The Greens oppose the CPRS not because it is too weak, but because it will point Australia in the wrong direction with little prospect of turning it around in the timeframe within which emissions must peak, says Senator Christine Milne.
Cashed-up Fairfax execs ask: why are journalists so greedy?
|
Fairfax executive Lloyd Whish-Wilson has told journalistic staff that he is disappointed their union has made a pay demand “so patently at odds with the capacity of the mastheads to pay.” Where could the journalists have learned to be so greedy? Let’s look at the remuneration of those at the very top of the company. These figures are drawn from page 51 of the 2007 annual report (www.fxj.com.au) — click on the picture for a larger version:
Plus David Kirk, the Managing Director, on page 50.
Do the maths, and one finds that between 2006 and 2007, the top executives in the company were rewarded with a stunning 45% increase in bonuses alone. The total in bonuses for the top eight went from $1.5 million to $2.2 million over the period. Add to this another 7.7% total increase in salaries for the top people. Note that this does not take into account the shares they were given, or increases in superannuation payments. Nor does it look at the substantial increases in packages for board members. Within the overall figures are some interesting particulars. Captain Kirk, for example, almost doubled his superannuation pay over the period. Fairfax General Counsel Gail Hambly increased her bonus by almost three times, as well as taking a big boost in superannuation. Her total package went up from $687,136 to $900,649. Poor old Victorian CEO Don Churchill, on the other hand, dropped both salary and bonuses. Perhaps he needs a union. It should be noted that the total figures are complicated by the fact that some senior staff left and others joined, but the trend for double digit percentage increases in remuneration is nevertheless clear. Now the union demand, which of course will have ambit built in, is for 5% on 1 July this year, and another 5% on 1 July 2009. Right. Here is some very basic back-of-the-envelope figuring. Take the salary and bonus increases (only the increases) over the period among these top executives, and imagine they had been distributed to the 700 odd journalists employed in Sydney and Melbourne. If we assume the journos are on an average salary of $70,000 (and yes I know that figure is open to dispute and there are highs and lows within it) the distribution would, by itself, add up to an average 2% salary increase. If we took the total bonuses for 2007, and distributed them in the same way, then it adds up to a 4.5% salary increase for the journos. And this is just the top eight people in the company. My information from inside management is that about 40 managers at the Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, the Australian Financial Review and Fairfax Digital get bonuses. We could estimate that the total cash bonus bill for Fairfax managers is probably around $3 million a year. Meanwhile the total editorial merit bonus pool for the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, I am told, is around $300,000 — less than a tenth of that for the top eight. Now the executives would doubtless argue that the bonuses are really fair reward for doing their jobs well, rather than “extra”. The journalists may well argue similarly. After all, management never stops boasting about the quality of the journalism. And it will be interesting to see what happens to the bonuses in the financial year just past, given that the share price has been plunging. Meanwhile Fairfax management often claims to be investing in journalism. Hmmm. |
|
|
8 Comments
Reminds me of the days of the National Minimum Wage case where some tosser in a $10,000 Armani suit would argue that business couldn’t afford a $10/week increase in the salaries of the poorest paid employees. The hypocrisy makes me sick!
The argument runs that executives are rewarded on the basis that they increase the profitability of the organization they run, media company or soft drink retailer. They increase profits; therefore, they should receive some of this extra profit. Their role is to increase money; the journo writes articles, the shop assistant sells beverages.
Fair enough I say. So far. But wouldn’t it be lovely to see top executives suffer pain when profits dip/companies close. You may have noticed (the dripping sarcasm of this comment and) that profit is the direct result of the brilliance of the execs; any loss is global downturn, slowing in the economy, etc.
After years of study, I’ve recently started earning just north of $50, 000 a year. What on earth does one do with ten times that? twenty times, and more? It’s easy to spend, of course; there are people working full time, earning good money themselves, to deprive the very wealthy of their hard earned cash. Porsche sales people and the like.
The rise of China and India will be fascinating. There is a bloody good chance that they will mirror the West. A handful controlling the majority of wealth, however that’s defined. A decent middle class, a large working class. But the end of history has not yet been written. I offer no solution, just the observation that the next decade may be a tumultuous a time not seen since…the French revolution?
I may have strayed a bit there. Sorry!
Gawd help us. Is anyone actually suggesting that journos are poorly paid? And the idea that Kennedy might refer to any human being as a mediocrity is a gag. The man defines the word.
The argument runs that executives are rewarded on the basis that they increase the profitability of the organization they run, media company or soft drink retailer. They increase profits; therefore, they should receive some of this extra profit. Their role is to increase money; the journo writes articles, the shop assistant sells beverages.
Fair enough I say. So far. But wouldn’t it be lovely to see top executives suffer pain when profits dip/companies close. You may have noticed (the dripping sarcasm of this comment and) that profit is the direct result of the brilliance of the execs; any loss is global downturn, slowing in the economy, etc.
After years of study, I’ve recently started earning just north of $50, 000 a year. What on earth does one do with ten times that? twenty times, and more? It’s easy to spend, of course; there are people working full time, earning good money themselves, to deprive the very wealthy of their hard earned cash. Porsche sales people and the like.
The rise of China and India will be fascinating. There is a bloody good chance that they will mirror the West. A handful controlling the majority of wealth, however that’s defined. A decent middle class, a large working class. But the end of history has not yet been written. I offer no solution, just the observation that the next decade may be a tumultuous a time not seen since…the French revolution?
I may have strayed a bit there. Sorry!
As the CEO continues to focus himself on destroying a once iconic Australian brand I would be amazed if a similar analysis did not reveal exactly the same situation at Qantas in relation to the claim by about 1500 engineers for a 5% pay increase versus the 2% offered by management.
Margaret is right that to give a kicking to the mediocrities running Fairfax for their hide in querying why the journos are greedily seeking a paltry 5 % per cent pay rise when the company is in a bad way.
I jumped ship a few years ago in the last days of the towering mediocrity Fred Hilmer (let’s shut down the Age and the SMH) ably supported by Mark Scott who in a piece of revisionism after he left wondered whether he should have stood up to Fred a bit more. Yes you should have Mark. But he looks pretty good when compared t the current lot of ex footballers and throw away paper producers who now infest the upper echelons of Fairfax.
But a few things. I am not sure getting bucket loads of shares would be seen by the execs as particularly tempting. The share price has tanked and the company is on the nose with the institutions.
And may I fly a flag for one Fairfax executive who is under paid. Gail Hambly the general counsel was always tough to deal with. But she was straight as an arrow and a person you could trust. She understands the business better than most of the suits in that joint.
. The journos at Fairfax need everyone’s support. It is not some elitist wank this campaign it is about quality journalism and the proper funding of robust questioning media.
If we achieve the dream of the Fairfax execs of a lot of lightweight down market web sites peddling floss we are all in a lot of trouble. The money at Fairfax needs to be spent on the product not the Neville Nobodies with their hyphenated names, silver spoons and inflated views of their own abilities.
I refer to the statement in the artcile about Fairfax job cuts. In a phone conference with investors and analyst today the question was put to Fairfax executives, David Kirk and Brian McCarthy, about the future of Canberra staff considering that The Age and The SMH have separate staff in Canberra, to which Kirk replied: ” We are looking at a range of options to combine those services and make savings.”
Ken Nichols might not be as clued-in as he makes out.
Aren’t we all fed up with this same scenario coming from every corner of corporate Australia? Obscene unrealistic remunerations paid to Neville Nobodies to deliver essentially a simple task - profits for shareholders and CEO’s. De-regulation of the media has come at a huge cost for consumers with lousy short-changed content across-the-board. Newspapers, television and radio have all been dumbed-down simply to keep the bottom line black. Personally, I avoid the Fairfax product to save frustration. Crummy local and metro newspapers, corny radio in Sydney and Brisbane even the Domain site is broke! I really don’t understand why the federal government can’t see the danger in a communication shutdown. When Australians stop reading, listening or watching that alarms me. Perhaps it serves a purpose - the sillier the populace the more easily manipulated.