|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: "We need to pay that to get people of the right calibre..."
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
This is the argument that justifies shelling out small fortunes, not only to CEO's of private companies, but also of public bodies, such as County councils.
To be honest, I get really pissed off when I hear this argument. Although I understand the way the free market works, it seems to be based on the argument that "if we don't pay this amount to that person, then he / she will leave". My response is almost always: "Then let them bloody well leave, and find someone who is willing to do the job for a sensible salary."
I can't understand why someone, who needs to be bribed with an obscene level of remuneration in order to do a decent day's work (if indeed such people do 'decent' work!), should be termed "a person of high calibre". Whatever happened to "moral calibre"?
Why can't workers in an organisation be promoted to the highest levels, who would be happy to take a pay rise that amounts to a salary far less than that of the head-hunted executive?
This argument - so loved of the political right - is actually quite vacuous (and I wish it could be comprehensively refuted within our public life). If we trained our staff properly and encouraged promotion within organisations, then we would not need to rely on a relatively few "super-execs" who float around the system with an air of entitlement, without whom apparently our society would fall apart.
As far as I am concerned, this is a form of parasitism (of an extremely dangerous kind).
Am I wrong?
Do let me know...
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
No, you are absolutely right.
There are plenty of good people who can do those jobs. No way do such obscene salaries need to be offered. I think there is some kind of 'divide and rule' going on. They want super rich and super poor levels in society.
These organisations simply need to try it. Offer a good, high-but-not-obscene salary, then see who applies.
There will be no shortage of excellent candidates I am sure.
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I always wonder what these people actually do all day.
I had a brother-in-law who was headhunted on occasions - but it was as a systems analyst who was known to be effective at analysing systems. I'm not sure exactly what this entails, but am aware of it as an actual task with observable outcomes.
CEOs, now, I have absolutely no idea what they do. Presumably, on arriving at a new organisation, task one is to familiarise themselves with the various divisions. Then to meet the heads of each division and familiarise themselves with the daily activities of each division. I assume they are presumed to have the nous to look at the results of these investigations and see how the work of each division can be done better.
It is odd how often this seems to be by looking at the lowest level of employee, cutting their hours and hourly pay, and making sure that they don't have the employment rights laid down in law. "Oh look, we can economise by cutting out the time allocated for cleaning the cookers. And we can remove the allowance for the cleaning of the uniforms at home, while not providing any laundry service ourselves. And we can provide really cheap cleaning materials without checking that they can do the job through this exclusive arrangement with a subsidiary, and threaten any staff who provide their own materials to do the job better with the sack." (Based on real cases in an educational establishment, relying, presumably, on knowing that women have a loyalty to the place and will do a proper job, even outside the paid hours. And are not unionised.)
A really effective parasite will ensure that the host organism can survive to provide for future generations.
I'm not sure that this "elite" have worked that one out.
And I'm not sure why someone flown in from outside without any real knowledge of the business is better than someone who has risen through it.
I was wryly amused (not quite the word, but it will do) when some members of the ruling group accused the lower orders of having a "sense of entitlement". Entitlement to benefits contributed to over years is somehow subtly wrong, when unworked for entitlement due to birth in a privileged class is not even seen as such.
Roll on rules that limit the top salary to a reasonable multiple of the lowest. As if...
Perhaps the Rowntree group could work out what is needed for a living wage at the top - I was interested to see that they allow £50 for a child's birthday party in their living wage at the bottom calculation - seems a lot to me. But I don't think that there can really be a need for two homes in the UK, one abroad, a private jet, a personal yacht which can be mistaken for "My Little Liner" and eating out at Michelin starred restaurants several times a week - not if those men (usually) are really working so ****** much harder than the cleaners. When would they have the time to use them?
[ 02. November 2013, 10:04: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
It's all about justifying your own obscene salary. If you "can't find anyone good enough" to work for you on less than a couple of million a year, then you must be worth at least 5 million. Your boss thinks the same way, and you know you'll have his 10 million one day if you play your cards right. It's about people with power looking after their own in their own interest.
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Yes, it's complete bollocks. We see it in my sector, higher education, where v-cs' pay and pensions have shot up. But in this sector at least, anyone who was really any good at it wouldn't, by definition, be primarily motivated by money, while anyone who was primarily motivated by money would either not be any good at it or, if they were, would have buggered off into the private sector, to be paid £500k rather than £250k a year, ages ago.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
The super-rich culture that has developed under capitalism is all very well if sufficient crumbs fall from their table to sustain the less fortunate.
If however it is allowed to foster the arrogance of the rich , seen shall we say pre reformation, or pre WW1 ? Well you can bet it will end badly at some undetermined point in the future .
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I agree, but there's an extra issue.
These days, these characters are treated more like football managers.
They are hired on huge salaries, and are supposed to deliver results, the equivalent of promotion to the next division. They're regarded as only as good as the equivalent of the last match, be it getting a big road scheme built or reducing the number of deaths on the operating table by x%. If they don't do it, they are fired, except that - for entirely proper reasons - they have employment rights and so must be paid to go away.
In the good old days that everyone looks back to, the average chief officer had risen through a clear career structure, and was expected to give their full commitment to the organisation, probably until they retired. They got a good but not spectacular salary, but there was also a structured pension scheme that rewarded long service, and a system for compensating people who had to be retired because of restructuring, amalgamations etc at a stage in their career when they were past the point where they could get another comparable job. In return also, the organisation accepted it owed a commitment to them.
That rewarded reliable, responsible but sometimes complacent and slightly dull, people.
It is a value judgement whether you think your major public bodies are better run by the reliable, responsible but possibly dull, or by flash whizzos who are in love with change and think perpetual revolution is not just fun but essential to keep people on their toes. But the way you recruit, pay and get rid of your chief officers will determine which sort you will get.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
Rich people are motivated by promising to pay them more; poor people are motivated by threatening to pay them less.
(I find this regrettable, but I fear that I'm often in a minority.)
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
Well, the Prime Minister gets about £150,000 a year. That is a pretty big salary, but I think it is more or less justifiable since he has a pretty important job. It carries a certain level of responsibility I think it is fair to say, like declaring wars or not, launching nuclear missiles, deciding whether to privatise the health service, generally running the country and other minor things like that.
Apparently banking CEOs etc. are so important that they need to be paid about ten times that amount. I guess they must have really big responsibilities then.
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
The only thing I would say against this argument is to give the example of recruiting headteachers, particularly in primary schools. Teachers' pay is generally pretty good, at or slightly above full time average earnings. Headteachers get paid more (maybe 20-40%), but their responsibilities and skills, with accompanying stress levels, are much higher than those of a classroom teacher. And a bad head makes a school a hellish place to work or learn. When our current head retires we will likely have immense difficulty recruiting, even more so that we do for classroom teachers. What should be done to ensure we can recruit someone competent? Is it always unacceptable to increase pay? Would we not need to see a drastic change in society to reach a point where the money paid for a job is not seen as at least part of the measure of how important a job is and how valued is the person doing it?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The only thing I would say against this argument is to give the example of recruiting headteachers, particularly in primary schools. Teachers' pay is generally pretty good, at or slightly above full time average earnings. Headteachers get paid more (maybe 20-40%), but their responsibilities and skills, with accompanying stress levels, are much higher than those of a classroom teacher. And a bad head makes a school a hellish place to work or learn. When our current head retires we will likely have immense difficulty recruiting, even more so that we do for classroom teachers. What should be done to ensure we can recruit someone competent? Is it always unacceptable to increase pay? Would we not need to see a drastic change in society to reach a point where the money paid for a job is not seen as at least part of the measure of how important a job is and how valued is the person doing it?
The thing about being a headteacher is not the pay, it's the work - which to a lesser extent, that applies to teachers, too.
Recruiting headteachers would be significantly easier if they weren't expected to be in charge of absolutely everything that happens in the school: in charge of the teachers and teaching, yes, but why, for the love of God, do we insist they also be experts on plant, finances, IT and HR? They trained as teachers, not managers, and nine times out of ten it shows.
