Executive Pay rises 41%, worker pay 1%

[Odie]

Ive heard a few snippets of circumstancial information that smaller companies are paying staff on the books upto the working tax credit threshold, then paying cash in hand for the additional hours at a lower hourly rate. Both employer and employee benefit.

Makes sense really.

[DJRC]

crankedup said:

turbobloke said:

At long last? It's been the position all along. Shareholders exercising power is overdue, complain to them whoever they are on a case by case basis, not PH.

Correct Turbobloke, but the long winded discussion last year I had with many PH members who then, for some reason I could never fathom out, was that Dr Vince Cable was quite wrong to propose legislation that would permit the owners of Companies to be given BINDING voting Rights. Look back at the thread about the Barclays Bank shareholders. Of course most of the stuff spouted by other PH members was either ignorance or just being obtuse.

But that wasnt the discussion. Your stance was never about company owners and shareholders, nor was it where Vince was coming from originally. It was in govt. legislating some kind of restraint. YOU were told *explicitly* and repeatedly that the responsibility was on the shareholders to impose upon the management their concerns with regards to remuneration. Your position was always supporting Saint Vince's position of govt regulating, NOT the shareholders and company owners.

[otolith]

turbobloke said:

At long last? It's been the position all along. Shareholders exercising power is overdue, complain to them whoever they are on a case by case basis, not PH.

It is in the interests of the shareholders to screw the best value they can our of all the employees, from the CEO to the cleaners. Best value doesn't always mean cheapest, but if they want to take that approach, it's their money they are gambling on it.

[fido]

DJRC said:

But that wasnt the discussion. Your stance was never about company owners and shareholders, nor was it where Vince was coming from originally. It was in govt. legislating some kind of restraint. YOU were told *explicitly* and repeatedly that the responsibility was on the shareholders to impose upon the management their concerns with regards to remuneration. Your position was always supporting Saint Vince's position of govt regulating, NOT the shareholders and company owners.

On the same topic, Vince appears to be backing down from his original proposal for an annual vote and moving towards an intermediate solution. http://www.onlineips.co.uk/education/articles/cabl...

[Sticks.]

otolith said:

It is in the interests of the shareholders to screw the best value they can our of all the employees, from the CEO to the cleaners. Best value doesn't always mean cheapest, but if they want to take that approach, it's their money they are gambling on it.

Absolutely, but this is the nub of the discussion, that cheapest is treated as best value for non exec staff. Almost all staff can help make or break your business in some way.

[crankedup]

DJRC said:

crankedup said:

turbobloke said:

At long last? It's been the position all along. Shareholders exercising power is overdue, complain to them whoever they are on a case by case basis, not PH.

Correct Turbobloke, but the long winded discussion last year I had with many PH members who then, for some reason I could never fathom out, was that Dr Vince Cable was quite wrong to propose legislation that would permit the owners of Companies to be given BINDING voting Rights. Look back at the thread about the Barclays Bank shareholders. Of course most of the stuff spouted by other PH members was either ignorance or just being obtuse.

But that wasnt the discussion. Your stance was never about company owners and shareholders, nor was it where Vince was coming from originally. It was in govt. legislating some kind of restraint. YOU were told *explicitly* and repeatedly that the responsibility was on the shareholders to impose upon the management their concerns with regards to remuneration. Your position was always supporting Saint Vince's position of govt regulating, NOT the shareholders and company owners.

Look back at my posts and I make many many references throughout in many posts, most being dismissed as leftie rantings. Your pick and splitting hairs mate, go back and read some threads. I know PH doesn't like to be wrong but in this instance they were.

[crankedup]

What wrankles in me is the fact that PH always goes for the line 'if they don't like it find another job'. This is used when discussing workers rights and pay. And yet when it comes to CEO remuneration its always OK for them to hold the Company to ransom with excessive demands, because the group seems to be deluded into believing these people are worth it.

[crankedup]

DJRC said:

crankedup said:

turbobloke said:

At long last? It's been the position all along. Shareholders exercising power is overdue, complain to them whoever they are on a case by case basis, not PH.

Correct Turbobloke, but the long winded discussion last year I had with many PH members who then, for some reason I could never fathom out, was that Dr Vince Cable was quite wrong to propose legislation that would permit the owners of Companies to be given BINDING voting Rights. Look back at the thread about the Barclays Bank shareholders. Of course most of the stuff spouted by other PH members was either ignorance or just being obtuse.

But that wasnt the discussion. Your stance was never about company owners and shareholders, nor was it where Vince was coming from originally. It was in govt. legislating some kind of restraint. YOU were told *explicitly* and repeatedly that the responsibility was on the shareholders to impose upon the management their concerns with regards to remuneration. Your position was always supporting Saint Vince's position of govt regulating, NOT the shareholders and company owners.

I have always supported Dr Cables proposal's regarding this issue, as a means of allowing Company owners Binding voting rights. Go back and read the threads properly.

[crankedup]

I started a separate thread on about Sorrell and his 60% remuneration award request this year. In excess of 51% shareholders have rejected this proposal, it will be interesting to see if this rejection is noted and actioned.

[otolith]

Sticks. said:

otolith said:

It is in the interests of the shareholders to screw the best value they can our of all the employees, from the CEO to the cleaners. Best value doesn't always mean cheapest, but if they want to take that approach, it's their money they are gambling on it.

Absolutely, but this is the nub of the discussion, that cheapest is treated as best value for non exec staff. Almost all staff can help make or break your business in some way.

That just comes down to what "good enough" costs in each role and where you are going to spend your budget for best return. There may be no point paying more than the bare minimum necessary for unskilled packers and good grounds for paying top money for salesmen. It might make sense to pay for mediocre machine operators and first class engineers. It might make sense to pay call centre staff as little as you can get away with and use the savings to get the best execs you can. Or it might not. It might be ruinous. That's the gamble they take.

[172ff]

Odie said:

Ive heard a few snippets of circumstancial information that smaller companies are paying staff on the books upto the working tax credit threshold, then paying cash in hand for the additional hours at a lower hourly rate. Both employer and employee benefit.

Makes sense really.

I dont think the Greek taxman would agree!

[heppers75]

crankedup said:

What wrankles in me is the fact that PH always goes for the line 'if they don't like it find another job'. This is used when discussing workers rights and pay. And yet when it comes to CEO remuneration its always OK for them to hold the Company to ransom with excessive demands, because the group seems to be deluded into believing these people are worth it.

Surely someone can only be holding them to ransom if they are worth it?

To my mind the same logic applies across the board... If you don't believe they are worth the money they are asking/wanting then get rid... That logic applies from the bloke that cleans the bogs to the CEO surely?

[turbobloke]

heppers75 said:

crankedup said:

What wrankles in me is the fact that PH always goes for the line 'if they don't like it find another job'. This is used when discussing workers rights and pay. And yet when it comes to CEO remuneration its always OK for them to hold the Company to ransom with excessive demands, because the group seems to be deluded into believing these people are worth it.

Surely someone can only be holding them to ransom if they are worth it?

To my mind the same logic applies across the board... If you don't believe they are worth the money they are asking/wanting then get rid... That logic applies from the bloke that cleans the bogs to the CEO surely?

Not only that but there's some blinkered perspectives around about what Board level life can be like. Certainly more often than in the world of town hall corridors.

The use of rolling short-term renegotiable contracts for senior executives usually makes the public sector suit st its pants. In fact it has done but no names no pack drill...that said some forward thinking has taken place outside the private sector in recent years but not enough. Job security close to zero, no pay spines with automatic progression, no gold plated pension, fk up and you don't get retrained and promoted - the last point alone would be a major shock to the system of many a shinypants.

[DJRC]

crankedup said:

DJRC said:

crankedup said:

turbobloke said:

At long last? It's been the position all along. Shareholders exercising power is overdue, complain to them whoever they are on a case by case basis, not PH.

Correct Turbobloke, but the long winded discussion last year I had with many PH members who then, for some reason I could never fathom out, was that Dr Vince Cable was quite wrong to propose legislation that would permit the owners of Companies to be given BINDING voting Rights. Look back at the thread about the Barclays Bank shareholders. Of course most of the stuff spouted by other PH members was either ignorance or just being obtuse.

But that wasnt the discussion. Your stance was never about company owners and shareholders, nor was it where Vince was coming from originally. It was in govt. legislating some kind of restraint. YOU were told *explicitly* and repeatedly that the responsibility was on the shareholders to impose upon the management their concerns with regards to remuneration. Your position was always supporting Saint Vince's position of govt regulating, NOT the shareholders and company owners.

Look back at my posts and I make many many references throughout in many posts, most being dismissed as leftie rantings. Your pick and splitting hairs mate, go back and read some threads. I know PH doesn't like to be wrong but in this instance they were.

Spitting hairs???? You were outright stating 180 degree the opposite of that! You and Vince were arguing the govt should be regulating and controlling the pay, NOT for the shareholders and owners.

[turbobloke]

DJRC said:

crankedup said:

DJRC said:

crankedup said:

turbobloke said:

At long last? It's been the position all along. Shareholders exercising power is overdue, complain to them whoever they are on a case by case basis, not PH.

Correct Turbobloke, but the long winded discussion last year I had with many PH members who then, for some reason I could never fathom out, was that Dr Vince Cable was quite wrong to propose legislation that would permit the owners of Companies to be given BINDING voting Rights. Look back at the thread about the Barclays Bank shareholders. Of course most of the stuff spouted by other PH members was either ignorance or just being obtuse.

But that wasnt the discussion. Your stance was never about company owners and shareholders, nor was it where Vince was coming from originally. It was in govt. legislating some kind of restraint. YOU were told *explicitly* and repeatedly that the responsibility was on the shareholders to impose upon the management their concerns with regards to remuneration. Your position was always supporting Saint Vince's position of govt regulating, NOT the shareholders and company owners.

Look back at my posts and I make many many references throughout in many posts, most being dismissed as leftie rantings. Your pick and splitting hairs mate, go back and read some threads. I know PH doesn't like to be wrong but in this instance they were.

Spitting hairs???? You were outright stating 180 degree the opposite of that! You and Vince were arguing the govt should be regulating and controlling the pay, NOT for the shareholders and owners.

Happened before. Is crankedup actually Grasshopper following Sensei's advice to bend (viewpoint) with the prevailing wind...if so ICMTP

Not long ago crankedup said:

Amazingly I agree with Zod, the City Institutions also select from outside of the uni's I am pleased to say. My own Daughter is a product of Secondary Modern schooling, took a lowly paid job in the low end of finance and has steadily worked her way up the greasy pole of achievement.

Yet the pixels are barely dry on this one...

crankedup said:

turbobloke said:

crankedup said:

otolith said:

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?

One of the attributes that you have left out and of utmost importance, the old boys network tie.

Can't see any on Ebay. What do they look like?

Have a wander around the City at lunch times, they are easy to spot if you know what to look for.

Hmmm.

[oyster]

bobbylondonuk said:

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.

I really, really encourage you to look closer at those figures.

You will actually find that the £353 is taxes AND charges, and that many of those charges (such as fuel surcharges, security fees, airport fees etc) could and should be included in the base fare as they are simple costs of doing business. It is the airline being greedy AND stealthy.

[crankedup]

heppers75 said:

crankedup said:

What wrankles in me is the fact that PH always goes for the line 'if they don't like it find another job'. This is used when discussing workers rights and pay. And yet when it comes to CEO remuneration its always OK for them to hold the Company to ransom with excessive demands, because the group seems to be deluded into believing these people are worth it.

Surely someone can only be holding them to ransom if they are worth it?

To my mind the same logic applies across the board... If you don't believe they are worth the money they are asking/wanting then get rid... That logic applies from the bloke that cleans the bogs to the CEO surely?

Yes of course, however in the past CEO's have been able to 'get away' with excessive remuneration awards on the basis of Company growth, fair enough until one considers the back drop within the financial and business world up until 2007/8. Not overly demanding to be able to grow and make decent profits. Different back drop now and tough markets add to that the shareholders have been largely ignored when it came to voting regards executive remuneration, being only an advisory non binding vote. Broadly speaking a average executive could get away with average performance and still enjoy excessive rewards, that will now be changing with the introduction of shareholders votes being binding. This is why I make a reference to the matter of CEO and executives can walk away when the shareholders dismiss claims for excessive reward. At long last shareholders will become meaningful part owners in Companies.

[crankedup]

turbobloke said:

heppers75 said:

crankedup said:

What wrankles in me is the fact that PH always goes for the line 'if they don't like it find another job'. This is used when discussing workers rights and pay. And yet when it comes to CEO remuneration its always OK for them to hold the Company to ransom with excessive demands, because the group seems to be deluded into believing these people are worth it.

Surely someone can only be holding them to ransom if they are worth it?

To my mind the same logic applies across the board... If you don't believe they are worth the money they are asking/wanting then get rid... That logic applies from the bloke that cleans the bogs to the CEO surely?

Not only that but there's some blinkered perspectives around about what Board level life can be like. Certainly more often than in the world of town hall corridors.

The use of rolling short-term renegotiable contracts for senior executives usually makes the public sector suit st its pants. In fact it has done but no names no pack drill...that said some forward thinking has taken place outside the private sector in recent years but not enough. Job security close to zero, no pay spines with automatic progression, no gold plated pension, fk up and you don't get retrained and promoted - the last point alone would be a major shock to the system of many a shinypants.

CEO and executives in all FTSE Companies enjoy huge salaries compared to most other hired staff. Yes they have responsibility's but pocketing the annual rewards more than makes amends for lack of security. But then good CEO and Executives have only themselves to blame if they are sacked. I have yet to hear of any of these top bosses not receiving huge payouts in the form of golden parachutes and most will have top pension arrangements in the back pocket.

[crankedup]

DJRC said:

crankedup said:

DJRC said:

crankedup said:

turbobloke said:

At long last? It's been the position all along. Shareholders exercising power is overdue, complain to them whoever they are on a case by case basis, not PH.

Correct Turbobloke, but the long winded discussion last year I had with many PH members who then, for some reason I could never fathom out, was that Dr Vince Cable was quite wrong to propose legislation that would permit the owners of Companies to be given BINDING voting Rights. Look back at the thread about the Barclays Bank shareholders. Of course most of the stuff spouted by other PH members was either ignorance or just being obtuse.

But that wasnt the discussion. Your stance was never about company owners and shareholders, nor was it where Vince was coming from originally. It was in govt. legislating some kind of restraint. YOU were told *explicitly* and repeatedly that the responsibility was on the shareholders to impose upon the management their concerns with regards to remuneration. Your position was always supporting Saint Vince's position of govt regulating, NOT the shareholders and company owners.

Look back at my posts and I make many many references throughout in many posts, most being dismissed as leftie rantings. Your pick and splitting hairs mate, go back and read some threads. I know PH doesn't like to be wrong but in this instance they were.

Spitting hairs???? You were outright stating 180 degree the opposite of that! You and Vince were arguing the govt should be regulating and controlling the pay, NOT for the shareholders and owners.

Your clearly not reading my previous posts. For goodness sake did you not understand that Dr Cables proposal was about regulating remuneration through shareholders voting rights be legislated as binding, not advisory. I have always advocated shareholders voting rights being used in a form of those votes being Binding regards executive and CEO remuneration. If you can't find those posts that is a problem for you and you alone. And yes I have always supported Dr Cable and his political policy proposals, he has more common sense than all of the Tories put together IMO.

[heppers75]

crankedup said:

heppers75 said:

crankedup said:

What wrankles in me is the fact that PH always goes for the line 'if they don't like it find another job'. This is used when discussing workers rights and pay. And yet when it comes to CEO remuneration its always OK for them to hold the Company to ransom with excessive demands, because the group seems to be deluded into believing these people are worth it.

Surely someone can only be holding them to ransom if they are worth it?

To my mind the same logic applies across the board... If you don't believe they are worth the money they are asking/wanting then get rid... That logic applies from the bloke that cleans the bogs to the CEO surely?

Yes of course, however in the past CEO's have been able to 'get away' with excessive remuneration awards on the basis of Company growth, fair enough until one considers the back drop within the financial and business world up until 2007/8. Not overly demanding to be able to grow and make decent profits. Different back drop now and tough markets add to that the shareholders have been largely ignored when it came to voting regards executive remuneration, being only an advisory non binding vote. Broadly speaking a average executive could get away with average performance and still enjoy excessive rewards, that will now be changing with the introduction of shareholders votes being binding. This is why I make a reference to the matter of CEO and executives can walk away when the shareholders dismiss claims for excessive reward. At long last shareholders will become meaningful part owners in Companies.

There is a heck of an assumption in what you are seeking to engender - that being the shareholders are equipped to make the decision and/or are doing so for the right motives.

I posted in the other thread you have started on the WPP subject there is a heck of a risk taken by engendering this ability - that risk being that the now powerful block voting funds that have the majority holdings and therefore the control are now in a position where they can claw back some nice healthy profits without making any more actual money by reducing exec pay. All well and good you cry and about bloody time too etc etc.

.....But is it?

The risk you have then taken is that the fund holders sack off £10m in costs on the exec committee and it gets back into the company coffers and all looks rosy for a year or so... The stock price climbs so then that allows them (major stock holders) cash out on the higher stock price. The problem occurs with the next step in this scenario though - Said £100m company is now left with a £1m a year exec team who actually as it turns out is not capable of running the £100m company as well as the ones who wanted £11m a year and all of a sudden they business is in the toilet. Your block voting funds don't care though as they have now reaped their rewards and are off to the next £100m company to do the same again.

Hardly helps the man in the street shareholder and more importantly the workers in the said £100m company though who now have an incompetent exec board because the block voting shareholders wanted their pound of flesh before they scarpered.

I am not saying that the above is a given I am saying it is possible bordering on probable when you look at the fact that really the ones who will be the controlling factor in these binding votes are not vested interest partners in the very long term future of the company in question only in the term that reaps them the most reward.

Being mindful of an old adage..... Be careful what you wish for!

Edited by heppers75 on Thursday 14th June 15:06