Bad Bad CEO, The masses get there due !

[iqueequeg]

I'm in complete agreement with those who are saying government should stay out of business. But if you actually look at the proposal, it's fairly tepid: Shareholders would have the opportunity to vote on a non-binding statement regarding executive compensation. I find myself neutral.

This does remind me of the St. Joe annual statement back in 2005 (I think, I could be wrong on the year, but it was during the heady days of lotteries for new lot releases in WaterSound). In the portion of the statement that lays out "future risks", the main risk cited was that the executives at St. Joe might leave, since clearly no group as talented could ever be found. Clearly, any salary could be justified. The possibility that the real estate market might cool off was considered much less significant.

I don't remember the exact numbers, but in those heady years, executive compensation at St. Joe actually ate up a pretty significant chunk of profits. I was unhappy at the time , and as a shareholder I wouldn't have minded an opportunity to express my displeasure.

 

[BeachSiO2]

OK, suppose a law is passed and the CEOs are paid the same salary as the guy in the mail room. How does that benefit you, I or anyone else? It does not;this is simply fodder to reel in the leftiest lefties.

Is it fodder or is it some of the true color showing through? From all reports I have heard Obama is one of the most leftiest lefties in his Senate voting record so this might not be fodder this might be part of his vision for change.

Just what we need a government that can't balance their books trying to legislate how private corporations balance theirs...

 

[30A Skunkape]

Is it fodder or is it some of the true color showing through? From all reports I have heard Obama is one of the most leftiest lefties in his Senate voting record so this might not be fodder this might be part of his vision for change.

Just what we need a government that can't balance their books trying to legislate how private corporations balance theirs...

Fodder because they are going to kick around a debate over a non-binding resolution. I don't understand why it is a given that shareholders can't voice their opinion regarding CEO salaries;I wrote a letter to the CEO of Bank of America and it was answered.

 

[BeachSiO2]

Fodder because they are going to kick around a debate over a non-binding resolution. I don't understand why it is a given that shareholders can't voice their opinion regarding CEO salaries;I wrote a letter to the CEO of Bank of America and it was answered.

I see what you mean by fodder now.

 

[Interrogator]

Is it fodder or is it some of the true color showing through? From all reports I have heard Obama is one of the most leftiest lefties in his Senate voting record so this might not be fodder this might be part of his vision for change.

Just what we need a government that can't balance their books trying to legislate how private corporations balance theirs...

True Colors. This legislation is designed to "reign in the pay or corporate CEO's". He is a liberal and as such approves of the government sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong. What's next - reigning in the pay of atheletes, actors and actresses, authors, etc. etc. Some people might argue that he has made too much money from his book sales. I don't care whether his legislation is binding or not binding - it goes to show his true colors.

 

[scooterbug44]

It's a good idea, though it is mostly symbolic. A non-binding resolution just states an opinion, it forces no action or change.

I fail to see how him wanting the shareholders of a company to be able to vote on a non-binding resolution regarding CEO pay is massive government interference and socialism and evidence of his leftist liberalism. :roll:

Rather than trying to legislate CEOs salaries or limiting compensation (that would be a real cluster) he's keeping the decision within the company, just adding a way for shareholders to voice their opinion on this specific issue.

 

[Santiago]

It's a good idea, though it is mostly symbolic. A non-binding resolution just states an opinion, it forces no action or change.

I fail to see how him wanting the shareholders of a company to be able to vote on a non-binding resolution regarding CEO pay is massive government interference and socialism and evidence of his leftist liberalism. :roll:

Rather than trying to legislate CEOs salaries or limiting compensation (that would be a real cluster) he's keeping the decision within the company, just adding a way for shareholders to voice their opinion on this specific issue.

Sorry but its a stupid idea. As previously stated, a mechanism is already in place and its the annual shareholders meeting. I don't think that anyone is forced to buy stock in any particular company. If you don't like what the CEO or anyone else makes, don't invest in the company. The guy is a socialist. Calling it a populist message might sound better but its a socialist message. It is appalling that the government, who can't get its house in order because every freaking one of them are bought and paid for by special interests, wants to tell business how to get its house in order. I completely loose faith in mankind when I see anyone buy into this type of thinking.

 

[30A Skunkape]

I think I stumbled upon Obama's motivation-to clinch the union vote. I googled 'ceo salaries' and the afl-cio website was maybe the third entry. http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch

 

[scooterbug44]

Well, I like the idea! If only because it would be a nice change from just rubberstamping the nomination of X members to fill X spots on the board. :roll:

 

[Smiling JOe]

Executive compensation is controlled by the Board of Directors. The shareholders meet annually to elect the Board of Directors. THIS IS HOW THE SHAREHOLDERS HAVE THEIR SAY.

... I don't think that anyone is forced to buy stock in any particular company. If you don't like what the CEO or anyone else makes, don't invest in the company. ...

...and I will add that there is a way for the public to have their say. Don't do business with the company or any of its subsidiaries, and don't buy their products or services.