Posted on 01/30/2009 1:20:10 PM PST by brytlea
That's a commission not a bonus and if they have a 100 or a 1000 more like him then everybody in the company will get a bonus. But what happens in most companies after the salesman makes a big salary is either run another salesman into his territory or restructure the compensation program to get him under control...thus killing the goose that just increased your business.
Of course not. NOBODY DOES. This guy’s example is idiotic. What people, share holders are people too, are incensed about are TOP MANAGEMENT that drives their companies into insolvency then take $100,000,000 bonuses for a job well done.
This is why the government should have allowed all of these companies to go through some form of controlled bankruptcy.
That way any existing silly contracts could have been legally abrogated and the money received by these companies could be spent in more effective ways.
Quote of the Day; “Once given a bonus becomes part of your salary forever” (bonus receiver)
Wrong, if a business is in the tank then there are no bonuses to be given. If this doesn’t work for you then it's time to look for a job with a salary that is 28% higher.
Should the top management who made the poor business decisions be getting $50 million in bonuses for running the company into the ground and going to the feds for a bailout?
Or keep pumping his quota up until he gets disgruntled and goes somewhere else (great salesmen are welcome anywhere).
If a salesman does a good job and makes his quota, do you think the people who support him also are deserving of some of that pot? This really is the issue. Many people here just want someone to be mad at, and instead of putting their anger where they should, they are buying into our new President’s idea, to place the blame everywhere but on Congress. I had hoped that people (not pointed at you, simply pointed at this thread in general) would read the article and make an attempt to understand how the salary structure was. This is not about John Thane or any of the others. This is about demonizing everyone in the companies, from the secretaries on up, since THEY recieved bonuses that, whether some here like it or not, are considered part of their compensation package. They are generally paid somewhat less than their counterparts in other industries.
I shouldn’t be surprised at how easily people are manipulated. Obama is a master.
> I don’t think it is right to lump these in with the huge bonuses the top brass get.
In the current environment, the huge bonuses that the top brass have awarded themselves are an obscenity. Particularly as it would appear that taxpayer dollars are making these bonuses possible.
I agree.
*sigh*
I had hoped that if you read the article you might have understood the compensation structure. Clearly it’s a little complicated. Oh well, I tried.
Thank you, someone who gets it.
They are not the issue I’m talking about (I think the guys who destroyed the companies should not get them, however I’m not sure how their contracts were written, so I’m not sure what you can legally do, so my opinion on that is moot.) The point is that when the amount paid out is bandied about it includes everyone’s bonus. That was all I wanted to point out.
And it is really none of our business. Perhaps bad PR at this time, but it is trying to promote class warfare. And politicians love that.
A broken clock is right twice a day.
Unfortunately, i have not found prez ZERO to be right ever.
The really worrisome thing is how easily it works.
The crux of the article is about people who actually produce for a firm or firms that produce positive value. The argument is they should be compensated under what ever value they agreed to. The did after all produce and bust their ass to do it.
In sales and capitalism there is no collectivism and those who deliver revenue and profit should be paid whatever they are worth.
A clear distiction must be made between commissions, which are the method of basic compensation, and bonuses which would be available reflecting overall company performance.
If we cannot make this distiction, we don’t understand much of this issue, at all.
An employee who gets paid by commissions will usually have that covered in a contract or employment agreement. Failure to pay him his due commission would not be right.
Classes of employees may be eligible for bonuses, when a company is profitable. Some companies use bonuses as part of compensation packages, even if the firm is not profitable.
I believe it is the latter that Obama and most here would agree is the case in question.
Banking as it deals with mortgage loans over the last few years is a zone of zero morality. IOW it took some real snakes to help make the big mess we have occur.
I don’t mind some snakes going without their six and seven figure packages.
Every LIAR Loan written has federal fraud by the borrower and by the lender. That is right. People sign forms indicating they acknowledge it is federal fraud to lie on a loan application.
The people not getting bonuses were the corporate execs that built a company culture to encourage borrowers to lie.
Don't believe me? Look at were all the top producers in telecom went in 2002/2003. The top 4 firms changed their compensation 4 months into the year because they had rampant fraud at the top and bottom. So therefore everyone had to pay.
I have bills and don't like being punished for something I had nothing to do with. Apparently, many of my colleagues, in the industry, felt the same way.
We left and went to work for other firms, became agents, or started our own companies.
No one and mean No one has a right to determine your future and they have no right to break the agreement(trust) on compensation.
This is how we think. We are hire mercenaries. We produce for top dollar. We expect to paid what we agreed to be paid and when we agreed to be paid. We don't work off IOU’s.
If I produce $3-4 million in highly profitable revenue for you I should expect to be paid $350k PLUS!
I don't care what your problems are; my mortgage company doesn't care what my problems are.
So you see if you don't take of me I suffer. If I suffer that means someone Else's job is in jeopardy at the mortgage company because you won't take the time to responsibly pay me for producing for you.
I don't care if your kids need braces, pay me. I don't care if your house burned down, pay me. I don't care if your mother needs an operation, PAY ME.
You see the penalty for not paying me, a top 10% producer, is that you will force me and my kind to look for other opportunities that will meet our required income.
You will be stuck with the under performers who grovel for business and sell on the lowest price. This doesn't just lower your revenue but lowers your margin.
We also look at companies pragmatically, the same they look at us. We are loyal to point but that point is exceeded when you, the employer, sit on the wrong side of the ledger too long. The same way a non producer becomes a liability to your ledger.
If you are in sales or an owner and fail to demonstrably produce a result that has positive value then you will be summarily recognized and compensated for that failure.
Sales and ownership are truly an honorable professions. You produce a measurable amount that everyone recognizes then you should be compensated justly/thusly.
What they are saying is "sorry our company will be bankrupt without a government bailout, but we did manage to pay our top executives million dollar bonus's.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.