Quantcast
The Official US Politics OT

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Official US Politics OT

Baalzamon said:
Uhhh GMs financials completely beg to differ with your statement about where their money is being made.

In 2018, they made a net profit of $8.1B. In North America, they had a $10.8B pre-tax profit. They even clarified that they made $423M pretax on ALL international earnings. 95% of their earnings are here.

Let it also be known that approximately $500M of bonus checks ($10-11k/employee) was provided to all of the US employees as a result of these earnings...so it isn't like GM is just leaving these union employees hanging. The employees, however, want even larger bonuses. They speak of how many concessions they made during the Great Recession...yet they didn't have to pay a single penny back INTO GM when they lost boatloads of money.

They literally want to suck the company dry during good times, but to still be employed and we'll compensated in the bad times.

Do you not recognize that a company IS its employees?  They are asking to compensated for their work.  They generated that greater profit....why are not entitled to a portion of it?



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Around the Network

They got a portion of it. That is what their wage is. They then got even more of it when the company provided them with very generous bonuses. The rest of it should be going to shareholders, as it is a public company.

I rather disagree with your assumption that the employees are the only ones generating that profit. Executives also helped. The billions of dollars stockholders invested in them also helped. Government subsidies also helped.

Get rid of all of the above, and you would just have 45,000 unemployed people who never had a job in the first place.

It isn't like we are talking about people being paid $10/hour with no benefits for factory work here. We are talking $63/hr (which is over $120k/year) including benefits. I work for a profitable company too, yet I still think I'm well compensated despite making substantially less than that.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

Baalzamon said:
They got a portion of it. That is what their wage is. They then got even more of it when the company provided them with very generous bonuses. The rest of it should be going to shareholders, as it is a public company.

I rather disagree with your assumption that the employees are the only ones generating that profit. Executives also helped. The billions of dollars stockholders invested in them also helped. Government subsidies also helped.

Get rid of all of the above, and you would just have 45,000 unemployed people who never had a job in the first place.

It isn't like we are talking about people being paid $10/hour with no benefits for factory work here. We are talking $63/hr (which is over $120k/year) including benefits. I work for a profitable company too, yet I still think I'm well compensated despite making substantially less than that.

It's not bonuses, it's profit sharing.  That's part of their contract. 

But you seem to think that a person who owns just 1 share in GM (a $38.18 investment) should have their value increase directly proportional to the company profits but not the profit sharing of the people actually working there generating the profit?

Oh executives helped make the profit but did the executives take concessions during the recession?  No.

Last edited by SpokenTruth - on 18 September 2019

Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

You are stretching what I'm saying.

I feel the employees are well compensated. At no point did I indicate they should be paid even less or to get even smaller profit sharing (which really...is largely the same as a bonus. I have a bonus too, which is based entirely on the companies...profit. when the company makes no profit, just like profit sharing...I get no bonus).

I am saying that what is left...should absolutely be going to the shareholders, yes. You are clearly using the price of a single share to downplay what it means to be a shareholder and therefore trying to justify they don't deserve their portion of the profit as well. However, the more realistic scenario here is somebody invested $1,000 or say $2,000 into GM, and is being compensated with $44 or $88 in dividends. It's like saying a bank that loans somebody money shouldn't be paid interest because they didn't do the actual manual labor that made the company money.

Beyond all of this, let's not forget that these very auto unions that care so much about the employees literally just had several higher ups charged for embezzling money from the union. That certainly doesn't look good when you are trying to bargain for higher wages saying there just isn't enough being paid to you.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

I guess my main issue with what you are going for is how you continue saying these employees deserve such a huge chunk of the profits that THEY generated. If they want that...then should they also pay back a portion of their earnings in years where GM loses boatloads of money? After all...THEY helped the company lose all of that money.

The stockholders absolutely got boned when their stock became completely worthless in the Great Recession. All I keep hearing is how incredibly much the employees gave up to help the Company then...but what the hell exactly did they give up? A raise for a year or two? I think most Americans (Union or not) gave up raises during the Great Recession. You hear stories of people even taking pay cuts.

So where were these great concessions made by these union workers? Many kept jobs, they continued to get paid extremely well. Despite the fact that THEY (hey you are giving them all the credit for current profits, so they should get credit for this too) led the company into a bankruptcy.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:
Baalzamon said:
Uhhh GMs financials completely beg to differ with your statement about where their money is being made.

In 2018, they made a net profit of $8.1B. In North America, they had a $10.8B pre-tax profit. They even clarified that they made $423M pretax on ALL international earnings. 95% of their earnings are here.

Let it also be known that approximately $500M of bonus checks ($10-11k/employee) was provided to all of the US employees as a result of these earnings...so it isn't like GM is just leaving these union employees hanging. The employees, however, want even larger bonuses. They speak of how many concessions they made during the Great Recession...yet they didn't have to pay a single penny back INTO GM when they lost boatloads of money.

They literally want to suck the company dry during good times, but to still be employed and we'll compensated in the bad times.

Do you not recognize that a company IS its employees?  They are asking to compensated for their work.  They generated that greater profit....why are not entitled to a portion of it?

I mean...in the context of what you're responding to this seems like emotionally-charged moralizing.  Of course a company is made up of employees; and they're guaranteed by law to whatever pay they've signed to on the dotted line--regardless of how the company is doing.  Risk vs. security has always been the trade-off.  

Because they're not contractually bound to receive any of said profits?  It's pretty simple.  If you bound your signature to a contract which says "I get $30/hr with a couple weeks of vacation time for the year" the company has done nothing immoral in fulfilling their side of the bargain, even when they're getting record profits.  



October VGChartz Articles:

http://www.vgchartz.com/article/440852/greedfall-xone/ (Review - GreedFall 8/10)

http://www.vgchartz.com/article/440952/the-bradwell-conspiracy-xone/ (Review - The Bradwell Conspiracy 7/10)

Also keep in mind they are conveniently targeting the most profitable auto company first, and then want to base discussions with the other major companies (Ford and Fiat) based on what is agreed upon.

Kind of a scummy move in my opinion as these deals should be agreed on at the same time, and really should be looking at cumulative profitability to determine reasonableness, rather than what is fair for the most profitable company and then effectively forcing the other companies to comply with that.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

Why are we talking about the strike as if the sole issue is people wanting higher wages?  Higher wages doesn't even sound like it's one of the biggest issues for the strike, dismissing the strike on wages doesn't hold up.  

It is also protesting the movement of four factories, as well as reduction in healthcare benefits.  I think those are fair things to protest.  On the latter, these people have spent a lot of their life basically destroying their body for these companies.  

On the former, it was literally a campaign promise by Trump to stop jobs from going to Mexico.  

Painting this as "people trying to suck a company dry", when the main part of the issue seems to be job security, doesn't match up.  

Last edited by the-pi-guy - on 19 September 2019

I will never understand all the cowards that will insist that a handful of assholes screwing over millions of people have every right to do so because "freedom", even as they're a part of the group that gets screwed over, and apparently our freedom doesn't matter. They think they're so profound because the state the obvious, that these assholes have a lot of power, and then back down from fighting them like a bunch of cowards and think that somehow just makes them smart, even as they pull the boot over their face and say "tread on me harder, Daddy!" They don't care who fucks with them as long as it isn't a government.



HylianSwordsman said:
I will never understand all the cowards that will insist that a handful of assholes screwing over millions of people have every right to do so because "freedom", even as they're a part of the group that gets screwed over, and apparently our freedom doesn't matter. They think they're so profound because the state the obvious, that these assholes have a lot of power, and then back down from fighting them like a bunch of cowards and think that somehow just makes them smart, even as they pull the boot over their face and say "tread on me harder, Daddy!" They don't care who fucks with them as long as it isn't a government.

I mean...you're free to directly contest what I'm saying--if that inspired you.  It wouldn't look like some embittered diatribe built on over-generalizations.  

I'm not even following that first sentence.  What's this structure of pejoratively placing freedom in scare quotes and then belting out "our freedom doesn't matter" in relation?  At what point was force applied to make this voluntary agreement?  The freedom to re-negotiate or walk is always there if said person feels undervalued.  And talking about getting "screwed over" in this context is...kinda questionable.  For all its faults, the UAW appears to be a collective that pushes for increased wages & benefits at a modest rate. 

The reason I responded to begin with came down to the context of the UAW in particular.  I just don't buy this whinging over companies being obligated to share their increased yearly or quarterly profits beyond their agreed-to negotiations.  Execs & higher-ups took a gamble that paid off; and if it didn't, they're still on the hook to pay all their workers negotiated wages (as they should).  



October VGChartz Articles:

http://www.vgchartz.com/article/440852/greedfall-xone/ (Review - GreedFall 8/10)

http://www.vgchartz.com/article/440952/the-bradwell-conspiracy-xone/ (Review - The Bradwell Conspiracy 7/10)