Pay them less and hire a couple of decent managers to do all the non-teaching stuff.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I would say it's not the amount of work so much as the responsibility (most large schools do have finance managers, and HR up here is dealt with by the council). As a head you're the one who has to deal with (usually unjustly) irate parents while maintaining the confidence of the wider community, you have to support your staff publically and correct the things they've screwed up privately. Like it or not the number of people who can do that job are limited, and the number of people so saintly that they will use their skills as a head when they can get paid double for using them elsewhere is tiny. I also don't think that you could find suitably skilled finance specialists for low enough pay that it would be more effective at aiding recruitment than raising pay.
It is a fair point though, and I think probably the crux of the issue, that our society has created "super jobs", so to speak, that require exceptionally talented people to do well, rather than larger numbers of jobs that can be done by skilled but not exceptional people. I'd be interested (make that very interested) to see a school run more egalitarian lines.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
I think that it's an insult to those who have put their all into their work to be told that their pay will not keep up with inflation at the same time as the so-called leaders hike up their own perks.
Those I have had the misfortune to observe relied on those who knew the industry, relied on loyalty, and relied on it that people cared, while they had none of these qualities themselves and saw them as weaknesses to be exploited.
While flair and experience are desirable attributes, and the point that someone who has limited experience over a long period may be dull is taken, the kind of exorbitant benefits and 'golden handshakes' given to some who don't need it at the expense of others who do is obscene imv.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Felafool
Shipmate
# 270
|
Posted
What do CEOs do? Why are they worth the huge salaries? Reminds me of the 3 envelopes. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
I don't care if the glass is half full or half empty - I ordered a cheeseburger.
Posts: 265 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Felafool
Shipmate
# 270
|
Posted
3 envelopes (For those who don't know the old story.)
--------------------
I don't care if the glass is half full or half empty - I ordered a cheeseburger.
Posts: 265 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
What we really need is some proper, high-quality research into the question.
Now, who has enough money and will step forward to fund it ...?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
Re: what CEOs do, I am also sometimes guilty of rolling my eyes at business speak, but consider a few things.
Have you ever started a business and attempted to implement a business plan? It sounds like something they tell you to do that isn't all that important, but if you don't have a plan for how you are going to reach, obtain, and keep customers, you are going to fail. Not everyone is set to do this. I have known a number of people who have tried to start out on their own, and find that their particular gifts are best suited to working in someone else's organization.
Have you ever been at a job when the CEO or boss changed? Did anything chance? Did it all go smoothly, did things start running better, or did this person's personality and skills cause you to start hating your job? A good boss is a great thing, a bad boss will drive you from a secure job.
Have you ever been a leader in an organization? Have you experienced that moment when someone inside the organization does something incredibly stupid without the aid, encouragement, or even knowledge of the organization and you are the one who has to clean up the mess? It sucks, but that's your job? Whose job is that in your company?
So sure, you don't see what the CEO does every day, but you experience it in action. The difference between a good boss and a bad boss to you, the worker, means a whole lot.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Og, King of Bashan: The difference between a good boss and a bad boss to you, the worker, means a whole lot.
Yet, I have the feeling that there are many bad bosses who are exorbitantly paid. Paying these amounts in order to have a 'good' boss doesn't seem to work.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
I think the OP is absolutely right, and maybe, just possibly, one day the system mightchange, but I am decidedly not optimistic about it.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sighthound
Shipmate
# 15185
|
Posted
I remember the argument being made in Local Government that in order to get the 'right sort of person' top-level pay needed to be significantly increased. The subtext was that people needed to be brought in from outside the culture, especially from private industry, since the management of UK private industry is known to be oh so superior. (irony).
Anyway, some of these bods were attracted, who knew sweet FA about the job and cared less. I cannot say that I have noticed that the efficiency of Local Government has notably improved compared to what it was in (say) 1975. However, the salary of the top bods has certainly risen a good deal in real terms.
