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.