>
> First, esp. in the UK where this was raised, it is pointed that the
> discussion about exec pay is a self-criticism that is entirely generated
> from within business and amongst the establishment. There are no horny-
> handed sons of toil battering on the board room door demanding that the
> books be opened. Instead it is almost entirely a discussion arising out
> of business' own lack of confidence in itself.
In the US, the labor movement has been making hay on this issue. There is even a web site where workers can look up their CEO's pay. I think this sort of thing, as far as it goes, helps to bolster workers' confidence that they have a good case for wage gains. Better still would be the popularization of EPI and others' data on high profit rates and shares, which clearly amount to more dough than exec pay. Then the only dissenters would be certain lefts who think the system is balanced on a knife edge and can't abide any wage concessions short of cataclysmic social revolution.
I think you're wrong about the 'greed' theme. Greed applies to the CEO's, especially when pay seems to have no correlation with performance (often the case). Greed is not easily imputed to the workers, except in cases where by implication typical wages are fictionalized at unsustainable levels of, say, $44/hr.
> . . .
> I wonder if there are any group of workers who have successfully used
> the comparison with greedy execs to further their own pay claim?
I'd say it's more of a factor contributing to general climate than specific episodes.
I have to disagree with Louis that taxes are a likely source of redistribution. Excepting Sweden, most countries tax systems have never been strongly redistributive. I would suggest instead that redistribution happens more on the expenditure side of the budget, and that with tax systems, bigger is better, never mind the distribution.
Cheers,
MBS