Companies forced to disclose CEO-workforce pay gap

[Bowfinger]

I think the wealth gap is detrimental to our economy AND I don't buy Apple products because I don't like how they handle their business. But that doesn't change that there are probably 2 people who do buy Apple products for every one that laments their practices AND doesn't buy their products.

Plenty of people put their money where their values are. But way more don't give a shit for a whole host of reasonable reasons.

Besides that, Apple is a poor example because they sell a relatively narrow selection of products, all branded with the Apple brand, and all with easily identified competitor products. It's much more unrealistic for most large corporations with multiple brands and for corporations whose primary markets are not retail consumers. For example, how does one boycott the Koch brothers with their potpourri of brands across many product types? How does one boycott Siemens, Sysco, IBM, or Oracle with virtually no retail presence? Can consumers be expected to survey every company they patronize to determine if they buy any supplies from Sysco or software from Oracle? Of course not, it's a ridiculous suggestion.

I'm a bit surprised at the fawning CEO worship from some people in this thread. Sorry to burst your bubbles, but CEOs are just ordinary people. They aren't superheroes, they aren't magic, and with very rare exceptions, they aren't geniuses. Most are competent business people, but not spectacular (though there are exceptions, both bad and good), who made the right friends and were in the right place at the right time. This is fine, of course, and great for them, but don't kid yourselves that they are somehow uniquely qualified to lead companies. They get hugely inflated salaries due to the incestuous relationships between corporate boards. Most big companies have scores of capable people who could step into the CEO role and do just as well as the guy sitting in the office now.

 

[Bowfinger]

And this is exactly why you're not fit to run a Dairy Queen. For all the risks Ballmer took, as CEO, he also directed MS to mass success. Ever heard of XP? The exact same people who cry Ballmer is incompetent because he understood his company was big enough to take risks, that happened to fail, are the same people who cry EA is a bad company because they always play it safe.

Exactly what role do you think Ballmer played in Windows XP? Do you think he coded it, or designed it, or even defined the feature set? No doubt he made the final decisions about certain aspects of the product, its release etc., but do you really believe he uniquely contributed to its success? What, specifically, did Ballmer contribute to XP's success that anyone else in his position would have flubbed?

 

[hal2kilo]

in all seriousness, i think everyones income should be public. it really helps to eliminate wage gaps between workers doing similar jobs and helps to increase everyones salary.

Funny, I can get fired for discussing pay with my fellow workers and that's pretty much true for all private companies. I worked in a mixed environment of civilian and government workers. The government workers can talk about pay till the cows come home because it's public knowledge.

 

[Bowfinger]

Funny, I can get fired for discussing pay with my fellow workers and that's pretty much true for all private companies. I worked in a mixed environment of civilian and government workers. The government workers can talk about pay till the cows come home because it's public knowledge.

Yep. I worked in government for a few years, even had my salary published in the newspaper. It really wasn't a big deal. It's just a different mindset, though it does make it really easy to spot discriminatory pay practices.

 

[BoberFett]

Agreed, and this will give me info to decide if I like the way a company does business.

That info has always been available, as several people have already pointed out. The current legislation is just populist marketing.

 

[BoberFett]

Funny, I can get fired for discussing pay with my fellow workers and that's pretty much true for all private companies. I worked in a mixed environment of civilian and government workers. The government workers can talk about pay till the cows come home because it's public knowledge.

Yep. I worked in government for a few years, even had my salary published in the newspaper. It really wasn't a big deal. It's just a different mindset, though it does make it really easy to spot discriminatory pay practices.

Oh FFS, try learning the law before whining that it needs to be changed.

https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/employee-rights

 

[BoberFett]

Besides that, Apple is a poor example because they sell a relatively narrow selection of products, all branded with the Apple brand, and all with easily identified competitor products. It's much more unrealistic for most large corporations with multiple brands and for corporations whose primary markets are not retail consumers. For example, how does one boycott the Koch brothers with their potpourri of brands across many product types? How does one boycott Siemens, Sysco, IBM, or Oracle with virtually no retail presence? Can consumers be expected to survey every company they patronize to determine if they buy any supplies from Sysco or software from Oracle? Of course not, it's a ridiculous suggestion.

And this ratio disclosure changes any of what you just said how exactly?

Think McFly.

 

[Bowfinger]

Oh FFS, try learning the law before whining that it needs to be changed.

https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/employee-rights

Oh FFS, try learning to read and comprehend before you leap into foaming dick mode. I didn't call for changing any law, nor did he. I merely agreed with his last sentence, that government workers can talk about their pay, and offered a first-person example.

 

[Bowfinger]

And this ratio disclosure changes any of what you just said how exactly?

Think McFly.

Hey, sweet pea, I was just following along from your moronic bleating about not doing business with companies you don't like. If you think your comment has nothing to do with the OP, perhaps you should have kept it to yourself.

Follow your own advice, Sparky.

 

[hal2kilo]

Oh FFS, try learning the law before whining that it needs to be changed.

https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/employee-rights

I'll let my employer know. I'm sure they'll see the light

When you have no representation, the field is completely tilted toward the employer.

 

[senseamp]

That info has always been available, as several people have already pointed out. The current legislation is just populist marketing.

More info is better.

 

[JimKiler]

Funny, I can get fired for discussing pay with my fellow workers and that's pretty much true for all private companies. I worked in a mixed environment of civilian and government workers. The government workers can talk about pay till the cows come home because it's public knowledge.

