Huge executive salaries, especially for those managing public entities, make people angry. While it might feel good to vent about perceived excesses, that outrage would be better directed at inequities on the bottom of the economic ladder.
Reducing the salaries of a few highly paid CEOs would not make much difference; raising the minimum wage would have a positive effect on the lives of thousands.
The most recent CEO salary in the spotlight is that of Dr. Max Coppes, former head of the sa国际传媒 Cancer Agency. It has been revealed that the sa国际传媒 Cancer Foundation had pledged $75,000 a year for five years to top up Coppes鈥檚 benefits package of $561,000 a year.
The foundation is the fundraising partner of the cancer agency, so it was pledging donated funds.
Was it necessary to add $75,000 a year to a half-million-dollar compensation package? How much is enough?
That鈥檚 not the point. The better question would be: Is he worth it?
Obviously, someone thought so. The request for the additional funds came in 2012 from Lynda Cranston, then head of the Provincial Health Services Authority, the body that governs the cancer agency and other provincial agencies and services. She wanted the extra funds so a 鈥渄ream candidate鈥� could be recruited, and Coppes, a pediatric oncologist, had impressive professional experience and international credentials. It was likely assumed, for good reasons, that he would earn his keep.
But the province rolled his salary back $50,000, saying it exceeded public-sector salary guidelines.
After two years on the job, Coppes quit the troubled agency last week amid frustrations over governance, slumping morale and budgetary pressures that cramped the agency鈥檚 work. He has accepted a job heading a hospital in Nevada.
It reminds of the Kwantlen Polytechnic University caper, in which the university board made secret arrangements to circumvent the province鈥檚 salary cap in hiring new executives. While board members should not have acted underhandedly, they did not gain personally 鈥� they were seeking only to get the best people for the jobs.
There鈥檚 a common thread going through these and similar situations 鈥� the province鈥檚 cap on salaries. The government should be responsible for making good use of public funds, and we do not advocate throwing money around irresponsibly, but perhaps an appeal mechanism should be part of the cap.
Agencies should be able to make a case for exceeding the cap, if it鈥檚 for the public good. And the cap should be guided by the market, not simply set as a means to achieve a targeted budget reduction.
But big numbers dazzle. To someone making $100,000 a year, a $200,000 salary seems exorbitant when it might actually be too modest for the position.
We need a sense of proportion. Why is it reasonable to pay a Vancouver Canucks goalie $6 million a year, and outrageous to give $600,000 a year to the head of an agency dedicated to saving lives and alleviating misery? 鈥淲orld-class鈥� is a term that gets bandied about a lot these days, but if we aren鈥檛 willing to pay world-class compensation when appropriate, we can鈥檛 expect to be world-class. Sometimes the 鈥測ou get what you pay for鈥� rule applies and paying as little as possible isn鈥檛 the wisest choice.
The government is right to keep a close watch on executive pay, and we should all keep a close watch on the government. But for everyone making a huge salary, thousands are paid modestly or poorly.
Rather than focusing solely on capping salaries at the top end of the economic scale, let鈥檚 look at the other end of the scale and raise the minimum wage.
