Should Eskom pay bonuses?

Should Eskom pay bonuses?

  • Yes

    Votes: 16 7.4%

  • No

    Votes: 201 92.6%
  • Total voters
    217
2012 said:
If those working hard are hitting targets to getting eskom back on track (to a point where they are ahead of schedule) then why not?
Click to expand...
When there is an effort made to mitigate load shedding
When there is an effort made to reduce the 100% overstaffing
When there is an effort made to collect from non-paying customers
When there is an effort made to remove illegal connections
When there is an effort made to root out corruption
When there is an effort made to have correct tender practices
When there is an effort made to stick to contracts and not pay contractors to be years and billions over budget
When there us an effort to allow for IPP's, especially "green" producers, to contribute to the grid

Then maybe, just maybe, some people are doing their job.
 
The guy who turns the power off and on every time must be back from holiday
 
Dairyfarmer said:
It doesn't get any more binary than : R450 BILLION in debt + R1 BILLION extra debt every month = Sweet F All bonuses!!!!! I don't care that John in the tea room is doing his job. Why must taxpayers keep footing the bill for Eskom management incompetence, and the absolute failure of the ANC to do anything to improve SA?
Click to expand...

Why? Because if you ever hope for them to dig themselves out of the hole they're in, they're going to need some mechanism to retain those in the company who are actually doing something.

No. No profit no bonus. Way it works in 90100% of private business's
Click to expand...

This is false.
 
cguy said:
Why? Because if you ever hope for them to dig themselves out of the hole they're in, they're going to need some mechanism to retain those in the company who are actually doing something.
Click to expand...

This is what some people here don't seem to realize. If Eskom was not a monopoly and the government allowed other competitors in the sector, it'd make sense to have a more hardline approach to bonuses and staff retention as consumers would have alternative options. As it is, Eskom is a monopoly which is on its knees as a result of bad management and looting. Some of the employees are active participants and drag the business down. Other employees actively work to keep things running under the most difficult of circumstances (imagine working for Eskom at this point in time). The third lot just punch in, do what they need to do and collect their pay checks. Eskom should get rid of group 1, incentivise group 2 (bonuses, increments) and pacify group 3. Group 2 should definitely be getting bonuses, if they leave the situation will get a whole lot worse than it already is.
 
sjm said:
This is what some people here don't seem to realize. If Eskom was not a monopoly and the government allowed other competitors in the sector, it'd make sense to have a more hardline approach to bonuses and staff retention as consumers would have alternative options. As it is, Eskom is a monopoly which is on its knees as a result of bad management and looting. Some of the employees are active participants and drag the business down. Other employees actively work to keep things running under the most difficult of circumstances (imagine working for Eskom at this point in time). The third lot just punch in, do what they need to do and collect their pay checks. Eskom should get rid of group 1, incentivise group 2 (bonuses, increments) and pacify group 3. Group 2 should definitely be getting bonuses, if they leave the situation will get a whole lot worse than it already is.
Click to expand...
Yup. I definitely have concerns about any bonus pool being attributed correctly, however, there is this tendency for people to simplistically view Eskom as a single entity that needs to be punished or at least not-rewarded, when in fact it is made of many people, some doing critical work, who could quite easily simply change jobs if their compensation drops 33%.

The fact that this dynamic exists at all is as you say due to the enforced monopoly. If this wasn’t the case, said competent individuals would most likely move between power companies and not out of the industry/country when their livelihood is threatened.
 
cguy said:
Yup. I definitely have concerns about any bonus pool being attributed correctly, however, there is this tendency for people to simplistically view Eskom as a single entity that needs to be punished or at least not-rewarded, when in fact it is made of many people, some doing critical work, who could quite easily simply change jobs if their compensation drops 33%.

The fact that this dynamic exists at all is as you say due to the enforced monopoly. If this wasn’t the case, said competent individuals would most likely move between power companies and not out of the industry/country when their livelihood is threatened.
Click to expand...

Noone spoke about dropping compensation, a bonus is not compensation, it is extra, hence the word "bonus". If they were really concerned about retaining critical skills, there would be a key person program but you know what? That doesn't fit the narrative of everyone being paid the same regardless. Equality is not just, its lowering everyone to the same common denominator and stifles innovation or a desire to perform.
 
Kosmik said:
Noone spoke about dropping compensation, a bonus is not compensation, it is extra, hence the word "bonus". If they were really concerned about retaining critical skills, there would be a key person program but you know what? That doesn't fit the narrative of everyone being paid the same regardless. Equality is not just, its lowering everyone to the same common denominator and stifles innovation or a desire to perform.
Click to expand...

Of course a bonus is compensation.

Oxford Dictionary:
3. North American The money received by an employee from an employer as a salary or wages.
  • ‘The shift means that more of an employee's compensation comes from bonuses, commissions, profit sharing, or stock options, and less from salaries.’
  • ‘Overall employee compensation has gone up - but mostly due to a surge in bonuses and stock-option exercises.’
A performance bonus is equivalent to a key person program if implemented correctly.
 
They is lots of deserving employees at Eskom that should get a bonus, it is some of the management that should'nt get bonuses. They is good people in management and lower engineering posts.

To add to that the loadshedding issues is because of the goverment. Eskom 21 years ago asked the goverment for funds to build new power stations, they refused, they only gave them funds 9 years later when we first experienced "load shedding v1.0" when it was too late.

Overall, if I had the deciding vote they wouldnt get bonuses painly because they the company doesnt have spare cash.
 
cguy said:
Of course a bonus is compensation.

Oxford Dictionary:
3. North American The money received by an employee from an employer as a salary or wages.
  • ‘The shift means that more of an employee's compensation comes from bonuses, commissions, profit sharing, or stock options, and less from salaries.’
  • ‘Overall employee compensation has gone up - but mostly due to a surge in bonuses and stock-option exercises.’
A performance bonus is equivalent to a key person program if implemented correctly.
Click to expand...

As it states, North American. And no, performance is not the same as key person, one is based on performance and the other on the persons role, scarcity or experiance.
 
Kosmik said:
As it states, North American. And no, performance is not the same as key person, one is based on performance and the other on the persons role, scarcity or experiance.
Click to expand...

Sigh. I somehow knew you would say that. The only definition of compensation as referring to salary or wages is North American, the others refer to payment for injury and such.

A performance bonus typically factors in the value of the individual to the company as a whole, so yes, it is the same. You give those you want to keep something extra.

You seem to be absolutely hellbent on missing the point. Good night.
 
cguy said:
Sigh. I somehow knew you would say that. The only definition of compensation as referring to salary or wages is North American, the others refer to payment for injury and such.

A performance bonus typically factors in the value of the individual to the company as a whole, so yes, it is the same. You give those you want to keep something extra.

You seem to be absolutely hellbent on missing the point. Good night.
Click to expand...

Not really, I can talk from both sides personally as I've been a member of such a program as well as going through difficult times TOGETHER with a company where sacrifices are made. I stand by the simple fact, if there is no money, one cannot give it. Say what you want about getting more debt, that might have worked if this was a fresh situation but it's years and years of incompetence, corruption and mismanagement.

No reason why other incentives can't be offered, that kick in upon success, spuring employees on more as they have a personal stake in turning the company around, besides the normal paycheck. That's one of the reasons for the bigger push in granting employees shares or stakes in a company, so that they take personal responsibility for their actions and incentives.

Have a good one.
 
cguy said:
This isn’t so binary: They should pay bonuses to those who are doing their jobs well, and not to those who don’t.

The above is regardless of profit. The better the company does, the larger the bonus pool becomes, but you never want to lose your best employees because the company isn’t doing well over all.

That said, I doubt that there is R1.8B of justifiable bonus there right now - probably low hundreds of millions.
Click to expand...
Best employees are loooong gone.
 
My feeling is that a bonus is only given when the company does well and / or the person getting the bonus achieved measurable goals. Conditionally it can also be based on a companies performance which it usually is.

I am all for annual increases to meet inflation for employees even in a failing business like Eskom because essentially not even meeting inflation will have the effect of driving away staff. I don't believe they will lose any "good" skill at Eskom because they would be working anywhere else for much more. Eskom's track record over the last several years shows that they are in desperate need of good skills.

Should Eskom pay bonuses? Definitely not.
 
The problem I see is that you won't be able to give to only the real top performers. Money should also rather be spent on trimming the fat. They need to find a way to get rid of the dead weight while retaining the people they actually need and who do their jobs. The very real danger is that they lose their best people.

stefan9 said:
No. No profit no bonus. Way it works in 90% of private business's.
Click to expand...
And its totally counterproductive. I've seen over and over the detrimental impact on morale and subsequent performance. Either people stay, but no longer bother to put in any extra effort, because why should they, or the best people go elsewhere and the company ends up with their least effective employees being their entire staff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X