>> To this day, McKinnell’s tenure is hard to forget, in particular if you are a Pfizer shareholder. In 2001, when McKinnell took over as CEO, Pfizer’s stock was trading at about $45 a share; when his tenure ended five years later, Pfizer’s stock was floundering at under $36 a share. On McKinnell’s watch, the value of the company declined by $137 billion.
I don't follow that stock, so I don't know whether that was bad performance on his part or whether perhaps other factors were at work. Or, just the markets weren't excited about the company at that moment. No idea.
But why is it you support unions employees getting special treatment when their performance is inadequate, yet you object to CEOs being paid when there is a perception their performance is inadequate?
CEOs, when hired, normally enter into a binding contract that requires them to be paid in the event of termination. If the BOD doesn't want to enter in to such a contract, they should just try to find someone else. It is really that simple.
It is far less egregious for management to hire a CEO under mutually agreeable terms and conditions than it is for management to be FORCED to hire union workers under terms and conditions that are forced upon management by legalized extortion. I don't believe there is a rational defense for it.
These contracts have nothing to do with you, me, or government. Nothing at all. They are contracts between private parties. While I don't approve of union tactics, it is what it is and I don't blame anyone for getting what they can. Negotiations with a CEO are arms length, while negotiations with unions are often coerced. But both are legal.
No one owes you anything because you're a stockholder, besides a responsibility to perform to the best of their ability. Your prerogative as a stockholder is to vote for boardmembers who will fire the CEO you don't like, or sell your stock. No one requires you to be a stockholder. |
