Government moves to rein in chief executives pay rises

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Government moves to rein in chief executives pay rises

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1958457 15-Feb-2018 09:49

Rikkitic:
MikeB4:

Does the average worker have huge legal responsibility for finance, health and safety, corporate responsibility, fedelity etc etc.The legal responsibility if the CEO are real and huge way beyond that of the average.

Pike River.

One CEO out of how many? Show me a plausible trend using an appropriate sample size then I may look again.

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1958462 15-Feb-2018 10:01

MikeB4: One CEO out of how many? Show me a plausible trend using an appropriate sample size then I may look again.

How many CEOs ever have to face up to that kind of responsibility? Show me a plausible trend [of CEOs facing up to their responsibilities] using an appropriate sample size then I may look again!

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1958466 15-Feb-2018 10:07

mm1352000:
MikeB4: One CEO out of how many? Show me a plausible trend using an appropriate sample size then I may look again.

How many CEOs ever have to face up to that kind of responsibility? Show me a plausible trend [of CEOs facing up to their responsibilities] using an appropriate sample size then I may look again!

Just this week with Fletchers. You clearly have no understanding of what a CEO does, their responsibilities, work loads. You could do well with looking around and broadening your views and understanding.
I have already given examples of the impact of CEOs both negative and good. Just like average Joe there are good and bad.

I have personal experience of the pressures, work loads, impacts on life at CEO level you clearly don't.

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1958469 15-Feb-2018 10:13

MikeB4: Just this week with Fletchers.

To throw your own words right back at you: that's one example. How is that any more or less of a trend than Pike River?

MikeB4: You clearly have no understanding...

I have personal experience of the pressures, work loads, impacts on life at CEO level you clearly don't.

It sounds like you're saying my lack of experience disqualifies me from making any observation whatsoever. I categorically reject that argument. To put the shoe on the other foot, that would be like me arguing that because you have personal experience, your views are biased and therefore unreliable.

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1958472 15-Feb-2018 10:18

mm1352000:

6FIEND: Perhaps we could turn that argument around and re-frame it as a question.

I agree with Rikkitic.

My response to you would be that I reject the underlying premise of your question, which is that the CEO is at some level responsible for the increase in profit. That's an assumption that I don't jump into.

But in the hypothetical example, the only personnel change is the CEO.

You might argue that market conditions changed... but it's ultimately the CEO's responsibility to read that and react accordingly

You might argue that the staff are more engaged, more efficient, more productive... but it's ultimately the CEO's responsibility to nurture a healthy company culture and get the best from their employees

You might argue any manner of things, but (as has been pointed out many times previously in these forums) the responsibility for decisions made that impact the company ultimately rest with the CEO. You yourself are trying to make that assertion when you suggest that the Pike River CEO was responsible for that tragedy. You can't logically argue that the reasoning applies when appointing blame, but doesn't apply when crediting success.

So, the question remains... How much is a reasonably, equitable amount to remunerate a CEO that doubles a companies profit over (in this case) 5 years?

You're stridently telling us that the status-quo isn't fair. So make your point about what is?

SJB

2945 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1958479 15-Feb-2018 10:33

Regardless of the level of renumeration one aspect I am totally against is any form of additional bonus. And this is from someone who has been self employed in one form or another almost their entire working life and has employed numerous people as well.

A person is paid to do a job and they should do it to the best of their ability at all times without needing any additional reward over and above their normal pay.

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1958482 15-Feb-2018 10:37

6FIEND: But in the hypothetical example, the only personnel change is the CEO.

I have tried to argue that remuneration should be proportional and equitable. Your question/scenario gave very little detail about why the profit doubled. The why part is critical for proportionality/equitability considerations. Therefore I do not feel I can give a reasonable answer to your question.

6FIEND: You might argue...

Yes, I might. :)

I notice in all your rebuttals that you come back to ultimate responsibility. At some level that is fair... but the CEO is not an island, which is why I keep coming back to proportionality.

Who's to say that somebody in the marketing department wasn't the only person that recognised the change in the market, and pushed it all the way to the top?

Who's to say that increased staff engagement/efficiency/productivity wasn't based on a suggestion from a clued up person on the factory floor that miraculously made it through the hierarchy?

Should the CEO be the only person who can take the credit, or the only person who can take responsibility? I would say no.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

SJB

2945 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1958490 15-Feb-2018 10:48

Nobody would argue against having different pay rates for different jobs in a company. The argument is over the spread of those pay rates which, in my opinion, is far too large.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that, around the developed world, the gap between the average pay rates in large companies and the pay rates of the top exec's has dramatically increased since the 1980's.

It's probably an illustration of the failure of 'trickle down' economics. The trickle down doesn't trickle down very far.

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1958518 15-Feb-2018 11:11

mm1352000:

I notice in all your rebuttals that you come back to ultimate responsibility. At some level that is fair... but the CEO is not an island, which is why I keep coming back to proportionality.

Who's to say that somebody in the marketing department wasn't the only person that recognised the change in the market, and pushed it all the way to the top?

Who's to say that increased staff engagement/efficiency/productivity wasn't based on a suggestion from a clued up person on the factory floor that miraculously made it through the hierarchy?

Should the CEO be the only person who can take the credit, or the only person who can take responsibility? I would say no.

That's a straw man argument.

I have not once suggested that only the CEO should have a share in the success of the company.

I have merely asked "what proportion" of said success should we reward the CEO with in your opinion?

You do seem to be going out of your way to provide any suggestions?

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1958520 15-Feb-2018 11:15

6FIEND: I have merely asked "what proportion" of said success should we reward the CEO with in your opinion?

Sorry, I thought I had been clear. The proportion that they are directly responsible for.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1958524 15-Feb-2018 11:21

MikeB4:

Just this week with Fletchers. You clearly have no understanding of what a CEO does, their responsibilities, work loads. You could do well with looking around and broadening your views and understanding.
I have already given examples of the impact of CEOs both negative and good. Just like average Joe there are good and bad.

I have personal experience of the pressures, work loads, impacts on life at CEO level you clearly don't.

It was actually the Chairman of Fletchers board who just quit.

The last CE quit 6 months ago - before much of the sh1t that was about to hit the fan was in the public domain.

The new CE will have some "interesting" challenges, and probably a very secure future if he can turn around the shambles created by his predecessor and the board.

TBH, I'm very cynical these days about the governance of listed companies in an environment where the once multitude of "small shareholders" has been displaced by the fund manager who drinks from the same trough as the executives he invests in. It has potential to come very unstuck. Probably safer than bitcoin though - at a guess.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1958529 15-Feb-2018 11:26

SJB:

Regardless of the level of renumeration one aspect I am totally against is any form of additional bonus. And this is from someone who has been self employed in one form or another almost their entire working life and has employed numerous people as well.

A person is paid to do a job and they should do it to the best of their ability at all times without needing any additional reward over and above their normal pay.

That depends on the job. For a CEO in most circumstances I would agree but perhaps not if that CEO was brought in to an ailing company with a remit to make it profitable again and agreed a low salary with a high bonus if he succeeded.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1958531 15-Feb-2018 11:28

mm1352000:

Geektastic: What's obscene about it?

How disproportionate it is to the remuneration for the people at the bottom of the organisation.

Also, putting on my socialist hat, it seems completely inequitable when you consider the plight of those at the bottom of our society and the world.

Geektastic: If people have the skills and smarts to get to those positions, as well as the dedication and drive, then all strength to their arm.

Sure, all of the things you mentioned are good and desirable... but the point I'm trying to make is that their remuneration is out of proportion and context. In other words, I don't think a CEO who is paid 10+ times the average wage is proportionally more skilled etc.

I don't have a socialist hat. I don't really mind much what the people at the bottom are paid. If they accept that and keep doing their job, I will assume they are content. If they start leaving and suddenly there is a recruitment and retention issue, then it is time to look at that.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1958532 15-Feb-2018 11:29

MikeB4:
mm1352000:

Geektastic: What's obscene about it?

How disproportionate it is to the remuneration for the people at the bottom of the organisation.

Also, putting on my socialist hat, it seems completely inequitable when you consider the plight of those at the bottom of our society and the world.

Geektastic: If people have the skills and smarts to get to those positions, as well as the dedication and drive, then all strength to their arm.

Sure, all of the things you mentioned are good and desirable... but the point I'm trying to make is that their remuneration is out of proportion and context. In other words, I don't think a CEO who is paid 10+ times the average wage is proportionally more skilled etc.

When the average worker on the average wage has the same, managerial, commercial and legal responsibility of a CEO then your argument may have some validity

Lordy. I have agreed with both @Rikkitic and @MikeB4 in the same week now. Nurse!

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1958535 15-Feb-2018 11:35

Geektastic: I don't have a socialist hat.

Yes, I've read enough of your comments in other threads to have guessed that you were likely not to have any sympathies with that argument. I'm not going to attempt to follow up on your point because I don't want to take this thread off topic.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5