Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverNight
Now I can't really claim to know all the facts in this situation, but -from what I remember and have heard- the bonuses given were part of a contract. A legally binding contract. Now, since the condition of those contracts have been met -from what I've heard it was staying on with the company for a year or something like that- the obligation to the company is to meet their end of the bargain
|
I'd love to have a job where all I have to do is show up to get a bonus, even if the company is tanking around me.
Quote:
|
... unless you're suggesting that they not pay these people what they've 'earned'.
|
I'm just confused on how AIG can have the gall to call it a performance bonus when they obviously came nowhere remotely close to performing anything successfully.
Quote:
|
Am I ticked? Yes. Do I think that it shouldn't have happened? From all I've seen/heard, no.
|
I think the government is well within its rights to say 'we're giving you a buttload of cash, but you're not allowed to spend it on bonuses, extravagant parties and retreats, or private jet travel'. I'm happy Congress apparently is going to tax their bonus money at some gawdawfully ridiculous rate (I heard 90%) so that we taxpayers aren't stuck paying for ridiculous bonuses that they never would have had anyway if AIG had been allowed to go under. Perhaps AIG should have been allowed to go under--it's clear from the money they've spent on bonuses and extravagant executive retreats since they got the monet that they don't have their priorities straight.