FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Effects of the ‘Fat Cat’ Vote

by BINOY KAMPMARK

The soup is seldom eaten as hot as it is served.

Swiss expression, quoted by Philip Mosimann, CEO of Bucher Industries AG, Mar 5, 2013

They surprise and stun with a regularity that becomes them.  They might ban minarets after a referendum fearing the symbolic creep of Islam, but the citizens of Switzerland will also have a stab at controlling exorbitant payments to company executives if needed.  To be more precise, the March 3 referendum put to voters whether shareholders in public companies should have binding votes on pay that would effectively limit bonuses and payouts.  All 26 cantons agreed with the measure.  This is more impressive, given the financially minded nature of Swiss society.

The British will be particularly worried.  Chancellor George Osborne has been fighting a rearguard action against EU caps on bankers’ bonuses, giving credibility to the idea that any theft worth doing is worth doing well.  The Swiss have stolen a march and gone further than the EU.

The financial sector has been going about with a good bit of piffle – if you tax a banker, you are asking for trouble.  If you restrict vast payments to executives, you are giving them red cards.  They are the exceptional citizens who are to be given an open mandate on buccaneering, and Cameron’s government remains steadfast in opposing such moves.  To move in on their well earned “payments” will damage “the City”, which, in such circles, resembles a sacred totem.  The City of London has been doing its utmost best to attract high flyers from Wall Street and centres in East Asia with various packages with absurdly ludicrous packages.

The arguments against such restrictions were also trotted out by a strong lobby in Switzerland that evidently wasn’t strong enough. Economiesuisse argued that the proposals would impair competitiveness, encourage companies to offshore their operations and harm smaller companies, mustering together a campaign of fear to net a negative vote.  To help their case, a short film was commissioned, featuring Switzerland in a state of anarchy in the year 2026.  Naturally, it so happened to be ravaged by warring violence as well.  That, of course, had been because in 2013, its irresponsible residents had decided to impose the world’s tightest limits on executive pay. “It is a worst-case scenario,” suggested the film’s director Michael Steiner.  “Just to show what can happen if you make the wrong decision on laws governing the economy.”

Strong stuff, and so much so that Economiesuisse cancelled the release ahead of the March 3 referendum fearing a voter revolt.  That has not stopped their Cassandra-like worries.  A beast, they fear, has been born.

The campaign against such exorbitant bonuses and payments was given a considerable philippic by deals that almost brought Swiss bank UBS down.  Bankers had become speculators rather than caretakers.  Daniel Vasella also became a conspicuous target of public anger with an ill considered $78 million payment as chairman of Novartis, a delicious golden handshake if ever there was one.  His achievements included shedding thousands of jobs.

For all the huffing that has taken place in light of the campaign and the ‘yes’ vote, the effects of it are unlikely to be cataclysmic.  The question is whether it can be effective.  For such commentators as Alpesh Patel, working for the London based asset management group Praefinium Partners, such limitations can only get purchase if the scheme is made global (Euronews, 4 Mar).  Companies will move to areas of less resistance if encouraged.

It is unlikely that any exodus will take place.  Switzerland will retain a special place for the financial classes and companies seeking a base.  Executives will continue receiving high salaries, the only difference there being the role shareholders will play in the decisions.  And the government will have to enact legislation on the subject, a difficulty that no one is denying.  That process can be a lengthy one – politicians are still wondering how to implement the results of the 2010 plebiscite that considered expelling foreigners convicted of serious crimes (Business Standard, Mar 5).

What will change will be the innovative approaches taken to rewarding company executives.  Like thieves and code breakers, they will be one step ahead of the legislators.  Besides, there is nothing stopping shareholders from refusing to prevent high pay packages to executives.  “At the end of the day, shareholders will get more rights and the possibility to say ‘no’,” suggested Axel May, senior partners at Hostettler Kramarsch & Partner (Reuters, Feb 21).  “We have to see if they use that right.”  As Rolf Soiron, chairman of cement maker Holcim and drugs industry supplier Lonza explained to Reuters, “I think if a company wants to pay a top executive 25 million, then they will find a way to do so regardless of the initiative.”

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

Weekend Edition
February 12-14, 2016
Andrew Levine
What Next in the War on Clintonism?
Jeffrey St. Clair
A Comedy of Terrors: When in Doubt, Bomb Syria
Ismael Hossein-Zadeh – Anthony A. Gabb
Financial Oligarchy vs. Feudal Aristocracy
Paul Street
When Plan A Meets Plan B: Talking Politics and Revolution with the Green Party’s Jill Stein
Rob Urie
The (Political) Season of Our Discontent
Pepe Escobar
It Takes a Greek to Save Europa
Gerald Sussman
Why Hillary Clinton Spells Democratic Party Defeat
Carol Norris
What Do Hillary’s Women Want? A Psychologist on the Clinton Campaign’s Women’s Club Strategy
Robert Fantina
The U.S. Election: Any Good News for Palestine?
Linda Pentz Gunter
Radioactive Handouts: the Nuclear Subsidies Buried Inside Obama’s “Clean” Energy Budget
Michael Welton
Lenin, Putin and Me
Manuel García, Jr.
Fire in the Hole: Bernie and the Cracks in the Neo-Liberal Lid
Thomas Stephens
The Flint River Lead Poisoning Catastrophe in Historical Perspective
David Rosen
When Trump Confronted a Transgender Beauty
Will Parrish
Cap and Clear-Cut
Victor Grossman
Coming Cutthroats and Parting Pirates
Ben Terrall
Raw Deals: Challenging the Sharing Economy
David Yearsley
Beyoncé’s Super Bowl Formation: Form-Fitting Uniforms of Revolution and Commerce
David Mattson
Divvying Up the Dead: Grizzly Bears in a Post-ESA World
Matthew Stevenson
Confessions of a Primary Insider
Jeff Mackler
Friedrichs v. U.S. Public Employee Unions
Franklin Lamb
Notes From Tehran: Trump, the Iranian Elections and the End of Sanctions
Pete Dolack
More Unemployment and Less Security
Christopher Brauchli
The Cruzifiction of Michael Wayne Haley
Bill Quigley
Law on the Margins: a Profile of Social Justice Lawyer Chaumtoli Huq
Uri Avnery
A Lady With a Smile
Katja Kipping
The Opposite of Transparency: What I Didn’t Read in the TIPP Reading Room
B. R. Gowani
Hellish Woman: ISIS’s Granny Endorses Hillary
Kent Paterson
The Futures of Whales and Humans in Mexico
James Heddle
Why the Current Nuclear Showdown in California Should Matter to You
Michael Howard
Hollywood’s Grotesque Animal Abuse
Steven Gorelick
Branding Tradition: a Bittersweet Tale of Capitalism at Work
Nozomi Hayase
Assange’s UN Victory and Redemption of the West
Patrick Bond
World Bank Punches South Africa’s Poor, by Ignoring the Rich
Mel Gurtov
Is US-Russia Engagement Still Possible?
Dan Bacher
Governor Jerry Brown Receives Cold, Dead Fish Award Four Years In A Row
Wolfgang Lieberknecht
Fighting and Protecting Refugees
Jennifer Matsui
Doglegs, An Unforgettable Film
Soud Sharabani
Israeli Myths: An Interview with Ramzy Baroud
Terry Simons
Bernie? Why Not?
Missy Comley Beattie
When Thoughtful People Think Illogically
Christy Rodgers
Everywhere is War: Luke Mogelson’s These Heroic, Happy Dead: Stories
Ron Jacobs
Springsteen: Rockin’ the House in Albany, NY
Barbara Nimri Aziz
“The Martian”: This Heroism is for Chinese Viewers Too
Charles R. Larson
No Brainers: When Hitler Took Cocaine and Lenin Lost His Brain
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail