Poster child for greed.

[PIK]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/fired-hydro-one-ceo-fights-for-bigger-pension/article1602418/

This is what is so wrong with what is going on in our province, her picture should be on every poster during the next election to remind people how out of control this province is.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Cut her pension down to the amount an average Canadian gets.

[Renegade]

As I understand the facts of the case:

1. She negotiated a pension with her employer.

2. The government passed legislation which changed the amount she got in pension even though she had an agreement with an employer.

It seems to me that she has reason to sue.

Tell me, is your only objection the amounts to do you have issue with the principle? IOW, if she were getting $2400 a month but had an employment agreement which had been agreed to at $3400 a month, would she have just cause to sue assuming all other conditons are the same?

[Guest TrueMetis]

Tell me, is your only objection the amounts to do you have issue with the principle? IOW, if she were getting $2400 a month but had an employment agreement which had been agreed to at $3400 a month, would she have just cause to sue assuming all other conditons are the same?

You know what your right. She should get nothing because she didn't hold up her end of the bargain.

Among the reasons the utility's board cited for dismissing Clitheroe was she used credit cards contrary to company policy. They said she also obtained club memberships at the company's expense. Many of those memberships had no business-related purpose, the board said.P> Clitheroe is also said to have used Hydro One service providers to do renovations to her home. The board said Hydro One paid for these personal renovations and was not repaid until last month.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2002/07/19/hydroone_020719.html#ixzz0qruog5SL

[eyeball]

So shouldn't we be firing the person that didn't do their job by firing her?

[Guest TrueMetis]

So shouldn't we be firing the person that didn't do their job by firing her?

She was fired.

[eyeball]

She was fired.

My understanding of what it means to be fired sure must be out of whack.

I sure wish I could get fired like that. I'd do whatever it took.

[Guest TrueMetis]

My understanding of what it means to be fired sure must be out of whack.

I sure wish I could get fired like that. I'd do whatever it took.

It would be nice.

[Renegade]

You know what your right. She should get nothing because she didn't hold up her end of the bargain.

Let's say you are right and she was fired for cause, she gets to keep accrued pension benefits, as would you or anyone else who was fired.

If the organization believes that she stole or misappropriated funds, they they can sue her for those or persue criminal charges.

Really the object of your wrath should be the people who created the lucrative salary and severance package for her in the first place.

Edited June 14, 2010 by Renegade

[Oleg Bach]

It used to be called Ontario Hydro -- it was a pubic utlity paid for by the public and the rates were fair - then some how what was ours got sold to them...semi-privatized - Now Hydro One is some sort of private corporation that gets to gouge us at will - they have a transmission loss charge - I asked if that is for any bird that lands on a wire and gets sapped...do we have to pay for that loss of power during transmission - and they said "more or less" - They have no quams about cutting off your power if you are late...sort of bugs me that we and our parents paid for the infrastructure and some Johnny come lately reaps the benefit of the hard earned tax dollars paid fifty years ago...this so called CEO can stop being a parasite..she does not warrant extra cash because of some silly title - C E O --- what the hell does that really mean? Does it mean - Cash Eternally Ours?

[Shwa]

Let's say you are right and she was fired for cause, she gets to keep accrued pension benefits, as would you or anyone else who was fired.

If the organization believes that she stole or misappropriated funds, they they can sue her for those or persue criminal charges.

Really the object of your wrath should be the people who created the lucrative salary and severance package for her in the first place.

Fair enough. The article states:

In June, 2002, the Ontario legislature passed the Hydro One Directors and Officers Act, which contained a section imposing a maximum on amounts that senior officers could claim as a supplementary pension.

And then,

Ms. Clitheroe, who was dismissed in July, 2002, after weeks of controversy over executive salaries at the province's publicly owned transmission utility, is suing Hydro One.

She is entitled to the pension she signed up for and not a penny more.

[Renegade]

She is entitled to the pension she signed up for and not a penny more.

Exactly what I'm saying, and she seems to be suing for. The arrangment she signed was with Hydro One. The legislature has no business retroactively changing contracts. If they want to limit future compensation contrats for public-owned utility, that is their perogative.

