JUST for Doug!

[pilot602]

[ QUOTE ]
For the most part, outsourced jobs are indeed unskilled and semi-skilled labor positions. The new jobs in this country require more skills and education, but offer a substantially improved lifestyl

[/ QUOTE ]

Say that when it's your job being shipped out to (insert country here) via cabotage. I'll bet you sing a different tune.

Oh, and there are increasingly more technical/managemt level jobs being shipped overseas. Why? Because [everything is cheaper. The U.S. Educates these folks, they go back home and make - what in the U.S. would be poverty level wages - in their country a decent wage and corporate America sees this and soon the only thing left stateside is the boardroom.

 

[tonyw]

[ QUOTE ]
But - we certainly do not need regulation like you suggest you support: something akin to "an American company MUST NOT replace workers with cheaper labor outside of the country."

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say MUST NOT. I said should not. Big difference there.

[ QUOTE ]
Most outsourced jobs are not well paying, when compared to others in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

Say what? How many manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas? And it's not just blue collar jobs anymore. Now they're going after white collar jobs that we were told just a few years ago were the future of American employment! We were told that IT was the way to go and that if you went with IT, you'd have a secure job for the forseeable future. Then they decided to ship those jobs off to Bangalore or Poland or Russia or China.

http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Aug/08102003/business/82527.asp

These include high-paying, highly sought-after jobs that often require advanced degrees and years of study to attain. But instead of paying six-figure salaries to trained workers in America, more companies are shelling out $10,000 to $20,000 to get cheaper employees an ocean away.

So Joe Techguy now goes and gets a $40K a year job, which means the American economy lost $60K a year. Rajesh Techguy gets the job for $20K, so the Indian economy gained $20K a year.

You need to have increasing incomes for the economy to grow. Consumer spending accounts for two thirds of the economy, so if you start seeing millions of people with their jobs being shipped overseas, I believe it is bad in the long run for the US economy.

Unless, of course, you can tell me what kind of job Joe Techguy will get that pays more than the $100K he was making before after his job is sent to Bangalore.

[ QUOTE ]
corporate America sees this and soon the only thing left stateside is the boardroom

[/ QUOTE ]

I got it! Let's start to really hit the places where the compensation costs are high. Let's outsource CEO jobs to Bangalore, Poland, and Russia. I mean, those foreign CEOs will work for pennies on the dollar, right? And they couldn't screw things up any worse than the people who are at the helm do now, could they?

Why bother with the $100K jobs when you can outsource the $10 million jobs?

One last thing. I do not want to turn this into a flame war. And I'm not some communist or socialist. I'm all for the free market.. I just think that sending well paying jobs overseas is bad for the American economy in the long run.

But then, in the long run, we're all dead

 

[pilot602]

[ QUOTE ]
Why bother with the $100K jobs when you can outsource the $10 million jobs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the guys/gals pulling down $10 million will screw the $100k guys in order to protect their $10 million. That's a "free market place" man. Don't you get it?

 

[FL270]

Pilot602 (and folks similarly minded) ...

I notice that a lot of people decry the outsourcing of any jobs and love to hate the CEOs (and the wealthy and successful in general). What I haven't seen, however, is constructive suggestions as to how this problem should be solved.

Do you advocate tax breaks for companies that don't outsource? Or do you want a law banning outsourcing? Mandatory unions for everybody? A $30,000 minimum wage law?

It would be easier for me to debate the merits of your position if you had a positive suggestion rather than just filling your posts with "ooh ah hate that CEO" (in your best Yosemite Sam voice) rhetoric. Maybe you have some worthwhile suggestions that might improve things ... and if you do I'd love to hear it, as it contributes mightily to the debate.

Cabotage ... I am opposed to cabotage in the airline business. Some countries restrict cabotage by pure corporate operators (particularly in Europe) and that creates unnecessary problems for pure Part 91 operators. Ending those restrictions would not be harmful to jobs.

FL270

 

[pilot602]

[ QUOTE ]
Cabotage ... I am opposed to cabotage in the airline business. Some countries restrict cabotage by pure corporate operators (particularly in Europe) and that creates unnecessary problems for pure Part 91 operators. Ending those restrictions would not be harmful to jobs.

[/ QUOTE ]

This pretty much contradicts your stance on outsourcing jobs. It's ok for everyone else just not your job.

And, no, I don't have an simple answer. But I do know that when a handful of people manipulate, abuse and rape hundreds or thousands of other people simply so they themselves can be rich something is wrong.

"Money" did a very nice article on CEO compensation about six months back. You should read it. It's very telling and shocking. For example, Leo Mullin was "credited" with some 20 years of service with Delta even though he only worked there for six years. Under his "leadership" the airline nearly went bankrupt. Call me silly but a CEO and upper management team that leads a company to bankruptcy (ala United) should in no, way, shape or form be compensated in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

I have no problem paying CEOs and upper management large sums of money - PROVIDED they do their •ing jobs. Protecting upper managemnt pensions while screaming for labor concessions is not only bad mangement technique it's flat out greed. Tell me how fair it is for a 6-yr pilot to be furloughed yet the 6-yr CEO gets credited with 20+ years of service and a pension that would pay several hundred pilots' salaries? What is the benefit to the company? It's obvious these large salaries are not attracting quality CEOs - evidenced by the fact none of them can seem to keep their companies out of bankruptcy - so why pay these folks so much money?

It's because it's an old-boys network. Boards are comprised of other CEOs they all take care of one another. It used to be a CEOs compensation was based on a mathmatical formula of the salaries paid to the employees. "The golden triagle." But in the ''70s - 80s it began to switch to a "what my counterpart makes" or "my peer group." The problem is they all sit on each others boards so they've just run the compensation through the roof.

That IS a problem.

I don't deride people for being successful but I sure as hell deride people who do it at other people's expense under the guise of "capitalism." Abusing a company to make one's self "rich" is not capialism it's theivery.


It amazes me at how many similarities there are between old Kingdom/Serf relationships of the middle ages and the current CEO/employee relationship. At some point in history people woke up and realized they should be in charge of their own destiny and overthrew the Kings to establish a more representative government. I keep hoping that eventually people will wake up and realize that leaving their financial well-being in the hands of someone whose job it is to pay them as little as possible is a foolish and stupid thing to do without some sort of power-check - like a union or employee ownership etc.

How do we fix it?

I don't know. Every regulation that has been imposed thus far in regard to CEO compensation has backfired and simply driven the numbers higher. Maybe we should give stockholders binding votes. That might make a difference. Maybe we should realize that stocks were orignally invented as a way to gather start-up capital and get away from this legalized gambling that the market has become.

In the end it's not that people make millions of dollars to run a company that bothers me it's the ones that make millions at the company's expense - ala Enron, Steven Wolf, Leo Mullin, etc. - that bother me.

My question to you is this: as a working individual how can you defend people that are out to pay you as little as possible and work you as much as possible?

 

[tonyw]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you advocate tax breaks for companies that don't outsource? Or do you want a law banning outsourcing? Mandatory unions for everybody? A $30,000 minimum wage law?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. Nope. Nope. And nope.

All that is required is a long term, strategic focus by the folks in the corporate suites. Long term, is it beneficial for their companies if millions of high paying jobs are shipped overseas?

It certainly does goose profits for a while, but guess what? After that, when everyone is doing it, too, you lose that competitive advantage.

And then what? Unless you can find a way to replace those high paying jobs with similar ones, we're in trouble. Consumer spending accounts for two thirds of the US economy. If you've got millions of people who took big paycuts, then consumer spending isn't going to be able to keep growing.

That is NOT good for the US economy in the long run, and thus, it is NOT good for the company in the long run.

Now, I know it's hard to stand up to the Wall Street crowd who tell you to ship the jobs overseas and goose your profits now, but that's why CEOs get their big salaries -- to make the tough decisions.

The easy thing to do is to say, yup, we'll ship those jobs overseas. The tough thing to do is to say, no, we won't, because in the long run, keeping well paying jobs here in America is good for the economy and our company.

As for slamming CEOs, I do it when they act like hypocrites, and I'd do that for anyone, whether they make minimum wage or if they make millions. I have a problem with anyone taking a huge bonus when they're telling people to take paycuts or laying people off.

They should be showing some leadership and saying, the buck stops here, I am in charge of this company. I don't deserve a bonus when I'm asking you folks to take paycuts and showing some of you the door.

 

[derg]

I think corporate America is going to learn the hard way that they are cutting their own consumers from the marketplace by foreign outsourcing.

The more high paying jobs that go to Bangladesh are the fewer people in the US that are going to be able to afford their own product.

Consider Flint, Michigan where the automakers more or less abandoned their factories in that city. How many of those displaced workers are going to be able (or even willing) to purchase a GM product?

I think we're way too focused on cutting costs and completely forgetting that SOMEONE'S got to be able to buy the product which they're producing.

 

[pilot602]

You mean the economy isn't driven by CEOs and their salaries? People have to a) have a job b) make enough at that job to buy things and c) that's what really drives the economy?

Wow.

It's an epiphany.

[/sarcasmff]

And FL270 -- justify this:

[ QUOTE ]
from the Wall Street Journal
The surprising timing of Mr. Mullin's departure prompted Standard & Poor's Ratings Service to place Delta's debt on "CreditWatch with negative implications." S&P cited the company's continued losses and heavy debt problems. Delta reported a third-quarter loss of $164 million, compared with the $326 million loss in 2002's third quarter. Delta has posted losses of $2.87 billion since the start of 2001. It expects a fourth-quarter loss of between $365 million and $415 million.
...
Delta said Mr. Mullin will receive a retirement benefit valued at about $16 million before taxes, reflecting his years at Delta and an additional 22 years of credited service to reflect pension benefits he left behind when he joined the airline. Mr. Grinstein will get an annual salary of $500,000, and Mr. Smith will receive an annual retainer of $200,000 as nonexecutive chairman, plus other director fees.
...
He also took on the job of leading the industry's effort to get federal financial help to rescue the nation's carriers.
However, the disclosure of sizable compensation packages for Mr. Mullin and other airline CEOs -- as well as special individual retirement trusts for top senior Delta executives -- infuriated some key Washington lawmakers and complicated the industry's second campaign for a multibillion dollar federal-aid package last spring.



[/ QUOTE ]

Essentially what these CEOs/boards were/are saying is:"We're so poor and hurt by the 9/11 attacks we need Federal money and labor concessions just to break even ... but we'll just set aside a bunch of those savings/Federal dollars for our own personal pockets - because we're management."

THAT is what I have a problem with.

The question stands: how can you as a working individual a) defend this and b) get so angered by people asking for simple justification of these kinds of expenditures/actions?

 

[FL270]

To respond, at least in part, to Doug, 602, and Tony, before my vacation begins:

First of all, I don't condone Mr. Mullin's being credited with over 20 years of additional service at Delta, or his funding of an executive parachute program as his company teetered on the brink of bankruptcy. However, I do think it is irresponsible to say Leo is responsible for driving the company to bankruptcy ... the recession and 9/11 did that.

I believe that a strong leader leads by example. A CEO should not ask his employees to sacrifice anything he's not willing to also. If their pensions disappear, so does his. If their pay is cut 15%, so is his.

A CEO's primary responsibility is to his shareholders, to ensure that his company thrives, produces a quality product or service, and returns a reasonable profit to shareholders. Obviously, there are some trade-offs in profit vs. cost. To use an airline example, take soft drink service. The airlines could save a bunch of money by not serving any drinks (or by charging for the drinks), but they choose to provide them free because they want to make their customers slightly more comfortable while they're trapped in the aluminum tube.

The CEO's responsibility is NOT to provide the maximum number of jobs to Americans. I obviously want all Americans to have quality jobs, and they certainly can. However, corporations do not exist to employ people without regard to profit or loss.

And cabotage and outsourcing can not be fairly compared. To apply cabotage to hotels, for example, would be for the desk clerk at the Bangalore Marriott to be sent to the Marriott Marquis in New York to work at Bangalore wages, which is essentially what cabotage does. It allows foreign pilots, flying for foreign carriers, to fly US passengers on wholly US itineraries. That's quite a bit different from exporting jobs offshore.

FL270

 

[ready2fly]

[ QUOTE ]
believe that a strong leader leads by example. A CEO should not ask his employees to sacrifice anything he's not willing to also.

[/ QUOTE ]
But he's the rule and not the exception... that' s the problem.

Here's an example of the exception:

My "uncle" (the man my aunt married 10 years ago) is the Founder/President/and CEO of a coporation. The corporation owns 14 subsidiaries throughout the world.

Recently, the decision was made that about half of the employees in the main plant had to be laid off.

So, what he did was ask the employees, instead, to take one week off per month without pay. THEN, without any fanfare or drawing attention to himself, he cut his own salary in half.

That's a man who has his employees best interests in mind instead of lining his own pocket.

 

[FL270]

He sounds like a stand-up guy and is to be commended for finding a way to meet his responsibility to his shareholders and protect his employees at the same time. More people should absolutely lead in that fashion.

FL270

 

[pilot602]

[ QUOTE ]
A CEO's primary responsibility is to his shareholders, to ensure that his company thrives, produces a quality product or service, and returns a reasonable profit to shareholders.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree to a point. A CEO's primary responsibility should be to run a tight ship and make a better widget, fast and cheaper than the competitor. He should also have a responsibility to his employees. With out them the widget would never be made. But conservatives and CEOs like to forget that part. And through running the business that way the stock value rises. However, too many CEOs believe the shareholder is the ultimate end-all and so they will do whatever it takes to the books, gutting the company etc. just to "artificially" raise the stock value. Look at Enron.

[ QUOTE ]
The CEO's responsibility is NOT to provide the maximum number of jobs to Americans. I obviously want all Americans to have quality jobs, and they certainly can. However, corporations do not exist to employ people without regard to profit or loss.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said that it was the CEO's responsibility to provide jobs. But if too many jobs are outsourced no one will be able to buy the widget the CEO is making ultimately driving the company out of business. Sure you can make them cheap but if no one has a job no one can afford even cheap widgets.

