MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — The median compensation for Minnesota's top-paid CEOs has once again topped the $1 million mark.
Median total pay for the 100 top-paid chief executives in the state had dipped slightly or held steady in recent years. But last year it rose 26 percent to $1.2 million, the first time since 2007 that it exceeded $1 million.
A Minneapolis Star Tribune report (http://bit.ly/LWZo9B ) also said 71 of the CEOs got raises, with the median increase being 4.6 percent.
Don Lindner, an analyst who tracks executive compensation for WorldatWork based in Scottsdale, Ariz., noted that executive pay had fallen in previous years because companies weren't meeting their goals during the recession. Now that some companies are improving, it's not surprising that CEO pay is going up, he said.
"Things are working the way they ought to," Lindner said.
But even if the executives are profiting, that doesn't mean workers below them are seeing the same level of raises.
Average wage increases for salaried workers in the Midwest rose about 2.8 percent in 2011, compared with a 2.5 percent increase two years ago, according to WorldatWork.
"There are very few (employers) reporting average increases above 4.1 percent," said the company, which also said employee raises in recent years were among the smallest the firm had seen in 37 years.
Robert Kennedy, who teaches ethics and business at the University of St. Thomas' Opus School of Business, said new regulations have helped ensure that CEO pay is more aligned with company performance. But he said workers at many of those companies have seen their earnings erode.
"It's not surprising, but a little disappointing, that pay for CEOs has gone up but not pay for regular employees," Kennedy said. "I think that can't continue forever. But it certainly is what we've seen in the last few years."
The highest-paid CEO in the state remains Stephen Hemsley at UnitedHealth Group, with total compensation of $48 million last year. That followed paydays of $48.4 million in 2010 and $101.9 million the year before that. The outsized paychecks are driven by one-time gains from stock options he was granted 10 years ago, when boards were far more generous in bestowing stock options.
Among highlights from the newspaper's analysis:
— The highest straight salary was drawn by Gregg Steinhafel, of Target Corp., at $1.5 million.
— The CEO with the lowest salary was Michael Reger, of Northern Oil & Gas Inc. His salary is zero, as his compensation is driven primarily through incentive stock grants.
— The largest bonus went to Ameriprise Financial CEO James Cracchiolo, who was awarded $11 million.
— The biggest gain from stock options was by Hemsley at UnitedHealth Group, with gains of $28.8 million.
The newspaper's list of top 100 CEOs had four women in 2011, down from six the year before. The highest-ranked was Sally Smith, of Buffalo Wild Wings, who came in at No. 19 with total pay of $4.1 million. Smith, who was ranked No. 34 on last year's list, is the first female CEO on the newspaper's list to be in the top 20.
___
Information from: Star Tribune, http://www.startribune.com
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press.


Comments (39)
Add commentMyeye08,
don't forget the comrade.
Accretive booted out of state.
What consulting services did the marketing/debt collecting firm charge Fairview for for the fee of $100,000,000.00 a year?
Sounds like they harassed patients in the ER even if they had good health insurance.
There are your health care dollars at work.
Corporate Communism,
Comrade.
Well, good..
...Accretive was a dirty business. But what does that have to do with executive compensation?
A new day, time to move on
We can't change much about anything, can we?
muehlbau,
Accretive was hired to make Fairview more profitable even if it meant harrassing patients in emergency situations. Of course, the more profitable a hospital is, the higher the compensation for the CEO is likely to be.
And didn't the CEO's son or another relative work for Accretive? Crony capitalism... Corporate communism.
Like I said...
hasta la vista Accretive. No one supports their tactics. Let's move on to something on which we disagree.
The problem, with your analysis Austin, is that...
...business owners DID build the infrastructure. It was their profits that provided a large portion of the funds required to purchase the materials to build them, it was COMPANIES that provided the labor, etc., etc.
And private roads could be built, but that's not really what our current debate is about (i.e., roads and essential services), it's about the bloated entitlement state that thinks it can make everybody's life better by making us all paupers.
I accept your premise Muehl.
I accept your premise about having a bloated, entitlement mentality, Muehl. But I do not believe the infrastructure thingy is a very good vehicle to make your point; how does one separate "good" roads from bad? How does one separate "good" jobs from bad?
I want to believe that, together, the people of the united states built great things: some dreamed and led, others toiled and followed, but I also feel like, by following this line of thinking, you can't help but provide ammunition to those who would judge SOME of us as unworthy.
Is that the kind of FREEDOM you want...especially if by some chance you don't get to be one of the ones doing the condemning?
I encountered a you-tube video tonight. I think we should all look at it and think about it for a few minutes before we point fingers at each other.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMqcLUqYqrs
Its all acting, and from an HBO production. Some may have seen it already. Others will find some small hole in it to try to exploit, to try to use against a particular viewpoint, but if you aren't convicted by it, if you don't see your faults in it, you're probably only interested in yourself.
Me, too. And I'm ashamed.