????股東對(duì)高管薪酬的投票（即所謂的“薪酬發(fā)言權(quán)”投票）不具有約束力。雖然公司董事會(huì)代表股東，但并不是必須按照股東的意見(jiàn)行事。不過(guò)，甲骨文公司董事會(huì)毫不妥協(xié)的態(tài)度極不尋常。

????相比之下，雖然塔吉特百貨公司（Target）董事會(huì)在去年的“薪水發(fā)言權(quán)”投票中獲勝，盡管優(yōu)勢(shì)很微弱，但是董事會(huì)還是對(duì)高管薪酬方案進(jìn)行了實(shí)質(zhì)性調(diào)整，結(jié)果導(dǎo)致公司CEO薪酬大幅縮水。麥克森公司（McKesson）和弗里波特－麥克莫蘭銅金公司（Freeport McMoRan）在2013年遭遇的慘敗同樣也促成了對(duì)公司高管薪酬方案的改革。

????通常情況下，如果哪家公司像弗里波特－麥克莫蘭銅金公司一樣，業(yè)績(jī)平淡，CEO卻獲得高額薪酬，這家公司就會(huì)在“薪水發(fā)言權(quán)”投票中失敗。而甲骨文公司的情況卻很不一樣。過(guò)去五年，甲骨文公司股票價(jià)格一直在穩(wěn)定攀升，近期還開(kāi)始支付股息。此外，甲骨文公司的凈收入在過(guò)去五個(gè)季度中保持基本穩(wěn)定。而且，甲骨文公司還會(huì)因?yàn)楣蓶|在公司的不作為（不反對(duì)薪酬方案）而進(jìn)一步增加對(duì)他們的高額回報(bào)。那么，股東們到底在抱怨什么？股票價(jià)格的上漲使埃里森獲得1.5億股票期權(quán)收益，但同樣也給股東們帶來(lái)了好處。

????有些公司業(yè)績(jī)優(yōu)秀，但股東們依然否決了公司的高管薪酬方案。麥克森公司的股東回報(bào)一直不錯(cuò)，依然進(jìn)行了薪酬改革。盡管達(dá)美樂(lè)比薩（Domino’s Pizza）和墨西哥燒烤快餐店（Chipotle Mexican Gril）取得了優(yōu)異的業(yè)績(jī)，卻都在上月的“薪水發(fā)言權(quán)”投票中慘敗。盡管目前要想知道這兩家公司將出臺(tái)哪些改革措施還太早，但是過(guò)去的經(jīng)驗(yàn)表明，他們不會(huì)忽視投票的結(jié)果。

????今年10月召開(kāi)的甲骨文公司年度大會(huì)將對(duì)新的股東提案進(jìn)行投票。除非公司宣布重大變更計(jì)劃，否則“薪水發(fā)言權(quán)”投票結(jié)果似乎已成定局。美國(guó)勞工總會(huì)與產(chǎn)業(yè)勞工組織（AFL-CIO）及紐約市雇員退休體制（New York City Employee Retirement System）提交了決議，呼吁對(duì)薪酬方案進(jìn)行變革，原因是“這家公司近期提交股東批準(zhǔn)的（薪酬）方案引用的綜合（業(yè)績(jī)）標(biāo)準(zhǔn)含糊不清或名目繁多，以至于毫無(wú)意義。”卡明斯基金會(huì)（Nathan Cummings Foundation）甚至提交了所謂的“代理參與”決議。這個(gè)決議將允許股東正式提名董事，還有可能讓他們進(jìn)入薪酬委員會(huì)。這樣一來(lái)，他們就能執(zhí)行股東們的要求。

????那么，是什么原因讓甲骨文公司忽視大多數(shù)股東的愿望呢？埃里森是公司的創(chuàng)始人，所以可能是這種情形：“我的地盤(pán)我做主?！辈贿^(guò)，許多公司也只會(huì)向創(chuàng)始人支付適度的薪酬。比爾?蓋茨或史蒂夫?鮑爾默從未獲得微軟公司（Microsoft）的股票獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)，他們每年只獲得有限的薪水和獎(jiǎng)金。他們持有公司的大量股票，使股權(quán)獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)變得毫無(wú)意義。股東因此對(duì)他們的支持程度會(huì)提高多少？埃里森的情況也是一樣，只是他的董事會(huì)不說(shuō)而已。

????Shareholder votes on executive compensation – commonly known as Say on Pay – are not binding. The board – despite being there to represent shareholders – does not have to act on shareholders’ opinions. But Oracle’s intransigence is extremely unusual.

????At Target, by contrast — which won its Say on Pay vote last year, albeit with a margin of only a couple of percentage points — the board made substantial changes to executive pay that resulted in a dramatic fall in compensation for the CEO. At McKesson and Freeport McMoRan, major defeats in 2013 also led to changes to its executive compensation.

????Typically, companies lose Say on Pay votes when performance is lackluster and the CEOs are paid handsomely, like at Freeport McMoRan. That’s hardly the case at Oracle, whose stock price rise over the past five years has been pretty consistent, and the company has recently begun to pay dividends. On the other hand, net income at Oracle has been basically flat over the last five quarters. Still, great returns to shareholders might be advanced as a reason for inaction at Oracle. What are shareholders complaining about? They benefited from the rise in stock price that allowed Ellison to make $150 million in profit on his stock options.

????Shareholders have rejected executive compensation plans at companies that have had great performance. At McKesson, where returns to shareholders have also been excellent, pay reform went ahead. And Domino’s Pizza and Chipotle Mexican Grill both catastrophically lost Say on Pay votes last month despite exemplary performance. It’s too early to know what changes will be made at these companies, but past experience suggests that the vote will not be ignored.

????The new shareholder proposals at Oracle will be voted on at the company’s October annual meeting, where, unless major changes are announced, the results for the Say on Pay vote would seem to be a foregone conclusion. The AFL-CIO and New York City Employee Retirement System both filed resolutions calling for pay changes because, “recent [pay] plans submitted by the Company for shareholder approval have only cited general [performance] criteria so vague or multitudinous as to be meaningless.” The Nathan Cummings Foundation has filed what is known as a “proxy access” resolution, which would allow shareholders to formally nominate directors … and potentially get them on the compensation committee so they could implement shareholder demands.

????So what is it about Oracle that makes it ignore the wishes of a vast majority of its owners? Ellison founded the firm, so perhaps it’s a case of “it’s my party and I’ll pay if I want to.” Except that many founder firms pay their founders very modestly. Neither Bill Gates nor Steve Ballmer ever received a stock award from Microsoft, taking only a small salary and bonus each year. Their vast holdings in the firm made equity awards pointless. How much more aligned with shareholders could they get? The same could be said about Ellison, except that his board does not say it.