Maybe, and this might be a controversial take, nobody should be paid $105 million - because maybe nobody is actually generating that much value on their own.
No, I don't think it's anyone's job to simply "get the best deal", at least not from an ideal-social standpoint. I think employers (whether government or not) should adequately compensate their employees. And I think employees get a much fairer shake in negotiating that compensation when they have the backing of a union.
What is "adequate" I can't say, but without knowing more I'm not prepared to simply swallow the line that $400k is somehow totally outrageous. A lot of less useful people make a lot more money for a lot less work and personal risk.
Anyway, $400k was only the last year of salary this guy made. The article is suspiciously quiet about what his compensation was over the course of his whole career.
But it’s a bit ridiculous to get 42 million USD and not be satisfied. And the original comment is ridiculous to suggest that it’s not sufficient compensation.
Everyone has a price. For that many millions, lots of people would do it, especially if the alternative was someone else getting the millions and everyone getting fired anyway.
In a world with 8 billion people nobody can claim to be worth that much money to a company, I would be surprised if there aren't at least 10.000 people in the US alone who would do her job just as well or maybe better and for less than 500K, those kind of salaries always seem result of people being able to set their own salaries or some other kind of poor management.
reply