CEOs 16% pay rise to £4m p.a. - 118 times typical UK pay
Discussion
Oh yes, we all have to make sacrifices in these difficult times and ensure pay increases don't exceed 5-7%
"Critics called the earnings extreme, but some of the firms argued they were in line with competitors."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66574218
"Critics called the earnings extreme, but some of the firms argued they were in line with competitors."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66574218
InformationSuperHighway said:
Worth it considering the risks they take (Could face prison time for a variety of mistakes) and responsibilities they carry (Looking after 1000's of employees, customers and millions of dollars in budget spend of investors money). ?
But they were facing those same risks and challenges before on 16% less and seemed to manage it.It's not the being paid for success that sticks in the craw, it's the increase in renumeration for the heads of businesses that are struggling, losing money and generally underperforming that grates.
InformationSuperHighway said:
Worth it considering the risks they take (Could face prison time for a variety of mistakes) and responsibilities they carry (Looking after 1000's of employees, customers and millions of dollars in budget spend of investors money). ?
You misunderstand the purpose of corporate policies and paper trails . . . anything that goes wrong is almost invariably the fault of the lowest paid person present.The pay determination process is shocking - remuneration committees coming up with numbers that they have an interest in as members of the same ‘club’.
When profits are up, it’s ”inspired leadership” that must be rewarded . . . when they’re down it’s always ”adverse global conditions” . . . and if they’re really bad then it’s time to pillage all the cash in the firm before it collapses.
Are these people actually hugely effective closet communists trying to overthrow the system by making it look unsustainably illegitimate?
Octoposse said:
InformationSuperHighway said:
Worth it considering the risks they take (Could face prison time for a variety of mistakes) and responsibilities they carry (Looking after 1000's of employees, customers and millions of dollars in budget spend of investors money). ?
You misunderstand the purpose of corporate policies and paper trails . . . anything that goes wrong is almost invariably the fault of the lowest paid person present.The pay determination process is shocking - remuneration committees coming up with numbers that they have an interest in as members of the same ‘club’.
When profits are up, it’s ”inspired leadership” that must be rewarded . . . when they’re down it’s always ”adverse global conditions” . . . and if they’re really bad then it’s time to pillage all the cash in the firm before it collapses.
Are these people actually hugely effective closet communists trying to overthrow the system by making it look unsustainably illegitimate?
What is surprising is that this doesn’t seem to get much traction on here but plenty are happy to moan about striking train drivers and doctors, vilifying them for being greedy.
InformationSuperHighway said:
Worth it considering the risks they take (Could face prison time for a variety of mistakes) and responsibilities they carry (Looking after 1000's of employees, customers and millions of dollars in budget spend of investors money). ?
If only it was true. It's risk free. They never seem to be held to account. Plenty of examples of a big company going bust after having paid out dividends to share holders but having left the pension pot short.If Thames water goes bust and leaves the British tax payer carrying the can, it'll be golden handshakes, not prison sentences.
boyse7en said:
It's not the being paid for success that sticks in the craw, it's the increase in renumeration for the heads of businesses that are struggling, losing money and generally underperforming that grates.
Devil's Avocado: if a CEO goes into a struggling company for the purpose of turning it around then he might expect to be decently paid even if the business still struggles.Ultimately it's up to the shareholders whether the payscales are acceptable, not the public.
threespires said:
It doesn't affect me at all and doesn't bother me at all.
Good for them.
It's a bit galling don't you think?Good for them.
I'm with you in saying good for them in the sense that well, if you could earn it, then you would, but it just highlights how s
t the rest of us have it doesn't it?Not their fault, unless they're taking huge pay rise and bonuses and paying their staff pittance, which a lot of them do.
InformationSuperHighway said:
Worth it considering the risks they take (Could face prison time for a variety of mistakes) and responsibilities they carry (Looking after 1000's of employees, customers and millions of dollars in budget spend of investors money). ?
How many have gone to prison? No more risk than a doctor, a train driver or a bus driver for example.I don’t care but it is galling when pay restraint is urged for the plebs but senior management can make hay.
Biggy Stardust said:
boyse7en said:
It's not the being paid for success that sticks in the craw, it's the increase in renumeration for the heads of businesses that are struggling, losing money and generally underperforming that grates.
Devil's Avocado: if a CEO goes into a struggling company for the purpose of turning it around then he might expect to be decently paid even if the business still struggles.Ultimately it's up to the shareholders whether the payscales are acceptable, not the public.
Small beer compared to premier league footballers
boyse7en said:
But they were facing those same risks and challenges before on 16% less and seemed to manage it.
It's not the being paid for success that sticks in the craw, it's the increase in renumeration for the heads of businesses that are struggling, losing money and generally underperforming that grates.
Not your problem though is it? That's an issue for the Shareholders. If they sign off on the bonuses and pay rises then that's up to them. It's not the being paid for success that sticks in the craw, it's the increase in renumeration for the heads of businesses that are struggling, losing money and generally underperforming that grates.
When you create a company employing 1000s or invest and own a position on the Board of one you can have your say in how it is run.
PastelNata said:
boyse7en said:
But they were facing those same risks and challenges before on 16% less and seemed to manage it.
It's not the being paid for success that sticks in the craw, it's the increase in renumeration for the heads of businesses that are struggling, losing money and generally underperforming that grates.
Not your problem though is it? That's an issue for the Shareholders. If they sign off on the bonuses and pay rises then that's up to them. It's not the being paid for success that sticks in the craw, it's the increase in renumeration for the heads of businesses that are struggling, losing money and generally underperforming that grates.
When you create a company employing 1000s or invest and own a position on the Board of one you can have your say in how it is run.
come to mind. Even then a hefty ‘golden parachute’ is deployed.
crankedup5 said:
Indeed, and when it’s the big pension fund executives holding the major shareholding’s, they nod through the big increases. Such is life.
Small beer compared to premier league footballers
In football the player is the core worker in terms of producing the output. There are many supporting roles but ultimately the ones producing the goods are paid the most. You could argue that’s the fairest way. Small beer compared to premier league footballers
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff