Thread regarding BP PLC layoffs

Look into DL (Former CEO of BPX) and his buddies. They are toxic and did the same things.

Here is the text of a FT article arguing that BL's forfeit may not be as large as reported:-

https://www.ft.com/content/1148f6a4-3dd6-4869-bb3a-ed62465fc238

Big numbers shock, particularly when it comes to how much executives might possibly earn. Large sums that bosses might possibly have lost can be equally eye-popping. Astonishing headline figures often mask a bathetic reality, however.

Consider Bernard Looney. BP said its former chief executive would forfeit up to £32.4mn for failing to disclose past relationships with colleagues. Looney resigned abruptly in mid-September after admitting he had not been “fully transparent” in previous disclosures.

BP concluded this week that failure amounted to “serious misconduct”, which would affect his pay arrangements. Looney said he was proud of what he achieved as BP’s chief and was “disappointed” at the handling of the situation.

Of the £32.4mn maximum reported, the biggest contributor is the current value of unvested performance share awards. Looney was awarded 5.4mn shares under three plans. BP values these at about £25mn. However, it admitted it did not pro-rate for the date of Looney’s resignation.

Imagine Looney worked for three-quarters of 2023. That would mean under the 2021-23 plan, he only worked 2.75 years. Two other schemes, for 2022-24 and 2023-25, must be adjusted too. On a pro-rata basis, Lex’s back-of-an-envelope calculation suggests those performance shares would today be worth closer to £15.9mn.

Performance share schemes rarely pay out at 100 per cent, though. Over the past 10 years, BP’s performance share plans have paid out at an average of about 56 per cent. Applying that to the pro-rata amount delivers a number closer to £8.9mn than £25mn.

Similar logic also needs to be applied to other elements of Looney’s remuneration, including the £3.3mn maximum potential annual bonus for 2023.

After adjustments, the remaining sum foregone by Looney would be by no means small. But when it comes to pay calculations, words such as “maximum” can do a lot of heavy lifting.

Both parties are adults and knew exactly what they were doing. And both should pay the price. BL had his hobby and they must have been brain dead if they did not know the rules of the game. If they did not have a clue why were they in senior leadership since they have poor situational awareness and judgement The game would not exist if all the women refused to play the game but as long as one says ok im up for it the behavior continues. I am sure bragging about smashing a CEO was just horrible. I just don't understand how a piece of tail could be worth $40 million. nobody has that kind of skill.

Of course the women were complicit and of course they were supposed to declare these relationships as much as he was. "red face test" anyone? "Yeah I'm sleeping with a high ranking exec but he controls my pay, not me his, so he's the one who's supposed to declare it not me". Give me a break. Also, KD's nonsensical message that said "he wasn't the only one controlling promotions so all the women in leadership are there by merit" faces a simple logical fail: knowing the culture in this company, if Bernard sitting in a room said "I think xyz is best for this job" would anyone in that room dare to disagree???? Again - give me a break. The 32m GBP they're denying him is meant to show they're taking a tough stance, to put all the blame on him and move on - all while not addressing the systemic issues that led to this fiasco, nor the board and other senior leaders ignoring his behavior, nor doing anything to the partners that were put in their roles just because he supported them.

I completely agree with the poster who stated this is not playschool. It was suggested in the UK press that some of these women were given promotions by Looney (although he would not be the only decisionmaker). If true, that kind of thing is so annoying for those women who try to progress in the workplace by ability, qualifications and hard work. I wonder how much Looney has had to pay in legal fees to Mishcon de Reya because they are one of the British royal family's main lawyers. BL's ex wife must be laughing her head off after he ditched her by text message, and then she was informed by a BP executive that BL only married her to get the top job. KARMA!!!

BL has paid a price of £30mn, which is commensurate with his abuse of power. The women he was involved in should also be disciplined accordingly. It takes two to tango as mentioned below, and they willingly entered into these affairs. This is not playschool.

What I can't understand with BL is why he didn't just join an executive dating agency. He would be a lot richer, but I suspect BP wanted rid of him, and he gave them a perfect excuse. It will be interesting to see if anyone employs him in future due to the MeToo situation, and he didn't exactly excel in the CEO rule.

The women, maybe men, partners did not violate the Code of Cunduct — BL did!!

The company's code of conduct does not ban personal relationships, but warns staff about potential conflicts of interest such as "having an intimate relationship with someone whose pay, advancement or management you can influence".

I hope the Board goes after DL for his similar bad behavior have illicit relationships with staff.

The women were complicit and taking advantage of the goodies on offer I.e. expensive holidays, best restaurants, luxury Mayfair flat. They also knew the company rules and failed to declare the relationship as required by BP's Code of Conduct.

He was the one abusing a position of power, not them.