I see the following all the time: client is buying company. Client doesn't like CFO, COO, or CEO, but thinks the president is pretty good. As part of the deal, the CFO, COO and CEO will be bought out and replaced with more expensive people the client thinks will grow the business. But they are happy to keep the president on at his present pay. If he demanded the same pay scale as the new execs then the client would get rid of him too because he isn't worth that much. Isn't he better off keeping his job at his current rate of pay?
Isn't he allowed to be an adult who can be offered that choice himself and make the decision? Letting everyone know the wages that everyone in the company is being given allows him the choice. Not letting him know implies you consider him a child who has to be kept from the truth "for his own good." Maybe he doesn't agree with you that it's for his own good.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
First of all, most C level executives work at much smaller companies that are privately held, and they tend to either have founded their company or to have founded and run another company which has been sold.
Note that I gave special consideration to people who founded their companies based on expertise they have, given that said persons probably do have something of tangible value to offer said company.
I contest your assertion that this represents anywhere near the majority of CEOs.
How do you think someone becomes a CEO? They don't get hired out of business school into the C suite. I have literally worked with hundreds of them and I am hard pressed to think of one who didn't get his first CEO job by either being part of the founding of a company or working his way up through the ranks of a smallish company and spending a tremendous amount of time growing the business (maybe starting with a division and going up from there). Once someone has been a CEO, they have mobility and may become serial CEOs. These come in a few basic flavors. There are industry people that move from the company the founded or grew to other companies in the industry (usually after their company is sold). There are turn around CEOs that develop reputations for saving companies from bankruptcy or near ruin. They tend to be hired guns for a few years. There are PE stable guys who get installed by private equity firms after they buy a business (these guys focus on growing for a sale). Then there are the big name CEOs who have such strong track records that any company would be happy to have them. There aren't many of the last kind and they mostly exist in the public company space. But the one thing nearly all CEOs have in common is that at least once they built or grew a business from almost nothing. They didn't build the widgets, but building widgets alone generally doesn't grow a company. Strategic decisions are very important (often more important than the day to day work in growing a business) and that is what the C suite does.
Okay that's great.
Why do they need to keep their pay hidden and lie about it to the rest of the company?
Pay disclosure would be problematic at private companies for a few reasons. If a new executive team is being installed there may be resentment from people who hoped to be promoted to those positions and if they see how much the new team is paid it is likely to increase that resentment.
This isn't really a societal concern. There could be resentment for any number of reasons beyond pay. This isn't something we can really legislate for or should care about.
If some new executives are coming in and some are staying in place, then pay scales may vary widely, and again, that could breed resentment among the existing employees.
The obvious solution would be to either pay scale everyone, or be able to justify the discrepancy. Again, I don't see why this wouldn't be easily worked through, and even at the C-Level those individuals making significantly less should be able to negotiate for more if they think it's justified.
Finally, executive pay is often structured around certain goals for company performance which should not be disclosed to employees generally because they represent part of a confidential business strategy. If the new CEO is given a package that is mostly change of control based, then revealing it to the employees would put them on notice that the strategy is a sale in the next few years. If the package is structured based on the successful achievement of a specific goal like opening a new plant in x location, the employees would know about that confidential plan and could leak it out.
I would not call giving a CEO compensation that is part salary/part performance based in a company that generally only pays salary lying to the employees. It is actually a worse deal for the CEO than the other employees in relative terms, and it is only implemented for the benefit of the owners of the company. Why would we disincentive that?
No one, I think, is arguing for the release of the merit justification of pay, merely that the salary itself should be disclosed.
Honestly, I don't think this is a big of an issue as you see it, because it's done in some publicly traded companies already and hasn't caused massive resentment and insubordination.
I see the following all the time: client is buying company. Client doesn't like CFO, COO, or CEO, but thinks the president is pretty good. As part of the deal, the CFO, COO and CEO will be bought out and replaced with more expensive people the client thinks will grow the business. But they are happy to keep the president on at his present pay. If he demanded the same pay scale as the new execs then the client would get rid of him too because he isn't worth that much. Isn't he better off keeping his job at his current rate of pay?
Publicly traded companies are very different from a corporate governance standpoint from private companies. There really is no comparison.
If the choice is "Keep your salary or hit the bricks," then he might be better off; but it doesn't sound like he was even given the option. If actually replacing him would require effort, it seems logical to think your client would be willing to pay something more to avoid it.
First of all, most C level executives work at much smaller companies that are privately held, and they tend to either have founded their company or to have founded and run another company which has been sold.
Note that I gave special consideration to people who founded their companies based on expertise they have, given that said persons probably do have something of tangible value to offer said company.
I contest your assertion that this represents anywhere near the majority of CEOs.
How do you think someone becomes a CEO? They don't get hired out of business school into the C suite. I have literally worked with hundreds of them and I am hard pressed to think of one who didn't get his first CEO job by either being part of the founding of a company or working his way up through the ranks of a smallish company and spending a tremendous amount of time growing the business (maybe starting with a division and going up from there). Once someone has been a CEO, they have mobility and may become serial CEOs. These come in a few basic flavors. There are industry people that move from the company the founded or grew to other companies in the industry (usually after their company is sold). There are turn around CEOs that develop reputations for saving companies from bankruptcy or near ruin. They tend to be hired guns for a few years. There are PE stable guys who get installed by private equity firms after they buy a business (these guys focus on growing for a sale). Then there are the big name CEOs who have such strong track records that any company would be happy to have them. There aren't many of the last kind and they mostly exist in the public company space. But the one thing nearly all CEOs have in common is that at least once they built or grew a business from almost nothing. They didn't build the widgets, but building widgets alone generally doesn't grow a company. Strategic decisions are very important (often more important than the day to day work in growing a business) and that is what the C suite does.
Okay that's great.
Why do they need to keep their pay hidden and lie about it to the rest of the company?
Pay disclosure would be problematic at private companies for a few reasons. If a new executive team is being installed there may be resentment from people who hoped to be promoted to those positions and if they see how much the new team is paid it is likely to increase that resentment. If some new executives are coming in and some are staying in place, then pay scales may vary widely, and again, that could breed resentment among the existing employees. Finally, executive pay is often structured around certain goals for company performance which should not be disclosed to employees generally because they represent part of a confidential business strategy. If the new CEO is given a package that is mostly change of control based, then revealing it to the employees would put them on notice that the strategy is a sale in the next few years. If the package is structured based on the successful achievement of a specific goal like opening a new plant in x location, the employees would know about that confidential plan and could leak it out.
I would not call giving a CEO compensation that is part salary/part performance based in a company that generally only pays salary lying to the employees. It is actually a worse deal for the CEO than the other employees in relative terms, and it is only implemented for the benefit of the owners of the company. Why would we disincentive that?
Alright let's break this up.
First concern, resentment: They, like everyone else who has their salary made public, can deal. Since everyone with a public salary evidently doesn't care it's safe to say this trend shall continue.
Second concern, resentment: See above.
Third concern, executive pay can be goal based: This can be revealed after the fact. If part of a CEO's compensation is based on a specific goal that doesn't even need to be explained. They can just receive that much more that year.
As for your second paragraph, by your very reasoning CEOs are getting a worse deal and publicized salaries would benefit them. Great! They don't deserve to be cheated any more than the next person when it comes to compensation for the services they provide.
Oh, and just so we're clear, hiding the CEO's compensation because you don't think the people being payed less could handle it? That is classism.
Quid on
+4
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
First of all, most C level executives work at much smaller companies that are privately held, and they tend to either have founded their company or to have founded and run another company which has been sold.
Note that I gave special consideration to people who founded their companies based on expertise they have, given that said persons probably do have something of tangible value to offer said company.
I contest your assertion that this represents anywhere near the majority of CEOs.
How do you think someone becomes a CEO? They don't get hired out of business school into the C suite. I have literally worked with hundreds of them and I am hard pressed to think of one who didn't get his first CEO job by either being part of the founding of a company or working his way up through the ranks of a smallish company and spending a tremendous amount of time growing the business (maybe starting with a division and going up from there). Once someone has been a CEO, they have mobility and may become serial CEOs. These come in a few basic flavors. There are industry people that move from the company the founded or grew to other companies in the industry (usually after their company is sold). There are turn around CEOs that develop reputations for saving companies from bankruptcy or near ruin. They tend to be hired guns for a few years. There are PE stable guys who get installed by private equity firms after they buy a business (these guys focus on growing for a sale). Then there are the big name CEOs who have such strong track records that any company would be happy to have them. There aren't many of the last kind and they mostly exist in the public company space. But the one thing nearly all CEOs have in common is that at least once they built or grew a business from almost nothing. They didn't build the widgets, but building widgets alone generally doesn't grow a company. Strategic decisions are very important (often more important than the day to day work in growing a business) and that is what the C suite does.
Okay that's great.
Why do they need to keep their pay hidden and lie about it to the rest of the company?
Pay disclosure would be problematic at private companies for a few reasons. If a new executive team is being installed there may be resentment from people who hoped to be promoted to those positions and if they see how much the new team is paid it is likely to increase that resentment. If some new executives are coming in and some are staying in place, then pay scales may vary widely, and again, that could breed resentment among the existing employees. Finally, executive pay is often structured around certain goals for company performance which should not be disclosed to employees generally because they represent part of a confidential business strategy. If the new CEO is given a package that is mostly change of control based, then revealing it to the employees would put them on notice that the strategy is a sale in the next few years. If the package is structured based on the successful achievement of a specific goal like opening a new plant in x location, the employees would know about that confidential plan and could leak it out.
I would not call giving a CEO compensation that is part salary/part performance based in a company that generally only pays salary lying to the employees. It is actually a worse deal for the CEO than the other employees in relative terms, and it is only implemented for the benefit of the owners of the company. Why would we disincentive that?
Alright let's break this up.
First concern, resentment: They, like everyone else who has their salary made public, can deal. Since everyone with a public salary evidently doesn't care it's safe to say this trend shall continue.
Second concern, resentment: See above.
Third concern, executive pay can be goal based: This can be revealed after the fact. If part of a CEO's compensation is based on a specific goal that doesn't even need to be explained. They can just receive that much more that year.
As for your second paragraph, by your very reasoning CEOs are getting a worse deal and publicized salaries would benefit them. Great! They don't deserve to be cheated any more than the next person when it comes to compensation for the services they provide.
Oh, and just so we're clear, hiding the CEO's compensation because you don't think the people being payed less could handle it? That is classism.
I deal with these kinds of people everyday. They are like spoiled children when it comes to negotiating. Sometimes they lose the jobs because the client gets so fed up. "Give it to him, but we will remember this" is a not uncommon client reaction to a demand an execution be will not drop. Things like company paid rent or fuel for their private jet or a computer for their wife. It's so stupid. Then three months later they are fired.
The average executive could not deal with knowing people with similiar titles make more money than him IMO.
0
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
First of all, most C level executives work at much smaller companies that are privately held, and they tend to either have founded their company or to have founded and run another company which has been sold.
Note that I gave special consideration to people who founded their companies based on expertise they have, given that said persons probably do have something of tangible value to offer said company.
I contest your assertion that this represents anywhere near the majority of CEOs.
How do you think someone becomes a CEO? They don't get hired out of business school into the C suite. I have literally worked with hundreds of them and I am hard pressed to think of one who didn't get his first CEO job by either being part of the founding of a company or working his way up through the ranks of a smallish company and spending a tremendous amount of time growing the business (maybe starting with a division and going up from there). Once someone has been a CEO, they have mobility and may become serial CEOs. These come in a few basic flavors. There are industry people that move from the company the founded or grew to other companies in the industry (usually after their company is sold). There are turn around CEOs that develop reputations for saving companies from bankruptcy or near ruin. They tend to be hired guns for a few years. There are PE stable guys who get installed by private equity firms after they buy a business (these guys focus on growing for a sale). Then there are the big name CEOs who have such strong track records that any company would be happy to have them. There aren't many of the last kind and they mostly exist in the public company space. But the one thing nearly all CEOs have in common is that at least once they built or grew a business from almost nothing. They didn't build the widgets, but building widgets alone generally doesn't grow a company. Strategic decisions are very important (often more important than the day to day work in growing a business) and that is what the C suite does.
Okay that's great.
Why do they need to keep their pay hidden and lie about it to the rest of the company?
Pay disclosure would be problematic at private companies for a few reasons. If a new executive team is being installed there may be resentment from people who hoped to be promoted to those positions and if they see how much the new team is paid it is likely to increase that resentment. If some new executives are coming in and some are staying in place, then pay scales may vary widely, and again, that could breed resentment among the existing employees. Finally, executive pay is often structured around certain goals for company performance which should not be disclosed to employees generally because they represent part of a confidential business strategy. If the new CEO is given a package that is mostly change of control based, then revealing it to the employees would put them on notice that the strategy is a sale in the next few years. If the package is structured based on the successful achievement of a specific goal like opening a new plant in x location, the employees would know about that confidential plan and could leak it out.
I would not call giving a CEO compensation that is part salary/part performance based in a company that generally only pays salary lying to the employees. It is actually a worse deal for the CEO than the other employees in relative terms, and it is only implemented for the benefit of the owners of the company. Why would we disincentive that?
Alright let's break this up.
First concern, resentment: They, like everyone else who has their salary made public, can deal. Since everyone with a public salary evidently doesn't care it's safe to say this trend shall continue.
Second concern, resentment: See above.
Third concern, executive pay can be goal based: This can be revealed after the fact. If part of a CEO's compensation is based on a specific goal that doesn't even need to be explained. They can just receive that much more that year.
As for your second paragraph, by your very reasoning CEOs are getting a worse deal and publicized salaries would benefit them. Great! They don't deserve to be cheated any more than the next person when it comes to compensation for the services they provide.
Oh, and just so we're clear, hiding the CEO's compensation because you don't think the people being payed less could handle it? That is classism.
I deal with these kinds of people everyday. They are like spoiled children when it comes to negotiating. Sometimes they lose the jobs because the client gets so fed up. "Give it to him, but we will remember this" is a not uncommon client reaction to a demand an execution be will not drop. Things like company paid rent or fuel for their private jet or a computer for their wife. It's so stupid. Then three months later they are fired.
The average executive could not deal with knowing people with similiar titles make more money than him IMO.
If they can't, then new ones will be found or made.
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
First of all, most C level executives work at much smaller companies that are privately held, and they tend to either have founded their company or to have founded and run another company which has been sold.
Note that I gave special consideration to people who founded their companies based on expertise they have, given that said persons probably do have something of tangible value to offer said company.
I contest your assertion that this represents anywhere near the majority of CEOs.
How do you think someone becomes a CEO? They don't get hired out of business school into the C suite. I have literally worked with hundreds of them and I am hard pressed to think of one who didn't get his first CEO job by either being part of the founding of a company or working his way up through the ranks of a smallish company and spending a tremendous amount of time growing the business (maybe starting with a division and going up from there). Once someone has been a CEO, they have mobility and may become serial CEOs. These come in a few basic flavors. There are industry people that move from the company the founded or grew to other companies in the industry (usually after their company is sold). There are turn around CEOs that develop reputations for saving companies from bankruptcy or near ruin. They tend to be hired guns for a few years. There are PE stable guys who get installed by private equity firms after they buy a business (these guys focus on growing for a sale). Then there are the big name CEOs who have such strong track records that any company would be happy to have them. There aren't many of the last kind and they mostly exist in the public company space. But the one thing nearly all CEOs have in common is that at least once they built or grew a business from almost nothing. They didn't build the widgets, but building widgets alone generally doesn't grow a company. Strategic decisions are very important (often more important than the day to day work in growing a business) and that is what the C suite does.
Okay that's great.
Why do they need to keep their pay hidden and lie about it to the rest of the company?
Pay disclosure would be problematic at private companies for a few reasons. If a new executive team is being installed there may be resentment from people who hoped to be promoted to those positions and if they see how much the new team is paid it is likely to increase that resentment. If some new executives are coming in and some are staying in place, then pay scales may vary widely, and again, that could breed resentment among the existing employees. Finally, executive pay is often structured around certain goals for company performance which should not be disclosed to employees generally because they represent part of a confidential business strategy. If the new CEO is given a package that is mostly change of control based, then revealing it to the employees would put them on notice that the strategy is a sale in the next few years. If the package is structured based on the successful achievement of a specific goal like opening a new plant in x location, the employees would know about that confidential plan and could leak it out.
I would not call giving a CEO compensation that is part salary/part performance based in a company that generally only pays salary lying to the employees. It is actually a worse deal for the CEO than the other employees in relative terms, and it is only implemented for the benefit of the owners of the company. Why would we disincentive that?
Alright let's break this up.
First concern, resentment: They, like everyone else who has their salary made public, can deal. Since everyone with a public salary evidently doesn't care it's safe to say this trend shall continue.
Second concern, resentment: See above.
Third concern, executive pay can be goal based: This can be revealed after the fact. If part of a CEO's compensation is based on a specific goal that doesn't even need to be explained. They can just receive that much more that year.
As for your second paragraph, by your very reasoning CEOs are getting a worse deal and publicized salaries would benefit them. Great! They don't deserve to be cheated any more than the next person when it comes to compensation for the services they provide.
Oh, and just so we're clear, hiding the CEO's compensation because you don't think the people being payed less could handle it? That is classism.
I deal with these kinds of people everyday. They are like spoiled children when it comes to negotiating. Sometimes they lose the jobs because the client gets so fed up. "Give it to him, but we will remember this" is a not uncommon client reaction to a demand an execution be will not drop. Things like company paid rent or fuel for their private jet or a computer for their wife. It's so stupid. Then three months later they are fired.
The average executive could not deal with knowing people with similiar titles make more money than him IMO.
Okay
Call me crazy here
But I don't want societal policy decided by spoiled children
Quid on
+19
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
First of all, most C level executives work at much smaller companies that are privately held, and they tend to either have founded their company or to have founded and run another company which has been sold.
Note that I gave special consideration to people who founded their companies based on expertise they have, given that said persons probably do have something of tangible value to offer said company.
I contest your assertion that this represents anywhere near the majority of CEOs.
How do you think someone becomes a CEO? They don't get hired out of business school into the C suite. I have literally worked with hundreds of them and I am hard pressed to think of one who didn't get his first CEO job by either being part of the founding of a company or working his way up through the ranks of a smallish company and spending a tremendous amount of time growing the business (maybe starting with a division and going up from there). Once someone has been a CEO, they have mobility and may become serial CEOs. These come in a few basic flavors. There are industry people that move from the company the founded or grew to other companies in the industry (usually after their company is sold). There are turn around CEOs that develop reputations for saving companies from bankruptcy or near ruin. They tend to be hired guns for a few years. There are PE stable guys who get installed by private equity firms after they buy a business (these guys focus on growing for a sale). Then there are the big name CEOs who have such strong track records that any company would be happy to have them. There aren't many of the last kind and they mostly exist in the public company space. But the one thing nearly all CEOs have in common is that at least once they built or grew a business from almost nothing. They didn't build the widgets, but building widgets alone generally doesn't grow a company. Strategic decisions are very important (often more important than the day to day work in growing a business) and that is what the C suite does.
Okay that's great.
Why do they need to keep their pay hidden and lie about it to the rest of the company?
Pay disclosure would be problematic at private companies for a few reasons. If a new executive team is being installed there may be resentment from people who hoped to be promoted to those positions and if they see how much the new team is paid it is likely to increase that resentment. If some new executives are coming in and some are staying in place, then pay scales may vary widely, and again, that could breed resentment among the existing employees. Finally, executive pay is often structured around certain goals for company performance which should not be disclosed to employees generally because they represent part of a confidential business strategy. If the new CEO is given a package that is mostly change of control based, then revealing it to the employees would put them on notice that the strategy is a sale in the next few years. If the package is structured based on the successful achievement of a specific goal like opening a new plant in x location, the employees would know about that confidential plan and could leak it out.
I would not call giving a CEO compensation that is part salary/part performance based in a company that generally only pays salary lying to the employees. It is actually a worse deal for the CEO than the other employees in relative terms, and it is only implemented for the benefit of the owners of the company. Why would we disincentive that?
Alright let's break this up.
First concern, resentment: They, like everyone else who has their salary made public, can deal. Since everyone with a public salary evidently doesn't care it's safe to say this trend shall continue.
Second concern, resentment: See above.
Third concern, executive pay can be goal based: This can be revealed after the fact. If part of a CEO's compensation is based on a specific goal that doesn't even need to be explained. They can just receive that much more that year.
As for your second paragraph, by your very reasoning CEOs are getting a worse deal and publicized salaries would benefit them. Great! They don't deserve to be cheated any more than the next person when it comes to compensation for the services they provide.
Oh, and just so we're clear, hiding the CEO's compensation because you don't think the people being payed less could handle it? That is classism.
I deal with these kinds of people everyday. They are like spoiled children when it comes to negotiating. Sometimes they lose the jobs because the client gets so fed up. "Give it to him, but we will remember this" is a not uncommon client reaction to a demand an execution be will not drop. Things like company paid rent or fuel for their private jet or a computer for their wife. It's so stupid. Then three months later they are fired.
The average executive could not deal with knowing people with similiar titles make more money than him IMO.
If they can't, then new ones will be found or made.
This is what I keep thinking in response to all of your objections, SKFM.
Many people in our current system are asked to work in wretched conditions, are asked to work unreasonable hours and to be not properly compensated at all, or not be given any job security or benefits, or the management tries to "help" them by offering to "allow our employees to work the December holidays during the weekends of November, so that you don't miss out on pay" when what they mean is that they are trying to shadily avoid spending money on OT. Either those people put up with such treatment, or they find another job. There's very little recourse for making those employers treat their employees correctly, because there are always people who need jobs and will take what they can get.
So, the idea that some executives might lose their jobs in favor of people who would gladly take their pay but without the bonus or with a lesser bonus? Or people who will even take a pay cut to do that job and who will not care about appearances as long as they are living comfortably? Am I supposed to feel sorry that an executive is no longer getting his 400k salary because he's petty and childish? Can you understand why I feel that if an adult cannot act like an adult and that loses him his job, that I don't think the rest of us need to bend over backwards to accommodate him over the worthy multitude? Maybe, if your reaction to a more knowledge is to throw a tantrum, maybe you deserve the fallout that would naturally come from that.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
+15
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
First of all, most C level executives work at much smaller companies that are privately held, and they tend to either have founded their company or to have founded and run another company which has been sold.
Note that I gave special consideration to people who founded their companies based on expertise they have, given that said persons probably do have something of tangible value to offer said company.
I contest your assertion that this represents anywhere near the majority of CEOs.
How do you think someone becomes a CEO? They don't get hired out of business school into the C suite. I have literally worked with hundreds of them and I am hard pressed to think of one who didn't get his first CEO job by either being part of the founding of a company or working his way up through the ranks of a smallish company and spending a tremendous amount of time growing the business (maybe starting with a division and going up from there). Once someone has been a CEO, they have mobility and may become serial CEOs. These come in a few basic flavors. There are industry people that move from the company the founded or grew to other companies in the industry (usually after their company is sold). There are turn around CEOs that develop reputations for saving companies from bankruptcy or near ruin. They tend to be hired guns for a few years. There are PE stable guys who get installed by private equity firms after they buy a business (these guys focus on growing for a sale). Then there are the big name CEOs who have such strong track records that any company would be happy to have them. There aren't many of the last kind and they mostly exist in the public company space. But the one thing nearly all CEOs have in common is that at least once they built or grew a business from almost nothing. They didn't build the widgets, but building widgets alone generally doesn't grow a company. Strategic decisions are very important (often more important than the day to day work in growing a business) and that is what the C suite does.
Okay that's great.
Why do they need to keep their pay hidden and lie about it to the rest of the company?
Pay disclosure would be problematic at private companies for a few reasons. If a new executive team is being installed there may be resentment from people who hoped to be promoted to those positions and if they see how much the new team is paid it is likely to increase that resentment. If some new executives are coming in and some are staying in place, then pay scales may vary widely, and again, that could breed resentment among the existing employees. Finally, executive pay is often structured around certain goals for company performance which should not be disclosed to employees generally because they represent part of a confidential business strategy. If the new CEO is given a package that is mostly change of control based, then revealing it to the employees would put them on notice that the strategy is a sale in the next few years. If the package is structured based on the successful achievement of a specific goal like opening a new plant in x location, the employees would know about that confidential plan and could leak it out.
I would not call giving a CEO compensation that is part salary/part performance based in a company that generally only pays salary lying to the employees. It is actually a worse deal for the CEO than the other employees in relative terms, and it is only implemented for the benefit of the owners of the company. Why would we disincentive that?
Alright let's break this up.
First concern, resentment: They, like everyone else who has their salary made public, can deal. Since everyone with a public salary evidently doesn't care it's safe to say this trend shall continue.
Second concern, resentment: See above.
Third concern, executive pay can be goal based: This can be revealed after the fact. If part of a CEO's compensation is based on a specific goal that doesn't even need to be explained. They can just receive that much more that year.
As for your second paragraph, by your very reasoning CEOs are getting a worse deal and publicized salaries would benefit them. Great! They don't deserve to be cheated any more than the next person when it comes to compensation for the services they provide.
Oh, and just so we're clear, hiding the CEO's compensation because you don't think the people being payed less could handle it? That is classism.
I deal with these kinds of people everyday. They are like spoiled children when it comes to negotiating. Sometimes they lose the jobs because the client gets so fed up. "Give it to him, but we will remember this" is a not uncommon client reaction to a demand an execution be will not drop. Things like company paid rent or fuel for their private jet or a computer for their wife. It's so stupid. Then three months later they are fired.
The average executive could not deal with knowing people with similiar titles make more money than him IMO.
If they can't, then new ones will be found or made.
This is what I keep thinking in response to all of your objections, SKFM.
Many people in our current system are asked to work in wretched conditions, are asked to work unreasonable hours and to be not properly compensated at all, or not be given any job security or benefits, or the management tries to "help" them by offering to "allow our employees to work the December holidays during the weekends of November, so that you don't miss out on pay" when what they mean is that they are trying to shadily avoid spending money on OT. Either those people put up with such treatment, or they find another job. There's very little recourse for making those employers treat their employees correctly, because there are always people who need jobs and will take what they can get.
So, the idea that some executives might lose their jobs in favor of people who would gladly take their pay but without the bonus or with a lesser bonus? Or people who will even take a pay cut to do that job and who will not care about appearances as long as they are living comfortably? Am I supposed to feel sorry that an executive is no longer getting his 400k salary because he's petty and childish? Can you understand why I feel that if an adult cannot act like an adult and that loses him his job, that I don't think the rest of us need to bend over backwards to accommodate him over the worthy multitude? Maybe, if your reaction to a more knowledge is to throw a tantrum, maybe you deserve the fallout that would naturally come from that.
I am sympathetic to this argument, but as discussed earlier, wanting to be an executive isn't enough to get the job for a number of reasons. For good or for ill, a successful executive is generally the kind of person who can get a $10 million bonus and then turn around and still want to work the next day. There is a degree of greed/a perpetual desire for more that seems to be almost universal among executives. In my view, they are not at such a power imbalance relative to employers that anything needs to be changed, and I think that disclosure would really do more damage than good. This is totally seperate from rank and file employees, who generally have less power to negotiate their roles. If you are personally (or through your counsel) negotiating with the CEO or the board of directors, I think you are probably already doing fine and don't need any extra help.
So the Lebron James argument. Lebron James has worked incredibly hard, is a freak of genetics, and has an incredible rare talent on top of that. Theoretically though, anyone with that set of skills could practice and be Lebron James.
The NBA doesn't have a series of camps that you essentially MUST attend to play basketball. Although it happens to some extent, you don't have to be the kid of a current NBA player to even attend a try-out. The supply of potential NBA players isn't artificially limited to avoid competition and drive up salaries - it's limited by the rarity of people like Lebron.
When the top legal firms won't even consider someone who hasn't graduated from a T14 school, when it's essentially impossible for someone to attend a small number of med schools without someone else supporting them, or when it's almost impossible to get on the C-track without an Ivy-league pedigree, it's a problem. Those jobs are important and require people who are qualified, but more often than there are barriers put in front of people who are quite possibly the most qualified that only benefit people who are already in the system.
First of all, most C level executives work at much smaller companies that are privately held, and they tend to either have founded their company or to have founded and run another company which has been sold.
Note that I gave special consideration to people who founded their companies based on expertise they have, given that said persons probably do have something of tangible value to offer said company.
I contest your assertion that this represents anywhere near the majority of CEOs.
How do you think someone becomes a CEO? They don't get hired out of business school into the C suite. I have literally worked with hundreds of them and I am hard pressed to think of one who didn't get his first CEO job by either being part of the founding of a company or working his way up through the ranks of a smallish company and spending a tremendous amount of time growing the business (maybe starting with a division and going up from there). Once someone has been a CEO, they have mobility and may become serial CEOs. These come in a few basic flavors. There are industry people that move from the company the founded or grew to other companies in the industry (usually after their company is sold). There are turn around CEOs that develop reputations for saving companies from bankruptcy or near ruin. They tend to be hired guns for a few years. There are PE stable guys who get installed by private equity firms after they buy a business (these guys focus on growing for a sale). Then there are the big name CEOs who have such strong track records that any company would be happy to have them. There aren't many of the last kind and they mostly exist in the public company space. But the one thing nearly all CEOs have in common is that at least once they built or grew a business from almost nothing. They didn't build the widgets, but building widgets alone generally doesn't grow a company. Strategic decisions are very important (often more important than the day to day work in growing a business) and that is what the C suite does.
Okay that's great.
Why do they need to keep their pay hidden and lie about it to the rest of the company?
Pay disclosure would be problematic at private companies for a few reasons. If a new executive team is being installed there may be resentment from people who hoped to be promoted to those positions and if they see how much the new team is paid it is likely to increase that resentment.
This isn't really a societal concern. There could be resentment for any number of reasons beyond pay. This isn't something we can really legislate for or should care about.
If some new executives are coming in and some are staying in place, then pay scales may vary widely, and again, that could breed resentment among the existing employees.
The obvious solution would be to either pay scale everyone, or be able to justify the discrepancy. Again, I don't see why this wouldn't be easily worked through, and even at the C-Level those individuals making significantly less should be able to negotiate for more if they think it's justified.
Finally, executive pay is often structured around certain goals for company performance which should not be disclosed to employees generally because they represent part of a confidential business strategy. If the new CEO is given a package that is mostly change of control based, then revealing it to the employees would put them on notice that the strategy is a sale in the next few years. If the package is structured based on the successful achievement of a specific goal like opening a new plant in x location, the employees would know about that confidential plan and could leak it out.
I would not call giving a CEO compensation that is part salary/part performance based in a company that generally only pays salary lying to the employees. It is actually a worse deal for the CEO than the other employees in relative terms, and it is only implemented for the benefit of the owners of the company. Why would we disincentive that?
No one, I think, is arguing for the release of the merit justification of pay, merely that the salary itself should be disclosed.
Honestly, I don't think this is a big of an issue as you see it, because it's done in some publicly traded companies already and hasn't caused massive resentment and insubordination.
I see the following all the time: client is buying company. Client doesn't like CFO, COO, or CEO, but thinks the president is pretty good. As part of the deal, the CFO, COO and CEO will be bought out and replaced with more expensive people the client thinks will grow the business. But they are happy to keep the president on at his present pay. If he demanded the same pay scale as the new execs then the client would get rid of him too because he isn't worth that much. Isn't he better off keeping his job at his current rate of pay?
Publicly traded companies are very different from a corporate governance standpoint from private companies. There really is no comparison.
If he wants to - sure. But he should know what the equivalent pay is for the other positions and be able to negotiate accordingly. And I think you're obfuscating the point here a bit; we're specifically talking about whether or not the pay of his colleagues should be disclosed. After the fact it's up to him to decide if he's willing to accept his pay at current levels or not. But he should, in theory, at least know so that he can either negotiate a better deal, or better understand why he is not worth as much (if it's not already obvious to him).
First of all, most C level executives work at much smaller companies that are privately held, and they tend to either have founded their company or to have founded and run another company which has been sold.
Note that I gave special consideration to people who founded their companies based on expertise they have, given that said persons probably do have something of tangible value to offer said company.
I contest your assertion that this represents anywhere near the majority of CEOs.
How do you think someone becomes a CEO? They don't get hired out of business school into the C suite. I have literally worked with hundreds of them and I am hard pressed to think of one who didn't get his first CEO job by either being part of the founding of a company or working his way up through the ranks of a smallish company and spending a tremendous amount of time growing the business (maybe starting with a division and going up from there). Once someone has been a CEO, they have mobility and may become serial CEOs. These come in a few basic flavors. There are industry people that move from the company the founded or grew to other companies in the industry (usually after their company is sold). There are turn around CEOs that develop reputations for saving companies from bankruptcy or near ruin. They tend to be hired guns for a few years. There are PE stable guys who get installed by private equity firms after they buy a business (these guys focus on growing for a sale). Then there are the big name CEOs who have such strong track records that any company would be happy to have them. There aren't many of the last kind and they mostly exist in the public company space. But the one thing nearly all CEOs have in common is that at least once they built or grew a business from almost nothing. They didn't build the widgets, but building widgets alone generally doesn't grow a company. Strategic decisions are very important (often more important than the day to day work in growing a business) and that is what the C suite does.
Okay that's great.
Why do they need to keep their pay hidden and lie about it to the rest of the company?
Pay disclosure would be problematic at private companies for a few reasons. If a new executive team is being installed there may be resentment from people who hoped to be promoted to those positions and if they see how much the new team is paid it is likely to increase that resentment. If some new executives are coming in and some are staying in place, then pay scales may vary widely, and again, that could breed resentment among the existing employees. Finally, executive pay is often structured around certain goals for company performance which should not be disclosed to employees generally because they represent part of a confidential business strategy. If the new CEO is given a package that is mostly change of control based, then revealing it to the employees would put them on notice that the strategy is a sale in the next few years. If the package is structured based on the successful achievement of a specific goal like opening a new plant in x location, the employees would know about that confidential plan and could leak it out.
I would not call giving a CEO compensation that is part salary/part performance based in a company that generally only pays salary lying to the employees. It is actually a worse deal for the CEO than the other employees in relative terms, and it is only implemented for the benefit of the owners of the company. Why would we disincentive that?
Alright let's break this up.
First concern, resentment: They, like everyone else who has their salary made public, can deal. Since everyone with a public salary evidently doesn't care it's safe to say this trend shall continue.
Second concern, resentment: See above.
Third concern, executive pay can be goal based: This can be revealed after the fact. If part of a CEO's compensation is based on a specific goal that doesn't even need to be explained. They can just receive that much more that year.
As for your second paragraph, by your very reasoning CEOs are getting a worse deal and publicized salaries would benefit them. Great! They don't deserve to be cheated any more than the next person when it comes to compensation for the services they provide.
Oh, and just so we're clear, hiding the CEO's compensation because you don't think the people being payed less could handle it? That is classism.
I deal with these kinds of people everyday. They are like spoiled children when it comes to negotiating. Sometimes they lose the jobs because the client gets so fed up. "Give it to him, but we will remember this" is a not uncommon client reaction to a demand an execution be will not drop. Things like company paid rent or fuel for their private jet or a computer for their wife. It's so stupid. Then three months later they are fired.
The average executive could not deal with knowing people with similiar titles make more money than him IMO.
If they can't, then new ones will be found or made.
This is what I keep thinking in response to all of your objections, SKFM.
Many people in our current system are asked to work in wretched conditions, are asked to work unreasonable hours and to be not properly compensated at all, or not be given any job security or benefits, or the management tries to "help" them by offering to "allow our employees to work the December holidays during the weekends of November, so that you don't miss out on pay" when what they mean is that they are trying to shadily avoid spending money on OT. Either those people put up with such treatment, or they find another job. There's very little recourse for making those employers treat their employees correctly, because there are always people who need jobs and will take what they can get.
So, the idea that some executives might lose their jobs in favor of people who would gladly take their pay but without the bonus or with a lesser bonus? Or people who will even take a pay cut to do that job and who will not care about appearances as long as they are living comfortably? Am I supposed to feel sorry that an executive is no longer getting his 400k salary because he's petty and childish? Can you understand why I feel that if an adult cannot act like an adult and that loses him his job, that I don't think the rest of us need to bend over backwards to accommodate him over the worthy multitude? Maybe, if your reaction to a more knowledge is to throw a tantrum, maybe you deserve the fallout that would naturally come from that.
I am sympathetic to this argument, but as discussed earlier, wanting to be an executive isn't enough to get the job for a number of reasons. For good or for ill, a successful executive is generally the kind of person who can get a $10 million bonus and then turn around and still want to work the next day. There is a degree of greed/a perpetual desire for more that seems to be almost universal among executives. In my view, they are not at such a power imbalance relative to employers that anything needs to be changed, and I think that disclosure would really do more damage than good. This is totally seperate from rank and file employees, who generally have less power to negotiate their roles. If you are personally (or through your counsel) negotiating with the CEO or the board of directors, I think you are probably already doing fine and don't need any extra help.
Dude what does that have to do with salaries being public knowledge? If they're doing their job cause they want to keep earning millions more that's fine. Their ability to do so isn't affected by a publicized salary.
is the argument being presented that hiding information to screw your employees in negotiations (even if they might be c-level) is good
or am I misunderstanding
The discussion is about whether publicizing salaries is for the general good or is a bad thing. Note: not necessarily with people's names attached to the salaries, just knowing all the salaries that companies pay under which job titles, and reasons for discrepancies if there are some, for example higher pay for higher merit in the company, or higher pay for longer service, etc.
I'm arguing on the side that transparency is good, helps employees in negotiation, helps everyone in a general way when looking at jobs and deciding on what to train for when figuring out a career path. I see it as a general societal good that everyone would prefer if it were already in place.
Even SKFM's arguments that it will somehow harm executives doesn't seem correct to me, because there are always going to be executives who aren't in the good old boys' network that still have the qualifications that SKFM insists are absolutely necessary in becoming a CEO. So that transparency will even help CEOs, particularly the variety of CEO that isn't a white male.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
First of all, most C level executives work at much smaller companies that are privately held, and they tend to either have founded their company or to have founded and run another company which has been sold.
Note that I gave special consideration to people who founded their companies based on expertise they have, given that said persons probably do have something of tangible value to offer said company.
I contest your assertion that this represents anywhere near the majority of CEOs.
How do you think someone becomes a CEO? They don't get hired out of business school into the C suite. I have literally worked with hundreds of them and I am hard pressed to think of one who didn't get his first CEO job by either being part of the founding of a company or working his way up through the ranks of a smallish company and spending a tremendous amount of time growing the business (maybe starting with a division and going up from there). Once someone has been a CEO, they have mobility and may become serial CEOs. These come in a few basic flavors. There are industry people that move from the company the founded or grew to other companies in the industry (usually after their company is sold). There are turn around CEOs that develop reputations for saving companies from bankruptcy or near ruin. They tend to be hired guns for a few years. There are PE stable guys who get installed by private equity firms after they buy a business (these guys focus on growing for a sale). Then there are the big name CEOs who have such strong track records that any company would be happy to have them. There aren't many of the last kind and they mostly exist in the public company space. But the one thing nearly all CEOs have in common is that at least once they built or grew a business from almost nothing. They didn't build the widgets, but building widgets alone generally doesn't grow a company. Strategic decisions are very important (often more important than the day to day work in growing a business) and that is what the C suite does.
Okay that's great.
Why do they need to keep their pay hidden and lie about it to the rest of the company?
Pay disclosure would be problematic at private companies for a few reasons. If a new executive team is being installed there may be resentment from people who hoped to be promoted to those positions and if they see how much the new team is paid it is likely to increase that resentment. If some new executives are coming in and some are staying in place, then pay scales may vary widely, and again, that could breed resentment among the existing employees. Finally, executive pay is often structured around certain goals for company performance which should not be disclosed to employees generally because they represent part of a confidential business strategy. If the new CEO is given a package that is mostly change of control based, then revealing it to the employees would put them on notice that the strategy is a sale in the next few years. If the package is structured based on the successful achievement of a specific goal like opening a new plant in x location, the employees would know about that confidential plan and could leak it out.
I would not call giving a CEO compensation that is part salary/part performance based in a company that generally only pays salary lying to the employees. It is actually a worse deal for the CEO than the other employees in relative terms, and it is only implemented for the benefit of the owners of the company. Why would we disincentive that?
Alright let's break this up.
First concern, resentment: They, like everyone else who has their salary made public, can deal. Since everyone with a public salary evidently doesn't care it's safe to say this trend shall continue.
Second concern, resentment: See above.
Third concern, executive pay can be goal based: This can be revealed after the fact. If part of a CEO's compensation is based on a specific goal that doesn't even need to be explained. They can just receive that much more that year.
As for your second paragraph, by your very reasoning CEOs are getting a worse deal and publicized salaries would benefit them. Great! They don't deserve to be cheated any more than the next person when it comes to compensation for the services they provide.
Oh, and just so we're clear, hiding the CEO's compensation because you don't think the people being payed less could handle it? That is classism.
I deal with these kinds of people everyday. They are like spoiled children when it comes to negotiating. Sometimes they lose the jobs because the client gets so fed up. "Give it to him, but we will remember this" is a not uncommon client reaction to a demand an execution be will not drop. Things like company paid rent or fuel for their private jet or a computer for their wife. It's so stupid. Then three months later they are fired.
The average executive could not deal with knowing people with similiar titles make more money than him IMO.
If they can't, then new ones will be found or made.
This is what I keep thinking in response to all of your objections, SKFM.
Many people in our current system are asked to work in wretched conditions, are asked to work unreasonable hours and to be not properly compensated at all, or not be given any job security or benefits, or the management tries to "help" them by offering to "allow our employees to work the December holidays during the weekends of November, so that you don't miss out on pay" when what they mean is that they are trying to shadily avoid spending money on OT. Either those people put up with such treatment, or they find another job. There's very little recourse for making those employers treat their employees correctly, because there are always people who need jobs and will take what they can get.
So, the idea that some executives might lose their jobs in favor of people who would gladly take their pay but without the bonus or with a lesser bonus? Or people who will even take a pay cut to do that job and who will not care about appearances as long as they are living comfortably? Am I supposed to feel sorry that an executive is no longer getting his 400k salary because he's petty and childish? Can you understand why I feel that if an adult cannot act like an adult and that loses him his job, that I don't think the rest of us need to bend over backwards to accommodate him over the worthy multitude? Maybe, if your reaction to a more knowledge is to throw a tantrum, maybe you deserve the fallout that would naturally come from that.
I am sympathetic to this argument, but as discussed earlier, wanting to be an executive isn't enough to get the job for a number of reasons. For good or for ill, a successful executive is generally the kind of person who can get a $10 million bonus and then turn around and still want to work the next day. There is a degree of greed/a perpetual desire for more that seems to be almost universal among executives. In my view, they are not at such a power imbalance relative to employers that anything needs to be changed, and I think that disclosure would really do more damage than good. This is totally seperate from rank and file employees, who generally have less power to negotiate their roles. If you are personally (or through your counsel) negotiating with the CEO or the board of directors, I think you are probably already doing fine and don't need any extra help.
These just sound like the people who are most likely to be influenced more by personal gain than by the success of the company, which is kind of where people learn to distrust executives to begin with.
You're making high-end workers sound even worse than we are.
People absolutely need to know the salaries of petulant children who function solely off of greed.
The more that I think about it, the less concerned I am of a resentment argument.
If your salary polices are so unfair, that once made public, they generate belligerent resentment in the workplace - you probably deserve it.
Just want to mention that it won't be only the unfair salaries that generate belligerent resentment. Especially since "unfair" is an entirely subjective measure.
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
Reading about the behavior of actual executives in actual grown up jobs, I am beginning to understand why economists make assumptions like "everyone will act solely out of coldly rational short-term self interest, with no concern for anything that doesn't have a dollar tag associated with it."
Apparently executives are created by stapling a simplistic economics model to a mannequin and running electricity through it.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
The more that I think about it, the less concerned I am of a resentment argument.
If your salary polices are so unfair, that once made public, they generate belligerent resentment in the workplace - you probably deserve it.
Just want to mention that it won't be only the unfair salaries that generate belligerent resentment. Especially since "unfair" is an entirely subjective measure.
And I'll just mention once again that everyone here with publicized salaries don't see this belligerent resentment occurring at all.
Indeed the only people who appear to have actually experienced this resentment don't make their salary known at all.
Since no one at all has provided proof that publicized salaries result in "belligerent resentment" I'm feeling pretty confident it's not a major issue. Especially with the huge swaths of America with publicized pay not on fire over petty jealousy some of you seem certain exists all over.
Oh hey that's true. People with publicized pay have demonstrated that it's not an issue at all for them. A few people have expressed that they merely really believe it might be.
Ok, how about this 'proof', every time I have been in a situation where income disparities have become known, it has changed the dynamic of the group. Friendships were lost. So there's my anecdote, is it less valid than yours?
The more that I think about it, the less concerned I am of a resentment argument.
If your salary polices are so unfair, that once made public, they generate belligerent resentment in the workplace - you probably deserve it.
Just want to mention that it won't be only the unfair salaries that generate belligerent resentment. Especially since "unfair" is an entirely subjective measure.
And I'll just mention once again that everyone here with publicized salaries don't see this belligerent resentment occurring at all.
Indeed the only people who appear to have actually experienced this resentment don't make their salary known at all.
I just want to mention that I don't necessarily buy into the resentment argument, either. My qualms are not predicated on potential resentment. I consider "what I make" to be personal, not explicitly obvious, data that I have a "right" to disseminate at my own discretion. That is not necessarily based on logic or rationale anyway but I don't really want my position to be conflated with the argument of resentment or the argument that it may weaken your own negotiation power. I don't much care about either of those things, if I'm being honest.
Anyway, I don't really have a problem with titles and salary ranges being published. It's more that I don't want my name to be linked to an explicit salary. I don't really even mind telling people my salary range (I personally make between 1 and 1,000,000,000 dollars per year).
Ok, how about this 'proof', every time I have been in a situation where income disparities have become known, it has changed the dynamic of the group. Friendships were lost. So there's my anecdote, is it less valid than yours?
Ok, how about this 'proof', every time I have been in a situation where income disparities have become known, it has changed the dynamic of the group. Friendships were lost. So there's my anecdote, is it less valid than yours?
Did you need to know your friends salaries to know about income disparities? There are obvious signs to look out for; it isn't difficult.
Right, if the goal is to reduce the income gap for non-merit reasons, such as gender or race discrimination, that is a noble aspriration and one we should all pursue. However, I feel that can be accomplished without publishing my personal information for the world to see.
Ok, how about this 'proof', every time I have been in a situation where income disparities have become known, it has changed the dynamic of the group. Friendships were lost. So there's my anecdote, is it less valid than yours?
Huh. That was petty of them.
Welcome to humanity, not everyone is a paragon of virtue.
Right, if the goal is to reduce the income gap for non-merit reasons, such as gender or race discrimination, that is a noble aspriration and one we should all pursue. However, I feel that can be accomplished without publishing my personal information for the world to see.
