My take on the OP’s comment was that his salary and bonuses are controlled by the board. As Sergei and Larry have majority control he would not have gotten this without their explicit approval.
There is no reasonable amount by which he could cut his compensation that wouldn't result in whiners complaining that "well, that wasn't enough of a cut!”
If he's going to catch heat for it anyway, he might as well take what he's being offered.
They could set it to zero, which would be in-line with severity of laying off of 10+ year high performers or those who are pregnant or on medical leave. I'd like to see an automatic condition where layoffs trigger a requirement that the directors and officers compensation will be set to zero for the next three years. You're basically severely fucking with people's lives and this has very real consequences for those people and society in general who has to pick up the pieces.
The average tenure of corporate CEOs is what <7 years? Why the hell would you intentionally cut your pay knowing you have a short half in the gig and for doing the job you were hired to do?
For some people, enough money is enough money and you start to think about your legacy. Or maybe your coworkers that toil for so much less. Will another $200m make any difference at all for someone with that kind of money?
Who is on the board ? Often CEOs float around between boards, they are almost never going to decrease the pay or not raise it, unlike how it works for the rest of us.
Too often correct. But in a case where Founder1 and Founder2 have absolute majority voting control, the Board is extremely unlikely to play such "obviously we'll vote to give each other raises" games. They are sitting in those cushy Board seats - or not - at 1 & 2's whim.
