electronista.com— AT&T's board of directors has reportedly moved to slash CEO Randall Stephenson's 2011 compensation by more than $2 million due to the executive's role in the unsuccessful attempt to acquire competitor T-Mobile.
Feb 22, 2012View in Crawl 4
That implies his 2012 compensation will be $20 million, and if you read that, the $22 million _included_ stock.
Is it fair that this guy cost his company $4 billion of cash and spectrum and "only" lost $2 million in compensation for it? Maybe not. But we can probably assume safely that the board does not believe they can find another qualified individual to take over the post.
Remember, compensation is based on the value you expect to gain from the employee's future efforts, not the value you did gain from their past efforts (though obviously their past efforts are a factor in the estimation of future value).
Heh... this is just like cutting $200 from a guy with a take-home pay of $2000. Hurts but still liveable. Now, cut that CEO's salary by at least a third and take away his perks and stock options ( and reinvest it in building the companies infrastructure) THEN AT&T can brag about it.
agree, but these guys can work on $0.01, and still fly 1st class. So, for $4 billion mistake, the people involved should have been fired, and banned from coming back to the company any time in the future. You're talking about $4 billion obvious mistake here. It's actually more than $4 billions I think. At least that $1 billion in bandwidth. Just so stupid on many levels.
It began to suck balls a bit right after they ATT tried to buy it. Mainly just them messing with the data plans like all the other carriers were all ready doing. I tethered my phone with them for over 3 years and right after ATT tried to buy them I started getting notices about it.
I left then and went to verizon but I'll most likely go back to Tmobile when my verizon contact is up.
Hmm, ive had my same tmobile plan for 8+ years now. The last time i called them to inquire about a service the lady chuckled and said my plan hasnt existed for a while. Are they pissy about you tethering because of the data usage?
Most likely mine was an old plan also. 20 dollar android plan that came with my G1. I wouldn't have left them if it wasn't for the fact I wanted nothing to do with ATT. Also screwed up three weeks after it was announced when they messaged me the first time about a tethering plan.
Only part of his compensation package was changed:
"The board decided to reduce Stephenson's cash bonus by 25 percent, while his stock compensation was cut by six percent"
If I were a shareholder, I'd say he shouldn't get any bonus
Wow, still spouting that CEO's rake in 1/3rd of all pay bulls**t even though I've disproved it consistently?
We'll take Walmart as an example and we'll even do some extremely conservative estimates IN YOUR FAVOR.
- Walmart has 1.6 million employees in the US
- We'll assume that all 1.6 million are minimum wage employees. There are no managers, or any other executives. It's just 1.6 million minimum wage employees, and the CEO
- Further, we'll say all of those minimum wage employees are part time only, and work an average of 20 hours/week.
- Fact: Walmart's CEO's TOTAL COMPENSATION package in 2011 is $18.7 million. http://www.marke****ch.com/story/wal-mart-ceo-total-2011-compensation-187-million-2011-04-18
That includes salary, stock options etc. But at the bottom it says he deferred some things, and his total deferred compensation is 63.3 million. I'm pretty sure that's not what he's actually paid, but for YOUR SAKE in this argument, We'll take $63.3 million as his pay.
So to recap, I've given you the benefit of the doubt by reducing the average of all 1.6 million employees to $7.25 per hour. Even though the average pay is much higher when you factor in managers and veteran employees etc. I've given you the benefit of the doubt by eliminating full time employees and giving. I've even given you the benefit of significantly inflating Walmart's pay.
So let's do some math:
1.6 million employees at $7.25/hour @ 20hours/week = total combined annual income of $12,064,000,000.
$63.3 million is 0.5% of the $12,064,000,000 employees. 0.5% is a lot lower than 33%, and when I stop giving you the benefit of the doubt, factor in higher average pay from managers and other long term employees, factor in more hours, and lower CEO pay to what it ACTUALLY is, that percentage is even lower.
So I don't know where you're getting this "CEOs earn 1/3rd of all pay in America" bulls**t because whoever came up with that number and posted it on the internet either
A. Sucks at math
B. Sucks at what we call a "sense check" (which is what I have just done with the Walmart example).
While your math is great and I share your opinion on the statistic, your example is a straw man but not reflective of all companies. For every large company, there are many more small ones with flatter structures, where CEO pay can be a much, much larger percentage of the total. There's also companies of 1 person, where the CEO is 100% of the total.
The straw man doesn't do anything to refute either of those cases.
"There's also companies of 1 person, where the CEO is 100% of the total."
And in what way are those companies relevant to the problem that novenator is implying? If the only person in a company is also the CEO, then the problem of disparaging pay is non-existent because there are no other employees with which to compare the pay.
Novenator is implying that CEOs make too much money, and cites "1/3rd of all pay in America" as evidence of that. Well "too much money" relative to what? If a company's only employee is the CEO itself, then there's no issue. There are no employees that are being screwed over by the excessive pay of the CEO.
So that means any instances in which the CEO is also the only employee, are irrelevant to this discussion.
I think the statistic he uses is total bulls**t and most of his comments are completely ridiculous. The idiocy he's posted above doesn't change that. His comments and general point of view are usually anti-business, anti-success and reflective of the mindless "Occupy" movement.
I'm just saying that your argument against his statistic is as flawed as his original statement. Picking one example out of millions doesn't disprove anything.
While that's true, it's one of MANY examples I could pull from. I just chose WalMart as it's not only the largest employer in America, but also what people imagine as the epitome of a slave-driving company with fat cat executives (since it's also one of the largest companies in the world).
I could point to Apple, Google, Microsoft, Exxon, Ford, GM, Staples, etc etc. I simple chose not to simply because I don't have time. But if I did, I bet I could research enough companies to account for a good 30% of the US private sector labor force and show that the companies that employ this 30% have CEOs who make no more than 2% of the total pay, using my ultra-conservative estimations of minimum wage @ 20 hours/week.
I wouldn't have given Walmart as an example if it was the exception to the rule. I could have comfortably picked any fortune 500 company and produced the same result.
Sure. And I can point to any number of hedge funds, the majority of which have under 20 people employed, where the CEO (who is generally the founding partner) makes tens/hundreds of millions or billions and pays out millions to tens of millions in profits. Consider John Paulson, who made around $9bn over 2 years. The largest bonus he paid out to an employee in any year was $175mm - a lot of money, but much less than he made.
Most Fortune 500 companies will look like Walmart. However, smaller companies can skew the numbers the other way, too ;) That's why I say a straw man argument isn't useful - you'd need to represent all of the different types of companies to make it meaningful.
I challenge any of you to run a multi-billion dollar business with no expectation of decent compensation. Sounds like class envy to me.
What the heck are they teaching in the business 101 courses these days? Certainly nothing about how business works. Wow.
Of course, whoever runs any kind of business, expects to earn as much as one can.
But it's not how much he makes that is concern. It's WHY and HOW he makes that much even though employees don't get enough raise to get by or get laid-off. And all the service fees are going up like there is no tomorrow for cutomers.
I'm not only talking about this guy but, in general, most of multi-billion dollar companies' heads have no concern at all of their employees or customers as long as their salary and bonuses are in their bank account.
One thing I learned from Business 101 class is called, "Business Ethics" which no current multi-billion dollar CEOs have, it seems.
"Business Ethics"? Where is CEO compensation covered in "Business Ethics"? You don't like the amount of the CEO compensation then don't buy stock in the company and don't give them your business. It's the board of directors that hires and fires the CEO and sets his pay. Blame the board of directors who are voted in by the stockholders.
I do disagree with your idea that most heads of companies have no concern about their employees. Unhappy employees create huge expenses, especially if they are part of a union, and huge expenses are not what management is looking for.
I am also confused by the attitude that the CEO does not deserve his pay. If the man went through the hard work and expense of a college education, why should he not make more than the one who doesn't go to college, and who doesn't have the knowledge or experience that the person at the management level has?
