On Fat Cat Thursday, here's an idea for how we can make bosses' salaries line up with what they pay their workers

Too many people in government were raised on Thatcherite fairytales while having little experience of real workplaces. But this is what actually needs to be done

Happy Fat Cat Thursday!

Yes, some time this morning the boss will have made what it takes you, if you’re on an average wage working for a FTSE 100 company, the entire year to earn through your sweat and toil.

Their average take-home pay is actually down somewhat, but that’s probably because it varies so wildly from year to year through the arcane share schemes they have that are linked to decidedly woolly “performance” criteria. What doesn’t change is the fact that the number is never anything less than enormous.

Your pay, by contrast, is going to remain stuck in the mud. A Trades Union Congress analysis of figures collated by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development indicates that the UK is set to put in the worst wage performance of its 32 members. We’re collectively set for a fall of 0.7 per cent after adjusting for inflation. There’s nothing happy about that and there’s no chance of it swinging back up in line with the CEO in a year’s time.

The two taken together count as an indictment of Tory policy and Tory economic thinking. At the top of the society it has created lives a corps of wealthy plutocrats lording it over the rest of us, who have seen our wages and our rights chipped away at, in their perceived interests.

Upon taking power, however, Theresa May sprang a surprise. She seemed to have recognised that this is creating problems, and to have realised that they are leading to a situation that is both unstable and unsustainable. Witness her bold talk about creating a Britain that works for the many not just for the few.

It’s just that the talk hasn’t resulted in much action.

In some ways May is strikingly similar to Tony Blair in that regard.

Blair also appeared to see the weaknesses with the neo-Thatcherite economic model. He mooted instead the concept of the “stakeholder” society. An awful buzzword I know, but while the idea, with its notions of partnership and collaboration, was a bit woolly it wasn’t completely without merit.

What he had in common with May, unfortunately, was that he was too timid to push it through, despite the enormous majorities he enjoyed. New Labour stuck with the Thatcherite prescription, albeit with a few tweaks, such as the (very welcome) introduction of the minimum wage, along with the idea of being a bit less nasty to unions through allowing workers to seek their recognition.

May’s focus has been on the top end, amid simmering resentment at the behaviour of Britain’s bosses, but she has proved no less faint of heart. Having initially talked boldly about putting workers on boards, she backed away as soon as the corporate establishment kicked up a stink.

Companies do now have to publish pay ratios that compare the CEO with the average worker, and we’ve had the creation of a corporate naughty step featuring companies that have endured shareholder rebellions. But these, while not unwelcome, again represent little more than tweaks to the status quo.

The idea of shaming bosses into behaving better, which is what they attempt to do, is never going to truly fly because most of them think that the L’Oreal ad – “because I’m worth it” – is speaking directly to them.

What? The sort of money I’m on demotivates the drones? Screw them. Let’s crank up the cost cutting and see how they feel after another round of layoffs.

Meanwhile the rest of us get poorer and more and more angry about it. Productivity, economists say. People can’t be paid more because it isn’t rising.

Will the situation change if it does? You would have thought the labour shortages many sectors have been experiencing might have had an impact on wage levels, but there isn’t much evidence of it.

Increasingly we’re seeing malign outcomes as a result of the current impasse, for example, Brexit, which threatens to make a bad situation worse, and which may not be the last nasty to hit us.

How to chart a course away from the potential iceberg?

What we need is new a model that should include a reappraisal of the relationship between worker and boss. They ought really to be working towards the same goal – in other words success – but all too rarely are today.

The former is poorly treated and pissed off, and will jump ship at the first hint that something better might be out there. The latter follow the diktats of their poorly constructed remuneration schemes, slashing and burning and doing whatever it takes to juice the short-term share price because there’ll be someone else along to worry about it when the proverbial hits the fan and they depart with their millions.

Unions could and should pay a role in charting a course away from this. Saying that is heresy in Tory circles, because the party is largely run by people schooled on Thatcherite fairytales, and with little experience of real workplaces in the real world.

In that world strikes are very rare, and unions, where they remain strong, often work cooperatively with employers, fostering communication between boardroom and shop floor which can, hey presto, ultimately help to drive those productivity gains which we keep being told are needed to fund wage rises.

Having happier, higher paid workers can yield unexpected benefits, as McDonalds and Ryanair – two companies which have recently found themselves bowing to demands for union recognition, and better pay and conditions – may yet discover.

Lower staff turnover could be just the start, and the latter is damaging. It is expensive. It harms productivity. If you’re left short too often – as Ryanair was with its pilots – it can get you into real trouble. Unionisation, which the airline has reluctantly agreed to (but sadly not yet for cabin crew), could ultimately prevent a repeat of the flight cancellation fiasco that so damaged the company’s reputation last year.

At this point I’ll probably get people saying yes that’s all very well but ultimately what you’re saying is: wouldn’t the world be a nicer place if everyone was nicer to each other.

Well wouldn’t it?

Isn’t it time to try something different? Take a look at the economic stats. Consider the possible dishes that may emerge from the current toxic recipe. They threaten to poison us all.