When I have the opportunity, I attend the annual meetings for companies in which I own stock (although my holdings aren't on a par with Warren Buffet and other large-scale investors!).
When Sprint had their meetings in Overland Park, KS in 2004 and 2005, I took advantage of the opportunity to make a few points. In both cases, I attempted to highlight the inconsistencies between the "rules" that CEOs, Presidents, and the Boards of Directors apply to themselves versus those they apply to employees. While I think high ranking employees should have the opportunity to earn salaries significantly higher than most other workers, I think there need to be some strings attached to the compensation. Specifically, I think they should get a handsome salary ($500,000 to a few million dollars, based on company size)--but the vast majority of their compensation should be very long term and only payable if the company continues to do well (even long after they leave). By this, I am thinking of compensation that has no value (and cannot be bartered, sold, exchanged, or otherwise accessed prior to vesting) for at least 5 years--with the full value available after 10 years.
If the company isn't successful over this long term, goes bankrupt, etc. or the recipient of the compensation is shown to have engaged in fraud, illegal activities, etc., then they would receive little or none of the compensation.
This may sound harsh, but keep in mind this compensation is in ADDITION to a comfortable base salary and benefits. People at this level should expect significant risks in exchange for the additional (and very significant) compensation they will earn. But, most importantly, it gives them a huge incentive to make decisions during their tenure that are in the long term interests of the company (as opposed to the current incentives that largely encourage pumping up values in the short term).
Another time, the annual meeting for Verizon was held in Overland Park, KS. I was amazed by the arrogance of the CEO and directors. They arrived in large limousines, hung around with each other (and, possibly, "special" people) away from the shareholders prior to the meeting, walked into the meeting through a side door, the directors sat in the first row with their backs to the room, while the CEO went to the microphone and spoke. It was abundantly clear from his attitude that he was only there because he was obligated to be there--and the only reason he was facing a room of peons was because that was also an obligation. One of the company's unions was upset by some ads Verizon had taken out and felt the ads contained grossly inaccurate statements--the CEO essentially refused to answer any of their questions or to engage in any meaningful discussion on the matter. As soon as he was able to get the meeting wrapped up, he and the directors quickly exited out the side door while clearly trying to avoid any opportunity for peon shareholders to interfere with their rapid retreat back to their "privileged" environment. At least the Sprint directors faced the audience and mingled with their shareholders. That meeting gave me great disdain for the leaders at Verizon--and I expect there are many more like them.
You may listen to my comments at the Sprint shareholder's meeting by downloading/listening to the attachments below.
Sprint Shareholders Meeting Comments - 2004
Sprint Shareholders Meeting Comments - 2005