On the recordMarch 7, 2012
I thank the gentleman for yielding. This argument makes no sense to me. If we are interested in creating jobs, how does it hurt jobs by simply allowing the people who actually own the company, the shareholders, the ability to have a nonbinding vote on the pay of their CEO? By the way, if they choose to pay the CEO a gazillion dollars, that's fine. It's their money. They can do what they want with it. If, however, they choose to cut the CEO's salary, maybe they could use some of that money to actually create more jobs. This amendment doesn't affect the creation of one job. It simply recognizes the fact that shareholders own the company. They should be able to decide how to spend their money. Some people have not liked this provision since it was adopted. This is simply an opportunity to take a bite out of something they've never liked. It has no effect whatsoever on the creation of a job. And I would dare say to empower the shareholders might actually free up some corporate money in order to hire one or two more people.
