If a CEO tried that, they'd be fired & replaced - the shareholders wouldn't stand for it.
Most boards have a sub-board committee to address the pay of their senior management. Pay recommendations wouldn't get through the board if the shareholders weren't happy.

Quite frankly, if you're the CEO of a major business that employs thousands & delivers millions in shareholder value you deserve a high salary for having the responsibility.
( Fucking hell Jeff I am not a robot, Mon 3 Feb 2014, 10:27, 1 reply, 12 years ago)

So they never negotiate for increased pay or benefits?

( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Mon 3 Feb 2014, 10:34, Reply)

Of course they do, but shareholder approval has to be given.

( Fucking hell Jeff I am not a robot, Mon 3 Feb 2014, 10:36, Reply)

So what is your point?

( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Mon 3 Feb 2014, 10:38, Reply)

That you are a prick, at a guess.

( MEATSNAKE Richard Hammond, Mon 3 Feb 2014, 10:39, Reply)

That is not in question here.

( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Mon 3 Feb 2014, 10:48, Reply)

My point is that it is not 'the same principle' as you put it.
CEOs don't hold their customers to ransom to get a pay increase.

Tube drivers do.
( Fucking hell Jeff I am not a robot, Mon 3 Feb 2014, 10:40, Reply)

CEOs say that unless they pay enormous salaries then the shareholders will all lose their money
and given that we're not talking about a few people on the street who own the shares, we are in fact talking about pensions compnaies who own the majority of shares so actually we're talking about a big boys club who all slap each others backs and give each other pay rises.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 3 Feb 2014, 10:42, Reply)

His point is that he doesn't have a fucking clue how this is different

(Bazongaloid, Mon 3 Feb 2014, 10:41, Reply)