Ford Motor Company payout

[Cincinnati_Kid]

Why? You're not paying it. It comes out of profits, which belong to the owners [[stockholders) of the company. If they wish to pay big bucks for a CEO they think is worth big bucks, that's their choice to do so with their money. If you think they've overpayed for executive compensation, or advertising, or office supplies, or any other expense item, that's interesting but not relevant unless you're a stockholder.

In Ford's case, they [[the owners of Ford) gave up some of their ownership to give to Mulally as an incentive/reward for making a lot of money for the owners. Ford earned $6.6 billion last year. The owners gave Mulally less than 1% of last year's profit as a reward. Since they gave it as stock, it diluted the existing owners' ownership. Isn't it their right to do as they wish in that regard?

I'd be happy to give a great CEO like Mulally a 1% cut of profits if he can make billions for the owners of Ford.

And how would you go about paying the people that are actually doing the REAL work Mr CEO?

[Det_ard]

And how would you go about paying the people that are actually doing the REAL work Mr CEO?

"REAL" work? What's that, stuff you're qualified to do? The stuff above your pay grade isn't real work?

Putting that aside, I'd pay people the usual way. The employer and employee agree to a fair exchange.

[ghettopalmetto]

Why? You're not paying it. It comes out of profits, which belong to the owners [[stockholders) of the company. If they wish to pay big bucks for a CEO they think is worth big bucks, that's their choice to do so with their money. If you think they've overpayed for executive compensation, or advertising, or office supplies, or any other expense item, that's interesting but not relevant unless you're a stockholder.

If you don't have line workers, you don't have to worry about the shareholders or the CEO making a damned dime--something our corporate culture seems to have forgotten.

You try to start a company that's nothing but a bunch of talented managers. Tell me how well it succeeds.

[RedeemerKid]

If you don't have line workers, you don't have to worry about the shareholders or the CEO making a damned dime--something our corporate culture seems to have forgotten.

You try to start a company that's nothing but a bunch of talented managers. Tell me how well it succeeds.

Did I miss something? You seem to be defending the existence of line workers as if someone else suggested they be done away with.

Could you clarify your point?

[Det_ard]

If you don't have line workers, you don't have to worry about the shareholders or the CEO making a damned dime--something our corporate culture seems to have forgotten.

You try to start a company that's nothing but a bunch of talented managers. Tell me how well it succeeds.

In the immortal words of Danny,

Your post is NON-SEQUITUR.

[Kevgoblue]

The problem that most people have is that all this money is being made off the back of the working people.

Most of the structural changes that went into place to allow Ford to post billions of dollars in profit only existed because they followed lock step with GM and Chrysler when they declared bankruptcy. The only reason Ford didn't file was because they happened to be fortunate, or forsightful, enough to leverage the corp to the hilt before the lending market dried up.
Ford saved money by:
*Canceling contracts with about 30% of their dealer base
*Killing the Mercury division and the people / costs associated with it.
*Implementing a 50% rate cut for new employees after pushing out many of the old.
*Paying 50 cents on the dollar to transfer retiree health care obligations to the UAW.

I'm not knocking their current product on the market, but that alone would not have been sufficient to curb their financial woes.

Something just doesn't seem right or ethical about the company's "leader" being so generously compensated for convincing all the other stakeholders in the game to take it on the chin.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

"REAL" work? What's that, stuff you're qualified to do? The stuff above your pay grade isn't real work?

Putting that aside, I'd pay people the usual way. The employer and employee agree to a fair exchange.

Get a freakin clue. The engineers, designers, line workers, skilled trades etc... they are the REAL workers that makes the company go, not the bean counters and CEO's who sit in their glasshouses and mahogany trimmed offices when they happen to make a bad decision, that the whole company suffers for it. Ask Rick Wagoner how that works, but he still has his millions he received to just disappear.

[JTistle1]

Executive Compensation is out of control, and something needs to be done about it.

It's only out of control because you are not the executive.

[Proslack]

Sorry for sounding pessimistic, but over the last few years the percentage of U.S made parts on Ford products has plummeted, and it's only going to get worse. Fifty million dollar payouts to the big shots who keep sending production work to Mexico does not sound like "Detroit is back on track" to me.

Pay attention. Ford did not receive your precious tax money, they went without[[use the google if u must). If they want to do payouts, they do not have you to listen to. Buy stock then dictate what the company should and shouldnt do.

[Proslack]

The problem that most people have is that all this money is being made off the back of the working people.

Most of the structural changes that went into place to allow Ford to post billions of dollars in profit only existed because they followed lock step with GM and Chrysler when they declared bankruptcy. The only reason Ford didn't file was because they happened to be fortunate, or forsightful, enough to leverage the corp to the hilt before the lending market dried up.
Ford saved money by:
*Canceling contracts with about 30% of their dealer base
*Killing the Mercury division and the people / costs associated with it.
*Implementing a 50% rate cut for new employees after pushing out many of the old.
*Paying 50 cents on the dollar to transfer retiree health care obligations to the UAW.

I'm not knocking their current product on the market, but that alone would not have been sufficient to curb their financial woes.

Something just doesn't seem right or ethical about the company's "leader" being so generously compensated for convincing all the other stakeholders in the game to take it on the chin.

then don't buy a Ford, problem solved

[Johnnny5]

Pay attention. Ford did not receive your precious tax money, they went without[[use the google if u must). If they want to do payouts, they do not have you to listen to. Buy stock then dictate what the company should and shouldnt do.

Where exactly in this thread did I imply that Ford received "precious tax money". Perhaps you are the one that needs to PAY ATTENTION?

[TKshreve]

What's quite funny about the posters who defend the exorbitant bonuses on this thread is the fact that they can not, and will not address the myriad externalities that are created by FoMoCo's [[and most corporations in general) business decisions which lead them to "profitability". It is limited vision like this which has put our country into this unneccesary class warfare since 2008.

Why can't people like Ford and Mullaly be happy with $5 million? Is that not enough for their rainy day funds?

If he did cure cancer, he would be worth $50 mil. I would give him the shirt off my back as well. But what did he really do? Besides shuffle some papers around and make some "tough" decisions.

I am not for capping income one bit. It would be detrimental to our core values as Americans and our capitalist society. However, when CEO's and such go from making 30 times the lowest paid wage in their company to 360+ times that within twenty years, it sickens me. And should sicken you too. If you were to hold CEO income to, say 50 times the lowest waged worker in a company - Everybody wins and in the end you do not cap income potential. A pipe dream like this could go a long way to bringing back confidence in our working class people.

It is pure, raw greed to get filthy rich of the detriment of your fellow countrymen.

[Jimaz]

... However, when CEO's and such go from making 30 times the lowest paid wage in their company to 360+ times that within twenty years, it sickens me.

Also, the disparity is nowhere near that high in Europe and they seem perfectly satisfied with their situation.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

What's quite funny about the posters who defend the exorbitant bonuses on this thread is the fact that they can not, and will not address the myriad externalities that are created by FoMoCo's [[and most corporations in general) business decisions which lead them to "profitability". It is limited vision like this which has put our country into this unneccesary class warfare since 2008.

Why can't people like Ford and Mullaly be happy with $5 million? Is that not enough for their rainy day funds?

If he did cure cancer, he would be worth $50 mil. I would give him the shirt off my back as well. But what did he really do? Besides shuffle some papers around and make some "tough" decisions.

I am not for capping income one bit. It would be detrimental to our core values as Americans and our capitalist society. However, when CEO's and such go from making 30 times the lowest paid wage in their company to 360+ times that within twenty years, it sickens me. And should sicken you too. If you were to hold CEO income to, say 50 times the lowest waged worker in a company - Everybody wins and in the end you do not cap income potential. A pipe dream like this could go a long way to bringing back confidence in our working class people.

It is pure, raw greed to get filthy rich of the detriment of your fellow countrymen.

Tell that to Det_Ard.

[JTistle1]

I just noticed that all this arguing over cash, they received STOCKS, not cash, so technically they received a portion of the company.

[Jimaz]

Who couldn't admire this humble JAL CEO? Why aren't there more like him?

[Det_ard]

What's quite funny about the posters who defend the exorbitant bonuses on this thread is the fact that they can not, and will not address the myriad externalities that are created by FoMoCo's [[and most corporations in general) business decisions which lead them to "profitability". It is limited vision like this which has put our country into this unneccesary class warfare since 2008.

I'm not defending [[or decrying) the size of the bonuses. I'm supporting the right of private individuals to do business with other private individuals in a mutually agreeable manner. While Ford is publically traded, meaning anyone can purchase shares of Ford stock, it is privately owned, meaning owned by individuals or groups of individuals. If those individual owners, acting through the Board of Directors that they elected, wish to give the top executives of their company a bonus of whatever amount, that's their prerogative.

Let's say you own a restaurant. You decide to pay your executive chef a certain salary. Your restaurant was very successful last year and you attribute most of that success to the executive chef. You decide to give him a bonus, in the form of a small slice of the ownership of the restaurant, to reward him for past success and incentivize him toward continued success. Is that not your right? Is it my business, as an outsider, to tell you what you can or can't do regarding what or how you compensate your chef? Of course not, and the same goes for people [[non-owners) who think they should have some says as to how FoMoCo spends their money.

Why can't people like Ford and Mullaly be happy with $5 million? Is that not enough for their rainy day funds?

Why is it any of your concern? The owners of FoMoCo think it's worth it to retain the services of Ford and Mulally. It really doesn't matter what you think.

If he did cure cancer, he would be worth $50 mil. I would give him the shirt off my back as well. But what did he really do? Besides shuffle some papers around and make some "tough" decisions.

Again, those closest to the situation [[the BoD elected by the owners) know what he's done and have made the educated decision to compensate him accordingly. They obviously think he's played a major role in turning Ford around and generating a $6 billion annual profit.

I am not for capping income one bit. It would be detrimental to our core values as Americans and our capitalist society. However, when CEO's and such go from making 30 times the lowest paid wage in their company to 360+ times that within twenty years, it sickens me. And should sicken you too. If you were to hold CEO income to, say 50 times the lowest waged worker in a company - Everybody wins and in the end you do not cap income potential. A pipe dream like this could go a long way to bringing back confidence in our working class people.

So you don't agree with capping incomes, but favor capping it at some arbitrary multiple? What if in the hypothetical restaurant example, some outsiders told you as the owner that your superstar executive chef should only make $XXXXX, as opposed to what you chose to pay him? Wouldn't you be inclined to tell them "thanks for the input but I think I'll pay him as I see fit, besides, it's none of your business anyway"?

It is pure, raw greed to get filthy rich of the detriment of your fellow countrymen.

How is the stock bonus granted to Mulally by the owners of Ford in any way detrimental to his "fellow countrymen"? It's a voluntary transfer of money from Ford's owners to Ford's executive, the man most responsible for generating a $6 billion profit. It didn't come out of some line worker's paycheck. In fact, the line worker and all the other workers have benefited greatly by Mulally's turnaround of Ford. They have jobs, they've received bonuses, they have better job security than if a less capable CEO was at the helm of a still money-losing FoMoCo. Dealers, suppliers, all their employees and their local communities all benefit when a CEO leads a company to higher profitability. So do the unions who have a vested interest in the stock price of the company when their retirement funds and medical benefits depend on a healthy and money-making company.

I sense more "pure, raw" envy than greed here.

[Motor City Sam]

What I've found interesting is that some of the same people I know who defend these payouts based on the premise that "Ford is a private company and what they pay their execs is up to them" also complained for years about those Ford assembly line workers who make "too much money". Ironic.

[TKshreve]

@Det_ard

You and I are not even debating the same issue. I will not contend the fact that FoMoCo is allowed to pay its employees whatever they deem necessary. That's capitalism in the raw. As fucked up and consequential as it is too.

When I talk about consequences, KNOW THAT i'm talking about job outsourcing, unemployment and pollution to name the biggest. These are externalities that, in our society, are legal ways of accumulating such exhorbitant amounts of money with which we reward our CEO's and such. They are accepted, often practiced and consciously neutralized with money. What a joke!

Where you're also not hearing me is the continued shift of wealth we see in this business environment. The issue at hand is this:

"Who really needs this money the most?"

I'm guessing your answer is: Who cares, it doesn't matter!

I don't want to scare you with such philosophical questions and concepts, but c'mon Det_ard, you don't have to be an ivy league economist to understand why our middle class is hurting. In the end, our Detroit blue collar workforce is more dependant and less enabled than we have seen in a long, long time. We are backpeddling. Meanwhile the rich get richer.

And it's not envy on my part. How long did it take for that thought to trickle down through your head?

[Lferg]

Executive Compensation is out of control, and something needs to be done about it.

Would 5.43 million be better? Because thats what the stock would have been worth at the low of $1.43 per share. Oops...my mistake, forgot about his $1.00 salary.

Further, $23 MILLION was withheld for taxes.

http://local.signonsandiego.com/news...an-bill-/?cars

[Cincinnati_Kid]

@Det_ard

You and I are not even debating the same issue. I will not contend the fact that FoMoCo is allowed to pay its employees whatever they deem necessary. That's capitalism in the raw. As fucked up and consequential as it is too.

When I talk about consequences, KNOW THAT i'm talking about job outsourcing, unemployment and pollution to name the biggest. These are externalities that, in our society, are legal ways of accumulating such exhorbitant amounts of money with which we reward our CEO's and such. They are accepted, often practiced and consciously neutralized with money. What a joke!

Where you're also not hearing me is the continued shift of wealth we see in this business environment. The issue at hand is this:

"Who really needs this money the most?"

I'm guessing your answer is: Who cares, it doesn't matter!

I don't want to scare you with such philosophical questions and concepts, but c'mon Det_ard, you don't have to be an ivy league economist to understand why our middle class is hurting. In the end, our Detroit blue collar workforce is more dependant and less enabled than we have seen in a long, long time. We are backpeddling. Meanwhile the rich get richer.

And it's not envy on my part. How long did it take for that thought to trickle down through your head?

I concur, it's not about jealousy. Det_ard must be a CEO. Don't see how he thinks paying these CEO's ridiculous amounts of money is solving the real problems when it's not.