Who determines they actually DELIVER VALUE FOR MONEY? As a consumer I have NEVER been asked TO evaluate their contribution or more precisely LACK OF.
After the 2008 massive BAILOUTS i.e. SOCIALIZED LOSSES, PRIVATIZED PROFITS, PAH.
Management is a well versed method of mugging. The benchmarks set them as NOT cast in stone, but flexible to justify payouts, as apparently it's NOT their performance that's lackluster, but the economy! Whilst during the good times the same hypocrites BLEAT, they are justified their lucrative remuneration packages, because it's THEM who "lead" the company.
During the 80' they justified enormous eye watering payouts, whilst contributing miniscule amounts towards their share of employee retirement fund. When the 1987 and dot com bubble occurred they whined LOUDLY, the company pensions were unsustainable. Unsustainable for the mass of employees, BUT NOT for themselves!
The employees actually execute the work. Without the workers let's see Management justify their role!
Management gets their remuneration package cast in stone upfront. No performance required to collect it.
The company gets poorer. Mass job losses. That's the real world.
Management reckoned they worked "hard", hence as a consequence they suffered from stress that led to heart disease. Unfortunately a study debunked that notion by highlighting since management, unlike the workers chose what to do, when to do, how to do, they had control over their own working lives, unlike the workers who consequently actually suffered stress.
Answers & Comments
Who determines they actually DELIVER VALUE FOR MONEY? As a consumer I have NEVER been asked TO evaluate their contribution or more precisely LACK OF.
After the 2008 massive BAILOUTS i.e. SOCIALIZED LOSSES, PRIVATIZED PROFITS, PAH.
Management is a well versed method of mugging. The benchmarks set them as NOT cast in stone, but flexible to justify payouts, as apparently it's NOT their performance that's lackluster, but the economy! Whilst during the good times the same hypocrites BLEAT, they are justified their lucrative remuneration packages, because it's THEM who "lead" the company.
During the 80' they justified enormous eye watering payouts, whilst contributing miniscule amounts towards their share of employee retirement fund. When the 1987 and dot com bubble occurred they whined LOUDLY, the company pensions were unsustainable. Unsustainable for the mass of employees, BUT NOT for themselves!
The employees actually execute the work. Without the workers let's see Management justify their role!
Management gets their remuneration package cast in stone upfront. No performance required to collect it.
The company gets poorer. Mass job losses. That's the real world.
Management reckoned they worked "hard", hence as a consequence they suffered from stress that led to heart disease. Unfortunately a study debunked that notion by highlighting since management, unlike the workers chose what to do, when to do, how to do, they had control over their own working lives, unlike the workers who consequently actually suffered stress.
It ranks right up there with dental floss
Since it is not an "invention" I would have to say I disagree
Depends on what you mean by "management". Organization? Then yes.