ozleicester Posted 18 August 2015 Posted 18 August 2015 CEOs from the UK's top 100 listed firms last year earned 183 times more than their companies' average worker, up from 182 times average pay in 2013, according to the High Pay Centre. Chief executives earned 160 times worker pay in 2010. "Pay packages of this size go far beyond what is sensible or necessary to reward and inspire top executives," High Pay Centre Director Deborah Hargreaves said in a press statement. http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/17/uk-ceos-earn-183-times-more-than-their-workers.html How long will the plebs sit back and accept this? I have seen more people in the streets protesting over the past 2 years, then i can remember since Vietnam etc. Surely revolution is in the air? We cannot continue to justify these amounts. No-one, even those earning them, believes they are justified. A very simple alternative... The CEO (or most highly paid person) of a company, is only allowed to earn.. hmm lets say for ease.... 20 times that of the lowest paid worker in that company. So at Oz's company... the low paid pleb (LPP) at the company earns $25,000, the CEO (Oz, who's work is clearly sooo much more important) - can only get paid a maximum 20x that, which means i get $500,000 a year. Everyone else in the company is on a sliding scale between CEO and LPP. This simply means that every one benefits from the companies success. Thanks to the wonderful work being done by my LPP and myself the company is flying and a pay rise is deserved... but we get the same level of increase and maintain that 20x differential. Seems fair?
Strokes Posted 18 August 2015 Posted 18 August 2015 I'm quite happy with the pay structure where I work.
Vacamion Posted 18 August 2015 Posted 18 August 2015 These bosses would argue that "the market" sets their remuneration. You would think, however, that there would be a queue of talented people willing to do these jobs for lower multiples, so the market appears to be failing in this instance. The bosses appearing on the evening news last night were doing a pretty unconvincing job of making a case for continuing to give them mega-pay.
Frank to be Posted 18 August 2015 Posted 18 August 2015 I think it's about time something was done about this. None of the normal arguments about supply and demand and risk/reward apply to these big business CEOs, they're simply selected from an exclusive club who went to the right schools and have the right surnames. They don't even have to be any good, look at the banks, tesco, etc. These people set their own pay and have been duping the public into believing it's necessary for years. These businesses are essentially publicly owned, being owned in a large part by shareholders, and the number of people they employ means they have a large social responsibility. It's time we stopped viewing them as private businesses and started viewing them as public assets which exist to do good for ordinary people, not to add billions to the bank account of one individual
johnny the fox Posted 18 August 2015 Posted 18 August 2015 yes.. but does being a multi millionaire really make you happy?
Thracian Posted 18 August 2015 Posted 18 August 2015 I think it's about time something was done about this. None of the normal arguments about supply and demand and risk/reward apply to these big business CEOs, they're simply selected from an exclusive club who went to the right schools and have the right surnames. They don't even have to be any good, look at the banks, tesco, etc. These people set their own pay and have been duping the public into believing it's necessary for years. These businesses are essentially publicly owned, being owned in a large part by shareholders, and the number of people they employ means they have a large social responsibility. It's time we stopped viewing them as private businesses and started viewing them as public assets which exist to do good for ordinary people, not to add billions to the bank account of one individual So basically I set up a business, work all sorts of unsocial hours and up to seven days a week, accept all the unprotected risks and costs involved, just so I can help pay other people's way - whether you choose/want to work well or not. And why would anyone start their own business if it actually belonged to the public with all the waste, corruption and bad decision-making that's likely to involved like, for example, the NHS paying 100s of £'s for a saline drip that costs peanuts to produce or immense sums for locums. Brilliant value that. Sounds like raw Marxism or Communism to me. People aren't motivated in working for the state and people aren't "equal" however much the theorists might wish to pretend they are. People are different. They have different abilities, aims, motivation levels, intelligence, dexterity, philosophy and a million other things. I broadly agree with the notion of equal opportunity within the workplace and a structured sharing of profits if it's linked to those who do most/least to create those profits. My oldest son runs his own company that way...including offering the chance for employees