John Deere strike imminent?

[SCNCY]

It's truly a great time for the worker for the first time in my adult life.

I changed employers in May, they found me and offered a significant pay increase over what I was making with triple the time off and a more complex benefits package. My ex-employer chose not to match it and the position that I left still sits unfilled today.

Strike while it's hot.

I did the same last September. Left and got 15k more in salary along with better benefits. I am tempted to look to see what I can get again, but I think I need to stay at this job for a year or more longer because my last two stops have been short. One was due to me wanting more money and left after a year; this being the most recent. The second was me moving from Kansas City to the east coast and the company didn't want to do remote work. Jokes on them because then COVID hit! But both were short stops.

 

[AuH2O]

Imagine being jealous other people have chosen to join a union and be able to bargain wages. Join a union and you can do the same. Maybe they don't make too much you just make horrible wages.

This sure seems like the way a free labor market with a market for representation is supposed to work.

 

[JM4CY]

Well the union does their b.s. too. I'm not saying they don't.

They absolutely do.

 

[BMWallace]

They oversee everything you mentioned. 14.5 million is a drop in the bucket to JD and one small mistake could cost them that pretty quickly. A place like JD, with all the different line they produce doesn't just run itself.

True, it doesn't run itself. Deere needs welders, CNC operators, drivers, etc. All of these people bring a skill that the is critical to operating the company, same as managing and overseeing the company is a skill that the CEO brings.

As you say, $14.5M is a drop in the bucket for JD to pay someone with management skills. My question is again, why are those skill deemed so much more valuable than a welder or a machinist? What justifies a 240:1 pay ratio between the CEO and the base level employee?

 

[SCNCY]

Been there, seen that...numerous times. He'll be one of the first lopped of during the next layoff, especially since there will be lesser-paid underlings who will have at least an idea of how to do his job.

Don't these situations usually don't end well.

 

[SCNCY]

True, it doesn't run itself. Deere needs welders, CNC operators, drivers, etc. All of these people bring a skill that the is critical to operating the company, same as managing and overseeing the company is a skill that the CEO brings.

As you say, $14.5M is a drop in the bucket for JD to pay someone with management skills. My question is again, why are those skill deemed so much more valuable than a welder or a machinist? What justifies a 240:1 pay ratio between the CEO and the base level employee?

I would say responsibility. The CEO has a lot of stakeholders they need to take in to account when making decisions. They need to think about the employees, shareholders, customers, etc. The welder doesn't share that same burden.

It could be argued how much a CEO thinks about employees, shareholders, customers vs. themselves; but nonetheless, they're responsible for everything and thus take the risk.

 

[mramseyISU]

Don't these situations usually don't end well.

I don’t think they do. I’ve always read that if you tell them you’re going then GTFO because you’re on borrowed time.

 

[SCNCY]

I don’t think they do. I’ve always read that if you tell them you’re going then GTFO because you’re on borrowed time.

Yeah, I was under the same impression too. I've read stories from recruiters where someone is unhappy about their work environment, either due to bad relationship with boss, working hours, training, etc. Company says they will fix it, works for a little bit, but then ends back up where they started months later.

 

[cyIclSoneU]

I don't have a problem with what anybody makes. It does drive me a little crazy when there are people upthread that talk like this:



There is a subset of people that assume the company is screwing these guys over and have no idea how much they make.

I was writing a longer reply but I deleted it because you are simply delusional. The workers deserve at LEAST as much as they can get the company to agree to, because the company would never agree to an amount the workers have not earned. The whole point of the economic system is for workers to accept a <100% share of the value that they create through their labor. But we aren't ready for that here.

 

[KnappShack]

We're all in business. We're all in sales. Some of us just don't know it.

You're selling your labor. They're buying it. It's a transaction. Treat it like one.

I say that all of the time. We are all in sales. Even if the product is yourself.

A.B.C.

Always Be Closing

".....first prize is a Cadillac Eldorado. Anybody wanna see second prize? Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is, you're fired.”

 

[Cyched]

Yeah, I was under the same impression too. I've read stories from recruiters where someone is unhappy about their work environment, either due to bad relationship with boss, working hours, training, etc. Company says they will fix it, works for a little bit, but then ends back up where they started months later.

Thing is, looking for a job is additional work (talking with recruiters, finding time for interviews)and is not something that people who are truly happy with their jobs do. If you go to your boss with another job offer you’re telling them you’re unhappy and are “marked.”

I don’t fault anyone for trying to better their situation; I did the exact same thing when I switched jobs 3 years ago.

But if you took the time to find a better job offer just rip the bandaid off and make the move.

 

[besserheimerphat]

One thing many people don't realize is that returns are not normally distributed. That means that the average investor, whether a person or a pension management company, does not make the average return. When people base their models on making average returns, they will often fail to adequately fund their obligations. They'd be better off using median returns, or could be more conservative by using a lower percentile return. But that means they'd need to invest more cash today.

Don't disagree, but pensions are creating major issues and it's not sustainable

Pensions are sustainable if funded correctly. They are a complete disaster if not adequately funded. The problem is places will promise certain returns and then won’t find them in a way to sustain their promises.

Majority have been mismanaged and that is why they are being phased out.

 

[BMWallace]

I would say responsibility. The CEO has a lot of stakeholders they need to take in to account when making decisions. They need to think about the employees, shareholders, customers, etc. The welder doesn't share that same burden.

It could be argued how much a CEO thinks about employees, shareholders, customers vs. themselves; but nonetheless, there responsible for everything and thus take the risk.

That is fair. And I think your second part alludes to the conflicting incentives that a CEO for a company like JD usually faces. They are tasked with generating value for their shareholders first and foremost. In order to do that, decisions have to be made that tend to either negatively impact either customers, employees, or both.

The problem lies in that in most large public companies successes (profits) are distributed to the shareholders and the management, while failures/losses get shuffled down to the base level employees. That relationship has compounded ever since the golden-age of the middle class in the 50s.

 

[Sigmapolis]

I say that all of the time. We are all in sales. Even if the product is yourself.

A.B.C.

Always Be Closing

".....first prize is a Cadillac Eldorado. Anybody wanna see second prize? Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is, you're fired.”

I sent an old friend of mine a set of steak knives for Christmas last year.

"For the second-best salesman I know."

 

[AuH2O]

I was writing a longer reply but I deleted it because you are simply delusional. The workers deserve at LEAST as much as they can get the company to agree to, because the company would never agree to an amount the workers have not earned. The whole point of the economic system is for workers to accept a <100% share of the value that they create through their labor. But we aren't ready for that here.

They should definitely be pushing for what they can get.

But I think there's also some delusion in trying to figure out how to recapture labor scenarios from the "good old days" (with some carryover into subsequent decades). Unless we're going to have another world war that simultaneously created decades-worth of unprecedented global rebuild demand meanwhile absolutely decimating industrial capacity outside of the US, it's probably never going to come close.

 

[SCNCY]

That is fair. And I think your second part alludes to the conflicting incentives that a CEO for a company like JD usually faces. They are tasked with generating value for their shareholders first and foremost. In order to do that, decisions have to be made that tend to either negatively impact either customers, employees, or both.

The problem lies in that in most large public companies successes (profits) are distributed to the shareholders and the management, while failures/losses get shuffled down to the base level employees. That relationship has compounded ever since the golden-age of the middle class in the 50s.

That's a good point. I would add that when successful, some gets distributed to base level employees. But when failures or losses happen, they really drill on the base level employees, while upper management still gets raises and bonuses. Additionally, blame falls downhill despite the decisions that management made that forced the failure.

 

[BMWallace]

I was writing a longer reply but I deleted it because you are simply delusional. The workers deserve at LEAST as much as they can get the company to agree to, because the company would never agree to an amount the workers have not earned. The whole point of the economic system is for workers to accept a <100% share of the value that they create through their labor. But we aren't ready for that here.

There is a word for that: Exploitation. The owners of capital seek to exploit the labor of their workers in order to enrich themselves. And the greater the exploitation, the more the owners will personally gain.

 

[agcy68]

True, it doesn't run itself. Deere needs welders, CNC operators, drivers, etc. All of these people bring a skill that the is critical to operating the company, same as managing and overseeing the company is a skill that the CEO brings.

As you say, $14.5M is a drop in the bucket for JD to pay someone with management skills. My question is again, why are those skill deemed so much more valuable than a welder or a machinist? What justifies a 240:1 pay ratio between the CEO and the base level employee?

I get what you are saying and cannot adequately defend that type of CEO salary. But points to consider:
- I think you need a very talented individual to set the tone for the company. They make a lot a very strategic decisions that most of us would be less than qualified to make.
- I believe that most CEO's spend way more time on company business that the average employee. For a company like John Deere, that likely entails a lot of travel which, after X number of weeks on the road, is not 'fun'
- I think that Ben & Jerry's tried to hire a CEO a few years ago with lower than normal pay/incentives and they couldn't find anyone worthy to apply
- At some point the CEO salaries are like professional athletes - it isn't about what you make, but how that compares to the other CEOs and the ego that goes with it.
- Some of the reported salary is somewhat exaggerated - I can't speak to JD, but I presume that there is base salary, bonuses, and stock options that can be all rolled up into one giant number. I wish they would report out the buckets of those individuals for more transparency.
- The impact that a CEO of a company has on the company itself is way more than the impact of any give welder, CNC operator, driver, etc.

I don't believe that just anyone can be a CEO - education, experience, aptitude (and luck) all play into it. But, as I noted above, I cannot defend the current ratio of CEO:Laborer salaries.

 

[Pope]

One of the signs that greeted the workers for the Ankeny plant before they went into Saydel High School to vote. Pretty much sums it up.

 

[KnappShack]

They should definitely be pushing for what they can get.

But I think there's also some delusion in trying to figure out how to recapture labor scenarios from the "good old days" (with some carryover into subsequent decades). Unless we're going to have another world war that simultaneously created decades-worth of unprecedented global rebuild demand meanwhile absolutely decimating industrial capacity outside of the US, it's probably never going to come close.

And with AI and machine learning gaining speed (rapidly) we're in a brave new world whether we want to believe it or not. The color of the collar won't make a difference. A new revolution is here.

Most days I'm sure my position will be obsolete in about 3-5 years.