According to a recent study commissioned by the New York Times, CEO pay is up 23%.

Okay so the suites are doing well. Damn well.

How are the rest of us faring? Non executive pay increased .5%. Yes, less than inflation. While CEOs race onward and upward, our pay shrinks.

I heard an interesting segment on the radio this weekend, the pay of the average worker hasn’t increased in 40 years.

Which leads me to a simple question. Is greed good?

Yes, that sounds familiar, it was the popular refrain from the movie Wall Street in the 1990s. Gordon Gekko, that Oliver Stone is a subtle guy isn’t he, made that a catch phrase for an entire generation.

We have a major problem in terms of unemployment in our country. At the same time we have CEO’s lavishing on themselves such extreme pay packages that they alone could cut the country’s unemployment rate in half just by making their pay packages more reasonable.

Marie Antoinette when told that her people were starving famously said “Let them eat cake.” It gave some small indication of how out of touch she’d become.

But if we were to try to come up with a similar phrase for today’s gilded class of CEOs I feel like the phrase would have to be let them eat dirt.

Okay, that was harsh, but I’m still flummoxed by the fact that no one has gone to jail after the financial shenanigans of the banks that caused our most recent recession.

But we’ve got to stop coddling these executives. Its not like Hollywood stars who had huge paychecks, CEOs only profit by taking the money that we’ve earned through our hard work.

Yes, I’m frustrated. You could say that I’m mad as hell.

I’m tired of seeing people suffering. We need to hold executives accountable. Now.

Here’s another reason to do away with runaway CEO pay.  A study shows bloated CEO pay can make the boss mean.

The study examined the corporate behavior of 261 companies and found a close correlation between pay inequality and poor treatment of workers. In companies where CEOs made much more than their average workers, the companies were more likely to underfund pensions or cut corners on health and safety. Often, according to the study, the bosses engaged in a cost-benefit analysis, calculating that a fine would be a cost of doing business, compared with the profits they could make.

“You end up basically thinking of those at the bottom as numbers,’’ Sreedhari Desai, a Harvard research fellow who co-authored the study, told The Boston Globe columnist Joanna Weiss. “You feel somehow that they aren’t even worthy of the normal people that you’d meet. They’re disposable.’’

Writing about the study last summer for the Campaign for America’s Future, Sam Pizzigati sums it up this way:

The…data and the lab games, in the end, would both generate findings that point to the same conclusion. Wide pay gaps between executives and workers…enhance the sense of power executives feel and cause them to “objectify lower level employees.”

Or, to put the matter more plainly, “executives with higher income treat employees more meanly.”

Click here to read the study, “When Executives Rake in Millions: Meanness in Organizations.”

This article was originally published on AFL-CIO Now Blog.

About the Author: James Parks had his first encounter with unions at Gannett’s newspaper in Cincinnati when his colleagues in the newsroom tried to organize a unit of The Newspaper Guild. He is a journalist by trade, and worked for newspapers in five different states before joining the AFL-CIO staff in 1990. His proudest career moment, though, was when he served, along with other union members and staff, as an official observer for South Africa’s first multiracial elections.

Angelo Mozilo, co-founder of Countrywide Financial, a.k.a. No-Income-is-too-Small-For-Us-to-Give-You-a-Mortgage, agreed to pay $67.5 million dollars to avoid a federal civil fraud suit about to go to trial.

I know what you’re thinking, let’s hold a bake sale for Angelo. He clearly must be hurting. But chances are slim that you’ll see him at any soup kitchen, because he pocketed many times that amount of money in salary and perks before he drove his company into the ditch.

But it does raise an interesting question: Why isn’t the government going after Lehman, WAMU and other high flying executives from corporations that went into the toilet over the past few years? Especially when top executives pocketed so much cash from the deception and fake profits?

We’re not talking Salem Witch Trials. I’m simply suggesting that we start skimming off some of the cash that these executives skimmed off of all of us. I know this sounds drastic, but the top guys from Enron actually went to jail for their misdeeds.

Why are we suddenly so timid when it comes to the billions that these fat cats are sitting on?

This is especially confusing to me because of the rush by State Attorney’s General to sue over the recently enacted health care reform bill. Why aren’t our public officials going after the banking swindlers for the huge stockpiles of money that they extracted from all of us?

