|
Junkie
|
Found another reason why they pay large stipends for leaving. It's part of their job. It gets better, the money probably came from you, in the event you were laid off ...
Quote:
CEOs that lay off workers earn more: study
By Steve Goldstein, MarketWatch
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Chief executives of the 50 firms that laid off the most workers since the onset of the economic crisis earned 42% more than the average pay for an S&P 500 company, according to a study released Wednesday.
The left-wing Institute for Policy Studies found that the CEOs of the job-cut companies on average took home nearly $12 million in 2009, above the $8.5 million brought in by the average CEO of an S&P 500 company. The study found that 72% of the announced layoffs came at a time when the company was reporting positive earnings.
"This reflects a broader trend in Great Recession Corporate America: squeezing workers to boost profits and maintain high CEO pay," said the study.
Reuters
Fred Hassan, ex-CEO of Schering-Plough Corp.
In terms of total compensation, ex-Schering Plough chief Fred Hassan earned $49.65 million in 2009, as his company and Merck (MRK 35.35, -0.27, -0.76%) laid off a combined 16,000 due to their merger.
Johnson & Johnson's (JNJ 58.61, +0.32, +0.55%) William Weldon was second on the list with $25.57 million in pay at a company that laid off 8,900, and former Hewlett-Packard (HPQ 39.68, +0.47, +1.20%) CEO Mark Hurd brought home $24.2 million after announcing 6,400 jobs would go.
Rounding out at the top ten was Walt Disney's (DIS 33.91, +0.40, +1.19%) Robert Iger, who brought home $21.58 million; IBM's (IBM 125.04, -0.73, -0.58%) Samuel Palmisano, who brought home $21.16 million; AT&T's (T 27.40, +0.05, +0.18%) Randall Stephenson, who earned $20.24 million; Wal-Mart Stores' (WMT 51.76, +0.56, +1.09%) Michael Duke, who earned $19.23 million; Ford Motor Co.'s (F 11.71, +0.10, +0.86%) Alan Mulally, who took home $17.92 million; United Technologies' (UTX 67.44, +0.07, +0.10%) Louis Chenevert, who brought home $17.9 million; and Verizon Communications' (VZ 30.11, -0.15, -0.50%) Ivan Seidenberg, who brought home $17.49 million.
The group also maintains heavy layoffs are bad business, citing a University of Colorado study concluding that companies that have less than 5% staff turnover per year tend to outperform companies.
That said, the outsized pay packages didn't necessarily detract from share price performance, at least over one year. According to data tabulated by S&P's Capital IQ on behalf of MarketWatch, six of those companies outperformed the average S&P 500 return of 25.92% in 2009, including the 350.91% surge for Ford and the 67.39% gain for Schering-Plough. Wal-Mart's -0.5% return in 2009 was the worst of the ten layoff-heavy firms.
Bailout pay
The study also noted that five of the top 50 layoff leaders received bailout money, including American Express' (AXP 40.88, -0.19, -0.46%) Kenneth Chenault, who took home $16.8 million after cutting 4,000 positions. And it pointed out in the financial sector, companies gave big payouts to lower-ranking high-level executives, such as the $29.9 million that Bank of America's (BAC 13.28, +0.07, +0.55%) Thomas Montag brought in as president of global banking and markets, and the $19.6 million took home by William Winters as co-CEO of the investment bank of J.P. Morgan Chase (JPM 38.16, +0.42, +1.11%) .
The group is pushing for legislation that would either incentivize companies that don't compensate executives more than 100 times the income of the company's lowest-paid worker, or for Congress to revisit a proposal that passed the Senate last year that would have capped total pay for employees at bailout companies at $400,000.
Steve Goldstein is MarketWatch's Washington bureau chief.
|
>> LINK<<
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Most of the executives are hired to help move the stock price. If the stock price doesn't move, you want to get rid of the individual as quickly and painlessly as possible. Severance packages ensure that you can rid someone from the position without fear of litigation.
|
Good god, that explains SO much.
I have another question also, what do you mean by "good fit"? I hacve seen managers and supervisors get hired and fired for "shortcomings on their performance" which is total bollocks because I was on one of the supervisors team and I know my stats alone brought the entire team average up to the top five in the entire department. Corporate bureaucracy is difficult to understand and that much more harder to navigate. |