Off Topic Archive

Locked: Toronto Star: Ex-Hydro One head fights to increase $25,000 monthly pension

  • Last Updated:
  • Jun 9th, 2010 1:17 am
Tags:
None
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jul 4, 2004
6907 posts
338 upvotes

Toronto Star: Ex-Hydro One head fights to increase $25,000 monthly pension

"Eight years after being ousted as head of Hydro One Inc., Eleanor Clitheroe is immersed in a new life as an Anglican priest. But it doesn’t require a vow of poverty.

The Ontario government believes she is entitled to a monthly pension of $25,637.08.

But Clitheroe, who earned $2.2 million in 2001, her last full year as the utility’s chief executive officer, argues she should receive considerably more — $33,644.21 a month."

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article ... nsion?bn=1

The next time you look at a Hydro bill, remember this.
Share:
24 replies
Deal Addict
Apr 1, 2004
1582 posts
28 upvotes
Lawyers for Hydro One say the legislation stripped away special pension arrangements Clitheroe negotiated when she joined what was then called Ontario Hydro in 1993. They included two and, in some cases, three years of credited service for every year actually worked.
Regardless of whether CEO pay is too high, personally, I find the idea of the legislature retroactively and unilaterally repudiating a negotiated employment contract much more distasteful
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 27, 2006
1006 posts
4 upvotes
I hope as an Anglican priest she puts 10% back into the church as her tithe. :twisted:
Member
Jul 16, 2006
311 posts
30 upvotes
Disguisting. This whole system is predicated on theft and exploitation.
Deal Addict
Jun 18, 2007
1062 posts
10 upvotes
This is an old story and remnant of the Ontario PC's failed attempt to privatize Hydro One.

Her claim is that that denying her pension entitlement amounts to a violation of her right to not be deprived of liberty under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms...

The trial judge ruling was that governments can divest people of vested rights if it is done in “clear, unequivocal and unambiguous” terms and they don’t infringe a person’s Charter rights in doing so.

Her claim is that it wasn't. Despite the fact that I think CEOs are overpaid and that our goverment/corporate leadership is corrupt, I think she is right and the judge is wrong.

Denying people are their vested rights sets a very dangerous precedent....if she would frame her public stance like this, I think she would garner public support, instead she looks like a greedy pig.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Sep 10, 2009
10900 posts
394 upvotes
GT&A
This plus HST.....
troll: someone you dislike, fear or do not comprehend...
11b guide
When the doorbell rings, it's just a request. You are not a dog, it is not a command, only a request. You are not in church, you are at home. No guilt.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 29, 2006
1679 posts
16 upvotes
Toronto
"Hallelujah! Let us give thanks to the almighty dollar. Forever and ever. Amen."
Deal Expert
May 17, 2008
15134 posts
152 upvotes
I don't think any employer should have the ability to unilaterally change details of a legal employment contract, even if you are the government.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jan 26, 2004
1923 posts
15 upvotes
I remember this dumbass. She had no idea what she was doing, she was far from qualified. But somehow they appointed her and gave her a big paycheque. They should be asking for her to give money back, like with Mulroney!
Deal Expert
May 17, 2008
15134 posts
152 upvotes
krash322 wrote:
Jun 5th, 2010 4:56 pm
I remember this dumbass. She had no idea what she was doing, she was far from qualified. But somehow they appointed her and gave her a big paycheque. They should be asking for her to give money back, like with Mulroney!
There were people who had issue with her salary, and there was the allegation that she used Hydro One workers to renovate her house, but I don't know why you would think she is unqualified for her job.

She has two law degrees and an MBA. She was a VP at CIBC, then the Deputy Minister(which means she was the functional head of the department) of Finance for Ontario, then CFO at Ontario Hydro for 5 years before taking over as CEO when they changed to Hydro One. Where are the holes in her credentials?
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Apr 24, 2006
9866 posts
577 upvotes
Calgary
BornRuff wrote:
Jun 5th, 2010 7:52 pm
There were people who had issue with her salary, and there was the allegation that she used Hydro One workers to renovate her house, but I don't know why you would think she is unqualified for her job.

She has two law degrees and an MBA. She was a VP at CIBC, then the Deputy Minister(which means she was the functional head of the department) of Finance for Ontario, then CFO at Ontario Hydro for 5 years before taking over as CEO when they changed to Hydro One. Where are the holes in her credentials?
Just because she received those positions, doesn't mean she is qualified. On paper maybe, but realistically no.

