TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum  

Go Back   TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum » Main Forum » Politics

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 29-10-11, 12:09 PM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default Executive pay soars while the young poor face freefall. Where is Labour?

Executive pay soars while the young poor face freefall. Where is Labour?

As the income gap yawns wider and the full blast of cuts hits home, those left behind will find others to voice their anger

Polly Toynbee
guardian.co.uk, Friday 28 October 2011 21.00 BST


The 25th anniversary of the City's Big Bang was marked by an extraordinarily apt set of events this week. A wealth of ironies tumbled out one after another as if scripted by some celestial playwright.

Begin with the latest earnings figures for FTSE 100 directors, up an astounding 49%. Bank shares soared on Thursday with typical irrational exuberance, pretending the eurozone refinancing means everything is back to normal. Expect some shocking figures next week for the drop in the percentage of tax on profits paid by tax-avoiding UK companies, a telling background to UK Uncut's pursuit of Goldman Sachs in the courts for its missing £10m tax.

Meanwhile, Incomes Data Services reports median wages rising by 2.4%, with an average of 0.0% in the public sector (many suffered cuts, so had less than zero), while inflation topped 5%. The Agricultural Wages Board was abolished in parliament on Tuesday, bringing some of the 152,000 farm and forestry workers to Westminster to lobby in vain against a potential £9m pay cut; it also removes the £3.05 hourly minimum for child farm workers.

The TUC's evidence this week to the Low Pay Commission, which sets the national minimum wage, called for raising the minimum above inflation, as it has fallen behind: no chance. Instead, a leaked government report suggested cutting employment rights, making it easier to fire people. Channel 4's FactCheck made mincemeat of that: the OECD reports the UK has the third least-regulated labour market. But europhobe rebels needed the myth that employers are handcuffed by EU red tape.

This week the Office for National Statistics reported the lowest participation in pension schemes since 1956. The steep drop in household incomes means people are abandoning pensions, ensuring poverty in old age and heavy costs to the state. Imposing another 3% on public sector employees will accelerate that exodus.

As the chill of George Osborne's austerity grips, a GfK NOP poll this week found an unsurprising collapse in consumer confidence. A dismal -32 confidence level suggests imminent double-dip, as it matches the plunges before the 1990 and 2008 recessions. Next week's GDP figures are expected to show no flicker on the life-support monitor.

As the income gap yawns wider, yet another report – this week from the Bertelsmann Foundation – ranks Britain just 15th in the OECD for social justice. Though one of the richest nations, UK child poverty is only just above Greece's. That's hardly news. But here's a small insight into hardship that Dr Eoin Clarke unearthed from the Centre for Retail Research. Shoplifting is rising, as it does in recessions. What are the most stolen items? Not luxuries. Cheese comes a long way top, meat second, then fish and baby milk only just behind alcohol. Baby milk!

I caught another snapshot of the nation when I chaired a rally in Central Hall Westminster. I wrongly expected a small event, but Choose Youth packed the hall on Tuesday with more than 1,000 young people lobbying MPs about the destruction of their services, in the week the IFS reported that education is being cut by 14%: Sure Start for toddlers, and 16- to 19-year-olds are hit hardest. Anyone doubting 16-year-olds deserve the vote should have listened to speaker after speaker from sixth forms and colleges, young mayors, some high fliers, some with stories of rescue from personal disaster by youth schemes, some with music, from Salford, Bolton, Cumbria and Tottenham. They talked of losing the education maintenance allowance (EMA), the Connexions service, Aimhigher, the Future Jobs Fund, and, most shocking, the cutting of Care to Learn, the scheme providing childcare that until now allowed 90% of teenage mothers to stay in education.

Half of further education colleges report a drop in applications from 16- to 19-year-olds, mainly due to the loss of EMA, with no travel money. The Commons education committee has criticised the "disproportionate" cutting of youth services, condemning the replacement of year-round activities with a gimmicky six-week National Citizen Service for 16-year-olds, called "the gateway to the Big Society". The cost of putting just half of 16-year-olds through the course is more than the entire budget for youth clubs and services before they were cut. One speaker noted that one year's worth of bankers' bonuses would pay for 23 years of the youth service. Barnado's research next week shows how successfully this government has turned popular opinion against the young. Votes at 16 might shift the political bias in cuts against youth.

On Thursday the government produced a welter of almost entirely misleading statistics on apprenticeships, in grave danger of tricking the 10% of young people now saying they may opt for apprenticeships instead of university. Already competition for the few prized places with such employers as BAE Systems is four times greater than for places at Cambridge.

Boasting in parliament of a 50% rise, David Cameron failed to admit the thousands of "new apprenticeships" at Morrisons and others are only rebranded adult training for existing, older employees, not new jobs for the young. They replace Labour's Train to Gain adult scheme but with fewer places. Other private providers call three-month, low-skill courses "apprenticeships", with no job at the end, while training companies make a killing from state funds: wait for the full scandal just breaking on this scam, as revealed in FE Week. The heartbreak is for the deceived "apprentices" getting near worthless qualifications.


This week at St Paul's, the Church of England agonised over God and mammon, with only the admirable Canon Giles Fraser willing to consider the lilies of the field with the protesters on the steps. Instead of seeking an eviction, the cathedral should be demanding the stock exchange lifts the injunction on its steps so the protesters can camp where they should be, at mammon's heart. As the Occupy movement spreads to thousands of camps all over the world the City might think it was losing its status as a great financial centre if it didn't have one too. Go and listen to the lively debates held there with all manner of people, activists and distinguished economists, now giving a more spirited and thoughtful response than currently offered by the curiously bloodless Labour party.

If Labour fails to express more authentic outrage at what is happening surely other voices – remember the 1930s – will exploit popular indignation when the full blast of cuts and shrinking incomes hits home before long.

Executive pay soars while the young poor face freefall. Where is Labour? | Polly Toynbee | Comment is free | The Guardian
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 30-10-11, 01:03 PM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,038
Default

Surely Labour's done more than enough damage already? I'll manage my own damn poverty, thanks.

But more generally, isn't it an odd sort of situation? It's a bit reminiscent of the last years of Tory rule in the early 90's - everyone's thinking "Well this is all going to go tits up soon as maybe and then we're going to get bloody years of po-faced Blairite government, so basically gather ye rosebuds while ye may." Except, of course, that the 2000's didn't have the same exuberance as the 80s - everyone was all terribly earnest and thought that they were doing the Right Thing, even though it turned out that they weren't. It's very grim. It feels a bit like being the good kid at school getting a thrashing for a minor misdemeanour, while the habitual shits get away with far more because no one expects any better of them.

In any case, the socialists are on the march. Ratchet up those bonuses while we still can.
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 30-10-11, 01:16 PM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default

Well, sure New Labour has contributed to this mess, but PT's point is that non-New Labour should be making hay from this scenario, fulfilling its mission to speak for the working class.

As for the 80's... that was also the era of There Is No Alternative, so clearly people did think they were doing the right thing. And what they feared was not New Labour, of course, but Old Labour, full of union militancy and the like. On the other hand, it was also the heyday of expressly political "alternative comedy" and serious disquiet. Certaily political criticism is a lot more muted these days; fatalism of a sort seems to have set in.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 30-10-11, 04:54 PM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,038
Default

Well I wasn't there, but it seems like most of them were just in it for the money, not some tedious Bush II style morality. If getting filthy rich happened to coincide with the greater good, then wonderful, but really at the end of the day it was just about the car and the designer labels. That's what makes it so appealing in these dreary, self-righteous days.
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 30-10-11, 06:00 PM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default

Not moralism as such, but a pretty hefty dose of Calvinism: i.e. that the rich were by definition the most righteous. Greed is good etc.

Harry Enfield - Loadsamoney 'In The Country' - YouTube
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 31-10-11, 01:24 PM
insignificant data point
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,799
Default

The Australian federal government has taken a serious stance on soaring corporate executive remuneration. Instead of trying to constrain it administratively, it has chosen a much better option: give each company's shareholders real power to express dislike of excess.

Starting this year (most companies balance on 30 June, annual reports are have appeared and this is now that Annual General Meeting season), shareholders vote on whether to approve a company's executive remuneration plan. If more than 25% of shareholder votes are against it, a company has cause to consider its options. If 25% are against the report in the second year in succession, all directors will be required to resign and, if they dare, stand for re-election. There has been a parallel concerted campaign to get institutions to take a principled stance and not simply vote for the status quo as they have tended to do in the past.

A small industry has developed of proxy advisors, who study corporate actions and advise institutions on voting the shares they hold. This has been bitterly opposed by the company director lobby group, but the proxy advisors seem to be winning.

