Meanwhile, Back at AIG

[billroper]

If the Washington Post can be believed, the people currently working at AIG to clean up the mess aren't the once who created it.

They're just the ones that some of you want to shoot.

Or that Senators suggest should commit hari-kari.

So why would any sane person not quit now?

And what sane person would replace them?

Comments

[blaurentnv.livejournal.com]

Some of the bonuses went to *former* employees. In other words, the people who created the mess.

[pheltzer.livejournal.com]

I'd take a job with them in a second if they were in Chicago... any paycheck in a storm so to speak.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I would like to go on record as not wanting to shoot anybody and not wanting anybody to be shot.

I don't believe in the death penalty even for serious financial malfeasance.
(I would put a smiley here, except that I get the impression that there have been some serious death threats and I *so* do not think that's funny.)

I did not know until yesterday, when I read it in the New York Times, that many of the people presently working in that department of AIG were new since the mess. I agree that the new people should not be punished for the sins of the old.

On the other hand, those are enormous bonuses. If GM needs to renegotiate compensation with their blue collar workers because the company is in danger of going under, perhaps AIG needs to renegotiate compensation with its white collar workers under similar circumstances for similar reasons.

It sounds like a lot of the AIG employees have already given the bonuses back. I admire that. I hope the rest of them make the same decision, because I think it's the right thing to do. Back when I was in a position that was eligible to get bonuses, we only got a bonus if the company was doing *well* and sometimes not even then; it wasn't the sort of thing you could just expect. I worked there two and a half years and never got a penny of bonus money.

[dave-ifversen.livejournal.com]

I did not know until today (when I read the article referenced by Bill above) that a lot of the people at the Financial Products Division were new since the problems surfaced. I still think that, if any of the old guard that caused the problems are still there, they should be fired (for misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance - take your pick). Not shot, not hung, not drawn and quartered - just fired (with no bonuses). After any remaining old guard were fired, AIG should have renamed that division to better let everyone know that these were not the same people, and that those left were working to attempt to fix the mess.

I also still believe that these bonuses are, at best, a very bad idea (tm) - especially in these times. They look bad, and should not have been allowed in the first place (AIG should not have promised them originally, or they should have made any bonuses contingent on the company making a profit (or at least, not taking a government bailout)). But, going after them retroactively (as has been mentioned in the news lately) also opens up a whole can of constitutional worms that we really don't want to open. (The constitution has been trampled enough over the last 8 years, we don't need the latest crop of Washington officials trampling it any further.)

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it's the going after them retroactively that makes me uncomfortable.

Of course, that same "breaking-your-given-word" aspect applies to renegotiating the union contracts with car companies, in my opinion. And a lot of people tell me *that* was absolutely essential. One of the bases of my idea of morality is fairness and "one rule for blue collar employees; another for white collar employees" does't work for me.

[dave-ifversen.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it's the going after them retroactively that makes me uncomfortable.
Of course, that same "breaking-your-given-word" aspect applies to renegotiating the union contracts with car companies, in my opinion.

Agreed, 100%.

One of the bases of my idea of morality is fairness and "one rule for blue collar employees; another for white collar employees" doesn't work for me.

As Stan Lee put it, "With great power comes great responsibility".

If (and this is a big if - I'm not totally convinced of this myself) there are going to be different rules for blue vs. white collar employees, then (IMO) the white collar employee (especially higher up the food chain) should be first in line to make sacrifices. I say this because, in general, the white collar employee has much more input on the direction the company will take (again, more so the higher up you look). The blue collar employee can make all the suggestions in the world, but will probably not have any affect on the direction the company moves in. Of course, this probably doesn't apply to the low-level, white collar drones.

A couple of people I know who own/run moderately sized businesses (between 10 and 100 employees) actually do things this way - since they made the decision on how things will work, if it all goes pear-shaped, they make sacrifices first, before hitting up their workers.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

A couple of people I know who own/run moderately sized businesses (between 10 and 100 employees) actually do things this way - since they made the decision on how things will work, if it all goes pear-shaped, they make sacrifices first, before hitting up their workers.

I admire that.

[jdonat.livejournal.com]

Hm. Shooting, or anything else unpleasant that can hurt someone is way outta line here.
I also didn't know about the staff changes. I don't in principle disagree with retention bonuses.. I think that the amount was a bit high (I know, what's too high.., YMMV).. but the ones who took the retention bonuses and then left need to return them now. All of it. Retention bonuses are to 'retain' someone, not to give them a nice going away gift. At this point, the things that AIG has pulled over the last year(s), unfortunately tars everyone there with a very broad brush.

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

On the one hand, the article says that everyone who caused the problems has now left. On the other hand, officials of the company are quoted a little later as saying that if they had got rid of everyone, they wouldn't have the people with the skills to "understand the book." So, either they have got rid of the people who caused the problems, or they haven't. It's this kind of ambiguity that one finds so confusing.

I suppose I ought to make it explicit, just in case, that I don't advocate shooting anyone.

*sigh*

[weirdsister.livejournal.com]

The real question here is, Who is John Galt?

Re: *sigh*

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

Character in some novel or other.

[kevinnickerson.livejournal.com]

Someone on your flist has said to shoot these people? I don't know everyone on your flist, but even so I had higher thoughts of them. Contrasted, of course, against my thoughts of the public at large. I know that there have been threats, anyone with any major public exposure gets threats. I don't see any way to change that, but I'd be happy to hear suggestions.

[scs-11.livejournal.com]

Speaking on a purely personal basis, if I worked at AIG I'd be on my way out the door. And that has fairly little to do with the bonus flap, which I agree is horribly overblown. AIG isn't going to exist when this is all over, and anybody who works there today isn't likely to be rewarded for what they're go through today. Like as not, somebody else will buy up the remaining pieces and dispose of the people as tainted.

As far as retention bonuses are concerned, they make sense under the circumstances. But calling them bonuses is part of the problem. Pay them salaries appropriate to their work, but defer part of the salary not to be paid unless they employee remains past a given date. It happens all the time for folks who sign on or stay on through tough times.

Conversely, the article and some of the comments here give me pause. In the article Pasciucco says "most" or "nearly all" of the folks being rewarded weren't part of the mess. IMHO, one is too many and Pasciucco needs to be able to turn those 'most' to 'all.' And if blaurentnv is correct, that's pretty undefendable.