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.

(KSDK St. Louis)   Last year, GM awarded its CEO $7.7M in compensation - and used its proxy statement to complain that the government kept them from paying even more   (ksdk.com) divider line 60
    More: Asinine, CEO, proxy statements, executive compensation  
•       •       •

900 clicks; posted to Business » on 28 Apr 2012 at 10:43 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



60 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-28 01:38:09 AM  
FTFA:

"GM said Akerson's compensation was in the bottom 25% of CEOs at a group of similar global companies such as Ford Motor, Honeywell and Hewlett-Packard. In the proxy, GM argued that the government's ongoing limits on GM compensation put it at a competitive disadvantage.

"Appropriately recognizing and rewarding these key contributors and competing with other large, multinational employers to attract and retain fresh talent with critical skill sets is extremely difficult within the compensation constraints imposed by" the government, GM said."


Cry us a g-damn river. I'm sure we all feel bad that the big, mean government ONLY let you get $7.7M last year!

And if 7.7 puts you in the bottom 25% of CEO pay, then the pay gap is worse than we thought.
 
2012-04-28 01:57:18 AM  
markamerica.com
 
2012-04-28 02:29:56 AM  
Bottom 25% of CEO pay ranks? For the CEO of GM? Should've been the bottom 10%.
 
2012-04-28 07:19:30 AM  
Didn't GM get a gov't bailout at some point? Regardless, that's a huge sum. I wonder what he's paying in taxes?
 
2012-04-28 08:15:51 AM  
You'll excuse me if I don't cry for his small bonus.
 
2012-04-28 08:19:07 AM  
I guess the only way to increase shareholder value is for him to pay that bonus back to them...
 
2012-04-28 08:19:46 AM  
But don't you see? He singlehandedly turned around GM! He's one of the greatest human beings who ever lived! He has the inventive genius of Leonardo Da Vinci and the leadership qualities of Scipio Africanus, rolled into one spectacular package. History will judge us not on whether we provided for the poor, but on whether we appreciated and celebrated this remarkable man. We shouldn't just pay him more, we should give him the state of Michigan to rule as he pleases.
But don't take my word for it. I'm sure Forbes magazine will soon make the case.
 
2012-04-28 08:23:32 AM  

rumpelstiltskin: But don't you see? He singlehandedly turned around GM! He's one of the greatest human beings who ever lived! He has the inventive genius of Leonardo Da Vinci and the leadership qualities of Scipio Africanus, rolled into one spectacular package. History will judge us not on whether we provided for the poor, but on whether we appreciated and celebrated this remarkable man. We shouldn't just pay him more, we should give him the state of Michigan to rule as he pleases.
But don't take my word for it. I'm sure Forbes magazine will soon make the case.


I feel so foolish for overlooking these facts.
 
2012-04-28 08:49:10 AM  
I feel for the guy. He probably can barely pay his mortgage.On his third home in the Hamptons.
 
2012-04-28 09:05:31 AM  

AbbeySomeone: Didn't GM get a gov't bailout at some point?


notsureifserious.jpg
 
2012-04-28 09:12:41 AM  
Lehman Brothers was set to pay their execs a total of $700 million during the year of the collapse.
 
2012-04-28 09:21:06 AM  
CEO's of successful, contributing companies should make whatever they can earn. CEO's of broke-dick wards of the state should get modest credit transfers to their EBT cards and they should be grateful for the handout.

/Go to Hell Dan Akerson. Take GM and the UAW with you
 
2012-04-28 09:33:38 AM  

Il Douchey: Take GM and the UAW with you


How dare people try to work for a living wage? America can't race to the bottom that way!
 
2012-04-28 09:45:25 AM  
GAT_00: How dare people try to work for a living wage?

Working for a living wage is great. Taking a gov't bailout to sustain a bloated, corrupt union lifestyle at taxpayer expense is disgusting. They failed. They should have had an orderly collapse in bankruptcy proceedings. Ultimately, propping up losers holds down winners -creative destruction and all that...
 
