Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
dont you mean a spin kieth.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Political posturing. What I do approve is giving the business owners, the shareholders, more say over executive pay but governments must not go beyond that because it is none of their business.
So Alexander is after state control. It just shows that some people do not learn from history or experience.
Soviet Union, Nazi Germany - just two examples of state control.
Even Communist China realised that state control does not work, they freed up their economy and opened it to capitalism and now they are booming...
Brian - yes they can destroy jobs, through excessive taxation, red tape and excessive spending. For every person the State employs you lose at least one job in the private sector.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
and it has been said many jobs within the private sector need a shake up
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
That is up to the firms themselves to make those decisions and nobody else Keith. Its something called 'freedom' - Labour politicians have worked hard to restrict it but it still exists in many ways even if diluted here and there.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
Im glad to see the Prime Minister is making a serious effort to curb the pay of these very often useless top executives. He has just been on the Andrew Marr show following his interview in todays Sunday Telegraph and said
"Payments for failure is so wrong!" said he referring to the backslapping executive "crony capitalism" of rewarding each other in boardrooms. He wants shareholders on the board, he would not go as far as to say he wants workers on the boards, but he didnt rule it out. He must have been reading my diatribes on this so Im glad to see him moving towards sanity. Someone somewhere is always paying for these exceutive salaries..the PM said they were taking money from their own customers, their own shareholderrs, and people who had pensions relying on these companies performances.
Often these executives have had rises percentage-wise many many times more than their workers. One thinks of Unilever, who are currently in dispute with their workers...why??
The workers pensions at Unilever are being cut back, but their chief executive paid himself a mind blowing £54Million pounds last year according to reports. How about that for an unholy situation. Excessive excess on one hand, but the people doing the daily work have to endure revenue cuts.
The PM is acting because research has shown this is NOT just a left wing shock horror movement but voters across middle England are disgusted. Tory voters.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
So true, Paul! It's a national outrage.
And the latest news just in, is that the PM is now talking of jail for the offenders, for those bankers who are reckless.
Parliament is examining the possibility of locking them behind bars, as Sky News reports this morning.
I really hope it becomes retrospective and they make them pay back what they have taken in the past.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
Indeed it is a national outrage Alex. The FTSE 100 directors paid themselves on average a 49% salary rise in the previous year, a staggering rise which has alarmed Mr Cameron..while the workers are hamstrung at 2 or 3% if they are lucky..again, if they are lucky. (FTSE 100 are the top listed companies on the stock exchange..pronounced Footsie 100, just to be clear to anyone who isnt sure).
Here is the Prime Minister this morning on the Andrew Marr Show.
You are also right Alex re talk of jail for the excesses of offenders who took the money and ran. No names no packdrill..but the Mail on Sunday had this story on their frontpage. George Osborne the Chancellor is with Cameron on this one and is looking at the process...so the machinery is beginning to be put in place to not only rein in the excesses, but with prison a possibility where the excesses bordered on the dodgy.
Did anyone see the woman from the High Pay committee or something equally silly on BBC news this morning? Clearly stakeholder interest and contribution should be welcome in this environment, but she so clearly had no real understanding of how businesses work, how they operate daily, and how organisations function. We could visualise her working in Social Services having a "good idea" and then pushing it ahead of her despite having no idea of the outcomes or how to manage it.......... How we laughed.........
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
A 49% salary rise! It goes to show the sheer greed of these people who lose touch with reality. We all know the share markets fell last year, so these guys must think they are immune to accountability.
The popular trend now has gone a step further, demanding they pay back a part of what they've helped themselves to.
Although the Coalition top-guns are working on new legislation to enable shareholders to have a binding vote on payouts to executives, I believe it's too little and too late.
More likely they'll need to introduce strict pay rules for company executives established and presided over by the State, and possibly will have to get rid of a whole army of present executives and replace them.
These guys have just gone too far, and once they have been criticised in the way the PM has done yestrday, there is no turning back.
People are beginning to realise they are responsible for much of the economic crisis, having presided over the major companies in our economy, as well as helping themselves to the shareholders' money with such outrageous, self-serving greed.
Once we get the foundations right, economic prosperity can start to blossom, when the unjust are removed from their high perches.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
alexander
whilst i appreciate your comments, and hope mr cameron does do a great deal
i think a lot of this will be a huff and puff
but i hope to be proved wrong
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
From what I read Cameron is doing just what I consider to be right, giving shareholders more say over exec pay. Anything else I hope is only huff and puff as Keith puts it, to do more would be government's interfering where they should not.
Alexander - the overall movements in the share markets is not something that should determine executive pay - this is as much to do with macro-economic conditions than anything to do with an individual company. If, however, changes made by a Chief Exec results in a company's shares performing better than their peer group, even if downwards, then there is a success that should be celebrated. Most of what you have written has no relationship to the real world and is more suited to the failed command economies of the 50's, 60's and 70's.
Our present economic problems are not caused by the large businesses or their executives and certainly have not their pay. Yes, even the banks, though some of them did make a number of mistakes that were made only because of government encouragement and the regulatory changes in 1997 and beyond. This really shows the incompetence of government and why they should stay out of commercial affairs apart from setting some sensible regulatory standards that were abandoned in 1997.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
BarryW.
So are you saying that the below statement is ok with you?
"The FTSE 100 directors paid themselves on average a 49% salary rise in the previous year, a staggering rise which has alarmed Mr Cameron..while the workers are hamstrung at 2 or 3%"
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
or less,some are only getting 1% over the next couple of years.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
No GaryC - the statement may or may not be right but certainly there may be a story behind the statistics. My point is that shareholders should have more of a say but it is no-one else's business what these executives are paid and nothing to do with the government, unless the government is a shareholder as in the case of some banks. I certainly, as a shareholder would not be pleased with the situation except in circumstances where it was justified by the performance of the company.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
the more i read about the plan the less teeth it actually has.
less than 50% of shareholders ever vote on anything and many other shares are owned by pension funds who take no interest other than in the dividend.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Cameron`s ill-concieved policy to give Shareholders more powers is rejected by CBI and businesses.
``Shareholders would only be voting after the problem has happened``
``falls far short of what is needed to end rewards for failure``
``We need a bold move,not just more tough talking``
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
A better turnout that Howard than we have in local elections.
If shareholders feel strongly they will vote. They are also the only people who should have a say over their executive's pay.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Barry, what about the foot-soldiers, the workers who labour in the FTSE 100 companies and all the other companies present on the share markets?
Why can't they too have a binding vote on executives' pay?
Only tough government legislation on boardroom pratices can solve the problem.
To give one example - out of many possible instances - where bankers have made catastrophic decisions, the RBS openly admitted that its takeover of the Dutch Ambro Bank, costing almost £60 billion, was a complete error, a total miscalculation.
It had nothing to do with Gordon Brown's policies at the time, but purely with bankers' reckless lust for power and control over massive capital, with the prospect of large bonuses in return.
In fact, the Treasury is considering prison sentences for bankers who brought on the 2008 banking crisis, independent of their self-serving bonus greed.
My guess is, though, many will come to the conclusion they took the reckless actions in order to get the bonuses. So at the end of the day, personal greed will probably be considered the root cause of the 2008 banking crisis.
A new law called corporate negligence is being studied within Treasury circles, it should be up for parliamentary consultation around March 2012, but some proposals will already be put forward later this week.
February is bonus season, when the bankers decide how much they will grab and pocket from the banks' limited funds.
Hopefully they choke on it this time, and may soon the prison gates in Britain open up to welcome them!
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
BarryW.
I don't agree that it is no-one else's business.
Where does the money come from to pay these bonus's?
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
Us, directly or indirectly, that is why so many of the populace object to undeserved or excessive amounts.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
