Ludingtom company gives 200 employees 4 million in Christmas bonuses to split.

Wow. I guess my mom knows a family. Some are getting 60K.

Oh and GM laying off 14K employees but give their ceo 22 million bonus.

Wow

That's pretty sweet. My company cancelled the christmas party.

That's one way to help keep loyalty. Actually rewarding your employees. Such as weird concept.

I liked the article linked on the same page...

Wisconsin company gives employees revolvers for Christmas

Give a person a Christmas turkey, he eats for a day - Give them a gun....

What union are they in.....

Saw that Sears is going bankrupt, can't give a lot of their employees severance but is giving their upper management 25 million in bonuses.

All I can say is good for that Ludington company and their employees. There should be more of this type of generosity in the world.

Executives, many of whom have 6 more years of a college education, suck! Unskilled workers, even though a chimp could do their jobs, rule!

TheReal_LWS wrote:Executives, many of whom have 6 more years of a college education, suck! Unskilled workers, even though a chimp could do their jobs, rule!

Those hourly chimps need to shoulder more responsibility in the everyday process of keeping a company competitive. No doubt. Need to be more involved in sourcing, selling, advertising, etc

TheReal_LWS wrote:Executives, many of whom have 6 more years of a college education, suck! Unskilled workers, even though a chimp could do their jobs, rule!

Hey, Pizza Dave Brandon posts on tSwill!

tGreenWay wrote:

TheReal_LWS wrote:Executives, many of whom have 6 more years of a college education, suck! Unskilled workers, even though a chimp could do their jobs, rule!

Hey, Pizza Dave Brandon posts on tSwill!

Of all the insults you've hurled at me over the years, this one is the most insulting. Is that you, Bill Martin?

TheReal_LWS wrote:Executives, many of whom have 6 more years of a college education, suck! Unskilled workers, even though a chimp could do their jobs, rule!

Scanning this thread again.... nope still don’t see anyone claiming executives shouldn’t be well paid. I do see the usual over reaction from the same people though.

DWags wrote:

TheReal_LWS wrote:Executives, many of whom have 6 more years of a college education, suck! Unskilled workers, even though a chimp could do their jobs, rule!

Scanning this thread again.... nope still don’t see anyone claiming executives shouldn’t be well paid. I do see the usual over reaction from the same people though.  

Come one Dwags, you took a shot at Barra's salary. You were looking for a reaction and you got it from LWS.

TheReal_LWS wrote:Executives, many of whom have 6 more years of a college education, suck! Unskilled workers, even though a chimp could do their jobs, rule!

School teachers often have more than six years of schooling and they get paid peanuts.

Also, I was on a trivia team with our CEO on a company wide team building exercise. Dude was a complete idiot didn't get one question right. I think some people get promoted in companies just based on their ability to stand in front of a room and spew out BS convincingly.

Nordic wrote:

DWags wrote:


Scanning this thread again.... nope still don’t see anyone claiming executives shouldn’t be well paid. I do see the usual over reaction from the same people though.  

Come one Dwags, you took a shot at Barra's salary. You were looking for a reaction and you got it from LWS.

Nah, executives deserve to be well paid for running a company I have stock in. Especially if the company is doing well. You guys make your own decisions on the 22 million in bonus she got. I imagine there are 14K workers in our area that might think it’s excessive, and I do too. But nobody is saying she doesn’t deserve to be well paid. There’s a difference imo. Especially the timing of it. Sue me if I think maybe 1/5th of that bonus is well paid. Take the other 17 million and see if there’s anything else that could be done with it.

Good for that guy who appears to know what good and satisfied labor can get you. And fuck Bee The fucking sycophant.

DWags wrote:

Nordic wrote:

Come one Dwags, you took a shot at Barra's salary. You were looking for a reaction and you got it from LWS.

Nah, executives deserve to be well paid for running a company I have stock in. Especially if the company is doing well.  You guys make your own decisions on the 22 million in bonus she got.  I imagine there are 14K workers in our area that might think it’s excessive, and I do too. But nobody is saying she doesn’t deserve to be well paid. There’s a difference imo. Especially the timing of it.  Sue me if I think maybe 1/5th of that bonus is well paid.  Take the other 17 million and see if there’s anything else that could be done with it.

