General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGM’s First Female CEO Will Make Half Of What Her Predecessor Made
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/02/04/3243951/mary-barra-pay-gap/-snip-
In December, General Motors (GM) made headlines for picking Mary Barra to replace Dan Akerson as its new CEO. That meant she would not only be the first woman at the helm of the carmaker, but any global carmaker.
But while she may have shattered that glass ceiling, her pay is another story. Looking at the companys filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Elizabeth MacDonald notes that Barra will be paid $4.4 million in total compensation, which includes a base salary of $1.6 million. Akerson, on the other hand, made an estimated $9 million, with a $1.7 million base salary and $7.3 million in stock. That means Barra will make less than half of what he made. In fact, Akerson will continue to make more as her, as GM will pay him $4.68 million as an outside senior adviser.
Worse, Barra comes to the job with an outsized amount of previous experience. Shes been with the company since 1980 and was most recently serving as senior vice president of global product development. Akerson, on the other hand, came into the role without a background running a car company, previously serving as a managing director of private equity firm The Carlyle Group, although he has been on GMs board since 2009.
You've come a long way, baby.
More at link
Response to geardaddy (Original post)
El_Johns This message was self-deleted by its author.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)joeglow3
(6,228 posts)We have a winner!!!
merrily
(45,251 posts)joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Again, proves someone doesn't understand how executive comp and section 162(m) work.
merrily
(45,251 posts)asked because I thought I must be overlooking the word.
Would it have given you a headache to respond without adding a gratuitous personal insult for no apparent reason?
P.S. Section 162(m) of what? The internal Revenue Code?
And I don't see the words you used in the article either. Did see this in another article, though;
ETA: he interesting nugget couched in fine print was that some of Akersons compensation was shifted from from restricted stock units, which take more than there years to fully vest, to stock salary, which Akerson can realize sooner. This was done in acknowledgment of the possibility of his retirement before the completion of the three-year vesting period, the proxy statement said.
http://www.freep.com/article/20130425/BUSINESS/304250105/Compensation-top-GM-execs-rose-2012-Akerson-received-11-1M
A restricted stock unit is not an option. It's shares of stock that you cannot sell right away.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Section 162(m) of the internal revenue code limits the amount a company can deduct for the CEO and others (typically the individuals whose compensation is required to be disclosed with the SEC in the annual report, excluding the CFO - I assume the CFO is excluded because they would have greater access and ability to cook the books and effectively be rewarded for it). Currently, any base compensation in excess of a million dollars a year is permanently non-deductible for tax return purposes for the company.
The limit does not apply to performance based compensation. Companies will have a compensation committee that is typically made up of a couple board of directors and the rest being outside individuals. This committee will approve performance metrics that, if met will result in additional compensation for the individuals included in the plan. These amounts are typically paid out in stock options, RSU's or a combination of the two.
Thus, it is not surprising that the plan has not been decided upon yet for this individual. Therefore, it is not an honest comparison to look at one individual and include their performance based pay AND anything the are getting as a result of the separation with someone's base pay only.
I apologize for the curtness/rudeness.
merrily
(45,251 posts)That is the end of that from my end.
Thank you for the explanation. I do understand performance bonuses, but not all bonuses are paid in stock options. Apparently, his bonus was not.
merrily
(45,251 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)fast he could sell them. That is not a stock option.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)that make that much money.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)to hire her. "Hey, she's a woman, we can pay her less and all us old white guys can make more."
I don't feel bad either that she isn't fleecing consumers so she can live a lavish lifestyle but you can bet the money she isn't getting someone else is.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)as hell isn't being passed down to a lowly office worker.
People here rail against high CEO salary packages all the time. So I'm not sure if I should be all indignant about this. Am I supposed to be peeved because she's a woman, or glad because maybe this might become a trend. I would rather the CEOs all make less, regardless of gender.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)" I would rather the CEOs all make less, regardless of gender..." No doubt. However, when it is in fact, regarded by gender (as it so often is), CEO pay becomes an additional and accurate window through which to perceive other problems.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)for equal work. However when it comes to the very top tier, I can't find much sympathy in my heart for 1%ers. Let's get some jobs and decent money for those of us down here in the real world.
yawnmaster
(2,812 posts)Heather MC
(8,084 posts)Oh the Conundrum
merrily
(45,251 posts)that is not exactly the point of the story.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)chairman, so that could be a pretty big part of the salary difference.
I still think that all CEOs should make less money.
TexasProgresive
(12,164 posts)to begin moving executive corporate pay to something reasonable.
Maybe all senior corp exec should be women.
ProfessorGAC
(65,381 posts)I'm conflicted by this, because she shouldn't be making what her predecessor made, but then neither should have he.
GAC
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)I was just thinking, I had not seen you in forever.
DURHAM D
(32,617 posts)The guys better watch out. If too many women are in the room they will pull down everyone's salary.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)because men generally ask for more compensation, and put themselves out of the running. I have heard it expressed -again and again- if you need leadership, pay extra for a man, women will not be automatically given respect - if you need the hard work done, hire a woman. That is a common frame for this.
