For two decades close to 40 percent of the highest-paid CEOs in the U.S. have performed abysmally, a new report asserts.

These CEOs, according to the report, “ought to be exemplars of value-added performance,” given the prevailing notion that executives earn their high pay by adding value to their companies and to the U.S. economy at large. “Our analysis reveals widespread poor performance.” SOURCE: Highest Paid Worst Performing Chief Executives – ABC News.

I generally believe in the saying in the title of this post but obviously it doesn’t apply to all circumstances.

Given that yesterday was a celebration of the American worker I thought today should be about those at the top of the heap.

Why do corporate boards allow contracts for CEOs to contain clauses that basically say “no matter how bad I do, when I leave you will pay me and extra $50 million”. Of course the answer to that is that most board members are also CEOs or wanna-be-CEOs looking for a little quid pro quo. It is widely known that the ratio between the average worker of a corporation and the CEO ratio has gone completely haywire in the last few decades. CEOs make orders of magnitude more than they did decades ago while their workers haven’t seen a raise at all during that time period.

It would be one thing if the CEO actually added value to the company he works for but in nearly half the companies he fails to do that. “You get what you pay for” just doesn’t apply to the top of the corporate heap or probably any other position in that stratosphere.

It is time for all us shareholders with our vote demand that the CEO  must show some value-added before we pay him even close to the exuberant salaries he presently draws. And certainly no more “golden parachutes” for him or all those “yes” men around him. That accomplishment would make for a truly happy Labor Day in the years ahead.