Ford Forums is the premier Ford Forum on the internet. We discuss all Ford models on the forum. Registered Users do not see the above ads. Please Register - It's Free!
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 19:39:23 -0500, "Michael Johnson, PE"
<cds@erols.com> wrote:
>Backyard Mechanic wrote:
>> "Grover C. McCoury III" <gcmccoury@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> DETROIT (AP) -- Ford Motor Co. workers and local officials said Friday
>>> they'll do everything in their power to keep plants open after a
>>> report suggested Ford is considering closing five North American
>>> plants as part of a major restructuring.
>>
>> UAW, Ford, GM and Chrysler must sit down and find a way to stop the
>> bleeding.
>>
>> Time for UAW to establish strict workplace standards.. spend less time
>> defending workers from charges of drug use / dealing, more educating how
>> they are all in danger.
>>
>> Time to kick the MBA's out of Automotive middle management and establish
>> "Quality as Job1 !" ethics.
>> - Still signs of 'quota management' in plants, which ignore rework rate
>>
>> Time to figure out a way to pay into a joint benefits fund from
>> cars/vehicles sold.. regardless of origin.
>
>I'm not so sure they can do anything to stop their decline. They are
>likely in a no-win scenario. If they become more efficient then they
>will need fewer workers (i.e. layoffs required) or if they are paid more
>then the cost of domestic cars won't be competitive with foreign
>competition. It is ever more affordable goods and services that support
>our relatively high standard of living. We all make choices every day
>that cost someone a domestic job somewhere. Whether it be a car,
>underware, toothpaste, a wrench etc. we all usually choose the least
>expensive item that gets the job done. Same goes for businesses. If
>everyone decided to buy nothing but domestically made goods from
>tomorrow forward we would all have less disposable income and many goods
>we would have to do without because they are no longer made here in the
>USA. This, in turn, would effect the overall health of our ecomony and
>standard of living.
>
>IMO, the USA's work force is returning to a state that puts more
>responsibility on the individual for their economic well being. There
>are plenty of jobs available but not enough qualified people to fill
>them. Today too many people see a college education as optional and
>jobs that require good math and technical skills as too much of a hassle
>to get qualified to fill. People that refuse to educate themselves and
>work to become skilled in a technical field will suffer the economic
>consequences. The days of making $40/hour to spray paint bumpers are
>rapidly fading. Just like buggy whip makers had to reinvent themselves
>a 100 years ago so do many workers today. IMO, it is the flexibility to
>reinvent ourselves when needed that really gives us a great economic
>advantage over many other countries. It is good that we let the market
>determine employment needs and not let markets be overly influenced by
>government control. We have some good examples over the last 100 years
>(i.e. Socialism, Communism) that show that too much government control
>is a very bad thing.
While few might see the parallel, this is a problem which has plagued
civilizations throughout the ages. As populations grow, and advances
are made in work efficiency, less people are needed to produce the
inventory.
--
In article <U5Ikf.170861$tD4.44489@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>, fclaugus wrote:
> CEO compensation is only outrageous when executives are rewarded for poor
> performance.
Which is most of the time.
> If they make their company billions, why shouldn't they receive
> their cut ?
Shouldn't an engineer who does the same get his?
I saved an major US corporation I worked for aproximately $12,000,000.
What was my cut? 0. Zero. I would have gotten my salary and bonus by just
leaving the crap design I inherited in place and making it work, without
creatly a vastly less expensive and more reliable one.
Such a performance arguement makes best sense if it's used across the
board. If people just get their salary / wage and some convouted bonus
based on company wide performance, that's all the CEO should get. If the
CEO gets paid for specific actions that effect the bottom line in a
commission type basis, so should everyone else.
If you really believe in the performance arguement I should have had a
least 1% of what I saved the company. I am sure the CEO got more than 1%.
CEO salaries for what they really do make me sick and is hurting the
creativity in the US. I am really surprised that not very many CEO get
killed from upset employees. CEO's salary should be no more that ten
times the average of the working employees which is reality is still to
high but at least would cap it somewhat and would also increase at 10
times the rate of the working employees.
Brent P wrote:
> In article <U5Ikf.170861$tD4.44489@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>, fclaugus wrote:
>
>
>>CEO compensation is only outrageous when executives are rewarded for poor
>>performance.
>
>
> Which is most of the time.
>
>
>> If they make their company billions, why shouldn't they receive
>>their cut ?
>
>
> Shouldn't an engineer who does the same get his?
>
> I saved an major US corporation I worked for aproximately $12,000,000.
> What was my cut? 0. Zero. I would have gotten my salary and bonus by just
> leaving the crap design I inherited in place and making it work, without
> creatly a vastly less expensive and more reliable one.
>
> Such a performance arguement makes best sense if it's used across the
> board. If people just get their salary / wage and some convouted bonus
> based on company wide performance, that's all the CEO should get. If the
> CEO gets paid for specific actions that effect the bottom line in a
> commission type basis, so should everyone else.
>
> If you really believe in the performance arguement I should have had a
> least 1% of what I saved the company. I am sure the CEO got more than 1%.
>
>
>
>
>CEO salaries for what they really do make me sick and is hurting the
>creativity in the US. I am really surprised that not very many CEO get
>killed from upset employees. CEO's salary should be no more that ten
>times the average of the working employees which is reality is still to
>high but at least would cap it somewhat and would also increase at 10
>times the rate of the working employees.
>
>
>
>
>
>
I agree they make an obscene amount of money. What is it? Three
percent of the population controls 90% of the wealth? Still, while
there is no doubt they make far more than seems reasonable, when you
begin to cap salaries, you violate the premise of free enterprise. And
if you can cap a CEO salary, why not a worker's wage? Then, as long as
you are at it, restrict everyone to "from each according to his
ability; to each according to his need". The Soviet Union would write
a glowing testimonial to the concept. It comes down to whether the
shareholders are willing to part with that much in profits in order to
reap the share they do. They are the ones who control, in most cases,
who the CEO is and how much he/she gets paid.
--
"Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:XLSdnc9WZc-4JAnenZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> In article <U5Ikf.170861$tD4.44489@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>, fclaugus
wrote:
>
> > CEO compensation is only outrageous when executives are rewarded for
poor
> > performance.
>
> Which is most of the time.
>
> > If they make their company billions, why shouldn't they receive
> > their cut ?
>
> Shouldn't an engineer who does the same get his?
>
> I saved an major US corporation I worked for aproximately $12,000,000.
> What was my cut? 0. Zero. I would have gotten my salary and bonus by just
> leaving the crap design I inherited in place and making it work, without
> creatly a vastly less expensive and more reliable one.
You have a good point. And this would be different if you had this built
into your contract, not that your company would agree to this, however. They
perfer to pay you a flat salery for your services.
A good ceo is hard to get, and companies are willing to pay large high sums
if they believe it gives tham a competitive advantage. If paying a better
ceo 5 million more makes the company 100 million in profits, isn't he worth
the extra money ? The problem is, many executives are overpaid. And if I
worked for a company that had to fire me to save money and still paid their
ceo millions, I'd be pissed. Mad that the ceo makes more money by reducing
costs, which happens to be my salery. But little can be done... Stockholders
need to hold executive pay in check.
> Such a performance arguement makes best sense if it's used across the
> board. If people just get their salary / wage and some convouted bonus
> based on company wide performance, that's all the CEO should get. If the
> CEO gets paid for specific actions that effect the bottom line in a
> commission type basis, so should everyone else.
A lot of perfessions would perfer to work for a salery rather than
comissions or performance bonuses. While thay might get paid more, their pay
will fluctuate more with too much uncertainty.
> If you really believe in the performance arguement I should have had a
> least 1% of what I saved the company. I am sure the CEO got more than 1%.
I believe employees should be paid according to their impact on the bottom
line, and I do believe you deserved some sort of bonus for your efforts,
more than 1%, imo.
What do we do when we have to go to war with China, Depend on Mexico or
Korea to manufacture our tanks, Bradleys and other military vehicles.
Bring back all the smokestack industry .
>What do we do when we have to go to war with China, Depend on Mexico or
>Korea to manufacture our tanks, Bradleys and other military vehicles.
>Bring back all the smokestack industry .
One only "needs" to go to war when you're trying to protect the past.
If one is moving to the future, other countries trying to get in on it
will assist and even open up to you. The Soviet Union didn't fall
because it didn't have enough smoke stack industries.
How many tank factories are in Switzerland?
When all the competent men in a country are armed trained soldiers
both the foreign enemies and the domestic government treat the
citizens with respect. (that was the logic behind the second
Amendment if I recall correctly).
Would the North Korean or Canadian governments treat it citizens with
such contempt if they knew the citizenry had the means and the will to
remove & replace the whole government structure? (Yes, I acknowledge
the Canadian problem is one of will power).
PS if there's ever a war between China and the US a hundred tank
factories wouldn't make a bit of difference, Tanks are somewhat
ineffectual against ICBM's
><snip>
>Shouldn't an engineer who does the same get his?
>
>I saved an major US corporation I worked for aproximately $12,000,000.
>What was my cut? 0. Zero. I would have gotten my salary and bonus by just
>leaving the crap design I inherited in place and making it work, without
>creatly a vastly less expensive and more reliable one.
><snip>
I agree. I believe that years ago a number of companies implemented
an employee "suggestion box" that paid a percentage of net profits to
the person suggesting it. (if I recall GM had it in place for a
while) which worked rather well.
You should have gotten a cut, you may well have even done so if you
had documented what you had done, shopped out your services to
establish what you were worth to the company or others and asked for a
raise or gone to a company more interested in your services (i.e.
willing to pay more).
Shortly after I left high school I worked for a company that refused
to pay their top performing salesman above their maximum level
regardless of what he produced. He left, a year later the company
folded. He got his raise, the companies owner got the shaft for being
an idiot.
Unfortunately many CEO's wages are "determined" by a board stacked
with their friends. Makes it hard to constrain pay. However Enron,
World Com, Tyco and others have inadvertently done their part to bring
Board members into line. Watching Conrad Black of late has brightened
my days.
In article <au6lf.146179$Hs.57874@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>, fclaugus wrote:
> A good ceo is hard to get, and companies are willing to pay large high sums
> if they believe it gives tham a competitive advantage.
Sure... like the decisions the one of my now former employer made. He's
still got a job as do all the executives and senior management. (Today was
a surprise sacking day, about ~1/4-1/3 of the company I figure and half my
group gone and I was in the half that's now gone.) And that's what gets
people miffed. There is one senior executive who is mostly retired who
is still drawing a 80% of his salary (as I heard) from before he did
semi-retirement and wasn't sacked. His pay could have left probably 4-5
of the junior engineers in jobs or a couple of more senior engineers and
caused no impact to the company to have him just finish his fade out.
>> Such a performance arguement makes best sense if it's used across the
>> board. If people just get their salary / wage and some convouted bonus
>> based on company wide performance, that's all the CEO should get. If the
>> CEO gets paid for specific actions that effect the bottom line in a
>> commission type basis, so should everyone else.
> A lot of perfessions would perfer to work for a salery rather than
> comissions or performance bonuses. While thay might get paid more, their pay
> will fluctuate more with too much uncertainty.
CEOs don't just work for performance. They have base salaries. If CEO's
just worked for bottom line performance there may be less of a backlash.
I'd like that same deal that is always trotted out as an excuse for huge
CEO pay scales. I'd like a bonus that was actually tied to the dollar
amounts I added to the bottom line.
Another reason I believe it's valid to complain about CEOs is that they
have the power to manipulate things in the company to their own
personal favor and often do, sometimes at great cost to the rank and file.
>> If you really believe in the performance arguement I should have had a
>> least 1% of what I saved the company. I am sure the CEO got more than 1%.
> I believe employees should be paid according to their impact on the bottom
> line, and I do believe you deserved some sort of bonus for your efforts,
> more than 1%, imo.
In article <7epap15l5g4vqro73th9pddbjgiio2011p@4ax.com>, joe schmoe wrote:
> You should have gotten a cut, you may well have even done so if you
> had documented what you had done, shopped out your services to
> establish what you were worth to the company or others and asked for a
> raise or gone to a company more interested in your services (i.e.
> willing to pay more).
You are correct, I've never been much of a braggart or one to do the
self promotion, more one who lets the work speak for itself and it
cost me politically in that environment.
> Shortly after I left high school I worked for a company that refused
> to pay their top performing salesman above their maximum level
> regardless of what he produced. He left, a year later the company
> folded. He got his raise, the companies owner got the shaft for being
> an idiot.
That's a nice difference between a publicly traded company and private
one. On a publically traded company it's almost impossible to shaft
someone like that.
> Unfortunately many CEO's wages are "determined" by a board stacked
> with their friends. Makes it hard to constrain pay.
That's another factor that ticks people off about it that I had
forgotten.
Linear Mode
