Tell me more x
, there is a new speed test available. Give it a try, leave feedback!
dslreports logo
spacer
1
spacer
story category
Charter CEO Paid Well For Failure
In fact, he doubled his pay from last year
by Karl Bode 04:10PM Wednesday Jul 08 2009 Tipped by zed2608 See Profile
Ok, sure, Charter Communications hasn't been profitable since the company went public in 1999, posted a $2.45 billion loss last year, constantly ranks at the bottom of most customer satisfaction surveys, is swimming in debt, and was just forced into bankruptcy and reorganization -- but at least they pay their CEO well. According to the St. Louis Business Journal, Charter CEO Neil Smit was paid $7.4 million in cash compensation for 2008, taking him to the top of St. Louis’ highest-paid executives. Despite all of Charter's problems lately and their $0.02 stock price, Charter apparently felt the need to pay Smit double the salary from the year before. Remember back in 2007 when Neil spent a few hours sampling Charter call center work in order to better understand the company, only to fail at improving the company's customer service? Yeah, good times.


85 comments .. click to read

Recommended comments




Rogue Wolf
Ate the Leftover Chicken You Had Saved

join:2003-08-12
Troy, NY

2 recommendations

reply to FFH5

Re: Pay for performance is just for the little fish, eh?

said by FFH5:

What is needed are Boards of Directors that negotiate CONTRACTS that are tied much more tightly to meeting profit goals and not just the desire to get a so-called superstar CEO. And there should be terms that allow firing without any golden parachutes if the goals aren't met.

Will that mean, the Board won't always get the person they want? YES!! But if more Boards followed this practice, then prices will come down on CEO salaries and more accountability will be in the contracts.
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Boards need to think beyond the next quarterly report and set up a beneficial long-term strategy for the company for which they are responsible. Getting a 'big name guy' in the CEO's chair should matter much less than getting someone who can be trusted to grow the company responsibly. Millions of people go to work every day knowing that their compensation and continued employment depend on how well they execute their responsibilities... why should CEOs be any different?

It's good to see that at least one stockholder sees things from the same viewpoint as us "little guys", FFH5 See Profile.
--
Hexadecimal humor really turns me 0FF.

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

2 recommendations

reply to gorehound

Re: $hit floats!

What "system"...? are you saying that government should take over and run everything? .. THAT would be a system.

They, the government that is no longer 'we the people' can't even get it's own affairs in order.. I sure hope that you're suggesting the government be the ones to "fix" the allegedly broken system.

When a company fails, such as this one, someone will ultimately come in and buy up the remains and give it a shot.. that is the system that works.

The millions this guy gets paid, in my mind, is irrelevant. Part of what went wrong with Charter was not complete incompetence, rather, the way the "system/market" works and oh yea.. "competition".. with out going into a long explanation as to the why of what I just said, I'll leave it at this for now.. but if anything, even for boobs, I am NOT about the giver-ment coming in to limit pay salaries.. besides, it's probably un-constitutional anyway.

On a side note, if ANY system needs to be fixed, its the people themselves that should look with-in to the "self-collective system".. ie: the people are not taking an active role in their own government.. until people start to care, the "system" as you speak of, is going to remain broken.


DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

2 recommendations

Unchecked greed

wow, just wow. This is everything that is wrong with America.