You should move to Minnesota. I can write my salary on the bathroom wall and i cannot get fired. Well i could for graffiti but not for sharing my salary.

per http://www.dli.mn.gov/LS/FaqWageDisclosure.asp

Minnesota Statutes 181.172
Under the Minnesota Wage Disclosure Protection law, you have the right to tell any person the amount of your own wages. Your employer cannot retaliate against you for disclosing your own wages. Your remedies under the Wage Disclosure Protection law are to bring a civil action against your employer and/or file a complaint with the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry at (651) 284-5070 or 1-800-342-5354.

I do agreement with Slew Foot, make all salaries public knowledge.

 

[waggy]

I have no issue with CEO pay. Long as they are making a profit for the company WITHOUT destroying that company. Far to often you read of a CEO come in. slash jobs, products etc and leave. sure they made a profit for the shareholders for a short time..but the company is destroyed in the process. Those ceo's should face sanctions.

 

[CitizenKain]

And this is exactly why you're not fit to run a Dairy Queen. For all the risks Ballmer took, as CEO, he also directed MS to mass success. Ever heard of XP? The exact same people who cry Ballmer is incompetent because he understood his company was big enough to take risks, that happened to fail, are the same people who cry EA is a bad company because they always play it safe.

In 2007, Ballmer said "There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance."

 

[smackababy]

In 2007, Ballmer said "There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance."

And? Almost all pundits thought a $700 smart phone made for people who had no business with a smart phone didn't seem like a good idea. The iPhone being a success was out of left field. It was an expensive smart phone that lacked most of the smart phones of prior's selling features. The fact it was a hit was because it had a slick UI and was accessible for most people who don't need a smart phone.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

plenty of CEOs go home and forget about the job every night because they have low paid rank and file workers who work around the clock for them and aren't privileged enough to have a normal schedule.

The CEOs can sleep comfortably knowing that if they screw up and get fired, they'll get a handsome golden parachute that's probably more money than your average hard working worker would earn in a lifetime. It's good to be da king.

 

[Lonyo]

The rule is stupid because it doesn't say anything.

Companies can exclude up to 5% of their foreign workforce, for example. That means you have some skew.
You also have skew because of the countries in which teams operate. If a company has 90% of employees in China, then the ratio will be super high, but if they employee people in the US and Europe, the ratio will be comparatively much lower, due to the median wages which will result.

So, unless you know the exact employee mix and distribution, then you don't get any real information.
Also, what counts as an employee? Do companies get to decide or are there specific rules? If a company like Uber, which claims drivers are not employees, has to release these numbers, what happens? Does someone like Uber have the ability to calculate median wages for employees if drivers are employees?
Continuing on Uber, where to taxes come in? What about the expenses or other costs employees are or aren't reimbursed for?

There may be regulations relating to the CEO disclosures already, but not to employees. If you need to calculate all of that kind of thing, it is a lot of admin work, especially if you are a multinational with different systems operating in different countries. Hell, I work for a large accountancy firm and they can't even sort their payroll out within the firm I work for (UK). I don't even want to know what would happen if they had to calculate global median wages.

Some people might like the idea of the rule, but IMO it's pretty dumb based on what I've read about some bits of it, and because of the nature of multinationals and payrolls, because there's so much complication in what people get "paid" and who counts as an employee that it just ends up providing an utterly meaningless figure, especially when you consider people can already see what a CEO gets paid, so this adds nothing but stupid complication.

Oh, and sorry for posting on-topic rather than talking about whether the iPhone will or will not be a success. Hope it doesn't get the thread closed.

 

[Hugo Drax]

Exactly what role do you think Ballmer played in Windows XP? Do you think he coded it, or designed it, or even defined the feature set? No doubt he made the final decisions about certain aspects of the product, its release etc., but do you really believe he uniquely contributed to its success? What, specifically, did Ballmer contribute to XP's success that anyone else in his position would have flubbed?

The only thing he contributed was billions of shareholder equity destroyed and letting microsoft become a company full of fiefdoms fighting each other.

 

[Lonyo]

The only thing he contributed was billions of shareholder equity destroyed and letting microsoft become a company full of fiefdoms fighting each other.

Oh please. Billions of shareholder equity destroyed? That old crap again?

Take an overvalued company, say the CEO made it lose its share price. Wow, so clever.
The market lots billions for shareholders, not Ballmer. He isn't responsible for the share price when he started being too high.

"Under Ballmer's tenure as CEO, Microsoft's annual revenue surged from $25 billion to $70 billion, while its net income increased 215 percent to $23 billion"

Microsoft also paid $9.07 in dividends per share from 2003 to March 2014. Share price averaged $30 or so over that time.

But yeah, he destroyed billions in shareholder wealth by making the company more profitable, but not as profitable as overinflated hype from the dotcom boom.

He managed to keep Microsoft profitable during a time where many companies rose, but equally many many many companies failed or crashed and burned. Did he do the best job of anyone at any company? No. Did he majorly fuck up and destroy Microsoft? No. He managed to increase revenues and profits, but because people only look at Apple or Google or Facebook, they ignore companies that crashed and burned in their internal comparisons.
There's a scale that goes from bad to good. Being not-good doesn't make you bad.


Which partly comes back back to the point of what is the measure of success for a CEO?