By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
This is pretty sickening. By the end of today, top executives will have earnt more than most working people in the UK will earn this year. By lunchtime they'll have earnt more than newly qualified teachers and nurses. By the end of Friday they'd earnt more than virtually all cleaners, shop workers, waiting staff, teaching assistants, health care assistants, and carers - the people that keep the world ticking over. This level of inequality is utterly absurd and unjustifiable.
The country is broken on 09:13 - Jan 6 by bluelagos
One thing that wrangles is how UK exec pay rises so much faster than ordinary workers and so the gap gets worse every year.
Still, am sure our OneNation government / PM will be quick to address this.
Indeed - not only that but in terms of fairness and equity - Senior Execs tend to still pay themselves bonuses even when companies are struggling or even about to go to the wall.
Ade Akinbiyi couldn't hit a cows arse with a banjo...
The country is broken on 09:13 - Jan 6 by bluelagos
One thing that wrangles is how UK exec pay rises so much faster than ordinary workers and so the gap gets worse every year.
Still, am sure our OneNation government / PM will be quick to address this.
Quite.
If there is a company 'XYZ Ltd', the owner awards himself £50,000 a year and has 18 employees on average £25,000 a year. XYZ Ltd does moderately well and, though he is 'unable' to give his staff a pay rise, he is able to double his own income from the company to £100,000,
Though the 18 employees haven't benefitted the company can say, correctly, that the nineteen salaries have risen by an average 10 percent.
The country is broken on 09:14 - Jan 6 by homer_123
Indeed - not only that but in terms of fairness and equity - Senior Execs tend to still pay themselves bonuses even when companies are struggling or even about to go to the wall.
'Remuneration consultants' exist as well, they specialise in telling people what they want to hear under the guise of 'benchmarking'. All of which has a ratchet effect on salaries.
That is not to say that high executive pay is always wrong but there are too many examples where it is high despite performance or at the expense of conditions, pay and job security of ordinary workers.
'Remuneration consultants' exist as well, they specialise in telling people what they want to hear under the guise of 'benchmarking'. All of which has a ratchet effect on salaries.
That is not to say that high executive pay is always wrong but there are too many examples where it is high despite performance or at the expense of conditions, pay and job security of ordinary workers.
Perhaps the people at the right top of the organisation should be paid a much lower base salary but then a far larger amount in shares. That way the pay is directly linked to company performance.
SB
Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula
3
The country is broken on 09:59 - Jan 6 with 2421 views
Yeah it's absurd, but there isn't really a better system, and I don't think low paid workers sit there being envious of top executives, so just get on with your life really, that's what i'd say.
'Remuneration consultants' exist as well, they specialise in telling people what they want to hear under the guise of 'benchmarking'. All of which has a ratchet effect on salaries.
That is not to say that high executive pay is always wrong but there are too many examples where it is high despite performance or at the expense of conditions, pay and job security of ordinary workers.
One issue is that senior executive pay and bonuses are decided by a Rumuneration Committee, staffed by supposedly independent part-time Non-Executive Directors on the Board. However, these people are drawn from a small set of individuals who all know each other and sit on the boards of each other's companies, other organisations and charitable interests.
The country is broken on 09:57 - Jan 6 by StokieBlue
Perhaps the people at the right top of the organisation should be paid a much lower base salary but then a far larger amount in shares. That way the pay is directly linked to company performance.
SB
My company had a far better plan. It invited top executives to invest their own money in the company. It was a fantastic 'opportunity' and in no way a test of loyalty which coloured how you were then treated by the organisation.....oh no.....
1
The country is broken on 10:07 - Jan 6 with 2373 views
My company had a far better plan. It invited top executives to invest their own money in the company. It was a fantastic 'opportunity' and in no way a test of loyalty which coloured how you were then treated by the organisation.....oh no.....
Had the same but in reverse. Everyone on v low relative wages, offered stock options in lieu of pay increases. Asking what a certain % of zero was was never going to go down well. Place went bust a few months later.
footers QC - Prosecution Barrister, Hasketon Law Chambers
The country is broken on 09:57 - Jan 6 by StokieBlue
Perhaps the people at the right top of the organisation should be paid a much lower base salary but then a far larger amount in shares. That way the pay is directly linked to company performance.
SB
Currently, they often get both - with the shares as future options at a set price which only pays if the share value increases. Unfortunately, share price is not intrinsically linked to the business' profitability, good practice or efficiency. It can, indeed, be boosted by such things as rash acquisition or expansion into new markets.
Currently, they often get both - with the shares as future options at a set price which only pays if the share value increases. Unfortunately, share price is not intrinsically linked to the business' profitability, good practice or efficiency. It can, indeed, be boosted by such things as rash acquisition or expansion into new markets.
My company had a far better plan. It invited top executives to invest their own money in the company. It was a fantastic 'opportunity' and in no way a test of loyalty which coloured how you were then treated by the organisation.....oh no.....
It's amazing how quickly lessons are forgotten, it was only a few years ago that the collapse of Enron wiped out pensions and savings for a lot of employees as well as costing them their jobs.
Indeed, that forgetfulness only adds to the initial point.
