Executive Pay rises 41%, worker pay 1%
Discussion
otolith said:
If they are so good, they will have no problem setting up their own business in competition (or in another field entirely).
Though if that were the case, one might ask why they have not already done so.
Not always possible. My late father was an incredible salesman - he pretty much introduced the idea of drinking mineral water to the UK in the very early 1980s - a country where it rains all the time.Though if that were the case, one might ask why they have not already done so.
Edited by otolith on Tuesday 12th June 19:01
But he would have found it impossible to set up his own, as apart from the responsibilities he had, such as paying a mortgage and looking after his family, the field he knew would require a start-up investment that would run into millions. He didn't have that sort of money, and even if he could have found a bank to lend it, that wasn't the sort of debt he'd have wanted on his shoulders.
martin84 said:
PoleDriver said:
Scenario:-
Company having slight problems. Workforce demand pay rise of 5% which would increase wage bill by £80K.
CEO negotiates down to 2.5%/£40K.
CEO has done well, gets reward of 10%/£10K pay rise.
Shareholders happy with outcome!
Giving the CEO a payrise for limiting payrises to everyone else is cold to say the least and another example of the tCompany having slight problems. Workforce demand pay rise of 5% which would increase wage bill by £80K.
CEO negotiates down to 2.5%/£40K.
CEO has done well, gets reward of 10%/£10K pay rise.
Shareholders happy with outcome!
ttery which keeps their pay in the public interest. The fact is that CEO is probably already on 15x the average salary and doesn't need the £10k, that £10k would be far more useful to the workforce.bhsteqie said:
hsteqie said: I have no problem with rewards for success. I have a huge problem with rewards for failure, which is IMO a far bigger problem.
Well that depends how you judge success. Success means different things to different people. A CEO might deliver record profits one year but what if he's only managed that by laying people off, freezing pay, reducing benefits, resorting to lower quality staff (potentially damaging productivity in the future) etc then would you deem that a success? It may be a success for him, but not for many other people.You sound like a high school student - "...on 15x the average salary and doesn't need the £10k..." - who are you to say who needs or doesn't need the £10k? What has 'need' got to do with it in any case.
johnfm said:
You really are stunningly naive. You don't seem to understand how privately owned companies operate and why the owners and managers are more favourably rewarded than the workers. You fail to allocate any worth or credit to those who risk their own capital in an enterprise. Yes Martin, we know that without workers, business owners couldn't make their money. Yet, you fail to mention that without the business owners, the workers wouldn't have jobs to go to.
You sound like a high school student - "...on 15x the average salary and doesn't need the £10k..." - who are you to say who needs or doesn't need the £10k? What has 'need' got to do with it in any case.
How many FTSE 100 CEOs (because I believe that's who we are discussing) risk their own capital in the companies that employ them?You sound like a high school student - "...on 15x the average salary and doesn't need the £10k..." - who are you to say who needs or doesn't need the £10k? What has 'need' got to do with it in any case.
martin84 said:
PoleDriver said:
In very many cases success is purely judged (unfortunately) by the bottom line!
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just saying that it happens!
And all those unfairly sacked workers base their opinions on their company and bosses on their own bottom line as well, which is why so many people these days are sick of rich suits. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just saying that it happens!
TTwiggy said:
johnfm said:
You really are stunningly naive. You don't seem to understand how privately owned companies operate and why the owners and managers are more favourably rewarded than the workers. You fail to allocate any worth or credit to those who risk their own capital in an enterprise. Yes Martin, we know that without workers, business owners couldn't make their money. Yet, you fail to mention that without the business owners, the workers wouldn't have jobs to go to.
You sound like a high school student - "...on 15x the average salary and doesn't need the £10k..." - who are you to say who needs or doesn't need the £10k? What has 'need' got to do with it in any case.
How many FTSE 100 CEOs (because I believe that's who we are discussing) risk their own capital in the companies that employ them?You sound like a high school student - "...on 15x the average salary and doesn't need the £10k..." - who are you to say who needs or doesn't need the £10k? What has 'need' got to do with it in any case.
If we are discussing listed company boards, i think I am already on record on PH as suggesting that shareholders (institutional in the main) have allowed substantial theft of value from shareholders by the marauding boards.
Yes it's helpful to distinguish between entprepreneurs and intrapreneurs.
Even so, somebody somewhere once started every business whatever its current nature, and some of those will not only have had technical and personal abilities but were also prepared to shoulder debt burdens while risking their own capital.
Even so, somebody somewhere once started every business whatever its current nature, and some of those will not only have had technical and personal abilities but were also prepared to shoulder debt burdens while risking their own capital.
KaraK said:
I think that many of us, were we in the position to legally increase our pay by 41pc either by proposing it ourselves and getting it passed or whether it was offered to us would take it. So in modern parlance - "don't hate the player hate the game"
So don't hat Underground workers?Randy Winkman said:
Are we really that concerned about those at the bottom of the heap? My concern is that at the moment, about 1% of folk seem to be doing really well, and the other 99% (of workers) are being shafted. Yes, the 99% could say "If I work hard, I could be in the 1%" - but there will still be the 99% - we cant all be the boss. Isn't the UK going to perform better on a world stage if we encourage the majority, not the minority?
Got it in one.Randy Winkman said:
Are we really that concerned about those at the bottom of the heap? My concern is that at the moment, about 1% of folk seem to be doing really well, and the other 99% (of workers) are being shafted. Yes, the 99% could say "If I work hard, I could be in the 1%" - but there will still be the 99% - we cant all be the boss. Isn't the UK going to perform better on a world stage if we encourage the majority, not the minority?
Define 'encourage the majority'/Surely, in an economy based mainly upon consumerism and the service industry, it's. Good thing to put more money in the hands of the workers, as they will then spend that money? Or am I being naive?
Imagine if your favourite game ever was monopoly. You would be at your happiest playing the game all day, every day. Now, due to your experience of the game, as well as a natural aptitude for it, and a healthy amount of luck, let's imagine you never lose. Indeed, you are so good, that when you play with friends, the game is over in minutes.
Great yeah? Well no, the game is over, and there's nobody to play with. So how do you prolong the game? Well, you might give the other players some money back...
Imagine if your favourite game ever was monopoly. You would be at your happiest playing the game all day, every day. Now, due to your experience of the game, as well as a natural aptitude for it, and a healthy amount of luck, let's imagine you never lose. Indeed, you are so good, that when you play with friends, the game is over in minutes.
Great yeah? Well no, the game is over, and there's nobody to play with. So how do you prolong the game? Well, you might give the other players some money back...
johnfm said:
Who are all these 'unfairly sacked workers' by the way?
People put out of work through no fault of their own. Victims of the economic situation, of which there's been millions.turbobloke said:
So is it the role of a company to take people on who are not cost-effective to have on the books, and so risk putting the firm out of business to the detriment of everybody
A CEO should not get a payrise when he/she has cut everybody elses pay or put lots of people out of work. Presumably the whole point of laying people off is to reduce outgoings, so if they can afford to give it to the CEO then they didn't need to lay people off. Even if the net result is lower outgoings, surely its better to offer paycuts rather than total job losses? Obviously the CEO should take a paycut as well. 'All in it together' and all that turbobloke said:
or is it the role of people who don't have what it takes to start their own successful enterprise (nothing wrong with that but they need to face facts) to ensure they are employable and are sufficiently skilled to add value and be more likely to be retained?
As I said earlier, CEO's are just employees so you should tar them with the same brush of 'inability to start their own successful enterprise' as well. These are people who are good at handling other peoples money, but if they were that marvellous surely they'd start their own business rather than run someone elses?johnfm said:
You really are stunningly naive. You don't seem to understand how privately owned companies operate and why the owners and managers are more favourably rewarded than the workers.
Because they all attend each others garden parties and wife swapping evenings probably.johnfm said:
You fail to allocate any worth or credit to those who risk their own capital in an enterprise.
How many CEO's (who are employees) risk their own capital in a business? You don't seem to understand the difference between a business owner and a manager. Does Arsene Wenger risk his own capital in Arsenal? No, he doesn't. He is an employee and would actually get paid to leave if he did his job badly. You're making a strawman argument because we're not discussing business owners, note how nobody is complaining about Richard Branson or Bill Gates. This thread is about Executive pay, the high pay of certain employees, people who risk nothing but other peoples money in someone elses enterprise.
johnfm said:
Yes Martin, we know that without workers, business owners couldn't make their money. Yet, you fail to mention that without the business owners, the workers wouldn't have jobs to go to.
So they both need each other an equal amount. Would be nice of the pendulum of pay were to inch even a tiny bit towards equal then wouldn't it? Take my example of a £50k payrise for the CEO being coupled with £500 extra p.a for the general workforce. Thats the sort of thing I'm talking about. As much as I'd love to make it so as everybody gets paid the same and nobody ever has financial problems I can recognise thats an impossibility and completely unworkable, but there's certainly room for improvement on what we have now.johnfm said:
You sound like a high school student - "...on 15x the average salary and doesn't need the £10k..." - who are you to say who needs or doesn't need the £10k? What has 'need' got to do with it in any case.
Well we don't need a philosophical argument over who decides if someone needs the £10k, because someone on 15x the average salary doesn't need it. I know that, you know that. A matter of 'need' is actually pretty straight forward, we dont need to go into a pathetic, strawman filled, misinformed, pointless, misguided socialism v capitalism debate to conclude somebody on £400,000 doesn't need another £10k. Whether they deserve the extra £10k or not is a very different discussion and a matter of opinion though.Workers and business owners don't need each other in 'equal amounts'.
I think this is part of what you are missing. The need changes depending on general market conditions and the skill levels of the work force.
In boom times, workers can (and do) follow the money and go where the pay is higher. Management is under pressure to retain staff and attract replacement in order to take advantage of the market.
In lean times, workers need employers a lot more than employers need them.
Workers who add value in lean times are valued more than those who don't. This means managers more often than not - as they lead the cost cutting.
Sorry Martin, but that is how it works.
I think this is part of what you are missing. The need changes depending on general market conditions and the skill levels of the work force.
In boom times, workers can (and do) follow the money and go where the pay is higher. Management is under pressure to retain staff and attract replacement in order to take advantage of the market.
In lean times, workers need employers a lot more than employers need them.
Workers who add value in lean times are valued more than those who don't. This means managers more often than not - as they lead the cost cutting.
Sorry Martin, but that is how it works.
johnfm said:
What do you think encourages a worker more:
1. No matter how clever or hard he works, he will get paid the same as the rest of 'the 99%'; or
2. If he manages to work his way up into the top 1% he will be rewarded enormously for his efforts.
Generally it's feeling thet the work/reward ratio is fair across the board and their contribution is valued.1. No matter how clever or hard he works, he will get paid the same as the rest of 'the 99%'; or
2. If he manages to work his way up into the top 1% he will be rewarded enormously for his efforts.
Very many won't want to be the '1%' but you'll not get much out of them if they feel shafted, it's counter-productive.
Sticks. said:
Generally it's feeling thet the work/reward ratio is fair across the board and their contribution is valued.
Very many won't want to be the '1%' but you'll not get much out of them if they feel shafted, it's counter-productive.
Exactly. The majority of naive views on this thread are those coming from the posters who feel that it's simply a matter of hard work and application that propels one into the top 1%, when logic dictates that the very nature of being '1%' demonstrates that it's a very limited club.Very many won't want to be the '1%' but you'll not get much out of them if they feel shafted, it's counter-productive.
johnfm said:
Workers and business owners don't need each other in 'equal amounts'.
