Pity for the Rich
Today's blog is about Thursdays ruling from Massachusetts supreme court allowing secretary of state William F. Galvin to continue to probe into the sale of Gillette company to the Proctor and Gamble company. The buzz around Gillette today was a small amount of excitement as if this ruling may mean some type of victory for us employees who are disappointed and worried to lose our 100 years of independence. I'm not sure we realize that this was just as much of a victory for Proctor and Gamble due to the fact that the ruling only allows Galvin to investigate the transactions between Gillette and the two banks hired by Proctor and Gamble (Goldman Sachs Group and UBS AG ). These banks were basically involved to asses the value of Gillette. The ruling was handed down because of the argument that Gillette may be worth more than 70 billion and not the 57 billion that the company's agreed on. Galvin is not allowed to look into the 173 million that James Kiltz will receive for orchrestrating the deal.
Being a bit on the conservative side myself, I cant argue with a company's decision to sell or another's decision to buy. This is all part of free enterprise and their god given right as far as I'm concerned. What bothers me is how it can be legal for a hired CEO to receive 173 million to sell a company he was he was hired to repair. James Kiltz can argue all day that this is good for Gillette and the consumer. Are we to believe that if he doesn't receive 173 million that this tranaction would have taken place? There is no conflict of interest here? Someone gives you 173 million dollars and this has no effect on your decision making process? How is this legal? It is legal because a CEO originally meant the owner of a company. The Law is set up for that definition of CEO. If the owner of a company receives money for its sale, all the power to him. The problem here is James Kiltz is not the owner of Gillette. This is a conflict of interest! James Kiltz was hired by Gillette, but paid by Proctor and Gamble. The law should be changed to reflect the current definition of CEO
The first CEO in the 100 years of the Gillette company that was hired from the outside was James kiltz. Every other CEO came up through the ranks. This is price of hiring from outside. Although I have only been with the company for 8 years. The first 4 years without Kiltz were much better than the second 4 with him. I know people that have worked for Gillette for 40 years that haven't seen such an unmotivated work force as in the past 4 years. I remember the pride that came with being a Gillette employee. We were the best. The best Pay, the best benefits, the best work environment, the best technology, the best engineering, THE BEST EVERYTHING! That was Gillette. Gillette was the last company you worked for, no matter what! When I started at Gillette, Schick was a joke .... Not a competitor. When I started at Gillette, every single employee put 100% of their 401 K into Gillette, even though every investment broker would tell you not to, we did it anyway, why? Because we were different. We were not like other company's. We were special. When I started at Gillette, my fellow mechanics and myself would run around the machines to get them fixed, and I mean RUN! Imagine seeing you plummer run down your stairs, fix a pipe then run back up the stairs fix another pipe then run back down the stairs and turn the water on. Then the next time he came back to your house to fix the same problem he would try to beat his record time for fixing your pipes. This was the Gillette enviorment. We were a team. I'm not talking about the cliche word "team" that is thrown around every company like wet rag. I'm talking about the Boston Red Sox team that came back from three games down. I am a privliged man for having taken part in it. I have worked for many other manufacturers, and at every one all the employees would complain about everything from management to pay. Not at Gillette, we bragged about how smart our upper management was and how much money we made. I'm sorry to say that the complaints heard at my other company's now echo down Gillette's hallways like the sound of fingernails across a chalkboard. Mr. Kitlz , You made the company look pretty good on the outside, but on the inside you gave it cancer. 6000 people will loose their job so you can pocket 173 million dollars.
Your an old man Mr. Kiltz, you will be leaving this planet shortly. When you die, you will have to answer for this to god. If your lucky and your health is good, you'll probably live for another 20 years. I hope that is enough time to spend 173 million dollars. At first I was very angry with you Mr. Kiltz, but when I think about it.....What your eternity may have in store for you, I have pity. Imagine that I have pity for a man with 173 million dollars.
Being a bit on the conservative side myself, I cant argue with a company's decision to sell or another's decision to buy. This is all part of free enterprise and their god given right as far as I'm concerned. What bothers me is how it can be legal for a hired CEO to receive 173 million to sell a company he was he was hired to repair. James Kiltz can argue all day that this is good for Gillette and the consumer. Are we to believe that if he doesn't receive 173 million that this tranaction would have taken place? There is no conflict of interest here? Someone gives you 173 million dollars and this has no effect on your decision making process? How is this legal? It is legal because a CEO originally meant the owner of a company. The Law is set up for that definition of CEO. If the owner of a company receives money for its sale, all the power to him. The problem here is James Kiltz is not the owner of Gillette. This is a conflict of interest! James Kiltz was hired by Gillette, but paid by Proctor and Gamble. The law should be changed to reflect the current definition of CEO
The first CEO in the 100 years of the Gillette company that was hired from the outside was James kiltz. Every other CEO came up through the ranks. This is price of hiring from outside. Although I have only been with the company for 8 years. The first 4 years without Kiltz were much better than the second 4 with him. I know people that have worked for Gillette for 40 years that haven't seen such an unmotivated work force as in the past 4 years. I remember the pride that came with being a Gillette employee. We were the best. The best Pay, the best benefits, the best work environment, the best technology, the best engineering, THE BEST EVERYTHING! That was Gillette. Gillette was the last company you worked for, no matter what! When I started at Gillette, Schick was a joke .... Not a competitor. When I started at Gillette, every single employee put 100% of their 401 K into Gillette, even though every investment broker would tell you not to, we did it anyway, why? Because we were different. We were not like other company's. We were special. When I started at Gillette, my fellow mechanics and myself would run around the machines to get them fixed, and I mean RUN! Imagine seeing you plummer run down your stairs, fix a pipe then run back up the stairs fix another pipe then run back down the stairs and turn the water on. Then the next time he came back to your house to fix the same problem he would try to beat his record time for fixing your pipes. This was the Gillette enviorment. We were a team. I'm not talking about the cliche word "team" that is thrown around every company like wet rag. I'm talking about the Boston Red Sox team that came back from three games down. I am a privliged man for having taken part in it. I have worked for many other manufacturers, and at every one all the employees would complain about everything from management to pay. Not at Gillette, we bragged about how smart our upper management was and how much money we made. I'm sorry to say that the complaints heard at my other company's now echo down Gillette's hallways like the sound of fingernails across a chalkboard. Mr. Kitlz , You made the company look pretty good on the outside, but on the inside you gave it cancer. 6000 people will loose their job so you can pocket 173 million dollars.
Your an old man Mr. Kiltz, you will be leaving this planet shortly. When you die, you will have to answer for this to god. If your lucky and your health is good, you'll probably live for another 20 years. I hope that is enough time to spend 173 million dollars. At first I was very angry with you Mr. Kiltz, but when I think about it.....What your eternity may have in store for you, I have pity. Imagine that I have pity for a man with 173 million dollars.
posted by Jim Fisher at 4:40 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home