I don't get it... your business is not doing well

[moshquerade]

Why do we have to keep hearing this over and over? :|

Postmaster's pay to be probed
Raises, bonuses mount while service struggles

Monday, February 23, 2009

Congress will hold a hearing next month into why Postmaster General John E. Potter has gotten a nearly 40 percent pay raise since 2006 and was awarded a six-figure incentive bonus last year, even as the U.S. Postal Service faces a multibillion-dollar shortfall that threatens a day of mail delivery.

"Last year, the Postal Service took a loss of nearly $3 billion and recommended that the public take austere cuts in service to allow it to operate, including cutting a day of mail delivery and raising the price of stamps," Rep. Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Democrat, said Friday.

"All things considered, I think most postal customers feel that the huge increase in pay for Mr. Potter is incongruent with the post office's recent performance. I assure you that our subcommittee will look into this matter at a hearing in March," said Mr. Lynch, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee that oversees the Postal Service.

On Tuesday, The Washington Times reported that Mr. Potter had received nearly 40 percent in pay raises since 2006 and about $135,000 in incentive bonuses last year. For fiscal 2008, including increases to the value of his two pensions, Mr. Potter's entire compensation package totaled more than $800,000, according to Postal Service financial records.

The subcommittee on the federal work force, Postal Service and the District of Columbia will take up the issue at a hearing set for March 25. In addition to executive compensation, members will review the Postal Service's economic troubles and competitiveness, officials said.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah, the subcommittee's ranking Republican, said he, too, questions the timing of the big pay packages, given the Postal Service's financial woes.

"On the surface it just doesn't smell right," Mr. Chaffetz said. "Rewarding people for performance is acceptable, but things kind of seem to be going in the wrong direction. I'm looking forward to that hearing."

The Postal Service's board of governors informed the Postal Regulatory Commission about Mr. Potter's compensation in an annual financial filing in December. Six weeks later, Mr. Potter testified before Congress that the Postal Service's worsening finances could prompt officials to cut a day of mail delivery. The Postal Service also recently announced a pending 2-cent increase in the price of stamps.

Mr. Potter said the Postal Service's losses occurred despite cutting more than $2 billion and setting records for on-time delivery. He blamed the financial problems on a weakening economy, required health plan payments and increased use of electronic mail as a means of communication.

Among other top postal officials, Deputy Postmaster Patrick Donahoe got $600,026 in total compensation, more than half of which was an increase to the value of his retirement annuities. His base salary was $238,654.

Postal officials defend the pay packages, saying their counterparts in private industry earn far more money. The chief executive of FedEx, for example, earned more than $10 million last year, according to Securities and Exchange Commission filings.

Gerald J. McKiernan, a spokesman for the Postal Service, said Friday that postal officials briefed the subcommittee last year. He said additional briefings on the compensation of top postal officials took place last week.
.............

http://www.washingtontimes.com...igate-postmasters-pay/

 

[nakedfrog]

If they didn't get their bonuses, they would leave the company and it would go down in flames.
</Spidey07>
😛

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
If they didn't get their bonuses, they would leave the company and it would go down in flames.
</Spidey07>
😛

like it isn't already? :laugh:

 

[BoomerD]

I don't get this either, in spite of the corporate apologists telling me the same bullshit. "If they don't get their bonuses, they'll leave."

I'm not so sure that's a bad idea...they've already run the business into the ground.

Bonuses for upper management should be tied to performance...and IMO, most of them owe their companies millions of $$$.

 

[sactoking]

Well, if the parameters for the bonus are in writing, failure to pay them is breach of contract in which case the employer is liable for the bonus plus damages.

If the USPS told him in writing "You get Eleventy Billion Yuan if the USPS still exists in 2009", they HAVE to pay it.

Now, the appropriateness of the CRITERIA for the bonus is a whole different issue.

 

[spidey07]

If they didn't get those bonuses they would leave and business would be much worse.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: spidey07
If they didn't get those bonuses they would leave and business would be much worse.

lol, see the second post in this thread.

and like Boomer said, so leave. let someone else get in there and have the chance to do a better job cause you're really not cutting it.

 

[geno]

Originally posted by: spidey07
If they didn't get those bonuses they would leave and business would be much worse.

I can only hope you legitimately missed the first reply in this thread. That would make your reply oh so much more entertaining 😀

 

[MotF Bane]

Congress will just make another little show for the public, and won't change a damn thing.

Originally posted by: spidey07
If they didn't get those bonuses they would leave and business would be much worse.

Let them leave, they aren't doing their job well enough.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane
Congress will just make another little show for the public, and won't change a damn thing.

Originally posted by: spidey07
If they didn't get those bonuses they would leave and business would be much worse.

Let them leave, they aren't doing their job well enough.

Fine, so they leave.

How are they going to attract top talent to run this given that their current compensation is well below market value?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: MotF Bane
Congress will just make another little show for the public, and won't change a damn thing.

Originally posted by: spidey07
If they didn't get those bonuses they would leave and business would be much worse.

Let them leave, they aren't doing their job well enough.

Fine, so they leave.

How are they going to attract top talent to run this given that their current compensation is well below market value?

If more companies kicked out/let them go the higher ups when this stuff happened, wouldn't the market correct itself? I feel the same about professional sports players.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: MotF Bane
Congress will just make another little show for the public, and won't change a damn thing.

Originally posted by: spidey07
If they didn't get those bonuses they would leave and business would be much worse.

Let them leave, they aren't doing their job well enough.

Fine, so they leave.

How are they going to attract top talent to run this given that their current compensation is well below market value?

Is that top talent that is running a business into the ground already? Time for some new ideas and new strategies. Not time to give money to someone who is not performing.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: MotF Bane
Congress will just make another little show for the public, and won't change a damn thing.

Originally posted by: spidey07
If they didn't get those bonuses they would leave and business would be much worse.

Let them leave, they aren't doing their job well enough.

Fine, so they leave.

How are they going to attract top talent to run this given that their current compensation is well below market value?

Define "market value" in a recession with a company that is in the red.

 

[Descartes]

I am disturbed every time I hear the "you have to give them bonuses or they'll leave!" type of responses from people. This noxious idea reeks of the same mentality serfs suffered for a few centuries under irresponsible leaders. They have convinced employees and the public that they're crucial and necessary and thus their cost is justified. People that think they're pro freedom, pro free market, etc. regurgitate these same ideas lockstep.

Serious reform is needed. Basic fiscal responsibility has nothing to do with freedom, free markets, etc. If the company is suffering and bordering in insolvency, it's prudent to shore up.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: Descartes
I am disturbed every time I hear the "you have to give them bonuses or they'll leave!" type of responses from people. This noxious idea reeks of the same mentality serfs suffered for a few centuries under irresponsible leaders. They have convinced employees and the public that they're crucial and necessary and thus their cost is justified. People that think they're pro freedom, pro free market, etc. regurgitate these same ideas lockstep.

Serious reform is needed. Basic fiscal responsibility has nothing to do with freedom, free markets, etc. If the company is suffering and bordering in insolvency, it's prudent to shore up.

It's not just people who think they support freedoms and free markets that like this give bonuses so they don't leave, nor is it all the people who support freedoms and free markets like this idea.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: Descartes
I am disturbed every time I hear the "you have to give them bonuses or they'll leave!" type of responses from people. This noxious idea reeks of the same mentality serfs suffered for a few centuries under irresponsible leaders. They have convinced employees and the public that they're crucial and necessary and thus their cost is justified. People that think they're pro freedom, pro free market, etc. regurgitate these same ideas lockstep.

Serious reform is needed. Basic fiscal responsibility has nothing to do with freedom, free markets, etc. If the company is suffering and bordering in insolvency, it's prudent to shore up.

It's not just people who think they support freedoms and free markets that like this give bonuses so they don't leave, nor is it all the people who support freedoms and free markets like this idea.

Perhaps my comment was a little too comprehensive, but what exactly do you mean?

I'm merely saying that people that do say this do so by saying they're in defense of freedom, the markets, etc. Obviously, not all people that support the free markets feel this way; I do and I don't. I'm anti-irresponsibility, pro-fire-your-worthless-ass-if-you-can't-perform, but with that comes a lot of additional questions and concerns of course.

Interventionism in any form destroys the whole process, imo. This includes everything from boards that cover up the failures of the leadership (I've been direct witness to this on a few occasions) and government caps.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: Descartes
I am disturbed every time I hear the "you have to give them bonuses or they'll leave!" type of responses from people. This noxious idea reeks of the same mentality serfs suffered for a few centuries under irresponsible leaders. They have convinced employees and the public that they're crucial and necessary and thus their cost is justified. People that think they're pro freedom, pro free market, etc. regurgitate these same ideas lockstep.

Serious reform is needed. Basic fiscal responsibility has nothing to do with freedom, free markets, etc. If the company is suffering and bordering in insolvency, it's prudent to shore up.

It's not just people who think they support freedoms and free markets that like this give bonuses so they don't leave, nor is it all the people who support freedoms and free markets like this idea.

Perhaps my comment was a little too comprehensive, but what exactly do you mean?

I'm merely saying that people that do say this do so by saying they're in defense of freedom, the markets, etc. Obviously, not all people that support the free markets feel this way; I do and I don't. I'm anti-irresponsibility, pro-fire-your-worthless-ass-if-you-can't-perform, but with that comes a lot of additional questions and concerns of course.

Interventionism in any form destroys the whole process, imo. This includes everything from boards that cover up the failures of the leadership (I've been direct witness to this on a few occasions) and government caps.

Sorry, I thought you were blanketing all people who claim to want free markets and such as liking these ridiculous bonuses. 😱

 

[JulesMaximus]

Amazing. The President of the United States, arguably, the most powerful man in the world, is paid $400,000 a year and this twat makes twice that? Unfucking believable...

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: spidey07
If they didn't get those bonuses they would leave and business would be much worse.

Good riddance. Don't let the door hit your incompetent ass on the way out.

 

[sixone]

Funny, I don't hear of any elected officials giving up their salaries or the perks of their jobs. Why is that, do you think?

 

[JS80]

Often times, bonus metrics of executives are NOT measured against stock price and profitability, but other metrics such as launch of a product or other non-monetary metric. We need to see what was in his bonus plan documents.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Amazing. The President of the United States, arguably, the most powerful man in the world, is paid $400,000 a year and this twat makes twice that? Unfucking believable...

Not that this guy should be making $800k a year, but that's including benefits. With that in mind, the POTUS makes much more than $400k a year including benefits.

 

[oznerol]

I'm not claiming that these businesses (particularly the US Postal Service), are perfectly efficient in terms of spending - but Mr. Potter making even a million dollars a year and getting 40% raises and bonuses is neither the cause of nor the solution to billions of dollars of debt.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: sixone
Funny, I don't hear of any elected officials giving up their salaries or the perks of their jobs. Why is that, do you think?

Because apples aren't oranges?
If you don't like the way your elected official is doing things, let them know and/or vote them out, right? 😉

 

[actuarial]

So how many companies lost money last year? Do we think that every executive of every company that lost money did a bad job?

Also, people just assume that making money is considered good performance. In the pension world plans that lost 5-10% performed well, even though they lost money. Should those fund managers lose their bonus even though they outperformed everyone else?

The guy apparently cut $2-billion worth of costs and increased their service standard while doing it. I'm not saying he did a good job, but considering it's mail, we have to realize that he's running a company who's product is on the decline. If this were a private company, we'd be speculating on it going out of business, but since it's the mail someone is supposed to be able to magically save it? A company being in the red =/= an executive doing a bad job. There is a LOT more that needs to be considered when evaluating the performance of an executive.