UAW strike: that 70's show?

Investment Analysis Clubs Macro Economic Trends and Risks
81

But I am told the Wall Street Journal, except for its wildly ridiculous editorial page is “center”. Imagine an anti-union bias creeping into the news columns. I’m astonished!

You have a better one? Do tell. Or let us know why your think so.

Spoken like a true Vanderbilt!

Not for nothin’, but the rise of unions coincidentally happened with the rise of the middle class and the creation of more wealth than at any other time in history, in any other society in history, including the gilded age, the mercantile era, and the millennia of Kings. Perhaps your worries are just a bit overwrought?

The UAW has about 145,000 members. We’re not talking about GM employees, but UAW members. Second, Barra is far from the only one so egrigiously overpaid. The President makes $10m. The CFO makes $9m. The head of the supply chain makes $9m. The North America VP makes $10m. And I can assure you if they’re all that high, those right under them are also making huge salaries. (Now do the same for Ford and what’s-its-name, and you have a pretty good pot of money.)

Take Mary’s money and still give her $10m, that $19m extra is $10 bucks a week for every member. Take all of the overpaid e-suite member and bring them back to a fabulous but not insane salary, repeat at the other companies and you have plenty to put the line workers back into comfortable territory, and end the soul crushing “two tier” system.

This. And trying to manipulate financials via stock buybacks on a company of this scale is a fool’s game.

Always amusing to see Buffett (salary: $100,000) quoted in a thread about Mary’s $29,000,000 income. And Warren had to be buffaloed into doing buybacks because he is, for whatever reason, generally opposed to such. He gave in only because the cash kept stacking up and he couldn’t find anywhere else for it.

Rather than stock buybacks I would think a fairer system would be dividends to shareholders and bonuses tied to profitability (not stock price) for workers. But what do I know?

4 Likes
82

The whole thing makes no sense at all. If a company earned $100M in a previous quarter, and then only earned $95M the next quarter (“earnings are down”), buying back shares isn’t going to cause earnings to go up. Sure it might cause earnings per share to go up, but that’s only because there are fewer shares out there. Same as if they did a reverse split (like 9 for 10, so there are about 10% fewer shares outstanding). But that doesn’t change anything at all about the business. Furthermore, only the ignorant look solely at “earnings per share” to see how well a company is doing.

Would you also outlaw splits and reverse splits to prevent the appearance of higher/lower “earnings per share”?

And you didn’t even address the salient part of my comment about how companies finance themselves with a combination of equity and debt. Do you really believe that the best way to handle it is to require that equity always remain at the high water mark and never go down, while debt can go up and down? In the end that can only harm things as during tough times, companies will do their utmost to avoid adding equity and will go the debt route despite whatever rate situation exists at the time.

1 Like
83

I apologize, but my point was simple: from this investors point of view ‘stock buybacks’ are not cash in the hands of investors; cash is! How did companies manage prior to the law being changed allowing stock buybacks? We had a pretty good period in the 40’s 50’s 60’s don’t ya think? Now I’m going to have to look up some dates and I really don’t want to put in any work as I’m fully retired.
note: I don’t think anyone does reverse splits to raise the EPS; it is done generally to stay listed on the exchange and required.

JimA

1 Like
84

Exactly! The economy actually performs better when the middle-class is sharing in more of the productivity gains, and you’re funding the social safety net to the extent that the mentally ill are getting treatment, and the homeless are off the streets.

Maybe we need to limit executive pay increases to that of the rank and file worker? You can’t convince me that the current CEO of Exxon is 100 times smarter than John D Rockerfeller.

intercst

4 Likes
85

ding, ding, ding, ding!!~! We have a winner!

JimA

86

Many (most?) brokers now have zero fees to trade stocks. Is it THAT difficult to open an app and click a couple of times to sell a few shares that people consider this a true hurdle?

Mike

3 Likes
87

Really, are you sure - Wow, I was not aware of that. How do they make money? Has the word gotten out to the rest of the investing community? A free service; there must be a catch somewhere - we all know there is no such thing as a free lunch! What else has changed in my last 55 years of investing?

JimA

88

The $17 per hour worker is better off with higher pay than a few stock options. The stock options are very weighted towards middle management.

But it is not an either-or. These companies are not hurting. The auto industry’s future is in North America because of the retooling that will be going on for at least the next three decades—demand-side economics. The union is getting this off to the right start.

89

Maybe. So why should we bother discussing it at all? Why should our government repeatedly sink billions into it? Just let it fail, disappear, and then all that exclusive benefit to management is ended.

1 Like
90

First, because the narrative for the last forty years is the only priority is the care and feeding of “JCs”.

Second, because the “JCs” hold the employees they disdain as hostages “give me millions of dollars, or the proles will be out of work”.

Steve

2 Likes
91

Management will rape the company of assets before they leave.

3 Likes
92

why is Mary’s salary relevant? it was approved the board - just like any UAW negotiation would have to be as well. that’s the only thing they actually have in common

1 Like
93
why is Mary’s salary relevant? it was approved the board - just like any UAW negotiation would have to be as well. that’s the only thing they actually have in common

Because Boards no longer serve their intended purpose: governing the company for the benefit of the shareholders . Boards are appointed by management, which then, um, decides whether it likes management, approves the gargantuan pay of management, and looks at “comps” at other companies and approves ever more pay raises, on the basis that “we must not be below average.” It’s like the children of Lake Wobegone, where the children all must be above average.

Phooey.

The UAW has just one club in its arsenal: the strike. It would be nice if it had other choices, as management does (outsourcing, temporary jobs, closing locations, automation, etc.) but it doesn’t. The only way labor gets a voice is by walking out - and stopping others from walking in, which the law allows.

The use of Mary’s salary is for simple comparison sakes. The head of Toyota makes $4.5M a year. She makes $29M. Which company is doing better? Which Board is watching all the expenses, not just those of workers?

6 Likes
94

There are trillions in off-the-books pension funds for the C suite. That does not disappear when the company does. Do not tempt executives to $haft our nation. They are in it all too often just to do that. It is their property.

95

We are having some fun judging a CEO. Are we so low it is improper? Not in America it ain’t. The long tradition of judging in this country.

96

Maybe, but it misses the key point. The C-level executives ALL have “golden parachutes” if the company goes “poof”. So the C-level gets their retirement funded in cash when they leave. Nobody else does.

1 Like
97

I just said the same thing. Off-the-books pensions.

98

When it is part of a contract signed by the company, it is not “off the books”.

2 Likes
99

No, it is off the books regardless.

Seems the Fortune 3000 companies have such an option.

Read Perfectly Legal by David Kay Johnston.