Post a new topic
    5 Replies Latest reply on Oct 26, 2009 3:33 PM by Iwrite

    White House Mandates Pay Cuts for Top Execs

    amspcs Ranger
      In the news today is the story about the White House demanding steep executive pay cuts for highly paid
      executives of major corporations that benefited from taxpayer bailout monies. Just wondering what YOUR take on this is.

      Here's mine:

      True, many of the bonuses and salaries paid are excessive by any reasonable standard. But I fear the real motivation for this action is the favor the politicians hope to garner from voters by playing 'hero' on this issue..

      Let's look at the big picture:
      #1, the monies saved by cutting salaries and bonuses will undoubtedly amount to several untold millions of dollars. Significant coin? Yes, to be sure. But still, it's like peeing in the Pacific when compared to the deficit and bailout monies already doled out.

      #2j, I don't feel the top executives who have their pay packages decimated will just stand by and take it. They'll just find some other employer willing to pay top dollar for top talent, and my bet is that there are plenty of companies who would hire this top talent in a heartbeat. So the net result will be that the companies we taxpayers just bailed out with our hard earned tax dollars will fail as a result of losing top management talent. After all, the recipe for business success is being managed by top people, not second-class management talent....right?

      What do YOU think?
        • Re: White House Mandates Pay Cuts for Top Execs
          DomainDiva Ranger
          I am really torn on this issue. Being the COO/Founder of a company myself, I get extremely angry when I see people like John Thain, Rick Waggoner, Ken Lewis et al walk out with tens of millions of dollars while leaving devastated companies behind.

          I know what I have to do to make this company successful and it's not looting the company bank account with bonuses and stock options either.

          There are great CEO's out there....the rotten ones seem to get all the headlines AND the money.

          The bad part about this is that the government is making the rules for business; the good part is that CEO's of publicly traded companies are going to have their feet held to the fire.

          As far as these people leaving and going somewhere else...some of them are hot potatoes and no one would touch them. I certainly would not want ANY of the aforementioned in paragraph 1 of this post at my company, my board would howl.
          • Re: White House Mandates Pay Cuts for Top Execs
            Iwrite Pioneer
            If they were worth the pay, they would not have a needed a bailout. Bonuses and big salaries used to represent being reward for doing MORE THAN AVERAGE WORK. Now, it is like people are counting on them for simply showing up.

            This isn't a public verses government issue, this is a "proper business practice" issue. None of us would give a raise and bonus to an employee that shows up, does an at best average job and loses you money. Why should shareholders pay C-suite people for the same?

            We get our panties in a wad over certain pro athletes making huge amounts of money but at least they have to score. What have these business superstars done to deserve this much pay, when the government had to step in and save them from going out of business? Nothing.

            Cutting their pay and forcing the head of GM out are great moves. I think there should be more blood letting at some of these companies.

            Seriously, would you leave a management team in place and reward them if they ran your business into the ground?
            • Re: White House Mandates Pay Cuts for Top Execs
              Jerica Newbie
              If they were "top talent" worth that salary, they would not have failed at their jobs and caused the company to need to beg the government and taxpayers for handouts. Top talent does not cause a company to fail. If they do, they should bear the consequences as would any other worker.

              It isn't exactly kosher having the White House take over in this area, but we also have to realize that the companies petitioned the government for bailouts, not the other way around. When you get money from someone, they get some control in your business and life. If the companies didn't want the government and taxpayers involved, they should not have asked for money.

              Sure people should be rewarded for godo work, but no one is "too big to fail." If it isn't right to ask the rich to pay for the failings of the poor, it isn't right to ask the poor to pay for the failings of the rich.
              • Re: White House Mandates Pay Cuts for Top Execs
                JasonTees Wayfarer
                I'm as jealous as the next guy. I wish I got paid a lot of money even when i screw up royally. But as jealous as I am, I'd rather see a few guys get paid too much than see the government begin to dictate who should get paid what. Honestly, since when does the government make smart decisions when it comes to money?

                Goldman Sachs reported $3 Billion in the 3rd quarter profits. They repaid the bailout money. Why shouldn't they pay it out to employees?
                  • Re: White House Mandates Pay Cuts for Top Execs
                    Iwrite Pioneer
                    Not that I want to debate this issue but we need to be clear - the government is talking about those companies that did not pay back the money. The same companies that have cut their lines of credit and lending to small and medium size businesses. It isn't about trusting the government to run businesses but it is about there being conditions placed on those who took PUBLIC money. Or that's how I understood it to be.

                    If you borrow money from me to pay your house note and you spend it to go on vacation, you're going to hear it from me. I'm going to want my money back immediately. I'm not running your house, I'm saying I want my money back.

                    Hey, whatever a business wants to pay its people is their business until they take public money to prop them up to survive. Then the rules to the game changes or they should. I think it would have been better to give every tax payer a sum of money but that idea died a screaming, horrible death.