If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Hope you are enjoying your low paying, no benefit job. Slaving your life away for "The Man". Don't get fired reading about these CEO perks. One will make more than you will ever make after he's dead   (finance.yahoo.com) divider line 318
    More: Sick  
•       •       •

16517 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Apr 2011 at 1:27 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



318 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-04-05 02:07:45 PM

dletter: Don Tyson retired in 2001, but Tyson Foods was so grateful for his past leadership that it financed vacations for Tyson and his close friends, paid their personal credit-card bills, and allowed him to charge unusual purchases -- such as an $8,000 horse and a $20,000 oriental rug -- to the company.

But perhaps the most objectionable perk was having Tyson company employees clean Mr. Tyson's house and mow his lawn. According to a 2005 SEC settlement, Tyson Foods spent $203,675 having employees clean five different homes owned by Don Tyson, his family or friends. The company, headquartered in Springdale, Ark., also sprang for $84,000 in lawn-maintenance costs for the same five homes.

THIS is the crap that gets people pissed off. It is one thing if things are truly going "south" for a company and you need to be laying people off, or not giving out raises to the "middle/lower class" workers in the company. It is another thing if you are doing that, AND pulling the crap like listed above.


I can think of one example in my professional career where something like this was okay to me. I used to work for a Fortune 500 company (not going to name names) that had started as a single retail location and had since expanded all over the world.

There was a guy whose job was VP of Sitting On His Ass. He literally did nothing, would fly all over the world on the company dime, and so on.

Turns out, when the company started and was still a single location, the location had flooded. They had no insurance. This guy mortgaged his house to bail the company out.

As far as I'm concerned, he deserved whatever he got from the company at that point.

But, like I said, that's the only time I was okay with that sort of thing.
 
2011-04-05 02:07:47 PM
These guys deserve everything they get. Any criticism of their pay is nothing but socialistic class warfare driven by greed and envy.

Now let's focus on the real issues: Those overpaid school teachers and their perks. I am simply outraged at the way those people are pampered and demand that their pay and perks be cut!
 
2011-04-05 02:08:09 PM

Tricky Chicken: This is what I picture all you CEO haters muttering

"I started out mopping floors. But now, I'm on vegetable prep. Soon I'll be workin' the grill.

After that it's assistant manager, and that's when the big bucks start rollin' in."

I crack up everytime you whine about the "rich are getting richer and the poor and middle class are getting screwed".

If you don't like it so much, stop being poor!


I don't know if you're trolling or not, but I absolutely agree with you even if you are.

Give me a minimum wage earner with no college degree and the ability to tell him or her what to do for 10 years. I will give you back a millionaire.
 
2011-04-05 02:08:33 PM

ifarkthereforiam: Sending American jobs overseas so your already profitable company can make even more profit for the executive compensation plan: the American Libertarian way.

Pointing out that American workers got screwed by the big boys: Class warfare Socialism.


Corrected to show how the Libertarians see it.
 
2011-04-05 02:10:03 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: These guys deserve everything they get. Any criticism of their pay is nothing but socialistic class warfare driven by greed and envy.

Now let's focus on the real issues: Those overpaid school teachers and their perks. I am simply outraged at the way those people are pampered and demand that their pay and perks be cut!


THIS IS WHAT REPUBLICANS ACTUALLY BELIEVE
 
2011-04-05 02:10:05 PM
Alternatively, Self-Employment.

But... that would mean having a unique skill set.

Not being Office Monkey #2847362

And that's all people a scant ten years younger than I am know. What everyone else does.
 
2011-04-05 02:10:13 PM
In her blog, my boss was writing about how philanthropic it is to create new jobs but how dificult it is with "high salaried employees".

I had three days off last pay period and that is going to put a bit of a dent in our budget.

The boss is in the middle of buying their fifth home. This one in Palm Springs.

Ugh!
 
2011-04-05 02:11:21 PM

Kar98: Keep it up...


When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem is a nail.
 
2011-04-05 02:11:23 PM

doublesecretprobation: Occam's Nailfile: Name me a company that fits that description please.

are you trying to tell me that companies in this country aren't headquartered in tax havens and aren't actively off-shoring jobs?


