My granddaddy went to work in the factory when he was nine years old. No CEO back then thought poorly of putting children to work until society told them otherwise. Probably felt like getting them out of the fields was doing them a favor.
Plenty of folks buried in Harlan County Kentucky cause coal mine owners thought cheaper to dig graves than to spend a bit of their profits on mine safety.
Wanna see what ordinary people do when put in charge and left unchecked by society, check out
Nike stops using third world child labor only when exposed and made to feel some prospect of profit loss.
More than past time to tell CEOs to stop stealing companies blind while shafting workers. Goes for Enron execs. Goes for Stav and his buddies.
Parker probably replaced because being British he didn't believe in shafting people as readily as Stavie.
Thanks for the quote. Wonder how many men-in-the-street would go along. Wonder which side would be considered tyrants. You white or red?
As for Suzi's Flower shop, you could reflect on the old TV ad that had such a CEO saying of her employees, "When it comes to business, if I want their opinion, I'll give it to them." There are tyrants at all levels. So we're left with the issue of judgment, and the validity of broad generalization with few examples.
The primary purpose of expressing hatred ("PISS ON CEOs") is not and was not to engage in a discussion of the failings of a few miscreants. It is the language of class war and jealousy to bring down the top, to demean its value as an attainment. Sour grapes: They'll never be leaders of that level, but it's ok because at that level, the leaders are all evil. Cant and hypocrisy.
Now I see the tenor of your argument, however, and it still seeks to rationalize jealousy as the pursuit of some "fairness" concept known only to you. "but we are a few folks short of having 22 million folks pulling down Stav bucks." Aw shucks, furry, how quaintly the downtrodden are expressed as a "few folks", while Stav is "pulling down" "bucks". Is the money you make, "pulling down", or is that just the rhetoric that builds the conclusion into the argument (fallacy of begging the question)?
And then again "a few folks short" means what? That if more people made what Stav makes, then whatever he's doing would be ok? So the hatred is for the disparity, not the behavior? What would you do differently? Give up the job? the pay? Everybody's a critic.
I tell you one thing that seems most hypocritical for you and the other CEO haters: Why didn't you look up the company when you were looking for a job, and only go to work for the one where the CEO made just a little? Or did you only decide a major corporation CEOs high pay was wrong when you realized you'd never attain it?
One more thing: I think there are some CEOs who take too much out. I don't own MOT because of the ridiculous salaries of their CEO, COO over the past couple of years. But that's just the point. I don't have to own MOT. What will bring the revolution is the spending by the government that simply amounts to redistribution: my taxes to your welfare.
No I do not think Stav ownes Dow. I do think, however his contribution to Dow and yes to the shareholder is much more significant than the contribution of a ball player or other entertainer. If you want to look at the quality you get for low pay, consider our politicians. Would you want that calibre person running Dow? Again I say tie the CEO compensation totally to performance of the company by paying them in options rather than cash.
I sure 20 years came somewhere, not pull figure out of hat.
You fine librarian furry. Me not have time to dot i and cross t.
Only 1 million dollar salary for CEO? You put serious pay cut on head geezer.
Old Bocan say "Yes many CEO's make more money than I personally think they are worth, but so do many sports stars, entertainers etc."
Bocan obliquely say problem then he excuse it.
That not point. CEO not star. CEO not entertainer.
CEO employee. He might be top employee and highest paid employee but still be employee.
If man own business, he can pay himself whatever he want. It be his business.
But Dow not belong to Stav. Stav belong to Dow. Dow public company. Stav not own it.
Might think he own it. Board might think he own it. Questor or Bocan maybe think he own it.
Forgot to give the source on the jefferson quote, don't want to be accused of plagerism or of anything else I am not sure how to spell.
slowdown, and look at the posts. Most were reasoned responses, given the provocation of parallels between Nazis and CEOs. I've not heard a convincing argument about how all CEOs are not to be trusted based on however many examples you cite. Did you make a case somewhere?
