Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: rrdog
The bonuses of course were in poor taste

Could you explain for the less savvy among us why they were in poor taste.

ML/NJ

3 posted on 03/17/2009 3:52:28 PM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: ml/nj
Have you ever gotten a loan from a bank without some conditions attached?

If you get a home loan, they expect you to use that money to pay for the home... In fact they don't even trust you with the money, they pay the seller.
It is simple, AIG used that money for bonuses, if they wouldn't have gotten that money, they would be out of business. Which is what should have happened.

23 posted on 03/17/2009 4:02:07 PM PDT by JRochelle (Don't smoke the Hopium.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: ml/nj

Because I believe the bonuses were contracted at a time when the company was losing massive amounts of money. I own a business and would not give someone a bonus if we were swimming in red ink. I’m not sure about this, but I believe it is the case. If the bonuses were designed to retain top performers, then I would retrace my statement. If they were given only to employees who actually had profitable departments, then I would also retract. If they are broadbased attempts to curry favor among friends, they are in poor taste. In other words, if the bonuses were handed out by people who thought they were going to lose their jobs, and given to people they thought could help them down the road, that is in poor taste.


77 posted on 03/17/2009 6:53:58 PM PDT by rrdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson