Hartford Insurance to Cut 500 Jobs
East News • November 5, 2008
The Hartford says it will be cutting 500 jobs, citing losses in its investment portfolios and declining revenues.
The Connecticut-based financial services company says the layoffs will include ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
Subject: RE: underwriter is right on
Posted On: November 14, 2008, 10:30 am CST
Posted By: underwriter
Comment:
I would hate to think that under his current salary that the CEO would actually incur any hardships for taking a one year waiver. If he does, then he manages his own finances so poorly that he shouldn't be at the helm of the company.
This isn't claims law where the company has to fear for setting precedence. This is simply human decency, "Hey, the company suffered under my watch last year so now I'm going to make up for it." Suddenly the executive goes from being eyes on the money to eyes on the employee. I think the spill over would result in this: a healthy example to be set for the industry maybe to inspire other CEO's to follow suit (not likely, just speaking in hypos here); a huge morale boost for the troops and loyalty to the company for looking after their own, not to mention the "let's take on the world for this guy" attitude that the employees might adopt; and greater shareholder confidence in the CEO who puts long term welfare of the company ahead of his own fortunes.
I'm not nostalgic for the "good old days." As far as I'm concerned there has never been a golden age where the executive of a large scale company has placed the welfare of the line level employee high on the totem pole, in spite of the preachings and prep talks of gurus like Tom Peters. A few shining examples, yes - but they are in the minority. Still, I truly believe that high profit margins do exist in between the ledger lines for companies that act with character over dollar signs.
Subject: RE: underwriter is right on
This isn't claims law where the company has to fear for setting precedence. This is simply human decency, "Hey, the company suffered under my watch last year so now I'm going to make up for it." Suddenly the executive goes from being eyes on the money to eyes on the employee. I think the spill over would result in this: a healthy example to be set for the industry maybe to inspire other CEO's to follow suit (not likely, just speaking in hypos here); a huge morale boost for the troops and loyalty to the company for looking after their own, not to mention the "let's take on the world for this guy" attitude that the employees might adopt; and greater shareholder confidence in the CEO who puts long term welfare of the company ahead of his own fortunes.
I'm not nostalgic for the "good old days." As far as I'm concerned there has never been a golden age where the executive of a large scale company has placed the welfare of the line level employee high on the totem pole, in spite of the preachings and prep talks of gurus like Tom Peters. A few shining examples, yes - but they are in the minority. Still, I truly believe that high profit margins do exist in between the ledger lines for companies that act with character over dollar signs.