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

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

Weekend Edition
April 28, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Slandering Populism: a Chilling Media Habit
Andrew Levine
Why I Fear and Loathe Trump Even More Now Than On Election Day
Jeffrey St. Clair
Mountain of Tears: the Vanishing Glaciers of the Pacific Northwest
Philippe Marlière
The Neoliberal or the Fascist? What Should French Progressives Do?
Conn Hallinan
America’s New Nuclear Missile Endangers the World
Peter Linebaugh
Omnia Sunt Communia: May Day 2017
Vijay Prashad
Reckless in the White House
Brian Cloughley
Who Benefits From Prolonged Warfare?
Kathy Kelly
The Shame of Killing Innocent People
Ron Jacobs
Hate Speech as Free Speech: How Does That Work, Exactly?
Andre Vltchek
Middle Eastern Surgeon Speaks About “Ecology of War”
Matt Rubenstein
Which Witch Hunt? Liberal Disanalogies
Sami Awad - Yoav Litvin - Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb
Never Give Up: Nonviolent Civilian Resistance, Healing and Active Hope in the Holyland
Pete Dolack
Tribunal Finds Monsanto an Abuser of Human Rights and Environment
Christopher Ketcham
The Coyote Hunt
Mike Whitney
Putin’s New World Order
Ramzy Baroud
Palestinian, Jewish Voices Must Jointly Challenge Israel’s Past
Ralph Nader
Trump’s 100 Days of Rage and Rapacity
Harvey Wasserman
Marine Le Pen Is a Fascist—Not a ‘Right-Wing Populist,’ Which Is a Contradiction in Terms
William Hawes
World War Whatever
John Stanton
War With North Korea: No Joke
Jim Goodman
NAFTA Needs to be Replaced, Not Renegotiated
Murray Dobbin
What is the Antidote to Trumpism?
Louis Proyect
Left Power in an Age of Capitalist Decay
Medea Benjamin
Women Beware: Saudi Arabia Charged with Shaping Global Standards for Women’s Equality
Rev. William Alberts
Selling Spiritual Care
Peter Lee
Invasion of the Pretty People, Kamala Harris Edition
Cal Winslow
A Special Obscenity: “Guernica” Today
Binoy Kampmark
Turkey’s Kurdish Agenda
Guillermo R. Gil
The Senator Visits Río Piedras
Jeff Mackler
Mumia Abu-Jamal Fights for a New Trial and Freedom 
Cesar Chelala
The Responsibility of Rich Countries in Yemen’s Crisis
Leslie Watson Malachi
Women’s Health is on the Chopping Block, Again
Basav Sen
The Coal Industry is a Job Killer
Judith Bello
Rojava, a Popular Imperial Project
Robert Koehler
A Public Plan for Peace
Sam Pizzigati
The Insider Who Blew the Whistle on Corporate Greed
Nyla Ali Khan
There Has to be a Way Out of the Labyrinth
Michael J. Sainato
Trump Scales Back Antiquities Act, Which Helped to Create National Parks
Stu Harrison
Under Duterte, Filipino Youth Struggle for Real Change
Martin Billheimer
Balm for Goat’s Milk
Stephen Martin
Spooky Cookies and Algorithmic Steps Dystopian
Michael Doliner
Thank You Note
Charles R. Larson
Review: Gregor Hens’ “Nicotine”
David Yearsley
Handel’s Executioner
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail