If I got a bonus from AIG, and I was not a super-rich executive or someone else who was to blame for this mess, and Obama or my CEO came to me and said "please give your bonus back," I'd tell them to get bent. Honestly, what kind of person would give back their hard-earned money? And don't tell me an "altruistic" one, because that person could always take the money and give it to charity, where it would do far more good than if you gave it to AIG or the government.
If I were an executive who could afford to give it back and needed to put a good face on this for the company, or if I felt guilty about my role in the crisis, then maybe I'd give it back. But presumably most of the several thousand people who got bonuses don't fall into those categories, and have no intention of doing so.
So, would you give the money back? Even if Obama called you personally and promised to be your BFF if you did?
(Please let's not have general rants here, and just stick to the topic: would you give back the bonus?)
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at March 22, 2009 05:47 PM | Email ThisNo.
I earned it.
And if the toddler's teleprompter called me I'd politely tell it we have nothing to discuss.
How dare anyone dictate how much you can earn?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 22, 2009 05:57 PMBy accepting a contract that includes bonuses, I take the risk of the company going bankrupt and losing my contract rights.
It's not my fault the government stupidly bailed out a failed company and kept them solvent.
Posted by: Ken on March 22, 2009 06:11 PMObama signed a book deal five days before he took office that put $500,000 in his pocket. He does not have to do any more work to earn this money, he just has to allow the publisher to re-edit one of his books. A sweet deal unless congress decides to tax it at 90%
Posted by: Moondoggie on March 22, 2009 06:14 PMFirst off, define "super-rich executive or someone else who was to blame for this mess". Then maybe we can respond intelligently.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 22, 2009 06:56 PMIt makes NO difference. The White House and Dodd approved these payouts. If you don't like it call them.
Jezzz go look in a mirror.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on March 22, 2009 07:09 PMThere will be a whole bunch of news media about how Obama got all the AIG execs to give up their bonuses - but not one bit of coverage about how they will get it all back next year.
Posted by: Doug on March 22, 2009 07:43 PMIt's not a problem, it's an opportunity.
Hairy
Posted by: Hairy Buddah on March 22, 2009 08:10 PMYep, I'm keepin' the money. I did what I said I would do. And you said if I did, I would get a bonus. Explain to me why I should feel the least bit of guilt over this?
Posted by: Dave on March 22, 2009 08:20 PMI would fall into the "tell them to get bent" category.
I just hope they dont classify some organization or business I am associated with doesn't get this type of secial attention.
I'll just hold my breath until BO and Dodd return contributions they got from AIG, Fanny, Freddie, and the like.
Posted by: Marmstro on March 22, 2009 08:21 PMBTW, I found after reading the Times story today about the "spontaneous" bussed in protest against AIG execs in Connecticut that the organizers of that event are a political party founded by labor and community organizers:
1. ACORN
2. SEIU
3. AFL-CIO
The party was know in the 1990's as the "New Party" and primarily exists to exert pressure on Dems in state and local elections.
Guess who these folks backed for the Illinois legislature in the 1990's.
We did hear last week that the "One" was re-activating his campaign. I suspect we are seeing the first signs that the campaign has been given its marching orders.
Posted by: deadwood on March 22, 2009 08:22 PMWhat would you sue them for Doug? Please tell us what your cause of action would be?
You folks don't seem to grasp we are on the verge of an ugly class war. And contrary to Glen Beck's world view, the "haves" are way outnumbered by the "have not so muches".
So go right ahead and defend multi-million dollar bonuses to "those who earned them". But realize the unwashed masses don't think like you. They see it as unfair.
You are hurting America.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 22, 2009 08:30 PMYou said:
"You folks don't seem to grasp we are on the verge of an ugly class war"
followed by:
"So go right ahead and defend multi-million dollar bonuses to "those who earned them"."
I say:
Do you read what you write?
Posted by: the Sasquatch on March 22, 2009 08:37 PMDo you?
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 22, 2009 08:42 PMIf so, we're in a very tragic, and dangerous situation.
Which, by the way, was the point of my first repsonse.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 22, 2009 08:47 PMTell me Sas, I'm looking for some meaningful answers here.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 22, 2009 08:52 PMThat, my friend is a formula for very violent and destructive social unrest.
Certainly not anything I want to pass on to my children.
So feel free to indulge in your "Atlas Shrugged" fantasies of the few paying for the many.
But don't be surpized to find out it is just the opposite. The many are paying for the lifestyles of the few.
And when push comes to shove, the many can get out of control very quickly; and do so with very unhappy consequenses.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 22, 2009 09:04 PMBut that doesn't mean I think the bonuses should have been allowed. I can't answer that without seeing the contracts.
Posted by: Bruce on March 22, 2009 09:20 PMDefine it however you like. I doubt this will increase your ability to respond intelligently.
You folks don't seem to grasp we are on the verge of an ugly class war. ... You are hurting America.
Um. No. WE get it. And it is YOU and the Democrats who are trying to start a class war who are hurting America.
That's the point. We, who love America and liberty, are standing up and saying STOP the class warfare. You won't do that, because you welcome it. Keith Olbermann calling them "robber barons." Obama calling them "suicide bombers." It's sickening. We can disagree with them, and want them investigated, and so on, without resorting to this class warfare. Well, WE can. I don't know if you and your buddies can.
we're going to hand our children a world were a whole lot of folks deeply resent the fact that a relative few live a fabulously consumptive lifestyle while all the rest live in a constant struggle to survive.
The only way our country will end up like that is if the federal government keeps pushing us headlong into socialism. The rich will always be rich. Period. But the middle class, we can be pulled down, and that's what Obama is doing to us, whether he realizes it or not.
deadwood: don't forget, Obama was a *member* of the New Party.
Bruce:I probably would not give the money back (although if Obama really called me, I would).
Wow. That's extremely weak of you.
Dayam, Wiz... if you EVER "responded intelligently," we'd all faint... dead away.
Even someone of your limited intellect should understand the rape of the Constitution that took place under the leftist lynch-mob.
The Fed CANNOT violate EITHER the Constitution, OR the contract agreements that THEY approved. You remember, don't you, Wiz? It was when the empty suit and those two idiots running the House and the Senate forced a vote... before anyone could read the fricking bill.
If this ever got signed into law, getting rid of it would be like shooting fish in a barrel.
This stuff is black letter law. They were morons to try it; McMorris-Rogers and Reichert were morons to vote for it... and you're a moron to even make the attempt to defend it.
Since you asked.
But then, I while I DID expect better from the Sheriff, CMR didn't surprise me one bit.
No, it's not.
a bonus represents how well the company is doing and part of the profits is shared among the employees
That's simply not true. SOME bonuses MAY represent that, but most don't. Many bonuses are given by companies that have no profits (startups, for example), or are given as part of employment contracts for certain levels of performance, etc.
And from what we know, these are unrelated to profit: they were bonuses given to people who stayed through a certain date. That is, they were a payment given for services rendered. The service was rendered, so the money promised should be paid.
You really don't know what you are talking about, and are asserting from ignorance, which isn't very ethical.
And another thing, why isn't the federal lynch mob going after the bonuses paid at Fannie and Freddie the past year? Oh that's right, cronyism.
Posted by: Palouse on March 23, 2009 08:08 AMFinally, I would be proud of what I accomplished and believe that I was worth every penny of it. To save individuals millions of dollars and to help our country out by reducing the liability by hundreds of billions would let me sleep VERY well at night.
All of us should be so lucky to have such a success in our backgrounds.
Posted by: iconoclast on March 23, 2009 08:59 AMSince private citizens and the federal govt. itself have sued, on numerous occasions, abortion protesters, specifically because their actions could "escalate into violence", I don't think it would be too dificult for them to get a taste of their own medicine.
Or are we now in a new era, the Obama Era, where the only people in the country that deserve equal protection are those who profess to be liberal thinkers and all conservative thinkers need to be singled out and punished so that we don't destroy the country.
And another thing, I'm sick and tired of hearing these MORONIC democratic congressmen and Senators on television saying that these AIG execs who caused the economic collapse don't deserve bonuses. ALERT, ALERT, it was those idiots in Congress that were most to be blamed for the collapse, I don't see them giving up their pay raises and perks.
Posted by: Doug on March 23, 2009 09:15 AMSome of these "outrageous bonuses" were up to a whole ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS! [/sarcasm]... after the toddler and his fellow pirates take their cut they may be left with a whopping $610... not even enough for Michelle to buy decent earrings according to her highness.
Hell yes! I would keep it.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 23, 2009 12:35 PMAIG and Our Embarrassing Congress
To uphold the tax, says Turley, "the courts would have to ignore the open statements of members of Congress.
How's that Hope! and Change! coming... besides not fast enough?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 23, 2009 12:50 PMPersonally, I'd give it back. There's something wrong with taking government bailout money and still giving out these kinds of bonuses, to the same people who ran the company into near bankruptcy.
And I think the auto unions should have to suck it up and break those contracts, too. Extraordinary times call for exceptional measures.
Posted by: cat on March 23, 2009 12:55 PMNot very pro-life the nut-job from the good state of Iowa.
The idiot democrats...opps...
Posted by: BA on March 23, 2009 12:57 PMNo, I was against the bailout for auto companies, as I am against the AIG bailout. What separates this, of course, is that it is after the fact. If this had been a condition of accepting the bonus money, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the same way.
There's something wrong with taking government bailout money and still giving out these kinds of bonuses, to the same people who ran the company into near bankruptcy.
That is not the topic of this discussion. Please read the post again. The question is what you would do if you were not "a super-rich executive or someone else who was to blame for this mess." "The same people who ran the company into near bankruptcy" are people who are "to blame for this mess," so that doesn't answer the question at all.
You appear to think the bonuses only went to people who are to blame. You're mistaken. If you merely make $125,000 a year -- not rich by most standards, and firmly middle class depending on where you live -- and you're a mid-level employee who got a bonus because you did a very good job, maybe saved the company a lot of money, had nothing whatsoever to do with the mistakes made by AIG ... your bonus could be swallowed up if Congress gets its way.
The question is, would you give the money back if that were you? The person who didn't make any decisions to harm the company, who is just a middle class worker who is doing his job?
BA: please don't lower yourself to such nonsense. Grassley obviously didn't mean it literally, and he said so and apologized for people who took it the wrong way.
Irrespective, I would give it back, because my moral code sees something wrong with accepting a bonus from a company which is struggling to the point of accepting bailout money.
I'd have a clearer conscience if I didn't accept a bonus in these circumstances. YMMV ...
Posted by: cat on March 23, 2009 01:27 PMA contract is a contract - giving the money "back" is a personal choice, and placing a higher tax rate on it now is dangerously close to , if not clearly, unconstitutional.
Grassley remains an idiot under all circumstances however.
Posted by: BA on March 23, 2009 01:38 PMNo, it applies to HOUSEHOLDS of employees that make $250,000 or more, not just the employees. If married filing separately, then it is only $125,000. This could potentially affect a lot of middle class people who earned that money and did nothing wrong.
Irrespective, I would give it back, because my moral code sees something wrong with accepting a bonus from a company which is struggling to the point of accepting bailout money.
Why? How is this different from receiving a salary or health benefits from said company?
If kept to a reasonable size, taxpayers wouldn't be required to bail-out companies employing significant numbers of millionairs...we could just let them fail like any other failing scenario.
Thus avoiding national anger over middle class America subsidizing millionaire salaries ad nasium.
Posted by: Denni on March 23, 2009 01:52 PMI think corporations have the same responsibility to live within their means and handing out bonuses while at the same time accepting a bailout just doesn't seem right to me.
If AIG hadn't been bailed out, it likely would have been forced into bankruptcy, and those employees would be out their jobs as well as their bonuses.
I answered your original question as honestly as I could -- I personally would not feel comfortable with a bonus in these circumanstances.
And, yes, I'd give it back and sleep well at night.
Reader Jan Sackley writes to take us to task for an omission in Friday's item about the bonus tax bill:Please don't perpetuate the myth that the bonus excise tax only applies to employees who earn more than $250,000 per year. It also applies to employees who make $25,000 or $30,000 or even only $15,000 if their household adjusted gross income is $250,000 or greater.
Household AGI can include a spouse's earnings or income from investments, which could subject even a relatively low-paid employee to the tax:A bank branch manager who works her butt off 50 to 60 hours a week for a salary of $50,000, who received an incentive plan bonus in January of $30,000, and who has a husband who is a doctor who makes $200,000, would be subject to the 90% excise tax (plus all the other tax) if they file a joint return.
This would also affect employees of Merrill Lynch, Wachovia, and any other company acquired by a TARP Bank because of the affiliate clause.
