executive pay
- Thread starter azamc
- Start date
Look into the wages of the top people at the BBC. There is lots of coverage on the subject, the main reason is as has been mentioned, to get the best person for the job, you need to offer an incentive for the best people to be interested.
Lots of money usually means Lots of responsibility, why be the person in the firing line if you have nothing to gain?
Lastly, stop being lazy and look about, it's not exactly an abstract question!!
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,379
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
"ridiculous".
You might want to lose your opinion/bias if you want an objective (i.e. 'good') essay.
You might want to lose your opinion/bias if you want an objective (i.e. 'good') essay.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
The first idea that springs to mind is that it's a fairly simple example of their worth to the business e.g. if chief executive X can generate a turnover of £20m which equates to a profit of £5m then paying them £500k might not be such a bad bit of business if the alternative is paying chief executive Y £200k which would generate turnover of £5m and profit of £100k.
It's obviously not an absolute or quite as simple as that example but that's one rather obvious reason.
You've also got to factor in the costs of enticing them to pick you over your competitors (remembering of course that other companies in other markets may desire the same executives as many of the skills are transferable) and then keeping them once they're employed at your company. You'll find a certain amount of people will stick with your company just because they love their job and the company ethos but money talks as they say so for the rest the remuneration package counts.
More pay should mean more responsibility as has been mentioned so the executive "carries the can" for any failures although that's not always the case.
It's obviously not an absolute or quite as simple as that example but that's one rather obvious reason.
You've also got to factor in the costs of enticing them to pick you over your competitors (remembering of course that other companies in other markets may desire the same executives as many of the skills are transferable) and then keeping them once they're employed at your company. You'll find a certain amount of people will stick with your company just because they love their job and the company ethos but money talks as they say so for the rest the remuneration package counts.
More pay should mean more responsibility as has been mentioned so the executive "carries the can" for any failures although that's not always the case.
ok iv been trying to read around.
fred goodwin is getting a very big pension despite rbs collapsing. is there any arguments that he deserves it?
is there any other example of an executive getting a large pay off despite the company they work for failing?
is there any examples of a executive getting paid lots, but also has figures to back they deserve it?
fred goodwin is getting a very big pension despite rbs collapsing. is there any arguments that he deserves it?
is there any other example of an executive getting a large pay off despite the company they work for failing?
is there any examples of a executive getting paid lots, but also has figures to back they deserve it?
If you can answer the phone and hold a screwdriver you are qualified to be either.
Apparently so...
The government really need to bring in some laws to "protect" engineer job titles IMO, no calling yourself an engineer unless you are chartered by one of the big Institutes (such as ICE etc).
That would pee off the glorified plumbers, sorry, "Boiler Engineers" though...
There are two main arguments, the first is that, as mentioned, you have to pay to get the best, and at the top end, a CEO who generates 1% more profit through better leadership might be worth 10x more than the lesser CEO.
The second is that most executive positions also involve an agreement to waive many of the employment rights we take for granted, especially around dismissal and so on, in the form of severance agreements. If Fred Goodwin had been a standard employee, they would not have been able to dismiss him for the issues the company was facing, because everything was done in good faith, in full knowledge and with the consent of the board. Under his agreed contract terms, however, they could request he leaves. That sort of contract tends to involve lots of 'make up' to ensure agreement.
The second is that most executive positions also involve an agreement to waive many of the employment rights we take for granted, especially around dismissal and so on, in the form of severance agreements. If Fred Goodwin had been a standard employee, they would not have been able to dismiss him for the issues the company was facing, because everything was done in good faith, in full knowledge and with the consent of the board. Under his agreed contract terms, however, they could request he leaves. That sort of contract tends to involve lots of 'make up' to ensure agreement.
Why do I have to pay an organisation a yearly membership to use the title Engineer? Trade Unions & Guilds by the back door..
The potential for increase in a company's net worth is a massive part of why exec salaries may be so high, see Justin King for example. A good executive can drive the stock up by hundreds of millions, so a pay package in excess of £1m isn't unreasonable.
Because the vast majority of proper engineers will be registered with their respective institutions already (Civil engineers with ICE, mechanical engineers with ImechE for example). Most proper engineers aim to get chartered as soon as possible so for them it won't make any difference, however it would stop all the "I did my course over two weeks" boiler repair men calling themselves engineers.
Ceos have a great deal of responsibility. They are the ones who bring the threads of the company together. They define the business and where it is going. They set clear goals for the company and its employees to follow. They are the ones who drive businesses forward. Employees don't like change and Ceos are the ones who make it happen. They set the structure that ensures accountability throughout the organisation. They set the tone for recruitment and devise remuneration systems. Ceos need to know how to delegate important decisions and responsibilities that can affect the whole company effectively. They set the criteria for the investment of the company's money and they make sure deals work.
They do things that have a big impact on the company and therefore the jobs and lives of potentially thousands of employees, not to mention supplies and customers.
So while you, as an executive telephone sales engineer, may sneer and resent the paycheck of your chief executive, his role demands skill, intelligence and talent, which not everyone has. The market reflects this in the remuneration packages they get.
Oh, but, yeah, burn a banker! I want fred's head!
They do things that have a big impact on the company and therefore the jobs and lives of potentially thousands of employees, not to mention supplies and customers.
So while you, as an executive telephone sales engineer, may sneer and resent the paycheck of your chief executive, his role demands skill, intelligence and talent, which not everyone has. The market reflects this in the remuneration packages they get.
Oh, but, yeah, burn a banker! I want fred's head!
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 May 2003
- Posts
- 9,361
- Location
- Limehouse
Dolph has summed it up pretty much. It seems illogical when a company fails but it probably cost RBS a lot less to get rid and give him his contractual benefits relating to his dismissal than to leave him in place and let the whole ruddy thing collapse beyond repair completely.