反對高管高薪的力量很薄弱 CEO該不該爲薪資辯白
Until recently, a good motto for the well-paid British chief executive would have been united we stand, divided we rise.
直到不久前，對於薪資豐厚的英國CEO而言，一句頗有道理的箴言是團結讓我們屹立，分開讓我們上升。
Businesses often act together to fight measures that may dent corporate profits, as a group of trade associations did this week in pushing back against government attempts to raise its national living wage for those at the bottom of the pay scale.
企業經常聯手反抗那些可能減少企業利潤的措施，就像一些行業協會最近所做的那樣——它們反抗了政府提高薪資最低人羣的全國最低工資的計劃。
On their own pay, though, chief executives work separately, tackling each challenge at company level.
然而，在自己的薪資的問題上，他們卻單獨行動，在公司層面解決每一個挑戰。
The High Pay Centre lobby group’s annual survey of FTSE 100 bosses’ pay — issued, by cruel coincidence, the same day as the living wage letter — underlines the effectiveness of such tactics.
遊說組織高薪中心(High Pay Centre)對富時100指數(FTSE)成分股公司CEO的薪資進行的年度調查，突顯出這種手段的有效性。這項調查發佈與CEO發出抗議最低工資的聯名信是在同一天，可謂殘酷的巧合。
Heads of big UK companies have seen their average pay rise by a third since 2010 and were paid more than 140 times employees’ average wages in 2015.
自2010年以來，英國大公司CEO的平均薪資上漲了三分之一，是2015年員工平均薪資的140倍以上。
Theresa May, the prime minister, has called their bluff.
英國首相特里薩•梅(Theresa May)戳穿了他們的把戲。
By pointing out, days before her appointment last month, how perceptions of bosses’ pay undermine trust in the privileged few of the corporate establishment, she may finally draw them into the debate they have tried to ignore.
就在她被任命爲首相幾天前，她指出，有關CEO薪資的看法破壞了人們對於企業界有特權的少數人的信任，就此她可能終於把他們拖入了他們一直試圖不去理睬的辯論中。
Rarely do executives defend their own rewards publicly.
高管們很少公開爲自己的薪資辯護。
One exception is Sir Martin Sorrell, ranked as Britain’s best-paid FTSE 100 chief executive, who in 2012 wrote a defiant opinion piece for the Financial Times despite attempts by people close to the WPP chief to deter him.
一個例外是英國薪資最高的富時100成分股公司CEO蘇銘天爵士(Sir Martin Sorrell，見上圖)。2012年，儘管接近這位WPP首席執行官的人士曾經試圖阻止他，但他還是爲英國《金融時報》寫下了一篇挑釁性評論文章。
He claimed he was merely behaving as an owner rather than a manager.
他聲稱，他只不過是在像一位所有者（而非管理者）那樣行事。
I thought that was the object of the exercise, he wrote.
他寫道：我本就認爲，我應該像一位所有者那樣行事。
A more concerted effort by companies to defend — let alone curb — levels of executive pay would be unthinkable.
企業採取更加聯合的行動維護（更別提限制）高管薪資的做法將是難以想象的。
More to the point, it would be unnecessary.
更重要的是，這將是不必要的。
Chief executives are sheltered by the very pay data their companies are required to publish.
CEO所在公司必須公開的薪資數據讓首席執行官們得到保護。
This market information is brandished by compensation consultants to justify above-average contract settlements for corporate leaders, and used by headhunters to bait the lines for their successors.
薪酬諮詢顧問們利用這種市場信息證明，企業領導人的約定薪資高出平均水平是合理的，獵頭則利用這種信息誘惑下任CEO的可能人選。
In addition, executive pay, however elevated, is trivial compared with overall payroll costs.
另外，不管高管薪資有多高，與公司的總薪資成本相比，數額也很小。
And the forces campaigning against inflated executive rewards are weak.
反對高管高薪的力量很薄弱。
UK investment institutions have less clout than they used to, even assuming they choose to spend time actively analysing pay levels.
英國投資機構的影響力已不如從前，即便假設他們會選擇花費時間積極分析薪資水平。
Non-executive directors are too timid.
非執行董事過於膽小。
Pliable board members are corralled into remuneration committees that rarely shake the status quo, let alone claw back pay awards when underperformance exposes them as excessive.
溫順的董事會成員們被拖入薪酬委員會——薪酬委員會很少打破現狀，更別提在業績不佳時收回過高的獎金了。
Rather than challenge high pay, boards can fall back on their legal responsibilities to shareholders.
董事會對股東負有法律責任，他們可以倚賴這一點，不去挑戰高管的高薪酬。
Guy Jubb, a governance expert, pointed out last month that the duties of directors are too permissive and have given legitimacy to implementing excessive boardroom pay practices.
公司治理方面的專家蓋伊•朱布(Guy Jubb)不久前指出，董事的責任太過寬鬆，爲付給董事高薪的做法提供了合法性。
As Frank Field, the opposition Labour party MP, put it more bluntly in London’s Evening Standard: The model that has emerged over the past 30 years is a con.
反對黨工黨議員弗蘭克•菲爾德(Frank Field)在《倫敦標準晚報》(London Evening Standard)上更直白地寫道：過去30年出現的那種模式是個騙局。
Enter Mrs May.
梅登場了。
Her proposals — annual binding votes on what chief executives are paid, worker representation on boards — have flaws but they point in the right direction; drawing board members from a wider range of backgrounds, for instance, would increase the likelihood of challenge.
她的提議（每年就CEO薪資進行具備約束力的投票，安排員工代表進入董事會）存在缺陷，但方向是正確的；例如，從背景更多樣化的人中吸收董事會成員將加大向這個問題發起挑戰的可能性。
More important, while her intervention may not yet have changed the law, it has changed the environment.
更重要的是，她的干預或許尚未改變法律，但它改變了環境。
The level and terms of executive pay are now, rightly, the subject of a political discussion at the highest level.
高管薪資的水平和條款現在理所應當地成爲最高層面政治討論的話題。
Mrs May’s intervention set chief executives’ richly cushioned position in sharp relief against the precarious existence of those workers counting on the living wage.
梅的干預讓CEO們極其舒適的地位與那些指望最低工資過活的員工們不牢靠的的狀態形成鮮明對比。
She should make business leaders realise that what they have grown used to treating as a little local difficulty is a national problem that, for once, requires a collective response.
她應該讓企業領導人意識到，他們已習慣於當作一個內部小問題來處理的問題，已成爲一個全國性問題，這一次它需要集體迴應。
