The Fabulous Life of Lee Scott

How about the number of times SEIU reps have used union dues for personal expenses? Shall we discuss this as well? I have arcticles if you need em’ ;-)

I do agree with the theme of this post in that Lee Scott
and true not only of him but other execs at WM and most
large corporation, earn entirely too much at the expense
of those at the bottom.

The fair way is—the people at the top make more in
base salary and that is fine with me, but not the compensation.

Lee Scott does no more for WM than the maintenance
crew who keeps the restrooms clean and smelling nice.
If they were not sales would fall.  Thus the profits that
are allocated to the employees (top and bottom) whoulld
be equally distribted among all and then the necessary
portion for the stockholders ( yes I know funds have to
be kept in reserve—I am only writing about the excess
at the top)

Compared to the CEO of Exxon, Howard Stern and Brad Pitt, poor Lee is a bargain. Just think, the money Lee spends to be jetted around could be reallocated to reducing the price of moonpies. I think this should be investigated.

P.S This is sarcasm…

“the CEO of Exxon, Howard Stern and Brad Pitt”

I just can’t keep up with merger mania. This is a conglomerate I’ve never heard of. The negative implications of this monopolistic synergy of the industries of petroleum, angry drunken dwarves, and temporary celebrity marriages is profound.

Fact:
The average executive salary used to be 50 times the average workers pay.  It has now climbed to over 400 times the average workers pay.  Some are as high a 1000 times the average workers pay.
So in a nutshell.  Cut the BS about people not being worth a living wage when you got these fat cat pigs going to the feeding station more and more, longer and longer.

Cut the BS

Who decides what a CEO makes?  Is it decided by the “market value”?  So workers wanting a half-way decent, basic wage is outrageous, but CEO’s making 400, 500, or 1,000 times more than the workers is perfectly fine and acceptable?  I don’t think so.

But the sad thing is they think so. They alway want to justify their ‘compensation’ then in the same breath justify why others need to be at near poverty level so “the business can survive”.

Hypocrites & BS

“Who decides what a CEO makes?  Is it decided by the �market value�?

The answer is yes.

“So workers wanting a half-way decent, basic wage is outrageous”

No. It is just outrageous if the worker demands that the company pay according to the worker’s greed and demands with no regard to the work done. Or if the worker uses a pointless comparison with another worker who has much more valuable skills.

The workers (including the CEO) are merely paid for the value of the work. The larger the company, the more high-level of a CEO is needed (with higher pay). If you still do not understand it, do you accept that the captain of the QE2 commands more pay than the captain of a 22’ tour boat?
In comparison, a janitor’s job is the same regardless of the size of a company. The average clerk and janitor’s duties and responsibilities are typically the same whether or not the clerk or janitor is working in a company with 10 employees or with 1 million employees.

Therefore, you are going to get CEO’s earning higher wages the larger the company is, which enables some to bring up the “yeah, who cares?” stastic of the ratio of CEO pay vs average line worker pay. Those who bring up this pointless figure are playing off of ignorance of the high responsibility and high pay needed by the top worker of a very large company.

Let’s say that the jealous and greedy get their way, and can meddle in matters they know nothing about. They can cause the high wage of Lee Scott to be zeroed out, and his money turned over to the average WMT line worker. Just to see what happens, and how much it helps the lives of the average worker:

What happens? Because there are actual numbers involved and REAL math, Lee Scott’s income goes to $0 and the income of each Wal-Mart worker goes UP by less than $1.50 a year. Yes, a year.

How much of a raise is this compared to low wages? Using the lowest estimate of the REAL average yearly Wal-Mart worker wage: $10,000 (from Wake-Up Walmart), you end up with Wal-Mart workers getting a raise of 0.015%. Yes, a tiny fraction of one percent. Wow, you’ve made such a big difference in the lives of the average Wal-Mart worker!

Yes, for all this bashing of Lee Scott and his compensation, if we get rid of the the average WMT worker can now get one more Whopper Jr a year.

Along the way, Wal-Mart is now a company willing to pay the “captain of the ship” $0, and they are going to get exactly what they pay for.

Lee just flew over my trailer!

Give me a break, coherent.  “Market value” has nothing to do with it, and you know it, and the only people being greedy are the CEO’s.  If a real living wage is “welfare” in your opinion then I’d hate to see what the bloated preposterous salaries of CEO’s are.  Oh, I know what they are - theft.

No, no, no....I know the answer.......It’s called JEALOUSY!!! 

Need we discuss the earnings of the top union officials??
Need we discuss the earnings of Mr. Greenwald??
Need we discuss the earnings of Ted Kennedy??

generic: “�Market value� has nothing to do with it”

Market value has EVERYTHING to do with it. I know it. The only people being greedy are the ones demanding that someone give them more without earning it.

generic: “If a real living wage is �welfare� in your opinion”

Again, it is a matter of fact, not opinion. If the government sets a wage level to be well above the value of what someone actually earns, the difference is a handout, a giveaway....something entirely unearned. Since the “living wage” is a form of giving away charity money to people without regard to any exchange or earning, it is a form of a welfare program.

Besides, as proven before, “a real living wage” is a concept that does not hold up under scrutiny. The value “needed” by someone for this wage varies wildly based on a person’s situation, and even if we accept the general plan of forcing companies to give away money that isn’t earned at all, none of the living-wage plans are means tested (and they end up demanding welfare for the rich).

You support a type of welfare program that is so sloppy that it gives away money to the rich, without any consideration of the costs involved (and how these costs negatively impact the poor). You have implied that I was callous before, and yet you ignore the fact that forcing welfare for the rich causes hardship on the poor who have to pay it.

generic: “...I�d hate to see what the bloated preposterous salaries of CEO�s are.”

That is a perfect example of opinion, not fact. The CEO’s wage is set by the board, and it is based on the real value of the CEO’s contribution. Here, there are no artificial considerations, nothing to get in the way of an honest, open trade. No outside meddlers who really have no idea what anything is worth: nothing but real value here.

At least I have a proper perspective here. Whatever I think of a CEO’s salary, it is not my business. I’m not paying it or earning it, so it isn’t my affair at all.

generic: “Oh, I know what they are - theft.”

And that is a good example of an opinion that is so false that it ventures into the territory of lie. Words mean things, “theft” included. The word “theft” never includes something gained only as the result of an entirely consensual deal or trade. It is as factual to call Lee Scott a “thief” as it is to call him an arsonist, a rapist, and someone who rips the tags off the bottom of mattresses.

However, assuming the outrageous claim that the act of a CEO taking what the Wal-Mart board willingly offers is “theft”, I can guess that you are insinuating that this “theft” is from the line workers (never mind the fact that they have already been paid all of what they are owed). Making this false assumption, what has been stolen from the Wal-Mart line workers? Something like the equivalent of $1.30 per year.

It looks like you are getting all bent out of shape and making slanderous false accusations and making up new meanings for words over something that amounts to nothing; no difference in the lives of even the least-earning of WMT workers.

Michael D has it right. It is the green-eyed monster: jealousy. The base human urge to cut down someone who succeeds. Perhaps that is leading to the false accusations and assertions that have nothing to do with actual economic matters.

By all means Michael.....discuss the top union leaders wages!
Difference is that you will be talking in the hundreds of THOUSANDS vs company leaders being in the MILLIONS.

· Arguably, one of the most embarrassing moments in time was during the Hormel P9 strike in Austin MN. It has been called the defining moment in history where the UFCW International sealed its fate and became business unionists forevermore. The packinghouse industry was being decimated and for the first time in years workers wanted to fight off the concessionary agreements and bargain real gains. The International half-assed supported the local’s efforts, but when push came to shove, they were unwilling to take the gloves off and fight. Rumors abound it was the UFCW who asked Governor Perpich to send in the National Guard.

· Bill Wynn’s House deal was near the beginning of what has turned out to be an air and era of self-serving help yourself arrangements by UFCW leaders. Disguised as a means for union leaders to not take a pounding when they had to move, it was little more than an opportunity for the boys to take a pile of cash out of the UFCW coffers. REAP exposed it just prior to a convention and even with it, most of the attendees saw no harm in what he was doing. It was a sad day for the UFCW leadership, as they simply acted as if it was no big deal.

· Joe Talarico was named Doug Dority’s Secretary Treasurer when he took office in the 90’s. It was quite a promotion for the former president of Local 1. He was tall in stature, but once the feds got through with him, he was reduced to serving time for bilking members of somewhere in the neighborhood of two million dollars. When he was arrested, both Doug Dority and former President Bill Wynn sent letters stating he was a fine man.

· In the mid 90’s, the UFCW pension plan for officers lost $75,000,000.00. Those were staggering amounts given there were trust funds that were knocking down 25% returns on investments. Someone from the International saw fit to invest in Hedge Funds. As it turned out, an officer in the investment firm that sold them married one of Dority’s daughters a couple of year’s later…coincidence?

· The 03 California grocery strike was one of the biggest catastrophes in the annals of the UFCW’s history. The lack of planning, strategy and failure to use the muscle and size of the UFCW has been documented to death. It was, or could have been the UFCW’s greatest moment if they had stood up for workers and used their collective strength to win the fight.

· Dority retired shortly after the UFCW ended the strike in Southern California. It was fascinating to note workers had just been starved into submission, yet Dority was walking away with a pension in excess of $170,000 a year. Sadly, that wasn’t enough, as he managed to get an additional half a million dollar plus through a “bonus” of sorts awarded for years of service.

While this is a list of the UFCW’s major guffaws, there are dozens of stories of greedy officers and staff who tapped into union funds and were hauled off to prison. Beyond the crooks, during the last ten years, any numbers of UFCW leaders have managed to convince their executive boards they sorely needed a raise. We saw double-digit percentage raises that were ten fold what members were getting. Their gouging has left the International no choice but to increase per capita to cover the shortfall.

UNIONS DO NOTHING BUT STEAL MONEY FROM THEIR MEMBERS. UNIONS ARE LEAD BY THIEVES.

Jm, it’s not the amount of money, but where the money comes from. Unions sell the idea of helping you, what they are doing is reaching around to your wallet and helping themselves to your money.

Unions never helped anyone?
So who has?
Wal-Mart?

Mary please stop! Your making me laugh.
Mary said “Unions are lead by thieves”.

Who should we get to lead them Mary?
How about the corporate owners or executives from Enron, Adelphia, Hollinger, WorldCom or one of the hundreds of other corporate criminals that have been hitting the newspaper stands the last few years?

Did we forget Mary?

JM: Many unions do engage in a version of theft: forcing people to pay dues illegally and against their will. So many of the unions are illegitimate organizations, where most of the membership is forced to join in the first place. My respect for unions is low when they do not respect the rights of each worker to choose whether or not to join. Whatever the other problems with unions, it is their bullying of the rank-and-file which concerns me the most.

Thank you also for the list of corporate criminals. Did you realize, however, that it took away nothing from Mary’s list of union criminals? At best, it was an attempt to change the subject.

JM: “Difference is that you will be talking in the hundreds of THOUSANDS vs company leaders being in the MILLIONS. “

You forget the other difference: The business leaders are quite honest about it, that they are in it to get rich. The union leaders claim they are doing it to help working people, yet from their actions and paychecks, personal wealth seems to be the main goal. It doesn’t look good when people who are “supposed to be looking out for the workers” threaten and bully workers into giving them hundreds of dollars each year, so they can live Robin Leach lifestyles.

“Knowledgable in MO” had a good idea, despite my overly harsh criticism of him as an armchair quarterback. He spoke of a system of worker representation that could be used. It would have all of the benefits of unionization, with none of the problems (high cost, depressed take-home pay, wasted money, dues being used to create and support millionaires, money used for political corruption). if you put the workers first, you would be concerned about these problems.

Thank you coherent for your opinion that really means next to nothing..

Do you dispute any of the facts presented? Your one-line insult was devoid of content, and it referred to “opinion”, of which I offered little.

If you argue with a fool, then there are two.

JM - the difference between your union leaders earning “hundreds of thousands” and my CEO earning millions is all relevant to REVENUE!!!

Shouldn’t the CEO of the second largest corporation in the world becompensated as such??  As far as I am concerned, he should be paid the second largest salary in the world…

How does one justify an argument against such????????

Michael D.
I believe the Board controlled by certain individuals sets
the compensation—surely many corporations who pay
exhorbant compensation are not very profitable.

I also disagree with Coherent’s analysis, but I don’t have
time to get into.

Incidently what I am wondering about —is how much
“moola” Scott will end up with, when he leaves around
the end of the year or sooner.

Michael will tell you how much, and why he deserves every penny of it.
That’s all Mike can do.  KISS KISS