Fat Cats

[Ash!]

It was refreshing to see some shareholders blocking the potential pay deal for a CEO the other day. Couldnt think of the name of the company.

What does everyone think of the pay deals some directors get. on one level people are getting paid huge summs of money for piss poor results. Sometimes at the expense of the staff. For example my missus works for one of the more acceptable high street banks. All of the staff at the call centre have not had a wage rise in 2 years and none next year. The chairman has just had a bonus of a cool half million quid in excess of his yearly salary of £1.5mill.

On the other hand if yuo had that job you would want a decent wage to go with all the responsibility.

 

[FatBusinessman]

GlaxoSmithKline, wasn't it?

 

[Testin da Cable]

well, tbh I find a 33% salary bonus slightly ott (not that I'd complain heh)

 

[(Shovel)]

I thought they were voting to pay him 22million to leave because he was failing? And they said "No, that's bollocks"?

It's all completely disgraceful to be honest. Especially when you consider how paying out such lage salaries devalues the work of "average bods" in the company.

 

[dysfunction]

Hell for £22 Mill I can drive a company into the ground!!!

Give me the job!!

 

[bigfoot]

They were voting on a package that was going to be put in place if he /had/ to leave, I don't think there was any indication that he was planning to leave.

 

[Furr]

Why should they pay him loads if he leaves?????

 

[bodhi]

Thing is if fat cats didn't get such exorbitant salaries, what on earth would the incentive be to become one?

 

[(Shovel)]

I wont dispute that senior management will always get more than labourers, and even "professionals" in the workplace, that is the way of the world.

I think there would still be the incentive to reach to top with a 6-figure salary rather than a 7 or 8 figure sum.

 

[xane]

Bodhi is right in a way.

There is an "accepted" qualification in business where there is a certain wage point, below which you pay less to get more work done, above which you pay more to get more work done.

The gap grows ...

AFAIK, the GSK shareholders blocked a £23 million "golden parachute" (lay-off fee) for the new CEO, meaning if he fucks up then he gets paid anyway.

 

[Maljonic]

Originally posted by xane
Bodhi is right in a way.

There is an "accepted" qualification in business where there is a certain wage point, below which you pay less to get more work done, above which you pay more to get more work done.

The gap grows ...

AFAIK, the GSK shareholders blocked a £23 million "golden parachute" (lay-off fee) for the new CEO, meaning if he fucks up then he gets paid anyway.

sounds a bit like being a pro boxer...

 

[Shocko]

The problem is all the fault of the shareholders. They don't have to pay their executives those kind of salaries. They choose to. Yes, so if you want some famous bloke who managed BA for a few years, or something, then maybe you're going to have to pay him big time... But there are plenty of people out there who could do a decent enough job without demanding those kind of figures.

The simple fact is, executives are getting such high salaries, because companies are paying them. It's not the shareholders who lose out though, it's the humble worker.



Capitalism sucks... Fight the system!

 

[throdgrain]

Capitalism's great , GIVE ME MORE MONEY !!

 

[Lester]

There speaks Thatcher's child.

 

[Embattle]

Originally posted by Furr
Why should they pay him loads if he leaves?????

AKA Golden Parachute

Good article about america CEOs

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/ceo/articles/0,15114,443051,00.html