WTF !!! CALTEX Boss $14m Payday..No Wonder Petrol is Expensive!!! - Page 2

turbodewd · 23-02-2016, 09:40 PM

Australia is a free country. In a free country you can make a lot of money. The bosses of huge companies have huge responsibilities.

Heard of a company called Nokia? They used to mean something. Those at the top of Nokia were super well paid, alas they got it wrong and Apple did what they did.

My point?! Those at the top of giant corporations have incredible responsibility and earn whatever they get.

Its a free country guys! Drop the envy and realise that you dont live in Argentina or Russia.

Adamz Ghia · 23-02-2016, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberWasp

With fuel under the dollar, wouldn't the governments be the ones now making the most out of petrol through all the taxes and levies applied to fuel.

Less GST.

csv8 · 23-02-2016, 10:00 PM

https://hbr.org/2014/09/ceos-get-pai...-in-the-world/

b0son · 23-02-2016, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turbodewd

Heard of a company called Nokia? They used to mean something. Those at the top of Nokia were super well paid, alas they got it wrong and Apple did what they did.

My point?! Those at the top of giant corporations have incredible responsibility and earn whatever they get.

You've just shot down your own argument. They were indeed well-paid, and still go it wrong. While the decisions they made had significant consequences for the company, they didn't have significant consequences for those that made the decisions.

Surely, if such a ridiculously high pay is going to be on offer, there should be a consequences to poor decision-making? eg. meagre/no pay if they get it wrong?

They get millions to show up, and millions more if they don't ***** it up. We don't even pay the man that runs the country millions....

Express · 23-02-2016, 10:52 PM

CEO's who get it wrong get the sack too.

Adamz Ghia · 23-02-2016, 10:56 PM

People assume CEO's just waltz in to a company and start from the top. Actually takes a bit of work to get into the big chair, and it's easier to be booted out than it is to get in.

cheap · 24-02-2016, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adamz Ghia

People assume CEO's just waltz in to a company and start from the top. Actually takes a bit of work to get into the big chair, and it's easier to be booted out than it is to get in.

Actually, these days most CEO's do waltz in, ridding on the hard work of previous CEO's. How many CEO's in the top 100 Australian Public listed companies actually built/started that company? Not many.

Telstra - nope
BHPB - nope
The banks - nope
Woolworths - nope

**Giant Cranium** · 24-02-2016, 01:29 AM

get educated, devote your life to work, have little contact with family and have no real friends an you can have a 14m bonus also.

its the same as when people complain about politician wages and pensions, do the job that would suck and get the benefits

**Giant Cranium** · 24-02-2016, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Express

CEO's who get it wrong get the sack too.

and a sacked ceo struggles to get work anywhere, reputation in a small group is hard to change

**Giant Cranium** · 24-02-2016, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hawke

Can someone explain why people get upset about some CEO getting paid $14m, but dont seem to complain about a sportsman getting paid $10m, or Nicole Kidman getting paid $35m a year.

At least the CEO ran a business that provided wealth for the economy, and employed some people.

I'm pretty sure the sports people and actors contribute to jobs as well!

think of food, staff, tickets, cinema, equipment manufacturing, policing, security, rent the list is endless.

SYZ · 24-02-2016, 02:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Express

$14 million is nothing in the world of oil profits, it’s not even an eye dropper full.

This is the type of money made by people at this corporate level, join them if you can.

Agree totally. If this bloke was "only" earning $1.4 million p/a do some people truly think the pump price would drop? A few lessons in Economics 101 is obviously needed here.

Wretched · 24-02-2016, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheap

Actually, these days most CEO's do waltz in, ridding on the hard work of previous CEO's. How many CEO's in the top 100 Australian Public listed companies actually built/started that company? Not many.

Telstra - nope
BHPB - nope
The banks - nope
Woolworths - nope

How old are these companies? Telstra was a government organisation first.

mike_nofx · 24-02-2016, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0son

The bigger issue is executive remuneration in general. It's frankly absurd. Millions per year, and then millions more in bonuses to motivate them?

It's like being given Miranda Kerr as a personal sex slave, but then needing a threesome with Gigi Hadid to motivate you to do anything with Miranda Kerr.

If you could get away with it, why not?

If I could be paid $14m for my job, with Miranda Kerr sex slave and the option of Gigi 3 ways I'd take it. Wouldn't you?

b0son · 24-02-2016, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike_nofx

If I could be paid $14m for my job, with Miranda Kerr sex slave and the option of Gigi 3 ways I'd take it. Wouldn't you?

I'd do offer to do that pro-bono ... or would that be pro-boner in this case....

Mowdit · 24-02-2016, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0son

We don't even pay the man that runs the country millions....