--------------------
Supporter of Tia Greyhound and Lurcher Rescue.http://tiagreyhounds.org/
Posts: 168 | From: England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
[QB] Re: what CEOs do, I am also sometimes guilty of rolling my eyes at business speak, but consider a few things.
Have you ever started a business and attempted to implement a business plan?
But most CEO's weren't at the startup. Especially at the places with that reputation.
quote:
... and you are the one who has to clean up the mess? It sucks, but that's your job? Whose job is that in your company?
I always thought it was ours at the bottom.
Actually to be fair it's a mixed bag, the middle management almost certainly get the worst deal as they're caught in the middle (and our CEO isn't too bad).
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Why can't workers in an organisation be promoted to the highest levels, who would be happy to take a pay rise that amounts to a salary far less than that of the head-hunted executive?
This argument - so loved of the political right - is actually quite vacuous (and I wish it could be comprehensively refuted within our public life).
That's it, blame the right. It was Labour who sent in commissioners when (Independent — aka Tory with a daffodil) elected members at Anglesey County Council decided it wasn't worth ratepayers' money to pay for a chief executive. Local councils could be quite slimline things if it weren't for that socialist penchant for appointing tiers of bureaucrats to deliver a five-year plan dictated from on high.
Quite frankly, I'd much rather have the sort of low-level corruption that was going on in Anglesey (most of which seemed to consist of unproven allegations about planning permission) — if anyone cared, they could always have stood as Mr Clean at the next election (in reality, elections often went uncontested: clearly nobody cared) — than a bunch of soft lefties who believe in central planning being sent by central government to put the council tax up.
And now we see what Rhondda Cynon Taf's version of local government cuts are, now they've realized that the money has run out. Funnily enough, it involves closing schools and libraries, rather than making their countless superfluous overpaid bureaucrats redundant. Pity really there's no way for community councils to hold referenda to join neighbouring counties: they'd lose the bits that used to be in rural districts pre-1974 at a flash, and have to adopt much stricter fiscal responsibility with their cash cows gone.
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
[QB] Re: what CEOs do, I am also sometimes guilty of rolling my eyes at business speak, but consider a few things.
Have you ever started a business and attempted to implement a business plan?
But most CEO's weren't at the startup. Especially at the places with that reputation.
quote:
... and you are the one who has to clean up the mess? It sucks, but that's your job? Whose job is that in your company?
I always thought it was ours at the bottom.
Actually to be fair it's a mixed bag, the middle management almost certainly get the worst deal as they're caught in the middle (and our CEO isn't too bad).
Business plans change, especially as new CEOs come into place. You need to stay fluid. Even if it wasn't the CEO's plan in the first place, it is the job of the CEO to make sure that everyone keeps the model in mind.
As for the person who covers, I've been the top man in some social organizations, and yes, while you might delegate some of the clean up to other people, when someone calls about the idiot's actions and wants to chew somebody out, they want the top person.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Re: what CEOs do, I am also sometimes guilty of rolling my eyes at business speak, but consider a few things.
Have you ever started a business and attempted to implement a business plan? It sounds like something they tell you to do that isn't all that important, but if you don't have a plan for how you are going to reach, obtain, and keep customers, you are going to fail. Not everyone is set to do this. I have known a number of people who have tried to start out on their own, and find that their particular gifts are best suited to working in someone else's organization.
Have you ever been at a job when the CEO or boss changed? Did anything chance? Did it all go smoothly, did things start running better, or did this person's personality and skills cause you to start hating your job? A good boss is a great thing, a bad boss will drive you from a secure job.
Have you ever been a leader in an organization? Have you experienced that moment when someone inside the organization does something incredibly stupid without the aid, encouragement, or even knowledge of the organization and you are the one who has to clean up the mess? It sucks, but that's your job? Whose job is that in your company?
So sure, you don't see what the CEO does every day, but you experience it in action. The difference between a good boss and a bad boss to you, the worker, means a whole lot.
