New Rule: If your a CEO and your company

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: chrisho
Stupid rule.

Why not apply rules that no Congressmen get junkets or pay until all earmarks are gone or the budget is balanced?

Why is the rule for responsibility ok for corporate types but not government types?

No, not a stupid rule. It's a great rule, and I agree that our gov't representatives should also be on *MUCH* stricter rules.

They shouldn't get more than two weeks off per year.
It should be a felony with a 20-year mandatory minimum to accept ANY funds outside of their salary.
Campaign finance should be limited to $10 per individual donation, with donations from companies made illegal. Spending of personal funds towards campaigning should be limited to no more than $10k per election.
Lobbyists and PACs should be outlawed permanently.
They should have to be present for every vote unless they are unable to attend due to illness or family emergency.
They should be required to write a document explaining their explicit reasoning for their voting decision.
All documents related to their office should be available on a public website, unless the contents are of a sensitive security nature.
Their wages should be strictly tied to the median household income, at a multiple of 2, with no ability to vote for increases or bonuses of any type.

It should be an honor and a privilege to serve our nation in the halls of power, not a meal-ticket towards graft, corruption, laziness, and incompetence.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Why stop at the CEO? Why not the President of the company, the VP's, the chairmen, the upper level managers? Did they ALL not play a role in the bad decision making? Perhaps even MORE than the CEO?

How about holding lawmakers responsible for their actions as well? If they pass bad laws which force companies to make bad loans, can we garnish the wages of the Senators and Representatives that voted for it? Take away their pensions?

Why stop there? What about a loan officer who makes an error on a loan document which allows someone who would normally not have gotten the loan to get it? Should we cap his salary? Maybe everyone who performs 'average' or below on their annual reviews? How about elected officials who do not have 50% or greater approval ratings?

This is stupid..

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Why stop at the CEO? Why not the President of the company, the VP's, the chairmen, the upper level managers? Did they ALL not play a role in the bad decision making? Perhaps even MORE than the CEO?

How about holding lawmakers responsible for their actions as well? If they pass bad laws which force companies to make bad loans, can we garnish the wages of the Senators and Representatives that voted for it? Take away their pensions?

Why stop there? What about a loan officer who makes an error on a loan document which allows someone who would normally not have gotten the loan to get it? Should we cap his salary? Maybe everyone who performs 'average' or below on their annual reviews? How about elected officials who do not have 50% or greater approval ratings?

This is stupid..

See my post above. Accountability is good, not bad.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
A LOT of you guys ARE crazy.

A $350k cap on salary?
A $500k cap on salary?

You guys are sitting there looking at your paycheck, be it 30k or 70k, and thinking WOW $350k is a LOT of money.

But you are not thinking in realistic terms.

We are talking about CEO's who are running companies with tens of thousands of employees and billions of dollars in revenue. You can't tell a guy running a billion dollar company that he is only worth $500k, that is crazy.

Look at AIG.
They have 116,000 employees and $110 billion in revenue. There is no way that a guy running that company is only worth $500k.

I do agree that there should be common sense limits on how much these guys make, but $500k is WAY to low.

By that logic, the janitors at AIG should be making a few hundred thousand a year. I mean they work at and help maintain a company that earns $110 billion in revenue, right? They definitely deserve more money than janitors at a regional firm with revenue in the tens or hundreds of millions.

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: CLite

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
How does BHO and his now glaringly socialist minions expect to enforce this - especially if some of these "senior execs" already have contracts. Also, how exactly is the Feds/BHO going to go over these expenses and say what is right or wrong.

Yet another slide down the slope...

Man... are you serious? I can totally understand if you are agaisnt bailouts in general. But are you truly agaisnt regulating what they do with the billions we give them? There is no slope, it's just responsible accounting of money that is being lent out.

Hold on there sparky. Where did I suggest I was against regulating what they do with the money? I addressed the socialist wet dream of capping exec salaries. How do they think they can do this if these execs have contracts? The expenses is a similar situation of enforcement especially if it continues to be politicized.

Very simple answer: They are accepting federal money. Just like every other institution that accepts federal money (states, universities, etc.), they can have restrictions placed on them as a condition of accepting that money.

They are completely free to turn down the funds and continue doing business as usual if they so choose.

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: Drakkon
So we take away the salaries of the richest men in the country for what? 1 year? 2 years maybe? Or just until they find a loophole? Nice bone throw to the public who wont read any more into this, and will take it as the savior proclaiming victory.

This has tinges of socialism but due to our tax system and banking system and corporation system there will be loopholes that will make it capitalism once again.

It was already socialism the minute we decided to give them money. Setting caps on how much of that money they can give to one idiot CEO isn't any worse.

 

[MovingTarget]

Private companies can pay their employees/managers anything that they want. Publically traded companies not so much. The people of the US have every right to attach conditions to a bailout. These companies had their chance to be responsible. They are like the twenty-something that moves back in after getting fired for drinking on the job. Our house - our rules. If they had done the right thing and managed their companies properly (including REASONABLE wages), then they could still be carrying on like business as usual. I have no sympathy.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Wheezer
So, we are going to hold to account all these CEOs because the government is giving them money to sustain themselves, and that is ok with everyone.

Well what about the flip sides of that coin?

why are we not putting expectations and holding people who are on welfare every day accountable?

we can't cap their income but we can make them do community service for the money.

Children comprise approximately 2/3rds of the people on welfare. We're obviously not going to set the kids to work, so that knocks out the significant majority of people. As for the rest, one of the largest reasons the mothers are on welfare is because someone has to take care of the kids at home. Sending the mothers out to do community service, thus necessitating child care, would defeat the entire purpose of the program.

really... so who fills out the forms?...9 year old sally and 5 year old billy?

As far as mommy not being able to do community service. because she is a single mother...here's and idea....lets have...a government run day care facility, each single mother can work some time each week in the facility, when they are not there, they can seek jobs, go to school to finish a GED if they need OR go to a community college to get a degree certificate in something.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
That's real slick. Turning a thread about the current state of CEO compensation around against welfare. I'm actually kind of in awe.

my statement was not against welfare, but IF CEOs are going to have certain expectations of them because they take taxpayer money.....then why shouldn't we have some expectations of those who take taxpayer money at the other end of the spectrum.

They are both receiving the money from the same place.....the tax payer, so why the different expectations? something vs. nothing.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
That's real slick. Turning a thread about the current state of CEO compensation around against welfare. I'm actually kind of in awe.

my statement was not against welfare, but IF CEOs are going to have certain expectations of them because they take taxpayer money.....then why shouldn't we have some expectations of those who take taxpayer money at the other end of the spectrum.

They are both receiving the money from the same place.....the tax payer, so why the different expectations? something vs. nothing.

I think it is a matter of scale. Many hardcore (R)s often rail against the "entitlement mentality" of the working poor, but fail to address this same mentality that the CEOs have. They feel they deserve such HUGE salaries, bonuses, perks, etc. just because they have the power to take it via their companies, which they have helped to drive into the ground. Besides, there have already been restrictions/expectations placed on those receiving public assistance as you speak since 1996. CEO types won't be going hungry over this by any means....all we the public are asking for is to curb their excess.

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Wheezer
So, we are going to hold to account all these CEOs because the government is giving them money to sustain themselves, and that is ok with everyone.

Well what about the flip sides of that coin?

why are we not putting expectations and holding people who are on welfare every day accountable?

we can't cap their income but we can make them do community service for the money.

Children comprise approximately 2/3rds of the people on welfare. We're obviously not going to set the kids to work, so that knocks out the significant majority of people. As for the rest, one of the largest reasons the mothers are on welfare is because someone has to take care of the kids at home. Sending the mothers out to do community service, thus necessitating child care, would defeat the entire purpose of the program.

really... so who fills out the forms?...9 year old sally and 5 year old billy?

As far as mommy not being able to do community service. because she is a single mother...here's and idea....lets have...a government run day care facility, each single mother can work some time each week in the facility, when they are not there, they can seek jobs, go to school to finish a GED if they need OR go to a community college to get a degree certificate in something.

And thus you've just created another huge and expensive governmental bureaucracy. You can't just create something like that without adding a lot of regulatory responsibility and oversight like CPR certifications for the parents and dietary rules for snacks, etc.

If your overall goal was to diminish the costs to the government, you did not succeed.

 

[WackyDan]

Originally posted by: Balt
Good. If they can't deal with it they are free to seek employment elsewhere. Everyone else is being asked to roll up their sleeves and make sacrifices, and the vast majority of them aren't sitting on a fortune.

Also the belief that the skill needed to run these companies (into the ground) requires such a unique set of skills that you MUST pay them insane amounts of money is nonsense. I'm not saying it's easy, but it's not like only .00001% of people are capable of doing it.

Then why don't we ask the house and senate to take pay cuts and "sacrifice" a little like everyone else. They sit on the largest government budget in the world and still mismanage it, line their pockets, and fluff their pals like any corporate executive. Ask them why they justified a $30k per office funding increase for staff if you'd like to hear about more hypocrisy.

CEO's are not always rocket scientists when it comes to management of a business, but like a politician, they have connections and influence that is hard to put a price on but in some cases is certainly worth billions of dollars of future and current revenue.

I'm not validating the hundreds of millions that some of the exception make while still running a company into the ground... that is indeed wrong on many levels. There are far more senior execs and CEO's that bring a lot of value to an operation beyond just their MBA.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

:roll: Where did you get the idea that they'd take the money back? I suggested no such thing would happen. The question was - how do they expect these companies to break employment contracts because they took the money. The answer - which wasn't clear when BHO made his statement was that it only applies to NEW "exceptional assistance" issuances from TARP - and is not retroactive to those who already have obtained funds.

I was unaware that anyone actually thought the president was going to engage in a large scale attempt to seize and remove funds from the bank accounts of hundreds or thousands of employees of American companies based on the idea of an agreement that nobody ever signed on to. Guess common sense really isn't common, huh? Why would you even feel the need to state something wasn't going to happen, that no sane person has ever suggested would? (and certainly no one in the thread suggested it before you came to throw your two cents in.)

Nice eye roll though, prediction 1 has come true!

:roll: (just for you- the new dave! )
Obviously it wasn't exactly clear what was going to happen - hell the news was asking the question. If there are stings being attached NOW - BHO didn't make it clear that it was ONLY for new requests in his announcement this morning(which is when I posted because I watched his little presser). AND, I posted to clear up my question since I figured out the answer to my own concern over this - something no one answered and some of YOU tried to twist into some moronic suggestion that I was suggesting that they'd have to give the bailout back.

 

[ProfJohn]

Can anyone tell me how much a CEO should make??

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: Balt

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Wheezer
So, we are going to hold to account all these CEOs because the government is giving them money to sustain themselves, and that is ok with everyone.

Well what about the flip sides of that coin?

why are we not putting expectations and holding people who are on welfare every day accountable?

we can't cap their income but we can make them do community service for the money.

Children comprise approximately 2/3rds of the people on welfare. We're obviously not going to set the kids to work, so that knocks out the significant majority of people. As for the rest, one of the largest reasons the mothers are on welfare is because someone has to take care of the kids at home. Sending the mothers out to do community service, thus necessitating child care, would defeat the entire purpose of the program.

really... so who fills out the forms?...9 year old sally and 5 year old billy?

As far as mommy not being able to do community service. because she is a single mother...here's and idea....lets have...a government run day care facility, each single mother can work some time each week in the facility, when they are not there, they can seek jobs, go to school to finish a GED if they need OR go to a community college to get a degree certificate in something.

And thus you've just created another huge and expensive governmental bureaucracy. You can't just create something like that without adding a lot of regulatory responsibility and oversight like CPR certifications for the parents and dietary rules for snacks, etc.

If your overall goal was to diminish the costs to the government, you did not succeed.

Well, lets say that there is a government office building or a state run day care facility for a state, county or city organization or in some cases a public school.

There are people who must receive the training, get certified and pass tests AND get paid while doing it, then you have to pay them an hourly wage.

By utilizing people who are already on the system you pay for all the same things but you do not have to pay them an hourly wage, AND they get training and certifications that they can use in the future.....but your right...why waste the time...lets just keep handing money over month in and month out and expect nothing because it's too damn difficult....it is so much easier to simply tell someone what they can make for a living.

what I am proposing is nothing new...hell, even Obama proposed that people need to chip in and do their part.....so why not start with those that pull the greatest amount from the system?

 

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
A LOT of you guys ARE crazy.

A $350k cap on salary?
A $500k cap on salary?

You guys are sitting there looking at your paycheck, be it 30k or 70k, and thinking WOW $350k is a LOT of money.

But you are not thinking in realistic terms.

We are talking about CEO's who are running companies with tens of thousands of employees and billions of dollars in revenue. You can't tell a guy running a billion dollar company that he is only worth $500k, that is crazy.

Look at AIG.
They have 116,000 employees and $110 billion in revenue. There is no way that a guy running that company is only worth $500k.

I do agree that there should be common sense limits on how much these guys make, but $500k is WAY to low.

An executive at the helm of a company with thousands of employees who's managing things so well that the company earns billions of dollars? He should command top dollar.

An executive at the helm of a company with thousands of employees who's managing things so poorly that he's knocking at the taxpayers door looking for money? He should be collecting an unemployment check alongside the tens of thousands of his employees who've lost their jobs due to decisions made under his management.

When a company that's begged for and received big bail out money has to be told flat out to cancel a 50 million dollar company jet purchase... it's pretty clear that some guidelines and rules are going to be needed here.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

:roll: (just for you- the new dave! )
Obviously it wasn't exactly clear what was going to happen - hell the news was asking the question. If there are stings being attached NOW - BHO didn't make it clear that it was ONLY for new requests in his announcement this morning(which is when I posted because I watched his little presser). AND, I posted to clear up my question since I figured out the answer to my own concern over this - something no one answered and some of YOU tried to twist into some moronic suggestion that I was suggesting that they'd have to give the bailout back.

Awww CAD, nice try. I can tell you're starting to get mad if you're flailing badly enough to try and call me the new Dave. Did you ever notice that you and our good friend actually have a lot in common, as you are some of the only guys on here who are regularly dogpiled by large groups of posters? Something to chew on.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Can anyone tell me how much a CEO should make??

IMHO, CEO should make in general no more than 40x the front-line employee salary, with possible bonuses for profitability over an extended period (at least 8 quarters, to show sound judgment in a long-term stability sense). When the company is not profitable, wages should fall to no more than 2X the front-line employee salary.

Privately-held companies should never have to use any of these rules, but I think publicly traded companies have an obligation not to let greedy bastards suck them dry while the rank-and-file who work hard all week get the shaft (layoffs, cutbacks, losses on pensions, etc).

It's been an all-too-familiar theme of recent times, a tanking company with executives making heaps of $$$ during it all. I cannot in any sense respect someone who sits in an office, makes phone calls, and lets the company pay for golf trips, while raking in 7 or 8 figure salaries, while the company hemorrhages red ink all over the place.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Children comprise approximately 2/3rds of the people on welfare. We're obviously not going to set the kids to work, so that knocks out the significant majority of people. As for the rest, one of the largest reasons the mothers are on welfare is because someone has to take care of the kids at home. Sending the mothers out to do community service, thus necessitating child care, would defeat the entire purpose of the program.

really... so who fills out the forms?...9 year old sally and 5 year old billy?

As far as mommy not being able to do community service. because she is a single mother...here's and idea....lets have...a government run day care facility, each single mother can work some time each week in the facility, when they are not there, they can seek jobs, go to school to finish a GED if they need OR go to a community college to get a degree certificate in something.

I'm not sure if you know how welfare works these days?

Most of what you seem to want from the system already exists.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
A LOT of you guys ARE crazy.

A $350k cap on salary?
A $500k cap on salary?

You guys are sitting there looking at your paycheck, be it 30k or 70k, and thinking WOW $350k is a LOT of money.

But you are not thinking in realistic terms.

We are talking about CEO's who are running companies with tens of thousands of employees and billions of dollars in revenue. You can't tell a guy running a billion dollar company that he is only worth $500k, that is crazy.

Look at AIG.
They have 116,000 employees and $110 billion in revenue. There is no way that a guy running that company is only worth $500k.

I do agree that there should be common sense limits on how much these guys make, but $500k is WAY to low.

An executive at the helm of a company with thousands of employees who's managing things so well that the company earns billions of dollars? He should command top dollar.

An executive at the helm of a company with thousands of employees who's managing things so poorly that he's knocking at the taxpayers door looking for money? He should be collecting an unemployment check alongside the tens of thousands of his employees who've lost their jobs due to decisions made under his management.

When a company that's begged for and received big bail out money has to be told flat out to cancel a 50 million dollar company jet purchase... it's pretty clear that some guidelines and rules are going to be needed here.

:thumbsup:

 

[Geekbabe]

If I lost my job and couldn't pay my bills and had to approach family to borrow money, they'd want to know a few things.

1.What do you need it for?

2. when will you pay it back?

3. What changes are you going to make to get back on your feet?

If after all that,they take out their checkbook and loan me money even though they are struggling under tremendous debt themselves and I go out and buy a 50 inch plasma for the living room, they are going to more than a bit pissed.

People like to make simple things massively complicated.. our government, ie: we the taxpayers are struggling with huge debt, in asking for these bail outs these companies
are requesting that we extend ourselves and possibly our children and grandchildren further into debt. To then sit there and insist that they have the right to do things like buy 50 million dollar private company jets and pay mega salaries and bonuses to their top CEO's is just simply wrong imho.

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Can anyone tell me how much a CEO should make??

As much as he can manage to negotiate for his salary. If it turns out to be too much, he can be fired and the company can either move on or fail because of its stupidity and another can rise up to take its place. Unfortunately in this scenario we have a situation where supposedly these companies cannot be allowed to fail and pay for their stupidity.

Thus the government has become a financial partner/backer in the business and absolutely has the authority to be a party in negotiating the pay of its employees. If the company is unwilling to accept those terms it can refuse the money and either sink or float on its own merit. I think you can figure out how that would go.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Can anyone tell me how much a CEO should make??

Well, if you receive federal grants for research, you are currently capped at executive level 1 of the federal executive pay scale. What is that? $196,700 per year. I bring this up since there is already a well defined cap for people and companies that receive federal dollars. Why should bailout dollars be any different?

Heck, the president of the US (in charge of nearly 300 million people and trillions of dollars) is capped at $400k (plus perks such as free housing but those perks really aren't too expensive). Edit: should have read the thread first, this presidential salary issue was already brought up.

 

[ponyo]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Can anyone tell me how much a CEO should make??

I like Buffett's suggestion. Limit the CEO and exec salaries but give them big upside performance bonus that will vest over time. Require the execs to have 75% of their net worth in the company stock. That way they'll have some skin in the game and suffer the downside risk along with the taxpayers while participating in the upside if they do a good job. I mean they are coming to the US taxpayers begging for handout loans. If their business is viable, they'll agree. If not, it's likely they have no faith in their abilities and their companies.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Can anyone tell me how much a CEO should make??

Well, if you receive federal grants for research, you are currently capped at executive level 1 of the federal executive pay scale. What is that? $196,700 per year. I bring this up since there is already a well defined cap for people and companies that receive federal dollars. Why should bailout dollars be any different?

Heck, the president of the US (in charge of nearly 300 million people and trillions of dollars) is capped at $400k (plus perks such as free housing but those perks really aren't too expensive). Edit: should have read the thread first, this presidential salary issue was already brought up.

The hundreds of people who work in the White House, Secret Service protection for his wife, children, and mother in law, private air travel for all his personal affairs, etc? He's in the tens of millions.