WooHoo! Cheap Meat!

[Dave_7]

Striking workers and fewer customers buying meat... means great deals for you.

I got three packages of boneless, skinless chicken breast meat for only $1/lb.

It had to be sold today, but pop it in the freezer, and enjoy cheap meat for weeks to come.

Steaks were cheaper, too. With stickers such as "Take an Extra $1.00 Off!"

This is at Vons, by the way.

And, naturally, this deal comes on the heels of This Post (http://www.gotapex.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=67358)



Dave.

[Chris Johnson 00 T/A]

Doh, too bad I'm in texas :p

[INeedAVacation]

I think if you will do enough research as to why the employees are striking you will understand why its important not to cross the picket lines-not even for "cheap meat".

[InfiniteNothing]

Hold out for more. Lets see how low the supermarkets can go. Kinda makes you realize just how much they gouge us.

[shabubu]

INeedAVacation, I totally disagree with you....
Doing research has shown that the top reason they are striking is because they don't want to pay for their own health care...$5 a month for an individual or $15 a month for a family plan is what the stores want to implement and they have the nerve to complain???!!!
I pay hundreds of dollars a month for my health care, I wish I could get away with $15 a week....I am not going to let these strikers hold my family hostage as they are trying to do...They are preventing shoppers from going into the stores in some locations, even throwing stuff at people that try to cross...Now the teamsters are supposed to be joining in to prevent the stores from stocking their shelves???? Who are these lazy union workers trying to hurt, you ask.... THE PUBLIC...THEIR CUSTOMERS... They feel that if they keep customers away, the stores will buckle...
Nice try....
By the way, Albertsons has a ton of items selling them 10 for $10...Like 2 litre soda and more...
So I say, cross the picket lines if you have to!!!! OR even, cross them for fun!!!!
YEEE HAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hope I don't offend anyone, especially if you are a striking worker...I know this has to be hard times for them but I will not sacrifice my family for their selfish wants....

[InfiniteNothing]

If you think this could really be about $5/month you are pretty naive. Healthcare contribution will increase to up to $1.35 an hour! Some of these people are only making 6.75, for them it's 20%. They would make just $135 a week and pay $108/month. That's huge and ridiculous. I'm sure you wouldn't want to pay that. Also what this means to you is that the standards of living in your comunity go down. It starts being more common to pay for healthcare and your employer decides if everyone else is making their workers pay more so should theirs and you get stuck with the bill. Here are some of the other Healthcare benefit losses:

1.Employer proposes to eliminate maintanace of benefits
2.Elimination of benefits such as dental, vision, well baby care and preventive office visits
3.Elimination of prescription drug benefit
4.Employee would be responsible for 50% of the TOTAL hospital bill
5.Chemotherapy Treatments to be capped, leaving employees with thousasnds of dollars in unpaid treatments
6.Significant increased in office visit co-payment, and a cap on office visits resulting in 100% payment by the employee
7.Significant reduction in benefits for both existing and new retirees

And that's just health care! There are also problems with the retirement system. For more information or to argue more visit Off topic (http://www.gotapex.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=67037)

[southpark12345]

Sorry for posting a reply, when this board is for good deals... I just had to state my opinion.

I will continue to cross picket lines. Why should I have to change my way of life. They are not the only companies that have put the burden of higher medical costs on their employees. Mine have gone up 50%. The company where my wife works have tripled what their employees have to pay. This problem is very large and wide spread.

Beside I like Double Coupons.

[Chgoman]

As someone esle said, it's not just about the healthcare, if it were I would care less since everyone is paying more for healthcare now a days. The biggest issue in the strike is the pension benefits. They are trying to cut the employees pensions in half. To newer workers this would not make much of a difference, but for people who have been around a while this is huge!

I was talking to a guy I know who has been working for Vons for about 28 years who was planning on retiring in 2 years. If the company cuts the pension like they want to, he would probabably have to work another 12-15 years just to get the retirement benefits that he has earned and has been promised for the last 28 years. Companies should not be able to promise one thing (especially in the area of retirement) and then just change it simply because they made poor investment decisions when the market was flying high!

[ray]

From what I have read and heard, the average grocery BAGGER make $15/hour. Grocery baggers make more money a year than some college graduates with bachelor's degrees. Second, it seems the majority of news reports and articles are focusing on health care benefits, rather than pension. Perhaps i am malinformed, but if the media is hyping up this health care issue, then I would have to believe that the biggest problem the union has is with Health Care.

As someone else noted up above, many of us pay much much higher premiums for health care, myself included. I work for a global corporation that employs over 20,000 people worldwide and I am paying $70/month for my healthcare.

These union workers who are complaining that $15/month is too high should really investigate how much it would cost for their healthcare, should the union or their employer not provide it. For you students out there, you probably have no idea how much insurance costs. For many of us who have been priviliged to work for companies that pay the bulk of our health insurance, we have never had to suffer the burden of paying the full rates for the same coverage that we take for granted now.

To give some of you a gauge as to how much health insurance costs. My current health plan is a POS plan with $15/copay. There are some extra fees incurred if I go to the emergency room or for certain medical examinations, but the costs are minimal compared to what they would be if i didn't have my plan or i didn't have insurance at all. My POS plan costs my employer $400/month and for a family of 4 it costs roughly $1200. The reason why I know this is because my former employer offered the exact same health plans as my new employer and needless to say, my former employer wanted EVERYBODY to know HOW MUCH health insurance actually cost because they didn't deduct a cent from anybody's paycheck. When people complained that our health insurance wasn't good enough, the CFO of the company reminded everybody that they would be spending $1200/month to insure their spouse and children if they wanted the exact same coverage.

For a union worker making minimum wage...well, i find it hard to believe that any union worker would be making minimum wage. Again, they should be GRATEFUL that someone is offering them health insurance at a fraction of the actual cost.

I have zero compassion for these union workers who are complaining about paying for health insurance.

As far as their pensions are concerned, that's a whole different story. I don't believe people's retirement plans should be cut because some corporate ******* thinks it will save his company money. If they wanted to save money, they should start from the top and move their way down. It's never the upper management that does the work, it's always the middle management.

[Merlin]

Originally posted by Chgoman
I was talking to a guy I know who has been working for Vons for about 28 years who was planning on retiring in 2 years. If the company cuts the pension like they want to, he would probabably have to work another 12-15 years just to get the retirement benefits that he has earned and has been promised for the last 28 years. Companies should not be able to promise one thing (especially in the area of retirement) and then just change it simply because they made poor investment decisions when the market was flying high!

I think your friend is somewhat misinformed on this matter. As per ERISA, once a certain benefit is promised under a retirement plan and has been "earned" it cannot be taken away. That is all accrued benefits remain. The only thing the company can do is alter the benefits that would be earned from that point on. So in that case your friend would still draw on the pension he has earned over the past 28 years. He just might not get a good return for his efforts over the next couple of years.

So remember, once a benefit has been promised and "earned" under an ERISA qualified plan, the benefits cannot be taken away.

[Merlin]

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing
It starts being more common to pay for healthcare and your employer decides if everyone else is making their workers pay more so should theirs and you get stuck with the bill.

A quick question... Your employer does not pay for your car insurance, home owners insurance, renters insurance, well any property and casualty insurance for that matter, they don't pay for youe life insurance (some do provide a small policy as a perq), so why does everyone seem to think that employers should be responsible for this type of insurance? Why shouldn't you have to go out and buy medical insurance the same way you do auto insurance?

[shabubu]

I agree with southpark....My statement above meant only that I pay and why should I support someone elses complaint that they don't want to pay?? Keep everything the same and the union workers would be happy because they get what they want and what will we the customers get???? HIGHER PRICES!!!! Remember, cost will not be absorbed by the companies, it will be passed along to the consumer...So either take what you can in these tough times, or find a new job...Last time I checked, checker and bagger were not career positions...I mean, no college offers these occupations as their majors, so Stop complaining and deal with the hand you are dealt...Or they can just keep mingling around holding "On-Strike" signs and earn that awesome Union salary of $100-$300/week for being on strike...Maybe our housing prices will drop with all of the upcoming forclosures!!!

[Airencracken]

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing
Hold out for more. Lets see how low the supermarkets can go. Kinda makes you realize just how much they gouge us.

:stupid: Cheap meat isn't that like a $2 whore?

[Horizon1]

i dont really care that they are striking, especially when I found out that cashiers make on avg 19 bucks an hr with a year or two of experience....sad that i'm a recent college graduate that paid my own way through school..and i make only a tiny bit more than the cashiers with hs diplomas...doh.

[Chgoman]

You're right about that. I know a lot of pension type plans accelerate the benefits toward the end (after a certain age or after a certain number of years of employment). I wonder if that is what might have a big effect? Don't know ..


Originally posted by Merlin


I think your friend is somewhat misinformed on this matter. As per ERISA, once a certain benefit is promised under a retirement plan and has been "earned" it cannot be taken away. That is all accrued benefits remain. The only thing the company can do is alter the benefits that would be earned from that point on. So in that case your friend would still draw on the pension he has earned over the past 28 years. He just might not get a good return for his efforts over the next couple of years.

So remember, once a benefit has been promised and "earned" under an ERISA qualified plan, the benefits cannot be taken away.

[Dave_7]

Guys... guys... with all this off topic discussion... you're missing the simple point of the Cheap Meat!

:thumb:

Dave.

[shabubu]

Cheap Meat???? Where???
:D

[donnar]

I would like to tell them to stop complaining because my husband is in the Navy and granted we get great health benefits. The pay is almost at proverty level. We make it fine but here in San Diego we are just paying our bills and buying food, eating out is rare and coupons are a nessceity! If we made $20 an hour I would ot complain about paying 15 or 20 bucks to see a doc.

Donna

[INeedAVacation]

"I don't have it that good so neither should anyone else" is what a lot of these posts sound like to me; jealous. Talk about paying higher prices than we 'need' to pay for groceries and blaming it on the cost of the benefits for the blue collar employees is wrong-we could pay less for groceries if the corporate people didn't make over a million a year in salaries and get such huge stock options. Many companies (like American Airlines) have enormous "departure packages" for their corporate people. Look at the story on www.ufcw135.org .-Their departure packages were created after they told their employees that they may go bankrupt so they need for all the blue collar workers to make concessions in wages/benefits.

The site listed above, will answer all the questions asked above.
(Yes, there is information regarding the missinformation the grocery stores have gotten many to believe that the strike is just about $5/$15 a week in premiums. To start, there is no cap on that amount..read on at the union website if you want to know the truth.)

[Jihforce]

yeah lets all read only what the union has to say...:rolleyes:

[INeedAVacation]

Originally posted by Jihforce
yeah lets all read only what the union has to say...:rolleyes:

I never said "only", you did.

[Blitz]

**Deep Breathe**

*Flips switch-Flame on*

OMG! Lilbigblue...

"From what I have read and heard, the average grocery BAGGER make $15/hour. Grocery baggers make more money a year than some college graduates with bachelor's degrees. Second, it seems the majority of news reports and articles are focusing on health care benefits, rather than pension. Perhaps i am malinformed, but if the media is hyping up this health care issue, then I would have to believe that the biggest problem the union has is with Health Care. "

Dude, you really need to research your info buddy. I work at Ralphs, and NO ONE! Makes 15 an hour that is a bagger. My friend Christian works meat, and he is only paid 8 an hour after working 3 years already! :angry:

I have been sitting on the side lines most of the time, letting you guys argue back and forth, and I dont care what your opinion is. 15 an hour!?! You my friend need to research your facts before you can even argue. It really ticks me off when people assume that what the media puts out is always 100% truth, its really 25% truth, and 75% propaganda. Who pays the papers and the media for camercials and advertisements? Ralphs/Vons/Albertsons all put enough cash into the advertisment agency to have enough connections and enough leaway to push the media on their side. What does the common employee have? Nothing, thus our reasoning is only told through the union...and "so many people hate the union" they wont even listen right off the bat.

I have to put my foot down right now and tell you that you are totally wrong Lilbigblue!:nono:

I know that you might have heard that we get paid 15 an hour from the managers, as they have been handing out fliers to all who purchase at atleast our store, saying we ALL get paid 18 an hour. I believe the UFCW is researching this and is going to sue as the article they are handing out states it as solid facts.... PLEASE! Do some research on this, ASK YOUR LOCAL STORES about it!

Even as a Ralphs employee, I dont care if you cross or if you dont! All I care about is that you get the REAL Facts! Then you can decide for your self...but 15 an hour to a bagger? haha! Can't believe my eyes...



Flame-off

**walks back to side line and drinks a soda**

[InfiniteNothing]

Must we argue this in two places? See bald guy thread in off topic. Though we've side tracked a bit. But we've already looked at many of these issues.

Hey but good point with the media and advertising Blitz. I didn't think of that but that makes since out of alot of what they've been saying.

[InfiniteNothing]

Originally posted by donnar
I would like to tell them to stop complaining because my husband is in the Navy and granted we get great health benefits...

Hey, I made this point before but if the strike is unsuccessfull, you could be next; you could lose what little you already have.

[mr-2cool]

I think only the recently hired workers make $15+ an hour, but then I've also heard you get black listed? Can anyone corroborate these rumors?

[Blitz]

"I think only the recently hired workers make $15+ an hour"

= scabs

[INeedAVacation]

Labor Unions Still Work for Everyone
By Paul F. Clark
Paul F. Clark is a professor in the department of labor studies and industrial relations at Penn State University.

October 23, 2003
Many people today believe that the labor movement has outlived its usefulness ‹ that it had a valuable role to play in the first half of the 20th century but is now irrelevant, an anachronism.
My colleagues at the business school, for instance, describe unions as "dinosaurs" and as support of that idea note that their influence and power are waning.
It's true that the proportion of the national workforce represented by unions has fallen steadily over the last 25 years. And as the economy struggles and health costs continue to skyrocket, employers ‹ even many of those earning healthy profits ‹ do hold the upper hand in contract negotiations and are demanding wage freezes, cuts in benefits and other concessions from workers.
But those critics forecasting the demise of the labor movement are indulging in wishful thinking. Their arguments are the same ones that were in vogue in the 1920s, just prior to a half-century in which the union movement won unprecedented gains for its members and helped shape the nation's economic and political landscape.
The fact is, unions continue to play a critical role in our society ‹ and one that extends well beyond the 16 million people who pay dues.
Today, for instance, two major strikes are underway in the Los Angeles area, involving public transit workers and supermarket workers. Both strikes reflect the ongoing struggle over health-care benefits for workers, and both are having a significant effect on life in the city.
Unions exist to serve as a countervailing force against employers ‹ whether those employers are government agencies, corporations or not-for- profits. Unions participate through the collective bargaining process in decisions regarding compensation and benefits, working conditions and job security. Almost always, the result is higher pay and better benefits, safer working conditions and greater job security for their members, just as it has been throughout the history of the labor movement.
But union victories are also victories for those workers not covered by a union contract. This is because nonunion employers often match what's been won by unionized employers in the same industry.
Economists call this phenomenon the "union threat effect" because employers offer these improvements in order to lower the chances that their workers will organize.
The union threat effect expands the influence of unions well beyond the 14.6% of the workforce represented by unions nationally (in California, 18.9% of the workforce is unionized). And evidence suggests that not only are the wages and salaries of nonunion workers often higher than they would be without the presence of unions in their communities, but many of the benefits they take for granted were introduced into workplaces only because of the efforts of unions.
Paid vacations, health insurance, pensions and sick leave did not become commonplace in American workplaces because of employer generosity but because unions fought hard for them, and won.
The same is true for laws protecting employees. When proposed, most employers vigorously fought the eight-hour day, the Social Security system, overtime and minimum wage laws, workers' compensation statutes, occupational safety and health protection and bans on child labor. It was the labor movement that pushed these proposals through and that today fights employer-led efforts to weaken or undo them.
More recently, the job of watchdog has fallen, in part, to the labor movement.
For example, American Airlines executives tried to pay themselves huge bonuses and create a pension plan for top management that would be protected even in the event of bankruptcy, while at the same time claiming poverty and asking employees to take significant pay cuts. The scheme was exposed by the pilots union.
It is true that the labor movement is now on the defensive. Unions historically lose bargaining power when the economy is slumping and unemployment is high. And their influence in the political arena is diminishing under the current administration.
The labor movement will survive, but its current struggles should be of concern to everyone ‹ employees, managers and investors ‹ who believe that unbridled corporate power is a dangerous thing and that checks and balances and accountability are desirable in a democratic society.

[Merlin]

With all due to respect to Paul F. Clark, I think he is completely wrong. What employees get is not a result of union power but rather good old supply and demand, in this case for labor. In times of economic boom, employees, union or not, get to dictate employment terms. Remember about three years ago when Internet Consultants changed companies more often than they changed their underwear and each jump came with a jump in pay and benefits? They got that without a union. Why? Because the supply of the labor skills they had was scarce. Obviously we have seen that reverse duing the recent bust. Over the last 100 years we have seen the US economy grow resulting in a situation where comapnies need to compete for employees. All of these wonderful benefits we have come from companies needing to lure employees in.

