The Occupy movement are not hippies they are you

AFL/CIO Salaries (a bit more than a living wage)

Richard Trumka
President
Salary $264,827.00
Benefits $18,513.00
Total $283,340.00

Arlene Holt-Baker
Executive Vice President
Salary $238,975.00
Benefits $15,163.00
Total $254,138.00

 

Actually I'm all for capitalism. Military veteran and CPA in the corp world for 20 years (nonprofit the past nine). The issue is how bad the multiples have gotten, not that execs shouldn't get rich; they should. If the average CEO is making $12M/yr, that's $230+K a week. What mortal being is possibly worth that much? Apparently a lot of them. You'd think for all that money they'd be creating more jobs. Not to worry, though. China's gonna make this all moot soon anyway

 

The Boards of Directors have to approve the salaries. Apparently they see value.

 

So what percentage of your non-profits budget was donated by those people and/or confiscated from tax payers?

 

Zero for both and, although you didn't ask, only about 2% from their publicly-held corporations.

My experience is that the one percenters generally aren't interested in funding NFP operations and rightfully so. They're only slightly more interested in so-called "capacity building." And some are interested in having their names on things, so they'll step up for capital campaigns to get a wing named after themselves.

 

Ever think that they don't feel like funding NFP operations because they are sick of funding everything else without a choice?

 

Not sure you read that correctly. I'm saying they should not fund NFP operations and there's a good reason they shouldn't.

And then I'm not sure what your point is, but let's get to the crux of the matter: Do you know how the compensation is determined for the top five executives at any given public company?

It's important that you do, or none of this will make sense. Not trying to be a jerk here, I'm just asking.

Again, I'm all for them being properly rewarded and compensated, and getting rich, but I question the propriety of them earning 342 times the average person.

I'm open-minded and willing to be convinced otherwise. Let's hear your reasoning.

Thanks

 

Even though I quoted it my brain didn't process the "rightfully so" part.

 

Happens to the best of us, especially when you get to be my age.

Anyway, for anyone that wants to see how the executive comp at their favorite public company is "rationalized," I mean determined, and, perhaps more importantly, WHO makes that determination, just go to this site and pull their most recent proxy filing. Makes for interesting reading.

http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html

 

Okay, for unloading trucks at a Walmart warehouse, a worker makes about $19 an hour. If it's 90 degrees outside, it's 120-130 inside the truck, if it's 20 below zero, it's the same temperature in the truck. It's dangerous, backbreaking work, done as fast as you can do it, or you lose your job. If if it's done as fast as you can do it, that may not be fast enough. The worker will be expected to pick up and stack 30 to 50 tons of freight on a bad day, maybe 15 tons on a good day.
How does your pay compare, while you sit in your climate controlled office moving your fingers around on a keyboard?
Who is working harder and deserves more money?
Who is more tired, dirty and sore when they go home?
Just something to think about.

 

I think it comes down to the level or responsibility. If the dock worker screws up and drops a pallet of 56" flat screens - the company is out $10k in stock. If the CEO/CFO screws up, the company could be out billions or out of business altogether.

I had one of those jobs - UPS at the Ontario, CA airport. $8/hr to load and unload planes - kinda sucks being 6'5" and having to load the belly of DC-8s. I now have a job where I move my fingers around a keyboard and I get paid way more than $8/hour.

Does the top dog deserve 324 times what the lowest paid employee receives? Depends, maybe. Empyting trash cans isn't the same as running a Fortune 100 company. Lets use Walmart as an example: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2011/snapshots/2255.html
$421 billion in revenue, market value of $182 billion,profit of $16billion, 2.1 million employees, 4500 stores. Now not only do you have to not screw up the company so that it loses money, you have to increase profits, increase the market share, decide on what to buy and sell, manage employees, manage logistics, manage peoples perception of Walmart, fight lawsuits, and have to live in Arkansas. The dock worker is responsible for one job - his, the CEO is responsible for every job.

 

I was actually comparing his desk job to the unloader's job, not the CEO's job.
He probably makes substantially more for a job that doesn't suck the life out of him.
A CEO's job is a 24/7 job, they are always at work no matter where they are.
And you don't just walk into a job like that. My brother just got a job as a CEO this year, at the age of 58. It took him a long time and a lot of dedication to get where he is. If you use a five day work week as the standard, he makes more in 3 days than I make in a year, but I don't begrudge him the money and I wouldn't ask him for a dime. He has put his job ahead of everything else to get there and sacrificed a lot, and he lives his job every minute.
I wouldn't do it, but someone has to. The average worker punches in and out, and never thinks about the job while he's not there. My brother doesn't get that luxury, and he has a lot on his plate. And he brings a lot to the table, and has a lot of responsibility. Comparing the average worker to his job is silly.

 

Just for the record, it's not just CEO's that live their jobs 24/7. I'm just a lowly HR Manager and I'm on call 24/7 - if our plant is operating, my phone is at my side. I also just "sit at my desk, tapping on a keyboard", but still carry a hell of a lot more responsibility than the guy unloading rolls from the trucks at the plant. Does that make me better than him? No.

I remember some conversations with my dad growing up. He'd get home from work and there'd be times I'd ask to do something and his response would be "I'm just too tired". He's also in HR. I distinctly remember challenging him on that very fact - why are you tired? You sit at a desk all day and don't actually do any work. Just because the "desk jockey" may not be physically moving all day doesn't mean it's not an exhausting job. Having to remain mentally "on" *all* day is killer.

 

There is no correlation between HARD work and what you get paid, sorry. Generally your pay is a reflection of your impact on revenue and they dock worker or warehouseman have VERY little impact on revenue.

The real money starts when you get paid for your results, versus getting paid for your time.

 

Beat beat beat this dead horse. Google "high ceo pay low performance". Seems like there's plenty of data out there to suggest that lower paid CEO's perform better than the ones that are paid sky high salaries.....

 

I meant REAL people, not CEO's. I get paid for my results, not my time or effort.

 

I certainly haven't kept up on this thread (63 pages!) but I just read a story over the weekend that the newest thing going on is "Occupy Houses". For some reason, these people think that it's OK to just "occupy" houses that banks have foreclosed on.

I can only hope each and every one of them are charged with trespassing and/or breaking and entering. Then, they can occupy some jail cells.

 

How much work would get done with nobody working to move the product?
Someone actually has to do the physical work.

 

Supply and demand. There are plenty of people willing or able to do that work. Heck, worst case is that other employees do that work. Far fewer people that are able to sell, develop product, etc as you go up the pay scale.

 

And the people who can and will do that work are a dime a dozen and waiting at the door to be hired. This translates to low pay for hard work.