It’s a discussion that has been ongoing since business was a thing. Why should the boss be paid more than his/her employees? Here Chris Abbass, co-founder of Talentful, delves deep into the considerations to make when posing this question.
As the founder of a fast-growing business, I can attest to the levels of stress, sacrifice and sleepless nights executives go through to build and run their companies. At an executive level, you are expected to be available 24hrs a day and have a huge amount of responsibility for the successes, but also any failures your business may go through. Further, individuals who set up businesses take on an immense amount of risk – they have much less security, and put themselves at risk of potential failure if the business does not go to plan, which can greatly damage their reputation.
When it comes to CEOs and those at C level positions, though they did not start the business, they have the success of it resting on their shoulders. We have seen many individuals at executive level get fired for things that have gone wrong without the bat of an eyelash. Executives are in positions with the highest risk and are held accountable for anything that goes wrong or right in the organisation. Because of this, I believe that their pay should be reflective of their successes and failures.
Pay, at the executive level, should always be in line with how well the business is doing, how successful they are, and how much value the individual is bringing the business. If the business is performing well this should be reflected in executive pay. Conversely, if an organisation’s performance is very bumpy and inconsistent, then CEOs should not be taking home huge pay checks and bonuses.
An example of when executive pay has gone tremendously wrong was during the economic crisis when big bankers were taking home massive bonuses while firms were failing and people were losing their jobs and homes. As a business founder, I believe this is unacceptable and suggests individuals taking advantage of their position and thus their pay. This should never happen, but on the other hand, if banks and institutions are doing very well and are creating a lot of money for the economy, then executives undoubtedly deserve their large pay checks and bonuses. Overall, executive pay should reflect on how well the individual is doing. If you are making losses for the business and are putting your employees out of jobs, you should not be taking home a massive salary.
Executive pay should be an accurate reflection of the amount of work and pressure the individual takes on and should be proportionate to the size and profitability of the business. If a company is losing money, then this should be reflected in executive pay, and conversely, if the company is over-performing those at the top should reap the rewards.
Trish Devine, a managing director in Corporate Banking, help clients realize their objectives by leveraging different parts of the firm.
Trump administration recently announced plans to expand offshore oil drilling in US waters, threatening recreation, tourism, fishing and other coastal industries, which provide more than 1.4 million jobs and $95 billion GDP along the Atlantic coast alone. The executive order directs the Interior Department to develop a new five-year oil and gas leasing program to consider new areas for offshore drilling. The order also blocks the creation of new national marine sanctuaries and orders a review of all existing sanctuaries and marine monuments designated or expanded in the past ten years.
"Our ocean, waves and beaches are vital recreational, economic and ecological treasures that would be polluted by an increase in offshore oil drilling, regardless of whether or not there is a spill," said Dr. Chad Nelsen, CEO of the Surfrider Foundation. "With today's action, the Trump administration is putting the interests of the oil and gas lobby over the hundreds of communities, thousands of businesses, and millions of citizens who rely on the ocean and coasts for their jobs and livelihoods."
New offshore drilling would threaten thousands of miles of coastline and billions in GDP, for a relatively small amount of oil. Ocean tourism and recreation, worth an estimated $100 billion annually nationwide, provides 12 times the amount of jobs to the US economy, compared to offshore oil production. Even under the best-case scenario, America's offshore oil reserves would provide only about 920 days, or 18 months supply of oil at our current rate of consumption, according to federal agency estimates.
"Tourism drives our local economy, and the approval of offshore drilling poses a huge threat to the livelihood and quality of life in our beach community," said Nicole D.C. Kienlen, Tourism Director of Bradley Beach, New Jersey. "The effects would be devastating on multiple levels."
Even when there are no accidents, offshore oil drilling seriously pollutes our water and food supply at every stage. The ground penetration, the drilling, the rigs, and the transportation tankers all release toxic chemicals and leaked oil. The standard process of drilling releases thousands of gallons of polluted water into the ocean. High concentrations of metals have been found around drilling platforms in the Gulf of Mexico and have been shown to accumulate in fish, mussels and other seafood.
"The Trump administration wants to pour money in to a sinking ship with relatively small return, instead of supporting growth industries like coastal tourism and renewable energy that are adding jobs to our economy," said Pete Stauffer, Environmental Director for the Surfrider Foundation. "We will stand up for what's best for the nation, and our oceans, by fighting new offshore drilling off our coasts."
(Source: Surfrider Foundation)
