In the past week or so, there have been a few stories in the Oz news about CEOs that leave the company with huge benefit packages. In the case of the CEO leaving Commonwealth Bank, he received $33 million while the Shareholders’ stock is losing value etc. It reminded me of all the big company scandals in the US the past year or so…
You know the story…the CEO leaves with millions in benefits. Usually an absurd amount of money. In the case mentioned above, the shareholders are screwed. It does not sound like a win-win situation to me.
CEO: happy and rich after leaving company in bad shape.
Shareholders: pissed off and poor (you know what I mean).
How can contracts be drawn up so that both parties win? I am not a saint, but I can say that every contract or arrangement we have made at BootsnAll does focus on building long term, win-win relationships.
CEO: What about giving them a base salary…say $100,000 US. If the company makes some good coin, they can make some good coin as well. If the company loses money, CEO gets no bonuses. Period. That way, if the company loses money, the shareholders aren’t giving CEO’s that are leaving a company in bad shape millions of dollars. Of course, then you have a CEO who may be only rewarded by the health of the company’s balance sheet.
I’m sure sure some folks will say my thoughts here are too simplistic for large, shareholder driven companies. Maybe they are….but I am not that smart and keeping things ultra simple helps me understand it and hopefully any other folks involved. These long and crazy contracts that I see sometimes are so slanted towards one company and individual, it’s sick.
I am glad that BootsnAll is a private company and we are not driven by the “shares market” as it’s called here. Can you see the headlines?
“3rd year in, the Boyz start getting paid”
Shareholders of BootsnAll Travel Network (NYSE: BTN) learned that the employees of BootsnAll started to receive a wage in fiscal year 2002. Sean E. Keener said that “the paperboy days were just getting old and I figured it was about time.” A class action lawsuit is being brought against the employees of BTN by the shareholders…..”
Chief Editor Chris Heidrich was seen riding his bicycle down Willamette Street in Eugene, Oregon after the announcement and shareholders are wondering if profits from 2002 paid for his new Huffy Bicycle. Heidrich responded with “No comment” and hurried away into the pub.
Nick O’Neill was reportedly seen on the beaches of Bali, supposedly opening an office in Indonesia for BTN. Our reporters were unable to locate him and get a quote.
Ant St. Clair said via telephone interview, “My name is Ant…I am going to Europe this summer, and the company does provide free coffee. Is that ok?”
More on tonight’s news at 10.
Subscribe
|
Print
|
Share             
|
Glad those pesky reporters can’t follow me into the pub. And that Huffy actually belongs to Sean since the other one got stolen. Maybe I should appropriate some company funds for a new one.
Chris - what, you mean after all those sweetheart loans we all just took out for the yacht?
As the reporter for Eugene-by-the-minute.com, I can update some info here.
CEO, Sean Keener, refused to answer my questions on the basis that I would slant his responses by cutting and pasting them into a category not reflective of his philosophy or mission - whatever that means. This guy is paranoid - big time.
Upon entering the pub, Chris Heidrich dashed to the men’s room and is still there - two days later. I can’t wait any longer. There are other assignments to cover, even in Eugene, believe it!
I spotted Nick on the beach in Bali with more females than any one man can handle. Opening a BTN office?? Those Brits are most limited in the multi-task department.
As for Ant. He thinks free coffee might attract an article from the Register Guard. Well, he’s a dreamer, and that might not be all bad for this entity called BootsnAll.com.
Find out just what this -nAll stuff is. Website http://www.bootsnall.com. You may be surprised. I was. And I hope they remain private!
Qantas announced a profit of 300+ million AUS yesterday…the CEO said they might have to cut jobs in the near future to keep the financial health of the company going. Many people complained that he make 2 millions plus last year and he is about to cut jobs. I say good on him. Profits for the company, and he makes a few million. Kinda like I was suggesting above.
Get a clue you bitter leftists. CEOs have the toughest job imaginable. They take the fall when everything goes to shit and their lifespan as a CEO isn’t long if they do well anyway. Their decisions have a lot of bearing on the future of a company. The prole dullard doing menial labor deserves jack shit because they are doing something that has no value to the company. If they quit, they are easily replaced. CEOs tend to have an extensive knowledge of a company, experience and brains. They get paid what they are worth. If the company doesn’t perform under their helm, the board and shareholders will have them replaced immediately.
Enron is a different kettle of fish. They siphoned all the money in that company off for themselves.
Fact is, shareholders take a risk when they invest. They aren’t assured of making money. That’s the way it goes. If you lose money out of the incompetence of the people running the company, then tough luck. Companies don’t owe their shareholders anything.
In the example above, the CEO was made happy and rich after leaving the company in “bad shape.” Whoa! Why would anyone, even a CEO, be rewarded for that?
Everyone in a company has value - some more than others, granted, because of responsibility and accountability. To pay entry-level general office, customer service employees $8.00 an hour (and they usually have to be multi-tasked with excellent communication skills, maybe even speak a second language, college preferred but not required) while the CEO draws a basic salary from $800,000 to 3.5 million, not including bonuses (only fair) with
stock options, and other spiffs is way off balance, in my view. The gap widens to the point where only one side still stands and that becomes a problem for everyone, including CEOs.
A company (private or public) doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It needs its customers, employees, shareholders and vice versa.
In the case of the former CEO receiving receiving $33 million upon leaving the Commonwealth Bank, the CEO was paid out for roughly HALF his contract. To keep him as CEO until the contract ran out would have cost the Commonwealth twice as much. Therefore, they saved about $33 million.
Office workers receive $8 per hour because any moron off the street can do their job. There’s a glut of people willing to work for nothing because there are simply no jobs around. That’s not the fault of company. Why should companies pay workers more than what workers are willing to labour for?
Michael,
Good to hear that the bank saved 33 million. Of course, salaries like that are outrageaous considering the poor performance.
As for $8.00 workers…well, one can live off it if one wants to. I live on and have lived comfortably on that and less.
Michael, Do you have a website?
I don’t personally have one.
You’re right that it’s possible to live off spit. People who earn a lot tend to just spend more on widgets they don’t need.
It’s all relative. Forgo all the expensive shit that has no utilitarian use and you usually spend time on more worthwhile endeavours.
If morons can do the $8.00 per hour jobs, why is it that companies don’t want them?
Brilliant! I’ve start sending this out to some major news agencies and see if we can finally get that Register-Guard exposure here locally.