SIGN UP

Royal Mail: No Wonder It's Failing!

Avatar Image
ChillDoubt | 17:18 Fri 02nd Aug 2013 | News
23 Answers
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23549554

Yet more astronomical figures for salary and other expenses for the boss of a government owned company.
And how/why was she allowed expenses towards flights to Canada? As she's earning enough and now in charge of a company in this country, did she really need or deserve the extra help?

Answers

1 to 20 of 23rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by ChillDoubt. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Good grief.
'Additional assistance'
Apart from her basic salary for 2012-13, Canadian-born Ms Greene received £200,000 in lieu of a pension, £399,000 under a short-term incentive plan and £127,000 in contractual benefits, including medical insurance and return flights to Canada.

She was also paid £250,000 as an exceptional payment, described in the report as "additional assistance on the purchase of a home". This was offered "given the difference in residential costs between the UK and Canada".

After tax, this amounted to £120,000. This is the sum that Ms Greene is now repaying.

A Department for Business spokeswoman said Mr Cable had been "annoyed" when he learned of the payment and had "asked for and got a full apology from the chairman" of Royal Mail.

Mr Cable said the payment was "unapproved" and he was pleased that it was being returned.

"The company acted quickly to rectify the situation," he added.

"A mistake was made in not seeking my approval - I would not have approved it. The chairman is sorry. The payment is being returned. I now regard the matter closed."

Royal mail would have to sell quite a few stamps to cover that !.
Sadly indicative of the behaviour of many company high fliers, honesty and integrity seem to disappear out the window when perks 'open to interpretation' come in the door, similar to some MPs and their expenses. Actually abuse of expenses is evident in far lower paid staff too (I'm in Civil Service, I see it all the time).
she didn't just put her hand in the till; her claim went to the remuneration committee, which okayed it. They shouldn't have, as Cable points out. But she was hardly dishonest.
Minor quibble- Royal Mail is actually profitable,as I understand it, returning a nice little earner to the public purse.

Other than that, could not agree more. Some of the salaries and perks and pension plans and all the rest of it border on the obscene.

The argument goes that you need to match private sector wage packets in order to get the best people for the job. I disagree, and I really think most private sector companies ought to be looking again very closely at its salary and remuneration schemes. As a shareholder in several companies, I know I would like them to reject some of the more egregiously greedy board remuneration packages and pay out a bit more in dividends...
Question Author
No, she wasn't dishonest, but she sure knew how to take the p!ss when it comes to greed!

Makes you wonder how much the board are on too if they're rubber-stamping such payments without Cable's clearance.

doesn't sound like taking the piss to me. She asks the committee if the payments are covered in her contract, they say yes, she goes ahead and claims them. Cable ticked off the committee, not her.
Question Author
Fancy that, jno being contrary in anything I post. Whodathunkit!

Very well, have it your way. She's a thoroughly decent individual, the very model of a CEO, someone the rank and file of Royal Mail can admire and aspire to and her trips to and fro to Canada were obviously something she truly deserved, along with help in buying a property here.
It must have been a wrench to leave Canada and a struggle to settle here but I'm sure she's now over the worst.....
-- answer removed --
well, Cable's praised her as an excellent CEO. From the government's point of view, this presumably someone who'll set the concern up nicely to be flogged off, which isn't necessarily my own view. But there's no call for attacks on her honesty.
Makes you wonder how much the board are on too if they're rubber-stamping such payments without Cable's clearance.


Yes it does Chill, I think it needs investigating.
It does not matter what the Government ministers earn, it does not matter what these chair person earn, they will get it make no mistake about it, Why?
because the people of Britain have not got the fecking balls to do anything about it only moan. Have a nice day & keep checking the news! Why?


because the people of Britain have not got the fecking balls to do anything about it only moan.
Question Author
I didn't make a judgement on her honesty.

I'd question her scruples and moral judgement though as a CEO, particularly in times of austerity.
that's because I wasn't actually responding to you, ChillDoubt, but to Prudie.
Question Author
You might need to clarify then, as you further responded to my 'taking the p!ss' post, as the two were linked.

Either way, your stance would lead one to believe that you feel she is entirely blameless in all of this, when she clearly doesn't possess a conscience.
If this was a mini series on some God-awful Satellite channel, nobody would believe it. Not sure why we needed to go to Canada to get someone to run the bloody mail ?
sorry for the confusion then, ChillDoubt. But yes, I can't see anything to accuse her of. She went by the book, and that's all you can expect of anyone. I always claimed what I was entitled to under my own contract; though I suppose others may seflessly refuse to take what they contracted for. There seems to have been provision for a relocation allowance in her contract, which is common enough in these cases. If they didn't want to include it they could have offered the job to somebody else.

Mikey, they've just hired a Canadian to run the Bank of England. I presume the reason is that they were thought the best people for the job, rather than just to annoy the locals.
Royal Mail failing?

2009 £255million profit

2010 £404million profit

2011 £187million profit

2012 £211million profit

2013 £324million profit

Royal Mail is a commercial operation and rightly its bosses should be rewarded for their success. Pales in comparison to the money given to successful bankers.
Gromit, Nurses, Doctors, Some Social workers, Firemen, Emergency Drivers, the Regular workers, house wives, & many many more do not get what they are worth Gromit! without the sht shovellers there would not be bosses on high salaries.
True TWR, but the Captain always gets paid more than the Cabin Boy.

1 to 20 of 23rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Royal Mail: No Wonder It's Failing!

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.