observer Posted October 29, 2011 Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 In this period of austerity, it appears that top execs of the top 100 companies are immune to trials and tribulations facing most folk - they've upped their salaries by 50% with average payouts of £2.5million a year - even Tevez ain't making that much! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted October 29, 2011 Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 If the companies are making money then what is the problem? these people in the top 100 companies don't just right themselves a cheque for extra cash; the increases are voted on by shareholders.... they must be happy with the companies performance and vote them an increase accordingly. Capitalism is all about making money for those who generate money and provide employment. Fact of life I guess I'll hardly lose any sleep over the fact that a 100 or so people have had a pay rise Obs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wireboy Posted October 29, 2011 Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 What adds insult to injury is other people getting pay freeze's or pay drops. "All in it together" should not be preached when that is clearly not the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted October 29, 2011 Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 average payouts of £2.5million a year - even Tevez ain't making that much! No, he's on about 3 times that for refusing to do what he's paid for! (£150K a week). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 29, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 So Baz, on that basis, ALL employees of said Companies will be getting a 50% pay rise will they? When the average in the private sector is now below 3%. And the influence that "shareholders" don't have, can be seen in the Murdoch scenario. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted October 29, 2011 Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 No Obs... but company directors and CEO's are hired on the basis of certain criteria such as increasing turnover and profit and cutting costs.... Their bonuses and salary packages are set up on that basis and they are rewarded in line with their success's.... now if they do not succeed in accordance with their terms of employment, they should be sacked. An employee is a different animal altogether in so much as they are hired on the basis of entirely different rules and contracts. An employee is usually paid a fixed wage for a job and must do as he is instructed by either his contract or his superiors within the company. If he/she does not conform to that contrat, they will be sacked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 29, 2011 Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 What Baz says. It's a fact of life and envy doesn't cut any ice I'm afraid. :wink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 29, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 "They should be sacked" - errm, is that when they pull the rip cord on their golden parachute! Not envy Asp; just the expectancy, that the broadest shoulders bare the weight - while "we're all in it together"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 29, 2011 Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 You're in for a long wait then Obs :wink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted October 29, 2011 Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 "They should be sacked" - errm, is that when they pull the rip cord on their golden parachute! Not envy Asp; just the expectancy, that the broadest shoulders bare the weight - while "we're all in it together"! They should be sacked.... and many are with no "golden parachute" payments but the ones that make the headlines are the ones working for the banks or the FTSE companies. These people are a microscopically small amount of bosses in the UK; many bosses of most companies do not have massive salaries as you seem to like to promote, but most are hard working job providing bosses of small companies who; like me and my business partner have not had a pay rise for years, have had to cut pension contributions for ourselves in order to pay our taxes and VAT and and keep the company going. You come on here and spout that all company bosses are on multi-million pound salaries and get money for doing nothing.... believe me, you couldn't be further from the truth Obs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted October 29, 2011 Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 "They should be sacked" - errm, is that when they pull the rip cord on their golden parachute! Not envy Asp; just the expectancy, that the broadest shoulders bare the weight - while "we're all in it together"! So when you got elected to your high role in WBC, did you refuse the extra cash that went with the job, as I know that you didn't refuse the 30 odd% pay rise (that everyone voted for) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted October 29, 2011 Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 So when you got elected to your high role in WBC, did you refuse the extra cash that went with the job, as I know that you didn't refuse the 30 odd% pay rise (that everyone voted for) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 29, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 A stranger to the facts again Pierre! Which takes me onto Baz's point - if you check my post, the reference was to the TOP 100 companies, which presumably exempts your little empire Baz. The issue is one of reasonable v obscene; especially in an era when everyone supposed to be sharing the burden. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted October 29, 2011 Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 My mum has had a pension increase.... is she sharing the burden? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 29, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 As I said: it's a question of what is reasonable against what is obscene; I don't think your Mum got a 50% rise did she? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 Obs in the council?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 Allegedly, and he never did answer the question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 Are going to answer Obs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 Blimey Kije.... you must be about 5 years behind everyone else..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 31, 2011 Report Share Posted October 31, 2011 I Sorry Baz, It won't happen again, what doe he do Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.