Another obscene downsizer bonus story!
jesco
>
> The image of government money flowing into the pockets of
> executives who were laying off thousands of workers drew political
> fire last year after Newsday disclosed the agreement between the
> company and the Pentagon. Investors, including representatives of
> New York's five public pension funds, protested what they termed a
> sweetheart deal.
Tell you what you should do. Start your own business and then
run it the way you see fit. The horrible truth of the matter
is that the executives run the company, the employees do not.
They do not have a "right" to that particular job and are
subject to layoffs.
> The $10 billion merger last March of Lockheed Corp. and Martin
> Marietta Corp. into the world's largest defense and aerospace
> company was expected to lead to an estimated 35,000 lost jobs.
Funny, but the liberals always want to shut down the military
in this nation. Now you finally have a President to carry out
that threat and you whine about lost defense jobs. How
patheric.
> Norman Augustine, former Martin Marietta chief and now the chief
> executive officer of Lockheed Martin, was to receive $8.2 million
> in bonuses stemming from the merger. Other executives were to
> receive lesser but still hefty bonuses. In all, the deal involved
> some $92 million in bonuses and incentive pay to Martin executives,
> with two-thirds of the total coming from corporate funds.
Hey, I just wish I had been in on that merger so I could get a
little taste of all that green!
>Well, what better way to increase your salary and bonus. Just fire the
>other guy and take his money. It's that simple.
Even more simple. Start your own and then you get all of the
green. Just stop whining when you get what you asked for and
realize how bad it really is.
Tim Horton
) wrote:
> From the Associated Press' John Diamond, January 15, 1996:
>
> Federal auditors say top executives at the nation's largest defense
> contractor should be denied about half the $31 million in
> taxpayer-funded incentive pay proposed by the Pentagon, according
> to a report published today.
>
> The image of government money flowing into the pockets of
> executives who were laying off thousands of workers drew political
> fire last year after Newsday disclosed the agreement between the
> company and the Pentagon. Investors, including representatives of
> New York's five public pension funds, protested what they termed a
> sweetheart deal.
>
> The $10 billion merger last March of Lockheed Corp. and Martin
> Marietta Corp. into the world's largest defense and aerospace
> company was expected to lead to an estimated 35,000 lost jobs.
>
> Norman Augustine, former Martin Marietta chief and now the chief
> executive officer of Lockheed Martin, was to receive $8.2 million
> in bonuses stemming from the merger. Other executives were to
> receive lesser but still hefty bonuses. In all, the deal involved
> some $92 million in bonuses and incentive pay to Martin executives,
> with two-thirds of the total coming from corporate funds.
>
> Well, what better way to increase your salary and bonus. Just fire the
> other guy and take his money. It's that simple. How come _you_ never
> thought of that?
Trying to push those class-envy buttons again, aren't we HiRiser? Look at
the actual numbers...
Take back all of the bonuses and incentive pay and instead of firing those
35,000 employees, keep them working using the bonus money. $92,000,000
will pay an average yearly salary of $27,000 to all 35,000 people for
exactly five weeks at which point every one of them is without a paycheck
again (the bonuses are a one-time outlay, not a yearly expenditure).
That's not even considering the cost of health-care or retirement
benefits. The bottom line is that, at best, the bonus money accounts for
delaying the layoffs by a month without creating any hope of long-term job
security for those being laid off.
If you had produced more facts about this merger you might argue that the
executives failed to improve the long term health of the company, thereby
failing to increase the job security of the remaining workers, and thus
did not deserve any bonuses. Or you might argue that the layoffs were
unjustified or unnecessary for improving the overall health of the
company. Or you might argue that nobody's work is worth million-dollar
bonuses when 35,000 people are laid off, regardless of how many other
people are given a more secure future. Instead, you chose to summarize
this downsizing as "just fire the other guy and take his money" when the
numbers show that the bonuses total a tiny percentage of whatever
long-term economic impact the layoffs had on the company.
