Multiples of Minimum Wage I'm always pleased when I hear about a company with a policy that limits the top-salaried to some fixed multiplier of the lowest-salaried. Ben & Jerry's was that kind of company, and apparently, so is Whole Foods. I think it's a great idea for a company to do. Some will argue you'll block yourself from attracting the best talents with these limits on salaries, but I'd argue you'll be able to hire better quality workers in general (cause you'd be paying them more), they'll be happier and thus more productive, and you'll attract the right kind of top-brass. Meaning people who's ambitions include more than raping and pillaging all the way to their swiss bank account.Although it would never happen, I think it'd be great if publicly-held companies were restricted to this sort of structure. True, it represents a loss of freedom, but then again, these are publicly held companies, and for the advantages of raising money through stock-ownership, restricting the greed/corruption potential of upper management seems like a decent trade-off. Too often publicly-held companies are proving to be a deal between the top management and the shareholders and the workers are simply used to achieve an wealthy end for a few. That's why we have unions. This is better than unions though - no artificial work restraints, no union bosses and taxes and all the politics that go with it. And if you want to run your company differently, keep it private.

I'm always pleased when I hear about a company with a policy that limits the top-salaried to some fixed multiplier of the lowest-salaried. Ben & Jerry's was that kind of company, and apparently, so is Whole Foods. I think it's a great idea for a company to do. Some will argue you'll block yourself from attracting the best talents with these limits on salaries, but I'd argue you'll be able to hire better quality workers in general (cause you'd be paying them more), they'll be happier and thus more productive, and you'll attract the right kind of top-brass. Meaning people who's ambitions include more than raping and pillaging all the way to their swiss bank account.

Although it would never happen, I think it'd be great if publicly-held companies were restricted to this sort of structure. True, it represents a loss of freedom, but then again, these are publicly held companies, and for the advantages of raising money through stock-ownership, restricting the greed/corruption potential of upper management seems like a decent trade-off. Too often publicly-held companies are proving to be a deal between the top management and the shareholders and the workers are simply used to achieve an wealthy end for a few. That's why we have unions. This is better than unions though - no artificial work restraints, no union bosses and taxes and all the politics that go with it. And if you want to run your company differently, keep it private.