Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5
  • 12
UAW's bail out
Topic Started: Nov 18 2008, 07:01 AM (2,256 Views)
The Punisher
Member Avatar

Gringa
Nov 18 2008, 03:46 PM
The Punisher
Nov 18 2008, 02:10 PM
Gringa, I don't want to defend it, I don't agree that they should get rewards for misactions... that includes Senators, & House members...
Thus I would like to see oblama DEMAND a COMPLETE investion on Fannie & Frankie, and see if barn & dodd are questioned.
I think not, but you know damn well that if there was a Repub. involved at ALL he/she would be taking the fall...
I disagree that if a Republican is involved they will be taking the fall.... but, that is a partisan issue and I am not speaking partisan.

Everyone at Fannie and Freddy needs investigated, everyone in every company that receives bailout money should be investigated. And jail time, fines should follow wrong doing, if any. I still want my question answered about the PMI insurance required on every fannie and freddy loan, where and how did this play?

I want ALL bonuses suspended from ANY company that is receiving bail out money.

I don't want a bailout of any company that can not prove their company is viable. Maybe they will fall, but, maybe they should.



So, we agree that Fannie & Freddie (I screwed-up and put Frankie, whatever) that all need to be investigated and thrown in jail if necessary...
We can't get away with it being a partisan issue, it is, but we'll let that go for now.

"I want ALL bonuses suspended from ANY company that is receiving bail out money." Agreed, but ONLY on the "bail-out" funds let's include pensions...

"Maybe they will fall, but, maybe they should." Agreed, but after thinking more on this it would take out to many folks, all the parts (most of the parts) come from elsewhere, so that means it would take out the folks that make the screws, the petroleum products, the tires, And that would add up quick to a lot of jobs...

So, here's my suggestion,
1) Make it a LOAN to be paid back with interest (years?)
Since the Big boys have be cornered by their mistakes and the unions,
2) They get NONE of this loan money as bonuses, or golden (shower) parachutes... or pensions...
3) They re-organize, (Thus Charter 11) and by doing so get rid of the DEADWOOD union employees and management positions. (After all oblama said that "We all have to sacrifice")
4) Re-hire non-union workers, so that they will not be blackmailed into the same mess they’re in now)
5) Go cut ALL THE PORK out of the 700 billion, so that the auto companies can get the loan from the original 700bil.
6) PUT ON THE BREAKS, NO MORE “BAILOUTS” PERIOD!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Now, let's talk about CEO's & bonus – I think that it would be WRONG for the government to come into the private businesses and regulate how much they should or should not get…
Think of it this way, if you’re a CEO, and you know you’re going to max. out at (let’s say) 1mil. Once you hit that goal, why work harder, you would be make CEO’s into some union workers, just sitting there collecting a check.
And why is it that I don’t hear ANYBODY b*tch about how much a “movie star” makes?
Is there a difference? I think not, what if the government came in and said that all actors are only allowed to get 1mil. A movie. It would make the executive produces would be happy as hell, the actors would freak out. The actors would say “I’m bringing a lot of money in to you guys I want more of the cut! Same as a CEO to his stockholders…

I guess my point is that if a CEO sucks at their job, they don’t deserve to get paid; if a star sucks they don’t deserve to get paid.
As a matter of fact, they don’t.


Edited by The Punisher, Nov 19 2008, 06:47 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Rules
 
Gringa
Member Avatar

I do not have a problem with anyone taking bonuses when the company is profitable. Hell, give them a billion, a trillion, I don't care if the company is profitable.

If we are being asked to hand over money to them because they are going belly up, they are not profitable. This is my beef.....
Offline Profile Quote Post Rules
 
Yhitzak
Member Avatar

The Punisher
Nov 19 2008, 06:45 AM
Now, let's talk about CEO's & bonus – I think that it would be WRONG for the government to come into the private businesses and regulate how much they should or should not get…
Think of it this way, if you’re a CEO, and you know you’re going to max. out at (let’s say) 1mil. Once you hit that goal, why work harder, you would be make CEO’s into some union workers, just sitting there collecting a check.
And why is it that I don’t hear ANYBODY b*tch about how much a “movie star” makes?
Is there a difference? I think not, what if the government came in and said that all actors are only allowed to get 1mil. A movie. It would make the executive produces would be happy as hell, the actors would freak out. The actors would say “I’m bringing a lot of money in to you guys I want more of the cut! Same as a CEO to his stockholders…

I guess my point is that if a CEO sucks at their job, they don’t deserve to get paid; if a star sucks they don’t deserve to get paid.
As a matter of fact, they don’t.
Great points, TPP. Seriously. I'd like to address several of them.

