Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Striking auto workers want a 40% pay increase–the same rate their CEOs’ pay grew

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 611 posts

Re: Striking auto workers want a 40% pay increase–the same rate their CEOs’ pay grew

#291

Post by mortureb »

screye wrote: post #277

I have to wonder. What percent of Tesla's success is attributable to not having legacy union baggage. Unions are the tech debt of the manufacturing world. It starts with a good idea, but if you let it fester, then it quickly becomes more of a drag than a productive addition to your organization.

It’s a balance. Tesla employees are not having a good time, I can tell you from first hand experience. You’ll make reasonable money but it’s not really a life worth living with 12 hour days and extreme stress. Atleast the options made me rich so maybe it was worth it?

Re: Striking auto workers want a 40% pay increase–the same rate their CEOs’ pay grew

#292

Post by fallingknife »

econperplexed wrote: post #8

> From 1978 to 2021, CEO pay grew by 1,460%, adjusted for inflation, versus just 18.1% for the typical worker. Why has the supply of CEOs not kept up with the demand for them? Surely, with the improvement in education and in increase in MBA programs, there must be far more CEOs today than in 1978. Why has the ratio of CEOs to Companies fallen by 14x for their wages to rise this much? /s As many argue, wages are only…

There are two determinants of your pay. One is supply and demand, and the other is how much could your potential replacement screw things up. For most workers the supply/demand is the only part that matters because if you are a line worker, you don't really have the potential to do much damage if you screw up. So if Ford needs to replace a competent line worker, their potential bad replacement won't be able to cost the company much even in the worst case, so this does not grant the worker any leverage.

CEOs are much different. A bad CEO can cost a large company 10s of billions in stock valuation. If you have a decent CEO, and you fire and replace him with a poor replacement, the damage to the company will be tremendous, so the board won't want to risk it. This gives good CEOs the leverage to demand massive compensation. A CEO can basically hold the company hostage by saying "I want a $10 million raise this year, and if I don't get it I'll quit. Have fun rolling the dice with my replacement!" (Though they would never actually say it that way) And the company will basically have to choose to pay an extra $10 million or roll the dice on potentially losing billions. This is why they almost always pay CEOs a massive amount.

Re: Striking auto workers want a 40% pay increase–the same rate their CEOs’ pay grew

#293

Post by AndrewKemendo »

econperplexed wrote: post #8

> From 1978 to 2021, CEO pay grew by 1,460%, adjusted for inflation, versus just 18.1% for the typical worker. Why has the supply of CEOs not kept up with the demand for them? Surely, with the improvement in education and in increase in MBA programs, there must be far more CEOs today than in 1978. Why has the ratio of CEOs to Companies fallen by 14x for their wages to rise this much? /s As many argue, wages are only…

It's actually hard to find people who will reliably break unions, and generally do whatever it takes to de-prioritize line workers and eliminate "cost centers" - while also showing pure allegiance to the board without defecting.

That's the entire process of creating the professional corporate managerial class - you have reliably shown that you care more about the financial success of the company, and yourself, than you care for your employees and coworkers.

I mean how many movies and characters have we made that are precisely calling out this exact behavior:

Gordon Gekko

Bill Lumburgh

Mr "Coffee is for closers" Blake

Richard Chesler (Fight Club boss)

etc...

Like...we've been roasting this precise kind of corporate myopic psychopathic forever as what precisely not to be yet it's like an entire generation used them as pathfinders

Re: Striking auto workers want a 40% pay increase–the same rate their CEOs’ pay grew

#294

Post by no_wizard »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #269
l33t7332273 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems erroneous to me to imply that the CEO deserves a bigger pay increase than the workers that actually increased profits by 92%

Doing math like this is always bad and just leads to arguments. Imagine a chocolate bar factory, making chocolate bars for 50 cents and selling them for $1... 1mio per month, 500k profits per month. Then a new ceo comes, sees that all the ingredients are vegan, there are nuts inside, making the bars "healthy", slaps on vegan logos, superfood logos, changes the ads to make the chocolate bar seem more high end and rais…

this is a superficial argument that leads to the point that you want it to, rather than determination of the factors such as:

Was there an entire marketing department that was needed for this to be successful? Why aren't we quantifying that?

Why aren't we quantifying the new QA processes to make sure the packaging is correct?

Why aren't we factoring in workers downstream contributing to the success by being able to pivot and be malleable in the job making this possible in the first place?

Why is it so anathema to people that everyone can share in the profits? Its not like we're saying only pay CEOs 100K per year or something. 1:25 ratio pegged to the lowest paid worker use to be the norm, for decades, and CEOs were plenty happy with that too.

Re: Striking auto workers want a 40% pay increase–the same rate their CEOs’ pay grew

#295

Post by Per_Bothner »

WalterBright wrote: post #227
aaomidi wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but in general the CEO doesn’t really do much to the stock price. If the general market is up, it’s going up. If the market is down, it’s going down. How many companies really break that relationship in their market sector? So tldr, ceo pay is based on the economic cycle rather than how the company does.

> but in general the CEO doesn’t really do much to the stock price Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Satya Nadella, etc. > ceo pay is based on the economic cycle rather than how the company does You can always start your own corporation, name yourself CEO (all you gotta do is file some paperwork and pay an annual fee) and rake in the dough for doing nothing!!

