This just isn't right !!

[GrahamL]

http://www.news.com.au/business/payback-time-shareholders-strike-back-at-exec-pay/story-e6frfm1i-1226178461822
:lol::lol:

[koputai]

No politics

[AstralTraveller]

Sounds fair to me. Who can work hard enough to earn $millions p.a.? In any case the 25% vote doesn't do anything except force the board to justify themselves. If they succeed then the status quo can continue.

I'm amazed that anyone can still us the words 'Labor Party' and 'socialism' in the same sentence and keep a straight face. The Labor Party betrayed its 'socialist objective' in 1914 but the corpse lingered until sometime in the 80's when they finally buried it so we could have two fully pro-capitalist parties.

Reward for hard work? Well in 1788 there were lots of people working extremely hard for zero, zilch reward. What about the 'hungry mile'? A lot of people working hard for little reward. I can list family and friends who have suffered injury or diability at work while working hard, received zero or inadequate compensation and have or will die poor. The only ones sitting on their posteriors and being rewarded are shareholders and their hangers on. Actually, under socialism there would be no shareholders, or everyone is a shareholder depending on how you look at it. So, no this isn't close to socialism.

Sorry for the ToS violation. I didn't start it but I'm not about to let such carp go uncontested.

[astroron]

Jason ,I realy don't think you read the article too well.
It is the Share holders who are doing the voting not the government .
Just an aside Rupert Murdock does not own the majority of shares in News Corp, but owns a controlling interest of only about 21 % but that is the biggest lot of shares by one person or family.
Obviously you are in favour of the greedy old boys club of executives.
Read the article again and you may get a better understanding of the law,instead of blaming the government for what is what the shareholders want, some protection against corperate greed.
Rant over:D
Cheers

PS Jason, are you from the USA ? Why I ask is that in the states if you want to kill a bill in congress or the Senette,just call it socialism or Communism and it is just about dead in the water.
Thats how big business controls the masses over there and that tactic is also used here by certain people to achieve their ends.

[Stardrifter_WA]

This isn't a democracy. It is a Dictatorship.....with a difference? We get to elect our dictators :D

[h0ughy]

just a reminder guys - no politics

[jenchris]

Ho hum - why do you think they took our guns?

[Stardrifter_WA]

I still got mine. WA has always had the strictest gun laws, so it didn't really make that much difference. Interestingly though, is the fact that most people I know handed in their semi auto weapons and replaced them with more guns than they started out with. Me, the song remained the same, so to speak.

[Stardrifter_WA]

OOPs. :question: Sorry Moderator, that may have been a little political. I shall refrain. :)

[marki]

I think this law probably does not go far enough and will not amount to much as evident by Packer jnrs comment in the article. Yes we need talented people running large concerns who are prepared to make informed but hard decisions but not at any cost. There should simply be a structured approach in which a base salary is put in place and a series of bonuses large enough to keep people interested and working hard. These bonuses need to be strictly linked to set perfomance targets which have been agreed on by the majority of shareholders. If the value is too low the shareholders will soon learn that they need to be more generous as they will lose money, if the CEO does not perform they will lose money so its win win for the company. As for snipes against shareholders that is complete bollocks. I would agree if only a select group of people had access to them but in this country anyone can buy shares.

Mark

[Stardrifter_WA]

Well said Mark. :)

[RickS]

Indeed! A very large proportion of ordinary Australians own shares indirectly through their superannuation.

On a related tangent, why doesn't anybody suggest that we should cap the earnings of actors, musicians and sportspeople? Why is the earning capacity of a brilliant scientist or teacher so limited compared to someone who merely looks decorative or can hit a golf ball?

[GrahamL]

I think the market decides what ball chasers and actors are worth
ask Mel gibson and Mr Woods if there earnings have taken a hit through poor performance .

I don't have a problem with execs renumeration as such
or the notion that the setting of performance targets should
be coupled to bonuses, but if they arn't met , and they are still granted?

The idea at face value that other partners in the buisness should have some input into the exersise isn't a bad one imo .

[FlashDrive]

They're like ' PIGS " at the trough .... !!
Some ..if not all CEO salary packages are just " obscene " .. and I'm talking about the one's taking home " multi million dollar " pay packets + bonus's.

To them I say ... take heed ... least your riches corrupt you.
We have seen examples of this in recent times .... The GFC.

Flash.

[Stardrifter_WA]

Take comfort Colin in thjat money doesn't bring hapiness, but, it sure does bring you a better class of misery :D

[Stardrifter_WA]

I wish I had enough money to be a shareholder :sadeyes: But then, if I had that much money, I would have a much betterr scope. :) Hmmm, maybe that is why I cannot afford to buy shares. Maybe I should stop buying telescopes and buy shares instead :question:........Nahhh :D

[PCH]

Hi, - two things,

- firstly, I heard on the ABC Radio yesterday that the top 400 earners in America earn the same as the bottom 150 million ! That seems fairly obscene hey!

And secondly, despite all our moaning (well, not mine cos it doesn't affect me), that dude at the helm in Qantas got his 71% pay increase voted in at the AGM - how mad is that? :shrug: