bond_james_bond said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/insurance/4995683/AIG-pays-out-165m-in-bonuses.html
Yeah, those bonuses are legally required.
But if I were one of those execs on the receiving end, and I'm already making unseemly amounts of money, I would decline it, or ask that it be donated to charity.
I certainly wouldn't need it, and it would win me public relations points.
Hello Mr. Bond,
I applaud the basic principle of your sentiments, but anyone would be foolish to decline it. It's highly commendable for a any person to live within reasonable comfortable mean without the gross excess. And there's nothing wrong with having more tucked away for unforeseen needs or hard times.
I agree with your implication that this episode you cite is disgusting. I realize that basing reward on the principle of merit is extremely naive in the reality of the world, but giving out these bonuses at such a time is despicable. As I heard this explained on CNN this morning the reason was the legal obligation of AIG to make these payments. However, since AIG could not make these bonus payments without the influx of public money into the companies financial resources, I wonder if the government couldn't legally block the bonuses. Since this is not money the company earned in my view it should not be considered accessible for possible bonuses. If the company could not continue without the government funds then the funds should not be considered a resource for any previous contractual obligations. The government funds were given for essential operations and bonuses are not strictly essential.
Anyway, it's just another shameful example of corporate excess at the expense of the public, and how big business is really about the greed of a de facto aristocracy, not "good business" that is both profitable and a benefit to society.
player_82 said:
They are free agent and there working contract are between 1 or 2 years so other companies are seeking this professional so bonuses is a way to keeping them in the company.
Hello Player,
Yeah, I understand this and agree with this principle and necessity up to a point. But in these times and this situation such views amount to BULLSHIT. This company would be nothing without the government money. In fact, AIG got off pretty freaking easy when they were able to get the bailout money after so many other large companies had already failed and been left for dead. Apart from the fact that such bonuses tend to be grossly excessive at any time, AIG did not earn this money. This is tax-payer money and these people getting bonuses are just damn lucky they aren't at the unemployment office...never mind getting any bonuses at all. So in this case the rationale of keeping the best people is total BULL. They all helped run the company into near oblivion so how could they possibly be the best people anyway. Nothing against you personally...but a very big
BULLSHIT to the view that these people should get any bonuses.
PUUUUUKE!
Merlot