90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
CEO Sisters

Only a handful of women run America’s top companies. We’ll talk with two of them, who also happen to be sisters. We’ll bring them face-to-face with Occupy Wall Street.

CEO of Frontier Communications Maggie Wilderotter and CEO of Campbell Soup, Denise Morrison. (AP)

CEO of Frontier Communications Maggie Wilderotter and CEO of Campbell Soup, Denise Morrison. (AP)

Three women take the Nobel Peace Prize this week. Fifty-seven percent of all college students are female. In medicine and law, they’re crowding through the doors. But at the tip top of American business, women are still just a sliver of the power pie.

In the Fortune 500 biggest American corporations there are just 14 female CEOs. Today we talk with two top female CEOs. Big power. Big money. They happen to be sisters. We’ll ask them about life as a woman at the top – and about the Occupy Wall Street litany of grievance with corporate America.

This hour On Point: CEO sisters.

-Tom Ashbrook


Denise Morrison, CEO of Campbell Soup, where she has worked since 2003.

Maggie Wilderotter, CEO of Frontier Communications since 2006, with 14,800 employees and $3.8 revenue in 2010.

Julie Fry, public defender with the Legal Aid Society in Brooklyn. She has been active in the Occupy Wall Street Protests

From Tom’s Reading List

The Wall Street Journal “Thirteen months apart, the sisters are the eldest of four daughters, all of whom became executives. Their father, an AT&T Inc. executive, talked to the girls about setting profit-margin goals while they were still in grade school. Their mother taught them that ambition is a part of femininity.”

Los Angeles Times “The financial industry, long known for its boys-club environment, has only a small fraction of women as top executives. And that small cadre has been thinning out in recent years, with the most recent example Krawcheck’s departure as BofA’s president of global wealth management.”

The Christian Science Monitor “But anyone who thinks that is just wrong. Numbers released just this May by the National Association of Colleges and Employers show that women who are graduating from college this year will make 17 percent less than their male counterparts in their first jobs. And that’s before those pesky questions of family and career balance are even on the table.”

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • JustSayin

    Gee what COULD explain the mystery of their success?

    Could it have anything to do with: “Their father, an AT&T Inc. executive…”

    The media likes to tell the story of self made people… the rags to riches story.  But guess what to those whom much is given, much is expected.

    I’m glad they worked their way up from the top, but lets not forget that’s just a few rungs on a very tall ladder. Most people given the opportunity to succeed with a great education and without the fear of financial ruin if they fail can achieve wonders.

    FYI that’s not how life is down in the trenches. Hey OnPoint there are brilliant and talented people at every strata of society…

    Sorry about this rant folks. Sometimes the endless parade of millionaires and the obsequious praise of their opinions on this program makes my stomach churn.

    • Cory

      I love it.  Thank you.

    • BHA in Vermont

      Yep, it is certainly easier to climb the ladder when there is someone at the top to help pull you up. A lot harder when you start in a hole and can’t even see the surface.

  • nj

    Under “Guests,” above: “$3.8 revenue”?

    • Jasoturner

      Sounds like a lemonade stand.  With a heck of a lot of employees!

  • Wm. James from Missouri

    We are regularly bombarded about the unfairness to woman in our society and seem to be mesmerized when women get the “big job“.  Why ? The insurance industry will tell you that women control most of the assets in the USA, due to the fact that men die earlier than women and due to the distribution of marital property after divorce. Many of the statistics we here about women’s salaries don’t take into account many other factors. You gals don’t like to hear this, I know, but …. . Personally, I would like to know where I can find a gal with this kind of job and income. Every woman I ever had took my money : ) Oh well, if this weren’t the case, I guess we would never have had blues music : ) !

    • Bea

      Perhaps you’d have better luck if you didn’t refer to adult women as “gals”… Just a thought…

    • Ashley Elisabeth

      This is not about money. 14/500 when women make up over 50% of the population is a fairly distressing ratio – and it has dropped in the past five years. 

  • BHA in Vermont

      Please ask these successful women if they will create more jobs if their personal tax rate goes down. Then ask them if they will cut jobs if their personal tax rate goes up.

    For those interested – 2010 compensation:
    Denise Morrison: $3.75M
    Mary Wilderotter: $8.6M

    • Sgalpert

      and how does that compare with the other 950+ MALE CEO’s in the Fortune 1000?  small potatoes.

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    If a person makes a choice to take a part-time position to raise a family, that’s a valid choice, but the same person can’t expect to rise to the top.  Rising to the top often requires making sacrifices in one’s personal life.

    • Sam, Buffalo, NY

      Dude, none of us here, (posters on npr’s onpoint) can or will rise to the top.

      You have to have a background, luck, family, money, etc in order to do that.

      Lets get real folks. CEO of a multi-billion dollar company? No even in my dreams.

      • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

        My point was that people who make the choice to focus on family can’t complain about not being given the top job.

        • Sam, Buffalo, NY

          My point, is that even if me and you didn’t choose to concentrate on the family life, neither one of us could get the TOP JOB.

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

            Someone has to get the top job, so why not us?

          • Sam, Buffalo, NY

            Uhm … because
            (and this is just a guess/my opinion, not a scientific study or anything of the “smart” sort …)
            1. WE don’t come from wealthy families, so a lot less opportunities were available to us
            2. WE weren’t lucky enough to be at the right place at the right time
            3. WE didn’t work hard enough towards OUR goal of becoming Top 500 company’s CEO
            4. The weather was bad

          • Terry Tree Tree

            Mr. Camp,  DID you get the top job?

      • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

        And please refrain from addressing me as Dude.

        • Terry Tree Tree

          Are you a Dudette?

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

            I prefer Mr. Camp, unless we’re friends.  Greg is fine in the latter case.

          • Sam, Buffalo, NY

            Anymore demands in how we should address you?

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp


          • Terry Tree Tree

            Mr. Camp,I couldn’t resist that one!!

  • BHA in Vermont

    Tom, can you ask Ms. Morrison to push a “cut down on the salt” initiative at Campbell? They have a lot of products those of us who need to watch their blood pressure just can not eat. Most prepackaged foods are WAY over salted. People will get used to less salt if it is reduced slowly.

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

      That means that the rest of us will just have to add more in.  I’m tired of so-called healthy products being the only choice available.

      • Anonymous

        It is easier to add more than the remove it.

        • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

          Just try to find a full-fat product in a typical grocery store.  It drives me nuts.  I’ll regulate my choices, thank you.

      • BHA in Vermont

        Gee, sorry, I didn’t know that tossing on a little salt was so onerous.

        You can ADD but you can NOT take out.

        And I stand by my statement. If they cut the 1000mg salt to 950mg tomorrow, you wouldn’t even notice. Over time, and I mean a few years, it could drop to 250mg and you would think it is fine. Then eat the 1000mg product that you saved on the back shelf and you will think it much too salty. It is what we get used to, not what we need (or DON’T), that makes it taste right/good.

        BTW, my stepfather used to make soup so salty we could barely eat it. Then he had a heart attack, triple bypass, quit smoking. He then cut the salt in the soup a LOT because the soup was too salty. :)

        • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

          Putting the salt in after the soup is heated doesn’t taste the same.

          • Sam, Buffalo, NY

            Ahhh… boo hoo.

            Well, you should be happy, they will keep their line of soups for you, just the same as they will have a line of all-natural, low-sodium soups. They try to please everyone!

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

            “Health” food is a fad, and I don’t follow fads.

          • Sam, Buffalo, NY

            I applaud you taking a stand for what you believe in.

            Best of luck for you, and great health!

          • BHA in Vermont

            “Health” food is what people ate before most everything you eat came from a processing plant, packaged for easy use. Of course salt has always been big as a preservative so it isn’t new. It just kills the ‘bugs’ faster and in smaller amounts than people :) 

            But that goes back to the “Mom stays home, Dad goes to work” era. While you might love ‘non health’ food, and maybe it doesn’t have an adverse affect on you, it isn’t great for a lot of people.

            But who has time to cook everything from plain, unadulterated ingredients? And if you want to see something scary – read the list of ingredients in ‘healthy’ vegetarian products. OMG that is one long list to make fake hamburgers that don’t remotely resemble 4 oz of ground beef.

            BTW, I *REALLY* like Marie Callender Chicken Pot Pies. Plus they are easy to toss in the lunch bag and heat in the microwave at work. The down side, and why I no longer buy them: 1100 mg sodium. 46% of your daily RDA allotment. Unless you happen to have high blood pressure, then it is 73%.  Do you know how much salt is 1100mg? About 1/2 teaspoon. Doesn’t take much does it?
            The ONLY thing *I* know of that NEEDS salt in cooking is baking powder. It won’t work without the salt.

            My BP is low 120s/mid 70s. Until I realized how much sodium is in EVERYTHING, including innocuous ‘healthy’ food like low fat cottage cheese (460 mg in 1/2 cup), it was high 130s/high 80s – pushing the ceiling of ‘high normal’ BP. I do not smoke, I exercise an hour 5 days a week and my BMI is 24. I’m not exactly the picture of someone who’s lifestyle creates high blood pressure. Genetics have a hand in that though. 

          • Sam, Buffalo, NY

            Not like mommy made?

          • BHA in Vermont

            So put it in BEFORE it is heated! We are talking prepackaged food here, not restaurant food where you have no option.

    • Sam, Buffalo, NY

      I actually saw a Campbell’s Select line of soups that is claimed to be “all natural”. They also have a line of “Select” soups that is low-sodium.

      My question is, if they are able to provide these kinds of soups, while are they still keeping the old – unhealthy – products in the stores?

      • Jess

        Because people buy them.

        • Sam, Buffalo, NY

          Thank you for your opinion Jess. It is much valued.

          My question has more to do with hypocrisy of such statements as “providing healthy food” that the CEO just mentionned, and having a can of soup with 30% sodium.

          I understand that the cheaper cans of soup – SELL and people BUY them. Campbell makes profits.
          At the expense of people’s health.

          Another question. When was, if ever, the CEO has eaten canned Campbell’s soup or another product?

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

            You’re suggesting that Campbell’s controls what I eat?  Please.  I choose what I buy.

          • Sam, Buffalo, NY

            You choose out of what is available.

      • nj

        Because corporate food pushers know that sugar, salt, and fat are addictive and profitable.


  • Andrew Farkas

    I’m upset at the rhetoric coming from your guests: we’re not *consumers*, we’re people. call us customers if you like, but the primary purpose in our lives is not to simply consume. We would like life/work balance as well.

  • jill allyn

    I cringed when I heard each of these female CEO’s begin by saying how wonderful their husbands are and how wonderful their children are. These women are lucky and blessed that their domestic lives are so perfect and seemingly trouble-free. This is not the case for so many women, whose struggle with challenges and difficulties in marriage, childrearing and or single life. It’s hard to find these two sisters’ comments meaningful and relevant given their privileged lives.

  • Jess

    I’m a working woman and I just have no interest in being a fortune 500 CEO. I wouldn’t want to marry a man who is, either. There’s too much sacrifice of one’s personal life to justify going that far.

  • BHA in Vermont

    Another request for Ms. Morrison:
    MSG is a major migraine trigger. Because it is a naturally occurring substance, it can be in the ingredient list under “natural flavors”.

    PLEASE change all labeling to CLEARLY show “Contains MSG” or “MSG Free” on the front. And while you are at it, if something is gluten free – PLEASE mark it on the front of the label.

    I am SO tired of reading small print ingredient lists trying to figure out if I can safely buy a product.

  • BHA in Vermont

    Current caller, interesting. The female bosses I have had tend to be MORE willing to support family/work balance.

    • Sam, Buffalo, NY

      Unless they don’t have children themselves.

      • BHA in Vermont

        Could be true, easier when you walk in someone else’s shoes.

        Traditionally, men worked, women stayed home with the kids so Dad could work what ever hours needed.

        When both work AND handle the the needs of the kids, it is a lot more clear what the ‘underlings’ deal with.

        • Sam, Buffalo, NY

          I have a male boss who is very understanding and supportive of mine, and everyone else on the team, need for flex time when it comes to dealing with family and children related things.

          He is a family man himself and shares responsibilities of house work, cooking and child-rearing.

          I’ve never worked for a woman, so I don’t know how they would handle things.

  • GretchenMo

    We have nothing to learn from these women; please, more from the protestors.

  • Jess

    I’m a bit offended that there is a “female perspective” to business. Woman or man, there’s just a job to be done and a person who can do it. Men and women are different, but not on the job.

  • Sam, Buffalo, NY

    These women have full time cook, nanny, housekeeper.
    They don’t do laundry, clean house, wipe their kid’s noses, etc.

    Different realm all together.

  • Sara Wood


    Great topic! Can you please asks the guests to comment of the topic that women are often encouraged to pursue studies in the liberal arts and sciences, social sciences, and traditional service professions (nursing, librarianship, teaching, etc.). My sister and I both ended up in such fields despite the fact we excelled in math and science in high school. Also women hold few administrative roles in these professions that they dominate statistically. What has been the guests’ experience with mentoring and what ways can women be encouraged to pursue male dominated fields like business, economics, finance, etc. and 1.) handle the sexism and glass ceilings and 2.) combat the myth that these fields don’t posses characteristics women are naturally good at. Thanks!

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

      If you excelled at math. and science, why didn’t you choose those fields as majors in college?  You don’t have to be encouraged to enter the field; you have to choose to do so.

      • Sar

        Haha- wow Greg. I can say the same thing to myself now that I’m much older- hind sight is 20/20 right?:) But at 17 and 18 years old starting college (16 in my case), some of us don’t have that clear vision that you do! I think there is room for discussing mentoring and encouragement. Have you not been encouraged to do something you wouldn’t have otherwise? I’m happy with my profession and have done well. I come from a female dominated family, almost all of whom are in education. Their experience and interest in English influenced me. But this isn’t about me- I heard an article (maybe on The Story?) a while back with an accomplished female scientist and the recent 16 year old female high school student that won the Google Scoence Fair. The older scientist shared many instances of mistreatment and sexism in the field and many women are deterred by the environment partly because there are few female role models and mentors that are easily accesible. So- Just trying to start a positive discussion on female encouragement.

    • Beachhk

      And what ways and tracks can women take to break into administrative and CEO roles in their profession?

    • AC

      i excelled in math & science & went into engineering. While there were only 2 of us girls of 12 in my graduating class, the class behind me had almost 50% girls, and they made up the top grades of the class. Out in the world tho, for 6 years, it is still male dominated, esp in managemnt but that’s just a stat made from seniority. & to be honest, I’ve rarely had to put up w/sexism. Every once in a while, you’ll meet the types that listen politely but dismiss you UNTIL they can’t. If you’re right, you’re right and they’re always very gracious after the fact in their encouragement. Only the really old ones 60-ish+ can be sexist, but i think a bit of them can’t help it, old dogs, new tricks – tho i’m reluctant to write this because i just said the same thing in the other show & it sounded horribly mean……

      • Terry Tree Tree

        Congratulations AC, you have been fortunate, in many ways!  The truth is NOT mean, it’s the truth!  You have had to be twice as good at your job, or better, to be considered equal, unfortunately.

        • AC

          the biggest ‘head-on’ i’ve had made me wear pig-tails the next day & it took everything i had not to dance around with my tongue out singing ‘told-u-so, told-u-so’….;)
          (i’m very proud at how i refrained from being the brat i was feeling like about my victory)

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    Ding, ding, ding:  Occupy Wall Street is leaderless and messageless.  Why should we pay attention to these children?

  • Terry Tree Tree

    Thanks, Tom, Denise, and Maggie,

        Congratulations Ladies, on achieving the positions that you were seemingly groomed for, and had a huge advantage in attaining.
        Please give the rationalizations that you hear from other CEOs, and executives, for their huge pay and perqs, while cutting pay of workers that just get by, or cutting jobs, other than GREED?

    Terry in Brewstertown, Tenn.

    • Terry Tree Tree

      My apologies, Mary, the radio is garbled some, so I heard your name wrong.

  • Janel_eight

    I understand that women CEOs of large companies are greatly underrepresented. I wonder, however, if there are more females in charge of smaller businesses. I have noticed that women are often in charge of service oriented and local industry like catering and child care. I realize that this may sound stereotypical but it’s just something I’ve noticed in my own town.  

  • Anonymous

    I’m more concerned that the middle have their fair share than the demographics of top executives. 

  • Sheree Galpert

    First off, kudos to Denise Morrison and Maggie Wilderotter. Congratulations on your accomplishments! Secondly, I’m irritated that the “occupy Wall Street” question is being merged with your conversation about women CEO’s. To juxtapose a conversation about women acquiring more power in a global culture that has historically kept it from them with a conversation about the power of money being held in the hands of the 1% (who are almost 100% male) is condemning your guests for the success they have achieved.
    Sheree Galpert, Newton, MA

    • Terry Tree Tree

      I AGREE TOTALLY!!!  These questions should be put to Rick Waggoner, and his ilk.

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    Why do you have these women on today?  They aren’t women, with respect to the economy.  They’re CEOs.  There’s no sex difference in that area.

  • Guest

    Just say you can’t commit not no layoffs.

  • susan

    I’d love to have these women address the issue of ratio of pay, ceo to average worker.  I have read that in japan it is 11:1, in germany 12:1, in france 15:1, in canada 22: 1, and in the u.s., an unfathomable 475:1. how can this be justified?????

  • Jeremy

    Hi Tom – Could you please have your guests speak to their view on Moral and Ethical businesses? Businesses that opperate with the goal to better their surrounding, products, services and society. As opposed to profit/money as the bottom line over everything that is good and makes us human.

  • Nancy

    These women are products of accident of birth and upbringing. My parents were both teachers and 3 out of 4 of their children are in the education field. No surprise there. I teach GED classes for a recently defunded federal program called Even Start. I can tell you that my students were not raised in an environment like mine or these two women, and to expect them to achieve even a small fraction of what these women have is absurd. Their children, however, still need to eat, have a safe home, and a decent education. We need to focus on families and children in order to improve our country’s future

  • Kevin

    Tom-Ask them how much they both make. Don’t beat around the bush. I’m sure it could be retained in an annual report…..Then ask them what the average hourly wage is for one of their workers. Ask them what type of healthcare they provide to their employees. Ask them have they layed off employees this year. Ask them if they have plants or manufacturing facilities outside of the US.

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp


    How about giving me what I want–real food.  I’m sick of health food.

  • BHA in Vermont

    Sorry Ms Morrison, saying people need to buy your products to keep you from potentially having more layoffs goes down a bit dry.

    It is a true statement that more sales means potentially more jobs but expecting people who have little to spend more when they don’t even know if they will have a job tomorrow is just not reasonable.

    How about you and your sister work for a flat $100K for each of the next 5 years. No perks, no stock options, etc. Your taxes will go down and you can pay more employees.

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    Great tasting?  Somebody got the talking point from the marketing department.

    • Anonymous

      At least the guests pushing books have an interesting product to plug.

  • Dab

    Congratulations to these women but … What is the median salary in both organizations? How much per hour they pay to the first-entry employee? Their per hour is $1,200-$2,750 (calculated at 60 hours per week, 52 weeks). Maybe a more level field of compensation per hour would create more balance – exactly what Occupy Wall Street protestors talk about. ANd that applies to all 500 CEOs not of course to only these women.

  • Andrew Farkas in Boston, MA

    Question for your guests: is it possible to be a successful CEO and ethically responsible? What is your responsibility to the employee who is laid off for the benefit of $30k to the corporation? Is that the value of a human being who has worked for your benefit? *Is there a profit level that strikes a balance between your responsibility to your shareholders and your responsibility to your employees?*

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    Tom Ashbrook,

    This is the least useful hour in a long time.  It reminds me of the Occupy Wall Street bunch–unfocused ambush without a goal.

    • Sam, Buffalo, NY


      Thank you for sharing.

      God bless! I hope you have a good day, sir.
      Is sir, an acceptable form of address for you, Mr Camp? :)

  • snathan

    I will echo other commentators, that one of the biggest problem with American Corporations is the fact that the compensation for CEOs and other top executives is so exaggerated compared to regular employees. Even when they fail they walk away with huge paychecks.

  • guest

    Social unrest is a natural reaction to bad economic and political times. People want someone or some thing to blame. If you don’t want the soup, simply don’t buy it. 

    • Sam, Buffalo, NY

      But what would all the poor people feed their children?

      Do you suggest we don’t feed our children?

      Not everyone has access, time or money to fresh products to make their own soup, to feed their children.

      Those of us who are busy, full-time working parents, not making gazzilion of dollars per year, CHOOSE to buy pre-made products available. It’s good when those products are somewhat healthy and affordable.

      Btw, a can of organic soup costs 2.50. A can of Campbell’s Select All-Natural soup, not on sale, costs 2.00. A can of sodium filled “original” can of soup is <1.00.

      A person making minimum wage, having two kids to feed, which one do you think they can afford?

      • BHA in Vermont

        And that last question is the sad part. The only way to eat in a more healthy fashion is to have money.

        • notafeminista

          Simply not true.  The way to eat processed food in a can (of any variety) is to have money.

  • Gerald Fnord

    Campbell’s Soup are not in business to make soup, make healthier soup, or improve their customers’ health or their employees’ lives.  Frontier Communications are not in business to help people communicate or to create jobs.  They are in business to make money, since the “for the public good” clause in charters of incorporation  is a dead-letter.

    Now, very often, those goods coincide—but isn’t there a fundamental insincerity in claiming these purposes and similar for corporations?  If one can make more money ignoring the public good, jobs creation, worker safety, and the like, don’t they have the fiduciary duty to do that?  And so, should we treat them as being in business for the fine purposes they mention when that is not their real purpose?

    • Jason6311

      I agree. We as a country should assume corporations and their CEO’s are going to try their best to bend rules to their own personal and corporate advantage; to do less is not only naive but potentially disastrous. The sanctimonious talk about “our corporation doing the right thing” is a little ridiculous. This means strong, enforceable regulations, limits on lobbyists, etc. That said, there is also an argument to be made that in as much as consumers can be educated or incentivized to consume healthier products to live longer, cost society less in healthcare, than a healtheir soup, for example, is in the enlightened self-interest of the company and CEO. Unfortunately, as other posters have noted, market forces compel the hyper short-term quarterly view instead.

  • Amir Flesher

    Echo the comment about CEO pay being out of control.   Not that these two are personally to blame, but I’m wondering if you can ask them how they justify earning 228 times what I do as a high school teacher.  Does the CEO believe that she is worth 228 times more than I am.  What do they do with all that money?   Seriously, what do you do with more than a few one hundred thousands dollars a year? 

    • Teacherunionsrule

      “..more than a few one hundred thousands dollars . . . “?  Are you an English teacher by any chance?

    • notafeminista

      How is that any of your business?

  • Anonymous

    Ask how much more they each make compared to their average employee.

  • Anonymous

    Performance measured by short term quarterly profits?

  • Anna

    Can your guests comment on how many of their employees are on minimum wage? It is all very well to speak of support local economies etc but the fair pay for EMPLOYEES, right down to the janitors who clean their offices would go a long way to easing the inequality in the country today.

  • Abcd

    I can’t stand this drivel!!!  She works for the board of directors – they are her boss – and they make sure she’s not overpaid?!?!  Give me a break!  How many of those directors did SHE hire?  The game goes like this across America – the CEO appoints the board, pays them a fee plus stock for “serving” and then THEY return the favor by setting her salary.  It’s quid pro quo in all the board rooms…and they ALL make sure they’re overpaid!!!

  • BHA in Vermont

    Wilderotter’s cash pay (salary and bonus) in 2010 $1.7M

    Non equity incentive plan compensation: $1.1M
    Restricted stock $5.6M

    So yes, a lot is not cash. On the other hand, the cash (over ~$340K) is taxed at ~36%. A year from now she can sell that $5.6M and pay 15% capital gains.

    And the fact that the boards make the pay decision doesn’t sit well either. They are all highly paid for the work they do, typically get generous ‘retirement’ benefits if they are on the board for 5 or more years. And they are frequently highly paid execs at other companies. A whole lot of entitled people who can’t see the street from their ivory tower.

  • Wes, Cambridge, MA

    What about the Verizon strike?

  • Sam, Buffalo, NY

    Just to note, she did not answer Tom’s question/statement about “committing to no layoffs”

    How about committing to no layoff, by you taking a pay cut, Ms CEO?

    • notafeminista

      Be more interesting if collectively union workers agreed to a paycut to keep a company afloat.   Like THAT’S ever gonna happen….

      • Terry Tree Tree

        HAS happened FAR more times that a CEO taking any kind of cut, to help the company!!!

  • Joe in Philly

    Ouch! A question about compensation! Didn’t really get an answer did we? Henry Ford had a “great level of responsibility” as our soup lady said but he didn’t make the multiple of our modern day CEOs. The ratio (multiple) of average worker pay to CEO compensation is way out of line and is unsustainable. When the average American get’s off their fat duff and starts marching perhaps things will change. Let’s get real here!

  • Mollyb

    Listening to Maggie Wilderotter speak reaffirms my longstanding view that powerful women, generally speaking, are the most ruthless and demanding bosses. I believe women in positions of power have a great responsibility to bring an end to excessive corporate greed by means of instilling balance and fairness into their corporate cultures. I wouldn’t work for either of these women. I am a woman and it is widely known within my professional circles that working for ambitious women who have an ego-driven agenda should be avoided at all costs. They are bad for their companies and bad for business as a whole. In my experience, male bosses provides a far greater opportunity for women to get ahead, to have work/life balance, and are far better at cultivating socially responsible companies while at the same time increasing profits.

    • notafeminista

      Right because Campbell’s is tanking even as we speak. 

  • Jason6311

    I’m struck by the hubris of saying “I brought broadband to rural America” and the other “I” comments. It is a little thing but seems emblematic of CEO attitude not recognizing all of the other people in her company that were required to achieve these company-wide objectives.

    • GretchenMo

      A company is really a dictatorship.  The buck stops and starts at the top; she’s the decision-maker.  Yes, many managers and staff implement the plan, but only one person makes the decision.  This is why these people probably would not make good politicians.

      • Anonymous

         So I guess that’s why Romney is running for President, so he can become a dictator. Seriously anyone who runs a company like a dictatorship probably has a lot of unhappy employees which in turn means that the bottom line will suffer.  A CEO is not a dictator. 

        • American Dreamer

          Steve Jobs was a brilliant dictator. 

      • Terry Tree Tree

        Why don’t those people that make the decision, PAY for that decision?  Those under them PAY, with pay-cuts, demotions, and firing, for far-lesser mistakes!

  • Billsull59

    CEO pay is set by compensation committees that are virtual Echo chambers. Consultants recommend that the committee to set exec pay levels in the upper half of peer group exec’s pay ranges and this fuels the ever increasing pay for these ladies and their ilk.

    • GretchenMo

      Shareholders can vote with proxies and their checkbook.

      • Terry Tree Tree

        Many of them CANNOT, due to corp. policies!!

  • Iwantyourmoney

    See how much money they have in their pocketbooks, then take it and send it to all the jealous socialists below.  Maybe that will shut them up!

    • Jason6311

      Unregulated capitalism is at least as bad as socialism (which no one here is advocating, but thanks for the exaggerated cliche). Just look at child labor abuses, circumvention of regulations, or any number of other examples that persist. It is entirely reasonable to raise questions of compensation (and tax) fairness among the wealthiest, particularly when such wealth is gained by potentially unethical practices not uncommon in corporate America today (but I’m not saying Campbells or Frontier are necessarily engaging in such). So perhaps THIS will shut you up, though I’m not so interested in that as encouraging you to try to question things a little bit more and leave the knee-jerk ideology in the trash bin where it belongs.

  • http://www.facebook.com/alleciruala Anita Lauricella

    I usually like this show, but putting two exceptional women in the role of apologizing for all of corporate America is offensive. It is interesting to hear their corporate strategies but the rest has really been off the wall.  And a disservice to their progress and the real concerns of Occupy Wall Street

  • Bruce in Providence

    They are limited by the role of corporations.  By most any definition, corporations are sociopaths; they exist only to better themselves and maximize profits.  This what they are.  They externalize all costs they can (pollution, health insurance when possible, etc.) and part of that is keeping costs down.  Some of the costs are wages, so the market forces these low.

    CEO’s are reflections of this role.  Some better than others.

    In regards to the Occupy Wall Street, these CEO’s actually produce something or deliver a service.  Wall Street seems to be better at rigging the game and buying off the refs (the SEC).

    • notafeminista

      I guess that depends on whether or not you define a corporation as a human being or not.  That which is not human cannot exhibit human characteristics (such as being a sociopath).

      • Terry Tree Tree

        ALL corporation Birth Certificates, please!!!

        • notafeminista

          I’m with you man, dispense with this nonsense of trying to make a legal entity human.  Not only would corporations no longer be allowed to participate in elections at a financial level, nor would they be expected to be socially just and so on —  you know?  Can’t be human if you don’t have human characteristics.

          • Terry Tree Tree

            The most human characteristic of most corporations, is GREED!   Killing and maiming people with safety-violations, pollution, toxic and dangerous products, buying politicians and regulators to make these happen, and a cornucopia of other inhuman and inhumane practices!

          • notafeminista

            But they’re not human right?

  • Jack_nola

    First, congratulations to both of you for achieving so much success.

    Second, I am shocked by the one-sided nature of this conversation. What do you all expect from Maggie and Denise? Do you expect them to simply walk away from their contracts on account of the poor economy? This is how economic freedom works. If you have a problem with the way either company does business, do not buy their products.

    Also, it is shameful to ask them – as two CEOs of companies that DO produce stuff – to answer for some of the corporate strategies that got us here (ie the derivatives inventors and bankers who add very little, if any value to our economy). That is simply sad, and a poor reflection on the “group think” that is occurring today.

    • BHA in Vermont

      You are right, they are not responsible for credit default swaps, derivatives or the unsustainable housing bubble being burst.
      They were (not their fault) brought in when the ire of the 99%ers is running high in the news. No surprise then that they stand on this show today as the whipping girls for the gross pay inequity in this country.

      But they are in the group of ‘entitled’ CEOs and execs who can not see the ‘little people’. If it weren’t for their fabulous skills, any slide in their company’s fortunes would have been worse, all gains are due to their brilliance. Can’t go back in time and see what would happen if someone else were at the helm though can we?
      I’m sure they could do their job just as well for 10% of what they are making now and they would still make a WHOLE lot more than their average employee. It isn’t about how much they need to live, not about how much value they bring to the company vs the people who actually make the products that MAKE money to pay their outrageous compensation, it is about “if Bob or Sally is worth x, so am I”. Then Bob/Sally say, I was making more than she was so I deserve a raise. Think professional ball players.

      When ANY CEO can show that their responsibilities and risk for the result of their decisions are greater than those of the President of the USA, they will be worth more than $400K a year, room and board in a big house and Secret Service protection. And  yes, the $400K is taxable.

      • Nutricj

        and just think of the personal danger so many american aid workers across our globe fighting for clean water for mothers or medical treatment for rape victims or job training for teen boys who have never had the gift of edu, when they themselves are living in poverty and often fear. they are just as intelligent, driven to lead, and capable as any $8M ceo anywhere- and i would add, they are the definition of brave.

    • Andrew Farkas in Boston, MA

      First, telecoms do not “produce stuff”; they are part of the constructed economy, which should be regulated more closely because of its distinction from necessary goods and services (there aren’t enough truly necessary jobs to employ enough people to keep our economy working, so we need to create jobs that wouldn’t otherwise exist- ie, customer service operator). Granted, I would not put telecoms in the same Venn circle as financial services corporations.

      Second, I don’t think any right-minded person is asking any CEO to walk away from their job. No, we’re asking that they reconsider whether they need all $8M in compensation, or whether they could take $4M (say, $1M in salary, and $3M in benefits?), and add 80 $50k jobs to their company, or 133 $30k jobs? Consider the reverse of that. It would take one employee earning $50k (not a bad living) more than two lifetimes to earn as much as she does in a year. Is she so intelligent and talented that it would take the average person two lifetimes to accomplish what she would in a year?

      I appreciate your attempt to use the concept of group think, but I’m afraid it does not apply here.

      • Nutricj

        to your para 2: i always think of my first econ prof that told us how much the POTUS makes which these days is about 400K per year- ish, but then it was  about a third of that and the whole class gasped when he showed the chart on the big screen- salaries of pro aths, ceo’s, potus and his own $12 per hour as a double phd adjunct prof. in the world of human rights and philanthropy i love that it is always discussed how admirable it is to attain success, take what you need for your future, retirement, family, edu, etc….share some with family and local community efforts and then give back the leftover to the world. these ceo’s and boards should really look to the global philanthropic leaders to understand their greed.

        • Nutricj

          i should say, their OWN greed

      • notafeminista

        How about someone ask you to consider the outright hubris involved with asking someone whether or not he/she deserves their salary?  Where is it written that you or I or the Man in the Moon gets to dicatate what someone else earns?

        • http://mergelefttoday.blogspot.com Joshua Hendrickson

          that’s not an example of hubris.

          • notafeminista

            Fair enough, call it greed then.  Po-tay-to, po-tah-to

        • Terry Tree Tree

          Execs demand to know if employees deserve their pay!  High-paid execs use every ruse and tactic to keep workers’ pay low!  Many demand pay-cuts, then give themselves HUGE pay-raises!

          • notafeminista

            I’ve never had a supervisor immediate otherwise ask me if I deserve my pay. 

          • Terry Tree Tree


          • notafeminista

            Apologies..once again poor editing.  That should read I’ve never had a supervisor immediate OR otherwise ask me if I deserve my pay.

      • Anonymous

        First let me state that I find it reprehensible that CEO’s make 2 to 3 hundred times the salary of the average worker in any given corporation or company. That said, for a company to hire there needs to be demand. That’s it in a nutshell. You can’t expect a company or corporation to hire people out of the good of their hearts. It’s not how it works. I’m for more equatable pay scales, as for the past 39 years the median wage for the majority of working people in this country adjusted for inflation has remained flat. While the earnings of those on the top have grow to absurd amounts.

  • Barbcollins

    I would think that part of the debate should concern whether the salaries of upper management are out of line for responsibilities and value provided to the company. Too many CEO’s “govern to the Quarter” to make Wall Street happy but such governance could probably be done by IBM’s Watson so why are they getting anything above minimum wage. Likewise, when costs need to be cut why doesn’t corporate america start at the top by cutting salaries- that would keep people at work and still reduce corporate costs. BJC

    • ArnoldWalker

      dude, it’s not a mac, i don’t think we can expect it too much

      • Terry Tree Tree

        Barb is a Dude?

  • Vshaffer

    I just finished listening to the rebroadcast of this interview and am appauled by the lack of differentiation the questioners make in the role of product producing companies on Wall Street and the Banking system.  I’m a liberal Democrat retired from a 28-year role as a CEO in a public enterprise and it sure isn’t hard for me to understand the dynamics of profit and productivity for the employees and the owners (share holders) of a company that is required to produce a consumable product/service.  Who are these children that think companies have a moral responsibility to employ people?  Congratulations to the patience Mrs. Wilderotter and Morrison displayed in their responses and for their success in becoming leaders of major American corporations. 

    • Sport

      You’re a liberal Democrat, my foot. If that is so, that explains what is wrong with so many liberals these days. We have more economic inequality in this nation than we have had in decades, and every time someone is courageous enough to speak out they are labeled by people such as Vshaffer as ‘children’. Time for you to go back and learn what it means to be a liberal. I know many people who are speaking out right now and they are hardly children. For you to label people as such, Vshaffer shows that you have a lot of growing up to do. SNAP!

      • Patrick

        I think that saying “SNAP” after your comment makes you a de facto child, sport.

        • Terry Tree Tree


    • Anonymous

      Interesting diatribe and patronizing as well. I bet you were hoot to work for.

  • notafeminista

    Compensation, compensation, compensation.  Does anyone on this forum have the vaguest notion what the responsibilities of a CEO are, and value a skilled and experienced CEO brings to an organzation?  Or are we all just bleating about the compensation because it ain’t coming to us and that somehow, some way we know in our heart of hearts that any given CEO doesn’t need, doesn’t deserve that compensation….because of course….we do.

    • Betchyawannaknow

      Notafeminista – I take issue with your comment – Take a look back  – the notion of CEO’s being compensated 50 – 100x the employee wage is relatively new – Most of these types came from the dereg era of the 80′s - They got their MBA’s, had daddy talk to a board member or 2, got in the door as a VP and then rode it – Ued their so called experience (the companyt they worked for made $$$ during the boom years) and now demand the same or higher compensation – WHY? Wait for it…. Because they feel they are “Entitled”. Sound familiar?

      I run a busniess – I am the CEO – because I STARTED the business – I have an interest OTHER than a paycheck. It’s called Passion. and Compassion for those who work for me.

      I take issue with all of the “Social Responsibility” these CEO’s claim. They are hired guns – corporate speak at it’s best.

      • notafeminista

        Perfect!  Then please explain the roles and responsibilities of a CEO as well as the value of one who is experienced.  Thanks!

        • Betchyawannaknow

          Simple; Lead by example – Grow the company with the current operating capital that is budgeted for expansion. If you don’t have it, then invest your OWN cash. Don’t be beholden to an unforeseen interest.

          Hold people ACCOUNTABLE for their actions – Pay for performance – BUT – keep close eyes on how performance is measured by those charged to do so.

          DO have CONVERSATIONS – not meetings or talks – regularly with your employees.

          Value yourself only in the eyes of your customers and your employees. Be humble.

          LISTEN TO EVERYTHING within your company – get rid of the “filters” as they tend to be “yes men”.

          Lastly, and this can not be taught, you have to care. All the BS I heard in the interview about contributing to local communities is just that – BS – it was corporate speak for a tax deduction and improved PR spin. Did they do good? Maybe. Show me the results. I have asked that question to many and while they are happy to tout what “they have done”, they can not or will not provide tangible results which are not directly connected to the donor either monetarily or politically. Show me something done without a name attached or a favor expected – show me a blind donation to a local family who can’t afford food – show me a baseball field built without the corporate sponsors name all over it, but with the name of a beloved deceased coach.

          We, as a country used o do these things. Some of us still do – most do not. AND THAT.. is just sad.

          That is all I have to say

          • notafeminista

            An excellent list but by no means inclusive. 
            1)If your company goes under who is responsible?  You or your employees?
            2)If one (or more) of your employees makes a mistake that causes physical harm to the public (think Toyotas and braking or Audis and the random acceleration problem in the early 90s) who gets to address the public and/or the judge should your company be sued?
            3)Should your company try a new label, a new product, or a new design, who takes responsibility should the new label, product or design fail?

            And this last bit as an aside – if corporations/companies are not human, why do we demand they demonstrate human characteristics?

          • notafeminista

            4) (Forgot this one) When people are unhappy with the overall current state of things and start arriving at CEOs homes (presumably with family/children inside)…what sort of compensation is that worth exactly?

          • Terry Tree Tree

            With Golden Parachutes, and Platinum Parachutes, THE WORKERS PAY!   Execs ruin companies, and get HUGE compensation!

        • GetAClue

          CEO are like used car salesman.  Generally, they just look good on the lot.

          Any dolt, who knows about corporate structure, knows they are basically a ‘figure head’, a ‘celebrity for fund raising’ and work for the board.

        • Zero

          It doesn’t take an MBA to charge $5 dollars a month for a debt card.

          • notafeminista

            No it doesn’t, but I will ask again.  When the company takes the heat for charging a fee for the debit card  who is the one out front explaining or defending the decision to do so?  Who assumes responsbility for that decision?  Is it the teller at the local branch?

            What should that person be compensated?

          • Zero

            I work for G.E.; my father was a CEO at G.E.; CEO’s don’t give a damn what the public thinks!  The bottle line is profit.  If the decision makes a profit, then people claim responsibility.  If the decision loses money, then people point fingers.  If the decision is publicly unpopular but still makes profit, everyone is trying to take credit.  That is the way the world works.  Hardly any of them are innovators–they are calculated risk takers.  The real talent is with the innovators.   

