J Sainsbury was forced to defend its pay scheme at today’s annual meeting amid complaints about pay rises for chief executive Justin King.

The supermarket chain, which saw off a private equity led takeover bid earlier this year, was also at pains to reassure worried shareholders at the AGM at the Queen Elizabeth II Centre in London that it would hold onto its largely freehold property assets, worth about 8.6bn.

One private shareholder asked: “Why don’t you raise the dividend to the level of three years ago … before you grant any [pay] increases to Justin King?”

Sainsbury’s chairman, Philip Hampton, admitted that executive pay had been rising significantly more than inflation, but he added: “It’s just a fact of corporate life.”

He said that Mr King had until last year received pay rises only in line with inflation - highly unusual for the corporate world. Last year, however, Mr King, who has led a turnaround of the business over the past three years, saw his total pay package rise from 1.4m to 1.9m, and this year will see his basic pay go up 17%.

Mr Hampton said Mr King’s increase in the past 12 months only “takes him to the median” on the pay scale and justly rewards the “excellent job he’s been doing”.

The group’s pay scheme was voted through by 98.7% of shareholders.

The Iranian property tycoon Robert Tchenguiz has been pressing the board to split the group into an operating business and a property company to unlock value for shareholders. He is thought to have raised his stake in Sainsbury’s to about 10% last month.

But Mr Hampton reiterated: “Property has always been at the heart of Sainsbury’s business. We believe strongly that our estate still has considerable development potential … As we move, as we must, from recovery to growth, we believe it is in shareholders’ interest to retain ownership of a high proportion of our properties.” He added that Sainsbury’s competitors also own large freehold estates.

Fielding several questions on the issue, Mr Hampton insisted: “We do not believe it is appropriate at this moment to split the company into an operating and a property company.”

John Wendip, a private shareholder, asked the company for an “undertaking to consult all shareholders if there is a major change on property.”

Robert Muriel, another investor, asked: “May we have your assurance that the family are solidly behind you in that [issue], as they are a major shareholder?”

Mr Hampton pointed out that Lord John Sainsbury had spoken out in favour of the group keeping its property base.

He was also asked about takeover speculation surrounding other shareholders who have built up large holdings, but merely said: “Their attitudes to what they are doing are really for them … Management’s job is to run the business; we absolutely do not run our shareholders.”

An investment fund backed by the royal family of Qatar recently became the largest shareholder in Sainsbury’s when it increased its stake to 25% from 18%. Sainsbury’s previously fought off a takeover bid from a private equity consortium led by CVC.

A small town in New England has won the competition to host the premiere of The Simpsons Movie.

Springfield, Vermont, which shares its name with the cartoon hometown of Homer Simpson and his dysfunctional family, beat off competition from 13 other Springfields across the US to claim the prize.

During 18 television seasons of The Simpsons, the fictional Springfield’s location has never been identified.

Each state boasting a Springfield submitted a video making a case to host the premiere. The videos were then posted on the USA Today website, and readers voted for their favourite.

Springfield, Vermont, won thanks to its presentation, which showed a Homer lookalike chasing a giant pink doughnut through the town, causing mayhem.

The townspeople chased after him until they were beckoned into the local cinema, where they sat down to the watch the film’s premiere.

Springfield - with a population of 9,500 - also boasts similarities to its cartoon namesake, having a bowling alley, a pub and a prison, with a nuclear power plant nearby. The film will premiere in its 100-seat cinema on July 21.

But the other 13 Springfields that entered the Hometown Movie Challenge needn’t say: “D’oh!” Each will be given special screenings of the film before it opens nationwide on July 27.

Working Wounded Blog: ‘Sicko’ What Is the Deal With Health Insurance and the Workplace? By BOB ROSNER

July 11, 2007

Here is an admission that I’ve never made in the decade that I’ve been writing professionally — I cried at a movie this weekend. It wasn’t a chick flick. Or a horror movie. Well, maybe not a traditional horror movie, but it was still mighty scary.

The movie was “Sicko.” Yep, that crazy Michael Moore’s latest.

I bet you’re wondering what this has to do with a workplace blog? Since most of us get our health insurance from the same place — our job — “Sicko” has everything to do with work.

Our jobs and health insurance have been inextricably bound since the late 1940s. With a flood of soldiers coming back after World War II, corporations positioned health insurance as a perk to attract the best and brightest. Ironically, the movie documents how England went in the exact opposite direction by introducing universal health care right after the war.

I never thought I’d encourage you to go see a movie that promotes a government run health care system, but then again I never thought I’d admit to crying in one either.

The movie contains heartbreaking scene after scene of people without health insurance literally being tossed on the street in hospital gowns. But the most painful parts of the movie aren’t the stories from the uninsured. No, the worst parts are the scenes with people who have health insurance but who are denied treatment. Which raises the question, what is a safety net when it is full of holes that are big enough for you and me to fall through?

I have another personal confession to make. I once worked for a health insurance company. I saw how claims were reviewed. I didn’t see any cases of people who died for lack of treatment, but I did see a process that was more concerned about cost savings than providing quality health care.

I wish I could offer a silver bullet based on my experience. A way to ensure that you or a loved one will get the treatment you deserve, heck that you paid for. But the system is built so that the maximum decision making power doesn’t lie in the hands of your doctor but in the bowels of health insurance behemoths.

But rather than demonizing health care workers, the movie interestingly shows how debilitating the system is on them. After all, these are the Florence Nightingales who got into health care to help people. They didn’t choose this career simply to write “denied” at the bottom of health insurance forms.

Moore contrasts interviews with U.S. health care workers talking about how they hate having to deny treatment to people who need it with health care workers from countries with national health insurance who revel in their ability to simply focus on the needs of their patients rather than billing and access to service quandaries.

Is this movie above reproach? Of course not. After all, this is Michael Moore. He falls too much in love with France’s socialized health care system, to just give one example. But don’t lose the bigger point. We are all betting our lives on a house of cards that spends millions to think of creative ways to deny treatment.

And don’t take my word for it. Go see this movie. Just don’t forget to bring Kleenex, because it could be the scariest ride you take all year.

Quote of the Week

“Cocaine is God’s way of saying that you are making too much money.” — Robin Williams

Book Excerpt of the Week

“What You Don’t Know Can Kill You” by Dr. Laura W. Nathanson (Collins, 2007)

“Whether you prefer the image of an out-of-control volleyball game or a breakdown prone machine, today’s health care system violates the cardinal rule of effective management: Somebody must be in charge of any complex human system, or it is bound to malfunction. Medical care today has led to one series of unintended consequences after another. Specialists and scientific discoveries proliferate, bringing with them an enormous need for coordination, interpretation, and above all, leadership in charge of the process. That need has gone unmet. As a result, patients often — and justifiably — feel that ‘nobody’s in charge.’”

Bob Rosner is a best-selling author, an internationally syndicated columnist, popular speaker and a recent addition to the community of bloggers. He welcomes your comments at bob@workingwounded.com.

This work is the opinion of the columnist and in no way reflects the opinion of ABC News.