Purpose of any Company is Profits - screw the workers

[tw]

From the Washington Post of 20 Apr 2009:

Chrysler Financial Refused Government Loan Over Limits on Executive Pay
Top officials at Chrysler Financial turned away a $750 million government loan because executives didn't want to abide by new federal limits on pay, sources familiar with the matter say.

This cannot be true. After all, everyone knows their problems are only traceable to greedy and lazy union workers, unfair Japanese competition, tax laws, environmental laws, the education system ...

Or maybe the only problem has always been overpaid executive who know the purpose of a corporation is its profits - especially top management profits.

Reason why Chrysler is all but gone - its executives. But again, a fundamental fact is demonstrated. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. That increases to 99% when management casts blame elsewhere.

They would rather destroy the company than take reduced pay packages more in line with what they deserve.

Nardelli demanded $200million to leave Home Depot - to save the company. Now he is doing same to Chrysler? Of course. He is a business school graduate. He has no idea how cars work or how a product is designed. But he knows what is most important - his pay package.

Screw America is taught in the business schools. No wonder military academies do not graduate business school majors. They need people who are responsible, informed, and understand who is the reason for failure.

Chrysler has so been destroyed by MBA management for so long that even Fiat cannot find enough worth buying. Especially when getting rid of management will cost them how many more hundreds of $million? Only part of Chrysler that has any value is its dealer network. Chrysler does not even have one new product in the innovation pipeline – as any good business school graduate would do to cut costs. Chrysler is gone.

In forgoing the loan, Chrysler Financial opted to use more expensive financing from private banks, adding to the burdens of the already fragile automaker and its financing company.

Chrysler Financial denied in a statement that its executives had refused to accept new limits on their pay.

Lying once worked when a president routinely protected defective and anti-American companies (ie big steel, First Energy, etc). Those days are over.

Obama administration and Congress have toughened the rules.
... on April 7, Treasury asked Chrysler Financial to have its top 25 executives sign waivers regarding their compensation, according to sources familiar with the matter who declined to talk publicly because they were not authorized to speak.
Within a week, the company responded that some of the executives had refused to give their approval. By last week, Treasury had rescinded the loan offer, the sources said.

[Beestie]

Dear God, man. Its 420 day - have one and lighten up a bit.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Beestie

Dear God, man. Its 420 day - have one and lighten up a bit.

Right. We should be laughing because so many more Americans will have no jobs thanks to greedy MBA executives. How many tens of thousands will be unemployed because Nardelli and his peers are not paid enough?

Ha Ha Ha. It's that funny? Especially management that says they are paid too few $million annually? Greed is good. It must be true. Gordon Gekko said so.

Another knife has been pushed deeply into the backs of Chrysler employees - who were blamed by myths for being too greedy.

[classicman]

Yeh Beestie 'ere.

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by tw

Right. We should be laughing because so many more Americans will have no jobs thanks to greedy MBA executives.

Hey, I just lost my job of ten years thanks to the greedy dumbasses at Fannie Mae.

So I can laugh if I damn well want to.

[Undertoad]

damn B

[classicman]

Ugghh - that sux. Maybe if there was an equal outrage about the damn Bonus's that Fannie and Freddie paid out (yes, actual bonus's) then they could have kept Beestie.
Forkin GD Gov't Mf POS AH

[sugarpop]

They didn't restrict the bonuses there either?

Good grief. I really hope Congress decides to cap how much pay anyone in this country can make as an executive. It is the only way to rein it in.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

They didn't restrict the bonuses there either?

Good grief. I really hope Congress decides to cap how much pay anyone in this country can make as an executive. It is the only way to rein it in.

That would be good? You want the government to control the private market? Be careful what you wish for.

[sugarpop]

Yes, I do want Congress to restrict executive pay, because it is out of control, and at the expense of everyone else in society. By the Gods, they always whine about regulation, but if they would police themselves and regulate themselves then we wouldn't have to. But you can't regulate greed. So, no, I don't have a problem with Congress putting a cap on how much they can earn.

[sugarpop]

Also, if they want bonuses, it should be in the form of stocks to be paid out 4 quarters after it is given, so the bonuses are tied directly to the health of the company and how well it does.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

They didn't restrict the bonuses there either?

OMFG - Are you serious? Please do a little looking into this. They paid out more in bonus's than AIG in retention payments.

Originally Posted by sugarpop

I really hope Congress decides to cap how much pay anyone in this country can make as an executive.

I think that will be the end of America as we know it. I'd be hard pressed to think of a worse thing that could happen.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

By the Gods, (Congress) always whine about regulation,
but if (Congress) would police (Congress)
and regulate (Congress) then we wouldn't have to.
But you can't regulate greed. So, no, I don't have a problem with
Congress putting a cap on how much (Congress) can earn.

Maybe we should start there. Anyone see a problem with that?

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

That would be good? You want the government to control the private market?

It should not be necessary. But something changed. Boards of Directors no longer represent the interest of stockholders. That is their job. But many companies have subverted their Boards for the benefit of management and at the expense of all others.

For example, a CEO (president) should never be Chairman of the Board. Chairman represents stockholders. His job is to keep the CEO in line. In troubled company after company, the CEO is also the Chairman.

For example, Robert Allen of AT&T perverted the Chairman's function. Fiorina of HP also had too much power. Same with Akers of IBM.

Stunning is how much information was denied outside Board members in GM. For example, much financial information available to insider board members was withheld from outside Board members. Outside Board member were limited to how long they could study the financials - ie 45 minutes.

Executives should answer to the Board - not be the Board. Having perverted the function, executive compensation has skyrocketed at the expense of employees and stockholders.

One stunning example was AT&T. The CFO quietly whispered to Sandy Weil (an outside Board member) that AT&T could not meet its short term debt payments. That is about the most chilling fact in any board room. However AT&T was literally on the verge of complete meltdown before any outside Board members realized that AT&T was only months from complete disintegration. That also would never happen if executives truly answered to the Board.

AT&T continued to disintegrate while richly rewarding executives. Therefore all that was left was a mobile phone operation using obsolete frequency division multiplexing and the name. AT&T's remains were purchased only for the name - while its Board remained completely ignorant of the destruction.

Today, the Chairman too often is the CEO. #1 symptom for trouble. Nobody represents the stockholders. Executives simply reward each other.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by classicman

Maybe we should start there. Anyone see a problem with that?

Nope, not at all.