Now during times of economic bust the unions do help consolidate and maintain those gains when the real value of the labor provided by its members falls. But in the end you can't expect tofight supply & demand and win.

[Chgoman]

One thing about the grocery strike is that eventually, even if the employees get what they want, eventually this strike will hurt them. The main reason the supermarkets are in such hard times financially is due to Wal-Mart's continued expansion into their market. Wal-Mart has already become the largest Grocer in the US and is continuing to take market share from the traditional grocery stores as they open more and more stores and offer generally better prices on their food. They are able to do this for many reasons, but one of the big ones is the fact that they pay most of their employees minimum wage which keeps their costs substantially lower than the traditional stores.

As the strike moves on, more and more people who don't want to cross the picket line are going to alternative stores like stater bros. and wal-mart. A number of these people after going to Wal-Mart and seeing the lower prices likely will not go back to whatever store they used to go to. The longer the strike lasts, the more customers the traditional stores will probably lose permantly and the worse their financial position will be. The more this occurs the more the stores will have to try to cut wages and benefits in the future or see thier business fail leading to store closings and job losses.

[Blitz]

"As the strike moves on, more and more people who don't want to cross the picket line are going to alternative stores like stater bros. and wal-mart. A number of these people after going to Wal-Mart and seeing the lower prices likely will not go back to whatever store they used to go to. The longer the strike lasts, the more customers the traditional stores will probably lose permantly and the worse their financial position will be. The more this occurs the more the stores will have to try to cut wages and benefits in the future or see thier business fail leading to store closings and job losses."

Part Truth/Part not

Part Truth:
Yes, some customers will leave seeing lower prices on the same items offered at vons/albert/ralphs stores, and will eventually shop at the competitors

Part Not:
Many of the customers who do shop at the competitors are doing it to support us out of THEIR CONVENIENCE. Many of the crossers at the picket lines say they dont want to go to a different store as it is more convenient to shop at a closer store. If wal-mart replaced ralphs/vons/albertsons locations, then yes, wal-mart won the game of monopoly. We have the good locations that are convenient for the customers, many will pay the little extra that it costs just to be close by. Some wont, as it applies to above, but most will come back

conclusion:
Yes and no, and most will come back eventually instead of driving a few miles(or few blocks in the strike's case) as many have been complaining in doing so to support us for the strike...

If people cant drive down two blocks to TJ's or Mothers, or Staters(in my case at store 745) out of their convienence, then they will stay with us for or against the strike anyhow

[Chgoman]

I don't think there's going to be a mass exodus from the traditional stores when the strike is over, but in the current grocery market, every person counts. People who do have a WalMart Grocer in their area may not have ever gone there until this strike and those are the people that the traditional stores may lose.

Hopefully this won't happen much because I really don't want WalMart to gain any more power than they have already. I'll say I fully support the strikers as I don't think the companies should change pension plans that people have been in for many years, but I just think in the long run, the longer this strike goes on the more it's going to hurt the stores due to lost customers (even if it's only a few) and in the long run, it's going to hurt the employees even more.

[INeedAVacation]

Originally posted by shabubu
I agree with southpark....My statement above meant only that I pay and why should I support someone elses complaint that they don't want to pay?? Keep everything the same and the union workers would be happy because they get what they want and what will we the customers get???? HIGHER PRICES!!!! Remember, cost will not be absorbed by the companies, it will be passed along to the consumer...So either take what you can in these tough times, or find a new job...Last time I checked, checker and bagger were not career positions...I mean, no college offers these occupations as their majors, so Stop complaining and deal with the hand you are dealt...Or they can just keep mingling around holding "On-Strike" signs and earn that awesome Union salary of $100-$300/week for being on strike...Maybe our housing prices will drop with all of the upcoming forclosures!!!

You talk about us as consumers having to pay higher prices because of the EMPLOYEES wages; do you think the higher prices we pay have anything to with the people in corporate and management positions like these:

Economy took rare bite from Northwest CEO pay

By Alwyn Scott and Monica Soto
Seattle Times business reporters


1. Larry Johnston (Albertson's) $28,250,631


As the technology sector crashed last year, an audacious worker at Tektronix called on the company's executives to take 10 percent less pay.

