[Note the Leftist propaganda slant here. They say our high salaries are “not as bad as the United States”. My reaction is to want to kick the writer of that ridiculous statement squarely in the teeth. I suppose the writer wants us to aspire to the opposite of the “bad” United States? What then would that be? Russia maybe? Where people work for a pittance and where White people have a lower standard of living than Blacks in South Africa? Is this what they want?

I think, it is a mark of EXCELLENCE, and a big feather in the cap of Americans that they do pay people enormous salaries. It is probably one of the things I admire the MOST about the United States – that EXCELLENCE can be rewarded in such a way. There are EMPLOYEES – yes, EMPLOYEES – in the United States, who earns millions of dollars per annum. They are paid such sums of money for excellent work and for being an incredible asset to the companies they work for. I think this is a most admirable thing. I think it would be a proud day if we rewarded excellence in South African business in the same way instead of using these rigid Communist-Marxist-inspired rules.

The Marxists in our Government whine about the good pay of our business managers… but have you seen how our Marxist Government officials waste tax payer money and abuse the money they steal from us?

At least our business people are doing something positive for the economy and the country, and they probably work 365 days a year anyway, whereas our PARASITIC, spend-thrift, wasteful Marxist Government officials probably never contributed anything positive and developmental to this country in their entire rotten lives!

Bow down you Marxist jerks, and pay homage to the business people of this country who manage to keep businesses alive despite your insane laws and your Communist-level Tax structures. Jan]

Cape Town – The average director is paid 50 times more than the minimum wage worker, a survey in South Africa by P-E Corporate Services has found.

This not as bad as in the United States where the figure is over 400, says Jayne Mammatt, Senior Manager, Ernst & Young Governance & Sustainability.

“But in an emerging economy grappling with addressing previous inequalities and the threats and opportunities of globalisation, not only is this disparity under the spotlight but the processes leading to the figures also need to be questioned.”

Currently the JSE Securities Exchange (JSE) calls for full disclosure in line with the recommendations from King II.

This includes items such as their fees for service as a director, their basic salary, bonuses and performance-related payments, sums paid by way of expense allowance, profit-sharing arrangements, rights to share options and any other material benefits received.

The question is, is this sufficient disclosure? asks Mammatt.

Wrath of shareholders

In the US and Europe, shareholder activism has seen companies make an about turn on the remuneration policies for dierectors.

Shell faced that same anger when a quarter of their shareholders organised one of Britain’s most significant revolts against excess boardroom remuneration by voting against their remuneration policy. Investors representing 22.8% of shares made a substantial protest at Shell’s decision to award its chairman, Sir Phil Watts, a 55% pay rise last year when the group saw its profits and share price slump by 23%.

So is allowing shareholders a vote of approval on director’s remuneration a good idea?

Mammatt says it is becoming more and more prevalent for badly performing companies to have executives that are still doing rather well.

In this respect, the involvement and wrath of shareholders could have a very positive effect of enforcing directors to behave in the best interests of the company.

However, says Mammat, people should avoid falling into the trap of criticising directors’ remuneration purely because of the figure. “Many directors do work 10 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks of the year.

“Many do act purely in the best interests of the company and strive for continued prosperity.

“Despite this, sometimes the company’s performance may not reflect this,” she says.

“External factors resulting in unavoidable downturns have to be taken into account or a company will fail to attract high quality directors and performance could be even worse.

“Conversely, directors should also not be rewarded for the positive effect of issues outside of their influence. This is a difficult act to juggle.

“Therefore the focus needs to be on the process. The process must be fully disclosed and explained, and why shouldn’t investors have to approve the process and the outcome?

“If it is seen to be fair and justifiable, then directors will have nothing to fear,” Mammatt says.

Source: Finance24.com
URL: http://www.finance24.com/articles/default/dis…/p>