I would have thought that Attorneys General would at least understand the Willie Sutton rule. Mr. Sutton, the famous bank robber was asked why he robbed banks. He replied, “Because that is where the money is.”

Isn’t it time that we went where the money went? Anything short of a major offensive here sends a simple message to all that crime pays. That would be the worst message to come out of the pain of the past few years.

About The Author: Bob Rosner is a best-selling author and award-winning journalist. For free job and work advice, check out the award-winning workplace911.com. Check the revised edition of his Wall Street Journal best seller, “The Boss’s Survival Guide.” If you have a question for Bob, contact him via bob@workplace911.com.

Last week, NBC launched a new show that tries to find comedy in the all-too-real conditions of outsourcing. While the first episode was witty—making light of age-old cultural clashes and stereotypes, there is nothing funny about the reality of outsourcing and the impact it has both on the American worker and their counterparts around the world.

For decades, big companies like the one portrayed in “Outsourced” have been engaged in a global race to the bottom, constantly seeking to maximize their profits by cutting wages, benefits and working conditions.  Corporations have learned to avoid local worker bargaining power by organizing themselves globally and exerting a downward pressure on wages along the supply chain that brings goods from manufacturing to consumers.

Meanwhile, there are currently 15 million unemployed workers in the United States. And the situation is not much better overseas, where many scrape by on substandard conditions and wages that have been outlawed for centuries in the United States.

Going back to the first episode, the angry, American workers who have just been laid off are portrayed only by a stack of bricks thrown through the boss’s window. This is then juxtaposed against the hapless, comedic and cheaper Indian workers who have taken over the call center.

But the bosses are all smiles because by pitting laid-off U.S. workers against workers overseas (and immigrant workers forced to look for work in the United States), companies like the novelty business portrayed in the show get rich while workers around the world, our nation included, struggle to feed their families, access health care and stay in their homes.

Still laughing?

It is hard to find humor in the need for good jobs, fair wages and humane living and working conditions.

So, as not to leave NBC hanging (we at Jobs with Justice are solution oriented, after all), how about another idea for a new NBC sitcom called “Good Jobs, Fair Pay.”  In this innovative new show, U.S. workers would have full and fair employment—all paid for courtesy of a small sales tax on Wall Street, otherwise known as a financial speculation tax.

Workers in other parts of the globe would join U.S. workers in having a standard minimum wage with equal purchasing power.  Multinational corporations would have no incentive of moving from country to country, forcing workers into increasingly lower wages and conditions. And for comedic relief, CEOs would actually pay taxes like the rest of us and share their annual bonus with the workers in the plant.

And the Emmy goes to?

This article was originally posted on AFL-CIO Now Blog.

About The Author: Sarita Gupta is executive director of Jobs With Justice, a national network of more than 40 local coalitions of labor, community, student, and faith organizations, working together to built a broader global movement for economic and social justice.

After fifteen years of writing Workplace911 and its predecessor Working Wounded I’ve concluded that there are a lot of myths about work. I thought it would be fun to tackle some of the bigger ones in this week’s blog. Check out my list below and send me some of your favorites.

It’s impossible to be overpaid when someone else signs the paycheck. Let me offer a short translation of this rule—as long as someone is willing to pay you a ridiculous amount of money to work for them, then you aren’t overpaid because they have established a market for your services. I disagree. Corporate salaries are absurd. Cost cutting, layoffs and a myriad of other organizational sacrifices should float more than just the boats of the CEO and a few top executives. I’m no Marxist, CEOs do deserve a big paycheck when they are successful. But this escalator only seems able to go up.

Greed is good. The biggest problem here is that when Oliver Stone came up with this mantra for his Gordon Gekko character in the movie Wall Street it was meant as parody. Yet I hear some variation of it whenever I talk to traders, salespeople, etc. Henry Ford, hardly a commie himself, once said that only a fool holds out for the last dollar. I think wretched excess is a terrible way to run a company.

The bigger the jerk, the better the boss. Probably my favorite quote on management came from President (and General) Dwight Eisenhower. He once said, “Hitting people over the head isn’t leadership, it’s assault.” Sure jerks do get your attention and possibly results over the short term. But most employees will flee at the first chance they get. There are just too many sane bosses out there to continue to slave away for a jerk.

You’ve got to be first to market. Microsoft seems to me to be the only company that consistently puts second-rate products on the market and lives to tell the tale. The rest of us have to pick our spots and often the first to market position can’t justify launching a crappy product. So it often pays to wait.

Innovation is the middle name of American corporations. Despite rising productivity, I believe that corporations in the U.S. are running on fumes. Don’t believe me? Listen to most people talk about the management of their companies. It’s not a pretty sight. I see far more innovation right now coming from abroad and from the not-for-profit sector and I think it’s time that corporations started walking their talk.

Corporations are drowning in regulation. Tyco, Enron, WorldCom, etc. left in their wake Sarbanes Oxley and a host of other regulations. Undoubtedly Lehman, Goldman Sacks, etc. will leave their mark too. There is a lot of talk now about how corporations are being held back by senseless regulations. I hate filling out government forms as much as the next guy, but these laws came into place because of abuse by corporations. And in order to maintain the trust of the average investor these regulations need to remain in effect, no matter how much whining you hear from big business.

The bottom line isn’t just the bottom line. If I’ve learned one thing as an observer of business and the founder of four corporations, it’s that there are many bottom lines for a business. In addition to economic there are also social and environmental considerations. The financials really only are a part of the picture. The sooner that corporations take a broader view of the bottom line, the sooner they’ll begin to fully reach their potential.

About the Author: Bob Rosner is a best-selling author and award-winning journalist. His web site, workplace911.com, contains a comprehensive archive of strategies for surviving today’s workplace. He is a fan of Workplace Fairness and can be reached via bob@workplace911.com.

Remember when President Reagan was shot and Al Haig famously burst into the White House and said that he was in charge? Okay, it might not have been as over the top as Howard Dean’s scream, but Haig did become the poster boy for an “Era of Executive Testosterone Overload.” An era that seems to have come to an end. Finally.

Executives-in-charge, no that doesn’t sum it up adequately. Executives as rock stars is more like it. For much of the last decade the line between CEO and celebrity blurred. Some weeks there seemed to be more CEOs on magazine covers than supermodels. And gossip columns were full of tidbits on their lavish lifestyles.

In the future if they try to carbon date the exact moment when the “Era of the Executive” ended, remarkably it didn’t involve a “perp walk,” with a shamed executive being led away in handcuffs.

It ended with Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld. In this Supreme Court case, the justices held that the President of the United States is not beyond the law and must follow certain legal principals and the Geneva Convention—even in wartime.

This case is definitely the icing for the end of the unquestioned executive, but the cake has been rising for a long time. Enron, WorldCom, Tyco—executives learned the hard way—via hard time—that Leona Helmsly was wrong. It’s not just the little people who have to pay taxes. The rules are for all of us.

Consequences. What a concept.

Like it or not, we all need to get ready for more and more restrictions and rules surrounding executive behavior. Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX for short) is just the start. The reason that more regulations and restrictions will be right around the corner? Because people are tired. Tired of guys (yes, mostly guys) who earn millions of dollars in salary, with a boat load of options (backdated of course) and then still manage to justify having employees not covered with health care or on food stamps. Hollywood long ago learned that corporate executives are the perfect movie villain, can politicians be far behind?

Don’t get me wrong, I hate the idea of acres of staff having to be hired to fill out forms for the government. The problem is that SOX is necessary because executives couldn’t police themselves. Just like the Labor Union movement in the first part of last century, once again executives moan about a logical response to their greed run amok. What is always overlooked by executives and the often toothless business press is the wretched excess that preceded Unions, SOX, etc.

Sure there are good guys and gals out there in the executive suites. Warren Buffett immediately leaps to mind. For him to give a gift approximately 5 times the size of Carnegie and Ford is indeed worthy of sainthood. For that alone I promise to take back two-thirds of the Nebraska jokes I’ve made through the years. But it’s not good enough to give back some of the gain, the public is demanding that executives do the right thing from the very start. And I don’t think that’s too much to ask. Even from the Oil Industry.

Enjoy your slice of humble pie, Mr. Corporate Executive. You earned it.

About the Author: Bob Rosner is a best-selling author and award-winning journalist. For free job and work advice, check out the award-winning workplace911.com. If you have a question for Bob, contact him via bob@workplace911.com.

CEO used to equal rock star.
 
Okay, it’s not as bad as it was in the ‘80’s when even non-business magazines had smiling CEOs on the cover, but I still think most of us want our CEO to have a certain amount of star quality. Call it the Trumpification of the corporate world. 
 
Who would you rather have leading your company? Casper the friendly ghost or a Genie who can make all of the company’s wishes come true (even if he does have a comb over)? Let’s face it, shy and retiring just doesn’t cut it when you’re responsible for the livelihood of lots of people. When it comes to effective CEOs, bigger always seems better. Or does it?
 
Arizona State University’s Crocker Liu and New York University’s David Yermack have a really interesting take on rock star CEOs and how much they can cost a company. Even better is the creative way that the two professors came up with to study this issue—they compared the size of the CEO’s home with corporate performance. Call it entitlement, focusing on the wrong things, an inferiority complex, short man’s syndrome or a bunch of guys spending other people’s money—this study found that we all pay when the CEO literally lives in a castle.

Let’s start with the numbers. In 2004, the median home price for CEOs was $2.7 million.
Compare that to the median price for all homes in U.S., $195,200. The average size of the CEOs home, 5,600 square feet. Heck, if you are a titan of industry, wouldn’t you want 4.5 bathrooms? Actually I’m shocked the number isn’t at least 7, if you are so darn important, how could you possibly use the same bathroom more than once a week? Come on, these are really important people. (Okay, I’ll attempt to reduce the sarcasm for the remainder of this blog.)
 
But the study gets really interesting when it examined 12 percent of the S&P 500 CEOs with homes that were larger than 10,000 square feet or were on at least 10 acres of land. The companies that were run by this group of landed gentry lagged the S&P 500 by 25 percent over the three years following the home purchase.
 
That bears repeating. The biggest CEO houses significantly increased the odds of poor corporate performance.
 
I’m guessing that those of you reading this article are in one of two camps right now. The first group is ready to storm the Bastille and scream about CEOs living large off the sweat and tears of the rest of us.
 
But I’m sure there are also readers who still believe that a big ego is a necessary part of the mix. That these two professors, and me, are making a mansion out of a molehill. I may be, but you may feel differently after you read this.
 
Approximately a third of CEOs exercised stock options and sold shares in the year before they bought a home. Consistently the shares peaked right before the purchase. Given the brouhaha over backdating stock options, I find it fascinating that the stock prices tended to peak so consistently just before a mansion was purchased. Maybe that big house isn’t something that was earned but rather something that was scammed.
 
Ironic isn’t it. Putting a CEO in a mansion, more often than not, puts you in the poor house. 

About the Author: Bob Rosner is a best-selling author and award-winning journalist. For free job and work advice, check out the award-winning workplace911.com. If you have a question for Bob, contact him via bob@workplace911.com.

Do not bail out the fat cats.

Voters made that perfectly clear, and their re-election-obsessed congressional representatives took heed.

Delaying a Wall Street bailout wasn’t wise for the international economy, but chalk up points for the worker bees.

They finally got someone’s attention in Washington!

Nobody bails me out if I make bad financial decisions.

And, while we’re at it: No more multi-million-dollar parachutes for executives who mismanage other people’s money.

How quickly the “bailout” became a slightly more politically palatable “rescue.”

Note to Congress:

You’ve noticed that “trickle down” hasn’t worked very well lately, haven’t you?

Average CEO compensation last year was 275 times that of average U.S. worker pay, based on average hourly pay for about 80 percent of the U.S. workforce (the folks who actually produce the products and services that make companies work).

In a single work day last year, a typical big-company CEO earned as much as one of those workers did in their entire 260-day work year.

The well-paid corporate compensation consultants counterpunched, of course, telling Congress not to “handcuff” companies by putting limits on executive pay. They said pay ceilings will hurt companies’ ability to attract top talent.

Yeah. It’s been working so well.

It’s over-reaching the cure to demand a shareholder vote on top-exec compensation. But as the nation works through this financial crisis, the folks in the trenches must be heard.

Enough is enough.

Executives who earned more than they were worth to start with should not, by all that is right and just, be rewarded when they leave behind organizations littered with pink slips.

And have you looked at the value of your 401(k) this week?

Ouch. The only trickle-down there is the sound of assets swirling down the drain.

And where is the call for privatizing Social Security now?

Not exactly an election-time winner this go-around, huh?

Yes, the economy is cyclical. Has been. Will be. But the hurt on the downsides must be shared.

Unless legislators do what corporate compensation committees haven’t had the backbone to do, most of working America will continue to suffer from the greedy mistakes of a few.

Regulation? In this case, bring it on.

Unlimited executive greed has severed people from jobs and jobs from the economy. It’s gnawed away retirement security and college education funds in hard-working families.

And the architects of this economic collapse?

Greet them if you’re ever in Sun Valley…or Aspen…or Tuscany…or…

About the Author: Diane Stafford is the workplace and careers columnist at The Kansas City Star. A veteran journalist, she has held several reporting and editing positions at The Star on both the business and metropolitan desks. Currently, she writes columns that appear in The Star on Thursdays and Sundays as well as other business and economic news articles throughout the week, accessible at www.kansascity.com. Her daily “Workspace” blog also is available at www.workspacekc.typepad.com. She is the author of “Your Job: Getting It, Keeping It, Improving It, Changing It,” a career advice book. She holds bachelor’s and master’s degrees in communications from Stanford University.

Cross-posted at Workspace.

CEO = rock star.

Okay, it’s not as bad as it was in the ‘80’s when even non-business magazines had smiling CEOs on the cover, but I still think most of us want our CEO to have a certain amount of star quality. Call it the Trumpification of the corporate world.

Who would you rather have leading your company? Casper the friendly ghost or a Genie who can make all of the company’s wishes come true (even if he does have a comb over)? Let’s face it, shy and retiring just doesn’t cut it when you’re responsible for the livelihood of lots of people. When it comes to effective CEOs, bigger always seems better. Or does it?

Arizona State University’s Crocker Liu and New York University’s David Yermack have a really interesting take on rock star CEOs and how much they can cost a company. Even better is the creative way that the two professors came up with to study this issue—they compared the size of the CEO’s home with corporate performance. Call it entitlement, focusing on the wrong things, an inferiority complex, short man’s syndrome or a bunch of guys spending other people’s money—this study found that we all pay when the CEO literally lives in a castle.

Let’s start with the numbers. In 2004, the median home price for CEOs was $2.7 million.

Compare that to the median price for all homes in U.S., $195,200. The average size of the CEOs home, 5,600 square feet. Heck, if you are a titan of industry, wouldn’t you want 4.5 bathrooms? Actually I’m shocked the number isn’t at least 7, if you are so darn important, how could you possibly use the same bathroom more than once a week? Come on, these are really important people. (Okay, I’ll attempt to reduce the sarcasm for the remainder of this blog.)

But the study gets really interesting when it examined 12 percent of the S&P 500 CEOs with homes that were larger than 10,000 square feet or were on at least 10 acres of land. The companies that were run by this group of landed gentry lagged the S&P 500 by 25 percent over the three years following the home purchase.

That bears repeating. The biggest CEO houses significantly increased the odds of poor corporate performance.

I’m guessing that those of you reading this article are in one of two camps right now. The first group is ready to storm the Bastille and scream about CEOs living large off the sweat and tears of the rest of us.

But I’m sure there are also readers who still believe that a big ego is a necessary part of the mix. That these two professors, and me, are making a mansion out of a molehill. I may be, but you may feel differently after you read this.

Approximately a third of CEOs exercised stock options and sold shares in the year before they bought a home. Consistently the shares peaked right before the purchase. Given the brouhaha over backdating stock options, I find it fascinating that the stock prices tended to peak so consistently just before a mansion was purchased. Maybe that big house isn’t something that was earned but rather something that was scammed.

Ironic isn’t it. Putting a CEO in a mansion, more often than not, puts you in the poor house.

About our Author: Bob Rosner is a best-selling author and award-winning journalist. His web site, workplace911.com, contains a comprehensive archive of strategies for surviving today’s workplace. He is a fan of Workplace Fairness and can be reached via bob@workplace911.com.