Good News Re Declining UAW Membership

[Solar Stud]

I think the $75/hr for union lawn care about says it all.

As I posted before, inflated negotiated union contracts bastardize the normal supply/demand curves regarding labor costs.

Shame on management for accepting such silly terms.

But really, shame on the unions for even having the gumption to bring that dollar figure to the "negotiating" table.

Have they not learned their lesson? Apparently not.

Hey Unions...stick to your protectionism ideals and everything is fine. When you artificially inflate salaries "just because" you're doing nothing good for anybody.

[socal]

seth47 said:

I think the $75/hr for union lawn care about says it all.

As I posted before, inflated negotiated union contracts bastardize the normal supply/demand curves regarding labor costs.

Shame on management for accepting such silly terms.

But really, shame on the unions for even having the gumption to bring that dollar figure to the "negotiating" table.

Have they not learned their lesson? Apparently not.

Hey Unions...stick to your protectionism ideals and everything is fine. When you artificially inflate salaries "just because" you're doing nothing good for anybody.

Is a (supposed) $75/hr gardener relatively overpaid?
Let's do a little math...

Let's assume the gardener gets lucky and works a full 40hrs/wk = $156,000.
---Quite a nice sum for a gardener. Was this a solo example or were there thousands?

Now let's say an executive of the company during the same year - earned a salary of $7 Million, received stock options & grants for another $10 Million - plus other benefits, including a company car, expense personal travel expenses for him and his family - totaling $500,000....
And he works the same 40hrs/wk...
That executive makes $8,413.46/hr.

Is his job 112 times more important than the "overpaid" gardeners - especially when the company is losing money or involved in fraud?

...Forgot. Take into account that the example executive I gave would be laughed out of any executive conference because of the paltry sums he makes compared to his thousands of brethren.

Heck... these two executives got $19 Million for driving their company into the ground.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/29/AR2008032901838.html

[NOTTHOR]

Well, the gardeners were probably a fairly limited subset of UAW workers. However, I have to commend them, at least they worked. See, e.g. the JOBS Bank which paid THOUSANDS of workers wages similar to those to DO NOTHING. And note that the $75 an hour isn't a cash salary. It is the fully burdened salary including healthcare and pension benefits.

The difference between the gardener and the CEO is that the CEO's salary is negotiated in the open market. The CEO can threaten to take his skills elsewhere and it doesn't take a meeting with some mouthbreather for him to do so. But using 40 hours a week as a denonimator is a little disingenious. I mean, to rise to CEO, you probably have to work more than 40 hours a week in B-school, then you have to work more than 40 hours a week during the 20 years or so it takes to even get into the pool for consideration. Then, when you get the job, you probably have to work a helluva lot more than 40 hours a week, especially in times of crisis, not to mention you have about 500 times the amount of stress of the lawnmower.

I've got an idea, why doesn't Congress amend the tax code to change the tax treatment of executive compensation? Oh wait, they already did and big law firms have bolstered their tax and benefits departments because of incredibly robust demand from clients for help navigating through the new regulatory morass. Last I checked CEO pay was still sky high, oh but wait, lawyer salaries and profitability of large law firms have skyrocketed in the past 6 years. I guess we need more regulation.

[socal]

So you're telling me the $156,000 gardener didn't need any seniority???

[Iowafan1]

SoCal,
That $19 Mil is very misleading. Most companies do not pay out executive level bonuses and/or merit pay based on the fiscal year that just ended. At the end of each company's fiscal year, with few exceptions, the settlement and payment of executive bonuses and/or merit pay is based on the performance of that company during the fiscal year that preceded it. For example, if Company A's fiscal year runs June 1 - May 31, executive bonuses and/or merit pay for fiscal year ending May 31, 2006 would have been paid out after May 31, 2007 if justified. That being said, the $19 mil was not a payout for the period of time in which Countrywide went down in flames. It is instead reimbursement for the housing boom that ended last August.

[Chuck Storm]

socal said:

seth47 said:

I think the $75/hr for union lawn care about says it all.

As I posted before, inflated negotiated union contracts bastardize the normal supply/demand curves regarding labor costs.

Shame on management for accepting such silly terms.

But really, shame on the unions for even having the gumption to bring that dollar figure to the "negotiating" table.

Have they not learned their lesson? Apparently not.

Hey Unions...stick to your protectionism ideals and everything is fine. When you artificially inflate salaries "just because" you're doing nothing good for anybody.

Is a (supposed) $75/hr gardener relatively overpaid?
Let's do a little math...

Let's assume the gardener gets lucky and works a full 40hrs/wk = $156,000.
---Quite a nice sum for a gardener. Was this a solo example or were there thousands?

Now let's say an executive of the company during the same year - earned a salary of $7 Million, received stock options & grants for another $10 Million - plus other benefits, including a company car, expense personal travel expenses for him and his family - totaling $500,000....
And he works the same 40hrs/wk...
That executive makes $8,413.46/hr.

Is his job 112 times more important than the "overpaid" gardeners - especially when the company is losing money or involved in fraud?

...Forgot. Take into account that the example executive I gave would be laughed out of any executive conference because of the paltry sums he makes compared to his thousands of brethren.

Heck... these two executives got $19 Million for driving their company into the ground.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/29/AR2008032901838.html

1. It's not management's fault they accepted the terms and paid guys $75/hour to sweep floors and mow lawns. The unions put a proverbial gun to their head. If they didn't accept the terms, the unions would strike and because of the hypocrite liberals and their big government laws like the NLRA, the companies would lose money and couldn't legally replace the utterly replacable workers.

2. I know it's a foreign concept for you socal, but there's something called a "market" that sets executive wages. Now that market may be inflated over time, but for any individual company, the market is still the market. If a company decides to pay their executives what you think they're worth, they won't have any executives. [As an aside, with all the liberals running around shooting their mouths off about how overpaid executives are, why don't we see any executives accepting the so-called "fair" wages that liberals espouse - and no, people like Warren Buffett who are independently wealthy don't count]

[socal]

OF COURSE they were doing well.... When you do illegal crap or shady deals, the books look friggin SPECTACULAR!!!!!!

So you're totally correct in the $19 Mil being very misleading....

[NOTTHOR]

If the deals are illegal and the CEO certifed the financials in an annual, said CEO is going to the slammer under the great Lawyer's Full Employment Act of 2002, errr, Sarbanes-Oxley.

[socal]

autolykos said:

socal said:

Is a (supposed) $75/hr gardener relatively overpaid?
Let's do a little math...

Let's assume the gardener gets lucky and works a full 40hrs/wk = $156,000.
---Quite a nice sum for a gardener. Was this a solo example or were there thousands?

Now let's say an executive of the company during the same year - earned a salary of $7 Million, received stock options & grants for another $10 Million - plus other benefits, including a company car, expense personal travel expenses for him and his family - totaling $500,000....
And he works the same 40hrs/wk...
That executive makes $8,413.46/hr.

Is his job 112 times more important than the "overpaid" gardeners - especially when the company is losing money or involved in fraud?

...Forgot. Take into account that the example executive I gave would be laughed out of any executive conference because of the paltry sums he makes compared to his thousands of brethren.

Heck... these two executives got $19 Million for driving their company into the ground.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/29/AR2008032901838.html

1. It's not management's fault they accepted the terms and paid guys $75/hour to sweep floors and mow lawns. The unions put a proverbial gun to their head. If they didn't accept the terms, the unions would strike and because of the hypocrite liberals and their big government laws like the NLRA, the companies would lose money and couldn't legally replace the utterly replacable workers.

2. I know it's a foreign concept for you socal, but there's something called a "market" that sets executive wages. Now that market may be inflated over time, but for any individual company, the market is still the market. If a company decides to pay their executives what you think they're worth, they won't have any executives. [As an aside, with all the liberals running around shooting their mouths off about how overpaid executives are, why don't we see any executives accepting the so-called "fair" wages that liberals espouse - and no, people like Warren Buffett who are independently wealthy don't count]

That's why we need more gun control. If there weren't any, holding of guns to heads (proverbial or not) will lose its meaning.

----------------------

That must be why teh Google is doing sooooo terribly???

[socal]

bigtimeralph said:

If the deals are illegal and the CEO certifed the financials in an annual, said CEO is going to the slammer under the great Lawyer's Full Employment Act of 2002, errr, Sarbanes-Oxley.

Can I go to jail for 3 to 5 years and still retain the $10 Million kept overseas too?

[NOTTHOR]

Kozlowski - 8 years and 4 months minimum
Skilling - 24 years +

If you want to roll the dice with accounting fraud or misappropriation of you corporation's assets and think you can keep the cash after a short stint in Club Fed, give it a shot. My guess is the DOJ would find your assets and seize them and you would end up doing more than 3-5, but since you are so willing to divest others of freedom for paltry sums of money, you would certainly roll the dice with your own freedom for just a little more.

[Iowafan1]

socal said:

OF COURSE they were doing well.... When you do illegal crap or shady deals, the books look friggin SPECTACULAR!!!!!!

So you're totally correct in the $19 Mil being very misleading....

