Union Concessions-Page 4: Off-topic discussion forum: Grassroots Motorsports Magazine

Subscribe get a full year for only $23.95 Sample Free Test Drive—no strings attached

1 2 3 4

Oct. 13, 2010 4:18 p.m. Xceler8x SuperDork

Akerson makes $9 mil a year. cited.

Wagner made $14 mil as he rode GM into the ground in 2008. cited. Arguably Wagner's salary, along with many other executives, was grossly inflated. Potentially the Union salaries are inflated as well. I'd argue CEO salaries are far fatter and more deserving of trimming than some average guy trying to get by in Michigan. Keep in mind, Wagner and his cronies had a private elevator installed so they wouldn't have to spend more time than necessary with the rank and file of GM. Cited. See quote from Rattner as to why he fired Wagner.

Also, there is the onus of leadership. Shouldn't a leader slash his own salary before asking his workers to tighten their belt first? I'd say he should. After all, he will financially benefit first if the company achieves success. Far sooner than the average worker.

Wagner made this while GM lost $38 mil that same year. GM compensation v profit for 2008

But hey, it's all the union's fault. That guy who makes $15 an hour, after being offered the job at $28/hr, should shut up. Why complain? He can just find another job in Michigan which has 10+% unemployment. Heck, his CEO is only making $9 mil a year. That's barely enough to keep his yacht in dry dock. You can't even make payments on a house at the beach on that salary! At least not a decent house. Who wants a beach house with one bathroom and no pool?!
Oct. 13, 2010 5:20 p.m. mad_machine SuperDork

I will say this.. I do know a friend who has her own video production company. When the economy fell through the floor.. she did quite a bit of work for no profit. It didn't cost her anything, but she didn't make any money either.. but she kept her employees working
Oct. 13, 2010 6:14 p.m. Toyman01 SuperDork

http://www.anbhf.org/laureates/keniversen.htm

Read this, then discuss.

One time a union tried to get into this mans company. They had to be escorted out by management to keep the employees from harming them.
Oct. 13, 2010 6:15 p.m. DrBoost Dork

alfadriver wrote:

So you had an easy job that you didn't like- one that everyone has to put up with the same crap.

You didn't keep the job for what reason? They didn't pay you enough?

You could have all day to dream about projects that you could do with the money they were paying you....

I already said I didn't leave for the pay. I've left two jobs for ones that paid less, on purpose. I left that job because while I was building engines it wasn't fulfilling at all. I don't like to have to go to work and shut my brain off for the rest of the day and in fact be chastised if I were to use it.

I'm not blaming this all on the unions here. I think the unions are blood sucking vampires but the management are a bunch of spineless wusses. They should have stood up to the unions like the newspaper industry in Europe did. Sure it's tough in the beginning but the rewards are great.

All that being said I'm 100% in agreement that the execs should take the biggest hit before anyone else does.
Oct. 13, 2010 8:54 p.m. madmallard New Reader

Xceler8x wrote:

egal boundaries do not have a bearing on good vs. bad management. The government is not telling a union to defend a crap worker. The government is not telling a corporation to run itself poorly and take ill advised risks with shareholder investments.

My point in comparing those two elements is that union mismanagement has a far wider berth in obfuscation than corporate mismanagement by way of regulations on businesses that don't have an equivalent in unions.

Therefore, any attempt at a direct corelation of bad management doesn't hold up cuz the window of opportunity to operate poorly while undetected is mismatched staggeringly.

mismanaging a company is far more likely to run into law breaking than mismanaging a union.
Oct. 14, 2010 12:26 p.m. Xceler8x SuperDork

Toyman01 wrote:

http://www.anbhf.org/laureates/keniversen.htm

Read this, then discuss.

One time a union tried to get into this mans company. They had to be escorted out by management to keep the employees from harming them.

Sounds like that guy knew how to run a company. He also took care of his employees. Hats off to him!

madmallard wrote:

My point in comparing those two elements is that union mismanagement has a far wider berth in obfuscation than corporate mismanagement by way of regulations on businesses that don't have an equivalent in unions.

Therefore, any attempt at a direct corelation of bad management doesn't hold up cuz the window of opportunity to operate poorly while undetected is mismatched staggeringly.

mismanaging a company is far more likely to run into law breaking than mismanaging a union.

I could be misunderstanding you or missing the point. I iz a fart smeller but not that smert.

I think what you're saying is a company can't be run poorly in the sense of financial misappropriation or in other ways. Is that right? Because reporting and other documentation would then indicate that the company was not operating in a legal manner.

Am I on the right track?