[lam]

General Motors shareholders(A minority of GM shareholders did the following: ) blasted the company's chief executive for ranking in huge salaries and bonuses while the automaker has struggled financially , but a proposal to give investors a say on executive pay was soundly defeated(by the majority of GM Shareholders) on Tuseday.

Shareholders also defeated a proposal which at least 75 percent of future stock options and restricted stock awards for senior executives would be tied to company's performance.

John Lauve of holly,Mich., who sponsored the proposal on proformance pay , said ''We either need to change this company or have the Japanese come in and run the whole place".

John Lavue's proposal received only 16 percent support in preliminary voting results.

The proposal to give shareholders an annual advisory vote on executive compensation fared better, receiving almost 32 percent support , but fell fall short of passage. The sponsor of the proposal, John Chevedden of Redondo Beach,Calif, said the company successfully blocked an effort to have a similar measure put to a vote at last year's annual meeting.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080603/gm_shareholders.html?.v=20

 

[johnstarnes]

Wow, linking CEOs' pay to their job performance like other workers....what a radical, Communist-Socialist idea!

 

[jlt0x]

Linking CEO salaries to corporate performance is quite a risky thing to do.

If, say, Wagoner is ousted by October and a replacement is hired by December, the new CEO would be held accountable to GM's performance. It's apparently clear to most execs and "good" industry analysts that GM's financial health won't be very good for a long time no matter how many $1b-cost saving measures they take. How would GM encourage new CEO and other exec staff to join the company if they aren't going to earn "what they're conceivable worth" according to industry standards?

 

[johnstarnes]

Linking CEO salaries to corporate performance is quite a risky thing to do.

If, say, Wagoner is ousted by October and a replacement is hired by December, the new CEO would be held accountable to GM's performance. It's apparently clear to most execs and "good" industry analysts that GM's financial health won't be very good for a long time no matter how many $1b-cost saving measures they take. How would GM encourage new CEO and other exec staff to join the company if they aren't going to earn "what they're conceivable worth" according to industry standards?

Good point...but since I remember each new HIGHLY paid CEO, beginning with Roger Smith, was supposed to help "fix" GM but hasn't, yet leaves wildly wealthy despite poor job performance, I wonder annually, where is the incentive to do their jobs well? Just like Nardelli....trashes Home Depot, yet when finally forced out, gets one third of a BILLION dollar severence package! The rest of us however...screw up on the job, we get canned. Roger Smith took over early 80's I believe....and this is 2008......the only fruits I see of this approach are bitter ones, with GM losing market share decade after decade, always playing catch up vs. being an industry leader as it once was. Maybe linking CEO pay to performance like the rest of folks live under and work with might put a fire under their collective asses.

 

[lam]

Linking CEO salaries to corporate performance is quite a risky thing to do.

If, say, Wagoner is ousted by October and a replacement is hired by December, the new CEO would be held accountable to GM's performance. It's apparently clear to most execs and "good" industry analysts that GM's financial health won't be very good for a long time no matter how many $1b-cost saving measures they take. How would GM encourage new CEO and other exec staff to join the company if they aren't going to earn "what they're conceivable worth" according to industry standards?

Good point...but since I remember each new HIGHLY paid CEO, beginning with Roger Smith, was supposed to help "fix" GM but hasn't, yet leaves wildly wealthy despite poor job performance, I wonder annually, where is the incentive to do their jobs well? Just like Nardelli....trashes Home Depot, yet when finally forced out, gets one third of a BILLION dollar severence package! The rest of us however...screw up on the job, we get canned. Roger Smith took over early 80's I believe....and this is 2008......the only fruits I see of this approach are bitter ones, with GM losing market share decade after decade, always playing catch up vs. being an industry leader as it once was. Maybe linking CEO pay to performance like the rest of folks live under and work with might put a fire under their collective asses.

uumm....GM Shareholders voted no on Say on Pay.

 

[Chaz_23]

That's the problem when majorities decide things, they are rarely the bright ones. The reason Ricky gets away with doing what he's doing is because he knows he can rely on the lame board and on dumb shareholders to not change anything.

 

[hotrod1949]

That's the problem when majorities decide things, they are rarely the bright ones. The reason Ricky gets away with doing what he's doing is because he knows he can rely on the lame board and on dumb shareholders to not change anything.

More likely the institutional shareholders who don't want to change the status quo, not the individual shareholder. The old boys club wants everybody else in the world to change, but not them.

 

[jbernie]

John Lauve of holly,Mich., who sponsored the proposal on proformance pay , said ''We either need to change this company or have the Japanese come in and run the whole place".

John Lavue's proposal received only 16 percent support in preliminary voting results.

Depending on whether he made that comment before or after the vote, maybe he needs to be a little bit more subtle. You know, on how to win friends and influence people. A statement like that made prior to a vote is probably more likely to have people thinking he is irrational anyway and less likely to vote in favor.

That's the problem when majorities decide things, they are rarely the bright ones. The reason Ricky gets away with doing what he's doing is because he knows he can rely on the lame board and on dumb shareholders to not change anything.

That or the majority of share holders realize that even though Wagoner might not be the best possible candidate, they have a quality candidate in place at a much lower pay level than if they went outside the company for new blood, assuming they could find someone willing to take the helm. Mulally cost for about $20 million or so right? That is about 8 times what Wagoner costs GM at least in salary, and with the stock being low it isn't like is in a position to cash in on all the stock he holds.

GM has been improving for a number of years, it hasn't always been at any kind of stellar pace, but the most important thing is for the markets to see change. If Wagoner is as bad as some on this site make him out to be the shareholders would have already diposed of him and maybe more of the board.

Yes we all want everything done yesterday or even 6 months ago, but for a company like GM change needs to be methodical and have purpose as opposed to just randomly chaging things.

 

[jbernie]

Roger Smith took over early 80's I believe....and this is 2008......the only fruits I see of this approach are bitter ones, with GM losing market share decade after decade, always playing catch up vs. being an industry leader as it once was.

In all fairness to all GM CEOs, with the massive market share that GM held back in the 40s and 50s there was only one way to go and that is down. More and more players = more options = wider distribution of market share.

Obviously at some point you need stop the slide, but go back to the late 70s and into the 80s when the Japanese arrived and that is the time you really needed change from GM but didn't get it. The changes going on now are 20-30 years over due, not just 5 or 10.

Of course now is the hardest time to do change as GM doesn't necessarily have the $$$ laying around to throw at just any changes, they have to be more careful and prudent. In addition they can change the vehicles all they like but reality is that they can change the attitude of people.

There was a survey out last week I think saying that 54% of the people surveyed would not consider a car from the Big 3. If that result was valid for the whole market, it would mean the Big 3 are fighting over 46% of the market, which meansat around 23-25% market share it leaves Ford & Chrysler fighting over a quarter of the market.

 

[GM-10]

Wow, linking CEOs' pay to their job performance like other workers....what a radical, Communist-Socialist idea!

Having an argument with yourself???