I'm sorry, but regardless of ANY situations, a pension of thousands, yet alone 25k+ a MONTH is more than enough. Anyone who wants more, should be banished, I'm dead serious. She is just a plain moron for thinking she deserves anymore than a few thousand a month. Just because your book smart, doesn't mean your qualified for ANY position.
RFD Users who tell it like it is and aren't sheltered by society's wet blanket:
Syne, a-tree, Shaner, Peckerwood, Anonymouse, Cas77, arisk
arisk wrote:
Oct 15th, 2011 7:45 pm
Banning proper use in a forum such as this simply perpetuates the problem by reinforcing the perspective that all uses of a word are negative.
KorruptioN wrote:
Oct 29th, 2010 9:11 pm
She must be better than all of us real men, at any cost. Feel like talking down to people who don't fit in her narrow-minded demographic? She's got it in spades.
Deal Expert
May 17, 2008
15134 posts
152 upvotes
Tijuana wrote:
Jun 5th, 2010 8:00 pm
Just because she received those positions, doesn't mean she is qualified. On paper maybe, but realistically no.
What reasons would you give for saying she is not qualified? How did she get so many high level positions in both the public and private sector, and keep them for so long, without being effective in those jobs?
Tijuana wrote:
Jun 5th, 2010 8:00 pm
I'm sorry, but regardless of ANY situations, a pension of thousands, yet alone 25k+ a MONTH is more than enough. Anyone who wants more, should be banished, I'm dead serious. She is just a plain moron for thinking she deserves anymore than a few thousand a month. Just because your book smart, doesn't mean your qualified for ANY position.
It is none of our business to judge what is "enough" for anyone. It's about living up to the conditions that were offered to her to get her to take the job in the first place.

If I tell you that I will give you 200 bucks to do 8 hours of work in my garden, and then after you are done, I say "well, you should be able to get by fine on 100 dollars, so I'm just going to give you that." you would likely be pissed. It doesn't matter what you can get by on, it matters that I convinced you to work for 200 dollars, and you have unilaterally changed that.

The fact is that her pension was a HUGE part of her compensation package, and having it unilaterally reduced is wrong. She could have made many times more in direct salary, and had more money saved up has she stayed in the private sector.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Apr 24, 2006
9866 posts
577 upvotes
Calgary
BornRuff wrote:
Jun 5th, 2010 9:24 pm
What reasons would you give for saying she is not qualified? How did she get so many high level positions in both the public and private sector, and keep them for so long, without being effective in those jobs?
Getting a job is about who you know. Doesn't mean your any more qualified than anyone else, but if you have an in, then your usually set.
BornRuff wrote:
Jun 5th, 2010 9:24 pm
It is none of our business to judge what is "enough" for anyone. It's about living up to the conditions that were offered to her to get her to take the job in the first place.

If I tell you that I will give you 200 bucks to do 8 hours of work in my garden, and then after you are done, I say "well, you should be able to get by fine on 100 dollars, so I'm just going to give you that." you would likely be pissed. It doesn't matter what you can get by on, it matters that I convinced you to work for 200 dollars, and you have unilaterally changed that.

The fact is that her pension was a HUGE part of her compensation package, and having it unilaterally reduced is wrong. She could have made many times more in direct salary, and had more money saved up has she stayed in the private sector.
Except this is tax payers money. Enough is being wasted on the G20 and G8 summits, corporate greed needs to end, especially when the money is coming from the government.
RFD Users who tell it like it is and aren't sheltered by society's wet blanket:
Syne, a-tree, Shaner, Peckerwood, Anonymouse, Cas77, arisk
arisk wrote:
Oct 15th, 2011 7:45 pm
Banning proper use in a forum such as this simply perpetuates the problem by reinforcing the perspective that all uses of a word are negative.
KorruptioN wrote:
Oct 29th, 2010 9:11 pm
She must be better than all of us real men, at any cost. Feel like talking down to people who don't fit in her narrow-minded demographic? She's got it in spades.
Member
Mar 23, 2010
212 posts
Montreal
Tijuana wrote:
Jun 5th, 2010 8:00 pm
I'm sorry, but regardless of ANY situations, a pension of thousands, yet alone 25k+ a MONTH is more than enough. Anyone who wants more, should be banished, I'm dead serious. She is just a plain moron for thinking she deserves anymore than a few thousand a month. Just because your book smart, doesn't mean your qualified for ANY position.
Aren't pensions calculated as per income earned during an individual's tenure in a given position? The idiots who agreed to her pay, agreed to her pension. Clearly, she's not the moron. They are. Consider it an expensive lesson learned.
Deal Expert
May 17, 2008
15134 posts
152 upvotes
Tijuana wrote:
Jun 5th, 2010 9:32 pm
Getting a job is about who you know. Doesn't mean your any more qualified than anyone else, but if you have an in, then your usually set.
Well, she is obviously more qualified than the average person with all her education and experience.

Knowing people is important, but that only gets your foot in the door. It doesn't let you stick around in a very important job like CFO for 5 years and then get you promoted to CEO. It doesn't matter if you know people, if you are not performing, the board will kick you out.
Tijuana wrote:
Jun 5th, 2010 9:32 pm
Except this is tax payers money. Enough is being wasted on the G20 and G8 summits, corporate greed needs to end, especially when the money is coming from the government.
The G20 and G8 were not anywhere on the radar when she was working for the government. The government should certainly exercise as much restraint as possible when negotiating compensation for workers. If they want to keep costs down though, they should do it up front. Tell the workers up front what they will be paid, not offer them very generous contracts and then scale them back afterwards.
× < >

Top