Re: ALL
in response to
by
Welcome To the WIN!!! St. Elias Mines HUB On AGORACOM
Keep in mind, the opinions on this site are for the most part speculation and are not necessarily the opinions of the company WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Message: Re: ALL
Good points again Stewie but again there are flaws with your argument. There is no defined number of hours for a work week for any CEO that I am aware of.
First off you are the one who suggested the nonsense of 28 hour work weeks, I am well aware of salaried positions and that her position is salaried.
We simply do not know how many hours a week Lori works.
Regardless of how many hours she works a week my point is that with any CEO of a public company 100% of it should go to the company that is paying her full-time salary.
If she works 44 hours per week for SLI and an additional 26 hours a week for IGD then based on your logic would she not be entitled to a “full time” salary from SLI as well and a part time salary from IGD.
The answer is no, if she is working 70 hrs per week 100% of those efforts should be directed to the company they are steering.
In my day I have met lots of people who worked more than one job.
Not only is that unheard of as salaried CEO positions of publicly traded companies. If you've ever had a look at contracts for executives in large corporations they always have clauses that do not allow them to work in any other capacity for any other entity and often they are required the permission of the board to sit on any other board even charitable for the sole reason that they do not want their time and energy split and 100% focus remaining on the company. Incidentally many companies require even the lowest levels of employees to sign similar clauses.
Having the second and third did not mean that they took a pay cut in the first.
We are not talking about a job at 7-11 or contract work this is the CEO of a publicly traded company
Furthermore, we are comparing apples to oranges. If you look at managerial positions they are typically not paid per hour.
Agreed
They are paid for the job.
Agreed
If they do their full job in 10 hours per week they get the same salary as they guy who does the same job in 50 hours per week.
Agreed, however any CEO who suggests that their job is ever done 10 hours or 100...is not doing their job plain and simple.
Obviously I have exaggerate the numbers to make my point which is that management positions are not typically paid per hour even if that is what is reported in paper. Take Loblaws for example. A store manager is paid based on a 40 hour work week but he is expected to “do the job”. If it takes him 50 hours he gets no over time. If it takes him 39 hours her does not lose an hour of pay.
If you want to compare apples to apples...compare Loblaws CEO Galen Weston Jr. to Lori...they both have the same level of responsibility to their shareholders and their boards. Do you think Galen Weston Jr. is President and CEO of other publicly traded companies? Do you ever think he spends 10 hours in the office and genuinely has nothing else he can do? How many hours do you think he works office hours, after hours, weekends?
So, if you want to split hairs over Lori working multiple jobs and want to claim that her income should reflect hours then we must resort to hourly benchmarks such as 28 hours being considered full time. If her income is reflective of the job at hand then as long as the job gets done she gets paid. It is rather simple.
Lets assume for a sec that you are correct in that a CEO's job is ever done. Certainly the law requires that you pay for a job completed...but isn't it also true that how well you do your job that determines whether you keep it. Do you think Galen Weston Jr would keep his job if he lost 98% of shareholder value?
With respect to Intigold the company is out of cash. Therefor there is not much going on within IGD in my opinion.
All the more reason that the CEO of IGD should be working 100 hour weeks...it is common knowledge that when a company is running on all cylinders that is when the CEO takes thier vacation...in a crisis and tough times...thats when the sleeves get rolled up and solutions are found. IGD shareholders deserve that from their CEO...not a captain that is first off the ship.
They own 51% of TTAGIT but TTAGIT operates as a separate entity. I doubt the Lori over looks TTAGIT as if it was her job. She has to over look it as CEO of IGD because she has to protect shareholders interest. The reality of it, both SLI and IGD are on care and maintenance.
regardless of the state of the companies they both deserve a CEO giving 100% effort. There is always plenty that can be done that cost 0 dollars.
The problem is that with SLI I have no doubt that posters on this board have caused excessive work and expenditures by the company.
This is ridiculous, message boards to publicly traded companies day-to-day operations are nothing more than a gnat on a horses butt. If a company chooses to read their own press clippings and take it personally and allow it to affect their operations...they are simply not up for the position they hold.
Read the financials and you will see what I mean.It is all there in black and white.
They may spend money on legal fees, but all companies do to some extent. I guarantee Loblaws gets sued on a regular basis, both frivilous and legitimate lawsuits. How much time do you think Galen Weston Jr. spends on these things?...virtually none...that's why lawyers are hired they take care of it.
As for the potential conflict of interest it is nothing more than potential. Being the CEO of 2 companies is not in itself a conflict of interest.
Actually it is if they have parallel business interests
Any transactions made between the companies would be scrutinized by regulators and shareholders. If a conflict of interest is found I suspect the deal would get rejected.
The conflicts go far beyond transactions between the two companies. Every decision made that could benefit either company presents conflict of interest. I'll give you a very clear example. In the eyes of Lori TTAGIT was an opportunity that couldn't be passed up and that it could be the next great piece of technology worth a fortune to an investor. Because both IGD and SLI had no experience in technology nor was there any difference in the executive structure...in essence both companies were the same...how does Lori determine IGD gets to benefit from such an investment and not SLI? Why did SLI not invest in TTAGIT? If SLI ends up going bankrupt and TTAGIT becomes worth the billions expected how did Lori determine IGD shareholders were more deserving of the benefits? This is a single decision made on something that could benefit either company...do you not see the conflict that exists every single time a decision is made that could benefit both companies?
S
15 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply