CEOs Paid 335 Times Average Rank-and-File Worker; Outsourcing Results in Even Higher Inequality
2016 Executive PayWatch highlights Mondelez International’s Pay Inequality
CEO pay for major U.S. companies continues to soar as income inequality and outsourcing of good-paying American jobs increases. Outsourcing has become a hot presidential election topic with candidates calling out corporations who say they need to save money by sending jobs overseas. Meanwhile, according to the new AFL-CIO Executive PayWatch, the average CEO of an S&P 500 company made $12.4 million per year in 2015 - 335 times more money than the average rank-and-file worker.
The Executive PayWatch website, the most comprehensive searchable online database tracking CEO pay, showed that in 2015, the average production and nonsupervisory worker earned approximately $36,900 per year, a wage that when adjusted for inflation, has remained stagnant for 50 years.
"The income inequality that exists in this country is a disgrace. We must stop Wall Street CEOs from continuing to profit on the backs of working people," said AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka. "Last month when I stood with the Carrier workers in Indianapolis whose jobs making home heating furnaces are being shipped to northern Mexico, I saw first-hand how corporate greed destroys communities. Carrier is a subsidiary of United Technologies and its CEO Gregory Hayes made nearly $10.8 million in 2015. It's shameful that a CEO can make that type of money and still destroy the livelihood of the hard-working people who make the company profitable."
Mondelez International, highlighted in this year's PayWatch, represents one of the most egregious examples of CEO-to-worker pay inequality. The company, which makes Nabisco products including Oreos, Chips Ahoy and Ritz Crackers, announced earlier this year that in order to reduce costs, it is sending 600 family-sustaining jobs from Illinois to Mexico, where workers face poor labor and safety standards. Mondelez CEO Irene Rosenfeld made $19.7 million in 2015 - that's $9,471.15 per hour.
"It seems that hard work doesn't matter anymore. This is the corporate attitude," said Mary Willis, who was among hundreds of Nabisco workers from the South Side of Chicago laid off in March. "They quit me. I didn't quit them. It used to be that places like Nabisco were proud places to work, but now workers like me are tossed to the curb despite years of dedication."
While the trend of companies putting profits over people is rampant, working people are fighting back. The AFL-CIO has endorsed the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers' International Union (BCTGM) boycott of Nabisco products made in Mexico.
Working families also are joining striking Verizon workers on the picket lines fighting for a fair contract. Verizon wants to ship more good jobs overseas, outsource work to low-wage contractors and transfer workers away from their families for months at a time, provoking the strike by 39,000 working men and women who help make it so profitable. Over the past three years, Verizon has made a record $39 billion in profits. In 2015, CEO Lowell McAdam made $18.3 million - 498 times the average pay of a rank and file worker.
More information about United Technologies, Mondelez and Verizon's massive CEO-to-worker pay disparity and inequality among S&P 500 companies can be found at www.paywatch.org.
The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) works tirelessly to improve the lives of working people. We are the democratic, voluntary federation of 56 national and international labor unions that represent 12.5 million working men and women.
'We Are a Resurrection': Poor People's Campaign Rallies for Low-Wage Voters in DC
"There will be no democracy worth saving if it doesn't lift the lives of poor and low-wage people all over this world," one speaker said.
Thousands of poor and low-wage workers and their supporters from religious, labor, and social justice organizations rallied in Washington, D.C. on Saturday and pledged to "break the silence about poverty" and mobilize 15 million poor and low-income voters ahead of the November 2024 election.
The Mass Poor People's and Low Wage Workers' Assembly and Moral March on Washington, D.C. and to the Polls was hosted by the Poor People's Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival, which hopes to pressure politicians to embrace a 17-point agenda that prioritizes the well-being of the poor and working class over funding for war and militarism.
"We came here today to represent America's largest potential swing vote: poor and low-wage people who make this country work," Bishop William J. Barber II, co-chair of the Poor People's Campaign and president and senior lecturer of Repairers of the Breach, wrote on social media after the event.
Speaking at the rally, which took place at Third and Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest and began at 10:00 am ET, Barber emphasized the potential power of the poor as a voting block. He said that poor people represent 30% of the electorate and 40% in swing states.
"Every state where the margin of victory was within 3%, poor and low-wage voters make up over 43% of the electorate," Barber said.
He added that in crucial battleground states Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia, the result of the 2020 election was determined by 178,000 votes, yet more than six million poor people in those states did not vote at all.
"Those most impacted by injustice, organizing together, mobilizing together, and voting together can force the changes that we know we need that will be good for everybody."
"The No. 1 reason they did not vote is they said nobody talked to them," Barber said. "Well, there comes a time when people don't talk to you, you've got to make them talk to you."
That is exactly what the Poor People's Campaign is trying to do. In addition to reaching out to 15 million low-income infrequent voters, Barber said the campaign planned to deliver a statement to the major news networks on Saturday.
"We don't care what kind of debate you have if you don't have a debate that asks candidates where they stand on living wages and labor and healthcare, that's the failure," Barber said.
Barber added that the movement would also deliver a statement to the Democratic and Republican National Conventions saying, "If you want these votes, then you have to talk to us, not about what you've done, but what you're going to do in the days to come, because our votes must rise."
Barber and other speakers argued for putting the concerns of the poor and low-income at the center of national politics.
"There will be no democracy worth saving if it doesn't lift the lives of poor and low-wage people all over this world," Barber said. "This is not a moment, this is a movement that must rise until we lift this nation from the bottom so that everybody rises."
Rev. Dr. Liz Theoharis, co-chair of the Poor People's Campaign and director of the Kairos Center for Religions, Rights, and Social Justice, said: "Those most impacted by injustice, organizing together, mobilizing together, and voting together can force the changes that we know we need that will be good for everybody."
She argued that putting the poor at the center of the struggle for democracy "is what can save this nation."
"We say poverty no more. We demand justice for the poor," she concluded. "Because everybody has got a right to live."
On social media, Barber encouraged others to sign on to the movement's pledge.
"It's time to make our voices heard," Barber wrote. "We call on people of moral conscience to join us by pledging to be a part of this mobilization effort. Together, we can wake the sleeping giant of poor and low-wage voters. We are a resurrection, not an insurrection!"
The movement's 17-point agenda includes calls for abolishing poverty as the fourth leading cause of death in the U.S.; ensuring economic justice policies such as a living wage, labor rights, affordable housing, and universal healthcare; enshrining women's and immigrants' rights; protecting the environment and climate; ending gun violence and domestic extremism; and negotiating a cease-fire in Gaza and limiting the war economy.
In addition, Barber and other speakers responded to political developments over the past week, including concerns about U.S. President Joe Biden's performance in a debate against former President Donald Trump Thursday night.
Barber criticized the media for focusing on issues like Biden's stutter or Trump's sexual indiscretions rather than the bread-and-butter issues that matter to voters.
"In my tradition, Moses stuttered, but he brought down Pharaoh," Barber said at the rally. "Jeremiah had depression, but he stood up for justice. Jesus was acquainted with sorrow. Harriet Tubman had epilepsy. Folks are getting caught up on how a candidate walks—well, let me tell you, I have trouble walking, but I know how to walk toward justice."
Barber continued: "We say to the media, this election is not about foolish things. It is about whether we will have democracy. And it is not about one candidate; it is about the people mobilizing and organizing, and you will not drive us to despair."
Participants also spoke out against the Supreme Court's decision on Friday in City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnsonthat cities can enforce bans on sleeping outside in public even if they are not able to provide shelter space for unhoused individuals.
"A Supreme Court that says you can send somebody to jail for not having a home, you can send them to jail for sleeping, but then they turn around and say those with money can have unprecedented power in our election, that is too low down for a nation," Barber said.
Theoharis agreed.
"It is wrong for the highest court in the land to criminalize homelessness, to rule that you cannot breathe in public on a bench, in your car, or in a park if you do not have a home," Theoharis said.
Progressive Dems Call for Codifying Chevron After 'Dangerous' Supreme Court Ruling
"I plan to introduce legislation to protect the government's policymaking ability that existed under Chevron that has worked for the last 40 years," Sen. Ed Markey said.
Following the Supreme Court's ruling on Friday overturning the so-called Chevron doctrine—which instructed courts to defer to federal agencies' reasonable interpretations of laws passed by Congress as they regulate everything from food safety to labor rights to climate pollution—progressive lawmakers vowed to take action to protect the power of these agencies to shield the public from toxic chemicals and unscrupulous employers.
