Fast Food Workers Striking?!?!?

JJordon

What I don't get in this thread, people are complaining that McDonald's workers want more money, and justifying their complaints based on the fact that they themselves are underpaid.

So... Why is it the argument is MCDONALD'S WORKERS SHOULD GET PAID LESS! and not WE ALL SHOULD BE PAID MORE!

Personally, I feel an EMT should be getting paid a helluva lot more than $13 an hour. People who stock shelves at Walmart for a couple years on the overnight shift get paid that.

And then, why is ok for CEOs to just give themselves raises for whatever they want, it's perfectly ok for corporate executives to hand themselves millions and sometimes billions in bonus checks, but it's horrible that an employee should be paid enough money that they can afford a place to live and food to eat?

People are conditioned to never question authority be it power, money, or influence. If they do it, its obviously okay. If you are without means, well you suck, apparently.

Its getting sadder and sadder.

No one, is worth 14 million or even a billion. Cmon folks, that's just greed, any way you slice it.

Rage_Phish

.

WendyTerry420

What I don't get in this thread, people are complaining that McDonald's workers want more money, and justifying their complaints based on the fact that they themselves are underpaid.

So... Why is it the argument is MCDONALD'S WORKERS SHOULD GET PAID LESS! and not WE ALL SHOULD BE PAID MORE!

Personally, I feel an EMT should be getting paid a helluva lot more than $13 an hour. People who stock shelves at Walmart for a couple years on the overnight shift get paid that.

And then, why is ok for CEOs to just give themselves raises for whatever they want, it's perfectly ok for corporate executives to hand themselves millions and sometimes billions in bonus checks, but it's horrible that an employee should be paid enough money that they can afford a place to live and food to eat?

People are conditioned to never question authority be it power, money, or influence. If they do it, its obviously okay. If you are without means, well you suck, apparently.

Its getting sadder and sadder.

No one, is worth 14 million or even a billion. Cmon folks, that's just greed, any way you slice it.

Deciding how much money is "greed" is so silly. Who are you to decide what someone else is worth? How about the fact that the CEO is the reason that the company is profitable and can employ thousands of people?

Rage_Phish

What I don't get in this thread, people are complaining that McDonald's workers want more money, and justifying their complaints based on the fact that they themselves are underpaid.

So... Why is it the argument is MCDONALD'S WORKERS SHOULD GET PAID LESS! and not WE ALL SHOULD BE PAID MORE!

Personally, I feel an EMT should be getting paid a helluva lot more than $13 an hour. People who stock shelves at Walmart for a couple years on the overnight shift get paid that.

And then, why is ok for CEOs to just give themselves raises for whatever they want, it's perfectly ok for corporate executives to hand themselves millions and sometimes billions in bonus checks, but it's horrible that an employee should be paid enough money that they can afford a place to live and food to eat?

People are conditioned to never question authority be it power, money, or influence. If they do it, its obviously okay. If you are without means, well you suck, apparently.

Its getting sadder and sadder.

No one, is worth 14 million or even a billion. Cmon folks, that's just greed, any way you slice it.

Deciding how much money is "greed" is so silly. Who are you to decide what someone else is worth? How about the fact that the CEO is the reason that the company is profitable and can employ thousands of people?

In the words of the wise Grateful Dead - "Too much of everything is just enough"

brower47

If the CEO were to give up his entire annual salary and distribute it equally to the entire workforce, how much more would each worker receive?

If the hourly wage were to be increased to $15/hour, what would the total amount be?

These are sincere questions...I honestly don't know the answer (because I'm missing some important pieces of the equation)...but I think these answers might give proper economic perspective to the last few pages of discussion.

McDonalds employs 1.7 million people. So if we got rid of the CEOs salary and evenly distributed it, those 1.7 million people (assuming a 14 mil CEO salary) get an $8 raise for an entire year or a .023 cent a day raise or a .002 cent an hour raise.

So 15.02 if they raised the minimum wage to $15 and also distributed the CEOs salary.

Does that include the $30 million they paid their former CEO as a retirement "performance bonus?" Does it also include the tax REFUND McDonald's received because they were able to deduct all the "performance bonus" parts of the two salaries from their taxes (as well as the "performance bonuses" of every corporate executive, hint 99% of what they actually pay themselves are moved around to be classified as "performance bonuses" for this reason?)

Why is that the CEOs and corporate executives are allowed to just arbitrarily decide how much they want to pay themselves, but regular workers have to rely on what the "market" thinks they are worth? So if I'm the CEO of a company, it's perfectly ok for me to say I'm worth X amount of millions just "because," but if I'm just a regular employee, I'm not allowed that same right?

I really don't understand how anybody that isn't a CEO making millions of dollars can be ok with this entire scenario. You're really ok with paying higher taxes so that CEOs can get tax subsidies to pay themselves ridiculous salaries, and then pay their employees at less than the poverty level, meaning that you have to pay even more taxes to support government programs like food stamps and welfare? I don't get the logic there at all. This used to be a country where we cared about each other, and helped each other, and stood together. This whole, "I've got mine, Jack, you're on your own," mentality is quite honestly the most unAmerican attitude I've ever seen.

I don't really understand how anybody can be ok with thinking they can determine what other people make. His pay was anything but arbitrary. He increased the companies revenues by 8 billion dollars and increased stock prices returns to share holders.

He earned it.

From: http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/04/10/mcdonalds-ceos-17-million-pay-tied-to-performance/
McDonald's (MCD) CEO Jim Skinner's $17 million pay package is directly tied to the fast-food company's delivery of solid revenues and big returns for shareholders during an economic downturn.

The bulk of Skinner's take-home pay in 2009 came from a performance-based cash bonus. The 65-year-old Skinner, who also holds the title of vice chairman, earned a $1.4 million salary and $11.5 million in performance bonuses. The remainder came from his stock options, according to the fast food company's proxy report filed Friday.

No. 1 Shareholder Return

Compensation experts are not going to argue that $17 million isn't a lot of money, but given the company's performance, they do say that Skinner earned it for reaping solid gains for shareholders. The 2009 return for McDonald's shareholders last year was 16%, ranking No.1 among the companies included in the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

"Clearly he has done the right things -- cut costs, brought in new revenues streams and improved shareholder value," says compensation expert Paul Dorf. "If the opposite happened, his salary would have been much lower."

Dorf, managing director of New Jersey-based Compensation Resources, says that much of the shareholder outrage over exorbitant CEO pay is for executives who reap millions and offer little shareholder returns. It's been a particularly hot point with struggling financial institutions that have awarded big pay packages to executives while crashing the economy, then taking taxpayer bailout dollars.

$1 Value Meals Helped

Over the past two years, Skinner, a 38-year veteran of McDonalds, has rolled out new products and trimmed expenses at the world's largest fast-food chain. The company, for instance, saw revenue increase after expanding its value menu in response to a higher national unemployment rate.

Skinner's total 2009 pay package is a 29% increase from his 2008 compensation of $13.6 million, and more than double his pay in 2007. The 2009 package included about $700,000 in profit sharing and perks including financial counseling, annual physical examinations and personal use of the company's private aircraft. The cost to the company for the use of the planes was $71,562.

Added $8 Billion In Market Cap

Walt Riker, vice president of corporate media relations for McDonald's, says the company makes a conscious effort to be transparent with its executive pay packages, and it's by design that compensation is tied to performance.

"Eighty-one percent of our CEO's compensation was tied to performance and creating long-term shareholder value," Riker says.

Riker points out that a big indicator of Skinner's success is the fact that the market capitalization for McDonald's increased about $8 billion over the past two years. At the end of 2009, it was $67 billion.

McDonald's stock dipped 8 cents Friday to $68.68 a share. It is up 10% year-to-date.

Rage_Phish

If the CEO were to give up his entire annual salary and distribute it equally to the entire workforce, how much more would each worker receive?

If the hourly wage were to be increased to $15/hour, what would the total amount be?

These are sincere questions...I honestly don't know the answer (because I'm missing some important pieces of the equation)...but I think these answers might give proper economic perspective to the last few pages of discussion.

McDonalds employs 1.7 million people. So if we got rid of the CEOs salary and evenly distributed it, those 1.7 million people (assuming a 14 mil CEO salary) get an $8 raise for an entire year or a .023 cent a day raise or a .002 cent an hour raise.

So 15.02 if they raised the minimum wage to $15 and also distributed the CEOs salary.

Does that include the $30 million they paid their former CEO as a retirement "performance bonus?" Does it also include the tax REFUND McDonald's received because they were able to deduct all the "performance bonus" parts of the two salaries from their taxes (as well as the "performance bonuses" of every corporate executive, hint 99% of what they actually pay themselves are moved around to be classified as "performance bonuses" for this reason?)

