From the USA TODAY:

JetBlue CEO Dave Barger will take a 50% pay cut for the second half of 2008, something Reuters calls "a show of solidarity with employees as the low-cost carrier struggles with soaring fuel prices and a slowing U.S. economy." Barger's base salary is $500,000 a year, presumably meaning that a 50% cut applied to the second half of the year will shave $125,000 from his salary. JetBlue disclosed the pay cut in a federal filing Monday, saying that Barger is making the move "in recognition of the challenges faced by the Company and its employees in the current industry environment."

From Canada's The Globe and Mail:

Now with hundreds of billions of dollars of stock market value wiped out, pressure is mounting to overhaul an executive compensation system that critics blame for drawing banks into high-risk mortgage investments, with few consequences for the CEOs who steered them there.

"Wall Street, by its nature is high risk and high pay," said David Larcker, an accounting professor and compensation expert at Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif.

"But what happens when the risk goes the other way. Should pay also be adjusted?"

During the mortgage boom, there was a "weird incentive" to take on risk, and top banking executives made "tremendous sums," Prof. Larcker pointed out.

"That's how this mess got made."

From the Portland Business Journal, Jim Verdonik takes a lighthearted look at executive compensation:

So, where does this leave executive compensation reform?

1. No law prohibits paying CEOs very, very, very large amounts of money, even if people don't like the idea.

2. The primary penalty for big compensation packages is public shame and embarrassment. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission requires compensation disclosure in proxy statements. Newspapers publicize the disclosures. The public moans about greedy CEOs: "What pigs!"

3. "Vote the rascals out!" a traditional cry in American politics, is heard frequently from shareholder activists. The problems with voting the rascals out of the boardroom are similar to the political problems.

First, it's difficult. Voting rules favor incumbents in both political and corporate elections.

Second, new rascals often replace old rascals.

4. Finally, there is the threat of civil liability for directors who approve large compensation packages. This threat has only a modest effect on CEO compensation. Under the business judgment rule, directors aren't liable for making mistakes if they act reasonably in the way they make decisions. Companies that invest time, money and effort in presenting appropriate information to directors, hiring experts and otherwise documenting the compensation process can protect their directors from liability in all but the most outrageous situations.

The Washington Post notes that "Perks Still in Play But Sometimes Are Less Lavish:"

Financial services companies were largely rolling back executive fringe benefits in 2007. But that doesn't mean they were insignificant.

For example, before leaving with a cash severance payment of $3.2 million, Sallie Mae chief executive Thomas J. Fitzpatrick received medical, housing and auto benefits of almost $30,000 last year. Fannie Mae chief executive Daniel H. Mudd got almost $150,000 in fringe benefits, 90 percent related to life and liability insurance coverage and matches for charitable contributions in 2007. His other perks included financial counseling services, an executive health program and dining services.

It's not just executives who eat and travel on the company dime. Often, their spouses do, too.

Freddie Mac, for instance, pays business-related travel and dining expenses for the spouses of top executives.

Negotiating a new chief executive contract is no cheap exercise. Freddie Mac paid $100,000 in legal fees for chairman and chief executive Richard F. Syron to renegotiate his contract last year. He got an 18 percent raise and a $1.25 million extension bonus.

It's common for companies to foot the legal bill for executives during employment negotiations. "Many companies agree that the executives should be represented legally, and as a result they should be willing to pay for counsel for the executive," Hall said. "It's kind of like loading the gun against yourself."

The always attentive The Motley Fool catches this almost unbelievable happening, but given the current state of executive compensation can anything really shock any more?

"Imagine this: You quit your job because you landed a great new gig. To prove there are no hard feelings, your soon-to-be past employer gives you your entirely yearly salary and a few added perks to boot. Sound like a pipe dream? Not at Abercrombie & Fitch (NYSE: ANF), apparently.

Abercrombie & Fitch's Chief Financial Officer Michael Kramer is leaving the company to become CEO of privately held Kellwood. On a related Form 8-K filing, I noticed that Kramer will be paid the equivalent of 12 months of base salary, a whopping $775,000. He will receive earned incentive compensation as of July 21, and accelerated vesting of some outstanding stock awards, along with the continuation of some health-care benefits."

The Detroit Free Press carried a novel, even if slightly unconvincing, article tracing the strange saga of Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, who is facing perjury charges and is currently out of jail on bail yet still refuses to resign his office, to the rise of the American CEO:

Blame it on our infatuation with the cult of the charismatic CEO and ultimately on the infatuation of the charismatic CEO with himself.

Iacocca, the glib automotive icon who led Chrysler Corp. through two near-bankruptcies, and Welch, legendary boss of General Electric from 1981-2001, were the first rock-star CEOs. Then Microsoft's Bill Gates and Apple's Steve Jobs ushered in the digital age.

So taken was the American public by these superstars of business that people started asking, "Why can't we run government like we run our private-sector businesses?"

[In 2002], a book was published titled "Searching for a Corporate Savior: The Irrational Quest for Charismatic CEOs" by Rakesh Kurana.

Kurana traced the rise of the American CEO from anonymity to superstar in the last two decades of the 20th Century.

"Previously, CEOs were about as well-known as their chauffeurs," he wrote. "But something happened when Lee Iacocca was credited with single-handedly saving an American icon. Most people forgot about the $2-billion federally guaranteed loan to bail out Chrysler, or the United Auto Workers' givebacks. Iacocca made other CEOs look bland -- there was even talk of drafting him for president.

"The image of a CEO changed from being a capable administrator to a leader -- a motivating, flamboyant leader with a new task. In the late 1980s and early '90s, business tried to redefine itself; it was no longer about the profane task of making money, but concerned with vision, values, mission -- essentially religious terms."

A balanced and well-researched look at the actual ramifications of excessive executive compensation by Awie HW Foong and Mak Yuen Teen of AsiaOne Busines:

[By] compensating millions of dollars to a CEO who has failed to perform, and at the same time laying off the employees en masse, these companies are effectively sending a negative signal about organisational fairness.

The ramification of perceived unfairness is likely to be a long term one. Past studies have shown that the feelings of unfairness would lead to poor employee loyalty and engagement, and consequently poor work performance.

Based on data from the Watson Wyatt's employee opinion surveys in 2004 and 2007, we found that it is the employees' perception of the fairness of the reward system, not how satisfied they are with the rewards, that has the stronger effect on their loyalty to the organisation. The findings suggest that employees want to be treated fairly. That includes a salary and reward package that is equitable to the industry norms as well as a fair process in determining those rewards. Employees also expect that the performance and reward management process is consistent and clearly communicated to them. The study also found that employees who believe that they are being treated fairly are in turn more willing to stay with the company and to make sacrifices for the company during difficult times...

[Also], a recent study by Charles O'Reilly, the Frank E Buck Professor of Human Resources Management at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, together with James Wade of Rutgers University and Timothy Pollock of Pennsylvania State University found that the effects of unfair executive compensation flow down to lower level managers and employees. Managers who perceive that the CEO is unfairly paid are more likely to leave the company.

Proxy Governance, a firm that issues recommendations to large institutional investors on how to vote on proxy matters, has come to a much needed conclusion in the Yahoo! Inc. (NASDAQ: YHOO)-Carl Icahn saga: make some noise about Yahoo executive's unjustified paydays.

In the wake of the much publicized truce between billionaire troublemaker Carl Icahn and Yahoo, the proxy vote over the fate of the board has lost its steam - but Proxy Governance thinks the vote need not go to waste.

"The average three-year compensation paid to the named executives is 480 percent above the median paid to executives at peer companies. In light of Yahoo's relatively weak financial performance, we therefore recommend that shareholders withhold votes from the members of the compensation committee."

The members of the compensation committee, Roy Bostock, Ron Burkle and Arthur Kern, aren't likely to be voted out - but hopefully they'll get the message.