1eyedtiger said:
In most instances you get paid for responsibility and in my experience plenty of the "working class" don't want it.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Pacific Brands - where Law does not equal Justice - and where is the ACCC?
- Thread starter pahoffm
- Start date
In most instances you get paid for responsibility and in my experience plenty of the "working class" don't want it.
Tiger74 said:
:cutelaugh....I think I used that line on the 'stolen generation'.
It seems to suit only when it suits the argument, eh? ;D
Having said that...I agree with it.
People should be allowed to earn as much as they can from companies, including the CEOs who now seem to have a cap ont hem if you go by what Obama is doing and what the Chairman will inevitably copy.
So much for a democracy and freedom when the Government dictates how much you can earn no matter the demand for your unique services. :-\
Big Cat Lover said:
I wish everyone would keep this discussion within the current context. I'm not talking about the average worker, blue collar or white collar. I'm talking CEOs of large companies who earn millions every year who receive performance bonuses no matter how poorly they have performed whilst at the same time retreching workers.
Big Cat,
I was wondering how long it would be before that line was raised.
Most everyday, average working Australians have more responsibility in their little fingers that most CEO's. Unless of course you mean that being responsible entails sacking workers to improve the bottom line to balance your own incompetance.
You tell me, what do you mean by responsibility anyway? When CEO's perform badly, they aren't the ones to suffer. They won't lose their jobs. If they do, the golden handshake more than makes up for it. CEO's, like every other manager I've ever encountered, never accept responsibility when things go wrong. It's always someone elses fault. When things go good, they are the first to take the credit. Even if they do get caught out, it is the workers who have to pay. It's the worker's who lose their jobs. It's the worker's who lose their houses, maybe their families and even their lives. CEO's on the other hand, couldn't give a stuff. At the end of the day, it's the worker's who are held responsible and pay the price. The worker's don't get a golden handshake for years of service. In most cases, they get nothing. Companies often bleat about not having the money to pay redundancies. At the same time in the board room, the bonuses are being given out. The CEO's and board members have their mansions, their lifestyles, their wealth and then have the nerve to cry poor and beg for government handouts.
Yep, sound like a bunch of responsible people to me.
Liverpool said:
So Livers and others,
You all agree that the current actions by some CEO's is immoral but ok since it is legal? At the time, you (and others. it seems I'm almost by myself here!) resist all attempts to correct this immorality by legal means. I see that in itself as a somewhat immoral stance.
But here's a question for you then,
What do you all think of the AFL players salary cap? Surely you all believe it should be scrapped. After, all who has the right to limit player payments? Surely they should be able to earn whatever they can get for their "unique" services? Forget keeping the competition even. It hasn't worked and it's a form of rigging in my book anyway. Surely whichever teams have the most money should be allowed to pay any players any amount they want and the richest should almost always be the winners. That's how it works in the real world isn't it?
After all, no one dictates to the the AFL commissioners how much they should earn so what right do they have to dictate it to others? If the players association for example tried to cap AFL commissioner's payments, they would be the first to have fits and bring up the very arguments you guys have brought up on this thread.
1eyedtiger said:
Firstly on why aren't corporate immoral acts illegal, some are. Embezzlement, insider trading, fraud, and so on are all illegal. However being a greedy bastard isn't. You may say thats immoral and should be punished, but my mate's husband cheated on her. It was immoral but it doesn't make it illegal.
As for the AFL analogy, thats actually a nice one, but faulty for two main reasons.
Firstly, a salary cap is in the AFL because we have a belief that the financial failure of a club is an absolute last resort. In over 100 years of competition, only two clubs have died, and one was relocated. Not a bad strike rate compared to the business world, where a high proportion of businesses fail in the early years. We allow this failure because we are happy for weak/poor businesses to die and be replaced with new ones. For the AFL, we are much more reluctant to have this approach. As such, the AFL needs more conservative rules to regulate expenses to minimize the risk of club failure.
Secondly, if you bring in your salary cap, you will turn the Australian market into the FFA of the corporate world. The FFA have a salary cap, but that works for two reasons. (a) the FFA acknowledge that as they cannot match the spending power of the overseas leagues, so they will not try. The consequence of this is (b) the FFA is happy to enjoy its place in the lower ranks for now, having younger players, veterans at the end of their career, and only the odd marquee player.
