It's always been a tenet of mine that executive compensation should be tied to company performance. In many ways and in many companies it is. Stock bonuses and related options are generally the favored mechanism to retain good-performing executive talent and it works. At a recent Hewlett-Packard Company (NYSE:HPQ) shareholder meeting, one of the shareholder proposals was one tied to executive compensation. Naturally, I was intrigued.

It's a shame individual and institutional shareholders don't have more of a direct voice into how the company that they partially own is run. Yes, it's true that one can't really "know" the company and its situation without being involved day to day -- or is it? So much public information is available on every public company that an informed shareholder is not a hard status to ascend to, right?

One of the recent shareholder proposals -- which was passed even with HP management voting against it -- would measure executive pay in a way that long-term compensation packages involving stock options and hefty bonuses be tied directly to company performance. This was probably seen by many, as the outlandish pay package bestowed on former HP CEO Carly Fiorina after she was booted from the CEO spot caused quite a furor over those who don't agree with the insane golden parachuted given to non-performing executives.

Make no mistake -- like most of the working class and rank-and-file worker, pay should be based on performance as the overriding factor. This is not a government job, you know. This is the private sector, and performance talks (non-performance walks).