精品国产_亚洲人成在线高清,国产精品成人久久久久,国语自产偷拍精品视频偷拍

本周，我得到一個“霸凌者”的稱號。

之所以得到這個稱號，原因在于美國證券交易委員會在周三投票通過了要求公司披露首席執行官與員工薪酬差距的法規。委員們的投票結果與黨派比例一致——3:2。

在一項異議聲明中，證券交易委員會的共和黨委員邁克爾·皮窩沃表示，他的同事“對于霸凌現象持默許態度”。

如果說支持披露首席執行官-員工之間的薪酬差距都能夠讓人成為霸凌者的話，那么我算是其中一個。大型公司首席執行官的薪酬是車間員工薪資的數百倍，多年來，我一直認為公司內部的這種極端不平衡不僅僅只是公平性的問題，而且也會給企業帶來負面影響。

例如，斯坦福大學對多個調查的評估發現，頂層和底層員工巨大的薪資差距可能會打擊雇員的士氣和工作滿意度。CtW Investment Group對標普500公司的分析顯示，首席執行官-員工薪資比值估值較大的企業在五年期內的股東回報率要低于那些估值低的企業。

2010年，多德-弗蘭克金融改革將首席執行官-員工薪資比率披露寫入了美國的法律。但五年以來，證券交易委員會的官員在面臨激烈反對的情況下，對于法規的實施一拖再拖。

企業說客組織和同一陣營的決策者們一直在不遺余力地阻撓或架空這一規定。有時候，我不得不承認，我也曾經用過不怎么中聽的言語來還擊其攻擊。

例如去年，美國商會發布了一項調查，稱大型公司平均得耗費311800美元以及1825小時的時間來計算器員工薪酬中間值。我忍不住想要執筆為這些 “拖沓而又昂貴的會計” 寫一封假招聘廣告。這些公司從哪里弄來的上述荒唐數據？

當然，我并非是唯一一個在這一方面異常吝嗇之人。證券交易委員會就這個問題收到了28.74萬封評論函，絕大多數都對此表示支持。

皮窩沃在其異議聲明結尾還提醒人們吸取有關校園霸凌事件的教訓。他說：“默許只會助長霸凌者的氣焰。”

這一點確實有道理。那些提倡薪酬差距披露的人的確會利用這場勝利來提出更多的要求。具體來說，新聯邦法規將幫助我們推廣國家層面的動議，以便通過公共資金的力量來提升披露的吸引力。

例如，羅德島州參議院法案規定，對于首席執行官與員工薪資中值比例低于25:1的公司，在申請政府項目時會獲得優惠。這一基準源于管理學之父皮特·德拉科，他認為高管-員工的薪酬比例高過20:1之后就會有損公司的士氣和生產力。

依據這一法律，競爭州政府項目的公司可以通過降低其薪酬差距來改善其中標機會，它們可以降低高管薪酬，或提升其最底層員工的薪資水平。不管采取哪種方式，羅德島納稅者的錢會發揮更大的效用，因為薪資差距的縮小有可能會提升生產力。稅收政策可能也會通過為低薪資差距公司提供更低的稅率，來獎勵薪資差距更公平的企業。

有人認為自己是這場所謂的薪資差距“霸凌”現象的犧牲者，而且他們并非只是停留在向主管方抱怨。就在證券交易委員會投票數小時之后，眾議院金融服務委員會主席杰布·亨薩林（德州共和黨）宣布一項法案投票計劃，旨在廢除多德-弗蘭克法案中的這一部分內容。

那些薪酬過高的首席執行官似乎依然在鼓動其在國會的大哥，盡其所能地讓這些恃強凌弱的大壞蛋知難而退。然而，一旦角斗上演，真正會黑著眼圈離場的將是那些企業高管。（財富中文網）

薩拉·安德森在政策研究所主持一個全球經濟項目。

譯者：馮豐

審校：夏林

This week I got called a bully.

What provoked the name-calling was a Securities and Exchange Commission vote on Wednesday to adopt regulations requiring corporations to disclose the gap between what they pay their CEO and their workers. The commissioners voted 3 to 2 along straight party lines.

In a dissenting statement, SEC Republican Commissioner Michael Piwowar said his colleagues were “acquiescing to bullies.”

If supporting CEO-worker pay ratio disclosure makes you a bully, then count me among them. For many years, I’ve argued that extreme inequality within firms, with big company CEOs making hundreds of times more than shop floor employees, is not just grossly unfair. It’s also bad for business.

A Stanford University review of several studies, for instance, found that highly differentiated pay between top and bottom earners tends to reduce employee morale and job satisfaction. A CtW Investment Group analysis of S&P 500 companies indicated that those with high estimated CEO-worker pay ratios had lower shareholder returns over a five-year period than companies with low CEO-pay ratios.

In 2010, the Dodd-Frank financial reform made CEO-worker pay ratio disclosure the law of the land. But for five years, in the face of intense opposition, SEC officials have dragged their feet on implementation.

Corporate lobby groups and allied lawmakers have been bent on blocking or gutting the rule. And there were times, I must admit, when I responded to their attacks in a less than kindly manner.

Last year, for example, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce published a study claiming large companies would be forced to shell out an average of $311,800 and crunch numbers for 1,825 hours to calculate their median worker pay. I couldn’t resist penning a phony help wanted ad for “slow and expensive accountants.” How else could these companies back up such absurd numbers?

Of course I’m not the only big meanie. The SEC received more than 287,400 public comment letters on this issue, an overwhelming majority of which were supportive.

At the end of his dissenting statement, Commissioner Piwowar reminded us of schoolyard lessons about bullies. “Acquiescing,” he said, “only gives them more ammunition.”

Here he does have a point. Those of us who’ve advocated for CEO-worker pay disclosure will indeed be using this victory to push for more. Specifically, this new federal rule will help us promote state-level initiatives to add extra oomph to disclosure by tapping the power of the public purse.

A Rhode Island state senate bill, for example, would give preferential treatment in the awarding of government contracts to firms that have gaps between CEO and median worker pay of no more than 25 to 1. This benchmark was inspired by Peter Drucker, known as the Father of Management Science, who believed the ratio of pay between worker and executive can run no higher than 20-to-1 without damaging company morale and productivity.

Under this legislation, companies competing for state contracts could improve their chances by reducing their pay gaps — either by lowering executive compensation or lifting up wages at the bottom of their pay scale. Either way, Rhode Island taxpayers would get a bigger bang for their buck, since narrower wage divides are likely to boost productivity. Tax policy could also reward companies with more equitable pay practices by offering lower rates for narrower gaps.

Those who imagine themselves to be the victims of all this so-called bullying on pay gaps are not just running home to mommy. Within hours of the SEC vote, House Financial Services Committee Chair Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) announced plans for a vote on a bill to repeal this section of Dodd-Frank. Similar legislation has been introduced in the Senate.

Overpaid CEOs, it seems, are still turning to their big brothers in Congress to try to scare off the big bad bullies. But in dragging out this fight, the corporate chiefs are the ones who will be left with the black eyes.

Sarah Anderson directs the Global Economy Project at the Institute for Policy Studies.