Executive Compensation

[deicer]

Older info, but interesting none the less.....

http://www.discoveryfinance.com/air-canada-executive-officers-salary-and-benefits.html

[DEFCON]

I think it’s interesting to note; the vast majority of common people now see executive compensation packages as ‘obscene’, and that particular view holds across the spectrum of industry. People can see and feel the reality; the employee citizen worker types are in a constant state of ‘giving it back’, while the executive compensation programs continue to provide their beneficiaries with increasing wealth? IOW’s, the ‘suits’ are continuously being rewarded for their personal failure???

If the corporations, their shareholders and the employees were doing well, I doubt there would be too many complaints with respect to handsome rewards for the executive class? But then there’s reality! Why would any employee group today be willing to give up another dime to the snake oil salesmen of the ‘executive class’ without first requiring an ‘iron-clad’ agreement in which the rulers actually ‘share’ in the pain that’s come with their failure to lead etc.?

Speaking of leadership; Officer basic leadership training 101 teaches the officer candidate to consider the needs of the men in his charge before his own, i.e.; make sure they’re fed before you eat. Unfortunately, sound principles of leadership do not apply in the egocentric greed driven civilian world of present. I doubt anyone will ever accuse the modern executive manager of ‘leadership by example'?

[Kip Powick]

IOW’s, the ‘suits’ are continuously being rewarded for their personal failure???

Yup, it looks that way but have a peek at this scenario and why sometimes, but not all the time, what you have stated above only "appears" to be true...

The FLYERS CLUB is looking for a new CEO, as is the TYRES CLUB.

Both organizations "court" a highly recommended individual who has a great track record.

The FLYERS CLUB wins...however the new CEO's contract is written that in the event that the people who love the FLYERS CLUB decide to go elsewhere, he still gets his mega salary because the turn of events was not his fault ( famine, bugs, recession etc.)and in the event that everything really turns to "puppy-poo",and he is let go, he gets a severance package equivalent to what he would have earned had he gone to the TYRES CLUB which is still doing well......or a severance package agreed upon by the BOD because at the onset of his employment it looked like things were really going to go "swell".

Now I think it is safe to assume that anyone here would want the same deal if they had the qualifications etc., so the fact that a departing CEO gets a golden parachute does not necessarily mean he has robbed the company....and is being rewarded for his failure.

Yes, I know it is a simple explanation but unless everyone knows the exact details of any contract particulars for executives, it is merely venting to rally against those that are/were in charge.

[DEFCON]

_Kip

_{I agree with any notion that's supports a 'fair’ pay package for the executive. But, how is the concept defined; 400X the average employee salary and regardless of performance? Personally, I don't think there's anyone, other than an 'owner' perhaps, that's entitled to this sort of remuneration. In a public company, the ‘executive is ‘only’ an employee too. A bonus for success is okay, but not for bankrupting your charge.}

[Kip Powick]

_Kip

_{I agree with any notion that's supports a 'fair’ pay package for the executive. But, how is the concept defined; 400X the average employee salary and regardless of performance? Personally, I don't think there's anyone, other than an 'owner' perhaps, that's entitled to this sort of remuneration. In a public company, the ‘executive is ‘only’ an employee too. A bonus for success is okay, but not for bankrupting your charge.}

OK...got my magnifying glass out and read your post (now saving bandwidth are we?) I agree, a bonus for success is appropriate but should unforseen circumstances, beyond the control of the CEO, cause the company to fail, what you see as a "bonus" is actually his severance, (assuming the company still has its head above water prior to him leaving).

If, on the other hand, he is deemed to have not done his job, the company is still solvent, but doing poorly and he is let go, then we go back to the contract that the BOD and he/she agreed upon. Not much we can do about that and no CEO is going to sign on with the stipulation that if it all turns to "puppy-poo" he gets nothing.

[dagger]

Awww yes, "puppy-poo". Wouldn't it be nice if all employees could be protected from "puppy-poo" in the same manner as those who are usually the cause of it?

So long as the company hasn't gone bankrupt, you are protected to a certain extent. You can work 35 years for a company. What are the odds of a CEO being retained for that long. About the same as for a general manager of your favourite hockey team. Pro sports teams are a good example. None, even the great organizations, don't keep winning forever. Their success is usually a combination of smarts, but also fortuitous circumstances and when they make a mistake, or run into some bad circumstances like a career-ending injury for their superstar, the run of good performance often comes to an end. Seven fat years can lead to seven lean years. The general manager hasn't become stupid overnight, but the confluence of fortuitous developments that made him a winner has evaporated, and the bad has overwhelmed what's left of the good. A doesn't take a huge mistake in these circumstances to make the immediate future look dismal, ending with the GM being run out of town. That's why a good GM can command a salary in the millions. Coaches have even less longevity, and can command a good salary to attract them to a situation which is inherently insecure.

