Posted on 09/26/2008 2:31:32 PM PDT by kms61
I agree with you that the severances should be performance based but... you know, companies are free to do what they want (except conceal when their management is selling stock and conceal their CEOs pay packages, so you can get out of companies where you disagree with the management).
I admit I didn’t understand the particulars of this case. It appears he was hired to save the company, and they were hoping he could turn it around. Given the situation, that would have been a miracle. I don’t doubt a CEO can turn a company around, and I don’t begrudge them high wages if they can lead their companies to success.
What I was ranting about earlier was really more general in nature. How can CEOs who are responsible for destroying their companies walk away with their severance packages intact? I’m not talking about ones who are fired when the company is still solvent, as they would still have a contract. But what about those who drive their companies into bankruptcy?
Nearly all CEO compensation packages are based on the success of the firm's stock price. Sometimes that coincides with cost-savings layoffs (would be great if the Fed had one of these), sometimes it involves selling the company to a larger firm, sometimes it involves just plain old fashioned job-producing growth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.