Ahmed Fahour - $5.6 million, plus Order of Australia Award for “distinguished” service to business across postal, banking and investment: just doing what he is extremely well paid to do, in other words. Australia Post turnover: $6 billion. Number of employees: 50,000.

U.S.A postal service top guy: AU$ 363,103. Organisation turnover: $92.3 billion. Number of employees: 493,381. No awards, because America doesn't have such silliness and just expects you to do your job at a reasonable, acceptable rate of pay.

You fall short with the topic, you could have easily added the Politicians salaries because we have an Australian Prime Minister who earns more than the American President.

Comparisons,
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-08/australia-post-ceo-ahmed-fahour-salary-higher-than-counterparts/8252484

What is very smelly is the alleged attempt by Australia Post seek to conceal its CEO's pay rise. 'Never you mind' the Board is saying.

So exactly who is on the Board and how to make the directors as individuals accountable for this?

http://auspost.com.au/about-us/corporate-information/board-of-directors

PM Turnbull has spoken against this rise (and the attempted concealment One hopes), but what about the other side of the Parliament and politicians generally?

His pay is beyond any argument. Let's insist these dicks are replaced with foreign directors who will do it cheaper. Hey it works for the regular worker why not the top knobs?
Fahour also set up a "Charity" that seems to employ his family? What's that? Full amount claimed off tax but most of it goes to family members.
Thank Keating for the "Not for profit" fiasco that the ordinary taxpayer pays for.
We need a radical overhaul of this nonsense because when the bubble bursts there is going to be an almighty reckoning.

Why are we making public servants rich?

In the case of Australia Post's CEO ?

Actually we're not.

The renumeration package of the CEO is decided
by the Australia Post Board. Australia Post is a
self-funded business enterprise that does not
rely on any government-funding. Mr Fahour's total
renumeration package takes into account the size
and complexity of the organisation which has an
annual turnover of more than $6 billion. The total
executive renumeration has not increased since 2014.
Since 2007 Australia Post has paid more than $6.3 billion
in dividends and taxes to the Federal Government.

Australia Post does not receive any taxpayer funding.

Now the salaries of politicians is a different story.
That is something that does need reforming. Especially
those politicians who leave their jobs. The salaries
and perks that they will receive FOR LIFE - will make
your blood boil. Bronwyn Bishop (250,000 plus for life).
And checkout out our retired former PMs.
Google it.

Yes. The reluctance to reveal the salary package seems to indicate that they can't really justify it. The florid gentleman on TV last night taking the old line that huge amounts have to be paid to get good people is rubbish. Is he really trying to tell us that our man's equivalent in the U.S is no good because he is only paid 300 odd thousand? The Yanks really expect a bang for their buck, and they wouldn't be putting no-hopers into jobs. Big business and management greed seems to be peculiar to Australia.

Some perspective. BHP Billiton, world's largest mining company, annual revenue $61 billion, CEO remuneration $7 million. Ten times the revenue, much greater responsibility, greater risk, but similar pay to CEO. Running AP is a walk in the park by comparison.
Yes, BHP did make a big loss last year due to that disaster, but AP made a big loss the year before.

Managing the planning for oil and mineral prospecting, extraction and transport is a wee bit different to same old Postal fixed buildings , same product and shrinking, not expanding, activity.

Auspost CEO . Work for 9th February : look at accounts for truck repairs , check stamp booklets are in warehouse and try new coffee machine.

Foxy,

I said 'we', not 'taxpayers'. We are customers as well as taxpayers, and unless you receive your postal services free, you are paying Mr. Fahour's salary along with the rest of us. Australia Post is a monopoly, has no competition and, therefore, we are a captive source of income for some seriously rich people.

Last financial year, Australia Post gouged a profit of $36 million out of us. Of that amount, half went directly into the pay packets of Fahour and other executives. Pretty good money for people who don't have to fight for markets because they are protected by the government. I wonder what it is that they actually do?

