Fuck you, AIG. Fuck you, fuck you, FUCK YOU

[Megatron]

Look at this shit:

AIG wants to hand out more bonuses

My answer is simple: If you can afford to hand out bonuses to these motherfuckers, you don't need any goddamn bailout money. Fuck off, fuck off, fuck off. I don't care if their execs walk out on them, there's no way our taxes should be used to line their pockets. This money is to keep them afloat, not to make people rich. Hell, if you ask me, there weren't nearly enough strings attached to that bailout cash in the first place.

P.S. I really hate the insurance industry if you can't tell.

[LadyShea]

I am of the "sink or swim on your own" point of view when it comes to these megacorps, and so yeah, fuck you AIG.

And if their execs walked, where would they go? Are they gonna flip burgers? How many high paying executive positions are open and how many companies are looking for execs from failed competitors?

[Smilin]

fuck off...that is all....

[Megatron]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am of the "sink or swim on your own" point of view when it comes to these megacorps, and so yeah, fuck you AIG.

And if their execs walked, where would they go? Are they gonna flip burgers? How many high paying executive positions are open and how many companies are looking for execs from failed competitors?

[erimir]

I'm fine with bonuses as a reward for actually making substantial improvements to the company - improvements that will last in the long-term.

I don't think they should be part of the regular, expected payment for services. It defeats the purpose of calling them bonuses.

I also don't really buy the argument about retaining executives and such. I really doubt it's necessary to pay such exorbitant salaries to retain quality talent.

I'm not as pissed off about these as other things, it's more about the context of the bonuses, I think. They may or may not deserve bonuses. Probably not tho.

[Caligulette]

If a company is in a position of "needing" a government bailout, then the execs are not in the position of deserving a bonus.

[seebs]

I don't buy the argument that you can't deserve a bonus for exceptional work just because things have worked out badly.

We recently shipped a product almost-on-schedule. I don't think we quite made the original plan. On the other hand, we should have missed it by a month or two -- but the engineers kicked ass for a month, put in extra hours, and brought things in MUCH faster than had been expected a month or so earlier. So we got bonuses, because the outcomes were better than they would have been otherwise.

If a few hundred billion billion dollars of investments suddenly disappear from the US economy, and investment banks suddenly have less money, a lot of them are fucked. If some of them do a really good job of turning things around at lower costs than expected, recovering things that were thought to be unrecoverable, and so on, then yes, they probably deserve bonuses.

Whether these specific bonuses match that description, I cannot say, but I do not feel comfortable with the blanket assertion that none of these people can possibly deserve bonuses.

[LadyShea]

Whether these specific bonuses match that description

According to everything I read they are retention bonuses, not performance bonuses.

[Megatron]

Eh, regardless of what sort of bonuses they are, any money given by the government to a supposedly sinking corporation needs to be spent toward getting them out of debt. If they can afford to do ANYTHING ELSE with that money, they shouldn't have been given our tax dollars.

I mean, fuck, these are the people who caused this goddamn mess in the first place.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Megatron

.... I don't care if their execs walk out on them, there's no way our taxes should be used to line their pockets.

Usually when a company is in that kind of trouble the good employees have left or are leaving, basically because they can. The ones left are mediocre at best and certainly do not rate any bonus.

What I would like to see is legislation passed that would allow fed financial regulators to have similar powers over companies like AIG as they do over banks. Just storm the place and all its branches one Friday afternoon and shut everything down. Offer the employees in place a month's salary to stay and help out, count everything, figure out what the bad stuff is on their books, restructure the company, force a competing company to take over the good assets and either default on or auction off the bad assets, and then with what is left the doors open on Monday morning.

No bailout, no bonuses, the stockholders eat it and the execs are out of a job. All of them. Too damn bad, if they don't like it then they shouldn't run their companies into the ground.

[Megatron]

I like how you think.

[Megatron]

Originally Posted by seebs

I do not feel comfortable with the blanket assertion that none of these people can possibly deserve bonuses.

To better explain, I think the issue of whether or not the bonuses are deserved is flat out irrelevant. The money is to bail the company out of debt, not to pay its employees. Honestly, they should be slashing executive salaries as well. You know as well as I do that these guys are making MUCH more than what they require for basic needs and probably live in luxury.

If losing a BONUS is the only damage they incur for tanking a company to the point that it requires a government bailout, they should be thankful. If that leaves them in debt, tough shit, at least they still have a job and can get out of it eventually.

Hell, I have a friend buried under student loans that could only wish to be in such a "bad" situation.

[Angakuk]

If (as I understand that they are) these "bonuses" are contractual obligations, then paying them is no different than meeting anyh other contractual obligations. If the bailout money was intended to help keep the company afloat, then I think that using that money to pay contractually obligated debts is probably a legitimate use of those funds. Our visceral reactions notwithstanding.

[erimir]

The problem is calling money written into the contract a "bonus." That's not a bonus, that's salary.

[LadyShea]

Anytime a troubled company has to accept outside money (whether investor money or in this case taxpayer money) it all has to go to operating costs and debts/needs first. This is standard business practice.

Contracts are renegotiated, and if someone doesn't want the new deal, then they can sue and try to collect. I guarantee bonuses not based on profitability or performance would be way, way down the line for getting paid, even if a settlement is made or judgment granted.

Nope, bonuses are not a priority when bankruptcy is looming. Salaries yes, that's an operating expense. Bonuses for failure...no.

[Crumb]

But they want to get as much money for themselves before the company sinks!

[Megatron]

See, that's exactly what it smells like to me.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If (as I understand that they are) these "bonuses" are contractual obligations, then paying them is no different than meeting anyh other contractual obligations. If the bailout money was intended to help keep the company afloat, then I think that using that money to pay contractually obligated debts is probably a legitimate use of those funds. Our visceral reactions notwithstanding.

Unless those contractual obligations were negotiated by unions. In which case, well, the unions need to step up and sacrifice because they are so greedy.

A bankruptcy court could make short work of those contractual "bonuses," but obviously that will never be allowed to happen.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by erimir

The problem is calling money written into the contract a "bonus." That's not a bonus, that's salary.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by ChuckF

A bankruptcy court could make short work of those contractual "bonuses," but obviously that will never be allowed to happen.

Agreed.