We're all in this together .. yeah, right!

[GrapeApe]

Oh dear, another waaawaaa boohoo thread about those nasty rotters who make the profits that pay peoples wages and for everything done by the government.

 

 

If you want to take the risk of running a firm go for it. You can pay yourself what you like depending on how well you do.

 

If you want to take the risk of investing in firms run by directors on your behalf you can make your feelings known to your employees.

 

If they earned the money I wouldn't have a problem with it, but pay has rocketed regardless of performance.

[Murphy Jnr]

There were talks of protests, go slows etc. not sure if anything happened as I found a different contract and left. If they employees kick up a fuss then the shareholders will take notice as share prices drop etc.

 

'hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way'

[poppins]

Read an article the other day that in these hard times most of the rich now are getting richer still.

[Murphy Jnr]

Read an article the other day that in these hard times most of the rich now are getting richer still.

 

It's far easier surely to accumulate more money when you have more to invest.

[ANGELFIRE1]

Aye, there is sense, and nonsense. Sense is a salary for the top bloke of around £400,000 per year, nonsense is a salary of 3/4 million plus (with perks of course) per year.

 

The Country has gone insane, well it is run by lunatics.

 

Regards

 

Angel.

[green]

If you buy some shares at those companies, you'll get an invite to their AGM where you can express your anger and dismay as a shareholder

 

There have been many many shareholders revolts, but because the majority of the shares are held by pension funds etc, whom are managed by the same elite, nothing every happens.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/investors-staging-record-numbers-of-pay-revolts-2375159.html

 

Shareholder revolts over pay have hit record levels this year as investors, stung by criticism of their inertia before the financial crisis, seek to rein in excessive rewards at Britain's top companies.

 

With more than two months left of 2011, 15 companies in the FTSE 100 have suffered investor votes of 20 per cent or more opposing remuneration reports or deliberately abstaining.

 

The latest to face shareholder ire over pay was Diageo. The drinks giant was hit by a rebellion from 20 per cent of shareholders at last week's annual general meeting. Other companies in the list of revolts, compiled by corporate governance consultant Pirc, include HSBC, BP, Standard Life and National Grid.

 

Only seven of Britain's top 100 companies suffered equivalent rebellions in all of 2010. The previous top year for investor unrest was 2009 when shareholders registered protests against 10 companies. The biggest revolt so far this year was at WPP, the marketing giant, whose 42 per cent rebellion was entirely made up of votes against with no abstentions. XStrata was the next biggest with 39 per cent of votes withholding support. The mining company's remuneration report has attracted protest votes in each of the last three years.

 

George Dallas, director of corporate governance at F&C Asset Management, says increased activism on pay is a response to the Stewardship Code, which was introduced last year. The code requires institutional investors to monitor the companies they hold shares in and tells them to act together when necessary to hold boards to account.

 

He said: "The Stewardship Code was a signal to investors they needed to raise their game. In many cases we are now concerned about the pay packages we are asked to approve, whether that is the quantum of pay, performance conditions or magnitude of pay increases."

 

Institutional investors were attacked during the financial crisis for rubber stamping pay deals that appeared to encourage risk taking at banks. The crisis highlighted a more general lack of oversight by big shareholders of all companies on pay and other issues. David Ellis, at Pirc, said shareholders were sending a warning to boards they were prepared to intervene on pay, as well as other decisions, rather than reserving protests for particularly egregious actions. He said: "Shareholders are prepared to challenge what's going on."

 

Business Secretary, Vince Cable, said last month he intended to clamp down on excessive pay at the top of Britain's companies. His proposals include making shareholder votes binding and forcing companies to justify bonuses.

 

Mr Dallas said the principle that companies should "comply or explain" was under threat and shareholders needed to show they were being tough on pay to head off political interference. He said: "If regulators remain uncomfortable with investor involvement, we could face cumbersome regulations."

 

Other FTSE 100 companies hit by revolts of 20 per cent or more this year were Hargreaves Lansdown, Rio Tinto, Bunzl, Reckitt Benckiser, Standard Chartered, Capital Shopping Centres,

[green]

Oh dear, another waaawaaa boohoo thread about those nasty rotters who make the profits that pay peoples wages and for everything done by the government.

 

 

If you want to take the risk of running a firm go for it. You can pay yourself what you like depending on how well you do.

 

If you want to take the risk of investing in firms run by directors on your behalf you can make your feelings known to your employees.

 

As said previously. Nobody believes in dictating to entrepreneurs how much to pay themselves, or family businesses. And to be fair to most of these companies they dont tend to be floated on the stock market either. The SME's of this country should be the life blood of our economy but instead they are treated horrifically, both by the banks and the politicians.

[Tomataheeed]

You probably need to drive around Sheffield and see the number of medium to large businesses that are family run.

A very large number of wealthy people have become wealthy through their own efforts. Some of them through business and some through music or even sport.

 

No one is arguing about people that create companies by risking their own money....good luck to them.

 

Its employees on crazy compensation packages. I'm not even arguing about £1M a year. I'm talking about people that "earn" £20M + a year...its bananas. Some can earn more than this by the share price going up, and benefiting from share price target bonuses...and then the price goes down, they agree to sell the company, and they then get a massive change of control bonus. Its not their company, yet they benefit from manipulating the price up and down....and get a massive payout when sold.

 

What is wrong with a simple salary like the rest of us.

[Deltic]

Don't the shareholders have to agree the director's etc remunerations ?

 

In theory yes. In practice the major shareholders are city investors in the same elite wealthy "club". Its a bit of a stitch up really.

 

In practice it's a little something called the remuneration committee who decide on pay for executive directors. The only ratification of the pay levels is by the err, executive directors. Since it is a pretty much closed club the executive directors of one company are often the non executive directors on the remuneration committee of another company. Apparently its not done for directors to be on each others remuneration committee. Although it is OK for A to be on B's, B to be on C's, and C to be on A's. No chance for scratching each others back there then.

[rossyrooney]

Oh dear, another waaawaaa boohoo thread about those nasty rotters who make the profits that pay peoples wages and for everything done by the government.

 

 

If you want to take the risk of running a firm go for it. You can pay yourself what you like depending on how well you do.

 

If you want to take the risk of investing in firms run by directors on your behalf you can make your feelings known to your employees.

 

But you see,to simpletons like me,it seems that when profits are massive it's because of the vastly paid,super performing go getter at the cutting edge of the business,the man with the ideas,market knowledge and vision to drive the business forward to ever increasing profits,a veritable God amidst man.

 

When profits sink it's because of the downturn not our super hero.

 

You know as well as i do Tone there are thousands of shysters out there ensconsed in a pact far stronger than the TUC have ever been able to come up with,if things go wrong they simply take their bonus and **** off to something more lucrative.