Why is that the CEOs and corporate executives are allowed to just arbitrarily decide how much they want to pay themselves, but regular workers have to rely on what the "market" thinks they are worth? So if I'm the CEO of a company, it's perfectly ok for me to say I'm worth X amount of millions just "because," but if I'm just a regular employee, I'm not allowed that same right?

I really don't understand how anybody that isn't a CEO making millions of dollars can be ok with this entire scenario. You're really ok with paying higher taxes so that CEOs can get tax subsidies to pay themselves ridiculous salaries, and then pay their employees at less than the poverty level, meaning that you have to pay even more taxes to support government programs like food stamps and welfare? I don't get the logic there at all. This used to be a country where we cared about each other, and helped each other, and stood together. This whole, "I've got mine, Jack, you're on your own," mentality is quite honestly the most unAmerican attitude I've ever seen.

I don't really understand how anybody can be ok with thinking they can determine what other people make. His pay was anything but arbitrary. He increased the companies revenues by 8 billion dollars and increased stock prices returns to share holders.

He earned it.

From: http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/04/10/mcdonalds-ceos-17-million-pay-tied-to-performance/
McDonald's (MCD) CEO Jim Skinner's $17 million pay package is directly tied to the fast-food company's delivery of solid revenues and big returns for shareholders during an economic downturn.

The bulk of Skinner's take-home pay in 2009 came from a performance-based cash bonus. The 65-year-old Skinner, who also holds the title of vice chairman, earned a $1.4 million salary and $11.5 million in performance bonuses. The remainder came from his stock options, according to the fast food company's proxy report filed Friday.

No. 1 Shareholder Return

Compensation experts are not going to argue that $17 million isn't a lot of money, but given the company's performance, they do say that Skinner earned it for reaping solid gains for shareholders. The 2009 return for McDonald's shareholders last year was 16%, ranking No.1 among the companies included in the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

"Clearly he has done the right things -- cut costs, brought in new revenues streams and improved shareholder value," says compensation expert Paul Dorf. "If the opposite happened, his salary would have been much lower."

Dorf, managing director of New Jersey-based Compensation Resources, says that much of the shareholder outrage over exorbitant CEO pay is for executives who reap millions and offer little shareholder returns. It's been a particularly hot point with struggling financial institutions that have awarded big pay packages to executives while crashing the economy, then taking taxpayer bailout dollars.

$1 Value Meals Helped

Over the past two years, Skinner, a 38-year veteran of McDonalds, has rolled out new products and trimmed expenses at the world's largest fast-food chain. The company, for instance, saw revenue increase after expanding its value menu in response to a higher national unemployment rate.

Skinner's total 2009 pay package is a 29% increase from his 2008 compensation of $13.6 million, and more than double his pay in 2007. The 2009 package included about $700,000 in profit sharing and perks including financial counseling, annual physical examinations and personal use of the company's private aircraft. The cost to the company for the use of the planes was $71,562.

Added $8 Billion In Market Cap

Walt Riker, vice president of corporate media relations for McDonald's, says the company makes a conscious effort to be transparent with its executive pay packages, and it's by design that compensation is tied to performance.

"Eighty-one percent of our CEO's compensation was tied to performance and creating long-term shareholder value," Riker says.

Riker points out that a big indicator of Skinner's success is the fact that the market capitalization for McDonald's increased about $8 billion over the past two years. At the end of 2009, it was $67 billion.

McDonald's stock dipped 8 cents Friday to $68.68 a share. It is up 10% year-to-date.

surely the hard work of front line employees helped the company grow as well

brower47

If the CEO were to give up his entire annual salary and distribute it equally to the entire workforce, how much more would each worker receive?

If the hourly wage were to be increased to $15/hour, what would the total amount be?

These are sincere questions...I honestly don't know the answer (because I'm missing some important pieces of the equation)...but I think these answers might give proper economic perspective to the last few pages of discussion.

McDonalds employs 1.7 million people. So if we got rid of the CEOs salary and evenly distributed it, those 1.7 million people (assuming a 14 mil CEO salary) get an $8 raise for an entire year or a .023 cent a day raise or a .002 cent an hour raise.

So 15.02 if they raised the minimum wage to $15 and also distributed the CEOs salary.

Does that include the $30 million they paid their former CEO as a retirement "performance bonus?" Does it also include the tax REFUND McDonald's received because they were able to deduct all the "performance bonus" parts of the two salaries from their taxes (as well as the "performance bonuses" of every corporate executive, hint 99% of what they actually pay themselves are moved around to be classified as "performance bonuses" for this reason?)

