Bill Passed To Limit Executive Pay

[tropicsgoddess]

After the recent outrage with the AIG bonuses after receiving yet more bailout money, the house passed a bill that limits pay to executives to the companies receiving bailout money from the company.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/...l?iref=topnews

[Greenday]

They'll find ways around it, mark my words. It's their jobs to find loopholes in laws.

[Boozy]

You know what would have been really awesome?

If they'd thought about that before writing AIG a cheque.

Congress is still a bunch of tools, but at least they learn, I guess.

[tropicsgoddess]

You know what would have been really awesome?

If they'd thought about that before writing AIG a cheque.

Congress is still a bunch of tools, but at least they learn, I guess.

Amen to that, too bad they didn't make it retroactive too with the other companies.

[Giggle Goose]

They'll find ways around it, mark my words. It's their jobs to find loopholes in laws.

I'd say they already have! I think AIG's first "argument" was that they were required by law to pay the executives those bonuses.

But what if it's not THEIR money to pay the executives with? Hmmm...

[Rapscallion]

I suspect their argument is that they earned the bonuses based on performance, but if the money came from the gubmint and not the way the company was run then it can't apply.

A bonus is just that - an extra sum for good performance. Giving them more money when the company would have failed without a bailout from the state is rewarding poor behaviour.

Rapscallion

[Boozy]

In the strict legal sense, the executives were "entitled" to the bonuses.

Executive "bonuses" are a misnomer. AIG was contractually obligated to provide million dollar payouts at the completion of these executives' contracts. It was part of their compensation package. Their contracts made no stipulations as to the strength of their performance or that of the company's. And it's not just AIG that offered contracts like this; it is (or at least was) industry standard. AIG had to pay these bonuses or open themselves up to far greater monetary damages due to civil action.

What's done is done. Companies will hopefully reconsider their compensation packages and executive contracts in the future. Certainly, we won't be seeing nonsense like this in the future for those companies receiving government funds.

[Tanasi]

These so-called "bonuses" aren't bonuses but deferred salary. A lot of the AIG execs agreed to work for a $1 and defer the rest until a later date. They held up the end of their of the contract but when it came time for them to get paid the hypocrits in congress and their lackeys in the press called this deferred pay a bonus.
Now they're wanting to have say-so over everyone's pay in the bailed out companies from the top to the bottom. They say they care about all the employees, I say bullshit it's not about concern it's about power.

[Rapscallion]

In that case, Tanasi, then the media ought to be dealt with by law for misreporting. I know it's not going to happen, but it's nice to think about. They've just stirred up a lot of hatred for no real reason other than selling papers.

Rapscallion

[IDrinkaRum]

It's a modern form of Yellow Journalism

It started back in the 1890's and has been going strong for years and years. It just wasn't so blatant until the past couple of years, I believe.

I think that's why there are so many newspapers that are "in trouble". Their readers woke up and decided what they had to offer is not what they want and millions ended their subscription.

Tanasi - where did you find out about the people working for a $1 and deferring their wages until a later date? I'd love to read that myself.

[PepperElf]

Bill Passed To Limit Executive Pay

DAMMIT!!!!

I thought you were going to post that they were going to limit CONGRESSIONAL pay!

[kiwi]

I thought you were going to post that they were going to limit CONGRESSIONAL pay!

No unfortunately this is the real world, that would only happen in fantasy land.

[protege]

Even so, I do find it interesting that they have no problem passing laws to limit pay of someone else. Yet, they have no problem with raising *their* pay constantly. No matter how they fuck things up, they still get their inflated salary.

[Jester]

They'll find ways around it, mark my words. It's their jobs to find loopholes in laws.

Actually, their job was to make money for their company. Apparently they failed miserably at their job, but had no problem finding loopholes to line their own pockets with.

These so-called "bonuses" aren't bonuses but deferred salary. A lot of the AIG execs agreed to work for a $1 and defer the rest until a later date.

I would love to see the source data for that. I don't doubt that a few execs did work for a dollar with their "bonuses" being a deferred salary, but I have trouble believing all or even most of them did.

Now they're wanting to have say-so over everyone's pay in the bailed out companies from the top to the bottom. They say they care about all the employees, I say bullshit it's not about concern it's about power.

Considering the amount of power the execs of so many companies have abused in their own self-interest, and that now the government is bailing them out, I would say the government has every right to take that power.

Even so, I do find it interesting that they have no problem passing laws to limit pay of someone else. Yet, they have no problem with raising *their* pay constantly. No matter how they fuck things up, they still get their inflated salary.

Just a few facts here. Senators and Representatives currently receive an annual salary of $174,000. Majority and minority leaders in both houses as well as the Senate's president pro tempore receive an annual salary of $193,400. The Speaker of the House receives an annual salary of $223,500.

By contrast, AIG (as the current example that has everyone in such an uproar) gave out $165 million in bonuses to its executives. These were the same executives that were running AIG so well that they recorded the largest single financial quarter loss in history last quarter at $61.7 billion.

Now, I have never been an executive, and only been in management a short time, but I seem to recall that bonuses are earned for good performance on the job. Whether or not AIG (and other such corporations) were legally bound to pay those bonuses, is it any wonder that people are pissed off about this whole thing?

[Skunkle]

Note that many meduia outlets, big ones, have been hinting that the money passed to AIG and then used up on bonuses (it was also used for such things as executive vacations, err, meetings in tropical locales) was an Obama administration thing, thus a reason why we need to prevent Obama from giving out a second such stim package.

The stim boost given to AIG went out under the Bush admin.