Capping CEO pay at state/semi state bodies is unrealistic

CommuterIE

A rediculous suggestion by this government that semi state/state companies CEO's pay be capped... some of these organisations are massive!! No-one with the relevant expertise for example would take the helm of the massive ESB for such a rediculous renumeration package, never mind his or her bonuses being scrutinised.... this is the real world of BUSINESS and sadly the public sector and government just don't get ****ing get it!!!

Icepick

You are right. It should be privatised.

PARKHEAD67

CommuterIE wrote: »

A rediculous suggestion by this government that semi state/state companies CEO's pay be capped... some of these organisations are massive!! No-one with the relevant expertise for example would take the helm of the massive ESB for such a rediculous renumeration package, never mind his or her bonuses being scrutinised.... this is the real world of BUSINESS and sadly the public sector and government just don't get ****ing get it!!!

Ya, the real world of business where some fat bastard wont accept 250 grand a year coz he "needs" an extra few bob on top of that in order to survive.Give me a break FFS.

CommuterIE

PARKHEAD67 wrote: »

Ya, the real world of business where some fat bastard wont accept 250 grand a year coz he "needs" an extra few bob on top of that in order to survive.Give me a break FFS.

This is the tripe that people like you put forward....

Let me say it to you as if you are a retard... Somebody getting offered €250,000 to run the ESB would rather join a company like Citigroup or HP at a lower level for three times that wage!

Liam Byrne

If you were genuinely using commercial rules, then the fact that the parent company is bankrupt would dictate that they would get far, far less.

Aside from that, anyone who thinks they're worth more than a quarter of a million a year (probably not even including pensions, bonuses, expenses and other perks in that) is on a different planet.

CommuterIE

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If you were genuinely using commercial rules, then the fact that the parent company is bankrupt would dictate that they would get far, far less.

Now wtf are you talking about, go to bed ffs

Liam Byrne

CommuterIE wrote: »

Now wtf are you talking about, go to bed ffs

Did you start a discussion thread or a rant ?

Ireland is the ESB's parent "company".

Ireland cannot afford to pay any more than the €250,000, since us shareholders are footing the bill.

Now, unless you stop adding rediculousridiculous childish phrases like "wtf" and "go to bed ffs" just because I don't agree with you, there is no point in me contributing further.

dissed doc

CommuterIE wrote: »

A rediculous suggestion by this government that semi state/state companies CEO's pay be capped... some of these organisations are massive!! No-one with the relevant expertise for example would take the helm of the massive ESB for such a rediculous renumeration package, never mind his or her bonuses being scrutinised.... this is the real world of BUSINESS and sadly the public sector and government just don't get ****ing get it!!!

Unfortunately for the private sector, the public can't afford massive bonuses and golden parachutes that are the norm in the private sector at this level. The sort of person who is so excessive with finances is not the sort of person we need. Who wants a new CEO who wastes taxpayer money on fine dining, helicopter rides, etc., . That is the preserve of the bankers and property sectors - all fine, upstanding well-run private sectors.

RMD

PARKHEAD67 wrote: »

Ya, the real world of business where some fat bastard wont accept 250 grand a year coz he "needs" an extra few bob on top of that in order to survive.Give me a break FFS.

Thing is, if that "fat bastard" is capable of being ESB CEO, he's capable of being the CEO of many other companies which will pay him a lot better, hence who's he going to work for?

It's not really hard to understand. If you want a good CEO you must pay accordingly.

Chucky the tree

This is what I found from a quicky Google search. If the compnay is going well and making a couple of hundred million I've no idea how people can compain about him getting paid or 250k or a few bonses thrown in. The question is how would the company perform if the wage was capped? If it ended up losing eve njust a few million then it's obviously a horrible idea to cap the wages.

The ESB contributed €2.2bn to the Irish economy last year, according to its annual report.

The company said it is as a result of purchases from Irish suppliers, taxes, rates, wages and dividends paid.

The ESB reported profits of €339m for 2010.

Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/business/esb-electric-ireland-reports-339m-profit-508543.html#ixzz1QoUgNT70

http://www.esb.ie/main/press/press-release413.jsp

ESB revenues for 2009 amounted to €3.1 billion with profits of €580 million – an increase of €307 million on the previous year that was attributable to the once-off sale of power generation assets to the Spanish utility, Endesa.

Describing the financial performance as "good in a difficult environment", the Company chairman, Lochlann Quinn said ESB made a contribution of €2.7 billion to the Irish economy in 2009 alone

Inverse to the power of one!

Yeah.....PAY = QUALITY

This is a well known and proven fact from the financial sector as evidenced by the state of global finance.

Why don't you small people get it?

Zubeneschamali

Inverse to the power of one! wrote: »

Why don't you small people get it?

Give that man a bonus!

the_syco

Until recently, the ESB had to charge a certain amount (also called regulation).

As it was a semi-state company, so it could not amass profit, and thus had to give the money to the state, and to it's employees.

Thus, the employees get bonuses.

nesf

CommuterIE, please do not delete posts in the middle of a conversation in future. I've undeleted said posts. You own your words on this forum, I recommend to think harder before posting in future if you're posting stuff you want to delete afterwards.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nijmegen

This is one (of many) troubles when the state tries to have 'commercial' businesses: People don't think it fair that the CEO, for example, get a massive pay packet. Yet, that CEO could take a job in another (private) company and receive the same or, if you cut it, more. Therefore you can risk getting poor CEO's with long term negative consequences.

In my opinion, paying for 'talent' is very, very sensible. However paying for non-talent, as we have seen so often in Ireland, jades our view of the whole topic.

There should be social solidarity and an end to certain bonuses etc - we saw that in the private sector also during the bust - but at the end of the day, if you pay peanuts, you will get monkeys.

I know some of you will scream "€250,000 is not peanuts!" Compared to the average salary, quite right. However, compared to the salaries on offer in the market for individuals with the experience and caliber and track record you would desire for multi million to multi billion euro industries, departments, etc, it is peanuts - Just the same way that the minimum wage is peanuts to somebody earning double it, who is still earning the average wage of around €36k.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

thebman

Bonuses are only good for certain things.

Not everyone should get a bonus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrkrvAUbU9Y

I don't think the CEO's of semi-states should get bonuses. A well earned high basic wage should be enough.

seamus

RMD wrote: »

It's not really hard to understand. If you want a good CEO you must pay accordingly.

We hear this all the time, yet I've never seen any news in the papers about a "shortage of good CEOs" or about a company going without a CEO for years and years because they can't find a candidate.

If good CEOs were in such short supply as to require huge salaries, surely these would be problems. There are far more people out there with the ability to be a good CEO than there are companies who require one. The high salary fallacy is maintained by those in business circles to maintain their own salaries. CEOs will never admit that they're massively overpaid because turkeys don't vote for christmas.

Nijmegen

seamus wrote: »

We hear this all the time, yet I've never seen any news in the papers about a "shortage of good CEOs" or about a company going without a CEO for years and years because they can't find a candidate.

If good CEOs were in such short supply as to require huge salaries, surely these would be problems. There are far more people out there with the ability to be a good CEO than there are companies who require one. The high salary fallacy is maintained by those in business circles to maintain their own salaries. CEOs will never admit that they're massively overpaid because turkeys don't vote for christmas.

You don't hear much in the news about most CEO's, though many do fail. The way CEO's are selected is part of the reason why not many high profile ones really do: Years and years and years of apprenticeship at various executive management levels and in different organisations.

At the end of the day, though, when hiring a CEO you are competing for the best talent against others who want that best talent. There is a difference between a Steve Jobs and a Good CEO X.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Liam Byrne

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Even the phrasing is laughable - "compensation" for what, exactly ?

Just because something is commonplace doesn't make it right.

CommuterIE

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Even the phrasing is laughable - "compensation" for what, exactly ?

Just because something is commonplace doesn't make it right.

Compensation for running the company to profitability... capping the pay of a DAA and ESB for example, both massive organisations is rediculous in the sense that they won't get the calibre of applicants they require

Nijmegen

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Even the phrasing is laughable - "compensation" for what, exactly ?

Just because something is commonplace doesn't make it right.

Well, as I say having so many overpaid individuals makes us jaded.

But if we were to assume the best person is hired for the job, and the market rate for that kind of individual is €500,000; what would be wrong in paying a 10% premium to get that individual?

Or should we settle for someone on €250,000 who would not be placed in charge of such an organisation in the private sector...?

thebman

CommuterIE wrote: »

Compensation for running the company to profitability... capping the pay of a DAA and ESB for example, both massive organisations is rediculous in the sense that they won't get the calibre of applicants they require

If that is the case break them up and privatise them.

And while there maybe some case for the ESB, the DAA is a monopoly and there is absolutely no excuse for RTE's CEO's to be given an exemption to the pay cap as there is no logical reason we need a state broadcaster.

I'd much rather have special needs teachers than an state broadcaster.

Liam Byrne

CommuterIE wrote: »

Compensation for running the company to profitability...

Doesn't explain why the incorrect word is used.

Also this was at a time when the regulator had the electricity price set too high to prep the market for "competition"; if you're forced to charge 10% too much, profits shouldn't be a problem.

capping the pay of a DAA and ESB for example, both massive organisations is rediculous in the sense that they won't get the calibre of applicants they require

Please use the correct spelling, for starters.

The ESB and the country DO NOT HAVE THE CASH to pay silly money.

The same argument was made re bankers and TDs, and the silly money still got us idiots.

€250,000 every year is more than enough for anyone, especially when combine with all of the other perks.

But even leaving that argument aside the fact is that the country DOES NOT HAVE THE MONEY.

CommuterIE

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Doesn't explain why the incorrect word is used.

Also this was at a time when the regulator had the electricity price set too high to prep the market for "competition"; if you're forced to charge 10% too much, profits shouldn't be a problem.



Please use the correct spelling, for starters.

The ESB and the country DO NOT HAVE THE CASH to pay silly money.

The same argument was made re bankers and TDs, and the silly money still got us idiots.

€250,000 every year is more than enough for anyone, especially when combine with all of the other perks.

But even leaving that argument aside the fact is that the country DOES NOT HAVE THE MONEY.

You are an extremely naive individual if you think you will get talent to run these companies at 250 grand a year... again, these organisations are massive and the pay of the CEO should reflect that

Nijmegen

If they were private companies, this wouldn't be an issue.

Nor would we need to subsidise those that we do today. I'm looking at you, CIE and RTE. PSO's aside, we give them plenty of dosh to support inefficient practices.

Liam Byrne

CommuterIE wrote: »

You are an extremely naive individual if you think you will get talent to run these companies at 250 grand a year... again, these organisations are massive and the pay of the CEO should reflect that

Did you not learn earlier not to personalise the discussion?

I will point out AGAIN to you the REALITY : Ireland does not have the money.

Where do you propose to get this small change for the CEO's Lambourghini-instead-of-Lexus lifestyle?

CommuterIE

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Did you not learn earlier not to personalise the discussion?

I will point out AGAIN to you the REALITY : Ireland does not have the money.

Where do you propose to get this small change for the CEO's Lambourghini-instead-of-Lexus lifestyle?

Where is this "Ireland does not have the money" crap coming from??? The salaries and bonuses are based on these organisations.... if they make a healthy profit they are rewarded... the money is not coming from the exchequer!! Except for CIE and certain other bodies who should be cast down with a sword

Liam Byrne

CommuterIE wrote: »

Where is this "Ireland does not have the money" crap coming from??? The salaries and bonuses are based on these organisations.... if they make a healthy profit they are rewarded... the money is not coming from the exchequer!! Except for CIE and certain other bodies who should be cast down with a sword

Irish people have paid through their noses to give those companies what they have, and the money that they give back is required for the people of this country - not so that some fat-cat can line his pockets.

If you're going to write off the FACT that Ireland is bankrupt as "crap" then there's no point in having a discussion with you. Your earlier rubbish in this thread should have warned me about that, but at least now I can say that I at least tried to discuss the point rather than just allow the rude and dismissive soapboxing to go unchallenged.


However following that last post of yours you can count me out.

cast_iron

thebman wrote: »

If that is the case break them up and privatise them.

A bit short-sighted, no?

You do realise that the Government is the one who gets the ESB's profits? €339m last year alone.

Ironically, you would be guaranteeing that the CEO would get a multiple of €250k then also, as that's the going private sector rate.

