robfromdublin Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 In fairness, the bonus refers to a different time period to when the accident took place so I have no issue with this. Most employees get paid for the time they are in work regardless of whether they do something sackable on their last day. If you work for 3 weeks of the month and then headbutt the boss you'll still get paid for those 3 weeks. Plus there is no known cause of the accident just yet so assigning blame is not appropriate. I agree though, that CEOs generally are overpaid. How many people buy shares directly and exercise their voting rights though? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booma Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 Regardless of whose at fault, it looks like the CEO, a Ms Thomas will come away with her full bonus of several hundred thousand dollars, to be confirmed at the annual AGM this afternoon. Shareholders will be hit. You've just got to love the times we find ourselves inhabiting. well wouldnt that be based on the entire company performance for the last financial year? i dont think it's fair for people to holding her bonus against her unless the investigation shows she did something wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 well wouldnt that be based on the entire company performance for the last financial year? i dont think it's fair for people to holding her bonus against her unless the investigation shows she did something wrong. I doubt very much if such a bonus was justly earned in the first instance. Several hundred thousand dollars? Meanwhile a seventeen year old was apparently on her first day in charge of the operation that resulted in four deaths. Sounds like a typical cost saving concern, employing low wage staff, while over compensating on CEO bonus payments. Hardly unusual in todays world I admit. But one that must change. Like the captain of a ship, I certainly think the CEO must bear responsibility. The share holders will take a cut, profits will like wise. There are certainly a lot of questions requiring answering and not the usual cover ups. Why wasn't the maintenance able to get on top of recent reported problems to that implement. I mean the talk of anything resembling a bonus at a time of tragedy as this is quite frankly obscene. I'm afraid CEO 's roles must be more than cutting expenses and taking full responsibility. Just amazed you are unable to see that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 They truly make me want to vomit these overpaid CEOs. Not their fault, I guess- we condone it by not speaking out and continuing to buy shares in the rotten companies. Vomit inducing would be too polite. I'm afraid I've witnessed the mayhem introduced by all too many CEO's that cast a shadow over the door's of NPO's and their ineptness is startling. From funds disappearing to totally out of their depth in the task employed to do, to be relieved at desk for incompetence. If this is any reflecting overall of performance in other areas...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 In fairness, the bonus refers to a different time period to when the accident took place so I have no issue with this. Most employees get paid for the time they are in work regardless of whether they do something sackable on their last day. If you work for 3 weeks of the month and then headbutt the boss you'll still get paid for those 3 weeks. Plus there is no known cause of the accident just yet so assigning blame is not appropriate. I agree though, that CEOs generally are overpaid. How many people buy shares directly and exercise their voting rights though? Bonus is quite different from pay though. Often earned through the reduction of others entitlements, cutting costs by restructuring and employing off shore workers on 457's in certain circumstances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robfromdublin Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 Your thesis is that bonus should be based on more than just financial performance of the company, and they often are (but not often enough in my opinion). There might be targets about gender diversity, OH&S, or any other number of key performance indicators like any other job. If the bonus is based entirely on financial performance, they cut costs, and a low-paid worker causes a problem like this then you would certainly have a point. But none of those facts are known yet. It is drawing a long bow to say that this CEOs bonus should not be awarded because an accident happened. I'm not saying this is the case, but what if this woman had been in the role for a year and had doubled the maintenance schedule, reduced OH&S incidents and increased pay for all by increasing revenue? Should she be punished for the irresponsible actions of her predecessor? What if she employed the best maintenance company available and it was that company that screwed up? She should be punished? I totally agree that CEOs should act like ship's captains and take all responsibility regardless, but at least determine what the facts are first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booma Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 I doubt very much if such a bonus was justly earned in the first instance. Several hundred thousand dollars? Meanwhile a seventeen year old was apparently on her first day in charge of the operation that resulted in four deaths. Sounds like a typical cost saving concern, employing low wage staff, while over compensating on CEO bonus payments. Hardly unusual in todays world I admit. But one that must change. Like the captain of a ship, I certainly think the CEO must bear responsibility. The share holders will take a cut, profits will like wise. There are certainly a lot of questions requiring answering and not the usual cover ups. Why wasn't the maintenance able to get on top of recent reported problems to that implement. I mean the talk of anything resembling a bonus at a time of tragedy as this is quite frankly obscene. I'm afraid CEO 's roles must be more than cutting expenses and taking full responsibility. Just amazed you are unable to see that. probably because i prefer to wait for the outcome of the investigation before i join any witch hunts. i am surprised you dont know you cant just move a annual general meeting or leave out bits of the business of the meeting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 Your thesis is that bonus should be based on more than just financial performance of the company, and they often are (but not often enough in my opinion). There might be targets about gender diversity, OH&S, or any other number of key performance indicators like any other job. If the bonus is based entirely on financial performance, they cut costs, and a low-paid worker causes a problem like this then you would certainly have a point. But none of those facts are known yet. It is drawing a long bow to say that this CEOs bonus should not be awarded because an accident happened. I'm not saying this is the case, but what if this woman had been in the role for a year and had doubled the maintenance schedule, reduced OH&S incidents and increased pay for all by increasing revenue? Should she be punished for the irresponsible actions of her predecessor? What if she employed the best maintenance company available and it was that company that screwed up? She should be punished? I totally agree that CEOs should act like ship's captains and take all responsibility regardless, but at least determine what the facts are first. I'll repeat my initial observation. The even mention of a possible bonus of several hundred thousand dollars to a CEO at the time of such an occurrence is in my mind to height of bad taste for starters. I care not about excuses, or maybe's. To be frank I don't consider CEO to be worthy of any figure close to that sum, let alone after such an incident. Far too many balls up and walk away with golden handshakes anyway. How about reflecting performance, so non performing ones get charged for warming the seat? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 probably because i prefer to wait for the outcome of the investigation before i join any witch hunts. i am surprised you dont know you cant just move a annual general meeting or leave out bits of the business of the meeting. I just came from an AGM last week in fact where some hard issues were indeed raised over recent restructuring and the inability to find a CEO replacement. Certain matters could not be resolved and postponed for a later date. A matter such as bonus can easily be deferred. Nothing is set in stone. Under such circumstances I'd have thought that a natural path to process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 I'll repeat my initial observation. The even mention of a possible bonus of several hundred thousand dollars to a CEO at the time of such an occurrence is in my mind to height of bad taste for starters. I care not about excuses, or maybe's. To be frank I don't consider CEO to be worthy of any figure close to that sum, let alone after such an incident. Far too many balls up and walk away with golden handshakes anyway. How about reflecting performance, so non performing ones get charged for warming the seat? Not forgetting the fact that a seventeen year old female on her first day appeared in charge of the faulty apparatus from reports read. Suggests investigation in itself. An urgent investigation is highly warranted on work place deaths anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lambethlad Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 What was this woman thinking? I don't mind a sick joke but this is really tasteless, insensitive, gutter humour. Needless to say it's no surprise she has been suspended. http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/dreamworld-tragedy-hobart-radio-presenter-anna-dare-suspended-station-sorry-for-off-colour-joke/ar-AAjs3oQ?li=AAavLaF&ocid=spartanntp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diane Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 What was this woman thinking? I don't mind a sick joke but this is really tasteless, insensitive, gutter humour. Needless to say it's no surprise she has been suspended.http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/dreamworld-tragedy-hobart-radio-presenter-anna-dare-suspended-station-sorry-for-off-colour-joke/ar-AAjs3oQ?li=AAavLaF&ocid=spartanntp Probably a bit foolish but it's a very human way to deal with tragedy. When I worked in the City it was amazing how quickly the bad taste jokes surfaced after something horrific, and talking to friends who are nurses, it seems like the medical profession also uses black humour to cope with traumatic happenings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starlight7 Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 I think the radio woman is just young and dumb with very little empathy- probably not a sacking offence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blossom Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 I'll repeat my initial observation. The even mention of a possible bonus of several hundred thousand dollars to a CEO at the time of such an occurrence is in my mind to height of bad taste for starters.? I totally agree. I was watching an interview with her and she came across as so uncaring. And then saying they will be in contact with the family. Why the bloody hell have they not already been? Good taste would have had them putting off that meeting. The only reason I can see for not is incase she's worried that they might show up in the investigations that she has not been hitting safety targets etc, and wanting to get in for her bonus before that happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungo Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 They can't delta an AGM for heavens sake. I expect there is nothing that they would like to do more. But they can't delay an AGM and it is normal and proper for CEO remuneration to be voted upon at the AGM. It disgusts me that some people are using this tragedy to rail against others just because they earn more. Grow up and try to control your jealousy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blossom Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 It's nothing to do with jealously. It's a total lack of respect from them. Why on earth could they not put it off a couple of weeks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 What was this woman thinking? I don't mind a sick joke but this is really tasteless, insensitive, gutter humour. Needless to say it's no surprise she has been suspended.http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/dreamworld-tragedy-hobart-radio-presenter-anna-dare-suspended-station-sorry-for-off-colour-joke/ar-AAjs3oQ?li=AAavLaF&ocid=spartanntp Probably overcome by her own awesomeness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 It's nothing to do with jealously. It's a total lack of respect from them. Why on earth could they not put it off a couple of weeks? Greed obviously. The corporate logo being tarnished. The way forward it has been determined as in most such instances, being apology a few crocodile tears and business as usual as just another day at the office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 I totally agree. I was watching an interview with her and she came across as so uncaring. And then saying they will be in contact with the family. Why the bloody hell have they not already been? Good taste would have had them putting off that meeting. The only reason I can see for not is incase she's worried that they might show up in the investigations that she has not been hitting safety targets etc, and wanting to get in for her bonus before that happens. Indeed. Bonus and position firmly at back of mind. I pity the poor 17 year old in 'charge' of the apparatus at the time of the incident. It should not be a matter of days prior to reopening. It should be as long as it takes an independent inquiry to ascertain responsibility as well as a through safety check of the entire business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calNgary Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 Well that greedy CEO mustn't be that greedy as she has donated her bonus to charity. Also today was planned to be a memorial day going off whats being said in the media so not just a case ''oh ok lets move and re open to get money in' like some are making out. Terribly sad for all involved, but witch hunts make things 10 times worse. Cal x Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith and Linda Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 Well that greedy CEO mustn't be that greedy as she has donated her bonus to charity.Also today was planned to be a memorial day going off whats being said in the media so not just a case ''oh ok lets move and re open to get money in' like some are making out. Terribly sad for all involved, but witch hunts make things 10 times worse. Cal x Right motives just poor timing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.