Why is that the CEOs and corporate executives are allowed to just arbitrarily decide how much they want to pay themselves, but regular workers have to rely on what the "market" thinks they are worth? So if I'm the CEO of a company, it's perfectly ok for me to say I'm worth X amount of millions just "because," but if I'm just a regular employee, I'm not allowed that same right?

I really don't understand how anybody that isn't a CEO making millions of dollars can be ok with this entire scenario. You're really ok with paying higher taxes so that CEOs can get tax subsidies to pay themselves ridiculous salaries, and then pay their employees at less than the poverty level, meaning that you have to pay even more taxes to support government programs like food stamps and welfare? I don't get the logic there at all. This used to be a country where we cared about each other, and helped each other, and stood together. This whole, "I've got mine, Jack, you're on your own," mentality is quite honestly the most unAmerican attitude I've ever seen.

I don't really understand how anybody can be ok with thinking they can determine what other people make. His pay was anything but arbitrary. He increased the companies revenues by 8 billion dollars and increased stock prices returns to share holders.

He earned it.

From: http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/04/10/mcdonalds-ceos-17-million-pay-tied-to-performance/
McDonald's (MCD) CEO Jim Skinner's $17 million pay package is directly tied to the fast-food company's delivery of solid revenues and big returns for shareholders during an economic downturn.

The bulk of Skinner's take-home pay in 2009 came from a performance-based cash bonus. The 65-year-old Skinner, who also holds the title of vice chairman, earned a $1.4 million salary and $11.5 million in performance bonuses. The remainder came from his stock options, according to the fast food company's proxy report filed Friday.

No. 1 Shareholder Return

Compensation experts are not going to argue that $17 million isn't a lot of money, but given the company's performance, they do say that Skinner earned it for reaping solid gains for shareholders. The 2009 return for McDonald's shareholders last year was 16%, ranking No.1 among the companies included in the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

"Clearly he has done the right things -- cut costs, brought in new revenues streams and improved shareholder value," says compensation expert Paul Dorf. "If the opposite happened, his salary would have been much lower."

Dorf, managing director of New Jersey-based Compensation Resources, says that much of the shareholder outrage over exorbitant CEO pay is for executives who reap millions and offer little shareholder returns. It's been a particularly hot point with struggling financial institutions that have awarded big pay packages to executives while crashing the economy, then taking taxpayer bailout dollars.

$1 Value Meals Helped

Over the past two years, Skinner, a 38-year veteran of McDonalds, has rolled out new products and trimmed expenses at the world's largest fast-food chain. The company, for instance, saw revenue increase after expanding its value menu in response to a higher national unemployment rate.

Skinner's total 2009 pay package is a 29% increase from his 2008 compensation of $13.6 million, and more than double his pay in 2007. The 2009 package included about $700,000 in profit sharing and perks including financial counseling, annual physical examinations and personal use of the company's private aircraft. The cost to the company for the use of the planes was $71,562.

Added $8 Billion In Market Cap

Walt Riker, vice president of corporate media relations for McDonald's, says the company makes a conscious effort to be transparent with its executive pay packages, and it's by design that compensation is tied to performance.

"Eighty-one percent of our CEO's compensation was tied to performance and creating long-term shareholder value," Riker says.

Riker points out that a big indicator of Skinner's success is the fact that the market capitalization for McDonald's increased about $8 billion over the past two years. At the end of 2009, it was $67 billion.

McDonald's stock dipped 8 cents Friday to $68.68 a share. It is up 10% year-to-date.

surely the hard work of front line employees helped the company grow as well

Did they work hard? Sure. Were they responsible for 8 billion in growth? HIghly unlikely. I go to McDonalds from time to time and I haven't seen the quality of workers improve so much (it stayed pretty much the same) that it convinced me and the rest of the world's consumers to somehow grow the company by that much.

Why can't we give the guy his due? He's obviously good at what he does and did a much better job than his predecessor.

Again, he earned it.

Let's stop the salary shaming.

jofjltncb6

If the CEO were to give up his entire annual salary and distribute it equally to the entire workforce, how much more would each worker receive?

If the hourly wage were to be increased to $15/hour, what would the total amount be?

These are sincere questions...I honestly don't know the answer (because I'm missing some important pieces of the equation)...but I think these answers might give proper economic perspective to the last few pages of discussion.

