"Holy crap the CEO makes ten thousand times more then me with 0% of the danger"
I wonder if we'll see more CEOs doing something similar to Elon Musk, taking a tiny salary and then a massive bonus.
Yeah, this is easily dodgeable. Shrink their salaries on paper and then give them crazy benefits and stock options, just to name a few.
> He said the new laws would improve transparency and boost accountability for both shareholders and workers, as well as helping to “build a fairer economy”.
Buuullshit. This is the tories speaking and because of that I'd be more inclined to believe that this law is just made to fuck over the poor even more.
Like what about doing something about the gap instead of forcing people to show off how much their workers earn them?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-dollar_salary
"wow cool I didn't learn anything"
I don't really have a problem with CEOs being paid in stocks and performance-based bonuses to be honest, it gives them an incentive to actually make the company run well and to not solely focus on lining their pockets.
Of course CEOs are going to make way more than the average employee.
There's fucking one of them.
No one's arguing that CEOs should earn the same as the bottom of the rung employees, just that it's hard to justify ratios of say several thousand times. There's a massive issue with the detachment of productivity and wages, although this does little to fix it.
IIRC the average CEO in the US makes 435 or so times as much as the average employee. Once you go to places like Japan or Germany, that ratio becomes much, much smaller.
Hopefully seeing it in black & white will help some people realise that immigration is the least of their problems.
The CEOs are the BEST people in the company so they should being getting the BEST pay, you should just work better /s
Why?
When your bottom end employees can't even make ends meet because your job pays dirt and has no benefits then there is no reason for the top level employees to make so much in comparison. They can drop a bonus that doubles their paycheck in favor of making sure their employees can actually make a living.
How can one person's labour produce over 1000x the value of another person's? The way these have come into effect is that the amount of value produced for the company by the bottom employees has increased significantly whilst the company has kept their compensation for that constant and funnelled that money up the company, resulting in the fruits of extra productivity of everyone being given to those few CEOs.
Because they don't work hard enough to justify it. A CEO doesn't work 435 time the hours, doesn't have 435 times the stress (however that would be measured), doesn't have 435 times the skills, and they're not 435 times more valuable.
Do they work longer, under more stress, require more skills and experience, and provide more to their society? In some cases definitely yes, and their pay should reflect that. 10 times more, 20 times more, perfectly reasonable. 435 times more? No.
I apologise if this seems like having a go at you, that's not my intention, pay inequality winds me up.
No dice, they have to report total pay and benefits, explicitly including any share-based/bonus/pension stuff
https://i.imgur.com/lVAO0Gc.png
Why does a CEO being paid a lot necessitate that bottom end employees "can't even make ends meet"?
The two are separate issues.
Nobody is trying to make a causal relationship between "high earning CEOs" and "low earning employees". I get that you're way, waaayy to faithful in businesses to actually run and be fair and will defend shitty business practices like CEOs earning hundreds of times more than their employees. But at least read what people are typing rather than inferring meanings that aren't there.
(But there does seem to be a running theme of "CEO makes more money in a month than employees see in a year" with quite a few places, so getting these numbers will be interesting and hopefully push people to strive for fairer incomes)
But why is a CEO making hundreds of times more than their lowest employees inherently bad?
It's possible for someone to be compensated very well and the company doesn't pay their employees well.
The issue at hand is how much the lowest employees are earning. The ratio is irrelevant. You can have a low ratio and still be compensating like garbage or have a high ratio and still compensate well.
If the issue is that the lowest employees aren't making enough, focus on people who don't pay their employees well enough, not some magical number that must never get too high for reasons.
This is the entire problem though? In places where CEOs make such an absurd amount compared to the lower end employees this is overwhelmingly likely to not be the case. They're very likely to treat their low end employees like expendable drones, pay them as little as they can legally get away with, and try to screw them out of any benefits to save money.
Damn, UK's been pushing out some cool legislation lately.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.