Bloomberg: Obama authorized AIG bonuses

Quote from power:

A person can live a "rich life" with $10,000 - $20,000 per month.

How much money the AIG executives need?. Why the need for bonuses. What high-profile work do the executives do so that they need $100,000 per month?.

A farmer's work is more high-profile than an executive's work.
More...

Let's be clear, it wasn't only top AIG executives getting bonuses...

70+ employees received bonuses. I'm sure not all of these were top executives and I'm sure some of those employees did actually perform well. The fact that some of AIG's employees fucked up and do not deserve a bonus shouldn't mean those who actually did a good job should suffer as well.
 
Quote from AK100:

The one that pays a bonus of course.

But the point here is that bonuses should be performance related. Just like a tip in a restaurant - you wouldn't tip somebody $20 if they didn't do their job well, but might tip them $20+ if they excelled.

So the whole arguement at present is about negative performance but positive bonuses.
More...

Agreed. But I'm sure some of those employees actually did perform well, despite the performance of AIG as a whole.

Therefore, if all bonuses were not paid out/taken back, the good performers would leave the company for a company who pays bonuses, and those who didn't perform well would stay with AIG because they know they performed poorly.

So the net effect of not paying/taking back the bonuses would be for AIG to retain underperforming employees, and force out the high performance employees.
 
Quote from Kassz007:

I'm sure not all of these were top executives and I'm sure some of those employees did actually perform well. The fact that some of AIG's employees fucked up and do not deserve a bonus shouldn't mean those who actually did a good job should suffer as well.
More...
If some of the AIG employees performed why did AIG suffer losses of $61 billion?.
 
Quote from power:

If some of the AIG employees performed why did AIG suffer losses of $61 billion?.
More...

Because obviously not as many employees performed as those who did not...

I honestly believe that AT LEAST 1 of those 70+ employees who received the bonuses in question did a good job and deserved it. Obviously the top brass fucked up and should not get bonuses. But I'm sure someone down the 70 man ladder worked hard, did a good job, and deserved a bonus.

When that 1 employee who deserved it gets asked (told) to give back his/her bonus, the reaction will be "fuck you I'm going to a firm that rewards my hard work".
 
Quote from Kassz007:

I'm sure someone down the 70 man ladder worked hard, did a good job, and deserved a bonus.
More...

Yes but this is supposed to be capitalism - no profit, no bonus. Employees have a responsibility to pick their employers wisely.
 
Bonuses of this magnitude could be a phenomenon most commonly found during equity and economic bubbles. Maybe this issue will self-correct as these bubbles deflate and unemployment rises.
 
Quote from Random.Capital:

Yes but this is supposed to be capitalism - no profit, no bonus. Employees have a responsibility to pick their employers wisely.
More...

Bonuses based on overall profit are usually for top executives only. An employee way down the food chain likely has a different performance measure other than profitability. It is entirely possible to pay a bonus to some employees without being profitable.

Again, I am not agreeing with AIG giving bonuses with taxpayer money. My argument is that the actual good employees who deserve a bonus need to get that bonus because if they don't they'll leave the company. While AIG is horribly unprofitable at the moment, they still need to offer competitive compensation to retain valuable employees.
 
aig.jpg


"I was an invaluable employee that the company could not possibly do without."

"Now they know where I am 24 hours a day"
 
Quote from Kassz007:

An employee way down the food chain likely has a different performance measure other than profitability. It is entirely possible to pay a bonus to some employees without being profitable.
More...

Yes, that is not unusual practice. The question is whether it should be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top