RG, he never said it was ethical or right, he said it isnt cheating.
Hes right.
The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind.
I would argue that the costs of not retaining people is greater over time than showing a committment to people. I don't see the two as equal. All your company is essentially doing is OJT for your compe ors, who will get the best and the brightest, make them eventually into managers, and those managers will increase the collective "intelligence" of those compe ors.
Bingo. Your solution is a perfectly rational one. Corporate managers are ing about people not having any loyalty to the company, but will turn around in a heartbeat and fire people at the drop of a hat. I am all about labor flexibility, but you can't have your cake and eat it too from this perpective. Loyalty flows both ways.My solution to this has worked well for me, just do my job better then everyone else, then demand the money by threatening to leave. Once that money runs out, I'll use company time to find a higher paying job with another company..............suckers.
The man "earned" it by getting cosy with the board in a way that the 2500 fired employees couldn't.
It wasn't any special talent or insight, other than ass-kissing.
Neither is unethical behavior a good long-term strategy, but it still happens, as in this case.
I am not saying that you have to be "locked" into ossified labor structures, ala Germany. That is stupid.
I wish that the modern US job culture had a bit more commitment to people. I think that lack of commitment is a sypmtom of the wider "short-term" malaise that has US corporations pursuing "this quarter" profits at the expense of real long term growth.
That can't really be fixed or mandated at the government level, but getting rid of grossly overcompensated positions would treat at least a symptom of that malaise.
That's just my point. This isn't the owners, this is the board that is supposed to represent those owners. Weak corporate governance is rife in this country. Better than others, but still weak.
These guys are getting tons of shares that are diluting my earnings as a shareholder, and that pisses me off.
Is it really good for the long term success of this company to send this kind of message to its employees? To siphon off that much of the resources that could have been paid out to those shareholders?
One additional point:
What is good for individual businesses IS NOT what is good for us as people or a society.
It may be good for any business to cheaply pollute, but we all pay a price for that. It may be good for businesses to collectively say that you need to work 60 hours a week "so that we are compe ive", but is that good for society?
I'll admit I wouldnt' have a problem taking all that jack if I was a CEO.
The shareholders need to pay more attention to who is on the board; read the minutes of the meetings, and keep up. The board needs to be held accountable for its actions. Now, if the profits and dividends are up under this cat, I'm thinking the shareholders are happy; I haven't looked.
But we are left with that, aren't we? You can't reach any of the philosopher's social ideals, ultimately. Capitilism with limited taxation and regulation has "succeeded" more than any other socio-economic model because of its ability to produce so much wealth - both individually and collectively. Is it divided "fairly" or "to do the most good for society". No, but if it were (even if that were your goal and WAS possible), there wouldn't be NEARLY as much wealth to divide. The incentive to create it in the first place would be removed.
You Communist. The purpose of your pathetic existence is to toil for the comfort of the wealthy elites. If you deserved a good life God would have had you born into wealth like he did them. Know your place and get back to work.
God save us if we vote to take his paltry few dollars and run. God save this country if that is truly the wave of the future. We will then have become a nation that makes nothing but hamburgers, creates nothing but lawyers, and sells nothing but tax shelters. And if we are at that point in this country, where we kill something because at the moment it's worth more dead than alive--well, take a look around. Look at your neighbor. You won't kill him, will you? No. It's called murder and it's illegal.
Well this too is murder -- on a mass scale. Only on Wall Street, they call it "maximizing share-holder value" and they call it "legal". They subs ute dollar bills where a conscience should be. Dammit! A business is worth more than the price of its stock. It's the place where we earn our living, where we meet our friends, dream our dreams. It is, in every sense, the very fabric that binds our society together.
So let us now, at this meeting, say to every Garfield in the land, "Here, we build tings. We don't destroy them. here we care about more than the price of our stock. Here, we care about people.
Whoa, nice "Other People's Money" reset.
I always thought Penelope Ann Miller was hot.
They don't do those things, by and large. Some do, but most people simply don't have the time.
Those who are paid to do so, don't really invest with any real conscience, so don't really care about ethics.
has no conscience. We do and should act accordingly.
"I could break you, in two pieces over my Knee. I could dump the stock just to burn your ass, but I happen to want the company, and I need your block of shares".
So CEO's would be any less driven for $50M, rather than $150M or upwards?
I actually asked this question of a CFO that I have come to admire, and his answer "I would have a real problem [with accepting a pay increase at the same time that 2500 people were laid off]".
He and I agree on that as well as the need to adequately pay valuable people.
But how much is too much?
Of course, what was I thinking...?
Well, off to work for the company that "cares"...
My job is so rewarding, I don't need health insurance....
I am sure the company "values" my work...
By the by, the middle picture is a comment on the normal 10 hour day that those silly unions demanded an end to...
This just in:
It's not the CEO driving the spending; it's the company, the board; it's their greed, not the greed of the CEO; and YES; people ARE driven to make more money than they could ever spend. See what those guys got for selling Utube? WAAAAAAY more than that CEO's got. They could give the money to those 2500 people, too.
It's probably because he has the stones to can the 2500 people that the company didn't need in the first place that gets him the bling in the first place.
Again I ask: How would you limit incomes - and who would it be limited to?
No, no, no, that's not the American business model.
The American business model is to can 2500 people whether or not the company needs them, collect a huge bonus for the short-term benefit to the bottom line, then negotiate a golden parachute before the damage you've done to the company's sustainable operations becomes apparent and they have to hire all 2500 people back at a premium.
Ummm, I've never worked for that company.
You took the sustained release sarcasm pill today, I see.
By the by, the middle picture is a comment on the normal 10 hour day that those silly unions demanded an end to...
Bet the rich CEO this thread refers to works a of a lot longer than 10 hour days five days a week. He's probably pretty much never not at work - or a moment from being there.
I agree it needs rules, but not government applied enforced rules. The people with the most at stake here need to step up and take stock in their investment (damn, its like I'm Irish with these puns! woo). They need to follow what is being done with their companies and voice their opinions on it.
"They" did. They elected a board, who gave the man a big bonus.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote