I mean WHAT THE f***!

How does he deserve that much money!!

I guess the only redeeming factor is that he has been their 'head' for 17 years, so it's not asif he was in and out in a few years and got that amount, plus they are doing well. But still how does ONE person deserve that sort of a pay out.

Plus he still has access to a corp jet and health benefits plus car allowances etc etc


fixed the link

How much money do you think he's made for AT&T? If they weren't paying him this sort of money he would've gone and found a better paying job elsewhere instead of working there for 17 years.

Lucky he wasn't working under Workchoices, his redundancy payments may have been lost if he had been moved onto an AWA. Oh but that's right executives get golden parachutes whilst lowly employees get zippo. :P

They need to cap director payouts like they need to cap insurance payouts. Also I think you mean 'chief'. Get Firefox v2.0 up ya :P

if you're worth something to your company, they'll reward you appropriately. why shell out for someone if they can find someone else happy to work for the same remuneration you're not happy for?

just like fixing wages is not the government's role, nor is fixing executive payouts. how can the government know what is best for private individuals, freely entering into contracts.

if people make a bad decision, chalk it up to experience.

How much money do you think he's made for AT&T?

Probably less then the amount of money all the low position people make it. Without them, the company is nothing...

With the money AT&T are making out of WoW, they can afford to wipe the asses with $100 bills.

last edited by Lynx at 01:32:50 29/Apr/07

and if you post in this thread, he will give you $1 million

the way i see it, he deserves it

Probably less then the amount of money all the low position people make it. Without them, the company is nothing...

Yes, because the gears of the machine are the only important part. It doesn't matter if a car doesn't have a driver, it'll swerve to avoid driving off a cliff on its own!

Besides, the low position staff probably get their $190 million, but when it's divided amongst 10,000 or so it doesn't amount to anywhere near as much.

last edited by Tael at 20:01:44 28/Apr/07

One word.....


Parasite

unless the shareholders have a problem with it, i don't see what the big deal is.

this guy has transformed one of the smaller baby bells into a telco powerhouse.

he has been with the company 17 years and now he is retiring.

it isn't like he is being forced out for not achieving the objectives he set out to or was caught in some white collar crime.

Lucky he wasn't working under Workchoices, his redundancy payments may have been lost if he had been moved onto an AWA.

If he was employed in Australia he would be under a individual contract, simular to an AWA, but go ahead, continue to regurgitate what the Federal Opposition and the Unions have been feeding you, you seem to like it.

this guy has transformed one of the smaller baby bells into a telco powerhouse.

AT&T was not a baby Bell nor was it a product of the breakup of Bell.

If you want to talk about propaganda have a little talk with Howard, the master of propaganda, $55million on ads for WorstChoices which failed to achieve their aim. Oh and by they way whose money did they spend?

I am not a Union psychophant so try not belittling me with your bulls***.

Why should governments restrict what two private entities willingly agree to...

The shareholders/directors obviously think he's earned that much money so it really doesn't matter I or any of you think. Cry more.

edit: and pretty much all CEOs are on contracts which are extremely similar to AWAs. They get big bucks because generally speaking they earn it, regardless of what you tards think.


last edited by taggs at 10:03:41 29/Apr/07

The shareholders/directors obviously think he's earned that much money so it really doesn't matter I or any of you think. Cry more.

I find it hard to believe shareholders would rather see $100m going to one person AS A PAYOUT rather than being spread out over dividends. $100m going into an investment in the future, sure - but as a payout? That's madness.

I am wondering if shareholders even got the opportunity to vote on this or whatever.

trog from what i've read on news sites some shareholders wanted it cut, decisions like that would probably come from the board of directors but for something that big i'd imagine they'd have to be ok'd at a shareholder meeting or something.

AT&T was not a baby Bell nor was it a product of the breakup of Bell.

wow, you couldn't be any more wrong. seriously look that s*** up, he turned SBC pretty much the smallest baby bell into AT&T and Cingular through a bunch of mergers and basically transformed the US telecommunications industry.

sounds like her earnt his money then....

lets not forget he woulda been on phat lewt EVERY f***ING YEAR he was in charge

and then gets ~200m on top of that?

Plus I am SURE he'll have share options and a stake in the companie(s)

as much as I hate the concept of any one person receiving that much cash (no one is worth that much money), they get so much cash to ensure they don't disclose company secrets AFTER the fact

wow, you couldn't be any more wrong. seriously look that s*** up, he turned SBC pretty much the smallest baby bell into AT&T and Cingular through a bunch of mergers and basically transformed the US telecommunications industry.

Whose the idiot. AT&T Corp has been around since 1885 you dill and owned most of what was SBC. Only after AT&T Corp and SBC failed to merger in 2005 did SBC purchase AT&T Corp and renamed it AT&T Inc so to say AT&T is a product of the divestment of Bell and was a baby Bell is stupidity at it's greatest.

Here's a quote for you dickwad:

The current company, which is based in San Antonio, Texas, United States, was formed in November of 2005[3] by SBC Communications' purchase of its former parent company, AT&T Corp.

and here's another:

Although the corporation is considered SBC renamed, most of its major subsidiaries were part of AT&T prior to 1984

Edited: shouldn't swear so much in front of kiddies.


last edited by Some Fat Bastard at 10:54:34 29/Apr/07

to say AT&T is a product of the divestment of SBC and was a baby Bell is stupidity at it's greatest.

I don't see where I said that, or said anything that contradicts what you've copied from wikipedia.

edit: perhaps I didn't word it well. I'm fully aware AT&T existed before SBC bought it.

last edited by taggs at 10:58:46 29/Apr/07

Let me lay it out really simply for you.

AT&T was split up into the bells in 1984.

He was CEO at Southwestern Bell.

Southwestern Bell bought what was left of AT&T in 2005, he lead the aquisition.

So.. how is that not transforming a baby bell into a telco power house?

AT&T is the market leader in nearly every sector in which it competes.

The government spends money trying to educate the public on new policy. That is well within their right. If it didn't achieve their objectives who can say, but i am sure that the unions anti-workchoices properganda didn't assist in getting across a clear message.

last edited by ara at 11:06:01 29/Apr/07

fix title spelling ffs.

also i think in the end it boils down to jealousy factor. good luck to him.

The only issue I see with this sort of payout figure is that shareholders don't (usually) get to vote on it. I also think individual companies should put a cap on payouts to individuals like this.

Where I have an issue is when CEO's completely screw things up and yet still get massive payouts.

all i can say government is very happy, look how much tax he will pay!!!!

psychophant

heh

sorry ara I don't get it, can you lay it out EVEN SIMPLER

you're a s***