Agreed. I'm all in favor of holding CEOs accountable for bad decisions, as we've all seen companies' value (both real and stock) destroyed due to idiotic short-

Agreed. I'm all in favor of holding CEOs accountable for bad decisions, as we've all seen companies' value (both real and stock) destroyed due to idiotic short-sighted management decisions, only for them to insanely well compensated. But that's not what this is. They made reasonable decisions based on the information they had, and then markets changed. I think where this is really stemming from is that these market swings hurt people, and those being hurt feel the CEO should share in that. And there is merit to that argument, that austerity measures should impact CEOs and upper management just like they do the lower ranks, regardless of fault. These people are in a better financial position to weather the swings. Their compensation has a lot more margin or "fat" to cut into before it becomes painful, and thus can save a number of jobs that might otherwise have to be cut. Most importantly it shows solidarity with the workforce. It makes it feel more like this is an external event that is happening to us, not something that the CEO is inflicting on the staff.