Where are any of them doing a “perfect job”? It would be good for you to present some factual evidence - bearing in mind it’s a lack if facts you berate in others who are rightly outraged by CEOs’ salaries.
The base pay of the CEOs of the 25 water companies range from lowest Ruth Jefferson (Wessex) on £440k to highest Liv Garfield (Severn) on £3.3 million. From what I can see there’s no relationship between pay and the size or operational situation of the company. So those “low base pay” you claim are nothing of the sort. Many now have their bonuses rightly paused. Here’s your outrage WITH factual basis.
CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 4 weeks ago
Executive officers get large compensation because they have responsibility over the organisation.
That means that when “accidents happen”, they bear responsibility, and should not receive their bonuses and possibly should be fired.
If a potable water company is unable to deliver potable water to their customers, it’s a gross failure of the leadership to take all measures to ensure that the company does what it exists to do.
Gladaed@feddit.org 4 weeks ago
You clearly misunderstood what I was saying.
It’s a charged topic so it makes sense. Frustrating nonetheless.
CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 4 weeks ago
Can you expand on the point? If they can’t deliver water the CEO shouldn’t be paid out; that’s the point of the salary/bonus ratio.
Gladaed@feddit.org 4 weeks ago
My point was that their pay is usually structured in a way that the base pay is a small percentage of their compensation and their bonuses are a virtually fixed part of their package and tied to company performance. They tend to not get any bonus when performing exceptionally poorly (e.g. going out of business). This means you get these bonus headlines even if they didn’t get a particularly big bonus at all and maybe even had their wage docked. These kinds of headlines are incendiary.
The magnitude of pay really does not matter much at all for this discussion.