[ClearCase_guy]

People should know better.

This article criticizes Nardelli as a "greedy CEO" but that's ridiculous. He is not a CEO who performed badly, got fired, then said, "You know what? I'm not leaving unless you give me $100M! No, make that $200M! Oh, what the heck! I'm not leaving until you give me $240M!"

The Board of Directors hired the guy. They agreed to a certain compensation package. His time came, and they paid him what had been previously agreed upon.

How is the guy greedy? Far better to criticize the Board as dumb. And if the board is dumb, then they should be replaced by smarter people. Which begs the question: "How do you get smarter people to help run your company and make it successful?" Well, there is no easy answer, but one key ingredient is the willingness to pay top dollar.

[Wally_Kalbacken]

Furthermore - the majority of what he was given up front (not disbursed, but guaranteed) which may amount to perhaps $200M of the $240M were to offset things he was giving up in leaving GE. So, if one wishes to make the case that it's a ridiculous compensation level - implicitly some of the blame belongs with GE and its compensation levels. But the facts are that he did a pretty good job there as well. This brouhaha neglects to suggest an alternative standard and aims it's envy at the compensation of corporate executives - then the same (arguable) excess is present in professional sports. I don't hear anyone accusing Shaq or David Beckham of greed.

Nardelli wasn't well liked around Atlanta. His hosting of fund raisers for Bush in the 2004 election and his massive re-development and expansion of what was already a substantial Vinings mansion made him a target, subtly, for the AJC.  His home was valued at $20M before he started the expansion. But then again the same AJC will fawn all over Evander Holyfield's mansion which cost 5x that of Nardelli's, but that's not lambasted as excessive.

There's so much inequity in the way corporate compensation is treated in the press. Look at Enron's Rebecca Mark. She was in a head to head battle with Skilling to succeed Ken Lay, and she lost out. She left the company shortly afterward and cashed out $80M in Enron stock during 2000. Many of the decisions she made and the ventures she directed were the big losers for Enron (water utilities, etc.) which gave an incentive for the offshore activities to mask their losses. Yet she has not been assessed any responsibility,, and as far as I know has not faced a civil suit. The press wanted to squeeze Enron as a story into a nice preconceived mold "male managers/executives bad, women whistleblowers are heroes" and they largely managed to do it. Except that many of the whistle blowers stayed with the company for a long time, taking down some nice coin, after they were first aware of improprieties.

Oy, don't get me started!

[RobRoy]

Exactly. When the people elect a bad president you don't blame him. You blame the voters.

Same thing here.

[gas0linealley]

It would be interesting to know how many of the board members of Home Depot are executives of other corporations on whose boards Nardelli serves.

[gas0linealley]

Which begs the question: "How do you get smarter people to help run your company and make it successful?" Well, there is no easy answer, but one key ingredient is the willingness to pay top dollar.

Right, that's why it makes sense to go union.