Edited June 15, 2010 by Renegade

[Oleg Bach]

Exactly what I'm saying, and she seems to be suing for. The arrangment she signed was with Hydro One. The legislature has no business retroactively changing contracts. If they want to limit future compensation contrats for public-owned utility, that is there perogative.

It has to be done right - the seperation of corporation and state must be upheld - and Hydro One is no longer a true public utility. It is a modified semi-privatized entity. This woman is expecting to have it both ways...to have the government take care of her when she actually has been operating in the private sphere.

[Renegade]

It has to be done right - the seperation of corporation and state must be upheld - and Hydro One is no longer a true public utility. It is a modified semi-privatized entity. This woman is expecting to have it both ways...to have the government take care of her when she actually has been operating in the private sphere.

How exactly is she asking "to have the government take care of her"? In fact she is asking for non-interference from the government in the contract she signed with Hydro One.

[Shwa]

Exactly what I'm saying, and she seems to be suing for. The arrangment she signed was with Hydro One. The legislature has no business retroactively changing contracts. If they want to limit future compensation contrats for public-owned utility, that is there perogative.

But what I am seeing from the article is that the legislation passed June 2002 and she was let go in July. So there was no retroactive application.

[Renegade]

But what I am seeing from the article is that the legislation passed June 2002 and she was let go in July. So there was no retroactive application.

It is retroactive for 2 reasons:

1. Her employment contract was signed well before 2002. I expect her employment contract also included the retirment and severance. Legislation passed in June 2002 should not change the terms of the contract signed prior, especially since the parties to the contract are well into contract execution.

2. Pension beneifts accrue during the duration of employment. If the legislation is not retroactive, it would only affect beneifts going forward. (ie only July). How would one month change the pension benefits payout unless it was retroactive?

[Oleg Bach]

How exactly is she asking "to have the government take care of her"? In fact she is asking for non-interference from the government in the contract she signed with Hydro One.

The courts are a secondary government.

[Renegade]

The courts are a secondary government.

Ha ha. Great piece of nonsense. The courts frequently rule against government in cases brought up infront of them.

Who exactly do you expect someone who has a percieved transgression to appeal to, if not the courts?

[Oleg Bach]

Ha ha. Great piece of nonsense. The courts frequently rule against government in cases brought up infront of them.

Who exactly do you expect someone who has a percieved transgression to appeal to, if not the courts?

Exactly my point - you underestimate the power and influence of those that appoint judges and dictate policy.

[Oleg Bach]

From my tiny little bit of inside knowledge this woman will get nothing...the powers that be do not like greedy upstarts.

[Renegade]

Exactly my point - you underestimate the power and influence of those that appoint judges and dictate policy.

I see. So according to you the government which passes the legislation also controls the courts. So in that case you should feel that the woman has the odds stacked against her, even when she has a valid issue.

You didn't answer my question. Who then should she appeal to if not the courts?

I suddenly remember why I usually ignore your posts.

[Oleg Bach]

I see. So according to you the government which passes the legislation also controls the courts. So in that case you should feel that the woman has the odds stacked against her, even when she has a valid issue.

You didn't answer my question. Who then should she appeal to if not the courts?

I suddenly remember why I usually ignore your posts.

Not saying that - big business manages the courts - and they usually do a good job..big business has a problem managing government because they are an unruly bunch with to much ambition and not enough seasoning in regards to the keeping of common wealth. Money is to important to government - big business and the courts are about power - not money. The problem is not with high upper management it is with middle management that are not used to having money who think that money is power - the truly powerful are no longer motivated by cash - this woman is - which makes her an embarassment to the courts and they don't like that.

[Michael Hardner]

Renegade is correct on this. This is another example of the government trying to look good, despite having caused the problem in the first place.

I wonder what kind of severance the eHealth people got ?

McGuinty spiked the investigation of that one, so we don't care about it any more. Although, I heard on CBC Radio One that folks are now concerned about MPP accommodation expenses of $15,000.

eHealth wasted 60,000 times that much I think.