FedEx CIO Robert Carter Pay Hikes 80%

59 Dano

I just want to make friends!
How about 20 times what an average hourly employee makes? Very generous, and if they want more they have to pay hourlies more.

Is there some significance to 20 or is that an arbitrary number? How about 19? 23?

The company, and other corporations, are very good about lobbying Congress. Maybe that's the route we should go, lobbying Congress to set the pay of corporate exec's of publicly traded companies at certain levels. Oh wait, we don't have any clout with Congress. Sounds like the duty of political parties who claim to represent the working man. Tell Congress if they don't regulate exec pay to reasonable levels in relation to employee pay then we'll vote them out. Scoff if you like, executive compensation in the U.S. is way out of line with the rest of the world and I'm not seeing performance that justifies the disparity.

This is aimed at the idea rather than at you personally, but since when is someone else's pay any of your (or my) business?
 

TUT

Well-Known Member
Is there some significance to 20 or is that an arbitrary number? How about 19? 23?

Yes it's in the bible. How about it's just a number that is somewhat reminiscent of what Japan CEO's could make vs the lowest wage employee. Forefathers discussed this very thing, only people that offered a product that was a real benefit to a society should have reasonable gain in wealth from it, as they were no where near as capitalistic as what we are today. You also didn't run for office, any money contribution was a total no-no, etc.

I think we blew past "reasonable profits" on products that are even anti-beneficial to society.
 

59 Dano

I just want to make friends!
How about it's just a number that is somewhat reminiscent of what Japan CEO's could make vs the lowest wage employee.

What is the significance of 20, though? What makes it better than 19 or 21?

Forefathers discussed this very thing, only people that offered a product that was a real benefit to a society should have reasonable gain in wealth from it, as they were no where near as capitalistic as what we are today.


Interesting. I don't recall them ever saying anything of that ilk and their form of capitalism was almost entirely unregulated.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
Is there some significance to 20 or is that an arbitrary number? How about 19? 23?



This is aimed at the idea rather than at you personally, but since when is someone else's pay any of your (or my) business?

I figured I was being generous at 20 times but let's make it 10. The Costco CEO takes a $350k annual salary, which he says is about 10 times what his average employee makes. Says he has plenty due to his stock, doesn't need multi-million dollar salary. Yeah, let's have CEO's make 10 times what their average employee(hourly) makes. This is all dreaming and scheming so I get to pick the numbers I feel are fair. Corporate officers below CEO get even less. After all, the real money is in the stock. While we're at it, no corporate officer can own more than 1000 times the amount of stock an average hourly owns. Own a million shares? Your employee gets 1,000. Let's make the employees real co-owners with a stake in the company's success. Let's see, last I heard our CEO owned 22 million shares. That's 22,000 for each of us!

Run for your life Dano, the Barbarians are at the gate! Soon we'll be playing golf at the club and hitting on Buffy when your back's turned!

Is it our business? Funny how the people who make ridiculous amounts always ask that. If you are going to make me just exist for your benefit in order to keep a job then yeah I think I have a right to call a spade a spade.
 

59 Dano

I just want to make friends!
I figured I was being generous at 20 times but let's make it 10. The Costco CEO takes a $350k annual salary, which he says is about 10 times what his average employee makes. Says he has plenty due to his stock, doesn't need multi-million dollar salary. Yeah, let's have CEO's make 10 times what their average employee(hourly) makes. This is all dreaming and scheming so I get to pick the numbers I feel are fair. Corporate officers below CEO get even less. After all, the real money is in the stock. While we're at it, no corporate officer can own more than 1000 times the amount of stock an average hourly owns.

That's fine but it doesn't do anything to make the hourly employee any better off.

Then we have to deal with the problem of replacing the execs who quit because his pay was cut to the point that it's no more than he made when he was down 2 or 3 rungs on the ladder.

Own a million shares? Your employee gets 1,000. Let's make the employees real co-owners with a stake in the company's success. Let's see, last I heard our CEO owned 22 million shares. That's 22,000 for each of us!

Run for your life Dano, the Barbarians are at the gate! Soon we'll be playing golf at the club and hitting on Buffy when your back's turned!

Is it our business? Funny how the people who make ridiculous amounts always ask that. If you are going to make me just exist for your benefit in order to keep a job then yeah I think I have a right to call a spade a spade.

I still don't know how someone else's pay is my business.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
That's fine but it doesn't do anything to make the hourly employee any better off.

Then we have to deal with the problem of replacing the execs who quit because his pay was cut to the point that it's no more than he made when he was down 2 or 3 rungs on the ladder.

Own a million shares? Your employee gets 1,000. Let's make the employees real co-owners with a stake in the company's success. Let's see, last I heard our CEO owned 22 million shares. That's 22,000 for each of us!

Run for your life Dano, the Barbarians are at the gate! Soon we'll be playing golf at the club and hitting on Buffy when your back's turned!



I still don't know how someone else's pay is my business.

Why would the exec quit? Under my system this would be the law for all corporations. Want better pay? You'll have to give the employees more so that you meet certain percentages. And the employee WOULD be better off, or do you know of corporations now who give their employees 1000 shares of stock? My point being that the corporations could be more generous to their employees, give them a real stake in their company's success, but they want to keep it all for themselves. It makes me about sick to my stomach listening to mgrs over the years tell us in meetings how important it is to drum up new business, to be super productive because our competitors are, while stripping away our pay and benefits and making subtle and sometimes overt threats about our continued employment.
 

Mr. 7

The monkey on the left.
Why would the exec quit? Under my system this would be the law for all corporations. Want better pay? You'll have to give the employees more so that you meet certain percentages. And the employee WOULD be better off, or do you know of corporations now who give their employees 1000 shares of stock? My point being that the corporations could be more generous to their employees, give them a real stake in their company's success, but they want to keep it all for themselves. It makes me about sick to my stomach listening to mgrs over the years tell us in meetings how important it is to drum up new business, to be super productive because our competitors are, while stripping away our pay and benefits and making subtle and sometimes overt threats about our continued employment.

Well said.
 

59 Dano

I just want to make friends!
Why would the exec quit?

For the same reason you'd quit if your pay was cut to minimum wage but your responsibilities stayed the same. It's not worth it.

You'll have to give the employees more so that you meet certain percentages. And the employee WOULD be better off, or do you know of corporations now who give their employees 1000 shares of stock?

They can go about that in 1 or 2 ways. They can issue new shares of stock for this purpose. Doing so decimates the value of existing stock, the new stock that's given to the exec, and the stock that's given to the employees. All of which defeat the purpose. The other way is to release those shares from the pool that they keep on hand for that very purpose. Doing that would be so prohibitively expensive as to render the whole concept impractical.

So in the case of the former, everyone gets something that's worthless. In the case of the latter, no one gets anything. So I guess we can choose between not getting anything or getting something that's not worth anything.
 

hypo hanna

Well-Known Member
For the same reason you'd quit if your pay was cut to minimum wage but your responsibilities stayed the same. It's not worth it.

I say let them quit. I'm sure there is some hungry dedicated young exec waiting in the wings who could do the job better and would be happy to do it for less. THat would be a benefit to the company, wouldn't you agree?
You see Dano, this blade cuts both ways. The only differance being the execs control both pay scales. They are consumed by greed and lack the ethics to do what they damn well know is right.

I find the idea that these clowns are somehow indispensable to be ludicrous. Considering their track record over the past 10 to 15 years , I would say they were no more competent then the driver who threw the monitor over the fence.

At least he got the pkg where it was supposed to go.
 
Last edited:

Cactus

Just telling it like it is
I say let them quit. I'm sure there is some hungry dedicated young exec waiting in the wings who could do the job better and would be happy to do it for less. THat would be a benefit to the company, wouldn't you agree? You see Dano, this blade cuts both ways. The only differance being the execs control both pay scales. They are consumed by greed and lack the ethics to do what they damn well know is right.I find the idea that these clowns are somehow indispensable to be ludicrous. Considering their track record over the past 10 to 15 years , I would say they were no more competent then the driver who threw the monitor over the fence. At least he got the pkg where it was supposed to go.
Well said. I nominate this for post of the month.
 

hypo hanna

Well-Known Member
Cool! What do I win? Please no more cheap FedEx pens, mugs, t-shirts or any other worthless tchotchkes. I have enough of that crap to last 2 lifetimes.
 
Curious if anyone noticed the company sold 1 billion dollars in bonds a few weeks ago. Believe Goldman Sachs brokered two 500 million dollar deals. So the company has plenty of cash.
 

MrFedEx

Engorged Member
I say let them quit. I'm sure there is some hungry dedicated young exec waiting in the wings who could do the job better and would be happy to do it for less. THat would be a benefit to the company, wouldn't you agree?
You see Dano, this blade cuts both ways. The only differance being the execs control both pay scales. They are consumed by greed and lack the ethics to do what they damn well know is right.

I find the idea that these clowns are somehow indispensable to be ludicrous. Considering their track record over the past 10 to 15 years , I would say they were no more competent then the driver who threw the monitor over the fence.

At least he got the pkg where it was supposed to go.

This absolutely is a great post. Our upper management has continuously failed for the 10-15 year timeframe you mention. They mismanaged Express, ordered useless airplanes and computer software, and promoted the incompetent to positions well above their competency. This is the Peter Principle personified. Depsite their idiocy, they remain, and continue down the road of lame decisions. Most of them should have been fired, but instead they are retained and their compensation raised well beyond what minimal worth they possess.

For Dano the blade cuts only one way...in the direction that FedEx tells him it cuts, which is against the hourly employee.
 

TUT

Well-Known Member
I don't recall them ever saying anything of that ilk and their form of capitalism was almost entirely unregulated.

Probably because you haven't heard of it until now, so nothing to recall. They weren't at all "get whatever you can", far from it, warned us actually.
 

UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)

Well-Known Member
I like whomever suggested the 20 X the top hourly wage/salary. The high end for a UPS driver is $100K. 20 x would put the CEO's pay at $2M. I would think Scott could "get by" on $2M.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
I like whomever suggested the 20 X the top hourly wage/salary. The high end for a UPS driver is $100K. 20 x would put the CEO's pay at $2M. I would think Scott could "get by" on $2M.

But I said the average of the hourly employees. All hourlies. And not opposed to 10 times the average.
 
Top