http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16458570



Yes, well, you'd know all about it!

"And damnit, that OUR job", he didn't add.

I'm not sure the reforms he's talked about implementing will make a jot of difference. Giving shareholders veto over executive remuneration is in theory a good idea but the fact is most companies' shares are held by institutional investors. The people who will control those votes are therefore... executives. Can anyone else see the obvious flaw in this plan?

There was a government report into executive pay a while ago that proposed some much more useful measures (remuneration not above a (still quite large) multiple of average pay etc). I just can't remember the name of it off the top of my head. Cameron & Co are adopting very few of the recommendations of that report. It could be... interesting come next PMQs. Which, IIRC, is sadly not for quite some time.

Jon

Why not just use the Scandinavian (I think?) model of having the top rate of pay being 10 times the lowest employee rate of pay?
Seems much fairer all round.

I saw something in the last week showing Japanese and Scandinavian countries generally had an executive pay difference of 11-15x that of the average worker. For the UK it was far higher and in the States several hundred times more. Can't find it now but I'm sure it was on the BBC.

IIRC that's also the system John Lewis uses.
Seems like an excellent plan to me - executives want a pay rise, fine bump up everyone else at the same time.

I would at least like to see employees on renumeration comitees and not just in a token way.