# 'Bout bloody time... Ontario energy salaries to be reviewed



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Ontario to review salaries paid to energy executives*
> Apr. 3, 2006. 05:53 PM
> CANADIAN PRESS
> 
> ...


what's that sound in the background??.......squealing of terrified pigs perhaps 

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...075&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

....public servants........yeah right......OINK!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

That seems quite high, but make sure the public doesn't micro-manage salaries for the sake of anger, just as they shouldn't micro-manage research. $1.5 million is, I think, higher than many stable utilities feel necessary to pay, so this needs a good solid and objective (read: not the mob) examination. Canada and the U.S. have numerous 'benchmarks' and they will tell the story. Hydro One needed some good work so a bright individual was needed (superficially, he did seem to really 'get it' but I don't know the details) but is bright $600k versus $500k, $1,000k vs $800k? What's ok? We need to know the standards for this job.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Beej said:


> but is bright $600k versus $500k, $1,000k vs $800k? What's ok? We need to know the standards for this job.


Every one of those salaries sounds obscene to me. I know that puts me out of touch with this greed culture, but so be it. No one is worth $500k.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> ]No one is worth $500k.


We disagree. Surprise!

To counter with a vague statement: No one is worth more than they're worth.

We will not resolve this one, but I understand where you're coming from.

Without malice or cheap shots, do you understand where I'm coming from? I only ask because I think you do, even if we disagree and can only solve this over bowling.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

I do try and understand you, but I don't thus far. I simply cannot conceive of how hard a person would have to work to be worth that much money. I am familiar with the concept of being worth as much as you can get, but I mean actual worth. Compare how hard they work, or the skills/training they bring to the job to someone else, since there is no really objective comparison standard. How can they possibly bring or do enough to be worth that much?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> ... but I mean actual worth. Compare how hard they work, or the skills/training they bring to the job to someone else, since there is no really objective comparison standard. How can they possibly bring or do enough to be worth that much?


This is where we need so very many beers (and bowling balls). We will never agree, I suspect, but we will never hate the opposing view (I hope).


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Working isn't 'working hard'. Working smart. 

Knowledge is power, Matt. Someone knowing how something works, or how something DOESN'T work can be worth more than anything. It's not only the potential for gain, but also the potential for loss. You hire people because they're good and they're going to increase the value of whatever product you are producing (in an ideal world) by MORE than what you pay them.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The whole Ontario Hydro culture of entitlement and over payment goes back years and years and is a blot on the province.

Clitheroe was obscene and I remember 30 years ago OH engineers running side businesses from their Hydro facilities while raking in top dollar.

Competitive be damned - that's a con game - 



> Hydro One board chairman Glen Wright told a news conference that CEO Eleanor Clitheroe, 47, was fired for cause over, among other things, renovations to her home using company resources and abusing her credit-card privileges. "There was a culture here that for some reason started to believe that any amount of expenditure was OK," said Wright
> "Enough is enough. It's time to end it."
> 
> At a brief news conference of her own, a stonefaced Clitheroe disputed the allegations and said she would be launching a lawsuit to clear her name.
> ...


http://www.electricityforum.com/news/jul02/clitheroe.htm



> Hydro One fires Clitheroe, alleges abuse of perks by Robert Benzie and Paul Vieira
> 
> Eleanor Clitheroe was fired as president and chief executive of Hydro One Inc. yesterday for alleged abuse of executive perks that included spending $330,000 of company funds on limousines for her nanny and children, according to Glen Wright, the utility's interim chairman.
> 
> ...




and the board approved all this.......what total..disgusting ongoing mess 

http://www.energyprobe.org/energyprobe/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=4709​


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Aside from energyprobe's opinion on nuclear, Ontario has been consistent through the years: energy incompetence. From cheap energy = economic policy, to the taxpayers' burden for incompetence to the inevitable waste; McGuinty is doing some things right and some things wrong. It could be worse, but a little pencil-sharpening may not hurt. Sadly, with energy, the results appear long after the policy choices. We will see, but it's hard not to beat the track record.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

MLeh said:


> You hire people because they're good and they're going to increase the value of whatever product you are producing (in an ideal world) by MORE than what you pay them.


Ah, I'm just from a different time/era/plane of existence, then. I have always thought the idea was to receive a just reward for the effort you put in. That's my ideal world.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah except that theory of value added should also include the risk of not getting paid at all for a rotten job......seems a principle overlooked in the halls of entitlement, corporate and public 

There IS NO DEFENCE for Ontario's terrible mismanagement of a power legacy that WAS the envy of the world.

The Sir Adam Beck plant is still providing power 100 years later. He must be at F5 speed in his grave 

At one time public service jobs paid less and had more security than the "risky" private sector.

The situation is ludicrous now and no more so than in the Ontario public energy sector.
The sleaze in the Harris/Eves gov made it all worse but no party is without fault tho the NDP perhaps given a second term might have gotten a handle on it - there were some positive signs - too close to labour at the time tho.

Gov oversight was clearly lacking and all seemed to believe their own hype about over supply of "cheap energy". 

Once more a clarion call for real oversight.

•• Will someone point out a "successful" power supply situation short of perhaps Iceland. Is ANYONE doing it right...what ever that might be and where ever??


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

I've got to admit I just don't get it... some people will defend a CEO getting $500,000/yr or more but slam the idea that an employee of the same company might be worth $50,000/yr...


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> Ah, I'm just from a different time/era/plane of existence, then. I have always thought the idea was to receive a just reward for the effort you put in. That's my ideal world.


There's a saying that it's a good thing for many people that we don't get what we deserve.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Dreambird are you familiar with the GINI scale??

http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/indicators.cfm?x=148&y=1&z=1

More and more studies show the RELATIVE wealth gap between richest and poorest has a large impact on society - even health of both rich and poor.

When the gaps get obscene as with Clitheroe stresses build both in the elite and those who perceive it as "unfair".

This is pretty deeply embedded in primates as experiments with capucin monkeys show.
http://www.answers.com/topic/inequity-aversion

Some of the structural issues in France right now that are causing riots are evidence of a tipping point being reached.

Part of the resentment/distrust of politicians resides in the entitlement aspect and Canadians choice of Tommy Douglas as "greatest Canadian" speaks to our sensitivity to blatant inequity.

What's worse is the perception of being helpless in the face of such rip offs as Clitheroe.
Growing anger, growing resentment. NOT a way to build a peaceable society.

There is reward for work and reward for risk/effectiveness.
The two ARE different.

Steve Jobs gets $1 a year as salary. His income is entirely dependent on his effectiveness in creating value for shareholders, himself included.

The problem as I see it in too many circles is the risk part gets forgotten and the entitlement sticks no matter how awful the performance is.
It's horrible for society and very disheartening to tax payers when this occurs in public institutions.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> I've got to admit I just don't get it... some people will defend a CEO getting $500,000/yr or more but slam the idea that an employee of the same company might be worth $50,000/yr...


Is the employee earning their pay and is the CEO earning their pay? Not all jobs earn $50k in value and not all CEOs earn $500k; many of both do. In other words, what is their work worth; not how much political clout can they leverage. Is that confusing?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> Ah, I'm just from a different time/era/plane of existence, then. I have always thought the idea was to receive a just reward for the effort you put in. That's my ideal world.


What is just? Similar to something Socrates asked very long ago. Still no answer for him. 

If a CEO adds $1 billion in value to a company over what their peers do, is $30 million just? If not, why should the shareholders get all that value (union for CEOs?  )? Maybe you'd lean towards paying such a CEO under $500k and giving the $29.5 million leftover to all the other employees. Of course, if you can get that CEO for $500k, that would be different. 

More extreme but Canadian example: is it wrong for Gretzky to demand as much as he is worth (total package, including any value he places on being in a given city)?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Why are all the examples positive??......what happens when the CEO loses the company a billion dollars......who gets stuck with the bill then....let the CEO cough up the 30 million.

Bloody elitist con game that's spread to the public service as well.

Look at the mess of Nortel when gaming the system became more important than engineering viable products and the fall out is still continuing.

••

Rev Matt luck has some great play as well unfortunately and as you well know North American view of what constitutes "wealth" is suspect to a high degree.

I suspect you and I would value a library available to all as wealth over a private showcase of rare volumes.

I think what you are getting at is the tolerance for inequity in reward for work and how it's been entangled with reward for risk.

Some take pleasure in the gamesmanship of accumulation far beyond their needs. Others in building a more equitable society.
Soros I admire for his mastery of both.

Clitheroe should be taken out to the woodshed......


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Why are all the examples positive??
> ...
> ......what happens when the CEO loses the company a billion dollars......who gets stuck with the bill then....let the CEO cough up the 30 million.
> ...
> Bloody elitist con game that's spread to the public service as well.


