I don't have a problem with job cuts when it's cheaper to move that labour elsewhere; I understand that we need to find other ways to compete in this global environment when our labour costs are relatively high. However, they were receiving significant government contributions – at least partially to keep jobs here – and it seems difficult to justify outsourcing when your government is providing an offset to the reduced costs it brings.

Further, it's difficult to understand a *doubling* of at least some of the directors salaries in a year. (The media bite was “total remuneration for 13 directors salaries more than doubled last year”.) Even if that included a couple of promotions that's still an order of magnitude above what I would estimate as average. Especially in a 'bad' year.

Finally, the decision to make the job cuts *and* large pay rises at the same time is inexcusable. Surely it was obvious this would cause an outrage in the public? What were they thinking? Had they first axed the jobs and then, a couple of months later, adjusted salaries, there would be no huge outcry. Perhaps the share price wouldn't have been hammered so much.

Now, I've only really read a few things about this issue and most of it from mainstream media which I agree is not unbiased. However, these points seemed pretty clear. Am I misinformed?

I don't have a problem with job cuts when it's cheaper to move that labour elsewhere; I understand that we need to find other ways to compete in this global environment when our labour costs are relatively high. However, they were receiving significant government contributions – at least partially to keep jobs here – and it seems difficult to justify outsourcing when your government is providing an offset to the reduced costs it brings.

Further, it's difficult to understand a *doubling* of at least some of the directors salaries in a year. (The media bite was “total remuneration for 13 directors salaries more than doubled last year”.) Even if that included a couple of promotions that's still an order of magnitude above what I would estimate as average. Especially in a 'bad' year.

Finally, the decision to make the job cuts *and* large pay rises at the same time is inexcusable. Surely it was obvious this would cause an outrage in the public? What were they thinking? Had they first axed the jobs and then, a couple of months later, adjusted salaries, there would be no huge outcry. Perhaps the share price wouldn't have been hammered so much.

Now, I've only really read a few things about this issue and most of it from mainstream media which I agree is not unbiased. However, these points seemed pretty clear. Am I misinformed?

I don't have a problem with job cuts when it's cheaper to move that labour elsewhere; I understand that we need to find other ways to compete in this global environment when our labour costs are relatively high. However, they were receiving significant government contributions – at least partially to keep jobs here – and it seems difficult to justify outsourcing when your government is providing an offset to the reduced costs it brings.

Further, it's difficult to understand a *doubling* of at least some of the directors salaries in a year. (The media bite was “total remuneration for 13 directors salaries more than doubled last year”.) Even if that included a couple of promotions that's still an order of magnitude above what I would estimate as average. Especially in a 'bad' year.

Finally, the decision to make the job cuts *and* large pay rises at the same time is inexcusable. Surely it was obvious this would cause an outrage in the public? What were they thinking? Had they first axed the jobs and then, a couple of months later, adjusted salaries, there would be no huge outcry. Perhaps the share price wouldn't have been hammered so much.

Now, I've only really read a few things about this issue and most of it from mainstream media which I agree is not unbiased. However, these points seemed pretty clear. Am I misinformed?