Currently, they often get both - with the shares as future options at a set price which only pays if the share value increases. Unfortunately, share price is not intrinsically linked to the business' profitability, good practice or efficiency. It can, indeed, be boosted by such things as rash acquisition or expansion into new markets.
Yes, I am aware that is currently the case and also how options work. One would hope that if an executive is in it for the long haul then rash acquisitions wouldn't be a route they want to take. This can also be addressed by deferring the shares/options for X number of years and also including a clawback for Y number of years after X.
It's not perfect but I would say it's still better than granting a high base salary that isn't linked to performance at all.
SB
Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula
0
The country is broken on 10:35 - Jan 6 with 2279 views
The country is broken on 09:08 - Jan 6 by homer_123
It's not just this Country though.
Trickle down economics doesn't work - the gap between the have's and have not's is ever increasing. Social mobility is going backwards.
Not just this country, though inequality and social mobility in the UK is particularly bad when compared with other developed countries. And if we want change it has to start at home.
The country is broken on 10:34 - Jan 6 by StokieBlue
Yes, I am aware that is currently the case and also how options work. One would hope that if an executive is in it for the long haul then rash acquisitions wouldn't be a route they want to take. This can also be addressed by deferring the shares/options for X number of years and also including a clawback for Y number of years after X.
It's not perfect but I would say it's still better than granting a high base salary that isn't linked to performance at all.
SB
I was thinking perhaps a bonus linked to profitability, but that would just be likely to encourage cutting to boost the bottom line.
The country is broken on 09:08 - Jan 6 by homer_123
It's not just this Country though.
Trickle down economics doesn't work - the gap between the have's and have not's is ever increasing. Social mobility is going backwards.
The Boomer generation were the most prosperous ever for wages and opportunities, yet many continually act like it was their hard graft alone that got them there and everyone since is just lazy or spends all their money on avocados.
Furthermore, that generation seem intent on keeping those doors shut to their houses and pensions remain safe at the expense of everyone.
Captialism is broken and now fascism is back too. All the signs of the end of an economic system we either need to destroy or be destroyed.
The country is broken on 11:14 - Jan 6 by monytowbray
The Boomer generation were the most prosperous ever for wages and opportunities, yet many continually act like it was their hard graft alone that got them there and everyone since is just lazy or spends all their money on avocados.
Furthermore, that generation seem intent on keeping those doors shut to their houses and pensions remain safe at the expense of everyone.
Captialism is broken and now fascism is back too. All the signs of the end of an economic system we either need to destroy or be destroyed.
Mrs itfcjoe is going back to work as a Later Life Adviser, think she said they have been told there is something like £7 trillion tied up in property by the over 60s and that doesn't include properties with any type of mortgage on them.
It's so easy to slam business leaders and compare them to the likes of teachers and other government and blue collar roles.
It is a poor comparison.
How many FTSE 100 CEO's are there? A:100. How many teachers are there in London? A: Many more.
How long does it take to qualify as a teacher? 3,4 years? A CEO only get's' the top job after a huge investment in time to a firm.
Are all teachers low paid? No. Head Teachers earn very good salaries indeed and that's just to run one, ONE school. Think if them as a 'local manager'. They also get final salary pensions, pretty much guaranteed jobs and much more.
It's pretty low rent to make these comparisons time after time. Please find something more comparable.
Before you all pile in and make wild assumptions, please read the post and answer my point rather than your own.
Thank-you.
Assumption is to make an ass out of you and me.
Those who assume they know you, when they don't are just guessing.
Those who assume and insist they know are daft and in denial.
Those who assume, insist, and deny the truth are plain stupid.
Those who assume, insist, deny the truth and tell YOU they know you (when they don't) have an IQ in the range of 35-49.
The country is broken - No it's not. on 11:31 - Jan 6 by hampstead_blue
It's so easy to slam business leaders and compare them to the likes of teachers and other government and blue collar roles.
It is a poor comparison.
How many FTSE 100 CEO's are there? A:100. How many teachers are there in London? A: Many more.
How long does it take to qualify as a teacher? 3,4 years? A CEO only get's' the top job after a huge investment in time to a firm.
Are all teachers low paid? No. Head Teachers earn very good salaries indeed and that's just to run one, ONE school. Think if them as a 'local manager'. They also get final salary pensions, pretty much guaranteed jobs and much more.
It's pretty low rent to make these comparisons time after time. Please find something more comparable.
Before you all pile in and make wild assumptions, please read the post and answer my point rather than your own.
Thank-you.
Those poor hard done by CEOs! Said no one, ever. Other than you.
The country is broken on 11:36 - Jan 6 by brazil1982
Footballers earning vast amounts above other non-playing staff.
Actors earning vast amounts over production staff.
Is this fair?
Life's unfair and that's that really.
Some here will want to shout at the sky and those of us who accept it but that won't change owt.
Assumption is to make an ass out of you and me.
Those who assume they know you, when they don't are just guessing.
Those who assume and insist they know are daft and in denial.
Those who assume, insist, and deny the truth are plain stupid.
Those who assume, insist, deny the truth and tell YOU they know you (when they don't) have an IQ in the range of 35-49.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
