El Perro
You seem to have unbridled faith (in people managing large companies) that their decisions will ALWAYS be made in the best interests of shareholders in those companies in the short/medium and long term.
You may come up with an argument that the management will be changed by the directors through shareholder activism when situations arise that may warrant them.
The shareholders on the whole are large managed funds. These large funds are usually ranked on a 1-3 year performance basis. They can, and do,unwind at anytime if they feel that in the longer term a company will begin to underperform.
The upper levels of management are usually performance managed on a yearly basis. Where do you think their focus is on? Management are usually given a short term 'bar' to jump (KPIs).
The point I was making was that it's immaterial to your future earnings whether GD was paid $1 or $3 million unless that payment places the company in a position where it would become insolvent.
Why does this only to pertain to the upper levels of management? Is it because they are seen as only short-term? Surely it would be a good management practice to lead by example. Maybe sitting down the back occasionally, or making a family member give up their seat for a full fare paying passenger would give the staff an example of how much you value the revenue generating side of a company.
People involved in Associations/Unions tend to have a longer term outlook. Their members are concerned with the longer term health of a company that they work for. Witness people agreeing to pay freezes when a company is going through hard times. Is it wrong for them to expect a pay increase when things improve?
The boss of JAL was paying himself a pittance in comparison to what goes on in Australia.
Your apologist arguments for what has become the mindset for some in corporate Australia, and the vitriol you direct at any Association/Union serves to paint you as someone who is so blinkered in their argument as to become inconsequential.