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.
On the flip side, just because one owns a business, that doesn't mean you're entitled to exploit your work force and get paid insanely more per hour worked than anyone under you
.
What? In that instance, you should be "paid" far more based on the RISK taken, not the value of work. The value of risk. 9 in 10 small businesses fail-why would anyone start one w/o a reward for being the 1 in 10?
What? In that instance, you should be "paid" far more based on the RISK taken, not the value of work. The value of risk. 9 in 10 small businesses fail-why would anyone start one w/o a reward for being the 1 in 10?
Apparently when you own a business or a high level executive. Look at how many had MILLIONS of dollars a year in "compensation"while running in the red for most, if not all the quarters during the recession.
Apparently when you own a business or a high level executive. Look at how many had MILLIONS of dollars a year in "compensation"while running in the red for most, if not all the quarters during the recession.
They probably should have been that well paid. It was the norm during that period at many large corps to be losing money. It was Herculean in many cases to be in the black than.
They probably should have been that well paid. It was the norm during that period at many large corps to be losing money. It was Herculean in many cases to be in the black than.
So you think they should get their bonuses when companies were barely running in the black? Perhaps they would have been black if they forgoed bonuses and options that year.
So you think they should get their bonuses when companies were barely running in the black? Perhaps they would have been black if they forgoed bonuses and options that year.
If barely in the black beat exceeds reasonable expectations, bonuses would be merited. That should always be the bonus benchmark-did you outperform reasonable expectations for your level.
I'm a Met fan, and a realist. If bonuses were standard in manager's contracts, Collins should get one at say 78 wins, whereas Mattingly in LA should need 100 to get one. In both cases, reasonable expectations differ by the hand one is dealt.
They probably should have been that well paid. It was the norm during that period at many large corps to be losing money. It was Herculean in many cases to be in the black than.
Eh... this is attributing the company's ability to stay afloat to the leadership alone. If you're saying the leaders should be paid more for "keeping the company afloat while in the red," that would extend to everyone in the company who's also responsible for keeping the company afloat at the same time, which wouldn't work out. Most of the corporate big-wigs are certainly not responsible for pulling companies out of the red - most just ride the economy along, taking a bigger cut during the good times and laying people off during the bad times. Very few of them are really leaders vs. stuffed suits.
Also, I'm not opposed to people who actually start and run businesses making big money, but that should not be done through labor exploitation - i.e. "I get paid the big bucks because I cheat my workers out of overtime / use illegal aliens / etc."
The thing is that most executives today had no hand in creating the company or running it when it was small. They ladder-climb their way to the top and then get paid huge amounts of money regardless of their performance, which is absurd and clearly follows a different set of rules vs. the working man who often gets paid jack or laid off regardless of performance.
Eh... this is attributing the company's ability to stay afloat to the leadership alone. If you're saying the leaders should be paid more for "keeping the company afloat while in the red," that would extend to everyone in the company who's also responsible for keeping the company afloat at the same time, which wouldn't work out. Most of the corporate big-wigs are certainly not responsible for pulling companies out of the red - most just ride the economy along, taking a bigger cut during the good times and laying people off during the bad times. Very few of them are really leaders vs. stuffed suits.
Also, I'm not opposed to people who actually start and run businesses making big money, but that should not be done through labor exploitation - i.e. "I get paid the big bucks because I cheat my workers out of overtime / use illegal aliens / etc."
The thing is that most executives today had no hand in creating the company or running it when it was small. They ladder-climb their way to the top and then get paid huge amounts of money regardless of their performance, which is absurd and clearly follows a different set of rules vs. the working man who often gets paid jack or laid off regardless of performance.
I think golden parachutes should be illegal. I can get a contract where I get fired from a company where it's no better of than when I began.
I tend to have libertarian leanings. How do you 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 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.
Well, that depends.
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?
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.
, and unskilled labor (I know this breaks liberals hearts to hear), like common materials, is a commodity.
Perhaps they would have been black if they forgoed bonuses and options that year.