Well they do in the sense that neither would get anywhere without the other. Unfortunately the fact one group has the other over a barrel means the equal need counts for very little.johnfm said:
In lean times, workers need employers a lot more than employers need them.
Well thats debatable. I haven't come across a single CEO or business owner who wants high unemployment. After all if your business is selling things to the public then you want that public to have money don't you? Laying off employees may work for you if its just you doing it, the problem comes when every other company does it as well and you're all left competing for less and less money.johnfm said:
Workers who add value in lean times are valued more than those who don't. This means managers more often than not - as they lead the cost cutting.
Sorry Martin, but that is how it works.
It may be how it works but we don't have to be happy about it. Those on here who celebrate that this is how it works are even more distasteful. Nobody should advertise ruthless capitalism as anything other than the least sSorry Martin, but that is how it works.
t system humans can come up with.My problem is not that I don't understand, my problem is I'm too nice. I myself was made redundant from a fairly well paid job (not a mammoth amount, about 38k) which I worked hard for a couple of years to get. I was good at pretty much everything I had to do but when it came to a point where I essentially had to pick someone to lose their job I couldn't do it, left it on my 'to do' list for so long somebody else did it for me and it wasn't long before I was let go.
I admit I'm too nice to do that sort of job, the people who have these jobs are vile b
ds and I can't be like that. I would always go out of my way to see if I could keep everyone in a job, my mentality means I cannot view the bottom line as the most important thing - not if I want to sleep at night anyway.So there's more reasons than lack of will/education behind why certain people don't get such positions. It could just be that you're not enough of a t
t to do it.Fittster said:
DJRC said:
The Uk offers the means of as much social and economic mobility as anywhere else in Europe. Which of course Im sure you would know because you have lived and worked in Europe right? America? .
Evidence for that 'fact' or just making up crap to suit your view point?Well, if you insist! Evidence exhibit A is sat roughly about 4m to my right. My Finnish housem8 with work and education experience in Finland, Sweden, Switzerland and UK. Go on then, Ill offer myself as exhibit B, Ive shlepped my arse living and working about the UK and Europe. Exhibits B...Z? Well pick pretty much a nationality. I work with most of them and the Brits make up the majority of the expats. British engineers are in massive demand outside of the UK. Now, across these chaps you soon realise there is no stereotype of "social level". All levels of society. Canvass across the other expats and its a similar tale. The only common thing is that we are and have trained and done engineering education.
Oh sorry! You meant *only* primary evidence presented on the internet! Doh, of course, how silly of me to forget it was you trying to sound clever instead of someone normal. You see you daft twit Im not the one trying to argue a viewpoint...you are, I have merely offered you counterpoint information drawn from my first hand experience and evidence. Still though, Im sure you are happy to be wrong, you usually are
Sticks. said:
johnfm said:
What do you think encourages a worker more:
1. No matter how clever or hard he works, he will get paid the same as the rest of 'the 99%'; or
2. If he manages to work his way up into the top 1% he will be rewarded enormously for his efforts.
Generally it's feeling thet the work/reward ratio is fair across the board and their contribution is valued.1. No matter how clever or hard he works, he will get paid the same as the rest of 'the 99%'; or
2. If he manages to work his way up into the top 1% he will be rewarded enormously for his efforts.
Very many won't want to be the '1%' but you'll not get much out of them if they feel shafted, it's counter-productive.
Is 'shafted':
1. Getting a small pay rise?
2. getting no pay rise?
3. Getting a paycut?
4. Getting sacked?
5. Getting a pay rise that is smaller than someone else's?
martin84 said:
johnfm said:
Workers and business owners don't need each other in 'equal amounts'.
Well they do in the sense that neither would get anywhere without the other. Unfortunately the fact one group has the other over a barrel means the equal need counts for very little.who has who over a barrel? when i was self employed i regularly put my house on the line to keep the business going, paying the staff far more than i got paid for the first 2 years. had a couple of years where i took home a very nice sum, then lost everything (and i do mean everything) in the credit crunch. My staff, Thank god, were fine, it hardly affected them.
it was however impossible for me to get rid of staff who for whatever reason decided after 12 months that they didn't want to do any work anymore. This was seriously detrimental to our customers and other staff members
martin84 said:
johnfm said:
In lean times, workers need employers a lot more than employers need them.
Well thats debatable. I haven't come across a single CEO or business owner who wants high unemployment. After all if your business is selling things to the public then you want that public to have money don't you? Laying off employees may work for you if its just you doing it, the problem comes when every other company does it as well and you're all left competing for less and less money.how many CEOs or business owners do you know out of interest? my current role means i'm in contact with an average of 15 different CEOs and business ownwers per week.
Their overriding concern is to keep their staff on- the most common comment is "we're very proud that we've not let anyone go, although we cut our take jhome massively personally".
A huge number of companies aren't concerned by what the man in the street has in the pocket, but how much the government takes out of the business in legalised robbery
johnfm said:
Workers who add value in lean times are valued more than those who don't. This means managers more often than not - as they lead the cost cutting.
Sorry Martin, but that is how it works.
Sorry Martin, but that is how it works.
martin84 said:
It may be how it works but we don't have to be happy about it. Those on here who celebrate that this is how it works are even more distasteful. Nobody should advertise ruthless capitalism as anything other than the least st system humans can come up with.
why shouldn't we be happy about it? i'd much rather have colleagues who work their arses off, raen't carried by the rest of us, and show genuine commitment. Just as i'd like to work for the company who does the same.t system humans can come up with.martin84 said:
My problem is not that I don't understand, my problem is I'm too nice. I myself was made redundant from a fairly well paid job (not a mammoth amount, about 38k) which I worked hard for a couple of years to get. I was good at pretty much everything I had to do but when it came to a point where I essentially had to pick someone to lose their job I couldn't do it, left it on my 'to do' list for so long somebody else did it for me and it wasn't long before I was let go.
I admit I'm too nice to do that sort of job, the people who have these jobs are vile bds and I can't be like that. I would always go out of my way to see if I could keep everyone in a job, my mentality means I cannot view the bottom line as the most important thing - not if I want to sleep at night anyway.
So there's more reasons than lack of will/education behind why certain people don't get such positions. It could just be that you're not enough of a tt to do it.
or maybe you realise that in order for the majority to keep their jobs a minority have to suffer- and that minority is the weakest. I admit I'm too nice to do that sort of job, the people who have these jobs are vile b
ds and I can't be like that. I would always go out of my way to see if I could keep everyone in a job, my mentality means I cannot view the bottom line as the most important thing - not if I want to sleep at night anyway.So there's more reasons than lack of will/education behind why certain people don't get such positions. It could just be that you're not enough of a t
t to do it.With your view we'd never sack anyone for any reason, we'd all be treated the same, and their would be no reason to do better for ourselves.
On the other hand if you work for a company that ensures it has the best staff, and cares for those staff, then that company won't get rid of people as soon as things get hard- the reason they won't is that they have resources to ride the tough times. The copmanies who didn't get rid of the chaff don't have those resources.
you seem to have the over-riding impression than company owners are nasty capitalist who will stamp on anyone. Of the probably thousands of business owners i have met and worked with, probably 20-30 fall into that bracket. The rest care for their staff almost as much as they care about their customers.
Edited by PugwasHDJ80 on Tuesday 12th June 21:35
Randy Winkman said:
turbobloke said:
Randy Winkman said:
Isn't the UK going to perform better on a world stage if we encourage the majority, not the minority?
Who pays for the encouragement if the people in question don't add value just add cost?Many people who don't like their pay and conditions OR do like it but get sacked, go on to find a job somewhere else.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff