What's new

Yellow | #TBT....YRCW Execs Get Huge Bonuses

Although these bonus paid to executives of a company losing money, which I despise, this is a old article from TDU from March. Are there any new recently paid bonuses?
 
Just to put things in a little bit of perspective, if $1 million of bonus money was instead divided up and given to all 30,000 employees equally it would amount to $33.33 each. Really something to get all worked up about isn't it.
 
We read this article and letter on truckingboards 6 month ago.
Do we need a reminder to make everyone more miserable?
 
Triplex said:
Just to put things in a little bit of perspective, if $1 million of bonus money was instead divided up and given to all 30,000 employees equally it would amount to $33.33 each. Really something to get all worked up about isn't it.
Click to expand...

Oh now i get it.your looking at the money side of it not the effect that $33.33 has on the employees. That figure is hard to measure.
 
Kennesaw Kid said:
YRCW Execs Get Huge Bonuses | Teamsters for a Democratic Union
Click to expand...

What`s even worse is that when Welch comes back to the teamsters in a year or two for more concessions, with a gold cup instead of a tin cup in his hand this time the same voters will give him what he wants and Hoffa will agree to anything Welch wants. The backbone the teamster union and membership had 40 years ago has turned into a rubber band today. The greed that top management has and the disdain they show toward the rank and file is unprecedented.
 
Triplex said:
They're scum? Why is that, because they're working for the compensation that was offered to them? As if you wouldn't accept a big pay check if it were offered to you (as would any one of us).

CEO compensation level increases at most all corporations in the US have outpaced the average worker pay level increases and grown to obscene levels in recent decades. That's a fact and none of us at the worker levels like it. But please don't tell me that you or me or anyone else would turn down the chance to make that kind of big money if we were in a position to do so. Let's not be hypocritical at least.
Click to expand...

I would turn it down, you don't know me. Success would outweigh compensation on my list of priorities, a motivated work force is the most crucial element for success, this type of compensation in the face of concessions is a motivation killer. Iacocca turned down money, you are wrong to assume everyone is unethical.
 
Keepingon said:
How many people you think would have voted differently
Had they been told if the MOU is voted in these guys would take bonuses ?
They did say the situation was dire and the company could go out of business.
Click to expand...

Well, in business, everything over and beyond the "cost of doing business",(i.e. profits), goes toward the bottom line. Which in turn is what the bonuses are based on.. So, in theory(actually it's the truth), all of the 15% giveback will go toward the bottom line, which we are back to step 2, profits.. So your 15% giveback went towards the profits of the company, which the bonuses are based. So therefore, you gave them their bonus...
 
SuperCourse said:
I would turn it down, you don't know me. Success would outweigh compensation on my list of priorities, a motivated work force is the most crucial element for success, this type of compensation in the face of concessions is a motivation killer. Iacocca turned down money, you are wrong to assume everyone is unethical.
Click to expand...

And you are wrong in assuming that I think everyone is unethical. That is not at all what I said or implied in my post. Accepting a large compensation package is in itself not unethical by any stretch. It may be resented by certain people (as it seems to be in our situation) and it may certainly be a motivation killer as you say, but it's certainly not unethical. If the executives in some way gave themselves extra compensation by doctoring the financials in some way, that would be unethical. But accepting the compensation that was offered, no way.
 
Triplex said:
And you are wrong in assuming that I think everyone is unethical. That is not at all what I said or implied in my post. Accepting a large compensation package is in itself not unethical by any stretch. It may be resented by certain people (as it seems to be in our situation) and it may certainly be a motivation killer as you say, but it's certainly not unethical. If the executives in some way gave themselves extra compensation by doctoring the financials in some way, that would be unethical. But accepting the compensation that was offered, no way.
Click to expand...

Well then we see things differently. Accepting a large compensation package while asking others to accept cuts, to me, is unethical. There are no specific rules to ethics. Ethics have been described as 'WHAT PEOPLE OUGHT TO DO'. If you think asking people to give so you can take is what someone ought to do, then that's fine, we each have our own moral compass.
 
SuperCourse said:
Well then we see things differently. Accepting a large compensation package while asking others to accept cuts, to me, is unethical. There are no specific rules to ethics. Ethics have been described as 'WHAT PEOPLE OUGHT TO DO'. If you think asking people to give so you can take is what someone ought to do, then that's fine, we each have our own moral compass.
Click to expand...

I think the subtle difference is that they were hired by the BOD to help fix a company with many problems. They were offered a compensation package by the BOD and they accepted it. They didn't cause the problem and then give themselves a compensation bump.That I would agree is unethical. That's not what happened here IMHO. Regarding your definition of ethics - people can have different opinions about "what people ought to do". In any event, it's good we can discuss and even disagree without any rancor. :1036316054:
 
SuperCourse said:
Well then we see things differently. Accepting a large compensation package while asking others to accept cuts, to me, is unethical. There are no specific rules to ethics. Ethics have been described as 'WHAT PEOPLE OUGHT TO DO'. If you think asking people to give so you can take is what someone ought to do, then that's fine, we each have our own moral compass.
Click to expand...

Correct sir, before the concession package was to be voted on, all this should have been brought to the forefront.. I'll assure you, there wouldn't have been as many YEA votes for the package as there was.. Now, that being said, as a Teamster member, it was their responsibility to raise such questions.. I realize that YRC probably made statements to the affect of "If we don't get this passed, we go under".. That's the breaks you take in labor, not just organized labor, labor in general..
But, what do I know, I'm an outsider looking in and expressing my opinion... I have been in on a shut-down with Red Ball and I know what was going through these guys heads.. I wouldn't like to be put in that situation again...

I still think and this is only my opinion, that Hoffa pulled off the greatest scam on the Teamsters in history...
 
Triplex said:
I totally and completely agree with you. It's just that folks can have honestly differing opinions of "what one ought to do" in any particular situation.
Click to expand...

I believe in karma, in the case of the Market Basket CEO I believe he reaped the reward of a huge stash of good karma. Can you think of one thing that Welch has done that would bring good karma?
 
SuperCourse said:
I believe in karma, in the case of the Market Basket CEO I believe he reaped the reward of a huge stash of good karma. Can you think of one thing that Welch has done that would bring good karma?
Click to expand...

You can always pick out and point to a "saint" and there's nothing wrong with doing that. However that doesn't mean that all who don't attain "sainthood" are necessarily "sinners". The great majority fall somewhere in between, neither "saints" nor "sinners". I'm guessing you're astute enough to realize that.
 
Triplex said:
You can always pick out and point to a "saint" and there's nothing wrong with doing that. However that doesn't mean that all who don't attain "sainthood" are necessarily "sinners". The great majority fall somewhere in between, neither "saints" nor "sinners". I'm guessing you're astute enough to realize that.
Click to expand...

You don't have to be a saint to visit facilities and actually talk to workers, but it does require a clear conscience, I think Welch would have a hard time even looking most of the workers in the eye. Time to go, got to go pull a wheel bearing see what's up with it, been getting a little growl from it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top