There have been plenty of “unusual” stories in the news lately. A few that caught my eye included the AIG executive who resigned because he felt he was being betrayed (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7964250.stm ) and Sir Fred Goodwin, the ex head of the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), who has been publicly slammed for receiving a huge pension when he was fired after RBS made the largest loss in UK corporate history.
What we weren’t told when Sir Fred was being publicly castigated was that he did not in fact receive the huge pension as part of his severance as has been widely publicised, it was something he had negotiated when he joined over 10 years previously and had been covered in the RBS annual report each year (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7949929.stm ). It also turns out the AIG executive that resigned was on a base salary of $1 a year and his bonus was his only real income, not matter how big that bonus.
Now, I am not saying it is right to pay these huge salaries, bonuses and pensions but I do feel that a deal is a deal and if shareholders and politicians are OK with it during the good times, then it is somewhat unfair to renege on the deal when times (and public opinion) change down the line.
The other thing I think these stories highlight is that there are normally two sides to a story and it is important to try and understand both sides before making a decision. That may make it a good idea to read your favourite newspaper, the one that fits with your political ideology but also to read a second paper that doesn’t. Try to see things from both sides.
Having said that, I don’t think Sir Fred or the AIG executives received different coverage anywhere – they were uniformly crucified everywhere. I’m not defending them, but I do feel there is some justification in the claim they have been betrayed if they entered into a contract many years prior to all these problems and now other people are unhappy with those contracts. I know how I’d feel.
No comments:
Post a Comment