The average pay of a FTSE 100 CEO has rocketed from around £1 million a year in the late 1990s to closer to £5 million today.
The average pay of a FTSE 100 CEO has rocketed from around £1 million a year in the late 1990s to closer to £5 million today
The minimum wage was recently voted the most successful government policy of the past 30 years by members of the Political Studies Association.
Could a maximum wage prove equally popular? The time has come for the idea to be seriously debated.
The average pay of a FTSE 100 CEO has rocketed from around £1 million a year in the late 1990s – about 60 times the average UK worker – to closer to £5 million today, more than 170 times.
The High Pay Centre’s new report suggests that we should not employ a rigid cap to tackle such excess, but instead raises the idea of a maximum pay ratio. The highest paid employee of an organisation would not be allowed to earn more than a fixed multiple of the amount earned by lowest paid.
This would undoubtedly be a radical step. Indeed, when the High Pay Centre suggested that it was time to consider such a reform, some critics called the idea ‘extreme’. But it perhaps reflects slightly odd priorities to think that a democratically-enacted maximum pay ratio of (for example) 75:1 is extreme, but that demands for pay packages hundreds of times the size of those experienced by the average worker are not.
It also reflects a degree of detachment between the public and the world inhabited by politicians, think-tanks and lobbyists. While elite opinion decries even the most minor controls of the so-called ‘free’ market, around 80 per cent of the public support the idea of a requirement for executive pay to be tied to that of their lowest-paid employee.
Some forward-looking organisations already operate such a policy unilaterally. At John Lewis, the ratio is capped at 75:1. At TSB the gap between the chief executive and frontline staff is limited to 65:1.
If even these ratios seem large, this perhaps reflects out of hand pay has got at other organisations. Manifest/MM&K found that cross the FTSE 100 in 2012, the average pay ratio stood at 133:1… and this show the difference between CEOs and the average employee, not the lowest-paid.
Ultimately, a failure to address these inequalities will prove complacent. Concern about the gap between the super-rich and everyone else has reached its highest ever level, contributing to a wider anger at the perception of a self-serving elite comprising both politicians and business.
80 per cent of the public support government action to reduce the gap between high and low/middle income earners.
With pay for top executives increasing from £4.1 million to £4.7 million between 2012 and 2013, and inequality predicted to rise in the coming years, the government’s tinkering with shareholder scrutiny has had little effect.
It’s now time to contemplate bigger reforms – pay ratios could be one part of that. Worker representation on company boards should have a role to play. Taxation and profit-sharing are also important mechanisms. The High Pay Centre report discusses these and other ideas in more detail and can be downloaded here.
Luke Hildyard works for the High Pay Centre and is a Left Foot Forward contributing editor
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
24 Responses to “It’s time for a maximum pay ratio”
Leon Wolfeson
A 1 month cap, for instance, would hit John Lewis employees.
Blunt instruments tend to do this.
GO
For an increase in productivity/GDP to “increase the general standard of living for all” one or both of these things has to happen: wages have to rise across the board, or the government has to receive extra tax revenues and spend them on improving infrastructure, public services etc.
Both of those things *have* happened since the nineteenth century, of course, but that’s because the labour movement has fought for higher wages and better public services. (It has also fought for many other things that tend to increase the general standard of living, of course: an end to child labour, shorter working weeks, better working environments, etc.) If they hadn’t done so, we might or might not have seen similar increases in productivity, but wages and public spending would have been held down. Hence that increase in the *general* standard of living would not have happened.
If you think the increase in the general standard of living since the 19th century is evidence that the system we’ve had since then has worked, fine – but that system has been based on a mixed economy shaped by capitalists, socialists and others. The assumption that things would have been the same but better without the leftie influences is just that – an assumption. To justify it, you would at the very least have to describe and demonstrate the existence of a mechanism by which the general standard of living could increase while wages and public spending were held down by market forces and capitalists acting and voting according to the profit motive.
David McKendrick
But still OK to exploit workers in third world countries who supply the raw materials to the company.
David McKendrick
And all UK companies would have introduced the minimum wage without legislation…
Leon Wolfeson
Germany puts workers on those boards. Oddly enough, bosses who start with firing a lot of staff tend to earn less.