Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Karen Jorgensen
1030 Followers
shivabeach
945 Followers
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
1076 Followers
Janine Wallace
4729 Followers
Savvy Wabbit
3463 Followers
Phil Perspective
9366 Followers
Peter Hockley
650 Followers
stonecircle
2052 Followers
novenatorApr 16, 2011
There was a study released in Sept '10 that demonstrated that CEOs who laid off the most workers got the biggest bonuses. Corporate profits are very strong, yet they continue to shed jobs and throttle benefits and wages.
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/01/ceo-compensation-workers/
This has continued to today:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703818204576206903329068840.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38935053/ns/business-us_business/
Our economic system needs some revamping to prevent this. CEO pay should be tied to job *creation*, not job *destruction*. Of course the only thing the Republicans want to do is finish destroying the unions, deregulate, and unleash even greater corporate tyranny.
dieslowfacebookApr 16, 2011
CEO pay is tied to shareholder value created. Sometimes it is a good business strategy to open stores, sometimes to close them. That's the way the economy works. To say that nobody should be fired or that stores shouldn't be closed makes you sound like Peter Pan.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dirtyfriesApr 16, 2011
Yea, clearly "good business strategy" is what got Borders into Chapter 11.
u2canfailApr 17, 2011
Yup, we taxpayers rewarded, Wall Street with bonus money for their failure, (no jail time for theft) surely Borders execs need one too! Rick Scott another example. Steal the most, get a bonus!
novenatorApr 16, 2011
Ideally CEO pay should be tied to "value" created, but in reality it is not. The Golden Parachutes and other deals that companies feel like they have to offer to greedy CEOs to get them onboard often put the best interest of the company at odds with the profiteering of the CEO.
Shareholders really don't have any power in the equation. It's the board of crooks, sorry, directors that makes the decisions, and they are just as bad as the CEOs.
u2canfailApr 17, 2011
Actually, a CEO can run the company out of business, and get a huge reward, it is called a "golden parachute". So ending a business entirely, can be more lucrative than keeping it sound. And with a large corporation, like HCA/Columbia, you can have the company steal billions from taxpayers, get caught, get one of those golden parachutes, and become Governor of Florida. NO JAIL TIME because you are wealthy? Wall STREET made a fortune selling junk, when the scheme failed, you bailed them out, none are in jail or even charged. For a fact, they got a bonus, for stealing! I am guessing you love that? Ah, free enterprise!
u2canfailApr 17, 2011
I keep seeing : SLAVERY
karmashockApr 17, 2011
Corps exist to make money. Not provide jobs. And it can't be otherwise. Companies that don't focus on profits go out of business.
angrycat70Apr 17, 2011
Maybe they were awarding them for saving what they could. In any case if your company is t**s us, it's bad form to be handing out bonuses.
angrycat70Apr 17, 2011
correction: In any case if your company is floating t**s up, it's bad form to be handing out bonuses.
skywiseApr 17, 2011
PoliticsUSA sees 6000 out of work.
I see tens of thousands of Borders employees that are keeping their jobs because the CEOs are able to keep their doors open.
angrycat70Apr 17, 2011
because it was never about performance. it was about bashing capitalism and scoring a few cheap points at the expense of people that don't know any better.
dougvonApr 17, 2011
ARE YOU SICK OF THIS S**T YET?
A LITTLE REBELLION NOW AND THEN IS A GOOD THING - THOMAS JEFFERSON
karmashockApr 17, 2011
Corps exist to make money. Not provide jobs. And it can't be otherwise. Companies that don't focus on profits go out of business.