Some execs paid "pity bonus"
So far, shareholder activists, which have blasted board members in the past for lapses in judgment on compensation, have yet to make much fuss about discretionary bonuses.
In a private company, they're the only people who should have a say in the bonuses. If they don't really care, why should we?
Oh dear, I would say perhaps because they are always yelling for tax payer bailouts either by way of decreased corporate taxation, decreased property taxation, or flat out bail outs
Then by all means, deny those requests if they're inappropriate. And if some company really seems to need a bailout, by all means make that bailout conditional on austerity measures, beginning with compensation.
One word: Nortel
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0819910620100208
Ontario pensioners of Nortel Networks Corp (NRTLQ.PK) said on Monday they can rest easier after the provincial government pledged to provide funds that will help top up their modest payouts from the failed telecoms equipment giant.
In the end WE end up paying the debt these companies owe to workers. That is not what democracy looks like.
If pensions are the issue then ensure that employers' pension contributions are on the up and up. No need to hand-wring about executive compensation in order to do that.
Pensions are one issue (and important). Paying execs for their failures is taking $$ from those who actually produce income; say workers for example.
Paying execs for their failures is taking $$ from those who actually produce income; say workers for example
Workers stop receiving a paycheque if an executive gets a bonus? Are you sure about this?
Because if workers continue to receive their pay then there's really no need to get worked up over executive compensation.
It's more evidence that remuneration packages for fat-cat CEOs and CFOs have nothing to do with corporate performance. Nortel is one example among many.
Snert, you really defending this? I guess it's been a bit slow around here.