• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

It pays BIG (for CEO's) to lay off workers...

Climber

Climber

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2004
Location
Clovis/Fresno
Moto(s)
01 Goldwing GL1800
Name
Brett
CEOs who cut jobs got paid more, study says
The CEOs who cut the most jobs during the recession earned more than their peers, according to a study being released today by a liberal think tank in Washington.

"When CEOs slash jobs they are often very richly rewarded," said Sarah Anderson, lead author of the Institute for Policy Studies' report, "CEO Pay and the Great Recession."

Separately, the report estimated that the CEOs of the nation's largest publicly traded companies make an average of 263 times more the typical U.S. production worker.

The institute used the Forbes.com layoff tracker to identify the 50 firms that laid off the most employees between November 2008 and April 2010. It then used the Associated Press online survey and company financial reports to arrive at 2009 compensation totals.

The institute calculated that the 50 CEOs - who together cut 531,363 jobs - averaged $12 million in salary, bonuses, stock options and other perks, 42 percent more than the average compensation for all of the CEOs on the Standard & Poor's 500.

The report said 7 out of 10 of these top job-cutters laid off workers even though their companies ended the year profitably.
Click to expand...
One could argue that they were getting paid such high amounts for making the 'hard decisions'. But what was so hard about it compared to all of those workers who had to then find jobs in a bad economy.

Unfortunately, greed is rewarded BIG in this country. The last 2 years have proven that beyond any doubt.
 
snap20060621.jpg


http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_snapshots_20060621/

Baby boomer CEO's are the greediest of a very greedy generation.
 
I'm not saying it's right but if anyone here is actually surprised by this 'news' you've got a lot to learn about business in the US of A.
 
Climber said:
Unfortunately, greed is rewarded BIG in this country. The last 2 years have proven that beyond any doubt.
Click to expand...

There's more than one way to look at this. In a lot of cases, the layoffs were part of a turnaround that ultimately reversed a suffering company's fortunes. Did that CEO eliminate a bunch of jobs, or did he save a bunch of jobs?
 
Cutting staff decreases costs allowing more money to go to the shareholders and in general leads to an increased stock price in the short term.

By the time it has a negative effect, the CEO has already collected stock options, performance incentives, a golden parachute, and has moved on to the next company.

It is just a pump and dump game unfortunately.
 
moto vader said:
Social responsibility is not in the job description.
Click to expand...

What's a bigger social benefit -- saving some jobs, or increasing the value of the investments (retirement accounts, pensions, etc.) of everyone who is invested in the company, directly or indirectly?

I am not saying that the answer is necessarily one or the other, just that it's a little misleading to only look at one side of the ledger.

Or let me put it another way -- do you invest your 401(k) in funds that include companies that take hits to profits (and therefore stock price) in order to avoid layoffs, or in funds that include companies that attempt to maximize profits (and therefore stock prices)?
 
did you ever work for a company that filed for bankruptcy? is it better to liquidate the company and throw everyone to the curb or is it better to lay of 50% of the workforce and then save the remaining 50%?
 
beavis said:
did you ever work for a company that filed for bankruptcy? is it better to liquidate the company and throw everyone to the curb or is it better to lay of 50% of the workforce and then save the remaining 50%?
Click to expand...
If the company was in that much trouble, why was the CEO's compensation so high?

Laying off workers is understandable if a company is in trouble, but the associated relationship between laying off workers and compensation level is troubling.

"Our profits are down. OK, let's lay off a bunch or workers to reduce costs. Cool. Now that I've reduced costs, where's my big bonus?"
 
I agree. Laying off is hard, but cuts should be done at ALL levels. If you have to lay off joe schmoe, hardworking regular guy, you should also take a paycut at the exec level.

If Joe Schmoe-fuckup is a fuckup, then obv he deserved to be fired in the first place.
 
Climber said:
If the company was in that much trouble, why was the CEO's compensation so high?

Laying off workers is understandable if a company is in trouble, but the associated relationship between laying off workers and compensation level is troubling.

"Our profits are down. OK, let's lay off a bunch or workers to reduce costs. Cool. Now that I've reduced costs, where's my big bonus?"
Click to expand...

CEO compensation rates are an issue unto themselves. The environment drives the salaries as much if not more than any individual companies current position. If the company is in bad shape, wouldn't you want the most competent leader at the helm? You expect them to be cheap?

I'm skeptical there is a causal relationship between layoffs and pay.
 
Last edited:
no way man, Saint Ronnie said it would trickle down
 
mlm said:
CEO compensation rates are an issue unto themselves.

I'm skeptical there is a causal relationship between layoffs and pay.
Click to expand...
The relationship is probably more related to CEO's who are more intent on padding their own bank accounts are probably also quicker to cut workers to improve the (apparent) bottom line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top