Disney CEO 35% raise

[Altoqueenkelly]

I'm taking one of the horses with me from King Stefan's Carousel. If he gets a raise next year, I'm kidnapping characters.

I seriously laughed out loud at this, thats hilarious

 

[JenSop]

I do not have any issues with a well-skilled person being paid for their attributes. I love Disney and am glad that it exists. Without the people in charge, it would not be what it is.

However, it is disgusting for this reason:

• Nobody needs all that money. Not in a life-time. There is a lot I could say about that piece, but I will stop there.
• He works with those that make the final decision to cut hundreds or thousands of jobs in one shot. For a person to take that big of a increase and cut a lot of employment, it only shows greed.
• I cannot see for one moment that he cares about people or really even the good of the company as a whole. The jobs he cuts are the people that service you and me on our vacation.

I agree completely and totally! How can a person in good conscious cut jobs and then accept such a huge sum of money? I just don't get it.

 

[nexttripdisney]

Hysterical. Every executive I've ever known was totally useless and got to where they are through connections. Some of the most brilliant people in my organization don't go anywhere because they don't play the under-handed games.

I guess you don't know very many executives. In the real world, people are successful mainly by being dedicated, hard workers and very intelligent.

 

[OrangeCat04]

Good for him! His is definitely not an easy job.

Seriously?? The Trauma Surgeons i work with don't have easy jobs either, and i think THEY deserve a 28 million dollar salary over Disney's CEO. Lots of people dont have easy jobs.... Doesn't mean they should get paid 28 million dollars...

 

[nexttripdisney]

Clearly, not a sports fan.

I'm a huge sports fan and will be cheering loudly as the Steelers win the Superbowl!!.

I think that when we hear an athlete is getting a contract for XXXX millions per year, the discussion is about whether or not he/she deserves it.

Who would question giving a spectacular athlete who is #1 in his/her sport a humongous contract?

They get paid commensurate with the income that they bring in to the organization. A CEO's salary is no different in a well-run company.

 

[GalDisney]

No one is saying give the ride operators 50 grand per yr but but maybe giving a dollar an hr raise instead of a ridiculous one percent pay raise...

 

[A_Princess'_Daddy]

Seriously?? The Trauma Surgeons i work with don't have easy jobs either, and i think THEY deserve a 28 million dollar salary over Disney's CEO. Lots of people dont have easy jobs.... Doesn't mean they should get paid 28 million dollars...

It's not just whether the job is easy or not, it's how many people are qualified to do it and the demand/market for the services.

For example, there is not a huge number of trauma surgeons, and the demand is fairly high, so they are compensated well. But there are many of them, so they cannot just "name their price".

There are many people able and willing to work retail jobs, so the supply is high and the demand is fairly low, so the pay is far less. In times of high unemployment, the supply is even higher, so the pay is even lower.

There are very few people who can hit a 98 mph curve ball, and many people willing to pay to watch a person do that, so the pay is very high.

There are many people willing and qualified to work as production assistants for TV shows, so the pay is low. Far fewer are qualified to be producers and directors, so the pay for those positions is much higher.

There are few people who are good at high-end sales of complicated products, such as large-scale software suites, medical/pharmaceutical sales, etc., so the compensation is higher.

And lastly, there are VERY few people qualified to be the CEO of a multi-billion dollar integrated media and entertainment company that returns billions in profits to the shareholders year after year, so the pay is very high.

It's all supply and demand, and I'm sorry, but the demand for a qualified CEO is far higher and the supply is nearly infinitely lower than for skilled CMs. It's not a statement on the value of CMs, as I know they take great care of me and my family and are on the front lines every day, but a company cannot compensate based on the "good feelings/warm and fuzzy factor" and stay in business for very long.

 

[collegejunkie]

I understand the frustration of people making minimum wage, but the bottom line is that people are paid based on demand for their skills.
Anyone can sweep sidewalks or make burgers and fries or operate a Disney ride, so those positions aren't paid much.
Very few people have the skills and experience to successfully run a huge, complex, global corporation, so those who are able to do it are paid very highly.

Is Iger's compensation excessive?
I guess it depends on how you look at it. From a company perspective, they are going to pay him what they think he's worth to the company.

Under Iger's leadership, Disney's revenue was up 5% to 38 billion and their net income was up 20% to 4 billion. So one could argue that Iger's leadership helped bring in an extra 700 million in net income last year.

thank you for being logical. now i just need to push dbf into aiming to be ceo of disney one day

 

[nytimez]

I'm a huge sports fan and will be cheering loudly as the Steelers win the Superbowl!!.

I think that when we hear an athlete is getting a contract for XXXX millions per year, the discussion is about whether or not he/she deserves it.

Who would question giving a spectacular athlete who is #1 in his/her sport a humongous contract?

They get paid commensurate with the income that they bring in to the organization. A CEO's salary is no different in a well-run company.

It's a bad comparison.

Plenty of people question giving even the most spectacular athlete who is #1 in his/her sport a humongous contract -- in the rare occasions when they can even agree on who the number one in a given sport is.

Fact is, arguments over an athlete's salary and worth are almost always colored by which team he plays for, and whether or not one is a fan of said team.

 

[ftballfan7]

There are very few people who can hit a 98 mph curve ball, and many people willing to pay to watch a person do that, so the pay is very high.

Noone can throw a 98 MPH curve ball!

 

[ftballfan7]

He has a difficult job and should be well compensated. That being said, this outlandish CEO compensation is now the norm. The middle class is shrinking faster than ever before, as those who are at or near the top become greedier and greedier. Widespread union-busting is just one way they are accomplishing this. At some point the pendulum will swing the other way and the hard working blue collar workers of our country will increase there organization and stop allowing the few too unfairly benefit from the work of the many.

I am a firefighter and have seen my paycheck shrink every year for several years now. We get paid less and our jobs are more dangerous as the call volume increases and trucks are understaffed due to cutbacks. The climate currently is such that there is little sympathy for the struggles of the working men and women. We "should be thankful we have a job". In the meantime those in upper management quietly laugh all the way to the bank. I have been a full time firefighter for over 20 years and seen times like this before (although not this bad). Again the pendulum will eventually swing the other way, it always does. I just hope it doesn't take too long.

 

[JimmyV]

I agree completely and totally! How can a person in good conscious cut jobs and then accept such a huge sum of money? I just don't get it.

Keep in mind that a CEO is compensated (in part) based on shareholder value and not employee satisfaction. Disney shareholders did very well last year, so Iger's compensation package (which is heavily backloaded with bonus and stock option exercises) reflects that. Had the stock value not increased so dramatically, the option exercises would have been valueless. His salary was only around $2 million. The big bucks are tied directly to stock performance. If you owned 10,000 shares of Disney, you'd be very happy with how the company did last year, and wouldn't think twice about how much the CEO earned in bonus and stock options.

One has to be careful when linking CEO performance and salary to rank and file employees. The employees work for him. Not the other way around. The CEO works for the shareholders. If cutting costs (and laying off employees) makes shareholders happy, it is going to happen. Whenever a company announces a massive layoff, stock prices increase. Cruel, but true.

 

[JenSop]

Keep in mind that a CEO is compensated (in part) based on shareholder value and not employee satisfaction. Disney shareholders did very well last year, so Iger's compensation package (which is heavily backloaded with bonus and stock option exercises) reflects that. Had the stock value not increased so dramatically, the option exercises would have been valueless. His salary was only around $2 million. The big bucks are tied directly to stock performance. If you owned 10,000 shares of Disney, you'd be very happy with how the company did last year, and wouldn't think twice about how much the CEO earned in bonus and stock options.

One has to be careful when linking CEO performance and salary to rank and file employees. The employees work for him. Not the other way around. The CEO works for the shareholders. If cutting costs (and laying off employees) makes shareholders happy, it is going to happen. Whenever a company announces a massive layoff, stock prices increase. Cruel, but true.

Your last statement says it all. It's very cruel and it is, in my opinion, wrong. No one should make that much money. Seriously, what the heck does someone need with all that money? And again, how can someone in good faith take that money, knowing that it was made by taking jobs away from others? I really just don't understand. Don't they feel bad for others? Does empathy vanish once a person makes a certain amount of money?

 

[nytimez]

Your last statement says it all. It's very cruel and it is, in my opinion, wrong. No one should make that much money. Seriously, what the heck does someone need with all that money? And again, how can someone in good faith take that money, knowing that it was made by taking jobs away from others? I really just don't understand. Don't they feel bad for others? Does empathy vanish once a person makes a certain amount of money?

I don't begrudge someone who earns a lot of money. But I think there's a certain ugliness to this given that his employees -- the ones who do the job that helped the company to grow allowing him to earn that salary -- are fighting for nickel-and-dime pay raise as he rakes in big bucks. It's rubbing salt into a fresh wound.

 

[maxiesmom]

I don't begrudge someone who earns a lot of money. But I think there's a certain ugliness to this given that his employees -- the ones who do the job that helped the company to grow allowing him to earn that salary -- are fighting for nickel-and-dime pay raise as he rakes in big bucks. It's rubbing salt into a fresh wound.

