[cferneyh]

I fundamentally disagree with the idea that just because he's well paid, and doesn't light the lamp like he used to, that it somehow negates his opinions.

Question for you Stephen - let's say you just started working at a place and you found out that a guy more senior than you, let's call him, ummm, Trevor, was the spokesperson for you and your fellow employees. You find out that back in Trevor's heyday, he was quite the worker. He did a great job, and everyone was pleased with him. To top it off, he did a lot of charity work and was well regarded in the community.

Well, fast forward to the present day. It appears that Trevor is washed up. People still like him, and he still does his charity work, but his performance is nowhere near what it used to be. Regardless, he still makes a lot of money. But the economics of the industry have changed, and either everyone is going to have to make some concessions or you're going to have to go to Europe to do the same job, but at one-tenth the pay. But if you made those concessions, you'd still be extremely well paid - just not as insanely well paid as your colleagues were in recent years.

Furthermore, Trevor's stance is that even if it costs jobs because certain divisions in the company will have to fold if a solution isn't found soon - maybe even your division - well that's just tough. Salaries have risen like crazy for the past decade and it should continue to be that way for the ones who get to keep their jobs.

Think about it - this washed up guy who's made his money could potentially cost you your job, and your industry, because he thinks that everything is rosy and will continue to be - despite the fact that your company has lost two major customers (TV and expansion).

Trevor can have his opinion. He's entitled. But is he the guy you really want speaking on your behalf?