IBM: More $$$ For Exec Pensions, Less for Workers

This is from Michael Brush at MSN Money:

Samuel Palmisano, IBM chief executive, has no such worries. Palmisano, according to IBM’s regulatory filings, will receive an annual pension of $4 million when he retires at age 65. That works out to $75,000 a week — or more than $10,000 a day, including weekends….

It’s not like Palmisano doesn’t make enough to tuck a little away for his old age on his own — like regular IBM workers will now have to do. IBM paid Palmisano $6.8 million in salary and bonus in 2004. That’s well above the $2.46 million average for CEOs at S&P 500 companies, according to the Corporate Library. At the end of 2004, Palmisano also had $14 million worth of restricted stock and options potentially worth $12 million or more in 10 years, by the company’s calculations.

So while rank and file employees in corporate America struggle to pay for housing, health insurance, and education for their children, and now will also have to pay a larger share of their salary toward saving for retirement, their so-called leaders are fattening their already bursting-at-the-seams wallets and living on mountains of money when they retire.

This kind of greed is sickeningly unjust.

3 thoughts on “IBM: More $$$ For Exec Pensions, Less for Workers”

  1. “Sickeningly unjust” is perhaps an understatement. But then no one said that life was going to be fair (unless, of course, they were running for political office). That the widening gap between uber-rich and poor represents more of a risk to our national security than any terrorist group remains a topic non grata. Classism is the stepchild of all -ism’s. In any regard, for more enlightenment (such as it is) on the issue, I reference the following article:
    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0605-01.htm

  2. David, The NY Times piece you reference is a real wake-up call, particularly that even Alan Greenspan admits that the trend toward a widening gap between the rich and the poor is an unhealthy signal. Seems like the democrats should be getting this information out as much as possible, especially making sure that people in the higher income ranges ($100 to 200 K) don’t vote republican thinking that they’re voting for the candidate who will get them a better deal tax-wise.

Comments are closed.