In the court system of ancient Athens the accuser and the accused would each propose the punishment if the accused was found guilty. The jury would then vote to decide between the two proposed punishments. The effect, and perhaps the idea, of the system was to generally moderate punishments. The accuser wouldn't propose an overly harsh penalty that seemed unwarranted, because the jury would go with the penalty put forward by the accused. Likewise, the accused couldn't suggest an overly lenient penalty because the jury wouldn't support it.
One of the hot topics of our politics at the moment is how to moderate high level pay. Whilst the economy stutters and many are losing their jobs, the income gap is widening with those at the top of the corporate food chain receiving ever increasing rewards in comparison to those at the bottom. The Athenian approach may suggest a remedy.
If the Chief Executive and his cohorts were to propose the value of their own reward, and the regular employees were to put forward a counter proposal, which the company shareholders would then cast votes as to which reward package would be awarded. This would have a moderating effect, dampening reward growth and reducing the income gap. It seems reasonable that it could also lead to an improvement in employee reward and working conditions; happy workers that are well treated are likely to feel more magnanimous towards the Chief Executive when reward setting time comes around. What clearer message of employee satisfaction and sentiment towards their Managers then indicating what pay they should receive? Such a system would not entail Chief Executives having to be populists to appease their workforce, because if the employees suggestion for the reward package was overly mean the shareholders wouldn't be inclined to support it.
As detailed this system isn't without its problems. I'm sure that various corporate structures could be implemented so as to decouple Chief Executives from the workforce, but I'm also sure that appropriate oversight could enforce the association. Likewise there could be situations where the workforce isn't a moderating influence on determining reward; the ancient Athenian system worked because it was adversarial, which despite widespread sentiment shouldn't be how our companies work. So, we need a consistently moderating force, perhaps something like a legal alternative of X times the minimum wage of a nation.
And why we're at it when are we going to have fines that are based on a percentage of wealth rather than a fixed sum?
One of the hot topics of our politics at the moment is how to moderate high level pay. Whilst the economy stutters and many are losing their jobs, the income gap is widening with those at the top of the corporate food chain receiving ever increasing rewards in comparison to those at the bottom. The Athenian approach may suggest a remedy.
If the Chief Executive and his cohorts were to propose the value of their own reward, and the regular employees were to put forward a counter proposal, which the company shareholders would then cast votes as to which reward package would be awarded. This would have a moderating effect, dampening reward growth and reducing the income gap. It seems reasonable that it could also lead to an improvement in employee reward and working conditions; happy workers that are well treated are likely to feel more magnanimous towards the Chief Executive when reward setting time comes around. What clearer message of employee satisfaction and sentiment towards their Managers then indicating what pay they should receive? Such a system would not entail Chief Executives having to be populists to appease their workforce, because if the employees suggestion for the reward package was overly mean the shareholders wouldn't be inclined to support it.
As detailed this system isn't without its problems. I'm sure that various corporate structures could be implemented so as to decouple Chief Executives from the workforce, but I'm also sure that appropriate oversight could enforce the association. Likewise there could be situations where the workforce isn't a moderating influence on determining reward; the ancient Athenian system worked because it was adversarial, which despite widespread sentiment shouldn't be how our companies work. So, we need a consistently moderating force, perhaps something like a legal alternative of X times the minimum wage of a nation.
And why we're at it when are we going to have fines that are based on a percentage of wealth rather than a fixed sum?
No comments:
Post a Comment