Executive pay packages

cyclopath

Boyzer wrote:

Hahahha.



One are i would agree with you, is that Alan Smith back in the 1800's wh is ultimately responsible for the current method of measuring GDP, needs his theory amending. Ps. He's on the back of the £20 note if you take the time to notice. His theory that nation states should not be measured on the basis of their stock piles of gold and silver, but rather their trade, needs it adjusted to remove the majority of financial instruments removed from it.

In 20 years time, we will look back, and hilight this period of econmics as the point at which UK and USA and the rest of the eurozone stopped being econmic superpowers. We are now reliant on FDI, in begging bowl fashion to china.

Forget about the have and have nots, start focussing on democracy built on debt. or rather, what the alternative is. Its doomed.

Adam Smith wrote 'The Wealth of Nations' in 1776.

And you give the credit to a distant cousin. FFS

Boyzer

I give up.

Sorry if ive wound anyone up.

have a good weekend all.

markos1963

Boyzer, your list is just a job description, you can use it to justify your over inflated salary but you can't use it to justify 49% average pay awards. Over the last 10 years the average workers pay has risen by around 40% whereas the top exec's has gone up by 209% You can't tell me that your work load has increased five times more than your staffs.
I'm not talking from a position of jealousy or ignorance, I was in management myself so I saw first hand the infighting and brown-nosing that went on. Apart from scale your list describes the working life of a lot of middle managers in a lot of companies. The problem I have with top exec's like you is that you rose through the ranks and just filled the shoes of the guy above you. Where is the entranapourial spirit in that? I can accept people like Branson, Gates and Jobs earning large sums because they create real wealth and jobs but I despise the corperate penpushers who sit at the top of companies waiting for their goldplated payoffs.

Have a good weekend yourself

Boyzer

thanks for that Markos, a good point well made. Must admit i was surprised and a little shocked by those stats, but as directors salaries are a matter of public record, im not going to dispute them.

I too despised the culture, but played the game. Sold out if you like. But whilst it seems like a job description, It isnt, those are just some of the extras on top of my day job which are routine. Then there is of course how vulnerable i am. I will lose my current role in 2 years time, but not thru poor performance, but simply because the next ceo sees me as a threat and will want me out of the picture. Employment law dispute will be avoided, by compromise agreement. So yes i will get a nice package, but my employment rights will be trampled over.

I do admit, i dont have much in the way of entreprenurial spirit, or make that contribution to the business, so will take that on the chin. Sadly, most of the pen pushing i do now, is handling govt red tape, a necessary evil in my industry.

I do repeat, i probably earn more than im worth, but i too have had a pay freeze for two years, 49% seems shocking at this time, id love to find out more about that. Cant help but wonder if theres more to it than meets the eye. Failing that, my cv might be getting dusted off and i will target those organisations.

Bozman

Maybe it's to offset the 50% tax they get stung for!
We seem to be the only country in the world that penalise people for doing well.

Slightly off topic but i was told that Nadal won't be at the Queens Tennis tournament next year because of the tax issue, maybe thats the start of the backlash from sports stars and we'll end up with no major sports stars competing over here.

peter101cycle

Bozman wrote:

Maybe it's to offset the 50% tax they get stung for!
We seem to be the only country in the world that penalise people for doing well.

Slightly off topic but i was told that Nadal won't be at the Queens Tennis tournament next year because of the tax issue, maybe thats the start of the backlash from sports stars and we'll end up with no major sports stars competing over here.

+ 1

It's no wonder that unemployment is going up so badly as the taxation system is geared to screw individuals and company's now so badly, that all the entrepreneurship and wealth creation is being moved to other lower taxation countries.

Only in the UK do people think that putting taxes up will generate increased revenue, because it actually leads to tax avoidance and companies reorganising themselves to take advantage of lower tax elsewhere (BP looked into this some years ago).

Like it or not, we live in a global capitalism system where money talks and if we don't become more competitive, the country will goto the dogs.

And about Exec pay, I don't mind what they are paid if they do a good job and generate more wealth for the company and employees. Trouble is, the boards always support each other and sign these deals off! Again, put in legislation to supervise what the boards award top execs, and they will only relocate abroad.

Omar Little

peter101cycle wrote:

+ 1

It's no wonder that unemployment is going up so badly as the taxation system is geared to screw individuals and company's now so badly, that all the entrepreneurship and wealth creation is being moved to other lower taxation countries.

Only in the UK do people think that putting taxes up will generate increased revenue, because it actually leads to tax avoidance and companies reorganising themselves to take advantage of lower tax elsewhere (BP looked into this some years ago).

Like it or not, we live in a global capitalism system where money talks and if we don't become more competitive, the country will goto the dogs.

Taxation in Britain is similar (or lower) than comparable countries like Germany or France. Executive pay in Britain is the second highest in the world after the US. Do we really have the second most dynamic economy in the world to go with that? How can CEOs in a British boardroom justify getting paid so much more than their German counterparts? The pay awards are out proportion to share performance and more generally the economic health of the economy.

peter101cycle

Omar Little wrote:

peter101cycle wrote:

+ 1

It's no wonder that unemployment is going up so badly as the taxation system is geared to screw individuals and company's now so badly, that all the entrepreneurship and wealth creation is being moved to other lower taxation countries.

Only in the UK do people think that putting taxes up will generate increased revenue, because it actually leads to tax avoidance and companies reorganising themselves to take advantage of lower tax elsewhere (BP looked into this some years ago).

Like it or not, we live in a global capitalism system where money talks and if we don't become more competitive, the country will goto the dogs.

Taxation in Britain is similar (or lower) than comparable countries like Germany or France. Executive pay in Britain is the second highest in the world after the US. Do we really have the second most dynamic economy in the world to go with that? How can CEOs in a British boardroom justify getting paid so much more than their German counterparts? The pay awards are out proportion to share performance and more generally the economic health of the economy.

Check your facts (hoping this link works!)

http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/centres/tax/.../G20_%20Corporate_Tax_Ranking_2011.pdf

DavidBelcher

Mr Goo wrote:

I certainly understand the need to pay high salaries and bonuses to 'Top' Executives / CEOs. As already stated the clue is 'Top'. However there are many executives collecting fantastic packages without seemingly having much in the way of business acumen. Their rise up the ranks of the management ladder has been largely down to 'brown nosing' their way up.
If this seems like a rant, then yes it is. I work for a large European manufacturer where the UK MD is responsible France and Iberian peninsular. In the last 4 years he has managed to keep this area of the business performing only by asset stripping and redundancies. For this he picks up £750k pa. Good work if you can get it.

The contentious issue, as I understand it, highlighted by recent BBCi headlines is the huge bonuses and salaries paid to stuffed-shirt directors on the boards of firms; frequently they're raking in way more than the CEOs and other execs who actually play an active part in the day-to-day running of said firms.

David

markos1963

All those that think that high taxation puts people off from working in their own country should look to scandanavia. My brother in law works in Norway for the government, he pays in excess of 50% tax and he's on a slightly above average wage. He doesn't moan about it he appreciates the contribution he's making to the social funds that look after old people, unemployed and general high standard of living. He still has enough for house buying, holidays and other luxeries.
I have no problem with this type of capitalism if it has a social responsibility but the top 5% in this country want their cake and to eat it. Low taxation and high rewards with very little filtering out to the general population. You hear the same thing all the time from the CBI and others trying to justify the status quo, they want a lessening of employment laws, tighter controls of Unions, freezing or abolishment of minimum wage. And why? It's not because they want to make it easier to filter out this wealth to the general population, it's because they want to make even more profits so they can reward themselves higher saleries under the banner of 'performance pay'

Omar Little

peter101cycle wrote:

Omar Little wrote:

peter101cycle wrote:

+ 1

It's no wonder that unemployment is going up so badly as the taxation system is geared to screw individuals and company's now so badly, that all the entrepreneurship and wealth creation is being moved to other lower taxation countries.

Only in the UK do people think that putting taxes up will generate increased revenue, because it actually leads to tax avoidance and companies reorganising themselves to take advantage of lower tax elsewhere (BP looked into this some years ago).

Like it or not, we live in a global capitalism system where money talks and if we don't become more competitive, the country will goto the dogs.

Taxation in Britain is similar (or lower) than comparable countries like Germany or France. Executive pay in Britain is the second highest in the world after the US. Do we really have the second most dynamic economy in the world to go with that? How can CEOs in a British boardroom justify getting paid so much more than their German counterparts? The pay awards are out proportion to share performance and more generally the economic health of the economy.

Check your facts (hoping this link works!)

http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/centres/tax/.../G20_%20Corporate_Tax_Ranking_2011.pdf

That is a report on corporate tax rates and not particularly relevant to a discussion on executive pay and a point about levels of taxation on this pay. In any case that report shows that the Effective Average Tax Rate is lower in Britain than in France and Germany.

thecm

We could learn a lot from the Scandinavian socialist principled countries...I like that outlook they have.

Tusher

Yes, I do too. And I know of many. many people who have worked hard all their days and have very little to live on.

The proliferation of management in the NHS both puzzles and concerns me, because we nurses have very little idea of what they actually do, although we deduce that it's not very much. Our management has tripled in the past ten years, whilst our working conditions have deteriorated. We never see managers working late, they are known to take lengthy lunch breaks, and all are fond of reflecting any presenting problem back to whoever is pointing out the problem.

Boyzer, just one question. Do you give more to charity now that you're wealthy? Is it the same percentage you gave when you were not?

finchy

My former employers recently sacked a whole load of loyal, long-serving but unskilled staff. In their place they brought in a load of cheap, agency immigrant workers.

Result - increased profits, massive pay rises for those at the top and a load of people on the dole, mainly in their 40s and 50s, not the most gifted, so possibly already on the scrapheap of life.

Tom Butcher

Tusher wrote:

The proliferation of management in the NHS both puzzles and concerns me, because we nurses have very little idea of what they actually do,

My partner works in what you might call a non-front line NHS role - and she manages a team so I guess she is NHS management. She gets into work about 8.15 and leaves after 6 - not sure what lunch breaks she takes. She also takes works home on top of that. Having said that she gets a decent salary for it - what I'd call decent - nothing like a GP would earn.

EKIMIKE

markos1963 wrote:

All those that think that high taxation puts people off from working in their own country should look to scandanavia. My brother in law works in Norway for the government, he pays in excess of 50% tax and he's on a slightly above average wage. He doesn't moan about it he appreciates the contribution he's making to the social funds that look after old people, unemployed and general high standard of living. He still has enough for house buying, holidays and other luxeries.
I have no problem with this type of capitalism if it has a social responsibility but the top 5% in this country want their cake and to eat it. Low taxation and high rewards with very little filtering out to the general population. You hear the same thing all the time from the CBI and others trying to justify the status quo, they want a lessening of employment laws, tighter controls of Unions, freezing or abolishment of minimum wage. And why? It's not because they want to make it easier to filter out this wealth to the general population, it's because they want to make even more profits so they can reward themselves higher saleries under the banner of 'performance pay'

Absolutely!

The argument against higher taxes is simply an argument for greater individual capital accumulation. The logic that higher taxes = a less competitive market is simply flawed. There is no direct link. It's a myth.

Higher taxes simply means less capital accumulation for individuals. Frankly, what anyone does with £200,000+ p.a. salary is a mystery to me. Surely it either sits in the bank or is spent on leisure. Thorstein Veblen wrote of 'the leisure class' and frankly i would tend to believe that is exactly what we have.

Social conscience seems to have very little standing in the present capitalist discourse. The sense of entitlement and expectations is sickening.

The entire system from Adam Smith's much lauded 'invisible hand' up to the ideologically driven utopian ramblings of Milton Friedman are not only flawed but have joined in tandem with a sense of entitlement and justification of wealth disparity that is socially caustic.

To masquerade inequality as a question of choice and freedom is really quite scary if you consider the wider social implications of such doctrines. The old man who freezes to death in his unheated house in a harsh winter should have made better choices in life, right? He had as much opportunity as everyone else...?

You cannot abscond from your responsibilities to your fellow beings by simply pleading 'choice' and 'freedom' (aka 'rational self interest').

So what happens when all the talent runs off to a tax haven I hear you cry? Simply another fallacy of zero substantive basis. It simply doesn't happen on the scale that is often talked of. Yes a few may make that decision to move, but the majority will not unless they are callous enough to be lead by the 'tax deducted' column on their pay slips.

Anyway, people need to stop trotting out Adam Smith. His theory has been extended far beyond it's contents so much so that it is only of historical relevance. It's only the ambiguity of the 'invisible hand' that makes it a useful argument. Well many have tried to prove existence of the invisible hand with mathematics, all have found flaws. It's a non-starter.... Wishful thinking....

rick_chasey

EKIMIKE wrote:

Frankly, what anyone does with £200,000+ p.a. salary is a mystery to me. Surely it either sits in the bank or is spent on leisure. Thorstein Veblen wrote of 'the leisure class' and frankly i would tend to believe that is exactly what we have.

.

You clearly have no idea how expensive parts of London are.

Granted, it's partly so expensive because of these higher wages, but still.

£200,000 is a lot, but it's nowhere near the top of the ladder in London.

verylonglegs

Rick Chasey wrote:

EKIMIKE wrote:

Frankly, what anyone does with £200,000+ p.a. salary is a mystery to me. Surely it either sits in the bank or is spent on leisure. Thorstein Veblen wrote of 'the leisure class' and frankly i would tend to believe that is exactly what we have.

.

You clearly have no idea how expensive parts of London are.

Granted, it's partly so expensive because of these higher wages, but still.

£200,000 is a lot, but it's nowhere near the top of the ladder in London.

I don't think choosing 12 and 16 bedroom properties to represent your argument will win many over!

rick_chasey

verylonglegs wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

EKIMIKE wrote:

Frankly, what anyone does with £200,000+ p.a. salary is a mystery to me. Surely it either sits in the bank or is spent on leisure. Thorstein Veblen wrote of 'the leisure class' and frankly i would tend to believe that is exactly what we have.

.

You clearly have no idea how expensive parts of London are.

Granted, it's partly so expensive because of these higher wages, but still.

£200,000 is a lot, but it's nowhere near the top of the ladder in London.

I don't think choosing 12 and 16 bedroom properties to represent your argument will win many over!

Take a look a few pages past. 4 bedrooms, £3.5m

EKIMIKE

To be honest i was expecting someone to pick on that number. I probably should have just put 6-figure salaries in general but let's face it, £100,000 isn't exactly alot in the context of corporate executives.

Yes London is a special case, but you simply adjust the number within the context. The point still stands.

Moreover, property isn't exactly the best counterpoint to use. You make a good point about wages. Equally do people really need such large, lavish properties? Is the real estate market still inflated?

I guess one could argue that the market will determine the price, in a supply and demand fashion, but that would be the 'invisible hand' argument which would be rather ironic considering the points i made

gilesjuk

Boyzer wrote:

1. You are responsible for hundreds of peoples livlihood. You get it wrong, you put them on the dole queue.

Which is what happens quite often. Then the "top brass" leave for another company and get a nice fat pay off.

There simply isn't any responsibility for failure. Responsibility would be the CEO being fired and all the money he was due paid to all the people who's future he has just ruined.

Fred Goodwin gets annually in his pension what some of us will never earn in a lifetime. Our pensions are ruined thanks to corporate greed. Pay should be linked to share price but the share prices have gone nowhere but pay has increased 50%.

OffTheBackAdam

If they've added value to their company, or steered it to lose less value than the competition, then they've earnt their crust.
They will, of course, be spending a big chunk of it, on products, services or whatever, thus it trickles down to some of us peasants and the government takes a goodly chunk in taxes of one sort or another.
If you want to complain about earnings, then those of the local politicians, where councillors can earn more than the PM, example A.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/0 ... money.html
These are the people, who are levying unjust & illegal charges on residents. Example B
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011_0 ... chive.html
The other, undeserving (IMHO) grouping, who are disgustingly overpaid, are pro footballers.

shouldbeinbed

Rick Chasey wrote:

EKIMIKE wrote:

Frankly, what anyone does with £200,000+ p.a. salary is a mystery to me. Surely it either sits in the bank or is spent on leisure. Thorstein Veblen wrote of 'the leisure class' and frankly i would tend to believe that is exactly what we have.

.

You clearly have no idea how expensive parts of London are.

Granted, it's partly ( :shock:) so expensive because of these higher wages, but still.

£200,000 is a lot, but it's nowhere near the top of the ladder in London.

hmm, as already said, houses bigger than small hotels????? solid gold ferraris cost more than Fiat Pandas too. your argument falls down on supply and demand, only by super high wages can super expensive areas be created, curb one, remove the other.

anyhoo, why not live in other parts then, like perfectly decent and honest and washed ralative paupers like nurses, teachers, etc & refuse to take excessively more than you need? (I know, hahahahahahahahahahahaha) but its not as if not living in a 12 million pound 16 bedroom manison in Belgravia automatically means you're forced to live in a 1up 1 down hovel with 3 other families and an outside toilet in a crime ridden gin soaked neighbourhood.

just saying like & I'm only jealous cos I earn less in a year than they take home each week.

Boyzer

Tusher, no i dont really give to charities. About 65 percent of my income goes to taxes or pension, so i feel as though ive contributed enough.

I do some volunteer work for MND though, lost a family member to it a few years ago.

Giles, thats a big problem. Boards should ensure that remuneration and payoff is linked to positive long term impact. Sadly, boards usually link remuneration to shareholder dividends underpinned by growth. Most companies exist to provide a service or product that will provide a return to the investor, along the way you can argue they should have a social concience, benefit employees or a multitude of other political correct principles. However, usually, ethically, most companies who do these things because it benefits the business, in the long term, not for the benefit themselves. There are exceptions, The John Lewis Partnership, Body shop, etc, but they are greatly outnumbered by the Nike's who are just concered about dividends and if they do end up paying more in the far east for their production line, its not their social concience, its insurance against bad press.

I identified with the Evening standard the other day. It suggested something along the lines that in the 25 years since big bang, whereas it used to be ethical organisations with a corrupt individual or two, now, we now have many corrupt organisations in which ethical individuals try to exist.

Guess by now, you can see my cynicism about companies, governments, taxation, as well as our debt ridden society.

rick_chasey

shouldbeinbed wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

EKIMIKE wrote:

Frankly, what anyone does with £200,000+ p.a. salary is a mystery to me. Surely it either sits in the bank or is spent on leisure. Thorstein Veblen wrote of 'the leisure class' and frankly i would tend to believe that is exactly what we have.

.

You clearly have no idea how expensive parts of London are.

Granted, it's partly ( :shock:) so expensive because of these higher wages, but still.

£200,000 is a lot, but it's nowhere near the top of the ladder in London.

hmm, as already said, houses bigger than small hotels????? solid gold ferraris cost more than Fiat Pandas too. your argument falls down on supply and demand, only by super high wages can super expensive areas be created, curb one, remove the other.

anyhoo, why not live in other parts then, like perfectly decent and honest and washed ralative paupers like nurses, teachers, etc & refuse to take excessively more than you need? (I know, hahahahahahahahahahahaha) but its not as if not living in a 12 million pound 16 bedroom manison in Belgravia automatically means you're forced to live in a 1up 1 down hovel with 3 other families and an outside toilet in a crime ridden gin soaked neighbourhood.

just saying like & I'm only jealous cos I earn less in a year than they take home each week.

*sighs*

The idea of the link was to show all the properties that estate agent had on sale. Many of them, 2-3-4 bedrooms, not an unreasonable amount, are way over the million mark.

I was just disputing the 'I don't know what I would do with money over £200,000'. In parts of London, where these enormous figures are largely paid. You need to be paid well over that kind of money before it gets to the point where you don't know what to do with it, that's all.

I wasn't making a comment on whether the pay is justafiable or not.

For what it's worth, I read somewhere reasonably reputable about a study that looked at the value of paying enormous wages to the top tiers. Say, the difference in leadership and company performance between paying them £500,000 and say, £3m. The conclusion found no correlation between paying the leader more and better company performance.

Le Commentateur

But £3m commands a higher status than £500,000 and that, ultimately, is what is motivating these people.

StageWinner

I'm surprised no one has mentioned footballers making over £200,000 a WEEK yet.

bontie

Isn't it sick that the majority of hard working people get no increase (or 2,3% like I did) , but the top dogs get 49%. I have no gripe in paying top dollar to the guys who run the shows but surely we cannot plead recession and justify a "no bonus, no increase" approach when that doesn't apply to everyone.

No one in my organisation (manager or lower) received any increases in the last 3 years, nor bonuses. I doubt the same applies for those at the top.

shouldbeinbed

Rick Chasey wrote:

shouldbeinbed wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

EKIMIKE wrote:

Frankly, what anyone does with £200,000+ p.a. salary is a mystery to me. Surely it either sits in the bank or is spent on leisure. Thorstein Veblen wrote of 'the leisure class' and frankly i would tend to believe that is exactly what we have.

.

You clearly have no idea how expensive parts of London are.

Granted, it's partly ( :shock:) so expensive because of these higher wages, but still.

£200,000 is a lot, but it's nowhere near the top of the ladder in London.

hmm, as already said, houses bigger than small hotels????? solid gold ferraris cost more than Fiat Pandas too. your argument falls down on supply and demand, only by super high wages can super expensive areas be created, curb one, remove the other.

anyhoo, why not live in other parts then, like perfectly decent and honest and washed ralative paupers like nurses, teachers, etc & refuse to take excessively more than you need? (I know, hahahahahahahahahahahaha) but its not as if not living in a 12 million pound 16 bedroom manison in Belgravia automatically means you're forced to live in a 1up 1 down hovel with 3 other families and an outside toilet in a crime ridden gin soaked neighbourhood.

just saying like & I'm only jealous cos I earn less in a year than they take home each week.

*sighs*

The idea of the link was to show all the properties that estate agent had on sale. Many of them, 2-3-4 bedrooms, not an unreasonable amount, are way over the million mark.

I was just disputing the 'I don't know what I would do with money over £200,000'. In parts of London, where these enormous figures are largely paid. You need to be paid well over that kind of money before it gets to the point where you don't know what to do with it, that's all.

I wasn't making a comment on whether the pay is justafiable or not.

For what it's worth, I read somewhere reasonably reputable about a study that looked at the value of paying enormous wages to the top tiers. Say, the difference in leadership and company performance between paying them £500,000 and say, £3m. The conclusion found no correlation between paying the leader more and better company performance.

*sighs back*

unfortunately your example didn't have those front and centre and with the greatest of respect not many of us will scroll down or through agents website to go aha Rick was right overall, silly us.

but it all still comes back to supply and demand, wage inflation , across the board in the boomtimes, allied to a housing bubble has lead to such grossly inflated prices have made utterly unreasonable prices for otherwise ( as you rightly claim) reasonable homes, its not just a London thing, and those that happened to hop on the property market far enough back are fuelled this by seing their erstwhile £40K nice area London house suddenly become worth hundreds of thousands of pounds allowing them to cash a massive deposit elsewhere and drive prices higher and higher. Iit happens up here too but doesn't alter the fact that you are selecting the swish areas which would be far more egailtarian if there hadn't been such recklessness and which are only being sustained by continued reckless wage paying to the elite ecelon and the tiny house price drops relative to the astronomical increases of recent times that people of a certain age copped lucky enough to cash in on. Oherwise there'd be no need for key worker housing and shared equity schemes if housing is not unreasonably priced and arguably needs to see a massive bursting of that bubble to equalise things again .

I think we're agreeing on this though, I can easily see how people can spend over £200,000 too without much thought. show a shanty town dweller in e.g. Lagos my fairly modest monthly wageslip and they'd think it was a paycheck for their entire lifetime but I get through it and usually a bit more with total ease each month. We all have our own personal benchmarks, take us too far out of those and it does get incomprehensible how people can spend so much or exist on so little but it all still comes back to supply and demand.

StageWinner: commenting about the footballers, applies to other sports and movie stars and rock stars too, these are utterly choice lead consumerism. you don't have to bowl up to Old Trafford or Stamford Bridge or wherever, you don't have to buy Sky premiership package or see the latest Tom Cruise film or pay £150 quid to barely see the Rolling Stones half a mile away. As opposed to the corprorate execs, invariably you'd have to drop a looooong way out of society to not require the services provided by the banks, utilities, oil giants, food retailers, pharmacalogical manufacturers and many more associated & interlinked compainies that go to make up the FTSE and whichare paying their execs the telephone number salaries at issue here, we've basically become asociety dependent (enslaved?) to their services/products.

You're going to be building a house in the woods, made out of the woods, storing rainwater in a barrel, catching, gathering and growing your food and bartering it for what you can't catch or make and hoping you don't need antibiotics anytime soon before you can make the comparison between the chief exec of Tesco or Glaxo for example and Wayne Rooney or Mick Jagger

hulla the hulla

I appreciate that it can't be an easy gig being top man as so many people are looking to you to get it right ALL THE TIME but that's their decision, if you can't stand the heat etc.... but IMHO, salaries should be performance based, you do well, you get paid well, you do crap, you don't - simple as that !

The company I work for is outside the financial sector but our top man in the US has just left with a $5.9m golden goodbye and $100k year pension for life. Yet the company is struggling and we are looking at making redundancies, downsizing through natural attrition, save money through some pretty uncomfortable cost savings initiatives including pay freezes and generally make everyones life harder.
Here's the rub, he wasn't very good and the word is he was close to retiring anyway so if he was leaving or close to it, why why why pay the guy so much money to leave ?!?!? I can only assume that he had it baked into his contract.... utter craziness !