dslreports logo
Comcast Nixes Executive Raises For 2009
Joins a slew of carriers in trying to manage recession...
We previously reported that higher level executives at both Time Warner Cable and AT&T won't be seeing raises this year, as the company's try to manage the recession, slowing broadband subscriber additions, and the credit markets. According to filings with the Security and Exchange Commission, top executives at Comcast also won't see raises this year. That includes CEO Brian Roberts, CFO Michael J. Angelakis, Chief Operating Officer Stephen B. Burke, and Executive Vice President David L. Cohen.
view:
topics flat nest 
caco
Premium Member
join:2005-03-10
Whittier, AK

caco

Premium Member

A tad more info.

»www.businessweek.com/ap/ ··· 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.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

1 recommendation

Karl Bode

News Guy

Re: A tad more info.

I do hope he pulls through ok.
caco
Premium Member
join:2005-03-10
Whittier, AK

caco

Premium Member

Re: A tad more info.

Definite brown bag time for all of them.

hobgoblin
Sortof Agoblin
Premium Member
join:2001-11-25
Orchard Park, NY

hobgoblin to Karl Bode

Premium Member

to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:

I do hope he pulls through ok.
What would you consider to be a fair salary?

Hob

jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA

jmn1207

Premium Member

Re: A tad more info.

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.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

4 recommendations

Karl Bode to hobgoblin

News Guy

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.

hobgoblin
Sortof Agoblin
Premium Member
join:2001-11-25
Orchard Park, NY

hobgoblin

Premium Member

Re: A tad more info.

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

Stonehawk
Service with a smile
Premium Member
join:2001-05-17
Madison, WI

Stonehawk to caco

Premium Member

to caco
said by caco:

»www.businessweek.com/ap/ ··· 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

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

funchords

MVM

Re: A tad more info.

We do very nearly the same for movie and rock stars. Why not CEOs?

ninjatutle
Premium
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA

ninjatutle

Member

Re: A tad more info.

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.

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

funchords

MVM

Re: A tad more info.

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.)

ninjatutle
Premium
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA

1 edit

ninjatutle

Member

Re: A tad more info.

Distributing the wealth scares me

POB
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium Member
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA

POB

Premium Member

Re: A tad more info.

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.

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

funchords

MVM

Re: A tad more info.

((( points desperately to the "keep it on topic" request )))

jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA

jmn1207 to funchords

Premium Member

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.

RadioDoc

join:2000-05-11
La Grange, IL

1 recommendation

RadioDoc to funchords

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.

cdru
Go Colts
MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN

cdru

MVM

Re: A tad more info.

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.

RadioDoc

join:2000-05-11
La Grange, IL

RadioDoc

Re: A tad more info.

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.

cdru
Go Colts
MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN

cdru

MVM

Re: A tad more info.

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.

RadioDoc

join:2000-05-11
La Grange, IL

RadioDoc

Re: A tad more info.

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.

cdru
Go Colts
MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN

cdru

MVM

Re: A tad more info.

said by RadioDoc:

I have yet to see an entertainer take down a studio.
Maybe not a single entertainer, but there have been numerous movies that have caused the studio to file for bankruptcy or at least severely hurt them financially. A real quick google search came up with list of some failures.
Some CEOs, however, leave corporate corpses as their legacy.
...
It would be nice if the corner office had the same performance prerequisite.
A single person isn't going to drive a company* into the ground usually. It's going to take the combined effort of the management and/or board to at least approve of what the CEO is planning to do in order to get the ball rolling. The CEO may be the one that ends up being the scape goat, but (s)he's rarely solely responsible.

*- small businesses aside, I'm referring mainly to large corporations like WorldCom, Enron, etc...

POB
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium Member
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA

POB

Premium Member

the poor dears...

I do hope the executive cheesedicks at TWC et al. don't starve on those salaries...how will they ever afford that fourth home in Nice now? I suppose they will just have to make do with their American palatial estates, instead. Given that the global economy is circling the toilet and probably will be for the next 5 years or however long it takes to unfuck itself from the gluttony enjoyed by banking and financial institutions, these guys will have to figure out how to fuck over the shareholders even more creatively than they have previously. Enron went and screwed it up for all the white collar criminals.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: the poor dears...

You done? ... is there any room to point the blame to the consumer as well? ... you know the ones.. the ones that hokked their homes turning them into ATM cash machines to live "The American dreams" by purchasing flat panel TV's, iPhones, SUVs, PS3s, vacations, etc.? Or, the people that bought into homes they knew they couldn't afford while blindly signing on the line for something that would come back to bite them later.. I mean, did they not think that all the sudden they could buy/afford something they never could before, and didn't stop to think there were strings?

This, by the way, is how and where all that so-called money was pulled out of that went to those people you spoke of. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE *GAVE* the money to the execs. What's sad is that the execs have the cash.. as worthless in value as it is, they still have the cash. What basically happened is everyone took a cash advance on their credit cards and gave the physical cash to the execs... Ironic huh? People went to the banks, cashed in, and ultimately gave the money to the ones that run the very banks that are ... out of money!

Enron was small potatoes compared to what's going on now.

RadioDoc

join:2000-05-11
La Grange, IL

RadioDoc

Re: the poor dears...

Not everyone, just the idiots.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: the poor dears...

I wasn't one of them. And, all differences aside, I can surely say that you weren't one of them either. You just don't strike me as someone that went on a spending spree like a drunken sailor.

However, I don't think you, like me, don't appreciate getting to pay for their mess.

RadioDoc

join:2000-05-11
La Grange, IL

RadioDoc

Re: the poor dears...

I was just poking fun at your "everyone"...

No, we did not partake. Didn't have much need to.
NeoandGeo
join:2003-05-10
Harrison, TN

NeoandGeo

Member

What

an outrage. There is absolutely no way you can survive in this economy on that kind of salary. He needs a raise no matter what the cost.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

All of this talk of salary cuts...

... Instead of the government giving out stimulus to everyone, I don't see why CEO's don't do it themselves.

Brian Roberts, just a few years ago, took his measly 2.4 million in salary for compensation, not including his 80 million in bonuses. I say, keep your 2.4 million, I think he's owed that and it's fair pay in my book.

I'm going to play with numbers.

Take the 80 million in bonus. Figure in about 60,000 employees company wide to receive this payout.

If they took that formula, there would be 60,000 people getting a check for $1,333.33 each.

In other words.. instead of taking away the bonuses this year, take the money and divide it up into a stimulus package of their own.. I think you'd make a MUCH bigger difference than the horrible spending on D.C.
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY

tmc8080

Member

Re: All of this talk of salary cuts...

said by fiberguy2:

... Instead of the government giving out stimulus to everyone, I don't see why CEO's don't do it themselves.

Brian Roberts, just a few years ago, took his measly 2.4 million in salary for compensation, not including his 80 million in bonuses. I say, keep your 2.4 million, I think he's owed that and it's fair pay in my book.

I'm going to play with numbers.

Take the 80 million in bonus. Figure in about 60,000 employees company wide to receive this payout.

If they took that formula, there would be 60,000 people getting a check for $1,333.33 each.

In other words.. instead of taking away the bonuses this year, take the money and divide it up into a stimulus package of their own.. I think you'd make a MUCH bigger difference than the horrible spending on D.C.
OR

You could undo the 250gb Unfair access policy, split many network nodes to include more deep fiber & docsis 3 upgrades. Tell the entertainment indstry to F.O. and have a free download from the Comcast website of Robin Hood, It's a Wonderful Life, A Christmas Carol, etc. It's not just those earning a paycheck.. it's also about those who pay the bills in the first place (customers).

Yes, there will need to be some Robin Hood policies put in place to reverse at least a decade or more of skyrocketing wealth to a smaller number of individuals while pushing many who previously had a middle class lifestyle into the poor house.. or worse, underwater.. when things are this bad in the economy there's plenty of breathing room between social justice and communism. If you need any further proof lookie here:

»www.youtube.com/watch?v= ··· Uc5BFogE


Let's just hope companies that take public money do the RIGHT thing for the consumer. Sofar, the oil, bank & auto industry have proven that they're not going to do the right things and will suffer the consequences down the line (probably regulation, accountability & prosecutions).
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: All of this talk of salary cuts...

"It's not just those earning a paycheck.. it's also about those who pay the bills in the first place (customers)."

Who do you think pay those bills?

Your mind is stuck purely in cable TV.. the economy is much larger than cable TV or the internet. I can tell you many cable employees, too by the way, that still pay upwards to $150 a month for their own cable bills depending on what services they buy.

But, employees who earn wages spend money.. not just with cable. They spend money on goods.. spending money on goods requires a work force to deliver those goods which means people work and more people get hired to deliver on those goods. THOSE people, guess what...? ... make a check as well. Those people become cable customers and buy cars and food, and go to movies.. etc.

Stimulation of the economy comes from the consumer level which are themselves, employed.

I just cant agree on your robin hood policy.. I don't believe in EVER taking from the rich and giving to the poor. I DO believe, however, in going after criminals and thieves, where they may exist, and taking back ill gotten gains. There is a difference.