just kind of mentioned it -- to regulate these huge salaries and bonuses and bring us in a position closer to the japanese compensation where they are only allowed so much in comparison to their lowest employee. what can we do? you touched upon it,. you said there was a bill in congress. thank you. guest: in addition to this pending legislation, there already are a number of companies that have chosen to give their shareholders this advisory votes on pay. and to make sure they get a good result, a number of those countries -- companies are starting to reach out to shareholders to websites and conversations to find out what is on the shareholders' minds, what do you want us to do differently about executive pay practices? many shareholders do not take

advantage of this right they have. and there is another way to express your dissatisfaction, and that is by withholding your vote for the election of board members. every vote has a compensation committee and those positions are coming up for reelection and most of the time they get overwhelmingly reelected. if you do not like them, vote them out. host: our next call comes from san diego, robyn on the line for independents. caller: high-level of compensation for the executives, $600,000, millions of dollars per year, and then they want to turn around and say they are paying their employees to much and they want to complain that $65,000 is a lot of money. i find that fascinating. there anti-union. they do not want to protect people in their jobs. they're making so much money

that they can buy a yacht on cash. and yet, they want to tell their employees that $33,000 is a lot of money, or something like that. and also, just the tax loopholes and that they make so much money compared -- so much been a percentage wise compared to someone who makes $35,000 parabolan -- who makes $35,000. guest: i really have no comment. i think she raises a good issue. there are some ceos that are cognizant and have decided to take a cut in pay because of that. host: article in the "wall street journal" addresses that. you've got a little blue box here that shows the ceos that takoma will pay for their jobs

in 2009. their total direct -- that took nominal pay for their jobs in 2009. their total direct compensation -- let's see, warren buffett with $100,000. steve jobs at apple, $1. kenneth lewis at bank of america, he took no pay at all. and john mackey of wholefoods took $1. what is the advantage of taking these small salaries in the beginning and then going for the big payoffs at the end when their companies do better? guest: 1 cents, it does a line there -- in a sense, it does align their fortunes with the shareholders. but you have to remember, some of this is good pr. you've got these tiny packages being taken by people who work founders or co-founders, who owned huge chunks of the company

already. not taking cash is not really very much sweat for them. or you have people like ken lewis, who in fact, was ordered by the government to give back what he had already made and stop taking pay for the rest of the year because, thank you very much, the rest of america was already bailing out his company. host: back to the phones. we're talking to joann lublin about ceo pay and perks. the next call is from michigan, mary, go ahead. caller: this is a game where you are going to pay the executives and it is going to go right into the pocket, and that does not happen. it is going to go into the coffers of the government or into the unions, who have a lot of money as well. i think there is some activity as to the rich people are,

verses those who make good money and are inspired by these people who make a big success of themselves. it is sort of the american story, which i think we have divided people and made them the enemy. and some types we are writing of our own noses to spite our faces. -- and sometimes we are cutting off our own noses to spite our faces. guest: i do not really have reaction to our -- her comments. i think she raises some good points, but so do the other callers. host: have a twitter message -- what are your thoughts on that? guest: we do, in fact, still own aig because the taxpayers tak--e

taxpayers stake in that company is very large. on either hand, he has put a pretty big collar on the level of pay at aig and a number of these other bailed out companies. and some of the practices imposed on these be about companies have been spreading to companies that have not been getting bailout. host: back to the phones. the hagerstown, md., dave or for democrats. -- hagerstown, md., dave on the line for democrats. caller: the man on the street does not really make a big difference to the ceo pay, the comment you made, let me just give you some insight. everybody in the whole world needs to quit working. the ceos could not make any money. it is the productive people that's what every day -- that

sweat every day that enable his pay. i am 26 years old. i make $11 per hour. i work 40 hours a week and i have two kids, a 1-year-old and a 5-year-old. my wife is a stay at home mom due to the fact that you can address anybody. -- you cannot trust anybody. i have asked for a raise. i have been there over a year now. my attendance is perfect. i have a week's paid vacation and i have not touched it. i have never been laid. i deposited checks for my boss, the owner of the company. i have looked at those checks. this guide deposited what he called a small check from -- this guy deposited what he called a small check from a company, for under $50,000. now i look at a citibank -- $450,000. now i look at citibank. i have had an account there for years.

i worked there for years. i worked the night shift because i could make an extra 80 cents per hour. the co got a raise of $125,000. everybody just forget and stops and thinks that it was as american people that are out here working every day and struggling that people in positions of power that have the power to do anything on capitol hill or wherever you are, the money to do these kinds of bills and to make all these kinds of things, you do not have the money unless the tax payers are working. i believe there should be some kind of kick back. not a $400 stimulus that obama gave. i am struggling.

i live on section eight. this is not the way i was brought up. host: and dave, we are going to live -- leave it there. you have given us a lot to work with. guest: i think you've raised some very valid points, and i think if you're a very smart executive these days, you are totally aware of the fact that your success is based on the success of hundreds and not thousands -- if not thousands of workers, and you thank them every day. but you also raise a good point that these ceos live in a bubble and they forget that a lot of people are working much harder than they realize and making little for their efforts. host: next up is a trial in west virginia -- kyle in west virginia. caller: thank you very much for see again. i think it is an incredible public service. i'm sorry, i was listening

passively when i heard that there was a bill in congress for shareholders to determine the executive pay of their ceos. that is a little crazy. host: why is that crazy? caller: i think that is the government overstepping its bounds, again. in my state, west virginia, we're really worried about this cap and trade and the epa regulation, especially as you know, there was an explosion down there, god bless their souls. west virginia is 49 out of 50 in per-capita income. when we start to put the pressure on these large companies, it does not really affect the people in the upper tiers. it starts to affect my house. west virginia gets 40% of the

power of just from kolk for 50% of the population -- from coal for 50% of the population. we're all going to pay. host: we will leave it there. thanks for your call. guest: one point that he missed was the fact that this bill in congress would not require companies to pay any attention to the results of the shareholder vote. it would be an advisory vote. it would have no binding effect on what boards do in terms of how they pay ceos or other top executives, but based on experience in other countries, board will pay attention, especially if there is a very large negative vote. they will take that as a wake-up call that they need to be communicating better with their shareholders, or maybe they need to be rethinking some of their practices. even if this bill does not pass

congress, this will be the way that companies do business because so many of them have already done it voluntarily. host: there is a charge of six group executives that is connected with your article about the biggest percentage is in changes in total compensation for 2009. the people on the top tier going up, iraq -- roger penske had an increase of to wondered 85%. mike jackson had an increase of 108%. and steven mcmillan had an increase of 104%. at the other end, going down, t is there any significant

difference in the performance of the companies that caused their salaries to go up or down, or some kind of internal workings they were dealing with? guest: again, what we are talking about is not just souring, but their total compensation -- salary, bonuses, stock grants. and behind each one of these ceos there is a tale that is linked to what happened the year before. in the case for -- in the case of andrea jung, she got a very large special grant because the board was trying to reward her. she did not get as big a grant in 2009. some of the others changed because there was a change of the package between 2008 and 2009.

host: how was andrea jung so special to the folks at avon that they believed they wanted to reward her? guest: i believe they thought they were rewarded her for having come through a very extensive process and put the company back on the road to financial health. but many of these proxy's, they're written by lawyers and is often hard to discern what was the logic behind all this. bonuses went up last year as a group and get, profits went down. that struck me as a bit contradictory. host: our next call comes from kansas city, missouri, on a power line for independents. go ahead, sir. at fourth, turn down your television -- forest, turn down

your television. caller: you have it divided up as republicans and democrats and independents, but it should be divided as rich and poor. the top 10% money earners run this country. they brought our country -- our congress, they bought our president. -- they bought our current chris, they bought our president. the supreme court acts like they're ok. and the media has a starting a month each other when we need to be fighting against the top 10% ruling the rest of us. thank you very much. host: joann lublin, is it time to take to the streets with pitchforks and torch's? guest: if you do not like the way the country is run, you should vote for somebody else to

hold your highest offices. paul host: -- host: next up, antoine on the line from d.c. caller: if i was a ceo of a big company like wal-mart or mcdonald's or something like that, if i wanted to bring down the mood of the people that make less than me, i would just offer them small packages. for companies where people make $20 to $30 an hour, i would raise their salaries by $4. for people who make between $10.20 dollars, i would raise their salary by $6 -- for between $10 and $20, and would raise their sovereign by $6. and i would offer them stock options, you know, better packages, where i purchased 50

shares of the stock and i offer them that in their hiring package. host: before i let you go, do you think this would increase the performance of you and your co-workers if you have these kinds of options built into your compensation packages? caller: yes, and i believe it would raise morale and when you pay people well, it brings out the best in them. they feel pride of work. guest: you could turn that argument on its head. your saying that if you pay people well, that would bring back -- bring out the best of them at work. then why aren't so many of the callers saying it is terrible -- why are so many of the callers saying it is terrible that we pay ceos so well? it is a contradiction in terms. on the of iran, i have heard about companies that have bonus -- on the other hand, i have heard about companies that have potus plans where nobody at the top gets a bonus unless the

company reaches -- that have bonus plans where nobody at the top get a bonus unless the company reaches a certain level of productivity first. host: next up is tracie from kansas. caller: the company that i worked for was a company that are sold to several different times. finally, an oil company bought it and they gave us a package with a 401k. i was not making enough of the time to contribute to it, so they did. but no, i became disabled and they sent me -- but now, i became disabled and they sent me a deal that i am fully invested. my daughter and my granddaughter will get my retirement, but it will be enough that they will not have to worry about anything. how the company not done that

for us, and the ceos not with that type of package together for us, i would be sitting on disability with nothing extra. even with the raids on social security and everything else, it kind of put us -- the rays are on social security and everything else, it kind of put us back because the of the insurance. now this will take care of that. the ceos that bought the company, i think they were looking out for the workers and the workers did appreciate it and they did do a heck of a job for the people. host: we will leave it there. joellen lublin, go ahead. guest: i do not have any comments on his observations, but i do think he does show that there are people -- there are companies that do look out for the people on the bottom. host: joann lublin and started

as a reporter in san francisco and moved to washington in april of 1979 to cover labor issues, housing and urban affairs. she is now the management news editor. what exactly is "management news?" that is pretty much -- guest: that is pretty much everything going on in corporate america. corporate executive pay, governance, the turnover at the top, executive recruiting industry, and i also write a carrier of advice program, which helps out some of the people watching this program today. host: are you finding that more people are looking for career advice in the rank and file, or upper management ceos looking for career advice as well? guest: i get a reaction to my columns from people at all walks of life, all ages, all levels. i tried to do what i can to come up with topics that i think will

relate to the issues they are facing either on the job or in looking for work. my comments in today's paper, it looks at the issue of people getting rehired who have been unemployed for a long time. what are the, stresses you are experiencing after having been unemployed for so long and now you're starting a new job. host: our next call comes from florida on the independent line, bernie, go ahead. caller: i'm concerned about the natural distribution of talents and benefits are neither just or unjust, nor is it and just that people are born into society -- nor is it and just that people are born into society at a particular position. their simple facts. just or unjust is the way people deal with these facts. someone who has a particular talent holds a moral obligation

to return conjurations to the social structure. i was one -- to return contributions to the social structure. i was wondering that -- whether they because of these talents and bonuses, should they be put into a particular tax bracket because of their car tradition to society? sure host: those who make more get taxed more? -- host: should those who make more get taxed more? guest: that is the prevailing wisdom among democrats controlling congress right now. it was not the prevailing wisdom of republicans when they controlled congress. host: alan from pennsylvania. caller: these businesses were uc executives making huge compensation, they're not legitimate businesses.

they're just money changers, their middlemen. -- they are middlemen. good companies, good ceos who play -- who pay their employees well tend to be productive. the nonproductive middle men tend to make all the money up the talk. guest: i think the folks in the insurance industry might take issue with you categorizing them as money changers or middlemen. you could extend that to the entire service sector, which would wipe out a fair number of industries, which would wipe out the credit card companies, the banks, pretty much any industry that is offering a service as opposed to a good. i think people would argue with you that the company can be many things just changing money. host: georgia on the line from

-- for democrats -- georgia, for democrats. caller: i think it really is all about executive compensation. there has been such a transfer of wealth that it really is class warfare. i think people need to start boycotting the top 5% in this country who own about 60% or more of everything. just let these folks do their own yard work, do all their own maintenance, and see how much of their money they can spend. host: you know there's always going to be somebody who will be willing to go out there and do that guard work for the money, right? caller: that is right, and that is the unfortunate thing. that is where people need to start pulling together. guest: i think it is an interesting concept. it is not likely to be realized

in yours or my lifetime. host: next call from mississippi. caller: you have a situation now where corporations at one time were not even allowed to own land in this country. now they own the government because they work with our current hand-in-hand. the idea of -- they work with our government hand in hand. the situation is much like it was once said, if you find yourself doing the same thing over and over and getting the same results, you have to do something different. where do we go with this? we have a situation where things are out of hand. 1% of the power in this country is controlling every one of us. and they're spreading their

disease to china and everywhere else to a capitalistic exploitation. -- through capitalistic exploitation. host: we're going to leave it there. guest: the point i raised earlier, if you do not like the way our government is run, then vote them out of office and put some people in that you think will respond to the issues and concerns about how you think the government are to be run. host: what is the general statement by the open " wall street journal" about statements made by president obama about trying to bring this in? guest: i think it varies over the map. by think they have been very chastened over the financial meltdown. some companies that were in a big hurry to pay the money back have also found out to be a sobering experience. but i also thing that some are

crying wolf. they have said they cannot accept these limits hand-in-hand with the bailout because they will lose people to foreign companies. they will go work for a of hedge funds. yes, there has been some of that, but i think a lot of it has been exaggerated. host: in this morning's financial times, they talk about the treasury making $10 million from charles. -- from tarp. do you think that as the banks and the companies that receive this tarp money on wall street, as they start to pay this off and separate themselves from government that they are going to go back to business the way

it was done before the financial crisis? guest: i believe that is their fondest hope. we saw some of that inner city that came out last week. host: next up his bill from putnam, ill., on the line for republicans. caller: last i looked, we do not live in japan or a foreign country. the we live in the united states, which is supposed to be a free capitalistic society. the democrats and socialists talk about going after the high paid ceos. does this amount to the sports people that make obscene in comes? -- obscene incomes? does this apply to politicians from arkansas in chicago that cries to be politicians, come up millionaires? -- not rise to be politicians, come out millionaires?

these people are keeping us working and making good money. let them make it. these people are smarter than i am. let them make it. host: joann lublin, you've got the last word. guest: i think that people -- the point of view would certainly be shared by a lot of ceos i have known in my time. host: joellen goodland is the managing news editor at -- joann lublin is the managing news editor at the "wall street journal." thanks for joining us. and thanks to all who have participated in today's program. we will see you all again tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. eastern. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] . .