Posted on 02/04/2009 10:33:03 AM PST by Wolfie
Report: Macy's execs get bonuses day after cutting 7,000 jobs
NEW YORK, NY -- Macy's Inc. announced Monday that it would cut 7,000 jobs, almost 4 percent of its work force, and reduced its contributions to its employees' retirement funds and slash its dividend to preserve cash amid a severe pullback in consumer spending.
But a day after Macy’s executives announced the lay-offs, Cincinnati.com reports that top company officials received a final installment on $1.39 million in performance bonuses from 2004.
According to Cincinnati.com:
"The stock credit plan created in March 2004 brought five top executives “phantom stock units” or stock credits after a three-year holding period ended on Saturday, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing on Tuesday.
Half of the incentive was paid in February 2008 with the remaining amount paid Monday."
Department stores have been especially hard-hit by the poor economy as shoppers cut spending and turn to discount stores. Last month, Fresno, Calif.-based department store chain Gottschalks Inc. put itself up for sale and said it had filed to reorganize in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Dallas-based Neiman Marcus Group Inc. said this month that it was cutting about 375 jobs, or 3 percent of its work force.
The parent company (formerly “Federated Department Stores”) was renamed “Macy’s.”
The employee cuts would not be so bad...if the executives didn’t pocket the savings as bonuses.
Macy’s did nothing for their shareholders or their company by paying off their executives
I have a small business...and it wouldn’t exist if I decided to pay myself a bonus for not making money. You can tell by a lot of the comments on here that people are clueless on running a business
And taking it to its logical conclusion, Macy’s should never let anyone go, even those who barely work for the pay they receive. After all those lazy folks will just go on welfare.
Did Macy’s cut retirement programs??
I'd be willing to bet Macy's has paid plenty in taxes. I'd also be willing to bet Macy's paid plenty in unemployment taxes. So, forcing a company to keep workers it no longer needs is a better solution? Are you certain you're on the right site? That sounds like DU talk.
Besides, this was contractual compensation and the company is making money.
Macy’s didn’t take TARP/taxpayer monies - they are entitled to do what they want.
I used to be part owner of a small business. If sales were down or taxes were to high, we had to let people go.
What worries me about this demonization of business is that we are playing into the leftist hands.
Soon they will be running everything, you will be forced to run a business and do the work and the government will pay you whatever they think you should get for the trouble.
We are on a very slippery slope and people need to reject this notion. All this hate for business is generated by the politics running DC.
It irritates me because most business owners are good hard working people already up against an unfriendly government who make it hard to survive.
Good points...I can understand
There are just too many comments on here from people who have no clue on running a business...or what goes on in running a business.
The majority of Americans who work for a living will take cuts in pay to save their jobs and companies....unfortunately too many executives these days lack the same loyalty to their employers.
And, we are getting a lot of “failed executive love” from the “living in parents basement” crowd
Oh, I didn’t realize that. Thanks!!
If the company isn’t making money, no. I should not be compensated when the company is not making money
Of course, I would never defer a bonus in the first place. If a “performance bonus” or “profit bonus” was deserved in the first place....it would not have been deferred. Obviously they really didnt deserve the 2004 bonus if it had to be deferred
If they didn't, it is no ones business other than their own. They are a privately owned company that is free to layoff people and/or give bonuses.
If this was a smart business decision there would be nothing unreasonable about paying its executives performance bonuses. It's possible for an executive to perform relatively well in a downturn as well as a growth economy even if the company's profits decrease; bonuses should reward executives for performance relative to peers and other benchmarks rather than absolute performance.
I own a small business also. So, if I had worked out a compensation package where I kept my bonus in the company for a couple of years, I’m not entitled to receive it and layoff employees in anticipation of lowered future sales.
You sound like my employees. They think no one should get laid off if I get paid at all.
It may be legal and stupid at the same time.
My point is this. It isn’t our business in a free country to tell anyone what to do in a business as long as it is legal.
It is not illegal to cut employees, nor is it illegal to take a bonus. If the employees costs are ruining your bottom line so that you make no profit, I do not see the problem.
As to whether it is moral, that is another thing. It is also immoral to have the government in control of peoples lives. That is where we are headed.
“It’s THEIR money, NOT ours!!!”
WRONG!
It’s the shareholders money! Give them a chance to vote on pay packages for once.
You nailed it.
Very small, I bet, given your abysmal understanding of economics and your bizarre notion that businesses shouldn't just try to make a profit, but also have an obligation to take care of unprofitable employees rather than laying them off.
First...Macy’s is a “public” company...not private. They sell stock and have shareholders. Learn the differences in those before criticizing my post.
Obviously Macy’s did not make a profit, or much of one...if they had to lay off 7000 people...cut benefits of the remaining...and compensate executives for bonuses not really earned.
Too many on here glorify failed executives....who do not make money for their companies. CEOs and executives of public companies are still “employees”....management (not labor) but “employees”
Would you prefer underperforming non-management employees to get a bonus too?
Of course, you wont address the tax burden put on the rest of us for the 7000 now-unemployed Macy’s executives....is that kind of Socialism OK with you?
I agree. It shows how business has lost their minds recently and think they are somehow entitled to the huge salaries-almost a welfare mentality.
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.