As for being naive... who can say. Surely it's not naive to believe in the good will of people until proven otherwise. And I hope it's not naive to believe that generalizations based on inadequate sampling are at least questionable. On the other hand, if so, then so be it.
<<A message board is not the venue to write a novel or dissertation.>> Thanks. Check the record and you'll find many more slowdown posts than questor posts.
OK, to avoid the bench work that is 6-feet behind me right now, I'll list ways I can personally pursue to keep CFO's, CEO's, and investment bankers from running away with all the wealth that flows through American business. In parentheses, my rating of how effective this will be: (weak, fair, good, excellent).
1. Tell my Congressman at the next local meeting that I oppose weakening of SEC regulation and enforcement. (weak)
2. At the Congressman's next fundraiser I attend, put the concern public in front of donors. "My continued donation is dependent upon your record." (weak)
3. Write to the directors of my mutual funds, telling them corporate governance standards are uppermost in my mind. (weak)
4. Write to the boards of companies I purchase products from, again with stated concerns. Identify their competitors' products and more favorable corporate behavior. (fair)
5. How about contacting district sales managers of companies. They are not too high up to be unreachable. And, they are not so far down in a company, that their voice isn't heard by upper management. After all, they make the sales, and no sales means no reason to make stuff. (fair)
6. through 99. More reasonable, but all milk toast ways to protest. (All weak and fair.)
... OK. Back to wiring.
If you dont like the opinions expressed give a reasoned response explaining why.
Your quaint "a few bad apples" analogy is naive at best. What is youe definition of "a few?" Look at the magnitude of impact in terms of people affected by corporate "fraud" and/or "executive compensation/protections". The number is staggering. Have you seen this article: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030717/deth016_1.html
"An honest, transparent and trustworthy corporate culture bolsters employee morale, builds customer trust, and ultimately guards stockholder value," said Bill Stavropoulos, chairman, president and CEO. "Simply stated, good governance and ethics are not only the right thing to do, they make for good business."
I wonder why they did this?
I'm not anti CEO, business, etc. I'm against the types of fraud that are running American business into the ground and thus affecting many American's lives.
<<But the DOW message board continues to be a venue for many half-baked anti-corporate diatribes>>
A message board is not the venue to write a novel or dissertation. Besides, I suspect many of your posts fall under the catagory of half-baked.
I totally agree that it is unfair to tar & feather all CEO's because there are a few bad ones. By all means punish & punish hard the bad apples. Yes many CEO's make more money than I personally think they are worth, but so do many sports stars, entertainers etc.
If a company really wants to pay the CEO based on performance, then do away with the base salary totally and pay them with stock options. This way they only make money if they cause the stock to appreciate in value. To prevent this from leading to some "Short term" decision making these options should only be exercisable after the stock has made a certain % gain and maintained that for at least a six month to one year period.
I'm curious to know why you're attacking all CEOs because of the behavior of a few bad apples.
I didn't defend anyone. But the DOW message board continues to be a venue for many half-baked anti-corporate diatribes. PISS ON CEOs does not say piss on the bad CEOs, and I object to those kind of generalizations. Punish the wicked, not all who bear the title.
Funny how pissonstav figures he's not a CEO even though he's the owner of an LLC. That fallacy is called special pleading. "All CEO's are bad. I'm a CEO, but I'm not bad, so I don't consider myself a CEO".
Frankly, once the issue is limited to just 500, it becomes philosphically trivial. Not unimportant in light of the volume of business and the exposure of stockholders, but hardly the subject for sweeping generalizations. Many top leadership positions (political and business) involve behaviors that are metaphorically like making sausage. Better you shouldn't look.
I wish success to all who think they can influence it by writing grafitti on stock message boards.
Gots to be fancy again.
Could be the Stockholm syndrome. Whereby the hostages sympathize and aid the kidnappers.
Seems hostages come to depend on the kidnappers and identify with them so much they will give their lives trying to save them.
Not supposed to make logical sense. Its a psychological deficiency.