Shadow Minister

You can continue defending the indefensible ad infinitum, meanwhile reality begs to differ with your spurious claims:

<<< "News reports have suggested that six major financial institutions participating in the (bailout) program have plans to pay their executives billions of dollars," said Pelosi and Reid, who represent California and Nevada, respectively. "Such reports understandably infuriate many Americans."

Critics of the bailout program told Reuters earlier this month that its restrictions may not rein in CEO pay at banks getting government cash infusions because the rules are vague and subject to interpretation.

While the pay limits do restrict things like so-called "golden parachute" severance awards, they set no precise limits on corporate leaders' pay, the critics said.>>>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/7954027

Fractelle,

The governing boards of large companies are made up with representatives of the shareholders who have a vested interest in maximising their profit. They do not hire a man for a large sum of money unless he has a track record of insight and innovation that generates far more profit than he is paid.

Because I feel that attacking the CEO of the Red Cross because he earns about $500k p.a. is small minded and petulant does not mean that I automatically agree with some of the most extreme examples, and I have an issue with the way most of these packages are structured.

Pericles

You first say

“I am being specific. There is nothing at all challenging, from a CEO's perspective, in managing an organization that does no R&D, no product design, no product development, no manufacturing, has no shareholders, no profit targets, and has a "sales" operation that consists of begging money from the general public, using guilt as a primary motivator.”

Then when I give you specific examples of responsibilities that would be expected of him that contradict your statement, instead of eating crow like you should you then say “Plenty of words. No specific measurables.”

This is going from the sublime to the ridiculous. All I did was to show how inept your statement was, it did not require a dissertation on specific goals for the CEO of the red cross.

Yes it is very basic management for dummies. As you are not there yet, I suggest you gain some very basic understanding of a topic before pontificating on it. (I wonder if your next insights will be on neurosurgery?)

MO

Your last post is so full of rhetoric and unsupported assertions that it is not worth tackling without a stiff whisky.

Eat crow, Shadow Minister? Now that's funny.

Spot the disconnect:

My proposition: There is nothing at all challenging, from a CEO's perspective...

Your reply: I give you specific examples of responsibilities that would be expected of him...

You insist on confusing the writing a list of impressive-sounding responsibilities, with the actual performance of complex tasks.

There is no CEO-level complexity in the tasks that are required to run a charity, however many words you use to describe them.

I'm pretty sure that you could make the job description of a 7-11 checkout sound challenging, if you include enough phrases about financial management and logistics. But the reality is often somewhat less exacting.

As indeed running a charity would be perfectly suited to a retired mortgage broker.

And in case you think I am making this all up from my position "as minor clerk in a gov dept, alien to real world salaries and requirements", I would just like to point out that there do exist charities that are run - very efficiently indeed - by (*gasp*) unpaid volunteers.

In fact, a friend of mine has just gone back to work after donating a year of his time, for free, to one such effort. All staff operate on the same basis, either on sabbatical, or following retirement, from their place of work. Even the computers are donated, not bought.

And before your next sneer, no, he was not working in the public service, but for an enlightened SME.

Of course, these organizations tend not to be the ones you automatically associate with the word "charity" in the corporate sense.

But that is only because they spend their time helping other people, as opposed to helping themselves.

[and to Shadow's other canard - about Zimbabwe and Empah]

Shadow, imagine if you had won a war of independence, and part of the peace deal involved the imperialists' commitment to pay for compensation to ensure the continued privileges of colonial white on your best land. Britain pays up but then that same imperialist power reneges on that pledge on the grounds that it only benefits "Mugabe cronies"! Of course, a diplomatic charade follows, as imperialist toadies with identity problems like Howard and Downer taking up the slack, offering incentives of special deals for the more affected white farmers, while pursuing one of the nastiest and most discriminatory immigration restrictions since White Australia.

Of course, the above covers just part of the history. That same imperialist power then lavishly sponsored a fake opposition of British-educated toadies in public, while running a covert murder-and-mayhem campaign in efforts to discredit ZANU-PF and Robert Mugabe.

Pericles,

Your attempts to ridicule my comments on the requirements of the CEO of the red cross are trite and purile and do not affect their validity. I might take you seriously if you actually attempted to show what I wrote was incorrect.

Simply calling him a non accountable chief beggar again and again is the simplistic drivelling that errodes any credibility that you used to have.

We are also involved in a much smaller way in the local community help scheme. This is very ably run by unpaid volunteers, as are most small charities, and managed by persons with little or no management training (such as your retired mortgage broker)

Many larger charity organisations are also mostly volunteer based as is the red cross with many itermediate positions filled purely by volunteers. But as with your friend, these unpaid volunteers cannot afford to do this permanently, and few participate longer than a year and as a result most large charities require continuity and professional management.

However, comparing what your friend does with what the CEO of the red cross does is like comparing the manager of a small shop with the head of BHP, and if you cannot comprehend the differences in scale and complexity then you are blinkered either by prejudice or ignorance, and reason has no sway.

MO

I recommend you discuss the side effects of what ever you are on with your doctor.

Next you will be claiming that the holocaust was the worst case of mass suicide ever.

Your comments on Zim are so fantastical as preclude you from ever being taken seriously again.

"The governing boards of large companies are made up with representatives of the shareholders who have a vested interest in maximising their profit. They do not hire a man for a large sum of money unless he has a track record of insight and innovation that generates far more profit than he is paid."

That's the theory Shadow Minister and it would work if we lived in an ideal world. But, what about the company that is under pressure to sign up a Chief Exec quickly in order to maintain confidence in the market, or any other real-world example for that matter, and makes the wrong choice? You live in a world of cant if you think there are no pedestrian CEOs out there and that everthing works perfectly. What about the decision of the Qantas board (after which Margaret Jackson was dumped) to significantly change the operation, which luckily ended up being voted down by the shareholders? The business talk now is that it would have been a disaster in light of the (unforseeable) global financial meltdown.

It just goes to show that some CEOs really are dummies and some circumstances can make even the best CEOs look like dummies. Either the times suit an individual or they don't. As everyone has to live and make a crust, there will always be mistakes made. And every company, like any individual, must have its ups and downs.