Ontario releases sunshine list

[Argus]

You know what people who assume do right? Except more you than me though. Clearly I was allowing you to provide evidence rather than rhetoric as a master de-bater should. I could have fed you the info but you proved my point.

You had a point? In all the table thumping snarles you've displayed so far I have yet to see anything that resembles a point. What I see, instead, is someone angry at me because of some previous encounter, probably under another of your aliases who's decided to get pugilistic about something no sane person would be howling about.

Is a "mess" a MBA term I'm not familiar with like "bullish"? The operation of OPG assets have been some of the most effecient in North America.

The OPG has a culture of entitlement which says it belongs to senior management, and that senior management can do whatever it feels like doing with the assets as long as that benefits them. Yes, indeed, there has been government meddling, which was why it was turned into a crown corporation in the first place. That, unfortunately, hasn't improved anything.

All of which, like every single thing you've so far said, is completely irrelevent to the topic of why the pay of people like hospital directors, university heads, and city managers and their deputies make more than federal deputy ministers.

[Shady]

Where do you think CEO pay comes from? The Easter Bunny? It all, in the end, comes from the pockets of ordinary people.

The millions of dollars that go into their pockets can be looked at in two ways. The first is that's millions of dollars that don't go to shareholders. The second is that if the CEO had a more reasonable pay, the millions could go to the employees of the firm in the form of higher wages.

It's not the same. CEOs get paid from private money, generated from the industry the operate in, in which one can choose whether or not to purchase their particular good or service. Their compensation is approved by a board and shareholders who decide whether or not a particular person is worth said compensation. Unreasonable public salaries come from our taxes, in which we have no choice as to whether we want to pay them. Also, unreasonable public salaries ususally come with ridiculous pensions, in which taxpayers are also on the hook. Regardless, what you consider "reasonable" pay is completely subjective. And using your logic, if unreasonable public salaries were lessened, people wouldn't have to pay as much of their salary in taxes.

[Argus]

What do they do ? I do believe that mid level managers in the government are paid less than the private sector, as you have pointed out (I think), but there are also more of them and at the top of the pyramid is a minister who likely didn't have experience with large organizations when they arrived in Ottawa.

We're not talking about mid-level management, though. We're talking about deputy ministers. These are people with decades of experience in managing a wide variety of assets and resources. They are the professionals under the ministers. They are supposedly to take general direction from the minister, who largely doesn't know much about the ministry he or she is running, however, the deputy minister is really the guiding hand of that ministry in almost all cases.

The point I'm making is that running an organization is not intrinsically dissimilar based on it being public or private. You're still tasked with doing whatever it is that agency does as efficiency as possible, with managing the layout, the organization, the human and other resources, and budgeting for all of them. We seem able to find such individuals to head up federal ministries for about $250-300k. Yet the position of some people seems to be that you can't find anyone to do that in the private sector for less then five or ten million dollars, even for organizations ten times smaller. I think this is a kind of worship certain people on the right feel for the rich. There's a feeling that, well, if they're paid ten million bucks a year to do something they MUST be good and that thing MUST be immensely complicated and require a very rare talent. To me, it's like hiring a janitor. You can get a great janitor for twenty thousand a year. If you pay forty thousand you'd probably get an even more dedicated janitor. But there comes a point when throwing ever higher amounts does not give you any better cleaning service. Paying the janitor a million dollars a year is not going to get the job done any more effectively.

If we can find someone who does that efficienty with forty thousand employees and a multibillion dollar budget in the public sector at a pay rate of $250k how is it we can't find a CEO to front an organization a tenth as big in the private sector for less than four or five million dollars?

[Argus]

I think the Bob M-Shady-Argus conversation on this thread promises to yield some interesting specifics.

Bob M can you help move us into that direction by pointing us to:

"Read the financial reports, they are public publications"

If this topic was about Ontario Power Generation and how efficient it is, perhaps. I may be wrong, but that does not seem to be what the topic is about.

[Argus]

It's not the same. CEOs get paid from private money, generated from the industry the operate in, in which one can choose whether or not to purchase their particular good or service.

That's irrelevent. The money still comes from the little guys. And if the big shots all act the same what choice does the little guy have? Is there a choice of never buying a car, say, because all the auto CEOs make millions? I don't think so. Fhat matter, as a stockholder, I am part owner of a couple of dozen companies. I can 'choose' to buy stock in others, I suppose, but what difference does that make when they all pay their CEOs milions?

Their compensation is approved by a board and shareholders who decide whether or not a particular person is worth said compensation.

It's decided by a couple of dozen people at best. That would be the rich guys who sit on the board, and who know the CEO might well sit on their board one day, and a few of the managers of hedge funds or mutual funds or pension funds who own the biggest chunk of shares, and who aren't about to screw up their relationship with the organization over something like CEO salaries, especially when they make huge(undeservedly so) amounts themselves.

Speaking of which, and in relation to your belief. The guys who run these mutual funds all make huge compensation. Yet statistics tell us that for allt heri vaunted knowledge and education, their funds generally don't even perform as well as the stock market indexes. So why are they worth so much again?

Unreasonable public salaries come from our taxes, in which we have no choice as to whether we want to pay them.

Not true. As a voter, you have about as much power as individual shareholders of companies do. You can vote in the likes of the American Tea Party, to continually lower salaries and benefits and taxes, and stop performing services to the public.

Also, unreasonable public salaries ususally come with ridiculous pensions, in which taxpayers are also on the hook.

Really? I'm willing to bet you actually know nothing whatever about how federal public service pensions work. Why don't you tell me why they're ridiculous. Feel free to compare them to CEO pensions.

[Michael Hardner]

We're not talking about mid-level management, though. We're talking about deputy ministers. These are people with decades of experience in managing a wide variety of assets and resources. They are the professionals under the ministers. They are supposedly to take general direction from the minister, who largely doesn't know much about the ministry he or she is running, however, the deputy minister is really the guiding hand of that ministry in almost all cases.

Ok.

The point I'm making is that running an organization is not intrinsically dissimilar based on it being public or private. You're still tasked with doing whatever it is that agency does as efficiency as possible, with managing the layout, the organization, the human and other resources, and budgeting for all of them. We seem able to find such individuals to head up federal ministries for about $250-300k. Yet the position of some people seems to be that you can't find anyone to do that in the private sector for less then five or ten million dollars, even for organizations ten times smaller. I think this is a kind of worship certain people on the right feel for the rich.

You just made a jump though. While I agree that there are intrinsic similarities in running large organizations, there are also largely different goals, challenges and operating environment with the federal civil service. That's why I asked my core questions above.

There's a feeling that, well, if they're paid ten million bucks a year to do something they MUST be good and that thing MUST be immensely complicated and require a very rare talent. To me, it's like hiring a janitor. You can get a great janitor for twenty thousand a year. If you pay forty thousand you'd probably get an even more dedicated janitor. But there comes a point when throwing ever higher amounts does not give you any better cleaning service. Paying the janitor a million dollars a year is not going to get the job done any more effectively.

Yes, and there are such things as overpaid, underpaid, overvalued, undervalued and the "who knows" factor. You can use pro sports as a metaphor here too. I worked for "Moneyball" organizations that took diamonds in the rough, paid them very little - but enough - and created star teams (perhaps without any star players) that way.

If we can find someone who does that efficienty with forty thousand employees and a multibillion dollar budget in the public sector at a pay rate of $250k how is it we can't find a CEO to front an organization a tenth as big in the private sector for less than four or five million dollars?

They're different things - it's a funny market...

That said, I would like to bring some seriousness to the discussion by establishing some hard targets, without fetishizing the statistics.

[Shady]

That's irrelevent. The money still comes from the little guys.

Again, what a private company wants to do with it's own money is their business. I can choose not to participate in any kind of commerce with them. However, I cannot choose to not pay my taxes, that go up and up to pay for ridiculous public salaries and pensions.

[Boges]

What bugs me about this debate is the hypocrisy coming from the Unionized public servants.

When presented with the facts that they are extraordinarily well compensated for what they do they claim jealously. Yet they'll be the first to criticize the salary of executives.

I can't get worked up over a CEO making $1 million but I certainly can get worked up over someone collecting tokens or selling train tickets making 6 figures.

That being said, it's shocking to hear the compensation of people trying to get this 2015 Pam Am games going. They all make 6-figures and when they get fired they make huge severance (all public money).

And how about Metrolinx. An organization that really doesn't control squat has dozens of employees on the Sunshine List.

[Argus]

Again, what a private company wants to do with it's own money is their business. I can choose not to participate in any kind of commerce with them. However, I cannot choose to not pay my taxes, that go up and up to pay for ridiculous public salaries and pensions.

The idea there is some kind of cordon sanitaire around private companies, and that nothing they do affects the public is just silly. It's especially silly given large companies, almost all of whom get a variety of tax breaks, writeoffs and grants from government. So what companies do effects taxation. Looked at another way, if the millions spent on the CEO were instead spent on the salaries of employees, the government would be getting a chunk of that back in taxes. But since it goes to a rich guy, chances are we'll get far less back given all the tax breaks he enjoys (in large measure because politicians have been bribed to give him those tax breaks). Which means people like me will have to make up the difference by paying more.

[Shady]

The idea there is some kind of cordon sanitaire around private companies, and that nothing they do affects the public is just silly. It's especially silly given large companies, almost all of whom get a variety of tax breaks, writeoffs and grants from government. So what companies do effects taxation. Looked at another way, if the millions spent on the CEO were instead spent on the salaries of employees, the government would be getting a chunk of that back in taxes. But since it goes to a rich guy, chances are we'll get far less back given all the tax breaks he enjoys (in large measure because politicians have been bribed to give him those tax breaks). Which means people like me will have to make up the difference by paying more.

Nobody said that nothing they do doesn't affect anything. That's just a strawman. But you still don't get the difference between a businesses private property vs government mandated taxes. Millions aren't "spent" on CEOs. That's the salary they earn, and that salary IS taxed, at a high rate. Your whole argument is make believe. You feel you have some kind of right to tell people what to do with their own money, their own property, and how to run their business. It would be like me insisting that if you spent a little less money on entertainment each year, and instead used that for your pension, the public could pay less in taxes in order to subsidize the rest of public retirements. So why don't you?

[Shady]

And I gotta laugh out loud at the CEO stereotype this forum member likes to perpetuate! All that's missing is the top hat and monocle. And because a small number of them make tens of millions, all must! And because a handful of corporations make billions, they all must! So we must craft policy that reflects these assumptions! Ridiculous.

[Bob Macadoo]

Nobody said that nothing they do doesn't affect anything. That's just a strawman. But you still don't get the difference between a businesses private property vs government mandated taxes. Millions aren't "spent" on CEOs. That's the salary they earn, and that salary IS taxed, at a high rate. Your whole argument is make believe. You feel you have some kind of right to tell people what to do with their own money, their own property, and how to run their business. It would be like me insisting that if you spent a little less money on entertainment each year, and instead used that for your pension, the public could pay less in taxes in order to subsidize the rest of public retirements. So why don't you?

This whole topic has become a strawman arguement.