CEOs lay off thousands, rake in millions (1 Viewer)

[liblady]

this kind of greed is what makes everyday workers snap. the board members taking care of each other, a good old boys club. **** em. they run a business into the ground, then get PAID for it.




CEOs lay off thousands, rake in millions - Business - U.S. business - msnbc.com

 

[Grim17]

If those CEO's had any confidence in the current administration, they wouldn't be laying off people and would be investing their money. As long as this anti-business administration keeps threatening big business, this trend will continue.

Both big business and small business are the key to economic growth and the creation of jobs in this country, and as long as the administration threatens to punish them with higher taxes and increased costs for employee health benefits, we will never recover from this economic downturn. See FDR for details.

.

 

[Slartibartfast]

If those CEO's had any confidence in the current administration, they wouldn't be laying off people and would be investing their money. As long as this anti-business administration keeps threatening big business, this trend will continue.

Both big business and small business are the key to economic growth and the creation of jobs in this country, and as long as the administration threatens to punish them with higher taxes and increased costs for employee health benefits, we will never recover from this economic downturn. See FDR for details.

.

BS this behavior has been common long before 2008.

 

[Jetboogieman]

BS this behavior has been common long before 2008.

Shhhh Mega!

Private Business is Infallable.

 

[samsmart]

If those CEO's had any confidence in the current administration, they wouldn't be laying off people and would be investing their money. As long as this anti-business administration keeps threatening big business, this trend will continue.

Both big business and small business are the key to economic growth and the creation of jobs in this country, and as long as the administration threatens to punish them with higher taxes and increased costs for employee health benefits, we will never recover from this economic downturn. See FDR for details.

.

Wait. So is it that CEOs don't have any confidence in the administration running the nation? Or is it that investors don't have any confidence in the CEOs running the businesses? Because, let's face it, CEOs and Wall Street haven't been the most deserving of the trust of investors these past few years.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

They were going to "rake in" those millions anyway if the company did well, these lay offs save the company and thus SAVE jobs.

 

[Grim17]

Wait. So is it that CEOs don't have any confidence in the administration running the nation? Or is it that investors don't have any confidence in the CEOs running the businesses? Because, let's face it, CEOs and Wall Street haven't been the most deserving of the trust of investors these past few years.

Watch CNBC or Fox Business and you will understand. Companies have no clue what's coming next from this administration. They won't invest their money in their businesses or expand their workforce when they have no clue how much money this administration is going to make them pay in taxes, via Cap & Trade and Obamacare. As long as this anti-business environment exists, companies are going to continue to sit on their money.

 

[liblady]

If those CEO's had any confidence in the current administration, they wouldn't be laying off people and would be investing their money. As long as this anti-business administration keeps threatening big business, this trend will continue.

Both big business and small business are the key to economic growth and the creation of jobs in this country, and as long as the administration threatens to punish them with higher taxes and increased costs for employee health benefits, we will never recover from this economic downturn. See FDR for details.

.

did you completely miss the point of my post, or are you just typically spouting talking points that mean nothing?

 

[liblady]

They were going to "rake in" those millions anyway if the company did well, these lay offs save the company and thus SAVE jobs.

not the point of my post. they should not recieve those millions when they are firing people.

 

[pbrauer]

CEOs lay off thousands, rake in millions - Business - U.S. business - msnbc.com

When Hewlett-Packard’s Chief Executive Mark Hurd resigned last month he received something few regular workers see when they quit their jobs under a cloud: A massive payout.
Turns out Hurd is far from the only top executive to be rewarded with a rich package despite a management performance that could be considered less than optimal — especially by rank-and-file workers.

 

[Gipper]

So you'd rather them keep around inefficient workers? That's not how you run a major corporation. Businesses hire and fire in cycles. This is nothing new.

What's new is the impact of the cycles, much of which you can base on insecurity of this administration.

 

[danarhea]

Corporations are in business to make money and maximize profits. In fact, they are in violation of their charters if they do otherwise. If they are laying off people, that is their right. It doesn't necessarily make them evil people. After all, we don't want to force a company into bankruptcy by forcing bloat on them. If they go bankrupt, let it be because they themselves are responsible, not because the government forced it on them. Let me add, by the same token, if they go under, then don't bail them out. Let the market determine whether or not they stay in business. The government should act like a government, and not a charity for big business.

 

[liblady]

So you'd rather them keep around inefficient workers? That's not how you run a major corporation. Businesses hire and fire in cycles. This is nothing new.

What's new is the impact of the cycles, much of which you can base on insecurity of this administration.

of course not.....but ceos didn't used to make 50 times what the average employee makes, and salaries and bonuses have become completely out of control. the ceo of a company that loses money should be penalized, imo.

 

[Erod]

So you want to force them to employ people?

How very Vladimir Lenin of you.

Businesses don't like the threat of increased taxes - both personal and business alike - and the massive potential cost increases associated with an evolving universal healthcare tax strain.

Businesses have Obama-proofed themselves. When he's gone and sane, conservative business principles are restored, the hiring will return. But not a minute before a sense of predictablility from the federal government returns.

 

[VanceMack]

CEOs lay off thousands, rake in millions - Business - U.S. business - msnbc.com

Yep...thats what happens in this environment. A business is beholden to its stockholders. they are in business to make profit. And with the current tax climate and uncertainty, it was mentioned on CNN this moring...profits are WAY up and employment is still down. Businesses arent hiring because they have no way of knowing what it will cost them in taxes, health care costs,etc...

 

[Cyborg]

It's easy for Liberals to attack corporations and corporate profits - particularly if the have a smattering of Conservatism. Corporate Boards provide the compensation package and they are often gilded. You can find similar comparison in the Sports World with Coaches. A Coach is looked at as the key to whether the Team will be first or last. The best player makes ten times or more of what the lowest paid does.

You "Never" hear Liberals attacking Compensation for distinctly Liberal entities like Google, Wikipeda, NPR, PBS and others. Google CEO's only paid themselves $1 in compensation. "Poor Babies!"
But they don't say out loud they are both Billionaires in all Capital Letters as a result of their ownership interest.

Isn't that a little like saying I own 5 Billion dollars of stock in my company but I am no longer going to take the pay I get from my Lemonade Stand by the front door! (Now everybody 3 cheers for me.)

Some of you may remember Lee Iaacoca who took control (CEO ) of GM and brought it out of the garbage can in profits.

All this attacking is part of the driven Liberal Politics package of attack and smear - attack and smear.
How loudly have those same Liberals attacked Democrat / Progressives for the $26 million dollar bonus package of Valerie Jarett when she was with one of the sub prime twins Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac.
How loudly did they scream about Johnson who took $20 million (Obama's short lived financial adviser in his campaign ) or Obamas personal friend at Fannie Mae Claude Raines $ 90 million.
How louldly are they screaming about both of them being conveniently exempted in Obama's ballyhooed financial Reform package? Even Rahm Emanuel was there for a short time and was given a sweetheart deal that netted him $6 million.
Does anybody "Ever" remembering hearing any of those Leftist Bullhorn Cries of "FOUL"

 

[Hoplite]

I figured there would be companies who would use the economic downturn as an excuse to "save money" by cutting costs they didnt need to cut and the first to go is usually workers.

The corporate system is unaccountable, corrupting, and beneficial only to those who have invested in it. We seriously need to develop a new model for running business and break the grip of private interests over our daily and political lives.

 

[Deuce]

Eh, it may be showing a lack of loyalty to your employees, but a company is not really obligated to take care of the employees. If a company can increase its profits by cutting employees, those employees probably weren't truly necessary in the first place. I certainly abhor this type of behavior, as I see loyalty in both directions as being very important, but business is business. This sort of activity makes them jerks, but not evil.

 

[Phoenix]

not the point of my post. they should not recieve those millions when they are firing people.

Why not? They are getting paid their agreed upon salary. Would you want a company to tell you, "We had to let Joe go, So in light of that fact we are going to pay you 25% less for the work you did last month." Of course not. I don't understand why people think it's okay to screw people out of money they have earned simply because they earn a lot of it. It's part of a CEO's job to fire people when neccesary.

 

[Gipper]

of course not.....but ceos didn't used to make 50 times what the average employee makes, and salaries and bonuses have become completely out of control. the ceo of a company that loses money should be penalized, imo.

I agree with CEOs not receiving bonuses when they bleed red ink...disagree on everything else.

CEOs have every right to make ridiculously more than the average employee, because the position is infinitely more difficult. Most "average employees" don't have the education, management skills, coping ability, or thought processes involved with the upper tier of control. In addition, their salaries -through options - are based upon market value of the company.

Why cut off the nose to spite the face?

 

[MaggieD]

this kind of greed is what makes everyday workers snap. the board members taking care of each other, a good old boys club. **** em. they run a business into the ground, then get PAID for it.

Well, there are sure plenty of things I disagree with LibLady about, but I do understand where OP is coming from here. What a wonderful message it would be to "the troops" if corporate staff took paycuts when there are layoffs. Imagine how much more fair a company would be if they actually did that. I could imagine a company having lots of good reasons for doing that -- starting with employee morale and ending with stockholder morale. Why don't they???

Then, of course, my next question is, "Would employees ever consider they took enough of a cut? I think that answer is, probably, a resounding, "Never."

I'm reminded of a friend of mine. She supervises Accounts Payable at a large hospital....has four or five people working under her supervision. Last fiscal year, she received a $30K bonus for her department's renegotiation of major contracts and other cost-saving moves. The people she supervises don't receive a bonus, although they are surely responsible for renegotiating, just as she is. She told me it was getting harder and harder to motivate her people to renegotiate because it's a tough job. She said she felt they too easily took "no" for an answer.

I suggested she have a monthly contest awarding $100 (or more even) to the employee who saved the most money that month. She said, "Oh, corporate'll NEVER go for that. No money." I said, "Not corporate's money, YOURS." She looked at me like I was crazy and said, "You have GOT to be kidding!!! Like I'd EVER do that!!!"

(Outside of business, she's a nice person and friend. I marvel at her business selfishness, though.

 

[Vespasian]

this kind of greed is what makes everyday workers snap. the board members taking care of each other, a good old boys club. **** em. they run a business into the ground, then get PAID for it.
]

Pure ignorance. The CEOs job is to make money for the shareholders. It isn't to provide a job for those stupid and lazy enough to be relegated to worker bee status.

BS this behavior has been common long before 2008.

Yes. Firing employees whose services are no longer beneficial to the company is an integral part of running a successful business.

Shhhh Mega!

Private Business is Infallable.

How's it not? The only time it appears fallable is when the dumbass government sticks their nose into it.

So you'd rather them keep around inefficient workers? That's not how you run a major corporation. Businesses hire and fire in cycles. This is nothing new.

Exactly.

of course not.....but ceosdidn't used to make 50 times what the average employee makes, and salaries and bonuses have become completely out of control. the ceo of a company that loses money should be penalized, imo.

Yes, most CEOs/founders/owners/businessmen are in better financial shape than you and the like. There's a reason for that.

What a company/CEO decides about their pay/bonuses is none of your, a likely 9-5 ham and egger, damn business.

 

[RightinNYC]

Moderator's Warning:

Threads merged

of course not.....but ceos didn't used to make 50 times what the average employee makes, and salaries and bonuses have become completely out of control.

This figure is thrown around a lot, but I don't think it really holds up under scrutiny. If you adjust for size of companies and total profits, I would wager that CEO compensation hasn't skyrocketed in the way that many claim.

the ceo of a company that loses money should be penalized, imo.

And they often are, by being removed by the board or losing out on bonuses. However, decisions of compensation are entirely up to the board (and in some cases the shareholders).

The corporate system is unaccountable, corrupting, and beneficial only to those who have invested in it.

That's the fundamental nature of the corporate form. A corporation exists to earn profits for its investors, not to pay workers, not to do socially beneficial things, and not to help people through tough times. Each of those things occasionally coincides with the corporate goal, but the corporation is required by law to pursue its underlying goal of earning profit for investors.

 

[EnigmaO01]

of course not.....but ceos didn't used to make 50 times what the average employee makes, and salaries and bonuses have become completely out of control. the ceo of a company that loses money should be penalized, imo.

Give it up liblady. You can't makes pigs fly and if you try it only makes them mad. Some on here are so partisan they skim the thread and move right to blaming Obama. Pretty sad.

You know what kills me? The same people that piss and moan about the bailouts are perfectly fine with CEO's getting bonuses even though their company did poorly due to the crap the CEO's were pulling, which lead to the bailout. Anyone else see something wrong with this logic?

 

[pbrauer]

If those CEO's had any confidence in the current administration, they wouldn't be laying off people and would be investing their money. As long as this anti-business administration keeps threatening big business, this trend will continue.

Both big business and small business are the key to economic growth and the creation of jobs in this country, and as long as the administration threatens to punish them with higher taxes and increased costs for employee health benefits, we will never recover from this economic downturn. See FDR for details.

.

Why don't you read the article BEFORE commenting?