United Kingdom
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
view the rest of the comments
"Something went wrong" with the system they're ultimately responsible for, the system that they've stripped to the bone in search of growth in a saturated naturally monopolistic market.
Loss of bonuses should be the least of their fucking worries. -.-
The headline isn't "Susan Davy to get bonus in spite of having stripped Southwest Water to the bone and taken on massive debt to pay dividends to shareholders". She started in 2023, after the water companies were stripped to the bone and went into massive debt for exactly that purpose.
I think you're mad because someone ought to pay, and so you want this person to pay, whether she was responsible for the thing you're mad about or not. I'm mad about it too, but that's not fair.
She willingly took on responsibility for the shitshow, risk/reward. She happens to be holding the bag when the music is stopping, I couldn't care less how long she personally has been in the role.
It's not like this class of people works harder than others, so that massive fucking pay packet has to be for something. I assume it's for the risk of taking on the responsibility.
So you would say let's just not pay CEOs of failing water companies much until those companies improve? It's not like the "music is stopping" specifically now - all these companies are in bad situations with many problems going back years. This sounds like a recipe for, as soon as a company develops serious problems, running that company hard into the ground as they can't find anyone competent to manage it.
If this were about executive pay in general then sure, let's cap it compared to worker pay. But there is nothing special about the scenario of a company doing badly: if you specifically reduce executive pay for those companies, executives won't work for them. Who knows, maybe worker committees will work this time.
There's no evidence that paying CEOs huge sums means you get better leaders. Independent analysts have said for a number of years that the pay of CEOs has fallen out of alignment with the market. There have been recent reports of CEOs receiving bonuses of millions even though the performance of their company has declined under their tenure.
Evidence for what? I don't think you understand what I'm saying because you seem to be talking about something I already agreed with and asking me for evidence.