BP boss Hayward to get immediate £600,000 pension

[Gerald]

BP chief executive Tony Hayward will get an immediate annual pension worth about £600,000 ($930,000) when he leaves in October, the BBC has learned.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10434908

[GoldenRivet]

Fair enough... He has done the job for a few years now and been with BP for what 15 years?

yes there was a major flub in the end, but He's out... I hardly think it is worth stripping the man of his pension over. just my opinion though. ;)

EDIT:

where corporate pensions are concerned... its really not that much.

[Snestorm]

It doesn't come out of my taxes.
I am not a stockholder.

Therefore, I have no comment.

[Platapus]

Wish I could be in a position to scrimp by on $900,000 per year pension.

Sigh

[Sailor Steve]

It doesn't come out of my taxes.
I am not a stockholder.

Therefore, I have no comment.
But that itself is a comment.


And a good one. :sunny:

[GoldenRivet]

Wish I could be in a position to scrimp by on $900,000 per year pension.

Sigh

whoa whoa whoa

PER YEAR?

i didnt catch that... i was thinking ONE lump sum :o:o:o

[HunterICX]

Such people should be shot, thieves is what they are nothing more.

the last thing they did in their carreer is win that money fair and square.

HunterICX

[Schroeder]

HunterICX is a communist!!!!:O:

@Snestorm
You are paying for it every time you refill your car at a BP station (or any gas station for that matter, as each and every large company has it's high rank "pensioners").

[Castout]

Just that much eh? It's very little imo for a big oil company boss.
He could do with at least 5 times that amount

[XabbaRus]

He's been withBP for 28 years.

He has been made the scapegoat, I have no problem with him getting his pension and lump sum.

[Jimbuna]

He's been withBP for 28 years.

He has been made the scapegoat, I have no problem with him getting his pension and lump sum.

Ditto.....even if it is that much more than I got for fifteen years.

I wonder if he'd mind swapping pensions with me :hmmm:

[Oberon]

In other news, all BP stations in London are closed by Greenpeace activists:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-10771805

[severniae]

I feel quite sorry for him. He was made a scapegoat for the entire mess! Granted, as the big chief of BP he had to take some responsibility. Yes it is a huge sum of money, but after such a long service to the company I'd say he deserved it. And to be fair, compared to the billions BP make each year, it's just pocket change!

[Sailor Steve]

Such people should be shot, thieves is what they are nothing more.

the last thing they did in their carreer is win that money fair and square.
Why is that your decision to make? Or mine? The Board of Directors awards the pension they think the man deserves, and their opinion is the only one who counts. Thieves? The only people he could have stolen from is the stockholders of his company. If they think he's a thief, they can do something about it.

[Herr-Berbunch]

He's been made a scapegoat and I see no reason why he shouldn't get what he is contractuallly obliged to. 28 years in the same company, working his way up I'd rather he got this pension than the bunch of bankers that screwed up the world's economies getting theirs!

Nice to see some people on here agreeing, and not being sucked into the Hayward/'British' Petroleum -hating media stir.

Just a couple of final facts - BP is majority owned by JPMorgan Chase - American, vessel owned by Transocean - (was Norwegian but bought by American company, but now HQ'd in Switzerland (with a staff of only 12 based there) to save lots of money, vessel operated by Halliburton staff - American. It's only the 'B' in BP that means they are escaping any flak in the US community, despite their intricate involvment and histories.

Sorry to our American cousins for my rant, we know it's just the media/government :damn:

[Sailor Steve]

I'd rather he got this pension than the bunch of bankers that screwed up the world's economies getting theirs!
Now that I can agree with! The Board awards a pension based on performance, and it's not ours to say yea or nay, BUT...When the company has to be bailed out with taxpayer money it becomes our business. If the company has crashed and only survives with our help, then all pensions should be forfeit.

[Jimbuna]

In other news, all BP stations in London are closed by Greenpeace activists:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-10771805

Throw a can of petrol on the buggas and strike a match :O:

[heartc]

Hm. Maybe we are not stockholders and we don't pay that sum from our taxes, but BP screwed *the Gulf of Mexico* over, and it happened on *his* watch. I don't know - didn't anybody watch the Congress hearing? I've seldom seen such an arrogant prick before. And for someone who was in the company for 28 years, he knew pretty much NOTHING about anything that had to do with what this company actually did for a living. BP had some SEVEN HUNDRED safety violations in the same time other oil companies had 2, 3 or 12. Well, what he did know and what he kept reiterating, was that "most" of those happened in the time before he became the CEO in 2006 or 2007, and that when he became CEO he put safety as the No 1 priority. Of course. Not money or something. I would probably say the same thing when I just wasted the Gulf of Mexico. And right before he became CEO, he surely was just some lowly drill worker with no decision making responsibilities.

Really, I actually believed him when he said he was "not involved" in this or that, and "I was not part of that decision making process", "I'm afraid I can't recall that, either", oh hell, "That was a decision I was not party to", of course not, cause that's not your job, right. But you like taking the CEO paycheck for 4 years, no?

