Ousted Volkswagen CEO Might Still Get $67M Payday

To heck with him getting all that money. The money should go to the stock and bond holders.
Paid out in dividends to the people that own the businesses.
People who went without, and save all their lives are being screwed by the low interest rates.
The government is keeping the rates so low so they can keep borrowing and spending.
Savers can not get any return in interest rates so they have to turn to stocks and bonds to get any return.
 
TwistedAegis said:
That definitely needs to change, particularly how it seems we're stricter on foreign corporations. Agree with the Economist there as well, hopefully we do see some charges levied on individuals at GM.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm saying, DoJ isn't going to prosecute anyone at GM involved in the ignition switch debacle and that was worse because people actually died from it. In the case of VW, they just tinkered with programming to that only the clean mode operated while undergoing smog testing and then reverted back to a more polluting mode after testing for more power/performance and no one has died under that circumstance. Frankly, the whole thing is a big whoop so fucking what issue with me. Make VW change the firmware, issue a recall, fine them something for violating the rules and move on.

If I were an affected VW owner, I wouldn't want anyone to touch my car and stay away from reprogramming. But fining VW 18 billion is ridiculous for something like this while GM gets hardly anything for what they did.
 
cinnamonandgravy said:
yeah, hit VW with the maximum penalty! this is an outrage :mad::mad::mad:.

its why i only buy american cars. sure, GM killed 125+ people with their faulty ignition switch, and sure, they knew about it for decades, and sure, they lied about it repeatedly, but at least they didnt lie about emissions.
Click to expand...

That's the crux of the problem. $18 billion dollar fine on VW because they thwarted the emissions testing process deliberately. If I didn't know any better, I'd say that the EPA and CARB got butthurt that their rules weren't followed therefore the hammer of government dropped on them.
 
They should pay him in scrap metal from recalled Diesel engines.
 
Methadras said:
That's the crux of the problem. $18 billion dollar fine on VW because they thwarted the emissions testing process deliberately. If I didn't know any better, I'd say that the EPA and CARB got butthurt that their rules weren't followed therefore the hammer of government dropped on them.
Click to expand...

That and people dying due to a faulty emission switch is kind of a different branch of the government other than the EPA... but that's ok, the talking parrots will continue to regurgitate that "fact" just to show how power hungry the EPA!
 
Methadras said:
That's the crux of the problem. $18 billion dollar fine on VW because they thwarted the emissions testing process deliberately. If I didn't know any better, I'd say that the EPA and CARB got butthurt that their rules weren't followed therefore the hammer of government dropped on them.
Click to expand...

Perhaps those rules are there for a reason? It's just like the people that see immunizations as unnecessary. We don't see the same smog and acid rain problems we did a few decades ago, so we forget how nasty they were. People think MMR vaccines are redundant because those diseases aren't killing people like they used to which, of course, will change if people stop taking the vaccines.

Do we really need to repeat our mistakes to remind ourselves of why we came up with these solutions in the first place?

All of that aside, VW knowingly broke the law. They admitted to the defeat device, there is no gray area here. Whether you agree with the law or not, you don't get to just pick and choose which laws you follow.
 
MarkVI said:
Perhaps those rules are there for a reason? It's just like the people that see immunizations as unnecessary. We don't see the same smog and acid rain problems we did a few decades ago, so we forget how nasty they were. People think MMR vaccines are redundant because those diseases aren't killing people like they used to which, of course, will change if people stop taking the vaccines.

Do we really need to repeat our mistakes to remind ourselves of why we came up with these solutions in the first place?

All of that aside, VW knowingly broke the law. They admitted to the defeat device, there is no gray area here. Whether you agree with the law or not, you don't get to just pick and choose which laws you follow.
Click to expand...

I agree ... If people were paying attention to the news they wouldn't even need to look back to our own horrific pollution in the 60s ... they could look at Beijing today where people wear masks and they have to suspend driving when they have major events and where you can't see across a city square ... although one can have a valid debate over CA emissions (they also have the largest population in the USA and the second largest city) it takes someone with a very short memory to suggest that emissions are any sort of hindrance to the automobile companies and that they don't actually benefit the consumers who live in cities with cars ;)
 
HeadRusch said:
CEO's get paid what they do the same reason Entertainers and Sports Figures get paid what they do, the talent pool is very small when you are working at that scale, corporations don't hire someone off the street and "let's see how this goes".....there is too much at stake. So yes, absolutely, you pay someone $50 million to run Volkswagon because you believe in their vision, or their proven track record......because if you don't, that guy will go work for Chevy for $55 and you'll be left choosing between the also-rans.

