executive pay

[Paul Wight]

>
> I think you're wrong about the 'greed' theme.
> Greed applies to the CEO's, especially when pay
Max wrote:
> 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.
>

Context is everything, and in the current context (the end of the class
war), then even having a go at executive pay rises can be a problem.

The trouble with having a go at greedy management in the current context is
that without seeing class, the management looks just like you, only a bit
better off on a sliding scale, and impossible to draw a social distinction.
In fact the management have successfully passed themselves off these days as
just another employee like anyone else.  Better paid maybe, but subject to
stress and sacking etc just the same.

In this situation, them getting big pay rises does create tension.  In the
past it would have just looked like  executives acting like executives.

In the absence of class (awareness) then, having a go at greedy bosses isn't
useful, since if they have to restrain themselves, so of course do you.
It's also why James is right about the executives own outlook on it, why
they feel defensive about getting the pay rises.  They don't even see their
own position. It's not only the working class that has declined.

I don't feel like cheering when they get a pay rise of course, but at least
it gives me the opportunity to say, 'OK then, where's mine?'    That's a
slightly different proposition (and more useful I submit) to having a go at
them getting it in the first place.

Paul


ps Anyone remember the morality play of Blair making the UK lottery bosses
give their bonuses to charity?
Question: Who benefited?  Well, Blair did in the first instance, then the
bosses did ultimately, since they had good justification for asking for pay
restraint.