While they might not get direct taxpayer payments, they are getting public money that no other organisation can compete for. And, I don't think they are doing a very good job of it

Dear ttbn,

Point taken and very well reasoned and expressed.
Thank You.

I cannot say that the postal service has improved over the years.

Those at the top of it have done very well in recent times though.

I don't believe that the huge pays for Oz executives produce better outcomes for shareholders and the public. The big pays might be very likely to encourage a certain personality to dominate though.

The greatest living acerbic, Larry Pickering, today mentions the absurdity of Fahour's salary, and even has a photo of the brother's 'Islamic Museum Australia', to which Fahour donated a tax-deductable $2,000,000. Muslims in the money are expected to donate to Islam interests, and we, the customers of Australia Post and helping out big time.

LP also mentioned, where no one else has, that Fahour also sacked 1,000 posties just before Christmas to keep the money pile high.

Foxy,

Always a pleasure to deal with a lady; keeps me gentlemany - almost!

Dear ttbn,

You Sir are a gentleman - but more than
that you have a good heart.

None of this makes Ahmed Fahour a villian, of course. Who among us would knock back such riches if we a had run at them? If a piece on MSN yesterday, 'The 'myths' that justify huge pay packets for chief executives' is anything to go by, the Australia Post/Fahour business is just the tip of a very large iceberg. If it's still up, it is worth a read.

Next time you see that a salary was fixed by an independent group of people, don't relax as you might of done in the past; the 'independent' bit is where the problem lies. Independent directors are not share-holders, nor do they have any direct financial stake in the company. So, they are not spending 'their' money to attract the 'best and brightest' (supposedly); they are spending other people's money, and it could be yours. There are some interesting solutions to the problem in this article, including share-holders deciding salaries, workers on boards and, of course sensible legislation from dozey politicians.

One thing very interesting in 'The myths' is the information that, “between 2001 and 2008, JUST BEFORE THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS”, median fixed pay for Australian chief executives rose “a staggering120%, from about $780,000 to $1.7 million..”

Business enterprise is the life blood of the West and it is good; greed, not so good.

ttbn, "Who among us would knock back such riches if we a had run at them?"

I know you are just being expansive to make another point.

Let me assure you though that by far the greatest majority of managers, board members and CEOs, both private and public, are nothing like that.

You will find that the cowboys (cowgirls too!), opportunists and others with flexible 'ethics' are shunned by their peers and rightly so.

Nor does it fairly represent the main body of the public. You could leave your private affairs in the hands of most people in the certainty that they would deal with them honestly and fairly, with your best interests in mind.

PM Turnbull is to be applauded to criticising Australia Post. That says a lot about his own ethics and principles. The political partisanship of some here(not referring to your posts) and in the inner city media :( always requires a predictable spin that is studiously oblivious to the facts and the obvious rights and wrongs.

Every year the Govt gets the bank CEOs to explain themselves and be told they're naughty boys. Then off to lunch and champers. Naughty Auspost , such a shame but what can you do?

nicknamenick,

You are feeling disempowered.

Any competent risk analysis advising the Board would rate the risk of public embarrassment as a key concern with the prospect of large losses s a consequence.

There are reported case examples where shareholders have been very activist at AGMs and large investors too, who don't want their brand damaged, or are more likely, looking for professionalism, ethics and principles where they put their own investors' money.

Well I for one as a stamp stakeholder will drive a hard bargain. 10% discount on all acquisition of stamp stock is my final offer . No more of my sticky tape on parcels , he will have to supply all that and use enough to satisfy strict secure standards.
That's empowerment.

Leoj,

I'm not sure how you got the idea that I was suggesting that the majority of CEOs/Managers/Boards are anything but honest. I find that the Pareto Principle is never wrong: 80% ok 20% shonky. It has always been, and always will be, the minority that causes the majority of the problems; which, of course, raises the old question of why the majority allows the minority to get away with what they do. But that's another area all together.

ttbn,

Sorry if I misunderstood.

leoj,

No worries.