[Al_U_Card]

There is always two sides to every coin.

We will all suffer through this period. Some more than others. It is just sad when the responsible get off scott-free.

[barmar]

It always seemed to me like there had to be more to this story than the hype from the press and Congress.

What got me in that letter, though, was his statement "You and I have never met." Do you think a company is too big if the CEO has never met some of the vice presidents?

[hrothgar]

barmar, on Mar 26 2009, 07:04 PM, said:

It always seemed to me like there had to be more to this story than the hype from the press and Congress.

What got me in that letter, though, was his statement "You and I have never met." Do you think a company is too big if the CEO has never met some of the vice presidents?

I suspect that this is more a reflection regarding the staus of VPs in certain industries than the size of the company...

In Financial Services you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a random VP

[jdonn]

It certainly is a convincing and powerful letter imo.

[Winstonm]

I remain unconvinced. To me, that letter smacks of being planted.

But the truth is, after the incredible propaganda machine that Dick Cheney utilized to disciminate lies and half-truths via a cooperative press corps, I believe virtually nothing that is presented as fact by most of the mainstream media.

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Mar 26 2009, 06:30 PM, said:

I remain unconvinced. To me, that letter smacks of being planted.

But the truth is, after the incredible propaganda machine that Dick Cheney utilized to disciminate lies and half-truths via a cooperative press corps, I believe virtually nothing that is presented as fact by most of the mainstream media.

We have noticed...

[kenberg]

I have thought a little more about this. I have no trouble taking the letter as legitimate and I understand why Mr. DeSantis could decide to tell them to take the job and shove it. But here are my further thoughts.

I am not the most generous person that I have ever met but I have, on occasion, given cash to help someone out of a spot. One thing that I expect in such circumstances is that I don't need to look over all of the words with a magnifying glass to understand what is being said. For example:
"Like you [referring to Liddy], I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid."
Later [in the full letter]:
"On March 16 I received a payment from A.I.G. amounting to $742,006.40, after taxes."


Yes I understand. He said he was only getting a dollar in salary while the three quarter million after taxes was a bonus, not salary. Still, if I am giving money, which as a taxpayer I am, I find this a little too cute a phrasing for my taste.


And of course there is the stuff of calling a contracted payment a bonus in the first place. This is not the way I use words.

I expect a guy to get paid for working. A bit after I retired, a colleague took ill during the semester and I was asked if I could take over one of his classes for a while. I agreed, explaining he was a friend and if we were talking about a couple of weeks there would be no charge but if it went on much beyond that I would like to get paid. It did go on (he died) and I did get paid. Of course people don't usually work for free and I have no problem with that. Few people do. The problem arises when "bonuses", which sound like optional payments to the untrained ear, turn out to be contractual payments, and they say they are working for a buck but actually get quite substantial sums. It's none of my business unless we are giving them some cash, but in this case we are. Part of this whole financial mess is due to obscurity and cuteness with words, and it gets people pissed.

AIG employees fell they are being unfairly labeled and this may be so. But they could help by speaking in plain English.

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on Mar 26 2009, 05:53 PM, said:

In Financial Services you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a random VP

If Schroedinger had lived today he would have constructed a paradox with a bank clerk who was and wasn't a VP at the same time.

[y66]

... and who simultaneously are and are not entitled to be compensated for their clerking and VP'ing labors.

Please comment on punctuation on the other thread.

[luke warm]

... and who sit in an infinite number of even numbered offices, making it impossible to ever actually hit anyone

[mycroft]

A few years ago (this is Not My Country, and Not My Dog in the Fight, so I'm not looking it up, but I bet it was about the time the last financial boondoggle hit) there were changes to the reporting and tax laws, that effectively meant that if you made a salary over $500K, bad things happened to you; this did not apply to performance bonuses, which were designed to recognize extraordinary performance.

What happened? People's salary became $499,785, and the rest of their $8 million/year compensation became multiple "performance bonuses", which required the extraordinary performance of still showing up to work at bonus payoff time (oh, and stock options, and use of company car, and...) Helped them come tax time, and helped the company when they reported that they paid $X in executive salaries, and $Xx50 in worker salaries (and dropped the $Xx8+ "other compensation" under the rug).

It also works well (for PR purposes, at least) when the P-level staff "reduce their salaries to $1". It *sounds* like they've been given enough from the company that now they will sacrifice themselves and effectively "work for free" to keep the company going; especially handy when saying "CEO reduced his salary to $1, it's fair for him to ask you take a 10% salary cut, isn't it?" Well, if the "salary reduction" reduces his paid compensation by only 5%, well, no, not really. If the CEO's paid compensation is in the "it's just a means of keeping score" territory, then no, not really - the worker's 10% cut is much more likely to be in "I need this money" territory.

And they act so surprised when someone, finally, calls them on it. Is that because they thought we were stupid, or do they think it's lèse majesté ?
I think a parallel with Microsoft is in order here:
- if the person has the same behavioural and contractual obligations as an employee, then they're not independent, sorry.
- if it's a mandatory, it's not a bonus, sorry.

Finally (and I realize that expected paid compensation for these guys is a large multiple of what they actually get paid, at least after office, too), anyone who thinks their job is worth 10+ times that of the President of the United States has a serious ego goggles problem.

[luke warm]

if his salary was $743,006.40, after taxes, but there was an agreement to divide this into $1 salary and $742,006.40 bonuses, i would be pretty upset... but if his bonus was $742,006.40, after taxes, and his salary was actually cut to $1, then they did make a sacrifice... i don't know if that's the case, though

[kenberg]

luke warm, on Mar 27 2009, 05:16 PM, said:

if his salary was $743,006.40, after taxes, but there was an agreement to divide this into $1 salary and $742,006.40 bonuses, i would be pretty upset... but if his bonus was $742,006.40, after taxes, and his salary was actually cut to $1, then they did make a sacrifice... i don't know if that's the case, though

The latter, I think. Further, I gather he is going to give it to charity as soon as he finds out whether he actually gets it or whether this tax stuff is going to take it all. That idea seems to be getting a well deserved burial.

My guess is that he is a good guy. As are many others. But they talk funny. You need a special decoder ring to see what they are saying. "I'm working for a dollar a year" translates to "except of course for my $742,000 bonus".

Many years ago a guy was telling me a story of life during the Depression. I was engrossed and the situation sounded so grave I said "Good God, how did you survive?" "oh, there was some money". Again I was pissed. I don't greatly care how much money a guy has, or his family has, but I like to feel that I understand the story he is telling. If a guy says he is working for a dollar a year, I get annoyed to find that nothing of the sort is true, even if he does regard three quarters of a million as so small as to be indistinguishable from a buck.

[barmar]

It would help if we knew what his original salary was. Was he originally being paid $10M plus bonuses, or $250K plus bonuses? Giving up $10M is huge, even if you still get $742K -- he's lost 93% of his compensation. But if his salary was "only" $250K, he's only given up about 25% (although that's still quite a bit).