Anybody get a 35% raise last year?

[DC0703]

The problem is the 'cogs in the wheel that keep the machine running' as you call them do not invest in the business they are working for. There is my problem with all of this. When a company is successful it is easy to say they should share the profits, so if you believe in that, they should be responsible financially for the downside as well. If employees want more of the pay, they should share more risk and potential of loss. But no, they receive the same pay, no matter if Disney posts a profit or loss.

I will also argue 'little in extra compensation' will do nothing. Paying more will help for the first day or two, but then this conversation will start all over again - except it will be "That is all we got?"

I worked for a pizzeria in high school. I never thought that they needed me because without me, the pizzas would not get delivered, and therefore I was entitled to more pay. No, a delivery driver received their pay, and any tips, i knew that, and that is what it was. The pizzeria absorbed all the cost of equipment, insurance, rent, advertisement, and to say they wouldn't be successful without me as a delivery driver is just absurd.

I cannot say it enough. The only way you are going to get ahead is to stop looking back at what others are getting or doing. One reason rich people are happier (other than money) is because they believe their best days are ahead of them, and look forward to the future, while others feel the best days are behind them, dragging them down, and putting them in a bad mood.

While I see the points you are making, it doesn't change the fact that wages are stagnant in this country, and it's a problem that has gotten worse over the last 15 years. People can't get ahead because without raises, they cannot keep up with the cost of living and their purchasing power, saving possibilities and ability to afford necessities in life (health, utilities, homes) drops. This is not just a psychological issue (though that may be part of it) - people really are making less than they should be, and as a result we have a fragile economy. I'm all for the people who take the risks to get the bigger rewards, but that doesn't mean that the people responsible for a company's reputation, image and (in many cases) profits shouldn't get something as well. Success is often a team effort.

 

[ford91exploder]

The topic of Iger's pay is always a hilarious topic on this forum.

While its always good for a few "likes" to make ignorant comments about what the man has apparently not done, people continue to fail to see what he has. The man purchased Pixar, Marvel and Lucas's properties. Those three things alone are worthy of a substantial yearly stipend on that alone.

The film division seems to have hit after hit year in year out.

The parks, especially WDW, are packed and probably making cash hand over fist.

ESPN is the biggest cash cow on television and has grown substantially under Iger's watch.

While we may get a 5th park sooner than later, the days of massive building that was done under Eisner's reign are not going to happen again. Its just not possible in todays business world. Iger, in his genius, has changed with the times and is probably the best CEO in America and has positioned the Disney Corporation for long term success long after he is gone. Give the man his due, he deserves his successes.

Iger has been tapped to replace Warren Buffet for a reason, people need to get their head out of the sand and see why.

Whatever it is you are smoking - we want some, The fact is Disney stock has performed no better than the market average and Disney has little cash on hand due to spending billions annually on stock repurchases to keep the stock looking good.

Eisner in his tenure increased revenues 800%, Iger a paltry 62% most of which was achieved through price increases and service cuts.

Iger is great how again?

 

[ford91exploder]

While I see the points you are making, it doesn't change the fact that wages are stagnant in this country, and it's a problem that has gotten worse over the last 15 years. People can't get ahead because without raises, they cannot keep up with the cost of living and their purchasing power, saving possibilities and ability to afford necessities in life (health, utilities, homes) drops. This is not just a psychological issue (though that may be part of it) - people really are making less than they should be, and as a result we have a fragile economy. I'm all for the people who take the risks to get the bigger rewards, but that doesn't mean that the people responsible for a company's reputation, image and (in many cases) profits shouldn't get something as well. Success is often a team effort.

I have no problem with a entrepeneur who risked everything to build their company and they do well at IPO time that class of person deserves the money they earned via the IPO, The fact is most CEO's are just employees who risk nothing for those outsize paychecks and as ordinary employee's should be treated as such.

And as such I think if they are working for a PUBLIC company their salaries should be subject to regulation, Some have suggested a 50:1 ratio which I think is reasonable. A private company is entitled to pay it's employees however it desires as it's owners have the ultimate decisionmaking authority.

However a position as a senior executive at a public company should not be a license to loot the company treasury as it seems to be today.

 

[PhilharMagician]

Tony Baxter started out selling popcorn - there is your incentive.

There are more executives than Tony that came from the ground level. Point is at a time when base employees are getting 2% while costs are increasing at a rate of 3% how can you look in the mirror and say I am the man and deserve a 35% increase. More so how can the board justify this rate jump in Iger's compensation? If Bob Iger worked 60 hours per week his salary would be $11,218 per hour whereas the US average hourly salary is $24.57.

IMHO I just do not see the justification.

 

[flynnibus]

Bob's payout was 35% higher this year than last year based on the metrics he and the board agreed to prior.

Sometimes I wish everyone was on a performance pay scale with all risk and no guaranteed pay. I think it would cut back on the jealously.

