OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Almost Criminals

Entry 875, on 2008-10-24 at 21:15:20 (Rating 5, Politics)

There's a fine line between the way some business people act and actual criminal activity. Dishonesty, manipulation and cynical, self centered schemes seem to be a mainstay of business and totally accepted by most people but, when you analyse what's happening, its often not too different from what the local gang of criminals are up to!

Now before I get criticised again for making generalised statements I should say that many business people are quite honest and genuinely give their customers a good deal. But that doesn't seem to apply to some, especially bigger, companies.

If you haven't figured it out already, this rant was inspired by Contact Energy's latest escapades. First they increase electricity prices by 10% then vote to give themselves big bonuses. They backed down on the bonuses after shareholder protest but that really doesn't make them look much better.

Actually I have a conspiracy theory on this matter. To divert attention from the price rise they did something totally outrageous that they never expected to get away with: the salary increases. Then they accepted the inevitable and backed down on that one but in the mean time the price rise has been forgotten.

I have seen this strategy employed by politicians on many occasions. They really can't lose because they either get away with the outrageous move or, if they don't, they still get the bigger move through which was their original intention anyway. Very clever, and sufficient to fool the majority of the population.

Of course, this is a conspiracy theory and most of those are wrong, but some are right and this might be a case where the theory is genuine.

Comment 1 (1761) by NJS on 2008-10-25 at 10:31:26: (view recent only)

Especially considering that they haven't really "backed down" on the pay rise: it was approved by the majority shareholder, so they can implement it anytime they want to. Probably in a few months time when no-one is paying attention…

Comment 2 (1763) by SBFL on 2008-10-25 at 12:08:42:

I think most people, of all political persuasions, would agree that this was not a smart move by Contact Energy. Obviously the timing for such a move was not right, what with the election campaign in full swing and the focus on senior executive pay packets in light of the current financial markets crisis.

However, I believe it is important to comment from a wider perspective. Extract from a NBR article:

"Mr Hargreaves [president of the New Zealand Institute of Directors] says that the directors of large New Zealand companies are underpaid by international standards, and Contact Energy is only bringing its directors pool into line with Telecom, which is of a similar size and also has a $1.5 million cap.

He says the announcement should have been made more clearly; Contact would be adding a couple more directors, meaning that it wasn’t simply doubling the current directors’ pay rates.

Contact’s move to raise directors' fees in the current economic climate, however, was “very bad timing,” particularly in the middle of an election campaign when “politicians’ searchlights go on.”

“They (Contact Energy) need to be a bit more circumspect.”"

A sensible view in my opinion.

Comment 3 (1765) by OJB on 2008-10-25 at 14:03:08:

Good point NJS. That has also been pointed out by an accountant I know. It looks like these directors are even more scummy than I thought!

Comment 4 (1766) by OJB on 2008-10-25 at 14:07:59:

SBFL. So because all the other big corporations are grossly corrupt and overpay their own morons you think its OK for Contact to do it too huh? If the only reason the directors are there is more money I would prefer they went somewhere else.

And you seem to think its OK to carry out these deals as long as its not a time when people will notice too much. So its OK to steal from your customers as long as they don't notice? Again the parallel with criminals comes to mind.

Comment 5 (1769) by SBFL on 2008-10-27 at 18:57:57:

My goodness, election time brings out the worst in lefties doesn't it. I would prefer that you didn't put words in my mouth though. May I suggest you re-read my first sentence. My point being that it would be sensible to take in the whole picture before forming an opinion.

As for your first paragraph in comment 4 - well you can think that but of course noone cares. As far as I'm concerned, you can decide the finances in your own household, they can decide the finances in theirs. What I don't appreciate is other people telling me what I should do with what I earned though my own efforts. However lefties just can't help themselves but interfere.

Comment 6 (1772) by OJB on 2008-10-27 at 20:24:47:

Its not election time which brings out the worst, its the incompetence of the world financial sector and big corporations which just happens to have occurred close to an election.

I re-read your first paragraph again and I still think my interpretation of it makes sense. You seemed to be saying that increasing the pay was OK but it was the wrong time to do it. If that isn't what you meant then maybe you could clarify.

They are a company which manages an essential public resource - a resource which was previously well managed by the government until the last National government set up this abomination of a system. If these people are managing a public asset they should expect criticism from the public.

Do you really think that people automatically earn what they get paid? Does that mean we should accept without criticism whatever someone else gets paid? I don't think so.

Comment 7 (1775) by SBFL on 2008-10-27 at 21:20:46:

I never said such a thing. Since you are struggling to read properly here I will try to simplify. I said "I think most people, of all political persuasions, would agree that this was not a smart move by Contact Energy." I am not sure how to simply this as it is clear already. Though I did not state explicitly, you could rightfully assume I count myself as one of those people. I also emphasised that the timing was dumb and then added some much needed perspective to the issue from the NBR.

Of course you can criticise, I never said you couldn't. You missed my point on interference with this one.

"Do you really think that people automatically earn what they get paid?"
- No, where did I say that they did?

I think you may have a reading comprehension problem. Often when I agree with you, you actually assume I am disagreeing just because I bring a different flavour. Not everything is binary OJB.

Comment 8 (1778) by OJB on 2008-10-27 at 22:01:34:

OK, I'm happy with the first sentence. It was the second sentence, about the timing that I was referring to. But whatever, let's forget it, I seem to have misinterpreted everything in this post. But its so imprecise and full of rhetoric that its hardly surprising!

So the points are...

You seemed to say that the problem with the Contact decision was the timing, not the fact that they are giving themselves big bonuses when they are also increasing prices. Is that what you meant or not?

Was the "interference" just criticism or not? So what is your point about interference?

The phrase "what I earned though my own efforts" seems to imply we shouldn't criticise what people are paid. Is this what you meant or not?

Honestly, I debate this sort of stuff in many forums. Its only your posts which I seem to misinterpret. Ever thought that maybe its your writing style which isn't clear?

Comment 9 (1783) by SBFL on 2008-10-29 at 22:14:03:

Short replies...

I said the timing was bad. I didn't say this was the only problem with it. I also refer you to my first paragraph in comment 7 on the wider issue of whether if the payments is good or not. All quite clear really.

Interference was merely a jibe at the left wing. Follow the link where I mentioned it.

No. It is linked to the interference reference and takes a more general approach in that some people think they have a moral authority to tell me what I should do with my own property. If you look at your comment that I was referring to here we had moved away from Contact Energy and into a broader debate.

That's because you normally debate with numpties but I give you a run for your money! ;-)

Comment 10 (1787) by OJB on 2008-10-30 at 05:26:44:

I agree that I rarely debate with anyone who has thought out their position as well as you, although I did debate one of the world's leading creationists once (by email), and that was surprisingly difficult (more due to his extreme intellectual dishonesty that anything else). I do value your thoughts so thanks for taking the time to make them.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.