Except there has been an acceptable format discussed that don't name names. This stuff is barely below the surface and with some digging and knowing what signs to look for it'd be easy for your friends to know about. It's possible your mechanic suspects what income level you're in.
Ok, how about this 'proof', every time I have been in a situation where income disparities have become known, it has changed the dynamic of the group. Friendships were lost. So there's my anecdote, is it less valid than yours?
Huh. That was petty of them.
Welcome to humanity, not everyone is a paragon of virtue.
This is true! And I would never claim someone to be. I generally just find it best not to assume the worst of everyone.
Ok, how about this 'proof', every time I have been in a situation where income disparities have become known, it has changed the dynamic of the group. Friendships were lost. So there's my anecdote, is it less valid than yours?
Did you need to know your friends salaries to know about income disparities? There are obvious signs to look out for; it isn't difficult.
If you say so, aside from "more" or "less" than myself, unless I have specific knowledge of their job, I don't often know what most people make.
Ok, how about this 'proof', every time I have been in a situation where income disparities have become known, it has changed the dynamic of the group. Friendships were lost. So there's my anecdote, is it less valid than yours?
Huh. That was petty of them.
Welcome to humanity, not everyone is a paragon of virtue.
This is true! And I would never claim someone to be. I generally just find it best not to assume the worst of everyone.
But when deciding on policies it is unwise to assume the best of everyone. Because it is very clear that won't be the case.
Ok, how about this 'proof', every time I have been in a situation where income disparities have become known, it has changed the dynamic of the group. Friendships were lost. So there's my anecdote, is it less valid than yours?
Did you need to know your friends salaries to know about income disparities? There are obvious signs to look out for; it isn't difficult.
If you say so, aside from "more" or "less" than myself, unless I have specific knowledge of their job, I don't often know what most people make.
I find it remarkably simple, and I'm not alone with that ability. The deeper the gaps a person has with money upper or lower, the easier it is to tell.
edit: It's not about their job. It's what they wear, what they can afford, cars, their attitude, houses etc.
Right, if the goal is to reduce the income gap for non-merit reasons, such as gender or race discrimination, that is a noble aspriration and one we should all pursue. However, I feel that can be accomplished without publishing my personal information for the world to see.
Except there has been an acceptable format discussed that don't name names. This stuff is barely below the surface and with some digging and knowing what signs to look for it'd be easy for your friends to know about. It's possible your mechanic suspects what income level you're in.
Right, I am fine with any method that doesn't name names. However, the impression I have gotten from the last 17 pages of this thread is that many don't see why naming names is something we should avoid. Just because it is possible to make a fairly accurate guess based on some information that cannot be hidden from public view doesn't mean we should make it easy. Also, I think you are discounting the fact that the mechanic has a bit of insider information, namely how much you are willing to pay to have your car fixed. The cashier at my local RiteAid probably has a pretty good guess at some of my medical conditions, but I don't think anyone here thinks that is something we should publish.
Ok, how about this 'proof', every time I have been in a situation where income disparities have become known, it has changed the dynamic of the group. Friendships were lost. So there's my anecdote, is it less valid than yours?
Huh. That was petty of them.
Welcome to humanity, not everyone is a paragon of virtue.
This is true! And I would never claim someone to be. I generally just find it best not to assume the worst of everyone.
But when deciding on policies it is unwise to assume the best of everyone. Because it is very clear that won't be the case.
No one has said assume the absolute best. If you consider general indifference to each other to be some amazing feat of human compassion then I'm a bit concerned. The vast majority of people with publicized pay don't care about each other's pay. I've yet to see anyone demonstrate why society would suddenly collapse in to sheer jealous rage over each other.
Right, if the goal is to reduce the income gap for non-merit reasons, such as gender or race discrimination, that is a noble aspriration and one we should all pursue. However, I feel that can be accomplished without publishing my personal information for the world to see.
Except there has been an acceptable format discussed that don't name names. This stuff is barely below the surface and with some digging and knowing what signs to look for it'd be easy for your friends to know about. It's possible your mechanic suspects what income level you're in.
Right, I am fine with any method that doesn't name names. However, the impression I have gotten from the last 17 pages of this thread is that many don't see why naming names is something we should avoid. Just because it is possible to make a fairly accurate guess based on some information that cannot be hidden from public view doesn't mean we should make it easy.
This isn't hidden from public view and it's impossible to hide unless you change everything about your lifestyle for people to notice. If you agree with the anonymous method of information there's nothing to argue about here.
Also, I think you are discounting the fact that the mechanic has a bit of insider information, namely how much you are willing to pay to have your car fixed. The cashier at my local RiteAid probably has a pretty good guess at some of my medical conditions, but I don't think anyone here thinks that is something we should publish.
That's part of it, that isn't the only info they'll know about you.
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
Ok, how about this 'proof', every time I have been in a situation where income disparities have become known, it has changed the dynamic of the group. Friendships were lost. So there's my anecdote, is it less valid than yours?
Can you perhaps be a little more descriptive of what sort of situation you're talking about? Because "once there were some dudes and then an income disparity became known and then the dynamics changed" is not exactly informative.
Are we talking coworkers? Best friends? Was there a bank exec and a social worker watching a football game and suddenly the social worker realized he might make less than the bank exec and now they're no longer besties?
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+1
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
Right, if the goal is to reduce the income gap for non-merit reasons, such as gender or race discrimination, that is a noble aspriration and one we should all pursue. However, I feel that can be accomplished without publishing my personal information for the world to see.
Also, this is only a small part of the justification. Have you actually been reading the thread? There's a helluva lot of concern besides outright illegal discrimination.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Ok, how about this 'proof', every time I have been in a situation where income disparities have become known, it has changed the dynamic of the group. Friendships were lost. So there's my anecdote, is it less valid than yours?
Did you need to know your friends salaries to know about income disparities? There are obvious signs to look out for; it isn't difficult.
If you say so, aside from "more" or "less" than myself, unless I have specific knowledge of their job, I don't often know what most people make.
I find it remarkably simple, and I'm not alone with that ability. The deeper the gaps a person has with money upper or lower, the easier it is to tell.
edit: It's not about their job. It's what they wear, what they can afford, cars, their attitude, houses etc.
Yes, some of those things can have obvious markers of financial status. However, they are not always accurate. A lot of people live beyond or below their current means. There are probably a lot more millionaires in the US than most people would expect because most of them don't look like millionaires. They are the people that bought a modest home, invested it with some sweat equity and clipped coupons for the last 30 years before retiring.
Posts
Isn't he allowed to be an adult who can be offered that choice himself and make the decision? Letting everyone know the wages that everyone in the company is being given allows him the choice. Not letting him know implies you consider him a child who has to be kept from the truth "for his own good." Maybe he doesn't agree with you that it's for his own good.
or am I misunderstanding
That would be his best outcome.
Alright let's break this up.
First concern, resentment: They, like everyone else who has their salary made public, can deal. Since everyone with a public salary evidently doesn't care it's safe to say this trend shall continue.
Second concern, resentment: See above.
Third concern, executive pay can be goal based: This can be revealed after the fact. If part of a CEO's compensation is based on a specific goal that doesn't even need to be explained. They can just receive that much more that year.
As for your second paragraph, by your very reasoning CEOs are getting a worse deal and publicized salaries would benefit them. Great! They don't deserve to be cheated any more than the next person when it comes to compensation for the services they provide.
Oh, and just so we're clear, hiding the CEO's compensation because you don't think the people being payed less could handle it? That is classism.
I deal with these kinds of people everyday. They are like spoiled children when it comes to negotiating. Sometimes they lose the jobs because the client gets so fed up. "Give it to him, but we will remember this" is a not uncommon client reaction to a demand an execution be will not drop. Things like company paid rent or fuel for their private jet or a computer for their wife. It's so stupid. Then three months later they are fired.
The average executive could not deal with knowing people with similiar titles make more money than him IMO.
If they can't, then new ones will be found or made.
Okay
Call me crazy here
But I don't want societal policy decided by spoiled children
This is what I keep thinking in response to all of your objections, SKFM.
Many people in our current system are asked to work in wretched conditions, are asked to work unreasonable hours and to be not properly compensated at all, or not be given any job security or benefits, or the management tries to "help" them by offering to "allow our employees to work the December holidays during the weekends of November, so that you don't miss out on pay" when what they mean is that they are trying to shadily avoid spending money on OT. Either those people put up with such treatment, or they find another job. There's very little recourse for making those employers treat their employees correctly, because there are always people who need jobs and will take what they can get.
So, the idea that some executives might lose their jobs in favor of people who would gladly take their pay but without the bonus or with a lesser bonus? Or people who will even take a pay cut to do that job and who will not care about appearances as long as they are living comfortably? Am I supposed to feel sorry that an executive is no longer getting his 400k salary because he's petty and childish? Can you understand why I feel that if an adult cannot act like an adult and that loses him his job, that I don't think the rest of us need to bend over backwards to accommodate him over the worthy multitude? Maybe, if your reaction to a more knowledge is to throw a tantrum, maybe you deserve the fallout that would naturally come from that.
I am sympathetic to this argument, but as discussed earlier, wanting to be an executive isn't enough to get the job for a number of reasons. For good or for ill, a successful executive is generally the kind of person who can get a $10 million bonus and then turn around and still want to work the next day. There is a degree of greed/a perpetual desire for more that seems to be almost universal among executives. In my view, they are not at such a power imbalance relative to employers that anything needs to be changed, and I think that disclosure would really do more damage than good. This is totally seperate from rank and file employees, who generally have less power to negotiate their roles. If you are personally (or through your counsel) negotiating with the CEO or the board of directors, I think you are probably already doing fine and don't need any extra help.
The NBA doesn't have a series of camps that you essentially MUST attend to play basketball. Although it happens to some extent, you don't have to be the kid of a current NBA player to even attend a try-out. The supply of potential NBA players isn't artificially limited to avoid competition and drive up salaries - it's limited by the rarity of people like Lebron.
When the top legal firms won't even consider someone who hasn't graduated from a T14 school, when it's essentially impossible for someone to attend a small number of med schools without someone else supporting them, or when it's almost impossible to get on the C-track without an Ivy-league pedigree, it's a problem. Those jobs are important and require people who are qualified, but more often than there are barriers put in front of people who are quite possibly the most qualified that only benefit people who are already in the system.
If he wants to - sure. But he should know what the equivalent pay is for the other positions and be able to negotiate accordingly. And I think you're obfuscating the point here a bit; we're specifically talking about whether or not the pay of his colleagues should be disclosed. After the fact it's up to him to decide if he's willing to accept his pay at current levels or not. But he should, in theory, at least know so that he can either negotiate a better deal, or better understand why he is not worth as much (if it's not already obvious to him).
Dude what does that have to do with salaries being public knowledge? If they're doing their job cause they want to keep earning millions more that's fine. Their ability to do so isn't affected by a publicized salary.
If your salary polices are so unfair, that once made public, they generate belligerent resentment in the workplace - you probably deserve it.
The discussion is about whether publicizing salaries is for the general good or is a bad thing. Note: not necessarily with people's names attached to the salaries, just knowing all the salaries that companies pay under which job titles, and reasons for discrepancies if there are some, for example higher pay for higher merit in the company, or higher pay for longer service, etc.
I'm arguing on the side that transparency is good, helps employees in negotiation, helps everyone in a general way when looking at jobs and deciding on what to train for when figuring out a career path. I see it as a general societal good that everyone would prefer if it were already in place.
Even SKFM's arguments that it will somehow harm executives doesn't seem correct to me, because there are always going to be executives who aren't in the good old boys' network that still have the qualifications that SKFM insists are absolutely necessary in becoming a CEO. So that transparency will even help CEOs, particularly the variety of CEO that isn't a white male.
These just sound like the people who are most likely to be influenced more by personal gain than by the success of the company, which is kind of where people learn to distrust executives to begin with.
You're making high-end workers sound even worse than we are.
People absolutely need to know the salaries of petulant children who function solely off of greed.
Just want to mention that it won't be only the unfair salaries that generate belligerent resentment. Especially since "unfair" is an entirely subjective measure.
Apparently executives are created by stapling a simplistic economics model to a mannequin and running electricity through it.
And I'll just mention once again that everyone here with publicized salaries don't see this belligerent resentment occurring at all.
Indeed the only people who appear to have actually experienced this resentment don't make their salary known at all.
Since no one at all has provided proof that publicized salaries result in "belligerent resentment" I'm feeling pretty confident it's not a major issue. Especially with the huge swaths of America with publicized pay not on fire over petty jealousy some of you seem certain exists all over.
Anecdotes vs. hypotheticals, actually.
I just want to mention that I don't necessarily buy into the resentment argument, either. My qualms are not predicated on potential resentment. I consider "what I make" to be personal, not explicitly obvious, data that I have a "right" to disseminate at my own discretion. That is not necessarily based on logic or rationale anyway but I don't really want my position to be conflated with the argument of resentment or the argument that it may weaken your own negotiation power. I don't much care about either of those things, if I'm being honest.
Anyway, I don't really have a problem with titles and salary ranges being published. It's more that I don't want my name to be linked to an explicit salary. I don't really even mind telling people my salary range (I personally make between 1 and 1,000,000,000 dollars per year).
Huh. That was petty of them.
Did you need to know your friends salaries to know about income disparities? There are obvious signs to look out for; it isn't difficult.
I had a war of anecdotes once and completely won.
Welcome to humanity, not everyone is a paragon of virtue.
Except there has been an acceptable format discussed that don't name names. This stuff is barely below the surface and with some digging and knowing what signs to look for it'd be easy for your friends to know about. It's possible your mechanic suspects what income level you're in.
This is true! And I would never claim someone to be. I generally just find it best not to assume the worst of everyone.
If you say so, aside from "more" or "less" than myself, unless I have specific knowledge of their job, I don't often know what most people make.
But when deciding on policies it is unwise to assume the best of everyone. Because it is very clear that won't be the case.
I find it remarkably simple, and I'm not alone with that ability. The deeper the gaps a person has with money upper or lower, the easier it is to tell.
edit: It's not about their job. It's what they wear, what they can afford, cars, their attitude, houses etc.
Right, I am fine with any method that doesn't name names. However, the impression I have gotten from the last 17 pages of this thread is that many don't see why naming names is something we should avoid. Just because it is possible to make a fairly accurate guess based on some information that cannot be hidden from public view doesn't mean we should make it easy. Also, I think you are discounting the fact that the mechanic has a bit of insider information, namely how much you are willing to pay to have your car fixed. The cashier at my local RiteAid probably has a pretty good guess at some of my medical conditions, but I don't think anyone here thinks that is something we should publish.
No one has said assume the absolute best. If you consider general indifference to each other to be some amazing feat of human compassion then I'm a bit concerned. The vast majority of people with publicized pay don't care about each other's pay. I've yet to see anyone demonstrate why society would suddenly collapse in to sheer jealous rage over each other.
This isn't hidden from public view and it's impossible to hide unless you change everything about your lifestyle for people to notice. If you agree with the anonymous method of information there's nothing to argue about here.
That's part of it, that isn't the only info they'll know about you.
Can you perhaps be a little more descriptive of what sort of situation you're talking about? Because "once there were some dudes and then an income disparity became known and then the dynamics changed" is not exactly informative.
Are we talking coworkers? Best friends? Was there a bank exec and a social worker watching a football game and suddenly the social worker realized he might make less than the bank exec and now they're no longer besties?
Also, this is only a small part of the justification. Have you actually been reading the thread? There's a helluva lot of concern besides outright illegal discrimination.
Yes, some of those things can have obvious markers of financial status. However, they are not always accurate. A lot of people live beyond or below their current means. There are probably a lot more millionaires in the US than most people would expect because most of them don't look like millionaires. They are the people that bought a modest home, invested it with some sweat equity and clipped coupons for the last 30 years before retiring.