For example, if the lowest wage earner is making $10 an hour the top wage earner in the company is max'ed at $200 an hour - 20 times - giving a yearly income spread of $20,000 to $400,000.
For figuring income direct monetary payments ('salary,') as well as stock options, stock held directly, stock held in trust, interest/payments received from bonds and other financial instruments, net increase (but not net loss unless realized) in derivatives, swaps, & etc. are considered "income" for this purpose.
The goal of this is to link the income of Upper Management directly to the majority of workers in the firm.
I don't have a good answer.
Off the top of my head the solution is found in the relation of the 'off-shored' - domestic or foreign - workforce to the company. If the worker receives a certain percentage of their income from a firm then they are to be counted as a 'direct' employee. Just to be a jerk I would set that percentage very low, such as 33% or even 25%.
One cap is that any manager on more than 10 times the median wage cannot have a contract of more than two years. If combined with real requirements for majority independent boards, it would make it much easier to ditch terrible executive management teams ...
... where I saw the discussion on why golden parachutes are so massive, the example given was of course Ms. Fiorina, who was taking Hewlett-Packard down the crapper. $50m to get rid of her was clearly a well-justified investment, but if the board had had the power to just give her the sack by not signing a new contract, that would have been much better. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
