Ousted GM CEO To Get $10M Retirement Package

"Shocking numbers to some, but let's face facts here..."

Wagoner was a FAILURE. Does that mean anything in today's "I get mine" world? He drove GM into the ground and all of America is subsidizing his humongous failing as an executive.

This is outrageous. He should be sued by the shareholders and leave the job penniless.

Wow; this former CEO drives the company to the brink and somehow gets a $10 million severence package....

Where do I apply to become a GM CEO?

+1 to both BGDC and mrryte. It's a travesty that this is happening.

Wagoner's "firing" is looking more like an "early retirement offer".

I'm not convinced Wagoner is as bad as people think he is. There's a lot more too it.

However, if you're let go from a company, especially a bankrupt company, you shouldn't get a package. I'm a little bitter about this. I got laid off (not fired) from the same industry and I got squat.

I'd really like to see our President explain why the guy he let go gets a package while the rest of us get the shaft.

brn,

Not the president's place to comment on it. GM needs to comment on it. Someone is running GM and his name is not Obama.

This retirement package for Wagoner bypassed any and all legal shareholders of the "old" company. At least that's how I'm understanding it. If that's the case, then who made the decision to authorize this? Henderson? Rattner? Obama himself? Who?

It has to come down to someone making the call. The new company has a limited number of new shareholders, one of which is the government.

I can't see how Old GM can afford to pay Wagoner, so it has to be under New GM that he's receiving this. And we all know who owns 61% of the new company, don't we?

You guys make it sound like the government is literally paying any attention to the day to day of GM.

bgdc, my intention wasn't to start any kind of Obama debate. That happened in another thread and I stopped reading when it did.

It might be the President (didn't he "fire" Wagoner?). It might be GM. It might be an oversight committee. It might be some combination. Someone needs to explain to the public why the outed leader of a bankrupt company gets a golden parachute.

BGDC,

This isn't day-to-day matters, man. This is a freaking golden parachute that is costing the taxpayers potentially $22+ million. And it's happening on the government's watch, to boot.

brn,

I totally agree.

I'd say give it to the workers that had to work under the poor management that lost them their jobs.

You do realize why he got this oversized package?

The people who decide are the remaining/ new management team who are hoping to get the same deal when they leave.

They can't deny the current guy his lottery win when they are hoping for one themselves someday.

Screw all that! GM isn't a private company anymore. How 'bout we give it back to the taxpayers that are footing this bill?

first is probably right. It's a sick cycle. I've seen executives even exercise this while covering up for other execs' blunders. Someone in charge of another dept makes a major mistake and rather than taking it to the CFO/CEO/COO the other directors/VPs sweep it all under the rug. In exchange they want the same leniency one day.

"The people who decide are the remaining/ new management team who are hoping to get the same deal when they leave."

Look at that! FW and I are in agreement for once. :)

It can happen :)

It's conventional "wisdom" that Wagoner was the one who was most responsible for GM's problems, but conventional wisdom is frequently wrong; thus, it isn't wisdom at all.

This is reason #101 why it is always a bad idea for a government to ever, ever, use supposedly taxpayer dollars to bail out a private entity. (Actually, the dollars are phony money, from the government who counterfeits as much of it as they want). This is not constitutional for some very good reasons.

I think Obama wanted to give GM more money before forcing them into bankruptcy so that he could get his administration's foot further into the door. Otherwise, why wouldn't GM (and Chrysler) have been denied additional funding and then just allowed to file bankruptcy on their own? Obama and his comrades have essentially taken over GM, fired their CEO, and all that people balk at is that said CEO is getting a severance package that he was likely contractually entitled to anyway? And what does the rule of law matter anymore, when the national (formerly federal) government calls the shots?

What we all should be outraged about is that the socialists are using the recession (that their policies are extending) as an excuse to grab control of as much private industry as they can to further control them.

When the government runs or owns most everything and doesn't honor private property rights, what freedom do we actually have?

+1 billion, cwc1.

I think you and I would get along :-)

cwc1: I'm trying to figure out whether its better for the government to have control of a company or hand over a fat taxpayer check and having no control. I read an associated press report on the amount of money from the BANK bailouts that went to severances and bonuses...it was about $1.6 billion. Just can't win.

cwc, the amount given to gm is a pittance compared to the gross socialist programs we have like:

social security
medicare
medicaid
bank bailouts

Funny how most people griping about GM's bailout would go apoplectic if the government said it was abolishing social security (which shouldn't exist if you honestly believe in a small gov't/capitalism).

Dang it. It's become a political debate. :(

$74k a year? Small potatoes. Some retired execs get double, triple that. Take the $1.6m in benefits out of the equation, and Wagoner sort of got a raw deal.

bgdc,

I don't think that anyone here that posted AGAINST GM and Chrysler's bailout was also FOR the bank bailout. I don't want to speak for cwc1, but I have a hunch that he doesn't support the former three programs you've listed either. And neither do I.

This is a forum on the automotive world and it happens to be a discussion on how the government is intervening with said world. I take for granted that the comments here would be mainly about GM and Chrysler getting bailout money. Now, if we were on a banking forum or a medical forum, I'd suppose there would be people saying things like "But all you people that are against the banking bailouts never mention the fact that the auto companies got bailouts too!". I think you get what I'm saying.

So, I don't really get how you can say "most people griping about GM's bailout would go apoplectic..." There's just no support for that. Numerous people on these forums have spoken out against all the bailouts, and some (like myself) have spoken out against government intervention of all types, including social security, medicare, and medicaid. It's my perception that at this point in the game, it's exactly opposite of what you say: people are becoming even MORE opposed to the absurd governmental policies.

flicmod:

I brought up the bank bailouts because it was a similar scenario (worse in my opinion) to the auto industry bailouts. I'd rather the government at least have a say in who runs the company, get the company on its feet, and sell its majority stake-- compared to sending them billions and closing their eyes. Overall I'd be the first to say screw the auto industry bailouts and let poor management live with their mistakes.

flic,

You're rare my friend. There aren't any elected politicians who will even hint of ending big government. The government talked about shutting down the F22 orders and a gaggle of representatives (from both sides of a very narrow aisle) have gone bonkers over the pork they'll lose. Sadly, big gov't, pork, politicians and the people who vote for them are all rolled into one. Most people are against pork unless it ends up on their plate. Big gov't is bad, until they want a job.

Sadly it's all so myopic and the results are spiraling out of control.

bgdc,

"You're rare my friend."
Thank you! I take that as a complement!

Also, are you aware of one called "Dr. No"? :-)