My condolences to all affected, this 500 includes some friends in the industry.
Absurd how a company can pay so much money to recruit and train new talent then decide to fire those same people?
Do not forget Ramani Ayer made in excess of $15,000,000 in 2007 (not even much by Fortune 100 standards) — the stock was at $100 then, and last week it dipped to $8.75. Why is Ramani not the one getting laid off? They could pay all 500 salaries with that money.
Salary $1,150,000.00
Bonus $0.00
Other Annual Compensation $0.00
Long term incentive plan payouts $0.00
Restricted stock awards $5,687,582.00
Security underlying options $0.00
All other compensation $81,574.00
Option awards $ $2,728,022.00
Non-equity incentive plan compensation $3,250,000.00
Change in pension value and nonqualified deferred compensation earnings $2,934,718.00
Total Compensation $15,831,896.00
exactly matt, it seems like the captains of industry have forgotten the example of going down with the ship. Ramani could easily say, “Hey guys, our stock dropped 91%. Instead of laying off any workers I’m going to forgo getting paid in 2009 and get this company back on track.” THAT would be inspirational. Instead, we just get typical.
I always have a problem understanding how these decisions are arrived at; apparently one person is far too valuable to lay off but I just wonder how the cost/benefit analysis can support that, especially when you consider the bigger bang you get for your buck by keeping 125 other people on the job. Can’t tell me that service won’t suffer. What is the impact on a company from the departure of a highly paid executive? Not like he can personally restore profitability himself; but you can easily see how losing 125 people could slow things up a bit. It is just this simple, those at the top take care of their own….
Wow, that WOULD be inspirational! It can’t be any more complicated than that. But no one puts their money where their mouth is. You’d think that he would feel obligated to do MORE for the company that treats him so well; as they say “it ain’t that simple”. But if you ask me, it really is that simple; to make sense of any of this financial meltdown you have to be able to believe that people can be greedy and of course no one would admit to that so instead layoffs are in order because the rank and file do not do anything to make the company what it is, or so they would have you believe.
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.
Looking at my account I think I’ve just been taken by a worse scheme than Madoff.
I put money in and cant get it out exceot over the next 7 years. Madoff at least payed off till he went broke and payed dividens untill he went broke these guys never payed out a dime to me and are going broke just the same WHO GOT OUR MONEY
My condolences to all affected, this 500 includes some friends in the industry.
Absurd how a company can pay so much money to recruit and train new talent then decide to fire those same people?
Do not forget Ramani Ayer made in excess of $15,000,000 in 2007 (not even much by Fortune 100 standards) — the stock was at $100 then, and last week it dipped to $8.75. Why is Ramani not the one getting laid off? They could pay all 500 salaries with that money.
Ramani’s Compensation — 2007 per Forbes
Salary $1,150,000.00
Bonus $0.00
Other Annual Compensation $0.00
Long term incentive plan payouts $0.00
Restricted stock awards $5,687,582.00
Security underlying options $0.00
All other compensation $81,574.00
Option awards $ $2,728,022.00
Non-equity incentive plan compensation $3,250,000.00
Change in pension value and nonqualified deferred compensation earnings $2,934,718.00
Total Compensation $15,831,896.00
HIG @ 1/3/07 — $93.88
HIG @ 10/30/08 — $9.62
HIG current @ $14.37
exactly matt, it seems like the captains of industry have forgotten the example of going down with the ship. Ramani could easily say, “Hey guys, our stock dropped 91%. Instead of laying off any workers I’m going to forgo getting paid in 2009 and get this company back on track.” THAT would be inspirational. Instead, we just get typical.
Underwriter,
Not only would this be inspirational to the employees of Hartford, but the stock would likely surge from such a selfless act.
I always have a problem understanding how these decisions are arrived at; apparently one person is far too valuable to lay off but I just wonder how the cost/benefit analysis can support that, especially when you consider the bigger bang you get for your buck by keeping 125 other people on the job. Can’t tell me that service won’t suffer. What is the impact on a company from the departure of a highly paid executive? Not like he can personally restore profitability himself; but you can easily see how losing 125 people could slow things up a bit. It is just this simple, those at the top take care of their own….
Wow, that WOULD be inspirational! It can’t be any more complicated than that. But no one puts their money where their mouth is. You’d think that he would feel obligated to do MORE for the company that treats him so well; as they say “it ain’t that simple”. But if you ask me, it really is that simple; to make sense of any of this financial meltdown you have to be able to believe that people can be greedy and of course no one would admit to that so instead layoffs are in order because the rank and file do not do anything to make the company what it is, or so they would have you believe.
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.
Looking at my account I think I’ve just been taken by a worse scheme than Madoff.
I put money in and cant get it out exceot over the next 7 years. Madoff at least payed off till he went broke and payed dividens untill he went broke these guys never payed out a dime to me and are going broke just the same WHO GOT OUR MONEY