United Kingdom
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
view the rest of the comments
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.
I didn't claim that they were doing a perfect job. My criticism is on the phrasing of the headline and how CEO pay consists of a base pay and bonus with the bonus being large.
This means even a middling performance would expect a bonus payment.
This is independent of the amount of basepay. I didn't claim they were poor or underpaid. I only claimed that their wage structure enables polarizing headlines independent of facts.
You said:
In this case it's untrue. Not sure what your salary's like but for 99% of the country, £440k is not a "low base pay". By quibbling about the headline you try to distract from the grotesque nature of the way the water companies function.
I SAID RATIO. I never said their base pay wasn't a living wage. You even quote me correctly and still interpret it your way.
Nothing to do with interpretation. Their base pay isn't low (even as a ratio). You've not offered any evidence about the wage to bonus ratio (lack of evidence being your original gripe) You're either willfully ideologically ignorant or disingenuous. I would guess from seeing other posts that it's the latter.
10% of your wage being base pay is absolutely a low percentage. Example: https://www.ipcconsultants.com/blog/global-ceo-compensation-trends
Can you explain how that works for the least paid water CEO who earns £440k + bonus? Or the highest paid who receives £3.3 million + bonus?
I think I understand that you're making some sort of abstract, generalised point about CEO pay - but can you explain how that applies here to the pay of water fat cats?
This applies here due to the phrasing of the headline - the headline implies that the CEO got rewarded for doing a bad job based on being paid a "big" bonus. But their pay structure is structured in a way where this is a usual and expected part of their pay.
This isn't really about what water company CEOs are paid but journalists using CEO pay structure for an outrage inducing headline.