He announced the company would be giving less money to employees, and blamed it on some babies, when he's earning, by himself, much more than the two incidents cost, and supposedly presided over a successful quarter.
Seems, if nothing else, a poor way of handling things. Even if you're a "tight-fisted homo-economomicus shareholder" the end result is bad, because in the end his gaffe and the subsequent publicity meant that he reversed the cuts, so the company won't get to keep that money.
I'm not against high pay for executives or that kind of thing, so I'm fine with him making oodles of money if he's doing a good job. Part of doing a good job in that position, though, is not sticking one's foot in one's mouth.
Also: I think there are certainly times when people just try and twist words to score political points, whatever the actual facts. This case doesn't strike me as one of those, really.
He announced the company would be giving less money to employees, and blamed it on some babies...
He announced the company would be giving the same money to employees but the distribution would change: more healthcare (as mandated by Obamacare), less 401k.
Seems, if nothing else, a poor way of handling things. Even if you're a "tight-fisted homo-economomicus shareholder" the end result is bad, because in the end his gaffe and the subsequent publicity meant that he reversed the cuts, so the company won't get to keep that money.
I'm not against high pay for executives or that kind of thing, so I'm fine with him making oodles of money if he's doing a good job. Part of doing a good job in that position, though, is not sticking one's foot in one's mouth.
Also: I think there are certainly times when people just try and twist words to score political points, whatever the actual facts. This case doesn't strike me as one of those, really.