With respect I believe Gordon Stanfield’s comment on employees pensions is altrustic.
As a shareholder of Emera I am not in favour of the Executives being granted options. For example Chris Huskilson as of Aug28/12 has this year received slightly less that $7M( before-tax profi) in trading his Emera options! In my opinion options by large business organisations should not be a part of executive awards in addition to salary and performance bonuses.
While management may argue (and rightly so)that the union would not like bringing pensions in line with economic reality,the fact is,management would not like making the concomitant realignment of their owm plans,which would surely be the first demand of the unions.
We are being treated like mushrooms–kept in the dark and covered with —
There is in fact a public side to this ‘monopoly’ and the employees will eventually learn of the proper sharing of “risk”. If they are properly led they may ‘volunteer’ appropriate ‘correction’ in their pension ‘requirements’. For as has been suggested, it is not unreasonable for the majority of us to require this, for we pay the ‘freight’, in spite of having no pensions ourselves.
With respect I believe Gordon Stanfield’s comment on employees pensions is altrustic.
As a shareholder of Emera I am not in favour of the Executives being granted options. For example Chris Huskilson as of Aug28/12 has this year received slightly less that $7M( before-tax profi) in trading his Emera options! In my opinion options by large business organisations should not be a part of executive awards in addition to salary and performance bonuses.
Bill Phillips | August 27, 2012 |
While management may argue (and rightly so)that the union would not like bringing pensions in line with economic reality,the fact is,management would not like making the concomitant realignment of their owm plans,which would surely be the first demand of the unions.
We are being treated like mushrooms–kept in the dark and covered with —
Bill | August 16, 2012 |
There is in fact a public side to this ‘monopoly’ and the employees will eventually learn of the proper sharing of “risk”. If they are properly led they may ‘volunteer’ appropriate ‘correction’ in their pension ‘requirements’. For as has been suggested, it is not unreasonable for the majority of us to require this, for we pay the ‘freight’, in spite of having no pensions ourselves.
gordon stanfield | August 16, 2012 |