Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With all the hoopla over the AIG bonuses I would bet that most people don't even understand exactly what these bonuses were for.
It's clear that Bawney Fwank doesn't understand as he seemed indignant that some people who got the bonus are no longer working at AIG. Duh...yeah.
To collect a retention bonus the employee has to stay in the job until a certain date or until a certain task is complete. Once you reach that date or complete the task you are free to leave the company and collect the bonus. There may not be an option for you to stay at the end of the retention contract. A retention bonus is pretty common when a company is facing turmoil, a sale, a takeover, reorganization, possible shutdow or bankruptcy. Like rats on a sinking ship the employees will jump overboard leaving the company in even more chaos. The company needs people to stay put so they can 'manage' the situation and keep some stability through whatever transition is happening. The bonus is to ensure that stability. There is a financial incentive to stay, but still some will leave and forego the bonus.
Liddy even stated that most of the positions eligible for the bonus will be 'wound down' as a part of this process. So, these people are going to lose their jobs and they were offered a bonus to stay on through the transition instead of jumping ship.
It doesn't seem all that unweasonable. In fact, I'd offer Bawny Fwank a wetention bonus if I was sure he would quit at the end of his contwact.
With all the hoopla over the AIG bonuses I would bet that most people don't even understand exactly what these bonuses were for.
It's clear that Bawney Fwank doesn't understand as he seemed indignant that some people who got the bonus are no longer working at AIG. Duh...yeah.
To collect a retention bonus the employee has to stay in the job until a certain date or until a certain task is complete. Once you reach that date or complete the task you are free to leave the company and collect the bonus. There may not be an option for you to stay at the end of the retention contract. A retention bonus is pretty common when a company is facing turmoil, a sale, a takeover, reorganization, possible shutdow or bankruptcy. Like rats on a sinking ship the employees will jump overboard leaving the company in even more chaos. The company needs people to stay put so they can 'manage' the situation and keep some stability through whatever transition is happening. The bonus is to ensure that stability. There is a financial incentive to stay, but still some will leave and forego the bonus.
Liddy even stated that most of the positions eligible for the bonus will be 'wound down' as a part of this process. So, these people are going to lose their jobs and they were offered a bonus to stay on through the transition instead of jumping ship.
It doesn't seem all that unweasonable. In fact, I'd offer Bawny Fwank a wetention bonus if I was sure he would quit at the end of his contwact.
I would too!
This CEO is nothing more than a scapegoat for the idots questioning him.
What about Congress and their wasteful, shameful spending???
What's more questionable is why in March of 2008 management was so scared it promised to make millionaires out of 72 employees in order to retain them. Stay for six more months and we'll give you 3 million dollars???? That's one heckuva retention bonus. So the question begging to be posed is why? Why was it worth this kind of money to keep these employees? Or is there something else in those contracts that needs to be examined?
Even if you think they shouldn't be paid the bonuses, Who do you think wrote and signed the legislation that ensured these contracts would remain in place? Funny how you only see one side of things.
Even if you think they shouldn't be paid the bonuses, Who do you think wrote and signed the legislation that ensured these contracts would remain in place? Funny how you only see one side of things.
Because you expected them to write legislation explicitly overturning contracts? They are lawMAKERS, and since the majority of Congress didn't bother to read the TARP legislation, it seems unlikely that they would have read AIG's employment contracts before bailing them out. They may have known about the contracts, but did they know about the details of the contracts?
Yeah keep defending scum like the executives at AIG.
They as well as other companies raped our country and could care less about the damage they left behind.
But by all means, be a child and make fun of Frank while you defend financial terrorists.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
