£1.3bn profit, means they could award each front line worker with a £22k bonus. For many that would be enough to put down a deposit for their own place - quite life changing.

If workers are unhappy about pay while corporation is making excessive profit that they only share with the top of the organisation, then it is an exploitative model.

£1.3bn profit, means they could award each front line worker with a £22k bonus. For many that would be enough to put down a deposit for their own place - quite life changing.

Unfortunately the downside of that is there would be no money left to pay a dividend to shareholders/investments which could have consequences for all employee which are quite life-changing.

Those profits are used to pay people's pensions via dividends, not sure many people would be happy having their pension stripped off them.

This is not true :

Report from the TUC - as per top google reply :

https://www.tuc.org.uk/research-analysis/reports/do-dividends-pay-our-pensions

States:

The figures show that the proportion of shares owned by UK pension funds fell from almost one in three (32.4 per cent) in 1990 to less than one in 25 (2.4 per cent) by 2018 – a decline of over 90 per cent

As such, only 2.4% of shares are owned by pension funds.

So assuming the front line worker earns £30k, the £1.5k raise means they would get an extra £83.43 per month.

If they put a full tank each month to their car, then that raise is already gone, before you even take into account how prices of everything else have gone up.

I think they are rightly mad.

Suspect the union is mad because it was a flat rate increase. So those on lower earnings get a larger percentage increase than those on higher earnings.

The union would have been happy if everyone got a percentage increase, even if that means those on low incomes get less than £1,500.

However, awarding the executives large increases that don't reflect on the actual performance of the business and the current circumstances of the business, is an own goal.

I so read that headline as " O nion tells BT:..." .

That line would still make sense. Maybe that is a bit disturbing. Or should I just wipe my tears?

Proposal: directors of a company can only increase their compensation by the same percentage as the average throughout the company.

Indeed.

If the top cheeto gets a 30% raise when his company is losing money, then everyone gets a 30% raise.

Somehow, that should be enshrined in law.

This reminds me of companies that had to have a limited gap between the minimum and maximum wage employees way back.

The solution was to fire all of the cleaners and low paid jobs, and hire outsourcing services to do those jobs, thereby eliminating low paid jobs entirely; pay rises were awarded all around for the C suite for their huge progress in closing the wage gap within the company almost overnight exceeding what anybody thought was possible.

Of course, the actual low paid workers were actually worse off as a result, but that's never stopped schemes like this before.

If an average employee screws up completely it costs the firm perhaps 0.001% of revenue. If the CEO screws up, that number rises to 10% or more. Sometimes much more. For the most famous example of this Google "Gerald Ratner".

Shareholders are usually quite happy to incentivize directors well as those directors have the shareholders money in their hands. The law you propose would drive away shareholders, investment would suffer and the workers you are keen to support would be hurt most.

That's an argument for having a wage gap, not for having a wage gap that is constantly increasing.

If the CEO doesn't turn up for work for a few days then no one really notices. If the average workers all don't turn up for a few days then everyone really notices. Who's more valuable now?

@Headley_Grange

"If the CEO doesn't turn up for work for a few days then no one really notices."

Unless brown sticky stuff hits the spinning turbine

"If the average workers all don't turn up for a few days"

They are replaced by some other average worker.

"Who's more valuable now?"

The one you cant replace easily.

>The one you cant replace easily.

Trouble is, there are very few irreplaceable CEO's of FT100 companies.

One client questioned my fee rate, my response was: if you fuck up, the company can recover, if I fuck up, you don't have an IT system and given your entire company depends on its IT systems - the company's longevity can be measured in days.

Unless brown sticky stuff hits the spinning turbine

In my experience, the CEO is the absolute LAST person you want or indeed need around when the midden hits the windmill.

CEO these days is an actor and con artist. I've seen owners literally running a casting for a CEO and they were measured on qualities like how they can sweet talk someone into parting with their money, what kind of suit they wore, if they had all teeth, did they have matching watch, then candidates who made the cut were taken for drinks to see how they behave drunk and so on.

Then every time there was an opportunity to raise money, owners would wheel out actor CEO to get the money rolling in.

They never had any role in the decision making. If they showed up at work, they played a role of office furniture and joke telling appliance.

Solidarity with the CWU members, and fuck the scabs who couldn't be bothered to vote for strike action.

Scabs? What are we back to the days of Arthur Scargill?

Both sides can go to hell frankly, openretch for its disdain for customers and the cwu for their.members distain for customers, lazyness, poor work quality and acting like they work at British Leyland during the malaise years.....

Not my experience of Openreach. Sure, getting hold of them via the various automated texts and dial-up is a pain in the arse, but the two techs who spent two days sorting my connection problems out the other week were great, knew their stuff, treated my "I'm an engineer so I understand this stuff" nonsense with polite respect and were very professional. The senior guy texted me a couple of days later to make sure it was all OK.

I worked with them professionally a couple of times and it was the same story - dealing with head office is a bit of a pain, but the techs on the ground really knew their stuff and were never a problem.

Be glad your not in my neck of the woods, told me they needed to sort access to something

then denied they needed access and claimed there were never any issues and THEN had the brass neck to claim it was a "malicious neighbour dispute"

Reality - the cost of properly sorting the issue was more than openretch wanted to spend on a copper line given the full fibre rollout, but they can't say that as Ofcom would kick them into touch, so instead just deny the issue exists at all

Bunch of bolshy, militant, averse to dealing with awkward people, institutional liars and close ranks for fun

A pox on ALL their houses....

the money for a 30% raise for the boss, theres the money for a 30% raise for the rest of the staff

Otherwise we're going to be at the old gag of

Boss brings new super sports car to work, everyone gathers around it going 'coo'

And the boss says "If you lot work hard and get the deliveries done on time with no mistakes , I can have another new car next year"

Boris

"And when my boss did that with his new porche, I fetched the broom handle of doom and banged on the inside of the factory roof forcing all the seagulls to take off in fright and they always lighten their loads on take off...."

Wheres the birdshit icon ?