Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2011 10:13:29 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Oct 28, 2011 11:10:16 GMT 1
Indeed.
It will be interesting/funny to recieve Benito Downwards views on this.
|
|
|
Post by shrewroo on Oct 28, 2011 12:06:04 GMT 1
They deserve it imo, for dragging us through the crisis in one piece
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Oct 28, 2011 12:38:19 GMT 1
Frankly I find that staggering, yet nothing has changed it is the way in which we conduct our business. I honestly cannot say anyone deserves that % whatever the economical situation.
It should be remembered that these type of situations have been going on for years and are probably only getting the attention they are due to the economic woes of this era.
I also remember a thread on here about a female council employee who was earning I believe over £100k per annum I found that to be staggering also yet some on here defended the issue saying "she was worth it" I ask then are these directors not "worth it".
|
|
oranjemob
Midland League Division One
Posts: 486
|
Post by oranjemob on Oct 28, 2011 12:50:07 GMT 1
They deserve it imo, for dragging us through the crisis in one piece Please PLEASE tell me that this is
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Oct 28, 2011 14:07:05 GMT 1
Good to see Cameron standing up for the downtrodden in our society: news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16098004Yep, he'd bravely standing up for the financial sector. Apparently they're under 'constant attack' from EU regulation.
|
|
|
Post by Shrewed on Oct 28, 2011 14:57:57 GMT 1
But you have to feel sorry for these poor directors they have to pay 50% tax to help pay off the debt that many of them created, when us poor mortals only have to pay 20%. life just isn't fair to directors think when the new employment laws come into force they can be sacked for being incompetent without receiving massive payouts. Somehow I doubt Mr Cameron will include that in his review of employment law.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2011 15:51:51 GMT 1
I also remember a thread on here about a female council employee who was earning I believe over £100k per annum I found that to be staggering also yet some on here defended the issue saying "she was worth it" I ask then are these directors not "worth it". had she just received a 50% pay rise? Not sure if anyone on here was attacking the level of directors pay as such (although i and others could) its the 50% pay rise in a year, at a time when employees are having to tighten their belts, and being made redundant, and having their employment rights eroded that sticks in the collective throat!
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Oct 28, 2011 19:00:23 GMT 1
Fair point Pab she probably hadn't, as injustifiable as 50% is in this case is it not all in the Private sector thus does it impact on society and add to the economic woes ?
The women in question was discribed by some on here as "worth it", Reg and Jamo I believe shared that opinion.
It is somewhat ironic that we talk of Company Directors when we are happily prepared to pay over £100k to thousands people in the public sector.
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Oct 28, 2011 19:39:49 GMT 1
The real problem is the growing disparity between the pay of senior managers in both the private and public sectors and the pbi who always get the dirty end of the stick.
People are getting fed up with this unfairness, hence the growing number of protests.
The real irony of high pay for senior managers in the public sector is that they justify it by saying they need to match the private sector in order to attract high calibre people!
And the problem for people who believe that this inequity will cause problems for our society is that they have no political party to turn to as the political elite are all feeding at the same trough.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Oct 28, 2011 19:47:07 GMT 1
Fair point Pab she probably hadn't, as injustifiable as 50% is in this case is it not all in the Private sector thus does it impact on society and add to the economic woes ? The women in question was discribed by some on here as "worth it", Reg and Jamo I believe shared that opinion. It is somewhat ironic that we talk of Company Directors when we are happily prepared to pay over £100k to thousands people in the public sector. You'd have to make a case for such remuneration. I don't think you can say someone doesn't deserve that amount of money purely because they're 'in the public sector'. You'd have to take into account skills, responsibility, working unsociable hours etc when assessing the value of their work. Although I'm not a fan of the current incumbent, I don't think the salary of the PM - in theory, anyway, is excessive. Personally I'd like to see less of a differential between the top and bottom earners in any organisation, and the available money spread more equitably. Workers should be paid the true value of their worth to their employer, rather than the profits being creamed off for directors and shareholders and wages being held down. Unfortunately it would be difficult to enforce this as companies would blur the distinction between employees and people hired as 'freelancer' or through an agency. Not impossible, but I'll take a wild stab in the dark and say the political will is unlikely to be there. The higher salaries in the public sector are a result of the 'logic' of the market: The higher the salaries in the private sector, the higher the salaries in the public sector have to be to attract the right people. Fortunately, not everyone is motivated solely by greed. There are plenty of chief executives in the private sector getting rich off public money - the heads of outsourcers like Capita, Serco and G4S. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1365695/Revealed-The-new-public-service-Fat-Cats-theyre-immune-cuts.htmlAnd look at these eye watering figures! Pay day: Top earning chief executives Mick Davis (Xstrata) £18,426,105 Bart Becht (Reckitt Benkiser) £17,879,000 Michael Spencer (ICAP) £13,419,619 Sir Terry Leahy(Tesco) £12,038,303 Tom Albanese (Rio Tinto) £11,623,162 Sir Martin Sorrell (WPP Group) £8,949,985 Todd Kozel (Gulf Keystone Petroleum) £8,913,223 Don Robert (Experian) £8,601,984 Edward Bonham Carter (Jupiter Fund Management) £8,003,641 Dame Marjorie Scardino (Pearson) £8,003,641 Hardly comparable to 100,000 a year!
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Oct 28, 2011 19:48:31 GMT 1
The real problem is the growing disparity between the pay of senior managers in both the private and public sectors and the pbi who always get the dirty end of the stick. People are getting fed up with this unfairness, hence the growing number of protests. The real irony of high pay for senior managers in the public sector is that they justify it by saying they need to match the private sector in order to attract high calibre people! And the problem for people who believe that this inequity will cause problems for our society is that they have no political party to turn to as the political elite are all feeding at the same trough. Well said. Fully agree.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2011 20:06:17 GMT 1
Indeed. It will be interesting/funny to recieve Benito Downwards views on this. Just to give you my opinion. If the company is private sector and a director has got a Pay rise as such, good on whoever has done it, risk and reward, it's quite funny to see nurse and ed both going at it, first of all, Ed as a consultant, I bet you had no issues putting in your consultant invoice in to which ever company you were working for! And I don't blame you! Nurse, you keep going on about relaxing rules for easier dismissal, and the sooner they come in the better, I will tell you now that there are more idle workers out there than soft Mick, most in the public sector (my opinion only) than there are rouge companies that will do the bad deed against the workforce. Now I wish I was in a position to award my self a 50% rise, but I like many others in the private sector have had to pull in the reigns, and guess what, for the last 4 months I have only pulled in a basic wage of £125 per week,well below the NMW,have any of my staff done that, nope, because as a company director mine is the last wage gets paid,but if I can get the luxury of giving my self a 50% rise up to £187.50, I will let you all know first, and wait to get lambasted on here for it!!
|
|
|
Post by albionshrew on Oct 28, 2011 20:11:40 GMT 1
Tory-types (yes, including Blair) will always be Tories - greedy money grabbing leaches on the rest of us. The sooner Cameron and his losers get chucked out of Parliament the better. Our formerly class-ridden society is now executive-ridden. I should add that I am not having a go at " downie' - I admire business people who will take risks and put everything into running a business.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2011 20:12:49 GMT 1
But you have to feel sorry for these poor directors they have to pay 50% tax to help pay off the debt that many of them created, when us poor mortals only have to pay 20%. life just isn't fair to directors think when the new employment laws come into force they can be sacked for being incompetent without receiving massive payouts. Somehow I doubt Mr Cameron will include that in his review of employment law. Ed are you saying that the incompetent should be given a massive payout then, so they can be replaced by a worthy person and well rewarded for being a useless t**t?
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Oct 28, 2011 20:25:55 GMT 1
Indeed. It will be interesting/funny to recieve Benito Downwards views on this. Just to give you my opinion. If the company is private sector and a director has got a Pay rise as such, good on whoever has done it, risk and reward, it's quite funny to see nurse and ed both going at it, first of all, Ed as a consultant, I bet you had no issues putting in your consultant invoice in to which ever company you were working for! And I don't blame you! Nurse, you keep going on about relaxing rules for easier dismissal, and the sooner they come in the better, I will tell you now that there are more idle workers out there than soft Mick, most in the public sector (my opinion only) than there are rouge companies that will do the bad deed against the workforce. Now I wish I was in a position to award my self a 50% rise, but I like many others in the private sector have had to pull in the reigns, and guess what, for the last 4 months I have only pulled in a basic wage of £125 per week,well below the NMW,have any of my staff done that, nope, because as a company director mine is the last wage gets paid,but if I can get the luxury of giving my self a 50% rise up to £187.50, I will let you all know first, and wait to get lambasted on here for it!! My money was on the funny option rather than the interesting You crack me up Benito, you really do
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2011 20:31:24 GMT 1
Ditto.....
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Oct 28, 2011 20:37:47 GMT 1
Think the point of today's story is that pay for company directors has gone up by 49%, when at the same time the value of the companies they look after has gone down by 25%. The same can be said of the senior bank chiefs who in many peoples opinions caused the economic crisis but who still get the big payouts at the end of each year.
I see this being more about fairness than about public v private. The massive disparity in wages within organisations isn't healthy especially when times are tough economically. Unless you run a private company turning over at least half a million a year I'm afraid people running their own companies are being shafted by the system just as much as public sector workers are.
Personally I blame the previous Labour government for toadying upto business while they were in power and making it easier for them to avoid tax. You can't expect Cameron or Osbourne to change a system that they themselves make a massive amount of cash from. All very depressing really - just lucky Town are doing well!
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Oct 28, 2011 21:36:14 GMT 1
The real problem is the growing disparity between the pay of senior managers in both the private and public sectors and the pbi who always get the dirty end of the stick. People are getting fed up with this unfairness, hence the growing number of protests. The real irony of high pay for senior managers in the public sector is that they justify it by saying they need to match the private sector in order to attract high calibre people! And the problem for people who believe that this inequity will cause problems for our society is that they have no political party to turn to as the political elite are all feeding at the same trough. Correct
|
|
|
Post by albionshrew on Oct 28, 2011 21:45:36 GMT 1
The real problem is the growing disparity between the pay of senior managers in both the private and public sectors and the pbi who always get the dirty end of the stick. People are getting fed up with this unfairness, hence the growing number of protests. The real irony of high pay for senior managers in the public sector is that they justify it by saying they need to match the private sector in order to attract high calibre people! And the problem for people who believe that this inequity will cause problems for our society is that they have no political party to turn to as the political elite are all feeding at the same trough. Correct Well said. Perhaps we should all be camping outside St Paul's Cathedral?
|
|
|
Post by creature on Oct 28, 2011 22:05:37 GMT 1
The real problem is the growing disparity between the pay of senior managers in both the private and public sectors and the pbi who always get the dirty end of the stick. People are getting fed up with this unfairness, hence the growing number of protests. The real irony of high pay for senior managers in the public sector is that they justify it by saying they need to match the private sector in order to attract high calibre people! And the problem for people who believe that this inequity will cause problems for our society is that they have no political party to turn to as the political elite are all feeding at the same trough. Indeed. The difference between the average wage and the top earners is just plain absurd with tax bands that are frankly laughable in comparison. And to think there is talk of dropping the 50% rate!
|
|
|
Post by Minormorris64 on Oct 29, 2011 8:37:00 GMT 1
Fair point Pab she probably hadn't, as injustifiable as 50% is in this case is it not all in the Private sector thus does it impact on society and add to the economic woes ? The women in question was discribed by some on here as "worth it", Reg and Jamo I believe shared that opinion. It is somewhat ironic that we talk of Company Directors when we are happily prepared to pay over £100k to thousands people in the public sector. You'd have to make a case for such remuneration. I don't think you can say someone doesn't deserve that amount of money purely because they're 'in the public sector'. You'd have to take into account skills, responsibility, working unsociable hours etc when assessing the value of their work. Although I'm not a fan of the current incumbent, I don't think the salary of the PM - in theory, anyway, is excessive. Personally I'd like to see less of a differential between the top and bottom earners in any organisation, and the available money spread more equitably. Workers should be paid the true value of their worth to their employer, rather than the profits being creamed off for directors and shareholders and wages being held down. Unfortunately it would be difficult to enforce this as companies would blur the distinction between employees and people hired as 'freelancer' or through an agency. Not impossible, but I'll take a wild stab in the dark and say the political will is unlikely to be there. The higher salaries in the public sector are a result of the 'logic' of the market: The higher the salaries in the private sector, the higher the salaries in the public sector have to be to attract the right people. Fortunately, not everyone is motivated solely by greed. There are plenty of chief executives in the private sector getting rich off public money - the heads of outsourcers like Capita, Serco and G4S. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1365695/Revealed-The-new-public-service-Fat-Cats-theyre-immune-cuts.htmlAnd look at these eye watering figures! Pay day: Top earning chief executives Mick Davis (Xstrata) £18,426,105 Bart Becht (Reckitt Benkiser) £17,879,000 Michael Spencer (ICAP) £13,419,619 Sir Terry Leahy(Tesco) £12,038,303 Tom Albanese (Rio Tinto) £11,623,162 Sir Martin Sorrell (WPP Group) £8,949,985 Todd Kozel (Gulf Keystone Petroleum) £8,913,223 Don Robert (Experian) £8,601,984 Edward Bonham Carter (Jupiter Fund Management) £8,003,641 Dame Marjorie Scardino (Pearson) £8,003,641 Hardly comparable to 100,000 a year! At least those people are running Companies and employing people....... lest we forgot those beyond criticsim....... Carlos Tevez £250,000 a week Wayne Rooney etc etc etc.
