• Gladaed@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 days ago

    You clearly and completely misunderstood what I was saying.

    It’s a charged topic so it makes sense. Frustrating nonetheless.

    • CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 days ago

      Can you expand on the point? If they can’t deliver water the CEO shouldn’t be paid out; that’s the point of the salary/bonus ratio.

      • Gladaed@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        4 days ago

        My point was that their pay is usually structured in a way that the base pay is a small percentage of their compensation and their bonuses are a virtually fixed part of their package and tied to company performance. They tend to not get any bonus when performing exceptionally poorly (e.g. going out of business). This means you get these bonus headlines even if they didn’t get a particularly big bonus at all and maybe even had their wage docked. These kinds of headlines are incendiary.

        The magnitude of pay really does not matter much at all for this discussion.

        • Tenebris Nox@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 days ago

          Of course it does. Especially so considering this case. In this case not only did the water company plead guilty but the CEO was forced to resign (rightly so). And THEN given a bonus.

          In this case, Susan Davy’s salary was £561,000 with contracted bonus of £191,000 (in shares, I believe). The bonus for the previous year had been £250k. Again, this factual information doesn’t fit the point you keep repeating. Facts get in the way.