Salesforce has been on a quest to achieve gender pay equity across its entire workforce since 2015, when CEO Marc Benioff first announced that the company had spent $3 million assessing and closing pay gaps between its male and female employees, affecting 6 percent of its 17,000 employees, or about 1,000 people. However, as Benioff told CBS’s Lesley Stahl on “60 Minutes” last weekend, he and his leadership team at Salesforce soon discovered that closing the pay gap once wasn’t enough:
Marc Benioff: We did it the first time. We were so happy with ourselves. It was great. Then all of a sudden we kind of did our audit again and the same thing happened again. We’re, like, “How can this be?” But it turned out we had bought about two dozen companies. And guess what? When you buy a company, you just don’t buy its technology, you don’t buy its culture, you also buy its pay practices.
Lesley Stahl: So they would come in and the men were paid much more and then that got eaten up into your statistics, into your audit. So you had to redo the whole thing all over again, costing as much as the first time.
Marc Benioff: It cost us as much as the first time. In total, it’s now cost us $6 million.
Lesley Stahl: Are you gonna have to do this audit every year—
Marc Benioff: More than every year. We’re gonna have to do this continuously. This is a constant cadence. You’re gonna have to constantly monitor and keep track of that, but that’s easy today. We run our company the same way every company is run with computers and technology and software. … [T]here’s never been an easier time to make this change.
In a blog post on Tuesday, Salesforce Chief People Officer Cindy Robbins provided more detail about this year’s pay equity adjustment and how the company plans to manage the process going forward, now that they have realized the importance of addressing pay gaps continuously:
A regulation mandated by the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation and adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2015 requires public companies to publish the ratio between the compensation of the CEO and the median annual compensation of every other employee in their proxy statements, starting with the 2017 fiscal year. The regulation was left in place by the Trump administration, although the SEC has made it slightly easier for companies to comply.
Not surprisingly, as companies have started to share this information, much attention has been paid to how much CEOs earn. The net result of this information coming out is the rather unsurprising insight that most CEOs make a lot of money. Companies have rightly been more worried about reporting the median employee salary, which some business groups have said is difficult to calculate and to communicate.
The intent of the rule was that by publishing this information, companies would have an incentive to raise the average wage of their employees to lower their CEO-median employee ratio in comparison to their peers. After all, as the denominator grows bigger, the ratio gets smaller. While there is certainly some truth to this effect, a much more interesting effect is emerging as companies release information about the median wage of their employees. Some of these disclosures are eye-popping; Facebook, for instance, reported a median employee salary of over $240,000, according to the Wall Street Journal, but of course this doesn’t count all the subcontracted workers it uses for services like security, cleaning, and food service at its facilities.
One of the observations we have made about the reporting of the median employee pay data is that, by definition, half of employees are paid below average. While some employees realize that they are paid below average, and are accepting of it, for a significant number of employees this certainly comes as alarming news. But now that more companies are reporting this information, we get to see how median employee compensation compares across companies. Deb Lifshey, Managing Director at Pearl Meyer & Partners, LLC, discussed these comparisons in a recent post at the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation:
Public companies in the US recently began publishing the ratios between the pay of their CEO and that of their median employee in compliance with a regulation adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2015 that went into effect in the 2017 fiscal year. The regulation, prescribed by the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation, had been a potential target for revision, or reversal by the Trump administration, but major institutional investors, particularly activist funds, pressured the SEC not to delay or discard the rule.
As the due date for disclosure approached, executives expressed anxiety about how to communicate these figures to their employees, as well as how the media and shareholders would react. With regard to employees, the concern was not so much that they would learn their CEO was earning an outrageously large salary, but more that half of them were about to learn that they earned less than the median employee and would want to know why.
So far, over 500 companies have published their disclosures, and according to an analysis last month by ISS Analytics, “the numbers have landed all over the map,” from 1.87 for Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett, to 2,526 for Aptiv PLC’s Kevin Clark (the median ratio for S&P 500 companies was 166:1). The SEC rule requires companies to compare salary alone, so the ratios don’t account for what CEOs earn from capital gains and dividends.
Because of this limitation, David McCann recently commented at CFO, the rule isn’t as helpful to investors as it’s supposed to be, as it allows some companies to massively undercount how much money their CEOs really make. McCann points to the examples of the private equity firms Apollo Global Management, which reported that its CEO Leon Black was paid $250,888 last year, and Carlyle Group, whose founding co-CEOs David Rubenstein, William Conway, and Daniel D’Aniello each earned $281,315. These numbers are only slightly higher than the pay of the hedge funds’ median employees, but, McCann argues, they are also meaningless:
Several large enterprises in the UK have been taking heat from investors over the sizes of the bonuses they are paying out to their top-level executives. At Unilever, Sky News reported on Saturday, investors are expected to raise objections at its annual shareholder meeting next month over the millions of pounds in bonuses it paid out this year to its CEO and CFO:
Sky News has learnt that the advisory service run by the Investment Association (IA), the fund managers’ body, has issued a “red-top” warning in relation to Unilever’s remuneration report. … City sources said on Friday that the IA “red-top” related to the decision by Unilever’s remuneration committee to award annual bonuses worth €2.3m to Paul Polman, its chief executive, and €1.1m to Graeme Pitkethly, the chief financial officer.
The bonuses were the maximum possible under the company’s existing remuneration policy, which is being overhauled this year. The IVIS service is understood to have been angered by that decision because Unilever’s underlying sales growth for last year fell short of the target figure by a small margin.
Unilever is not the only company where investors are balking at big payouts to executives. The Financial Times’ Attracta Mooney casts this as a broader trend, pointing also to the investment company Melrose, which specializes in acquisitions and turnarounds of underperforming companies, which has been subject to criticism this week after announcing that four of its executives would earn total pay packages of over £42 million for 2017. The construction company Persimmon is also taking heat for its plans to pay CEO Jeff Fairburn a bonus of £110 million as part of a bonus scheme described as among the country’s most generous (or, by critics, as “obscene”).
The KFC Foundation, the charitable arm of the fast food chain, is providing a new benefit for employees of both corporate-owned and franchised KFC restaurants in the US: personal finance coaching. According to a press release from the foundation, the MyChange program, offered in partnership with the mobile financial planning service company Sum180, “fosters personalized financial wellness and teaches foundational personal finance skills” to employees, combining a confidential financial wellness app with a personal adviser who can help them budget, plan, and learn more about how to manage their personal finances.
The MyChange program comes in addition to several other educational benefits KFC offers its US employees through the foundation:
MyChange joins several other KFC Foundation offerings, including Rise with GEDworks (personalized high school credential assistance), the KFC Family Fund (hardship and crisis assistance), and the REACH Educational Grant Program (college tuition assistance at $2,000, $2,500 and $3,000 award levels), rounding out the employee assistance organization to support the whole wellbeing of KFC’s restaurant employees.
Krista Snider, managing director of the KFC Foundation, tells Amanda Eisenberg at Employee Benefit News more about how the program came to life:
Last month, the US Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour division announced that it was preparing a six-month pilot of the Payroll Audit Independent Determination (PAID) program, to launch this month, which will allow employers to self-report potential overtime and minimum wage violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act and resolve them by paying employees the back wages they are owed, avoiding additional fines and the expensive and time-consuming process of litigation. A similar program was offered under the Bush administration during the 2000s, but the Wage and Hour division took a more aggressive enforcement approach under former President Barack Obama, often assessing double damages.
Wage and hour disputes already being litigated or investigated are not eligible for resolution through the PAID program, nor can employers use it to resolve the same violation twice. Advocates of the PAID program consider it a win-win for employers and employees, allowing underpaid workers to be made whole much more quickly, without having to pay attorney fees. Critics, however, say it goes against the division’s role as an enforcer of employment law and lets unscrupulous employers off the hook, while also expressing concern over having voluntary self-audits take the place of Labor Department investigations.
Among those critics are a number of state attorneys general, who co-signed a letter sent by New York’s Attorney General Eric Schneiderman on Wednesday to Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta informing him that they had serious concerns about the PAID program and would not refrain from pursuing wage and hour investigations under state law against employers who participate in it:
The UK’s Employment Appeal Tribunal has overturned a controversial ruling from a lower court that a new father whose employer had declined to enhance his statutory pay while using shared parental leave had engaged in sex discrimination, Ashleigh Wight reports at Personnel Today:
Last year, the employment tribunal ruled that it was direct sex discrimination to allow new father Mr Ali only two weeks’ leave on full pay, when female staff were allowed to take 14 weeks’ maternity leave on their full salary. …
The EAT found the employment tribunal had erroneously interpreted that Mr Ali’s circumstances were comparable to those of a woman who had recently given birth as both had leave to care for their child. The EAT said the purpose of maternity pay and leave is to recognise the “health and wellbeing of a woman in pregnancy, confinement and after recent childbirth”.
Mr. Ali, a former Telefónica employee, had transferred to a job at Capita but remained covered by his former employer’s policies, which offered 14 weeks of enhanced maternity pay to mothers on leave but only two weeks’ leave at full pay to new fathers. His wife had returned to work not long after giving birth, based on medical advice that doing so might help alleviate her postpartum depression, leaving Mr. Ali to care for the baby. When he was told that he was only entitled to the statutory rate prescribed in the UK Shared Parental Leave law for his paternity leave beyond the first two weeks, he sued, and a tribunal ruled in his favor last June.
The nonprofit organization Working Families, which advocates for parental leave and other work-life balance benefits for UK workers, cheered the appeals tribunal’s ruling, saying that a final ruling in the plaintiff’s favor would have resulted in employers abandoning enhanced parental pay for mothers rather than extending it to fathers as well, Wight adds: