Re: Frogs gotta virus

On 18 Feb 2009 21:50:33 GMT, Nick <nicknomail@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Soldier Schweik <goodsoldierschweik@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:e1inp4podbis0a560asps5nmpglvjbdmof@xxxxxxx:

snipped


American logic - the economy is down the crapper, companies going
bankrupt right and left, and the bankers (CEO's) decide NOW is the
time to steal some more millions from the taxpayer which rescued
them from going belly-up ........


Good morning!
Helmut


How so "steal"? Are you referring to the "big Bonus" bullshit? If
so you are referring to the contract between the employer and the
employee that, in this case specifies certain payments depending on
performance.

I certainly agree that the amounts mentioned are large but to put
it in a personal frame, if you are selling used cars and get a 5%
"commission"/"bonus" on the sales price of every car you sell and
the boss says "Well, times are tough so we aren't paying you your
commission this year" what do you say?

Cheers,

Schweik

Yes. I am referring to the "big Bonus' bullshit.

You mention a bonus payment depending on performance.

I only can assume that American (Bank) CEO's are rewarded for
"negative" performance.

Beside this, there is no other reason to pay a bonus.

Furthermore, to pay a bonus, with moneys received from the taxpayer,
shows the total disregard and arrogance from Businesses which have
failed to operate responsible and accountable.

BTW: This concerns not only American Banks as we learn every a bit
more.

Helmut


Frankly I have no idea what employment agreement these CEO's have but
certainly the bonus' are being paid in accordance with these
agreements. Exactly as my example of the bonus the used car salesman
gets - which you avoid discussing.

My point was that these people are not receiving some sort of
back-hander, they are getting money in accordance with their
employment agreements, and remember, these are legal contracts.

Oh sure and these employment agreements may never have been the result of
some "collusion" to put it harsh between a CEO and a board of directors.
The boards of directors are relied on to monitor, supervise, and set
executives' compensation of public companies. One can wonder how much
they actually supervise especially in those cases where these functions
are intertwined between different companies.
BTW the bonuses aren't necessarily agreed with in the frame of an
original employment agreement anyway.
As for legal, it's perfectly legal for a government in exchange for
financial aid to a company to ask or even demand of for example a CEO (or
management in general) to make some kind of financial sacrifice,e.g. to
forgo their rights to some bonus(ses).
Should a CEO say to put it extreme: "stuff it I have a contract I rather
have the company go bankrupt than make some kind of personal sacrifice"?


You seem to be saying that "Oh yes, we know that we signed an
agreement with you but times have changed and we don't want to honor
that agreement any more".

I believe that this is mostly a reaction to the amount of monies
being paid. "A million dollars!, My God! I can't imagine that amount
of money."

I tend to think it's mostly a reaction to the amount of monies being
asked by companies to bail these companies out. I think quite some
taxpayers do want CEO's to make some sacrifices too.


So little, low paid, guys bitch, but I'll tell you something, in 30
years of managing a fairly good sized construction and contracting
company I never met a man that said, "Oh, no I'm not worth that much
money. My salary should be lower." Never.

As far as where the money comes from that is not material. Are you
saying that because your boss raises a loan from the bank that he has
the right to cut your salary? Jesus, I can hear the screams of rage
way up here :-)

Cheers,

Schweik


Sorry, I do not avoid anything but I do not reply to irrelevant
opinions.

Also, I never insisted that those payments are "Back-Hander" nor have
I mentioned that this contracts (in the first instance) where illegal.

All what I questioned was, how banks can pay a bonus to there
employees although there was no improvement in the relevant
businesses: just the opposite, total disaster.

You mentioned, (I don't know why, but anyhow), that you have managed
for 30 years a company.

Would you have paid the "so little, low paid, bitching guys" a bonus
although they have not performed as in your, legal, contract
stipulated?

Yes, at is relevant where the money comes from because this is money
provided by the taxpayer and, unfortunately, the relevant governments
have to support this banks which have created the present downturn.
At is most important for all of us, (besides you, of course 555555)
that governments have a say in such businesses, requiring help in form
of billion of dollars.

I would have thought you as a former manager, could have easily agreed
to such "intervention".

If not, there are more competent institutions (banks) which have
already measures in place to avoid (hopefully) future meltdowns.

1. Financial arrangements made in the past should be paid but
with different methods.
2. Future arrangements have to be mad in accordance with the
relevant government organizations.

In both instances, this should only apply if the Bank has received
government assistance which eventually comes from the taxpayer.
One example of different methods is the Credit Suisse Bank which pays
some of the bonus in shares, which have suffered heavily in the
present credit crisis.

With this method, those responsible would be directly connected to
there mismanagement of dubious credits arrangements. Yet another
possibility is to calculate the "Boni" (from, good times) with the
Mali (from bad times and the payment (if any) would be paid after one
or two years.

This method is used by the Swiss UBS bank and this argument is in
place as nobody knows if the momentary gain is sustainable.
Often, gains are short time, risky businesses, which in many cases,
invoke in the fallowing years much heavier losses.

As seen day by day!

helmut


Helmut. Helmut. I'm trying to make the point that these people who are
getting bonuses have a legal contract with their employer that
requires their employer to pay them certain monies.



