Slashdot Mirror
Swiss Referendum Backs Executive Pay Curbs
gollum123 writes in with news that Switzerland may soon have the world's strictest corporate rules. "Swiss voters have overwhelmingly backed proposals to impose some of the world's strictest controls on executive pay, final referendum results show. Nearly 68% of the voters supported plans to give shareholders a veto on compensation and ban big payouts for new and departing managers. The new measures will give Switzerland some of the world's strictest corporate rules. Shareholders will have a veto over salaries, golden handshakes will be forbidden, and managers of companies who flout the rules could face prison.The 'fat cat initiative', as it has been called, will be written into the Swiss constitution and apply to all Swiss companies listed on Switzerland's stock exchange. Support for the plans — brain child of Swiss businessman turned politician Thomas Minder — has been fueled by a series of perceived disasters for major Swiss companies, coupled with salaries and bonuses staying high."
The job doesn't justify the salary. They claim it offsets the high risks, but then they walk away with millions when it all goes wrong.
I do a good job as a matter of personal pride and professionalism, even though I'm not earning a massive salary and annual bonus.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Before people scream socialism, this rule is to make shareholders vote on the executive pay of the company they own shares in, not government bureaucrats. This is to protect shareholders from greedy upper management.
It provides a mechanism by which shareholders can set a pay limit for executives, and veto large pay packages which they don't think are in their interests. Since shareholders nominally "own" the company, I'm not sure why that would be particularly controversial, except that companies have been to some extent captured by their management.
There is nothing here that prevents high corporate pay if the owners of the company feel it's justified.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
...not just for corporations but also for the folks in Congress. While the former may theoretically happen, I do not see any Congressman voting for any measure that would limit his pay.
Leaving Switzerland because of this law is like running away from your parents because they only bought you a V6 Mustang instead of a V8.
Who are you to say that another person's salary is unjustified
A voice representing the majority who are not rewarded (to excess) for failure.
I'm guessing you make a lot more than that, as do most slashdotters. But the difference between you and me isn't money. The difference is that I have accepted my place in life, as well as the fact that certain others will have orders of magnitude more than I have.
I am compensated by my employer based on my performance and contributions to my company. Should I be compensated by my employer if I take away from my company?
The difference is that I can see right through the smokescreen of moral superiority.
Your moral compass is out of calibration.
The difference is that I have accepted my place in life,
and ye shall forever be downtrodden as a result.
The people are not customers of the government. The People own the government, because the People are the government.
If the swiss economy is doing well, it's probably BECAUSE of decent regulations like this. We have a financial corruption and theft problem. A lot of things would be better if we hadn't deregulated in the US.
As a shareholder of a given company, I have, or should have, the right to squeeze you by the balls as I take the money BACK out of your pocket and return it to the us, the owners of the company.
And I could give a rat's ass about moral superiority. You go do whatever your little heart desires, but keep your hands off of my money.
Curse the expiring mod points!!
Ultimately, it is the shareholders taking the risk, that assumption of risk should enable some say-so in the compensation of the management of the company.
If I choose to assign my risk by proxy to the board then I want them to make the decision for me and I get what I deserve. Or sue them for not doing their job.
After all, your solution is coercion.
No, our solution is give the right of determining the salary to the people that actually pay said salary.
Not a problem. Those are not jobs that require any particular talent. If somebody leaves because they think 1 million is not enough and they should make 10 millions, a replacement will easily be found who is more than happy to take _only_ one million.
A shareholder.
Ask the voters. I remember a few years back the Swiss had a referendum on whether the petrol price should go up, based on ... this, this and this. Referendum took place - answer was 'yes'.
Treat people like grown-ups and that's how they'll respond.
Here in NZ we had a private referendum to get the government to repeal a law. Vote was yes. Government ignored it, and the law is still in place. Any flights from Auckland to Zurich?
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
You should never be able to get a bonus, as an executive, when you're company is losing money. Bankers seems to get bonuses no matter what. That defeats the point of a bonus.
The difference is that I have accepted my place in life,
and ye shall forever be downtrodden as a result.
While I understand what you're trying to say to the parent and even, to an extent, agree with you the other side of the argument is that if you don't learn to accept where you are in life then you can never be content. I would imagine the parent is probably referring to having found a place in life that they are happy with. That's kind of an important bit of wisdom since for many people being at the "top" doesn't lead to happiness.
For an example I'm at the top of my game, but not at the top of earnings. Still, I make plenty of money, have no problem paying bills, buy anything I want, and do whatever I want (within reason). I don't let people walk over me but I don't need to walk over them, either. I find most people would be a lot happier if they'd take a few moments to realize that they don't actually want to be at "the top," it's just our media machine that blasts you with that.
Of course I could be wrong, I don't know for certain, none of us do. Maybe the parent's just a slacker.
"Just a fox, a whisper."
Except the law isn't about keeping people from succeeding where others can not. The law is to allow shareholders in a company to establish limits on executive salaries. You build a private company from the ground up - by all means reap your profits. You take charge of an public company built by other people - those other people deserve to have a say in how much you get paid. Honestly it baffles me that bonuses for executives can go through without shareholder approval.
+1 Disagree
"A voice representing the majority who are not rewarded (to excess) for failure."
A majority that often picks up the tab for those failures.