Are you aware of the cozy relationship between Paul and the Journal’s editorial board? They are not disinterested observers. They selectively picked out the parts of the papers they liked and ignored the parts of the papers they didn’t like. All to defend their source at his request, because he was the source of the stuff reported, with many details revealed that only he would know. Paul’s a self-serving guy who does not think the rules other people must follow are the rules he has to follow. Why did he apologize if he was so innocent? Remember, the WSJ articles came only after he admitted blame. Why is it that a system in place to prevent favoritism somehow got twisted around so that the favorite, (Paul’s girlfriend) made off way better than she would have had she not been Paul’s girlfriend? Not just better than most bankers, but better than any of the bankers? Her raise, promotion, promise of ‘outstanding reviews’ (no matter how lousy she was) and promised promotions were way more than any bank employee should ever get - and CERTAINLY more than she was worth. She just had a powerful boyfriend and somehow she did better than anyone else at the bank. It’s pretty disgusting when you think about it.
Beg to differ, but employees willing to sign-on for Iraq or any other danger/hardship posting are frequently if not always given very generous enticements to do so.
Danger, hardship, and overseas uplifts can easily total 100 percent of base pay (I've seen it). Extended working hours and/or responsibilities can be and are added for additional compensation. It's not like they're giving you weekends and holidays off in the IZ.
Further, non-contractual offers of promotion or "whichever job you want, wherever you want" upon completion of contract are pretty common. Managers want and need someone there, and if you stick it out you've done them a favor and shown a certain degree of toughness. It's not as if employees are clamoring to go to work in an active combat zone.
So she was going to get paid more than some of the Bank's VP's? So what. Tell them they're being reassigned to Iraq, and see how much they squawk.
This appears to be projection on your part, and descriptive of the reports in the LSM.
What facts left out of the WSJ article would contradict the facts in the article? Specifically...