Liam Byrne wrote:

I will point out AGAIN to you the REALITY : Ireland does not have the money.

So shove a sub-standar CEO in and instead of €339m profit for the govt, ESB makes significantly less?
Seems like a bit of cutting off your nose to spite your face if you ask me.

thebman

cast_iron wrote: »

A bit short-sighted, no?

You do realise that the Government is the one who gets the ESB's profits? €339m last year alone.

Ironically, you would be guaranteeing that the CEO would get a multiple of €250k then also, as that's the going private sector rate.

The ESB is already broken up and it competes with private companies though.

And its profits are high as the prices have been heavily regulated to encourage competition into the market to erode their market share so those profits are going to come down shortly.

I don't have a problem with a state electricity supplier though as it is an essential service and if privatized incorrectly, could severely damage the economy.

I do have a problem with the improper regulation of the market to rig prices too high though or a CEO claiming to be a legend when the market has been forcing them to keep prices high which has penalised Irish businesses and citizens. ESB's profits come from the citizens and companies in the state who might just as easily spend the money elsewhere if they were let keep it to spend.

However the ESB is well run, I will give it that and like I said there is something be said for an exception for it. I would think that in the current economic conditions and given it is a well paying job, the CEO could agree not to take a bonus for the next few years.

So shove a sub-standar CEO in and instead of €339m profit for the govt, ESB makes significantly less?
Seems like a bit of cutting off your nose to spite your face if you ask me.

How do you know that is what would happen?

We could put in a new CEO on a lower wage and have everything run better or even just as well. There is no way you'd know unless you examine what CEO's are available for what wages and what their background is and even then they could adapt well if they had no experience in running an organisation like the ESB.

Nijmegen

How do you know that is what would happen?

We could put in a new CEO on a lower wage and have everything run better or even just as well. There is no way you'd know unless you examine what CEO's are available for what wages and what their background is and even then they could adapt well if they had no experience in running an organisation like the ESB.

This argument works both ways, and the fact that the best CEO's tend to attract the best remuneration packages tends to suggest that you get what you pay for.

As I say, this is the trouble with state run commercial companies. People expect socialist ideals from capitalistic people in market orientated businesses.

beeftotheheels

I think we're in a bit of a muddle here. On the one side posters are arguing for market salaries for the bosses of semi states - to get the best candidates - while ignoring that in all other respects the semi states behave like the public sector and not like companies in an open market.

If the semi states want to pay market salaries to their bosses, they should pay market salaries, and indeed impose market terms, on all of their employees.

Yet they do not. In fact finding their accounts on their website to verify the profit figure quoted here is difficult, google eventually managed to find what I could not, and got me the 2008 accounts.

So, the ESB's €339m is not the amount contributed to Government coffers, in 2008 €339m was the operating profit i.e. before deducting the interest payments ESB had to make, €273m was the increase in shareholders' funds.

The average cost of an employee is over €63k, the proportion of employee costs when compared with other international power companies is just risible.

So their margins would be higher if they paid a proper salary to their employees, but they have a unionized workforce which means that they cannot and can continue to view themselves as being public sector.

Yet despite us controlling what they charge us, and them failing to control what they pay out through salaries, they somehow manage to make a profit although on a much smaller margin than their private sector competitors in other markets. And for this we should pay their CEO top dollar?

If we were serious about privatizing them, and serious about making them efficient then we could look at market salaries. But while we allow them to be run inefficiently as an agent of the State, we should pay State capped salaries.

Dannyboy83

Chucky the tree wrote: »

This is what I found from a quicky Google search. If the compnay is going well and making a couple of hundred million I've no idea how people can compain about him getting paid or 250k or a few bonses thrown in. The question is how would the company perform if the wage was capped? If it ended up losing eve njust a few million then it's obviously a horrible idea to cap the wages.

The ESB contributed €2.2bn to the Irish economy last year, according to its annual report.
The company said it is as a result of purchases from Irish suppliers, taxes, rates, wages and dividends paid.
The ESB reported profits of €339m for 2010.

Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/business/...#ixzz1QoUgNT70

http://www.esb.ie/main/press/press-release413.jsp

ESB revenues for 2009 amounted to €3.1 billion with profits of €580 million – an increase of €307 million on the previous year that was attributable to the once-off sale of power generation assets to the Spanish utility, Endesa.

Describing the financial performance as "good in a difficult environment", the Company chairman, Lochlann Quinn said ESB made a contribution of €2.7 billion to the Irish economy in 2009 alone

You have to ask yourself, why/how are they making so much money?

http://www.e-control.at/portal/page/portal/medienbibliothek/presse/dokumente/pdfs/HEPI_Juni_englisch_Final.pdf
As of June 2009, Denmark has the most expensive electricity tariff in Europe with tax included, followed by Italy. Ireland has the highest pre-tax tariff.


When the price of the electricity alone is taken into account, a very different picture emerges. Concerning household electricity prices, Paris becomes the cheapest city, with Copenhagen moving from most expensive (in the total price rankings) to the third cheapest, just ahead of Helsinki.

Dublin is the most expensive followed by Rome, London and Amsterdam. Berlin moves from being the second most expensive (in the total price rankings) to being one of the five cheapest.

Household electricity customers in Dublin pay around 140% more for their energy (excluding distribution and taxes) than those in Paris.
Household gas customers pay the most for gas in Stockholm, Berlin and Amsterdam, with Iberian customers in Madrid and Lisbon paying the least. Dublin, the most expensive for electricity, is the third cheapest for gas. London, which is the cheapest in the Total Price rankings for gas, is only
the sixth cheapest in the gas unit price rankings.



I would argue such bonuses are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
If we had the cheapest prices in Europe, that would be a different story.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Rubik.

CommuterIE wrote: »

A rediculous suggestion by this government that semi state/state companies CEO's pay be capped... some of these organisations are massive!! No-one with the relevant expertise for example would take the helm of the massive ESB for such a rediculous renumeration package, never mind his or her bonuses being scrutinised.... this is the real world of BUSINESS and sadly the public sector and government just don't get ****ing get it!!!

The current CEO of the ESB was an appointment from within, he had been with the organisation for almost his entire career. In the likely event that the next CEO will also come from the existing management structure, I doubt reducing the renumeration package from 399,943 euro to 319,000 euro will cause him/her to turn down the offer.

goose2005

This assumes that the skills necessary to be a ood CEO are incredibly rare; they aren't. We don't pay ten million a year to army rangers, physics professors, cellists or brain surgeons, even though they surely have a higher skill set and are in shorter supply.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Really? Sounds somewhat questionable. There are dozens of examples of CEOs who were paid a fortune and still ruined their companies. Can you point to one example of a company that restricted CEO salary and ended up hiring a useless manager?

Chucky the tree

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

You have to ask yourself, why/how are they making so much money?

http://www.e-control.at/portal/page/portal/medienbibliothek/presse/dokumente/pdfs/HEPI_Juni_englisch_Final.pdf
As of June 2009, Denmark has the most expensive electricity tariff in Europe with tax included, followed by Italy. Ireland has the highest pre-tax tariff.


When the price of the electricity alone is taken into account, a very different picture emerges. Concerning household electricity prices, Paris becomes the cheapest city, with Copenhagen moving from most expensive (in the total price rankings) to the third cheapest, just ahead of Helsinki.

Dublin is the most expensive followed by Rome, London and Amsterdam. Berlin moves from being the second most expensive (in the total price rankings) to being one of the five cheapest.

Household electricity customers in Dublin pay around 140% more for their energy (excluding distribution and taxes) than those in Paris.
Household gas customers pay the most for gas in Stockholm, Berlin and Amsterdam, with Iberian customers in Madrid and Lisbon paying the least. Dublin, the most expensive for electricity, is the third cheapest for gas. London, which is the cheapest in the Total Price rankings for gas, is only
the sixth cheapest in the gas unit price rankings.



I would argue such bonuses are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
If we had the cheapest prices in Europe, that would be a different story.

Well what's the average salary accross those countries for electricity workers? I just look at Dublin bus and CIE to see how shoddily run they are and I hope ESB doesn't go that way anytime soon.

Liam Byrne

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

What are you on about? Stop projecting for a second and read what I considered laughable - the PHRASING - the word "compensation".

It's a salary or pay scheme - he didn't lose an eye in an accident.

goose2005

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What are you on about? Stop projecting for a second and read what I considered laughable - the PHRASING - the word "compensation".

It's a salary or pay scheme - he didn't lose an eye in an accident.

It's from the Latin "to weigh one thing against another". Its use for "salary" is recorded from 1787.

Liam Byrne

goose2005 wrote: »

It's from the Latin "to weigh one thing against another". Its use for "salary" is recorded from 1787.

Yes, but it's only used by those who are up themselves and view themselves as super-important and need to distinguish themselves from normal people's wages or salaries.

It's used because of the false sense of "entitlement" that those people have.

It's a feckin' pay agreement/remuneration package; no more no less.

Anita Blow

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Ireland cannot afford to pay any more than the €250,000, since us shareholders are footing the bill.

Don't think this applies to much to the ESB's case. It's highly profitable and has never (as far as I know) required taxpayer's money. We aren't footing any bill.

beeftotheheels

Anita Blow wrote: »

Don't think this applies to much to the ESB's case. It's highly profitable and has never (as far as I know) required taxpayer's money. We aren't footing any bill.

Many, many Irish households, and until the market was somewhat deregulated, all Irish households, had to buy their electricity off the ESB.

The Commission for Energy Regulation regulates what they can charge us. And we, the Irish State, own them.

So, many if not most of us pay them on the way in (and they don't have all that many other sources of income), and we own what comes out.

But we aren't footing any bill?

Anita Blow

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Many, many Irish households, and until the market was somewhat deregulated, all Irish households, had to buy their electricity off the ESB.

The Commission for Energy Regulation regulates what they can charge us. And we, the Irish State, own them.

So, many if not most of us pay them on the way in (and they don't have all that many other sources of income), and we own what comes out.

But we aren't footing any bill?

Our taxes do not fund the ESB. What the ESB charges it's consumers funds it.
I was pointing out that the fact that Ireland is short of money now doesn't really affect bodies like the ESB and Bord Gais when it comes to state funding because they don't get any. I do agree that wages should come down. The average wage in the ESB is ridiculous and it's because they can hold the country to ransom by cutting power.

I also think bodies like CIE and RTE should be held more accountable for their salaries because they are funded partially by the taxpayer.

beeftotheheels

Anita Blow wrote: »

Our taxes do not fund the ESB. What the ESB charges it's consumers funds it.
I was pointing out that the fact that Ireland is short of money now doesn't really affect bodies like the ESB and Bord Gais when it comes to state funding because they don't get any.

Every cent that they pay out in salaries reduces their profits, which reduces their shareholder funds. We, the Irish State, are their sole shareholder. Their profits are our profits. So, the lower the profits they contribute to government coffers, the more we have to make up as taxpayers.

It all goes into the one pot at the end of the day, it all goes into the pot of "monies available to the Irish state", if they make up less, we make up the shortfall, so it does affect us. Because we own them.

thebman

Anita Blow wrote: »

Don't think this applies to much to the ESB's case. It's highly profitable and has never (as far as I know) required taxpayer's money. We aren't footing any bill.

your sure the ESB has never required taxpayer funding?

It didn't have a nationwide network out of nowhere on day one. And those power stations didn't build themselves you know. And Bord Na Mona didn't just turn up one day with rail lines to bring the peat to the power stations.

Nijmegen

Investment in essential infrastructure that furthers the economic growth of the country at large is quite normal. Even in privatised energy markets the governments regularly subsidise the building of infrastructure (that they would have to pay for entirely if they owned the company.)

Also, traditionally, states hang on to the core network infrastructure themselves.

The daily running of the 'company' ought to be a privatised affair. Like the bin collections we discuss elsewhere, it just works better. And there's no cribbing over salaries when it's a profit/loss company that sets them.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Liam Byrne

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Then why not use "total remuneration" ? Compensation is an entitlement, and gives off a sense of just that.

It's what you're paid for doing your job - the exact same principle as someone on minimum wage, but you wouldn't hear them being referred to using the "compensation" word.

As I said it's designed to give off a sense of difference - a sense of self-importance and entitlement, and that's why I objected to the abuse of the word.