Executive Pay rises 41%, worker pay 1%
Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Those with power in whatever field will use it to feather their own nest, as we with the differnces in pay rises. Would you disbute their is a growing income inequality in the UK? Now if there's a true meritocracy you could argue that's fair enough, but when you look at social mobility that doesn't appear to be the case.If there's no prospect of getting people out of their pit (and if you're born in a pit, the evidence says you are very likely to live an die in that pit) then isn't there a case to say "As the society your born in offers little chance here's a big fat check to make your pit more comfortable".
If you can't make the playing field level, why not compensate those who have the odds stacked against them?
Edited by Fittster on Tuesday 12th June 18:19
Fittster said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
If there's no prospect of getting people out of their pit (and if you're born in a pit, the evidence says you are very likely to live an die in that pit) then isn't there a case to say "As the society your born in offers little chance here's a big fat check to make your pit more comfortable".If you can't make the playing field level, why not compensate those who have the odds stacked against them?
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.
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. 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.
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.
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!
Why not distibute the 40K between the CEO and the workforce? That pleases the most people (shareholders and workers).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!
martin84 said:
Of course they'll be able to replace him, these are glorified administrator's we're talking about here, not astronauts. Theres always people willing to work for a lot of money, theres always going to be somebody who can do the job. Such roles are limited in number so one of them would have to take it. Glaxo can only have so many bosses before they don't need any more. They can't all walk out the door and go 'I'll get 20% more elsewhere' because they wont, elsewhere will run out of vacancies eventually.
The scenario you've just described though demonstrates perfectly why Europe is going left. What you've just described is pretty vile, it may be reality but its vile all the same and it doesn't take Einstein to figure out why people might not like it.
That's the reality of it. A job is worth what someone will do it for. How do you think pay should be determined? The scenario you've just described though demonstrates perfectly why Europe is going left. What you've just described is pretty vile, it may be reality but its vile all the same and it doesn't take Einstein to figure out why people might not like it.
Not understanding what these jobs entail ("glorified administrator") is just the start of the reasons you can't just drag any thickie in off the dole queue to do it.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I don't see it as black and white as that. A company also has a small element of social responsibility. If the figures say they have to save 'x' amount of money, why not sack one of the directors, and save say , half a dozen shop floor workers jobs. Less benefits being paid out by the state, just one family on the rocks instead of six.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.Snowboy said:
It might be hard to jump from working class to middle class to upper class.
But you can certainly go from £15k per annum working class to £50k+ per annum working class without needing to have a rags-to-riches film made about your amazing success.
That sort of thing happens every day.
This. I know of many casesBut you can certainly go from £15k per annum working class to £50k+ per annum working class without needing to have a rags-to-riches film made about your amazing success.
That sort of thing happens every day.
martin84 said:
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.
That comes down entirely to what the owners of the company believe that the function of the company is.Usually, the answer to that is "to make me as much money as possible".
otolith said:
That's the reality of it. A job is worth what someone will do it for. How do you think pay should be determined?
If you pay a good salary there will always be a competent person willing to work for it.
Not understanding what these jobs entail ("glorified administrator") is just the start of the reasons you can't just drag any thickie in off the dole queue to do it.
I didn't say any 'thickie off the dole queue' did I? Theres probably plenty of good people on the dole queue but attitudes like yours will mean they stay there unfortunately. They're not all there because they're thick, theres people with 30 years work experience on JSA these days. My point is these jobs are mainly just strategy, presentaton and mathematics based, pretty simple when you boil it down to nuts and bolts. Theres plenty of people out there working for £30k who could do the job nearly as well if not just as well, and to them £100,000 is a huge amount of money where as to someone on £1million its a pittance. So there will always be somebody who can do it. If you pay a good salary there will always be a competent person willing to work for it.
Not understanding what these jobs entail ("glorified administrator") is just the start of the reasons you can't just drag any thickie in off the dole queue to do it.
We're not talking eye surgery or brain science. Stop making these overpaid suits to be some sort of mercurial irreplaceable beings sent from the heavens in small numbers.
martin84 said:
. Theres plenty of people out there working for £30k who could do the job nearly as well if not just as well, and to them £100,000 is a huge amount of money where as to someone on £1million its a pittance. So there will always be somebody who can do it.
We're not talking eye surgery or brain science. Stop making these overpaid suits to be some sort of mercurial irreplaceable beings sent from the heavens in small numbers.
If they are so good, they will have no problem setting up their own business in competition (or in another field entirely).We're not talking eye surgery or brain science. Stop making these overpaid suits to be some sort of mercurial irreplaceable beings sent from the heavens in small numbers.
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
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.
You could say the same about the CEO's Though if that were the case, one might ask why they have not already done so.
They are just employees after all.otolith said:
That comes down entirely to what the owners of the company believe that the function of the company is.
Usually, the answer to that is "to make me as much money as possible".
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 fUsually, the answer to that is "to make me as much money as possible".
k about anybody but their own bank accounts.martin84 said:
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.
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!
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!
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. 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.
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.
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!
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, 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?
By way of clarification I'm talking about the 4.5 million small businesses that make up the lifeblood of the UK economy and employ over 13 million people.
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?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff