3 comments

• 

  oregonian

  1 year ago

  I thought it was the Boards of these corporations that set the compensation. And the Board members are CEOs of other corporations, on whose Boards may sit the CEO in question.
  Thus, they decide on a large pay package in hopes that their own pay package is reciprocally large. Reciprocally... is that a word?
  reply
• 

  oscar

  1 year ago

  I think this is a complicated issue; boards have compensation committees who are frequently CEOs at other corporations. These committees hire consultants, but it seems it's always in everyone's interest to overpay the CEO. Why pay less? No one seems to care and no one is punished for over-payment. Conflicts of interest, hidden agendas, lack of transparency abound.
  
  But the thing the galls the most is that these CEOs, always stout advocates of competition, can fail miserably and still make millions. They talk about risk-taking and the virtues of the market, but they game the system to ensure they will be completely insulated from poor performance. The only ones who suffer are the employees and the shareholders.
  reply
• 

  apishapa

  1 year ago

  I think any company that has lost billions of $$ and is looking for a bailout must give taxpayers and shareholders an explanation for $100 million plus CEO pay. I mean they are all crying about going broke, and expecting us to cover those outrageous salaries and/or buyouts. Those companies deserve to go under. They are top heavy and muct fall over sometime. They are ruining this country. Those boards that agree to pay a bunch of losers high salaries because they are worried about losing talent need to get a clue. The best thing that could happen would be if the Managers who consistently lose money went to work for the competition. Either their product is a loser or their management is.
  reply