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.
U get paid for the value you add to the company - we are in a capitalist society , cream rises to the top - yeah some morons also get paid but u can say that about every level on the hierarchy
Not always the case, look at the CEOs Yahoo has had, and HP as well.
“It’s what the market would bear!” won’t sound so good when the unwashed masses of Bernie supporters drag these people from their beds...markets may be self correcting, but societies are not.
Plus the market bore things like child labor and unsafe working conditions for a very long time. Just because the market is currently supporting it doesn't mean it's right.
I honestly don't understand this CEO pay ratio question at all. The implication that rich people deciding CEO pay somehow want to pay other rich people more than they are worth because of some rich person conspiracy is just absurd. Companies are paying what it takes to get the best talent they can afford. If they could get the same performance for less, they would. Do CEOs sometimes fail to perform, sure, but the golden parachutes are there because that's the perk it took to get the person they wanted.
Rdj gets more as a Disney employee
The nodding along to the compensation greed in this thread is amazing. Not since the robber barons of the Gilded Age has executive compensation been so proportionally high compared to the average worker. Are we saying that CEOs today are dokng 150% better than their twentieth century counterparts? Doubtful, but the compensation has changed accordingly. Everyone calling for it saying that "it's what the market will bare" must have slept through business ethics. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Like CBA run amok for example...
Yes but I have to ask how/why has it gotten that so much more competitive. What has fundamentally changed about business over the past 20 years, other than the pace?
As far as clients go, I'm not a Partner/MD so I always try to balance the work we sell with the client needs. I abhor adding people "just because".
When there is no more middle class, and the system gets torn down, we’re all going to be complicit in its replacement. We still have an obligation to make sure this agreement works for everyone, and it seems like we’ve forgotten that riots based on inequality are a large part of our history.
Fishbowl: “I’m underpaid!”
Also fishbowl: “Someone else is overpaid!”
While he may make those decisions the people that execute those decisions should also get the benefit
The level of naivety about the role and value of executive compensation in this groups of business consultants amazes me.
No one is going to say anything about Howard Buffett wearing a black suit with light brown shoes? 💁🏻♂️
Might be his version of peacocking 😂
I would tell Disney’s granddaughter how
much did you make off Iger’s share price increase? If you believe in it passionately split the difference with him. As a CEO you are asking someone to live and breathe for a company. It’s no easy task