Because of the conspiracy.  Sheesh.
...
I can do negative examples just as well. Note the share of value-added: 30/1000. That is part of risk/reward; you only get a fraction of the reward. Linking to long-term stock incentives can connect the two and there's always huge uncertainty in measuring success and failure. Many other things can be done, but the basic principles are a small-share of the benefits you create (not half or 99%) BECAUSE of the downside risk without financial liability. If an employee doesn't make an easy sale or, worse yet, actively scares away a customer, do you charge him?
...
'elitist con game' -- I guess we'll disagree on this characterisation.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Beej said:


> Is the employee earning their pay and is the CEO earning their pay? Not all jobs earn $50k in value and not all CEOs earn $500k; many of both do. In other words, what is their work worth; not how much political clout can they leverage. Is that confusing?


Well... without sounding too stupid I hope... yes it is "confusing"... or more so just plain not understandable.

Presuming both of their work is worth it or not worth it... it's all about the percieved "political clout"... a CEO probably has a lot more of that than an average employee. Please don't come at me about the evil unions... any "clout" they had is pretty much gone these days compared to the power the head of a company has. 

Yet the CEO gets praised and defended and the employee slammed. I always hear that employees are not worth what they make... a liability to the company... well fine... run the damned company with no employees then.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Beej said:


> If an employee doesn't make an easy sale or, worse yet, actively scares away a customer, do you charge him?
> ...
> 'elitist con game' -- I guess we'll disagree on this characterisation.


Charge him? He may well lose his job... if only it were so easy to kick out a CEO that doesn't hold up his end of a bargain... who walks in on him and just says "you're fired!"

You might want to read *MacDoc's* second link in his post to me above... try to "understand" it...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> Well... without sounding too stupid I hope... yes it is "confusing"... or more so just plain not understandable.
> ...
> Presuming both of their work is worth it or not worth it... it's all about the percieved "political clout"... a CEO probably has a lot more of that than an average employee. Please don't come at me about the evil unions... any "clout" they had is pretty much gone these days compared to the power the head of a company has.
> ...
> Yet the CEO gets praised and defended and the employee slammed. I always hear that employees are not worth what they make... a liability to the company... well fine... run the damned company with no employees then.


Ok. 
...
Worth for your skills and work can be market worth; it can also just be made up and buttressed by a wing and a prayer. A doctor's skills and work are worth more than a janitor's. That doesn't mean there is something wrong with the janitor, or that the hospital should go without one, or that it is wrong for the doctor to get more. It would be wrong for the janitor to use the doctor's worth to boost his own, independent of voting for favourable government policies.
...
CEOs get praised and criticised. I was pointing out that a real review needs to be done not based on the mob and that my superficial experience with Parkinson was favourable but that the salary did seem high for the industry. I also, in another thread, questioned whether $50k was appropriate and that it mattered what the job was. 

Is that what you're referring to in your hearing? I'm not sure how you 'always hear...', but I have an idea of what you always say around here.  

Note: CEOs are employees too.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> Charge him? He may well lose his job... if only it were so easy to kick out a CEO that doesn't hold up his end of a bargain... who walks in on him and just says "you're fired!"
> ...
> You might want to read *MacDoc's* second link in his post to me above... try to "understand" it...


They have contracts negotiated with the company and the company can opt to break the contract (surrendering to the terms of payment) or not renew. Whereas under some circumstances, a company has much less power to fire people. Like I mentioned earlier, maybe CEOs need a union. 
...
I have and I have read such stuff before. Interesting research that will yield useful results. Governments redistribute wealth and it would be wise of CEOs to ensure the appearance of extreme-wealth is minimised at work, but none of that solves the basic issue: what they are worth. Trying to hide that will hide performance no matter how friendly the ideology sounds. No company has to pay more than $100k for CEO, but they'd be stupid not to look at the potential costs and benefits.

Ontario Teacher's Pension Plan is a good example. They are thankfully getting more active in pressuring companies on compensation, but they aren't doing it in some naive way; they fully understand the value of paying top people top dollars for top performance: their top employees get millions.

[Edit: Any companies out there wanting a CEO for under $100k can PM me. ]


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

OK... some blasphemy from me... I think both the janitor's and the doctor's work and skill are worth the same... I mean in a equitable sort of way. I'm not saying the janitor should make the same amount of money as the doctor but the situation between the two is often not equitable... 