[ QUOTE ]
And cabotage and outsourcing can not be fairly compared. To apply cabotage to hotels, for example, would be for the desk clerk at the Bangalore Marriott to be sent to the Marriott Marquis in New York to work at Bangalore wages, which is essentially what cabotage does. It allows foreign pilots, flying for foreign carriers, to fly US passengers on wholly US itineraries. That's quite a bit different from exporting jobs offshore.

[/ QUOTE ]

The end result is the same. Higher paid employees are competing with lower paid employees. A CEO's job is to pay as little as possible for labor so which one do you think he or she will choose?

The old saying "you get what you pay for" hasn't been around this long if it wasn't true. If you pay crap for wages you can only expect crap for quality/work ethic. Crap in = crap out. In the quest for lower costs CEOs have lost sight of the fact the quality of their products are bordering on junk. But what do they care - the books, and the stocks, look good. So in the present evreything is honky dory - inthe long run however, after they've been retired with a credited 20years of service - the comapny folds and all those people lose their jobs.

Anyway have a good vacation!

 

[tonyw]

[ QUOTE ]
A CEO's primary responsibility is to his shareholders, to ensure that his company thrives, produces a quality product or service, and returns a reasonable profit to shareholders.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you.

I just think that keeping as many well paying jobs as possible here in the United States does just that in the long run. I'm convinced that keeping good jobs here in the US benefits not just the people who keep them, but the economy and the company in the long run.

Of course, that won't placate the Wall Street crowd that says cut costs, cut costs, cut costs, but I believe the job of a CEO is to stand up to those people who are calling for steps that create higher profits in the short term but that cause structural economic problems in the long term.

And regardless of how we stand on this issue, let me wish you a great vacation and a happy Thanksgiving.

 

[FL270]

[ QUOTE ]
And regardless of how we stand on this issue, let me wish you a great vacation and a happy Thanksgiving.

[/ QUOTE ]Thanks! Vacation, though brief, was terrific and it's good to be back.

Had a discussion with my uncle (a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat) on this topic over the weekend, one of the things we agreed on is that CEOs in general in this country, even many of those that are generally accepted as being very good ones, have a serious problem with long-term planning. Many companies have no long-term strategic plan. If you ask them where they'll be in five years, you'll get not much more than "hopefully still in business" ... and that is the biggest problem out there. The focus on short-term share value, while certainly an important part of the job, has completely obscured any attempt to plan for the long term.

Food for thought.

Hope everyone's Thanksgiving was great!

FL270

 

[tonyw]

[ QUOTE ]
Many companies have no long-term strategic plan. If you ask them where they'll be in five years, you'll get not much more than "hopefully still in business" ... and that is the biggest problem out there. The focus on short-term share value, while certainly an important part of the job, has completely obscured any attempt to plan for the long term.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, which is why my idea of execs actually using their heads (I know I pick on them and wonder what the hell they were thinking, but you don't get there without some semblence of a brain) and thinking long term is such a pipe dream. But that's what it will take. People have got to start thinking beyond the next quarter and start thinking about what they want to do long term.

Oh, well, I'm the optimist. I figure that one or two companies will do that, and they'll do well, and then others will copy them. I think someone did a study that showed a positive correlation between employers that take care of their employees and stock prices. Let's hope that catches on.

That's better for everyone!

 

[IT_Pilot]

Woooooo Hooooooo! I can't tell how happy that makes me. I run techsupport / interference at my company for all our Dells, server and desktop. None of us in my office wanted to talk to the Indians!! Very polite to be sure, but when it took me 1 hr to convince him that I needed a new hard drive shipped out under warranty I got real frustrated. I think it was when he asked me 'if I had reseated the processor' that did it.

I also read between the lines in that press release. Only Optiplex, and Latitude models were being rerouted to the states. The Dimension, and Inspiron models aren't worth the $$$.

Doug when I heard about your trivails I felt your pain.

 

[derg]

I finally got my laptop back, but they didn't send me a new adapter.

The want me to send it in to them to verify that it doesn't work even though I explained to them that it was physically damaged and probably irrepairable.

Anyone know how to say "Trust me my friend, you're wasting your time" in Hindi?

 

[mtsu_av8er]

[ QUOTE ]

Anyone know how to say "Trust me my friend, you're wasting your time" in Hindi?

[/ QUOTE ]

yaha traansaleta nahii ho paayaa, dobaaraa phrema kariye - shaabdika artha - trasta mujhe meraa mitra tuma hain bekaara karanevaalaa aapakaa samaya

as per the trusty English-To-Hindi translation site.....

 

[derg]

Schveeet! (as Eric Cartman would say).

I just, uhh, figured it out. D'oh!

"trusty" eh?

 

[mtsu_av8er]

Now, both of those initially look like the exact same thing...until you get to the end.

I knew I should have taken something other than worthless Latin and Spanish ; then maybe I could figure this out.