Good point, but if we were to add up all the extras that politicians at the top get between superannuation, flights, chauffeured cars................

Id happily pay $14 mill to the PM if he could actually run the country like Caltex

Met Julian once, quiet and a bit odd for a CEO, but gets the job done I guess.

Petrol is cheaper than most drinks these days

buggo · 24-02-2016, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0son

What is a CEO personally risking? He's not required to invest personal capital in the enterprise.

Each decision he makes has he needs to be certain is the right one. Not only does he have his own reputation as a C-suite on the line for future roles, but the livelihoods of each employee that falls under him. Every slide in market share, or decline in growth means normal peoples lives are ruined. That is a big responsibility to take on.

He also needs to make sure his investors see growth and keep putting up their money into the company, which also benefits him.

Most all CEO/ Upper tier employee bonuses are not given in cash, but in company shares.
If he drops the ball big time, his $13m can turn into $3m, but if he works hard, makes good & sound business decisions and keeps Caltex profitable, his $13m will be worth a lot more in the coming years. That's the incentive of getting big bonuses like this, it's in everyone's interest he keeps it up and money is the motivator. That's the biggest personal risk.

b0son · 24-02-2016, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buggo

That's the biggest personal risk.

So he's risking an obscene flapload of money, but getting a stupid flapload if he performs poorly... you have a very different view than I and many others if you consider that a risk.

I've no issue with performance-based remuneration. But noone has put forth a single compelling argument for a multi million dollar retainer.

Wretched · 24-02-2016, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0son

So he's risking an obscene flapload of money, but getting a stupid flapload if he performs poorly... you have a very different view than I and many others if you consider that a risk.

I've no issue with performance-based remuneration. But noone has put forth a single compelling argument for a multi million dollar retainer.

Shareholders and boards essentially pay that money for the experience that CEO brings. They expect that individual to be able to leverage off that experience and drive their company into future profit, market expansion, etc.

Like any role, you're paid based on your negotiation, skills, what the market will pay and past experience. Like I asked in a previous post, would anyone here do the role for an average or their own salary? None of the perks or bonuses, but have to work the hours, do the travel, take the responsibilities, etc?

You can question a CEOs pay, but then we can also start looking at some of the pays in other roles and industries, people earning 6 figure sums for standing around literally doing nothing. Earning large pay rises, not because of performance but a collective. Do we get to question these too?

Seems to be a lot of tall poppy syndrome here, the green eyed monster pops up again. May be Australia should become a communist state, everyone paid the same and all drive the same car.

buggo · 24-02-2016, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0son

So he's risking an obscene flapload of money, but getting a stupid flapload if he performs poorly... you have a very different view than I and many others if you consider that a risk.

I've no issue with performance-based remuneration. But noone has put forth a single compelling argument for a multi million dollar retainer.

He wasn't gifted his position, he's earned it. And with that comes a higher salary.
He doesn't get a 'stupid flapload of money' if he performs poorly, he loses his role and won't be able to find work in a similar position again. He also is liable to the shareholders if a decision he made results in their losses. He'd buy insurance against that though.

What's your argument against his retainer? If he asks for it, and the market thinks it's justified based on the fact he's got it, then I see no issue.

You can't possible think that he got here by chance, and that anyone lucky enough could do the same and earn the same in this apparent no-risk job.

Franco Cozzo · 24-02-2016, 02:15 PM

Mind you when they screw up they usually walk but with a huge payout on leaving.

**GasoLane** · 24-02-2016, 02:39 PM

I'd be more interested in how much Tax he pays.

Trump · 24-02-2016, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turbodewd

Australia is a free country. In a free country you can make a lot of money. The bosses of huge companies have huge responsibilities.

Heard of a company called Nokia? They used to mean something. Those at the top of Nokia were super well paid, alas they got it wrong and Apple did what they did.

My point?! Those at the top of giant corporations have incredible responsibility and earn whatever they get.

Its a free country guys! Drop the envy and realise that you dont live in Argentina or Russia.

Two things here:

- Australia is NOT a free country, despite appearances and bleatings to the contrary.

- Nokia is still around, they just fobbed off the consumer handset division to Microsoft.

If a private corporation sees fit to pay its CEO's and the rest of the alphabet gang obscene amounts of money, it is their perogative. It is also entirely up to said corporation to ensure any pay disparities between the various levels is equitable and sustainable.

The public service however... heads need to roll.

superyob · 24-02-2016, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

Two things here:

- Australia is NOT a free country, despite appearances and bleatings to the contrary.

- Nokia is still around, they just fobbed off the consumer handset division to Microsoft.

If a private corporation sees fit to pay its CEO's and the rest of the alphabet gang obscene amounts of money, it is their perogative. It is also entirely up to said corporation to ensure any pay disparities between the various levels is equitable and sustainable.

The public service however... heads need to roll.

Could you explain what you mean with the bits in bold please?

Trump · 24-02-2016, 05:24 PM

The current amount of "law" in Australia (statute, common, legislative instruments and the states) is that vast, pretty much every aspect of our daily lives is regulated to within an inch of its being. Just walking on the footpath almost certainly violates some "law".

As for the public service, it is so chock-a-block full of overpaid dead wood, the current budget woes could be sorted out in their entirety should this "forest" be cleared.
Not only that, the amount spent of parliamentarians (salary, perks, pensions etc) is beyond extortionate. Remove the perks and the rorting and leave in their place a living salary and watch the gold digging pookickers leave the ranks.

Adamz Ghia · 24-02-2016, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

The current amount of "law" in Australia (statute, common, legislative instruments and the states) is that vast, pretty much every aspect of our daily lives is regulated to within an inch of its being. Just walking on the footpath almost certainly violates some "law".

As for the public service, it is so chock-a-block full of overpaid dead wood, the current budget woes could be sorted out in their entirety should this "forest" be cleared.
Not only that, the amount spent of parliamentarians (salary, perks, pensions etc) is beyond extortionate. Remove the perks and the rorting and leave in their place a living salary and watch the gold digging pookickers leave the ranks.

Spend a week in North Korea and then come back and say we're not a free country.

Trump · 24-02-2016, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adamz Ghia

Spend a week in North Korea and then come back and say we're not a free country.

As a teen, I was in East Germany in the mid 1980's prior to the fall of the wall (thankfully for only a couple of weeks), one could see the shackles of oppression and the prison bars of communism as interpreted by the Politburo; here they are invisible or painted in pretty colours (usually blue or red).

b0son · 24-02-2016, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wretched

Like I asked in a previous post, would anyone here do the role for an average or their own salary?

Why average/own? We're talking *many* multiples of difference between the average wage and CEO average. Why not something anywhere on the scale in between?

I'm saying what they get paid now is too much, not that they should be paid what you or I might earn. Funnily enough, some prominent CEO's agree...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8090948.stm

Former CEO of Shell said if I had been paid 50% more, I would not have done it better. If I had been paid 50% less, then I would not have done it worse

CEO salaries used to track with everyone else's wages til the 80s, then something went haywire from the mid-80s onward.

The UK Institute of Directors describes the increase in CEO remuneration as unsustainable.

https://bdaily.co.uk/entrepreneurshi...nable-say-iod/

A NSW Labor Council report (http://www.psa.asn.au/Oldsite/news/f...Stops_here.pdf) showed that from 1992-2002, executive pay went from 22 times the average wage to 74 times! The share price certainly didn't improve by such a margin. In fact, remuneration increased by more than double the share price increase. If you see nothing wrong with that, what more can anyone say to you...

Quote:

You can question a CEOs pay, but then we can also start looking at some of the pays in other roles and industries

Have other roles' salaries soared in the way executive salries have over the last 20 years?

b0son · 24-02-2016, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buggo

He doesn't get a 'stupid flapload of money' if he performs poorly, he loses his role and won't be able to find work in a similar position again.

So? It's not like he'll be unemployable, and it's not like he'll be hard up for cash. Golden handshake anyone?

SYZ · 24-02-2016, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giant Cranium

and a sacked ceo struggles to get work anywhere, reputation in a small group is hard to change

Not so apparently. Check out the disgraced FIA/HIH former boss Rodney Adler who was sentenced to 4½ years jail for white collar crimes after their collapse, with losses totalling around $5.3 billion.

Banned from acting as a board director or major shareholder for 20 years, Adler instead now acts as an adviser [sic] to a raft of major companies on their structure, financing and borrowing capacity, and which include a leasing company, a materials-handling firm, an entertainment/film company, a corporate travel business, and a firm in the energy sector.

Overwhelmingly, the Australian business community has been warm and receptive since his release, but some still consider him to be untouchable.

Adler said in 2010: "In a general sense, the business community has been kind and forgiving. Not because I'm a good guy but because I've been punished. I did wrong and the punishment is over".

NX74205 · 24-02-2016, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0son

Have other roles' salaries soared in the way executive salries have over the last 20 years?

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0son

it's not like he'll be hard up for cash.

So what? What's it to you? Private companies can pay its employees anything they like, so long as it's above the minimum wage.

I don't get the angst over how much CEOs get paid. Whether you think it's worth it or not is irrelevant; what's important is whether the company thinks it's worth it. They could pay the CEO $14 billion a year for all I care.

There isn't - and there should never be any salary cap in any job, anywhere in the private sector.