The so called shady deals and illegal crap you speak of was financial institutions giving in to liberal pressure by approving zero down mortgages with no background checks and no requirements for job and/or income verifications. GW, advocating this liberal message as he has so often done, ensured that home ownership for minorities was at an all time high.........until.........they couldn't make their fucking payments! Hence, the financial institutions have collectively had their asses handed to them by the freeloaders they approved mortgages for. Now they are having to write off all their bad loans. This is what happens when you do favors for liberals. Hopefully, this is a valuable lesson learned and no one will have a mortgage approved without at least 20% down.

[socal]

iowafan1 said:

socal said:

OF COURSE they were doing well.... When you do illegal crap or shady deals, the books look friggin SPECTACULAR!!!!!!

So you're totally correct in the $19 Mil being very misleading....

The so called shady deals and illegal crap you speak of was financial institutions giving in to liberal pressure by approving zero down mortgages with no background checks and no requirements for job and/or income verifications. GW, advocating this liberal message as he has so often done, ensured that home ownership for minorities was at an all time high.........until.........they couldn't make their fucking payments! Hence, the financial institutions have collectively had their asses handed to them by the freeloaders they approved mortgages for. Now they are having to write off all their bad loans. This is what happens when you do favors for liberals. Hopefully, this is a valuable lesson learned and no one will have a mortgage approved without at least 20% down.

If I deleted that post and asked you to recreate your argument, you couldn't do so - as that is a one of a kind masterpiece of bullshit.

[Iowafan1]

Do you pay any attention whatsoever to the stock market and financial's? It is pretty common knowledge that sub prime mortgage failures are primarily to blame for the financial institution's struggles. Try the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, Fox Business Channel, Forbes Magazine or about a thousand other financial sources. Any of these sources will vouch for my position and this information may mean something to you one day when your $25 savings account minimum grows to.....say.....$75.

[Chuck Storm]

socal said:

autolykos said:

1. It's not management's fault they accepted the terms and paid guys $75/hour to sweep floors and mow lawns. The unions put a proverbial gun to their head. If they didn't accept the terms, the unions would strike and because of the hypocrite liberals and their big government laws like the NLRA, the companies would lose money and couldn't legally replace the utterly replacable workers.

2. I know it's a foreign concept for you socal, but there's something called a "market" that sets executive wages. Now that market may be inflated over time, but for any individual company, the market is still the market. If a company decides to pay their executives what you think they're worth, they won't have any executives. [As an aside, with all the liberals running around shooting their mouths off about how overpaid executives are, why don't we see any executives accepting the so-called "fair" wages that liberals espouse - and no, people like Warren Buffett who are independently wealthy don't count]

That's why we need more gun control. If there weren't any, holding of guns to heads (proverbial or not) will lose its meaning.

----------------------

That must be why teh Google is doing sooooo terribly???

1. Google does not, as far as I know, have an appreciable number of union workers (I'm sure they have some cafeteria workers or janitors or other ancillary workers who are in unions, but the vast, vast majority of their workers are non-union).

2. If you're looking for people who are accepting so-called liberal "fair" wages, you'd probably be better off looking for people who aren't worth over $18 billion dollars each like Larry Page and Sergey Brin. Like I said before, the independently wealthy don't count (and this is completely ignoring the fact that a $.01 per share hit to EPS costs Brin and Page many times more than they could get in exec comp).

3. Please look up the word "proverbial" and edit your post to make sense and/or actually be funny.

[Chuck Storm]

socal said:

seth47 said:

I think the $75/hr for union lawn care about says it all.

As I posted before, inflated negotiated union contracts bastardize the normal supply/demand curves regarding labor costs.

Shame on management for accepting such silly terms.

But really, shame on the unions for even having the gumption to bring that dollar figure to the "negotiating" table.

Have they not learned their lesson? Apparently not.

Hey Unions...stick to your protectionism ideals and everything is fine. When you artificially inflate salaries "just because" you're doing nothing good for anybody.

Is a (supposed) $75/hr gardener relatively overpaid?
Let's do a little math...

Let's assume the gardener gets lucky and works a full 40hrs/wk = $156,000.
---Quite a nice sum for a gardener. Was this a solo example or were there thousands?

Now let's say an executive of the company during the same year - earned a salary of $7 Million, received stock options & grants for another $10 Million - plus other benefits, including a company car, expense personal travel expenses for him and his family - totaling $500,000....
And he works the same 40hrs/wk...
That executive makes $8,413.46/hr.

Is his job 112 times more important than the "overpaid" gardeners - especially when the company is losing money or involved in fraud?

...Forgot. Take into account that the example executive I gave would be laughed out of any executive conference because of the paltry sums he makes compared to his thousands of brethren.

Heck... these two executives got $19 Million for driving their company into the ground.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/29/AR2008032901838.html

By the way, the fact you think CEOs work 40 hours/week is humorous.