1. CEO bonuses: I agree that it would be wrong for the government to regulate private enterprise by putting caps on CEO bonuses and pay, however (and this is a BIG however), when the government has given money to the CEO's businesses, why should the government then NOT put a cap on their pay/bonuses? What I mean to say is that this bailout clearly isn't doing what everyone hoped it would do (hope is NOT a sound political policy) because these companies and CEOs still aren't being held accountable for driving their industries into the ground. Shit. AIG sent their people on retreats and instead of being penalized for it, everyone was just shocked. There was no better opportunity to make an example than that, and everyone in Washington let that opportunity fly out the open window.

2. Why work harder? Heh. What a great opening to talk about work ethics. Seriously. Why do you (any of you who might be reading this) do your job? Just to get paid? I'll buy that to a point. I mean... I don't go into MY job every day just because I think it's fun or exciting or whatever. I do it to get paid. But I do a good job because it's MY job, because it's the thing I'm hired to do. And no matter how silly or seemingly insignificant jobs seem, they all make the world go 'round. Pay raises are a nice incentive to do a better job, but even more than that, I'm inclined to do well because my job and my job performance are a reflection on me personally. Perhaps if there were more accountability, people would feel more inclined to do a better job without necessarily having to see a pay raise.

3. Movie stars and celebrities make way too much money, and I'm not arguing that point. However, the movie industry has NOT been bailed out by the Federal government; there's no mutual fealty there. This goes back to my first point.

4. What method would one use to determine the viability of job performance by a CEO or even an actor? Outside of running one's company into the ground, that is.... heh.

The question becomes this: when is enough money enough money? For anyone? When are profit margins big enough to justify million-dollar bonuses for individuals? ANY individual!?
Offline Profile Quote Post Rules
 
dumblonde
Member Avatar

I believe that this issue tells us a lot about why American auto companies are failing. The gap between executive and worker pay is higher in the US than in any other country. The executive class has lost touch with the rest of the world and has become, in effect, the American royalty. They hire each other, they write laws to benefit each other, they create contracts for each other. They don't get the job because they know what they are doing- they get the job because they were on the right board, and they got on the right board because who they were roomies with (or who their dads were) at Princeton.

Class migration is slower in America today than in any other industrialized nation. We are rapidly become the 21st century example of Victorian England. This is absolutely not what the founders envisioned for us.
Offline Profile Quote Post Rules
 
Mtnman
Member Avatar

and the fact that the American auto is a POS... we have had the techy to make em more fuel efficient and last longer and be safer for years,, but??????????
Offline Profile Quote Post Rules
 
dumblonde
Member Avatar

Why should they? They produce well-engineered, fuel efficient vehicles for the European market because they have to. Here they can sell any old piece of crap they can market. That's the credo of US corps- "No better than we have to be."
Offline Profile Quote Post Rules
 
The Punisher
Member Avatar

dumblonde
Nov 19 2008, 09:51 AM
That's the credo of US corps- "No better than we have to be."
Sorry but that's the credo of the unions.
or "Nothing more than we have to do."
Offline Profile Quote Post Rules
 
towermonkey
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
That without unions he wouldn't have weekends, holidays off, sick days, 8 hour work days, retirement, safe working environment, honestly more things then I can list here.


Interesting list. I don't get any of those things except maybe the safe work environment and that is nothing to do with unions. It has to do with lawyers and insurance companies.
Offline Profile Quote Post Rules
 
Gringa
Member Avatar

TM, apparently you need to study up on the role of unions in the creations of current business practices..... it is possible that unions have run their course and are no longer needed. But, I am not sure what the Corporations would do to workers if there were not unions, perhaps they would take the workers back to horrendous working conditions and poverty level wages, perhaps not.

I don't have confidence that companies will do the right thing, sorry, but I don't.

One of the reasons non-union employers are treating people right is the threat of the union over their heads. IF that threat goes away... then what?
Offline Profile Quote Post Rules
 
The Punisher
Member Avatar

Gringa, that’s just as I see the unions. They had their purpose, they filled that purpose, and we now have laws that govern rules of employment. Hell, I have to give 1 verbal warning and 3 written warnings FOR the same behavior before I can fire them. So they can get 3 warnings for each bad behavior. These warnings MUST be written properly and in the greatest detail you can imagine.
The time of the unions is over, they will be haunting corps. For years to come, as I said they are now just a cancer to the system, and hurt the middle class, and the average hard non-union workers…

But I guess it's all mute as paulson, just said he will not "bailout" auto, or use the 700 billion to help folks keep their houses. What the hell is he going to do with it?
That's what happens when we rush to a false "crisis", and give total control to one person...
Edited by The Punisher, Nov 19 2008, 03:50 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Rules
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5
  • 12