The Guardian
Business
No CEO should earn 1,000 times more than a regular employee
Sarah Anderson
For the first time ever, US corporations have begun reporting pay ratio data. And a movement is building to crack down on companies that don’t share the wealth
Sun 18 Mar 2018 10.00 GMT
Last modified on Sun 18 Mar 2018 12.45 GMT
Shares
366
Comments
299
‘The new ratios offer a benchmark for corporate greed that exposes exactly which firms are sharing the wealth their employees create and which aren’t.’
‘The new ratios offer a benchmark for corporate greed that exposes exactly which firms are sharing the wealth their employees create and which aren’t.’ Photograph: KeystoneUSA-Zum/Rex Shutterstock
The CEO of Marathon Petroleum, Gary Heminger, took home an astonishing 935 times more pay than his typical employee in 2017. In other words, one of Marathon’s gas station workers would have to toil more than nine centuries to make as much as Heminger grabbed in just one year.
Employees of at least five other US firms would have to work even longer – more than a millennium – to catch up with their top bosses. These companies include the auto parts maker Aptiv (CEO-worker pay ratio: 2,526 to 1), the temp agency Manpower (2,483 to 1), amusement park owner Six Flags (1,920 to 1), Del Monte Produce (1,465 to 1), and apparel maker VF (1,353 to 1).
These revelations come thanks to a new federal regulation that requires publicly traded US corporations to disclose, for the first time ever, how much their chief executives are making compared with their median workers. The disclosures are just now starting to flow in.
"The corporate media ignores the rise of oligarchy. The rest of us shouldn't"
Bernie Sanders
Bernie Sanders
Read more
Up until this year, comparisons of CEO and worker pay have had to rely on the average take-homes of US workers overall – not the pay of workers at individual corporations. Those generalized figures helped us track the soaring trajectory of executive compensation at big US corporations, from 30 times average worker pay in the 1960s to over 300 times more recently.
But headlines around those average figures did next to nothing to slow our CEO pay-hike express. Will the release of the ratios at individual corporations make any more of a difference?
Corporate America must surely think so. Ever since 2010, the year Congress plugged a ratio disclosure mandate into the Dodd-Frank financial reform act, corporate lobbyists have been scheming to delay and repeal that mandate’s implementation. But responsible investors and other activists rallied and kept the mandate in place.
The new ratios offer a benchmark for corporate greed that exposes exactly which firms are sharing the wealth their employees create and which aren’t, knowledge we can use to impose consequences on the corporations doing the most to make the United States more unequal.
What sort of consequences?
In Oregon, the city of Portland has adopted what the economist Branko Milanović has labeled “the first tax that targets inequality as such”. Portland’s new levy imposes a 10% business tax surcharge on companies with top execs making over 100 times their median worker pay – and a 20% surcharge on firms with pay gaps that stretch past 250 times.
City officials in San Francisco are bringing a similar measure before voters this November. At the state level, lawmakers in Minnesota, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Illinois, and Massachusetts are getting into the pay-ratio tax act as well.
All this could make a significant dent. Corporate execs head up about two-thirds of America’s top 1% households
In California, a state senate bill that took the same approach nearly passed. The key sponsor of that measure, Mark DeSaulnier, now sits in Congress, where he’s co-sponsoring a like-minded federal bill.
Other lawmakers are advancing proposals to link government procurement to pay ratios. Existing public policies deny government contracts to companies with employment practices that contribute to race and gender inequality. Why should tax dollars be subsidizing firms that increase economic inequality?
In Rhode Island, a pending Senate bill would give preferential treatment in state contracting to corporations that pay their CEOs no more than 25 times their median worker pay. Several congressional offices are now preparing legislation that aims in the same direction.
Even some Republicans have shown interest in leveraging the power of the public purse against firms that pay top execs astronomically more than workers. In 2015, then Republican congressman (now the White House budget director) Mick Mulvaney tried to prevent the US Export-Import Bank from subsidizing any company with CEO pay over 100 times median worker pay. Lawmakers could easily apply the same standard to other forms of corporate welfare.
Ratio disclosure also opens doors for trade unions to bring demands tied to pay gaps into collective bargaining. Consumers can shun corporations that lavish pay on their top execs at the expense of their employees. Investors can put their 401(k) dollars in mutual funds that screen out corporations with chronic pay-gap excess.
Goldman Sachs pay gap reveals men paid twice as much as women
Read more
All this activity could make a significant dent in inequality. Corporate execs today head up about two-thirds of America’s top 1% households.
We don’t have to just complain any more about runaway executive pay. Now we can make corporations that pay their CEOs unconscionably more than their workers change their ways – or pay the consequences.
Sarah Anderson has been the lead author on the annual Institute for Policy Studies Executive Excess reports since 1994. She co-edits Inequality.org with Sam Pizzigati. His latest book, The Case for a Maximum Wage, will appear this spring
Topics
Business
Inequality
comment
Share on LinkedIn
Share on Pinterest
Share on Google+
comments (292)
Signed in as peakofithomspon
Your comments are currently being pre-moderated (why?)
Enter comment
1 2 3 4 5
zootsuitbeatnick
3m ago
0 1
"No CEO should earn 1,000 times more than a regular employee"
imo
Totally agree.
However, the people who have to power to do something about it are owned and operated by the people who created this mess as opposed to the 99% who simply have to deal with it on a daily basis.
Sadly, voters have less power than backers because they're so easily manipulated by irrelevant issues and visions of grandeur.
imo
Reply Share
Facebook
Twitter
Report
RecantedYank
4m ago
0 1
Base salary discrepancy is only the tip of the ice berg...
Here are the real kickers:
Signing bonus
Annual incentive
Guaranteed minimum annual incentive
Stock options
Discounted stock options
Restricted stock
Loan to purchase restricted stock
Loan to pay taxes
Loan to purchase home
Forgiveness of loan(s)
Normal employee benefits *
Supplemental executive medical insurance
Supplemental executive life insurance
Supplemental executive retirement plan (SERP)
Nonqualified deferred compensation plan
Club memberships
First-class air travel
Financial/tax/estate planning services
Legal planning services
Use of company plane
Company car
College tuition for children
Tax gross-ups for taxable benefits
Golden parachute provisions
Termination provisions
Reply Share
Facebook
Twitter
Report
Most viewed
Business
Economics
Banking
Money
Markets
Project Syndicate
B2B
back to top
become a supporter
make a contribution
securedrop
help
advertise with us
work for us
contact us
complaints & corrections
terms & conditions
privacy policy
cookie policy
digital newspaper archive
all topics
all contributors
Facebook
Twitter
© 2018 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment