The gall of the Enron board.

[Reeder]

You get appointed to run a company that screwed thousands of workers out of hard earned money and you do this??

HOUSTON - The five-member Enron Corp. board of directors has voted for pay raises that boost salaries by as much as $1 million.

In a filing with the New York bankruptcy court that oversaw the company's reorganization last year, the board said it voted to increase its compensation retroactively to the beginning of June.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/enron_board_pay

Well fuck you. Let's hope you and your jobs whither on the vine.

[Ike Witt]

The story doesn't make it clear who the request was filed with. I assume that whoever it was filed with has the power to laugh in their faces.

[SteveG1]

Damn right. I read that too, and was too far into WTF mode to write a decent rant.

[Kyla]

I just saw Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room yesterday (highly recommend it, btw) and I'm fuming, but I can't work myself up over this. These board guys aren't even Enron employees. It's not like Skilling and Lay are trying to rip off their employees even more.

Still, seems like these prospective raises are a little absurd.

[The Highwayman]

Why not? Bush put in a pay increase for his job, so why shouldn't the company who has given him the most money?

Well, actually, they have been surpassed but it was well into the '04 campaign to before someone else eclipsed them.

[Reeder]

Originally Posted by The Highwayman

Why not? Bush put in a pay increase for his job, so why shouldn't the company who has given him the most money?

Well, actually, they have been surpassed but it was well into the '04 campaign to before someone else eclipsed them.

The Chimp in charge has done a lot of things..but giving himself a pay raise ain't one of them.

Back to OP.

Doesn't the money for their salaries come out of the funds designated to pay creditors?

[Typo Negative]

The Houston-based energy company imploded in 2001 amid a massive financial and accounting scandal

A scandal that continues to this day, it seems.

All these guys should be ashamed of themselves.

[Nanoda]

I forget where I read about this, but my comment to my coworker at the time was that you've got to have huge balls to pull that one.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by The Highwayman

Why not? Bush put in a pay increase for his job, so why shouldn't the company who has given him the most money?

He did? When?

[NurseCarmen]

Has Bush been stealing paper clips from the supply closet for home use again?

[Frank]

Originally Posted by Reeder

Doesn't the money for their salaries come out of the funds designated to pay creditors?

It comes out of whatever funds are there. The creditors are never going to get all their money back anyway. Do you believe the guys running the company now (who were chosen by the creditors) should be doing it pro bono?

[Reeder]

Originally Posted by This Year's Model

It comes out of whatever funds are there. The creditors are never going to get all their money back anyway. Do you believe the guys running the company now (who were chosen by the creditors) should be doing it pro bono?

They weren't doing it pro bono. They were being paid a good salary.

But not good enough for them I guess.

[An Arky]

Well, if they are hired to bring Enron back from the abyss, and they're doing a good job, I don't see why a raise isn't in order, especially now that they've had time to really assess what it's going to take. Don't know if this is actually the case, though.

[Cheesesteak]

The board, none of them Enron employees, was chosen by creditors last year as part of the bankruptcy reorganization plan.

According to Wednesday's filing, the raises were needed because "the involvement of the directors has exceeded the levels anticipated," the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.

The board said the raises were temporary and would be revisited within six months

Hmmm.... they were hired to do specified work. That amount of work is exceeding expectations. They request a temporary pay increase.

Evil bastards.

[Metacom]

Originally Posted by Reeder

Well fuck you. Let's hope you and your jobs whither on the vine.

The nice thing about making $1+ million a year is that if your job withers on the vine, you won't.

[Ike Witt]

Originally Posted by Cheesesteak

Hmmm.... they were hired to do specified work. That amount of work is exceeding expectations. They request a temporary pay increase.

Evil bastards.

t raises the annual salary of Chairman John Ray III, a Wheaton, Ill., bankruptcy specialist, from $200,000 to $1.2 million.

Maybe not evil but either the guy is greedy or isn't the expert he thinks he is if the amount of time required for the work was that far off that he needs a 5x raise.

[Debaser]

All I know about this story is what's in the OP's article, but I don't see much there to be outraged about.

Did any of you people actually read it:

The board, none of them Enron employees, was chosen by creditors last year as part of the bankruptcy reorganization plan.

According to Wednesday's filing, the raises were needed because "the involvement of the directors has exceeded the levels anticipated," the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.

The board said the raises were temporary and would be revisited within six months.

The Houston-based energy company imploded in 2001 amid a massive financial and accounting scandal.

The scandal that brought down the company happened in 2001. These people were chosen as directors last year. They had nothing to do with the Enron scandal. They were brought in to help the bankrupt company.

The article states that the five members of the board were getting paid $150,000 per year each, with the director getting $200,000. This is very small money for board of director roles. If they've been doing a good job so far, they probably deserve a raise.

I don't know whether a raise for all or any of them is appropriate at this time, or if the amounts are responsible. The article doesn't mention what if anything these people have done with their year in charge, or the current status of the company. But just because the company is the dreaded "Enron" doesn't automatically make anyone associated with it evil, greedy corporate fatcats. They might be, but why assume it unless we know for sure?

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by adam yax

Maybe not evil but either the guy is greedy or isn't the expert he thinks he is if the amount of time required for the work was that far off that he needs a 5x raise.

...or he came in from the beginning with the expectation that if he could get the company back on it's feet he would increase his salary to something more in line with what a boardmember of a large company normally commands.

[Otto]

Originally Posted by The Highwayman

Bush put in a pay increase for his job

As noted, incorrect.

Effective Jan. 1, 2001, the salary of the president of the United States was increased to $390,000 per year including a $50,000 expense account. Any unused amount of the $50,000 expense account is returned to the Treasury.

The increase came as part of the Treasury Department appropriations included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2001 and signed into law by President Clinton on Dec. 21, 2000.

[The Highwayman]

Originally Posted by Bricker

He did? When?

I'm sorry, I made a boo boo for which I was already corrected. Clinton argued for and Congress approved the pay raise in 1999 from 200,000 to a long over due 400,000 which went into effect under Bush in 2001. My bad.

[wolf_meister]

Debaser
The article states that the five members of the board were getting paid $150,000 per year each, with the director getting $200,000. This is very small money for board of director roles. If they've been doing a good job so far, they probably deserve a raise.


Well, I suppose if you're on the Board of Directors of AT&T or GM it would be small money. But I'd say it's darned good money for a company that was run into the ground.

[wolf_meister]

Just thought I'd explain my previous posting a bit more.
I know the present Board Members are NOT the ones that destroyed the company. My point is that if you are going to be on the board of a company that got flushed down the toilet, maybe you shouldn't expect a lot of money so qucikly.
Thank you.

[Shayna]

Originally Posted by wolf_meister

Just thought I'd explain my previous posting a bit more.
I know the present Board Members are NOT the ones that destroyed the company. My point is that if you are going to be on the board of a company that got flushed down the toilet, maybe you shouldn't expect a lot of money so qucikly.
Thank you.

I think these excessively huge salaries for BODs are obscene anyway, but I think it's morally repugnant to take that kind of money for yourself -- ESPECIALLY since you weren't originally part of the company that went under -- when there are people who were there who lost their entire life savings and stand almost no chance of ever getting it back. I'm not suggesting that they aren't entitled to a decent salary for their efforts after-the-fact, but I find it despicable that they would dare to take millions of dollars from a bankrupt company before paying back every dime that was stolen from the hard-working employees. I say once they've accomplished that, IF they can accomplish that, then let the recompense for their efforts come in.

[MaddyStrut]

I don't understand what these people are doing that's so morally repugnant. If these salaries are in line with what other BODs make, it's just what you have to do to keep good people.

Putting the company back together is no easy task. You've got to have qualified people doing it. Those people are going to have a lot of opportunities to make more elsewhere. Sure, they may get some satisfaction from putting the company back on it's feet. But, at some point, if they could get a lot more elsewhere, that satisfaction isn't going to be enough to keep them there.

Sure, it would be nice if a lot of qualified people thought they'd do a good deed and restructure the company for a lower salary than they could get elsewhere--just because they believed in what they were doing. However, think about how you'd feel if you went into a job like that with all good intentions. A year later you find there's a lot more work involved than you originally anticipated, it's likely quite stressful, and you have offers to make a lot more somewhere else. Wouldn't it be really tempting to leave? You didn't get the company into trouble, after all.

[wolf_meister]

MaddyStrut
However, think about how you'd feel if you went into a job like that with all good intentions. A year later you find there's a lot more work involved than you originally anticipated, it's likely quite stressful, and you have offers to make a lot more somewhere else. Wouldn't it be really tempting to leave?

Maybe it's my cynical mentality but perhaps they never had the noblest of intentions. Sure, they probably took a chance at a very low salary. After a year they figured that they'd ask for a ridiculous amount of money for a pay raise with the threat of "hey we can get a lot better salary elsewhere and you'd have to start from scratch with new people". I mean how many people have the temerity to ask for a raise that is higher by a factor of 6 and two thirds ? It's funny that in this age of jobs being scarce and being outsourced, the demand for Board of Director Members is still a high-paying and much-in-demand profession.

[glilly]

Originally Posted by wolf_meister

Maybe it's my cynical mentality but perhaps they never had the noblest of intentions. Sure, they probably took a chance at a very low salary. After a year they figured that they'd ask for a ridiculous amount of money for a pay raise with the threat of "hey we can get a lot better salary elsewhere and you'd have to start from scratch with new people". I mean how many people have the temerity to ask for a raise that is higher by a factor of 6 and two thirds ? It's funny that in this age of jobs being scarce and being outsourced, the demand for Board of Director Members is still a high-paying and much-in-demand profession.

What, you think the prospective BODs got together and said, "Hey, lets lowball our salaries, then once we're in, we'll ask for a LOT MORE (on a temporary basis)!"

"Yes, diabolical plan! I think it will work!"

If this is a realistic scenario, it's least likely to happen at an Enron, which will have a spotlight on executive salaries for years to come. It would be more likely at a highly profitable company where people will be more likely to explain away higher salaries by fiancial performance.

Problem is, BODs are considered part-time work, often staffed by people who are CEOs of other companies. The salaries are low in comparison with CEOs' primary salaries. If the BOD is actually having to do work (which they may not have expected), it may keep them from their day jobs or other BOD gigs.

If you pay only by company performance, not by volume of work, you will have brain drain, and struggling companies like enron need better management than profitable companies, and you can't expect to keep the best over the long term if you give them better opportunities elsewhere.

[buttonjockey308]

I don't see a whole lot wrong with this. Seems like the raises will be revisited in six months, so if the BOD's preformance falls off, so does their cash. It's called incentive.

Frankly I think a lot of the CEO salaries are completely obscene, but in most cases they're absolute peanuts compared to professional sports salaries (and owner profits). i'd like to gather outrage, but there's not enough here to do it

[Typo Negative]

The board said the raises were temporary and would be revisited within six months.

And then they will be raised another 50% and set to be revisited 6 months after that.

[Liberal]

Reeder, two questions: (1) did you even look at who these guys were compared to what they were making? and (2) is wealth-envy a prerequisite to embracing socialism?

[UncleBeer]

I think these excessively huge salaries for BODs are obscene anyway, but I think it's morally repugnant to take that kind of money for yourself -- ESPECIALLY since you weren't originally part of the company that went under -- when there are people who were there who lost their entire life savings and stand almost no chance of ever getting it back.

Is it also repugnant that while many of Enron's employees have lost their retirement funds through Enron's corporate scams, the State of California (and to a lesser extent Washington and Oregon) are extracting a $1.5B+ settlement from Enron's corpse? And that the plan for that billion-and-a-half dollars is little more than the enrichment of state coffers? Pehaps when they get their ~$0.22 on the dollar, the State of California should consider that the individuals who've lost their retirement funds might need that money a little more than the state treasury does and forego their settlement.

From the New York Times published 7/16/05:

The settlement "will squeeze justice from this corporate turnip," Bill Lockyer, the attorney general for California, said in a statement.

"Justice" apparently meaning "windfall" for Califonia's general fund and the hell with the people who have been most harmed.

Or does it matter tha Enron has actually already reached an agreement (~$360 million) with its former employees stemming from the retirement fund lawsuit? These former employees will likely get the same 22¢ on their dollars.

[Debaser]

Mmmm....turnip juice.

Er, I mean Mmmmm...justice.

What is CA getting settlement money from Enron for? Why is it the responsibility of CA to pay back Enron workers?

[UncleBeer]

What is CA getting settlement money from Enron for?

From the same NYT article:

Enron, the former highflying energy trader now operating under bankruptcy protection, announced yesterday that it had reached an agreement to pay as much as $1.52 billion to the State of California and other parties.

Enron and other power companies are accused of gouging consumers by artificially inflating electricity prices during the California energy crisis. The crisis led to billions of dollars of surcharges for consumers and businesses on the West Coast.