CEO's are not judged by the performance of the individual cogs in the machine, they are judged by their ability to guide the company as a whole. Its pretty unlikely a guy like this knew about a software switcharoo. If he did, criminal proceedings are in his future I'm guessing, VW will sue him if that is the case for sure, to recoup those bonus payouts as I'm sure that violates some of the contract clauses.
Click to expand...

Stop with your facts! F Him and his family because anyone can do his job!!!!! arggghhhh. ;)
 
MrGuvernment said:
If those people think being a CEO is so easy.. why is it they are not CEO's yet...
Click to expand...

Because only ~1% of population are psychopaths? ;)
http://www.alternet.org/culture/10-careers-most-psychopaths

There are CEOs that started their own companies which is one route.

But the other route is working your way up the corporate ladder. Which involves a certain amount of ruthlessness that most people don't have. Taking credit for others work, throwing them under the bus, if something goes wrong.

So no, most people aren't cut out to be CEO. You either have to start a company or step on a lot of people on your way to the top.
 
Methadras said:
No we don't.
Click to expand...
You still haven't answered the question of where the "risk" is coming from, since you're calling his position "high risk." Basically his worst case scenario would still be a dream situation for almost any other employee in the company. It reminds me of a scene in Problem Child, where the coach says if they win the baseball game, they'll all go out for ice cream and if they lose the game, they'll still all go out for ice cream.
 
So much steaming horseshit in these comments. I can't believe anyone would defend a CEO fucking up royally and then cashing out, with the only reasoning as "you have to pay them this much, or they would quit". These CEOs are just people, stop putting them on a pedestal.
 
Option A: CEO authorized defeat device, opening his company up to tens of billions in liabilities.

Option B: CEO was unaware that some significant group in his company had taken actions that opened up his company to tens of billions in liabilities.

So he's either directly at fault or egregiously incompetent. Either way, I'm not sure how it works out to him deserving a 67mil payday.
 
Gweenz said:
Bunch of corporate apologists in here. We're talking about accountability, not "everyone gets paid the same".
Click to expand...

Except most of us live in countries where the rule of law prevails ... would it be better if people gave up their right to self incrimination and always confessed when they committed civil and criminal acts (possibly) ... would it be better if contracts weren't worth the paper they were printed on (unlikely)

bottom line is I think most us agree that the CEO system is broken, where we disagree is on the right solution to fix that broken wheel ... I proposed changes to the boards of these companies and suggested giving shareholders more rights to control CEO contracts ... others would like hard government mandates on maximum CEO pay and benefits ... every solution has its pros and cons depending on whether you feel throwing the government into the mix is good or bad
 
A news program I watched the other day mentioned that drivers have been prosecuted for deaths and injuries resulting from GM's unacknowledged defect.
 
kbrickley said:
Except most of us live in countries where the rule of law prevails ... would it be better if people gave up their right to self incrimination and always confessed when they committed civil and criminal acts (possibly) ... would it be better if contracts weren't worth the paper they were printed on (unlikely)

bottom line is I think most us agree that the CEO system is broken, where we disagree is on the right solution to fix that broken wheel ... I proposed changes to the boards of these companies and suggested giving shareholders more rights to control CEO contracts ... others would like hard government mandates on maximum CEO pay and benefits ... every solution has its pros and cons depending on whether you feel throwing the government into the mix is good or bad
Click to expand...

There is no perfect solution. When you try to please everyone you only succeed in pissing everyone off, but there is an obvious accountability problem. There needs to be more incentive for CEOs and shareholders to focus on long term profitability and health of the company instead of "how much can we raise the share price in the next hour?". That attitude leads to recklessness, and everyone winds up paying (see bank bailout, 2008). I also think there should be limits on how much a CEO can get paid based on a ratio of the average salary of not only the people in that company, but in the entire nation. Income disparity is a huge problem, and is not healthy for the economy. Healthy economies are middle-out, not trickle-down.
 
Kueller said:
Option A: CEO authorized defeat device, opening his company up to tens of billions in liabilities.

Option B: CEO was unaware that some significant group in his company had taken actions that opened up his company to tens of billions in liabilities.

So he's either directly at fault or egregiously incompetent. Either way, I'm not sure how it works out to him deserving a 67mil payday.
Click to expand...

Not true...not even close on option B. Usually, if a CEO is aware of something "really nasty", they will bring it forward. If only semi-nasty they will try and manage it behind the scenes.

As for a significant group...meh, it could have been a handful of people. Remember, it only takes one person to give an entire trade secret portfolio to a competitor. It only takes a manager and senior coder to "let this slip through". In a mega corp, once something is "working" it usually doesn't get touched anymore. Therefore, you only need to tweak code a few times during a multi-year period to get away with it.

Usually how they get away with it is "trade secret" and "need to know". They can say the IP is so valuable that only a few people are allowed to see it. Most companies do this legitimately (e.g. Intel, AMD, any mega tech company)..but it can be abused. So one day, they can say "oh shit, our engine sucks". A few people collude and say "we think we can find a SW patch for this". A couple weeks later they say "oh, we figured out something so awesome it can be shared"..but "look at the data". And so it happens.
 
Gweenz said:
There is no perfect solution. When you try to please everyone you only succeed in pissing everyone off, but there is an obvious accountability problem. There needs to be more incentive for CEOs and shareholders to focus on long term profitability and health of the company instead of "how much can we raise the share price in the next hour?". That attitude leads to recklessness, and everyone winds up paying (see bank bailout, 2008). I also think there should be limits on how much a CEO can get paid based on a ratio of the average salary of not only the people in that company, but in the entire nation. Income disparity is a huge problem, and is not healthy for the economy. Healthy economies are middle-out, not trickle-down.
Click to expand...

Income may be a disparity but I don't believe you can regulate your way out of that one ... also, I am hesitant to hold all CEOs to the same bar and restrictions on compensation ... the CEO who can manage a company with 100 employees or 1000 might be very different than the CEO who can manage a company with 100,000 or 1,000,000 (or $50,000,000 in sales versus 150,000,000,000) ... having the government try and manage all those variables would be a nightmare and most likely turn out badly for everyone

The main problem with CEO compensation is it is set by the board of directors, which for most companies is composed of CEOs of other companies ... they have a conflict of interest to keep CEO compensation higher since it will benefit them in their "day job" ... that is what needs to change ... for good or bad, the shareholders have the best interest in setting a compensation package that will get them the leader they think will benefit the company most ... the majority of voting shareholders are going to be institutional investors (who are generally looking at the long term) so I am less worried about short term mistakes coming from the shareholders vs the boards
 
kbrickley said:
Income may be a disparity but I don't believe you can regulate your way out of that one ... also, I am hesitant to hold all CEOs to the same bar and restrictions on compensation ... the CEO who can manage a company with 100 employees or 1000 might be very different than the CEO who can manage a company with 100,000 or 1,000,000 (or $50,000,000 in sales versus 150,000,000,000) ... having the government try and manage all those variables would be a nightmare and most likely turn out badly for everyone

The main problem with CEO compensation is it is set by the board of directors, which for most companies is composed of CEOs of other companies ... they have a conflict of interest to keep CEO compensation higher since it will benefit them in their "day job" ... that is what needs to change ... for good or bad, the shareholders have the best interest in setting a compensation package that will get them the leader they think will benefit the company most ... the majority of voting shareholders are going to be institutional investors (who are generally looking at the long term) so I am less worried about short term mistakes coming from the shareholders vs the boards
Click to expand...

The fairy-tale answer is to somehow convince our politicians and CEOs that a narrower income spread is good for everyone. The middle class is the consumer class, when you give them more disposable income they dispose of it in the form of buying more products and services, thus increasing everyone's bottom line in the long run. The 1% cannot consume enough on their own to support our economy. I laugh when I hear "pundits" on TV say the 1% is the job creator class. Wrong. The ultimate goal of capitalism is profits and to maximize profits you maximize efficiency. If the 1% had their way, we'd all be replaced by robots or outsourced to India. This is not healthy for our economy or society. To achieve the goal of a healthy economy those at the top are going to have to give something up. They will still be mega-rich, just not as rich. If they are not willing to make that compromise, eventually they will be forced to by an armed angry mob that can no longer afford health care or food for their children.
 
Of course inflation is caused by printing worthless paper (fiat) money, but you will never hear a mainstream economist say that.
Or that a "manageable 2% " inflation rate destroys almost half your moneys value in 20 years.
 
HeadRusch said:
These rules are negotiated prior to the person taking the job, as these are high-pay positions that usually involve high-risk, basically the person knows they are a wanted commodity so they negotiate their entry and exit strategies before taking the position. This guy was busy doing his CEO job and suddenly this scandal from the company he heads is making the news.
Click to expand...

LOL @ high risk. You make it sound like he's in danger of being crushed by heavy machinery or getting blown up by IEDs. His biggest risk would be tripping over an oriental rug on the way to the fresh sturgeon caviar dispenser.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top