HERE IS WHAT'S WRONG WITH BUSINESS.

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

The awarding of golden parachutes for failure should be taken up with the company's BoD by the primary shareholders. In most cases these people are being paid to go away quietly so something illegal or embarrassing is not made public.

This is not totally a private matter in the hands of a corporate board of directors which the rest of us should walk away from as in: "It's NONE of YOUR business, John Q. Public"

Those obscene pay packages and golden parachutes are part of the cost of business. Depending on the tax rates of the particular corporation, YOU and I (and all other American citizens) are funding a significant part of that pay out.

I have no problem asking my congressman to introduce a bill that would call on a tax code that says: "Pay your people in a logical manner. Pay beyond that will NOT be an allowable expense in calculating your corporate tax return."

That is NOT and anti-business stance. That is equitable, fair citizenship.

If you are going to pay someone quietly to just go away and avoid embarassment, don't fund it with the public nickle.

 

[gr8oldies]

Who gets to interpret "logical manner"? You have to put a number with it..which puts Washington in charge of everybody's pay.

 

[landtuna]

GRC,

I agree with gr8oldies on the "logical" interpretation. If a law could be stated as a percentage of gross revenue or something like that it would at least be enforceable however it wouldn't be logical. Anyone, including CEO's, should be able to earn whatever someone will pay them. To put limits on that is a government function common to socialist and communist states and I don't think that would fly with the American people.

And, as much as those many millions sound to us common folk, it is not significant given that those companies earnings are in the hundreds of millions or tens of billions of dollars. In short, it isn't measurable in the cost we pay for their products and services.

For public companies the BoD is responsible to the stockholders for the operation of the business. That still seems like the right process if not the perfect one.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

An earthquake down in the Caribbean has caused us to focus on a place called Haiti... a place most of us have looked upon as a "fly speck on the globe" and a place not given very many if any lines in the history books that we studied in our school days. And just this past week I heard a discussion on the economics of 200 and 300 years ago. That was an era when the "ceo" was allowed to make unfettered amounts of income with no mechanism to relate that income to the reality of other peoples.

The ultimate economic and governance mechanism that eventually results from a society that does not find some way to encourage or regulate the a reasonable distribution of income (that does NOT mean doing away with rich people and poor people... just achieving some morally acceptable distance between the highest and the lowest)... the eventual mechanism is SLAVERY. The French and the Spanish struggled over who would rule this island and finally they agreed to split it. The Spanish ruled and nurtured the Dominican Republic which they apparently governed with some prudence and it is today something of an Island paradise in comparison.

The French ruled Haiti and so abused their slaves to the point that the average lifespan of an overworked salve was six years or less after arriving on the Island. The French system of "harvesting" slaves and transporting them made them so cheap that it made no sense to the "ceo" class to take care of them. Just run them "till their wheels fell off" and buy another cheap, disposable slave.

Our own nation in that era was a real mixed bag of economic thinking and stewardship of lands and people. We had slaves but because of the Calvinists in our mix or something, we apparently"harvested" our slaves with a bit more humanity than did the French in charge of Haiti so the plantation operators in the American colonies treated their slaves as an "asset". It wasn't pretty but it was far superior to what was going on in Haiti.

And when the people scattered from New England to Georgia formed a new nation, the worth of each and every human being was given some human value and something call "rights". It took us almost a hundred years to come to the realization that rights and slavery were not exactly compatible, and then another hundred years to finally figure out what if fully meant to not only free the slaves, but to accept them into our communities as fully equal citizens.

The government does not have to be the authority that creates and enforces a system to keep the income levels of the rank and file rich in some kind of "we actually live in the same universe" relationship with the income levels of the rank and file working class.

What you guys are arguing for by saying CEOs must never ever under any circumstances have their pay packages limited is a return to a civilization that tolerates.... no inaugurates... and thrives... on some new kind of 21st Century slavery!

And look at radio today. Would you advise your child to pursue a careers as a down-in-the-trenches worker-be voice actor or programmer? If you look at the changes of the last 50 years, describe for me that life of the non-ceo people in broadcasting (in whatever form it morphs into in this digital age) 50 years from now.

 

[landtuna]

What you guys are arguing for by saying CEOs must never ever under any circumstances have their pay packages limited is a return to a civilization that tolerates.... no inaugurates... and thrives... on some new kind of 21st Century slavery!

That is certainly not what I said.

Everyone has a boss. That includes CEO's. That boss is the company BoD who have the responsibility to hire, fire and set compensation for the company officers. The BoD, in turn, takes a certain amount of direction from significant shareholders. Those are the limitations. For private companies the owner(s) have no such boss but they are limited by the prices, and corresponding profit, they can charge based upon free market competition.

I don't want my government involved in setting pay scales for non-government workers at any level.

Unlike during the slavery period every worker in the USA today has complete freedom to work or not work for any company he/she so chooses. The pay they receive is generally at some sort of industry and regional standard but they are free to demand more or accept less depending upon their particular circumstances.

And look at radio today. Would you advise your child to pursue a careers as a down-in-the-trenches worker-be voice actor or programmer? If you look at the changes of the last 50 years, describe for me that life of the non-ceo people in broadcasting (in whatever form it morphs into in this digital age) 50 years from now.

I advised my children to consider a line of work that they would enjoy and look forward to getting out of bed each morning. For one that meant the Marine Corps. For another working 100 feet in the air as an electric lineman. For the third working in a chemistry lab. None of those choices would have been mine nor a suggestion of mine but it is what they wanted.

I tried several times getting into commercial radio beginning as a 15-year old high school sophomore but lost my first gig to a university student. I eventually made it into naval radio but then took a turn once out of the service and into computers instead. I never lost my love of radio but the right stars weren't aligned for me. I had a very successful career in IT but did not recommend it to my children either because, like radio, it has changed greatly over the years and is no longer the great place to work it was earlier in its life cycle. Similar to radio from what current radio people are saying.

I couldn't begin to tell you what radio, if it exists at all, might look like in 50 years....or even ten for that matter. Change is happening at a fantastic pace and each week some new technology comes along that reshapes our world in some manner. It is pretty clear to me though that radio is in some advanced state of change, if not decline, and is no longer an emerging technology or growth industry. As such I would not recommend it to youngsters looking for a career.

BTW, I don't think the "digital age" is having an effect on radio other than, obviously, portable media players. If digital hadn't come along replacing cassette players radio would still have been affected by devices which could emulate radio without the elements people found offensive or undesirable. Digital devices have certainly made it easier and accelerated the pace though.

 

[gr8oldies]

If you think of the economy as a zero sum game, where there is only so much money and my making a dollar means someone takes a dollar from you, I can see you wanting government to regulate pay. The economy isn't zero sum. New "pies" are being baked all the time. The CEO's money isn't being buried in his back yard. It's being invested, loaned and spent.
If we took away the CEO of Proctor and Gamble's pay and distributed to all the employees, they'd get something like 60 cents an hour in additional pay. Would I advise my child to be an entry level DJ today? Probably not. Would I have 30 years ago when they'd be working for a mom and pop owner or the CEO of an insurance company? Doubt it. I was fired by a mom and pop with an eight-months-pregnant wife in 1986 because a new sales manager didn't like my voice. So much for Mom and Pop being God.
Finally, I remember Ben and Jerry trying to find a CEO who would work for 30 times the minimum wage (the preferred liberal payscale). They couldn't find anybody.

 

[TheBigA]

All of these executives get paid this much because of incentives. They're like the incentives in athlete contracts. How many "worker bees" would be willing to work, not for a guaranteed salary & benefits, but rather incentives with bonuses? Most workers prefer the guaranteed money to the risk of the incentives.

Some talent I know have worked out contracts with incentives based on audience or even billings during their shift. There are lots of creative ways to get a deal like a CEO if you're willing to take a little risk, and if you happen to work in a company looking to improve its financial situation. Perhaps if more employees had incentives to work, they'd do more, and their companies would be more successful. Then again, maybe not given the current economy. But if one has to spend money to make money, who among us would be willing to spend their own personal money in order to get more back?

 

[TheBigA]

Read the full story about the Tribune bonuses, as reported in their own newspaper:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tribune-20100526,0,7983684.story

 

[bossbill]

Come on you guys. If you are a shareholder, it is your business how much your CEO makes, and you can go to a shareholders meeting and discuss it.

Otherwise, it's none of your damn business, and it's certainly not the government's business.

We should all be more concerned about how much OUR employees make, and I'm talking about government employees, who are making significantly more than employees in the private sector. We are the shareholders, except because the government doesn't create anything, we have to fund it every day with taxes. If we were as upset over the size and cost of the government personnel list as some of us seem to be about how much a private company's CEO makes, our nation may be solvent.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Otherwise, it's none of your damn business, and it's certainly not the government's business.

I guess this whole thread has been saturated with more politics than broadcasting from the beginning.

I guess if you are making lemonade and selling it along the sidewalk, you are working in something of a free enterprise without-strings and what you stated above makes sense.

If you are growing tomatoes on some farmland and selling them direct to consumers, I have no business even suggesting we look at your income level.

When government sets up a patent system that gives you the sole freedom to produce a product that I am not then allowed to make for myself, its a bit disingenuous to cry "unfettered free enterprise at work, keep you nose out of my business!"

When the government grants your company the sole occupancy of a bit of space on the radio dial I don't see it as a violation of free enterprise for me to encourage my government to make sure you are a good steward of that fiduciary responsibility you have. When you become barbarian about the way you treat your lowest employees as contrasted against how the CEO is treated, maybe we own the right to make some suggestions.

If you want to live in a true no-holds-barred Ayn Rand world then we need to do away with patents, copyrights, franchises, exclusive licensing, trade marks, wage-and-hour laws, tort law, riparian rights and who knows what else. In that kind of society it's none of our business what you or your CEO makes. It also becomes nobody's business who you kill, who you rape, who you enslave.

As the restaurant says: "No Rules. Just Right"

What self-government is all about is free people sitting down face to face and coming to some workable understandings about freedoms vs. responsibilities.

 

[landtuna]

When the government grants your company the sole occupancy of a bit of space on the radio dial I don't see it as a violation of free enterprise for me to encourage my government to make sure you are a good steward of that fiduciary responsibility you have. When you become barbarian about the way you treat your lowest employees as contrasted against how the CEO is treated, maybe we own the right to make some suggestions.

If you want to live in a true no-holds-barred Ayn Rand world then we need to do away with patents, copyrights, franchises, exclusive licensing, trade marks, wage-and-hour laws, tort law, riparian rights and who knows what else. In that kind of society it's none of our business what you or your CEO makes. It also becomes nobody's business who you kill, who you rape, who you enslave.

Usually I don't have trouble understanding your writings but I have to admit....I'm pretty lost on this one.

I don't understand what the corollary is between owning a radio station (and how you treat your employees) and patents (for example). Patents give an inventor time to establish his product in the marketplace without competition from copycats. The government already has certain protections in place for workers but that doesn't protect them entirely from "bad" bosses. The different set of rules are not exclusive to each other nor to they even share the same goals.

Most broadcasters these days are corporations. The public ones must adhere to certain SEC rules regarding their financial operations and fiduciary responsibilities. All businesses must adhere to the wage-and-hour provisions and equal treatment rules of other government agencies. That is probably enough government involvement and any more (even assuming the government would have the capability) crosses the free-enterprise line. If you understand my last statement to mean that government is less capable than private enterprise to establish and govern its work environment then I've made my point.

If you are complaining that current oversight leaves enough room for "barbarian" CEO's (or other high-level managers) I agree that it does but I also don't see where more regulation could possibly weed out "bad" managers. The "bad" managers tend to weed themselves out because people don't want to work for them and will eventually leave. I've had both good and bad in my career (which was not in the radio business) and can only say no one is forever. Every other American worker has the same option I did....they can go elsewhere. It's not always the best option but it is an option.

 

[TheBigA]

Goat, as you know, my view is that the government can only control how I use the airwaves. That's what they own and I license. Not how I conduct my business. I've had the dubious pleasure of working with a lot of government contractors during my career, and I can tell you they don't run their operations any different than radio broadcasters. The reason they end up employing so many former government employees is they pay a whole lot better. So government workers retire with full pension at age 55, and then join a contractor for a lot more money. In exchange, the contractor gets access to the former gov't worker's contacts. That game is played every day in our nation's capitol, and everyone, on both sides of the political spectrum, from Dick Cheney to Al Gore is playing the game. It's not government work any more. If you knew how much our former government officials get paid, you'd be shocked. But it's not far removed from CEO-land.

 

[gr8oldies]

Worst boss I ever had still owns the stations I worked for under him. Guy would call you at 2am if he heard a second of silence. Place was a revolving door. The community thinks he's a jerk. But checks always clear and the stations are in the black. What rule would make him sell? None.

 

[landtuna]

Worst boss I ever had still owns the stations I worked for under him. Guy would call you at 2am if he heard a second of silence. Place was a revolving door. The community thinks he's a jerk. But checks always clear and the stations are in the black. What rule would make him sell? None.

Sounds more like a micro-manager than GRC's "barbarian". My son works in a (non-radio) family owned business where the matriarch, even though she is not in the chain-of-command, continually inserts herself into the operational management of the business. She will die....eventually. In the meantime I've given him the same advice.....move if it bugs you that much.

No way to legislate moral and intelligent management.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Usually I don't have trouble understanding your writings but I have to admit....I'm pretty lost on this one.

I don't understand what the corollary is between owning a radio station (and how you treat your employees) and patents (for example). Patents give an inventor time to establish his product in the marketplace without competition from copycats. The government already has certain protections in place for workers but that doesn't protect them entirely from "bad" bosses.

I assumed there was a lot of room for people to not see the point I was trying to make. The main "bomb" was not specific to broadcasting only. Someone else pointed us to the tangent about CEOs (including some broadcasting CEOs) who are accused of "ruining" their companies IF their compensation was too high. I was responding to the people who have this "religious view" that sports figures and CEOs are beyond criticism because they are simply benefiting from "the natural market place".

My response was simply this: If the "super-star" class of human beings feel they are too important, too special, too "God Like" to have anyone ever criticize their pay plan, that it is un-American to ever tone-down their pay level, either by Public Policy, or by The Bully Pulpit, then I propose that it is un-American to suggest that there is anything wrong with the "under-achiever" class of human beings feeling they are too important, too special, too "God Like" to be restrained by either Public Policy or The Bully Pulpit when they want royalty free music, pirated software, shop-lifted goodies from Best Buy.

Why is it o.k. to regulate the commerce of the little people, but it is heresy to regulate the big people?

I am the last guy on the face of the earth to campaign and lobby for anarchy. I am the last guy on the earth to ever lobby and campaign for a highly regulated, highly bureaucratic overly controlled lives of ANY class of people.

I look for un-orthodox word pictures to point out just how off-center much of today's socio-political-economic theory and dogma are. Much of what we post in these forums when we try to justify the economics or the politics of business in general and broadcasting in particular is just a verbal version of "passing gas in a public place."

 

[Tom Wells]

If the "super-star" class of human beings feel they are too important, too special, too "God Like" to have anyone ever criticize their pay plan, that it is un-American to ever tone-down their pay level, either by Public Policy, or by The Bully Pulpit, then I propose that it is un-American to suggest that there is anything wrong with the "under-achiever" class of human beings feeling they are too important, too special, too "God Like" to be restrained by either Public Policy or The Bully Pulpit when they want royalty free music, pirated software, shop-lifted goodies from Best Buy.

Why is it o.k. to regulate the commerce of the little people, but it is heresy to regulate the big people?

There is some corollary here regarding FCC enforcement of pt 15 laws upon hobbyists, but not manufacturers of rf-noise producing technology.

...And another for licensed radio stations with a herd mentality, giving us 3 ACs and 3 CHRs in a market, but nothing for those who
have "other tastes", while loudly complaining about the "damage" pirates do in serving the otherwise unserved.

 

[TheBigA]

Why is it o.k. to regulate the commerce of the little people, but it is heresy to regulate the big people?

I think these are two very different things. Neither of them can shoplift in a store. That rule is equal, regardless of income.

