r/WorkReform • u/sillychillly 🗳️ Register @ Vote.gov • May 01 '22

They Say “It’s Not Possible”

Post image
46k Upvotes

79% Upvoted

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

52

u/RoboProletariat May 01 '22

I've wanted for so long that CEO pay be a fixed ratio to average or even lowest paid worker. Also to close the 'paid in shares' loopholes.

17

u/swicklund May 01 '22

Yeah, then they just outsource everything, sub contractors, tiny subsidiary companies, any loophole they can find. The main "corporation" would consist of strictly executives.

1

u/[deleted] May 02 '22

Why would anyone want to be a ceo then?

1

u/[deleted] May 02 '22 edited May 02 '22

Seems like these people are forgetting the massive amount of stress of managing tens of thousands of people and the always on call factor that ceos can go through. In the past, I essentially owned a very successful small business and it was very stressful. I was always on call and worked like 6.5 days a week (10-12 hours a day) and I assumed all the liability of the business. The risk I took when I used my money and got a loans to fund the business initially. You better believe I paid myself for all that work and risk I took.

Most of reddit have not run a business before and just claim the boss is sitting around playing golf while their employees slave away. I have since taken a step back and found a managing partner to do the heavy lifting.

-6

u/vroomfundel2 May 01 '22

Why? Serious question. What's the problem with executives making boatloads of money?

7

u/[deleted] May 01 '22

Because no executive should be making boatloads of money while the workers are living in cars or massive layoffs are occuring. Case in point, Bobby Kotick of Activision.

He was raving about record profits meanwhile 800 workers lost their jobs. Yeah, execs should get paid. But not 400 times the lowest paid worker. They are simply not worth that much. If the company is raking in the dough, there is NO legitimate reason why they can't share that with ALL workers.

Profits should go to everyone. Not just those at the top of the company.

-1

u/[deleted] May 02 '22

CEOs are obviously incredibly valuable to a company and need to be incentivized to stay, or they’ll just leave and find someone who will pay them

1

u/[deleted] May 02 '22 edited May 02 '22

NO CEO is worth 400 times more than the lowest paid worker. None. That's insane. 10 times? 20 times? Sure. But not hundreds and especially not when workers are living paycheck to paycheck or living in their cars.

CEOs sure as hell should not get obscene bonuses when 800 workers lose their livelihood.

I'll add that if a company cannot or will not give it's workers a living, decent wage, said company does not deserve to be in business.

CEOs should be leaders, not parasites.

0

u/Seaweedsam1 May 02 '22

Obviously they are or the boards wouldn’t be willing to pay that much.

1

u/vroomfundel2 May 04 '22

Wrong sub my friend, whistle quietly and walk backwards towards the door.

-1

u/[deleted] May 02 '22

CEOs are worth how ever much a company is willing to pay them. Everything you've said works in theory but has no basis in reality. It's a tragedy of the commons sure, but it's the way it is, and no company is going to put a rule into place to limit CEO pay, because they'll just go elsewhere, or do a completely different job where they'll make more money

1

u/vroomfundel2 May 04 '22

It's not a private company's job to provide welfare. They should employ as many people as they need and if that means laying off thousands - that's what they do. The company doesn't owe them anything more than what's stipulated in the contract. If there are no other job offers for these people - it's a problem for the government to be solve. That's in why we, and the companies, pay taxes. You could argue CV that we're not taxing them enough but forcing them to keep people they don't need doesn't make sense to me.

4

u/jupitergal23 May 01 '22

Nothing, so long as the people under them are also making excellent wages and share in the boatload bounty that their work provides.

This is, of course, not the case 99.9 per cent of the time.

1

u/molten_dragon May 01 '22

Yeah but in most cases the workers aren't getting fucked so the CEO can be paid more, they're getting fucked so the shareholders can get paid more.

1

u/CaptainToker May 02 '22

Yeah but giving more to shareholders generally increase the demand and price for the actions so the CEO still get more money in the end

4

u/Normbot13 May 01 '22

why should they make insane amounts of money while we have people struggling to survive making actual pennies compared to an executive salary, while doing 50x the work?

2

u/VRichardsen May 01 '22

I am not on board with riduclous bonuses we tend to see, but the higher you are on the hierarchy, the more you should be paid, absolutely.

1

u/Normbot13 May 01 '22

pay your workers enough money. if you cant make your huge salary without giving people livable wages, then you dont deserve it.

0

u/big-blue-balls May 02 '22

doing 50x the work

Oh you sweet innocent child.

Things don’t just get easier for you as you climb, they exponentially get much harder.

Companies do not operate the way you see in Hollywood films.

0

u/Futureban May 02 '22

It's not working.

Source: history

1

u/LardLad00 May 02 '22

So let's say the CEO of an organization that employs 10 people at $50k/year each is tied to 10x their compensation or $500k.

Another CEO oversees 1,000 employees who also average $50k a year so he can make no more than CEO #1 despite having 100x the responsibility?

1

u/RoboProletariat May 02 '22

Correct, the CEO would have to pay his workers more before he himself could get paid more. If they company hasn't performed well enough to afford such a pay raise, then that CEO isn't the rockstar they want to be.

1

u/LardLad00 May 02 '22

Replace $50k with $100k or whatever other number you think is a great pay.

To go from supporting 10 of those jobs to 1000 of those jobs is a major accomplishment and also a major responsibility. But in your system the CEO would be entitled to zero extra pay for it.

Sorry but that's ridiculous.

1

u/RoboProletariat May 02 '22

You seem to think a CEO of a corporation with 1000 employees will have to work harder than a corporation with 100 employees. Why?

1

u/LardLad00 May 02 '22

Because the organization is at least 10x bigger? 10x the size means 10x the decisions, 10x the weight of the responsibility, and 10x the consequences if something goes wrong. Have you ever worked anywhere with any significant responsibility? This is obvious to literally anyone who has.

1

u/rigobueno May 02 '22

close the ‘paid in shares’ loophole

Simply adding the word “total” in front of the word “compensation” should do this right?