Barry says the Treasury Secretary is doing everything to block the bonus.
There.
So don't worry.
Go back to work. Unless your on unemployment...
Barry says the Treasury Secretary is doing everything to block the bonus.
There.
So don't worry.
Go back to work. Unless your on unemployment...
i would like to see this contract for a bonus...
How does it read, Show up to work at least 2 days a week and you get a Million dollar bonus, no matter how much we lose?
Posse Member hoping for middle manager, Yep , I dont know ****
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Quote:
Originally Posted by C&CDean
I'm a tolerant mother****er.
I think we're seeing some sensationalism. I'd like to see the per-person avg bonus. They do need these retention bonuses...maybe they're over-paying, but it's not like they should be wiped. Their best guys will leave and go elsewhere.
Olevet Posse Bail Bondsman
"I searched through rebellion, drugs, diets, mysticism, religions, intellectualism and much more, only to begin to find that truth is basically simple - and feels good, clean and right"
- Chick Corea
Posse Member hoping for middle manager, Yep , I dont know ****
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Quote:
Originally Posted by C&CDean
I'm a tolerant mother****er.
It happens, though. If their individuals can leave and go somewhere else for better money they will. If getting AIG back in shape is a goal, then bleeding their best employees is not conducive to that goal.
That being said, I'd still bet dollars to donuts they're overpaying plenty of people that don't deserve it.
Olevet Posse Bail Bondsman
"I searched through rebellion, drugs, diets, mysticism, religions, intellectualism and much more, only to begin to find that truth is basically simple - and feels good, clean and right"
- Chick Corea
Probably the fault of some union.
Not sure what AIG or the administration can do about it.
If someone met all the terms of their employment contract and the contract specifies a bonus for meeting those terms, then I don't see any reasonable to way to get out of paying the bonus short of banko.
"The choices we discern as having been made in the Constitutional Convention impose burdens on governmental proceses that often seem clumsy, inefficient, even unworkable, but those hard choices were consciously made by men who had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked." INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (Burger, C.J.)
I would still like to see the terms of these contract. When you lose,BILLIONS quarter after quarter, I dont see how any goals were meet.
So banko sounds good to me. Now, i am not sure how this bail out thing works.
i thought AIG was basically a insurance out fit, that cover loses at the likes of Citi corp and other financial institutions and such. If thats the case I would think if we bailed out AIG, they would cover the loses at the financial institutions
Sorry this just pisses me off to no end
Posse Member hoping for middle manager, Yep , I dont know ****
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Quote:
Originally Posted by C&CDean
I'm a tolerant mother****er.
Could very well be simply that's it a retention bonus-if the employee simply managed to not get fired, he qualifies for the bonus. Dunno. AIG's board is claiming they are contractually obligated to pay them, whatever the terms are.
I agree that it shocks the conscience to think that people who drove a massive company into the ground will receive bonuses. Executive compensation at the larger companies gets really hinky. A lot of their compensation is paid outside of normal salary for tax reasons. I'm nowhere near competent to discuss those reasons, though.
"The choices we discern as having been made in the Constitutional Convention impose burdens on governmental proceses that often seem clumsy, inefficient, even unworkable, but those hard choices were consciously made by men who had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked." INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (Burger, C.J.)
I like they fact how they say it's part of ensuring they're employing "the best and the brightest"
yet they lost 61 billion
“If a team is to reach its potential, each player must be willing to subordinate his personal goals to the good of the team.”
Bud Wilkinson
And people think Union contracts are bad.
Let me see...I'll contract you to work at my Corporation. You are part of a Team that loses the Corporation 61 billion dollars. So much it requires I seek help from the Federal Government so I can keep the doors open and now I owe you because I tried to keep you retained?
I'm thinking some folks were retained for way to long...lol.
I would bet there is room here for some good policy makers and attorneys to find ways to control these bonus payouts.
If it were not for the government, this company would be in bankruptcy and these people would never see their bonuses.
If these are just simply retention bonuses to employees who did not create the mess and are just cleaning it up, then I have no problem with it. I know a lot of the employees work in business units that are not responsible for the huge losses. I do have a problem with the fact that in many cases they're saying they need the people who created the mess because they're the only ones who can understand it.
I like the idea someone proposed to have bonuses paid to employees of companies receiving TARP funds to be at a 100% tax rate. It won' happen of course but I liked the idea.
I would bet a good attorney can find some wiggle room to invalidate these contracts. Maybe they could argue that the company is essentially in something equivalent of a special bankruptcy. (I just made that up but it sounds good. ;-)
I bet considering the billions taxpayers funneled into AIG there's 100 ways they can approach this without breaking contract law. Even if it is questionable and a novel approach, I would bet judges will be willing to entertain the idea considering the circumstances.
And, by the way, the govt does have quite a bit of bargaining power here. AIG will need more public money to stay afloat and if their employees want to play hardball with the govt then that's a game they will lose. And there are ways we can cover AIG's obligations and keep an economic tsunami from occuring while still allowing AIG to fail...
Last edited by jkjsooner; 3/17/2009 at 10:15 AM.
This just popped up on the news wire a few hours ago - an Iowa Senator speaking on a radio show gave them a suggestion.
Pay the bonus out of any money that wasn't taxpayer money.
That should be a negative figure, shouldn't it?
The tax payers never entered into any agreements with AIG execs! Let them eat cake.
God, how I hate the 21st century.
OleVet Posse - dung slinger
Free Booze and Spam . What else could a Man want?
I HATE being a grammar nazi, but seriously, some of you need a few remedial English classes.
"Her name Bubbles."
Why, they're going fantastic! Do you plan to see me in action?
How's the 72nd treating you?
"Her name Bubbles."
Possibly.
Agreed.If these are just simply retention bonuses to employees who did not create the mess and are just cleaning it up, then I have no problem with it. I know a lot of the employees work in business units that are not responsible for the huge losses. I do have a problem with the fact that in many cases they're saying they need the people who created the mess because they're the only ones who can understand it.
Sounds good. Wouldn't survive an equal protection challenge in the courts.I like the idea someone proposed to have bonuses paid to employees of companies receiving TARP funds to be at a 100% tax rate. It won' happen of course but I liked the idea.
Heh. Congress could pretty easily tack an addendum to the BK laws for a new type of BK involving TARP funds. Of course, entering BK means that AIG can default on all of their contracts, not just the bonus contracts. Which is what we were trying to avoid in the first place.I would bet a good attorney can find some wiggle room to invalidate these contracts. Maybe they could argue that the company is essentially in something equivalent of a special bankruptcy. (I just made that up but it sounds good. ;-)
Possibly. Depends on the wording of the contract.I bet considering the billions taxpayers funneled into AIG there's 100 ways they can approach this without breaking contract law. Even if it is questionable and a novel approach, I would bet judges will be willing to entertain the idea considering the circumstances.
Yes, the government does have leverage to not provide future funding. Game it out in your head: if you're an AIG employee, and were given the choice between a $150k bonus or the company surviving, I'll bet you'd take the former. You can always find another job.And, by the way, the govt does have quite a bit of bargaining power here. AIG will need more public money to stay afloat and if their employees want to play hardball with the govt then that's a game they will lose. And there are ways we can cover AIG's obligations and keep an economic tsunami from occuring while still allowing AIG to fail...
"The choices we discern as having been made in the Constitutional Convention impose burdens on governmental proceses that often seem clumsy, inefficient, even unworkable, but those hard choices were consciously made by men who had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked." INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (Burger, C.J.)