The CEO is an employee, a manager. You know how shops have managers hired by the owners to run the place? If that were the motive, wouldn’t owners be the preferred target?
A CEO is a CEO. Just because they are accountable to the shareholders does not make them working class. The CEO is the closest thing a corporation has to a singular owner. Their compensation package includes shares (ownership) of the company and they are the ones who make the decisions.
Literally their “job” is to be responsible for the actions of a corporation.
If a CEO has very little authority as you claim then what the fuck are they getting paid all that money for?
The way I see it they either run the company, in which case they own the blame for a company’s failures, or they are just a figurehead with no real influence, in which case they don’t need to be paid any more than the actors the marketing team hires to be in their commercials.
It’s actually between those two extremes. It’s in the name, Chief Executive Officer. They’re essentially there to execute the will of the ownership. They manage the company.
edit: To further expand on that, it’s not too different from the executive of a country. While they make a lot of decisions, one thing they don’t deserve blame for is any laws passed by the legislature. It’s not a perfect analogy, but it captures the basic idea.
You are both right, if @Carrolade@lemmy.world is not claiming that a CEO is not responsible for the running of the company - they are the top tier checks of each other, with the board having marginally more power with the ability to oust the CEO.
The CEO is an employee, a manager. You know how shops have managers hired by the owners to run the place? If that were the motive, wouldn’t owners be the preferred target?
Sometimes you take what you can get.
CEOs often are paid primarily in stock, so more than likely this guy had a significant ownership stake.
Did you just say with a straight face that a CEO is simply a middleman who was powerless to change the internal workings of a system?
He’s right to suggest that a board of directors should possibly be looked at as equally to blame for a company’s policies and actions.
They should be, but they are harder to get to.
I mean sure you want to kill the opposing militaries generals, but a captain or above is nothing to scoff at.
Besides CEOs are more like a lieutenant or full bird Colonel.
Citizens united fucked America in the asshole.
A CEO is a CEO. Just because they are accountable to the shareholders does not make them working class. The CEO is the closest thing a corporation has to a singular owner. Their compensation package includes shares (ownership) of the company and they are the ones who make the decisions.
Literally their “job” is to be responsible for the actions of a corporation.
Sure, they do make a lot of decisions, no question. However, those decisions are at the direction of a Board of Directors.
In the same way a manager would be fired if they went against their owners wishes, a CEO is similarly subject to their superiors.
If a CEO has very little authority as you claim then what the fuck are they getting paid all that money for?
The way I see it they either run the company, in which case they own the blame for a company’s failures, or they are just a figurehead with no real influence, in which case they don’t need to be paid any more than the actors the marketing team hires to be in their commercials.
It’s actually between those two extremes. It’s in the name, Chief Executive Officer. They’re essentially there to execute the will of the ownership. They manage the company.
edit: To further expand on that, it’s not too different from the executive of a country. While they make a lot of decisions, one thing they don’t deserve blame for is any laws passed by the legislature. It’s not a perfect analogy, but it captures the basic idea.
You are both right, if @Carrolade@lemmy.world is not claiming that a CEO is not responsible for the running of the company - they are the top tier checks of each other, with the board having marginally more power with the ability to oust the CEO.
I guess responsibility was thrust upon him in this case.
Excuse me? There is a bit left there on your chin.
If the CEO disagrees with the directions of the board, the CEO has a number of options. They can easily be considered culpable.