          • notafeminista

            You are so right…and if they lose money at WHOM do they point their finger?  The assembly line worker?  No.  If they lose money and don’t make a profit…what happens?  Everything goes away.  The jobs, the company the benefits…all of it.  Of course profit is the bottom line.  Without a profit, nothing else happens.

          • Zero

            What happens…the CEO retires with millions in the bank. 

            You think they actually give a damn?  You think Mitt Romney gives a damn about what he did? 

            Wake up!  You have no idea what you are talking about! 

          • Terry Tree Tree

            The CASHIERS  and the CUSTOMER SERVICE PEOPLE  get FAR more questions about such actions than the CEOs, that hide in their office or on the golf course, on company time!  PAY THEM for putting up with the abuse that customers heap on them for the CEO’s decision!

          • notafeminista

            Right. How many times do you think CNN shows up in some random teller’s front yard because there are protesters demanding to know why B of A has decided to start charging a $5 debit card fee? 

            Let’s face it, the left is absolutely incapable of attributing any sort of responsbility to the “worker” (so-called) and any sort of actual empathy for someone who is not an assembly line worker.  The left wants to punish the CEO for existing.

    • Terry Tree Tree

      Rick Waggoner got $20Million BONUS, for bankrupting GM!  PLUS over $20 Million pay, and who knows how much in perqs!  He is just one of many that I have read about!   Many people are qualified to bankrupt a company for a LOT less!

      • ArnoldWalker

        Alex R. gets as much and the guy takes a nap all October, what ya gonna do?

    • Nottaanything

      Your comments remind me of a feminine hygiene product… sort of like a disposable douche – you use it once and throw it away.

  • markie

    What bunch of BS spouted by your guest. 8 million dollars, who is screwing whom?

  • markie

    you should be ashamed Tom Ashbrook for giving them a pass.

  • Elizabeth

    Eldridge Cleaver noted that if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.  So how do we, as women, justify participating in the exploitation built into this system?

    • spikethedog

      You shouldn’t be a part of any system you don’t like.
      Just quit.
      Live under a railroad bridge in a cardboard box.
      I’m sure you’ll feel better then.

  • Mandieray

    The callers and the representative from Occupy Wall Street seem to be suggesting that the lives of every American will be just perfect if every major corporation hired all of the unemployed citizens back. What they don’t seen to understand, or don’t want to understand maybe, is that if even a small percentage of these companies were to do this it would ultimately end with the failure of said companies. CEOs, as well as every employee in the company in some way, make decisions everyday to balance the needs of the consumer and the business. By hiring people out of “moral obligation” they are putting the company and all employees (tenured or new) at risk. Failing would result in even more people without work.

    If the people of Occupy Wall Street is so concerned with creating more jobs they should be asking themselves what they can do in their own workplaces to make things better. Sometimes you have to work backwards from a “problem” to find a solution.

    I work for a major financial institution and am by no means near the top but everyday I go to work with the attitude that it starts with me. Here.

    • Terry Tree Tree

      How many productive employees can a company hire for the price of one CEO that leads the company into bankruptcy?  Is that what the company hires CEOs to do?   Why do they pay them BONUSES to bankrupt the company?

      • Betchyawannaknow

        Because they are TRAINED – Most CEO’s iCOO’s in today’s envirnment went to business school in the 80′s – the era of dereg – there were / are folks who teach how to cut / slash / run /  and collect BIG $$$ – It’s a cookie cutter method. Look at their history / experince – you’ll see ALOT in common.

    • Betchyawannaknow

      No offense intended here – but the statement “Sometimes you have to work backwards from a problem to find a solution” is 100% corporate speak.
      Why would you work backwards? Why not work forward?

      Why? Because if one continues to work backwards, guess where you are going to go. It’s corporate speak for do as we say, not as we do. Do you believe that the top execs look backwards at a problem? If so, then get out. Betas guess is that they look forward. Yes – acknowledge the issue – correct it – but look forward to the reward for solving the issue – looking back serves no purpose to you – i serves the purpose of those who WANT you to look back – because that way they can continue forward WITHOUT your input or challenges.

    • Mandieray

      Dear betchya,

      Never in any of my jobs in corporate or small business has anyone told me to work backwards. This is a lesson that I have learned through years of those “minimum wage entry level” positions that people are so thirsty for right now. You can’t get the solution by blaming the figure head, it has to first come from the quality of people that are employed. You really honestly have to look at it from the individual’s point if view and see what can be done there to get the ball rolling. If the individuals in corporate America, beginning with the entry level folks don’t stop being lemmings nothing is going to get fixed. It is the people in those jobs on the front line everyday who know what happens and how to make it better. Process improvement. I can agree with you though that the CEOs and their advisors have to take that step towards change as well.

      And let’s face it. There is not a high enough work ethic in most Americans. They have just a much a sense of entitlement as any CEO may have. I see too many people come and go because, frankly, their work ethic sucks and they don’t perform. Maybe that’s where we should start an then some people might be able to hold a job or make way for a candidate who cares enough to actually show up on time and work.

  • Sashank Karri

    Hey Tom, I’m very sympathetic to the Occupy Wall Street protesters.  However, I don’t think Julie Fry did a very good job of making her case or asking the right questions.  And more importantly, I wish you’d asked questions about corporation’s undemocratic, unequal influence on our politicians and our legislation that consistently seems to get them what they want (yes, I know it’s opinion so you’d preface it as some people may think).  For example, both parties were all for deregulating the banks in the 90s.  And they hold their employees as hostages when they are lobbying our congressmen (or threatening them with political ads behind closed doors).  You can’t raise taxes.  You can’t tax or regulate to make up for externalities.  Why do the wants of the wealthy trump the needs and rights (protection against an externality such as a pollution is a right even if it’s not in the constitution).  Why should companies with record profits who are paying their CEOs record profits but not investing in expanding their company and creating jobs get tax cuts?  I’d also ask why they think there’s an increasing disparity between the top 1 percent and the middle class and people in poverty.

    An interesting point both sisters made though was that it was a lack of demand holding them back from expanding.

  • JATurtle

    Mourn Steve Jobs and villainies these two? As successful women
    who apparently carry the curse of CEOs everywhere; they really must earn their pay.
    I have known the CEO of the corporation where I work for eleven years, and he
    is exceptional. Starting at a young age and working his way to the top, the
    hours and sacrifice, he deserves everything he gets. I am happily employed in a
    corporate business lead by intelligent people. The Soviet Union is gone. The 99
    Percenters had their spot and should be ashamed to distract this interview with
    off topic BS.

    • Terry Tree Tree

      EVERY CEO does 500-700 times the work of ANY employee? 

      • JATurtle

        I am middle management. My CEO knows the first name of every
        one of our 5,000 employees nationwide. Our Board picked him (they had a turkey
        before him). There are many people who make more than I. Whether I like them or
        not, they take responsibility for our clients’ funds and manage the dozens to hundreds
        of people that make one project. We had layoffs three years ago. On the other hand,
        our company kept 95% of its employees and paid many of us from a financial reserve
        created over several previous years. Layoffs hit the assigned project level
        staff. As a 53 year old overhead expense, I was fortunate to be one who
        remained employed. At this point, most of those laid off have been rehired. Layoffs
        cost companies money, and no good company want them.


        To your question, I believe I am treated fairly, and, and I believe
        the owners’ of business deserve the benefits of their positions. That is the
        American way. While the world is not the same as it was 30 years ago, I paid
        for my own college and I make significantly more money than my father did in
        his life as CEO of his business. Does our CEO deserve to make as much, or, do I
        deserve to make more? Both good questions. I would never say our current CEO doesn’t
        deserve his pay.

        • Terry Tree Tree

          Did his ‘boneheaded’ predecessor deserve his pay?   Your answer actually proves more of my position than it refutes!   You leave more questions than answers. 
             I am happy for you, your co-workers, and the luck you have.  What products do you make?

          • JATurtle

            We are construction managers. Our people are our product.
            Clearly, I had issues with the other guy. He always left me thinking like I just listened to a used car salesman. I am not sure how they got him and he didn’t last
            long. Since he is no longer with us, someone clearly thought he wasn’t worth
            what he was getting. It get pretty cutthroat at that level.


            It is not as though any one person, CEO, CFO, Chairman or
            other, controls a large company’s funds. Money that is not paid out belongs to
            the business. Not to the CEO. I guess the thing about the pay is; no one is
            asking what good these people might be doing with their own money. It might not
            be what you want them to do with it, but it is their choice.

          • Terry Tree Tree

            So MANY questionable answers!

          • JATurtle

            If you say so. Let’s all stop giving to our churches, juvenile diabetes, breast cancer research and other organizations that used to be worthy causes. My kids don’t need college, allergy treatments or their teeth straightened. Now we can work 60 hours a week and just take whatever someone who isn’t working decides is too much and give it to them.

  • Hidan

    A interesting question would be that since both claim they pay is link to their success if they are willing to forfeit the golden parachute if they fail?

    • Hidan


    • notafeminista

      Why should they?  Do unions demand paycuts for their employees when a company is failing?  Party line is that profits are made off the sweat of the brow of the working man.  Does that mean the working man is also responsible for the failures?

      • Terry Tree Tree

        Many unions have taken pay-cuts, benefit-cuts, and made other concessions when the company was in trouble.  Most of the failures  of companies are due to lack of creative management.  When many companies get to doing better, they reward the execs, and the workers have to keep reminding them they promised to restore wages and benefits!

        Management is hired to MANAGE!  Workers are hired to make products or perform services.

        • notafeminista

          You might well be correct.  What lack of creativity led to Toyota’s braking problems?

          • Terry Tree Tree

            Since I have NOT heard news that establishes what actually caused the braking problems, I cannot answer this.  The decision by management to use a computer-controlled brake system, is a clue!!

          • notafeminista

            Again, you might well be right – who built the braking system?

          • Terry Tree Tree

            Management hired the lower-level management that hired the workers that assembled parts bought by managers.  Management gave the approval to install the braking system.  Management decided on the suppliers, or the materials.
                You can bet management blamed someone below them for their own mistakes!  Then they fired, or penalized the worker, for a management bad decision. 
                Most of the people that get the blame for these type problems, are NOT in the position to make the decision they are blamed for!

          • notafeminista

            In this scenario just described then, the employee is never at fault and never makes a mistake.  Is that what I’m hearing you say?

          • SimpleSimon


            You consistently avoid the obvious conclusions.
            Of course, workers make mistakes, but they are generally isolated.
            When management makes mistakes that are usually systemic.

            If you have ever worked for anybody you would know this.

            Your reasoning is constantly one-dimensional.

            Your ally is showing.

          • notafeminista

            I would agree that mistakes by employees of any given company are comparatively isolated (meaning rare).  Toyota’s reputation was stellar until the braking problems.  If one wants to lay blame at the feet of the CEO then let it play out as Terry did above (and quoted below).

            “Management hired the lower-level management that hired the workers that assembled parts bought by managers.  Management gave the approval to install the braking system.  Management decided on the suppliers, or the materials. ”

            As he states management hired the workers.  If a worker makes a mistake, Terry implies management should be held responsible because they hired the worker.  So two questions arise 1)What compensation should be paid to someone who must assume responsibility for someone else’s mistake? and 2)Should management stop hiring people for fear they might make a mistake?

      • Notasmarty

        Sometimes, corrupt union management doesn’t care about it’s membership or the company it is squeezing.

        Many union members have voted on givebacks, concessions and wage freezes for the financial health, well being or survival of the company they are employed by.

        It’s not the working man who is responsible for the decisions that make or break a corporations.

        It’s usually the stupid, boneheaded management decisions that destroy a company.

        Apparently, you have never worked for a corporation or a union – or you would know this. 

        So, keep your ignorant comments on hold and climb back into your nefarious shell.

        • notafeminista

          Congratulations you have hit the nail on the head! 

          “It’s not the working man who is responsible for decisions that make or break a corporation.”

          Now…just what should someone who is willing to assume that responsiblity be compensated? 

          • NobodysFool

            They aren’t assuming any responsibility, it’s the shareholders risk.  The job of a CEO is to squeeze as much profit out of an outfit – no matter what’s at stake.  It takes little or no talent – any slash and burn numskull can do it.  Most CEOs are just overpaid used car sales people.  The CEOs who make a difference–actually build companies and make them vital entities–are few and far between. 

            Noticed how you didn’t have the fortitude to reply to Terry Tree Tree and Notasmarty about the the unions making sacrifices – guess being wrong isn’t in your realm of possibilities.

            So delusional, guess you’re always right, like several other people on this site.

          • notafeminista

            Actually I’ve replied to both of them…the post may be further down.  Specifically with regard to GM and the Autoworkers and the sacrifice they made…not willingly, according to the worker website

          • Terry Tree Tree

            How many executives have given up their Golden Parachutes, and left the company, without pay, when a decision that they made, destroyed, or nearly destroyed a company?  VOLUNTARILY??  REAL examples, please?

          • Terry Tree Tree

            How many boards of directors have resigned, without pay, for hiring and/or supporting executives that ruined companies?

            Like the CEOs you defend, you seem very one-sided!

          • notafeminista

            From Notasmarty: “It’s not the working man who is responsible for the decisions that make or break a corporations.It’s usually the stupid, boneheaded management decisions that destroy a company.”

            Your statement was that shareholders assume the risk – so shareholders are the ones making management decisions?

  • Lisa

    Doesn’t matter whether or not these CEOs are women or men, they are completely out of touch with reality. I loved how the Campbell soup CEO said that her contribution to society was donating millions of pounds of foods to food banks. Maybe if she didn’t layoff her staff, there would be less people in need of food donations right now. If either of these women cared about what’s going on in our country they would forfeit their salaries for a period of time in order to prevent layoffs and hire back employees. These women make $3-8 million dollars a year, most people make about 1% of that income if they are lucky enough to find work.

  • CEOless

    How dare On Point make this ‘tongue-in-cheek’ comment:

    ‘…women are still just a sliver of the power pie.’

    I bet a man wrote that.  FU.

    This program deserves the criticism it receives.

    • spikethedog

      Yeah, how DARE OnPoint tell the truth?
      The nerve.

      • CEOless

        Didn’t you know ‘pie’ is slang for ‘vagina’?

        • Terry Tree Tree

          Sounds more like you are clueless to public-forum manners.

  • Zero

    Here is an idea: financial equality is good for business.  Financial inequality is good for businesses like General Dollar and Walmart, but bad for everybody else. 

    Tom, please do a show on the causes of the French Revolution–the similarities are haunting.  

  • zero

    Oh crap, she said “if consumers continue to buy our products and we grow, we’ll be able to create more jobs.”  Did you hear that republicans?

    That means the consumer class needs more wealth.  Which also means that cuts to teacher, police, and fire fighter wages and not passing Obama’s jobs bill is exacerbating the problem. 

    No one is saying raise taxes on corporations and small businesses, but raising these women’s individual taxes will not hurt anyone including the women themselves and other CEO’s like them. 

    • notafeminista

      Um, who DOESN’T belong to the consumer class? 

      • Zero

        Giant bank accounts where tons of wealth does not circulate is not part of the consumer class, idiot. 

        • notafeminista

          A bank account with $7 dollars in it is not part of the consumer class either.  What HUMAN is not part of the consumer class?  What class of people is excluded from the consumer class?

          • notafeminista

            Or exempted.  Probably a better choice of word.

          • Zero

            The point is that there is large amounts of wealth that is sitting in the bank accounts of a few amount of people.  The richest 400 Americans now have more wealth than 50% of the country–that is wealth that is largely un-circulated. I wrote the lines consumer CLASS because the majority of people creating Demand comes from the middle class.  This is a classic economic principle, and it is a major reason why we need to raise taxes on the rich.

            If rich people are becoming our main consumers, then that is actually bad.  What that means is that consumerism is down because rich people are a very small minority.  If we raised taxes on millionaires, the millionaires are going to continue to shop.   If we decide not to raise taxes and cut social programs which causes fees to rise, tuition to rise, then you are influencing the spending habits of the lower and middle class who are the vast majority of consumers.  If you take 3% out of a teacher’s paycheck, that teacher stops spending money in the market place.  If you tax a millionaire 3%, the millionaire still spends money in the market place.


          • notafeminista

            Apparently the millionaire doesn’t spend it ..or did you mean something else by “uncirculated”?  