It would even apply to the bank janitors, tellers, data entry clerks, computer technicians and others if their spouses happen to be higher paid professionals or they have substantial investments that trigger enough income to get them to that $250,000 AGI. Many of these same employees will see their jobs eliminated later this year if they haven't already because of cut-backs or acquisition trimming. So then there is a double whammy: lose your job AND pay all of your bonus in taxes.
And to top it off, these same bank employees have seen their 401(k)s and employee stock purchase plans diminish to nothing in value and all stock options are worthless.
So now our knee-jerk Congress wants to kick thousands of us in the gut because a few dozen abusers had their contracts honored by AIG.It gets even worse. On Friday we added in state and local and FICA Medicare taxes for a hypothetical New York City employee subject to the bonus tax and came up with an aggregate tax rate of 101.948%. The rate would be higher still for Sackley's branch manager, who--assuming this is her only payroll income--would pay an additional 6.2% FICA Social Security tax on her bonus. (The Social Security tax applies only to the first $106,800 in payroll income, but it is assessed against individuals, not couples.) This would bring her total tax liability to 108.148%.
Yep, Hope! and Change!... are we there yet?
I see nothing wrong with a corporation in trouble cutting salaries or benefits
That has nothing to do with the current case, of course, since no such cuts are occurring.
Isn't that what republicans always say about government workers, that in hard times benefits and salaries need to be reduced?
No, it's not. I don't recall a single Republican saying that the benefits or salaries of any government employees should be reduced. Frozen? Yes. Program cut? Yes. Cut salaries or benefits? Nope.
I think corporations have the same responsibility to live within their means and handing out bonuses while at the same time accepting a bailout just doesn't seem right to me.
It's not nearly that simple. Often when you lose personnel, you lose more money than you would have if you had increased their compensation. Should we, as taxpayers paying for AIG's receovery, not want them to do what is in the company's best interest?
If AIG hadn't been bailed out, it likely would have been forced into bankruptcy, and those employees would be out their jobs as well as their bonuses.
Irrelevant. They WERE bailed out, and we have to deal with THAT reality.
I answered your original question as honestly as I could -- I personally would not feel comfortable with a bonus in these circumanstances.
And I think that's irrational.
As for the union contracts at the auto companies, I believe the companies and govt. has every right to attempt to renegotiate those contracts, but they have no right to unilaterly change the contract save in cases where the contract doesn't follow state or federal law. But, I don't believe the feds or auto companies should be allowed to threaten auto workers if they don't accept changes to the contract, I mean we aren't in Stalinist Russia. Well, I guess the AIG execs might think we are.
Pudge, as a married man, we have never filed taxes separately, even when it was to our advantage, and we never will. It is our religious belief that we became one when we got married and the government should treat us as one. Again, why should it ever be a disadvantage to file jointly when married? Are we being discriminated against because we are married?
Posted by: Doug on March 23, 2009 04:09 PMI could not care less how the government treats my relationships, as long as it does not interfere with them, and respects my rights. This is not about your marriage at all, it does not affect your marriage at all. It is all about how government sees you in a purely government-related activity (paying taxes).
Increasing the portion of health care costs that state employees pay equals a cut to benefits.
Seattle Times 3/15/2009:
"Sen. Joe Zarelli, the ranking Republican on the Senate Ways and Means Committee, insists the state can balance the budget without asking voters for a tax increase and even without tapping all of the federal aid.
It just means cutting deeper than the Democrats may want to go, he said, such as making state workers pick up a larger share of their health-insurance costs,"
Seattle Time 2/28/2009:
"State workers agreed in negotiations to continue paying 12 percent of their health-insurance premium costs. Some lawmakers have suggested raising costs for nonunion employees, however, and it's not clear whether the federation would be able to reopen talks on health benefits."
Evergreen Freedom Foundation:
http://www.effwa.org/main/article.php?article_id=2715
105 Ways - Day 39 - Increase State Workers' Contribution to Health Care Insurance
Day 39
Category: Balance the Budget
Increase State Workers' Contribution to Health Care Insurance
Fine, one example. It still has nothing whatsoever to do with AIG.
Remember that when hospitals stop buying newer, better, bigger MRI and CAT scan machined under Obamacare.
Hairy
Posted by: Hairy Buddah on March 23, 2009 09:53 PMI just went to the emergency a couple weeks ago, had an x-ray that was negative and just got a prescription for a muscle relaxant (filled elsewhere). Total bill: $1100.
That care is no different than I would have received 20 years ago, but the cost is dramatically higher.
Are the health benefits worth more, or do they just cost more?
Posted by: Doug on March 23, 2009 10:01 PMDid you read the post? Because I explicitly excluded the people who were to BLAME for the downfall in my question, and your response was all about those very people I excluded.
Posted by: pudge on March 24, 2009 09:36 AMBut here's my problem: we know that most of the money we pay to AIG ends up going to their clients. So why not dissolve AIG and instead give the money directly to their clients if necessary?
I dunno.
And even with the bailout, the CDS market is still a mess. Why couldn't the government have just set up an open exchange for CDS? It's ridiculous that the failure of one company can bring down an entire financial system.
Posted by: Palouse on March 24, 2009 10:34 AMI agree that bonuses earned are not negotiable, and sometimes as an employer I wish I didn't have to pay a bonus that I'd agreed to at the beginning of an employee's tenure (though it never happens a second time...)
That said, you excluded folks responsible for the mess - presumably because giving a substantial bonus to someone responsible for terrific failure is wrong. OK.
But you also excluded the "super rich".
Why?
If they're not due a bonus in this situation because they already have a lot of money, and by definition don't fall into the "responsibility" category of your short list of exclusions, aren't you falling into the trap of treating someone different solely based on wealth? Rather liberal of you I think.
I can agree on canceling the bonuses of those responsible (if there's language in their employment contract that allows it) but I can't agree on canceling bonuses of those that are "super rich" because they're "super rich".
At some point there is someone that has a dollar less than the "super rich", and I'll be that distinction is pretty hard to discern.
I think it is also irrelevant.
To avoid the inevitable "he's super rich, he can afford it for the common good" discussion, as it's beside the point to me. Also because some people don't, or can't, differentiate between "super rich" and "the people responsible for this mess." I just wanted to avoid that.
I agree with your point: the "super rich" have just as much right to it, presuming they are not the ones responsible. I was just trying to avoid discussions that would take us off topic.
You're kidding, right? Do you have any idea how much more radiation would have gone sleeting through your body 20 years ago? Today's xray machines are FAR more sensitive and give much higher resolution. And taking inflation into account, I doubt if $1100 is actually more than it was 20 years ago. I bet the muscle relaxant you received hadn't been thought of 20 years ago. Newer drugs are more effective with fewer side effects. You might have gotten an old one that is still good from the old days, but most of what is in the pharmacy has been rebuilt. We have the technology.
Plus, you picked an entirely lame example. You got a simple boo boo. Tell a cancer survivor that his odds would have been just as good 20 years ago. How is transplant technology doing? Would you really want to wear a 20 year old prosthetic. All that infrastructure costs more.
Plus, plus, you don't take into account the amount padded into each and every hospital bill to pay for "undocumented workers". Those "social benefit" costs are going up, up, up. You might HOPE they will soak the rich for it. That well is gonna get tapped out pretty fast. Instead you will get the kind of care you deserve. 20 year old care.
Hairy
Posted by: Hairy Buddah on March 24, 2009 09:10 PMMost of us just have the costs of going to the doctor for routine care or small "boo boos," and whereas 20 years ago you could afford it without insurance, today you can't, *for the same basic care." Yes, there have been advances in x-ray technology, but none that would make a difference in his case.
And yes, social costs are a huge part of the problem. I don't think Doug was implying otherwise. He was just saying, it costs more for the same basic care. A lot more.
Except ONE
Jake DeSantis Shrugged
I have decided to donate 100 percent of the effective after-tax proceeds of my retention payment directly to organizations that are helping people who are suffering from the global downturn. This is not a tax-deduction gimmick; I simply believe that I at least deserve to dictate how my earnings are spent, and do not want to see them disappear back into the obscurity of A.I.G.'s or the federal government's budget. Our earnings have caused such a distraction for so many from the more pressing issues our country faces, and I would like to see my share of it benefit those truly in need.
On March 16 I received a payment from A.I.G. amounting to $742,006.40, after taxes. In light of the uncertainty over the ultimate taxation and legal status of this payment, the actual amount I donate may be less -- in fact, it may end up being far less if the recent House bill raising the tax on the retention payments to 90 percent stands. Once all the money is donated, you will immediately receive a list of all recipients. ...
Grace Under Fire: AIG Employee Schools His Boss And Congress
BRAVO!
But it is NOT the same basic care. Basic care has improved tremendously over the past 20 years. And I am not just talking about catastrophic care.
Seriously, look at care for diabetes, heart disease, even basic screenings done by GP's every time they walk in the room. They are picking up stuff that wasn't even recognized as a problem 20 years ago. And you didn't mention the less radiation intensive xray machines.
Who do you think is making all this money that BO is going to be able to take out of the system and lower our costs? Docs aren't making tons more than they did 20 years ago. Nurses certainly aren't. Maybe the fake medicine providers are doing better now that aromatherapy is state mandated part of health care coverage. But BO isn't going to do anything about that.
Insurance companies are making what, 10%? The government isn't going to be able to take over that function for less.
Big pharma and the equipment manufacturers are making more, but they are delivering miracles on a platter. And their profits are hardly disproportionate.
The only people really making a killing on all of this are the attorneys. Take out the costs for inappropriate and outrageous judgments for perceived malpractice and I bet that basic care is even less expensive than it was 20 years ago. And we all know that BO isn't gonna muzzle the shysters.
The only answer with obamacare is going to rationing like we won't be able to believe or tolerate. But we will be trapped.
Pudge, man, I am generally on your side. But you missed this one by a mile.
Hairy
Posted by: Hairy Buddah on March 25, 2009 08:39 PMFor most things, yes it is. A cold or the flu, a broken arm, an ear infection ... same basic care. Yes. It really is.
you didn't mention the less radiation intensive xray machines
That's because for most people, who have only a handful of x-rays in their lifetime, the difference is literally insignificant.
I am not saying that there's not major advances that aren't legitimately costing a lot of money. I am saying, for MOST visits for MOST people we are getting the SAME care and paying a LOT MORE for it.
You seem to think I am on Obama's side. I'm not. We need to look to ways to lower costs, but that doesn't mean government doing it, except to maybe open up the market to have more options. The fact is, there's very little in the way of competitive forces at work in the health care industry, and that is one of the biggest obstacles to lower costs.
These were retention bonuses, which is basically a form of deferred compensation, it's salary which is only paid if the employee stays with the company for the full term of the contract period.
I was offered and accepted a RETENTION BONUS a year ago, I was given a letter by HR stating that I would be paid an additional percentage of my salary, 20% three months after accepting the terms of the offer, the remainder after 12 months. If I left earlier than the 12 month period I got nothing, and would have to pay back the 20% I'd already received.
A accepted the offer, signed a form, and even though at the time I was getting an average of two contacts a week for available jobs (I'm clearly quite valuable;) I decided to forgo other opportunities in exchange for increased compensation from my current employer.
That is the same deal the AIG folks had, if they stayed on at a business that had a lot of problems, where they might not have jobs in the future, rather than go look for other opportunities, they would be compensated for staying. Staying at AIG was an opportunity cost that was reimbursed by their employer.
The anger over this is crazy. I have another point, and I'll follow it up in the next post.
Posted by: Dan on March 27, 2009 11:19 AMUsing that criteria, I demand all representatives and senators return not only their salaries, but also any campain contributions.
The clear failure of legislative agendas put in place that either promoted or did not prevent the financial problems is outrageous and politicians should not benifit from the public treasury (thier salaries, paid by you and I) for this outragous failure.
Posted by: Dan on March 27, 2009 11:37 AMTo answer your question, Pudge, I would say "It depends."
First off, the so-called "bonus" was actually a "rentention" payment. So, if I had stuck around through the troubles, instead of bailing, should I be rewarded. In this case, one could make a good case to say yes.
On the other hand, if taking the bonus risks the company getting in bigger hotwater and I wanted to stick with the company and have the company survive, then I would say, I wouldn't take the bonus. Company survival would weigh just as heavily as near-term monetary gain.
This all assume that I am a lower or mid level employee and not the fool executives that mismanaged the company. For the life of me, I don't understand why the Board hasn't fired the top executives. The fact that they even needed government assistance is failure enough that they deserved to be fired, without severance.
Just my two cents.
Cheers!
Posted by: tc on March 27, 2009 05:36 PMThe one guy who wrote the resignation letter stayed at the company to help it survive, knowing he was going to be getting his retention bonus. Like the CEO, he took a $1 salary. And then the CEO and Congress sold him out.
Also, most of the top people responsible WERE let go, including the previous CEO (as ot whether they got severance ... heh, of course they did, but that's another discussion).
Posted by: pudge on March 27, 2009 06:17 PM