The bigger the company, the more crap is happening that you wouldn't believe, including having people in high leading positions that have actually ZERO clue about what is happening, which leads to a serious reality disconnect and ultimately dumbass decision making. The higher up you go, the more the numbers and statistics start talking, and people start lying into their own faces and actually further being lied to themselves by the next one down the chain until the numbers fit but in reality the **** is hitting the fan.

I understand that he could not possibly have been on every well in person or start drilling by himself - but I'm getting sick of people who take the cash without having a clue and accepting responsibility. The financial crisis was just the same crap: In their quest to get the numbers right, ppl come up with total **** products and are selling crap, until everything goes downhill.
Good job. Damn, I've always been pretty much the opposite of anything even resembling a socialist, and this won't change, but lately I'm getting seriously pi$$ed of with watching "CEOs" ruin not only their own companies, but taking a few hundred others with them, too. Or the Gulf of Mexico, for that matter. And talking about the latter, I'm not so sure that this whole affair is over, yet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52TiZJj_XYM&feature=related

Short version, same content:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLIcTV79zvA

[Sailor Steve]

Hm. Maybe we are not stockholders and we don't pay that sum from our taxes, but BP screwed *the Gulf of Mexico* over, and it happened on *his* watch.
The pension is the stockholders' business. If what happened to the Gulf of Mexico really is his personal responsibility, that's another story. Should he be tried and convicted for some crime? That question is the peoples' business, but the two are not related.

I don't know - didn't anybody watch the Congress hearing? I've seldom seen such an arrogant prick before.
Maybe so, but if Congress didn't convict him of anything and the law hasn't charged him, that particular sin is not a crime.


BP had some SEVEN HUNDRED safety violations in the same time other oil companies had 2, 3 or 12.
Then BP should be charged for that, and so should he IF he can be shown to be culpable.

Really, I actually believed him when he said he was "not involved" in this or that, and "I was not part of that decision making process", "I'm afraid I can't recall that, either", oh hell, "That was a decision I was not party to", of course not, cause that's not your job, right. But you like taking the CEO paycheck for 4 years, no?
And one has nothing to do with the other. If he can be shown to be criminally negligent then he should be tried for it. His paycheck is determined by the Board. His culpability is determined by the courts.

I understand that he could not possibly have been on every well in person or start drilling by himself - but I'm getting sick of people who take the cash without having a clue and accepting responsibility.
So am I, but that doesn't mean there is anything we can, or should, do about it.

It's the Board's job to determine if he screwed his company, and it's the Courts' and Congress's job to determine if he screwed anybody else.

Anything from us is just whining about "The Rich getting away with it". It's useless and means nothing.

[heartc]

Anything from us is just whining about "The Rich getting away with it". It's useless and means nothing.

Yeah, I know that tune and this wasn't the point I was trying to make. I really don't care how much money his company gave to him - it is a private company and none of mine or any government's business how much they pay him. I'm just tired of the disconnect - by design! - between power / position and responsibility that is often apparent in some big companies.
He said he "set the tone from above" towards the goal of achieving that increased safety he was talking about. Now that's some real step, ain't it?

What that means in the clear: As long as everything runs fine, and people come up with more cost effective measures, they were surely welcomed by him (seeing how he knows next to NOTHING of what was actually being decided, I wonder how he could possibly have lost any sleep over safety implications. I mean, how COULD he??). And when something goes wrong, he can go "Hey, but I set that tone from above towards safety, don't you remember? Why didn't you listen??"
What a joke.

[Snestorm]

@Snestorm
You are paying for it every time you refill your car at a BP station (or any gas station for that matter, as each and every large company has it's high rank "pensioners").

What you say is true however, I have no interest in seeing the oil companies owned by our governments.

I'm also opposed to the oil companies, and banksters, owning our governments!

[krashkart]

In other news, all BP stations in London are closed by Greenpeace activists:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-10771805

There was some talk over here that boycotting BP stations would actually hurt franchisees more than it would hurt the company. Greenpeace must have ignored that memo. :-?

[Sailor Steve]

Greenpeace must have ignored that memo. :-?
Greenpeace, as descibed by one of its founders:
I left in the mid-'80s when the policy started to drift away from science and logic into these kind of zero-tolerance positions that I believe are based more on sensation and fund-raising around scare tactics.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/beware-the-big-green-political-monster/2006/05/05/1146335924212.html

[Jimbuna]

There was some talk over here that boycotting BP stations would actually hurt franchisees more than it would hurt the company. Greenpeace must have ignored that memo. :-?

True....BP share price is a little over £4, much better than a month or so ago :yep:

[Platapus]

whoa whoa whoa

PER YEAR?

i didnt catch that... i was thinking ONE lump sum :o:o:o

Then you probably don't want to hear that his total "compensation" will be about $17,000,000 per year.

It is good to be the CEO of a huge company. :yep: