Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

AIG Bonuses

YarYar Registered User regular
edited April 2009 in Debate and/or Discourse
Let's get this out of the GOP thread.
psychotix wrote: »
Again, all the money was used to fulfill contractual obligations. A whole lot more money (like 100 times more) went to fulfill contracts with foreign banks than did contracts with domestic employees. Your argument doesn't really hold much of anything. You're saying that AIG just shouldn't be paying money they owe their employees, because you want to continue to believe that there are villians there who deserve their punishment.

Paying off financial obligations to another bank or business is not the same as paying off bonuses to people who work there. The government could have said "hey, you don't have any fucking money. Here is some money to pay off other banks and insure your shit so you don't go under", the government has no obligation give them any money, and they do not have to give them money to pay off employees that wouldn't even have a paycheck.

These people can then sue AIG. Maybe by the time the company turns around and makes a profit <img class=" title=":lol:" class="bbcode_smiley" /> AIG could pay off their contractual bonuses.
Well, the government didn't stipulate which contracts they should and should not make good on. And I don't think I much approve of the assumptions you're saying they should have assumed. You say they should pay back all their CDS debt to foreign banks, even though those foreign banks failing maybe ought to be what happened since getting so heavily invested in CDS is a big part of what caused this mess. And, you know, they aren't American and this is American tax money. But they shouldn't honor compensation contracts to employees. Because those employees are villians or whatever. I don't get it.
Yar wrote: »
sanstodo wrote: »
@Yar: I think you're deflating their base compensation. My friend is still a junior banker at one of the smaller firms on Wall Street and made $60,000 in base salary her first year on the job while receiving an $80,000 bonus at the end of her first year. That is not lower-middle class, not by a long-shot, particularly for a single person with no children (and it doesn't count all of the perks that came along with her job, like black car service and meals). $60,000 is a lot of money right out of college, with little work experience other than internships at financial institutions. It's hardly lower-middle class, even in NYC.

Really, people who make $60K need to be denied their bonuses? How far does wealth hatred reach? $50K? $40K? I think the answer is, "anyone who makes more than me."
sanstodo wrote: »
Yeah, I agree. Populist outrage might actually hurt the recovery because, like it or not, additional bailouts of financial institutions are going to be necessary. We haven't gotten anywhere near the bottom of this, considering the massive amount of toxic debt still gumming up the sheets of Citigroup, BofA, etc.

I think people have their hearts in the right place (this isn't FAIR!) but the sad truth is that it isn't fair but we have to live with that for now so we can fix what's broken to get our economy going again. We can save the grandstanding and arm waving for AFTER this is all over (and hopefully, we can change things so we don't have to do this again any time soon).

Yeah I guess I'm just looking for a little more detail and direction in people's wrath. The media likes to throw big numbers and weighted words at you, and I just am dumbfounded at the amount of rage that even the President himself seems to pretend at all this, without even knowing the specifics and the rationale.

The current CEO has only been there a few months, coming in after much of the bailout money, and he was put there by the government. He makes $1/year, and all the executives already voluntarily gave up all 2008 bonuses and 2009 raises. He is the one saying that these remaing bonuses to non-execs are owed and cannot be cancelled. We aren't talking about executives anymore. At some point you ahve to accept that in order to keep doing business, people have to be paid what they were told they'd be paid.

True ebnough

They contractually will have to pay the people their money. however saying it's "just how they do business" is silly. Maybe it's time they fundamentally reevaluated how they do business because their current model obviously sucks some serious cock.


They've already agreed to that as well. THe 2009 bonus structure is being overhauled.

Yar on
«13456717

Posts

  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Relevant
    Obama Orders Treasury Chief to Try to Block A.I.G. Bonuses

    WASHINGTON — President Obama vowed to try to stop the faltering insurance giant American International Group from paying out hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses to executives, as the administration scrambled to avert a populist backlash against banks and Wall Street that could complicate Mr. Obama’s economic recovery agenda.