Most of the people who say they're in business aren't. They are hired within a company or gov't dept to run it. They don't personally have any capital invested, though they may obtain some options for shares or receive some of their pay through shares.
I own 1 company and am partner in 2 others. Frankly, no-one really understands business until they personally have to meet a payroll. No-one I know who owns a company, i.e., doesn't have anonymous shareholders, pays themselves ridiculous salaries that publicly traded companies do. Most of us make 3-4 times the employed income, with no retirement or pension plan, no disability or life insurance, no plan to pay for uninsured health costs, no job security, and the additional costs to just be in business are a lot more than you think. Psychologically, the impact is huge when you're the one running it. It heavily impacts your family as well. There's no real holidays, you're always on call.
But the hyper salaries that people are discussing here are not justifiable. It is justifiable to have people who truly take risks in business make substantially more than the salaried people who go home at 5 p.m. and don't think further about work. But not the 100 or 1000 times that people hired into corps and banks etc are getting. I do find it rather obscene. I
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I think so often what it means is "we need to pay a huge salary to attract people who are very money focused, and so will make us all more focused on making money". This seems to apply in all sorts of areas.
It is pretty despicable IMO. I don't want someone in charge of public services because they are focused on the finances - I want someone who is focused on providing services. I don't want people in charge of my company who are just focused on making more money. I want someone who is focused on managing the business in a responsible way, so that I have a job in 5 years, should I want it. Oh and so that clients have ongoing support and provision.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I own 1 company and am partner in 2 others. Frankly, no-one really understands business until they personally have to meet a payroll. No-one I know who owns a company, i.e., doesn't have anonymous shareholders, pays themselves ridiculous salaries that publicly traded companies do. Most of us make 3-4 times the employed income, with no retirement or pension plan, no disability or life insurance, no plan to pay for uninsured health costs, no job security, and the additional costs to just be in business are a lot more than you think. Psychologically, the impact is huge when you're the one running it. It heavily impacts your family as well. There's no real holidays, you're always on call.
Right. So imagine that your company blows up beyond your imagining, and you have many more employees, locations, and clients than you could currently handle in your small business set up. Not only that, you have convinced a bunch of people to invest in your company, and keeping them happy will keep their money in the business. Don't you think it would be worth hiring someone who is really good at managing lots of locations, to take that stress off of you? Add to that the business vision to know that, say, splitting your movie streaming service and your DVD delivery service into two companies for no apparent reason is really going to upset customers and affect your shareholder's bottom line, and I'd say you have a valuable asset.
I don't know what salary is reasonable, but being CEO isn't an easy job.
[ 02. November 2013, 22:56: Message edited by: Og, King of Bashan ]
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
We flirted with that 3 or 4 times. I decided that I wouldn't do it. It came up again this fall. We're not doing it. This is a principled decision based on the idea that connection to the local community and the province, providing good employment, being interested in the welfare of with whom we work, is more important than exploiting and taking what we can.
There are more of us with such views that most people would imagine. I view the process as you outline Og as vaguely psychopathic, and like playing with tar baby, likely to get you dirty in ways familiar to Lady Macbeth. I view deliberate decision making as essential to a decent life, and business decisions, as much as we are informed directly and indirectly that competition and expansion are Holy Way, I think there are substantial, potential anti-people problems with this. (And you can't take it with you. )
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I agree, but there's an extra issue.
These days, these characters are treated more like football managers.
It is amusing to note that in many US colleges, the most highly-paid individual on staff is the football coach. Exactly what that says about US academia is left as an exercise for the reader.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
In most US states (I saw a graphic of this not long ago) the highest paid public employee is the state university's football coach.
The baffling thing is when a CEO fucks up and leaves in disgrace with a multi-million severance package (only to get hired by another Fortune 500 company). I want to say, "Hey, I'll be happy to run your company into the ground for a tenth of what you paid that guy to do it..."
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Signaller
Shipmate
# 17495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sighthound:
I remember the argument being made in Local Government that in order to get the 'right sort of person' top-level pay needed to be significantly increased. The subtext was that people needed to be brought in from outside the culture, especially from private industry, since the management of UK private industry is known to be oh so superior. (irony).
Anyway, some of these bods were attracted, who knew sweet FA about the job and cared less. I cannot say that I have noticed that the efficiency of Local Government has notably improved compared to what it was in (say) 1975. However, the salary of the top bods has certainly risen a good deal in real terms.
These arguments succeed because there is no-one capable or willing to gainsay them. In what company or institution are there board members capable of saying "No, we don't need the best", or even "Hang on, why does best equal most expensive"?. Either they don't have the courage, or they don't have the incentive because acquiescing will boost their package too. In the short term.
Posts: 113 | From: Metroland | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
Rich people are motivated by promising to pay them more; poor people are motivated by threatening to pay them less.
(I find this regrettable, but I fear that I'm often in a minority.)
Hang on, did no one else read this? We can't let that go unchallenged.
agingjb, would you care to support your statement with references or argument? I would have thought that the threat of poverty to a rich person would motivate better than the promise of more wealth. And the promise of wealth to a poor person would motivate better than the threat of more poverty. The opposite of what you said.
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
Rich people are motivated by promising to pay them more; poor people are motivated by threatening to pay them less.
(I find this regrettable, but I fear that I'm often in a minority.)
Hang on, did no one else read this? We can't let that go unchallenged.
agingjb, would you care to support your statement with references or argument? I would have thought that the threat of poverty to a rich person would motivate better than the promise of more wealth. And the promise of wealth to a poor person would motivate better than the threat of more poverty. The opposite of what you said.
I'm sure that this ought to be the case, I believed that in practice it isn't. But I suppose I'm wrong as usual.
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
Hang on, did no one else read this? We can't let that go unchallenged.
agingjb, would you care to support your statement with references or argument? I would have thought that the threat of poverty to a rich person would motivate better than the promise of more wealth. And the promise of wealth to a poor person would motivate better than the threat of more poverty. The opposite of what you said.
I thought the post was intended as a sarcastic statement of the prevailing view as expressed by both government policy and the press - that the way to make poor people work harder is to reduce their income, but the way to make rich people work harder is to increase it.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
Ah, sarcasm. Yes, I appear to be losing the plot. Must have spent too long on the americanization thread.
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
rufiki
Ship's 'shroom
# 11165
|
Posted
[cross post x 2]
If people are sufficiently rich that they don't actually have to work, then you can't motivate them by threatening poverty. If you are using money to motivate them, it'll need to be enough to make an appreciable difference to their fortune and/or ego.
I don't know whether you could motivate the poor better by offering them more than by threatening them with less. But the latter approach may be better overall for the company's bottom line.
Many (most?) people are primarily motivated by factors other than money. But even they, if they see their salary not keeping up with their current lifestyle, will want to do something about it.
[ 03. November 2013, 13:06: Message edited by: rufiki ]
Posts: 1562 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rufiki:
[cross post x 2]
If people are sufficiently rich that they don't actually have to work, then you can't motivate them by threatening poverty. If you are using money to motivate them, it'll need to be enough to make an appreciable difference to their fortune and/or ego.
I have a family member who runs in the circles we're talking about, so I've had some superficial social encounters with this group. Based on that admittedly limited experience, I think the 2nd factor-- ego-- is the primary one. Even at the outrageous figures we're looking at, after a certain point it's hard for another million or so to make much of a difference. There's only so many houses/yachts/ etc. one can own. Rather, at this level money seems to be a way of keeping score. Getting top dollar means you are top dog-- you're winning. And it's all about the win.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I have a family member who runs in the circles we're talking about, so I've had some superficial social encounters with this group. Based on that admittedly limited experience, I think the 2nd factor-- ego-- is the primary one. Even at the outrageous figures we're looking at, after a certain point it's hard for another million or so to make much of a difference. There's only so many houses/yachts/ etc. one can own. Rather, at this level money seems to be a way of keeping score. Getting top dollar means you are top dog-- you're winning. And it's all about the win.
All is vanity, and a chasing after the wind.....?
I think Ecclesiastes is getting to me.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Touchstone
Shipmate
# 3560
|
Posted
The local authority I work for recently announced swingeing cuts in its budget and services in the same week as it advertised 5 assistant director posts at £80,000 p.a. (Assistant, note - we already have about 10 fully-fledged parasites on the staff.)
Another triumph for our corporate communications people.
--------------------
Jez we did hand the next election to the Tories on a plate!
Posts: 163 | From: Somewhere west of Bristol | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
Touchstone has it right.
When people work on the principle that the top dogs need to be paid as much as possible or they won't work but there are those at the bottom who have to be paid as little as possible or they won't work.
Both statements cannot possibly be true, can they?
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
I read a book lately on statistics and randomness (The Drunkard's Walk) and one case I think the author made well was that in organizations of such massive scale, weal and woe are often driven as much by random chance as by the skill of the CEO.
I also observe that gambling is something that humans find incredibly addictive.
So perhaps paying a CEO hugely is just a huge scale example of gambling on horse races. And just as in horse races or poker, people come up with all kinds of crazy, often superstitious reasons to justify their investment rather than admit that a lot of it boils down to chance.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Touchstone
Shipmate
# 3560
|
Posted
I'm sure it boils down to chance, bullfrog. IME, these people arrive with a big fanfare, stay just about long enough to learn the names of their immediate subordinates, and then bugger off to their next big job in a year or so, probably trousering a big severance package of taxpayer's money. They don't do anything to add value to the organisation, certainly not as much as they're paid. What is the point of them???
--------------------
Jez we did hand the next election to the Tories on a plate!
Posts: 163 | From: Somewhere west of Bristol | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
I read a book lately on statistics and randomness (The Drunkard's Walk) and one case I think the author made well was that in organizations of such massive scale, weal and woe are often driven as much by random chance as by the skill of the CEO.
This, oh so very much this. for every CEO/head pushing their organisation to new heights, there are 10 plunging theirs into the depths and thousands with no discernible influence. The larger the organisation, the less direct proof of the Head's influence.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
... Recruiting headteachers would be significantly easier if they weren't expected to be in charge of absolutely everything that happens in the school: in charge of the teachers and teaching, yes, but why, for the love of God, do we insist they also be experts on plant, finances, IT and HR? They trained as teachers, not managers, and nine times out of ten it shows.
Pay them less and hire a couple of decent managers to do all the non-teaching stuff.
Totally agree, but this is usually followed by accusations of wasting money on pencil-pushing, paper-shuffling bureaucrats, and squeals of why aren't we spending money on hiring more teachers. There's really no satisfying people that can't make up their minds because they know fuck-all about administration.
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
dv
Shipmate
# 15714
|
Posted
Worst of all are the greedy charity executives. One might expect people who choose to lead charities, such as Christian Aid, to see it as some kind of Kingdom work or a vocation but, alas, it seems to be more about "I'm worth the paycheck". My donations now go elsewhere.
[ 03. November 2013, 17:28: Message edited by: dv ]
Posts: 70 | From: Lancs UK | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by rufiki:
[cross post x 2]
If people are sufficiently rich that they don't actually have to work, then you can't motivate them by threatening poverty. If you are using money to motivate them, it'll need to be enough to make an appreciable difference to their fortune and/or ego.
I have a family member who runs in the circles we're talking about, so I've had some superficial social encounters with this group. Based on that admittedly limited experience, I think the 2nd factor-- ego-- is the primary one. Even at the outrageous figures we're looking at, after a certain point it's hard for another million or so to make much of a difference. There's only so many houses/yachts/ etc. one can own. Rather, at this level money seems to be a way of keeping score. Getting top dollar means you are top dog-- you're winning. And it's all about the win.
Those who built their position and fortune from nothing or little are more generous than those who were born to it. I cannot find the link to the study just now, but read it a couple of weeks ago.
The only way to curb the very rich salaries is to tax them. Back to the rates of 40 years ago. This would also include corp taxes. And the taxation of yet to be realized capital gains such as through stock options.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
But the hyper salaries that people are discussing here are not justifiable. It is justifiable to have people who truly take risks in business make substantially more than the salaried people who go home at 5 p.m. and don't think further about work. But not the 100 or 1000 times that people hired into corps and banks etc are getting. I do find it rather obscene. I
no prophet, thanks for your insight into what a business owner actually does and has to put up with. You're right - it's these huge, impersonal corporations that really have the ridiculous pay rates for CEOs and the like. Regular small (and larger but still regional) business owners are certainly dedicated to their company and often to their employees. The risk they take and the work they do deserves good compensation, just as the work their employees do deserves good compensation.
One thing that's often forgotten, though, is that - at least in certain industries - workers may leave their jobs at a set time and not really worry about them while they're at home, but their work is inscribed in their bodies. Many people develop tendonitis, arthritis, and other health issues from their work - e.g., bakers sometimes get what's called "white lung," from breathing flour (I had a coworker who developed that when I worked in a grocery store bakery. The store responded by moving her to the bottle return department, where I'm sure the beer fumes were oh so much fun to inhale). And that doesn't take into account the injuries that would be covered under worker's comp. If you have to be on your feet all day, you're going to develop foot problems, maybe varicose veins, etc. And yet the workers whose bodies are impacted so much by their jobs are often among the lowest paid.
A good business owner knows all that, and does whatever they can to mitigate it by not overworking their people, by providing safe and comfortable working conditions, and by providing health insurance, as well as by paying a living wage. At the over-large, impersonal corporations, though, what you often see is that people are kept to part-time in order to save the company the cost of benefits like health insurance, retirement funds, life insurance, paid time off, etc.
I am SO agreed with most people on this thread that the sort of person who requires an enormous salary in order to do their job is precisely the person you don't want running your business. And I think one of the major contributors to this problem is the culture that has moved to emphasizing short-term profits for shareholders. Who cares if the company even goes under after they've sold off their shares? Workers are a dime a dozen, anyway. Almost literally, right?
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
The workers' compensation system here is funded by a tax on payroll. No cost to the worker, but presumably most businesses could pay the 1.25 to 4% depending on industry and claims history, to the worker, but better that there's an insurance plan. It is far better to buy the equipment and make sure working conditions are proper so as to avoid work injury in the first place. The other things business can provide is extended health benefits, other insurance, funding for a retirement funds. Again this all goes back to the ethics of business and whether this should be all about profit or it having interests in the lives of employees and the community is part of it. The personal enrichment and entitlement re these large compensation packages are obviously the opposite direction.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Pay them less and hire a couple of decent managers to do all the non-teaching stuff.
Totally agree, but this is usually followed by accusations of wasting money on pencil-pushing, paper-shuffling bureaucrats, and squeals of why aren't we spending money on hiring more teachers. There's really no satisfying people that can't make up their minds because they know fuck-all about administration.
A good pencil-pushing paper-shuffler is well worth it, but he absolutely has to be subordinate to the leadership of the core mission of the organization, which in the case of the school is teaching.
In too many organizations, this doesn't happen, and the bureaucratic tail is allowed to wag the core dog.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
I want to say, "Hey, I'll be happy to run your company into the ground for a tenth of what you paid that guy to do it..."
Sure, and I can miss open goals just as well as Fernando Torres can so maybe Chelsea should pay me a tenth of his salary to do it.
The point is, by hiring one of the best there's always the possibility of failure, but there's also the possibility of success. By hiring one of us there's only the guarantee of failure. And companies don't get the benefit of hindsight at the time they sign the contract.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Marvin the Martian: The point is, by hiring one of the best there's always the possibility of failure, but there's also the possibility of success. By hiring one of us there's only the guarantee of failure. And companies don't get the benefit of hindsight at the time they sign the contract.
I have worked for many different bosses, but I've never seen anything that suggests a correlation between their level of pay and their competence. If such a correlation exists at all, I even have the suspicion that it might be slightly negative.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