Nah what? You took a poke at Barra's salary. You think it is too much and confirmed it this post. That's fine, but don't say that is not your intent with the initial post.  

Regarding the timing, Barra made $21.9M in total salary & bonuses in 2017 (much of which is stock options). I don't know what her total compensation is for 2018, but you are making it sound like she just took a $22m bonus and laid off a bunch of people.

How much do you think a CEO for a publicly traded company that generates $150B and has 180k employees should make? Do you think you would be able to attract top talent at $5M total compensation for running a company such as this?

Top talent. Just the tippy tippy tops. Tops tops tops.




I realize that rich people tell you that they need to be that excessively rich in order to do the job otherwise they will become homeless beggars just to spite you but the reality is that it isn’t true and CEOs get paid entirely too much for the value they provide.

Nordic wrote:

DWags wrote:

Nah, executives deserve to be well paid for running a company I have stock in. Especially if the company is doing well.  You guys make your own decisions on the 22 million in bonus she got.  I imagine there are 14K workers in our area that might think it’s excessive, and I do too. But nobody is saying she doesn’t deserve to be well paid. There’s a difference imo. Especially the timing of it.  Sue me if I think maybe 1/5th of that bonus is well paid.  Take the other 17 million and see if there’s anything else that could be done with it.

Nah what? You took a poke at Barra's salary. You think it is too much and confirmed it this post. That's fine, but don't say that is not your intent with the initial post.  

Regarding the timing, Barra made $21.9M in total salary & bonuses in 2017 (much of which is stock options). I don't know what her total compensation is for 2018, but you are making it sound like she just took a $22m bonus and laid off a bunch of people.

How much do you think a CEO for a publicly traded company that generates $150B and has 180k employees should make? Do you think you would be able to attract top talent at $5M total compensation for running a company such as this?

Nordic, that’s the same argument I heard when Wall Street had to be bailed out. “Top talent” will be lost if they aren’t paid. Lost to where? Other companies? Cool.

Since 1978, and adjusted for inflation, American workers have seen an 11.2 percent increase in compensation. During that same period, CEO's have seen a 937 percent increase in earnings. ***That salary growth is even 70 percent faster than the rise in the stock market, according to the Economic Policy Institute.**

Nobody says that you shouldn’t pay these people well, but when it’s out pacing the market at 70%? Ok.

Like the chicken shits that need a name head coach and will spend for it, I know there is a crap load of talent out there that will do the job and are just as hungry.

The “you can’t attract top talent without outlandish compensation packages” is a typical fallacy based on nothing.

Mods, please merge with Class Warfare thread.

The owners are simply trying to balm their guilt for polluting the world with untold tons of cheap plastic.

at FloraCraft, which makes foam products for the craft and floral industries. It supplies the products to Walmart, Amazon, Michaels, JOANN, Hobby Lobby and retailers across 50 states and 17 countries.

They spread that shit worldwide and all over our oceans. But it's ok and they're great people because they share some of their profits with their workers (accomplices).

They supply Walmart, Amazon, Hobby Lobby - yeah they're real heroes.

LooseGoose wrote:The owners are simply trying to balm their guilt for polluting the world with untold tons of cheap plastic.

at FloraCraft, which makes foam products for the craft and floral industries. It supplies the products to Walmart, Amazon, Michaels, JOANN, Hobby Lobby and retailers across 50 states and 17 countries.

They spread that shit worldwide and all over our oceans. But it's ok and they're great people because they share some of their profits with their workers (accomplices).

They supply Walmart, Amazon, Hobby Lobby - yeah they're real heroes.

The lesson here is if you’re being a prick to get your I’ll gotten gains, be benevolent with them and even librahs will give you a break. It’s like a weird version of Robin Hood. Kill the environment get in bed with knuckle dragging asswipes but give the good folks your gains. Hmmmmmm.

DWags wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:The owners are simply trying to balm their guilt for polluting the world with untold tons of cheap plastic.



They spread that shit worldwide and all over our oceans. But it's ok and they're great people because they share some of their profits with their workers (accomplices).

They supply Walmart, Amazon, Hobby Lobby - yeah they're real heroes.