You could say that about of a lot of companies. Unless you want to live in a communist country, that is how it works. I think it would be a rare individual who would turn down a big raise or bonus and in turn give it to their employees.

And who is to say that a lot of that will not go to various charities? None of us know for sure how that money will be spent, and it really isn't any of our business. I would hate for someone to come up to me and say that I made so much that I didn't deserve a raise and should give it all away.

 

[mill4023]

I hope this won't be considered "political" discussion since I know that isn't allowed here, but the varying opinions in this thread can really be generalized into two groups. Those who believe in capitalism and those who believe in socialism/communism.

Regardless of which group you fall into, the fact is that the US is fundamentally capitalist. People are paid according to the demand for their skills and the only people who have the right to decide how much someone's skills are "worth" are the people who are writing the checks.

Statements like "nobody needs that much money" may be true, but capitalism isn't based on "need". It's based on a free market, where everyone is free to pursue much more than what they "need". There is a political belief that is based on providing everyone with what they "need". It's called communism and neither American government nor American business follows a communist ideology.

 

[A_Princess'_Daddy]

Noone can throw a 98 MPH curve ball!

Ha! Good point, I wasn't thinking.

And, the first person who can throw one will definitely be able to command a very high salary (well, assuming they can get it in the strike zone).

 

[ftballfan7]

I hope this won't be considered "political" discussion since I know that isn't allowed here, but the varying opinions in this thread can really be generalized into two groups. Those who believe in capitalism and those who believe in socialism/communism.

Regardless of which group you fall into, the fact is that the US is fundamentally capitalist. People are paid according to the demand for their skills and the only people who have the right to decide how much someone's skills are "worth" are the people who are writing the checks.

The socialism/communism catchphrases have regained popularity by those who care little for the middle class as a means to argue for an agenda that will ultimatyely lead to the destruction of the middle class entirely. We have been through this before (Mccarthyism anyone).

The truth is that the writer of the check isn't the only one who has the right to decide how much ones skills are worth. The worker providing the skills also has the right to be part of the equation. This can and should be done through labor organization and collective bargaining (capitalism at it's best). In most southern states, the laws do not allow for effective collective bargaining and the povety rates reflect that.

The facts are clear, wages on average are over $10,000 a year higher for union workers compared to non-union workers in similar jobs, employee provided healthcare is almost 30% higher for union workers as compared to non-union workers. Perhaps most importantly worker safety is much higher in states with decent union representation (both when considering worker injuries and deaths).

 

[nytimez]

I hope this won't be considered "political" discussion since I know that isn't allowed here, but the varying opinions in this thread can really be generalized into two groups. Those who believe in capitalism and those who believe in socialism/communism.

Regardless of which group you fall into, the fact is that the US is fundamentally capitalist. People are paid according to the demand for their skills and the only people who have the right to decide how much someone's skills are "worth" are the people who are writing the checks.

Statements like "nobody needs that much money" may be true, but capitalism isn't based on "need". It's based on a free market, where everyone is free to pursue much more than what they "need". There is a political belief that is based on providing everyone with what they "need". It's called communism and neither American government nor American business follows a communist ideology.

Right, anyone who disagrees with you is a commie. Give it a rest, McCarthy.

 

[mill4023]

The socialism/communism catchphrases have regained popularity by those who care little for the middle class as a means to argue for an agenda that will ultimatyely lead to the destruction of the middle class entirely. We have been through this before (Mccarthyism anyone).

The truth is that the writer of the check isn't the only one who has the right to decide how much ones skills are worth. The worker providing the skills also has the right to be part of the equation. This can and should be done through labor organization and collective bargaining (capitalism at it's best). In most southern states, the laws do not allow for effective collective bargaining and the povety rates reflect that.

The facts are clear, wages on average are over $10,000 a year higher for union workers compared to non-union workers in similar jobs, employee provided healthcare is almost 30% higher for union workers as compared to non-union workers. Perhaps most importantly worker safety is much higher in states with decent union representation (both when considering worker injuries and deaths).

There's always a knee jerk reaction when someone uses those words and an assumption that it is being used as an insult or with a negative connotation.

I wasn't using the terms as a "catchphrase" and I wasn't using it as a derogatory term in any way.

Anyone who has studied political systems knows that one of the main ideas of communism is providing for everyone based on what they "need", not what they want or what they are worth.

People who think that a CEO shouldn't be paid a lot of money because they don't "need" that much money are expressing a socialist / communist belief. Everyone has the right to hold whatever beliefs they choose. I was just pointing out that it is not the way American society and business functions.