You think serco miraculously produces profits from nowhere?

No I a trying to understand how servos profits (revenue minus costs) push the total cost past the original one.

Well they are wrong then. Ditto those who try to suggest that high-skilled people have less value than others. Both inappropriate and rather silly comments IMO.

Well they are wrong then. Ditto those who try to suggest that high-skilled people have less value than others. Both inappropriate and rather silly comments IMO.

who decides who is valuable? Are most MPs worth there salary? most these days are little more than over paid lobby fodder. Are MDs of the banks worth what they are getting if the bank is not making money?

Who is it who sets the remuneration?

Various people set remuneration depending on the type of organisation. Methods range from the fair to unfair and from objective to subjective, I think we all know that.

Probably yes, on balance.

Probably no, unless they have specific turnaround brief. For taxpayers, as shareholders, to be accepting bonuses in state companies that are loss making seems absurd to me.

An MPs salary is about right IMO.

Bankers should be all about market rates, and I don’t think it should just be equated to profit. You could be working your arse off to turn around a failing business and deserve the credit, incentivise profit only and you’ll see very short term decision making.

What do reckon Mrmo, should a chancellor be paid less than the head of the RMT for example?

Well the chancellor gets paid about 50% more than the head of the RMT, on the face of it sounds about right to me.

I doubt either could justify their wage against that considered the living wage.

The chancellor earns about £136K which is £4K less than the head of the RMT.

The head of the RMT is on 95k

THM, I have no issue with people being paid to make a decision, and being paid well.

Problem is what are the criteria on which the decision is made. If I set your pay and you set my pay, at what point does favours as opposed to objectivity take over.

As for unions, despite the words they may use, I think it is fair to say Orwell got there first

The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which

I guess the question is whether the salaries at the top and the bottom of a company should be linked. Whether, and this again is you rub my back I rub yours, shareholders should be held to account for a company. The board is in theory accountable to the shareholders, in reality in a great many cases the shareholders very rarely act against the board. Should the UK look at the german works councils and involve employees in the running of a company, but then you run close to the shop steward and buying favouritism.

To often you see the ones in charge there because they are willing to stab others in the back rather than through their own ability.

[almurray] it’s much more complicated than that. [/almurray]

I guess the question is whether the salaries at the top and the bottom of a company should be linked.

I have always been very much in favor of restricting the top pay within an organization to a multiple of the lowest paid in that organization.

In the case of Serco I believe that the CEO who recently resigned in disgrace was on something close to 2.5 million a year, and received a 1.6 million payoff.

I imagine most Serco employees would love to earn just 20% of those kind of figures.