Keep telling yourself that. CEO’s have gamed us.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/how-companies-decide-ceo-pay/530127/
John Deere strike imminent?
- Thread starter ISUCyclones2015
- Start date
Keep telling yourself that. CEO’s have gamed us.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/how-companies-decide-ceo-pay/530127/
I don't doubt that's the case. But that also doesn't mean that the CEO's compensation has any impact on labor rates. If the CEO were getting less, that money would be distributed to shareholders and not the labor. The labor rate is based on what the market says it is. Shareholders aren't going to pay one cent more than necessary. The days of mom and pop companies taking care of their employees because they care are over.
In all honesty, when you break down the old day mom and pop companies, they didn’t take care of their employees excessively well. Health insurance was either near non existent or very cheap. Retirees didnt travel all over the place or live in really nice homes and drive new cars. They had a pension that covered the worker for the 5-7 years they were basically retired at an okay rate. Nothing bad but nothing crazy.
Last edited:
I have wondered if you were a big company if you could pay some young hungry up and comer WAY less, even like $500k. I bet there might be some great people on the way up willing to work their ass off for that money and . Having some of these guys that are already rich and on the back side of their career (and life) doesn’t seem conducive to having the most motivated person in the role. Seems like there are lots of stories of complete failures at CEO making stupid money.
Remember, the board of directors hires and quite often the BOD are other company execs. They aren’t going to go cheap and possibly hurt themselves.
Market Rate says Labor should be paid more. And CEO’s can be paid much less. Excessive CEO pay while depressing employee labor wages creates poor employee morale. Employees have little company loyalty. The Company has little loyalty to labor.
I agree that there are some bad CEOs. Having worked in a UAW facility for over 40 years I will tell you that there are also some bad factory workers.
I think CEOs, entertainers, athletes, etc. all get paid ridiculous amounts of money. However, this strike has nothing to do with May's salary.
If May made 1.00 a year they'd still be striking.
If May made 1.00 a year they'd still be striking.
Quick google search says:
"John May made $6,005,692 in total compensation as Director, President and Chief Executive Officer at Deere & Co in 2019. $2,311,367 was received as Total Cash, $2,531,917 was received as Equity and $1,162,408 was received as Pension and other forms of compensation. "
Deere has ~70,000 employees worldwide. If you took that entire salary and divided it up equally, it would be $85.80 per person. Per Year.
Or, if you consider his 'total' compensation of $14.7M that would be $210.77/year/person.
I am not defending his large salary here. But to think that you could reduce his salary and make a difference to the rest of the employees doesn't pencil out. If that isn't the argument, then you're just talking about jealousy which is a large part of the problem.
Ben and Jerry's is an interesting case study in a company 'trying' to limit CEO salary. The CEO salary was ratio'd to the lowest paid employee. It started at 5:1, then went to 7:1 and then to 17:1 (not counting stock options!) before being sold. They simply had a hard time finding qualified candidates at the lower ratios.
It would have been interesting to see where they ended up.
How soon will people start crossing the picket line?
For those that voted to approve the proposed contract and don't believe that anything better is coming, what is their motivation to not go to work and stay on the picket line?
For those that voted to approve the proposed contract and don't believe that anything better is coming, what is their motivation to not go to work and stay on the picket line?
It's all peer pressure. If they cross the line, it'll be a difficult working condition for them in the future.
But, if there were facilities that were strongly in favor, I could see a situation where one entire site decides to cross the line. It'll depend on how strong the division in their own ranks becomes.
It is the message you are sending. CEO pay has no limits. Worker benefits and pay increases should not be given unless it is absolutely necessary in labor disputes.
Why not have compensation more equitable and improve employee morale? And CEO compensation affects management compensation which then becomes inflated.
Because paying the employees more doesn't get more for the shareholders. Paying the CEO ridiculous amounts ensures that he or she are beholden to the shareholders that decide his compensation. Which then means the CEO will do what's best for profits and profits alone.
I get what you are saying, but people like to throw out things like "management salaries are inflated," and act as though they could just cut out a bunch of people or salaries in "management" and everything's going to just run like a top. First, exactly what roles are cut, and what roles take big salary cuts? It seems like the approach Deere has been taking in how they allocate their resources has worked pretty damn well for the company, so I'm not seeing how there could be all this "middle management waste" people seem to think they know about. It's just a generic statement people throw out because they don't have to be specific.
And I worked at three for-profit companies in the past - one a huge company, one a big private company, and one a small private company. There was zero impact on the CEO pay on the 99% of people that worked for the company. In all three cases there were different company performance incentives that everyone got, hourly included. There was never a case where there was some domino effect from CEO that triggered a bunch of raises. It just never worked that way.
Disagree on a lot of CEOs. In general these are old guys on the downhill slide of their careers already with a ton of money. Success or failure at the company isn't going to make or break them. In the companies I worked for all three cycled through CEOs, fired some, gave some huge raises, and the performance of the companies just followed market conditions.
That's why I suggested hiring an up and coming person that's earlier in their career. Give them a good salary, but mostly stock. There would be some absolute dogs all over a job like that, and I think they would be better than some guy set for life looking for a last big payday before he retires.
Slashed tires, sugar in the gas tank
Someone would still *****. That's what we do.
In most cases I'd agree with you, however I think most of these CEO's are wired kind of like college coaches - they are true alpha types who aren't satisfied with anything. I'm sure some of them hit late stage Bobby Bowden points of their careers.
May, who is the CEO of Deere, is only 50. Microsoft's CEO was in his mid-40s when he was appointed, I'm not sure it's really made a huge difference for them.
