I don't know who does what at AIG or how thier employment contracts read. However, if you had a contract with your employer that entitled you to a $1000.00 Christmas bonus, you are entitled to that bonus as long as you did your job (per the contract) and December 25th arrived as scheduled. If your boss did something that caused the value of the company to decline, that has nothing to do with the legal contract you entered into with your employer. If the Imperial Federal Government decides that your contract should be broken because of actions taken by said government, I say that's BS. Then they can force you to take a pay cut because the IFG decided to "bail out" your company.
I can guarantee that after you quit, it's going to be pretty difficult to find someone with your education and experience to take your place at the microscope. They will avoid that job like the plague when they can take their talents elsewhere and be properly compensated. How will that help the company? It won't. But it will provide political capital to any grandstanding politician who dumbs it down and pledges to take it to those "Wall Street fat-cats". Class warfare at its finest and a great way to gain votes.
One man's opinion.
What about ther people that actually made money for the company. Wouldn't you want then to stay?
Originally Posted by badbullgator
This is a subject that should not be debated in what use to be a free enterprise country. The first mistake was the govenment getting involved in bailouts! That is the problem and not how much money someone makes in bonuses. But, it is something we are going to have to live with until we oust the current socialist from Washington DC.
What were the bonuses based on? If it was based on profit or growth I don't think they would have been paid out. They must have been based on individual performance that generated income and that needs to be encouraged. That said if I worked for a company that was basically bankrupt and the government had just saved my job I would understand not getting a bonus this year.
Originally Posted by Mr Booty
Yes I would, but I still feel it is bad business to give money, especially borrowed from the taxpayers money, to anyone in a company that did so badly it had to be bailed out by the government. Like I said I made money for my company this year and yet no raises for anyone because we plan to stay in business and we donít expect any government bailout anytime soon. IF they had not been bailed out there would be no AIG and certainly no bonuses, donít you agree. I donít think we should have bailed them out in the first place. I understand that it is a contractual thing and they really had no choice other than to pay them but the only reason they were able to is because they got their hands in our pockets.
Youíre a radio guy so let me ask you this. If a station does so badly that it has ratings that are at the bottom and the station cannot afford to keep its doors open. It cannot sell an ad to save its life and it has thirteen listeners. Does the program director get a bonus because he selected good music?
Been there, done that and learned from it.;-)
Originally Posted by badbullgator
All PD bonuses are currently based on ratings. No increase in ratings, no bonus.
Ratings = revenue along with a strong and smart local sales effort.
There are a handful of radio and TV companies that won't see thier credit extended to them in 09. Companies that paid stupid prices for stations so they could own more and make more profits. Once they default on their loans, their lender will have to decide to;
1) Extend thier loans in hopes of getting their money in the future.
2) Liquidated the companies. With this being a buyers market for broadcast properties, the financial institutions will take their beating as they will sell for about 60% of thier 1999 value. It is the reason that the biggest in the business, Clear Channel, went private in 08. There is no such thing as investor value with CC anymore so, the went private. They also didn't care for the new Sarbaines-Oxley Act which causes an undue burden on accounting.
Liquidation opens up opportunities for folks to buy these distressed properties and turn them around. Extending the financing of the poorly run companies only prolongs the inevitable.
We are in a unique situation because our sales/revenue is ahead of 2008, which was ahead of 2007 and 2006 was a great year. The problems are not with the economy, though the bad operators would use the economy as an excuse. The problem is with the companies owning too many radio stations. Radio doesn't do well revenue wise as part of a large conglomorate because it isn't a business for bean-counters.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea of them getting bonuses just because I think it is bad business. What I dislike even more, however, is the goberment trying to take it away or tax if from the people who got it. That is scary when they change the rules. The goberment needs to leave it alone, as stupid as it was, and assure it does not happen again. I don;t have a probelm with them making conditions on the money they are lending, but it cannot be after the fact
First, there should have been no bailouts.
Second, the elected democratic congress, who wrote and passed the Bill, knew of AIG's contract obligations which included the Bonuses before passing. Obama signed the Bill and also should have known about all the contract obligations. If they didn't agree with the Bonuses, then they should have put that in the Bill.
We should not be mad with AIG, we should be outraged with our elected government. The public is being blinded by the media and politics.
If two parties go into a contract, I'd expect both parties to fulfill their obligations as the contract states.
Also, keep in mind that the reason that so many executives recieve a large portion of thier compensation in "bonuses" is because there are always idiots in Congress who think that the government should limit executive salaries. So in order to avoid that stuff, they pay in bonuses. Well, now we have idiots in Congress who are writing legislation to tax the AIG bonuses at a 95% rate.
One of you Democrats please come on here and justify this type of out-of-control madness. This country is very quickly going down the drain.
That's the great thing about being a democrat. Any law you wrote last month that you don't like you can just write another one over it. They like to have it both ways.
Somebody add up all the money the democrats took in as campaign contributions last year from AIG...Dear Leader included. Maybe we should tax those campaign contributions at the 95% rate.
Day'um, I wished that Ctl+Alt+Del button worked everywhere, not just on my 'puter.
In a more perfect world regards,