Comments on: Good to be at the top: Ford execs earning big despite automaker’s struggles

By: bigp

bigp — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 04:34:23 +0000

thats why the company cant make any money because they are overpaiding the top heads that dont do as much as the floor workers.

By: jackjimturkey

jackjimturkey — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:03:47 +0000

planet drive, your parents built a crappy human being

By: planet_drive

planet_drive — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 15:18:16 +0000

This is why Ford is such a crap company building crap cars and selling them to idiots who for some strange reason remain loyal to Ford. Ford has an unethical team of execs and managers which results in creating an assemble line that suffers from poor worker morale. I know execs in all car companies are earning huge money, but alteast those companies build good products that people are willing to buy. Ford truly is the worst of the worst.

By: sharpie

sharpie — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 02:27:55 +0000

Unethical!

By: horvatic

horvatic — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 03:04:44 +0000

Layoff the workers and suck up the profits, Good job guys! And managers and execs always seem to have there heads up there unmentionables when they wonder why the workers are always unhappy with management! There’s your answer guys, hello!

That’s really bad for workers moral.

By: Get Real

Get Real — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 23:18:06 +0000

Wait people, they came up with the ‘new’ Taurus idea. Don’t you understand they just need time to convince the public to buy the car ???

By: jdasch1

jdasch1 — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 04:20:04 +0000

Employer offered a pay plan to new hire, and he accepted it, signed it and proformed the tasks to get paid. Now we are mad at what…who? I’d say the employer. But what kind of money do you pay a CEO of a company that builds 2 million plus vehicles annually with hundreds of thousands of employees?? Some oil companies pay 10 times or more as this job pays. Its hard to cheap pay for these jobs…regardless of the outcome.

By: autonut

autonut — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 02:04:53 +0000

Lads, the board of directors is hand picked by Ford-Firestone scions and Ford foundation. Fords own 60% of voting stock and only 5% of actual value of the company. I cant imagine corporate governance even on Enron level. Those execs were probably paid just like members of the board for their consulting services to the board and company on top of their salary. And don’t forget that they also have families who were probably compensated, just like Fords compensated for fraction of Henry sperm.

By: DeansterTJ

DeansterTJ — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 00:46:21 +0000

Bonuses for what? The Flex and all the billions lost in sales? ****ing joke.

By: jackjimturkey

jackjimturkey — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 23:34:38 +0000

Mayer: Savage is rarely right, but when he is, he hits dead-on

By: mayer_ray_nagin

mayer_ray_nagin — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 21:28:39 +0000

Savage is right, JJT.

Still, I’d like to have Mullay’s job for 2 years.

By: jackjimturkey

jackjimturkey — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 20:06:22 +0000

Michael savage says “interlocking corporate directorships are part of what’s ruining this country.

By: davidg1977

davidg1977 — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 20:01:52 +0000

I agree that “they take care of their own” but the issue is that the BoDs membership or actions need to be acted upon by Proxy or Investors to adjust. Ford is in an interesting position bc of their Ford family preferred shares voting right but by nature, this is the checks/balances.

As an FYI, i have a base salary of which my target bonus is 105% of the my base and the more senior you are in my company, the more connected your compensation fluctuates based on successes and either individual or company metrics. Our most senior staff make a majority of their money, or without success, miss out on a majority of their total compensation based on variabilities. which i feel is more equitable as it puts their skin in the game rather than making X no matter what the results are.

By: johnnycanuck

johnnycanuck — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 19:46:51 +0000

The options are one thing because they cannot be exercised for a fixed period and because they are issued at the current stock price there’s always the chance that when they vest they’ll be worth nothing if the shares are worth the same or less when the time comes.

It’s the so-called bonus I don’t understand, and in Mulally’s case how can it be worth 3.5 times his base salary? I get a bonus, or variable pay, annually but it’s generally 15 to 20% of my salary. 350% is way, way more than just a bonus. The problem is who’s going to question it? The board of directors? That’s usually comprised of what- current or former CEOs and CFOs? And trust me, they take care of their own.

By: davidg1977

davidg1977 — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 19:44:11 +0000

whether you like the pay packages or not… if you’re Mr. Mullaly, would you leave a great position at Boeing for a risky spot at Ford if you didn’t have teh $19m to make up for your lost options at Boeing and if you didn’t see a chance to make a change for the better to your company and yourself?

I know they lost $2.7B, but from the BoD’s perspective, they went from a near $13B loss to a $3B loss, that is a great improvement. Likely, to make that compensation, they had metrics agreed to by the BoD’s compensation committee that put the rules on the table… do X, you earn $Y, do not do X, do not earn $Y. This was an agreed to compensation situation that resulted in these payouts. Whether our infinite blogdom wisdom agrees to “whether they succeeded or not,” doesn’t matter, it’s what their bosses, the BoD, agreed to pay them and that’s the free market.

If Fields is competent or not competent, his bosses will judge that to be true and continue his employment contract, re-negotiate and extend or choose not to renew it… he’s agreed to provide his skills (whether we think they are wonderful or not wonderful) in trade for money… just like you and I.

Whether we think Ford will survive or not, is there any credit to be had for going from $13B in losses to $3B?

By: corvette

corvette — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 18:09:20 +0000

heh they don’t do anything…at least they don’t do a single thing right, i say fire them and ford comes out of the red.

By: Get Real

Get Real — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 18:01:30 +0000

Ford will die.
I am sad and sorry to see it go a slow death.

By: adambravo

adambravo — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 17:58:57 +0000

Buhbye: You lose all credibility when you reference forty-year-old products in the discussion of a current company’s image and product quality. While you may want to debate items like ‘bulletproof’, the trend (since you seem interested in it) for GM quality (and, yes, even Ford quality) has been improving–certainly since the demise of the Vega. And the issue regarding salary is paying someone over $20million to run a company that lost nearly $3billion and is laying people off left and right–something that doesn’t routinely happen on sports teams. And, yes, Wall St traders make a lot of money, and, given the whole Bear Stearns debacle, it’s not any fairer there either.

By: 400horseSS

400horseSS — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 17:54:48 +0000

Becauese they have a college degree.(Sarcasm)

By: jumpoffit

jumpoffit — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 17:52:08 +0000

football and baseball players MAKE money for their respective team/owners, they are the WORK horses also- FORD isn’t making a lot of money but pays their HIGHER ups tons of cash for making bad decisions.

By: Buhbye

Buhbye — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 17:33:06 +0000

Need more oil. You lose all credibility when you type “quality and bulletproof dependability” for the creators of the Corvair and Vega. Get real. Read a consumer publication or two about quality trends, then post the facts, or readers will begin to think you are biased, or smoking old socks.
Yeah, all CEO’s make a lot of money. So do football players, baseball players, Wall street traders….. Why is Automotive News trying to make only Ford look bad? I would never read that rag anyway. Must be owned by guys like Need more oil…

By: xkr

xkr — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 17:27:39 +0000

There you have it, that is one of many reasons Ford is in the financial state their in. Live it up while you can big shots!hahaha

By: The Stig

The Stig — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 17:12:41 +0000

Paying Mark “Big Hair” Fields is throwing money down the toilet. Ford would do better in Vegas.

By: Need more oil for GM

Need more oil for GM — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 17:09:22 +0000

What they haven’t told us is they will be out of a job pretty soon if they can’t stem the onslaught of popular, class leading vehicles coming from their cross town rival at GM. Ford has yet to build a vehicle with the quality and bulledtproof dependibility that GM is known for. Everything that Ford builds falls apart right after the warranty is up which is downright disgraceful. Especially when GM owners see hundreds of thousands of flawless miles on their vehicles costing the same amount! Get with the program Ford or the American Revolution will wipe you off the map faster than they wipe out Chrysler and the foriegners.

By: Stinky007

Stinky007 — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 16:44:56 +0000

Why invest money in better cars when the CEOs could use all that money to invest in real-estate and other unrelated business!
Good job Ford, keep it up, you’ll be selling half the company soon just to pay the CEO!

By: Pauly

Pauly — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 16:36:11 +0000

At least they’re making less than the oil and banking execs. I think Toyota’s CEO makes less than 500K.

By: RSPINAJR

RSPINAJR — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 16:36:01 +0000

Something is wrong here…

By: jackjimturkey

jackjimturkey — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 16:35:42 +0000

Incentives?
Please don’t say they’re “performance-based.”