Executive Pay rises 41%, worker pay 1%

[TTwiggy]

This thread might be better is everyone had a look at the title - we are not talking about small business owners pouring their own cash in to keep afloat, and neither are we talking about put upon middle management, forced to make tough decisions in difficult times. The subject is the massive pay awards at the very top of the tree compared to a real-world pay cut in most other roles.

[bobbylondonuk]

Here is something to chew on...looking for flights to usa...GBP 705.
Taxes..GBP 353.

Now have a think about it and tell me...how an airline operating from UK can cope with flying to USA for gbp 350? Then tell me how the CEO who cuts staff and non profitable routes is the villain?

Just one of the examples in life where cutting costs, jobs etc is not an act of pleasure! The CEO will get a huge bonus if he manages to turn it around and make the company profitable or more profitable in adverse market conditions. He is paid to be the bad guy and take those decisions that even the shareholders may not have the balls to take! If it goes tits up...that CEO may not get another job because he has a reputation of failure. If his tactic works..then its time to cash in big time. THAT IS THE JOB OF A CEO!!!!!


Ohh by the way....me paying 50% of the airfare as taxes is in no way going to change anything in the atmosphere..lying tree hugging bds.

[Fatman2]

TTwiggy said:

This thread might be better is everyone had a look at the title - we are not talking about small business owners pouring their own cash in to keep afloat, and neither are we talking about put upon middle management, forced to make tough decisions in difficult times. The subject is the massive pay awards at the very top of the tree compared to a real-world pay cut in most other roles.

I didn't read the article but 41% vs 1% sucks big time and is why I like John Lewis. The fact that there is a limit on the chief exec's salary prevents this kind of imbalance and no one can say that the business model doesn't work.

However, whilst I hate the very idea of such imbalance it is the directors that allow this kind of stuff to happen. As they're in charge then it's really up to them. I realise most people have little choice but they still have a choice so if they don't like it then they can vote with their feet.

I'm a director of a powerfully built company so can also make the rules. This year one of the workers is potentially getting a 50% pay rise whilst the other is getting 0%. Cool eh.

[Sticks.]

johnfm said:

Depends on the definition of 'shafted'.

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?

Well, in the scenario described, will giving the CEO a % pay rise 41 times greater than staff (a higher multiplier in real terms) improve output?

The arguments for pay in the current economic climate apply to CEOs too.

[otolith]

TTwiggy said:

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.

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.

A great salesman is not neccessarily a great entrepreneur or strategist or leader. It sounds as if your dad knew where his talents lay and understood how he felt about risk. For what it's worth, it's not where my talents lie either, and I'm not going to kid myself that it is.

[otolith]

martin84 said:

Unfortunately thats why we live in a vile world. Its not a good system, its just the best us quite useless humans can come up with. Lets not advertise it or pretend its good because its not. Its another example of what neilr was saying earlier about how products and services are only going downhill. They don't give a fk about anybody but their own bank accounts.

It's not an ideal world, but it is the only one we have. Human nature is what it is, there's no point pretending it isn't.

[TTwiggy]

otolith said:

A great salesman is not neccessarily a great entrepreneur or strategist or leader. It sounds as if your dad knew where his talents lay and understood how he felt about risk. For what it's worth, it's not where my talents lie either, and I'm not going to kid myself that it is.

Which was my point. Contrary to the oversimplified view put forward on here, not everybody - even those who are very talented - is necessarily equipped to 'strike out on their own'.

Personally, I think you need to have psychopathic tendencies to succeed in business. Which explains a lot about some posters on here

[Deva Link]

TTwiggy said:

Which was my point. Contrary to the oversimplified view put forward on here, not everybody - even those who are very talented - is necessarily equipped to 'strike out on their own'.

CEO's of FTSE companies haven't "struck out on their own". They're employees, although perhaps employed by service comanies to minimise their tax liability.

[RichyBoy]

Its no surprise surely. Central bank prints money - inflates share values - our cost of living goes up - public/ftse executive pay goes up, isn't this what happens now.

[otolith]

TTwiggy said:

Which was my point. Contrary to the oversimplified view put forward on here, not everybody - even those who are very talented - is necessarily equipped to 'strike out on their own'.

Sure - but the point I was making was that contrary to Martin's beliefs, those who are cut out for senior business leadership won't be sat around on the dole or waiting in a dead end job for something to drop in their lap.

[TTwiggy]

otolith said:

Sure - but the point I was making was that contrary to Martin's beliefs, those who are cut out for senior business leadership won't be sat around on the dole or waiting in a dead end job for something to drop in their lap.

But neither have they put their own cash on the line and started up new businesses and enterprises. These people are not entrepreneurs, they have just acquired the right skill sets to propel themselves up the corporate ladder, fueled by management bullst and a massive sense of entitlement.

[eccles]

bobbylondonuk said:

Just one of the examples in life where cutting costs, jobs etc is not an act of pleasure! The CEO will get a huge bonus if he manages to turn it around and make the company profitable or more profitable in adverse market conditions. He is paid to be the bad guy and take those decisions that even the shareholders may not have the balls to take! If it goes tits up...that CEO may not get another job because he has a reputation of failure. If his tactic works..then its time to cash in big time. THAT IS THE JOB OF A CEO!!!!!

But in reality it doesn't take much googling to find quite a few cases of CEO's being crap at their multi million pound job, coming to some agreement with the company to leave usually involving a multi million pound golden parachute, then waltzing off into another CEO (or similar board level )position.

I'm employed in a relatively small trade group, if I'm crap at my job and get sacked I don't get a golden parachute, and due to the nature of the job it wouldn't take much asking around to find out why I'd been sacked and it would definitely affect my chances of getting another job.

It's an old boys network of board level money grabbers who certainly don't play by the same rules they expect their employees to stick to.

[otolith]

TTwiggy said:

But neither have they put their own cash on the line and started up new businesses and enterprises. These people are not entrepreneurs, they have just acquired the right skill sets to propel themselves up the corporate ladder, fueled by management bullst and a massive sense of entitlement.

Perhaps not, but if they hadn't been succeeding in climbing the corporate ladder, they would have been succeeding elsewhere. You don't get to that sort of position without having that sort of personality.

[eccles]

otolith said:

TTwiggy said:

But neither have they put their own cash on the line and started up new businesses and enterprises. These people are not entrepreneurs, they have just acquired the right skill sets to propel themselves up the corporate ladder, fueled by management bullst and a massive sense of entitlement.

Perhaps not, but if they hadn't been succeeding in climbing the corporate ladder, they would have been succeeding elsewhere. You don't get to that sort of position without having that sort of personality.

Personality? I thought it was all about skill.

[otolith]

eccles said:

Personality? I thought it was all about skill.

You know, here is a thought, I think it might just be a range of attributes, including talent, education, experience and, yes, personality. The other attributes won't get you far if you are passive, idle and unambitious, will they?

[martin84]

PugwasHDJ80 said:

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.

We shouldn't be happy about it because you've only described the good side. The bad side has been mentioned many times in this thread. The fact is extra reward for hard work is rare, not the norm and many more people lose their jobs through no fault of their own than gain them because they deserve them.

PugwasHDJ80 said:

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 recognised that at the time but I didn't want to be the one to make someone unemployed. I'd rather the decision was taken out of my hands so as somebody else can be the tt. I wasn't let go purely because of that though, company scaled back after the st hit the fan (like many others did) but I wouldn't be surprised if my dawdling on that issue did knock me down a few places in the pecking order on the must-keep list.

PugwasHDJ80 said:

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.

Well the good side of never sacking anyone is nobody would be punished for other peoples mistakes either. You can say there's no incentive to try harder, but the flip side is banking employees dont have to clean out their desk because the higher ups threw billions at people who couldn't pay it back. Of course its totally unworkable so I'll accept we need to sack people, but I'll leave the sacking side of things up to you

PugwasHDJ80 said:

you seem to have the over-riding impression than company owners are nasty capitalist who will stamp on anyone.

