back to article Oracle investors told not to let Catz and co get the cream – reports

Oracle investors have reportedly been told to vote against the company’s executive pay plan, which would give bosses pay packets worth more than $100m. According to Bloomberg, the proxy adviser Institutional Shareholder Services – which provides advice on asset management – told clients not to rubber-stamp Big Red’s big pay …

  1. Pascal Monett Silver badge
    WTF?

    "employees get unconscious bias training"

    How exactly does that work ?

    Speakers in every room with subliminal audio messages ?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "employees get unconscious bias training"

      I'm afraid the handling of a real issue is getting out of hand, what's next, re-education camps?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Unconscious bias training

      A child and his father are involved in a nasty car accident. The father dies at the scene and the child is rushed to the hospital for an emergency operation.

      The surgeon scrubs up and then looks down at the child and with a look of shock says "I'm sorry I can't operate on this child he's my son".

      How is this the case?

      1. Natalie Gritpants

        Re: Unconscious bias training

        Even Jesus has to follow medical ethics?

      2. jmch Silver badge
        Thumb Up

        Re: Unconscious bias training

        "I'm sorry I can't operate on this child he's my son"

        old one but good one

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Unconscious bias training

        Today, with same sex marriages approved, and the business of rented poor women to deliver babies to wealthy couples thriving, it can just be the other father...

    3. Throatwarbler Mangrove Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: "employees get unconscious bias training"

      I'll answer your question with a thought question: what is "flesh" tone?

  2. Throatwarbler Mangrove Silver badge
    Go

    Good

    Possibly missed in the usual hand-wringing by white males concerned that they might not receive as much automatic privilege as usual:

    "Ongoing equity mega-awards to top executives perpetuate a pay-for-performance disconnect."

    If you are in any kind of rank-and-file position (by which I mean anything below C-level), this can only be good news. The C-level execs have reaped huge benefits for relatively small amounts of actual labor. If large institutional investors are finally twigging to this fact, it's a Good Thing on the grounds that those investors wield a significant amount of power with the stock that they hold. If a lid is finally put on how much people like Larry Ellison can skim off the top of a company's value, perhaps some investments will be made in the people who are actually working their asses off to make the company successful, only to find, in Oracle's case, that their compensation is yanked out from under them.

    But by all means go back to your identity politics.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    When is the *earnings* gap going to get some thoughtful attention?

    The question isn't whether there's an earnings gap. Women earn less than men. The question is: is there a wage gap?

    That is to say, something that isn't caused by:

    - Women working part time

    - Women choosing jobs to do what they want rather than get the highest paying job, as the (present or hoped future) spouse will take a job he likes less to make sure the family's provided for

    - Women who have taken time off (e.g. to have a family) and now have less experience than men at the same position who've been working through that period

    - Women choosing flexitime, which is less valuable than someone who's there all the time

    - Women not generally do dangerous jobs, which get paid "danger money"

    - Women not working paid overtime (90% a male effort)

    - Women wanting to retire earlier and let their partner work alone, and so not continuing to get a last five years' worth of pay rises

    From what I read, accounting for those obvious factors pulls wages within 5% - one study I read said that women in their 20s earn more than men, because they have the same qualifications and experience, but they also have a huge lobbying and shaming industry on their side (whether they contribute to it or not), so they become more valuable as quota.

    Are we forever going to unthinkingly bandy around the term "pay gap"? Where are all the journalists with brains?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like