Pensions, CEO package helped push Boeing strike

[UpInArms]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002470758_boeing04.html

As recently as two weeks ago, when more than 3,000 Machinists gathered in SeaTac to urge Boeing to "do the right thing" in its new union contract, a strike was far from certain.

<snip>

He then mentioned that Boeing wanted to reduce health-care coverage for current retirees and stop providing any retiree medical coverage for future employees — increasingly common moves by companies driving to contain health-care costs.

<snip>

"Boeing had about $8 billion on hand in the middle of the year," said Szuper. "I don't think they've ever had a cash cushion like that. Obviously, the union was aware of all those facts, so they were obviously pushing for a greater share of the wealth."

<snip>

(CEO) McNerney "put five minutes on the payroll, got $22 million," Blondin said two weeks ago. "Brother over here's got 30 years. How much does he get? Pensions are important to the corporate people, they better believe they're important to us."

...more at link...

[Missy M]

1. A CEO new to the company gets $22 million for his pension.....

I think something is very wrong with that. Why does he need $22 million. Does he get that even if he doesn't perform for the company? Why do these large corporations want to hurt their workers so much so someone who is already a fat cat can get ridiculous compensation. Why do they not want to spread the wealth to the workers who have been loyal and worked for many years. It would benefit the country in the long run.

[UpInArms]

2. these corporations are all about destroying the workers

and rewarding the looters.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/26/news/economy/ceo_pay/

CEO pay: Sky high gets even higher
A new report shows top-dog pay bites shareholders, and alleges war profiteering among some CEOs.

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) – If sky-high executive pay at publicly traded companies gives you vertigo, you might want to read this sitting down.

In 2004, the ratio of average CEO pay to the average pay of a production (i.e., non-management) worker was 431-to-1, up from 301-to-1 in 2003, according to "Executive Excess," an annual report released Tuesday by the liberal research groups United for a Fair Economy and the Institute for Policy Studies.

That's not the highest ever. In 2001, the ratio of CEO-to-worker pay hit a peak of 525-to-1.

<snip>

The report also compares the growth in average CEO pay – which was $11.8 million in 2004 – to the growth in the minimum wage. Had the minimum wage risen as fast as CEO compensation since 1990, the researchers calculated, it would now be $23.03 an hour instead of just $5.15. And the average production worker would be making $110,126 a year instead of $27,460.

...more...

[Missy M]

3. Why can't CEO's live on $5 million and spread the wealth....

The greed is so rampant and obscene. I can't understand how the stockholders agree to the pay these CEO's receive. With bush in office those ratio's will probably go even higher.

[UpInArms]

4. the stockholders have little to do with it - these bloated

compensation packages are approved at the Board of Directors level. Usually, the directors are other executives from other companies that are cronies of the executives at that particular corporation - they sit on each other's Boards and give each other these packages.

There are normally no outside checks and balances on their actions and they just continually screw everyone to benefit themselves.

[Missy M]

5. Perhaps the stockholders should demand changes because they are.

being screwed too. I also think the Board of Directors of any company are useless and should be eliminated. They are just another country club.

[UpInArms]

6. stockholders are being thrown crumbs via dividends that are no

longer taxable.

They think they are going to "hit it big" at the casino.

Stupid fools.

[Missy M]

7. I guess they are really thrilled when they get their $60.00 dividend...

check!!!

[Buns_of_Fire]

8. Certainly it would benefit the company in the long run...

But it depends on what your definition of "in the long run" is.

To the bloated CEOs and Boards of Directors, "the long run" is next quarter or the next mandatory reporting cycle, whichever comes first. Gotta keep those Wall Street analysts happy, and who knows how long the company will stay afloat under the new Head Bozo, anyway? Besides, they all seem to be looking for a merger partner so they can take advantage of those yummy juicy stock options. The company? It's a vehicle for their own greed, nothing more.

If your definition of "in the long run" is 1 year, 5 years, 10 years or longer -- well, sorry. Those are no longer operative time periods in the New Economy.