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.

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

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=52TiZ...eature=related

Short version, same content:

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

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.

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.


Then BP should be charged for that, and so should he IF he can be shown to be culpable.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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. :-?

Greenpeace, as descibed by one of its founders:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/b...335924212.html

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

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: