Comments on: Curbing golden handshakes: nothing succeeds like failure

By: Dr Harvey M Tarvydas

Dr Harvey M Tarvydas — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I wrote this to your editor today

To the editor
The heart and soul of your editorial statement on the 19th March makes me proud to be a subscriber but I would like to point out some ambiguity as well as comment on the theme. Please help me with this. You’re suggesting that
“The Federal Government’s rather insipid response to excessive executive remuneration” ….
“apparently has the business community incandescent with rage” because its insipid (and this community is pointing out this fault) or as the editorial say’s to me that focusing on shareholders to solve the problem is insipid because as you point out, “giving shareholders even more power when they don’t use the power they have now”, the response is pointless.
It seems to me, if the ‘business community had the smarts that they constantly claim needs excessive payment for nourishment then an insipid, pointless action that could never lead to the limitation of their excessive payments would define the government as their best friends and attacking it makes them look as stupid as the man it the street thinks they might be for getting into all this strife in the first place (oh for Ideology it can’t even cure stupidity). Or its clever to be afraid of shareholders power that adds up to nothing because its never used because they know this government has the smarts to change the myth of ‘shareholders power’ previously given in a way that is almost impossible to use and change the law to liberate it.

It took the Howard electors 12 years to recognise their mistake and get rid of him not just ‘out of government’ wise but ‘out of our face forever’ wise, bennalong wise.
Expressing your considered needs just on a voting day doesn’t even have the effective power of a baby crying when considered in a dynamic which includes the time factor.

By: Dr Harvey M Tarvydas

Dr Harvey M Tarvydas — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I've said it before and I will say it again for Stuart.
"Ideology, it can’t even cure stupidity or anything else (not like pharmacology)".
Not all Politian’s are 'rats' or don't you know that.
The diligent hard working ones have earned the pension schemes as part of a pay incentive when their salary’s were laughably tiny.
The pathetic Politian’s are there serving their time for the pension not their constituents. This is common knowledge not ‘ideological’ knowledge.
Mind you they forget to allude to this fact when justifying salary rises but nobody reminds them either (they are actually human also).
The statutes need ….
Impeaching the PM.
Impeaching a Director or CEO.
And if we could be so lucky psychological therapy for the ‘ideology’ addict which addiction causes as much damage as any other.
‘Impeach Power’ will surely keep every kind of would be bastard honest, explaining and performing enabling the discovery ‘the man in the street is not stupid’ and knows how to look after his needs, which is the flattery afforded the ‘common man’ after every whatever vote. (goverment or company general meeting)

It would also stop boards electing token would be bastards to their ranks to avoid trouble.

By: Andrew Smith

Andrew Smith — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

My major concern with excessive remuneration is not with private sector but public sector and more so half pregnant QUANGOS that tend to avoid public and media scrutiny, while having benefit of state sector tenure etc. but wanting all the advantages of freelance contractors e.g. AWB, Universites/TAFE to name just two. In case of universities the salary multiple between a VC and lower level administrator would vary between 15 and 50……or university managers becoming directors of related commercial enterprises etc. etc. However, they do not appear to be subject to any responsibility or accountability?

By: Dr Harvey M Tarvydas #3

Dr Harvey M Tarvydas #3 — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

If we don’t listen to people like john arbouw then we deserve it all.
The other winner john is the recipient.

By: Stuart

Stuart — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

This madness is only made potentially palatable if our political masters do similarly and drop their rip-off life-long pension scheme that kicks in after on a few token years of work. I did 12 years of full time employment before redundancy and did a successful career change in the late 90’s; what a difference life would be if a lifelong pension at large proportion of prior pay would be available to everybody. If the rats cannot clean up their own nest, then leave everyone else alone. This is but part the usual and typical ongoing Labor/ACTU/Union ploy to kill off incentive and progressively dumb down the community.

By: john arbouw

john arbouw — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

The debate about executive salaries misses a key point. The reason we have reached this stage is that there has been a massive failure by company boards to manage the situation. If boards want to continue to have the power to hire CEOs and approve remuneration then they need to return to basics rather than being slaves to fashion.

Shareholders should asking why boards have rarely put in place a workable succession plan that nurtures executives within the organisation to eventually takeover the top spot. Before boards became captive of executive search firms, companies had a workable succession plan in place that truly rewarded effort throughout the organisation.

The excuse for hiring outside executives is that the company needs new blood and new thinking to take the enterprise to a new level. All this does is create a public admission that the board and its current executives are bereft of any ideas.

It is here where the spruikers from the executive hire firms see the opening. They are the real estate salesmen of the corporate world. In the real or rather unreal estate business, the more expensive the property the bigger the commission. Executive hire firms work on the same principle.

They use the same selling techniques as any suburban real estate person. Boards are told they have to match the market and spread the net to attract the right buyer/executive. The costs mount up, the executive firm rubs its hand and the board does not find out until too late that the high priced executive eagle is a turkey whose CV disguised a pathological inability to work within the organisation and understand the market in which the company operated.

All that a 10 year booming economy did was to paper over the obvious defaults. The loser is the company brand and shareholder value. The winners are the executive search firms who will be brought in once again by boards afraid to use their own judgment.