Executives' pay swells while employees risk having their base pay lowered
Here's something that's likely to raise your blood pressure, so make sure you take your meds before reading on.
"In many cases, raises are dictated by employment contracts or other compensation practices that have nothing to do with an executive's job performance…
"Executive employment contracts -- which usually range from one to three years -- often guarantee raises in salary or set a "minimum" bonus."
Didn't we just read last week that the Bush administration wants to give government bosses the power to lower the base pay of government workers based on performance? (See July 6 entry below, and this article.)
Do we all live in the same country? How can that be happening to workers while this is happening to executives:
"From 2003 to 2005, the median increase in cash compensation among the executives studied was 18.7 percent. Cash compensation is the executive's salary and bonus. The median is the midpoint, with half higher and half lower.
"When other forms of compensation are included, such as stock options, benefits and other forms of long-term compensation, the median increase was 23.5 percent over that time."
Now why would executives get such big raises when we read on July 3 that money is irrelevant to happiness? (See July 3 post below and this article.)
This contrast brings to mind a bit of history, something that began in France back in 1789. Oh, but we're a democracy—that explains the difference, right?
"In many cases, raises are dictated by employment contracts or other compensation practices that have nothing to do with an executive's job performance…
"Executive employment contracts -- which usually range from one to three years -- often guarantee raises in salary or set a "minimum" bonus."
Didn't we just read last week that the Bush administration wants to give government bosses the power to lower the base pay of government workers based on performance? (See July 6 entry below, and this article.)
Do we all live in the same country? How can that be happening to workers while this is happening to executives:
"From 2003 to 2005, the median increase in cash compensation among the executives studied was 18.7 percent. Cash compensation is the executive's salary and bonus. The median is the midpoint, with half higher and half lower.
"When other forms of compensation are included, such as stock options, benefits and other forms of long-term compensation, the median increase was 23.5 percent over that time."
Now why would executives get such big raises when we read on July 3 that money is irrelevant to happiness? (See July 3 post below and this article.)
This contrast brings to mind a bit of history, something that began in France back in 1789. Oh, but we're a democracy—that explains the difference, right?
