Most people would agree that getting employee personal interests aligned with corporate interests is a necessary element in aligning an organization and maximizing motivation of the employees. Most would also agree that fiduciaries of the corporation, like the CEO, must put corporate interests ahead of their personal interests. That's part of the responsibility of a corporate fiduciary. It's not a giant leap in logic to understand that CEO pay averaging as much as 600 times that of the average employee, and CEOs receiving pay raises of 10% to 25% or more, while the average employee gets 3% to 4%, is inherently contrary to the concept of aligning employee and corporate interests. There's something wrong about such an arrangement; the CEO is perceived as getting a huge payout at the expense of all the employees.

In Bob Neurath's mind, CEO pay has the potential for being a huge detractor relative to aligning the organization for greater success. There continues to be lots of public criticism about CEO pay in general, and he's concerned that it may soon be his pay in particular. The unions are especially critical of CEO pay. They're asking why they should give up benefits and potential pay, when the CEO is being rewarded handsomely, something they think is at the rank-and-file's expense. Why should they improve productivity when jobs are going overseas anyway? What compensation policies are needed at Beta for fair and equitable treatment of all employees, from the CEO to...