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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
And then they will be raised another 50% and set to be revisited 6 months after that.
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?
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.
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?
From the same NYT article:
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.
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.
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.
I’m sure it’s too much to hope you’d get your fucking facts straight before spewing at the mouth next time.
And just to further clarify more of your misstatements:
Victims first, and in their proper order and all that.
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.
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/showpost.php?p=6384349&postcount=23
I did miss that. OK then.
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.
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.
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
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:
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.