I'm not saying the CEO payscales are justified, but the usual stories about pay are so predictable when the company does well according to the metrics they've defined. We should be more incensed with the idea of golden parachutes or the tens of millions companies spend to fire people.... not when we reward them for doing what we asked them to do.

 

[ford91exploder]

There are more executives than Tony that came from the ground level. Point is at a time when base employees are getting 2% while costs are increasing at a rate of 3% how can you look in the mirror and say I am the man and deserve a 35% increase. More so how can the board justify this rate jump in Iger's compensation? If Bob Iger worked 60 hours per week his salary would be $11,218 per hour whereas the US average hourly salary is $24.57.

IMHO I just do not see the justification.

It's easy with the interlocking boards which are so common these days - If you approve MY pay package, I'll approve YOUR pay package, This is how raises like this are justified.

 

[DC0703]

Sometimes I wish everyone was on a performance pay scale with all risk and no guaranteed pay. I think it would cut back on the jealously.

The problem - when was the last time you heard of a CEO making a down to earth salary because their company underperformed? Somehow, regardless of performance, high pay and a towering bonus are still in the cards. Just not as big as if they met their metrics.

 

[ford91exploder]

Bob's payout was 35% higher this year than last year based on the metrics he and the board agreed to prior.

Sometimes I wish everyone was on a performance pay scale with all risk and no guaranteed pay. I think it would cut back on the jealously.

I'm not saying the CEO payscales are justified, but the usual stories about pay are so predictable when the company does well according to the metrics they've defined. We should be more incensed with the idea of golden parachutes or the tens of millions companies spend to fire people.... not when we reward them for doing what we asked them to do.

Agree!

 

[PhilharMagician]

Sometimes I wish everyone was on a performance pay scale with all risk and no guaranteed pay. I think it would cut back on the jealously.

What is Iger's risk while under contract? Not have his contract renewed? Being fired and getting a huge payout to leave since he is under contract? My job has a hell of a lot more risk since I am not under contract. If I perform I get to work and if not I'm simply fired with no pay. Most peoples jobs are a hell of a lot more risky when it comes to getting a paycheck.

My salary is performance based and increases are done on a predetermined sliding scale. I understand also that working hard and having the highest performance does not guarantee a raise.

It's not jealousy, it's frustration.

When the banks collapsed along with Ford and GM (and many other companies) the CEO and other exec compensations were finally being looked at and many of them cut to reasonable rates. Now only a few years later and they are drastically on the rise again. Iger is not the only one.

 

[Hakunamatata]

What is Iger's risk while under contract? Not have his contract renewed? Being fired and getting a huge payout to leave since he is under contract? My job has a hell of a lot more risk since I am not under contract. If I perform I get to work and if not I'm simply fired with no pay. Most peoples jobs are a hell of a lot more risky when it comes to getting a paycheck.

My salary is performance based and increases are done on a predetermined sliding scale. I understand also that working hard and having the highest performance does not guarantee a raise.

It's not jealousy, it's frustration.

When the banks collapsed along with Ford and GM (and many other companies) the CEO and other exec compensations were finally being looked at and many of them cut to reasonable rates. Now only a few years later and they are drastically on the rise again. Iger is not the only one.

Which entertainment empire are you running?

 

[flynnibus]

What is Iger's risk while under contract? Not have his contract renewed? Being fired and getting a huge payout to leave since he is under contract? My job has a hell of a lot more risk since I am not under contract. If I perform I get to work and if not I'm simply fired with no pay. Most peoples jobs are a hell of a lot more risky when it comes to getting a paycheck.

My salary is performance based and increases are done on a predetermined sliding scale. I understand also that working hard and having the highest performance does not guarantee a raise.

My comment was specifically about performance pay - not contracts or not. With strict performance pay, the 'risk' is that you fail to meet your goals and you get less compensation.

All too often we hear the "why does XYZ get such a big bonus?" - probably because he went in with a high risk comp plan. Complainers want all the upside without any of the risk... it doesn't work that way.

There is the whole other discussion about how your comp plan and metrics steer behavior... but it never fails to dumbfound me how many people forget or ignore risk/reward.

To your specific question about Iger's situation... while he is under contract and his employment isn't necessarily at risk, his garunteed pay is low given his position... his risk is he doesn't make his expected pay if they under perform... the upside is huge if they over perform.

 

[JordanNite]

He hasn't invested in the parks - and this will mean healthy profits in the short term as their is no expenditure. But he has harmed the PARKS in the long run as without any investment or new attractions profits will stagnate long term wise.

It's very sneaky. You're a CEO, your salary depends on profits - just don't invest in parks, so you have nothing to subtract from the profits!!!! Any investment will takes years to pay off, and won't see a return during your tenure. However the next CEO will suffer as profits decline. That's the negative of CEO's who don't see a long term vision, or have a love for the Parks - they actually damage the product by just looking at the short term bottom line, the dollar.

 

[flynnibus]

The problem - when was the last time you heard of a CEO making a down to earth salary because their company underperformed? Somehow, regardless of performance, high pay and a towering bonus are still in the cards. Just not as big as if they met their metrics.

