AIG execs should be ashamed

[jerryzflies 0]

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/14/AR2009031401394.html

Bonuses? Hanging would be more appropriate.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

As distasteful as it is, an employment contract is just that, a contract.

[shropshire 0]

Hey, don't forget..... they help to make the country what it is today ....



............. skint.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[ryoder 1,390]

Quote

We cannot attract and retain the best and brightest talent to lead and staff the AIG businesses -- which are now being operated principally on behalf of the American taxpayers -- if employees believe that their compensation is subject to continued and arbitrary adjustment by the U.S. treasury," Liddy wrote.

Seems to me if those practices were really attracting the best and brightest talent, they wouldn't be in the mess they are today.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Bright enough to scam us out of how many billion now??

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Seems to me if those practices were really attracting the best and brightest talent, they wouldn't be in the mess they are today.

In a company of this size, some people and departments can perform great, while others destroy the company.

Or in my own case, the IT work I do for a company (that manages a trillion dollars in assets) doesn't directly produce any revenue, but the number of weekends I put in for my ever shrinking group prevents them for losing more, and I feel quite entitled to my bonus this year.

Many of these companies pay the same salary, but differentiate between the good and great via the annual bonus. In a bad year like this, average performance means no bonus. But if you don't pay the stars, they leave, or work a hell of a lot less.

So is AIG rewarding the inept, or the stars?

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

As distasteful as it is, an employment contract is just that, a contract.

Odd how so many want GM to get out of its union contract but support executive contracts. Double standard?

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[TheAnvil 0]

Not at all. Different companies, different services performed, different effects on their respective companies, different contracts entirely. Another apples and oranges comparison with no meaning that the wealth envy crowd will tout - to the cheers and affirmation of morons.

AIG should have been allowed to go into bankruptcy. Just like GM and Chrysler.

[barf]

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Krip 2]

Quote

As distasteful as it is, an employment contract is just that, a contract.

Contracts are only as good as the lawyers hired to enforce them. Poor performance does not require a bonus.

Paying a performance bonus to the people that are directly responsiable for the failure of AIG and a $150,000,000 gov't bailout is sending the wrong message

Rather than paying a bonus to these poor excuse's for the best and brightest. They should be given a 30 day termination notice and in 30 days salary should be terminated. Like any other employee that can't do their job.

Let these failures collect unemployment instead of a bonus.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

As distasteful as it is, an employment contract is just that, a contract.

Contracts are only as good as the lawyers hired to enforce them. Poor performance does not require a bonus.

Paying a performance bonus to the people that are directly responsiable for the failure of AIG and a $150,000,000 gov't bailout is sending the wrong message

Rather than paying a bonus to these poor excuse's for the best and brightest. They should be given a 30 day termination notice and in 30 days salary should be terminated. Like any other employee that can't do their job.

Let these failures collect unemployment instead of a bonus.

Only $150,000,000? You're wrong by a factor of 1000. It was $150,000,000,000 bailout.

Clearly these incompetent execs deserve something other than a bonus.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Well there are parts of the world where governments reinterpret contracts politically. Zimbabwe, Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia come to mind. I know things are tough in US, but I hope they are not there yet.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Well there are parts of the world where governments reinterpret contracts politically. Zimbabwe, Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia come to mind. I know things are tough in US, but I hope they are not there yet.

And as the thread title suggests, any AIG exec accepting the bonus should be ASHAMED.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

And as the thread title suggests, any AIG exec accepting the bonus should be ASHAMED.

We are talking about insurance salesmen.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Rather than paying a bonus to these poor excuse's for the best and brightest. They should be given a 30 day termination notice and in 30 days salary should be terminated. Like any other employee that can't do their job.

That is FAR too generous...

They should be fired on the spot and escorted out of the building so they can do no further damage to the company.

[shropshire 0]

Maybe some of them might deserve some gaol time too!!

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[BaronVonBoll 0]

[reply

AIG should have been allowed to go into bankruptcy. Just like GM and Chrysler.

I wonder if it is any coincidence that AIG insures the congressional retirement fund?

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

[reply

AIG should have been allowed to go into bankruptcy. Just like GM and Chrysler.

If AIG had defaulted, a huge number of banks would have followed.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[jerryzflies 0]

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said of the bonuses, "This is an outrage"

I guess the righties now have permission to agree with me.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[Krip 2]

Quote

Well there are parts of the world where governments reinterpret contracts politically. Zimbabwe, Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia come to mind. I know things are tough in US, but I hope they are not there yet.

Thats I nice laundry list of gov't that I assume are goverened by dictators. For good measure lets add N korea and China

Unlike the countries listed above In the US we have a legal system. Just because someone has a "contract" that doesn't mean that it's valid. Thats what the courts and lawyers are for.

Just because you think a contract is a contract and thats the final decision. Back in the day we heard a term regarding construction contracts that went something like "Just because it says so that doesn't mean what it is.

I'm not a Lawyer or even someone specializing in contract law how ever I did sleep at the holiday inn last night. Unless you are a lawyer and you know what the AIG contracts say, well how the hell do you know what the you talking about.

This isn't about politic's its about the law and due process.

R.I.P.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Just because you think a contract is a contract and thats the final decision. Back in the day we heard a term regarding construction contracts that went something like "Just because it says so that doesn't mean what it is.

I'm not a Lawyer or even someone specializing in contract law

Employment contracts really aren't that complicated. If their's includes bonuses for sales or profit levels, it's rather straightforward.

Bonuses derived from overall company success, otoh, aren't guaranteed, though once the company has granted it to an employee, I don't think they can play backsies.

[Krip 2]

Quote

Quote

Just because you think a contract is a contract and thats the final decision. Back in the day we heard a term regarding construction contracts that went something like "Just because it says so that doesn't mean what it is.

I'm not a Lawyer or even someone specializing in contract law

Employment contracts really aren't that complicated. If their's includes bonuses for sales or profit levels, it's rather straightforward.

Bonuses derived from overall company success, otoh, aren't guaranteed, though once the company has granted it to an employee, I don't think they can play backsies.

What happened to andrew? To bad andrew you missed your shot.

Next
Kelp what first hand knowledge do you have of the AIG bonus issue.

The Mr Madhoff case is just begining to unravel. I'm guessing there will be all kind of "backsies" from lots of different parties involved in the case once the civil lawyers and the courts are finished doing their thing.

A 30% recovery fee is a big incentive for the lawyers to get as many backsies as the law allows for their clients.

This thread will be long gone befor the courts resolve the merits of the backsies issue. Lawyers usually don't waste their time unless they smell money and they can afford to wait.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

The administration is said to have been outraged when it heard of the bonus plan last week. Apparently Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner told AIG's chairman, Edward Liddy (who was installed at the insistence of the Treasury, in the first place) that the bonuses should not be paid. But it turns out that most will be paid anyway, because, according to AIG, the firm is legally obligated to pay them. The bonuses are part of employee contracts negotiated before the bailouts. And, in any event, Liddy explained, AIG needs to be able to retain talent.

AIG's arguments are absurd on their face. Had AIG gone into chapter 11 bankruptcy or been liquidated, as it would have without government aid, no bonuses would ever be paid (they would have had a lower priority under bankruptcy law that AIG's debts to other creditors); indeed, AIG's executives would have long ago been on the street. And any mention of the word "talent" in the same sentence as "AIG" or "credit default swaps" would be laughable if laughing weren't already so expensive.

This sordid story of government helplessness in the face of massive taxpayer commitments illustrates better than anything to date why the government should take over any institution that's "too big to fail" and which has cost taxpayers dearly. Such institutions are no longer within the capitalist system because they are no longer accountable to the market. To whom should they be accountable? As long as taxpayers effectively own a large portion of them, they should be accountable to the government.

But if our very own Secretary of the Treasury doesn't even learn of the bonuses until months after AIG has decided to pay them, and cannot make stick his decision that they should not be paid, AIG is not even accountable to the government. That means AIG's executives -- using $170 billion of our money, so far -- are accountable to no one.

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/131721/aig_bonuses_scandal%3A_ceos_take_our_billions_and_are_accountable_to_no_one/

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[lawrocket 3]

I don't want to simply see AIG execs give their bailout money back. I want to see Americans who are on a bailout plan(AFDC) and have another child or children pay their bailout money back, as well.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[micduran 0]

I could have some respect for these execs if they "refused" their bonuses.

Be patient with the faults of others; they have to be patient with yours.

[SkyDekker 1,128]

Quote

AIG should have been allowed to go into bankruptcy.

What do you think would have happened if AIG went bankrupt?