•

Journalist asks GM CEO Mary Barra about $29 million paycheck after UAW strike — On average, the Detroit Three's CEOs are making 40 percent more today than they did four years ago

Journalist Asks GM CEO Mary Barra About $29 Million Paycheck After UAW Strike

https://www.carscoops.com/2023/09/gm-ceo-mary-barra-defends-29-million-compensation-after-uaw-negotiations-fall-apart/

On average, the Detroit Three's CEOs are making 40 percent more today than they did four years ago

Journalist asks GM CEO Mary Barra about $29 million paycheck after UAW strike — On average, the Detroit Three's CEOs are making 40 percent more today than they did four years ago::On average, the Detroit Three's CEOs are making 40 percent more today than they did four years ago

25 comments

Hazdaz

•

Reading some of these replies in here are cringe as fuck. Not because I don't agree with the overall sentiment, but rather in the fact that you guys don't know what language to use. In essence, you don't know your audience. Speak in the language that your audience can relate to.

When she says that her pay is dependent on the company performance, the reply isn't to talk about worker this and worker that. The correct reply to that is to point out that GM stock has been essentially flat for the last 4 years. Her job as CEO is to increase value for stockholders. Stockholders haven't seen a 40% increase in 4 years. So if shareholders haven't seen a 40% increase in that time, then how is she justifying her pay increase.

And ultimately, her pay isn't determined by her. It's determined by the board of directors. And there lies the problem with all these out of control CEO salaries.... it doesn't cost anything for a director to increase some CEO's pay. It's not taken out of their pocket. It doesn't affect them directly in any way, so to them it's like monopoly money. You get a raise, and you get a raise and you get a raise. Every CEO gets a raise because the director that approves one CEO's pay might be the CEO of another company who's director is the other CEO who just got a raise. You scratch my back, and you scratch mine.

VentraSqwal

•

To be honest, I think it is good that we're starting to see the conversation reframed from that of a consumer to that of a worker. People need to learn to think of themselves that way, not as pure consumers. Maybe it'll spread to also being nicer to waiters and stuff like that.

tryptaminev

•

I disagree with this.

We all are aware of how the communism of the rich works. See David Graeber and others for how the term can be coined all the way back to the roman empire.

This is not rich people playing unfairly with each other. This is about rich people fucking over the source of their wealth,which is the laborers work.

KevonLooney

•

GM has increased their EPS by 50% over the past 4 years. That 40% increase actually seems appropriate, although I think the amount is too high. Basically it started from too high a number, but 40% seems ok.

She is not in charge of the stock price. Her job is to make sure they make money. She has done that.

Chetzemoka

•

Yes but one of the primary ways corporations are making money these days is by not hiring enough workers and not paying current workers 3x the salary even though they're expected to do the work of 3 people. So in that way, her salary IS directly tied to exploiting the workers

KevonLooney

•

these days

Do you think JP Morgan or Andrew Carnegie were generous with their workers? Only when they had to be.

Chetzemoka

•

(I'm really referring to times since the modernization of stock valuation since the other comment refers to technical financial data like EPS.)

KevonLooney

•

I wrote that comment. EPS isn't technical, it's just the amount of profit made per share. It existed when Andrew Carnegie was around.

Chetzemoka

•

I'm not sure I understand your point here. Yes, Andrew Carnegie made money by exploiting workers. That's why that period of time saw the birth of the American labor movement. Which is also why these workers are going on strike.

I'm glad you agree with me?

KevonLooney

•

You said:

Yes but one of the primary ways corporations are making money these days is by not hiring enough workers and not paying current workers 3x the salary even though they're expected to do the work of 3 people.

Why would you say "these days" when that has always been the case, except for a short period from 1940 to 1980?

IHaveTwoCows

•

gastationsushi

•

But language is how they lie to us and make it seem things are fair. In reality capitalism means all the trillions minted each year by our federal reserve flows to industries and not the people.

Look at it this way, if the federal reserve cutoff loans to banks who service the auto dealerships, the auto industry would collapse. The biggest industries would be severely hurt if not bankrupt without their connection to government and the federal reserve.

Why can't people get that for direct access to federal reserve minting to start their own business, pay for their education, or buy a home? They can't because people are the cattle that capitalists need to exploit.

ikidd

•

The directors will be shareholders as well, usually fairly substantial ones if they're on the board. I'm not sure how your logic plays out.

TransplantedSconie

•

"My pay is based on compensation based on how the company performs"

#WHICH IS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE WORKERS PRODUCTIVITY YOU HORSES ASS!!

MirthfulAlembic

•

"So if the company has performed so well, surely there's plenty of capital available for increasing worker compensation!"

TornadoRex

•

But when we pay the workers more the stock price doesn’t go up! Won’t anyone think of the stock price!

/s just in case anyone wasn’t sure.

Wogi

•

"my pay is based ~~on how the company performs~~on how much value we can extract from our own employees."

mycatiskai

•

You and the person that you replied to are both wrong. Her pay is based not on company performance, it is based on how much she can game the stock market by spending capital on stock buybacks to inflate the price and get compensation via her stock options.

Rules were put in place to tax CEO incomes and suddenly CEOs didn't get paid in taxable income anymore, instead they get paid in stock options.

gravitas_deficiency

•

Yeah stock buybacks definitely need to be made illegal again.

BertramDitore

•

when the company does well, everyone does well

Lady, do you really think people still fall for this bullshit line? At least come up with something more believable.

Iwasondigg

•

40%? That's just to account for inflation. Have you seen the cost of a mega-yacht lately?

edgemaster72

•

At this rate they'll have to resort to buying used for their secondary yachts, like some kind of plebs

Iwasondigg

•

Or smaller yachts. And then the terrorists win. Is that what you want? I didn't think so. USA!