5 ms·
While all valid points, the current outrage is driven by the spiking CEO pay while making significant cut backs, this is all set against a wider landscape of be
by quitit 3y ago
While all valid points, the current outrage is driven by the spiking CEO pay while making significant cut backs, this is all set against a wider landscape of belt tightening, a looming recession and the observation that CEOs are earning historically high pay ratios.
Those high ratios led Apple shareholders to request a pay cut of their CEO, and that was without poor performance or firing workers.
- DamnYuppie 3y agoMy take on the OP’s comment was that his salary and bonuses are controlled by the board. As Sergei and Larry have majority control he would not have gotten this without their explicit approval.
- loeg 3y ago> [Pichai]'s salary and bonuses are controlled by the board That is true of any CEO pay, though.
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 3y agoYour argument does not negate OP's argument.
- loeg 3y agoI don’t understand what OP is arguing but would be interested to find out.
- stuaxo 3y agoWho is on the board ? Often CEOs float around between boards, they are almost never going to decrease the pay or not raise it, unlike how it works for the rest of us.
- bell-cot 3y agoToo often correct. But in a case where Founder1 and Founder2 have absolute majority voting control, the Board is extremely unlikely to play such "obviously we'll vote to give each other raises" games. They are sitting in those cushy Board seats - or not - at 1 & 2's whim.
- ammar2 3y agoDo you think the board would object to him saying "oh yeah this looks bad since we're cutting costs, let's lower my compensation a little." It's not like he doesn't have any agency in this.
- sokoloff 3y agoThere is no reasonable amount by which he could cut his compensation that wouldn't result in whiners complaining that "well, that wasn't enough of a cut!” If he's going to catch heat for it anyway, he might as well take what he's being offered.
- siliconc0w 3y agoThey could set it to zero, which would be in-line with severity of laying off of 10+ year high performers or those who are pregnant or on medical leave. I'd like to see an automatic condition where layoffs trigger a requirement that the directors and officers compensation will be set to zero for the next three years. You're basically severely fucking with people's lives and this has very real consequences for those people and society in general who has to pick up the pieces.
- kevviiinn 3y agoThey can definitely survive for a few years without salary too. 200M is be enough to last most people decades and more yet they get that much every year
- ribosometronome 3y ago>Those high ratios led Apple shareholders to request a pay cut of their CEO, and that was without poor performance or firing workers. It was also a pay cut from a TCTC (Tim Cook total compensation) high of $99 million the year before, which seems mindbogglingly high but also make him out to be a bargain in comparison to Pichai.
- mlyle 3y ago> the current outrage is driven by the spiking CEO pay while making significant cut backs, Imagine CEO pay wasn't high. They would still be reaping a huge portion of the benefit of shareholder-friendly (and less employee-friendly) policies, but escaping the blame. Effectively, the amount of capital appreciation they've squeezed from layoffs dwarfs the CEO pay package, without any scrutiny.