Pay Rises Soar By 49% For UK's Top Bosses

wymondham

People are paid what they are worth surely? If they get 50% bonuses then the board/shareholders must be pleased with performance etc??

StevieJ

wymondham wrote: »

People are paid what they are worth surely? If they get 50% bonuses then the board/shareholders must be pleased with performance etc??

Pity their stellar performance is not being reflected in the greater scheme of things

Thrugelmir

wymondham wrote: »

People are paid what they are worth surely? If they get 50% bonuses then the board/shareholders must be pleased with performance etc??

Cosy club. The non-executives that sit on the remuneration committees are themselves directors elsewhere. Lack of independence and transparency.

Shareholder displeasure is only slowly growing traction.

DervProf

So when times are tough, these directors get huge pay rises. I seem to remember them getting good pay rises when times are good. I suppose they only need "good" pay rises when their companies are doing well, because their shares will be doing well. The massive pay rises come in handy to make up for poorer share performance.

shortchanged_2

Take it away Sir Paul. I'll leave this one to you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0auCDOERZyE

ruggedtoast

IronWolf wrote: »

But if you don't reward CEOs for making efficiency savings, including redundancies, then hardly any would do it and eventually companies wouldn't survive, they'd be too disadvantaged competitively.

Tell you what, how about they just do it as part of their job, like everyone else does their job as part of their job?

Hey, I did my job this year, can I have a 50% pay rise and a massive bonus? Great thanks!

Why does this seem to happen constantly at the top of the tree but never at the bottom? I wonder.

IronWolf

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Tell you what, how about they just do it as part of their job, like everyone else does their job as part of their job?

Hey, I did my job this year, can I have a 50% pay rise and a massive bonus? Great thanks!

Why does this seem to happen constantly at the top of the tree but never at the bottom? I wonder.

Lol i can imagine the OUTCRY from workers if 70% of their pay was performance related. Whats that, you only finished 3 projects this year instead of 4, sorry you're only getting 30% of your pay.

I'm sure the unions would love that

ruggedtoast

Yeah because bosses in the private sector are never ever rewarded for mediocre performance are they.

Lol.

Jimmy_31

IronWolf wrote: »

Lol i can imagine the OUTCRY from workers if 70% of their pay was performance related. Whats that, you only finished 3 projects this year instead of 4, sorry you're only getting 30% of your pay.

I'm sure the unions would love that

If my pay was currently performance related i would be earning triple what the employees earn at the firms i sub contract for.

As it stands i do 3 times more work than them for less money and no rights.

I prefer my wage to be performance related as i can earn a lot more money when im paid by the metre, roof, kitchen, door, window or whatever instead of being paid an hourly rate.

thor

IronWolf wrote: »

But if you don't reward CEOs for making efficiency savings, including redundancies, then hardly any would do it and eventually companies wouldn't survive, they'd be too disadvantaged competitively.

Why? What are they going to do instead? Is this another case of attracting the 'top talent'? They are nothing but a bunch of overrated chancers. If they want to go then let them, there are more than enough who could do the job(they could hardly perform worse) for a fraction of the salary. This is the principle that those at the lower end have to suffer so why not those who are getting megabucks?