Stories that bandy about dollar amounts in the millions can lead to the
emotional response that something unfair must be afoot, and people like
HiRiser seem all too willing to play on those negative emotions in order
to throw fuel on the class-envy fire for purely political purposes. But
more facts are needed in order to judge whether real injustice has
occurred or not.
Tim Horton
Michael Zarlenga
: Take back all of the bonuses and incentive pay and instead of firing those
: 35,000 employees, keep them working using the bonus money. $92,000,000
: will pay an average yearly salary of $27,000 to all 35,000 people for
: exactly five weeks at which point every one of them is without a paycheck
Minor nit:
27K * 35K = 945M / 92M ~= 10 weeks, not 5.
Your point is still valid, regardless.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
-- e-mail: zarl...@ids.net
Clinton/Gore
Gone in 4
Alan Bomberger
Zarlenga) wrote:
> Tim Horton (t-ho...@uiuc.edu) wrote:
> : Take back all of the bonuses and incentive pay and instead of firing those
> : 35,000 employees, keep them working using the bonus money. $92,000,000
> : will pay an average yearly salary of $27,000 to all 35,000 people for
> : exactly five weeks at which point every one of them is without a paycheck
>
> Minor nit:
> 27K * 35K = 945M / 92M ~= 10 weeks, not 5.
>
> Your point is still valid, regardless.
The job of a CEO is not to employ people. His job is to make the
company profitable. If the company can pay higher dividends to
its owners (the investors) by working more efficiently with
fewer employees then the CEO is doing his job and earns his
pay. If he beats his targets he deserves a bonus. Simple.
If you want to start a company where the job description of the
CEO is to employ the maximum number of people and keep the dividends
low, please feel free to do so but I will invest my money where there
is a higher return.
I fail to see what is wrong. The CEO clearly earns what he is worth
to the investors. If he didn't, the investors would get someone else.
Value is determined by the buyer of a product (or the invester in
this case) and cannot be set by outsiders.
--
Alan Bomberger | (408)-992-2748 | al...@oes.amdahl.com
Amdahl Corporation | Opinions are free, worth it, and not Amdahl's
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. - David Hume
George Grapman
are being paid with government funds.
Presidential candidate Lamar Alexander will be one recipient of the
largess.
scott wiesman
the only flaw in all that is that when all these ceo's start
doing thier job so well and cutting jobs, i wonder if it occurs
to them or their stock holders that they are also cutting their
customers.
keep destroying the middle class and good paying jobs for
your greed and there will be no one to afford what you make.
but maybe that would be good. we could all be in the same
boat. (poor)
any big dummy like the one who is ceo of our company can get
up every morning and holler cut, cut and more profits.
a three year old could do that. is he still worth his
obscene millions. you make the call!
i cannot beleive that while he pockets millions, he can
slash jobs and ruin lives and then have screwballs start talking
about what a wonderful job he is doing and that he deserves
even more perks and bonus's.
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
: The job of a CEO is not to employ people. His job is to make the
: company profitable. If the company can pay higher dividends to
: its owners (the investors) by working more efficiently with
: fewer employees then the CEO is doing his job and earns his
: pay. If he beats his targets he deserves a bonus. Simple.
You must not own any stock or you wouldn't write this kind of naive horse manure.
: If you want to start a company where the job description of the
: CEO is to employ the maximum number of people and keep the dividends
: low, please feel free to do so but I will invest my money where there
: is a higher return.
Dummy, most corporations want to keep dividends low & re-invest retained earnings.
And I'm sure you never heard of the utility maximizing models of the firm that were
around in the 1970s. This doesn't happen here as often as it used to but the
strategy may be alive and well in other countries.
: I fail to see what is wrong. The CEO clearly earns what he is worth
: to the investors. If he didn't, the investors would get someone else.
: Value is determined by the buyer of a product (or the invester in
: this case) and cannot be set by outsiders.
You obviously understand nothing about corporate governance. But don't let that
stop you from spreading myths.
--
Buddy K