Pay Czar Removes Salary Cap for GM's New Hires; Who Is GM's $500k Man?

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago

Automotive News [sub] reports that President Obama’s Pay Czar has done an about face. Kenneth Feinberg pledged to remove the $500,000 salary cap for NEW executives hired for TARP-recipients—if he’s convinced that a rule-busting pay boost would help the bailout queens return U.S. taxpayer’s money. Feinberg’s climb-down comes just two days after New GM’s federally-appointed Chairman of the Board said that Uncle Sam’s pay caps could be, indeed should be, “modified.” Of course, Ed Whitacre didn’t make his suggestion directly. Nor did Feinberg reveal the locus of his “come to Jesus with cash” moment. “[Feinberg] said the automotive firms did not appeal his rulings. But he said he would be open to requests to hire in new executives at competitive pay. ‘If General Motors or any other company wants to bring someone in laterally — laterally — and competitive pay packages require that lateral hires get certain competitive pay, what have you, we’re perfectly willing to examine that.'” So the new rule: GM can hire someone for more than $500,000 in cash per year if that person was already making $500,000 per year doing the same job, only better (one would hope). Which would exclude, uh, no one. And create mucho resentment at that special place where RenCen’s express elevators ascend to glory. More Feinbergian 180 after the jump, and a mystery to be solved . . .

Feinberg said he would measure his success in determining appropriate pay levels for the bailed-out firms by their repayment of taxpayer money.

“There is nothing more important than the fact that these companies repay,” Feinberg said. “The secretary of the Treasury has made it very clear that we must keep these companies in business, thriving, so that the taxpayer can get repaid.”

So what was the point of the pay caps in the first place? Street theater, of course. But still, you’d expect the show to last more than four weeks. Never mind; I thought pay caps were a dangerously stupid idea, even for a nationalized multi-national. Performance requirements, that’s what the TARPIE-fed suits need. More importantly, transparency! After all, if we know what they’re doing for the money—OUR MONEY—-we can know if they deserve our support. Sort of like, I dunno, owners of any other publicly-held company.

So here’s what I want to know: who is the mystery man within GM ranks who gets paid more than $500,000? We now know GM CEO Fritz “I’m a Goofy Goofer” Henderson is getting $950,000 per year. BUT WHO IS THE OTHER GUY?

Cash salaries for the top GM executives were cut by 31 percent, and only one unnamed executive besides Henderson will be paid more than $500,000 for 2009.

As a taxpayer and GM owner, I demand to know which other GM suit is more equal than the others. Is it Lutz? Tell me it’s not Lutz. I know it’s Lutz. It’s Lutz, right? Gotta be. The Pay Czar exempts the failed Car Czar. It’s . . . kismet. Tell me I’m wrong. No? FOIA you, then.

Robert Farago
Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 8 comments
  • Stuki Stuki on Nov 13, 2009

    Social workers do a perfectly acceptable job of handing out taxpayer money to predominantly Democratic contituencies, and for a whole lot less than half a million a year.

  • Dynamic88 Dynamic88 on Nov 13, 2009

    I remain unconvinced that more money attracts top talent. If that's true, why did GM go into BK? Why has GM lost so much market share the past 4 decades?

  • Dartdude Having the queen of nothing as the head of Dodge is a recipe for disaster. She hasn't done anything with Chrysler for 4 years, May as well fold up Chrysler and Dodge.
  • Pau65792686 I think there is a need for more sedans. Some people would rather drive a car over SUV’s or CUV’s. If Honda and Toyota can do it why not American brands. We need more affordable sedans.
  • Tassos Obsolete relic is NOT a used car.It might have attracted some buyers in ITS DAY, 1985, 40 years ago, but NOT today, unless you are a damned fool.
  • Stan Reither Jr. Part throttle efficiency was mentioned earlier in a postThis type of reciprocating engine opens the door to achieve(slightly) variable stroke which would provide variable mechanical compression ratio adjustments for high vacuum (light load) or boost(power) conditions IMO
  • Joe65688619 Keep in mind some of these suppliers are not just supplying parts, but assembled components (easy example is transmissions). But there are far more, and the more they are electronically connected and integrated with rest of the platform the more complex to design, engineer, and manufacture. Most contract manufacturers don't make a lot of money in the design and engineering space because their customers to that. Commodity components can be sourced anywhere, but there are only a handful of contract manufacturers (usually diversified companies that build all kinds of stuff for other brands) can engineer and build the more complex components, especially with electronics. Every single new car I've purchased in the last few years has had some sort of electronic component issue: Infinti (battery drain caused by software bug and poorly grounded wires), Acura (radio hiss, pops, burps, dash and infotainment screens occasionally throw errors and the ignition must be killed to reboot them, voice nav, whether using the car's system or CarPlay can't seem to make up its mind as to which speakers to use and how loud, even using the same app on the same trip - I almost jumped in my seat once), GMC drivetrain EMF causing a whine in the speakers that even when "off" that phased with engine RPM), Nissan (didn't have issues until 120K miles, but occassionally blew fuses for interior components - likely not a manufacturing defect other than a short developed somewhere, but on a high-mileage car that was mechanically sound was too expensive to fix (a lot of trial and error and tracing connections = labor costs). What I suspect will happen is that only the largest commodity suppliers that can really leverage their supply chain will remain, and for the more complex components (think bumper assemblies or the electronics for them supporting all kinds of sensors) will likley consolidate to a handful of manufacturers who may eventually specialize in what they produce. This is part of the reason why seemingly minor crashes cost so much - an auto brand does nst have the parts on hand to replace an integrated sensor , nor the expertice as they never built them, but bought them). And their suppliers, in attempt to cut costs, build them in way that is cheap to manufacture (not necessarily poorly bulit) but difficult to replace without swapping entire assemblies or units).I've love to see an article on repair costs and how those are impacting insurance rates. You almost need gap insurance now because of how quickly cars depreciate yet remain expensive to fix (orders more to originally build, in some cases). No way I would buy a CyberTruck - don't want one, but if I did, this would stop me. And it's not just EVs.
Next