Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you don't get the company out of bankruptcy, that is still considered a failure and you still shouldn't get paid. You're still not "punishing" someone for bad performance - they can still walk away with cash and everyone else suffers.
How come "get the company turned around and we'll pay you a ton of money when that happens?" not sufficient motivation? I mean, if I fail and still get paid, what is the point?
Precisely.
And the reality is that none of those slob executives have any incentive to perform anyway since their take-home pay from 1 year is more than enough money to last a lifetime. Once they get that money, either by sticking it out a year or just by getting one of those sweet deal contracts that pays them no matter how badly they screw up, they have zero incentive to do much of anything. It's a joke - we're to believe that they are "so talented" and thus "deserving" of absurd pay, and yet there are no consequences for failure - they still get all that money - and the rewards are so high that they literally don't have to care about doing a good job since, worst case scenario, they get canned and are still rich... and then they can usually use their connections to land another job, publish a book with their "insights", found a consulting or vulture capital firm, etc.
And the reality is that none of those slob executives have any incentive to perform anyway since their take-home pay from 1 year is more than enough money to last a lifetime. Once they get that money, either by sticking it out a year or just by getting one of those sweet deal contracts that pays them no matter how badly they screw up, they have zero incentive to do much of anything. It's a joke - we're to believe that they are "so talented" and thus "deserving" of absurd pay, and yet there are no consequences for failure - they still get all that money - and the rewards are so high that they literally don't have to care about doing a good job since, worst case scenario, they get canned and are still rich... and then they can usually use their connections to land another job, publish a book with their "insights", found a consulting or vulture capital firm, etc.
Correct. I have no issue with paying people - look at Steve Jobs for example. He built Apple then came back and saved the company from the brink of bankruptcy to one of the best performing companies now. That type of success deserved to be rewarded.
It's the people that walk in and say "I'll save things" and then 3 years later they are no better off and axed 25% of the workforce. They will still get $millions. My company that I worked for, before we got bought out, worked like that.
I don't, but I would agree with restricting them. I'd exempt corps already in bankruptcy before the execs (new ones) were hired. No one would try to rescue them w/o a parachute, and rightfully so, and that would mean a ban would guarantee their liquidation, or require retaining the clowns who led them into bankruptcy.
I think this idea make sense but the issue is the golden parachute is a win-win for the CEO. A CEO could bring the company from bankruptcy and now they are profitable for the long term while you could also run the company worse into the ground long-term and the CEO can cash-out. Either way the CEO gets paid. Tell me how that is fair that he gets paid X years of pay while the rest of the employees have nothing but unemployment.
I think this idea make sense but the issue is the golden parachute is a win-win for the CEO. A CEO could bring the company from bankruptcy and now they are profitable for the long term while you could also run the company worse into the ground long-term and the CEO can cash-out. Either way the CEO gets paid. Tell me how that is fair that he gets paid X years of pay while the rest of the employees have nothing but unemployment.
The idea is that the company tries to make it win-neutral for the CEO, wanting their company saved but realizing that they cannot attract talent with a win-lose scenario. Fair is in the eyes of the BOD and the stockholders, not yours.
Now whether this method of attracting talent to an ailing company is open to debate. I don't think it works too well - since none of these people are infallible at all. I think they would be better off choosing someone from inside the company, low enough down to have a realistic view of the circumstances causing the company's problems. Probably wouldn't cost them as much either
I think this idea make sense but the issue is the golden parachute is a win-win for the CEO. A CEO could bring the company from bankruptcy and now they are profitable for the long term while you could also run the company worse into the ground long-term and the CEO can cash-out. Either way the CEO gets paid. Tell me how that is fair that he gets paid X years of pay while the rest of the employees have nothing but unemployment.
It is fair, as he was paid for taking an inordinate risk. The other employees were there as part of the problem, the turnaround CEO was not.
It is fair, as he was paid for taking an inordinate risk. The other employees were there as part of the problem, the turnaround CEO was not.
What you are proposing here is that anyone who is not part of the problem should be rewarded regardless of their individual success or failure. That clearly doesn't apply to the working class, so I don't see why it should apply to executives - this notion that they are deserving of special treatment is a big part of the problem. Also, if the executive failed, I don't see why the fact that his employees also failed should mean he gets a big bonus for failure. I'm pretty sure there's never been a project that failed where the worker on it who "failed the least" got a huge bonus for doing so, yet that's what is being suggested.
We can't have it both ways. Either the executives are being paid huge amounts of money because their job has high risk and they don't make "big money" when they fail, or the executives are NOT taking any risk at all and thus don't deserve their absurd pay. The reality is that there isn't an executive out there who is taking a risk in any way, shape, or form. All of them will make more money in a year than anyone can spend in a lifetime, and they will make this money no matter how useless they may be. That is not "risk" - even if the executive fails completely and - remarkably - can't weasel himself into another job afterwards, he is STILL set for life, which is more than can be said for the working class people that were probably laid off to fix the executive's costly mistakes.
What you are proposing here is that anyone who is not part of the problem should be rewarded regardless of their individual success or failure. .
Wrong. I am proposing they are compensated for time to transition to the next position. That is the purpose of a parachute. Or would you prefer the corps simply be liquidated, after all those who hate executive comp typically prefer spreading pain to creating wealth?
Wrong. I am proposing they are compensated for time to transition to the next position. That is the purpose of a parachute. Or would you prefer the corps simply be liquidated, after all those who hate executive comp typically prefer spreading pain to creating wealth?
I want to be compensated/a parachute for time to transition to my next position.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
