In your professional opinion, does Bob Iger’s salary, which is 1,424 times higher than the median Disney employee, present a morale or other risk for Disney?
If you consulted for Disney, would you address executive compensation, or does it represent a fair deal for the CEO who has overseen the tripling of Disney’s stock price?
This controversy was sparked over the weekend by a viral Twitter thread from Roy Disney’s granddaughter, which you can read about here:
https://www.fastcompany.com/90333082/disney-ceo-bob-igers-compensation-is-insane-says-abigail-disney
I don’t think this is a risk for Disney. I used to work there, and like everyone else that works there, I wasn’t in it for the money. Disney doesn’t pay its salaried employees well and the hourly employees make minimum wage. There are enough people that will put up with low wages because working at Disney is their dream. Also it’s worthwhile to note that part of Disney’s workforce is unionized so if the workers really took issue with pay and working conditions, they could enlist the support of their union.
That was my professional opinion, but personally I think it’s outrageous that he is being paid that much while hourly employees are borderline living in poverty. I understand that it’s a low skilled job, but being paid <$8/hour to stand in 95+ degree heat in swampy and humid Florida is torture.
Disney is a really hard company to work for. They don’t treat their employees well. So next time you take your family to enjoy the Disney parks, be nice to all the cast members because they have a truly awful job and deal with a bunch of angry tourists all day long. A little kindness goes a long way :)
It’s an interesting example of what some would call capitalism gone mad. I don’t question the mechanics behind his pay. Public company, share price, profits, his incentives, etc. Same goes for the mechanics governing the majority of Disney employees - all just market dynamics.
It is legitimate to question the value of the system however. After all, capitalism doesn’t or shouldn’t serve itself but the society that has agreed to operate that way. If it stops doing that in a significant way, the system will eventually break. That break could occur in many ways - freedoms being eliminated (e.g., suppressing rights of the poor masses), being abolished (e.g. peaceful or violent revolutions) or more likely a small(ish) correction.
All of those have happened countless times in human history. Nothing new.
The question shouldn’t be whether he’s worth his salary but whether the other employees are being fairly and/or accurately compensated.
This is a discussion about CEO pay relative to the rest of the work force and whether they should be paid 1000x the salary of the median worker. Disney is an example used to highlight the difference but the arguments made on both sides apply more broadly to the economy at large. High school students are a part of the economy.
If you "don't see the argument here" you're not really following the discussions.
The guy has made the right moves consistently on a billion dollar scale between acquisitions, rights ownership and streaming. He can get paid whatever he wants.
Triple stock price. That’s the only move investors care and he made it happen
Interestingly the high rate of executive pay compared to workers was notably first pushed by McKinsey consultant Arch Patton. When later asked about this legacy, he noted that he felt guilty about it.
I’d say that’s fair compensation. He’s done a tremendous job at Disney
If the company wants to pay that it’s their money. If your don’t like it, stop patronizing Disney. Simple enough
It's neoliberalism not capitalism
Many Disney employees are a wage that doesn’t cover the most basic human needs. The taxpayers end up covering their healthcare (Medicaid), food (SNAP), housing, and so forth. You cannot pay your CEO millions of dollars while having taxpayers subsidize your employees wages
It's not really based on what the market will bare, not when you have a bunch of CEOs deciding on compensation for themselves. Look at the average makeup of a board of directors, it's generally executives or people close to the CEO to begin with.
Never question the mouse or you’re gonna have a bad time
It’s what the market will bear
Lol. When people complain about being paid "what the market will bear" and terrible leadership in their own firms and projects, they should refer to this thread about how it's ok and capitalism is good and cream rises to the top &c &c
I don’t think Disney cares about this argument. They care about share price and increasing profits.
Morally, I worry about the huge wealth gap in this country. I get afraid we’ll end up like a lot of developing nations where you are either extremely wealthy or scraping to survive. That and Bob Iger is not paying the same proportional tax amount that the median tax payer is required to pay.
Conflicted.
As a consultant I think it’s right on.
As a manager, I am jealous.
As an investor, I think he is throwing away brand equity in order to line his own pockets.
As a Disney fan, I’m outraged that I really have had to quit going because it’s just so expensive.
And I recognize that all of that is simultaneously true
Well stated
Probably not a morale risk, but I also wouldn't oppose changing tax code to make things like this a bit more equitable.
I'm curious but also lazy, how much in taxes did Disney pay this year? I do have an issue with corporations like Amazon paying nothing, while the C-suite makes ridiculous amounts of money, especially when compared to the average worker at that corporation.
Change the tax code ?what is the rate you think he is paying in California ?
Increase the pay enough and those jobs will be replaced by robots...Disney is a publicly traded company. Investors should determine weather or not the compensation is correct to ensure their investment is maximized (financially and socially).
I’m curious what your replacing with robots that wouldn’t make a noticeable difference to the consumer, but would make it a worthwhile investment?
What do you think he put on the application as the salary at his last position?
Did anyone stop to think this is how a lot of our clients feel about us? Paying us large sums of money for our “expertise”. What makes us worth more than someone with years of industry experience?
@H2 honestly if you don't know what value you add beyond what your clients can, I'm not sure why you get paid at all.
There is a list of reasons why businesses hire us, and I'm quite shocked you don't understand that. Our clients aren't stupid, and they wouldn't pay our rates if they could accomplish the same things without us. If you need a lesson in consulting, info sessions should be kicking off soon for on campus recruiting. Grab a seat and reintroduce yourself to the basics of your own industry.
How about our partners comp vs our comp? Let’s stop worrying about Disney now!
I always wonder why no one makes the same point about some guy being paid $100M to play a game, and the variance between a player getting $100000 for a game while the guy serving $12 beers makes $36 for the duration of the game. Those $12 beers you but to pay for the player or the actor or the performer. I find that more troubling than ceos. At least ceos (good ones) lead their firms to value creation and make payroll for a lot of people
I'm pretty sure this comment was tongue in cheek to highlight the irrelevance of creating a ratio of two completely different jobs just because they both benefit the same organization. It's a perfect analogy taken to the extreme since it highlights both pay for value creation and scarcity of talent, as nearly everyone in the stands could take over for the beer guy with no difference in outcome, but likely not a single person among the thousands in attendance could swap places with a player on the field and perform as well. It also shows how much a marginal difference in talent is valued at the top since people could watch players very slightly less talented in minor league games for much less money, but continue to pay an outsized difference for the top.
Lol, compensation is a big enough area of concern that they have an entire committee on it that is governed by the BOD who is represents the shareholders...so it’s not like a trivial thing to vote on...which your asinine comment would suggest