• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

KMART firing 22,000 people, CEO gets 9.5 million severence package

S

sean2002

Golden Member
This is pretty damn sad. 22,000 Americans are going to be out of work because of KMARTS CEO made bad decisions, and now he is stepping down, and taking with him a 9.5 million severence package
 


<< This is pretty damn sad. 22,000 Americans are going to be out of work because of KMARTS CEO made bad decisions, and now he is stepping down, and taking with him a 9.5 million severence package >>



The package was agreed upon when he took the job.
 
Yeah, they suck...

Give those 9.5 megabucks to the 22,000 people, at least they'd get another $450 - that could help them out...

It's the same sad story anywhere in the world - the rich get a nice severance package, the poor a kick in the a**
 


<< The package was agreed upon when he took the job. >>



yah...

Kinda stupid to agree to give someone extra money if they help run your business into the ground.
 
Kmart had a contract with the CEO. There was no contract with the employees.

Sorry - the "pay the CEO's money to the 22,000" reaction, though well intentioned, has no merit.
 


<<

<< The package was agreed upon when he took the job. >>



yah...
Kinda stupid to agree to give someone extra money if they help run your business into the ground. >>


Yeah...I think they should go back and not give him the job
 


<< The package was agreed upon when he took the job. >>



Thats before they filed Chapter 11 and fire 22,000 people, he is directly responsible for those people losing their jobs. He deserves NOT A DAMN PENNY
 


<<

<< The package was agreed upon when he took the job. >>



Thats before they filed Chapter 11 and fire 22,000 people, he is directly responsible for those people losing their jobs. He deserves NOT A DAMN PENNY >>


Yeah...I think that when businesses do poorly, they shouldn't be forced to uphold any contracts they made with anybody
 


<< Kmart had a contract with the CEO. There was no contract with the employees.

Sorry - the "pay the CEO's money to the 22,000" reaction, though well intentioned, has no merit. >>



Agreed.

One of the shortcomings of working class America is that we could be without a job at any time.

I could get laid off in 5 minutes. Yes, I'd be screwed. But you wouldn't hear me bitching about a CEO's severance package.

I'd be 1) hitting the unemployment line and 2) looking for a new job.

Viper GTS
 


<<

<< The package was agreed upon when he took the job. >>



Thats before they filed Chapter 11 and fire 22,000 people, he is directly responsible for those people losing their jobs. He deserves NOT A DAMN PENNY >>



it's not your money. btw i have never had that great of an experience with kmart employees... they've always been sort of apathetic / passive-aggressive.
 


<< Kmart had a contract with the CEO. There was no contract with the employees.

Sorry - the "pay the CEO's money to the 22,000" reaction, though well intentioned, has no merit. >>


Oh, of course. I realize that.
I just wish they would add clauses for these scenarios. I mean, if a CEO is not sure of him/herself, then it is no threat, right?
 


<<

<< Kmart had a contract with the CEO. There was no contract with the employees.

Sorry - the "pay the CEO's money to the 22,000" reaction, though well intentioned, has no merit. >>


Oh, of course. I realize that.
I just wish they would add clauses for these scenarios. I mean, if a CEO is not sure of him/herself, then it is no threat, right? >>




chances are they did... if he had been wildly successful, he probably would have gotten more than this.
 


<< I'd be 1) hitting the unemployment line and 2) looking for a new job.

Viper GTS >>



Viper, I don't know how old you are. I am still young-ish, so yeah, if I were in that situation, it would be not a huge problem, but if you are 50, it may be hard to get a new job.
Of course it is best to try to get back up again as fast as possible, but I know some people who went into serious depression and don't even look for jobs anymore.
 
We live in a capitalist society. Some people become wildly successful. Others less so. When you depend on someone else, or a large corporate entity for your income, you have agreed to accept what they hand you.
Sometimes it isn't what you had hoped for.
 
dont you think the employees are at least partly responsible for their employer's dismay?

why should they get paid a dime more than what they already got paid for doing?
 


<<

<< I'd be 1) hitting the unemployment line and 2) looking for a new job.

Viper GTS >>



Viper, I don't know how old you are. I am still young-ish, so yeah, if I were in that situation, it would be not a huge problem, but if you are 50, it may be hard to get a new job.
Of course it is best to try to get back up again as fast as possible, but I know some people who went into serious depression and don't even look for jobs anymore. >>


It depends what level of a job they have though...if they're just a stockboy or a cashier, there's always openings for those sorts...
 


<< This is pretty damn sad. 22,000 Americans are going to be out of work because of KMARTS CEO made bad decisions, and now he is stepping down, and taking with him a 9.5 million severence package >>

lol! Kmart has been flirting with disaster now for over a decade. That company is so f-cked-up they have had three or four different CEO changes in recent memory, all of whom were brought in on their reputation for turning companies around, none of whom have been able to substantively change the company's direction and bottom line outside of a transient few quarters.

What is your point? That those 22,000 employees wouldn't have to be laid-off if they would not give him the $9.5 million they contractually agreed to? That works out to a one time check of $432 per employee, not enough to pay one month's mortgage on the average American home. You would be giving them one additional week of severance pay and that is all.

If you want to be paid his salary, then do what he does. That's what is so great about America, if you want to be paid what a CEO [insert any position here] gets, anyone can become a CEO [insert any position here]. But, nooooo. People don't want to be a CEO, they just want to get paid like one.

Sorry, that ain't the way it works!
 


<<

<< The package was agreed upon when he took the job. >>



Thats before they filed Chapter 11 and fire 22,000 people, he is directly responsible for those people losing their jobs. He deserves NOT A DAMN PENNY >>



So let me get this straight:
You place the blame for the demise of an entire nationwide enterprise squarely on the shoulders of one man, and in the same breath claim that he deserves "not a damn penny" after he took the weight of more than 22000 people's livelihoods on his shoulders?

A)If you took that risk, wouldn't you be grateful for the severance?
B)The CEO isn't a dictator. He's got to answer to the board of directors and shareholders as well.



<< It's the same sad story anywhere in the world - the rich get a nice severance package, the poor a kick in the a** >>


Haha! At least SOMEONE else in the world has been reading his Bertold Brecht 🙂
 
It's a crock that so many people step in to defend the outrageous executive compensation levels in American corporations today. Such compensation really is a slap in the face to the millions of hard-working Americans who make just a slim fraction of that income, and pay full taxes on their income to boot.

None of the other developed nations has such inequitable income levels as the U.S. It's an old-boys network in the board-room where directors give hand-picked execs excessive compensation packages, don't administer necessary oversight, and later defend outrageous severance packages when failed execs leave. Why any of you defend such practices is beyond me.
 


<< It's a crock that so many people step in to defend the outrageous executive compensation levels in American corporations today. Such compensation really is a slap in the face to the millions of hard-working Americans who make just a slim fraction of that income, and pay full taxes on their income to boot.

None of the other developed nations has such inequitable income levels as the U.S. It's an old-boys network in the board-room where directors give hand-picked execs excessive compensation packages, don't administer necessary oversight, and later defend outrageous severance packages when failed execs leave. Why any of you defend such practices is beyond me. >>



I'm not defending a damn thing except the fact that the agreement of a specific severance package was legally binding, no matter what financial shape the company was in.

Do I think what they do is smart? No. Do I think it's "fair?" What is fair? It's irrelevent, that's what.

Besides that, who the f'ck are you to tell companies and their shareholders how they may, and may not compensate their management?

If I'm defending anything here, it's legel obligations... oh, and freedom for companies to do what they want without ninnies like you standing over them trying to micro manage their affairs according to your irrational idea that life is supposed to be "fair."
 


<< It's a crock that so many people step in to defend the outrageous executive compensation levels in American corporations today. Such compensation really is a slap in the face to the millions of hard-working Americans who make just a slim fraction of that income, and pay full taxes on their income to boot. >>



Welcome to capitalist America. You haven't been reading your Brecht. The wealthy of the world create poverty, but they can't bear to look at it.

I think it's ludicrous that one man would take $9M while 22k people lose their jobs, but that's the way it works around here. If you can work your way up to such a package, I say more power to you.



<< It's an old-boys network in the board-room >>


Well you definitely have been following They Rule 🙂
 


<< It's a crock that so many people step in to defend the outrageous executive compensation levels in American corporations today. Such compensation really is a slap in the face to the millions of hard-working Americans who make just a slim fraction of that income, and pay full taxes on their income to boot. >>



CEO's create wealth, jobs and return on investment. They are the lynchpin of the company, without their vision and guidance a company will go NOWHERE. Why is M$ a huge powerhouse? Because they had a CEO named Bill Gates for 20 years that guided them to be one of the most valuable corporations in the world. Bill Gate guidance created wealth that far exceeds anything most people could ever hope for, he made all the shareholders (the owners) of M$ extremely wealthy.

Examples of what good and bad CEO's can do to a company are the proof that the success of a company is placed on their back. To argue that CEO's don't deserve the compensation they recieve for their efforts is a DISSERVICE to the value they provide.

Lets provide a real world example for you. Chrystler before their purchase by Diamler had 2 billion in cash, was cash flow positive and had some hugely successfull designs in their playbook. After the germans purchased them they refused to pay the executive salaries that Chrysler had been paying. What happened? Within 2 years Chrysler had burned through all cash reserves and was cash flow negative 2 billion last year. Diamler reacted by canceling production on tons of lines, firing the entire design staff (estimates I have heard is over 5000 engineers and 20,000 production workers) were fired. So if the "overpayed" executives at Chrysler were such a drain on the company why did their mass exodus from the company result in the loss of so many regular employees losing their jobs and a company on the ropes financially? Because the reason is simple, without those high paid executives the company can't survive in our economy. You get what you pay for.
 
first off, Conway is a brilliant and skilled CEO, and getting a man of his skills doesn't come cheap. When he came in, K-Mart was hurting bad, and he had to make the tough decision to axe these stores and jobs, and try to set Kmart on a course towards recovery. 9.5 million dollars is actually not very much of a golden parachute for a CEO of his stature.

If you don't know what the hell you're talking about, and can't analyze anything deeper than the knee jerk headlines, then you should shut the hell up.
 
I agree with the point that the CEO is not single-handedly responsible for the demise of KMART. I am sure there are plenty of employees, had they come up with better business plans, would have made a big difference. As has been said, CEO is not dictator and is actually just a member of many board members, directors, VP's, managers, and salesman who have a big effect on the direction of the company. For that matter, front-line CSR's have a big effect on how the public views a company, which in turn affects sales and profits.

Further, for the people whining about how a small percentage of people aquire great amounts of wealth while the "small person" gets shafted, my questions is: Why don't those "small people" start their own companies. I just started a corporation with less than $1000 and a few hours of my time, using a lawyer and CPA to help me set it up. I don't know what my profits will be 1-3 years from now, but at least I am not dumb enough allow my entire income to be derived from a job of which a primary attribute is limited life. The first time I got laid off, I learned that I am the only one that can determine my financial outcome (barring serious health problems, etc..). If I take a job and foolishly depend on it for my sole income for my entire working career, then I would be a fool. Why is it so many people have such a hard time understanding this concept?





<< Lets provide a real world example for you. Chrystler before their purchase by Diamler had 2 billion in cash, was cash flow positive and had some hugely successfull designs in their playbook. After the germans purchased them they refused to pay the executive salaries that Chrysler had been paying. What happened? Within 2 years Chrysler had burned through all cash reserves and was cash flow negative 2 billion last year. Diamler reacted by canceling production on tons of lines, firing the entire design staff (estimates I have heard is over 5000 engineers and 20,000 production workers) were fired. So if the "overpayed" executives at Chrysler were such a drain on the company why did their mass exodus from the company result in the loss of so many regular employees losing their jobs and a company on the ropes financially? Because the reason is simple, without those high paid executives the company can't survive in our economy. You get what you pay for.
>>



I'm right with ya.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top