Fortune 500 chiefs make twice as much in a month as U.S. workers make in a decade. But any move to require corporations to document that disparity, a new Trump appointee likes to argue, would be shameful.
The basic idea behind innovative legislation now pending in our smallest state: The taxes we all pay should bankroll quality public services, not grand fortunes.
Executives at private companies flush with federal contracts are getting rich off America’s tax dollars — at the expense of their low-wage workers. But these tables can turn. An insightful report just released by the New York think tank Demos explains just how.
The long-delayed disclosure rule from the Securities and Exchange Commission on CEO-worker pay turned out last week to be surprisingly strong. The new rule, once finally adopted, will require corporations to annually reveal the ratio between what they pay their top execs and median workers.
Britain’s top unions will soon be flexing their shareholder muscles — and insisting that the corporations where their pension funds have investments start taking significant steps to narrow the pay divide between executives and workers. And the unions have a specific pay ratio in mind.
From hiking trails in Oregon to boardrooms in Berlin, critics of our unequal corporate order are calling for limits that link executive to worker pay. So far this winter striking pitches for income caps have come from a new environmental manifesto and Germany’s top corporate watchdog.
A perfectly respectable business panel is urging corporate boards to ditch the ridiculous rationalizations for CEO pay excess and narrow the gargantuan corporate pay gap. Step one: end CEO stock options.
A new labor report reinforces the case for more transparency on the gap between what U.S. CEOs take home and what they pay their workers. The SEC is currently dragging its feet on implementing the new law that requires individual corporations to reveal just how wide that gap has become.
Here in the United States, corporations treat their workers as adversaries. Not so in Finland.
Amid fierce fiscal austerity, a borough in London is doing battle to level up the poor and level down the rich. Imagine if a borough in New York tried something as ambitious to tackle the rich-poor gap.