Free money

[Redfrog]

I read the thread about Bombardier execs getting salary increases while they are doing huge layoffs.

I don't believe Gov't's job is to bail out or subsidize private companies. I wonder how much money would be left in general revenue to run the country if there were no corporate welfare?

These programs are presented as a way to save jobs or create them , but it seems to be smoke and mirrors. When did it become gov't job to make sure everyone has a job. Seems to be part of the problem not part of the solution when we see the results. Layoffs, little accountable, failure to honor loans etc.

Does the tax money generated from these employees and companies even come close to the cost of administering these programs.

How does the gov't take $100 that it's collected in tax, run it through the bureaucracy, to dispense it to industry, Then the industry does it's best to avoid taxes, except for the worker who pays 30% income tax. The gov't now touts the plan as creating tons of jobs and driving the economy forward.

What am I missing?

Should gov't have any involvement in industry other than regulations for safety , trade and legal requirements?

[Jeron Kahyar]

http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=318412

[rugatika]

No way in hell government should be robbing the middle class of billions of dollars to give to millionaires/billionaires.

[ReconWilly]

Wealth transfer.

Destruction of the middle class by any means necessary.

[67ZL1]

Heard on the news this am that Trudeau and Wynne are giving Ford grants to keep some plants in Canada. They also suggested that there was going to be major government investment into the auto sector in the coming years. This is not going to over well for the taxpayers

[bigskinner]

How about Rachel funding an Alberta private brewer KRAFT BEER ,that's not NDP policy , that's what Torys do.
l wrote her a letter .

[Scott N]

No more government money to this company ever.

[skidderman]

It sucks but at least in the case the money is staying in Canada.

[Fur]

I am not for bailouts.

Accountability for all people be it private corps or the government.

The theory that bailouts are protecting jobs is absurd.

[morinj]

I will not purchase a bombardier product, but the question is, will it stop any of you! Resiculous!!!

[LSLAKER]

Originally Posted by morinj

I will not purchase a bombardier product, but the question is, will it stop any of you! Resiculous!!!

In 2003, Bombardier Inc. sold its Recreational Products Division to a group of investors.
The newly formed company was named Bombardier Recreational Products.

Bombardier Inc. manufactures business and commercial aircraft as well as rail passenger cars. It is this company that is continually being offered more taxpayer's money to stay in business.

[Drewski Canuck]

Is the Bombardier bailout going to the company that has a strange publically traded share class where there are "super shares" that essentially have a ... veto (sound familiar?) ... over other classes of public shares that could be voted??

Perhaps the only saving grace is the tax rate for the executives on their new found wealth.

Drewski

[Gray Wolf]

Originally Posted by Jeron Kahyar

http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=318412

Yup

[EZM]

Guys - I agree - the optics stink.

I was in a senior management position for a major oil/gas company when I was forced, through a downturn in the economy, to make tough decisions. Some of those decisions came at the expense of layoffs to people in several business units.

I also had, as a part of my employment contract and employment and compensation plan, an incentive structure including cash, stock options, etc...

What would you have a person like me do?

Should I be obligated to renegotiate and/or decline a part of my compensation due to an issue (downturn in economy) I couldn't control?

Keep in mind I spent years in school, years working hard to make my way up the ladder to provide the very best for my family.

I understand the optics suck.

They suck worse if it`s government money for sure and taxpayers are flipping the bill here (that wasn`t the case with me).

Yeah it sucks - but that`s the way it goes.

[Austin]

Originally Posted by 67ZL1

Heard on the news this am that Trudeau and Wynne are giving Ford grants to keep some plants in Canada. They also suggested that there was going to be major government investment into the auto sector in the coming years. This is not going to over well for the taxpayers

Especially when cost of vehicles to consumers continues to climb or stay constant. Tech in the vehicle and cost to manufacture or assemble now should be less expensive now wouldn't ya think?

[Dewey Cox]

Originally Posted by LSLAKER

In 2003, Bombardier Inc. sold its Recreational Products Division to a group of investors.

The newly formed company was named Bombardier Recreational Products.



Bombardier Inc. manufactures business and commercial aircraft as well as rail passenger cars. It is this company that is continually being offered more taxpayer's money to stay in business.

They are in the rail passenger car business, and they can't stay afloat on their own?
Maybe they should diversify and get into the buggy whip business.

[67ZL1]

Originally Posted by Austin

Especially when cost of vehicles to consumers continues to climb or stay constant. Tech in the vehicle and cost to manufacture or assemble now should be less expensive now wouldn't ya think?

I would assume that the price should stay relatively the same over the years. They key word they used in the announcement this morning was "grant". I suspect that Ford is looking at moving some of its plants elsewhere due to the high energy rates that were brought on by Ontario's Liberal gov't

[GunnerySgtJackson]

Originally Posted by 67ZL1

I would assume that the price should stay relatively the same over the years. They key word they used in the announcement this morning was "grant". I suspect that Ford is looking at moving some of its plants elsewhere due to the high energy rates that were brought on by Ontario's Liberal gov't

Funny enough, just read that Ont's Hydro1 top execs received 11 million in bonuses this year. ..........I laughed and laughed and then cried.

[HyperMOA]

Originally Posted by EZM

Guys - I agree - the optics stink.

I was in a senior management position for a major oil/gas company when I was forced, through a downturn in the economy, to make tough decisions. Some of those decisions came at the expense of layoffs to people in several business units.

I also had, as a part of my employment contract and employment and compensation plan, an incentive structure including cash, stock options, etc...

What would you have a person like me do?

Should I be obligated to renegotiate and/or decline a part of my compensation due to an issue (downturn in economy) I couldn't control?

Keep in mind I spent years in school, years working hard to make my way up the ladder to provide the very best for my family.

I understand the optics suck.

They suck worse if it`s government money for sure and taxpayers are flipping the bill here (that wasn`t the case with me).

Yeah it sucks - but that`s the way it goes.

Did the company you work for give you a raise after it went essentially broke and taxpayers subsidized your raise and allowed your company to continue? Or did the company you work for cut costs and paid you out of their own bank account?

Optics are nothing, this is a very different situation. The company is bailed out time and time again and has never been profitable. These are high class welfare recipients.

[thumper]

Originally Posted by GunnerySgtJackson

Funny enough, just read that Ont's Hydro1 top execs received 11 million in bonuses this year. ..........I laughed and laughed and then cried.

Coming soon to a province near you!

Save your tears for poor Ontario - you're going to need them for home pretty soon.

[The Cook]

Just read on Global News that turdo defends the bailout to bombardier. Could we please build a wall around quebec and give them money to separate. In the long run it would be money well spent.

[ESOXangler]

Originally Posted by EZM

Guys - I agree - the optics stink.

I was in a senior management position for a major oil/gas company when I was forced, through a downturn in the economy, to make tough decisions. Some of those decisions came at the expense of layoffs to people in several business units.

I also had, as a part of my employment contract and employment and compensation plan, an incentive structure including cash, stock options, etc...

What would you have a person like me do?

Should I be obligated to renegotiate and/or decline a part of my compensation due to an issue (downturn in economy) I couldn't control?

Keep in mind I spent years in school, years working hard to make my way up the ladder to provide the very best for my family.

I understand the optics suck.

They suck worse if it`s government money for sure and taxpayers are flipping the bill here (that wasn`t the case with me).

Yeah it sucks - but that`s the way it goes.

All us working in field took pay cuts and loss of benefits due to the downturn. Certainly wasn't what was in the contract when I hired on. But it helped keep us working, companies are still turning a profit though. And 10% of my wage gone is a lot more painful then 10% of a managers wage. I worked hard through school too, I've made plenty of sacrifices too. The problem is when managers start thinking their entitled more. Every cog matters just as much.

[EZM]

Originally Posted by HyperMOA

Did the company you work for give you a raise after it went essentially broke and taxpayers subsidized your raise and allowed your company to continue? Or did the company you work for cut costs and paid you out of their own bank account?

Optics are nothing, this is a very different situation. The company is bailed out time and time again and has never been profitable. These are high class welfare recipients.

People in management positions typically don't get "raises" per-say in the way most workers might to recognise their contribution to the business.

So, NO they didn't "get a raise" in my base salary, but I was awarded additional stock options associated with the restructuring of the business units, companies and financial facilities. There was no cash incentives outside of the regular incentives that existed prior to the restructuring.

To answer your second question - Taxpayers did not fund my incentives. The business was (and continues to be) a publicly traded company - so yes "it came out of their own bank accounts".

[ETOWNCANUCK]

I'm actually ok with this.













The voices in my head told me so.

[EZM]

Originally Posted by ESOXangler

All us working in field took pay cuts and loss of benefits due to the downturn. Certainly wasn't what was in the contract when I hired on. But it helped keep us working, companies are still turning a profit though. And 10% of my wage gone is a lot more painful then 10% of a managers wage. I worked hard through school too, I've made plenty of sacrifices too. The problem is when managers start thinking their entitled more. Every cog matters just as much.

I don't disagree. A good manager understands that his teams success is based on the people doing the work - every COG is important to making a wheel function. It's not a BS cliche - it's been proven to be absolutely true for me.

[NCC]

Originally Posted by HyperMOA

Did the company you work for give you a raise after it went essentially broke and taxpayers subsidized your raise and allowed your company to continue? Or did the company you work for cut costs and paid you out of their own bank account?

Optics are nothing, this is a very different situation. The company is bailed out time and time again and has never been profitable. These are high class welfare recipients.

X1000 It's like when Lehman Bros gave their management team multi-million dollar bonuses for bankrupting the company. How can a company pay their executives bonuses when the company is failing?

If Bombardier can't compete in a global market let them go under. i don't think it is our jobs as Canadians to subsidize rail cars that are sold over seas.

[Coyotebutcher]

The part of the math that doesn't work for me is, that if the execs accepted $10m in payout between 6 people instead of 30, they could cover this $300m loan in 15 years. But who could live on $1.2M each, right?

[ESOXangler]

Originally Posted by EZM

I don't disagree. A good manager understands that his teams success is based on the people doing the work - every COG is important to making a wheel function. It's not a BS cliche - it's been proven to be absolutely true for me.

You have a decent attitude for a manager then. Climb that ladder and teach the rest of the plugs.

[HyperMOA]

Originally Posted by EZM

People in management positions typically don't get "raises" per-say in the way most workers might to recognise their contribution to the business.

So, NO they didn't "get a raise" in my base salary, but I was awarded additional stock options associated with the restructuring of the business units, companies and financial facilities. There was no cash incentives outside of the regular incentives that existed prior to the restructuring.

To answer your second question - Taxpayers did not fund my incentives. The business was (and continues to be) a publicly traded company - so yes "it came out of their own bank accounts".

I understand pay structures and bonus structures. My point was your employer was going through hard times but still paid you the money they owed you based on your pay and bonuses. Even though times were tough, the company still paid you. As long as they have the funds, rightfully so they should.

Let's say your company had gone insolvent before you received your bonus, and there was no cash to pay you your bonus. Even though you earned it, they just can't pay you. Would you expect the government to pay your bonus with tax dollars? I'm quite certain you wouldn't.

Now in this case the company is bailed out bi-annually it seems. The board that votes on the 50% pay increase just so happens to be the preferred stock holders. Do you know how to become a preferred stock holder? That's right your last name must be Bombardier and you must sit on the board of directors. No conflict of interest there. Now right after receiving 1.5 billion more in aid in the previous few months for a company that can't stand on its own 2 feet the directors have the gall to give themselves 50% pay increases?!?!?!?!?!!!!!! These are the people in charge of the failure of this corporation. They should be terminated not rewarded.

[HyperMOA]

Originally Posted by ESOXangler

You have a decent attitude for a manager then. Climb that ladder and teach the rest of the plugs.

x2 Its nice to see at least one person who understands that management is a member of the team, not the lord of the serf.