The controversy over the wages of patterns had not

The controversy over the wages of patterns had not. The political problem has the appearance of simplicity. On the one hand, the social plans accumulate, desperate employees trap their heads. On the other, it is golden parachutes, "golden hellos" and stock conveniently paid when prices are low. Yet the debate is extremely confused: talking about a problem of economic efficiency, inequality, or something else

The strictly economic point of view, very high wages collected by the leaders of large listed companies are a significant and proven aberration. In 2008, the patterns of the CAC 40 collectively saw 80 million euros, a significant sum for 40 people, but the equivalent of barely 1.40 by French, or one hundredth of a half percentage point of GDP. As this money is not a transfer of all the French to the leaders, but a cost borne by the shareholders of the companies concerned. Have they paid too much Perhaps in some cases, but overall there is no indication that these wages do not correspond to market logic. Empirically, their variation over time and between business explained by changes in size of the financial issues. Moreover, companies owned by funds of "private equity", quite keen on governance issues, pay their leaders as much, or even better than the listed companies. Even parachutes Golden, much maligned, had their economic justification. They allow a transition accelerated for poor performance of the pattern. Well compensated, it is effort less to his position, avoiding side-effects of trench warfare at the company for power.

Second interpretation: contempt by the wages of patterns crystallizes more general malaise on the growth of inequalities. If this is the case, it refers to a matter of public policy, the tax redistribution: the company cannot be the place to manage the issue of inequality in society. The State has enough to not, moreover, micro - manager wage of private enterprises.

The real issue in the debate on the salary of the patterns is that of the legitimacy of an elite that, as the French aristocracy of Ancien Régime, haven't been able to justify its privileges by the risk of his condition. In the feudal system, the Lord was legitimized by the danger which would result in the event of armed conflict. Machiavelli observed that Roman centurions who arrived to prevent desertion were those who were the more physical risk, walking before and not behind the troops. On the merits, the malaise among employees and managers, is, proportionately, in the same order as that of soldiers of 1914-1918 obedient to the orders of distant generals of the front. The issue is more in risk-sharing in the sharing of resources. In fact, the founders leaders, who have more to lose in the crisis, are not subject to the same bitterness.

But nothing is lost. French employers can regain legitimacy in the view, what the laws regulating wages will not help. The first track of reconciliation is to increase the amount of their heritage leaders invest in the company, to report their solidarity with its destiny. The second is to build on the code of conduct written in the late 19th century by Andrew Carnegie, giant of the steel, one of the "thieves barons" who founded the American capitalism, including the principles guiding the massive charitable action of Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. Carnegie believed that the capitalist society survive if its financial elites actively engaged a very important part of their heritage to the benefit of the community through the funding of the arts, education or public gardens. In the United States, it is their money that funds most of the museums and major universities.