Fat Cat boss gets £500,000 golden goodbye.

Danthus · 20 Jul 2011 at 11:29

nydryl said:
No issue.

Also, 'Fat Cat boss', really? Like some crap headline from the tabloids.

Or the sort of rhetoric the Unions trot out?

Deleted member 77746 · 20 Jul 2011 at 11:29

No1newts said:
Everyone saying its no big deal?

If I was in a union I would be pretty ****** that they are creaming that much off the top for supposedly representing people when infact they just want to feather their own pockets and suggest strike action to ensure they stay in their jobs

Thats an good point, I am in the union and union representitives should not be creaming it in from their members.

Danthus · 20 Jul 2011 at 11:30

RDM said:
I think you (and indeed many other posters it seems) have missed the (not so) subtle humour in the original post. The article is about a union general secretary leaving and getting a massive payout. The same sort of massive payouts that the unions are normally at the front of the line decrying with such terms as "Fat Cat". The OP is a satire of that sort of headline.

At least you and a couple of others got it.

Danthus · 20 Jul 2011 at 11:32

iDroid84 said:
Thats an good point, I am in the union and union representitives should not be creaming it in from their members.

Are you seriously trying to tell us that you have no idea of the salary and perks your union leader receives, you fund them after all.

Maybe this is part of the problem.

Deleted member 77746 · 20 Jul 2011 at 11:34

OldCoals said:
Are you seriously trying to tell us that you have no idea of the salary and perks your union leader receives, you fund them after all.

Maybe this is part of the problem.

The money isn't meant to fund a wage or payoffs.

Danthus · 20 Jul 2011 at 11:35

iDroid84 said:
The money isn't meant to fund a wage or payoffs.

Just think about what you are saying.

Basher · 20 Jul 2011 at 11:37

iDroid84 said:
The money isn't meant to fund a wage or payoffs.

Really? How do you think these guys got paid?

Deleted member 77746 · 20 Jul 2011 at 11:38

OldCoals said:
Just think about what you are saying.

Enlighten me then.

Danthus · 20 Jul 2011 at 11:38

Basher said:
Really? How do you think these guys got paid?

Simpson was on about £100,000 plus his grace and favour home, it isn't a secret!

Basher · 20 Jul 2011 at 11:40

OldCoals said:
Simpson was on about £100,000 plus his grace and favour home, it isn't a secret!

I know

Danthus · 20 Jul 2011 at 11:42

iDroid84 said:
Enlighten me then.

You are funding a union but you don't know where the money goes.

No1newts · 20 Jul 2011 at 11:43

Back in the days (not saying they were good or bad) unions were represented by a member who generally worked with the union. Now whilst everyone wants someone good to represent them how can a (for example) teacher on 30k a year expect true representation from someone on 100k+ who will have never taught in their life.

nydryl · 20 Jul 2011 at 11:53

OldCoals said:
Or the sort of rhetoric the Unions trot out?

I've already said I didn't get the intended tone of your post.

Still, I don't have an issue with most of the bonus packages the unions baulk at and I don't have much of an issue with this.

fLux_ · 20 Jul 2011 at 12:11

The general public already believe they have some god given entitlement to wealth without having to do anything.

They then get angry about people who have clearly worked hard at their careers for being rewarded financially.

Very annoying.

arknor · 20 Jul 2011 at 12:16

Basher said:
How very socialist. Why should the rich not be allowed to get richer?

indeed the poor are allowed to get poorer , sounds about right :rolleyes:

Basher · 20 Jul 2011 at 12:21

arknor said:
indeed the poor are allowed to get poorer , sounds about right

Perhaps, but why should the rich not get richer? I'm happy to subsidise the poor a little (through tax) but I'm certainly not doing it to the point where there's no incentive for them to work harder.

Tefal · 20 Jul 2011 at 12:25

Basher said:
How very socialist. Why should the rich not be allowed to get richer?

i think you're missing the point but this is the guy saying the government should step in and stop bankers getting bonuses and deals exactly like this one.

The point is he's a hypocrite.

Danthus · 20 Jul 2011 at 12:29

fLux_ said:
The general public already believe they have some god given entitlement to wealth without having to do anything.

They then get angry about people who have clearly worked hard at their careers for being rewarded financially.

Very annoying.

Did you read the article, do you know who Derek Simpson is?

Tefal · 20 Jul 2011 at 12:31

OldCoals said:
Did you read the article, do you know who Derek Simpson is?

the problem is there are so many people who make threads like this 100% serious that it's impossible to tell satire (not matter how extreme) from the real thing.

MeEsH BaKkA · 20 Jul 2011 at 12:31

fLux_ said:
The general public already believe they have some god given entitlement to wealth without having to do anything.

They then get angry about people who have clearly worked hard at their careers for being rewarded financially.

Very annoying.

True dat.

Basically devote as much effort into doing your own job well as as you do bitching about another man (who you have never met nor ever will meet who's finances or pay have 0 effect on your life) and you too could be rich and have lots of money, then you can give all your new found wealth to poor people and aids victims.