   BA will let you work for free!
  I just stumbled onto this: BA asks staff to work for nothingQuote:British Airways is asking thousands of staff to work for nothing, for up to one month, to help the airline survive.The appeal, sent by e-mail to more than 30,000 workers in the UK, asks them to volunteer for between one week and one month's unpaid leave, or unpaid work.BA's chief executive Willie Walsh has already agreed to work unpaid in July, forgoing his month's salary of £61,000.That figure amazes me for some reason. He receives a salary per month that is more than 3x what mine is per year. His yearly salary could employ 40 people @ 18k a month. While yes, he is a CEO and no, I don't know how much of his own money he put into BA it still just seems overly excessive.Why is the pay gap between the average workers and the highest of management so large? Why when BA is in trouble does he (and presumably several others) have such a high salary? It's nice that he is working for free like he is asking others to, but how is it fair to ask them that when next month he and others will receive more in a month then probably >50% of BA staff will see in a year?Thoughts?   
Quote:Original post by KathThat figure amazes me for some reason. He receives a salary per month that is more than 3x what mine is per year. His yearly salary could employ 40 people @ 18k a month.Your maths is very broken.61K isn't all that much for the CEO of a large business.;Quote:Original post by SandmanQuote:Original post by KathThat figure amazes me for some reason. He receives a salary per month that is more than 3x what mine is per year. His yearly salary could employ 40 people @ 18k a month.Your maths is very broken.61K isn't all that much for the CEO of a large business.Well, his yearly salary (61k * 12) could employ 40 people for one month at 18k.Either way, getting 61k per month and asking low-wage employees to volunteer their time is a bit hypocritical.  If he wants to send a powerful message, he could take reduced pay, or no pay, for the year until the company is back on track...When most people don't make 60k a year, forgoing his 60k a month doesn't seem like all that grand a gesture...   ;Quote:Original post by SandmanYour maths is very broken.61K isn't all that much for the CEO of a large business.I realise that now, I've never really thought about what a CEO earns in real terms before. However it still seems disproportionate to what an average employee would earn, even more so during the "We're running out of money" phase the business is currently in.   ;Quote:Original post by KathQuote:Original post by SandmanYour maths is very broken.61K isn't all that much for the CEO of a large business.I realise that now, I've never really thought about what a CEO earns in real terms before. However it still seems disproportionate to what an average employee would earn, even more so during the "We're running out of money" phase the business is currently in.Actually, visage is right; my bad - I missed the fact that that was a month's pay (61K did seem a bit low for a CEO)So yes you're right, it's pretty messed up. And your maths isn't broken, my ability to read is [grin]   ;Quote:Original post by KathQuote:Original post by SandmanYour maths is very broken.61K isn't all that much for the CEO of a large business.I realise that now, I've never really thought about what a CEO earns in real terms before. However it still seems disproportionate to what an average employee would earn, even more so during the "We're running out of money" phase the business is currently in.That's what amuses me about the Republican whargarbl going on about Obama putting caps on executive compensation for companies receiving government welfare.They're "OUTRAGED" that the democrats have the "audacity" to limit how much corporations pay their executives because then "all the executives will leave to get paid more money at better companies". Gosh really? Really? Seriously? These same executives that did such a shit piss poor job that their company would basically not even exist if they had not BEGGED the government to save them? You're honestly trying to claim that these "TOTALLY AWESOME AND COMPETENT" executives will be offered better jobs elsewhere after totally tanking their current companies?Wow. I want some of that acid.   ;  Maybe it's just me, but I think that the only way that someone could ever earn that much is by rubbing shoulders and being friends with the previous CEO and board of directors.  I have no idea how someone in a position like that could ask that of the employees.  I'd expect nothing short of a revolt."How do you sleep at night [McBain]?""On a pile of money with many beautiful women."   ;  is it really that excessive? Willy Walsh is one of the best airline CEOs in the business, with many years of experience running large airlines. If BA dont pay him that kind of money, someone else will. The fact is that while the average wage for an employee is about 29k, for every employee there are 10 more waiting to take their shoes, they are dispensable. How many airline CEOs with years of experience do you think there are looking for a job? None. As for him giving up a months wages, its a pretty good gesture. A months wages is a months wages, whether you earn £30k or £700,000. Everyone lives within their means, I bet he still has a mortgage and a few loans to pay. Giving up a months wages still could be a big deal to him. For the record I cant stand BA, and have no particular affection for Willy Walsh. I just feel the criticism is a bit harsh. As well as giving up a months wages, he has also given up his yearly bonus both this year and last (last year due to the T5 opening fiasco).   ;  Even if it's £61,000 a month (£732000 a year) that is by no means a huge salary for somebody to be the CEO of a company like BA.  Don't forget he's also paying 40% tax on that too.  Also the staff he is asking to work for a month are not low paid employees.  Ok they may be paid a lot less than the CEO but in terms of salaries within the airline industry they are some of the highest paid in the world and there are a lot of employees with other airlines that would love to work for BA for free.   ;Quote:Original post by gavco98is it really that excessive? Willy Walsh is one of the best airline CEOs in the business, with many years of experience running large airlines. If BA dont pay him that kind of money, someone else will. The fact is that while the average wage for an employee is about 29k, for every employee there are 10 more waiting to take their shoes, they are dispensable. How many airline CEOs with years of experience do you think there are looking for a job? None. As for him giving up a months wages, its a pretty good gesture. A months wages is a months wages, whether you earn £30k or £700,000. Everyone lives within their means, I bet he still has a mortgage and a few loans to pay. Giving up a months wages still could be a big deal to him. For the record I cant stand BA, and have no particular affection for Willy Walsh. I just feel the criticism is a bit harsh. As well as giving up a months wages, he has also given up his yearly bonus both this year and last (last year due to the T5 opening fiasco).Nassim Taleb discusses this a bit in his books Fooled By Randomness and The Black Swan.  He points out that most executives only make two or three major decisions in the lifetime of the business.  It is in fact the employees who make the continuous actions that keep the business running.Now, let's say I am hiring a CEO.  He ran a company for a few years and made a few big decisions that panned out well.  Does that justify his big pay?  Statistically speaking, can we prove his decision making is any better than 'random'?  With only two or three major decisions under their belts, no!  It would take decades to gather enough information to determine whether a CEO really does 'better than random'.  And that is the issue!It should be noted that Taleb left entrepreneurs out of this group, as they take considerable risk in the start-ups.  Rather, he is talking about the people who are hired into these already massive companies.  How can you say any one CEO is better than the other?  Statistically, you really can't.  So what justifies their pay, when at the end of the day it is really the employees who are doing the statistically verifiable work?Do I agree with Taleb?  In some senses.  But overall, I basically say: "who's fucking business is it for me to say how much a company pays its CEO?  If the shareholders have an issue, let them take it up with the board."   