I'd say out of touch rather than idiotic. At least he actually has a political ideal he sticks to though, rather than most of the cunts that are about in that game.Outlandish is being kind. This idea of maximum pay is idiotic. He should be focusing on making things affordable rather than going after those who are talented and have worked hard to earn fantastic money.
Wants to limit exc pay to no more than 20x minimum wage for government contacts.
This limits to nearly zero the number of companies that can carry out infrastructure projects, facilities, design etc. The UK will collapse - and no, nationalisation of them will not be the answer.
If you've an ageing population like the UK then immigration can't really be too high, that's the problem.
Do you think that we should bring in regulation to deal with this instead of letting the shareholders control their own companies?I am baffled by why people support the idea that millionaire CEO's deserve millionaire wage increases when their performance and their company performance doesn't reflect that reward is warranted.
Do you think that we should bring in regulation to deal with this instead of letting the shareholders control their own companies?
Since the law allows shareholders to control it, they have the right to control it and they're the damaged parties if this system isn't used properly I really don't see any need for regulation to be honest. Since I've moved back into audit and compliance there just before Christmas I should probably be saying yes though, it would increase my monthly paycheck by 20% or so I reckon.well thus far the system which supposedly allows shareholders to control boardroom pay and reward has failed abysmally ( google Hellawell and Sports Direct as a recent classic example ) so why not try something different? Do you think the current system where shareholders control the pay and reward of executives ( as was the point I made - not control their own companies - different question ) is working well?
Since the law allows shareholders to control it, they have the right to control it and they're the damaged parties if this system isn't used properly I really don't see any need for regulation to be honest. Since I've moved back into audit and compliance there just before Christmas I should probably be saying yes though, it would increase my monthly paycheck by 20% or so I reckon.
Of course. Because the shareholders who own 70% of the company should be forced to listen to the 30%. By legislation if necessary.Sorry but I have to disagree - remuneration committee's filled with people who recommend reward for people who sit on their own committee's and bloc voting of large shareholders which outweighs the views of smaller shareholders is neither fair or democratic - laughably the same victims sling the same accusations against unions - its a closed shop that without proper representation in the vote with realistic weighting brings about the "fat cat " culture.
It's comes from mutual fund managers (mainly pension schemes, of which a tiny minority are hedge funds fwiw).The shareholders are a disparate group, with no single voice, it's like herding cats. in truth the pressure to reign in executive pay mostly comes from hedge fund managers (as you know). Shareholder power is often talked about but is rarely decisive. Boards do everything they can to avoid executive pay even being discussed at AGMs, even getting it on the agenda is a near impossibility task.
Shareholder revolts are rare not because shareholders are content but because of the obstacles they face in pulling them off