I agree times have changed. And it wasn’t meant to be directed at you, as such. But too many people look at the deals the UAW have and say “These things are ridiculous; they have to go” without considering that they were the product of negotiations.
And if there are sacrifices to be made, those sacrifices should be shared. There is no doubt white collar employees are suffering too; but executives seem to be doing pretty damn well.
The thing about executive compensation is you have to ask whether there is a serious problem with it, with many many top managers making far more than they possibly bring to the company, OR do you really believe that it’s physically impossible for any CEO to bring enough value to justify the high pay they earn.
Since taking over again as CEO of Apple in 1997, Apple’s market capitalization has increased by close to $80,000,000,000. Did Steve Jobs’ leadership add $78 billion in shareholder value? Moreso than any other CEO that comes to mind, I’d say yes he deserves a huge chunk of the credit. The millions of dollars in stock options Steve gets is tiny compared to the increase in shareholder value. You see a similar story when you look at Michael Dell.
So there’s no doubt a big problem with excess executive compensation, but when people say it’s impossible for someone to be worth hundreds of employee’s annual salary they are… wrong.
P.S. My point has nothing to do with specific people such as the executives at the big 3 automakers or Richard Fuld.
When a company is run into the ground, who has been doing the running?
Management.
Unless, of course, when the workers are part of a union. Then everything is the employee’s fault.
The failure of an auto bailout is politics. Democrat and Republican politicians would rather play tit-for-tat point scoring games than address the problem and deal with it openly, fairly and honestly. Politicians are selfish, just like most of the electorate who put them there.
Fine, then let’s hear your plan to return the Big 3 to profitability with (a) 10-15% higher labor costs than foreign automakers and (b) a bloated product line.
First we execute the bankers…
I don’t know if that will return Detroit to profitability, but I will feel a lot better afterwards.
Not to mention a system designed to prevent the worst workers from being replaced, and no incentive or reward for harder or better work.
Like I said earlier, everyone has a share, a piece of the blame.
It’s the pubbies that filibustered here.
If the measure had been allowed to come to a straight up or down vote, it would have passed.
A big part of the problem is that the UAW is institutionally incapable of accepting the fact that there is not a market for 17 million units a year anymore. There is a market for maybe 10 million units, and that isn’t going to change over the next few years. At least 40% of union jobs in the big 3 are going to be gone next year, one way or another. The UAW needs to accept that it can’t protect those jobs and move forward on that basis.
It is for unskilled labor.
Particularly with 6 or 7 weeks paid holiday.
Unskilled labor? I am not expert, but it seems that car-putting-together is a fairly technical job with robots and powerful equipment. But, all I know is what I see in snips on the TV news.
Mowing the grass and sweeping the floor is pretty unskilled.
Absolutely, tons of training, certs, qualifications. Many elitistly equate “no college degree” with “unskilled”.
Here’s what appalls me and angers me about this whole mess. Last night, I heard a few senators say a group of people in this country were making too much money and that money should be taken off them. Mind you, they didn’t say it should be taken away from them to provide some sort of benefit such as health care, improved infrastructure, or even reducing the federal deficit. No, they simply said that union workers were making too much money and their wages should be reduced to those of non-union workers.
Think about this people! What would the response be if a Democrat said, “People are making too much money, so we’re going to take it off them”? What happened to conservative outrage over redistribution of wealth?
I know things have changed since the 1950’s. I was a teenager when the steel mills in Pennsylvania shut down and I noticed that when companies filed for bankruptcy, their workers’ pension plans were taken but the CEOs still got paid a nice chunk of change. I admit union workers get paid a heck of a lot of money and have rather nice benefits. I’d rather like to have them, too.
Still, even in my worst nightmares, I never dreamed I’d hear a US Senator say sincerely that workers were making too much money and it should be taken off them. Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised. After all, it isn’t that long since the Supreme Court ruled your home could be taken by eminent domain to build a shopping mall.
I try to be calm and rational and see the other sides of issues. This one’s tougher. I’ve had jobs where I’ve been paid better than my coworkers. I got that pay because I had the skills the company needed and was able to negotiate a higher salary. I’m rather nicely paid now and I’m very happy to be so, given what other people on this board are going through. At the risk of sounding selfish, that money’s mine and I’m not giving it up because some senator form Tennessee has decided I make too much money. (Note: I’m not a union member and I don’t work in the auto industry.)
I thought the American dream was to get a good job and be able to support a family, regardless of whether or not you went to college. I’ve seen that dream erode over my lifetime, and I know how much harder it is to support a family on one income these days. I know labor’s a lot cheaper overseas and I worked at a factory which shut down and sent the equipment and the jobs off to Malaysia. To me, this isn’t just about union workers, but about blue collar workers and middle class types in general. A few senators have stated that some of us make too much money and that money should be taken away so that people’s wages are reduced to match other people’s wages. Doesn’t that sound like communism or socialism? Am I really hearing that in America of all places it’s possible to make too much money? Perhaps it’s a senator or two who’s making too much money. This could be fun the next time the topic of pay raises comes around.
What happened? Some of us ended up voting for the person who said it. Remember that little promise about 95% of the people getting a tax cut? Well, you know that if 95% get a cut, 5% cover the difference, right?
Again, you heard Barack Obama saying it during his campaign, so let’s not get holier than thou.
Anyway, back to the topic of the thread. Here’s my problem, more than anything else: Mr. Gettelfinger is trying to sustain something that is going to die. Perhaps that’s his job, or perhaps it is his job to save what he can for his people instead of tilting at windmills and fighting for stuff he can’t save.
Anyway, this little game of brinksmanship infuriated me. When you are the one on the line, when it’s your ass in a sling, who are you to say no? If I’m begging someone for money, I don’t have the right to tell them that I might pay it back when I feel like it. No, I accept the terms that I have been given if I want the money.
This guy has either the biggest balls in recorded human history to play that kind of game, or the fix was in and he knew it. So he either gambled with his peoples’ livelihoods or he outright cheated. Yeah, that’s the guy I want to represent me. That’s the kind of guy that will represent the UAW right to the unemployment line. As it is he’s going to have to face reality eventually. Now would be a good time, before Chrysler dies.
This isn’t a tax increase. This is straight out, bold-faced, “I think you’re making too much money, so I want to take it away from you.” The government won’t get the money; I assume the corporations will get to keep the money and use it for operational expenses, including perks for executives, at least until they go bankrupt.
I want unions to face reality, too, and I’ve seen them do some incredibly stupid things. If it were simply a matter of senators saying that all sides are going to have to make concessions, including the unions, or putting restrictions on the bail out, I’d support that gladly. That’s not the same as telling people they make too much money and it should be taken off them.
Alright, I guess it’s your turn to explain how the Big 3 can be competitive with labor costs 10-15% higher than foreign automakers.
Don’t be silly, of course it’s not a union busting scheme. If that were so the union contracts would be the only ones the Senate wanted abrogated. The auto companies have certainly hundreds, maybe thousands of contracts. Contracts with steel companies, plastic companies, parts suppliers, power and oil companies, insurance companies…, you get the idea. If this were a union busting scheme we would expect Congress to say that out of all of those contracts only the one with the workers should be ignored. They surely wouldn’t have been stupid enough to say that.
Nonsense. This is straight out “you jokers are begging for money when you can’t even manage the bloat and excesses you’re drowning under the weight of now” after the idiots on the hill pissed away almost 300 million on the financial sector, they’re finally remembering what oversight means. Sure, it’s hard for the auto makers, it’s hard for everybody and it’s a lesson that large corporations have needed to learn for years if not decades. Being fiscally conservative and sitting on large cash reserves as well as paying not just a fair wage but one you can support even in the lean times is essential to long term business success. The auto industry in particular has been shedding American jobs in favor of greater profit for the stockholders and fatcats for as long as I can remember. This means fewer Americans to buy the products. The companies have streamlined, the unions haven’t, they will become casualties of their own ignorance soon enough.