Question

Помогите перевести текст!!! When the public mood changes, the realisation can take time to sink in. Behaviour that was once acceptable can overnight come to be seen as outrageous. The board of GlaxoSmithKline, a big pharmaceutical company, has found itself at the sharp end of such a mood change. Its shareholders voted to reject the company's remuneration committee reptrt, which would have paid Jean Pierre Garnier, its Chief Executive, $35m if he lost his job and treated him and his wife as three years older than they actually are for the purpose of increasing their pensions. The vote is purely advisory, with no binding force. But it leaves the company in a sort of legal limbo. More importantly, it leaves boardrooms everywhere in a difficult position. The message of shareholder discontent with large executive pay packages and poor corporate performance has never been so clear. Company bosses have been slow to understand the new mood of outrage among shareholders. Shareholders have for years accepted that "fat cat" bosses paid themselves more or less whatever they liked. So it is uncomfortable to face criticism. But behind the criticism is a strong feeling that many chief executives are living according to quite a different set of rules from everyone else. Although the value of most large companies has fallen considerably over the last few years, bosses have continued to pay themselves more. The value of their pensions has increased and they have struck lavish deals in the form of "golden parachute" sebverance deals to cushion their fall if they leave. Some of the aspects of Mr Garnier's package that most irritaed the shareholders were ones that appeared to reward not superior performance but simply being there. Lots of bosses have such components in their pay. Of course, companies may set up deals with bosses they no longer want in order to encourage them to go quickly and without a legal fight. But a generous advance promise to reward failure is no way to encourage success. Like the "guaranteed bonus" and the lifetime free dental treatment, it offers chief executives a one-way bet. If the GSK vote makes companies cautious about such deals, that is welcome. The market for chief executives is far from perfect. There is no rate for the job, positions are often quietly filled rather than openly advertised and boardroom search committees rarely ask, "could we get someone equally good even if we paid a bit less?" If the board now has to defend its compensation decisions publicly, it may be easier to say "We'd love to give you a golden parachute but the shareholders would make a fuss." More fuss, please, from shareholders. It's their company, after all.

Answer 1

......................................

Answer 2

When the public mood changes, it can take time for people to fully grasp the implications of that shift. What was once considered acceptable behavior can suddenly be seen as outrageous. This is precisely what the board of GlaxoSmithKline, a major pharmaceutical company, has experienced. Their shareholders voted against the company's remuneration committee report, which included a proposed $35 million payout to Jean Pierre Garnier, the Chief Executive, if he were to lose his job. Additionally, the report suggested treating Garnier and his wife as three years older than their actual age in order to increase their pensions. While this vote is only advisory and lacks binding force, it places the company in a legal limbo of sorts. More significantly, it puts boardrooms everywhere in a difficult position.

This shareholder discontent with exorbitant executive pay packages and poor corporate performance has never been clearer. It seems that company bosses have been slow to comprehend the new wave of outrage among shareholders. For years, shareholders have reluctantly accepted the fact that these "fat cat" bosses awarded themselves extravagant salaries with little accountability. Facing criticism is undoubtedly uncomfortable for them. However, this criticism stems from a strong belief that many chief executives live by a different set of rules than the rest of society. Despite the considerable decrease in the value of most large companies in recent years, bosses continue to increase their own compensation. Their pension values rise, and they secure lavish "golden parachute" severance deals to soften their fall should they leave the company. Shareholders were particularly irked by aspects of Garnier's package that seemed to reward his mere presence rather than outstanding performance. It is not uncommon for other executives to have similar components in their pay structures.

Of course, some companies may establish deals with undesirable bosses to encourage their swift departure without legal battles. However, promising generous rewards for failure is no way to foster success. Offering guaranteed bonuses, lifetime free dental treatment, or advance promises to reward failure only provide chief executives with a one-way bet. If the recent vote against GlaxoSmithKline encourages companies to be more cautious about such deals, it would be a welcome change. The market for chief executives is far from perfect. There is no fixed rate for the job, positions are often filled discreetly rather than through open advertisements, and boardroom search committees rarely ask, "Could we find someone equally competent if we paid slightly less?" If the board now has to publicly defend their compensation decisions, it might be easier for them to say, "We would love to offer you a golden parachute, but the shareholders would object." Shareholders, please make more noise. After all, it is their company.