unions

1363 readers

70 users here now

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

cyu@sh.itjust.works

273

New York Times: CEO gets 36% raise, employees get 3% (union.place)

submitted 3 weeks ago by cyu@sh.itjust.works to c/unions@sh.itjust.works

25 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] qarbone@lemmy.world 12 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

36% doesn't tell a clean story. How many dozens of percentage raise would workers get if that CEO's raise was evenly distributed?

[–] TehBamski@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Here's what I came up with.

Using Meredith Kopit-Levien's annual pay from the New York Times, at $10.2 million (as stated in the graph.) Then pluging in the 36% raise she was 'given' in 2024(?) and divide by 600 Times Tech Guild members. The following is what I got.

Base salary: $10.2 million 36% of $10.2 million = $10.2 million × 0.36 = $3.672 million $3.672 million ÷ 600 = $6,120 per person

Current average salary: $158,000 (using what was stated in the graph) Potential raise: $6,120 Percentage increase = ($6,120 ÷ $158,000) × 100 = 3.87%

So if the value of the 36% raise ($3.672 million) were distributed equally among the 600 guild members: Each member would receive a $6,120 raise This would represent approximately a 3.87% increase to their current average salary.

[–] MelodiousFunk@startrek.website 18 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Or, to put it another way, at baseline, the CEO does the work of 64 people (10.2m/158k). And after raises, the CEO does the work of 85 people (13.9m/163k).

Wow, what a real bootstrapper. I stand in awe.

[–] taladar@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 weeks ago

I mean there certainly are some CEOs that do sound like 85 assholes whenever they open their mouth. Elon Musk comes to mind as a good public example.

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 16 points 3 weeks ago

So they could have doubled everyone's wage increase with that amount.

[–] Qwaffle_waffle@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I see this possibly as this scenario perhaps. boss went 3 for you, 3 for me, 3 for you, 3 for me, 3 for you, 3 for me...

[–] jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Does it matter?

[–] qarbone@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

That depends on your values. If your values say quantifying how much workers stand to gain if they shut down exorbitant C-suite wages, then good for you.

[–] jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 3 weeks ago

In most cases decreasing the CEO wage increase to increase workers would only increase workers wages by a tiny amount. That's almost never the point. The point is that giving the CEO a bigger raise than the workers is a mockery of who actually produces anything.