News Just In: Grass Is Green, Sky Is Blue And Bears....you Know....in The Woods!

[ChillDoubt]

Oh, and bosses don't deserve huge pay rises:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38449264

They had to commission a study for THAT?

[youngmafbog]

BREXIT, The Donald and now hopefully the sane people can fix this.

Lets face it Companies and the Establishment all with their snouts deeply in the trough at the expense of the rest of us wont.

[andy-hughes]

People in power rarely use that power to give themselves less of anything, and that obviously includes money.

For decades, governments and large companies have told themselves that they need to pay massive salaries in order to attract the 'right calibre' of executive.

I have no problem with that at all - provided that the said executive delivers results commensurate with that salary, and does not receive additional bonuses and share options when the company singularly fails to deliver the promised profits.

That unsurprisingly makes a mockery of the concept, but since the people empowered to change that situation are the people who signed off on it in the first place, and enjoy similar salaries under similar agreements than is never going to happen.

For me, executive wage structres are extremely simple - it goes like this.

Mr Executive, your deal is this - you will be paid ten million pounds for the next twelve months.

If the company performs to its standard level, your contract will be extended for a further twelve months.

If the company performs significantly above expectations, you will be awarded a bonus in line with the additional revenue you have helped to create.

If however, the company does not perform to the expectations laid out, you will be dismissed immediately without compensation, and required to repay nine-and-three-quarter million pounds of your salary on the day of your departure.

We believe that the rewards for your skills are considerable, but so are the risks to you personally, but since you are the 'right calibre' of executive, we are sure that you can deliver what you promised when you took the job, and the prospect of being held accountable for your failure will do far more to concentrate your planet-sized mind on doing your job properly, than if we were to let you fail, and then reward you with a bonus, and a further chance to continue to fail.

All good?

Fine, sign there ....

[Haggisdj]

@ChillDoubt The reason that people study/research things like this, no matter how obvious they seem, is because you cannot walk into a meeting without facts and figures to back up your argument.

[ChillDoubt]

@Haggisdj,
When you go into a meeting the only facts and figures you need are whether the company is failing or not. The CEOs and heads of those that aren't DO NOT deserve inflation-busting (at times eye watering) rises and bonuses whilst those with their noses at the grindstone are being made redundant.
It's been a recurring theme for decades (especially in banking) and often grabs the headlines, so why a study needed to be commissioned is beyond me.

[Haggisdj]

@ChillDoubt We are in agreement but in these times you cannot just say that old so-and-so isn't worth his money you have to have the facts behind it and this is what the commision will have been for. As Andy has pointed out, a lot of these people may be worth the high salaries that they are paid and the reseach will highlight that too.

[ChillDoubt]

@Haggisdj
The facts and figures are already there for shareholders and the general public to see, that's why BP (and other companies) shareholders voted against huge pay rises. Read the link.
This 'study' just reiterates what has been known for decades.