Federal employees COLA slashed

[Benton]

(02-17-2020, 11:41 AM)michaelsean Wrote: So is it more of a "how it looks thing"?  If we took away the raises and distributed it, would it make a difference in giant corporations?  

I'm not so sure it's that easy to boil down. I don't think it's just optics. 

The last company I was with was a family owned Corp. When the long time CEO died, it went to shit. The upper management (all family) started giving themselves raises from about 2005-2015 (and probly beyond, but I'll get to that). I knew the comptroller for 2000-2015. She said every other year, those upper management people nearly doubled their salary. And every single one of those years they had layoffs. That's why she eventually quit, she couldn't stand what was going on.

During that same time, there was a hiring and rate freeze. I made more, but only because I got promoted through the company (until they eventually got rid of my positions, too). So if you started in 2005 you made the same thing in 2016 (at least) unless you got promoted. Meanwhile, guys went from making in the low six figures to millions.

And the board? They didn't really care, because their shares went up. The raises were offset by the annual layoffs 

That's the world we live in. Now, the company is going broke and last I heard will likely sell out in the next few years. But upper management already made their money so what do they care?

FYI, the average starting salary was $11 for a non management employee. So $11 in in 2005 dollars compared to 2015 dollars, yeah, it would've made a difference to get just a 2% raise, let alone what management was making (100% every other year).