McDonalds employs 1.7 million people. So if we got rid of the CEOs salary and evenly distributed it, those 1.7 million people (assuming a 14 mil CEO salary) get an $8 raise for an entire year or a .023 cent a day raise or a .002 cent an hour raise.

So 15.02 if they raised the minimum wage to $15 and also distributed the CEOs salary.

It is amazing how flippant people are about other people's income. Not to mention killing the business by removing the top strategic decision maker.

Huh? I think you're misreading her post.

She was answering one of my questions...questions that, when answered, were likely to show that the total cost of his salary is utterly insignificant when compared to the total cost of raising the wages of the lowest paid employees to $15.

Of course, this being MFP, we're instead arguing platitudes and fantasies more than economic realities.

djeffreys10

If the CEO were to give up his entire annual salary and distribute it equally to the entire workforce, how much more would each worker receive?

If the hourly wage were to be increased to $15/hour, what would the total amount be?

These are sincere questions...I honestly don't know the answer (because I'm missing some important pieces of the equation)...but I think these answers might give proper economic perspective to the last few pages of discussion.

McDonalds employs 1.7 million people. So if we got rid of the CEOs salary and evenly distributed it, those 1.7 million people (assuming a 14 mil CEO salary) get an $8 raise for an entire year or a .023 cent a day raise or a .002 cent an hour raise.

So 15.02 if they raised the minimum wage to $15 and also distributed the CEOs salary.

Does that include the $30 million they paid their former CEO as a retirement "performance bonus?" Does it also include the tax REFUND McDonald's received because they were able to deduct all the "performance bonus" parts of the two salaries from their taxes (as well as the "performance bonuses" of every corporate executive, hint 99% of what they actually pay themselves are moved around to be classified as "performance bonuses" for this reason?)

Why is that the CEOs and corporate executives are allowed to just arbitrarily decide how much they want to pay themselves, but regular workers have to rely on what the "market" thinks they are worth? So if I'm the CEO of a company, it's perfectly ok for me to say I'm worth X amount of millions just "because," but if I'm just a regular employee, I'm not allowed that same right?

I really don't understand how anybody that isn't a CEO making millions of dollars can be ok with this entire scenario. You're really ok with paying higher taxes so that CEOs can get tax subsidies to pay themselves ridiculous salaries, and then pay their employees at less than the poverty level, meaning that you have to pay even more taxes to support government programs like food stamps and welfare? I don't get the logic there at all. This used to be a country where we cared about each other, and helped each other, and stood together. This whole, "I've got mine, Jack, you're on your own," mentality is quite honestly the most unAmerican attitude I've ever seen.

I don't really understand how anybody can be ok with thinking they can determine what other people make. His pay was anything but arbitrary. He increased the companies revenues by 8 billion dollars and increased stock prices returns to share holders.

He earned it.

From: http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/04/10/mcdonalds-ceos-17-million-pay-tied-to-performance/
McDonald's (MCD) CEO Jim Skinner's $17 million pay package is directly tied to the fast-food company's delivery of solid revenues and big returns for shareholders during an economic downturn.

The bulk of Skinner's take-home pay in 2009 came from a performance-based cash bonus. The 65-year-old Skinner, who also holds the title of vice chairman, earned a $1.4 million salary and $11.5 million in performance bonuses. The remainder came from his stock options, according to the fast food company's proxy report filed Friday.

No. 1 Shareholder Return

Compensation experts are not going to argue that $17 million isn't a lot of money, but given the company's performance, they do say that Skinner earned it for reaping solid gains for shareholders. The 2009 return for McDonald's shareholders last year was 16%, ranking No.1 among the companies included in the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

"Clearly he has done the right things -- cut costs, brought in new revenues streams and improved shareholder value," says compensation expert Paul Dorf. "If the opposite happened, his salary would have been much lower."

Dorf, managing director of New Jersey-based Compensation Resources, says that much of the shareholder outrage over exorbitant CEO pay is for executives who reap millions and offer little shareholder returns. It's been a particularly hot point with struggling financial institutions that have awarded big pay packages to executives while crashing the economy, then taking taxpayer bailout dollars.

$1 Value Meals Helped

Over the past two years, Skinner, a 38-year veteran of McDonalds, has rolled out new products and trimmed expenses at the world's largest fast-food chain. The company, for instance, saw revenue increase after expanding its value menu in response to a higher national unemployment rate.

Skinner's total 2009 pay package is a 29% increase from his 2008 compensation of $13.6 million, and more than double his pay in 2007. The 2009 package included about $700,000 in profit sharing and perks including financial counseling, annual physical examinations and personal use of the company's private aircraft. The cost to the company for the use of the planes was $71,562.

Added $8 Billion In Market Cap

Walt Riker, vice president of corporate media relations for McDonald's, says the company makes a conscious effort to be transparent with its executive pay packages, and it's by design that compensation is tied to performance.

"Eighty-one percent of our CEO's compensation was tied to performance and creating long-term shareholder value," Riker says.

Riker points out that a big indicator of Skinner's success is the fact that the market capitalization for McDonald's increased about $8 billion over the past two years. At the end of 2009, it was $67 billion.

McDonald's stock dipped 8 cents Friday to $68.68 a share. It is up 10% year-to-date.

surely the hard work of front line employees helped the company grow as well

Did they work hard? Sure. Were they responsible for 8 billion in growth? HIghly unlikely. I go to McDonalds from time to time and I haven't seen the quality of workers improve so much (it stayed pretty much the same) that it convinced me and the rest of the world's consumers to somehow grow the company by that much.

Why can't we give the guy his due? He's obviously good at what he does and did a much better job than his predecessor.

Again, he earned it.

Let's stop the salary shaming.

Again

Rage_Phish

If the CEO were to give up his entire annual salary and distribute it equally to the entire workforce, how much more would each worker receive?

If the hourly wage were to be increased to $15/hour, what would the total amount be?

These are sincere questions...I honestly don't know the answer (because I'm missing some important pieces of the equation)...but I think these answers might give proper economic perspective to the last few pages of discussion.

McDonalds employs 1.7 million people. So if we got rid of the CEOs salary and evenly distributed it, those 1.7 million people (assuming a 14 mil CEO salary) get an $8 raise for an entire year or a .023 cent a day raise or a .002 cent an hour raise.

So 15.02 if they raised the minimum wage to $15 and also distributed the CEOs salary.

Does that include the $30 million they paid their former CEO as a retirement "performance bonus?" Does it also include the tax REFUND McDonald's received because they were able to deduct all the "performance bonus" parts of the two salaries from their taxes (as well as the "performance bonuses" of every corporate executive, hint 99% of what they actually pay themselves are moved around to be classified as "performance bonuses" for this reason?)

Why is that the CEOs and corporate executives are allowed to just arbitrarily decide how much they want to pay themselves, but regular workers have to rely on what the "market" thinks they are worth? So if I'm the CEO of a company, it's perfectly ok for me to say I'm worth X amount of millions just "because," but if I'm just a regular employee, I'm not allowed that same right?

I really don't understand how anybody that isn't a CEO making millions of dollars can be ok with this entire scenario. You're really ok with paying higher taxes so that CEOs can get tax subsidies to pay themselves ridiculous salaries, and then pay their employees at less than the poverty level, meaning that you have to pay even more taxes to support government programs like food stamps and welfare? I don't get the logic there at all. This used to be a country where we cared about each other, and helped each other, and stood together. This whole, "I've got mine, Jack, you're on your own," mentality is quite honestly the most unAmerican attitude I've ever seen.

I don't really understand how anybody can be ok with thinking they can determine what other people make. His pay was anything but arbitrary. He increased the companies revenues by 8 billion dollars and increased stock prices returns to share holders.

He earned it.

From: http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/04/10/mcdonalds-ceos-17-million-pay-tied-to-performance/
McDonald's (MCD) CEO Jim Skinner's $17 million pay package is directly tied to the fast-food company's delivery of solid revenues and big returns for shareholders during an economic downturn.

The bulk of Skinner's take-home pay in 2009 came from a performance-based cash bonus. The 65-year-old Skinner, who also holds the title of vice chairman, earned a $1.4 million salary and $11.5 million in performance bonuses. The remainder came from his stock options, according to the fast food company's proxy report filed Friday.

No. 1 Shareholder Return

Compensation experts are not going to argue that $17 million isn't a lot of money, but given the company's performance, they do say that Skinner earned it for reaping solid gains for shareholders. The 2009 return for McDonald's shareholders last year was 16%, ranking No.1 among the companies included in the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

"Clearly he has done the right things -- cut costs, brought in new revenues streams and improved shareholder value," says compensation expert Paul Dorf. "If the opposite happened, his salary would have been much lower."

Dorf, managing director of New Jersey-based Compensation Resources, says that much of the shareholder outrage over exorbitant CEO pay is for executives who reap millions and offer little shareholder returns. It's been a particularly hot point with struggling financial institutions that have awarded big pay packages to executives while crashing the economy, then taking taxpayer bailout dollars.

$1 Value Meals Helped

Over the past two years, Skinner, a 38-year veteran of McDonalds, has rolled out new products and trimmed expenses at the world's largest fast-food chain. The company, for instance, saw revenue increase after expanding its value menu in response to a higher national unemployment rate.

Skinner's total 2009 pay package is a 29% increase from his 2008 compensation of $13.6 million, and more than double his pay in 2007. The 2009 package included about $700,000 in profit sharing and perks including financial counseling, annual physical examinations and personal use of the company's private aircraft. The cost to the company for the use of the planes was $71,562.

Added $8 Billion In Market Cap

Walt Riker, vice president of corporate media relations for McDonald's, says the company makes a conscious effort to be transparent with its executive pay packages, and it's by design that compensation is tied to performance.

"Eighty-one percent of our CEO's compensation was tied to performance and creating long-term shareholder value," Riker says.

Riker points out that a big indicator of Skinner's success is the fact that the market capitalization for McDonald's increased about $8 billion over the past two years. At the end of 2009, it was $67 billion.

McDonald's stock dipped 8 cents Friday to $68.68 a share. It is up 10% year-to-date.

surely the hard work of front line employees helped the company grow as well

Did they work hard? Sure. Were they responsible for 8 billion in growth? HIghly unlikely. I go to McDonalds from time to time and I haven't seen the quality of workers improve so much (it stayed pretty much the same) that it convinced me and the rest of the world's consumers to somehow grow the company by that much.

Why can't we give the guy his due? He's obviously good at what he does and did a much better job than his predecessor.

Again, he earned it.

Let's stop the salary shaming.

my point is that much like the employees were not responsible for ALL $8 billion in growth, neither was the CEO. It takes many people at many elvels to help a company grow like that. And to say non of the that growth can be attributed to the front end employees seems incorrect to me.

Rage_Phish

It should also be pointed out that no one here has even seen a so called fast food strike in their town haha

determined_erin

It should also be pointed out that no one here has even seen a so called fast food strike in their town haha

I wake up to it every week! I live directly in a big city and hear/see them around 7 AM many mornings.

Rage_Phish

i stand corrected

what is your profile pic? the colors are cool

brower47

If the CEO were to give up his entire annual salary and distribute it equally to the entire workforce, how much more would each worker receive?

If the hourly wage were to be increased to $15/hour, what would the total amount be?

These are sincere questions...I honestly don't know the answer (because I'm missing some important pieces of the equation)...but I think these answers might give proper economic perspective to the last few pages of discussion.

McDonalds employs 1.7 million people. So if we got rid of the CEOs salary and evenly distributed it, those 1.7 million people (assuming a 14 mil CEO salary) get an $8 raise for an entire year or a .023 cent a day raise or a .002 cent an hour raise.

So 15.02 if they raised the minimum wage to $15 and also distributed the CEOs salary.

Does that include the $30 million they paid their former CEO as a retirement "performance bonus?" Does it also include the tax REFUND McDonald's received because they were able to deduct all the "performance bonus" parts of the two salaries from their taxes (as well as the "performance bonuses" of every corporate executive, hint 99% of what they actually pay themselves are moved around to be classified as "performance bonuses" for this reason?)

Why is that the CEOs and corporate executives are allowed to just arbitrarily decide how much they want to pay themselves, but regular workers have to rely on what the "market" thinks they are worth? So if I'm the CEO of a company, it's perfectly ok for me to say I'm worth X amount of millions just "because," but if I'm just a regular employee, I'm not allowed that same right?

I really don't understand how anybody that isn't a CEO making millions of dollars can be ok with this entire scenario. You're really ok with paying higher taxes so that CEOs can get tax subsidies to pay themselves ridiculous salaries, and then pay their employees at less than the poverty level, meaning that you have to pay even more taxes to support government programs like food stamps and welfare? I don't get the logic there at all. This used to be a country where we cared about each other, and helped each other, and stood together. This whole, "I've got mine, Jack, you're on your own," mentality is quite honestly the most unAmerican attitude I've ever seen.

I don't really understand how anybody can be ok with thinking they can determine what other people make. His pay was anything but arbitrary. He increased the companies revenues by 8 billion dollars and increased stock prices returns to share holders.

He earned it.

