Filed in archive
Finance
by Deborah Brown on July 8, 2006
Let's just get real. He is going to get that salary whether he performs or not. Sure, he has cash bonuses that will tie into the success of the company, but come on - do you really think not receiving additional bonus dollars will be a hard ship on his family?
How many people in the United States would be happy to work for a 10th of that salary?
If he was dedicated to the turn around of this highly important business (at least its success is important to my daughter and I who live for craft Saturdays), why wouldn't he show a sign of faith and take a more reasonable salary with the heft of his income coming in his results?
Worse yet, I am sure - although to be honest I am speculating - that he negotiated a beautiful exit package in case it doesn't work out.
I know that CEO's obscene salaries have been in the news of late and so perhaps this is old news to you. But as an Ohio resident and frequent customer of JoAnns- I am outraged.
What do you think. Should the salary of a CEO coming in to turn around the company be based on their results or should they receive a large base regardless?
Permalink: It's Obscene
Trackback: http://publish.creative-weblogging.com/publish/mt-tb.pl/28728
Addthis
Ask
Blinklist
del.icio.us
Digg
Fark
Facebook
Google
Lycos
Ma.gnolia
Mr Wong
Netscape
Netvousz
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Slashdot
Tailrank
Technorati
Wink
Yahoo
Vote for It's Obscene:
|
Rating: 8.20 out of 5 vote(s) cast.
|
Response from:
RobertinSeattle
(07/08/06 4:12pm)
Response from:
Deborah
(07/08/06 5:07pm)
Robert,
Thanks so much for your comments. Prior to starting my own company I worked for Cole National. While I was there, a new President and CEO was brought in to turn around the company. Cole had purchased a successful brand, Pearle Vision, and subsequently watched as this wonderful brand began to lose its identity.
Larry Pollock, a well known executive who had worked in a number of industries with a successful track record, was hired at a starting salary of less than $100,000 per year. His primary compensation was based on the company results.
The company did turn around and eventually was sold to Luxottica for a lot of money. Larry did very well and so did the company.
I realize every situation has a "behind the scenes" story of which few know.
However, on the surface, it seemed like a lot of money. Thanks for your clarification.
Thanks so much for your comments. Prior to starting my own company I worked for Cole National. While I was there, a new President and CEO was brought in to turn around the company. Cole had purchased a successful brand, Pearle Vision, and subsequently watched as this wonderful brand began to lose its identity.
Larry Pollock, a well known executive who had worked in a number of industries with a successful track record, was hired at a starting salary of less than $100,000 per year. His primary compensation was based on the company results.
The company did turn around and eventually was sold to Luxottica for a lot of money. Larry did very well and so did the company.
I realize every situation has a "behind the scenes" story of which few know.
However, on the surface, it seemed like a lot of money. Thanks for your clarification.
Response from:
Anita Campbell
(07/09/06 8:01am)
I agree that CEO pay has gotten obscene.
What is even worse is to realize that the CEO is only person. It borders on ludicrous to think that one person can turn around a company. What hubris!
What is even worse is to realize that the CEO is only person. It borders on ludicrous to think that one person can turn around a company. What hubris!
Response from:
belulah
(01/18/07 4:43am)
As a former employee, it is ludicrous to know he makes that much when they don't pay their staff very well and won't give the needed hours to run the stores. Sometimes it is only 4 people a day. Typical weekly hours are 245 or less. How do you run a store on that when you are open 80hrs a week and have to have 2 people in the store at all times? Answer you run your store manager into as many hours as needed and burn them out. They really need to look at putting more hours into the stores and paying their people better. This would go a long way in helping their bottom line. You have to spend it to make it
Subscribe
Use the search to look for other interesting posts
| RSS |  See all blog subscribe options |
 What is RSS? | |
| Yahoo! |
|
| Addthis |
|
| Bloglines |
|
| Newsletter | |
| Follow us on Twitter! |
Here's a fair argument from Webb to the Board(IMHO): "You're coming to me and wanting me to turn your floundering Company around. I already know you've played the field and been turned down by a lot of other CEOs. If I do a great job of turning things around, I SHOULD be well-rewarded for using my time and skills to do it. If things fail, I may be partially responsible for it but some of the blame will also lay with the Company and its Board for having such poor oversight to have gotten it into this weak position. And I won't be able to tell completely until I've had a real chance to come in and evaluate the situation on the ground. You know my background and that is why you've come to me. So what are you going to offer me that will entice me sufficiently to turn down other offers?"
That's reality. If I were a Director, I'd sure look twice at some unknown coming in to do a massive turnaround for $75,000 a year. The old axiom "You get what you pay for." still holds true these days.
Look, you've got a Company that's projecting $1.8 BILLION (yes, that's a 'B') in sales for fiscal 2006 with projected net loss of $23 million. Even with a 5% net profit, they should be earning $90 million a year. If Webb succeeds in doing this, they'll be paying him a miserly salary of LESS than 1% of earnings (plus bonuses, of course).
So I think calling Webb's salary of $750,000 obscene is, well... obscene.