NEW YORK (CNN) - It's not surprising that two left-leaning think tanks have some negative things to say about corporate America. But a report from the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy has come up with some findings about executive compensation that are very disturbing, to say the least.

The study looked at three factors -- job cuts, underfunded employee pension plans, and the use of offshore tax shelters. And they found that the CEOs of companies that had the most of those three factors were much more highly compensated than the average CEO.

Here are some specific figures from the report. If a company was one of the top 50 in cutting the most jobs in 2001, its chief executive's compensation the next year rose 44 percent. That, while overall CEO pay increased only 6 percent.

Next, if its employee pension plan was one of the 30 most underfunded, the CEO made 59 percent more than the median CEO in a BusinessWeek survey.

And, finally, if it was one of the 24 Fortune 500 companies with the most subsidiaries in offshore tax havens, its median CEO pay was 87 percent more than that of the heads of all the companies surveyed by BusinessWeek.

There surely could be specific reasons for these big increases in individual cases. But, overall, the disparities are alarming.

Companies cut costs primarily by cutting jobs and closing facilities. Wall Street generally likes that idea, and so the stock price usually goes up when a company makes such an announcement. And who are among those who benefit the most when that happens? Executives with big stock options and bonus plans tied to the bottom line.

I think there's something ethically and morally wrong for someone to get richer by eliminating the jobs of hundreds or thousands of employees, many of whom have been loyal and long-standing workers who helped contribute to the company's growth and success.

Sure, it's proper to reward a top executive for such things as good management, marketing brilliance and developing new products. But for cutting jobs? That's not right.

Now, I realize that managers sometimes have to make tough decisions that affect people's lives. An employee may not be up to the job; a plant may be antiquated; customer buying patterns may change, and even -- although this point can be argued -- cheaper labor may be available elsewhere. But the idea of rewarding management for throwing people out of work goes against my grain.

It's time for boards of directors to take a sharp look at excessive executive compensation, which has become so pervasive in corporate America. They must look beyond the short-term bottom line. Wielding a job-cutting ax or finding an off-shore tax haven should not be the reasons to reward a top executive.

A board's responsibility is not only to maximize a company's immediate stock price, but to assure its long-term health as well.