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Oct 29, 2011 10:32:21 GMT 1
I don't think you can say someone doesn't deserve that amount of money purely because they're 'in the public sector'. I am not saying people don't deserve a wage - I do however recognise when posts like this occur they are always slanted at having a pop at a certain % of the wealthy. What is interesting and always overlooked is that there are over 1000 public sector workers on over £200,000 and 38000 over £100,000. Lets look at some others.. Bob Crow RMT, takes home £105,679 a year. Mark Serwotka PCS £111,112. Christine Blower NUT £124,483. Derek Simpson Unite union £120,328. Further to that on average the Premier e football player takes home £676,000. But let me guess...to some on here these guys " deserve" it whilst others don't ...lets continue to have a pop at the nasty "selected" rich...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2011 11:32:22 GMT 1
[ What is interesting and always overlooked is that there are over 1000 public sector workers on over £200,000 and 38000 over £100,000 I apologise for this, i know it winds some people up, but surely it was the tories in the 80s who started all this? didnt they want to make councils and othher public services more "business like". Wanted things, hospitals, councils ect to be run like private companies? As such you need to ave people in place who can run such places like businesses, like accountants, top managers ect, and frankly if you want to get these people into the public sector, you need to offer them a wage that it comparible with the private sector. But again, this story isnt about the wages of private or public sector workers, its about pay rises. Can any of the governments apologists or anti public sector brigade name anyone in the public sector who has had a 50% pay rise this year? Most of us havent had one at all!
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Oct 29, 2011 11:58:20 GMT 1
I don't think you can say someone doesn't deserve that amount of money purely because they're 'in the public sector'. I am not saying people don't deserve a wage - I do however recognise when posts like this occur they are always slanted at having a pop at a certain % of the wealthy. What is interesting and always overlooked is that there are over 1000 public sector workers on over £200,000 and 38000 over £100,000. Lets look at some others.. Bob Crow RMT, takes home £105,679 a year. Mark Serwotka PCS £111,112. Christine Blower NUT £124,483. Derek Simpson Unite union £120,328. Further to that on average the Premier e football player takes home £676,000. But let me guess...to some on here these guys " deserve" it whilst others don't ...lets continue to have a pop at the nasty "selected" rich... I don't agree it's just an excuse to have a pop at the rich. This quote from Steve Tatton of the IDS sums it up. "At a time when employees are experiencing real wage cuts and risk losing their livelihoods, without further explanation it may be difficult for FTSE 100 companies to justify the significant increase in earnings awarded to their directors. "The pay gap between the boardroom and the shop floor does not yet show any signs of closing." When you've got pay freezes, redundancies (or threats of redundancies), pension schemes closing or being 'reformed', then this cannot be justified (not that I believe such obscene, couldn't-spend-it-in-a-thousand-life-times figures can ever be justified). Directors are paying themselves obscene amounts at the expense of their employees and the taxpayer, who effectively subsidise low paying employers via tax credits. Low pay also forces people into debt. In future, so few people will have decent pensions they may have to rely on means-tested benefits. Of course I think the salaries of Tevez, Rooney et al are obscene and absurd. But that's the logic of the market for you. And the people paying for season tickets, SKY packages, replica shirts etc are being ripped off willingly, I suppose. As for the union general secretaries, yes I'd prefer it if their pay packages were more in line with the people they represent. Albeit taking into account they are at the head of their organisation. But they hardly compare with the Tevez's and Leahy's of this world. And they have to be elected and re-elected by their members. If they don't provide adequate leadership and representation for their members they can be replaced by someone else. Would you agree that a more equal distribution of pay throughout an organisation is desirable? After all, the checkout clerks, delivery drivers, shelf stackers, store managers etc run Tesco as much as Terry Leahy does.
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Oct 29, 2011 12:27:21 GMT 1
Just to put in context the public sector wages of £100,000 plus. Most of the staff on these wages will be chief executives of councils or public bodies like the Fire Service or Police, roles which have a lot of responsibility.
For example an average Unitary Council will have a budget of anything between £500 million and £800 million a year and employ 5000 to 15,000 workers. The chief executive will have responsibility for wide range of services including social services, educational performance, meeting environmental targets, transport and housing standards. In some cases they can be prosecuted if the services they run don't perform correctly.
While a wage of £160,000 or more is a lot, the role is one of great responsibility, and as others have said wages were increased in the 80s to encourage more people with business experience to go into the public sector
|
|
|
Post by Shrewed on Oct 29, 2011 13:02:55 GMT 1
I don't think you can say someone doesn't deserve that amount of money purely because they're 'in the public sector'. I am not saying people don't deserve a wage - I do however recognise when posts like this occur they are always slanted at having a pop at a certain % of the wealthy. What is interesting and always overlooked is that there are over 1000 public sector workers on over £200,000 and 38000 over £100,000. Lets look at some others.. Bob Crow RMT, takes home £105,679 a year. Mark Serwotka PCS £111,112. Christine Blower NUT £124,483. Derek Simpson Unite union £120,328. Further to that on average the Premier e football player takes home £676,000. But let me guess...to some on here these guys " deserve" it whilst others don't ...lets continue to have a pop at the nasty "selected" rich... Come on Windsor, ignoring the anomaly of sport and movie stars. Let's look at the real world, I have nothing against anyone earning a bonus because of a job well done. If a CEO doubles the profit in a company then by all means pay him a good bonus, but equally if the companies profits fall no bonus should be paid. The absolute insult is that at a time when workers are having their wages cut and many facing redundancy these fat cats pay themselves 50% more when in many cases the profits at the companies are falling. Nobody should be paid up to 200 times more than their average employee. It is basically immoral. It is not even as if these directors have built the company investing their own money. As for your dig at the union bosses, paid up to 5 times their members average wage, is decided by the members.
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Oct 29, 2011 13:54:45 GMT 1
Nobody should be paid up to 200 times more than their average employee. As for your dig at the union bosses, paid up to 5 times their members average wage, is decided by the members. I agree with your first point Ed, yet it happens the world over so is not a purely "Eton Conservative" issue that people try to make at. To dismiss the Rooney issue you then think it's ok for him to earn 400 times a watching fans wage. My point on the Unions was not a dig in anyway merely highlighting a fact, are those Union members not losing their jobs Ed ? Did a certain Mr Crow not take a 12% pay rise last year ? The point is when issues like this are constantly thrown at Cameron there are many others who should be highlighted, Cameron to his credit (and I don't give him much at present) a pay cut of sorts of 5%.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2011 19:28:56 GMT 1
[ Now I wish I was in a position to award my self a 50% rise, but I like many others in the private sector have had to pull in the reigns, and guess what, for the last 4 months I have only pulled in a basic wage of £125 per week And yet in the past month you have still managed to fly half way round the world to such places as new zealand, thailand, bangkok and watched various high profile rugby world cup games? No wonder no one wants to progress in this country, it seems possible to live a jet set lifestyle on the minimum wage. Now i have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that you have earned every penny of your wealth and have earned the lifestyle you enjoy, good on ya i say, but it seems a little..........disingenuous to claim to be only taking home £125 per week yet still enjoy the lifestyle you do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2011 20:17:56 GMT 1
That holiday of a lifetime was planned and mainly paid for last year. There is also savings, which the remainder of will be used to pay staff if things dont turn around soon. But that is the risk
|
|