So far, several large public companies have received a first strike against them at their AGMs. It won't be until this time next year when we will fully see how the process is working, but, as Samuel Johnson observed, "Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully."
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 31-10-11, 01:57 PM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default

The only problem being that shareholder revolts have so far been only a small minority. There is no reason to think that shareholders are on the whoile feeling fustrated by insufficient control. So it seems a pretty empty gesture to me, an attempt to appear to be doing something without actually having to do so.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 31-10-11, 02:18 PM
insignificant data point
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,799
Default

Quote:
There is no reason to think that shareholders are on the whoile feeling fustrated by insufficient control. So it seems a pretty empty gesture to me, an attempt to appear to be doing something without actually having to do so.
Um... Contra, are you experiencing a "senior moment"?

Quote:
So far, several large public companies have received a first strike against them at their AGMs.
CROWN has joined a growing list of Australian companies having their exorbitant executive pay packets rejected by angry shareholders using new federal laws.

At its annual general meeting (AGM) today, Crown shareholders rejected the company’s remuneration report by around 55 per cent of eligible votes cast, thereby giving the casino operator its “first strike” under the new two strikes legislation.

Under the new laws, if a company’s pay report is rejected two years in a row by a minimum of 25 per cent of votes case, shareholders can then force a board spill, meaning directors are forced to offer their resignation and must be re-elected to resume their position.

Crown chairman James Packer - who was not allowed to use his 46 per cent of Crown’s shares to vote – said that if the company was to record a second strike next year, the casino operator would be in the “farcical position'' of the board being subject to a spill. [...]

The broader market is now waiting on how shareholders will vote at Qantas’ AGM tomorrow as unions and the Australian Shareholders Association called on shareholders to vote against the airline carrier’s pay report.

Earlier this week, Pacific Brands recorded its second strike after 52.9 per cent of shareholders voted down the board’s pay package after it was revealed that - along with other senior executives - CEO Sue Morphet received a $910,000 cash bonus when the company posted a $132 million loss.

Other companies to receive a first strike this AGM season have so far included property developer Watpac and Melbourne product manufacturer GUD.
The Commonwealth Bank is also expected to come under intense scrutiny when it meets in two weeks time over questions of matching pay to performance.

Both Foster’s and Transurban have dodged the bullet this week with only 11.8 per cent and 9.2 per cent voting against the executive pay packages respectively.

Board chairmen have so fair taken a divided view on the new laws.

Pacific Brands chairman James MacKenzie told the AGM he respected the new rules as an important vehicle to give further voice to shareholders but believed the company’s 2010 “transformation strategy” had created a “number of special circumstances” that justified the pay.

“We will not be standing before you this time next year discussing similar issues,” Mr MacKenzie said.

The chairman of construction company Watpac, which also received its first strike this week, said that he made no apologies for approving the executive pay and was totally against the rules as they stood.

Kevin Seymour told the AGM in Brisbane on Tuesday the pay for directors was “modest” given their workload and the vote against would impact the company’s competitiveness and ability to hire a new director for their mining division in a skills shortage.

Australian Shareholders Association chairman Stephen Matthews told news.com.au that the crackdown on executive largesse had come after a perfect storm of events and not a moment too soon.

“All these [Occupy] protests, the fact that the market is down and the introduction of the two strikes legislation has led to the realisation that a stop must be put to the CEOs and executives hijacking the board,” Mr Matthews said. “It’s time for them to live in the real world.” [...]
Expect to see more in the coming weeks.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 31-10-11, 03:03 PM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default

CEOs Compensated Correctly, Vast Majority Of Shareholders Say

Despite growing income inequality, and global protests criticizing the wealth gap, CEO compensation now exceeds pre-recession levels, totaling billions of dollars. But the majority of corporate shareholders don't seem to mind that CEOs are netting such high pay.

Only 36 of 2,225 companies reported that shareholders voted against the pay rates of CEOs at the firms they hold stock in, Forbes reports (h/t Mogulite). The say-on-pay votes that were authorized by the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation are non-binding, but they indicate little criticism of executive pay that in at least 25 cases exceeded the value corporations pay in total income taxes, a recent study by executive compensation research firm Equilar found.

blah blah...

CEOs Compensated Correctly, Vast Majority Of Shareholders Say
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 31-10-11, 03:35 PM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,038
Default

Ah, sweet democracy.
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
Reply


(View-All Members who have read this thread : 4
contracycle, Gilles de Rais, roadkill, Zichao
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0