Do *they* earn it?

Post #302,864 by drook 1/22/09 12:03:37 PM Reply	Do they earn it? When a company pays me a salary, they are giving me money in exchange for something I do that earns/saves them money. It's easy to measure that. But look at my balance sheet. I give them time. I'm literally giving them a part of my life. What have they done to earn that? Is it really a fair trade? I don't think you'll find many CEOs asking themselves that question. -- Drew
Post #302,868 by beepster 1/22/09 12:28:03 PM Reply	Some will, some won't And to get to that position, most have given up a significant amount more of their time and their life to get there...and/or created the opportunity for you to give your time and your life in exchange for said compensation. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #302,869 by drook 1/22/09 12:43:49 PM Reply	Then clearly I should be more grateful than I am I must be a bad person. -- Drew
Post #302,870 by boxley 1/22/09 12:49:26 PM Reply	no, grateful is the wrong word you should feel about your job exactly the amount you are paid to feel about it, no more, no less. thanx, bill
Post #302,873 by beepster 1/22/09 1:31:03 PM Reply	Why? Grateful? No. Wrong word. Cognizant? Better choice. They worked to get where they are too. Breaks fell more their way that yours...and most of them have been at it much longer than you. Should your publishing career take off, you very well could be CEO of your own little world someday (worked for Martha, Emeril and others). I doubt, at that time, if you would make the comment that you just posted. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #302,875 by drook 1/22/09 2:09:46 PM Reply	Look at the comment that started this branch "Nothing wrong with unions as long as they are a partner" Unions exist specifically to represent the workers' point of view, and to put that view on a more equal footing with the view of the corporation. And Box is saying that there's nothing wrong with unions as long as they act as though the view of the corporation is at least equal to the view of the workers. And my point was that when a corporation acts like a partner in my well-being, then they can expect it from me. Corporations for the most part don't act that way. Employees are expenses to be reduced. It's precisely because corporations act this way that unions were created. -- Drew
Post #302,881 by beepster 1/22/09 4:25:04 PM Reply	And I will say to that... ...in alot of cases, they do. They don't >have< to provide half of the things that they do..and in most cases pay and benefits are structured because they are, specifically, interested in finding you and keeping you, and keeping you productive. Unions were created because at one time, corporations did NOT provide competitive pay, structured benefits, etc.... Yes, there is an expense component to this, and yes it is their job to also control that. On an INDIVIDUAL basis, it may seem that they don't care..but at the collective level most corporations do value their employee base and the talent pool of their employees, most offer benefits packages that assist in keeping you healthy and sane and planning for your life after you leave. If you want to return to the days where unions were formed and have the companies treat you like that...hey...I bet those evil CEOs would love to own your house, your grocery store, your doctor, and all other aspects of your life. Lose your job, lose your house, etc. Then they >really< have you. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #302,882 by jake123 1/22/09 4:34:31 PM Reply	History does not support your prognosis
Post #302,893 by boxley 1/22/09 6:53:45 PM Reply	caw? My old man suffered crippling strikes for the future of the worker to find it squandered because they got greedy. thanx, bill
Post #303,065 by jake123 1/26/09 9:46:58 AM Reply	Box with all due respect, go read about what it was like working in industry before unions.
Post #303,075 by boxley 1/26/09 11:52:30 AM Reply	old man was a shop steward for uaw local communists and wobblies inhabited our kitchen table constantly, I might be a tad more learned than you think
Post #303,077 by jake123 1/26/09 11:57:45 AM Reply	Re: old man was a shop steward for uaw Just pointing out that the fact that it went badly for them (due in no small part to management not doing a good job) doesn't invalidate the huge benefits that unions brought to the average working person.
Post #303,079 by boxley 1/26/09 12:28:01 PM Reply	no question, back in the 60's it wasnt so much about hourly wages as decent benefits and pensions. Later the union fought too hard to keep the payroll ballooned instead of right sizing negotiations with the companies. This wasnt the only cause of the costs that drug down sales by no means but it was a factor
Post #303,084 by jake123 1/26/09 2:08:49 PM Reply	I was thinking more about the tens and twenties Life in a factory was nasty, brutish, and short in those days, and often took limbs. At least, that's when the labour movement started to really get going up here, which resulted over the course of the following three decades in the environment that your dad was working in. If he'd been trying to get benefits etc back then, chances were good that he'd be beaten into stupidity for his troubles.
Post #302,883 by Another Scott 1/22/09 4:47:53 PM Reply	Corporations are many-headed monsters. It often works cross-purposes. At the corporate board level, I think it's reasonable to argue that employees are viewed, in general, an expense to be minimized. Their job is to make Wall Street happy and that means being "more efficient" by cutting headcount (even if the people are later brought back as contractors). At the department and group level, I think it's reasonable to argue that employees are viewed, in general, as the heart of the company. They have the expertise, they know how the system works, and they know how to get the job done. Bosses at that level know that good employees are something to be treasured because they'll make or break the output of their group or department. The problem is, in general, the department and group leaders have very little say on how much money or benefits they can give their employees. There's a fixed pot of money to be divided among the group. The size of that pot is determined by the people at the board level or just below. Ultimately, "Office Space" is too close to being reality. So, I think you're both right up to a point, but drook is closer to the truth. And unions are too often the only way to get the board's attention when it comes to labor issues. Cheers, Scott.
Post #302,885 by beepster 1/22/09 4:56:05 PM Reply	And I'll continue to insist that it is nowhere near as >easy< a situation as you make it sound. If management and directors know that people are the heart of the enterprise, then it simply cannot be divorced by moving one step up the chain to senior management. So what you have is the group that is often forced to make the quite difficult decision of people versus the cost of that resource. The pervasive attitude is that by virtue of being granted title CEO, it automatically means that this decision becomes simple..screw the workers. I reject that as no better or less prejudicial than the blanket assumption that all blacks are better athletes and white men can't jump...etc. It may hold for some. It is likely NOT the majority..and as I've said...if Drew is lucky enough to build his own little cookbook fiefdom...I think he may change his tune when he becomes CEO of "How to Cook Like Your Grandmother, Inc." I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #302,889 by drook 1/22/09 5:49:30 PM Reply	Red card, player ejected "I reject that as no better or less prejudicial than the blanket assumption that all blacks are better athletes and white men can't jump...etc." Becoming CEO is something you work very hard to achieve. Being black/white is something you're born with. You really think it's not reasonable to suspect that a self-selected group of people who have aspired to CEO-dom might share some other personality traits? Or are you suggesting that being a CEO is just something your born with? -- Drew
Post #302,890 by beepster 1/22/09 6:11:46 PM Reply	No, what I'm rejecting is the blanket generalization. All CEOs are bad, greedy, etc. All accountants are boring, nerdy types. All programmers are shut ins that only drink coke and eat pizza. IMnsHO, these things are no better, no worse, no less prejudicial in practice than statements based on race, religion, etc. Doesn't everyone aspire to their own measure of success? Aren't you doing that right now? I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #302,896 by drook 1/22/09 7:11:36 PM Reply	Ahh, now I get it I should treat all corporate officers as individuals, ignoring the demonstrated prevalence of certain personality traits and behaviors among that group. But corporations need only care about employees in the aggregate. Okay, that makes it very clear where you stand. -- Drew
Post #302,904 by beepster 1/22/09 8:15:09 PM Reply	Obviously it doesn't because you're missing the point entirely and sticking with your prejudice. Point being that these people are responsible for balancing your survival with the survival of everyone else involved. Your co-workers, your customers, your suppliers, your shareholders. Your base assumption, based on your prejudice, is that "those people", THEM, the EVIL CEOs, all of them, find the decisions that impact your life easy..in fact, they seem to enjoy your suffering at their hands. And I say to you, when you get to the point, and you may, where you have other's lives in your hands, you may end up realizing what I'm saying and agree. I did not say that corps only must care about you in aggregate...they must provide for you as an individual and at the same time provide for "YOU" in aggregate and at the same time make decisions that impact both you and YOU. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #302,894 by boxley 1/22/09 6:56:41 PM Reply	how many board level folks have you chatted with? Me quite a few, some not worth a crap but the good companies realize that with worker loyalty gone thru corporate malfeance in the late 70's that employee churn is detrimental to the bottom line and work hard to create a balance of both books and workers life.
Post #302,898 by drook 1/22/09 7:27:46 PM Reply	Then explain ... Why do companies lay off a thousand workers when cutting exec pay in half would save as much? Why are employees let go and brought back as contractors, with the only changes being: less benefits for the worker, a body shop taking a skim, and the employer getting more accounting flexibility? Why do corporate spokespeople always talk about stock price before they talk about employees? -- Drew
Post #302,900 by Ashton 1/22/09 7:31:02 PM Reply	Thou sayest.
Post #302,908 by boxley 1/22/09 8:34:31 PM Reply	what is the long term effect on their stock price compared. to those that value employees? Not good, meaning its a bad business decision. Bidness 101 I was chatting at a company event explaining how by not depending on vendors, being independent we can save a ton of money in certain it related areas. Guy I was speaking with wasnt sure and brought up just in time buying in the car industry and GE going into the toilet at the time by being cheaper rather than quality. I said "We need to buy smarter, not necessarily cheaper" and he agreed with that. I was new, didnt know I was chatting with the ceo and cfo which was why there was a seat available at their table. Sales dweebs and finance skullduggers treat employees as crap and when they run a company its soon ailing and bought out to be dismembered.
Post #302,911 by Another Scott 1/22/09 8:58:51 PM Reply	If it worked the way Adam Smith said, things would be better *Bidness 101* A big part of the problem with industry these days is that stock prices often have little or nothing to do with the long-term value of a company. The stock market has become a gambling den for those who like to shift money around, buying and selling over the span of a few hours, or a few minutes, making money on tiny shifts in the stock price. And, too many people became CEOs because they knew how to slice and dice a company to drive its price up quickly. Remember "Chainsaw Al"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Dunlap The rewards in the boardroom are too often divorced from the health of the company. A most recent example is the bonuses given out by Merrill just before they were bought by BoA with huge inputs of money from the Treasury. The company lost 10s of billons yet the upper management was continuing to get huge bonuses. These days, too many CEOs and Boards of Directors serve Wall Street - not the shareholders (who should be interested in the long-term health of the company), but the "analysts" and the speculators who are gambling on margin. *Sales dweebs and finance skullduggers treat employees as crap and when they run a company its soon ailing and bought out to be dismembered.* And in the meantime, they laugh all the way to the bank while too many of the workers, and long-term shareholders, suffer. The system should be adjusted so that corporate governance doesn't reward irresponsible behavior with gigantic pay packages. Cheers, Scott.
Post #302,912 by beepster 1/22/09 9:06:47 PM Reply	Re: If it worked the way Adam Smith said, things would be be ""And in the meantime, they laugh all the way to the bank while too many of the workers, and long-term shareholders, suffer. The system should be adjusted so that corporate governance doesn't reward irresponsible behavior with gigantic pay packages. " I agree with this, it will go a long way towards getting the bad out of the way and allowing the good a little more time to be recognized. There are thousands of people that hold the title CEO. Public companies, private companies, not for profits, etc. Judging the whole from the behavior of half a dozen or a dozen or even a hundred isn't right. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #302,913 by boxley 1/22/09 9:34:02 PM Reply	thanks for making my point companies/corporations suffer and die when they mistreat employees among other bad business practices. Does it happen a lot? Sure and it hits the news. Buy from reputable people. Be a reputable person. Dont get greedy in the stock market or at the negotiasting table. Take care of your employees, they make your nut. Dont take the last crumb of the deal, leave it on the table. In the long run you will make. Making is where it is at.
Post #302,884 by drook 1/22/09 4:55:32 PM Reply	Key phrase in there "On an INDIVIDUAL basis, it may seem that they don't care" Full stop. You just made my argument for me. Because guess what I am? An individual. If they only care about me as a part of a group, then someone needs to be empowered to speak for the group. Otherwise they never hear from anyone they care about. -- Drew
Post #302,886 by beepster 1/22/09 4:57:50 PM Reply	Re: Key phrase in there Still wrong. Other post explains my point. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #302,891 by Ashton 1/22/09 6:25:06 PM Reply	I see no 'explanation' just your usual generic not-very-original Deviltry advocacy. See only an assertion ~~ that CEOs are far more sensitive, perspicuous and just-plain Goodness-besotted than .??. the popular summing-up, by jillions who Work-for the above , allegedly non-Aynish paragons. You assert. I assert. He she and they assert. Remember way-back the CEO whose iron foundry burned; instead of pocketing the insurance check and moving to Bali: he rebuilt? Now tell me, Beep: Just WHY was that front-page news, even in the mindless MSM.. for days? Hint: Think hard about the root of, exceptional.
Post #302,895 by boxley 1/22/09 7:01:53 PM Reply	put this in your pipe and smoke it http://money.cnn.com...fortune/index.htm
Post #302,899 by Another Scott 1/22/09 7:28:44 PM Reply	Private companies are different. Cox is a good company in many respects. But they're also private (and have been private for a long time), so they don't have the pressure of "analysts" breathing down their necks for profit increases every 90 days come rain or shine. It's that quest for satisfying Wall Street that has caused so much of the trouble with average employee earnings,, and decimated the long-term prospects of many industries, over the last decade or more. AFAIK, the biggest US companies are publicly traded. Since we're throwing generalizations around, that seems to be the most relevant subset of all corporations. IMHO, of course. :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #302,906 by boxley 1/22/09 8:27:45 PM Reply	aug 2004 isnt that long ago and it appears that both you and drewk missed the point completely, its not out of largess, its a clear defence of their brand, which makes their bottom line more profitable. Straight bidness 101 but you seem to think that everyone is enron. Losers think that way and what is the current value of enrons stock? Like I said before, look at the long term stock price of companies that are listed as the 100 best places to work then compare, you will find that companies that respect their employees are much more profitable than those who treat their employees like cattle
Post #302,901 by drook 1/22/09 7:31:13 PM Reply	Won't light, must be wet Oh, here it is: "As a privately-held firm, Cox doesn't have to chase quarterly earnings; it can invest for the future." Which means this is not an example (or counter-example) of anything having to do with typical corporate behavior. -- Drew
Post #302,905 by beepster 1/22/09 8:19:53 PM Reply	Is he not a CEO? Evil bastard. Saving those people's jobs. And if the only difference is that he need not deal with wall street...who is the evil...the CEO or the stockholder? And who are the stockholders? ... who's point do you think you're making? I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #302,907 by drook 1/22/09 8:33:18 PM Reply	So what's your argument now? That CEOs in general don't actually exhibit the behavior I've described? Or that they only do it because the shareholders demand it? And while we're at it, you seem to be suggesting that "the stockholders" has some significant overlap with "the workers". Which may be slightly true, but ignores the fact that catering to "the street" doesn't mean main street, it means Wall Street. The analysts and institutional investors drive the short-term thinking, not the people who only check their 401k every couple of months. -- Drew
Post #302,910 by beepster 1/22/09 8:58:06 PM Reply	Shouldn't I be asking you that? Since your prejudice had no mention of any influence other than the CEO. The CEO was the root of that evil. Now it seems that you are changing that to the real influence being Wall Street. Could it be that the decisions are not as easy or as simple as being at the whim of one man/woman? Could it be that there are more (considering the volume of President/CEO titled individuals) like that at Cox then there are like those you have determined to be blanket evil bastards? My point all along is simply that. You CANNOT generalize. It is no less prejudicial that any other statement you may make about groups based on any race, creed, etc..whether born that way or part of a group of choice. There are alot of CEOs and they don't all get press and I posit that more of them are human that you give them credit for being. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #302,917 by drook 1/22/09 11:18:40 PM Reply	Again, look at what started this I was talking about Box's statement about unions. Instead of CEOs or Wall Street, fill in !$unions if it makes you feel better. Whoever it is that unions are negotiating with. Whoever it is that Box said unions should partner with. His statement was that unions are good if and only if they partner with ... well, pick your label, but he clearly meant the people running the company the union members work for. I suggest instead that unions exist because there are companies that otherwise don't treat their employees as partners. See? He said something about unions, I disagreed, and said essentially the opposite thing about unions. But we both said something about unions. If you'd rather talk about the saintly intentions of CEOs and defend them against my outrageous and untrue aspersions, go right ahead. As long as you understand that I was talking about unions. -- Drew
Post #302,923 by beepster 1/23/09 6:48:57 AM Reply	Ok but your approach would have been slightly different had Box said "unions should be ignored because they're all crooked fronts for organized crime". Clearly there is evidence of this being the case with a couple, so they must all be like that. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #302,927 by boxley 1/23/09 8:08:43 AM Reply	good, back on point unions allow workers to have a seat at managements table. If thats the case they need to be in partnership with management rather than antagonists to allow the underlying entity (the company) to prosper. A bad union is the same as a bad ceo, both can kill the entity
Post #302,942 by drook 1/23/09 10:08:11 AM Reply	I figure unions are like advertising You know at least half of them are a waste of money, but you never know which half. -- Drew
Post #302,949 by folkert 1/23/09 10:42:34 AM Reply	ICLRPD

Welcome to IWETHEY!