I know that in the industry I work in, that CEOs are expected to predominantly be remunerated with long-term share incentives rather than cash, aligning the bosses' aims with that of the company and its staff. NYSE companies (and I think FTSE companies already do this) are now required to disclose the median employee's salary against that of the CEO as a means to a) show whether or not their pay is massively out of kilter and b) to stop rival companies being seen to poorly pay their employees/over pay their CEOs. The number of shareholders who are rejecting pay packages for senior staff is also encouraging.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that they are rejecting these packages but in most cases they are still being pushed though. The law does not go far enough there needs to be a system that is fit for purpose in that. For example BP shareholders rejected the CEO salary but oops it was non binding so it didn't matter anyway https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/14/bp-pledge-shareholder-anger-ceo-bob-dudleypay-deal
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Maximum Wage Law - Corbyn
- Thread starter SWP's back
- Start date
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
Unless you are a PLC it is non of my business, but the mistake that you are making is that theses companies are ones which members of the general public have a vested interest either as a shareholder or in a pension scheme that has shares in these companies.
No, the mistake YOU are making is that as a shareholder, you can go to the AGM and vote against pay awards, or sell your shares and invest elsewhere. Or change your pension fund. Up to you.
And if you have no shares, or no pensions invested with them, then yes you are right it's none of your business.
It never ceases to amaze me how football supporters are fine with us signing Aguero and paying him £200k a week, but if a company wants to have the best talent, it's a terrible sin to pay their chief exec 1/10th of that amount.
blueish swede
Well-Known Member
As a law it would be unworkable but as a ethical measure to pressure companies to fairer distribution of revenue it may have some merits. Ethical guidelines would allow ordinary people to make better informed choices as to where to invest their pensions/ savings and where to spend their money.
A fixed monetary limit wouldn't be imposed - instead executive pay could be linked to the minimum hourly rate the company pays on an ethical pay gap scale. As an example:
If a company pays minimum wage to it's lowest paid workers then the maximum hourly rate a CEO should receive according to the rules would be (e.g.) 20x minimum wage. Paying more would be flagged as unethical.
If a company pays minimum wage plus 50% to it's lowest paid workers then the CEO could, on the ethical scale, receive 40x minimum wage and still be OK.
All bonuses would be included in calculating the hourly rate of the Excecutives. This would encourage increases in the lowest rates of pay by allowing more reward for the executives.
By paying your window cleaners 2K/hour you would be able to earn 3.2M/week for a 40 hour week!
A fixed monetary limit wouldn't be imposed - instead executive pay could be linked to the minimum hourly rate the company pays on an ethical pay gap scale. As an example:
If a company pays minimum wage to it's lowest paid workers then the maximum hourly rate a CEO should receive according to the rules would be (e.g.) 20x minimum wage. Paying more would be flagged as unethical.
If a company pays minimum wage plus 50% to it's lowest paid workers then the CEO could, on the ethical scale, receive 40x minimum wage and still be OK.
All bonuses would be included in calculating the hourly rate of the Excecutives. This would encourage increases in the lowest rates of pay by allowing more reward for the executives.
By paying your window cleaners 2K/hour you would be able to earn 3.2M/week for a 40 hour week!
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 88,794
Not a bad idea that on relating exec pay to worker wage.As a law it would be unworkable but as a ethical measure to pressure companies to fairer distribution of revenue it may have some merits. Ethical guidelines would allow ordinary people to make better informed choices as to where to invest their pensions/ savings and where to spend their money.
A fixed monetary limit wouldn't be imposed - instead executive pay could be linked to the minimum hourly rate the company pays on an ethical pay gap scale. As an example:
If a company pays minimum wage to it's lowest paid workers then the maximum hourly rate a CEO should receive according to the rules would be (e.g.) 20x minimum wage. Paying more would be flagged as unethical.
If a company pays minimum wage plus 50% to it's lowest paid workers then the CEO could, on the ethical scale, receive 40x minimum wage and still be OK.
All bonuses would be included in calculating the hourly rate of the Excecutives. This would encourage increases in the lowest rates of pay by allowing more reward for the executives.
By paying your window cleaners 2K/hour you would be able to earn 3.2M/week for a 40 hour week!
Not sure of your maths on the window cleaner earning £3.2m per week though as I make 40 x £2,000 to be £80,000
blueish swede
Well-Known Member
Sorry I mean the CEO can earn 40 times the lowest rate - so it's 2000 (window cleaner) x 40 (per hour) = 80K/hour x 40 hours = 3.2M
hilts
Well-Known Member
As a law it would be unworkable but as a ethical measure to pressure companies to fairer distribution of revenue it may have some merits. Ethical guidelines would allow ordinary people to make better informed choices as to where to invest their pensions/ savings and where to spend their money.
A fixed monetary limit wouldn't be imposed - instead executive pay could be linked to the minimum hourly rate the company pays on an ethical pay gap scale. As an example:
If a company pays minimum wage to it's lowest paid workers then the maximum hourly rate a CEO should receive according to the rules would be (e.g.) 20x minimum wage. Paying more would be flagged as unethical.
If a company pays minimum wage plus 50% to it's lowest paid workers then the CEO could, on the ethical scale, receive 40x minimum wage and still be OK.
All bonuses would be included in calculating the hourly rate of the Excecutives. This would encourage increases in the lowest rates of pay by allowing more reward for the executives.
By paying your window cleaners 2K/hour you would be able to earn 3.2M/week for a 40 hour week!
Too complicated, easy to get round and unfair and that's without looking into it too much
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 88,794
Ahhh yeah. That's correct.Sorry I mean the CEO can earn 40 times the lowest rate - so it's 2000 (window cleaner) x 40 (per hour) = 80K/hour x 40 hours = 3.2M
It's probably not a good idea to pay a window cleaner £2,000 in that case.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 88,794
On a serious note anyone else think that Corbyn wanting salary caps is so very Arsenal of him?
Too complicated, easy to get round and unfair and that's without looking into it too much
I agree that it has holes, but I don't think it's unfair to suggest that if a top earner wants to increase their wages the other bottom earners should get an increase too.
geoff clipp
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 1,389
As a member of the labour party, this is precisely my problem with Jeremy Corbyn. He's taken quite a sensible idea, i.e. let's tackle inequality in society, and then presented it in a radical and completely unworkable way. He's created a headline that will turn more people off than it will attract and all for the sake of a policy that he wouldn't ever manage to implement even if he were in charge. He could have won people over on this point but he's probably pushed a few people away.
There's an important discussion to be had here and I can't help but feel he completely undermines it by coming out with things like this. I'd be all for some kind of measure that links the pay of CEOs to workers. It's not outrageous to believe that businesses should fairly remunerate their workers from top to bottom rather than be allowed to continually drive wages down and creating a race to the bottom. Headlines like "MAXIMUM WAGE CAP" just make him sound a bit clueless which is hugely frustrating as he's actually correct to raise the issue. It's the same as that ridiculous incident on the train. Companies like Virgin trains ARE taking the piss with prices and other companies aren't even running a satisfactory service. I'd have quite liked a sensible discussion on renationalising the railways but he undermined that by needlessly fibbing about not having a seat on a particular train that DID have seats.
There's an important discussion to be had here and I can't help but feel he completely undermines it by coming out with things like this. I'd be all for some kind of measure that links the pay of CEOs to workers. It's not outrageous to believe that businesses should fairly remunerate their workers from top to bottom rather than be allowed to continually drive wages down and creating a race to the bottom. Headlines like "MAXIMUM WAGE CAP" just make him sound a bit clueless which is hugely frustrating as he's actually correct to raise the issue. It's the same as that ridiculous incident on the train. Companies like Virgin trains ARE taking the piss with prices and other companies aren't even running a satisfactory service. I'd have quite liked a sensible discussion on renationalising the railways but he undermined that by needlessly fibbing about not having a seat on a particular train that DID have seats.