Legislators expressed concerns about the impacts of the court's 6-3 ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, which ended a 40-year precedent established by Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council in 1984.
"Now, with this ill-advised decision, judges must no longer defer to the decisions about Americans' health, safety, and welfare made by agencies with technical and scientific expertise in their fields," Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said in a statement. "MAGA extremist Republicans and their big business cronies are rejoicing as they look forward to creating a regulatory black hole that destroys fundamental protections for every American in this country."
"This unhinged Supreme Court needs to stop legislating from the bench, and we must pass sweeping reform to hold them accountable."
"I plan to introduce legislation to protect the government's policymaking ability that existed under Chevron that has worked for the last 40 years," Markey said.
Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) called the ruling "dangerous" and urged Congress to "immediately pass" the Stop Corporate Capture Act, which she introduced in March 2023.
In a statement Friday, Jayapal said the act was "the only bill that codifies Chevron deference, strengthens the federal-agency rulemaking process, and ensures that rulemaking is guided by the public interest—not what's good for wealthy corporations."
The act would codify Chevron by providing "statutory authority for the judicial principle that requires courts to defer to an agency's reasonable or permissible interpretation of a federal law when the law is silent or ambiguous."
In addition, it would:
- Require anyone submitting a study as part of a comment period on a regulation to disclose who funded it;
- Only allow federal agencies to take part in the negotiated rulemaking process;
- Create an Office of the Public Advocate to increase public participation in the process of crafting regulations;
- Make public companies that knowingly lie in the comment period on a proposed regulation liable for a fine of at least $250,000 for a first offense and at least $1 million for a second; and
- Empower agencies to reissue rules that were rescinded under the Congressional Review Act.
The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, a group of more than 160 organizations mobilizing for stronger public protections, also called on Congress to pass the Stop Corporate Capture Act.
"The bill is a comprehensive blueprint for modernizing, improving, and strengthening the regulatory system to better protect the public," the coalition wrote in response to Friday's ruling. "It would ensure greater public input into regulatory decisions, promote scientific integrity, and restore our government's ability to deliver results for workers, consumers, public health, and our environment."
Jayapal also called on Congress to "enact sweeping oversight measures to rein in corruption and billionaire influence at the Supreme Court, whose far-right extremist majority routinely flouts basic ethics, throws out precedent, and legislates from the bench to benefit the wealthiest and most powerful."
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) similarly recommended congressional action to address court corruption. In a statement, she called the decision "a power grab for the corrupt Supreme Court who continues to do the bidding of greedy corporations."
"The MAGA Court just overruled 40 years of precedent that empowered federal agencies to hold powerful corporations accountable, protect our workplaces and public health, and ensure that we have clean water and air," Tlaib continued. "This unhinged Supreme Court needs to stop legislating from the bench, and we must pass sweeping reform to hold them accountable."
In the meantime, the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards said that the ruling did not strip regulatory bodies of their authority to pass new rules to protect the public and the environment.
"This decision is a gift to big corporations, making it easier for them to challenge rules to ensure clean air and water, safe workplace and products, and fair commercial and financial practices," said Public Citizen president and coalition co-chair Robert Weissman. "But the decision is no excuse for regulators to stop doing their jobs. They must continue to follow the law and uphold their missions to protect consumers, workers, and our environment."
Iranian Snap Elections Head to Runoff After Reformist Pezeshkian Takes Narrow Lead
A total of 24,735,185 people voted, representing a turnout of around 40%—the lowest turnout in an Iranian election since the 1979 revolution.
Reformist legislator Masoud Pezeshkian and conservative former nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili will face off in a second round of voting after neither candidate secured a majority of the votes in Iran's election Friday.
Surprise elections in Iran were called after conservative President Ebrahim Raisi died in a helicopter crash on May 19, opening what one expert called a "void in the Islamic Republic's leadership."
"None of the candidates could garner the absolute majority of the votes, therefore, the first and second contenders who got the most votes will be referred to the Guardian Council," Interior Ministry spokesperson Mohsen Eslami announced on Saturday.
"Pezeshkian appears to have done well enough to turn out a core base of support that gives him a plausible path to victory, but he will likely need to secure support from Iranians who opted to stay home yesterday in order to triumph."
Pezeshkian and Jalili will now advance to the runoff election on July 5.
After Friday's voting, Pezeshkian took a slight lead with 10.45 million votes over Jalili's 9.47 million, according to an initial tally reported by The Guardian. Both of them edged out conservative parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf with 3.38 million votes and former Justice Minister Mostafa Pourmohammadi with 206,000.
A total of 24,735,185 people voted, representing a turnout of around 40%. That is the lowest turnout in an Iranian election since the 1979 revolution, according to Middle East Eye.
"This demonstrates that a majority of the Iranian public remains disaffected from participation in the Islamic Republic's restricted elections, which are neither free nor fair," the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) wrote in a statement on Saturday. "The Iranian people have suffered manifold outrages from their government and circumstances, including the brutal crackdown on popular protests in 2022 and earlier and the failure of past moderate and reformist figures to deliver lasting change."
"As a result," NIAC continued, "a majority appear to have concluded for now that they would rather stay home than risk legitimizing a government they do not believe in. The inclusion of a reformist on the ticket in Masoud Pezeshkian may have boosted turnout in some quarters, but did little overall to arrest the slide in turnout in the first round."
Reform leader Abbas Akhoundi said: "About 60% of voters did not participate in the elections. Their message was clear. They object to the institutionalized discrimination in the existing governance and do not accept that they are second-class citizens and that a minority impose their will on the majority of Iranian society as first-class citizens."
The outcome on July 5 could depend on whether or not turnout increases.
NIAC observed that Pezeshkian's lead was surprising, given that low-turnout elections usually favor more conservative candidates.
"Typically, reformists have only triumphed when turnout reaches near record highs with a vast majority of public participation," the group wrote. "Pezeshkian appears to have done well enough to turn out a core base of support that gives him a plausible path to victory, but he will likely need to secure support from Iranians who opted to stay home yesterday in order to triumph."
Because power in Iran is ultimately held by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the winner of the presidential election is unlikely to substantially shift policies such as Iran's nuclear program or its support for militant groups in the Middle East, according to Reuters.
However, NIAC said the difference between the two candidates was "about as wide a difference as the Islamic Republic's restricted elections would allow."
Pezeshkian, a former health minister who represents Tabriz in Parliament, advocates for economic and social reform. He expressed regret over the death of Mahsa Amini after she was arrested for allegedly wearing her hijab incorrectly—an event that sparked nationwide protests in 2022—and also criticized the Raisi government for lack of transparency during the protests.
"We will respect the hijab law, but there should never be any intrusive or inhumane behavior toward women," Pezeshkian said after voting on Friday.
In foreign policy, he supports direct diplomacy with the U.S. and has expressed interest in renegotiating the 2015 Iran nuclear deal or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
Jalili, who represents Khamenei on the Supreme National Security Council, supports even stricter hijab laws, advocates for internet restrictions, and opposes the JCPOA or any negotiations with Western countries.
Because Pezeshkian was the only reformist in the first round of elections, he may struggle in a second round unless turnout increases, as supporters of the other conservative candidates would vote for Jalili, according to The Guardian.
However, a reformist newspaper editor told the Middle East Eye that many people who had sat out the first round of elections may vote in the second round to prevent a win by Jalili. The editor also predicted that many people who voted for Ghalibaf in the first round would back Pezeshkian in the second.
"At least 40% of his supporters, who are moderate and pragmatic conservatives, would vote for Pezeshkian as they fear Jalili's domestic policies and dead-end foreign policy," the editor said.
Ahead of the election, Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft predicted that voters would ultimately decide based on a desire to improve "their increasingly dire economic situation in the medium term."
"They are looking for the candidate who will most likely be able to reduce the price of meat," Parsi wrote.
He did predict the winner could make a difference in Iran-U.S. relations, but only up to a point.
"Expectations for an opening between the U.S. and Iran should be kept low, even if Pezeshkian wins," Parsi concluded. "The problems between the U.S. and Iran are deeper today than they were in 2013, the trust gap is wider, reversing Iran's nuclear advances is going to be more difficult and politically more costly. On top of all that, Iran has more options in today's increasingly multipolar world."