Notices
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: AIG bonuses for their excutives

  1. #1 AIG bonuses for their excutives 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    48
    Recently it has been in the news about AIG bonuses. this is what Sen. Dodd said:

    "I did not want to make any changes to my original Senate-passed amendment but I did so at the request of administration officials, who gave us no indication that this was in any way related to AIG," Dodd said.

    "Let me be clear -- I was completely unaware of these AIG bonuses until I learned of them last week."

    Should we hold Sen. Dodd and other members of congress accountable along with AIG excutives. I know some are arguing saying it is in their contract but the funny thing is that some of the people who got bonuses are not even working with AIG anymore. It reminds me that those who are in upper will always be covered those Washingtonians and us the poor will always suffer. I guess this is the destiny of poor mankind.


    "I think therefore I am." Rene Decartes
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    I don't understand how they can call it "bonuses"? The whole company almost tanks, and the execs still get bonuses? It's clearly not performance based. Just call it what it is: salary. They probably use words like "bonuses" for some sort of tax reason. I think pay caps were implemented under Clinton, IIRC, and they got around it through stock options and bonuses and the like.

    That said, it's not something I'm angry about. The whole issue is way over hyped. It's such a tiny fraction of the total money the received from the government. It's in extremely poor taste in AIG's part, and an obvious PR nightmare (how many millions will have to be spent to restore their image with the American people? And ironically how much of that will be public money?), but at the end of the day it doesn't really matter. People are just frustrated and they like to have clear targets for rage.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Numsgil
    I don't understand how they can call it "bonuses"? The whole company almost tanks, and the execs still get bonuses? It's clearly not performance based.
    You don't know that. While the company as a whole failed, some individuals may have done an excellent job.

    Paying people for their performance is just smart management policy. If people belive they will be paid the same regardless, why should they put forth an effort? This is something that the socialists now running our government will never understand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by Numsgil
    I don't understand how they can call it "bonuses"? The whole company almost tanks, and the execs still get bonuses? It's clearly not performance based.
    You don't know that. While the company as a whole failed, some individuals may have done an excellent job.

    Paying people for their performance is just smart management policy. If people belive they will be paid the same regardless, why should they put forth an effort? This is something that the socialists now running our government will never understand.
    Harold
    Obamas governent is inclined to lean that way but we have a long way to go to pass through a 'public healthcare plan' and improve the economy to create more balance in the distribution of wealth.
    I suggested raising the minimum wage to $10.50 an hour and raising the income tax on the 'stagnant UNneeded income' of the billionaires to much higher levels according to ability to pay.

    You cannot buy cars or houses with those cheap MW's.

    Obama ought to hold a seminar in the Whitehouse for the CEOs to teach them on how to be true pafriots of a Constitutional government. Paying taxes is one of our duties as citizens of our country.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by Numsgil
    I don't understand how they can call it "bonuses"? The whole company almost tanks, and the execs still get bonuses? It's clearly not performance based.
    You don't know that. While the company as a whole failed, some individuals may have done an excellent job.

    Paying people for their performance is just smart management policy. If people belive they will be paid the same regardless, why should they put forth an effort? This is something that the socialists now running our government will never understand.
    That's not the impression I'm getting from AIG. If that's the case, that while most of their execs recieved no bonuses an elite few really shone through and made their little dominions successful and deserved a bonus, I think the American people could get behind that. You would think the AIG marketing arm would play up on that point.

    Maybe it's just a case of really, really bad PR people.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Numsgil
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by Numsgil
    I don't understand how they can call it "bonuses"? The whole company almost tanks, and the execs still get bonuses? It's clearly not performance based.
    You don't know that. While the company as a whole failed, some individuals may have done an excellent job.

    Paying people for their performance is just smart management policy. If people belive they will be paid the same regardless, why should they put forth an effort? This is something that the socialists now running our government will never understand.
    That's not the impression I'm getting from AIG. If that's the case, that while most of their execs recieved no bonuses an elite few really shone through and made their little dominions successful and deserved a bonus, I think the American people could get behind that. You would think the AIG marketing arm would play up on that point.

    Maybe it's just a case of really, really bad PR people.
    I haven't actually paid real close attention to this. But they did say the bonuses were owed to the people who got them. A company can't just not pay people what they are owed. If they do that, their good employees will soon be gone.

    In my company there are bonuses every year or at least up til now, so it's pretty much expected. Except if you get a poor performance rating, you might not get anything.

    Barney Frank is the guy who really gets my goat. He is as much responsible for the crisis as anybody. As the the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee he did nothing worthwhile, and is up to his neck in the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mess. He is the guy who should be on the hot seat, not the one up there grandstanding about company bonuses.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    Owed why? My impression is that they're owed because they're contractually obligated to pay. That isn't a bonus. That's salary. Which is fine, just call it that. Bonuses mean, to me at least, a reward conditional upon exceptional performance. The whole company almost tanks. That's exceptionally poor performance. So the bonuses must not be performance based. So it's salary.

    Or maybe it's just a mutual admiration society. All their execs did a wonderful job and the whole company tanked purely from forces outside their control. Bonuses all around!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •