I don't disagree with the notion of setting pay caps for CEO's as there as been a growing gap between the lowest paid employee and the highest for decades. In the 1920's the difference was supposedly about 25 times, in the 70's that grew to 50 times, in the 90's the gap grew to around 500 times. Granted i heard this from a lecture a few years ago, but i do see a trend.

There are several mistakes the swiss are making though. First is 12:1 being a bit too extreme. Perhaps 25:1 or even 50:1 to justify 80-90 hour work weeks for years on end, for those who haven't been born into their position.

I was also under the impression that this was linked to the notion of their government paying everyone $2000+ a month for nothing. If so this is a terrible idea on so many levels.

Admittedly I haven't done enough research on the idea to actually come up with a definitive opinion, as school is consuming my life (hopefully not in vain).

it's a good idea, no matter how you look at it... i have no clue as to whats "fair" to the CEO's, but what they are doing now is less than fair to us...(for them to make the money they are making, it comes from us, the consumers)

Can you imagine if we did this in the US?

I am sorry sir, 12 times pay of your lowest paid worker is not enough for you? Justify that.

If I remember correctly,we already capped the Remuneration of CEOs in an earlier similar Vote!All that will happen is,that the Corporations leave for other European Countries,and all the SS-Taxes and Income-taxes will benefit them instead of Switzerland!

Agreed. Many, not all, are hording instead of being fair. Many will get substantial raises while telling their employees the company is "in the red" and won't provide cost of living adjustments for years.

It is important to not swing the pendulum too far though, as it will hurt anyone who wants to start new companies, discourage those who work hard at advancing, and shut down anyone who isn't a corporate giant. (Hence my 50:1 suggestion) Done poorly it could, and would, wreck any economy.

I don't disagree with the notion of setting pay caps for CEO's as there as been a growing gap between the lowest paid employee and the highest for decades. In the 1920's the difference was supposedly about 25 times, in the 70's that grew to 50 times, in the 90's the gap grew to around 500 times. Granted i heard this from a lecture a few years ago, but i do see a trend.

There are several mistakes the swiss are making though. First is 12:1 being a bit too extreme. Perhaps 25:1 or even 50:1 to justify 80-90 hour work weeks for years on end, for those who haven't been born into their position.

I was also under the impression that this was linked to the notion of their government paying everyone $2000+ a month for nothing. If so this is a terrible idea on so many levels.

Admittedly I haven't done enough research on the idea to actually come up with a definitive opinion, as school is consuming my life (hopefully not in vain).

The General Consensus here is,to keep Government out of micromanaging Issues like this!
Shareholders are a much more effective way of doing that!

They do, just not always. Sometimes shareholders merely emphasize the "bottom line" over making a good product for a fair price.

That being said, businesses are over regulated, which needlessly drives prices up, and shuts down smaller local companies. Often regulations actually prevent the free market from keeping things in check.

The other Idea about an unearned 2500Sfr Income hasn't even been formulated by the Legislature yet,it's another Brainfart!

https://www.ch.ch/en/referendum/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Switzerland

Corporate 'fat cats' in Switzerland are pouring in money to sway the result of an upcoming referendum that could turn the tide on income inequality in the country.

Up for a nation-wide vote next Monday, the "1:12 Initiative for Fair Play" would legally limit the monthly income of high earning CEOs to no more than what a company's lowest-paid employee earns in 12 months. In other words, no top executive could make more in a month than what the company’s lowest-paid workers make in a year.

The initiative, introduced by the youth wing of Switzerland's Socialist Party (JUSO) and backed by the Social Democrat and Green parties and unions across the country, gained support and momentum very quickly, with a successful petition drive of over 130,000 signatures to get it on the ballot.

Rising income inequality in the county has fueled the support. As JUSO's campaign has pointed out, the average salary among Swiss CEOs compared to the average wage has risen from six to one in 1984 to 43 to one in 2011.

But as voting time has drawn closer, the super rich have turned up the heat against the campaign to protect their profits, Sam Pizzigati at Inequality.org reports, with donations to the 'no' vote camp now likely well into the millions and up to 50 times the amount donated to the 'yes' campaign.

The spending seems to be taking its toll. A recent poll taken by the Swiss market research institute gfs.bern showed 36 percent of those questioned were in favor of the 1:12 initiative, down from 44 percent in October when the polls were split.

As Pizzigati writes, the messages coming from Swiss corporations such as Nestle and Novartis, as well as many corporate friendly lawmakers, have painted the picture that the initiative is “a frontal attack on freedom” — and “prosperity,” as declared by SwissHoldings, a federation of Swiss-based multinationals.

In another sampling of the rhetoric coming from the no campaign, Swiss lawmaker Ruedi Noser said the 1:12 proposition would turn Switzerland into the “North Korea of Europe."

The fear-inducing tactics seem to be working, if the polls are any indication.

Meanwhile, "No major Swiss newspaper is supporting the 1:12 initiative,” said JUSO activist Mattea Meyer.

However, the game is far too early to call, Pizzigati notes. In a very similar showdown earlier this year, "Swiss corporate execs unleashed a similar political blitz," he reports, "when corporate gadfly Thomas Minder, a successful entrepreneur, led a campaign to give shareholders more say over top executive pay — and ban executive new-hire and 'golden parachute' bonuses." That initiative passed with an overwhelming 67.9 percent voting against the "fat cats" in favor of the regulations.

"I'm optimistic," said JUSO's David Roth in an interview last week. "We have our chance. We're up against the big companies who spend millions. I can tell you that our opponents are nervous."
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/11/18-5

Once a government is allowed to set a cap on ANYONES wages it sets a precedent for setting a cap on EVERYONES wages.

Be careful what you wish for, your wages could be the next to be considered excessive by political elitist who know what's best and fair. It's kind of like a government determining what everyone's health insurance needs are and what you HAVE to buy because they, the political elitists, know what's best and fair for everyone!!!

Valid point. Only problem is the government's already over regulating businesses. I was kind of thinking that the idea of caps in wages could replace almost every other regulation. In that case it could be beneficial. Perhaps you are right, there is too much room for uncle sam to just run with it and control everything.

well,good luck,even the Unions do not agree with it!
All it will result in is higher Taxes,and lower Income from Taxes on Federal,State and Local level!
Seems OP hasn't got an inkling about the Swiss Political Process!

well,Sonny,we can vote on it here,but you can't in the US!