I like to listen to CBC Radio One on Thursday nights because there are several excellent shows on.
Dispatches is on at 7:30. This program showcases documentaries on events happening throughout the world. It is part foreign affairs, part human interest, and 100% impactful. Whether it is a story about Robert Mugabe and the economic meltdown of Zimbabwe or a profile of musicians who are opposing totalitarian regimes, there is always something interesting on Dispatches.
The next show, Global Village, fills the 8:00 to 8:30 slot. GV is about music and musicians from around the world. Listeners become correspondents and file reports from musical events throughout the four corners of the globe. While I prefer the one hour version of Global Village that airs Saturdays at 6:30, the Thursday night version is a nice alternative to mindless television.
The surprise show of this season is Afghanada, a half hour drama that airs at 8:30. Afghanada goes where no television has gone yet -- it follows a squad of Canadian soldiers as they serve a tour of duty in Afghanistan. The show is remarkably frank in its depiction of the violence and contradictions of the mission to Afghanistan. This evening's episode involved a fracas involving the Cape Breton story-teller-cum-soldier Private Manson, a local "terp", and Captain "Crunch" Williams. This episode, like so many of the previous nine, was sad, but perhaps the saddest thing about the show is that it will end in two weeks. Check it out while you can.
And lastly, CBC airs coverage from other public broadcasters from around the world in the hours between 1:00 am and 6:00 am. I don't usually stay up that late, but when I do I really enjoy the grab bag of programming.
Friday, January 05, 2007
Thursday, January 04, 2007
They Must Really Want Him Gone
A couple of days ago I wrote about the gap between CEO compensation and that of the average Canadian worker. Apparently, stratospheric compensation extends beyond day-to-day work to include termination pay.
I'm talking, of course, about yesterday's departure of Bob Nardelli from the role of Home Depot's CEO and Chairman of the Board. Nardelli, who had been Chief Operating Officer for six years, was under a great deal of pressure from investors who were unhappy about how the company's share price was perfoming. He leaves Home Depot with a cash payment of $20 million (US) and the acceleration of stock awards and options worth about $84 million (US).
Included in Nardelli's $210 million (US) severance package is a cash payment of $20 million and the acceleration of unvested deferred stock awards currently valued at roughly $77 million. To put it into perspective, the total amount that Home Depot has set aside for stores and staff that provide good customer service is only $30 million. In other words, Nardelli leaving is worth seven times as much as average employees doing a good job.
Investors don't seem to care. The stock ended the day trading almost 2.3% higher and most of the commentary was positive. Bernie Marcus, who co-founded the company and is still a major shareholder, did not seem to think the amount was a problem. "It's like the old story, if the stock goes up 10%, who's going to care?" he is quoted as saying.
I don't know about Mr. Marcus and Mr. Nardelli, but a lot of people care. People work too hard to make ends meet to just shrug off the latest golden handshake as the cost of doing business. Most people do not get rewarded for doing a poor job, and I can't think of many cases where a clerk in a Home Depot store would get an extensive severance package for quitting. It is about time that the executive elite of the corporate world start realizing that they must play by the same rules as everyone else.
I'm talking, of course, about yesterday's departure of Bob Nardelli from the role of Home Depot's CEO and Chairman of the Board. Nardelli, who had been Chief Operating Officer for six years, was under a great deal of pressure from investors who were unhappy about how the company's share price was perfoming. He leaves Home Depot with a cash payment of $20 million (US) and the acceleration of stock awards and options worth about $84 million (US).
Included in Nardelli's $210 million (US) severance package is a cash payment of $20 million and the acceleration of unvested deferred stock awards currently valued at roughly $77 million. To put it into perspective, the total amount that Home Depot has set aside for stores and staff that provide good customer service is only $30 million. In other words, Nardelli leaving is worth seven times as much as average employees doing a good job.
Investors don't seem to care. The stock ended the day trading almost 2.3% higher and most of the commentary was positive. Bernie Marcus, who co-founded the company and is still a major shareholder, did not seem to think the amount was a problem. "It's like the old story, if the stock goes up 10%, who's going to care?" he is quoted as saying.
I don't know about Mr. Marcus and Mr. Nardelli, but a lot of people care. People work too hard to make ends meet to just shrug off the latest golden handshake as the cost of doing business. Most people do not get rewarded for doing a poor job, and I can't think of many cases where a clerk in a Home Depot store would get an extensive severance package for quitting. It is about time that the executive elite of the corporate world start realizing that they must play by the same rules as everyone else.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Of Funerals, State or Other
There have been a lot of funerals in the news lately.
First was the funeral for James Brown, the "Godfather of Soul". The funeral was attended by some of the most famous personalities in modern Afro-American culture. Even Michael Jackson, who tends more towards the infamous than the famous, showed up to pay his respects. And before the actual funeral ceremony, Brown's body "lay in state" at the Apollo Theater to allow thousands of fans to pay their last respects.
The second funeral in the news was that of ex-President of the United States Gerald Ford. Ford, the longest-lived president in history at 93, died a day after Brown. An understated leader and a decent man, Ford's body lay in state for three days in the Capitol before a state funeral in Washington and a private funeral in Michigan.
The third funeral in the news was one that has not occurred yet. Last year, the Canadian House of Parliament voted to hold a state funeral for the last veteran of World War I. The problem, it seems, is that none of the remaining three veterans wish to have a state funeral. The government has stated that it will only have a state funeral if the family of the deceased agree to it, but I can't see how the families would approve if the actual veterans don't. I think a better plan would be for the government to declare a national day of remembrance and celebration to honour all of Canada's war dead.
And the last funeral is the one that might have been a state funeral 20 years ago but which was a private matter when it happened. Of course, I am talking about the funeral of the late Iraqi strongman, Saddam Hussein. Had Hussein died at any time before his invasion of Kuwait, he would probably have had an even more ostentatious funeral than Brown and Ford combined. Had Hussein died before the US invasion of Iraq, he still would have had a funeral that would have been well-attended by foreign dignitaries. As it is, Hussein was executed like a common criminal and turned over to relatives for a low-key private funeral.
And so it goes. There will be more funerals over the coming days and weeks and months: funerals for victims of ferry sinkings and plane crashes; funerals for victims of car bombs and insurgent bullets; and funerals for murder victims. Some will be widely publicized, while others will be private expressions of love and grief. All will be a way of saying goodbye to those we have lost.
First was the funeral for James Brown, the "Godfather of Soul". The funeral was attended by some of the most famous personalities in modern Afro-American culture. Even Michael Jackson, who tends more towards the infamous than the famous, showed up to pay his respects. And before the actual funeral ceremony, Brown's body "lay in state" at the Apollo Theater to allow thousands of fans to pay their last respects.
The second funeral in the news was that of ex-President of the United States Gerald Ford. Ford, the longest-lived president in history at 93, died a day after Brown. An understated leader and a decent man, Ford's body lay in state for three days in the Capitol before a state funeral in Washington and a private funeral in Michigan.
The third funeral in the news was one that has not occurred yet. Last year, the Canadian House of Parliament voted to hold a state funeral for the last veteran of World War I. The problem, it seems, is that none of the remaining three veterans wish to have a state funeral. The government has stated that it will only have a state funeral if the family of the deceased agree to it, but I can't see how the families would approve if the actual veterans don't. I think a better plan would be for the government to declare a national day of remembrance and celebration to honour all of Canada's war dead.
And the last funeral is the one that might have been a state funeral 20 years ago but which was a private matter when it happened. Of course, I am talking about the funeral of the late Iraqi strongman, Saddam Hussein. Had Hussein died at any time before his invasion of Kuwait, he would probably have had an even more ostentatious funeral than Brown and Ford combined. Had Hussein died before the US invasion of Iraq, he still would have had a funeral that would have been well-attended by foreign dignitaries. As it is, Hussein was executed like a common criminal and turned over to relatives for a low-key private funeral.
And so it goes. There will be more funerals over the coming days and weeks and months: funerals for victims of ferry sinkings and plane crashes; funerals for victims of car bombs and insurgent bullets; and funerals for murder victims. Some will be widely publicized, while others will be private expressions of love and grief. All will be a way of saying goodbye to those we have lost.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
This Ought to Motivate the Staff
There is an article on the CTV.ca site this morning which addresses a serious issue that will probably be ignored by all but a handful of activists.
The article, which was about compensation levels for Canadian CEOs, claimed that the highest paid CEOs had already earned an average Canadian employee's annual salary earlier this morning (at 9:46, to be exact). The figure, which comes from a study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, was derived by taking a look at the 100 highest paid CEOs and then comparing their compensation to the average Canadian salary of $38,010. To get an even darker picture, consider the fact that the top 100 CEOs made the annual average minimum wage salary ($15,931) on New Year's Day.
I think it is a very telling piece of information. I think people should be concerned about the gap between the most and least successful performers in our economy, since relying on figures such as "average household income" skews the great disparities addressed in the article. What I don't understand is why more people are not concerned with the "winner-take-all" mentality of 21st Century capitalism.
I have no problem with the idea of fair compensation. I have no problem with the idea of "pay for performance". I have no problem with the idea that people who have invested their capital in a company should get a decent return on their investment. I do, however, have a problem with gross inequality of the sort that we are talking about here. I find it hard to believe that the top 100 CEOs provide so much shareholder value that they should get paid 150 times the annual salary of the average Canadian.
I know that people are sometimes worried about the future of this country's economy. We think about globalization and automation and increasingly scarce resources as potential threats to our way of life. Somehow, though, I think we are ignoring an even more important threat -- today's capitalism is inherently unfair.
We have become a culture that rewards its economic winners with a disproportionate share of the resources instead of making sure that there is enough for everyone. No wonder recent studies have indicated that the number one aspiration of teenagers is to become rich and famous.
Now I am not going to blame this all on highly paid CEOs -- over-rich, under-employed celebrities like Paris Hilton play their role, as do professional athletes who earn enormous salaries for playing games. The difference, however, is that most people understand that rich celebrities and elite athletes are aberrations. In effect, they have won the lottery of life. CEOs, on the other hand, are people who conceivably earned their positions through merit and hard work.
In other words, we could be them if we had the desire and the drive, and that is why ultimately we don't raise concerns about the gap between richest and poorest. Forget about factors like education, family connections, or corporate mentors. Forget about factors such as gender, ethnicity, or regionalism. Forget about the fact that even if they have and do work hard, it is difficult to quantify why they are worth tens of millions of dollars each year. And while you're at it, forget about the fact that they make enough money to pay one hundred people minimum wage and still have enough left over to live quite comfortably.
The article, which was about compensation levels for Canadian CEOs, claimed that the highest paid CEOs had already earned an average Canadian employee's annual salary earlier this morning (at 9:46, to be exact). The figure, which comes from a study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, was derived by taking a look at the 100 highest paid CEOs and then comparing their compensation to the average Canadian salary of $38,010. To get an even darker picture, consider the fact that the top 100 CEOs made the annual average minimum wage salary ($15,931) on New Year's Day.
I think it is a very telling piece of information. I think people should be concerned about the gap between the most and least successful performers in our economy, since relying on figures such as "average household income" skews the great disparities addressed in the article. What I don't understand is why more people are not concerned with the "winner-take-all" mentality of 21st Century capitalism.
I have no problem with the idea of fair compensation. I have no problem with the idea of "pay for performance". I have no problem with the idea that people who have invested their capital in a company should get a decent return on their investment. I do, however, have a problem with gross inequality of the sort that we are talking about here. I find it hard to believe that the top 100 CEOs provide so much shareholder value that they should get paid 150 times the annual salary of the average Canadian.
I know that people are sometimes worried about the future of this country's economy. We think about globalization and automation and increasingly scarce resources as potential threats to our way of life. Somehow, though, I think we are ignoring an even more important threat -- today's capitalism is inherently unfair.
We have become a culture that rewards its economic winners with a disproportionate share of the resources instead of making sure that there is enough for everyone. No wonder recent studies have indicated that the number one aspiration of teenagers is to become rich and famous.
Now I am not going to blame this all on highly paid CEOs -- over-rich, under-employed celebrities like Paris Hilton play their role, as do professional athletes who earn enormous salaries for playing games. The difference, however, is that most people understand that rich celebrities and elite athletes are aberrations. In effect, they have won the lottery of life. CEOs, on the other hand, are people who conceivably earned their positions through merit and hard work.
In other words, we could be them if we had the desire and the drive, and that is why ultimately we don't raise concerns about the gap between richest and poorest. Forget about factors like education, family connections, or corporate mentors. Forget about factors such as gender, ethnicity, or regionalism. Forget about the fact that even if they have and do work hard, it is difficult to quantify why they are worth tens of millions of dollars each year. And while you're at it, forget about the fact that they make enough money to pay one hundred people minimum wage and still have enough left over to live quite comfortably.
Monday, January 01, 2007
Starting Out the New Year Right
I do not have cable television, so I was unable to watch any of the college football bowl games today. To be honest, I would not have watched them even if I had cable, because football bores me. I would probably have watched the Food network instead.
Since I don't have cable, I decided to act out my own cooking show. A quick search of the fridge provided the ingredients for tonight's dinner:
Since I don't have cable, I decided to act out my own cooking show. A quick search of the fridge provided the ingredients for tonight's dinner:
- one chicken breast, skinned
- half a red pepper
- half a sweet onion
- one quarter of a tin of apricots
- the remnants of a half pound block of feta cheese
Dinner was extremely easy to make. I coated the chicken, pepper, and onion in a mixture of olive oil and crushed spices and cooked at 375 for 20 minutes, turning everything once. At the end of 20 minutes, I placed the apricots on the chicken and turned the over to broil for 2 minutes. Once the 2 minutes were up, I moved the apricots from off the chicken and replaced them with two thin slabs of feta cheese. I continued broiling the food for another 6 minutes, until the red pepper was a bit black and the feta cheese was a nice brown.
This is what the final dish looked like:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)