It happens a lot - it just doesn't get the same kind of link bait press as the big payouts do. Execs miss their payouts often, and they can be HUGE. The problem with your statement is you set the expectation that 'well they don't come down to our mortal levels...'. Correct, most do have a base salary that is guaranteed (but not all) that would make most rank and file drool to start with. But CEO's are not hired in relative to rank and file compensation.. they are hired in relative to those that are qualified to fill the role.

So maybe they sign up for something that says your guaranteed pay is only 20% of your normal value... but we will offer you up to 200% of your value if you hit these metrics, and because a lot of this is stock, that may be unlimited upside.

In these positions your guaranteed pay tends to be under valued so that you are leveraged for very high upside if you perform.

Either way.. if you miss 80% of your target pay.. you still miss 80%.

 

[Hakunamatata]

He hasn't invested in the parks - and this will mean healthy profits in the short term as their is no expenditure. But he has harmed the PARKS in the long run as without any investment or new attractions profits will stagnate long term wise.

It's very sneaky. You're a CEO, your salary depends on profits - just don't invest in parks !!!! Any investment will takes years to pay off, and won't see a return during your tenure. However the next CEO will suffer as profits decline.

Um. No investment in the parks? Huge project at DAK. Just finished project at MK. Frozen project at Epcot. Disney Springs.

 

[ford91exploder]

What is Iger's risk while under contract? Not have his contract renewed? Being fired and getting a huge payout to leave since he is under contract? My job has a hell of a lot more risk since I am not under contract. If I perform I get to work and if not I'm simply fired with no pay. Most peoples jobs are a hell of a lot more risky when it comes to getting a paycheck.

My salary is performance based and increases are done on a predetermined sliding scale. I understand also that working hard and having the highest performance does not guarantee a raise.

It's not jealousy, it's frustration.

When the banks collapsed along with Ford and GM (and many other companies) the CEO and other exec compensations were finally being looked at and many of them cut to reasonable rates. Now only a few years later and they are drastically on the rise again. Iger is not the only one.

Ford being the exception in that salaries were not grossly inflated and STILL are not and they did NOT take money from the taxpayer Mullally had a 3 million dollar package at the time, Unlike Rick Waggoner at GM where his salary was 14.5Mil and even while everything was declining and left with a 20 million dollar kiss courtesy of the taxpayer.

 

[JordanNite]

Um. No investment in the parks? Huge project at DAK. Just finished project at MK. Frozen project at Epcot. Disney Springs.

Huge project at DAK? Let's wait and see till it's finished yeah, already the budget been cut for it.

Project at MK? Let's not pretend this was some world class new addition, it was merely a way to create more space in a condensed area.

Frozen project? Yep that's rite, a cheap re-do (using the same tracks) of an out of date Norweigen attraction to one of Disneys biggest ever hits.

Disney Springs? Yes, agreed - but it was either invest or let the park fail. Don't think he had a choice. Props though he actually did this - he must have been having the shakes, a nervous wreck signing of for this project, as ultimatley it would mean a negative on the end of year profits sheet. I'd also take it with a pinch of salt how much Disney say they invested in the project.

Till the attendance at Disney drops in Orlando, we won't see any major investment under his tenure.

Disgracefull ownership - he's invested in not one major attraction during his tenure.

 

[ford91exploder]

Um. No investment in the parks? Huge project at DAK. Just finished project at MK. Frozen project at Epcot. Disney Springs.

Erm no - the total growth capex is around 2% - under Eisner it was 20%

 

[Hakunamatata]

Huge project at DAK? Let's wait and see till it's finished yeah, already the budget been cut for it.

Project at MK? Let's not pretend this was some world class new addition, it was merely a way to create more space in a condensed area.

Frozen project? Yep that's rite, a cheap re-do (using the same tracks) of an out of date Norweigen attraction to one of Disneys biggest ever hits.

Disney Springs? Yes, agreed - but it was either invest or let the park fail. Don't think he had a choice.

Till the attendance at Disney drops in Orlando, we won't see any major investment under his tenure.

Disgracefull ownership - he's invested in not one major attraction during his tenure.

I was just pointing out that there is investment. You used a dramatically inaccurate statement.

 

[Hakunamatata]

Erm no - the total growth capex is around 2% - under Eisner it was 20%

See above.

 

[JordanNite]

Erm no - the total growth capex is around 2% - under Eisner it was 20%

Imagine if you had a house. It needed major repairs, new windows to stop the draught coming in, new guttering, a new boiler, new heater, new carpets, etc - but it would cost money. Instead you see it does the job - namely it's a roof under your head, somewhere you can go to sleep, etc. And this would save you thousands. You could use those thousands to show how big your bank balance is to people.

However, a few years down the line the next owner of that house will see it collapse and need MORE investment to put the rights of what you didn't do.

That's the work of this current CEO - a total disgrace of man for the parks at Disney.