Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Broken_Clock who wrote (50152)	8/4/2013 12:46:58 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

Still, you're both evading the core of my question... No were not, we've both answered it, I think more than once each, but I'll do it once more. Why should a CEO be compensated so obscenely for obvious bad performance Because the company signed a contract to pay that much. then come out anti-union as if the workers are the core of the problem Sometimes the union contracts are the core of the problem, as with GM. Not in your drug company example, but no one is going after unions in that example, at least not very strongly. The CEO's compensation, and the contracted union benefits are both matters of contract. The company is obligated to pay both (in most circumstances, assuming no fraud or contract breaking or waiving of the obligations). In bankruptcy the union benefits can be taken away, and so can the CEO's pension or deferred compensation (generally money already paid is safe for both, their are special exceptions, but normally they can keep what's paid out). Its not a case where the union members can be shafted but the CEO is immune. The example of CEO immunity you show was a company that did not go in to bankruptcy, it was consistently profitable, it just had some moderate setbacks. If there where relevant union contracts for that company than the company would still have to pay out on those contracts.