The settlement represents fines levied against the corpse of Enron by the California Electricity Oversight Board, and the various attorneys general of California, Washington & Orgeon for Enron's fraud. That's why California thinks it needs some money.

Why is it the responsibility of CA to pay back Enron workers?

I'm not trying to say that it is California's responsibility. I'm trying to say that perhaps the claims of other parties - the defrauded retirees namely - should take precedence over California's turnip squeezing. After all, those poor bastards need the money more than the state. They've got nothing, or next to it, while the state of California has all kinds of sources of revenue.

[Shayna]

Originally Posted by UncleBeer

Is it also repugnant that while many of Enron's employees have lost their retirement funds through Enron's corporate scams, the State of California (and to a lesser extent Washington and Oregon) are extracting a $1.5B+ settlement from Enron's corpse? And that the plan for that billion-and-a-half dollars is little more than the enrichment of state coffers? Pehaps when they get their ~$0.22 on the dollar, the State of California should consider that the individuals who've lost their retirement funds might need that money a little more than the state treasury does and forego their settlement.

From the New York Times published 7/16/05:

"Justice" apparently meaning "windfall" for Califonia's general fund and the hell with the people who have been most harmed.

Or does it matter tha Enron has actually already reached an agreement (~$360 million) with its former employees stemming from the retirement fund lawsuit? These former employees will likely get the same 22¢ on their dollars.

It shouldn't surprise me to see that you're still a bloody fucking idiot.

Californian energy users were among the millions of people DEFRAUDED BY Enron's greedy executives. EVERYONE who was a victim of their fraud should be paid back before MORE greedy fatcats make greater than a million dollar a year salaries for being pencil-pushers.

EVERYONE.

Victims FIRST.

The settlements the DEFRAUDED VICTIMS in the state of California (and others) are getting, are being paid to the DEFRAUDED utility providers, as REFUNDS for their LOSSES. It's not going into the state's General Fund, as you falsely stated. Those of us who got ripped the fuck off and put OUR money into the pockets of those greedy, theiving bastards, deserve some recompense as well.

http://www.showmenews.com/2005/Jul/20050716News013.asp

Once the settlement amount is set, California’s three investor-owned utilities - Pacific Gas and Electric Co., Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas and Electric - will calculate how much each will receive in refunds.

How the utilities will use the money is up to the California Public Utilities Commission, Edison spokesman Gil Alexander said. The PUC has directed utilities to use previous refunds to offset future rate increases, he said.

California had sought nearly $9 billion in refunds for overcharges by dozens of energy companies. Wholesale energy prices hit all-time highs during the crisis. Utilities rang up billions of dollars in debt because they couldn’t pass those higher costs on to retail customers.

I'm sure it's too much to hope you'd get your fucking facts straight before spewing at the mouth next time.

[Shayna]

And just to further clarify more of your misstatements:

The settlement will end market manipulation and price gouging claims against the once-high-flying Houston-based company, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said yesterday, but the exact amount could be considerably less than the settlement’s face value.

The agreement requires approval from the bankruptcy court and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC. The final payment amounts will depend on what is left after Enron’s secured creditors are repaid as part of bankruptcy proceedings.

Victims first, and in their proper order and all that.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by MaddyStrut

I don't understand what these people are doing that's so morally repugnant. If these salaries are in line with what other BODs make, it's just what you have to do to keep good people.

I've worked with BODs up close and personal. Frankly, a lot of the money they make is pork ... just plain pork, because while they're on someone ELSE'S BOD, they vote THEM a large salary, so that they get a large salary from their buddies on the BODs they serve. There is absolutely no link between the level of compensation BODs receive and what they do.

It's a ripoff.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by Shayna

Victims FIRST.

The settlements the DEFRAUDED VICTIMS in the state of California (and others) are getting, are being paid to the DEFRAUDED utility providers, as REFUNDS for their LOSSES. It's not going into the state's General Fund, as you falsely stated. Those of us who got ripped the fuck off and put OUR money into the pockets of those greedy, theiving bastards, deserve some recompense as well.

You don't think the employees who lost their retirement money are victims too?

[Shayna]

Originally Posted by This Year's Model

You don't think the employees who lost their retirement money are victims too?

Ahem. Have you read the whole thread, or did you just skip to the end?

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...9&postcount=23

[Frank]

Originally Posted by Shayna

Ahem. Have you read the whole thread, or did you just skip to the end?

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...9&postcount=23

I did miss that. OK then.

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

I've worked with BODs up close and personal. Frankly, a lot of the money they make is pork ... just plain pork, because while they're on someone ELSE'S BOD, they vote THEM a large salary, so that they get a large salary from their buddies on the BODs they serve. There is absolutely no link between the level of compensation BODs receive and what they do.

It's a ripoff.

I'm trying to understand what you're saying. I can't tell whether you've personally audited the financial accounts of all directors for the Fortune 100 companies, or whether you've jumped out of a cake at a couple of board meetings.

[UncleBeer]

Poisoning another thread with your petty hatred of me, Shayna? Ever since it fell to me to tell you that WallyM7 didn't write what he posted in his Cybersex thread all those years ago, you have held me in a totally unreasonable contempt and pass up very few opportunities to give me a load of your shrill bitching. Let. It Go.

Originally Posted by Shayna

And just to further clarify more of your misstatements: Victims first, and in their proper order and all that.

Right. And the defrauded retirees are unsecured creditors. They're in line with the state of California waiting for the dregs. I'm merely suggesting that perhaps the retirees should be moved in line ahead of the state of California when the checks are handed out. They have greater neeed.

And although you claim the state of California treasury isn't getting any of this potential $1.5+B settlement, that's simply false. The defrauded consumers are slated to get only about $250 million of the total figure.

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/17060

The settling parties include PG&E Corp.'s utility unit Pacific Gas and Electric Co., Edison International's Southern California Edison Co., SDG&E, the California Department of Water Resources, the California Electricity Oversight Board, the state of California and the attorneys general of Oregon and Washington.

Some of these parties to the announced settlement are government entities of the state of California. Notably not a single one of the parties to this settlement are consumers or consumers groups. And finally before any of the money awarded to the power companies can be finally returned to the consumers, the California Public Utilities Commission has to give their approval. So, yeah, the State of California has put itself in the refund line ahead of parties more wronged.

Even your own Attorney General agrees:

The Enron settlement is the 10th produced by Lockyer's Energy Task Force, working in cooperation with the CPUC, EOB, Governor's Office, CDWR, PG&E and SCE. The 10 settlements have a combined value of $4.9 billion. Of that total, an estimated $3.64 billion represents ratepayer relief.

http://www.ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/2005/05-055.htm
The state of California has siphoned off 1.3 billion dollars for its own use from the various settlements stemming from the 2001 energy scams.

[Shayna]

Originally Posted by UncleBeer

Poisoning another thread with your petty hatred of me, Shayna? Ever since it fell to me to tell you that WallyM7 didn't write what he posted in his Cybersex thread all those years ago, you have held me in a totally unreasonable contempt and pass up very few opportunities to give me a load of your shrill bitching. Let. It Go.

What! The! Fuck! Are! You! Talking! About?! I don't even remember your involvement in anything to do with Wally. I hold you in contempt because I think you are one of the dumbest liars to ever disgrace this message board, based SOLELY on what you post here. And I reply directly to your posts and their content, I don't fling shit about 5 year old dead issues. If anyone seems to need to let something go, I'd say it's you.

Right. And the defrauded retirees are unsecured creditors. They're in line with the state of California waiting for the dregs. I'm merely suggesting that perhaps the retirees should be moved in line ahead of the state of California when the checks are handed out. They have greater neeed.

And they ARE ahead in line. Did you even bother to read the highlighted quoted section of post #34?

That still doesn't make the defrauded states, the defrauded PUCs, the defrauded shareholders of those PUCs and the defrauded consumers any less defrauded. We'll get a share of the pie, as we deserve a share of the pie as VICTIMS of this scam. All the rest of your drivel is meaningless, unless you can show why we don't deserve our share of recompense for our share in the losses. I've already said, quite clearly, that the hard-working employees of Enron should have first dibs on the pie. And I think they should get a hell of a lot more than 22 cents on the dollar -- they damn well ought to be reimbursed 100% for their losses. Which ought to happen before the defrauded creditors get refunded their losses, which should come before the defrauded shareholders of the PUCs should be refunded their losses, and before the PUCs themselves, and before the defrauded consumers get refunded their losses, and lastly, the states, for their share in the losses. Which seems to me to be, at least somewhat, the order in which the wronged parties are being refunded -- and ought to be refunded before more fatcats take more multi-million dollar salaries to fund their bloated, extravagant lifestyles.

[wolf_meister]

Shayna
I think I can see UncleBeer's point. (Oh boy, I'm in for it now !! )
Anyway, I would imagine the Enron employees who lost their pensions are the most deserving of getting some kind of compensation. (Maybe not legally - but definitely morally.)
I doubt there are many California consumers who would make a comment like "Jesus - I was gonna get a $3 rebate on my electric bill. But no - it went to those Enron employees who lost their pensions!!!"

[wolf_meister]

Shayna

After carefully re-reading your reply, I see we are in agreement.
You said that:
the hard-working employees of Enron should have first dibs on the pie.

Yep we sure agree on that.

[Shayna]

Originally Posted by wolf_meister

Shayna
I think I can see UncleBeer's point. (Oh boy, I'm in for it now !! )
Anyway, I would imagine the Enron employees who lost their pensions are the most deserving of getting some kind of compensation. (Maybe not legally - but definitely morally.)

Did you follow This Year's Model's lead and skip straight to the bottom, missing where I have now said this very same thing several times in this very thread?

I doubt there are many California consumers who would make a comment like "Jesus - I was gonna get a $3 rebate on my electric bill. But no - it went to those Enron employees who lost their pensions!!!"

I doubt that, either. That doesn't negate the fact that the states, their PUCs, the shareholders of those PUCs and the consumers were defrauded to the tune of billions of dollars. Should those defrauded parties not fight for at least a fair share of the reimbursements they're entitled to by law?

Besides which, this entire line is a complete hijack from the point of this thread -- the new Enron BOD awarding themselves multi-million dollar salaries out of the pot that, IMO, morally, should be going to all the defrauded parties FIRST, starting with the employees. I cannot find the justification in Board members taking those kinds of salaries.

Given that the investigative body of the United States Senate found, in part, that the role of the original Board of Directors at Enron contributed to its collapes by:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/e...si70802rpt.pdf

(5) Excessive Compensation. The Enron Board of Directors approved excessive compensation for company executives, failed to monitor the cumulative cash drain caused by Enron’s 2000 annual bonus and performance unit plans, and failed to monitor or halt abuse by Board Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Kenneth Lay of a company-financed, multi-million dollar, personal credit line.

This just smacks of history repeating itself to me.

[Shayna]

Originally Posted by wolf_meister

Shayna

After carefully re-reading your reply, I see we are in agreement.
You said that:
the hard-working employees of Enron should have first dibs on the pie.

Yep we sure agree on that.

Oops. Missed this while I was composing the above. Sorry.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by Shayna

Oops. Missed this while I was composing the above. Sorry.

Didn't go straight to the bottom, eh?

[Shayna]

Originally Posted by This Year's Model

Didn't go straight to the bottom, eh?

Missing an interim post that came in while composing a reply is hardly the same as not bothering to read a thread in its entirety before commenting. And yet I apologized anyway. And your point is?

[Frank]

Originally Posted by Shayna

Missing an interim post that came in while composing a reply is hardly the same as not bothering to read a thread in its entirety before commenting. And yet I apologized anyway. And your point is?

Fine, fuck you and the horse that you and your attitude problem rode it on.

[UncleBeer]

Besides which, this entire line is a complete hijack from the point of this thread -- the new Enron BOD awarding themselves multi-million dollar salaries out of the pot that, IMO, morally, should be going to all the defrauded parties FIRST, starting with the employees. I cannot find the justification in Board members taking those kinds of salaries.

Since we're "correcting facts" and all, perhaps you should take another look at those salary figures.

It is proposed for one guy only that his salary be raised above the million dollar mark. None of the other four are anywhere near a million bucks.

[MaddyStrut]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

I've worked with BODs up close and personal. Frankly, a lot of the money they make is pork ... just plain pork, because while they're on someone ELSE'S BOD, they vote THEM a large salary, so that they get a large salary from their buddies on the BODs they serve. There is absolutely no link between the level of compensation BODs receive and what they do.

It's a ripoff.

No link between what they do and their compensation in terms of what? The amount of work they do? The type of work they do? The amount of reponsibility they hold?

I probably put in more work hours than members of my company's BOD. However, I wouldn't say it's wrong that they get paid more than I do. Frankly, there's more demand for them than there is for me. Plus, if I mess up (unless I really make an effort to go out in a blaze of glory), you're not going to see my name in the WSJ. Finally, I really can't hurt the company too severely or turn it around. The BOD can.