Nay
(12,051 posts)with women in the work world -- they 'drag down wages.' What's funny is that their own eagerness to hire cheap labor in the form of women is now biting THEM in the ass instead of someone else.
progressoid
(50,013 posts)Progressive dog
(6,931 posts)lowest hourly at GM is $8/hour, so it's only about 250X that.
geardaddy
(24,931 posts)Dopers_Greed
(2,640 posts)A CEO not making enough is probably the last thing we should be outraged about.
marble falls
(57,479 posts)there's finally a woman chairman, its more than about time once we realize that women make up more than 50% the engineers at college and have for years and that women by at least half the cars in this nation.
Women buy more cars than men - and influence almost all car purchases
http://www.examiner.com/article/women-buy-more-cars-than-men-and-influence-almost-all-car-purchases
geardaddy
(24,931 posts)Just posting based on the fact that she's getting less (although still too much) than her male counterpart.
merrily
(45,251 posts)happens all the time and has happened since forever.
marble falls
(57,479 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)A retired high school teacher told me that, when when she started out men even made more in public schools. She complained and the response was they had families to support. Not true. They got more even if they were single. She was supporting her divorced sister and her nephew, which she pointed out. No one cared and no one raised her pay.
marble falls
(57,479 posts)hfojvt
(37,573 posts)considering she made $4.9 million in 2011.
http://www.freep.com/article/20130425/BUSINESS/304250105/Compensation-top-GM-execs-rose-2012-Akerson-received-11-1M
Javaman
(62,534 posts)I shead no tear for those who live in the stratusphere of wages.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)This is what's wrong with America.
former9thward
(32,136 posts)Barra said she has complete faith in the board and executive compensation committee to set a fair compensation. She added, GM has "an extensive process" to determine executives' compensation structure.
http://www.mlive.com/auto/index.ssf/2014/01/new_gm_ceo_mary_barra_downplay.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+flint_journal_news+(Flint+Journal+News+-+MLive.com)
mythology
(9,527 posts)The previous CEO was known to be retiring and so didn't receive any long term compensation where as yet GM hasn't announced what the new CEO's long term compensation will be. But GM has said that the difference in their pay will be negligible after that is factored in. The long term compensation will be announced later this year.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/04/news/companies/gm-ceo-pay/
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)This was the part of GM that make locomotives.
Think about that for a second.
Here you have a company with scientists and engineers on the payroll that have combined diesel engines hooked up to generators to power electric motors to power drive wheels to milk out every single mile possible from even a teaspoon of fuel. People who could easily scale all of that down for cars and trucks. Think about the ads too. A truck towing a boat or a trailer and a train going side by side on a country road and a "from the people who brought you" meme topped off by outrageously unbelievable mileage.
Instead, this idiot bought Hummer and produced SUVs.
geardaddy
(24,931 posts)I wasn't aware of that. Thanks.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)CEO Rick Wagoner sold off Electro-Motive (that was in 2005) - that's three preceding Akerson. The CEO preceding Wagoner, Jack Smith, is the one that purchased Hummer.
Wagoner quit back in 2009
This guy Fritz Henderson was then CEO until 1 Dec 2009
Ed Whitacre was interim CEO from 1 Dec 2009 to 1 Sept 2010
Akerson took over 1 Sept 2010.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)In July 2009, Akerson was named to the board of directors of General Motors as a representative of the U.S. Treasury, which owns a 61% stake in GM.[11] On August 12, 2010 it was announced that Akerson would be the successor of Ed Whitacre as CEO of General Motors, starting September 1, 2010 and would also assume the Chairman of the Board position on January 1, 2011. General Motors, during Akerson's first year of tenure in 2011, earned a record $7.6 billion in profit off of $150.3 billion in sales.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Akerson
The guy who saved GM deserves some props. Were it not for him, the company wouldn't have survived long enough to appoint a female successor.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Mainly because it was a success and they feared it would spread to other industries.
Imagine if the government did that to Big Oil.
LittleGirl
(8,292 posts)back then and he lost his job because of this. Stupid stupid mistake.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)LittleGirl
(8,292 posts)Too bad he gets such a bad rap. He really is the pulse of the working class folks.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)first Black CEO, or the first openly gay CEO. I suspect there'd be quite a bit more outrage if that were the case. But hey, it's just a woman here, so what the fuck ever...
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)I don't care who they sleep with or what race or gender they are - over paid 1%er.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Then we'll hear the screaming about how awful women devalue the workforce.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)and stuff...
How the fuck is a CEO supposed to live on 4.4 million? In today's day and age, that is near impossible. And with the recent cutbacks in SNAP benefits, how will this poor lady take care of her children? You cannot feed a family on 4.4 million dollars. In a family of her size, that would be like only having 1.1 million dollars a year for each person in her family. That's it... Just a measly 1.1 million dollars.
These stories about the working poor really get to me. Sorry.
erpowers
(9,350 posts)I understand some at DU might not like me writing this, but this article is much ado about nothing. In a later update to the article the pay difference was explained by saying Barra was only the CEO of the company while her predecessor was both the chairman and CEO of the company. Her base pay is only $100,000 less than her predecessor, so the pay gap seems reasonable since she is only doing one job while her predecessor did two jobs. I think the fact that Barra is only the CEO of the company also accounts for the fact that she is paid less in stock options.
As we look at the CEO pay gap we probably should look at how many female CEOs are just the CEO of the company. It might be the case that in all the instances listed in the article the female CEOs are only the CEO of their company while their male counterparts are both the chairmen and CEOs of the companies. That might actually explain the pay gap.
valerief
(53,235 posts)Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)On one hand, I'm pissed that they're paying a woman CEO less than what the male CEO made, but on the other hand I don't give a shit if it's a few million dollars less when she's still getting millions of dollars.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Less pay for same (or BETTER) qualifications.
What career woman here hasn't had the experience of seeing younger, less experienced male colleagues promoted, or given their jobs, even as they are asked to train the new guy?
Male ego is a destructive thing.
All CEO' s should be demoted in pay. And, no, the money witheld from her won't be going to workers.
Maybe she can become a voice for more reasonable executive pay. The time is right for her to step up as a truth teller, if she so chooses.....society is ready to hear it.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Maybe she can become a voice for more reasonable executive pay. The time is right for her to step up as a truth teller, if she so chooses.....society is ready to hear it.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)The author isn't good with basic principles of math FYI
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Please, because it looks pretty clear on the face of it.
Also, my input concerned deeper societal issues exemplified by the article.
geardaddy
(24,931 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Younger women have a slightly better chance of getting a job. They are pretty, after all.
Older women? Just getting a job that pays well and involves taking responsibility is tougher.
Usually you are offered a low salary for the job description and expected to be quiet when your male boss speaks.
I'm generalizing. There are exceptions. But the rule is older women have a tough time in the workplace.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)I already experience differing treatment now that I'm "of a certain age" . And I've been here over 25 years.
But anyway...I've seen studies showing the differences in post-graduation trajectories for men and women.....male graduates get hired at higher starting pay, get more promotions, get rewarded for starting families, etc. And of course, benefits, retirement and soc. security is less, being nased on percentage.
I wish i could find it again.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)It's still just a lot of talk. Congress needs to get busy.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)That explains the $100,000 difference in their base pay. GM's long term compensation plan is bering restructured since GM isn't beholden to the government any more. Her long-term compensation plan will be unveiled in April.
Akerson received a large amount of short-term compensation, since he was close to retirement and didn't get any long-term compensation. I suspect that their overall compensation packages will be very close when her full compensation is revealed in April.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Make of that what you will.
In 1996, Akerson was hired to be the chief executive of Nextel. During his tenure as CEO, Nextel's revenues grew from $171.7 million in the year before his arrival to more than $3.3 billion in 1998. Shortly after stepping down as CEO of Nextel in July 1999, Akerson was brought in by Craig McCaw to run Nextlink Communications, later rebranded as XO Communications.[7] XO Communications entered bankruptcy in June 2002, and Akerson resigned as CEO in December 2002.[8] Akerson joined The Carlyle Group in 2003.[9] While at The Carlyle Group, Akerson ran the Company's largest private equity fund.[10]
In July 2009, Akerson was named to the board of directors of General Motors as a representative of the U.S. Treasury, which owns a 61% stake in GM.[11] On August 12, 2010 it was announced that Akerson would be the successor of Ed Whitacre as CEO of General Motors, starting September 1, 2010 and would also assume the Chairman of the Board position on January 1, 2011. General Motors, during Akerson's first year of tenure in 2011, earned a record $7.6 billion in profit off of $150.3 billion in sales.[12] However, automotive journalist Peter De Lorenzo criticized him heavily for opposing Mark Reuss and the product development team.[13]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Akerson
Drew Richards
(1,558 posts)kind of slap in the face of what they consider her worth to the company.
FU GM
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)Her long-term compensation hasn't been settled and will be released in April. Her predecessor had no long-term since he was close to retirement, so he had a much larger amount of short-term compensation. Barra's base salary is $100,000 less because she's not also the Chairman of the Board.
I think this is probably a big to-do over nothing, and once her final salary is released in April it'll be very similar to his total compensation.
Drew Richards
(1,558 posts)bucolic_frolic
(43,476 posts)they could'a had me for $600 a week
tinrobot
(10,927 posts)CEOs are typically paid way too much, both male and female. Carly Fiorina comes to mind as one example of this.
Step in the right direction, I say.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)WTF?
I'll be an outside adviser for... 1 MIL.
47of74
(18,470 posts)Sometimes such people ask that their salary be set at a lower level so the company has more money available.