paid for being idiots?

The bottom line is that people are free to make deals. If you want to get the golden supreme medical insurance package that pays for a hotel room for your family, a private room with a view, and free HBO, then there's nothing wrong with that - even if you do something stupid to collect on it. Likewise, there's nothing inherently wrong with collecting a fat paycheck for screwing up. Good work if you can find it.

In both cases, of course, fraud is a different story.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Myself? (even though you did not ask me) I would not. I am for the people as I am one of the people. Only the greedy and morally corrupt would take millions while the working class get the axe and lose everything in the process. Those at the top close their eyes to what else is involved when they screw the workers. People have families that need to eat and be clothed and sheltered. They also need the medical attention that a good job can provide for them and their children. How can a CEO justify the exorborant pay they swindle while the workers struggle and fight for a decent check and benefits that will provide for their loved ones.

I can't say I agree with a single thing you say, but I sure do give you 100% credit for being consistent. Thanks for the perspective.

. . =(_8^(1)

[freethefly 6]

Never before have I ever gotten so much credit (wow 100%)from someone who completely disagees with everything I say. Thanks

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

I also found Ford's CEO's comments somewhat hopeful. In addition to cutting manufacturing jobs they are increasing R&D to come up with new vehicles that Americans want to buy.

What a concept!

What do YOU think?

I think that what he means is, "Ford's engineers will design a new 'scoop' to put on the Focus and a new 'spoiler' to put on the Mustang, and hopefully that will rekindle consumer interest in our offerings."

Surely no one believes that Ford is going to put "making an actual quality product" ahead of "making lots of money by charging full-quality prices for half-quality vehicles."

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

How can a CEO justify the exorborant pay they swindle while the workers struggle and fight for a decent check and benefits that will provide for their loved ones.

Before I answer the question, I need to know what "exorborant" means.

Besides, there is no "?" -- so is it really a question?


-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Flygurl 0]

Quote

How can a CEO justify the exorborant pay they swindle while the workers struggle and fight for a decent check and benefits that will provide for their loved ones.

So you think the union 20 year windshield installer employees deserve and are strugglling on their $90K salary????

________________________________________

"One out of every four American's are suffering from some form of mental illness. Think of your three best friends. If they're okay, then it's you."

[psw097 0]

Robots do a fine job installing windshields - they cost a bit more than 90K upfront but work their asses off. Around 30K industrial robots are made per year. Replacing that UAW installer isn't difficult.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Before I answer the question, I need to know what "exorborant" means.

It was a spelling mistake. You want the correction? Here it is. Exorbitant. Are you happy? Do I get my smiling grade, now?

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

How can a CEO justify the exorborant pay they swindle while the workers struggle and fight for a decent check and benefits that will provide for their loved ones.

So you think the union 20 year windshield installer employees deserve and are strugglling on their $90K salary????

That's not the issue:

1 - CEO's negotiate what the market will bear. People are jealous of that. A position to resent it and ruin one CEO's life will not save all the salaried production line workers or even delay the layoffs for any period of time. It's petty and non value added. Combined with

2 - A generally strong and well meaning desire to protect those perceived as poor. coupled with

3 - A mistaken perception that Auto workers are exploited and poor and barely making it - perception encouraged by the UAW (who exploits the members much more) with

4 - A genuine position that nobody deserves what they earn and that only if we were all equally compensated regardless of what we do or how much we all prepared for life, then we'd all be equally happy rather than equally miserable. Even though there will always be people that torpedo their lives no matter what and the position only enables that further. and finally

5 - that individuals aren't really responsible for themselves and should be coddled by the rich. (A hidden position that there really is an upper crust of people and a lower crust of people, and that the former should 'care for' the latter. Me, I don't want to live in a feudal society).

In reality, people get what they can negotiate. It's not a matter of what anybody else "thinks" they are worth, that means nothing.

In reality, businesses open and close doors all the time and people are affected in both positive and negative ways. Being scared of change just makes things worse on the economy. People are laid off and get rehired all the time. Most of their success is up to each individual. I don't see why it's a big deal. Anyone here with any real life experience has switched jobs several times, sometimes voluntarily sometimes not. Short term? Sure we feel sorry for them. Long term, it's life. I'd recommend the outraged to 'get over it'.

If this was fraud, then I'd side with Freethefly, but it's not. It's business. So the class warfare/anger thing is just tired cliche.

Let's hope the domestic car manufacturers come up with some new products that have a future, and soon, so they can be successful again to support more families with income and benefits. Much better than just keeping obsolete models and technology that burn up gas and won't be sold - putting, not only employees out of work, but an entire industry out of business.

{{Of course BV was much more pithy on it and dead accurate.}}

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[freethefly 6]

I was one of the 151 who lost a great paying job at this plant during this round of layoffs. I was union and damn proud of it. I also busted my ass 12 hours a day. I was a welder. I started in a booth and eventually ran one of the 4 robotic welders that replaced about 20 welders. It was not an easy job. You worked hard as the working table rotated every 45 seconds. You loaded one side as the other side was in the welding process. It rotates and you unload a finished piece. The pieces were of different weights ranging from 30 to 75 pounds. You moved about 400 pieces a day. Beside running the robot we also moved a number of other parts and did a large number of hand welded parts. Mig and gas. Alongside the welding we were also responsiablle for the movement of the overhead parts conveyor. If it jammed, and it often did throughout the day, we had to fix the problem to keep the line supplied at the same time move parts physically to the line. No time to sit and smoke cigarettes as some suggest that union folks do all day. Believe me, it was non-stop the entire day. Not to mentionthe sweltering heat you worked in. Your clothes were soaked, as if you jumped in a pool of water, with sweat.


Hussmann lays off another 151 at its Bridgeton plant
St. Louis Business Journal ^ | November 29, 2002 | Chad Garrison


Posted on 12/02/2002 6:53:26 PM PST by Willie Green


For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.


Hussmann Corp. has laid off 151 union workers at its Bridgeton plant. The Nov. 22 layoffs come less than a month after the commercial refrigerator manufacturer laid off 250 union workers at the plant.


Since Ingersoll-Rand Co. Ltd. purchased Hussmann in June 2000 for $1.7 billion in cash, the company has laid off nearly 1,000 union workers or 54 percent of its work force, according to Gary Reay, president of the United Steel Workers of America, Local 9014.


"In December of 2000 we had 1,800 people employed here," Reay said. "We're down to 830 union employees." Reay said Ingersoll-Rand has notified the union that further layoffs are in the works.


Paul Dickard, Ingersoll-Rand's director of investor relations in Woodcliff Lake, N.J., said he was not aware of the most recent round of layoffs at Hussmann, and would not comment on the reason for the additional layoffs. Last month, however, Dickard told the Business Journal the layoffs stem from two years of double-digit declines in the company's refrigeration division.


Ingersoll-Rand, which is registered in Bermuda, is a multinational manufacturer of industrial and commercial equipment and components. In 2001, the company employed 56,000 people throughout the world and reported sales of $9.6 billion.


Hussmann is known worldwide for its refrigerated cases used in supermarkets and convenience stores. The Bridgeton plant is the flagship for Ingersoll-Rand's climate-control unit, which had revenue of $640 million for the quarter ended Sept. 30 and operating income of $41 million.


Reay said he believes the most recent layoffs were a result of the company moving more of its refrigerator manufacturing to its Mexican facility. Dickard would not confirm that.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I was one of the 151 who lost a great paying job at this plant during this round of layoffs. I was union and damn proud of it. I also busted my ass 12 hours a day.

I hope you find a better job. Sorry about the set back. I've been there too. Good welders are hard to find, it's a very difficult trade (I've worked with Nuclear qualified welders for years). You will be in demand.

Still not a fan of unions, I've worked at both union and non-union shops and the contrast was dramatic. Union shops definitely created a two way us vs them mentality that was difficult.. When labor isn't the responsibilty of management (rather the union), then it DOES foster a lack of commit from management. But it also fosters a lack of commit the other way. Unions are a consequence of poor management initially. But in the end, they are still just another power structure to be exploited.

One good example is public shipyards, do a search on the resistance to scanning cargo vs manual entry. It's very interesting.

Everybody works hard. So that's nothing special, but still something to be proud of.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[freethefly 6]

I was at one time C-1 nuke as a navy welder and G5 for pressure pipe. I am also NDT UX2 certified to perform inspection. But because of health reasons I no longer care to do such anymore. I am on SSI at the moment but am building up an embroidery and digitizing business from home to get off the SSI. I focus mostly on skydive designs.
I agree that there is a huge amount of tension in union shops. Most appearent at contract time. I have also worked both sides. I did best with Sperry Rail Service as a chief operator. Sperry was great, non union, just to much travel. Gone 8 months of the year.
You know, part of the problem also seems to be the technology. The robotic welder took the place of 20 jobs. When you are one of the people at the bottom it sucks. Someone is going out the door and it is the person at the bottom of the chain. The union assures this as the majority comes first. Sure, maybe the guy who gets to stay is a crappy worker and the guy getting laid off is far better and at times it sucks but at the same time it does not dictate by favortism. I would rather go out the door because it is my place in line rather than go because I am not a favorite of the boss. Everyone knows that sooner or later that they can be replaced by technology so it is no surprise when it happens. Companies go with the times, also understood. Both sides come with a price though. To bad it also comes with a high cost to the everyday laborer. But, hey, that's life.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Sure, maybe the guy who gets to stay is a crappy worker and the guy getting laid off is far better and at times it sucks but at the same time it does not dictate by favortism. I would rather go out the door because it is my place in line ......

This bit blows me out of the water.......... I believe strongly that we MUST, absolutely, show favoritism to the best skilled employee - without regard to quotas, seniority, etc. Just ability.

(For those that absolutely MUST try to satisfy every little decision with societal spin think of the above concept in terms of the Taguchi Loss Function in regards to net benefit to society, not just process.)

Now starting your own business is super commendable. I wish I had the guts to do the same.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Before I answer the question, I need to know what "exorborant" means.

It was a spelling mistake. You want the correction? Here it is. Exorbitant. Are you happy? Do I get my smiling grade, now?

Shit, here's a GOLD STAR for you! "*" (Get up real close to the screen and squint --- I swear it's solid gold!)

Just fuckin' with you, Ted. Chill!

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

This bit blows me out of the water.......... I believe strongly that we MUST, absolutely, show favoritism to the best skilled employee - without regard to quotas, seniority...

race?

Just a crazy thought I had, that maybe race also should not be a deciding factor in who to hire, who to fire, etc. Qualifications alone should do it, when cuts are needed.

But race is used to fill quotas and to determine who gets, or keeps, positions. At the insistence of the government. The government that claims this is to be "fair."

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"