Serious, indeed, raising the question of whether the shenanigans, if actual, were confined to the operating department -- just Creel trying to look good to HIS boss -- or may have extended to financial reporting.
Serious, if true. The folks who are making these allegations have an axe to grind. Operations metrics are generally of no interest to the average shareholder. Most don't care if the trains run on time so long as the financials look decent.
I don't doubt for a second about EHH's ability to bring CPRS' financials more in line with the rest of the Class Is. My big question is, what EXACTLY is he doing to GROW the business? As a long-time CPRS employee, I don't see this happening. In fact, I see the opposite.
in railroading as in any business if u only look good u r eating your babies. that is what happened to every other fallen flag. u have to have the long vision to stay viable!
rbanddr,
While railroading is a business with an unusually long time horizon, you also have to live through the short run to get to the long term. It is a balancing act.
Mac
williamsbHow is Kieth Creel related to Hunter Harrison?
As Ulrich pointed out in one of his posts EHH plucked Creel from CN to be his successor at CP. Depending on how the lawsuit goes, that might not have been the best idea.
Bruce
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
Can you define "good"?
How's the safety record?
How many overtime hours does the staff make?
How many money is NOT invested in track and rolling stock maintenance?
Those are all short-term measurements that bring big gains in profit, but will "derail" the business later.
Mr. Hunter is taking 47 million $ as a compensation. you could hire 470 train engineers from that money and prevent fatigue and overtime...So those people doing overtime are throwing the money in the management's pockets.Now please define "very good in what he does". I'm really curious.
with kind regards, Richard Plokhaar Signalsoft Rail Consultancy Ltd. http://www.signalsimulation.com
So the CEO should make nothing?
Ulrich So the CEO should make nothing?
That does happen. IIRC, when Lee Iacoca took the helm at Chrysler he was working for $1.00 a year.
Norm
No, of course not. He can have a decent salary. But 47 Million $ is way over the top.
No normal person can spend that in a year.
For the most part the market decides what you and I and he makes. Sometimes we may not agree with it, but the market reflects what we as a society value. This is why an NFL football player makes a lot more than a physics professor, and why Larry Flint is probably wealthier than Stephen Hawking. Should Harrison make 100,000K? 1 million a year?... 40 million? Should a playboy bunny make way more than a railroad conductor? The market is the market.
Ulrich For the most part the market decides what you and I and he makes. Sometimes we may not agree with it, but the market reflects what we as a society value. This is why an NFL football player makes a lot more than a physics professor, and why Larry Flint is probably wealthier than Stephen Hawking. Should Harrison make 100,000K? 1 million a year?... 40 million? Should a playboy bunny make way more than a railroad conductor? The market is the market.
It isn't simply "the market" that determines salaries, it also is leverage in the "wage bargain" and also what is considered socially acceptable in various countries. In Japan, Germany etc. the ratio of executive salaries to the average worker is around 12 to 1, while in the US (the worst as we typically are) it is around 400 to 1. Recall, one of the reasons the Daimler/ Chrysler merger did not work is that in Germany it is not considered socially acceptable for an executive to make multiple millions, and at that time Robert Eaton and his fellow executives wouldn't take a pay cut from (for Eaton, from $17m to below $1 million). Is an American executive worth 17 times what a German executive is, i.e. is his value 17 times more? Not likely. His salary is due (IMHO) mostly to the general anti-regulation mood that doesn't exist almost anywhere else, and to weak labor unions. Stock market manipulations (which as we can see with the Creel example does not necessarily reflect a real improvement to the company's operations) etc. are not monitored as closely here, and collusion between stockholders and the executives lead to a socially wasteful outcome. I am curious how the $47m goes over in Canada, where most CP profits come from, the ratio there is about 20 to 1, much lower than the US.
plokky Can you define "good"? How's the safety record? How many overtime hours does the staff make? How many money is NOT invested in track and rolling stock maintenance? Those are all short-term measurements that bring big gains in profit, but will "derail" the business later. Mr. Hunter is taking 47 million $ as a compensation. you could hire 470 train engineers from that money and prevent fatigue and overtime...So those people doing overtime are throwing the money in the management's pockets.Now please define "very good in what he does". I'm really curious.
