PDA

View Full Version : CEO's who laid off most workers raked in most treasure



Hawkeye2j
09-03-2010, 09:46 PM
Hidden Corporate Scandal: CEOs Who Laid Off the Most Workers Rake in the Most Treasure
CEOs are throwing workers onto the unemployment rolls and dodging taxes to boost short-term profits and fatten their own paychecks.
September 1, 2010 |

LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Economy headlines via email.





Petitions by Change.org|Get Widget|Start a Petition

The CEO of the world's biggest tech company brought down by a Reality TV "cougar." It's a hard story to resist.

And indeed, the business press has had a field day with the saga of Mark Hurd, the Hewlett-Packard chief who was recently fired for falsifying expense reports to conceal a relationship with a woman from a truly bizarre TV dating show.

After starring in a few soft porn movies, Jodie Fisher, a 50-year-old with Lady Godiva tresses, got a gig in 2007 on NBC’s "Age of Love," in which a male tennis pro was to choose a mate from groups of over-40 “cougars” or under-30 “kittens.”

Fisher didn’t get the red rose, but she did get a contract job with HP. Her task: introduce Hurd to clients at parties. Seriously -- you can get paid for that. But then Fisher claimed she lost the job because she wouldn't sleep with Hurd. He said she was merely on the wrong end of conscientious cost-cutting, but he paid her off anyway. The board got wind of the sexual harassment settlement, discovered the phony expense reports and gave Hurd the ax.

Titillating? Mildly. The biggest scandal at HP? Hardly. The biggest scandals at HP haven't made the headlines because they are so commonplace in Great Recession Corporate America. CEOs in one company after another are throwing workers onto the unemployment rolls and dodging taxes to boost short-term profits and fatten their own paychecks. They are shifting the burden of a poor economy onto the public purse -- while continuing to line their own pockets.

According to a new report by the Institute for Policy Studies, CEOs from the 50 firms that have laid off 3,000 or more workers since the onset of the crisis took home nearly $12 million on average in 2009. That’s 42 percent more than the average for CEOs of S&P 500 firms as a whole.

At HP, Hurd made $24.2 million in 2009, while cutting 6,400 jobs. That was on top of 24,600 layoffs he announced in September 2008 after a merger with EDS. His slash and burn, merge and purge approach was a stark departure from the “no-layoff” policy of HP cofounders William Hewlett and David Packard, who built the company from a garage operation into a global giant.

Messrs. Hewlett and Packard seemed to understand what more and more research is showing: Mass layoffs are often bad for business. Employers have to deal with morale problems among remaining staff and then all the costs related to hiring and training new workers when conditions improve. A University of Colorado survey of S&P 500 companies from 1982 to 2000 found no evidence that downsizing leads to increased returns on assets. In fact, stable employers — companies that have less than 5 percent annual staff turnover — outperformed companies that had major layoffs.

Today’s Hewlett-Packard illustrates still another troubling trend that has largely escaped the headlines: massive corporate tax avoidance.

12Next page »
View as a single page

http://www.alternet.org/economy/148035/hidden_corporate_scandal:_ceos_who_laid_off_the_mo st_workers_rake_in_the_most_treasure/

Hawkeye2j
09-03-2010, 09:48 PM
From the above link:

Under current law, U.S. corporations face a 35 percent tax rate on corporate profits. Hewlett-Packard, under Hurd, sent $47 million to Uncle Sam in 2009 federal corporate income taxes, a mere 2 percent of the company’s reported $2.6 billion in pretax domestic net income.

As a result of various tax avoidance schemes, U.S. corporate income taxes overall have plummeted from almost a third of all non-Social Security federal tax revenues in the 1960s to only a sixth of total taxes today, according to Citizens for Tax Justice.

Since paying taxes apparently gives rich execs the hives, it’s routine for big companies to shield their CEOs from taxes on perks. In 2009, HP gave Hurd $29,028 in such “tax gross-ups” to offset taxes related to his use of the company’s private jet and other perks. Over the past three years, Hurd’s gross-ups have totaled $137,924.

Moby
09-03-2010, 10:09 PM
Didn't Mitt Romney make bank by putting people out of work and isn't that why some Neocons want him to run for President? Putting people out of work is what all Republican presidents have done outside of Reagan.

Hawkeye2j
09-03-2010, 10:26 PM
Didn't Mitt Romney make bank by putting people out of work and isn't that why some Neocons want him to run for President? Putting people out of work is what all Republican presidents have done outside of Reagan.
When that came out, it killed his Senate campaign.

John Galt
09-04-2010, 07:46 AM
Virtually all CEOs take the bulk of their pay via stocks.

Massive layoffs, coupled w/outsourcing, increases profits and therefore keeps the stocks trading high.

The beauty is that they can then blame the economy on Obama, and his impending tax hikes.

That's why we need to give the massive tax cuts to anyone making $100,000.00 or less.

We already know that supply side economics does nothing to create jobs in this country.

Dale escondido
09-04-2010, 08:07 AM
See how that works?
Now any market upturn is when business gets leaner and more profits for those who never held a hammer.
You sooooooo don't get it .
Taxes are going to stop this?
Go ahead and tax, watch the screws get tighter.
Now stop the money from flowing from big business to the politicians pockets and we might be able to start to stop the middle class bleeding.

Pointgold
09-04-2010, 08:57 AM
See how that works?
Now any market upturn is when business gets leaner and more profits for those who never held a hammer.
You sooooooo don't get it .
Taxes are going to stop this?
Go ahead and tax, watch the screws get tighter.
Now stop the money from flowing from big business to the politicians pockets and we might be able to start to stop the middle class bleeding.You are very wise.

John Galt
09-04-2010, 08:59 AM
See how that works?
Now any market upturn is when business gets leaner and more profits for those who never held a hammer.
You sooooooo don't get it .
Taxes are going to stop this?
Go ahead and tax, watch the screws get tighter.
Now stop the money from flowing from big business to the politicians pockets and we might be able to start to stop the middle class bleeding.
Care to explain how tax cuts for the top earners will change this?


I didn't think so.



Any tax cuts, should be for the lower middle class. By default, that puts money directly into the corporations' coffers, but it creates demand for more 'hammer holders'.

Pointgold
09-04-2010, 09:04 AM
Care to explain how tax cuts for the top earners will change this?


I didn't think so.



Any tax cuts, should be for the lower middle class. By default, that puts money directly into the corporations' coffers, but it creates demand for more 'hammer holders'.Looks like we're going to get a first-hand experience of what taxing the "rich" does for an already battered economy.

Just remember, when everything falls apart, you won't be able to blame Bush. :)

Dale escondido
09-04-2010, 09:11 AM
Care to explain how tax cuts for the top earners will change this?


I didn't think so.



Any tax cuts, should be for the lower middle class. By default, that puts money directly into the corporations' coffers, but it creates demand for more 'hammer holders'.

Taxes are but part of the problem.
It is true we have to pay for the services we feel are there for the betterment of our lives.
The quality of life we can attain is the real measurement of the value of our work.
So while it continually declines we look for an enemy.
Truth is imo that the government growth has exceeded the need of the people.
We are continually paying way beyond what we recieve,
As they spend to cover the cost of what I would compare to a business that is top heavy, the value of work is diluted for everyone.
Government is the best friend we have to avoid anarchy, but its a friend who has found out we are very gullible.
Taxes actually could be fair.
But just remember both sides of this issue notice something isn't right and yet it continues no matter who's at the helm.
Maybe were not fixing the right problem?

Hawkeye2j
09-04-2010, 09:51 AM
Taxes are but part of the problem.
It is true we have to pay for the services we feel are there for the betterment of our lives.
The quality of life we can attain is the real measurement of the value of our work.
So while it continually declines we look for an enemy.
Truth is imo that the government growth has exceeded the need of the people.
We are continually paying way beyond what we recieve,
As they spend to cover the cost of what I would compare to a business that is top heavy, the value of work is diluted for everyone.
Government is the best friend we have to avoid anarchy, but its a friend who has found out we are very gullible.
Taxes actually could be fair.
But just remember both sides of this issue notice something isn't right and yet it continues no matter who's at the helm.
Maybe were not fixing the right problem?
Social Security had a 2.6 trillion dollar surplus. Social Security was solvent for the next 80 years. Guess where they got the money to finance the Bush tax cuts for the rich. That's right, they robbed from the working man to give to the rich.

Dale escondido
09-04-2010, 09:59 AM
Social Security had a 2.6 trillion dollar surplus. Social Security was solvent for the next 80 years. Guess where they got the money to finance the Bush tax cuts for the rich. That's right, they robbed from the working man to give to the rich.

Wish it WAS that simple.
We could fix it in no time then.

John Galt
09-04-2010, 11:08 AM
Wish it WAS that simple.
We could fix it in no time then.
In theory, yes.

However, we see now that the small percentage of those who control the money, can artificially steer the economy in any direction they wish.

They can afford to sit this disaster out for years. They continue to bilk the system for billions.

What they will ultimately do, is force us to alter the function of our govt., and have a series of programs that lend money to small businesses.

Maybe we need to go back to a system of smaller, localized businesses, instead of the giant corporations that contribute to the demise of America?

Dale escondido
09-04-2010, 11:26 AM
In theory, yes.

However, we see now that the small percentage of those who control the money, can artificially steer the economy in any direction they wish.

They can afford to sit this disaster out for years. They continue to bilk the system for billions.

What they will ultimately do, is force us to alter the function of our govt., and have a series of programs that lend money to small businesses.

Maybe we need to go back to a system of smaller, localized businesses, instead of the giant corporations that contribute to the demise of America?

AGAIN I agree,
We need government to at least protect small business from unfair big business practices.
Big business fears small business and especially while they struggle with bottom lines.
They turn to legislation to protect them.
The protection that comes with being extremely large, monopolizing under the radar is back with us again and generally ignored.
One of the ways to make money without labor is to steer markets with small money chasing the money they have lost.
It has become harder but still happens and downsizing big business and exspecting two jobs for the price of one is another way big business pays dividends.
Small business doesn't need loans as proposed in the new legislation.
They need fair access to the work available.
They need to be able to purchase good for the same price as corp giants.

John Galt
09-04-2010, 01:56 PM
Small business doesn't need loans as proposed in the new legislation.
They need fair access to the work available.
They need to be able to purchase good for the same price as corp giants.
As an owner of a small business, I have a minor disagreement here.

Small business loans have been keeping people employed for ages.

This is especially true for the businesses that take on very large contracts.

I've already gotten plans to bid on, where the construction company wants me to GIVE THEM up to 10% of my bid price, in lieu of bonding.

That aside...even if the job isn't that big, it often takes 30-60 days to get paid from some larger accounts.

If you have employees, this can put a damper on your cash flow. Likewise for your ability to pay your creditors.

That's why these relatively small business loans are imperative.


As far as competing for price on purchasing materials/goods....it will never happen, unless the small guy can buy in bulk. That's another way the giants have an advantage. Their material costs can be 50% less than the small guy.

If a small business uses the same materials for every job, a loan would help them stockpile materials at a better price.



Our govt. isn't in the business of lending...at least not yet.

If they started a program, a la the one w/college tuition loans, they would earn interest on disbursements.

They would create competition for the banks that are destroying the country.

Dale escondido
09-04-2010, 05:26 PM
As an owner of a small business, I have a minor disagreement here.

Small business loans have been keeping people employed for ages.

This is especially true for the businesses that take on very large contracts.

I've already gotten plans to bid on, where the construction company wants me to GIVE THEM up to 10% of my bid price, in lieu of bonding.

That aside...even if the job isn't that big, it often takes 30-60 days to get paid from some larger accounts.

If you have employees, this can put a damper on your cash flow. Likewise for your ability to pay your creditors.

That's why these relatively small business loans are imperative.


As far as competing for price on purchasing materials/goods....it will never happen, unless the small guy can buy in bulk. That's another way the giants have an advantage. Their material costs can be 50% less than the small guy.

If a small business uses the same materials for every job, a loan would help them stockpile materials at a better price.



Our govt. isn't in the business of lending...at least not yet.

If they started a program, a la the one w/college tuition loans, they would earn interest on disbursements.

They would create competition for the banks that are destroying the country.

Good reply,
from my point of view I have always focused on being able to cover costs as soon as possible.
I call it owning my recieveables.
Start ups are sensitive to cash flow problems but if business is good, putting off vendors isn't comfortable but can be smoozed over later but payroll is a must.,
As far as material cost I wasn't clear enough I think.
I am not talking about volume I know there are breaks and alway have been.
Now direct access is eliminated by distributerships and it is not even possible to know what you are competing with cost wise.

Cookie
09-04-2010, 05:56 PM
they would earn interest on disbursements.[/B]

They would create competition for the banks that are destroying the country.


That's right! Grow the government even bigger!

Those banks you claim are destroying the country employ "people." You in favor of gov taking business away from the private sector and laying off more workers? You in favor of the government lending money they don't own, and earning interest they've no right to keep?
________
Toyota Axv-Iv Specifications (http://www.toyota-wiki.com/wiki/Toyota_AXV-IV)