    “In the last six months, A.I.G. has received substantial sums from the U.S. Treasury,” Mr. Obama said. He added that he had asked Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner “to use that leverage and pursue every single legal avenue to block these bonuses and make the American taxpayers whole.”

    camo_sig2.png
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    Moved from other thread...
    We have been advised that the bonus provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 prohibiting certain bonuses specifically exclude bonuses paid pursuant to pre-February 11, 2009 employment contracts.
    Remove this restriction and you're done.

    ed
    Financial Products produced almost all of the losses in the company. AIG overall is relatively well run, almost all the fan-hitting-shit came from this one office.
    This wasn't the point of our argument. At least not from my point of view. The point was that they were offered a contract that promised them $X for Y action, and they held up their part, they did exactly what was required in the contract, and now we're saying, "but the company needed bailout money, you don't deserve your end of that deal." And again, this is after installing a govt-appointed CEO, removing all executive bonuses, and agreeing to revamp bonuses for 2009.

  • descdesc the '87 stick up kids Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    werehippy wrote: »
    and I certainly don't recall all this meticulous concern for contract law when we were talking about how overpaid the autoworkers were.

    ^

  • psychotixpsychotix __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2009
    desc wrote: »
    werehippy wrote: »
    and I certainly don't recall all this meticulous concern for contract law when we were talking about how overpaid the autoworkers were.

    ^

    What's funny about this was the UAW was beaten with the "well if the big three go bankrupt you get nothing so you have to deal with this".

    Kinda like "well if AIG and CITI go bankrupt you get squat so you will have to............. oh wait!

  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Yar wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Moved from other thread...
    We have been advised that the bonus provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 prohibiting certain bonuses specifically exclude bonuses paid pursuant to pre-February 11, 2009 employment contracts.
    Remove this restriction and you're done.

    ed
    Financial Products produced almost all of the losses in the company. AIG overall is relatively well run, almost all the fan-hitting-shit came from this one office.
    This wasn't the point of our argument. At least not from my point of view. The point was that they were offered a contract that promised them $X for Y action, and they held up their part, they did exactly what was required in the contract, and now we're saying, "but the company needed bailout money, you don't deserve your end of that deal." And again, this is after installing a govt-appointed CEO, removing all executive bonuses, and agreeing to revamp bonuses for 2009.

    If you read what I wrote - which was in the above quotation they you so helpfully cut out - you'd see that everything I said is absolutely backed up.
    [citation required]

    Because that's not why they're getting the bonuses. They are getting the bonuses as an incentive to retain the very employees who helped cause a huge part of the current economic recession/depression because no one else can follow their essentially criminal financial schemes. It was new money, not pay based on some set performance level.

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    psychotix wrote: »
    desc wrote: »
    werehippy wrote: »
    and I certainly don't recall all this meticulous concern for contract law when we were talking about how overpaid the autoworkers were.

    ^

    What's funny about this was the UAW was beaten with the "well if the big three go bankrupt you get nothing so you have to deal with this".

    Kinda like "well if AIG and CITI go bankrupt you get squat so you will have to............. oh wait!

    Remember, the rules are different for anything that's white collar.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Ann Arbor, MichiganRegistered User regular
    edited March 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    psychotix wrote: »
    desc wrote: »
    werehippy wrote: »
    and I certainly don't recall all this meticulous concern for contract law when we were talking about how overpaid the autoworkers were.

    ^

    What's funny about this was the UAW was beaten with the "well if the big three go bankrupt you get nothing so you have to deal with this".

    Kinda like "well if AIG and CITI go bankrupt you get squat so you will have to............. oh wait!

    Remember, the rules are different for anything that's white collar.

    Especially if those white collar workers are friends with the Treasury Secretary.

  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited March 2009
    publish their addresses and let the free market do its magic.

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Doc wrote: »
    publish their addresses and let the free market do its magic.

    Capitalism is more fun when it's practiced with pitchforks and torches.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Doc wrote: »
    publish their addresses and let the free market do its magic.

    How many private policemen can 450 million dollars buy?