Not particularly. Anybody who has got to such a position in life hasn't done it all by themselves, they've had to meet other people and sell themselves as a nice human being somewhere down the line. I do think most people on PH will stamp on anyone though.

PugwasHDJ80 said:

The rest care for their staff almost as much as they care about their customers.

That much eh?

otolith said:

Sure - but the point I was making was that contrary to Martin's beliefs, those who are cut out for senior business leadership won't be sat around on the dole or waiting in a dead end job for something to drop in their lap.

But nor is it as simple as just working hard, millions do that but they don't get 41% payrises. We need to get rid of this simplistic view that people who work hard get to the top and everybody who isn't at the top is a useless uneducated waster. Theres people in the fire brigade working for an ordinary wage who run into burning buildings as your £2million a year 'business leaders' run in the other direction. Just because you dont earn 7 figure salaries does not mean you're useless.

By the same token its arrogant to believe anybody who does earn a 7 figure salary has got it all by themselves. So many things play a part, yes you need a certain amount of natural skill and intelligence, you need the sort of personality required but where you're born, who your parents are, what school you went to and who your friends are also count for quite a lot in these things. Luck is the under appreciated part of this equation.

I've already admitted I'm not a big enough to do the jobs they do, so what more do you want from me?

[PoleDriver]

I've always given 100%+ in any job, for this I've generally been rewarded. If I don't get rewarded without good reason I find another job. I can't see why so many slackers expect to get rewarded for not trying or dedicated people complain about no reward1

Take control of your own destiny, you're the only one who has a real interest in it!

[turbobloke]

martin84 said:

The fact is extra reward for hard work is rare, not the norm and many more people lose their jobs through no fault of their own than gain them because they deserve them.

If they were skilled-up for employment they would be more likely to remain employed and if the position in a company was really bad and some good people had to be let go, they would find another job more easily.

Expecting a job on a plate and not expecting to lose a job is dreamworld, as usual everybody else is responsible and victims of society are everywhere. People never make bad life decisions affecting employability and other people should pick up the tab when they do. Maybe the tooth fairy is hiring.

As to reward for productive work, if it was clearly identified and celebrated things would be different but we're all equal, comrade. The unions and their gobby mouthpieces might want to stop whining about appraisal and performance management in general. They might also want to get a clue.

[crankedup]

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.

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 st 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 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.

And I thought I was alone on this forum, well said. Comments on this forum during the past couple of years have been completely overblown regarding the self importance of Management and bankers. Society is made up as a group of individuals ultimately to a greater extent reliant upon each other. Simple but true. The greed factor has grown since the 1980's like a bubble and its ready to burst.

[crankedup]

Randy Winkman said:

Fittster said:

KaraK said:

Actually don't we kind of already do that here? So far the anecdotal evidence would sugges that those in a pit who are given random wodges of cash end up massively discouraged to do anything about it.

It might not be a "nice" fact but fundamentally life isn't fair and there is only so far you can go towards redessing that.

Is there any real point encouraging those at the bottom of the heap, when the evidence points out that they have little prospect of getting anywhere? Giving someone false hope is normally considered to be cruel.

At the momement the view appears to be those who are at the bottom are there due to their lack of work/intelligence/initiative/whatever, while those at the top have achieved their position due to hardwork, when a lot of evidence points out that the random luck of who your parents are plays a far greater role in determining where you are going to end up.

At the moment we do redistribute wealth but we aren't very gracious about it. Rather than try an improve social mobility, maybe we should just accept the status quo and stop being so pious about benefits and just consider it compensation for the rigid heiarchies in society.

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?

Thats the crunch, its not a lack of wealth but the distribution that is wrong. The top 1% are earning way too much money in relation to the other 99%, the wealth gap is simply to wide and this is causing much resentment and calls of unfair. This is a situation brought into sharp focus by the financial crisis that most of us are now witnessing.