to have a stake in his company if they wish and show sufficient ability. But it works both ways. Those same employees need to understand that they share the risks too and that rewards should drop if profits drop. I remember talking to a trades unionist who was involved with the recent strike action on the railways. I asked if he'd known the terms and conditions of working for the London Underground? I also asked him if had any idea what it was like to run a company of his own and to take the decisions involved in ensuring that company remained healthy. He did know the conditions and he hadn't run a company so it was damned hard therefore to understand why he thought he should dictate to someone else's company and I told him so. If you're so unhappy why don't you go and run you own utopian organisation I asked?. He didn't have an answer so, presumably, it was because he was more comfortable - financially and philosophically - bugging someone else's business. - No, it's not all one-sided. There's a need for fair-minded management and proper principles for rewarding both talent and effective commitment because many employees deserve rewarding. Unfortunately some don't and I see no reason why they should keep their jobs at all let alone receive additional benefits. Would football fans want to keep a duff centre-forward? Thought not! If anyone wants big rewards they should work to take big responsibilities. The best paid attackers will always be the ones who score/make lots of goals consistently. The best paid goalkeepers are the ones who concede least goals. Why the hell does anyone think it's any different in other businesses? Top talent attracts top demand and, with it, the top salaries. There is always the risk of someone choosing a bad executive whatever school he's been to just as football clubs sign bad players whether they went to a state school or anywhere else. My oldest had no "connections" and didn't go to a posh school. He joined a firm of accountants as an office clerk, decided he could learn to do what the boss did, got qualifications in his spare time and had the nerve to start up his own business with the blessing and help of his employer. He and his partner now mentor other aspiring young business people and don't give a toss about their background. This veiled flag-waving for class warfare is pathetic. If people want something enough there's opportunity for them to get it. And if they want executive pay they should do the groundwork necessary and go get it. Don't knock other people for doing it.
Frank to be Posted 18 August 2015 Posted 18 August 2015 So basically I set up a business, work all sorts of unsocial hours and up to seven days a week, accept all the unprotected risks and costs involved, just so I can help pay other people's way - whether you choose/want to work well or not. And why would anyone start their own business if it actually belonged to the public with all the waste, corruption and bad decision-making that's likely to involved like, for example, the NHS paying 100s of £'s for a saline drip that costs peanuts to produce or immense sums for locums. Brilliant value that. Sounds like raw Marxism or Communism to me. People aren't motivated in working for the state and people aren't "equal" however much the theorists might wish to pretend they are. People are different. They have different abilities, aims, motivation levels, intelligence, dexterity, philosophy and a million other things. I broadly agree with the notion of equal opportunity within the workplace and a structured sharing of profits if it's linked to those who do most/least to create those profits. My oldest son runs his own company that way...including offering the chance for employees to have a stake in his company if they wish and show sufficient ability. But it works both ways. Those same employees need to understand that they share the risks too and that rewards should drop if profits drop. I remember talking to a trades unionist who was involved with the recent strike action on the railways. I asked if he'd known the terms and conditions of working for the London Underground? I also asked him if had any idea what it was like to run a company of his own and to take the decisions involved in ensuring that company remained healthy. He did know the conditions and he hadn't run a company so it was damned hard therefore to understand why he thought he should dictate to someone else's company and I told him so. If you're so unhappy why don't you go and run you own utopian organisation I asked?. He didn't have an answer so, presumably, it was because he was more comfortable - financially and philosophically - bugging someone else's business. - No, it's not all one-sided. There's a need for fair-minded management and proper principles for rewarding both talent and effective commitment because many employees deserve rewarding. Unfortunately some don't and I see no reason why they should keep their jobs at all let alone receive additional benefits. Would football fans want to keep a duff centre-forward? Thought not! If anyone wants big rewards they should work to take big responsibilities. The best paid attackers will always be the ones who score/make lots of goals consistently. The best paid goalkeepers are the ones who concede least goals. Why the hell does anyone think it's any different in other businesses? Top talent attracts top demand and, with it, the top salaries. There is always the risk of someone choosing a bad executive whatever school he's been to just as football clubs sign bad players whether they went to a state school or anywhere else. My oldest had no "connections" and didn't go to a posh school. He joined a firm of accountants as an office clerk, decided he could learn to do what the boss did, got qualifications in his spare time and had the nerve to start up his own business with the blessing and help of his employer. He and his partner now mentor other aspiring young business people and don't give a toss about their background. This veiled flag-waving for class warfare is pathetic. If people want something enough there's opportunity for them to get it. And if they want executive pay they should do the groundwork necessary and go get it. Don't knock other people for doing it. We're talking about CEOs of top-100 firms here. I'm sure your son has done well but I assume he's not a CEO of a tesco or a barclays and he probably isn't on 183 times what the average employee at his firm is on. So we're not talking about those who work hard to get themselves into a decent position. We're also not talking about those who risk their own capital to start businesses. The current CEO of tesco did not start tesco. They more than likely have none of their own capital exposed to the business except maybe a token director shareholding, they're not taking any significant risk, they're just doing a job like any other employee only their salary is 183 times higher.
Guest MattP Posted 18 August 2015 Posted 18 August 2015 I think it's about time something was done about this. None of the normal arguments about supply and demand and risk/reward apply to these big business CEOs, they're simply selected from an exclusive club who went to the right schools and have the right surnames. They don't even have to be any good, look at the banks, tesco, etc. These people set their own pay and have been duping the public into believing it's necessary for years. These businesses are essentially publicly owned, being owned in a large part by shareholders, and the number of people they employ means they have a large social responsibility. It's time we stopped viewing them as private businesses and started viewing them as public assets which exist to do good for ordinary people, not to add billions to the bank account of one individual Would you include our owners in this?
ousefox Posted 18 August 2015 Posted 18 August 2015 Would you include our owners in this?If we're talking about the CEO, that would be Susan Whelan wouldn't it?
Frank to be Posted 18 August 2015 Posted 18 August 2015 Would you include our owners in this? Not really matt, no, because they built their own business with their own capital and at their own risk. I'm talking more about the people who are employed as CEO of an established business like tesco and draw huge salaries and bonuses without putting any capital in, without taking any risk and often while doing a poor job.
Alf Bentley Posted 18 August 2015 Posted 18 August 2015 "Damaged goodsSend them backI can't workI can't achieveSend me backOpen the tillGive me the changeYou said would do me goodRefund the costYou said you're cheap but you're too much" - "Damaged Goods", Gang of Four http://www.lyricsfreak.com/g/gang+of+four/damaged+goods_20057751.html
Rincewind Posted 18 August 2015 Posted 18 August 2015 Not really matt, no, because they built their own business with their own capital and at their own risk. I'm talking more about the people who are employed as CEO of an established business like tesco and draw huge salaries and bonuses without putting any capital in, without taking any risk and often while doing a poor job. I knew what you meant If a person acheives a CEO through hard work I have nothing but praise for them. I am sure they would not be happy to be replaced by a failed director of another company because he happens to know the right people. Note the highlighted section as this sentence will be overlooked as it has done in the past.
Guest MattP Posted 18 August 2015 Posted 18 August 2015 If we're talking about the CEO, that would be Susan Whelan wouldn't it? No I was talking about the King Power corporation of which Vichai is the CEO of. Looking at the company it would have been impossible for it to have grown to the size it did without having some serious contacts and being very friendly with government members in high positions given they have a monopoly on seeling booze and fags in the airports. Frank said it was time we stopped firms as as private businesses and started viewing them as public assets which exist to do good for ordinary people, not to add billions to the bank account of one individual so I thought it was fair question given the personal wealth they have accumulated.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.