Name one. And we'll talk about it.
 
2011-04-05 02:11:38 PM
C'mon Farkers! Over 100 comments and no one has used the term "Fat Cats" yet?

I am disappoint.
 
2011-04-05 02:11:45 PM
Why there hasn't been a French-style revolution yet in America is beyond me.
 
2011-04-05 02:13:10 PM
Instead of being all buthurt and jealous, why not get out of your moms basement and get a job.
 
2011-04-05 02:13:16 PM

leonel: Why there hasn't been a French-style revolution yet in America is beyond me.


Because reality doesn't match your hyperbole.
 
2011-04-05 02:13:27 PM
Wait, I thought we all agreed that we were blaming unions and civil servants.
 
2011-04-05 02:13:36 PM

WaltzingMathilda: patrick767: WaltzingMathilda
what if demand does not justify having all those extra employees and the CEO makes the difficult choice of saving the company billions by downsizing its labor force, and so they give him a chunk of those savings?

Keep sucking corporate cock while ignoring the realities such as the chart above and so much more. The rich are getting much, much richer, the poor and middle class are getting screwed, and people like you and the other brainwashed fools are why it happens.

At least wipe off your chin.

the realities such as the chart above? there are a lot of reasons for that chart, and a lot of them have little to do with inequity. even thomps pointed out one such reason.

the poor and middle class are getting screwed, no doubt. but not because CEOs make money. the government is actively creating the gap between the poor and the rich, not "zomg CEOs make lots of money"

do you really think what i said is wrong? do you really think private businesses owe people jobs? why? why would i, as an investor, want to invest in a company that employs far more people than it needs to meet the demand for its product/service?

ad hominem, it's not really the most productive method of debate.


Let me ask you something. Do you believe there's any merit in the argument of "businesses are good because they create jobs" that is used every time corporate taxes or the discussion of whether a CEO "deserves" his pay comes up?

Because if you're going to be all "the market is what the market is" then our answer is that as a society, we've decided that money could be put towards better efforts that benefit us all by taxing them heavily to shoulder the tax burden.

If you're one who argue about how businesses are great because they create jobs and keep people employed....then you've just contradicted yourself.
 
2011-04-05 02:14:10 PM

Occam's Nailfile:

Give me a minimum wage earner with no college degree and the ability to tell him or her what to do for 10 years. I will give you back a millionaire.


Our usual bet, Mortimer?
 
2011-04-05 02:14:30 PM
As someone that gets many perks at her job, I have to say that I am OK with this. After all, our boss brings a service to the parking lot every other month to do oil changes and he pays the bills.

Not to mention all the body parts we care to eat.
 
2011-04-05 02:14:35 PM

Occam's Nailfile: Name one. And we'll talk about it.


Oracle.
 
2011-04-05 02:15:03 PM

Occam's Nailfile: sethstorm: WaltzingMathilda: private business do not owe people jobs

Perhaps that needs to change. By any means necessary.

hurp derp

Why the hell should someone be forced to pay someone for a job they don't need done?


Why should someone be forced to be desperate before they get one?
 
2011-04-05 02:15:24 PM
What is the next step in the class wars? I think (with no citations) that attacks on CEO's and the like will increase, resulting in new laws being passed. These laws will look like they are to protect everyone, but in reality, will be for the protection of the wealthy. Police forces will become nothing more than bodyguards for the ruling class.
It will be just like the future in the Terminator movies.
 
2011-04-05 02:16:05 PM

dletter:
But perhaps the most objectionable perk was having Tyson company employees clean Mr. Tyson's house and mow his lawn. According to a 2005 SEC settlement, Tyson Foods spent $203,675 having employees clean five different homes owned by Don Tyson, his family or friends. The company, headquartered in Springdale, Ark., also sprang for $84,000 in lawn-maintenance costs for the same five homes.

THIS is the crap that gets people pissed off. It is one thing if things are truly going "south" for a company and you need to be laying people off, or not giving out raises to the "middle/lower class" workers in the company. It is another thing if you are doing that, AND pulling the crap like listed above.


Tyson was spending money on keeping people employed (doing house and yard work) and you're still complaining?
 
2011-04-05 02:16:47 PM

Marla Singer's Laundry: Why does it always come down to sucking a dick? Not a very good analogy.


Because most people (should) enjoy lapping a cooter.
 
2011-04-05 02:17:20 PM
This is why we can't have nice things.

Well, it's why the rest of us can't have nice things.

To say that Oracle's Larry Ellison is security-conscious is a bit of an understatement. He installed a security system at his expansive northern California home, and Oracle, based in Redwood Shores, Cal., pays about $1.4 million annually to monitor it.

$1.4 million a year just to guard Ellisons house? I wonder how many people were told the company couldn't afford to give them a raise this year.
 
2011-04-05 02:17:46 PM

doublesecretprobation: WaltzingMathilda: look, if you want to nationalize everything, then please, feel free to run for office on that platform. but pretending that in a capitalist society that private businesses owe "the people" anything is ridiculous.

can you please point out where i suggested nationalization of every business in the country?


well, perhaps you can expand on the comment below without suggesting nationalization of everything:

"when corporations are only held to a standard of ultimate greed they cease to do any good for the people and country who permit them to exist. if you don't create jobs and you don't pay taxes why the fark should you be allowed to exist within these borders?"
 
2011-04-05 02:17:52 PM

doublesecretprobation: WaltzingMathilda: private business do not owe people jobs. they owe their owners a return on their investment.

this whole way of thinking needs to die. when corporations are only held to a standard of ultimate greed they cease to do any good for the people and country who permit them to exist. if you don't create jobs and you don't pay taxes why the fark should you be allowed to exist within these borders?


Wait - so now you're arguing about immigration??
 
2011-04-05 02:18:12 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Occam's Nailfile:

Give me a minimum wage earner with no college degree and the ability to tell him or her what to do for 10 years. I will give you back a millionaire.

Our usual bet, Mortimer?


LOL.
 
2011-04-05 02:18:25 PM
Anybody know why boards allow this to happen? I mean, are the ceos and presidents really that vital that they need to give them all these perks just to keep them?
 
2011-04-05 02:19:35 PM

DevideByZer0: This is why we can't have nice things.

Well, it's why the rest of us can't have nice things.

To say that Oracle's Larry Ellison is security-conscious is a bit of an understatement. He installed a security system at his expansive northern California home, and Oracle, based in Redwood Shores, Cal., pays about $1.4 million annually to monitor it.

$1.4 million a year just to guard Ellisons house? I wonder how many people were told the company couldn't afford to give them a raise this year.


It shows how much he is loved by the public.
 
2011-04-05 02:19:42 PM

doublesecretprobation: Occam's Nailfile: Name one. And we'll talk about it.

Oracle.


OK. What's your beef with Oracle?
 
2011-04-05 02:19:52 PM
I dunno about Tyson. I mean its a family company. He founded the damn thing. It has his name on it. And for the employees to clean his house. I'm fine with that so long as they got paid. It wasn't like it was free service. I mean hell, if I founded a company which had my name on it, I don't see anything wrong with having some employees the option of cleaning my house so long as I paid them just as well as I would if they were at the factory.
 
2011-04-05 02:20:24 PM

imgod2u: WaltzingMathilda: patrick767: WaltzingMathilda
what if demand does not justify having all those extra employees and the CEO makes the difficult choice of saving the company billions by downsizing its labor force, and so they give him a chunk of those savings?

Keep sucking corporate cock while ignoring the realities such as the chart above and so much more. The rich are getting much, much richer, the poor and middle class are getting screwed, and people like you and the other brainwashed fools are why it happens.

At least wipe off your chin.

the realities such as the chart above? there are a lot of reasons for that chart, and a lot of them have little to do with inequity. even thomps pointed out one such reason.

the poor and middle class are getting screwed, no doubt. but not because CEOs make money. the government is actively creating the gap between the poor and the rich, not "zomg CEOs make lots of money"

do you really think what i said is wrong? do you really think private businesses owe people jobs? why? why would i, as an investor, want to invest in a company that employs far more people than it needs to meet the demand for its product/service?

ad hominem, it's not really the most productive method of debate.

Let me ask you something. Do you believe there's any merit in the argument of "businesses are good because they create jobs" that is used every time corporate taxes or the discussion of whether a CEO "deserves" his pay comes up?

Because if you're going to be all "the market is what the market is" then our answer is that as a society, we've decided that money could be put towards better efforts that benefit us all by taxing them heavily to shoulder the tax burden.

If you're one who argue about how businesses are great because they create jobs and keep people employed....then you've just contradicted yourself.


i have no problem with companies paying corporate income tax. but more heavily than regular income tax? why? what's your economic justification?
 
2011-04-05 02:22:25 PM

Occam's Nailfile: doublesecretprobation: Occam's Nailfile: Name one. And we'll talk about it.

Oracle.

OK. What's your beef with Oracle?


Jews. Durr.
 
2011-04-05 02:22:36 PM

Rip Dashrock: What is the next step in the class wars? I think (with no citations) that attacks on CEO's and the like will increase, resulting in new laws being passed. These laws will look like they are to protect everyone, but in reality, will be for the protection of the wealthy. Police forces will become nothing more than bodyguards for the ruling class.
It will be just like the future in the Terminator movies.


ROBOTS?!!!??
 
2011-04-05 02:22:48 PM

Occam's Nailfile:
Give me a minimum wage earner with no college degree and the ability to tell him or her what to do for 10 years. I will give you back a millionaire.


JesseL: dletter:
But perhaps the most objectionable perk was having Tyson company employees clean Mr. Tyson's house and mow his lawn. According to a 2005 SEC settlement, Tyson Foods spent $203,675 having employees clean five different homes owned by Don Tyson, his family or friends. The company, headquartered in Springdale, Ark., also sprang for $84,000 in lawn-maintenance costs for the same five homes.

THIS is the crap that gets people pissed off. It is one thing if things are truly going "south" for a company and you need to be laying people off, or not giving out raises to the "middle/lower class" workers in the company. It is another thing if you are doing that, AND pulling the crap like listed above.

Tyson was spending money on keeping people employed (doing house and yard work) and you're still complaining?


For very tortured definitions of employment, and for very low quality employment.
 
2011-04-05 02:24:29 PM

RedEmily: Anybody know why boards allow this to happen? I mean, are the ceos and presidents really that vital that they need to give them all these perks just to keep them?


As someone else pointed out. Boards of directors for most of the major (especially some of the older) companies are run by other CEO's.

When money is consolidated in the hands of a few, it's very easy for them to keep it amongst themselves.
 
2011-04-05 02:24:30 PM
WaltzingMathilda
Some people make more money than others. this is news.

Your blithe dismissal of the massively increasing wealth disparity in the United States is pathetic.

what if demand does not justify having all those extra employees and the CEO makes the difficult choice of saving the company billions by downsizing its labor force, and so they give him a chunk of those savings?

This suggestion is revolting. No. Abso-farking-lutely not. A CEO should not receive a big fat bonus for making the "difficult" decision to downsize the labor force. If they have to do it, they have to do it, but taking away people's livelihoods is not worthy of a bonus for the rich guy at the top who did it and the stock option endowed execs who get a nice boost as a result.

companies consolidated a lot over that period too and major companies became mega-conglomerates (with one CEO) and you don't think their massive pay isn't both (a) justified

Justified? Abso-farking-lutely not. Also, Thomps's explanation for the big jump in CEO vs. average worker pay is bullshiat. Note how it's stayed at hundreds of time the average pay through the 2000s.

Executive salaries are determined by boards stacked with yes-men and other executives from other companies. It's nice to be in a situation where you get to recommend pay raises for the people who recommend pay raises for you. Incest is best.

By the way, it's not just CEOs. Look at the financial sector on Wall St. Watch the film "Inside Job". Being a Wall St. stock trader use to be a fairly middle class job. Then the big financial firms figured out how to suck more and more money out of the economy to pay themselves ever increasing fortunes. Look at the pay in the financial giants immediately following the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, one that they caused and we bailed them out of. They immediately went back to paying themselves huge bonuses.

ad hominem, it's not really the most productive method of debate.

The facts are in. Further defense of the situation in the United States is the province of fools.

Most of the rest of the first world gets it. Compare our numbers to most of Europe, Canada, and Australia, for example. They actually give a damn about the average person. Here we have tens of millions of average Americans that are totally cool with the reaming they've been getting for decades from the richest of the rich. They farking vote for it. Now we have budget problems and what do they want? Tax cuts for rich people and slashing of programs that primarily benefit the poor and the middle class. It's stupidity and ignorance of epic proportions.

ltdanman44 posted some additional charts that show how the wealth disparity in this country continues to grow. That you and others who aren't super wealthy themselves defend it is, more than anything, baffling.

if the shareholders suspect that profits are being misdirected to compensation rather than distribution or re-investment and that such misdirection is not within the prudent business judgment of a reasonable officer, then they have recourse under the law.

hahaha... that's cute.
The main shareholders are a combination of the super wealthy and large institutional investors that don't really give a shiat the vast majority of the time. Outsource jobs to China, bust unions to drive domestic wages down, get creative with the accounting, mount a PR campaign aimed at stock analysts, etc... whatever will increase the stock price, and they don't give a flying fark how much compensation the executives pay themselves. It's all about the quarterly statements.

On a broader topic, unfettered capitalism with the primary focus being on stock prices is a disaster for the middle class. But hey, it's fantastic for robber barons.
 
2011-04-05 02:25:37 PM

Another Government Employee: DevideByZer0: This is why we can't have nice things.

Well, it's why the rest of us can't have nice things.

To say that Oracle's Larry Ellison is security-conscious is a bit of an understatement. He installed a security system at his expansive northern California home, and Oracle, based in Redwood Shores, Cal., pays about $1.4 million annually to monitor it.

$1.4 million a year just to guard Ellisons house? I wonder how many people were told the company couldn't afford to give them a raise this year.

It shows how much he is loved by the public.


All that security won't matter if there's enough people on him and everyone in the business continuity plan. It'll be like Ellison watching a train run right over him in slow motion, down to the last bit of gore.
 
2011-04-05 02:27:13 PM

pvd021: I dunno about Tyson. I mean its a family company. He founded the damn thing. It has his name on it. And for the employees to clean his house. I'm fine with that so long as they got paid. It wasn't like it was free service. I mean hell, if I founded a company which had my name on it, I don't see anything wrong with having some employees the option of cleaning my house so long as I paid them just as well as I would if they were at the factory.


Tyson Foods is a publicly traded company, not the sole fiefdom of the Tysons. Mowing Tyson's lawn does nothing to maximize shareholder value.
 
2011-04-05 02:27:21 PM

WaltzingMathilda: i have no problem with companies paying corporate income tax. but more heavily than regular income tax? why? what's your economic justification?


The same economic justification behind any progressive tax: because they own/make more.

The same logic that says a man who takes in $250K/year should pay more in taxes -- even a higher percentage of his income -- than someone making $40K/year can easily be extended to "individuals" (and remember, Corporations are individuals legally) who make $15B/year.
 
2011-04-05 02:29:23 PM
I have no problems with this. When I become CEO of the company I work for, the first perk I am requesting is the provision of a Gold Encrusted midgit to be available to cup my balls whenever they are tired.
 
2011-04-05 02:29:26 PM
According to a 2005 SEC settlement, Tyson Foods spent $203,675 having employees clean five different homes owned by Don Tyson, his family or friends. The company, headquartered in Springdale, Ark., also sprang for $84,000 in lawn-maintenance costs for the same five homes.

What's your lifestyle like when each house requires $40,750 a year in cleaning services. It sounds like it's expensive to support a plutocratic lifestyle. Perhaps we should consider one more round of tax cuts to make sure that Mr. Tyson is getting by okay.
 
2011-04-05 02:30:51 PM

Orgasmatron138: We're leaner, more versatile, and we don't hire anyone that doesn't excel at what they do. The difference? The president of the company only takes as high a salary as the highest paid employee, and gives out bonuses to either everyone or no one based on how business is in a given quarter.


COMMUNISMS!!1!1!!lenin
 
2011-04-05 02:31:24 PM
This is the reason why i have a strong desire to immigrate to the united states, long live the american dream(i am not being sarcastic), this is it folks, this is what makes america strong and yet vulnerable at the same time, if you want a country where you get to earn millions even if you are not working, you need that country to break every moral law there is.
 
2011-04-05 02:32:26 PM
Thank GOD we have unions in this country to make sure laborers get their fair share! AMIRIGHT?! They are making sure things are kept in CHECK! Woo!
 
2011-04-05 02:33:12 PM

patrick767:
On a broader topic, unfettered capitalism with the primary focus being on stock prices is a disaster for the middle class. But hey, it's fantastic for robber barons.


look, there's nothing wrong with these platforms if that is the economic society you want to live in, but it's a blind ignorance of the reality. a CEO's job is to maximize profits and value of a company. if identifying a problem results in huge savings to the company, whether it be by laying off excess labor or by initiating an efficiency model that streamlines arduous tasks, then he deserves compensation for achieving the goal of the task he is given.

using terms like "robber barons" makes you very hard to take seriously.
 
2011-04-05 02:33:35 PM
Don Tyson's dead.
 
2011-04-05 02:35:31 PM
If we got paid for posting on Fark WaltzingMathilda would be a subject of this article instead of commenting on it.
 
2011-04-05 02:36:11 PM

UNC_Samurai: :


www.epi.org


Using standard Fark Logic, we can determine that Bill Clinton is directly responsible for the spike in executive pay.
 
2011-04-05 02:37:04 PM

sethstorm: JesseL: dletter:
But perhaps the most objectionable perk was having Tyson company employees clean Mr. Tyson's house and mow his lawn. According to a 2005 SEC settlement, Tyson Foods spent $203,675 having employees clean five different homes owned by Don Tyson, his family or friends. The company, headquartered in Springdale, Ark., also sprang for $84,000 in lawn-maintenance costs for the same five homes.

THIS is the crap that gets people pissed off. It is one thing if things are truly going "south" for a company and you need to be laying people off, or not giving out raises to the "middle/lower class" workers in the company. It is another thing if you are doing that, AND pulling the crap like listed above.

Tyson was spending money on keeping people employed (doing house and yard work) and you're still complaining?

For very tortured definitions of employment, and for very low quality employment.


So it would have been better to just lay those people off than to provide them with make-work in the form of taking care of a former executives house?

I'm getting mixed signals from the angry crowd here. Should corporations spend their profits on employing people they don't really need, give the profits to executives and stockholders who will probably spend them on something else that keeps people employed (perhaps providing something frivolous, but still a paying job), or should they just sock it away under their mattresses where it does nobody any good?

Let me guess; you'd rather the government take all that money and spend it on something else, with all the wisdom and efficiency for which it's known.
 
2011-04-05 02:37:11 PM

Occam's Nailfile: doublesecretprobation: Occam's Nailfile: Name one. And we'll talk about it.

Oracle.

OK. What's your beef with Oracle?


Here, let me help.

You dislike the fact that Oracle has employed 20,000 or so people in India. Let's break that one down:

You are a software engineer. You make about $100K. For $100K, I can hire 3 people in India who are at least as qualified as you. Tell me, why do you deserve a job and those three Indian people don't, because you were born in America, and have some God-given right that Indian people don't have?

You dislike that Oracle has tax shelters set up around the world, allowing it to use more of its profit for growth rather than pay it to the government in the form of taxes.

Realize that doing so makes the company more valuable, thereby increasing its stock value, the revenue from which, when those stocks are sold, gets taxed at a high capital gains rate. It also allows Oracle to hire more people, putting more money DIRECTLY in the hands of "the people", rather than having it filter through government agencies first and be redistributed as the current bureaucracy in power sees fit.
 
Displayed 50 of 318 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report