Now, the fact that things are bad has really no meaning in the context
of the agreement between the parties. Nor for that matter the source
of the monies used to pay the agreed sums.

I think that for quite some people it does have meaning, there are CEO's
that have declined bonusses in light of the finacial problems that their
companies were encountering.
You seem to be limiting "context" to the juridicial "strenght" of an
legal agreement.
Any CEO should be aware that there's a broader context and that when
sacrafices are being asked of for instance employers a CEO often will be
judged by those employees or taxpayers (in the case of an bailout) on
what sacrifices he or she is willing to make as well.
Don't you think that especially a CEO should be responsive to such a
"context".


The fact that the company is in financial hot water and needs bailing
out does not negate the contracts that said company has entered into
unless said company is bankrupt whereupon the bankruptcy laws become
the ruling directive.

It seems to me you really want to shut your eyes for the "context" or the
"outside world" and only want to look at this from a legal point of view.


As an example, the "big 3" car makers "owe" millions of dollars to
their retired employees as part of the contracts they signed with the
employees. In fact these retirement payments are one of the largest
sums that companies are liable for. and, these liabilities won't go
away simply by closing a plant or laying off employees.

Do you propose that because the US government bails out the car
company they would be justified in simply turning their backs on those
retired employees?

IMHO you're just comparing apples and oranges with such a comparison,
would the US government be turning it's back to on an CEO just because
they would ask of some financial sacrifice as part of a bailout program?


It would certainly be a vast help to the car
companies if they could.

Or perhaps postpone the retirement payments until times are better?
Which would help also.

As I said before you are seeing "a million dollars" and getting all
emotional about it.

I do get the impression, partly from your comparisons, that your really
aren't only rational about this subject. As for emotional, I would think
people have the right to be emotional about the subject, in a sense you
to me don't seem disattached from "the plight of the CEO's" at all but
you do make the impression however of being disattached from the plight,
for lack of better words, of "ordinary workers".

Try looking at it from your own prospective - the
company isn't doing well so they simply refuse to pay your
salary...... your first stop would be the local law office.

That perspective is hardly the same as the perspective of some CEO having
to giving up some bonus that he's legally entitled to from the company
that HE or SHE runs and that under HIS or HER leadership has fallen on
though (financial) times.

Cheers,

Schweik

Cheers

Nick


I have the impression that it is really the "mammoth bonus payments"
that you are reacting to. For example, you seem to contend that
retirement payments to the hordes of retired car makers should not be
tampered with but asking the CEO to give up some of his salary is
quite all right. It doesn't make sense.

What you don't seem to grasp is that these "bonus" payments aren't
something that is "given" to the employee it is a matter of the agreed
upon salary package. Usually with the idea of defeating the tax
department's grasping talons.

While I have no idea of the details of the "CEO's" contracts under
discussion here I have worked for several companies who structured
their management staff remuneration packages to deliberately reduce
taxes. One company, for example, paid the owners one dollar a year in
salary -- with an unlimited expense account for living costs and of
course they rode in a company owned auto, driven by a company employed
chauffeur, lived in a house that was leased by the company and
entertainment was a company expense.

So looking at the large "bonus" and saying "Oh my God, look at all
that money" and deciding that "those guys" don't really need all that
money is very much a matter of what I'd call jealousy.

Now if you want to be impartial and said that all payments, CEO,
Workers and Retirement packages will be cut by X% then I'd agree that
this was a logical, well thought out package, but to just point the
finger at one particular group and say "Cut 'em" smacks of the
communist theory that we are all just "workers" and should be paid the
same.

By the way, your comment that CEO salaries may be partially a result
of "friends in high places", in your instance on the Board, is
undoubtedly true, but equally as true there are many, many cases of
people promoted far beyond their levels of incompetence due to friends
in management. It is not restricted to the top levels.

Cheers,

Schweik
(goodsoldierschweikatgmaildotcom)

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Frogs gotta virus
    ... You mention a bonus payment depending on performance. ... Frankly I have no idea what employment agreement these CEO's have ... I never insisted that those payments are "Back-Hander" nor ... be judged by those employees or taxpayers ...
    (soc.culture.thai)
  • Re: Frogs gotta virus
    ... You mention a bonus payment depending on performance. ... saying that because your boss raises a loan from the bank that he has ... I mentioned that this contracts where illegal. ... their retired employees as part of the contracts they signed with the ...
    (soc.culture.thai)
  • Re: AIG Letter of Resignation
    ... well-regarded commodity index business to UBS. ... from the credit default swaps that are now losing so much money. ... But you also are aware that most of the employees of your financial ... unit needed some incentive to stay and that the contracts, ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: AIG Letter of Resignation
    ... well-regarded commodity index business to UBS. ... from the credit default swaps that are now losing so much money. ... But you also are aware that most of the employees of your financial ... contracts, you realized that the employees of the financial products ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: AIG Letter of Resignation
    ... well-regarded commodity index business to UBS. ... from the credit default swaps that are now losing so much money. ... But you also are aware that most of the employees of your financial ... contracts, you realized that the employees of the financial products ...
    (soc.retirement)