I don't think there would be too many smart people lining up to run a company like Air Canada unless the compensation package made allowances for the inherent insecurity of the job.

[Guest]

So long as the company hasn't gone bankrupt, you are protected to a certain extent. You can work 35 years for a company. What are the odds of a CEO being retained for that long. About the same as for a general manager of your favourite hockey team. Pro sports teams are a good example. None, even the great organizations, don't keep winning forever. Their success is usually a combination of smarts, but also fortuitous circumstances and when they make a mistake, or run into some bad circumstances like a career-ending injury for their superstar, the run of good performance often comes to an end. Seven fat years can lead to seven lean years. The general manager hasn't become stupid overnight, but the confluence of fortuitous developments that made him a winner has evaporated, and the bad has overwhelmed what's left of the good. A doesn't take a huge mistake in these circumstances to make the immediate future look dismal, ending with the GM being run out of town. That's why a good GM can command a salary in the millions. Coaches have even less longevity, and can command a good salary to attract them to a situation which is inherently insecure.

I don't think there would be too many smart people lining up to run a company like Air Canada unless the compensation package made allowances for the inherent insecurity of the job.

So when do we get a good general manager??????????????????

[Maverick]

So when do we get a good general manager??????????????????

Look at the Maple Leafs.

[Guest]

Look at the Maple Leafs.

AHHHHH, NO!

[J.O.]

Bad example. The Leafs provide crappy service and still make money. They're the Ryanair of hockey.

[Fido]

If you can get enough shareholders to cut the CEO's package to the low numbers that you suggest, go for it.

Then see what you get for applicants.

[dagger]

Given the compensation level and responsibilities of a CEO, I expect them to be held to a higher standard than any other employee. Accordingly, their pay & benefits and their severance should be at least as much at risk as that of their employees. In my mind, that’s called having integrity; and any CEO with integrity shouldn’t require or accept a different set of rules than their subordinates.

You have infinitely greater job security than your CEO. To argue otherwise is sheer pigheadedness.

[DEFCON]

"the inherent insecurity of the job"

Other than rock & sports personalities, what profession could have more ‘inherent insecurity’ built into an entire career than the pilot?

[dagger]

LOL! I guess you've never seen an expat pilot's employment contract. Not to mention that my CEO has an infinitely greater severance package than mine. Well, to be quite honest, considering that my severance package is 0 (zero) dollars, anything more would be “infinitely greater”.

I'm not trying to antagonize you Dagger, just opening up my own thoughts for discussion. I would certainly be interested in hearing your informed response to those thoughts rather than a simplistic "pigheaded" attack on them.

Well, this discussion isn't about overseas CEOs, it's basically about Canadian CEOs, and in the context of a Canadian airline and Canadian airline pilots, if you were the latter working for, oh, let's say Air Canada, you could probably count on a long career through good times or bad so long as you didn't imbibe just before a flight or steal pet dogs from people's yard.

[Leading Edge]

Well, this discussion isn't about overseas CEOs, it's basically about Canadian CEOs, and in the context of a Canadian airline and Canadian airline pilots, if you were the latter working for, oh, let's say Air Canada, you could probably count on a long career through good times or bad so long as you didn't imbibe just before a flight or steal pet dogs from people's yard.

I'll take the $15M/year for the short career any day... Also, since we are talking about sports stars, they get the big bucks because they perform. If they stop, bam they're gone. How is losing $200M a good performance??

[Leading Edge]

I guess Claude Taylor doesn't count...

Wikipedia: "President and CEO from 1976 to 1984. From 1984 to 1992, he was Chairman of the Board. He was President & CEO again from 1990 to 1992."

[J.O.]

There's bias aplenty in any such discussion but I for one am a little tired of the snide "you have no idea how life is at the top" remarks from executives and folks in the financial industry. The only reason big executive compensation is defended by the financial sector is because it's the top brass who've been stripping down employee benefits in the name of shareholder value.

[Guest]

There's bias aplenty in any such discussion but I for one am a little tired of the snide "you have no idea how life is at the top" remarks from executives and folks in the financial industry. The only reason big executive compensation is defended by the financial sector is because it's the top brass who've been stripping down employee benefits in the name of shareholder value.

Agreed,

What worry is there, as long as these golden parachutes exist or when a bonus is part of your contract regardless how well or how poor your corporation is doing, life is simple and easy for these executives.

Milton is a prime example, he sunk this titanic and walked away with aprox 80 million and is still collecting today, meanwhile I along with the rest of the employees have not had a pay raise in 11 years! So to these CEO and the Daggers of the world, sorry, but not buying your trying to shove 10 pounds of manure into a 5 pound bag!

[mrlupin]