Networks, meanwhile, were left bracing themselves as being not too far behind.
A key plank of the party’s strategy was revealed as greater worker representation on boards to empower employees and limit excessive salaries. Among a suite of proposals unveiled was that senior executive and director posts be re-advertised on “dramatically reduced salaries” and capped by a 20:1 pay ratio policy.
This could see the earnings of a chief executive of a government-owned companies set at no more than 20 times that of its lowest paid worker, in a bid to ensure what Labour described as “fairness within our economy”.
The effect on top pay would be dramatic. Even if you do the sums based on the average wage, rather than the lowest, this means a CEO could be paid no more than £552,000, which is 20 times the UK average of £27,600. Other highly lucrative parts of pay packages, such as share options and personal bonuses, could also be scrapped, with any rewards distributed among all those within the company.
It’s a message that seems to chime well with voters. A survey by the Independent news service, conducted around the same time, suggested Labour’s proposals would be supported by most of the public, at 57 per cent.
But while half a million pounds may sound a small fortune to lower income earners, would such a sum attract the high achievers needed to lead our vital water and energy firms?
How would utilities be able to compete for the top executives of other companies? According to joint research by the CIPD and High Pay Centre, the average FTSE-100 chief executive is on a median pay packet of £3.9 million, and famously this year was paid as much by Friday 4 January as those on average pay would receive for the entire year.
The findings saw the media dub the date “Fat Cat Friday”. It was also an 11 per cent increase on the £3.5 million salary reported for 2017. The increase, said the report’s authors, meant that FTSE-100 chief executives, working an average 12-hour day, now needed only do 29 hours’ work in 2019 to match the average worker’s annual salary – two hours less than in 2018.
Meanwhile the jury is out on whether employee representation would keep salaries down. Research conducted in 2011 on behalf of the EU Confederation of Trade Unions reportedly found that the practice of workers sitting on boards of firms in those member states with legal provisions for the measure had no clear impact on economic performance – with profitability in fact dropping because wages increased.