cacoPremium
join:2005-03-10
Whittier, AK | A tad more info. »www.businessweek.com/ap/financia···RS00.htm
"In a filing on Friday with the Securities and Exchange Commission, CEO Brian Roberts also gave up his right to a base salary and annual cash bonus for up to five years after his death. In addition, he relinquished the right to be reimbursed for insurance premiums and related tax payments.
Comcast extended Roberts' employment contract for a year to June 30, 2010. He received a salary of $2.64 million in 2007, according to the latest regulatory filing."
So salary will stay at about 2.64 million for 2009.
--
»www.seabee.navy.mil |
|
| I do hope he pulls through ok. |
|
cacoPremium
join:2005-03-10
Whittier, AK | Definite brown bag time for all of them. |
|
|
|
 hobgoblinSortof AgoblinPremium
join:2001-11-25
Orchard Park, NY
kudos:4 | reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:I do hope he pulls through ok. What would you consider to be a fair salary?
Hob
--
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
|
 jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | said by hobgoblin:said by Karl Bode:I do hope he pulls through ok. What would you consider to be a fair salary? Hob Personally I just don't think C-level types or VP's are worth the enormous separations in pay they seem to enjoy over the top engineers and senior marketing and managing staff. I mean, you go from less the $200K and then jump up to over $2 million.
It's a frat-boy scam that works well in our current business environment...for the CEO's. The whole rich get richer thing comes to mind.
And while I don't think many of these bosses deserve the salaries and benefits they get, I'm certainly all for them having the ability to be able to get away with it. |
|
 StonehawkStay Low And Let It BlowPremium
join:2001-05-17
Deerfield, WI
kudos:1 | reply to caco
said by caco:» www.businessweek.com/ap/financia···RS00.htm"In a filing on Friday with the Securities and Exchange Commission, CEO Brian Roberts also gave up his right to a base salary and annual cash bonus for up to five years after his death. In addition, he relinquished the right to be reimbursed for insurance premiums and related tax payments. Comcast extended Roberts' employment contract for a year to June 30, 2010. He received a salary of $2.64 million in 2007, according to the latest regulatory filing." So salary will stay at about 2.64 million for 2009. I am all for the salaries and such, but come on now. He must be a REALLY good CEO to deserve to make his current base salary AND a cash bonus for 5 years after he dies. I see that he gave up that right, but WTF? How does any corporation board even go there in the first place?
Stay safe,
Jerry |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | We do very nearly the same for movie and rock stars. Why not CEOs? |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to hobgoblin
I really have no problem with companies paying their leaders as much or as little as they want. Type-A personalities who decide to make their lives about 80 hour work weeks are certainly welcome to their spoils.
I do think when people who pull in millions in salary and options crow about how "we're not getting raises this year," it's either about portraying fiscal responsibility to investors, or building up morale amongst lower level employees.
When the latter, it's usually followed by that cheesy, board room meeting where the guy seventy two pay grades above you with three personal boats explains how he's making "sacrifices," and expects you -- who are barely meeting your mortgage -- to follow his golden and selfless example. |
|
| reply to funchords
We shouldn't be dictating what CEO salaries should be. We live in a free market system. We're not commies yet we're leaning that way with this new administration. |
|
jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | reply to funchords
said by funchords:We do very nearly the same for movie and rock stars. Why not CEOs? Yes, but I think the entertainment industry largely has a monopoly on the media distribution. Well, the RIAA may not have as much control as they once did, but they are comfortable with this, it seems. 
If we all knew that we would be paying an increase in $12 over the next 4 years on our cable TV because of stars in shows like Seinfeld and Friends, we might be a bit more outraged at the ridiculous salaries some of these people make. And in a similar fashion to most of the giant money-making entities, there is a disproportionate salary scale between employees. Think of the poor key grip and all of those starving writers and best boys.  |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to ninjatutle
said by ninjatutle:We shouldn't be dictating what CEO salaries should be. We live in a free market system. I agree with you except for two caveats:
1. If these cable and telecom companies are utilities or monopolies (and currently they are not legally declared as such), then certainly their operation (including executive salaries) can be regulated to prevent abuses.
2. If "bailout" money is accepted. I probably would not include telecom stimulus money in that category -- although I'd hate to see it go disproportionately to executive raises, I don't think that fulfilling a stimulus contract ought to subject a company to heavy internal regulation.
(All, please keep your replies on topic.)
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Do something! ... |
|
1 edit | Distributing the wealth scares me  |
|
 major marcoRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA | said by ninjatutle:Distributing the wealth scares me LMAO. What the hell do you think is done with FICA and all the other taxes that are removed from paychecks? You're subsidizing someone ELSE'S retirement AND children. |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | ((( points desperately to the "keep it on topic" request ))) |
|
hobgoblinSortof AgoblinPremium
join:2001-11-25
Orchard Park, NY
kudos:4 | reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:I really have no problem with companies paying their leaders as much or as little as they want. Type-A personalities who decide to make their lives about 80 hour work weeks are certainly welcome to their spoils. I do think when people who pull in millions in salary and options crow about how "we're not getting raises this year," it's either about portraying fiscal responsibility to investors, or building up morale amongst lower level employees. When the latter, it's usually followed by that cheesy, board room meeting where the guy seventy two pay grades above you with three personal boats explains how he's making "sacrifices," and expects you -- who are barely meeting your mortgage -- to follow his golden and selfless example. Agreed on all points.
Thats got to be some sort of record.
Hob
--
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
|
RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | reply to funchords
said by funchords:We do very nearly the same for movie and rock stars. Why not CEOs? Movie and rock stars are paid that much because they tend to make their employers a lot of money. Once that stops, so does the cash.
CEOs can drive a company into the ground and still collect handsomely.
There's your difference.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
 cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5
 ·Frontier FiOS
| said by RadioDoc:Movie and rock stars are paid that much because they tend to make their employers a lot of money. Once that stops, so does the cash. Not to nit pick, but movie and rock stars can make fortunes long after their deaths. Just as the Presley and Lennon estates how much Elvis and John bring in on a yearly basis. |
|
RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Yes, because they can still make their employers lots of money even after they pass through the veil. Not so much your average CEO, which is my point.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Frontier FiOS
| My point is that movie and rock stars can make money from their works while they were alive through licensing and residuals.
Similarly, decisions make by CEOs when they are living can continue to reap rewards for companies long after they have left (the company or the the living). Not all CEOs are money grubbing thieves that hop around from company to company, driving them into the ground, all the while coasting to financial safety by a golden parachute. |
|
RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Oh, I get your point. Mine is that while some entertainers are obscenely wealthy they got that way through performance. Some CEOs get that way even though they are incompetent boobs who happen to be well-connected.
I have yet to see an entertainer take down a studio. Some CEOs, however, leave corporate corpses as their legacy. The original question was basically what is the difference between the two.
It would be nice if the corner office had the same performance prerequisite.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
