An interesting little tidbit from 'News of the Weird' by Chuck Shepherd

General Motors executives, trying to explain the dwindling stock market value of the company, have repeatedly complained of oppressive pension benefits owed under United Auto Workers contracts; however, according to a June Wall Street Journal investigation, GM's fund for worker pensions is "overstuffed with cash," while its fund for executive pensions is $1.4 billion in the red and getting worse. [Reuters, 6-22-06] [Wall Street Journal, 6-23-06]

Under the subheading 'Chutzpah!', Mr. Shepherd placed the above quotation. My reactions to this short paragraph are two-fold. First, does this really qualify as news of the weird? And, second, does this really surprise anybody who really understands how modern corporate economic policy works in this country today?


Should we classify information like this as weird news, or should this little blurb actually go on the front page of the newspaper? I find it ironic that the modern corporate world wants to blame their troubles on the working class, who earn 1/300 of the average CEO salary, while ignoring the complicity of Boards in escalating CEO salaries to an unmanageable level. Haven't we been hearing about this escalating problem for several years now? Shouldn't one of these corporate boards at some point ask itself why a high-profile CEO (who is not responsible for producing any of the corporation's goods or services) make an average salary that is 300 times the salary of the average worker (who IS responsible for producing the corporation's goods and services)?

The Republican party wants to argue that Americans as a whole have become dependent on the entitlement programs provided by the federal government. When liberals argue, however, that corporate America has become dependent on the government largesse for tax breaks, institutionalized subsidies, and other forms of corporate welfare we are derided for failing to understand the importance of propping up these huge salaries for CEOs.

Perhaps it is time for corporate America to police its own actions in paying out these huge sums of money to individuals who, with a few exceptions, have largely failed to uphold their promises of fat profits and smaller production costs. When a baseball team signs a free agent for a large sum of money, they generally expect that player to continue to be successful on the field. It seems that corporate boards, however, pay large sums of money to CEOs who have not previously performed up to expectations. What has so greatly influenced these boards to fail in their feduciary duty to the company, and to the American ideal of SUCCESS bringing great rewards?