[socal]

iowafan1 said:

Do you pay any attention whatsoever to the stock market and financial's? It is pretty common knowledge that sub prime mortgage failures are primarily to blame for the financial institution's struggles. Try the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, Fox Business Channel, Forbes Magazine or about a thousand other financial sources. Any of these sources will vouch for my position and this information may mean something to you one day when your $25 savings account minimum grows to.....say.....$75.

That wasn't your argument. It was that somehow, liberals forced the banks to give those loans...

Want to compare bank accounts???

[Iowafan1]

socal said:

iowafan1 said:

Do you pay any attention whatsoever to the stock market and financial's? It is pretty common knowledge that sub prime mortgage failures are primarily to blame for the financial institution's struggles. Try the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, Fox Business Channel, Forbes Magazine or about a thousand other financial sources. Any of these sources will vouch for my position and this information may mean something to you one day when your $25 savings account minimum grows to.....say.....$75.

That wasn't your argument. It was that somehow, liberals forced the banks to give those loans...

Want to compare bank accounts???

Are you joking? Do you honestly believe it wasn't the liberals who wanted to take the minimum wagers and unemployment line and put them into 300-400K homes with nothing down? Even the liberal leadership doesn't argue that point. In fact, it is the liberals who are now advocating that the freeloaders be granted an accountability waiver and mortgage rate freeze even though they signed on the dotted line for an adjustable mortgage when the rates were in the 3% range. AND, the economic stimulus tax rebate on top of that! Of course, neither BTR or I will receive the rebate as it is traditional for those of us that earn the money to give it to those who don't. As far as the bank account comparison, I won't drag you into that unless you insist, AND ONLY if we place a meaningful wager on the results first. I'm thinking a reasonable, nominal 1% annual gross income bet. ONE LOUSY PERCENT. Time for some payback. After all, my 33% federal tax "kick in the nuts" donation to whoever the hell winds up with it has grown old fast. My accountant is earning his keep.

[Chuck Storm]

iowafan1 said:

socal said:

That wasn't your argument. It was that somehow, liberals forced the banks to give those loans...

Want to compare bank accounts???

Are you joking? Do you honestly believe it wasn't the liberals who wanted to take the minimum wagers and unemployment line and put them into 300-400K homes with nothing down? Even the liberal leadership doesn't argue that point. In fact, it is the liberals who are now advocating that the freeloaders be granted an accountability waiver and mortgage rate freeze even though they signed on the dotted line for an adjustable mortgage when the rates were in the 3% range. AND, the economic stimulus tax rebate on top of that! Of course, neither BTR or I will receive the rebate as it is traditional for those of us that earn the money to give it to those who don't. As far as the bank account comparison, I won't drag you into that unless you insist, AND ONLY if we place a meaningful wager on the results first. I'm thinking a reasonable, nominal 1% annual gross income bet. ONE LOUSY PERCENT. Time for some payback. After all, my 33% federal tax "kick in the nuts" donation to whoever the hell winds up with it has grown old fast. My accountant is earning his keep.

Careful Iafan, you don't want to get into a dick measuring contest with someone with a trust fund.

[mattahawk]

You guys want to get into the my savings account is bigger than your savings account by all means. I am after all here for the fun of it. I'll start by the way. I got about 6 g's in the bank. Not a lot I know but I'm not ashamed of it. Who's next?

[lpcalihawk]

mattahawk said:

You guys want to get into the my savings account is bigger than your savings account by all means. I am after all here for the fun of it. I'll start by the way. I got about 6 g's in the bank. Not a lot I know but I'm not ashamed of it. Who's next?

$6.34 in checking......holla back bitches

[mattahawk]

Actually it's 6.31 but who's bitching.

[Iowafan1]

After careful consideration of the Autolykos tip (SoCal's trust fund), I hereby withdraw my offer. Hard to compete with trust fund recipients who also deliver pizza. I'll take the high road instead and give some quick financial advise to my Brothers Mattahawk and lpcalihawk. Always maintain at least one month's earnings in checking and six month's earnings in savings. Everything else to your investment portfolio. Just my little public service announcement to the masses!

[NOTTHOR]

Wrong iowafan - I think you only need 6 months of expenses in savings. If a guy like autolykos kept 6 months of earnings in savings, his wife would spend money quicker than Richard Pryor wasted cash in Brewster's Millions. But lp and matta, our friends at the fed are signalling to take your money out of savings, as the real rate of return of most savings accounts is negative.

[mattahawk]

Thanks to both of you. Take anything I can get. If I go 1 and 6 that would put me at 2 and about 12. Difficult but with some luck manageable. Not this year though.