Sorry... I'm not as eloquent in my speech as you... but what I always "hear" (most of the time anyway) is "Damned employees! They want a 5% pay increase!" versus "The CEO/Board of Directors of the company just "gave" themselves a 20% pay increase... oh well." Something along those lines... keeping in mind that 5% of 500k is a lot more than 5% of 50k in any case.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> Sorry... I'm not as eloquent in my speech as you... but what I always "hear" (most of the time anyway) is "Damned employees! They want a 5% pay increase!" versus "The CEO/Board of Directors of the company just "gave" themselves a 20% pay increase... oh well." Something along those lines... keeping in mind that 5% of 500k is a lot more than 5% of 50k in any case.


I hear a lot of complaints about CEO salaries...here for example. Good. Complaints when unions demand raises are good too [edit: o]. For both, perspective on the pay/performance of people doing similar jobs is also helpful. $50k can be overpaying while $500k is not, and $50k can be underpaying while $500k is not (both examples! hugs?). Going by the news I read most (CBC, Globe) I'd say I hear more complaints and questions about CEO/senior management salaries. That's fine, but the presumption of wrongness for them and rightness for other employees is odd because it misses the basis for their pay: what their work is worth ($). If you disconnect those, no matter how noble the ideal, you've got trouble. 

For the topic at hand, utilities, especially Canadian ones and especially ones operating in primarily (only?) a regulated setting pay less than Parkinson gets, as far as my adled memory goes. His salary needs a careful, non-political review; the whole civil service may benefit from this, but let's just go after the big guys for now. It probably didn't help him that he publicly criticised the abundance of energy bureaucracies in Ontario...wrong hand to bite, even if he was right.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Public Sector Salary Disclosure Amendment Act, 2004


Royal Assent received – Ontario Power Generation and Hydro One Salaries Disclosed

QUEEN'S PARK — T he Public Sector Salary Disclosure Amendment Act, 2004 received Royal Assent on April 15, 2004, making employees of Ontario Power Generation (OPG), Hydro One and their subsidiaries subject to the same salary disclosure rules as public servants. As part of the McGuinty government's positive change agenda, this Act brings transparency and accountability to the workings of OPG and Hydro One.

The salaries and benefits paid during the last five years to employees of Hydro One, OPG and their subsidiaries who earned $100,000 or more annually are posted on the Ministry of Finance's website at www.gov.on.ca/FIN/english/psecteng.htm. Paper copies of the Special addenda for Hydro One and Ontario Power Generation salary disclosure can be purchased at Publications Ontario 1-800-668-9938 or 416-326-5300.

http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/english/publications/salarydisclosure/2006/index.html


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

hydro one pdf file listing names of employees making over $100K

http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/english/publications/salarydisclosure/2006/electric06.pdf

it's a big list....
215 pages of people at Hydro One that make over $100K
and so many 'controllers' all making over $100K
I saw one listing of an "apprentice" making over $100K

bottom of page 10
Formusa, Laura - General Counsel/Secretary, $467,568


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

I heard on the radio last summer that there were over 5500 people who made over 100K and that they were not able to say how many made up to or close to 100K as it was not required by the legislation.
I also heard that some of the executives had a two car and driver provision in their contracts, as well as many other luxury perks.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

> I hear a lot of complaints about CEO salaries...here for example. Good. Complaints when unions demand raises are good too [edit: o].


Uhhmmm OK... but I did say _employees_ not unions... not all employees belong to a union and if getting a raise in a union environment is hard... getting one w/o a union is even harder...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> if getting a raise in a union environment is hard... getting one w/o a union is even harder...


For some.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

43% of Hydro One employees made more than 100k this year, but that is includinig massive amounts of overtime, which is not the same as them having salaries of that much.

Beej - No CEO causes to profits to rise by even $1 by themselves. They do so at least in part with the assistance of every other employee. So, if they get a bonus, then every employee should, as well. But really, I would envision a complete reform of the way that our corporate and financial systems work.

"Just" is not an abstract term. It is, granted, one that needs to be administered on a case by case basis. But it is not abstract.

And yes, Gretzky, and all the other hockey players, are also in the wrong. I'll throw you a bone, though, and freely admit that they are more in the wrong than CEOs.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> Beej - No CEO causes to profits to rise by even $1 by themselves. They do so at least in part with the assistance of every other employee. So, if they get a bonus, then every employee should, as well. But really, I would envision a complete reform of the way that our corporate and financial systems work.
> 
> "Just" is not an abstract term. It is, granted, one that needs to be administered on a case by case basis. But it is not abstract.
> ...
> And yes, Gretzky, and all the other hockey players, are also in the wrong. I'll throw you a bone, though, and freely admit that they are more in the wrong than CEOs.


