Thesis 1: In a fragile economy, companies must attract the most effective executives. To this end, they must be competitively rewarded (million-dollar salaries), lured by generous benefits (million-dollar bonuses), encouraged to stay (golden parachutes, gold-plated pensions).

Thesis 2: In a fragile economy, companies must become ever more competitive. To that end, workers must accept more competitive (lower) pay, more market-oriented (reduced) benefits, and more realistic (eliminated) pensions.

Since both theses are diametrically opposed, if either is sound, proven and effective, logically, the other must be faulty. Why then do we continue to apply this duality of reason to corporate compensation models? If rewarding executives is effective, surely rewarding workers will be equally so. If we really can’t afford to compensate workers and remain competitive, the lead in that direction should come from the top

But then we must always remember David Dingwall and his $417,780 severance pack. decided by an independent arbitrator, oh how CUPW wish they had him onside. Remember his famous, "I'm Entitled to my Entitlements."

http://youtu.be/UIo-bEsoMgA

http://youtu.be/7zb5z7NOK24