As an 80% owner in AIG, I want to know why I haven’t fired the scum that lost money and “earned” bonuses. The bonuses may have been owed because of [fraudulent] contracts, but did “we” also guarantee lifetime employment? I’m ready to toss out my under-performing employees. Today.
HR, prepare the termination notices.
And, I am no lawyer, but I thought there is an ability to challenge contracts that are manifestly against the public interest. These tie ups, platinum parachutes, and other “got you” clauses cooked up in the past year by the AIG crooks are clearly against the public interest. Want to defend the reasonableness of the terms? Let’s go to trial and let the jury decide.
Dude, we discussed all that in the conference call yesterday. Sorry you missed it!
BTW, Monica in Accounting is bringing potato salad to the company picnic, so now I have to bring something else. Of course, dweeby Dwayne in marketing is bringing chips & dip. Totally lame!
Tip of the iceberg.
I’ll play Devil’s Advocate (which is hard in this case!)
It’s really a sideshow distracting you from the real scandal — that the money pumped into AIG really benefited investment bankers and hedge funds with good connections in Congress and the administration (both of them.) The indirect benefactors were not disclosed, but Goldman &etc had influence with Treasury, the Fed, and Congress sufficient to question regulator’s ability to make an impartial decision. I don’t know whether it was a good decision or not, but the lack of public debate about it is a problem.
As for the bonuses, they were part of a plan to retain employees who supposedly had detailed knowledge of the complex deals that would be required to unwind them at least cost. This is plausible, and in fact Congress specifically exempted bonus plans adopted in an earlier period from being affected by TARP funding. I don’t know if those retained are the same people responsible for pushing the deals in the first place.
Has it ever occurred to you that your outrage might be manipulated so you won’t realize who actually benefits?
Trying to distract me from the real problem is a good point, but the timing of the bonus announcement was in off news time when traditionally many awful stories are released because modern media is usually asleep on weekends. I think the bonus story was supposed to blow over over the weekend. So, no, in this case I don’t think the scandal is a plant designed to distract my attention.
As for the merits of any bonuses, the reports I hear say that only part of the bonuses were retention bonuses, and even some of those were paid to people no longer with the company. Moreover, the bonuses were supposedly put in place in March, 2008. That was before unwinding at least cost was supposedly perceived as a business need.
Further, I don’t accept the need for the superior knowledge of the people who got into these bad trades. Whatever specialized knowledge they have is tainted by 1) self-interest and 2) proven stupidity. We don’t need those specialized skills in my company.
The good argument I’ve heard for some of the bonus money was that it was for staff in parts of the AIG structure that were not tained by the huge losses. However, those good performers should be pleased that we bought the company to keep it afloat and them employed.
Finally, and most importantly, the AIG bonuses real problem is that they show that the financial executives really don’t get it. The execs are still in the stratosphere, above the mere mortals whose money they are using. It is this oblivious arrogance that has to be thrown out of the corporations we own. Basically, AIG made itself a poster child for the line in the sand that we need to draw.
< / mixed metaphors>.