The Inside Job

CEOs Must Demand Raises—the Market Depends on It

By Liz Wolgemuth

Posted: July 24, 2008

If you get steamed about CEO compensation, then you'll love Mervyn King, governor of the Bank of England, who has been winning major kudos in the British press for turning down a salary increase earlier this year.

The BOE's annual report said a review committee determined King was entitled to a raise of about a third—from 290,000 pounds (about $575,000) to as much as 400,000 (about $794,000). But King has previously "called for wage restraint to keep a lid on inflation," the Guardian reports, and so found it appropriate to refuse the increase and remain at his current salary.

Well, hold back Lucy Kellaway, the terrific columnist at the Financial Times, who calls out King for his "lousy" example of leadership (emphasis is mine):

For a capitalist economy to work, we all need to believe that more money is better than less money, and that a pay rise is a good thing. To set a good example to the rest of us, chief executives must be sticklers about taking their rises, just as they must be sticklers about taking their holidays. ...

In fairness to Mr. King, he is not in charge of the system that determines his pay. But a CEO who turns down a pay rise should not get applause: he should be sacked for presiding over a pay system that produces a number so far in excess of what he deserves. The solution to excess pay at the top is not to curry favour by waiving rises, but to sack the remuneration committee and start again.

An even more objectionable thing about turning down a rise is that it muddies the moral waters. If the CEO doesn't take his money, is that a message to the troops not to take theirs? Or is it saying that the moral high ground belongs only to the man at the top; that only he can rise above the grubby business of money and that those below are lesser beings who can be excused for having their noses in the trough?

Kellaway also envisions a predictable result, if PR minds are at all on the ball: compensation committees recommending insanely high salaries just so the CEO can win favor by refusing them.

CEO Salaries

The problem with CEO salaries is they are determined by the Board of Directors. Most Board Members are puppets and do what all good puppets do, what the CEO wants! They are equivalent to barbarians inside the gate!!!

whs806 of TX @ Jul 27, 2008 07:32:19 AM

Let's think fairly

I have a question for Ms. Kellaway. How many other 38% raises was the Bank of England handing out?

It's not the fact that he was getting a raise, but the fact that his raise was probably 5 to 10 times [in percentage] what other employees were receiving.

I agree with the first comment, but would go further. What we need in the United States is not a minimum wage, but a maximum wage.

Don't start telling me it won't work. Every union contract ever signed has a wage at which each job tops out.

We need to stop the ever escalating CEO salaries, which are totally disconnected from results.

If you say not so, then explain the situation where the CEO of Home Depot was making more money than the CEO of Exxon-Mobil a few years ago, even though they were being badly beaten in business by their main competitor, Lowes.

Dave Wolff of TX @ Jul 26, 2008 18:18:13 PM

Let's think more locally.

This particular CEO is making less than what we're "steamed" about in the U.S. private sector----what we've seen with some pulling down tens to hundreds of millions a year. Those Brits can do whatever they wish, but the solution to our problem here is a return to good ole high income tax rates rates for astronomical incomes---including those derived from capital gains. Boards did not, do not and will not vote to compensate their CEOs several hundred times as much as the average worker if they know in advance that 60% - 90% of it is going to income tax. And, yes, we SHOULD still have rates that high for incomes in tens of millions per year and up.

It's not to "soak" the rich. It's to prevent the excesses in the first place. We're so Republican dumb in this country that we "forgot" that the only reason the highest flying of the CEOs get those is because they duped customers, employees, suppliers, investors, or some combination of all four.

Don't tell me about "creating value" as a justification. Look under the hood and you'll find out that "value" usually comes from customers (higher prices via patents), employees (lost jobs in "cost cuts") or suppliers (oops, they sourced abroad) or investors (buying high and selling low.)

You want better? Think OPPOSITE what you've been told by Republicans and their eco-gurus about taxes.

Daniel David of NM @ Jul 24, 2008 16:40:01 PM

Add Your Thoughts
About You

advertisement

The Inside Job

The Inside Job

You're taking a break from your job-hunting and job-hopping ways and have decided to stay put in your current position. Liz Wolgemuth’s careers blog will show you how to make the very best of your job, each day.

advertisement

advertisement

Subscribe

U.S. News Digital Weekly

A weekly insider's guide to politics and policy — in a multimedia, digital format. 52 issues for $19.95!

U.S. News & World Report

6 months of U.S. News & World Report's print edition for only $15. Save up to 67% off the cover price!