Ridgid Clearance Prices at the Borg

Page 6 of 7  
Brian Henderson responds:

Yeah, well...in both cases, probably 90% of their manufacturing capacity is off shore now. No one is stopping them. Plenty has been said, but nothing can be done.
Charlie Self
"Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things." Dan Quayle, 11/30/88
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I asked this question before on here but no one wanted to touch it. What you are saying is that Americans should work for $15.00 a day so they can compete with the chinese. That's what your saying, correct?
wrote:

negotiations
union
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's what they're saying, without wanting to acknowledge it. Of course, another obvious question is if you think that is reasonable for the workers, why not for management? Heck, I'd offer to run one of the major auto companies for what, say, a mere million/year? So you don't even have to outsource it ;-)
And forgetting 3rd world executive pay, pay for top executives in the U.S. is way out of line compared to Europe & Japan. Does anyone really think GM or Ford is better managed than Honda or Toyota?
Executive pay is no more a free market situation than union pay. Is anyone really worth $100 million or more a year (obviously, most CEOs never get close to that)? Realistically, any of the direct reports to a CEO could probably run the company just as well. If the stockholders offerred the job to the low bidder among that group you'd see pay nosedive overnight. In most companies, pay scales in management are set up in bands related to responsibilities. No different than union seniority. With one big exception is that most managers will get an additional bonus based on some performance somewhere.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 26 Aug 2003 17:49:07 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@adelphia.net (Tom Bergman) wrote:

Be careful with the word "bonus", which implies something above and beyond.
When performance based pay was instituted at some companies, the base pay was _cut_, with the *bonus* added back in, for a zero base.
I treat my *bonus* as part of my pay, and fully expect ALL of it, if I meet and exceed my goals. Some companies have now tied part of the *bonus* to overall company performance. Therefore, if another department tanks, an economy depressing major world event happens, or some unexpected crazy regulatory ruling is issued , I get paid less. This is regardless of the fact that my department has nothing whatsoever to do with the problems.
My take on pay based on unattainable goals is that it's simply another way to prevent the company from paying me what I expect. As expected, my pay goes down, the CEO's goes up. This is regardless of the fact that every indicator that a CEO's pay could be tied to, like overall performance, stock price, etc... are down!
My new favorite are "retention bonuses" for top executives. They get millions not to leave. <G>
Barry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

No, but what I am saying is that some guy who operates a crane at $20 an hour shouldn't be complaining that he's not making $40 an hour. Let me ask you this, is he happier making $20 an hour, or making nothing at all when costs cause the employer to take business offshore?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Would you be willing to post a draft of he letter you are going to send to your employer? The one where you explain to him that, for the good of the company, you no longer expect any raises and would be willing to take pay cuts.

you
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Considering I own the company, absolutely. ;)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 22:11:39 GMT, Brian Henderson

Well, crane operators can't exactly move offshore, can they?
tt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
@hotmail.com says...

Well, he could learn a new skill that someone is willing to pay him to deploy. When did we decide society owes everyone a big salary doing whatever they want to do?
Cheers, Abe
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 11:28:30 GMT, Test Tickle

No, but they need to realize that they are a PART of the company and therefore need to be just as concerned about the company's wellbeing as their own. If the company is losing money and the union workers are striking because they don't get that 15% raise this year, what is the company supposed to do?
Yup... go offshore where they can afford to do business. Had the workers understood that the company wasn't capable of paying them their 15% raise and simply lived with it (or went to work elsewhere), the company wouldn't have been forced to leave.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That works only if the company is prepared to open the books to prove that they can't afford the 15% raise. Not too many companies are prepared to do that. While the money spigot isn't as big as it used to be, it certainly hasn't dried up, it's just been redirected to fewer and fewer people as time goes on.
Don't know about the US, but up here in Canada, all the big banks have been posting profits of 40% increase over previous quarters. I can't remember a time when profits ever went down for them. It's sickening it's so bad. I'm ok with capitalism, as long as the general level of everybody goes up a notch when the big guys profit, but it's not even close to working out that way. The gulf between those that have and those that don't is widening exponentially.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@rogers.com says... ...

You're forgetting that (1) public companies DO have open books, at least to a substantial extent, and (2) businesses don't exist to make money for employees: the exist to make money for their stockholders. Why would the stockholders be interested in maximizing employee income? We don't have indentured servitude in this country anymore. As an employee, you can always vote with your feet. Besides, unions do provide employees with a substantial amount of bargaining leverage. I think Brian's point was that, indeed, in some cases the "money spigot" HAS dried up, and employees are simply going to have to adapt or they will go down with the ship. They may go down with the ship anyway, if the business simply isn't viable any more.

If I work hard, and smart, and make more money this year than last, why should *your* standard of living automatically rise?
cheers, abe
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Abe writes:

Productivity? We already have the most productive workers in the world, and that continues, year after year, even in those years the Japanese and Germans got credit that wasn't due them.

Yup. Move to Malaysia, India, et al.

Tell me about all these wonderful, hardworking CEOs who do worse, year after year, but get ever increasing bonuses.
Charlie Self
"Old age is fifteen years older than I am." Oliver Wendell Holmes
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.comnotforme says...

If there's a point here, it's well hidden.

Or: do something else for a living. How hard is this to figure out? Society doesn't owe people a living doing whatever they feel comfortable doing.

Your tone suggests you think CEOs enjoy sinecures and spend all their time loafing at the golf course while the peons work themselves to death. That's delusional. Most CEOs started out as peons and worked their way up by putting in 100 hour weeks. If they produce, they get richly rewarded -- and they're worth it. If not, they eventually get canned. Stockholders want to make money, and that's the ONLY reason they are stockholders. Why would they continue to pay a CEO who builds up a record of failure? They aren't interested in employing anybody, CEO or Clerk, Third Class, who doesn't make money for them.
cheers, abe
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Abe responds with this:

Uh, go for this: pay someone more; he works harder and better; productivity goes up; more good can be sold; profits go up. Is that clear enough?

Jeez, you coulda fooled me. I only worked 65 to 80 hour weeks when I first started in business. I really don't know shit about business. Only had my own since '70.
You tell me why stockholders continue to pay CEOs who don't perform. There are literally dozens of examples annually. What theya re "interested in" and what actually happens are 2 different things.
Charlie Self
"Old age is fifteen years older than I am." Oliver Wendell Holmes
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.comnotforme says...

It's off-target. Stockholders want to maximize their own profits, not employee pay. Paying production employees more may be perceived not to yield enough additional revenue from "harder and better work" by the employees to be worth the expense.
...

How would I know? Because the board and stockholders are more interested in long-term growth than what happens this quarter? Because good performance means something different in some years than others? Because the CEO is a silver-tongued devil and has persuaded the board that the dog ate his homework? Name a specific case or use your own imagination.
I'm sure there are, as you say, "dozens of examples" each year, but it's absurd to claim this is the norm. How many corporations do you think exist in the U.S.? Are you really asserting that it's generally true that companies employ and compensate executives without considering performance of said executives?
I suspect you're seeing a weird, distorted version of reality because you've got some inner need to demonize businesspeople.
Cheers, Abe
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Abe responds:

Well, as a businessman, I kind of wonder about that. I guess I do demonize myself.
But only on Halloween.
Charlie Self
"Old age is fifteen years older than I am." Oliver Wendell Holmes
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

They do it every year in their annual stock report. Heck, most companies need to post quarterly earnings reports. It isn't like these numbers are secret, they're out there for anyone, employees included, to see. Many large companies even post monthly earning repotrs.
Not difficult at all.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
That one sailed right over your head. What is a manufacturer likely to do. Have something made here where he pays his people $15.00 per hour or in China where he can pay $15.00 a day?

What
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

So long as costs here are offset by the much higher costs of shipping and maintaining a long-distance business, they'll stay here. When costs here become too high to rationally maintain business and make a profit, they'll move.
Simple economics. Most people who have made it through high school should know this. The problem is that far too many workers act like the money spigot is never ending, that they can keep getting raises and demanding more and more benefits, regardless of the economy, simply because they deserve it. If the company is undergoing hard economic times, the employees, as part of the company, should do the same. That's life. Instead, you have unions demanding "I don't care if you lost $500 million this quarter, we all want raises!"
Money doesn't grow on trees.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.