DwightBranch Ulrich For the most part the market decides what you and I and he makes. Sometimes we may not agree with it, but the market reflects what we as a society value. This is why an NFL football player makes a lot more than a physics professor, and why Larry Flint is probably wealthier than Stephen Hawking. Should Harrison make 100,000K? 1 million a year?... 40 million? Should a playboy bunny make way more than a railroad conductor? The market is the market. It isn't simply "the market" that determines salaries, it also is leverage in the "wage bargain" and also what is considered socially acceptable in various countries. In Japan, Germany etc. the ratio of executive salaries to the average worker is around 12 to 1, while in the US (the worst as we typically are) it is around 400 to 1. Recall, one of the reasons the Daimler/ Chrysler merger did not work is that in Germany it is not considered socially acceptable for an executive to make multiple millions, and at that time Robert Eaton and his fellow executives wouldn't take a pay cut from (for Eaton, from $17m to below $1 million). Is an American executive worth 17 times what a German executive is, i.e. is his value 17 times more? Not likely. His salary is due (IMHO) mostly to the general anti-regulation mood that doesn't exist almost anywhere else, and to weak labor unions. Stock market manipulations (which as we can see with the Creel example does not necessarily reflect a real improvement to the company's operations) etc. are not monitored as closely here, and collusion between stockholders and the executives lead to a socially wasteful outcome. I am curious how the $47m goes over in Canada, where most CP profits come from, the ratio there is about 20 to 1, much lower than the US.
It's still mostly about the market. Sure, there are other factors i.e. social acceptability, union bargaining powers that may indirectly affect what a CEO gets etc. But on the whole Harrison's pay is based on what the owners of CP (the shareholders) figure he's worth. He didn't put a gun to anyone's head... CP could have said no to his compensation requirements. Check out what other CEOS at other companies make. His pay is not out of line with what a CEO makes at a large Fortune 500 co. Sure, maybe he should make less, and maybe NFL football players should cap out at 40K a year. Look at what Tiger Woods gets for beating a little white ball around.
As someone stated "good" a definition of "good" would be on it's place, I think...
I don't disguise anything with asking legit questions from what I think (and not only me), belongs to the definition of "good": a great safety record.
CN currently has a poor safety record compared to other railways on the world (like Europe with much lover incident rates).
The CEO does great things for the shareholders (more profit) and therefore they pay him a LOT of money to get even MORE profit. By getting a worse safety record over time and "sweating the assets" by saving on maintenance. The poor records with incidents indicate that.
And CN is not alone. There are more of those poor managed companies around.When I see the infrastructure in North America I see tons of tracks in extremely poor condition. Primitive operations, wonky cars everywhere (and I've been around).
Safety at those companies is not a #1 thing. Any $ spend on infrastructure is a "cost center". Any $ saved there, brings more profit. So stuff like train control systems and signalling systems are not a high priority. And a derailment like in Casselton, ND only "cost" about 4-5 Million $. revamping all DOT-111 cars cost a multitude of a derailment. So from a corporate risk management perspective you shouldn't invest in something that is only causing "little damage".
Now this is somewhat logic, as they are companies and companies must make profit to survive. As simple as that. But, like in the petro-chemical and aviation industry: it's not working like that anymore. Lac-Mégantic, QC taught us another lesson. People can die in incidents.And even how pride you are on "even lower incidents" statistically, one incident where people die or are injured will result in enormous repercussions to the "system of railway".
So away with the witty statistics of safety improvements. The core problem is the Safety Management System. And the way it is NOT lived by the management. And how the operational staff are struggling to do their work right with the systems they (don't) have. So there is nothing to disguise. A good manager, above all a CEO, especially in a railway company should be the safety guru over all. Hence the request "the CEO is doing good" should be defined, and me asking for a definition of "good".It should be "good for all" and not only for the pockets of the shareholders.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.