The Shareholder ForumTM


"Say on Pay" Proposals

Forum Home Page

"Say on Pay" Home Page

Program Reference


For additional reports concerning investor communications and voting processes, see

For views relating to the proposed alternatives, see


IR Magazine, May 13, 2009 article


Crossbow logoPeople on the street

Carpenters target pay at Procter & Gamble and 19 others

May 13, 2009

Union pension fund wants triennial forums and multipart say-on-pay votes

In a radical twist on the say-on-pay movement, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters Pension Fund has submitted a new proxy proposal to 20 companies in the last few weeks.

The so-called triennial executive pay (TEP) vote proposal seeks shareholder votes on executive pay overall and three aspects of it every three years. Plus, in a first for proxy proposals, the TEP vote program includes a ‘forum’ for the compensation committee to engage with shareholders.

The Carpenters’ union has always criticized say on pay as a waste of time for investors which does nothing to help change compensation practices. Now it wants the 500 or so biggest US companies to hold staggered, triennial votes, making for a lighter proxy workload for shareholders compared to potentially universal say on pay.

The TEP vote program came to light in letter from the Carpenters to Procter & Gamble dated April 28, which was posted by Tim Smith, director of socially responsive investment at Walden Asset Management, on the website Say on Pay 2009. The Carpenters union sent its last six letters yesterday and plans to announce the whole list of 20 next week. The targets have annual meetings scheduled for late 2009 or early 2010. P&G, for example, had its last annual meeting in October 2008.

Into the pay fray
The Carpenters union may have avoided say on pay but it has not ducked the pay debate. For instance, it evaluated around 75 companies leading up to the 2008 proxy season and submitted ‘pay for superior performance’ resolutions to 34, later dropping 28 of them after discussions.

The plan for 2009 was to dispense with proposals and instead send compensation scorecards as the basis for dialogue. Corporate affairs director Ed Durkin and his team spent last year’s post-season analyzing the CD&As of 120 companies using a 39-point ‘pay for superior performance’ evaluation. They sent out the scorecards in the fall.

Meanwhile, the Carpenters submitted proposals to limit pay at around 30 of the biggest TARP recipients. They later withdrew them because President Obama’s February stimulus plan had pay provisions for TARP companies, including say on pay.

The Carpenters scoffed all along at forcing say-on-pay votes on the entire universe of public companies – a notion Durkin says is misunderstood by its advocates at the SEC and on Capitol Hill. ‘It would turn voting into a checklist process and it would not help improve executive compensation,’ he says.

The Carpenters’ portfolio, for example, has around 3,700 companies. ‘You would get very dumbed-down analysis if we had to evaluate the CD&As of 3,700 companies,’ Durkin explains. ‘Roping all those companies into a vote obligation would create a nightmarish amount of work for thoughtful investors.’ 

Instead, the union wants the 500 or so largest companies, or about 170 a year, to hold triennial votes, in the hope that their improved pay practices would set industry trends. 

Durkin adds that mandating a TEP vote for large companies wouldn’t prevent shareholders from submitting TEP vote proposals at smaller companies as needed.

Along with a vote on compensation overall, the Carpenters union proposes a ballot covering three pay components: the annual incentive plan, long-term incentives, and post-employment benefits like retirement or change-of-control benefits. ‘It needs to be more informative than a straight up-and-down vote,’ Durkin says.

Durkin emphasizes that the first 20 companies to get the TEP vote proposal don’t necessarily have bad compensation practices. However, they have been subjected to the Carpenters’ 39-point pay-for-superior-performance evaluation and all probably have room for improvement. 

IR in the picture
From an IR point of view, perhaps the most remarkable element of the TEP vote program is a proposed forum in which shareholders would join in discussion with compensation committee members.

Smith, who previously submitted a proposal for P&G to hold an annual advisory vote on pay, disagrees with the Carpenters’ three-year timeline. However, he endorses merging the vote with a forum. ‘Proponents of the [say-on-pay] advisory vote have already been very active in promoting robust communications processes,’ he says. ‘The Carpenters’ resolution is just the tip of the iceberg.’

Smith believes forums similar to what the Carpenters are proposing might be championed in the next round of say-on-pay proposals, either in the resolutions or in the supporting statements – if there’s a next round. Both he and Durkin say their proposals could be moot if Senator Charles Schumer or Representative Barney Frank succeed in legislating say on pay in their expected packages of reforms.

By Neil Stewart





This Forum program is open, free of charge, to anyone concerned with investor interests relating to shareholder advisory voting on executive compensation, referred to by activists as "Say on Pay." As stated in the posted Conditions of Participation, the Forum's purpose is to provide decision-makers with access to information and a free exchange of views on the issues presented in the program's Forum Summary. Each participant is expected to make independent use of information obtained through the Forum, subject to the privacy rights of other participants.  It is a Forum rule that participants will not be identified or quoted without their explicit permission.

The organization of this Forum program was supported by Sibson Consulting to address issues relevant to broad public interests in marketplace practices, rather than investor decisions relating to only a single company. The Forum may therefore invite program support of several companies that can provide both expertise and examples of performance leadership relating to the issues being addressed.

Inquiries about this Forum program and requests to be included in its distribution list may be addressed to

The information provided to Forum participants is intended for their private reference, and permission has not been granted for the republishing of any copyrighted material. The material presented on this web site is the responsibility of Gary Lutin, as chairman of the Shareholder Forum.