immediately. And watch the growth of workers now that the CEOS has more money to pay the workers instead of themelves.

And throw in a full coverage of health insurance for every single workers, both full and part-time.

Instead of grinding them out, take care of them.

It was 220:1 in the 70's and workers were doing well. Even 100:1 sounds good to me. Think of a $15 worker being "average", so $312,000 for the CEO. Obscenely high, yes, but think of all the CEO's making Tens of MILLIONS each year. I would love for the cap to be 100:1 instead of CEO's making millions while bankrupting their companies and having their workers rely on Medicaid because they don't make enough to pay for their insurance.

Of course, none of this seems realistic given today's climate where the rich are taking everythi ng from their workers and giving next to nothing in return except pink slips and cuts in the workers hours.

I am a corporate lawyer and I approve of the SEC's step here. Technically, the SEC can change the fiduciary duties of a board or the CEO to the shareholders but the SEC can mandate disclosure. This is a good step.

so that it isn't based on the amount of stock owned, but one vote per stockholder, that would make the process more "democratic" that those at the top that own the lion's share of "controlling" shares of stock would be afraid of crossing as a means of keeping them from abusing salary differences as well as other policies they might have. That or the rules change for that company when that threshold is crossed where the board must be composed of members with rules like they have in Germany, where half of the board represent the employees of the company, which basically would in effect institutionalize a labor union like force within the company.

Probably need legislation from congress rather than just the SEC to get this sort of change to happen, but teeth like that might be what is necessary to get the corporate bums from screwing us over the way they've been doing.

One member, one vote. Regardless of how much money the member has in the co-op.

it will provide information to their stockholders, who could require them to curtail pay.

It is a step, as Gothmog said.

Retail Stock holders have no weight ... even a big investor like Icahn have relatively little impact in terms of votes. So you can forget about mom and pop investor...

Institutional investors (Mutual funds like Fidelity, Vanguards etc) who have the heft needed to fight are scared - ask why ??? they need business from the corporations to manage their 401k and manage the private wealth of the bigger share holders..


The only institutional investor who has asked tough questions in past has been TIAA-CREF .. as it gets its money from teachers and academic staff.

there you go .. I have just burst your fantasy bubble.

We had a full lecture on this topic in our corporate ethics class.

are in denial about the lack of economic fairness in our system as it exists. It has no legal clout other than to require disclosure. And the companies will think of all kinds of ways to hide the truth about what they are doing, but it will at least bring reality home to many Americans who are blissfully ignorant about what is happening to them and who they are voting for.

So of course, they oppose this.

A lot of things we can gripe about, so here's one, even if just a token, for our side.

I would think they would be proud of how well compensated there executives are.

Their super human superiority is well reflected in their stratospheric compensation. Don't businesses want the wold to know they are run by the best of the best? Anybody that makes the massive money corporate execs do certainly warrant it by their superior talents in everything, don't they?

-90% Jimmy

health insurance and retirement funds.

.
.
.

Almost defines CEOs as NOT ordinary . . .

like that is news . . . , but a welcome definition/distinction from a regulatory board doncha think?

Times might be a changing - I certainly hope so.

CC

These are "Public" companies. They should be completely transparent since the market influences beyond the scope of one single business.

Well of course the greedy bastards don't want the lowly wage slave to realize that their wage cut, time cut, extra work load, and shitty benefits don't make sense when the top dog who is supposed to be making the company money, is taking so much compensation.