Slashdot Mirror


Lenovo CEO Shares $3 Million Bonus With Workers

hackingbear writes "Yang Yuanqing, founder and CEO of Chinese PC maker Lenovo, will share $3.25 million from his bonus with some 10,000 staff in China and 19 other countries. 'Most are hourly manufacturing workers,' Lenovo spokeswoman Angela Lee said. 'As you can imagine, an extra $300 in a manufacturing environment in China does make an impact, especially to employees supporting families.' In its annual review last year, Lenovo raised Yang's base pay to $1.2 million and awarded him a $4.2 million discretionary bonus and a $8.9 million long-term incentive award. Yang owns 7.12% of Lenovo's shares, equivalent to about $720 million in stock."

21 of 169 comments (clear)

  1. Not the first time by Pinhedd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I believe that he did this last year as well.

    Good on him, especially considering that Lenovo has been quite successful recently in a contracting PC market

    1. Re:Not the first time by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's *definitely* better than nothing, but as the founder, CEO, and largest shareholder couldn't he just *pay* his factory employees better wages instead of turning it into a personal PR statement?

      He could, but then if business started to get tight, he'd probably have to lay people off and/or cut wages; neither of which is particularly pleasant for people who were counting on money that it turns out they won't get.

      By giving employees an unexpected bonus instead, he looks like a good guy while at the same time avoiding potential ill will in the future.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    2. Re:Not the first time by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Only so long as the bonuses keep flowing. Once you've paid the Danegeld... stopping isn't so easy.

      Okay, did you just seriously compare a CEO giving his employees bonuses with paying protection money to a hostile foreign power?

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    3. Re:Not the first time by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That sound you heard was my point going over your head. You win at knowing facts, you fail utterly at allusion.

      Or maybe it was just a really lousy allusion.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    4. Re:Not the first time by Andtalath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or the point was that it's silly to single out Apple.

  2. Re:Philantropy by hawguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's easy to be a philanthropist when you're rich. Just sayin'

    Its also easy to not share your wealth with your workers.

  3. A little goes a long way for productivity by assemblerex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The workers feel appreciated and will be diligent.

    You don't happen upon good employee morale and company stewardship.

    It has to be grown. Quality and waste will decrease. When employees feel zero empathy for the company or it's future, a fall is sure to follow.

  4. Re:return what you don't deserve... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In before 1000 Libertarians explaining that nobody works unless they're paid money, because nothing is important except accumulation of material tat.

    Libertarian here. His stock is worth $720M, and he only gave away 0.5% of that. If his generosity boosts morale enough to generate just 1% more profit, then he has doubled the money. He is publicizing this gift, so the workers are aware of the source, rather than giving anonymously, so he is at least partly motivated by greed. This looks like a smart investment.

  5. Please notice the per employee amount. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    $3,250,000 / 10,000 = $325 per employee.

    Keep that math in your brain for the next "Overpaid CEO" argument.

    1. Re:Please notice the per employee amount. by ATMAvatar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not quite sure what your point is. If you gave away $325 to individuals, how many people would you be able to be able to reach? Keep in mind that the $3m is less than one fourth his compensation this year.

      That isn't to stray from the point that giving away personal benefits to his workers is something to encourage, no matter what the motivation was.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    2. Re:Please notice the per employee amount. by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Implying that a 3,25 million bonus isn't all that much because it would 'only' mean an extra $325 if distributed among employees can really only be the opinion of entitled, rich assholes who never have had to struggle at the end of the month. 8 years ago during my student years an extra 30 bucks a month would have meant the world to me. In Europe. And we are talking about mostly Chinese families here.
      TEN THOUSAND OF THEM.

    3. Re:Please notice the per employee amount. by Twanfox · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have a different take on this matter. What exactly does a CEO do that provides so much more value to a company than an engineering team or assembly line laboring away at designing products? Sure, a CEO has a place and can be very instrumental in the effectiveness of the company, but then so too can a brilliant engineer or a factory foreman that can design the next Big Thing or improve efficiency because they know their work that well? Where are the brilliant engineers making CEO pay? Or the factory foremen? And don't think for a second that a CEO is so unique as to be irreplaceable. When a CEO is replaced, shockingly a company keeps running unless he is so bad as to drive the company into the ground. Being unable to attract good talented engineers or having your assembly line strike because of bad treatment can cripple a company just as badly as a bad CEO.

      So, the lesson I'd like to give is that every level of a company, be it designers or sales or factory or CEO, has a place in a corporate team and no one entity is less crucial than the other. The only problem is that the CEO disproportionately earns that much more than everyone else. It is about time that the people that labor to make the products or to do the work, that serve as the face of the company moreso than the CEO does, share in the fruit of their efforts.

    4. Re:Please notice the per employee amount. by David_Hart · · Score: 1, Insightful

      $3,250,000 / 10,000 = $325 per employee.

      Keep that math in your brain for the next "Overpaid CEO" argument.

      So, you're only argument is that at $325 per employee, the CEO is a bargain? That's a crap argument. Everyone knows that you negotiate for a car based on the the total cost, not the monthly payment. Most CEO's are well overpaid for the value that the bring to the table. What's worse is they get guaranteed money even if they are fired for failing. On top of that, if the is a public company, that's money being taken away from shareholder value.

      As for the $$$ per employee, I'm willing to bet that $325 or even $12.50 per employee would end up in the economy much quicker than if it was given to the CEO, generating more economic activity. In fact, one of the reasons why the economy has stalled is because the middle-class is shrinking. "According to PolitiFact and others, 400 Americans now own more than 50% of the net wealth of the United States." -Wealth in the US Wiki Yeah, lets continue this trend by over-paying CEO's...

    5. Re:Please notice the per employee amount. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That would be correct, if the CEO was the only person that was over paid in each company.

      The income inequality that you speak of comes from the top ~5% being over paid and there may be a another 10% that are paid a reasonable sum, so you take the top 1-5% and split it among the bottom 85% and it would be a lot more than $300 per person. I looked into this type thing in the past and it ends up being closer to $500/month per employee if you cut the top tier execs pay in half and redistribute.

  6. Re:return what you don't deserve... by real-modo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If this is all about return on investment, why don't all CEs of multinationals do this?

    Are they all that dumb? Are you saying they should all be sacked?

  7. Re:return what you don't deserve... by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The 23rd curse of the Libertarian is to reduce everything to some meaningless effiiciency calculation which ignores any inconvenient factors. It's the kind of thing you do as a dorky 15 year old (or college freshman if you're remedial), but mostttttt people grow out of by college.

  8. Re:return what you don't deserve... by black3d · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Clicked on comments to come and see all the folks who'd make negative comments about him for this. You, among others, didn't disappoint.

    There is no indication he's motivated by greed whatsoever, and it's either ignorant or wilfully destructive to cast such aspersions without some concrete evidence.

    --
    "The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
  9. Re:Philantropy by citizenr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No its not, you dont get rich by sharing to begin with.

    --
    Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
  10. Re:Philantropy by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In reality, it's easy to imagine being generous when you don't have much to give.

    Bingo. Being rich insulates you from understanding hardship, the most generous people are generally the ones who can least afford it because they experience some level of poverty on a daily basis.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  11. I beg to differ. Most of my money is from being by raymorris · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There are a few really good reasons not to do business with me, but I've always had as many clients as I can handle. Most of my money (over a million dollars) has come from people who choose to do business with me BECAUSE of what kind of person I am.

    When they see me being generous with my time and money, they know I'm the type of person they want to do a deal with.

    Secondly, without a generous and grateful spirit, you can have $200 million and not be nearly as rich as someone with a spirit of gratitude and generosity who earns 1/10th as much.

    Sure, it's POSSIBLE to get a lot of money by being obsessed with money. Some people do that. It's EASIER to get rich by being of service, solving people's problems. Who would you rather buy from, someone who is obsessed with getting your money, or the other guy who is trying to help you solve your problem? If you were really good at what you do, which of those people would you choose to work for?

    You don't get rich spending money FOOLISHLY. Every rich person I know is generous, applying the same wisdom to their giving that they apply to their business. (Disclaimer - generous people are over represented in the list of people I know because I don't hang out with, or do business with, scumbags.)

  12. Re:Philantropy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Note to Americans: this is a textbook example of socialism (workers own the means of production), not what you think socialism is.