But salary is a different issue. For CEOs, it's usually a vague number based on various incentives and stock options. For employees, it's a very strict and stated figure, either based on the hour or the year. CEOs can make a lot more if they do certain things. Regular employees get paid the same regardless of their performance. Some people like and need the consistency of the hourly wage. They know how much they make, and plan their lives accordlingly. Other folks are willing to take a little risk, with the chance that they might hit the jackpot. But one approach isn't better than the other. There are some CEOs who make less than some of their salaried employees. When I was in the union, if I was on golden time with penalties at top scale, I'd make more than the CEO. At least for that week. I know on-air talent who make more than their GM.

We are not a one-size-fits-all country. Even those countries that portray themselves that way have their secrets. We were led to believe that the Soviet system was fair, and all workers were the same. Then we found out about the villas and vacation homes for party officials. No level playing field, comrade. Our government believes the American dream is that everyone can become a CEO. And everyone can. I've seen it happen.

 

[TheBigA]

There is some corollary here regarding FCC enforcement of pt 15 laws upon hobbyists, but not manufacturers of rf-noise producing technology....And another for licensed radio stations with a herd mentality,

I think the FCC is very upfront about that, designating different platforms by "Class." So there is a class system, where one class is given priviledges that others don't get. There is no pretense of fairness or a level playing field. It goes back to the 20s, no?

 

[landtuna]

Why is it o.k. to regulate the commerce of the little people, but it is heresy to regulate the big people?

Ah! Maybe I've got it.

The "big people" are regulated but by a different mechanism than those of us lower on the ladder. Sports figures, for example, are canned all the time for lack of performance. Since they are usually under contract (as are most CEO's) their pay cannot be reduced or their job function changed as is possible with people like you and I. So they get cancelled.

AFAIK the only "laws" regulating the compensation of the "big people" are the laws of economics, i.e., you make the owners/stockholders lots of money and we will pay you handsomely. Since the "little people" cannot usually influence the bottom line to that extent they are compensated by common and reasonable laws of economics i.e., what everybody else pays similar workers. And because the LP don't have access to powerful aides if they suffer some indignity the gubmint decided long ago that a certain level of protection was required for the namless, faceless masses.

So, to answer your question.....I don't see it as heresy to regulate the big people but such protections are probably unneeded.

That's as close as I can come to a definition (not that you needed to hear mine but so that you would know where I was coming from).

I was a radio operator in the navy. When I got out I went to work for the local phone company. It quickly dawned on me that advancement depended not so much on your skill set or work ethic but how long you were in their employ. I decided I wanted a more open-ended opportunity than that so dived into computers (at the time a fast-growing new technology). I made more money than I ever dreamed possible and had much more control over my work assignments and geographic location. I still had bad bosses from time to time but observed they usually took themselves out of the picture soon enough and if they didn't I moved on. I know most little people don't have that same kind of independence but those jobs are out there if you are motivated enough to track them down and acquire the skills necessary. I am assuming most CEO's have that same mindset except they are much better at the schmoozing and politics than I am. I bear them no grudge to get whatever compensation they can get....just as I would expect them not to begrudge me whatever I demand based upon my ability to deliver. To me, the gubmint deserves no place at that table except to provide a basic set of working conditions and compensation to protect the most basic job skills.

 

[Tom Wells]

There is some corollary here regarding FCC enforcement of pt 15 laws upon hobbyists, but not manufacturers of rf-noise producing technology....And another for licensed radio stations with a herd mentality,

I think the FCC is very upfront about that, designating different platforms by "Class." So there is a class system, where one class is given priviledges that others don't get. There is no pretense of fairness or a level playing field. It goes back to the 20s, no?

Class of station has been around since FRC rules in 1927 I think, as part of the band plan for clears, regionals and locals.
I am fine with that, as it gave me one radio dial to listen to in the daytime, and a completely different set of choices on the dial at night.
But that's been out the window since all the daytimers went 24.

I'm really a lot more concerned about all the improperly designed SCR and Triac devices with clipped-top current waveforms kicking noise back
out on the AC line and/or radiating locally. Unshielded computer cases, leaky cable TV systems, etc....
Ditto for the automotive control systems that cripple AM reception.

Back in the 80's and 90's there were a lot of analog rf modulated telephone systems in hotels that put heterodyne whistles on every signal
on the AM except for 1 or 2 strong local city-grade signals. Thank goodness those all seem to be gone.