I was pleased to learn that BT and the Communication Workers’ Union have come to an agreement on pay, thus avoiding strikes. Perhaps it’s the good weather that’s put everyone in a conciliatory mood.

People Management reported on Friday that an “unprecedented” 9.3 per cent pay increase over 39 months has been agreed between the company and the union. BT’s initial offer – a 2 per cent rise this year and 3 per cent next year, plus a lump sum payment – had been rejected by the union.

Given current market and economic conditions, an annual increase of around 3 per cent is pretty impressive. Indeed, perhaps even a risk on BT’s part. The double-dip believers out there would have us think that while the worst may not be yet to come, we may at least see a return of the… even the basic argument causes me to lose the will to finish that sentence.

But the thing that tweaked my interest about the new BT pay deal was to do with how much its directors get paid. Now of course company executives and directors get paid a lot - and for very good reason. But having recently trawled through a number of company reports while researching a feature, it’s the year-on-year hikes that really stand out.

Against a backdrop of quibbling over a 2 or 3 per cent pay rise for the rank and file, from 2009 to 2010, BT CEO Ian Livingston’s total remuneration package increased from £1.174 million to £2.105 million. Not only that, but Gavin Patterson, chief executive, retail, increased his from £698,000 to £1.113 million; and Hanif Lalani, director, global services, went from £805,000 to £1.166 million… in fact, barring those that were either recently appointed or recently retired, all the directors seemed to have got rather large reward increases.

I should be quick to point out that BT is by no means unusual in this regard. Most companies I’ve looked at have acted similarly. And a 1 per cent pay increase to several thousand workers affects the bottom line rather more than upping a handful of directors’ pay by several per cent. Yet the year-on-year-on-year increases in executive pay across big business appear self-perpetuating. As one company does it, the others feel they have to do the same to keep pace. Meanwhile, quaint notions such as David Cameron’s 20:1 pay differentials seem further removed from reality. I don’t ask why we are paying our directors such extravagant sums. I ask, why are we raising the bar every year?