there is one element tt the gahmen conveniently left out when
justifyin pay for themselves; a company's salary scale too has
range and level. but in SG, a PM & the his kahkia draws a
prefixed salary.
jus becos the ex-ceo earns $2m/yr doesn't mean tt the incoming ceo
must also earn the same amount. it depends on many factors,
including experience he/she brings, the path of growth the company
is in (up or declining), etc. the new person can earn considerably
less than the predecessor. in the recent high profile case, when
what's her name carly was given the pink slip from hp, did the
replacement mark hurd draw the same starting salary with carly? i
doubt so. it's all depend on the individual negotiation.
in the SG gahmen case, it's always benchmarked agst the very top,
if company A or industry sector B's median pay dropped but replaced
by company C and/or industry sector D's median pay, the gahmen can
still argue tt they are benchmarking agst industry leaders (the
latter, i.e.) and hence PAP must keep up becos otherwise they will
lose wise men like Mah BT and who else to the private sector. It's
a one-sided argument with no possibility of finding flaws with tt
argument. if anything, it breeds incompetency with this kind of
blatant, blind type of compensation policy.