Under your philosophy, every half decent manager, engineer, designer, developer, miner, doctor, and so on will go overseas where they can earn much better bucks doing the same job. This will drain the Australian market of its best and brightest, and leave Australia as an economic backwater. Don't think this can happen, speak to the NZ government, and the efforts they have been taking for years now to try and slow the brain drain to Australia (where they just cannot match our wages because of our stronger economy).
What is the problem of rewarding hard working clever entrepreneurs? The better the entrepreneur the more chance of the corporation being a success - thus meaning many others keep their careers/jobs. IMO those at the top of the corporate structure truly earn the money provided as Salary and bonuses - knowing one of them personally I can tell you he works 7 days a week starting early Monday through to Friday and finishes late every one of those nights. On Saturdays and Sundays he is at it again early but does knock-off around lunch time to have time with his family or play golf or watch the footy or cricket. I have known him to work over 24 hours straight to get the right resoulution for his company.
All his 800+ staff know that it his business acumen that gives their manufactured products an edge on their competitors in the Australian Domestic Market - that for this company that turns over $500m a year is worth millions and he deserves to be acknowledged and rewarded for that IMO.
Where I struggle is those CEOs and Executive Board Members that accept Government funds to prop up their ailing business through bad times but still in those bad times provide themselves with an annual bonus. That means yours and mine tax money is going straight into their bank accounts. I would prefer it spent on helping the RFC rebuild Punt Road or maybe better medical facilities or better education institutions - that is the type that irk me.
Lastly - if it was not for the brilliant business acumen of the top Australian entrepreneurs there would be a lot of other Australians out of work.....RT
All his 800+ staff know that it his business acumen that gives their manufactured products an edge on their competitors in the Australian Domestic Market - that for this company that turns over $500m a year is worth millions and he deserves to be acknowledged and rewarded for that IMO.
Where I struggle is those CEOs and Executive Board Members that accept Government funds to prop up their ailing business through bad times but still in those bad times provide themselves with an annual bonus. That means yours and mine tax money is going straight into their bank accounts. I would prefer it spent on helping the RFC rebuild Punt Road or maybe better medical facilities or better education institutions - that is the type that irk me.
Lastly - if it was not for the brilliant business acumen of the top Australian entrepreneurs there would be a lot of other Australians out of work.....RT
Talking of upper echelon decadence - a friend in middle management went after a pay rise once. Time and time again the South East Asia Area Manager said the company (member of huge US 5 star hotel chain) couldn’t afford any pay rises. He ended up resigning but as he was such an important team member the AM deemed it fit for the company to afford him a farewell dinner. My friend noted that the cost of just one of the bottles of wine consumed during dinner cost more than the weekly pay rise he was after. The big wigs partied late.
As he told me he shook his head in disbelief, the money spent on just the bottled wine alone that evening ended up costing more than 12 months of the pay rise he was after. The AM signed the bill, the company paid, nearly everybody had a good time and what could have been his pay rise was all pissed out into the Gulf of Thailand a few hours later.
Now how did that mission statement go again….. something about integrity, fairness, shared values etc etc
As he told me he shook his head in disbelief, the money spent on just the bottled wine alone that evening ended up costing more than 12 months of the pay rise he was after. The AM signed the bill, the company paid, nearly everybody had a good time and what could have been his pay rise was all pissed out into the Gulf of Thailand a few hours later.
Now how did that mission statement go again….. something about integrity, fairness, shared values etc etc
Liverpool said:
Ever heard of the tripple bottom line?
Makes your statement above old hat and arguably very wrong. But then again all conservatives are old hat and yearn for the old days when workers did what they were told for a pittance in pay and the market was manipulated by colonial or mother England entreprenuers not these brash American or Asian types of today..........................
Liverpool said:
….. how does the practice of big wigs signing off company cheques on private jets, me bonuses, exorbitant entertainment indulgences and transvestites looking for love (probably logged in as something along the lines of ‘personal wellness consultants’) translate into revenue raising especially when a company is crying poor and/or sacking its fodder?
Cashed up Bosch fat cats sack 170
Mark Dunn
March 03, 2009 12:00am
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25129715-661,00.html
BOSCH executives got annual bonuses of up to 155 per cent in the past three years of record profits - but the car parts giant still sacked 170 Melbourne workers.
Hundreds more Victorian jobs hang in the balance as car manufacturers cut production levels - with industry sources tipping serious reductions in shifts.
Internal documents seen by the Herald Sun show senior management at Bosch received "maximum total cash" bonuses of between 105 and 155 per cent of their base salary.
Workers and the union said the Robert Bosch plant in Clayton had generated record profits in recent years and continues to run at a profit, despite its announcement that 12 per cent of the workforce of almost 1400 would go.
Bosch divisional executive Gavin Smith yesterday declined to answer questions on executives' performance pay, saying the unfortunate loss jobs due to the economic crisis was the only issue the firm would discuss.
"It (the pay) has nothing to do with the environment and the climate today," he said.
But in the wake of last week's Pacific Brands scandal - where 1860 workers were sacked after bosses received million-dollar bonuses - Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union national secretary Dave Oliver demanded that Bosch come clean about bosses' pay.
Mr Oliver said Australian manufacturers were being "too quick to hit the redundancy button" as the economy wound down.
"This industry is under significant pressure. But every boom has a bust and every recession has a recovery," he said.
Bosch employee Mark Spyker, 37, who last year helped lobby the Federal Government for a $6.2 billion industry-wide assistance package, said his company had now turned on him and fellow workers, who had agreed to a below-average 2.5 per cent pay increase for the past three years.
He said the private company, still largely in the hands of the Bosch family in Germany, should repay worker loyalty by accepting a smaller profit and keeping jobs.
"But this (job cuts) is the way they are thanking workers," Mr Spyker said.
Although voluntary redundancies will be taken first, Bosch employee Simon Blackwell feared he would be forced from his job of nine years.
And with a mortgage, three children, and a wife who faces a reduction in casual work for Bosch, Mr Blackwell said the future was bleak.
"It's going to be pretty hard for everybody," he said.
AMWU state secretary Steve Dargavel said: "We understand that a decline in orders makes things difficult, but the company could afford to keep these workers."
Mark Dunn
March 03, 2009 12:00am
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25129715-661,00.html
BOSCH executives got annual bonuses of up to 155 per cent in the past three years of record profits - but the car parts giant still sacked 170 Melbourne workers.
Hundreds more Victorian jobs hang in the balance as car manufacturers cut production levels - with industry sources tipping serious reductions in shifts.
Internal documents seen by the Herald Sun show senior management at Bosch received "maximum total cash" bonuses of between 105 and 155 per cent of their base salary.
Workers and the union said the Robert Bosch plant in Clayton had generated record profits in recent years and continues to run at a profit, despite its announcement that 12 per cent of the workforce of almost 1400 would go.
Bosch divisional executive Gavin Smith yesterday declined to answer questions on executives' performance pay, saying the unfortunate loss jobs due to the economic crisis was the only issue the firm would discuss.
"It (the pay) has nothing to do with the environment and the climate today," he said.
But in the wake of last week's Pacific Brands scandal - where 1860 workers were sacked after bosses received million-dollar bonuses - Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union national secretary Dave Oliver demanded that Bosch come clean about bosses' pay.
Mr Oliver said Australian manufacturers were being "too quick to hit the redundancy button" as the economy wound down.
"This industry is under significant pressure. But every boom has a bust and every recession has a recovery," he said.
Bosch employee Mark Spyker, 37, who last year helped lobby the Federal Government for a $6.2 billion industry-wide assistance package, said his company had now turned on him and fellow workers, who had agreed to a below-average 2.5 per cent pay increase for the past three years.
He said the private company, still largely in the hands of the Bosch family in Germany, should repay worker loyalty by accepting a smaller profit and keeping jobs.
"But this (job cuts) is the way they are thanking workers," Mr Spyker said.
Although voluntary redundancies will be taken first, Bosch employee Simon Blackwell feared he would be forced from his job of nine years.
And with a mortgage, three children, and a wife who faces a reduction in casual work for Bosch, Mr Blackwell said the future was bleak.
"It's going to be pretty hard for everybody," he said.
AMWU state secretary Steve Dargavel said: "We understand that a decline in orders makes things difficult, but the company could afford to keep these workers."
RemoteTiger said:
Oh, the cries from a socialist where its 'equal pay for everyone because everyone deserves a fair go'.
glantone said:
It doesn't.....but I'm afraid there are managers out there who will live it up at the expense of others and as long as the figures match up at the end of the month, then thats what matters to the 'big boss'.
Its called "covering ones arse" Glantone....the first rule of management... :hihi
Also words like 'delegation', 'downsizing', 'streamlining', 'reducing overheads', and 'cost saving strategy' are also words in the main vocabulary that become useful too.
Having said that....I do agree with Remote and others who have spoken about execs gaining money and flying in jets while the company seeks subsidies and handouts from the Government.
Liverpool said:
I don't think that anybody here is advocating equal pay. But it is obvious to anyone with a even a grain of morality that some people are paid much more than they are worth. I for one don't care what anyone says, no one earns 50 or 100 times anybody else. The policies that enable that sort of rorting to go on is deeply flawed. The world is going to pay dearly for the excesses of these people.
Don't you believe in a "fair go" for all?
And if not, can you please inform the rest of us the basis on who gets what degree of fairness?
Liverpool said:
So you're denying that the AFL has imposed a salary cap on AFL clubs?
In that case, why was Carlton penalised a few years ago for 'breaching to salary cap'?
According to you, Carlton can pay Judd (not that I singled out any particular club or player) whatever they wish. That's simply not true. Yes, Visy can pay him whatever they want. But Calton as a football club can't. Surely you don't agree with that? Surely, you believe that football clubs be allowed to pay what they want out in the open under the banner of the AFL without restriction.
You still haven't given me an answer. Do you agree with the AFL players salary cap or don't you?
Liverpool said:
I have no idea what you mean or how it relates to my post, Livers. My friend resigned, he was not cut or sacked to save bux and his position had to be filled which meant the organization had to spend more money to find, orientate and train a suitable replacement.
All the while, the big wigs squander company money and cry poor.
As for the first rule of management being ‘cover your own arse’ – that sounds highly unproductive and unimaginative to me. I guess there are managers and then there are managers
1eyedtiger said:
I don't believe in this "fair go for all" crap...to me, that rubbish comes from people who know they are limited to what they can earn due to lack of education, lack of motivation, lack of...well, you name it.
To me, I think people should be able to get as much as they can.....and if Ronaldo can go out and make $200,000 per week, why shouldn't he be allowed to? if Joe Bloggs, CEO of ABC Corporation gets a payout of $20-mill when he retires, why shouldn't he?
"Morals" have nothing to do with it....it comes down to "demand" and if the market for a person with skills unique to others on the planet allows them to capitalise financially, then I say good on them....and bad luck to the others out there who haven't got the same skill-set.
1eyedtiger said:
No...the cap is on the club...NOT the player.
How Carlton use their capped money is up to them.
Look....I'd rather a situation where there wasn't a salary cap and I would be up in arms more about it if players were strongly against it and used a 'restraint of trade' reason behind their disagreement.
However, the players are smart...knowing full well that if they took this line of thought and won their case, then in a few years time we would have clubs and eventually the game destroyed in this country, and with it the players 'riches'.
They know what side of their bread is buttered.
Aussie Rules is a VERY small drop in the global sporting pond and the AFL players don't have the opportunity to leave and go and play the same code overseas in Europe or the USA for big money.
They know full well that if the game is *smile* here then they don't get half the money they earn now for their skill-set.
So while the salary-cap is, in principle, a restraint of trade/earnings....all parties concerned agree that it is in their best interests to continue along this path for the viability of the game and their earnings.
glantone said:
Nobody forced a gun to your mates head and told him to resign.
If money was the crucial factor in him leaving then maybe the managers saw this 'denial' of a pay increase as a way to 'move him out of the business' and to get someone in (for less pay) and with more of a future with them?