I don't think I said that they don't deserve what they get paid for and I understand that all business are in it for making money.
I'm saying it's not justified under circumstances.
Let me give you one example:
One company laid off 1000 employees and raised all their products' price, but all the heads of the company were given over $1M vacation bonuses. so is it justifiable to you? And it's ok to give millions of dollars raise to very few management people but just fire everyone else? They are already making more than that they need unless they are trying to make as much as they can so their family can live off that money for centuries w/o working.
People are angry because, even though, CEOs are not managing the company well which lead to firing and rasing prices, but they still get raises and bonuses. Where is their fault in this? Is it all the employees's fault? CEOs never do anything wrong no matter what happens to the company?
I didn't study Business in College so not sure but this much I know. When the company goes south, it is caused by mismanagement by the head of the company. So don't you think they should get blame for it instead of getting compensated? How come it's always employees who have to suffer from CEOs mistakes?
"One company laid off 1000 employees and raised all their products' price,..." What was the product? What was the company?
"They are already making more than that they need..." By whose standards? Who sets those standards? And how do they justify that argument?
"...trying to make as much as they can so their family can live off that money for centuries w/o working." I can guarantee that there is not enough money in the situation you just described for families to live off of for centuries.
2. I can do the same. Who sets their Salary and bonuses(themselves)? by which standard(their standard)? How do you justify that much money(they think that's not enough)? or 99% of Americans don't even make 1/1000 of what these CEOs are making. How is that for some kind of standard?
3. Really? Most of Americans don't even make $1M in their lifetime. So if you do the math, people can work more or less about 50 years, let's say. So for them, w/ $100M, they can live comfortably for about (50X100=5000-not including inflation since it's just theoory) damn 5000 years. How about that for the reality check?
And I KNOW that it's capitalism and all but don't you think what they are doing is too much? If you can't understand this, then there is nothing I can do to make you understand what most of American people think. And good for you if you are making that much money. I respect that. But you need to understand what most American feels.
Yes, that is a bad situation, but you really cannot hate on all corporations over the actions of one bank. "Backroom jobs" are jobs filled by people who can easily move from one job to another. They do not usually have much invested in their employer. If that was not the case, the transition would have been too damaging to the company.
1.I remember the bailout. It should have never happened. Businesses should not be bailed out, they should be forced into bankruptcy or close down. If you have practiced bad management, or knew that a situation was going to occur and you didn't plan for it, tough sh**, you're done.
2. Do you have any idea what a CEO does? In a publicly held corporation, such as AT&T, the board of directors sets their salaries, not themselves. If it is a privately held company (which are not usually as large as publicly held) the CEO has every right to set his own salary since he is usually the owner. If it is a small business, same thing applies. If a company treats its employees badly, then the employee can always go somewhere else. That's the beauty of a healthy economy, employment possibilities are endless, but you are not seeing that right now with the current idiot in the WH.
3. Where did you get 100 million? Just because a company posts a profit of 1.49 billion, does not mean it has 1.49 billion in cash that can be handed out to all of management.
Until you (or any OWS protester) can understand this:
and simply because OWS people were swindled by over-priced colleges to pay huge dollars for worthless degrees, such as "Women's Life Studies", does not mean that they have to protest against those who aspired in directions that provided comfortable lifestyles and whose talents were, based on our economic structure, more in demand.
Here's how to do a deal att.. You don't piss off your customer base by Jacking fee's,
canceling things like, unlimited data on your cellular and Adsl, jack fee's on texting,
blocking tethering and then turn around and try to buy out a competitor saying that this
will some how benefit people...
People already know your lying!!!
You wait till the deal is done then you screw people...
$2 million is a fart in the wind, but it was the decision of the board of directors who were voted in by the stockholders. It's not our money!!! It's their right to piss away their money as they see fit.
If you are pissed, organize a boycott of AT&T. It is your right.
concusionFeb 22, 2012
god how is this guy ever going to feed his family?
charlotte_webFeb 22, 2012
http://www.nissinfoods.com/topramen/
rockyoumonkeysFeb 22, 2012
Good point. He'll probably have to buy a Ramen manufacturing plant. Poor guy.
craig1958Feb 22, 2012
They needed a gesture for the stockholders.
toksterjoksterFeb 22, 2012
damn thats a costly mistake
jacobdisFeb 23, 2012
The name AOL springs to mind...
etubruteFeb 22, 2012
He makes over $30 Million+ a year not to mention his stocks, this nothing to him.
amaoicanFeb 23, 2012
"His total compensation for 2011 was $22 million" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randall_L._Stephenson
That implies his 2012 compensation will be $20 million, and if you read that, the $22 million _included_ stock.
Is it fair that this guy cost his company $4 billion of cash and spectrum and "only" lost $2 million in compensation for it? Maybe not. But we can probably assume safely that the board does not believe they can find another qualified individual to take over the post.
Remember, compensation is based on the value you expect to gain from the employee's future efforts, not the value you did gain from their past efforts (though obviously their past efforts are a factor in the estimation of future value).
rcorrinoFeb 22, 2012
Heh... this is just like cutting $200 from a guy with a take-home pay of $2000. Hurts but still liveable. Now, cut that CEO's salary by at least a third and take away his perks and stock options ( and reinvest it in building the companies infrastructure) THEN AT&T can brag about it.
moducFeb 22, 2012
agree, but these guys can work on $0.01, and still fly 1st class. So, for $4 billion mistake, the people involved should have been fired, and banned from coming back to the company any time in the future. You're talking about $4 billion obvious mistake here. It's actually more than $4 billions I think. At least that $1 billion in bandwidth. Just so stupid on many levels.
rockyoumonkeysFeb 22, 2012
Hurts? No. Taking $2 million away from a guy making $20+ million doesn't "hurt". Does he notice it? Sure. Does it hurt? Not even a little.
And if even tries to suggest it does.....he can go f**k himself.
mkirklandFeb 22, 2012
Yea, stay away from my T-Mobile service...it works beautifully as is, if AT&T gets ahold of it it will probably suck bawls
corinthosFeb 22, 2012
It began to suck balls a bit right after they ATT tried to buy it. Mainly just them messing with the data plans like all the other carriers were all ready doing. I tethered my phone with them for over 3 years and right after ATT tried to buy them I started getting notices about it.
I left then and went to verizon but I'll most likely go back to Tmobile when my verizon contact is up.
mkirklandFeb 22, 2012
Hmm, ive had my same tmobile plan for 8+ years now. The last time i called them to inquire about a service the lady chuckled and said my plan hasnt existed for a while. Are they pissy about you tethering because of the data usage?
corinthosFeb 22, 2012
Most likely mine was an old plan also. 20 dollar android plan that came with my G1. I wouldn't have left them if it wasn't for the fact I wanted nothing to do with ATT. Also screwed up three weeks after it was announced when they messaged me the first time about a tethering plan.
rockyoumonkeysFeb 22, 2012
Good. Now cut it by another $2million. Then a few more million. Then a few more million after that.
Then cut it another few million.
rabbitsinblackFeb 22, 2012
2M can be made up through smart investments in a very short amount of time from experience.
dmbftpFeb 22, 2012
Only part of his compensation package was changed:
"The board decided to reduce Stephenson's cash bonus by 25 percent, while his stock compensation was cut by six percent"
If I were a shareholder, I'd say he shouldn't get any bonus
amaoicanFeb 23, 2012
Hindsight is 20/20. When the deal was announced it was considered a slam dunk.
novenatorFeb 22, 2012
All CEO pay should be cut, and the savings reinvested in the company. CEO's rake in 1/3rd of ALL the pay in America. That's ridiculous.
kgermFeb 22, 2012
.
agmlauncherFeb 22, 2012
Wow, still spouting that CEO's rake in 1/3rd of all pay bulls**t even though I've disproved it consistently?
We'll take Walmart as an example and we'll even do some extremely conservative estimates IN YOUR FAVOR.
- Walmart has 1.6 million employees in the US
- We'll assume that all 1.6 million are minimum wage employees. There are no managers, or any other executives. It's just 1.6 million minimum wage employees, and the CEO
- Further, we'll say all of those minimum wage employees are part time only, and work an average of 20 hours/week.
- Fact: Walmart's CEO's TOTAL COMPENSATION package in 2011 is $18.7 million.
http://www.marke****ch.com/story/wal-mart-ceo-total-2011-compensation-187-million-2011-04-18
That includes salary, stock options etc. But at the bottom it says he deferred some things, and his total deferred compensation is 63.3 million. I'm pretty sure that's not what he's actually paid, but for YOUR SAKE in this argument, We'll take $63.3 million as his pay.
So to recap, I've given you the benefit of the doubt by reducing the average of all 1.6 million employees to $7.25 per hour. Even though the average pay is much higher when you factor in managers and veteran employees etc. I've given you the benefit of the doubt by eliminating full time employees and giving. I've even given you the benefit of significantly inflating Walmart's pay.
So let's do some math:
1.6 million employees at $7.25/hour @ 20hours/week = total combined annual income of $12,064,000,000.
$63.3 million is 0.5% of the $12,064,000,000 employees. 0.5% is a lot lower than 33%, and when I stop giving you the benefit of the doubt, factor in higher average pay from managers and other long term employees, factor in more hours, and lower CEO pay to what it ACTUALLY is, that percentage is even lower.
So I don't know where you're getting this "CEOs earn 1/3rd of all pay in America" bulls**t because whoever came up with that number and posted it on the internet either
A. Sucks at math
B. Sucks at what we call a "sense check" (which is what I have just done with the Walmart example).
scamper22Feb 22, 2012
they normally can't do division.
fertilebastardFeb 23, 2012
Sure they can... they like to divide up other people's money and give it to those they deem more worthy.
JS76Feb 22, 2012
While your math is great and I share your opinion on the statistic, your example is a straw man but not reflective of all companies. For every large company, there are many more small ones with flatter structures, where CEO pay can be a much, much larger percentage of the total. There's also companies of 1 person, where the CEO is 100% of the total.
The straw man doesn't do anything to refute either of those cases.
agmlauncherFeb 22, 2012
"There's also companies of 1 person, where the CEO is 100% of the total."
And in what way are those companies relevant to the problem that novenator is implying? If the only person in a company is also the CEO, then the problem of disparaging pay is non-existent because there are no other employees with which to compare the pay.
Novenator is implying that CEOs make too much money, and cites "1/3rd of all pay in America" as evidence of that. Well "too much money" relative to what? If a company's only employee is the CEO itself, then there's no issue. There are no employees that are being screwed over by the excessive pay of the CEO.
So that means any instances in which the CEO is also the only employee, are irrelevant to this discussion.
JS76Feb 22, 2012
I think the statistic he uses is total bulls**t and most of his comments are completely ridiculous. The idiocy he's posted above doesn't change that. His comments and general point of view are usually anti-business, anti-success and reflective of the mindless "Occupy" movement.
I'm just saying that your argument against his statistic is as flawed as his original statement. Picking one example out of millions doesn't disprove anything.
agmlauncherFeb 22, 2012
While that's true, it's one of MANY examples I could pull from. I just chose WalMart as it's not only the largest employer in America, but also what people imagine as the epitome of a slave-driving company with fat cat executives (since it's also one of the largest companies in the world).
I could point to Apple, Google, Microsoft, Exxon, Ford, GM, Staples, etc etc. I simple chose not to simply because I don't have time. But if I did, I bet I could research enough companies to account for a good 30% of the US private sector labor force and show that the companies that employ this 30% have CEOs who make no more than 2% of the total pay, using my ultra-conservative estimations of minimum wage @ 20 hours/week.
I wouldn't have given Walmart as an example if it was the exception to the rule. I could have comfortably picked any fortune 500 company and produced the same result.
JS76Feb 22, 2012
Sure. And I can point to any number of hedge funds, the majority of which have under 20 people employed, where the CEO (who is generally the founding partner) makes tens/hundreds of millions or billions and pays out millions to tens of millions in profits. Consider John Paulson, who made around $9bn over 2 years. The largest bonus he paid out to an employee in any year was $175mm - a lot of money, but much less than he made.
Most Fortune 500 companies will look like Walmart. However, smaller companies can skew the numbers the other way, too ;) That's why I say a straw man argument isn't useful - you'd need to represent all of the different types of companies to make it meaningful.
jbarker6Feb 22, 2012
Even the late steve jobs?
craig1958Feb 22, 2012
That $1/year took a big bite out of their profits.
Yes, I know about his stock.
justatoolFeb 22, 2012
Well that's a lesson he should remember.
particleman420Feb 22, 2012
i dount he'll even notice it much less remember it
amaoicanFeb 23, 2012
What lesson? Don't do deals that will look awful in hindsight?
doughproFeb 22, 2012
I challenge any of you to run a multi-billion dollar business with no expectation of decent compensation. Sounds like class envy to me.
What the heck are they teaching in the business 101 courses these days? Certainly nothing about how business works. Wow.
krazydlFeb 22, 2012
Of course, whoever runs any kind of business, expects to earn as much as one can.
But it's not how much he makes that is concern. It's WHY and HOW he makes that much even though employees don't get enough raise to get by or get laid-off. And all the service fees are going up like there is no tomorrow for cutomers.
I'm not only talking about this guy but, in general, most of multi-billion dollar companies' heads have no concern at all of their employees or customers as long as their salary and bonuses are in their bank account.
One thing I learned from Business 101 class is called, "Business Ethics" which no current multi-billion dollar CEOs have, it seems.
doughproFeb 22, 2012
"Business Ethics"? Where is CEO compensation covered in "Business Ethics"? You don't like the amount of the CEO compensation then don't buy stock in the company and don't give them your business. It's the board of directors that hires and fires the CEO and sets his pay. Blame the board of directors who are voted in by the stockholders.
I do disagree with your idea that most heads of companies have no concern about their employees. Unhappy employees create huge expenses, especially if they are part of a union, and huge expenses are not what management is looking for.
I am also confused by the attitude that the CEO does not deserve his pay. If the man went through the hard work and expense of a college education, why should he not make more than the one who doesn't go to college, and who doesn't have the knowledge or experience that the person at the management level has?
krazydlFeb 22, 2012
I don't think I said that they don't deserve what they get paid for and I understand that all business are in it for making money.
I'm saying it's not justified under circumstances.
Let me give you one example:
One company laid off 1000 employees and raised all their products' price, but all the heads of the company were given over $1M vacation bonuses. so is it justifiable to you? And it's ok to give millions of dollars raise to very few management people but just fire everyone else? They are already making more than that they need unless they are trying to make as much as they can so their family can live off that money for centuries w/o working.
People are angry because, even though, CEOs are not managing the company well which lead to firing and rasing prices, but they still get raises and bonuses. Where is their fault in this? Is it all the employees's fault? CEOs never do anything wrong no matter what happens to the company?
I didn't study Business in College so not sure but this much I know. When the company goes south, it is caused by mismanagement by the head of the company. So don't you think they should get blame for it instead of getting compensated? How come it's always employees who have to suffer from CEOs mistakes?
doughproFeb 22, 2012
"One company laid off 1000 employees and raised all their products' price,..." What was the product? What was the company?
"They are already making more than that they need..." By whose standards? Who sets those standards? And how do they justify that argument?
"...trying to make as much as they can so their family can live off that money for centuries w/o working." I can guarantee that there is not enough money in the situation you just described for families to live off of for centuries.
krazydlFeb 22, 2012
1. here is the link:
http://www.newworldorderreport.com/News/tabid/266/ID/9553/Australian-bank-ANZ-raises-interest-rates-fires-1000-employees-and-sends-excecutives-on-175m-holiday-cruise.aspx
But this is just one example. Remember the bailout few years ago. A lot of companies were about to go belly up, but, oh no, CEOs, CFOs, and whatever titles they had couldn't live w/o their precious bonuses so they gave most of bailout money to them. Is that justifiable?
2. I can do the same. Who sets their Salary and bonuses(themselves)? by which standard(their standard)? How do you justify that much money(they think that's not enough)? or 99% of Americans don't even make 1/1000 of what these CEOs are making. How is that for some kind of standard?
3. Really? Most of Americans don't even make $1M in their lifetime. So if you do the math, people can work more or less about 50 years, let's say. So for them, w/ $100M, they can live comfortably for about (50X100=5000-not including inflation since it's just theoory) damn 5000 years. How about that for the reality check?
And I KNOW that it's capitalism and all but don't you think what they are doing is too much? If you can't understand this, then there is nothing I can do to make you understand what most of American people think. And good for you if you are making that much money. I respect that. But you need to understand what most American feels.
doughproFeb 23, 2012
Yes, that is a bad situation, but you really cannot hate on all corporations over the actions of one bank. "Backroom jobs" are jobs filled by people who can easily move from one job to another. They do not usually have much invested in their employer. If that was not the case, the transition would have been too damaging to the company.
1.I remember the bailout. It should have never happened. Businesses should not be bailed out, they should be forced into bankruptcy or close down. If you have practiced bad management, or knew that a situation was going to occur and you didn't plan for it, tough sh**, you're done.
2. Do you have any idea what a CEO does? In a publicly held corporation, such as AT&T, the board of directors sets their salaries, not themselves. If it is a privately held company (which are not usually as large as publicly held) the CEO has every right to set his own salary since he is usually the owner. If it is a small business, same thing applies. If a company treats its employees badly, then the employee can always go somewhere else. That's the beauty of a healthy economy, employment possibilities are endless, but you are not seeing that right now with the current idiot in the WH.
3. Where did you get 100 million? Just because a company posts a profit of 1.49 billion, does not mean it has 1.49 billion in cash that can be handed out to all of management.
Until you (or any OWS protester) can understand this:
http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/IROL/96/96910/2011_Annual_Report_ANZ.pdf
you really shouldn't go on a campaign of hate against all corporations.
concusionFeb 22, 2012
hmm your last paragraph sounds like people involved in Occupy Wall Street.
doughproFeb 22, 2012
and simply because OWS people were swindled by over-priced colleges to pay huge dollars for worthless degrees, such as "Women's Life Studies", does not mean that they have to protest against those who aspired in directions that provided comfortable lifestyles and whose talents were, based on our economic structure, more in demand.
concusionFeb 22, 2012
ah ok, so only those who went to college to become CEOs deserve to be paid
doughproFeb 23, 2012
How did you come to that conclusion?
celine2013Feb 29, 2012
authentic Nike Shox Shoes Womens,Nike Shox Shoes Womens cheap. http://www.suchwholesale.com/replica-nike-shox-shoes-womens-wholesale
zbeastFeb 23, 2012
Here's how to do a deal att.. You don't piss off your customer base by Jacking fee's,
canceling things like, unlimited data on your cellular and Adsl, jack fee's on texting,
blocking tethering and then turn around and try to buy out a competitor saying that this
will some how benefit people...
People already know your lying!!!
You wait till the deal is done then you screw people...
Remember it's rape, pillage then burn.
fertilebastardFeb 23, 2012
$2 million is a fart in the wind, but it was the decision of the board of directors who were voted in by the stockholders. It's not our money!!! It's their right to piss away their money as they see fit.
If you are pissed, organize a boycott of AT&T. It is your right.
assassyn360Feb 23, 2012
Ahhhh that poor guy. I feel sorry for him... just as much as I would a rapists getting raped.
frostwrathFeb 22, 2012
Yeesh. To be making so much money a year that a $2m cut is a slap on the wrist.
eazybuzyFeb 22, 2012
<a href="http://www.eazybuzy.com">awsome article with much information and facts...you may also visit eazybuzy.com</a>