Slashdot Mirror


Oracle Shareholders Vote Against Ellison's Compensation Package (Again)

angry tapir writes "A majority of Oracle shareholders have once again voted against the company's executive pay practices, including for CEO Larry Ellison. The vote at Oracle's annual shareholder meeting is nonbinding, and follows complaints from some large shareholders and their representatives who say Ellison is overpaid compared to his peers. Ellison is paid US$1 in salary, receiving the rest of his pay in stock options. In Oracle's past fiscal year, that totaled $76.9 million. Shareholders voted against Oracle's executive pay practices at last year's meeting as well."

4 of 213 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Two Presidents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    So Hurd isn't that important? I Gnu it!

  2. Re:A bunch of spineless wimps... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Informative

    No, he shouldn't

    Spoken like a true socialist.

    Or, y'know, somebody familiar with the concept of 'property'. Oracle is a publicly traded company (not that this is always a good idea; but they did it), not some sole proprietor outfit. It sold substantial chunks of itself to assorted third parties, so now they get a say. That's about as far from 'socialism' as you can reasonably get.

    It doesn't matter whether or not the claim that "Larry Ellison made that company" is true or not because he doesn't own most of it. He is a major shareholder(a trifle under 25%, I think); but he gets paid as an employee of a company owned by a collection of people, including himself, not because Oracle is his personal candy jar and he can get paid what he likes.

    He's certainly the most identifiable personality; but charisma is not the foundation of property rights...

  3. Re:Why? by Required+Snark · · Score: 5, Informative
    Right. I don't know about Ellison specifically, but the shares are usually granted at a discount, so there is a significant boost in real value. Plus there are tax advantages that he accrues, so he is effectively getting an even larger compensation package.

    Plus it's not Ellison's company, it's the shareholders company. If shareholders think he is overpaid that should have some impact. If he disagrees, he can just quit, right? (That's the bullshit line that used to justify treating workers like shit, so it feels really good to use on a prick like Ellison.)

    What this really shows is that corporate governance is broken. The board doesn't work for the shareholders, they are at the beck and call of the CEO. He puts them on the board, they make huge amounts for the little work they do, and so they do whatever the CEO wants. They are a rubber stamp. This is a lot closer to feudalism then real capitalism. The workers are serfs, the shareholders are not much better off, and the lords who run the show take everything they can lay their hands on. Welcome to non-capitalist, not a democracy 21st America.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
  4. Re:A bunch of spineless wimps... by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is a public company, not a private venture. The owners, the stockholders, should make those decisions.