Left Foot Forward looks at the pay gap between best paid and worst paid at some of Britain's best known firms.
It emerged today that Barclays boss Antony Jenkins was paid more than 80 times the bank’s lowest paid workers.
The starting salary at the bank is just £13,500 a year, making some workers eligible for tax credits.
Jenkins, however, was paid a basic salary of £1.1 million, plus a share award of up to £4.4m and a pension contribution of £363,000.
To add insult to injury, the bank today announced that it would be making 3,700 job cuts.
With a High Pay Centre report out tomorrow on executive pay rates, Left Foot Forward has looked at the pay gap between those at the top and those at the bottom of some of Britain’s best known firms.
Number of employees: 3,048 Profit per employer: £33,713
Number of employees: 84,990 Profit per employee: £102,059
Number of employees: 372,338 Profit per employee: £8,529.88
Is it credible to assert that the chief executive of Tesco (to pick one of the three at random) is 384 times more industrious than the average Tesco employee?
No, we didn’t think so.
4 Responses to “Revealed: the pay gap at Britain’s top firms”
Tim Allan
It’s disgraceful, and the problem is getting worse. There’s actually a group of super-rich who want MORE inequality. Apparently it’s for everyone’s sake. http://economicwardiaries.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/the-disingenuity-delusion-and-deceit-of-the-pro-inequality-lobby/
isthisreallife2
An economist needs to do a proper study to compare the 2 scenarios of laying off these workers and of keeping them on by diverting the pay of executives to keep them in employment. Issues that could be addressed:
1) How many of those workers will be unemployed for more than 6 months? Social/Health impact to them and community?
2) What is the “multiplier effect” of them not being employed to our economy? ie. how much does their reduced consumption hurt the economy?
3) How long will those executives who remain at the company (and do not take wage cuts or bonus cuts) stay at the company? Are they loyal? Are they adding value to the company?
4) Based on previous data how many of the posts made redundant will have to be recreated at some point in the future?
5) How do companies fair who make large numbers of redundancies in downturns normally fair?
Surely, there needs to be a change in culture in severe recessions/depressions where the wealthy have to deflate their wages. I believe the argument from Labour should focus more on attacking excessive wages and tax avoidance. if those problems can be fixed then it will help to solve the other issues of benefit cuts and lack of stimulus that they currently focus on. The arguments should be about putting money to productive use, encouraging investment in the real economy and discouraging hoarding
Mr Reasonable
I’m surprised that this report hasn’t been ‘trolled’ yet! I love reading about how the ‘hidden hand’ of the mystical market god determines that a bunch of blokes in shiny suits sporting Grecian 2000 hairstyles are more deserving of their £2,000,000 salaries (plus perks) than one of their minimum-wage used-to-be-elligible for tax-credits cleaners.
Come on Tory Central Office, wake up! It’s time to get trolling!
Newsbot9
Wages are a sideshow compared to capital, and how it’s forcing out wages as a % of GDP.