In just the first 2 days of this year Greg E made over what majority of all frontline employees will earn the entire year.
Ponder that for a few moments.
15 replies (most recent on top)
Greg gets paid that because he’s doing a job not many can competently do. It’s the same as why pro athletes get paid based on their rare ability. This is basic stuff people.
Don’t compare your jump shot to Steph Curry’s.
Instead of 100k how about REAL restoration of the 3% that vanished in 2020 and was “restored” the following April… that was a nice magic trick.
We are so close to the real reason why we keep having layoffs. Like almost every year!
Why? Because they use the layoff to justify increasing executive compensation, thats why.
We all suffer to line thier wallets, because it's never enough! We suffer if we get laid off, we suffer when we have to work harder to pick up the tasks of those who were let go. And the icing on the cake? Low merit raises with "You are lucky to have your job, look at all those we just laid off". Helps keep us serfs in line! Now drink your Kool Aide, and like it!
If everybody gets 100k wage increases, home values will rise by hundreds of thousands, and inflation will drive up the price of everything else until we're all in the same situation as we are in today. You would only find it equalizing if only "your" wages were increased.
With regards to the "straight multiplier" question, we'd be pricing professional out of the market. Companies would have no chance of affording them without raising prices massively across the board... leading to inflation again.
I agree with the last poster. In some areas of this country, albeit the higher cost of living areas, I only make twice what minimum wage is here. That’s after picking up years of industry experience and going to college for 6 years. How is it that a 16 year old kid can make half what I am flipping hamburgers at McDonald’s relative to my experience in an industry that has our levels of profit margin?
Inverse log? That’s the problem if so …
Direct multipliers are the fair comparison as your inverse log is the report cause of why people are frustrated.
The reality is your base salary 100k, should be around 200k to be competitive with the economy that older generations enjoyed. These rates have not kept being competitive as CEO culture and move to private equity firm ownership (rather than industry relevant peers) - hence the reason for the outrage.
We all need 100k raises to be honest. It’s the only way back to a an equitable and fair economy.
Either-wise the current corporate system will eat itself.
Or you’ll start to see more Luigi-fying of execs.
My point was simply that saying the executives are overpaid is probably more correct than saying the front line is underpaid. If you aren't comparing like for like across industries and entities, then you're probably hanging out in the philosophical space where everybody is underpaid except the execs. When comparing equivalent roles, Enbridge folks are doing alright.
As for slave labour. I was playing fast and loose with the colloquial term. But you can't just operate on a direct multiplier. It's an inverse log curve. Starts rising fast and flattens off. Making 100k doesn't mean you're 2.5 times as useful or invested as someone making 40k. That $80-120k range is widely filled with diverse professionals.
I don't think you've read Ebel's bio. If you're claiming that 70% of his workforce have the same experience, I don't understand how you got there.
https://www.enbridge.com/About-Us/Executive-Leadership/Gregory-L-Ebel
"Yes, executive pay is out of control and darned near indefensible. But your salary north of $100k hardly means you're slave labour."
Your Tim Hortons frontline worker makes 40K / Year - and that is definetly what we consider slave labor. 100K is still considered a good wage at enbridge, and requires significantly more human capital investment than your average Tim Hortons person. So, that wage is actually 2.5X Slave Labor. Greg Ebel, at 24,000 / day (or 8M year) - so that's 219X Slave Labour compared to TIm Hortons, and 87.6X Slave Labour for an average wage at enbridge. And that's just his salary - not all the granted stock options from the investor overlords.
The OP is making observations on wealth inequality which are true - Greg has the same education as 70% of his workforce, and same experience - but has no impact on the company's operations yet those numbers are atrocious.
Employees being shareholders is an interesting argument - as that denotes 'power' or ability to influence. RBC and Vanguard (private equity) are the biggest share holders and they have the say. And if 'share ownership' grants perks - why aren't employees given a say in things like Mergers / Acquisitions / Layoffs - or heaven forbid "where they work". If I am an owner, why do i have to let Greg tell me where i can or can't work from - I am owner goddarnit! employee stock ownership is a meaningless trivial amount.
We can't even have a valid argument on wealth inequality cause it is so out of balance - employees raises get tagged to inflation and CPI which only ever means execs are paying just enough more to keep your employees head above water, not trying to create an balanced economy. Current leaders are critizicng younger generations for being lazy - they are not lazy, just not buying into the same foolish rubbish we did as investory led ownership took over business.
previous business leaders in older generations understood this, and set pay appropriately.
besides were a consumer based economy, and there is no economy when people don't have money to consume. Anything that raises wages of people (middle class) creates economic oppurtunity - centralizing it at the top creates economies of control.
Who is worth making $58,000 per day and not the owner of a company they built ?
Let’s see in few months how much Greg total comp went up in % compared to 2023 ?
The question of "good wages relative to executives" is incorrect. Extravagance of executive pay is a valid complaint, but most workers not being paid millions is not unfair. No companies can survive if that was their compensation strategy.
And complaining that housing affordability has become ridiculous is true... but also unrelated. It's systemic, but not solvable by hiking wages... which would mean more dollars chasing the same housing, which means home value inflation... which is the cycle we're in.
Yes, executive pay is out of control and darned near indefensible. But your salary north of $100k hardly means you're slave labour.
And almost everybody working as an employee for ENB is a shareholder.
Are we making good wages relative to the executives? I think not.
That is the crux of the argument that you missed. We live in a very inequitable society - and it’s not wrong to point it out.
Sure our wages are better than some companies but let’s be very clear - 100k gets you nowhere anymore. Can’t even get a mortgage on 100k anymore, especially when you factor in price of insurance, vehicles, transportation and the increasing cost we all have to pay for the next development course that does nothing for us.
There is no shame in saying that shareholders and executives are actively fleecing the common man.
You act like this is something unique to Enbridge.
Thanks for your insight, Greg
Calm down, if you are working at ENB you are making a decent wage, good bonus etc, who cares what he makes.
All of you grumpy people, why don’t you just pack up and go to the greener pastures?
Exactly.
Some of you are starting to sound like Canada post workers…
Remeber when Al Monaco during covid made us all take a pay cut. Then he said he also took the same % of a pay cut LOL. My % versus his % is more then a years wage ! Leadership does not care about anyone but filling their pockets with our money!