Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
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 :lol: 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

  • Witch_Hunter_84Witch_Hunter_84 Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Despite all claims of reformation, I still believe that AIG will do all in its power to proverbially fuck its clients in the ass.

    If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten in your presence.
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Moved from other thread
    Yar wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    You're over-generalizing who got the bonuses and why, without any evidence to back it up. These people met contractually specified performance goals. You're taking a general disdain for the downside of capitalism and trying to blame and punish specific people whom you know nothing about for it by taking away compensation they rightfully earned.

    [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.
    How about you read up on the situation before posting? These are all contracutally obligated payments.

    How about you read before you reveal yourself to be a fool? Here's AIG's white paper on the source of these bonuses, the retention plan.
    AIG is contractually obligated to pay a total of about $165 million of previously awarded retention pay to AIGFP employees (in respect of 2008). This amount is due pursuant to a retention plan entered into in early 2008. About $55 million of retention pay was previously paid around December, and about $93 million of additional retention pay will be eliminated because of losses at AIGFP (in accordance with the terms of the plan). AIG is also obligated to pay about $6 million of guaranteed pay to AIGFP employees under contractual obligations outside of the retention plan.
    ...
    In the first quarter of 2008, AIGFP adopted a retention plan for about 400 employees that provided guaranteed payments to employees if they worked through specified payment dates (or either resigned for good reason or was terminated without cause before the relevant dates). At the time, AIGFP was expected to have a valuable, on-going role at AIG. The plan was implemented because there was a significant risk of departures among employees at AIGFP, and given the $2.7 trillion of derivative positions at AIGFP at that time, retention incentives appeared to be in the best interest of all of AIG’s stakeholders. The program was evidenced by a written plan distributed to employees and by individual agreements executed by them.
    This was not a performance bonus. Also
    AIGFP’s books also contain a significant number of complex – so-called bespoke – transactions that are difficult to understand and manage. This is one reason replacing key traders and risk managers would not be practical on a large scale. Personal knowledge of the trades and the unique systems at AIGFP will be critical to an effective unwind of AIGFP’s businesses and portfolios.
    And the white paper indicates a clear solution
    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.

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • tsmvengytsmvengy Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    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?

    steam_sig.png
  • werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    While to the letter of the law it is completely accurate that AIG had to pay the bonuses and in theory government shouldn't be involved in private business matters, I have to admit I find people rushing to defend these executives frankly hilarious.

    I don't recall all this standing on principle about the wall between private enterprise and federal involvement from the companies when they were desperate for federal funds to stay in business and I certainly don't recall all this meticulous concern for contract law when we were talking about how overpaid the autoworkers were.

    It's pretty clearly a case of the people in question at AIG being absolute idiots on the matter, but if I'm being 100% honest I'm overjoyed. The dumbasses just handed the administration an air tight case for why the financial sector needs to be nationalized and then resold under new management and a political firestorm to drive everyone on both sides of the aisle into full throated support. It's no longer a matter of will the banks and AIG be nationalized and the shareholders and executives wiped out, it's a matter of when Obama feels like pulling the trigger.

  • psychotixpsychotix __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2009
    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.

    The government should have stipulated not to pay bonuses. You act like we are taking something from them, like the government owes it to them to pay their bonuses even though the contractually obligated private company is broke dick.

    Nobody would be "punished" for everything. The government not giving you a million dollar bonuses they have no obligation for is not being "punished" it's not getting a god damn free hand out. By your logic if I demand the bonus my company did not give me last year, because they didn't have the money, the government must pay it to me and if they don't it's punishment.

    I'm sorry but that's bullshit.

    The government should give them money for business obligations to banks and to help free up credit to prevent the entire system from falling apart. Giving them money to pay bonuses has nothing to do with keeping the system from crashing down.

  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    If they allocate all of the money that they've been given by the government in such a way that there simply isn't enough for bonuses in the payroll budget, then they've effectively created the situation that the government SHOULD have put them in. Yes, it might result in them being sued over it, but I believe it is possible to severely reduce that risk of lawsuit, through promising to make it up to employees once the firm is back in a good position, as well as the fact that an employee who sues here is going to have a hard time finding future employment in the current economic climate.
    But you haven't exactly explained why this is the way to go. Why does a foreign bank who was heavily leveraged into credit insurance (the reason for this mess) deserve all their contractual money, whereas an employee from the FP division of AIG (the reason for this mess) does not?

  • DmanDman Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Under normal conditions we would let a single bank go under, their employees would suffer for making mistakes or just plain being unlucky enough to work for that company and foreign banks who loaned money to AIG would also be screwed for getting involved in shitty loans.

    If you're going to bail the bank out then yes, a lot of local employees and foreign banks who perhaps deserve to be thrown to the wolves as an example to others will get free passes, bonuses even. It might not be pretty but your options are either let the banks fulfill their contracts with bailout money, nationalize them completely, or let them fail. If the government is going to dictate to the bank which obligations to pay and which not to then your fooling yourself if you think that isn't nationalization.

  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Looks like NY AG Andrew Cuomo is laying down ultimatums:

    http://consumerist.com/5170898/ny-attorney-general-to-aig-you-have-until-400-pm-to-give-us-the-names
    Spoiler:

  • 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 hell is round the corner where I shelterRegistered 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 Registered 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.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • 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 Registered 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!

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered 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!

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • 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.

«13456717
Sign In or Register to comment.