Abigail Disney vs Bob Iger

[old lady]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/24/media/abigial-disney-executive-pay/index.html


Do you think she is right?

 

[OhMari]

Yes.

 

[tvguy]

Yes. And I bet Walt would think so too.

 

[Floridaman999]

Yes. And I bet Walt would think so too.

He'd have to stop spinning first.

 

[L&Lfan]

Team Abigail.
I loathe Iger.

 

[MooseBucks]

Totally agree - the rich keep getting richer off the backs of the working class. Generally speaking you don’t need your third house when your employee is working 3 jobs just to afford one.

 

[ember1205]

In times of prosperity, CEO’s are lauded for their skill, vision, insight, and ability to execute on a plan. They get a huge bonus.

In times of economic difficulty, CEO’s are lauded for their ability to maintain the corporation, keep things moving, and either minimize losses or turn a comparatively small profit. They get a big bonus.

And many of them sit on the boards of other large corporations and make sure each other get their big or huge bonuses.

The difficult part here is this... as a Board of Directors, you want your company to be as profitable as possible. If you place caps and limits on the CEO’s earnings, then they have no incentive to drive profits higher and higher.

Is any individual worth that? not a chance. Will it change? Not a chance.

What we really need is corporations to hire and place CEO’s that demonstrate a level of interest in the people that directly contributed to the success. And when the bonus dollars are to be doled out, they make sure that the people who did the actual work benefit. As consumers, we have the ability to vote with our wallets, but the majority of consumers either don’t understand how to be better patrons or simply don’t care as long as they enjoy themselves and get what they want.

I would love to see things change and am more then interested in doing my part to influence that change. There simply aren’t enough people yet to make a real difference.

 

[vacationer1954]

They are both right - they're just right about different things.

Iger is doing what he's supposed to, and doing it exceedingly well, in accordance with the rules, standards and other expectations that prevail in our society.

I see Abigail Disney as using her position as a member of the family of the founder to bring attention to an issue, but her focus on Iger and on The Disney Company, alone, doesn't hold water. Abigail Disney is highlighting a very valid problem with western capitalism, overall. However, it is literally unreasonable to expect The Disney Company to be different from the expectations of our society, different from its competitors, and different from all the other big companies in our society.

 

[Sandeep1]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/24/media/abigial-disney-executive-pay/index.html


Do you think she is right?

Maybe she is, maybe she isn't. She's right if she can prove that increasing the pay of the bottom 10% of Disney employees would increase profits and therefore drive Disney's share price even higher. If she does a study like that, and presents it to the board, then that's worth a discussion.

 

[ember1205]

Maybe she is, maybe she isn't. She's right if she can prove that increasing the pay of the bottom 10% of Disney employees would increase profits and therefore drive Disney's share price even higher. If she does a study like that, and presents it to the board, then that's worth a discussion.

I disagree.

The "bottom 10%" of the employee pool is not directly charged with increasing profits and share price - Iger is. If she were to prove that paying them more increased profits, then should could make the case that they are worth more and should directly benefit in that way. But, if she can NOT directly prove a correlation, then what? Pay them less?

Until and unless merit increases and bonuses are part of any individual's specific role and are directly tied to the company's revenue and/or share price (with a legitimate way to measure their contribution to either/both), then there should never be payment of bonuses or increases for those reasons. THIS is the problem for CEO's of today... There is absolutely no specific way to measure how their leadership contributed to those things other than "well, it happened while they were at the helm."

 

[Sandeep1]

I disagree.

The "bottom 10%" of the employee pool is not directly charged with increasing profits and share price - Iger is. If she were to prove that paying them more increased profits, then should could make the case that they are worth more and should directly benefit in that way. But, if she can NOT directly prove a correlation, then what? Pay them less?

If she can't prove a correlation, then pay stays where it is. Disney isn't a charity.

 

[Christine]

I totally agree with Abigal Disney. But...it the land of unbridled capitalism, she is wrong and Iger is correct. Somewhere along the way, our economic structure has stopped looking out for the workers or "contributing" to them. It's all about profits to the shareholder. As a result, we've seen the middle to lower classes erode. This exhorbitant corporate greed has worked for the top CEOs for quite some time and will continue to do so for many more years; so there is extreme interest for the extremely wealthy to "get their's now." This can't go on forever. We can already clearly see dissolution of various levels of income classes in the United States. Eventually it will implode as there will be few left who can go to Disney and create the profits. I don't know that I'll see it happen, but it will happen unless there are some breaks on the bottom 90% of income earners.

Surely, there must be a way for Iger to get an insane compensation and still manage to pay the workers more. Disney is one corporation where I believe the workers make a huge difference to the parks' reputation and make people want to go. I certainly feel that way about Disney (sort of like Chick Fil A--the staff and their courtesy get me there). I'd be okay never to go to Six Flags/King's Dominion et al for the rest of my life.

 

[ember1205]

If she can't prove a correlation, then pay stays where it is. Disney isn't a charity.

Why do you only support raising pay if she can prove correlation? What evidence is there that they deserve their current pay if she can't prove correlation?

And, why is it just a generic "increase their pay" if correlation is proven? Why isn't it tied to specific measurements of impact?

 

[Sandeep1]

Why do you only support raising pay if she can prove correlation? What evidence is there that they deserve their current pay if she can't prove correlation?

And, why is it just a generic "increase their pay" if correlation is proven? Why isn't it tied to specific measurements of impact?

There isn't evidence that they "deserve" their current pay. But, you have to pay people a living wage. If you decrease the pay, then the people you do have may leave and you'll be tasked at filling those spots with presumably less talented people.

I never said an increase shouldn't be tied to specific measurements of impact. That goes beyond the scope of this thread.

 

[ember1205]

There isn't evidence that they "deserve" their current pay. But, you have to pay people a living wage. If you decrease the pay, then the people you do have may leave and you'll be tasked at filling those spots with presumably less talented people.

I never said an increase shouldn't be tied to specific measurements of impact. That goes beyond the scope of this thread.

So, a level of "talent" is a measure?

I'm not being antagonistic here... Just trying to draw out the fact that there are a LOT of details that go into determining pay for individuals. And we can't paint things with broad strokes if we hope to change how things work today. I agree with you that there have to be some sort of minimums in play or there won't be a way to attract anyone to the role. That holds true at ALL levels, not just "the bottom 10%". It applies to CEO's as well.

 

[Sandeep1]

So, a level of "talent" is a measure?

Nobody said that, and I used the word "presumably." You've done that two posts in a row now.

 

[pxidst119]

I will say that I’m not a fan of crazy high CEO compensation. I mean the $10 million a year that Abigail Disney proposed seems like a comfortable amount and could keep me pretty happy. Lol. When I mentioned it to a friend he sent me this list of all that the Disney CEO is ultimately responsible for and thinks he should be compensated for it.

 

[ChrisFL]

I think some people (not Abigail) are also forgetting that Iger DID approve increase in wages going up to $15 for employees of WDW and DL already....by 2021 I think (slowly going up like a dollar or two every several months)

 

[Scifidiner]

It's so easy to give other people's money away.

 

[AlohaNow]

What I find funny is seeing someone who is worth a half-billion dollars and does not get up to go to work every day, criticizing someone who gets up and goes to work every day to earn his money.