From: http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/04/10/mcdonalds-ceos-17-million-pay-tied-to-performance/
McDonald's (MCD) CEO Jim Skinner's $17 million pay package is directly tied to the fast-food company's delivery of solid revenues and big returns for shareholders during an economic downturn.

The bulk of Skinner's take-home pay in 2009 came from a performance-based cash bonus. The 65-year-old Skinner, who also holds the title of vice chairman, earned a $1.4 million salary and $11.5 million in performance bonuses. The remainder came from his stock options, according to the fast food company's proxy report filed Friday.

No. 1 Shareholder Return

Compensation experts are not going to argue that $17 million isn't a lot of money, but given the company's performance, they do say that Skinner earned it for reaping solid gains for shareholders. The 2009 return for McDonald's shareholders last year was 16%, ranking No.1 among the companies included in the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

"Clearly he has done the right things -- cut costs, brought in new revenues streams and improved shareholder value," says compensation expert Paul Dorf. "If the opposite happened, his salary would have been much lower."

Dorf, managing director of New Jersey-based Compensation Resources, says that much of the shareholder outrage over exorbitant CEO pay is for executives who reap millions and offer little shareholder returns. It's been a particularly hot point with struggling financial institutions that have awarded big pay packages to executives while crashing the economy, then taking taxpayer bailout dollars.

$1 Value Meals Helped

Over the past two years, Skinner, a 38-year veteran of McDonalds, has rolled out new products and trimmed expenses at the world's largest fast-food chain. The company, for instance, saw revenue increase after expanding its value menu in response to a higher national unemployment rate.

Skinner's total 2009 pay package is a 29% increase from his 2008 compensation of $13.6 million, and more than double his pay in 2007. The 2009 package included about $700,000 in profit sharing and perks including financial counseling, annual physical examinations and personal use of the company's private aircraft. The cost to the company for the use of the planes was $71,562.

Added $8 Billion In Market Cap

Walt Riker, vice president of corporate media relations for McDonald's, says the company makes a conscious effort to be transparent with its executive pay packages, and it's by design that compensation is tied to performance.

"Eighty-one percent of our CEO's compensation was tied to performance and creating long-term shareholder value," Riker says.

Riker points out that a big indicator of Skinner's success is the fact that the market capitalization for McDonald's increased about $8 billion over the past two years. At the end of 2009, it was $67 billion.

McDonald's stock dipped 8 cents Friday to $68.68 a share. It is up 10% year-to-date.

surely the hard work of front line employees helped the company grow as well

Did they work hard? Sure. Were they responsible for 8 billion in growth? HIghly unlikely. I go to McDonalds from time to time and I haven't seen the quality of workers improve so much (it stayed pretty much the same) that it convinced me and the rest of the world's consumers to somehow grow the company by that much.

Why can't we give the guy his due? He's obviously good at what he does and did a much better job than his predecessor.

Again, he earned it.

Let's stop the salary shaming.

my point is that much like the employees were not responsible for ALL $8 billion in growth, neither was the CEO. It takes many people at many elvels to help a company grow like that. And to say non of the that growth can be attributed to the front end employees seems incorrect to me.

And my point is that the employees weren't responsible for it at all. They didn't come up with the policies that caused the growth. They showed up, did their jobs and got paid what they agreed to be paid when they took the position. He showed up, implemented ideas, increased growth and productivity and got paid what he did when he exceeded shareholder expectations.

The people with money on the line, who have taken on the risk, paid their guy what they did because they got a good return. If they had chosen poorly, put a different, less effective person in the position, then they would not have made as much money and could have potentially lost money.

FlaxMilk

And my point is that the employees weren't responsible for it at all. They didn't come up with the policies that caused the growth. They showed up, did their jobs and got paid what they agreed to be paid when they took the position. He showed up, implemented ideas, increased growth and productivity and got paid what he did when he exceeded shareholder expectations.

The people with money on the line, who have taken on the risk, paid their guy what they did because they got a good return. If they had chosen poorly, put a different, less effective person in the position, then they would not have made as much money and could have potentially lost money.

So the employees didn't come up with the policies that encouraged laborers to strike. The brilliant CEO did that. He chose to keep wages low, workers said that wasn't acceptable. If he gets credit for the growth, he should also be accountable for things like employees deciding to strike. Morale is an important part of customer service business.

As to his salary raising pay .02, let's not be so naive as to really believe that he's the only one making mad money in that company.

Edit to say that I agree with another poster though that at this point we're probably debating fundamentally different philosophies so I will make an effort to make this my last post on the subject. :blushing: