Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Portland observer. (Portland, Or.) 1970-current | View Entire Issue (Oct. 2, 2013)
Page 24 Minority & Small Business Week October 2, 2013 New Prices Effective May 1,2010 Martin Cleaning Service Carpet & Upholstery Cleaning Residential & Commercial Services Minimum Service CHG $45.00 A sm all distance/travel charge m ay be applied CARPET CLEANING 2 Cleaning Areas or more $30.00 Each Area Pre-Spray Traffic Areas (Includes: 1 sm all H allw ay) 1 Cleaning Area (only) $40.00 Includes Pre-Spray Traffic Area (Hallway Extra) Stairs (12-16 stairs - With O ther Services): $25.00 Area/Oriental Rugs: $25.00 Minimum Area/Oriental Rugs (Wool): $40.00Minimum Heavily Soiled Area: Additional $10.00 each area (RequiringExtensivePre-Spraying) UPHOLSTERY CLEANING Sofa: $69.00 Loveseat: $49.00 Sectional: $ 109 - $ 139 Chair or Recliner: $25 - $49 Throw Pillows (With th & > Other Services): $5.00 % ADDITIONAL SERVICES • Area & Oriental Rug Cleaning • Auto/Boat/RV Cleaning • Deodorizing & Pet - x Odor Treatment Spot & Stain Removal Service Scotchguard Protection • Minor Water Damage Services SEE CURRENT FLYER FOR ADDITIONAL PRICES & SERVICES Call for Appointment (503) 281-3949 A Golden Rule to Chip Away at Inequality Turning the tide on corporate pay BY S am P izzigati W a tc h in g grow n m en fulm i nate in public can be u n n e r v in g . M ichael Pi w o w ar and D a n ie l G allagher — tw o distinctly C E O - friendly m em bers o f the federal S e curities and E xchange C om m ission — recently did plenty o f fu lm in at ing. P iw o w ar and G allagher had little choice. T hey w ere trying to defend the indefensible — the skyrocket ing pay o f A m erica’s top executives — against a com m on-sense reform that law m akers w rote into federal law three years ago. T hat law, the D odd-F rank A ct, m andates that corporations an n u ally reveal the ratio betw een w hat they pay their C E O and m edian, or m ost typical, w orker. M an d ates like this d o n ’t ju s t au tom atically go into effect w hen a bill becom es law. Federal regulatory agencies have to draw up rules that spell out how any new m andate will be enforced. SE C regulators began ru le-m ak ing for pay ratio disclosure — D odd- F ra n k 's section 9 5 3 (b )— soon after the leg islatio n ’s passage. B ut in tensely hostile corporate pressure quickly slow ed everything dow n. In mid-September, after 37 months o f delay, a ratio-disclosure rule fi nally cam e up fo r form al SE C co n sideration. In the h o u r-long SEC debate, com m issioners Piw ow ar and G allag h er both did their best — and then som e — to channel C orporate A m erica’s unrelenting hostility. G allag h er labeled D o d d -F ran k ’s 953(b) a “rotten m andate.” Piw ow ar ranted that the rule w ould “u n am biguously harm investors.” C o m plying w ith the m andate, they both charged, w ould im pose un co n scio nably huge cost burdens on co rp o rations. B ut the new rule brought to the open SEC m eeting for approval a c tually sim plifies com pliance, as even corporate pay consultants ack n o w l edge. T he rule lets co rp o ratio n s identify their ow n m edian w o rk er— that em ployee w ho m akes m ore than h a lf a c o m p an y ’s em ployees and less than the oth er h alf — in any reasonable w ay they choose. Large co rp o ratio n s, u n d er the rule, can use the sam e sort o f statis tical sam pling techniques that huge firm s use routinely on o th er data- gathering fronts. Even so, G allagher sputtered, pay ratio disclosure carries “zero eco nom ic benefits.” In real econom ic life, o f course, A m ericans derive zero econom ic benefit from a corporate pay system that has C E O s grabbing hundreds o f tim es m ore com pensation than their w orkers. E m ployee productiv ity, m orale, and loyalty all suffer, as A FL -C IO president Richard Trum ka points out, w h en ev er C E O s receive “the lio n ’s sh are” o f a c o m p an y ’s co m p en satio n . A n SE C co m m issio n er m ajority agreed w ith the union leader. C o m m issioners voted, by a 3-2 m argin, to adopt a strong new pay d isclo sure rule. T he rule still faces one m ore o b stacle: a 60-day period for public co m m ent and then a final SE C co m m issioner vote. C orporations w ill no doubt flood the co m m ent period w ith p red ic tions o f doom and gloom should ratio disclosure go into effect. C o r porate groups m ay even go to court to prevent ratio disclosure. W hy a ll th is c o r p o r a te pushback? W ith annual disclosure, investors and consum ers w ould be able for the first tim e to com pare individual corporations by their level o f C E O greed. C h ie f execs rak in g in hundreds o f tim es w hat th eir typical w orkers m ake w ould have to explain w hy oth er com panies can thrive quite nicely w ith m uch narrow er pay g ap s. B u t p a y -ra tio d is c lo su re c o u ld p ro d u c e fa r m o re th an e m b a rra s s m en t fo r o v erp aid execs. L a w m a k e rs c o u ld b u ild c o n s e q u e n c e s o n to th e in fo rm a tio n th a t p a y ra tio d is c lo s u r e u n e a r th s . T h e y c o u ld , fo r in sta n c e , d e n y g o v e rn m e n t c o n tra c ts to c o m p a n ie s th a t p ay th e ir C E O s o v e r 50 o r 25 tim es w h a t th e ir ty p ic a l w o rk e rs are m aking. B ac k in th e 1950s, A m e ric a ’s C E O s a v erag e d ju s t 25 tim e s a v e r age U .S. w o rk er pay. A B lo o m b erg N e w s s u rv e y th is p a s t s p rin g fo u n d e ig h t C E O s m a k in g o v e r 1,000 tim e s the a v e ra g e p ay o f w o rk e rs in th e ir in d u stry . P ay ra tio d is c lo su re — b y in d i vid u al firm s — w on ’ t by itsel f take us b a c k to m o re re a so n a b le c o r p o ra te p ay p a tte rn s. B ut d is c lo su re c o u ld tu rn the c o rp o ra te pay tid e. A n d fo r A m e ric a to e v e r b e c o m e m o re e q u a l, th a t tid e m u st tu rn . O therW ords c o lu m n ist Sam Pizzigati is an Institute fo r Policy Studies associate fellow.