            If you raise taxes on a given population (whether millionaires, smokers, or people who only eat Granny Smith apples) that population will figure out a way to (at least on paper) to remove themselves from that population.   It is the rational thing to do.

          • Zero

            Was there a brain drain when Clinton had a higher tax rate?

            Get an education. 

          • Zero

            The 1950s saw the greatest economic growth under republican president Dwight Eisenhower.  He taxed the top bracket 91%!  Your little half-baked brain-drain theory is a myth in a Country that has the best universities.

            And how much do you think a millionaire spends?  And how much to money sits in a large bank account?  A millionaire spends not a fraction of what he or she makes.  Depending on the income level, the middle and lower classes (I would say) spend at least half their income.  Poor people have to spend around 90% of their income.

            Somebody making $4 million a year, suddenly making $3.4 million because of a tax hike is not going to changer his or her spending habits.  Taking 3% away from a state worker making $35 thousand hurts.  And it influences consumer confidence. 

            You are either stupid or an idiot if you believe a 3% tax hike will cause a brain drain.  You should look up Neil Cavuto’s interview with Ace Greenburgh on Fox Business–Cavuto thought he was going to argue against Warren Buffet’s remarks, but Greenburgh actually says it better than Buffet.  He basically calls any a moron who thinks we’ll have a brain drain if we tax the rich.  Which is what you are?

            And you should really wake up…or wait:

            Tax cuts for the rich will create new jobs…you’re getting sleepy.

            Corporations will police themselves…you’re getting sleepy.

            Off shore oil drilling is perfectly safe…you’re getting sleepy.

            Snap…vote republican.    

          • notafeminista

            So by “uncirculated” (meaning no spending at all) what you really meant was millionaires don’t spend ENOUGH – which really means they don’t spend enough to suit YOU.   Too bad.

          • Zero

            By uncirculated I mean the millions and millions of dollars that are sitting in the accounts of a few amount of people.  That wealth needs to be taxed on distributed to job creation for the middle class.

            You are dodging the clear reality that financial inequality is crippling demand.  You basically just told me (by saying “too bad”) the hell with the economy, it is the rich man’s money and the have a “moral” right to keep it.  This is no longer an economic argument–you have lost that argument by shifting it to a “moral” argument.

            And millionaires keeping the majority of their wealth in a bank account doesn’t suit the economy, dumbass. 

            You have zero economic argument over this.  You are a complete ideologue, emotionally bound to not raising taxes on the rich even if this was 1788 in France on the brink of the revolution.  There is no person rich enough to raise taxes on in your world, and that is why you are a pawn to the political system and you vote against your own economic interests.    

          • Doubting Thomas


            I was actually shocked; after the crisis I assumed that wall street was dirty as sin. Then the more I looked, the more I heard that there were in fact a multitude of people on BOTH ends of the political spectrum saying that things were awry, in both government and wall street. It’s just that nobody listened to them until it was too late.

            Ace is an interesting guy; someone “on the street” arguing much what you’re arguing… and he’s not alone. Who do we listen to: the industry legends (ben graham would roll over in his GRAVE if he saw what was going on from 2000 to 2008) and whistleblowers, or the upstarts who made their money selling into and betting on the collapse of what amounted to a gigantic bubble, most of whom understood what it was?

            I’ll stick with the people who are wise enough to say when they don’t know, and experienced enough to know the difference between speculation and investment.

          • Doubting Thomas

            (sorry, I think I replied to the wrong posting of yours… I saw all the Cavuto ::: Ace Greenburg vids, and was rather impressed)

          • CRose

            There’s only one planet. This is not a cogent argument. If you are wealthy enough you live where you want to live. I have recently heard data holding that up. I’m sorry not to have it up my sleeve – it was on the radio and I didn’t have my pen.

  • JATurtle

    Let’s just get rid of the F-500 companies, and stop their
    cash flow all together. That way the people can keep what they have and not
    spend money in the first place. Europe has better social program than the USA.
    Let’s get on board and follow Spain down the toilet.

    • Zero

      Or we can follow Germany’s lead?  Or Sweden?  Or Brazil?  Or any other government that understands the laws of supply and demand? 

      Greece had the exact opposite economic collapse we did–Greece could actually use supply side economics.  There is a different story over here, as in we need demand, which means quit cutting programs that help the lower and middle classes (i.e., the vast majority of consumers) and tax the rich who are sitting on vast amounts of wealth.  Simple economics for a simple minded country. 

      Now wake up!  Wealth ain’t trickling down, thus we need to tax “job creators” and actually create jobs with the tax revenue.  I don’t see what’s wrong with that since the “job creators” are suppose to create jobs anyway….

    • JATurtle

       It seems to me we had
      a little revolution overhear dealing with over taxation. On the other hand, I don’t
      disagree. Tax all people fairly. Stop insurance fraud and tax fraud at all
      levels of business to we don’t have to pay. Get both big and small business into
      a position to make jobs. Transparency in government and on Wall Street. “Teach people
      to fish” and not to look for handouts. Free up green technology and bring jobs

      I also think you need to demote accountants and attorneys
      and find a renaissance for R&D in America. Continual growth reminds me of
      the fruit fly experiment we did in junior high. Sometime it should be OK just
      to pay your bills and keep everyone employed.

      • Terry Tree Tree

        This makes a LOT more sense than one of your posts equalling Spain with Europe.

    • http://profiles.google.com/rickevans033050 Rick Evans

      Spain Europe. 

      Speak Java? Spain != Europe

      English? Spain is not Europe.

  • Zero

    Please, please, please do a show on the causes of the French
    Revolution…there is a political party right now who is echoing Edmund
    Burke and his ilk…sympathy for the aristocracy and frail empathy for
    the everybody else…please.

  • Pingback: Women, The Art of War and Occupy Wall Street | emotional INTELLIGENCE

  • CRose

    What is the purpose of work? 1) To help the society meet individual’s needs. 2) To make money.
    What is the purpose of business? 1) To help the society meet its needs. 2) To make money.

    Which definition is more useful? How do we get our priorities back towards making each person in the society get their needs met and away from making more and more money?

  • CRose

    It’s a bit callous to say “I am worth all of this money so I can fly across the country in order to commute to work” while saying that lay offs are necessary. I know there’s a thing about a system, but there are only so many hours in the day – why is what YOU do so valuable? Why not take a large pay cut and save some jobs?

Sep 15, 2014
In this Thursday, Sep. 11, 2014 photo, Middle Eastern leaders stand together during a family photo with of the Gulf Cooperation Council and regional partners at King Abdulaziz International Airport’s Royal Terminal in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia. (AP/Brendan Smialowski, Pool)

President Obama says he will build a coalition of partners in the Middle East to combat ISIS. We’ll do a reality check on who’s really stepping up for what.

Sep 15, 2014
This Monday, Sept. 27, 2010 file photo shows hikers on the South Kaibab Trail in Grand Canyon National Park, Ariz. (AP/Carson Walker)

Uproar over development plans for the Grand Canyon. We go to the Navajo Nation and the Canyon floor to see what’s at stake.

Sep 12, 2014
In this May 23, 2014, file photo, Janay Rice, left, looks on as her husband, Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice, speaks to the media during a news conference in Owings Mills, Md. (AP/Patrick Semansky)

#WhyIStayed. We’re looking at women in and out of relationships of domestic violence.

Sep 12, 2014
President Barack Obama meets with Congressional leaders in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, Sept. 9, 2014, to discuss options for combating the Islamic State. (AP/Evan Vucci)

The President’s ISIS strategy. The Ray Rice video. Congress is back. Apple’s new watch. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
Our Week In The Web: September 12, 2014
Friday, Sep 12, 2014

In which you had varied reactions to the prospect of a robotic spouse.

More »
Beverly Gooden on #WhyIStayed
Friday, Sep 12, 2014

Beverly Gooden — who originated the #WhyIStayed hashtag that has taken off across Twitter — joined us today for our discussion on domestic violence.

More »
1 Comment
Tierney Sutton Plays LIVE For On Point
Friday, Sep 5, 2014

We break out Tierney Sutton’s three beautiful live tracks from our broadcast today for your listening pleasure.

More »