  • lazegamerlazegamer Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Forgive me for being a blockhead, but even with the above citations, I'm having difficulty in sussing out exactly what kind of obligation AIG has to these particular employees receiving "bonus" pay. It doesn't appear that it was to be influenced by performance, but I haven't been able to figure out just what exactly was supposed to determine whether or not they would receive this pay?

    Surprise.
    - Spy
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    How can AIG be contractually obligated to give people bonuses when they lost $61B last year? Don't you get a bonus when the company does well?

    Depends on the criteria for awarding the bonus. It's perfectly possible for individuals to do their jobs well, and meet the goals asked of them and for the company to still do badly.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Ann Arbor, MichiganRegistered User regular
    edited March 2009
    lazegamer wrote: »
    Forgive me for being a blockhead, but even with the above citations, I'm having difficulty in sussing out exactly what kind of obligation AIG has to these particular employees receiving "bonus" pay. It doesn't appear that it was to be influenced by performance, but I haven't been able to figure out just what exactly was supposed to determine whether or not they would receive this pay?

    Are they breathing? Success!

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Ann Arbor, MichiganRegistered User regular
    edited March 2009
    japan wrote: »
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    How can AIG be contractually obligated to give people bonuses when they lost $61B last year? Don't you get a bonus when the company does well?

    Depends on the criteria for awarding the bonus. It's perfectly possible for individuals to do their jobs well, and meet the goals asked of them and for the company to still do badly.

    Apparently all of them did!

  • psychotixpsychotix __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2009
    lazegamer wrote: »
    Forgive me for being a blockhead, but even with the above citations, I'm having difficulty in sussing out exactly what kind of obligation AIG has to these particular employees receiving "bonus" pay. It doesn't appear that it was to be influenced by performance, but I haven't been able to figure out just what exactly was supposed to determine whether or not they would receive this pay?

    Think of these as retention bonuses. You agree to give your "talent" a large lump sum of money so they won't leave.

  • lazegamerlazegamer Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    psychotix wrote: »
    lazegamer wrote: »
    Forgive me for being a blockhead, but even with the above citations, I'm having difficulty in sussing out exactly what kind of obligation AIG has to these particular employees receiving "bonus" pay. It doesn't appear that it was to be influenced by performance, but I haven't been able to figure out just what exactly was supposed to determine whether or not they would receive this pay?

    Think of these as retention bonuses. You agree to give your "talent" a large lump sum of money so they won't leave.

    So, all they needed to do was stick around? How is it that AIG does not owe them this money then?

    Surprise.
    - Spy
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited March 2009
    psychotix wrote: »
    lazegamer wrote: »
    Forgive me for being a blockhead, but even with the above citations, I'm having difficulty in sussing out exactly what kind of obligation AIG has to these particular employees receiving "bonus" pay. It doesn't appear that it was to be influenced by performance, but I haven't been able to figure out just what exactly was supposed to determine whether or not they would receive this pay?

    Think of these as retention bonuses. You agree to give your "talent" a large lump sum of money so they won't leave.

    yeah

    that might cause the company to fail

  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    psychotix wrote: »
    desc wrote: »
    werehippy wrote: »
    and I certainly don't recall all this meticulous concern for contract law when we were talking about how overpaid the autoworkers were.

    ^

    What's funny about this was the UAW was beaten with the "well if the big three go bankrupt you get nothing so you have to deal with this".

    Kinda like "well if AIG and CITI go bankrupt you get squat so you will have to............. oh wait!

    I kind of don't remember when anyone suggested docking UAW workers retroactively. These employees are already losing their money going forward.

  • tsmvengytsmvengy Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    lazegamer wrote: »
    psychotix wrote: »
    lazegamer wrote: »
    Forgive me for being a blockhead, but even with the above citations, I'm having difficulty in sussing out exactly what kind of obligation AIG has to these particular employees receiving "bonus" pay. It doesn't appear that it was to be influenced by performance, but I haven't been able to figure out just what exactly was supposed to determine whether or not they would receive this pay?

    Think of these as retention bonuses. You agree to give your "talent" a large lump sum of money so they won't leave.

    So, all they needed to do was stick around? How is it that AIG does not owe them this money then?

    Because AIG had to go begging to the government to stay afloat, so now we get to make some rules as to where that money goes?

    I refer you to
    werehippy wrote:
    and I certainly don't recall all this meticulous concern for contract law when we were talking about how overpaid the autoworkers were.

    steam_sig.png
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    They could've paid me a straight salary to do nothing all year and gotten the same or better performance than they got out of their "talent".

    Seriously, the AIG CEO was warning about a brain drain if they didn't continue paying bonuses. If that did happen, would we fucking notice? We need to get all of those fuckers the hell out of the industry, not retain them. They suck at their jobs.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    desc wrote: »
    werehippy wrote: »
    and I certainly don't recall all this meticulous concern for contract law when we were talking about how overpaid the autoworkers were.

    ^

    Yeah, this right here. AIG and its employees are now welfare queens, so I'm perfectly fine dictating the money owed to its employees. ESPECIALLY since just about by definition, none of the people receiving these bonuses are working class. If they can make more money by quitting and working somewhere else, I'm all for it and suggest they do so.

  • psychotixpsychotix __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2009
    lazegamer wrote: »
    psychotix wrote: »
    lazegamer wrote: »
    Forgive me for being a blockhead, but even with the above citations, I'm having difficulty in sussing out exactly what kind of obligation AIG has to these particular employees receiving "bonus" pay. It doesn't appear that it was to be influenced by performance, but I haven't been able to figure out just what exactly was supposed to determine whether or not they would receive this pay?

    Think of these as retention bonuses. You agree to give your "talent" a large lump sum of money so they won't leave.

    So, all they needed to do was stick around? How is it that AIG does not owe them this money then?

    It's a retention bonus. Typically given to the brains of a unit or people with important knowledge of the company. If you stick around past date X you get a bonus, it's in your contract so they know you won't leave before said date.

    AIG does owe them this money, nobody disputes that. The issue is that the government could have stipulated the money was for fixing their financial mess and not for paying bonuses. But we were told we can't put any strings on the money. So they took the money and gave out the bonuses and the company is still royally fucked.
    yeah

    that might cause the company to fail

    LOL

  • lazegamerlazegamer Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    lazegamer wrote: »
    psychotix wrote: »
    lazegamer wrote: »
    Forgive me for being a blockhead, but even with the above citations, I'm having difficulty in sussing out exactly what kind of obligation AIG has to these particular employees receiving "bonus" pay. It doesn't appear that it was to be influenced by performance, but I haven't been able to figure out just what exactly was supposed to determine whether or not they would receive this pay?

    Think of these as retention bonuses. You agree to give your "talent" a large lump sum of money so they won't leave.

    So, all they needed to do was stick around? How is it that AIG does not owe them this money then?

    Because AIG had to go begging to the government to stay afloat, so now we get to make some rules as to where that money goes?

    I refer you to
    werehippy wrote:
    and I certainly don't recall all this meticulous concern for contract law when we were talking about how overpaid the autoworkers were.

    I think it would be completely fair to ask the individuals to whom AIG owes this "bonus" pay to renegotiate for their long term interest. If not, the company for which they work may no longer receive funds and they may be looking for a new job. That seems like the proper analogy to what was said to the labor union, yes?

    Surprise.
    - Spy
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited March 2009

    Yeah, this right here. AIG and its employees are now welfare queens, so I'm perfectly fine dictating the money owed to its employees. ESPECIALLY since just about by definition, none of the people receiving these bonuses are working class. If they can make more money by quitting and working somewhere else, I'm all for it and suggest they do so.

    The problem is that was their option last year. They could have quit, and gone looking for employment at firms that were not failing. However AIG offered them more money to stay, to compensate them for the fact that they might have greater difficulty finding work later.

    They upheld their end of the bargain. Pay them and move on.

    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Saammiel wrote: »
    psychotix wrote: »
    desc wrote: »
    werehippy wrote: »
    and I certainly don't recall all this meticulous concern for contract law when we were talking about how overpaid the autoworkers were.

    ^

    What's funny about this was the UAW was beaten with the "well if the big three go bankrupt you get nothing so you have to deal with this".

    Kinda like "well if AIG and CITI go bankrupt you get squat so you will have to............. oh wait!

    I kind of don't remember when anyone suggested docking UAW workers retroactively. These employees are already losing their money going forward.
    You don't remember correctly, unless you heard nothing about pensions.

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    They could've paid me a straight salary to do nothing all year and gotten the same or better performance than they got out of their "talent".

    Seriously, the AIG CEO was warning about a brain drain if they didn't continue paying bonuses. If that did happen, would we fucking notice? We need to get all of those fuckers the hell out of the industry, not retain them. They suck at their jobs.

    That's true. There are plenty of very good employees at AIG who turned nice profits. They are getting bonuses they deserve. Plus, a lot of people who screwed things up have expertise we need to fix our financial markets. We can't purge everyone we don't like without thinking about the unintended consequences.

    This is what I mean when I say that I'm worried about populist outrage actually hurting us. We cannot, as Obama says, govern from anger. Our anger is justified, yes, but it doesn't help us make the policies necessary to fix things.

    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • psychotixpsychotix __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2009
    Detharin wrote: »

    Yeah, this right here. AIG and its employees are now welfare queens, so I'm perfectly fine dictating the money owed to its employees. ESPECIALLY since just about by definition, none of the people receiving these bonuses are working class. If they can make more money by quitting and working somewhere else, I'm all for it and suggest they do so.

    The problem is that was their option last year. They could have quit, and gone looking for employment at firms that were not failing. However AIG offered them more money to stay, to compensate them for the fact that they might have greater difficulty finding work later.

    They upheld their end of the bargain. Pay them and move on.

    AIG is broke, they don't have the money to pay them.

    AIG went broke, and so now we the people are paying their bonuses because if we don't AIG will lose talent and fail. o_O

  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Detharin wrote: »

    Yeah, this right here. AIG and its employees are now welfare queens, so I'm perfectly fine dictating the money owed to its employees. ESPECIALLY since just about by definition, none of the people receiving these bonuses are working class. If they can make more money by quitting and working somewhere else, I'm all for it and suggest they do so.

    The problem is that was their option last year. They could have quit, and gone looking for employment at firms that were not failing. However AIG offered them more money to stay, to compensate them for the fact that they might have greater difficulty finding work later.

    They upheld their end of the bargain. Pay them and move on.

    Yes. Limed for truth.

    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • EmanonEmanon __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2009
    This crap with economy is unbelievable! I literally just found out my Dad and Stepmom had their house foreclosed on them... now AIG is getting bonuses. Wooo hoo!! So... when do we start rioting and burning AIG buildings down?

    Treats Animals Right!
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Detharin wrote: »

    Yeah, this right here. AIG and its employees are now welfare queens, so I'm perfectly fine dictating the money owed to its employees. ESPECIALLY since just about by definition, none of the people receiving these bonuses are working class. If they can make more money by quitting and working somewhere else, I'm all for it and suggest they do so.

    The problem is that was their option last year. They could have quit, and gone looking for employment at firms that were not failing. However AIG offered them more money to stay, to compensate them for the fact that they might have greater difficulty finding work later.

    They upheld their end of the bargain. Pay them and move on.

    Then AIG promised money that is honestly, not theirs to give. They are perfectly free to quit now, and take the salary they have been paid.

  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Emanon wrote: »
    This crap with economy is unbelievable! I literally just found out my Dad and Stepmom had their house foreclosed on them... now AIG is getting bonuses. Wooo hoo!! So... when do we start rioting and burning AIG buildings down?

    I'm sorry, I think the free-market seats are over there... can I see your tickets please?

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • psychotixpsychotix __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2009
    Emanon wrote: »
    This crap with economy is unbelievable! I literally just found out my Dad and Stepmom had their house foreclosed on them... now AIG is getting bonuses. Wooo hoo!! So... when do we start rioting and burning AIG buildings down?

    A Citi building to bombed in Athens recently, so it's not that far fetched now.

  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Detharin wrote: »

    Yeah, this right here. AIG and its employees are now welfare queens, so I'm perfectly fine dictating the money owed to its employees. ESPECIALLY since just about by definition, none of the people receiving these bonuses are working class. If they can make more money by quitting and working somewhere else, I'm all for it and suggest they do so.

    The problem is that was their option last year. They could have quit, and gone looking for employment at firms that were not failing. However AIG offered them more money to stay, to compensate them for the fact that they might have greater difficulty finding work later.

    They upheld their end of the bargain. Pay them and move on.

    Then AIG promised money that is honestly, not theirs to give. They are perfectly free to quit now, and take the salary they have been paid.

    We gave AIG money to cover their contractual obligations, right? And the bonuses are contractual obligations, right?

    I think we're ignoring the forest for the trees. We're cutting off our nose to spite our face. We're making a mountain out of a (relative) molehill.

    Yes, it sucks. Yes, it's unfair. But we can't change it without breaking contracts (which we really don't want to do). Let's get this over with and focus on things we can change instead of raging about things we cannot.

    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    sanstodo wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    They could've paid me a straight salary to do nothing all year and gotten the same or better performance than they got out of their "talent".

    Seriously, the AIG CEO was warning about a brain drain if they didn't continue paying bonuses. If that did happen, would we fucking notice? We need to get all of those fuckers the hell out of the industry, not retain them. They suck at their jobs.

    That's true. There are plenty of very good employees at AIG who turned nice profits. They are getting bonuses they deserve. Plus, a lot of people who screwed things up have expertise we need to fix our financial markets. We can't purge everyone we don't like without thinking about the unintended consequences.

    This is what I mean when I say that I'm worried about populist outrage actually hurting us. We cannot, as Obama says, govern from anger. Our anger is justified, yes, but it doesn't help us make the policies necessary to fix things.

    Honestly, I think the people employed in AIG's Financial Products division need to get nothing, even the "good" employees. Where were these "good" employees when the bad ones were running the operation off the rails? They certainly weren't trying to make sure that AIG was conducting business responsibly.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Ann Arbor, MichiganRegistered User regular
    edited March 2009
    It seems like the Financial Products people were inspired geniuses at protecting themselves in case of failure.

  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Detharin wrote: »

    Yeah, this right here. AIG and its employees are now welfare queens, so I'm perfectly fine dictating the money owed to its employees. ESPECIALLY since just about by definition, none of the people receiving these bonuses are working class. If they can make more money by quitting and working somewhere else, I'm all for it and suggest they do so.

    The problem is that was their option last year. They could have quit, and gone looking for employment at firms that were not failing. However AIG offered them more money to stay, to compensate them for the fact that they might have greater difficulty finding work later.

    They upheld their end of the bargain. Pay them and move on.

    Then AIG promised money that is honestly, not theirs to give. They are perfectly free to quit now, and take the salary they have been paid.

    We gave AIG money to cover their contractual obligations, right? And the bonuses are contractual obligations, right?

    I think we're ignoring the forest for the trees. We're cutting off our nose to spite our face. We're making a mountain out of a (relative) molehill.

    Yes, it sucks. Yes, it's unfair. But we can't change it without breaking contracts (which we really don't want to do). Let's get this over with and focus on things we can change instead of raging about things we cannot.

    Were these contracts made before or after they received bailout money?

    Even if they are, I don't count employee bonuses as in the same ballpark as external obligations. When you don't have the money to pay people, you let them go. They should have been let go in the first place. This whole thing stinks like a scam - even if it's not, it LOOKS really bad.

    And it sounds to me like it's being changed fairly well, since Obama has instructed the treasury to cut off the money for the bonuses.

  • lazegamerlazegamer Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    And it sounds to me like it's being changed fairly well, since Obama has instructed the treasury to cut off the money for the bonuses.

    How does that work? The treasury doesn't get to free people from contractual obligations, so AIG by law still has to pay these people what they promised them. We can give them less money, but that doesn't mean they can't choose to break their obligations with other parties instead?

    Surprise.
    - Spy
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited March 2009

    Then AIG promised money that is honestly, not theirs to give. They are perfectly free to quit now, and take the salary they have been paid.

    No AIG promised money that they are contractually obligated to give. Those people are free to quit now, and would still be owned the money they have yet to be paid.

    These people have already completed their contractual obligation, where ever AIG has to get the money is irrelevant. These people are owed. Plus how is the company supposed to recover if it cannot retain employees able to do the job?

    The point of the "bailout" is to keep these companies afloat. Paying your employees helps that end. Otherwise they leave, and even if you could have recovered you no longer can because you cannot even hire someone to answer the phones. Heck not only do they leave they sue you for the money you are contractually obligated to pay. So now you have legal fees.

    So in order to actually get anywhere the government would not only have to say "you cannot pay these promised, and earned bonuses to retain the people you need to function in business, you also cannot pay any lawsuits against you for this very same money."

    Frankly the government needs to step back and figure out what it really wants to do. Anything currently tossed in is sunk. They need to figure out if they want to continue funding this adventure, or back out and try something else.

    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    psychotix wrote: »
    AIG does owe them this money, nobody disputes that.
    I don't think that's true. A lot of people, inlcuding Barack Obama, are trying very hard to stop payment.

    Yes, thanks to Pants' white paper, these are standard retention bonuses and not end of year bonuses. It is common practice during any period of unusual change (merger/acquisition, bankruptcy, tarp, etc.) to offer certain people extra money in order to forgo their natural inclination to get the fuck out of Dodge. They stayed despite the risk of staying.

    Now, there is definitely logic to the fact that the government guaranteed AIG's existence, and since the government effectively took care of the risk side of the retention agreement, then they should take care of the reward side of it, too. In other words, people signed retention agreements because they were on a sinking ship and knew it, but since the government stepped in and stopped the sinking, then the government ought to be able to hold onto the money being paid out for those who took the risk.

    But that still leaves someone who could have jumped ship long ago (and maybe they weren't individuals that cause of all this mess., we don't know) but stayed on for a bonus, and now the market has really tanked and their opportunities to leave are greatly diminshed, and now we want to take the money they were promised for staying.

  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Detharin wrote: »

    Yeah, this right here. AIG and its employees are now welfare queens, so I'm perfectly fine dictating the money owed to its employees. ESPECIALLY since just about by definition, none of the people receiving these bonuses are working class. If they can make more money by quitting and working somewhere else, I'm all for it and suggest they do so.

    The problem is that was their option last year. They could have quit, and gone looking for employment at firms that were not failing. However AIG offered them more money to stay, to compensate them for the fact that they might have greater difficulty finding work later.

    They upheld their end of the bargain. Pay them and move on.

    Then AIG promised money that is honestly, not theirs to give. They are perfectly free to quit now, and take the salary they have been paid.

    We gave AIG money to cover their contractual obligations, right? And the bonuses are contractual obligations, right?

    I think we're ignoring the forest for the trees. We're cutting off our nose to spite our face. We're making a mountain out of a (relative) molehill.

    Yes, it sucks. Yes, it's unfair. But we can't change it without breaking contracts (which we really don't want to do). Let's get this over with and focus on things we can change instead of raging about things we cannot.

    Were these contracts made before or after they received bailout money?

    Even if they are, I don't count employee bonuses as in the same ballpark as external obligations. When you don't have the money to pay people, you let them go. They should have been let go in the first place. This whole thing stinks like a scam - even if it's not, it LOOKS really bad.

    And it sounds to me like it's being changed fairly well, since Obama has instructed the treasury to cut off the money for the bonuses.


    If it's contractual and not an incentive decision/plan made by management, it would be paid even if employees need to go to court.

«13456717
Sign In or Register to comment.