Ordinarily, top brass might have balked. But amid last year's meltdown, managers of the Beaverton, Ore., test-equipment maker went for it. Richard Wills, the chief executive, cut his salary by $45,000 starting June 1.

"And the employee is still here," Wills says. "He has a bull's-eye T-shirt he calls his 10 percent shirt."

Driven by a sputtering economy, drooping stock prices and the Enron accounting scandal, executives and boards slashed bonuses and reined in stock awards last year, sending CEO pay down for the first time in more than a decade.

Among 72 large Northwest companies surveyed by The Seattle Times, median CEO salary and bonuses tumbled nearly 10 percent, to $670,000 — compared with a 2.8 percent drop logged in one national survey. Sixteen Northwest CEOs with bonuses in 2000 took none last year.

CEO pay: The numbers

A graphic look at 2001 pay packages for 72 Northwest CEOs, including where it came from and how much their pay changed.


Stock-option grants were smaller, and with stock values down, fewer CEOs raked in money cashing in options.

"There was an effort not to be ostentatious in a bad year," said Judith Fischer, a pay expert at Executive Compensation Advisory Services in Alexandria, Va. "A lot of boards looked at pay awards and said, 'OK, enough is enough.' "

Of course, plenty of top honchos still made out like it was the '90s.

Larry Johnston, who left General Electric's appliance division to lead the Boise-based Albertson's grocery chain, took home $28.25 million in his first year. For slightly more than eight months of work, Johnston earned nearly $1 million in salary, a $2.5 million bonus, more than $24.5 million in restricted stock awards — and $60,000 in moving expenses.

In the low-margin grocery business, Johnston's pay represented 5.5 percent of the entire company's net profit of $501 million and earned him the honor of being the highest-paid executive in the Northwest.

Through a spokesman, Johnston declined to comment.

Albertson's at least did right by shareholders, racking up a 24 percent total return last year while the Dow Jones Industrials slid 7 percent.

Other shareholders weren't so lucky.

At Planar Systems, a Beaverton, Ore., company that makes high-tech electronic displays, Balaji Krishnamurthy's salary and bonus rose 65 percent, to $1.08 million, as profits rose more than 20-fold. The CEO took in another $301,390 by exercising stock options, but the company's stock dropped 13 percent.

Gain or pain?

Despite these exceptions, most Northwest CEOs felt their shareholders' pain.


2. Peter Rose (Expeditors International) $10,109,826


William Furman declined his $100,000 bonus last year as Greenbrier, the nation's third-largest railroad freight-car maker, recovered from a sharp downturn. Though profit improved at the Lake Oswego, Ore., company, his pay fell 41 percent to $558,849 while shareholders suffered an 8 percent loss on their money.

How the company performed played a role in the decision.

"I don't think anyone is excused from that kind of pressure anymore," says Larry Brady, Greenbrier's chief financial officer. "You read about situations where someone is getting enormous amounts of compensation for doing nothing."

At Nextel Partners, the Kirkland wireless company, investors lost 29 percent last year. CEO John Chapple's pay rose a modest 10 percent, to $288,844, even though the company beat nearly all its financial goals. Nextel purposely sets cash pay relatively low. Instead, executives take shares they hope will pay off someday.

"Sure we'd like our stock price to be three or four times higher than it is," Chapple says. "But if we just keep performing, we'll come out OK."

Don Sagolla, an executive-compensation expert with Mercer Human Resource Consulting, said that's the way it should be. "A stock option is not meant to go only one way," he said. "It's supposed to be pain and gain."

Even some winning companies felt the need to dial down their pay. Jim Sinegal, head of Issaquah-based Costco Wholesale, took a 34 percent cut in salary and bonus in its fiscal year, even as shareholders enjoyed a 6 percent rise in their returns. Sinegal also cashed in almost $5.7 million in stock options, boosting his overall pay nearly fivefold.

"It's very simple," Sinegal said. "We didn't make as much money as the year before, and we thought that the shareholders deserved a break."


Cyrus Tsui (Lattice Semiconductor) $7,789,254


At Weyerhaeuser, Steve Rogel cut his pay by a third, to just over $2 million, even though the Federal Way-based company eked out a 10 percent gain for investors. The chief executive lopped nearly $1 million off his bonus.

At Nike, which provided investors a 2 percent return last year, Chief Executive Phil Knight cut his bonus in half to $663,000 and slashed his stock award by two-thirds to $92,000.

And Alan Mulally, Boeing's commercial airplanes chief executive, took a hefty 80 percent pay cut last year, to $1.7 million, as shareholder returns tumbled 40 percent. Much of the decline was because of a big stock award he received two years ago, when Boeing shares were flying high.

But even factoring that out, his salary and bonus fell 43 percent last year. Mulally earned less running the state's largest private enterprise than Wills made at Tektronix, with 4,200 employees.

Pay cuts don't always mean less money. At Spokane-based Avista, CEO Gary Ely voluntarily trimmed his salary 15 percent after Sept. 1 and took no bonus as the power utility, hit by the California energy crisis, fell far short of its financial targets and shareholders saw their investment decline 30 percent.

But Ely's overall pay still rose 7 percent, driven by a big raise in his base salary that resulted from his promotion to CEO and chairman the year before. Even with the 15 percent pay cut, which amounted to $28,000, Ely took home $503,973.

Pay for performance

A few Northwest companies closely match pay to financial performance. Peter Rose of Expeditors International, the second-highest earning executive in the Times survey, pulled down a $2.25 million bonus and cashed in $7.76 million in stock options, producing a pay package that topped $10 million — nearly four times his 2000 income. In comparison, his $110,000 base salary, which hasn't gone up in years, was chump change.


4. Kerry Killinger (Washington Mutual) $7,328,198


Why the gain? Executives at the Seattle shipping company are paid a relatively low base salary but share a pot of bonus money equal to 10 percent of the company's operating income. That encourages executives to generate sales — and cut costs.

Last year, sales slipped 2.5 percent, but the company tightened up on expenses even more. As a result, the bonus pool grew — to $14.6' million shared among about a dozen executive. Similar incentive plans are in place from branch managers down to the mailroom. And jobs are on the line.

"If there's no profit, I wouldn't get anything," Rose says. "You do it once or twice, then they fire your ass."

In a weak stock market, Expeditors shareholders made about 7 percent on their money last year.

But other Northwest companies rewarded executives for good performance while shareholders suffered — a tendency that has become all too common, pay experts say.

AT&T Wireless gave John Zeglis a 15 percent salary and bonus boost last year, to $3.46 million, even though the company fell deeper into the red and the stock dropped 16 percent.

Spokesman David Caouette says the company got "caught in the downdraft" of the wireless industry, but Zeglis earned his bonus by meeting goals for subscriber growth, margins, sales and cash flow. "We do watch our stock price," he says. But "it's not a component of an executive's performance evaluation."

'Boards are sissies'

Nell Minow, a compensation expert at The Corporate Library, a research organization in Washington, D.C., says it isn't unusual for boards to pay bonuses even if targets aren't met, or to set lame goals.


5. Rich Barton (Expedia) $6,374,369


"Boards of directors are sissies," she says. "It's very hard for them to look the CEO in the eye and say, 'You know what? We're paying you too much.' It's not their money. It's very easy for them to write a check when it's shareholder money."

Boards can benefit executives in other ways. Michael Pickett took a base salary of $250,000 when he was named CEO of Seattle-based Onvia last year. But he already owned so much Onvia stock, when the board decided to pay shareholders a one-time dividend of 39 cents a share, Pickett received another $407,000.

Also drawing more attention this year are golden parachutes, severance packages for departing CEOs that pay off regardless of whether the company has improved under the CEO's leadership.

Larry Johnston's contract at Albertson's, for example, guarantees him $7 million a year for the life of his 10-year contract, even if he quits. And these guarantees, detailed in the company's proxy statement, do not appear to be dependent on improved financial performance.

At Airborne, a Seattle-based air-express company, some shareholders have proposed a "golden-parachute policy" that would give shareholders the right to vote against severance packages that exceed 200 percent of a senior executive's annual base salary. It's an effort to avoid heaping rewards on people headed out the door.

The Corporate Library's Minow warns that all pricey executives "should have the mutual-fund warning tattooed on their foreheads: Past performance is no guarantee of future performance," she says.

"The ones who've done well in the past and get the big pay package tend not to do very well," she said, "particularly if they've negotiated a package that gives them a lot of money for quitting."