Oracle Shareholders Vote Against Ellison's Compensation Package (Again) 213
angry tapir writes "A majority of Oracle shareholders have once again voted against the company's executive pay practices, including for CEO Larry Ellison. The vote at Oracle's annual shareholder meeting is nonbinding, and follows complaints from some large shareholders and their representatives who say Ellison is overpaid compared to his peers. Ellison is paid US$1 in salary, receiving the rest of his pay in stock options. In Oracle's past fiscal year, that totaled $76.9 million. Shareholders voted against Oracle's executive pay practices at last year's meeting as well."
A bunch of spineless wimps... (Score:2, Insightful)
They know they don't have any power, so they choose to "vote" in a non-binding resolution. Larry must be really scared now!
The guy built that company up from a two-bit hole in the wall operation into one of the largest computer empires known to man. He could fairly ask for a billion bucks a year as a salary and he would deserve it all!
I don't like Oracle and think their products are suck-ass bloatware, but Larry Ellison made that company. He should be able to profit from it to his heart's content! Plus he likes to play with toys all the time. Wouldn't you just say "fuck all" and go sailing for a while if you had billions of dollars in net worth?
Re:A bunch of spineless wimps... (Score:1, Insightful)
No, he shouldn't
Re:A bunch of spineless wimps... (Score:1, Insightful)
No, he shouldn't
Spoken like a true socialist.
Re:A bunch of spineless wimps... (Score:0, Insightful)
Nobody needs that much cash, and nobody deserves that much cash. It's not like he did everything himself.
Re:A bunch of spineless wimps... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
He's good, but not worth the pay he's receiving.
Just because plumber does a good job, doesn't mean he's worth tens of millions a year. Just because CEO does a good job, doesn't mean that he's worth 76.9 million USD.
Re: A bunch of spineless wimps... (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't bother using logic and legal talk with a true believer in American Capitalism (TM). Every time an economic issue comes up around here some right wing crank will call anything socialism that isn't 'let the rich do anything they want without restriction, and minor facts like how publicly traded companies are owned and governed don't matter at all.
I think they get paid a quarter per post or something.
Re: If they really meant it, they'd sell their sto (Score:2, Insightful)
If they had a binding referendum, people might get the idea that shareholders own the company or something. We can't have that. They might want to do stuff that billionaires don't like.
Re:A bunch of spineless wimps... (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it okay for Ellison to pay income tax on his $1 per year salary, while taking $77 million a year in stock options that won't be taxed until he decides to exercise them? And even then he has all kinds of discretion in how much tax he will pay, since there are all kinds rollover investments, etc, that he can use. The guy is poster brat for the 1%ers. If you are paying USA income tax, he is screwing you over as well as screwing the other shareholders.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Your analogy is backwards.
Most plumbers don't work for, much less run, companies that have annual revenue measured in billions of dollars.
Indeed, I'd wager that most plumbers take home a far greater share (on a percentage basis) of the company's revenue than does Ellison.
One could draw from this the conclusion that Ellison is underpaid compared to most plumbers, but that would be absurd.
Hence, your analogy is useless.
Re:A bunch of spineless wimps... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A bunch of spineless wimps... (Score:5, Insightful)
My point was merely that (ironically enough), the guy who was decrying 'socialism' was actually using a we-worship-rich-guys version of the 'labor theory of value' argument(a socialist classic), while the person he was arguing against was using the (more common among people who describe themselves as 'socialists'; but theoretically quite similar) 'no one man's labor can possibly be worth 24534x another's!' labor theory of value(also a fairly common, as well as fairly direct, implication of the labor theory of value).
Had Ellison been a midlevel engineer or something, Mr. Capitalism never would have gone with the 'But without Ellison, PRODUCT X would have crashed and burned! He deserves 200 million if he wants it!' argument. Damn employee can take his salary, and like it, and if he think's he's worth more, he can ask for a raise or man up and start his own company...
The numbers are bigger (owning a little over 20% of Oracle stock is Not Small); but if you want to be a not-socialist, the CEO is still just an employee, working for the shareholders, and he gets the salary market forces command (Har, har, because that's how executive compensation works... In your dreams), and absolutely fuck-all for having 'made this company'. Even if he made it 100%, he only owns 20-odd%, and works for the people who own the rest.
Re:A bunch of spineless wimps... (Score:3, Insightful)
So how come larry gets to decide that all the people actually doing the work only gets a 1/1000th (or whatever) of what he gets? You think he is forced to take that money?
Re:A bunch of spineless wimps... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't like Oracle and think their products are suck-ass bloatware, but Larry Ellison made that company.
And then he sold that company to the shareholders. His profit is the money he got for the shares.
Re:A bunch of spineless wimps... (Score:3, Insightful)
Obama supporters / communists / progressive liberals (same things)
As I read your post it is at "-1, Insightful". Next we'll see a "+5, Troll" or something.
Slashdot is getting more confused by the minute. You clearly have no idea what either word "communist" or "progressive liberal" means if you think they are the same or that a typical Obama supporter is either.
Re:A bunch of spineless wimps... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is a public company, not a private venture. The owners, the stockholders, should make those decisions.
Re:A bunch of spineless wimps... (Score:2, Insightful)
There's that word again ... "need". Who made you judge and gets to decide what Mr Larry "needs"?
Don't get all pedantic. "Nobody needs all that money" is in the sense of the law of diminishing returns. Once you've got $20B, does one more billion either way have any discernible impact on lifestyle, behavior, or provision for progeny? Does the cash still represent the same reward for performance as to us mere mortals?
As to who gets to decide what Larry "needs," I'd say it's probably the investors who put up the capital to bankroll his little operation. They're the ones who own Oracle, and last I heard, a company's owners have the privilege of setting employee compensation.
No question, the guy's done great things, but a company is a team effort. Is his contribution, out there on a catamaran in the Bay, really more than 1000 of the architects actually making Oracle the product it is? Or more than 2000 of the people explaining in one-on-one conversations just exactly what makes it worth so damn much money? Oracle's owners have apparently come to the conclusion that they're not getting their money's worth out of Mr Ellison.
Re:A bunch of spineless wimps... (Score:4, Insightful)
Nobody needs that much cash, and nobody deserves that much cash. It's not like he did everything himself.
First, as long as he's spending it in volume, no one should care. The issue with wealthy people is they like to collect it and hold on to it and be on boards of directors to ensure they never lose it. If he's blowing it on islands and boats and fast cars, he's a great contributor. His money is up for grabs to anyone who wants to work for it. This is a great situation.
Second, we're not talking about taking his compensation and giving it to employees. We're talking about the shareholders not liking how much of the profits HE is getting. Shareholders are always the least valuable contibutors to any company. They are parasites, parasites with control, but parasites. Employees of a company are perfectly ok with 0 profit: salaries are paid. But investors are not happy with that, they will cut heads and salaries as much as possible to maximize that profit number. Taking money away from them, goes back to my first point: it's a good thing when the person doing the taking is spending it.
Thirdly, if people like him do not exist, then no one will try. Ellison, Gates, Jobs all exist as the motivator for business types to do something other than drink and screw. As role models go, he's doing fine.
Re:A bunch of spineless wimps... (Score:5, Insightful)
Capital gains are taxed at a much lower rate than that on salaries.
Re:A bunch of spineless wimps... (Score:5, Insightful)