Comments on: Executive pay: Have your say

By: Rob

Rob — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 01:36:43 +0000

I think some people are really missing the point. Atheletes and celebrities are not making millions while rank and file employees are being laid off, losing their job, spouses, minds.

When American employees suffer due to poor company performance it is extremely unreasonable to be paying executives $500 K+ per month and at the same time be laying off employees making 2, 3 or $4,000 per month.

I really don’t understand how these “executives” can live with themselves racking up millions while “their” employees lose everything. THAT IS NOT AMERICAN.

Many executives have opted to be paid one dollar per year until their companies return to profitability. There was a time when people didn’t expect to be paid unless they earned it. That is American.

By: Stick In The Mud

Stick In The Mud — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 01:22:23 +0000

What rankles people the most is that CEO pay is not linked to performance: heads I win, tails you lose thats the way it works. Bob Nardelli nearly destroyed Home Depot but he walked away with more than 200 million and went to work destroying Chrysler. The same pattern is being repeated over and over again. The game is rigged and the people have figured out that rank and file workers and shareholders are the only ones not in on the trick. I hope the government steps in becaise the vaunted “free market” has failed over and over again to check and correct itself. Unbridled capitalism has failed in almost every area and brought the world to the brink of economic collapse.Long live Karl Marxx!

By: legalbeaglenot

legalbeaglenot — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:19:08 +0000

the problem with these boards is that they are usually insiders. for gods sake, king and spalding had a powerful board seat and they were coke’s own law firm. wonder how many millions were lost in frivilous litigation and useless transactional work because of that.

By: Schuyler

Schuyler — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:47:55 +0000

First we need to reform shareholder voting. Shareholders ballots are a farce because huge blocks of stock are held by giant mutual fund managers like Fidelity, and Franklin Funds. These fund managers seek to get pension management and other business from companies, so of course they vote their shares in favor of whatever management wants. This means they vote in favor of whorey directors who vote for any pay raise the greedy executives want. Any mutual fund seeking business from management should be disqualified for shareholder voting. Then the SEC should require that all companies ask shareholders to at least hold an advisory vote on executive compensation.

By: the evil rich

the evil rich — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:40:20 +0000

It is NOT the government’s job to set pay/compensation rates. Having said that, anybody that takes taxpayer money SHOULD answer to the taxpayers. Compensation should be based on results, and NOT poor ones!

By: Why all the wealth envy?

Why all the wealth envy? — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:26:47 +0000

Wow, Obama has done a great job bringing about the wealth envy crowd and vilifying corporate executives. For the person who switched to Pepsi over Coke, what do you think Pepsi pays their executives? About the same as Coke does. If you say you don’t care about what they’ve done to get there, then you aren’t a very rational person. It’s pathetic how much people are jealous of other successful people but never seem to blame themselves for anything.

By: Larry

Larry — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:23:27 +0000

Yes, they are overpaid. Just as are Sports stars and celebrities. If you want to cut executive pay, then cut sports salaries and actors/singers/celebrities pay.

By: gatorman770

gatorman770 — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:17:49 +0000

I have no problem with corporate executives being compensated up to 5 million or so base yearly salary, but all bonus and golden parachutes should be based on positive growth of the company including growth in American jobs and income to the stock holders.

What really chaps my buns is when a CEO leaves a company (either forced out or otherwise) with a 100 million dollar golden parachute and the stock is worth less than half of what was worth when he/she took the job of CEO. That what the government needs to get control of.

By: vuduchld

vuduchld — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:00:30 +0000

Not one of these executives listed are worth the compensation they’re receiving. At the end of the day it is the front line worker and shareholder who keeps the company moving. Why should any Delta executive receive compensation? If they threaten to go somewhere else if they’re not compensated then I say: SHOW THEM THE DOOR. I could care less about their work days or stress. These companies laid off employees why should these scumbag execs be rewarded for failing!?

By: Tom

Tom — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:58:35 +0000

Why focus on business exec pay? how come hollywood gets a free pass from criticism or professional sports players or musicians??? If you use the entertaintment word as a defense its no different from you choosing to see their movie or concert vs choosing to use a company’s particular product (whose CEO gets paid whatever). With Obama in office, seems that class warfare is creeping in as is the attack on anything capatilism (yet, Hollywood gets a free pass…hmmm. oh yea, they’re all liberals..my bad).