By this logic, management doesn't share in the losses, either. But they are for damned sure collecting bonuses when times are good. Sounds to me like the union wants a piece of that same "times are good" action.

Management can't ever owe money, but their stock dropped 90+% in a couple years during their downfall.

I assume management gets both annual bonus and equity as a part of their compensation, so I would argue that yes, management is sharing in the loss, in particular with the equity.

IOW, management made less profit. They did not share in the loss. From parent:

when they lost $38 billion the union workers didn't get bills in the mail instead of checks.

If management got bills in the mail, they shared in the loss. AFAIK, they did not.

Yeah. Management work for the owners just like everybody else. They're workers who happen to not be represented by the union.

Management only takes losses so far as they have equity stakes in the company, which is to say the extent to which they are owners. When GM lost $38 billion in a year the people who own the company took that hit.

That's why employees usually don't value ownership in a company, because it cuts both ways. A salary only deposits into your account.

When their equity grants went from being worth X to 20% of X, they shared in the loss.

What's your point? The workers don't run the company - it's not a co-op. Since they don't run the company and don't get a share of the profits, why would they ever be expected to pay losses?

The point is specifically that because they don’t share in the losses[1] they shouldn’t share in the profits. This was a direct response to the parent comment: “Now that GM is very healthy and profitable the union workers want thier share.”

[1] I’m not making a statement about whether this is true or not. Just capturing the context.

> The point is specifically that because they don’t share in the losses[1]

Assuming it's true they had their wages reduced in the crisis, it's absolutely disingenious to claim that a return to higher wages post-crisis would be undeserved profiteering. They did share in the losses.

Did you stop reading when you got to something you wanted to argue against or did you just pick the wrong comment to reply to? I very clearly called out that I am not making a statement about whether the workers shared in the losses.

By sharing in losses I mean losing money in absolute terms, that's what happens to owners. Owners don't just make less money in bad times, they lose money. Workers may lose money relative to what they think they would make otherwise, but they still make money.

Accepting the risk of losses is why owners have a legitimate claim to the profits. Workers take a guaranteed paycheck which shelters them from losses in bad years and forfeits their claim to profits in good.

> Workers take a guaranteed paycheck which shelters them from losses in bad years

It's just great when workers accept pay-cuts in bad times, just for people like you claiming that this is just normal, no loss, and certainly no reason to restore their paycheck when good times are returning.

When I co-owned a company, we gave employees a share of the profits when we had a good year. Besides seeming like a decent thing to do, the employees were more aligned an incentivize to increase profits to increase potential profit-sharing checks. Also, it's easier to adjust bonuses downward as needed. On the other hand, employees would prefer not have their base-pay cut in down year.

We had good employee retention.

Don't autoworkers get stock? I remember vaguely in The Simpsons that the nuclear powerplant employees got stock, and Homer stupidly sold his stock.

Good point. But let's take it a step further. The workers might not "share" __directly__ in the financial losses, but certainly if the company is struggling they lack opportunity for career growth, and such. To say nothing of the fact that struggling conpanies seem to be fond of cutting corners on safety and other things that comprise the the quality of work life for the workers.

As with ao many things: it's complicated.

Unionized workers had to take pay cuts during the downturn of the company, so they shared the losses.

If their compensation was reduced then that does count as taking a share of the losses.

>In 2005 when the company lost $10 billion or in 2007 when they lost $38 billion the union workers didn't get bills in the mail instead of checks.

And you're saying that shareholders did get bills in the mail?

Taxpayers got this bill! Shareholders of GM got billions in profit, and then mismanaged the company (through their appointed officers). In the end the US taxpayers had to pay for their stupidity.

Seconded. I’d like to know who got these bills when GM was losing money.

Everyone who pays US taxes and/or owns USD (via devaluation).

https://www.thebalance.com/auto-industry-bailout-gm-ford-chr...

https://money.cnn.com/2014/05/29/news/companies/gm-profit-ba...

> when they lost $38 billion the union workers didn't get bills in the mail instead of checks.

They reduced their paychecks and benefits, so they actually shared part of the losses. Which entitle them now for a share of the profits.

The ones that got laid off or went nt on short time or didn't have a COLA rise did

The executives never take any loss, in fact they make huge bonuses, even when the company is on verge of bankruptcy.

Doesn't matter. Executives (in this case) are workers, not owners. Some of their pay may be in equity in an attempt to align their interests with the owners but their agreement with the owners is the same as a janitor's: they take guaranteed pay in exchange for not being tied to the risks and rewards of the profit/loss cycle.

> The union workers didn't pay that, they didn't take responsibility for that, the taxpayers did.

These union workers are also taxpayers.

Getting laid off isn't taking a loss?