The lesson here is if you’re being a prick to get your I’ll gotten gains, be benevolent with them and even librahs will give you a break. It’s like a weird version of Robin Hood. Kill the environment get in bed with knuckle dragging asswipes but give the good folks your gains. Hmmmmmm.

The lesson is that all the world are whores.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Top talent. Just the tippy tippy tops. Tops tops tops.




I realize that rich people tell you that they need to be that excessively rich in order to do the job otherwise they will become homeless beggars just to spite you but the reality is that it isn’t true and CEOs get paid entirely too much for the value they provide.

Supply & demand and free market economy. Salaries are set based on the availability of people with the skill set a job requires. Whether it is teachers, laborers or CEOs. If you think you have the skillset to do Barra's job, let me break it to you, you don't. Few do and compensation reflects this. Are there dumbass overpaid CEOs? Yup. Barra is not one of them. And in order for GM to survive they need to pay going rate for top talent.

The main criticisms from the masses in 2009 was GM got too bloated. They were fat and happy. Now they are making moves to mitigate that and people still bitch. I get that there are 14k families that are not happy. But all companies need to make decisions that is going to put them in the best position to survive. Both GM and Ford have made some bold moves in 2018 (and I'm not talking about layoffs) Whether they are the right ones, I have no idea. But standing pat would of been their demise very quickly. The auto industry is going to completely transformed in the next 3-10 years and Barra knows this.

Nordic wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Top talent. Just the tippy tippy tops. Tops tops tops.




I realize that rich people tell you that they need to be that excessively rich in order to do the job otherwise they will become homeless beggars just to spite you but the reality is that it isn’t true and CEOs get paid entirely too much for the value they provide.

Supply & demand and free market economy. Salaries are set based on the availability of people with the skill set a job requires. Whether it is teachers, laborers or CEOs. If you think you have the skillset to do Barra's job, let me break it to you, you don't. Few do and compensation reflects this. Are there dumbass overpaid CEOs? Yup. Barra is not one of them. And in order for GM to survive they need to pay going rate for top talent.

The main criticisms from the masses in 2009 was GM got too bloated. They were fat and happy. Now they are making moves to mitigate that and people still bitch. I get that there are 14k families that are not happy. But all companies need to make decisions that is going to put them in the best position to survive. Both GM and Ford have made some bold moves in 2018 (and I'm not talking about layoffs) Whether they are the right ones, I have no idea. But standing pat would of been their demise very quickly. The auto industry is going to completely transformed in the next 3-10 years and Barra knows this.

Lol yeah she’s fuckin nailing it. Just absolutely driving that stock price this year. Tippy tippy tips talent just the tips and we can’t possibly think that our betters might not be the absolutely tippy tippy top.

DWags wrote:

Nordic wrote:

Nah what? You took a poke at Barra's salary. You think it is too much and confirmed it this post. That's fine, but don't say that is not your intent with the initial post.  

Regarding the timing, Barra made $21.9M in total salary & bonuses in 2017 (much of which is stock options). I don't know what her total compensation is for 2018, but you are making it sound like she just took a $22m bonus and laid off a bunch of people.

How much do you think a CEO for a publicly traded company that generates $150B and has 180k employees should make? Do you think you would be able to attract top talent at $5M total compensation for running a company such as this?

Nordic, that’s the same argument I heard when Wall Street had to be bailed out.   “Top talent” will be lost if they aren’t paid. Lost to where?  Other companies?  Cool.

Since 1978, and adjusted for inflation, American workers have seen an 11.2 percent increase in compensation. During that same period, CEO's have seen a 937 percent increase in earnings. ***That salary growth is even 70 percent faster than the rise in the stock market, according to the Economic Policy Institute.**

Nobody says that you shouldn’t pay these people well, but when it’s out pacing the market at 70%?   Ok.  

Like the chicken shits that need a name head coach and will spend for it, I know there is a crap load of talent out there that will do the job and are just as hungry.  

I wasn't making an argument in the post you quoted. I was pointing out facts on Barra's salary and then I asked you two questions, which you ignored.  

But I did make an argument in the post above that basically addresses this.  Note, no where have I said that the salaries are fair or not out of whack. Only that this is what you get in a free market economy... especially one that is booming.  

Let me ask you another questions. Let's say GM fires Barra and hires Travis and $5M per year. How do you think GM would do?

Nordic wrote:

DWags wrote:


Nordic, that’s the same argument I heard when Wall Street had to be bailed out.   “Top talent” will be lost if they aren’t paid. Lost to where?  Other companies?  Cool.

Since 1978, and adjusted for inflation, American workers have seen an 11.2 percent increase in compensation. During that same period, CEO's have seen a 937 percent increase in earnings. ***That salary growth is even 70 percent faster than the rise in the stock market, according to the Economic Policy Institute.**

Nobody says that you shouldn’t pay these people well, but when it’s out pacing the market at 70%?   Ok.  

Like the chicken shits that need a name head coach and will spend for it, I know there is a crap load of talent out there that will do the job and are just as hungry.  

I wasn't making an argument in the post you quoted. I was pointing out facts on Barra's salary and then I asked you two questions, which you ignored.  

But I did make an argument in the post above that basically addresses this.  Note, no where have I said that the salaries are fair. or out of whack Only that this is what you get in a free market economy... especially on that is booming.  

Let me ask you another questions. Let's say GM fires Barra and hires Travis and $5M per year. How do you think GM would do?

Probably fine.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Nordic wrote:

Supply & demand and free market economy. Salaries are set based on the availability of people with the skill set a job requires. Whether it is teachers, laborers or CEOs. If you think you have the skillset to do Barra's job, let me break it to you, you don't. Few do and compensation reflects this. Are there dumbass overpaid CEOs? Yup. Barra is not one of them. And in order for GM to survive they need to pay going rate for top talent.

The main criticisms from the masses in 2009 was GM got too bloated. They were fat and happy. Now they are making moves to mitigate that and people still bitch. I get that there are 14k families that are not happy. But all companies need to make decisions that is going to put them in the best position to survive. Both GM and Ford have made some bold moves in 2018 (and I'm not talking about layoffs) Whether they are the right ones, I have no idea. But standing pat would of been their demise very quickly. The auto industry is going to completely transformed in the next 3-10 years and Barra knows this.

Lol yeah she’s fuckin nailing it. Just absolutely driving that stock price this year. Tippy tippy tips talent just the tips and we can’t possibly think that our betters might not be the absolutely tippy tippy top.

It's a publicly traded company. Stock prices for publicly traded companies are kind of important. I'm not even sure what you are trying to say. Try again without the snark maybe?

Nordic wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
Lol yeah she’s fuckin nailing it. Just absolutely driving that stock price this year. Tippy tippy tips talent just the tips and we can’t possibly think that our betters might not be the absolutely tippy tippy top.

It's a publicly traded company. Stock prices for publicly traded companies are kind of important. I'm not even sure what you are trying to say. Try again without the snark maybe?

Yeah. It’s the stock price of a publicly traded company. And as CEO of said publicly traded company, making that price go up is 100% of her job.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Nordic wrote:

I wasn't making an argument in the post you quoted. I was pointing out facts on Barra's salary and then I asked you two questions, which you ignored.  

But I did make an argument in the post above that basically addresses this.  Note, no where have I said that the salaries are fair. or out of whack Only that this is what you get in a free market economy... especially on that is booming.  

Let me ask you another questions. Let's say GM fires Barra and hires Travis and $5M per year. How do you think GM would do?

Probably fine.

Sounds promising.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Nordic wrote:

It's a publicly traded company. Stock prices for publicly traded companies are kind of important. I'm not even sure what you are trying to say. Try again without the snark maybe?

Yeah. It’s the stock price of a publicly traded company. And as CEO of said publicly traded company, making that price go up is 100% of her job.

For the most part I agree

Now what do what

This thread does not disappoint. 

Nordic wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
Yeah. It’s the stock price of a publicly traded company. And as CEO of said publicly traded company, making that price go up is 100% of her job.

For the most part I agree

Now what do what

Well probably don’t waste all of the money on the ceo for starters

Is Ludingtom where that Myspace guy was from?

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:This thread does not disappoint. 

A played out 12 year old RCMB line is about as deep as you get.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Nordic wrote:

For the most part I agree

Now what do what

Well probably don’t waste all of the money on the ceo for starters

They should fire her and give everyone a $122 bonus

Nordic wrote:

DWags wrote:


Nordic, that’s the same argument I heard when Wall Street had to be bailed out.   “Top talent” will be lost if they aren’t paid. Lost to where?  Other companies?  Cool.

Since 1978, and adjusted for inflation, American workers have seen an 11.2 percent increase in compensation. During that same period, CEO's have seen a 937 percent increase in earnings. ***That salary growth is even 70 percent faster than the rise in the stock market, according to the Economic Policy Institute.**

Nobody says that you shouldn’t pay these people well, but when it’s out pacing the market at 70%?   Ok.  

Like the chicken shits that need a name head coach and will spend for it, I know there is a crap load of talent out there that will do the job and are just as hungry.  

I wasn't making an argument in the post you quoted. I was pointing out facts on Barra's salary and then I asked you two questions, which you ignored.  

But I did make an argument in the post above that basically addresses this.  Note, no where have I said that the salaries are fair or not out of whack. Only that this is what you get in a free market economy... especially one that is booming.  

Let me ask you another questions. Let's say GM fires Barra and hires Travis and $5M per year. How do you think GM would do?

Are you asking me do I think CEO’s should be at a ratio of 271:1 as top earners of their corporation. No, it’s obscene. Do I think there are many many many talented executive assistants that could do it at 100:1? Yep. Do I know who they are? Nope. That’s not my field. The last comparison with Travis taking over is as asinine as saying if we paid Warner 500K to take over Bama for Saban would it work? Come on. (No offense Travis).

Coaches get obscene money because boards are pussies. There are great assistants that are every bit as good that will take a job for less.

I’m also a capitalist. I understand the free market and it’s the reason guys like Blake Griffin John Wall and Mathew Stamford are making 30 million 40 million and 35 million. And their skill sets are easily matched by guys making way less. But I’m not really into knowing who are the up and comers in business. I do know as long as a GM is willing to pay that money, they’ll get takers. But if Apple announced “look, we’re giving our next guy 5 million a year for three years, that’s it, then we’ll renegotiate or move on” there would be a ton of talent that would love to run that company for three years at 15 million. Just like if when Saban retires Bama says, “the next guy gets the keys to the kingdom, but is only making 1.2 million for his first three” there would be top talent assistants breaking doors down for the job.

That’s not going to happen. But it should. And could.

You guys are supposed to fight against upper management. Every chance they get they will bend you over and fuck you hard.

Nordic wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
Well probably don’t waste all of the money on the ceo for starters

They should fire her and give everyone a $122 bonus

Sure. Why not? She’s not doing her job so

DWags wrote:

Nordic wrote:

I wasn't making an argument in the post you quoted. I was pointing out facts on Barra's salary and then I asked you two questions, which you ignored.  

But I did make an argument in the post above that basically addresses this.  Note, no where have I said that the salaries are fair or not out of whack. Only that this is what you get in a free market economy... especially one that is booming.  

Let me ask you another questions. Let's say GM fires Barra and hires Travis and $5M per year. How do you think GM would do?

Are you asking me do I think CEO’s should be at a ratio of 271:1 as top earners of their corporation.  No, it’s obscene.   Do I think there are many many many talented executive assistants that could do it at 100:1?  Yep.  Do I know who they are?  Nope.  That’s not my field. The last comparison with Travis taking over is as asinine as saying if we paid Warner 500K to take over Bama for Saban would it work?  Come on.  (No offense Travis).

Coaches get obscene money because boards are pussies. There are great assistants that are every bit as good that will take a job for less.

I’m also a capitalist.  I understand the free market and it’s the reason guys like Blake Griffin John Wall and Mathew Stamford are making 30 million 40 million and 35 million.  And their skill sets are easily matched by guys making way less.  But I’m not really into knowing who are the up and comers in business. I do know as long as a GM is willing to pay that money, they’ll get takers. But if Apple announced “look, we’re giving our next guy 5 million a year for three years, that’s it, then we’ll renegotiate or move on” there would be a ton of talent that would love to run that company for three years at 15 million.  Just like if when Saban retires Bama says, “the next guy gets the keys to the kingdom, but is only making 1.2 million for his first three”  there would be top talent assistants breaking doors down for the job.

That’s not going to happen. But it should.  And could.

Honestly could probably handle it. Not a hunch. Could probably do it.