rémunération | Page 2

La COVID-19 amène à faire des choix délicats en matière de gestion des RH et des parties prenantes. Le New York Times propose un article intéressant de M. Schwartz intitulé « Pay Cuts Become a Tool for Some Companies to Avoid Layoffs » (24 mai 2020) sur le dilemme entre réduction de la rémunération ou licenciement. La première option semble avoir plus de succès…

Extrait :

It was late and Martin A. Kits van Heyningen feared he was letting the team down at the company he co-founded, KVH Industries. Rather than lay off workers in response to the coronavirus pandemic, he had decided to cut salaries, and when he emailed a video explaining his decision at 3 a.m. last month, he was prepared for a barrage of complaints.

Instead, he woke to an outpouring of support from employees that left him elated.

“It was one of the hardest things I’ve done, but it turned out to be the best day of my life at work,” said Mr. Kits van Heyningen. “I was trying to keep their morale up. Instead, they kept my morale up.”

Even as American employers let tens of millions of workers go, some companies are choosing a different path. By instituting across-the-board salary reductions, especially at senior levels, they have avoided layoffs.

The ranks of those forgoing job cuts and furloughs include major employers like HCA Healthcare, the hospital chain, and Aon, a London-based global professional services firm with a regional headquarters in Chicago. Chemours, a specialty chemical maker in Wilmington, Del., cut pay by 30 percent for senior management and preserved jobs. Others that managed to avoid layoffs include smaller companies like KVH, a maker of mobile connectivity and navigation systems that employs 600 globally and is based in Middletown, R.I.

The trend is a reversal of traditional management theory, which held that salaries were sacred and it was better to cut positions and dismiss a limited number of workers than to lower pay for everyone during downturns.

There is often a genuine desire to protect employees, but long-term financial interests are a major consideration as well, said Donald Delves, a compensation expert with Willis Towers Watson.

“A lot has happened in the last 10 years,” Mr. Delves said. “Companies learned the hard way that once you lay off a bunch of people, it’s expensive and time-consuming to hire them back. Employees are not interchangeable.”

A recent study by the Conference Board with Semler Brossy, an executive compensation research firm, and Esgauge, a data analytics firm, found that 537 public companies had cut pay of senior management since the crisis began. The study did not specify whether any had also cut jobs, however.

To be sure, if the crisis lasts longer than expected and the economy keeps shrinking, it is possible these salary reductions will not be enough to stave off job cuts. Other large corporations have cut salaries as well as jobs to stem coronavirus-related losses.

Still, the sudden nature of the economic threat has created a different mind-set among some managers than existed during the last recession, Mr. Delves said. Some companies did try to cut pay rather than jobs back then, but the impulse seems more widespread now.

“What we’re seeing this time around is more of a sense of shared sacrifice and shared pain,” he added.

When the pandemic hit, HCA was increasing revenue and adding employees, said its chief executive, Sam Hazen, “and to put them out on the street because of some virus just wasn’t something I was going to do.”

With stay-at-home orders covering much of the country and bans on elective surgery in many states, HCA’s hospitals were left with a revenue shortfall. The company suspended its share repurchases and quarterly dividend to bolster its financial position, and it reduced capital spending.

Mr. Hazen donated his salary for April and May to an internal fund for employees in distress, while senior management took a 30 percent pay cut. White-collar employees at lower levels saw their compensation reduced by 10 to 20 percent.

All in all, about 15,000 employees were affected, out of a total of 275,000. The company does not expect the pay reductions to extend beyond June.

HCA also created a pandemic pay program that allowed more than 120,000 nonexecutive hospital employees to receive 70 percent of what they earned before the virus hit. Employees, including union members, are also being asked to forgo a raise this year.

(…) Aon, with 50,000 workers around the world, was even more aggressive about reducing salaries. Top executives there gave up 50 percent of their pay, with most remaining employees getting a cut of 20 percent.

“We wanted to say no one would lose their job because of Covid-19,” said Greg Case, Aon’s chief executive.

Mr. Case said he was heartened because overseas employees, who had the right to reject the salary cuts, overwhelmingly accepted them. About two-thirds of Aon’s work force is outside the United States.

But Mr. Case said the company was bracing for long-term disruption. “The risk on the horizon is potentially much greater than 2008-9,” he said. “We are preparing for scenarios that are multiples worse than that.” Aon says the need for the pay cuts will be reviewed monthly.

Avoiding layoffs will leave Aon better prepared for when the economy does rebound, Mr. Case said. “When clients need us most, we will be there,” he said.

Certainly, for chief executives and the highest-ranking officers, salary cuts are not as painful as it would first appear. That’s because for most, the bulk of their compensation comes in stock awards, said Amit Batish, manager of content and communications for Equilar, a private research firm that tracks executive pay.

“Salaries are a drop in the bucket for most executives, but it does send the message that we are helping out the organization,” he said.

Still, the fact that a few companies were able to avoid layoffs by reducing salaries raises the question of whether more businesses could have averted job cuts in the last two months.

With government unemployment benefits available for laid-off workers, many American companies were quick to cut their work forces, said Kathryn Neel, a managing director at Semler Brossy. “In European countries, where wages were subsidized, they managed to keep more people on the payroll,” she added.

Sharing the pain more broadly this way might have prevented the unemployment rate from hitting its highest level since the Great Depression while also better positioning companies for the eventual recovery.

Firms that cut heavily in 2008-9 were not ready when the economy eventually rebounded, according to Gregg Passin, a senior partner at the human resources consulting firm Mercer. “They lagged companies that were more cautious about cutting people,” he said.

A no-layoffs policy also builds loyalty. “No one wants to be in a situation where their salary is cut,” Mr. Passin said. “But we really do believe the way you treat employees today is the way they’ll treat you tomorrow.”

À la prochaine…

Dans FastCompany, le journaliste Christopher Zara publie un intéressant article reprenant une étude menée actuellement par The Conference Board sur la réduction des rémunérations : « Pandemic pay cuts: The growing list of companies reducing salaries during COVID-19 ». Le constat est éloquent pour l’application de la RSE et de la théorie des parties prenantes par les entreprises, je vous le laisse découvrir ci-dessous :

Extrait :

More than 30 million Americans have filed for unemployment benefits since the economy first began to unravel due to the coronavirus pandemic. That figure may not count untold millions of freelancers or self-employed individuals who are also out of work, nor does it factor in countless people who simply couldn’t get through to their state labor department to file a claim. And of those who are still working, many are making considerably less money due to reduced hours.

And then there are the company-imposed pay cuts. Over the past few weeks, the Conference Board has been tracking pay reduction announcements for publicly traded companies, using SEC filings by firms listed in the Russell 3000 Index.

Some the findings may surprise you: For instance, the salary reductions are not just hitting top executives and their fat bonuses. At last count, 61% of the affected companies applied pay reductions to the base salaries of senior managers who make less than top-tier executives, the Conference Board says. It adds that 11% of all companies in the index announced base pay cuts between March 1 and April 24.

The good news is, the announcements peaked in early April and have declined a bit in recent weeks. The bad news? The group anticipates a “second wave” of salary reductions could emerge in the weeks ahead as the ripple effects of COVID-19 continue to wreak havoc on bottom lines.

The Conference Board posted the insights in a new report that also includes a wealth of data visualizations and the full list of companies. It says the list will be updated weekly as long as the crisis continues. The data is being compiled in collaboration with consulting firm Semler Brossy and Esgauge Analytics. It shows that the industries hardest hit by the coronavirus are what you would expect, including retail and hospitality.

À la prochaine…

Belle opinion dans The Globe and Mail (8 avril 2020) de Kevin Thomas : « Rethinking executive compensation in times of crisis ».

Extrait :

First, the meetings will largely be held online to avoid spreading the virus, a new experience for most of us.

Second, the oversized pay packages for executives and directors that shareholders often accept will be more clearly out of place, when the rest of the community is facing layoffs, cutbacks and serious financial uncertainty.

Some corporate leaders have been reducing pay, foregoing bonuses or donating pay to COVID-19 relief, which is commendable. Many executives will also take a hit, at least temporarily, on the current value of any stock-based compensation. Many stock options granted years ago and vesting now will not be “in the money” at current share prices and executives may have to wait to exercise them.

But with so many boards basing executive performance targets on their company’s relative shareholder returns, rather than absolute ones, some executives will continue to be eligible for high awards, as we have seen at recent annual meetings of large Canadian banks. The value of any share-based compensation may be low at present, but those grants may set up executives for a much, much happier recovery than the rest of us – something we saw in spades after the 2008-09 financial crisis.

Perhaps this is the right time to rethink our whole approach.

Shareholders have long taken aim at the, “Heads I win, tails you lose,” approach to executive compensation at some companies. Corporate boards justify massive payouts to executives when times are good on the basis that shareholder returns are also high, yet somehow find other reasons to continue high levels of pay when shareholder returns are low.

Those approaches are easy targets for scorn and clearly justify a shareholder vote against the board’s approach. But that’s not all that’s wrong with the current system of executive pay.

The structure itself, where so much of an executive’s pay package is based on incentive rewards rather than base salaries, inevitably serves up exactly the kind of high pay packages we will see now, even in the midst of this crisis.

We’ve become far too used to the idea that large incentive payouts are necessary to align executive performance with shareholder value. We’ve spawned a whole industry that cooks up ever-more-complex formulas to set executive compensation on the assumption that it incentivizes productive behaviour. It’s not at all clear that it does.

As Tom Powdrill at the U.K. pension consultancy PIRC wrote recently, “Watching medical staff worldwide throw themselves into the battle against COVID-19, without any expectation that they will be paid a single penny extra as a ‘bonus’ for their efforts, but with the expectation that some of them will die, requires us to rethink things fundamentally.”

So, what if we take this chance to do things differently?

In the immediate term, we’ll be looking for leadership from more boards and executives, especially when decisions are being made about layoffs, salary cuts, dividend cuts and reduced expenditures that hurt external suppliers. Cancelling discretionary executive pay and taking a pass on director compensation is the least they can do.

That goes double for any firm receiving government assistance. “We’re all in this together” has to mean something.

À la prochaine…

Très intéressant article du Financial Times au titre très clair : « Investors and politicians demand coronavirus pay cuts » (4 avril 2020). L’Angleterre démontre un changement de perspective dans le domaine de la rémunération de la haute direction… Un exemple à suivre ?

À la prochaine…

Bonjour à toutes et à tous, TVA nouvelles a relayé il y a peu un article du Journal de Montréal de Philippe Orfali sur les primes juteuses pour «fidéliser» les fondateurs et la haute direction des sociétés québécoises cotées en bourse. Les sociétés continuent d’offrir à leurs dirigeants de généreuses primes visant à les « fidéliser » ou à les retenir, et ce, même s’il s’agit d’entreprises auxquelles ils sont très attachés, en raison de liens familiaux.

Or, comme le souligne le porte-parole du MÉDAC (Willie Gagnon) «On comprend que lorsque vient le temps d’attirer de nouveaux membres de la direction, il faille offrir des incitatifs. Mais quand on vient de la famille qui contrôle, on a déjà un intérêt à long terme dans la société par la participation massive au capital et au contrôle de l’entreprise».

«Il n’y a pas lieu d’avoir d’incitatif à long terme versé! L’incitatif ici, c’est le contrôle et la performance de la société», ajoute-t-il.

La notion de rémunération concurrentielle ne devrait pas s’appliquer quand on détient des centaines de millions ou des milliards dans cette même entreprise, selon lui.

À réfléchir !

À la prochaine…