Quote:
Originally Posted by RIJIMMY
Ok - I will (but seriously, i think you're smart enough to know this)
As a profitable leader in AIG, his work was determined to be essential to unwrapping the business to position it to sell off its components.
As a gesture, he , and others did not take an annual salary. In return, the company had to "secure" him so that he did not get up and leave. Why would he stay at a company that is folding? Beleive it or not, he has to pay his bills and his kid's college expenses too. So the company offered retention bonues. The gist - stay here and clean this mess up and you will get paid. Not uncommon in any takeover or restructuring effort.
When the "outrage" started, the head of AIG did not stand up for the emplyees, He showed no balls and did not explain the contracts, did not commend his employees for their hard work, did nothing.
Read the WSJ, people are getting death threats. Employees are huddlied in conference rooms trying to figure out what to do. How is any of this helpful to turning around AIG?
|
I understand all of that.
My point is, if I agree to work for a dollar, knowing that at the end of the year I'm going to get a bonus of a million...Am I not working for a $1,000,001 with a lump sum payout at the end of the year?
Why not just pay them a million a year with no bonus? Or give them a bonus in deferred compensation.
It just sounds like they're playing games with semantics.
As for death threats...not much can be said about that other than it's wrong.
-spence
Threaded Mode