The value they add is what would not have been there under 'benchmark' leadership; they are a 'force multiplier'. So the 'by themself' test doesn't apply to anyone, the 'but for' test does. But for their unique contribution...could go either way. Bonuses can be based upon a number of metrics.

Other employees' bonuses are based on a blend of their own performance, their business unit and company as a whole. Some employees don't get bonuses and have had their contracts negotiated for them as such. 
...
Should owners get the money for his performance (ability to put butts in the arena, sell jerseys, TV revenue, etc.)? Maybe not, but they could lower ticket prices; but then the scalpers get the money.  Thanks for the bone though. Bark!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap:


> *Nuclear our best option, premier says*
> Apr. 19, 2006. 10:15 AM
> FROM CANADIAN PRESS
> 
> ...


Stop talking start building dammit.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> :clap:
> 
> Stop talking start building dammit.


They'll still need to fill the pre-2015 gap or change their coal plans; nuclear plants take a long time to get approval, especially if they're considering using a new technology.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

They already are building a gas turbine in Toronto.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> They already are building a gas turbine in Toronto.


Much more is needed (including conservation and transmission capacity) if all the coal will be shut down by 2009. It's going to be tight. 2015+, new nuclear may arrive if started around now. Before then there's just refurbished nuclear.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> Much more is needed (including conservation and transmission capacity) if all the coal will be shut down by 2009. It's going to be tight. 2015+, new nuclear may arrive if started around now. Before then there's just refurbished nuclear.



Perhaps shutting down the coal is premature... As I posted in another thread...

_Somewhat related to this thread... Did anyone watch Nova on PBS last night? The show was on Global Dimming. Very interesting. It looks as if particulate pollution has been having a cooling effect on the global climate (this isn't difficult to believe if one understands that nature of albedo and cloud reflectivity, this is where solar radiation and heat are reflected back to space by clouds).

Now here is the issue... in the West in order to combat air pollution we have been actively controlling particulate air pollution (ie. smoke scrubbers, etc...). This is having the effect of increasing global climate change by allowing more radiation and heat through to the surface of the planet. The ironic part is that be trying to stop the problem (ie. air pollution) we are only exacerbating global warming.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/ 

Scary stuff._


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Perhaps shutting down the coal is premature... As I posted in another thread...


The coal push is more strongly connected with air quality than climate change. The decision was still dubious in how it ignores coal-based emissions cleanup and the basic constraints.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It's too bad those existing coal plants can't be converted to the cleaner IGCC plants.

The interesting thing the gov could do is two step it. Convert to non sequestering IGCC with the idea that full sequestering could be added to the cycle.

Nanticoke would seem to be a natural for this.



> Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC)
> 
> Like PFBC, the technology is relatively new in connection with power generation. Coal-based IGCC plants for power generation passed through a critical stage in their development during the 1990s.
> 
> ...


http://www.renewableenergystocks.com/CL/News/Near-Zero_Emissions.asp

This at least cleans up existing facilities while maintaining the delivery and staff infrastructure and actually leads further out to a zero emmissions coal facility.

I think it will require a combination of technologies to support energy demand growth and get cleaner both in air quality and then in carbon emissions.

What I found so ironic was that recent studies showed building new reactors with current technology on existing sites would have cost less than the refurbishing costs 
I'm not sure that took into account cost of the mothballing.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.energyprobe.org/energyprobe/images/CanduCost/RealCostOfCandu2_files/frame.htm

These guys are particularly shrill in their anti-nuclear stance but the points they make are worth considering. Take any specific results and conclusions with a big grain of salt.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> The coal push is more strongly connected with air quality than climate change. The decision was still dubious in how it ignores coal-based emissions cleanup and the basic constraints.


Yeah, but you missed my point. In general the West has recently undergone a shift to regulate its industry in regards to emission controls. The problem might be that it is the wrong decision and could be detrimental and exacerbate the climate change problem.

The impact of global dimming and its relation to climate change issues has completely surprised me... and I am quite sure we do in fact need to re-examine the issue.

Many will note that this is in fact a 180 from my previously stated stance on the issue of the environment. Now, more than ever is the time for some real leadership and understanding of this issue.

Who knows... maybe the Conservatives will use this as an argument against Kyoto?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Yeah, but you missed my point. In general the West has recently undergone a shift to regulate its industry in regards to emission controls. The problem might be that it is the wrong decision and could be detrimental and exacerbate the climate change problem.
> ....
> Now, more than ever is the time for some real leadership and understanding of this issue.
> ....
> Who knows... maybe the Conservatives will use this as an argument against Kyoto?


No, but the point draws an unnecessary contrast. Reducing such emissions was a good idea. Both can be done at once but 'smog' problems should never be sacrificed on the climate change altar. Luckily, they don't need to be. Smog control can reduce efficiency (boost ghgs) and some ghg solutions may not be good for air quality (wood burning) but there are many things that address both.
....
Definitely.
....
I hope not. Current speeches suggest they'll go for double gains (air quality and ghgs) but we'll see.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hmmm actually posted this in the wrong thread - thought it was the nuclear energy thread but this will do - I heard 43% of OPG salaries were over $100k!!!  

••

Anyway DJ - global dimming was an artifact of unrestrained particulates and ameliorated the heating effect by bouncing solar radiation.

In no way should it be considered a positive - the increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gasesmust be targetted and the side effect will be cleaner, clearer air.

Even if the increases are contained the temperature WILL rise 3 degrees or more over the next too short a period so much of the warming is completely irreversable in any kind of human time scale.

Only a massive world project akin to the Manhattan project but on a global scale could actually sequester enough CO2 to reverse the rise that took 300 years or so.

Seeding the Arctic Ocean with iron might be a last ditch technique but it's really raught with peril for the ecosystem.
Tests show it will work.....but the collateral damage could be huge.

My vote goes to energy producing systems that not only sequester their resulting CO2 but actually sequester more. There is some interesting stuff about doing that within large buildings - scrubbing the air emitted FROM the building. 

BTW here's a bit of interesting info about the current coal situation in Ontario

http://www.energyprobe.org/energyprobe/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=15064


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Hmmm actually posted this in the wrong thread - thought it was the nuclear energy thread but this will do - I heard 43% of OPG salaries were over $100k!!!


That's a slightly misleading statement, since what is being called "salary" includes overtime, and there was a massive amount of overtime for OPG employees last year.

That said, they should be learning from that and hiring more employees, and they probably aren't. And (Beej and I have been around this once already) none of that is relevant to the obscene salaries being paid to senior executives. But it's not quite as bad as it sounds to simply make the statement that 43% of OPG salaries were over $100k.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> But it's not quite as bad as it sounds to simply make the statement that 43% of OPG salaries were over $100k.


Also, beyond overtime and executives, experienced engineers and accountants etc. are not cheap. $100k is not an 'expensive' amount depending on what you're talking about. For many positions below the executive level you just can't get experienced people for under $100k. That doesn't mean they should go for the best of everything, but even average experienced people in many areas cost over $100k. Hydro One's top dog, though, gets much more than 'top dogs' at other utilities -- a lot more -- that needs examining closely and apolitcally.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

So why don't people apply for a job at Hydro One instead of complaining??? The salary disclosure legislation had an interesting effect in Ontario in that the rates of salary increases went up as people used other peoples salaries as evidence for why they should be paid more. It was introduced for public sector employees in 1999 or so (public utilities in 2004). CEO's should be willing to justify their salaries and bonuses but the information in the listings does not tell the whole story.

The real comparator is public sector vs private sector. Do we expect public servants to be paid less for the same work? We probably do to some extent. For some reason, people do not complain so much about the rates of executive pay in the private sector. 

Steve Jobs is paid a buck a year (but has taken home a $90 million jet and hundreds of millions in shares).


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

As a matter of fact yes - the trade off for public service is security - if Ontario Hydro were akin to Nortel they would be dead a buried by now.










Risk/reward security has been the traditional trade off private versus public and it's way way out of whack right now - unsustainable.

Ontario Hydro in it's various forms have been a bastion of entitlement and pig troughing at public expense for a couple of decades or more and no government has been gutsy enough to take them on - head on.
Clitheroe was simply the odious flowering of the worst of that which included the board and executives.

I do think McGuinty is slowly grinding away at the excesses but as ever there is a hostage situation as Ontario has a huge energy deficit looming
I have no problem with high pay if the results warrant it and there are risks when failure occurs.......in Hydro's case they simply don't have the risks yet have the reward both in pay scale and pension

Private firms such as GM, airlines etc are being ground down by competitive pressures - look at the mess Air Canada and Canadian were in.
Where is the similar correction for Hydro.?? 

If private pay then private risks. It's not there for Hydro - change long long overdue.


----------

