News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

House passes bill taxing AIG, other bonuses

Started by jimmy olsen, March 19, 2009, 02:51:21 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Admiral Yi

Quote from: alfred russel on March 27, 2009, 03:44:10 PM
I disagree--it is a public vote of no-confidence in the CEO of a company that calls into question his integrity. Coming from a senior person at the company, it is unusual.

If you think about the internal situation at AIG, the one technique that management has to keep some sort of morale is to offer an "us vs. them" mentality among the employees. That won't be possible if Jake can convince the rank and file that Liddy is dishonest and willing to sell employees out to avoid the anger of congress.
Well yeah, if Liddy were asking for the money back just because harsh words make him sweaty and twitchy.  I see it more as an attempt to keep the feds from pulling the plug.

alfred russel

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 27, 2009, 03:52:08 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 27, 2009, 03:44:10 PM
I disagree--it is a public vote of no-confidence in the CEO of a company that calls into question his integrity. Coming from a senior person at the company, it is unusual.

If you think about the internal situation at AIG, the one technique that management has to keep some sort of morale is to offer an "us vs. them" mentality among the employees. That won't be possible if Jake can convince the rank and file that Liddy is dishonest and willing to sell employees out to avoid the anger of congress.
Well yeah, if Liddy were asking for the money back just because harsh words make him sweaty and twitchy.  I see it more as an attempt to keep the feds from pulling the plug.

My take when viewing the snippets of testimony Liddy gave was extremely negative toward him for some of the reasons given in the letter.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

Admiral Yi

Just read a little AP snippet in the local paper about a House Financial Services Subcommittee bill that would leave it up to the administration to decide if bonuses at bailed companies were "excessive or unjustified."  I.e. dump the PR problem in Obama/Geithner's laps.  The headline suggested this was a replacement for the 90% tax proposal, whereas the text made it seem more like a counterproposal.

DontSayBanana

First of all, let me concede my own bias: I voluntarily "went down with the ship" at my workplace tonight, so I'm starting to get some perspective on what management might have been trying to achieve with the retention bonuses.

Those of us staying at CSD had management shift a few perks our way because there was no specific severance package. The author of the letter suggests that management promised to make good on the bonuses as a sort of pseudo-severance and an incentive to stick around long enough to break up the FPD in an orderly manner. Has anyone established that these FPD people also received a severance above and beyond the retention bonus, or is it possible that management did actually feel they needed to add incentive to keep FPD's breakup from hitting AIG even harder?

I'm also a little disappointed in everyone's willingness to string Liddy up as a scapegoat, even after admitting they know he had extremely little to do with either the initial FPD fiasco, or the newer one that saw these bonuses built into the contracts.
Experience bij!

DontSayBanana

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 27, 2009, 05:52:02 PM
Just read a little AP snippet in the local paper about a House Financial Services Subcommittee bill that would leave it up to the administration to decide if bonuses at bailed companies were "excessive or unjustified."  I.e. dump the PR problem in Obama/Geithner's laps.  The headline suggested this was a replacement for the 90% tax proposal, whereas the text made it seem more like a counterproposal.
Either way, it's a lot more palatable. TARP is a Treasury issue, so Treasury should have at least the initial say. Geithner and the typewriter-monkeys can make a cooler decision, and thus far, we've seen much better media management by Obama and his folks in the White House than by Congress.
Experience bij!


DontSayBanana

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 28, 2009, 01:44:04 AM
What's a CSD?
Communication Service for the Deaf. Up until 4:15 today, I worked in the telephone relay division. The whole thing didn't go down, but we closed our NJ center. I was offered a transfer to the Moorehead, ND center, but considering the flooding issue they've got right now, I'm kind of glad I didn't take it.
Experience bij!

Syt

ND as in North Dakota? There's jobs there not related to farming or the maintenance of missile silos?
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein's brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.
—Stephen Jay Gould

Proud owner of 42 Zoupa Points.

Ed Anger

Quote from: Syt on March 28, 2009, 01:55:18 AM
ND as in North Dakota? There's jobs there not related to farming or the maintenance of missile silos?

Oil.
Stay Alive...Let the Man Drive