That is true. Elon Musk has greatly affected the stock price of the Company Formerly Known as Twitter.

Re: Striking auto workers want a 40% pay increase–the same rate their CEOs’ pay grew

#296

Post by jjoonathan »

drt5b7j wrote: post #88
econperplexed wrote: post #8

> From 1978 to 2021, CEO pay grew by 1,460%, adjusted for inflation, versus just 18.1% for the typical worker. Why has the supply of CEOs not kept up with the demand for them? Surely, with the improvement in education and in increase in MBA programs, there must be far more CEOs today than in 1978. Why has the ratio of CEOs to Companies fallen by 14x for their wages to rise this much? /s As many argue, wages are only…

Because the number 1 quality that you want in a CEO is that he has experience being CEO, and there aren't that many openings for you to get in on it, and the ones that are are given to people who's been CEO before. Obviously.

No, the number 1 quality I, as a board member, want in a CEO is that he will vote me a massive pay package when I take my turn.

Re: Striking auto workers want a 40% pay increase–the same rate their CEOs’ pay grew

#297

Post by drewcoo »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #124
econperplexed wrote: post #8

> From 1978 to 2021, CEO pay grew by 1,460%, adjusted for inflation, versus just 18.1% for the typical worker. Why has the supply of CEOs not kept up with the demand for them? Surely, with the improvement in education and in increase in MBA programs, there must be far more CEOs today than in 1978. Why has the ratio of CEOs to Companies fallen by 14x for their wages to rise this much? /s As many argue, wages are only…

> As many argue, wages are only set by supply and demand. Most of the time that I see people invoke "Econ 101" concepts, they are wrong. Supply and demand does not account for the power imbalance between workers and leadership, which unions specifically attempt to address. It does not account for the class differences between workers trying to make ends meet and the board of directors who believe they deserve much hi…

> Most of the time that I see people invoke "Econ 101" concepts, they are wrong.

It's not that they're wrong. Worse, they're thought-stopping.

They're mantras we all know and we are trained to "accept their wisdom" and stop questioning.

Re: Striking auto workers want a 40% pay increase–the same rate their CEOs’ pay grew

#298

Post by FireBeyond »

71a54xd wrote: post #37

This kind of logic doesn't help anyone - yes, CEO pay is insane but its that way because of how much risk they take ownership of and shoulder day in day out. If one line worker forgets to tie a wire-harness it's not like the entire company will end up in financial ruin... However, the CEO making serious mistakes can and has cost GM millions.

> because of how much risk they take ownership of and shoulder day in day out

What? The CEO of any substantial company is going to have a golden parachute in their contract. Literally the opposite of putting everything on the line, just merely "Will only make X, not 10X, where X may well be more than median lifetime earnings, even if the company completely collapses."

Re: Striking auto workers want a 40% pay increase–the same rate their CEOs’ pay grew

#299

Post by SECProto »

Alupis wrote: post #194
SECProto wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Settle in for a wild propaganda-filled fall season > There is no reality where line workers screwing in the same 3 door bolts all day long are getting what amounts to an effective ~70% pay increase in one year. Please align your own comments. They are looking for a 40% hourly pay increase over 4 years, and a reduction to a 32 hour work week. These combined work out to an increase of 12% in annual pay, over four yea…

Ah, so the propaganda has already started. In four year's time, will their pay be 70% higher than it is today if all demands are met? Yes. Are you hopeful about a 70% pay increase in four years? I sure am not...

> In four year's time, will their pay be 70% higher than it is today if all demands are met?

No? If a given employee is making $17/hr, and working the union agreed 40 hours a week, they are making $35360. If they get a 40% raise over four years, they will be making $23.80/hr, and working 32 hours a week, giving an annual wage of $39,603.20. This is an increase in annual wage of 12% over four years. The hourly wage is an increase of 40% over four years. No one is getting close to 70%.

> Are you hopeful about a 70% pay increase in four years?

Honestly yes, I think that is in the realm of possibility, as I'm currently pretty underwaged for my industry and experience level. Currently interviewing for a job at a 45% increase. Regardless, as I demonstrated above, your 70% number is, as you put it, propagandha. I certainly feel that the post-2007 UAW hires aren't being compensated adequately for any industry, and the 40% hourly increase they're seeking is quite reasonable.

Re: Striking auto workers want a 40% pay increase–the same rate their CEOs’ pay grew

#300

Post by chii »

afavour wrote: post #76
gretch wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I support the workers' decision and negotiating on labor rates is the basis of our economic system. Get what you deserve. That said, the CEO pay is easily explainable: > Profits at the struck auto companies increased 92% from 2013 to 2022, totaling $250 billion, according to EPI > CEO pay at the Big Three has grown 40% in the last decade, according to EPI If you're the CEO of a company and you increased profits by 92…

> If you're the CEO of a company and you increased profits by 92% Did you ? Attributing all the success a company achieves to the CEO feels shortsighted. Aside from anything else: if all these companies saw their profits grow by so much surely there’s an external commonality there? “The CEO did it all” would be slightly more plausible if only one company experienced that success.

It doesn't matter what "the truth" is, as long as the board (aka the owners) believe that the CEO's decision making is what led to the profits. The CEO's compensation is commensurate with this belief of cause and effect.
Post reply on HN