1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Title: Swiss people to vote on limiting execs to be paid no more than 12 times the lowest paid employee
Category: World
Posted By: Public_Domain
Date: 2013-11-22 11:46:49

   

Hope this starts a chain reaction...

   

Duhhh, it already failed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25076879


Sorry for you and your pink bros.

   

Even if it did fail 35% of the population voting for such a thing and earlier votes in the year limiting bonuses and retirement packages it shows a trend that seems to be cropping up all over the developed world.

It's no coincidence that the occupy movement, fast food worker protests and general sentiments about the top earners making too much money are gaining traction. I think governments are going to have to be very careful in future about tax breaks for the rich in this environment.

   

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that senior executives are more than 12 times more valuable to the company than the lowest level employees.

   

400 times, as in the US? Legislation is not the way to address this situation, but something needs to be done.

   

I'd agree and say that 12 times is too low.

After all, if you lowest paid worker is making $10/hr x 40 hours/week ($20k/year), then max salary would be $240K. Given that higher ups often make decisions affecting millions or even billions of dollars, I'd say that's far too low. One of the reasons that CEOs and executives make so much money is because they make the big decisions that run the company.

But 50 times ($1 million per year) or even 100 times ($2 million) I think would be fair. Anything over and above that should be tied to performance - did valuation/profits/productivity/etc increase? Likewise, if they fall, CEOs should take a bit of a hit just like the rank and file do (who usually see layoffs and/or reduced hours/benefits).

As the saying goes, with risk comes reward.

   

Especially if those employees are leftists.

   

It's what I like to call "Don't buy their products . . ."

   

No, the 'something that needs to be done' is for leftards to start their own businesses, pay their employees a 'living wage', limit their own compensation to their own self-imposed limits, and then show the rest of us how well it works.

If it works at all, that is.

   

It does. I know of one company (there are others) in town that makes Excercise Equipment. The guy that owns it is known for paying his employees well, and any profit the company makes is donated to chairity.

I buy his stuff.

http://www.flaman.com/foundation/news.php

   

It depends on your angle the size of your company. We only have 135 employees where I work and the CEO is payed about 18 times what some of our lowest staff are paid but the clients and the events have way more contact with the lower levels of employees then then ever do with decisions the CEO makes.

His big contribution of late....ensuring all the lights in the building are converted over to automatic sensors and paying us possible OT every night to make sure an entire two small 60 watt lights are turned off in the top floors of the building to save an entire 50 cents overnight.

Meanwhile myself and the staff are often dealing directly with the sponsors of the building and making sure everything goes smoothly for them while the CEO is focused on converting tiny things in the building to save 25 cents a day.

You can imagine how popular he is at work when most of us feel he should be dealing directly with the sponsors himself and focusing on getting more events and shows booked into the building.

For some reason I have this crazy idea that CEOs should be focusing on ways to make the building money rather then micromanaging every detail that won't even save enough money to pay for his 6 figure salary.

   

I know multiple business owners that do just that. If you choose to be so blind as to just ignore their exsistence and insist that companies are justified in paying their employees so little that some of them have a hard time even getting enough to eat (http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2 ... employees/).

I actually avoid shopping in certain places if they pay their employees crap wages and will pay extra in some places knowing I'm giving money to those who create good full time employment.

You vote with your wallet every-time you purchase something even if you don't know it.

   

In the US, Costco, for instance manages to pay their employees a decent wage, while Walmarts have to have food drives for their employees because they are paid so little.

   

In addition to not beggaring their employees Costco doesn't rape their vendors with unfair, one-sided contracts that force the vendors to close their North American plants and outsource to China.

   

1  2  3  4  5  6  Next