2012-04-28 09:49:04 AM  

Il Douchey: Taking a gov't bailout to sustain a bloated, corrupt union lifestyle at taxpayer expense is disgusting


Of course, selectively ignoring that the union was broken for the bailouts and now contains a two-tiered system.
 
2012-04-28 10:00:10 AM  
GAT_00: Of course, selectively ignoring that the union was broken for the bailouts and now contains a two-tiered system.

Yeah, the fat and happy incumbents stay fat and happy; new guy gets the shaft. But you can selectively ignore or focus on whatever you want to. The whole thing stinks.

What about the auto workers in Alabama or Tennessee? They got their jobs because of ability, not a union ticket. They earned their pay by producing saleable product, not by taking bailouts. They paid taxes, they didn't eat them. And, at the end of the day, those taxes they paid were used to prop up the same competition that they honestly defeated in the real world.
 
2012-04-28 10:13:12 AM  

Il Douchey: They got their jobs because of ability their willingness to work for lower wages, not a union ticket.



FTFY
 
2012-04-28 10:13:27 AM  

Il Douchey: Yeah, the fat and happy incumbents stay fat and happy; new guy gets the shaft. But you can selectively ignore or focus on whatever you want to. The whole thing stinks.


How about how the GM bail out fired thousands of workers and did nothing to the hierarchy? In fact, the GM bailout exactly resembled a corporate takeover. It broke the union, significantly reduced their benefits, and fired thousands, all while preserving the corporate structure, and making sure the richest kept their money and investments.

Have you actually ever read what happened during the GM bailout, or have you only read what the GOP told you happened?
 
2012-04-28 10:18:17 AM  
Has GM completely paid me back yet or do they still have some money from me?

I don't know, and I'm too lazy to google, but if they still have money of mine they better pay that back before they go giving anyone bonuses on that scale.
 
2012-04-28 10:51:09 AM  

unlikely: Has GM completely paid me back yet or do they still have some money from me?

I don't know, and I'm too lazy to google, but if they still have money of mine they better pay that back before they go giving anyone bonuses on that scale.


That argument failed to hold up for the banks. Why should it selectively apply here?
 
2012-04-28 10:52:06 AM  

GAT_00: Il Douchey: Taking a gov't bailout to sustain a bloated, corrupt union lifestyle at taxpayer expense is disgusting

Of course, selectively ignoring that the union was broken for the bailouts and now contains a two-tiered system.


I contend the way the UAW handled the situation is both evidence that union leaders have more in common with the 1% than the 99%, and that the willingness to shaft the largely younger workers while trying to protect the older workers shows that this battle is more Boomers vs. Everyone else than rich vs. poor.
 
2012-04-28 10:53:01 AM  
Assuming a CEO has the ability to turn a failing company around and bring it back to profitability, a cap on executive pay almost certainly excludes such a person from consideration.

To bring in qualified people, you must have an appropriate compensation package. Without one, you aren't going to get top talent.

It's why Ben and Jerry's removed the executive pay cap, for example.
 
2012-04-28 11:07:34 AM  

GAT_00: unlikely: Has GM completely paid me back yet or do they still have some money from me?

I don't know, and I'm too lazy to google, but if they still have money of mine they better pay that back before they go giving anyone bonuses on that scale.

That argument failed to hold up for the banks. Why should it selectively apply here?


Because socialism.
 
2012-04-28 11:08:33 AM  

NewportBarGuy: Il Douchey: They got their jobs because of ability their willingness to work for lower wages, not a union ticket.


FTFY


And sweetheart deals by local state governments up to including requiring said governments to pay a portion of worker salaries...
 
2012-04-28 11:09:19 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Assuming a CEO has the ability to turn a failing company around and bring it back to profitability, a cap on executive pay almost certainly excludes such a person from consideration.

To bring in qualified people, you must have an appropriate compensation package. Without one, you aren't going to get top talent.

It's why Ben and Jerry's removed the executive pay cap, for example.


And if top talent actually turned companies around, that would be fine. But what 2008 showed was that it doesn't actually matter what your performance is. You can blow up the economy and still get paid because you're the "best and the brightest". If what we saw then was the top talent, I think I would rather take my chances with the 6 figure guy. If nothing else, the payoffs will be smaller when he blows up the economy.
 
2012-04-28 11:11:19 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Assuming a CEO has the ability to turn a failing company around and bring it back to profitability, a cap on executive pay almost certainly excludes such a person from consideration.

To bring in qualified people, you must have an appropriate compensation package. Without one, you aren't going to get top talent.

It's why Ben and Jerry's removed the executive pay cap, for example.


How much did the CEO who tanked GM to the point of needing a bailout make? Or any of the other CEO's who crashed their companies headlong into mountainsides?
 
2012-04-28 11:26:13 AM  
AverageAmericanGuy: Assuming a CEO has the ability to turn a failing company around and bring it back to profitability, a cap on executive pay almost certainly excludes such a person from consideration.

Normally, I'd agree. But when a CEO's ability to prevent failure hinges on massive gorging from the gov't tit, well, it doesn't really take a hotshot to manage that gravy train. Hell, even Joe Biden could probably handle it

GM no longer exists in the legitimate risk/reward economy -where ability is compensated and incompetence is punished. GM has gotten into bed with unions and big guv cronyism - where gov't picks who wins and who loses, where consequenses can be avoided if you've greased the right palm. The Chicago way. The Obama way. The road to serfdom.
 
2012-04-28 11:32:18 AM  

Il Douchey: GM no longer exists in the legitimate risk/reward economy -where ability is compensated and incompetence is punished. GM has gotten into bed with unions and big guv cronyism - where gov't picks who wins and who loses, where consequenses can be avoided if you've greased the right palm. The Chicago way. The Obama way. The road to serfdom.


Probably piled it on a little bit too thick there...
 
2012-04-28 11:32:23 AM  

Il Douchey: AverageAmericanGuy: Assuming a CEO has the ability to turn a failing company around and bring it back to profitability, a cap on executive pay almost certainly excludes such a person from consideration.

Normally, I'd agree. But when a CEO's ability to prevent failure hinges on massive gorging from the gov't tit, well, it doesn't really take a hotshot to manage that gravy train. Hell, even Joe Biden could probably handle it

GM no longer exists in the legitimate risk/reward economy -where ability is compensated and incompetence is punished. GM has gotten into bed with unions and big guv cronyism - where gov't picks who wins and who loses, where consequenses can be avoided if you've greased the right palm. The Chicago way. The Obama way. The road to serfdom.


So I guess that's a no to my questions. I expected nothing else.
 
2012-04-28 11:33:11 AM  

Nightjars: Il Douchey: GM no longer exists in the legitimate risk/reward economy -where ability is compensated and incompetence is punished. GM has gotten into bed with unions and big guv cronyism - where gov't picks who wins and who loses, where consequenses can be avoided if you've greased the right palm. The Chicago way. The Obama way. The road to serfdom.

Probably piled it on a little bit too thick there...


Actually, that's what he always does. It wasn't so bad earlier, so I gave him a chance by pointing out what actually happened. It was a waste of time.
 
2012-04-28 11:47:55 AM  
The CEO does x1000 times the work for a normal employee. I mean you always see the CEO on the factory floor, running the presses. He's in the Engineering Department designing new cars at all hours. He in marketing designing all those annoying ads. He even works nights cleaning place and brings your motherfarkers donuts on Fridays.

He forgives you for being a miserable idiot without a MBA from an Ivy League school and in his graciousness he allow you a pittance if you work as hard as he does.
 
2012-04-28 11:52:25 AM  
Is this the thread where we blame Unions for GM management's screwups?

Those are always fun.
 
2012-04-28 11:56:49 AM  

Il Douchey: AverageAmericanGuy: Assuming a CEO has the ability to turn a failing company around and bring it back to profitability, a cap on executive pay almost certainly excludes such a person from consideration.

Normally, I'd agree. But when a CEO's ability to prevent failure hinges on massive gorging from the gov't tit, well, it doesn't really take a hotshot to manage that gravy train. Hell, even Joe Biden could probably handle it

GM no longer exists in the legitimate risk/reward economy -where ability is compensated and incompetence is punished. GM has gotten into bed with unions and big guv cronyism - where gov't picks who wins and who loses, where consequenses can be avoided if you've greased the right palm. The Chicago way. The Obama way. The road to serfdom.


I thought Bush signed the auto bailouts?
 
2012-04-28 11:57:13 AM  
Nightjars:Probably piled it on a little bit too thick there...

Perhaps. But the whole GM mess illustrates a basic rift in America. Do we want a free market economy where competition determines outcome, or a managed economy where central planners determine the outcome? Of course, it's not an absolute question of all or nothing, but we need to decide which approach we favor. Obama v. Romney 2012 should clarify the matter.
 
2012-04-28 11:59:27 AM  

Il Douchey: Nightjars:Probably piled it on a little bit too thick there...

Perhaps. But the whole GM mess illustrates a basic rift in America. Do we want a free market economy where competition determines outcome, or a managed economy where central planners determine the outcome? Of course, it's not an absolute question of all or nothing, but we need to decide which approach we favor. Obama v. Romney 2012 should clarify the matter.


How?
 
2012-04-28 12:13:18 PM  
Mrtraveler01: How?

Does this really need to be explained? Obama embraces the European model of a more active, engaged federal government. Romney favors the free market, limited government approach.

/Do you want more checks on the gov't or more checks from the gov't?
 
2012-04-28 12:20:40 PM  

Il Douchey: Does this really need to be explained? Obama embraces the European model of a more active, engaged federal government. Romney favors the free market, limited government approach.


Oh you actually believe that huh?

How adorable.

/Looks like the Romney campaign has got another sucker...I mean...supporter
 
2012-04-28 12:30:25 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Il Douchey: Does this really need to be explained? Obama embraces the European model of a more active, engaged federal government. Romney favors the free market, limited government approach.

Oh you actually believe that huh?

How adorable.

/Looks like the Romney campaign has got another sucker...I mean...supporter


THIS ^

The GOP wants big government for corporations. Corporations siphon billions from our collective teat annually. Conservatives pull you into their echo chamber and pander to your bigotry/stupidity in order keep you discovering this core truth.
 
2012-04-28 12:39:34 PM  

Il Douchey: Union members make more than me, therefore instead of having the brains to join a union, I will fight to destroy unions!


Super thinking there, pal.
 
2012-04-28 01:12:04 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Is this the thread where we blame Unions for GM management's screwups noncompetitive cost structure ?



ftfy

Management does screw up, but when you are handed a bucket of garbage, it is hard to make much out of it except some performance art that some lib will buy.
 
2012-04-28 01:12:06 PM  
So, GM made a deal with the devil to stay alive -- and now is complaining about it? Tough titties.
 
2012-04-28 01:57:24 PM  

Corporate Self: Mrtraveler01: Il Douchey: Does this really need to be explained? Obama embraces the European model of a more active, engaged federal government. Romney favors the free market, limited government approach.

Oh you actually believe that huh?

How adorable.

/Looks like the Romney campaign has got another sucker...I mean...supporter

THIS ^

The GOP wants big government for corporations. Corporations siphon billions from our collective teat annually. Conservatives pull you into their echo chamber and pander to your bigotry/stupidity in order keep you discovering this core truth.


You know the answer to that? Reduce the size and scope of government. Corporations would have a harder time getting sweetheart deals with a government that wasn't busily regulating every facet of human existence. The more that government does, the bigger the opportunities for corruption. For just one example, let car companies build what they want, pay their execs what they want, compete in the marketplace and go under if they screw it up. Presto, you don't have to fly into a rage that some treasure-seeking CEO wants a pot of gold; if his demands are too outrageous it's his stockholders and the board who'll rein him in, not some sub-altern bureaucrat in the Department of Deciding What People Get Paid. And even if he gets his pot of gold, it's the company and its stakeholders doing any suffering, not taxpayers or anyone else.
 
2012-04-28 02:01:18 PM  

ghare: Everyone else is gaming the system, and it's due to your own damned stupidity if you don't as well.


Super thinking there, pal.
 
2012-04-28 02:06:52 PM  

jjorsett: Corporate Self: Mrtraveler01: Il Douchey: Does this really need to be explained? Obama embraces the European model of a more active, engaged federal government. Romney favors the free market, limited government approach.

Oh you actually believe that huh?

How adorable.

/Looks like the Romney campaign has got another sucker...I mean...supporter

THIS ^

The GOP wants big government for corporations. Corporations siphon billions from our collective teat annually. Conservatives pull you into their echo chamber and pander to your bigotry/stupidity in order keep you discovering this core truth.

You know the answer to that? Reduce the size and scope of government. Corporations would have a harder time getting sweetheart deals with a government that wasn't busily regulating every facet of human existence. The more that government does, the bigger the opportunities for corruption. For just one example, let car companies build what they want, pay their execs what they want, compete in the marketplace and go under if they screw it up. Presto, you don't have to fly into a rage that some treasure-seeking CEO wants a pot of gold; if his demands are too outrageous it's his stockholders and the board who'll rein him in, not some sub-altern bureaucrat in the Department of Deciding What People Get Paid. And even if he gets his pot of gold, it's the company and its stakeholders doing any suffering, not taxpayers or anyone else.


No, business needs regulation. Anyone who studied the early Industrial Revolution knows, that given the chance, businesses will exploit workers to the point of depravity.
 
2012-04-28 02:14:23 PM  

jjorsett: You know the answer to that? Reduce the size and scope of government. Corporations would have a harder time getting sweetheart deals with a government that wasn't busily regulating every facet of human existence.


Yeah, why bother with that when you create a government that allows you to do to all of that without having to bribe the government.

Oh wait, that wasn't what you meant?
 
2012-04-28 02:33:20 PM  

Il Douchey: CEO's of successful, contributing companies should make whatever they can earn. CEO's of broke-dick wards of the state should get modest credit transfers to their EBT cards and they should be grateful for the handout.

/Go to Hell Dan Akerson. Take GM and the UAW with you


Oh right, it's Lt. Dan, the dick bag who said gas taxes should be increased, so people might actually by the shiatboxes his company makes.

/You go to hell Dan Akerson, you go to hell and you die!
 
2012-04-28 02:42:45 PM  

Mentat: Lehman Brothers was set to pay their execs a total of $700 million during the year of the collapse.


Which sort of explains why Lehman Brothers is now where they are at today.
 
2012-04-28 03:07:58 PM  

Corporate Self: No, business needs regulation. Anyone who studied the early Industrial Revolution knows, that given the chance, businesses will exploit workers to the point of depravity.


Are you suggesting that the good people at Monsanto DON'T have my best interests at heart?!?!! Good sir, I am outraged that a company which wants to monopolize food would be driven by greed.
 
2012-04-28 03:49:24 PM  
GM argued that the government's ongoing limits on GM compensation put it at a competitive disadvantage.

When they pay Akerson $7.7M, he sucks. If they were able to pay him $9M, he would be awesome.
 
kab
2012-04-28 04:27:04 PM  
GM argued that the government's ongoing limits on GM compensation put it at a competitive disadvantage.

No, your utterly forgettable vehicle designs (with the exception of the 'vette) put you at a competitive disadvantage.

Cry harder.
 
Displayed 50 of 60 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report