Can we justify Fat Cats at RM?

andy2007 · Post by **andy2007** » 06 Jan 2009, 09:24

I was just wondering what everyone thought about the likes of Leighton, and now Currie, earning huge hourly rates, for very few hours work. Personally, I think that they're freeloaders. And that it's disgusting that they should expect us to "tighten our belts" to save money. When they're earning so much, for so little work.

But what do you think?

DGP1 · Post by **DGP1** » 06 Jan 2009, 15:41

It's quite obvious which way this one will go

If they really want to justify their salaries then they should show that they can grow the business not that all they're interested in is cuts cuts cuts

after all anyone of us can just say 'cut everyones budget by 10%' and expect it to be done, they justify their salaries by telling people how.

RTI · Post by **RTI** » 26 Jan 2009, 17:38

royal mail breed failure, from the top to the bottom. enough said. no way should a "failing" company reward its managers by paying big bonus's and salaries. the hard working staff who keep the company going should be rewarded a bit better.

DGP1 · Post by **DGP1** » 26 Jan 2009, 17:48

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle

The Peter Principle is the principle that "In a Hierarchy Every Employee Tends to Rise to His Level of Incompetence." While formulated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull in their 1968 book The Peter Principle, a humorous treatise which also introduced the "salutary science of Hierarchiology", "inadvertently founded" by Peter, the principle has real validity. It holds that in a hierarchy, members are promoted so long as they work competently. Sooner or later they are promoted to a position at which they are no longer competent (their "level of incompetence"), and there they remain. Peter's Corollary states that "in time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out his duties" and adds that "work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence".

RTI · Post by **RTI** » 26 Jan 2009, 18:02

disgruntledpostie1 wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle

The Peter Principle is the principle that "In a Hierarchy Every Employee Tends to Rise to His Level of Incompetence." While formulated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull in their 1968 book The Peter Principle, a humorous treatise which also introduced the "salutary science of Hierarchiology", "inadvertently founded" by Peter, the principle has real validity. It holds that in a hierarchy, members are promoted so long as they work competently. Sooner or later they are promoted to a position at which they are no longer competent (their "level of incompetence"), and there they remain. Peter's Corollary states that "in time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out his duties" and adds that "work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence".

I understand the peter principal. Our managers achieve this when they first become postmen.

ROYALMAILCHAT