Yabby and others

Of course the best employers create a solid partnership with their employers. A good and smart employer knows that a loyal, well trained and committed workforce requires some effort on their part as well as a good work ethic on the part of the employee.

In today's Canberra Times there was an article about Bob Brown's call to rein in executive salaries with a cap of about $5M. Surely no-one is 'worth' more than $5M for the work they do. I am not talking about profit but salaries. There might be a problem with implementing this unless it was a global effort - which knowing the US will probably fall flat.

Last financial year half of Australia's top companies awarded 10% or more pay rises to executives - despite the recession.

It is this sort of system we want to sustain? Where the poorer paid make the greater sacrifice during difficult financial times.

rehctub
Why is it a concern for you for people to protest about WC regardless of whether they have been affected or not. You mentioned on another thread that you weren't a supporter of WC.

Do we stop protesting about burglary because our homes have not been robbed? Do we perpetuate the selfish society by only raising concerns only when they affect us?

It not only takes a village to raise a child but to ensure the most vulnerable are not so disempowered as to get a fair go.

The real clowns in this world don’t wear Clown Suits, they wear wigs and gowns, or simply a business suit, and sit in the temple selling not doves and changing money, but instead selling justice.

It is time real clowns woke up to the fact that despite eleven years of seriously corrupt and incompetent government, the laws to make these clowns stop laughing, passed by Paul Keating’s government remain on the books.
Just so the real clowns know what they are facing:
Paul Keating’s government amended the Trade Practices Act 1974 in S 45 so that to exclude any person from full participation in our representative democracy, has been illegal since 1995.

The Trade Practices Act 1974 provides remedies against these clowns, but clowns who call themselves registrars in the Federal Court and High Court relying on the arrogance and impracticality of their unelected Judicial Officers, and their undemocratic and despotic rules, have not seen the train coming down the track to demolish their world. S 45 Trade Practices Act 1974 was applied to all corporations including the fully corporatised State and Federal Courts in 1995.

The clowns who have been taking very large executive salaries, are all responsible for the conduct of their corporations, and if the corporation offends, they should pay. Maybe they get danger money as CEO’s.

The Workchoices legislation was in direct conflict with the common law, but clowns had a circus in which only clowns could play.

The banks lobbied Government to be exempt from the Trade Practices Act 1974. However, the Government imposed the Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act 2001 giving the same conditions as if the Trade Practices Act 1974 applied to them.

Paul Keating’s government enacted the Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth), The Evidence Act 1995, (Cth) and the National Competition Policy Act 1995, but clowns in both Federal and State Courts, have refused to compete in the delivery of justice. We have nothing to fear but fear itself, and the cure for fear is a fair just and impartial judicial system, available to all without fear or favor

*Surely no-one is 'worth' more than $5M for the work they do. I am not talking about profit but salaries.*

Pelican, in principle I agree with you, but in practise this is
harder to implement, then at first might seem.

So if we go back to the fundamental issues, if a company is to make
a profit, an employee should be paid a little less then they are
worth to the company, so that the company comes out ahead, or they
go broke.

Now we saw an interesting case in the global banking industry, where
Obama limited the salaries paid to banking staff to half a million
Dollars, for banks which had obtained Govt aid.

So what happened? As it happens, there are in fact traders working
for banks, who regularly generate tens of millions to hundreds of
millions of $ for their employers. Really smart dudes, who are rare
but they are around.

The moment a cap was put on their salaries, banks from other parts
of the world moved in and pinched them, for they knew that these
guys were gems and would make them alot of money. So its a global
issue.

Really great CEO talent, especially in some industries, is not easy
to find, so again one sometimes needs to search globally to find
the right guy and boards commonly get it wrong. A CEO with bad
judgement can lose a company billions!

When Westpac nearly went broke in the early 90s due to bad management
decisions, they turned to Bob Joss to turn the bank around, which
he did very well indeed. But you are not going to get that kind
of talent moving family around the world, unless its worth their
effort.

So in terms of "fairplay" or "morality" you might have a point.
But in terms of a straight business decision, whatever they pay
a CEO in $ terms hardly matters, compared to the damage or good
that they can do for a company, by showing really good or really
bad judgment. Tens of thousands of jobs depend on that.

Workers and Employers have the same basic rights, but the playing field has been uneven because employers are usually able to resource lawyers who will fight their cases for them, provided they are given plenty of money. Paul Keating’s government evened up the playing field, between 1993 and 1996 when he was defeated, but Bill Keelty did not pursue employers on behalf of the Queen, because lawyers probably told him he couldn’t.

Here are the tools a member of the Australian Federal Police needs to serve us as proper Policemen of the Constitution.
FOUR CASES

To understand the Australian Constitution it is only necessary to read and understand four High Court Cases with a peek at a fifth.

CASE 1: is here: The King V Kidman which states that the six Justice streams from the King through the States became one only at federation in 1901. http://www.community-law.info/?page_id=495

Case 2: established the “Kable Principle” which states that states cannot then subdivide that Justice stream by local Legislation. http://www.community-law.info/?page_id=225

Case 3: Is the extract from the Pape decision on the 7th July 2008, where the High Court confirmed S 15A Acts Interpretation Act 1901 ( Cth) automatically avoids any law made contrary to the Australian Constitution. http://www.community-law.info/?page_id=203

Case 4: is Lane V Morrison which states that an Officer cannot be a court, and defines courts to include all Parliaments, and any gathering in the name of the sovereign, who in Australia is Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second. http://www.community-law.info/?page_id=503

If you read and understand these all the rest of the law becomes understandable and certain. The article on the Judicial Process on the same website, with the reference to Murphy in Metwally, and Holdsworth on the common law, should give a potted version of all that a lawyer should know but his mummy never told him. Since most Australian Federal Police Officers have a degree of some kind, this law is not beyond them, and Australia can look forward to a century of peace and harmony based upon a better education of those who have the work to do, keeping the peace

Yabby
I agree it might be difficult to implement, unless there was some form of global agreement.

Although I wonder if there are quite a few managers out there on their way up the ladder who show potential that could take up the reins on a smaller salary. $5M is nothing to sneeze at afterall. In fact I wouldn't mind betting that they may do an equal or better job than some of the existing CEOs who have walked away with bonuses despite losses and depreciation in the value of shares.

Perhaps we also need to reward CEOs and executives who manage to retain staff during difficult times and still stave off severe hits to the profit margin. With built-in agreements that people's jobs will be saved if management take a small pay cut, middle management a lesser pay cut with no cuts to the lowest paid employees such as cleaners, retail assistants, bank tellers, hospitality staff or whatever roles are relevant for that particular business.

*Although I wonder if there are quite a few managers out there on their way up the ladder who show potential that could take up the reins on a smaller salary*

Pelican, there possibly are. But the problem remains, to find
people who can show great judgment in picking people with great
judgment. Fact is that many board members who pick CEOs, don't
have it. So often past performance is what is used and it often
still does not work out.

*With built-in agreements that people's jobs will be saved if management take a small pay cut, middle management a lesser pay cut with no cuts to the lowest paid employees such as cleaners,*

Once again, the numbers hardly stack up. Take Wesfarmers, who
IIRC, employ around 300'000 people in their Coles, Bunnings,
Target, K-Mart and other businesses. If you cut a million $
off the CEO salary, that works out to $ 3.30 per year per
employee. Even if they employed only 30'000 people as a smaller
business, that would still only add up to 33$ per employee,
hardly enough to make a difference. But the decisions that
this CEO makes, has a huge effect on the jobs of all those
employees.

What we really need is a better way to evaluate top management,
which is another story altogether :)