AIG-Employees; Quit'cher Damned Whining!!

Mr. Shaman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
7,829
"At the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which has directly overseen AIG since its federal takeover in September, officials have studied the possibility of rescinding or delaying the bonuses. They even brought in outside lawyers for advice. The conclusion: If the bonuses weren't paid, the AIG staffers would be able to sue the company and probably would win, not just what they were owed but also punitive damages that would make the ultimate cost perhaps two to three times as high as the bonuses themselves."
Sorry, folks....you're workin'-for the U.S. Taxpayers, now!!!

:mad:

Much the SAME way BUSHCO deemed all previous oil-contracts (with Iraq) null & VOID, after "we" took-over....we Taxpayers don't recognize any previous-contracts you had with AIG's old-owners!!!
 
Werbung:
Sorry, folks....you're workin'-for the U.S. Taxpayers, now!!!

:mad:

Much the SAME way BUSHCO deemed all previous oil-contracts (with Iraq) null & VOID, after "we" took-over....we Taxpayers don't recognize any previous-contracts you had with AIG's old-owners!!!

So, if you were working for a company, which as part of your contract, was required to be paid a bonus under specific conditions, and those conditions were met....

You would not sue the company, if they denied the bonus you contractually were owed?

Do you realize what a negative this will have on the people there? That company will go bust for sure when the employees realize that the government is completely nullifing their contractually obligated pay. Who's going to stay there with no assurance of getting their agreed pay.

After all the people leave the company, who will work there? Who will invest in the company? The end result will be a massive crash, worse than if they had just filed bankruptcy to begin with.
 
Socialism at its finest - pay is never based on merit and when it is they will find any reason to criticize it.:D
 
So, if you were working for a company, which as part of your contract, was required to be paid a bonus under specific conditions, and those conditions were met....

You would not sue the company, if they denied the bonus you contractually were owed?
How 'bout....if you bought a company (that had lost major-buck$), and one o' the better-paid employees said you were obligated to pay him a bonus, that the last-owner promised....you'd pay him, huh....you'd actually reward sub-par performance??


:rolleyes:
 
So, if you were working for a company, which as part of your contract, was required to be paid a bonus under specific conditions, and those conditions were met....

You would not sue the company, if they denied the bonus you contractually were owed?

Do you realize what a negative this will have on the people there? That company will go bust for sure when the employees realize that the government is completely nullifing their contractually obligated pay. Who's going to stay there with no assurance of getting their agreed pay.

After all the people leave the company, who will work there? Who will invest in the company? The end result will be a massive crash, worse than if they had just filed bankruptcy to begin with.

This issue is much, much bigger than the whole bail-out fiasco. It speaks to the U.S. Congress breaking Constitutional limitations and supplanting the role of the courts. And the talk about increasing the taxes on it after the fact? The ignorant people buying into this crap better get their heads out of the sand.

The AIG scenario is symptomatic of the incestuous relationship of Congress with big finance. TARP in general, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac - the list goes on. I'm sick to death of all the lynch-mob mentality of the masses who are flat out ignorant. Here's a great condensed info article: Before the Fall, AIG Payouts...

These bonuses were contractual obligations long before any bailouts were given to AIG. The selective outrage from the posturing members of Congress is ridiculous.
 
It's so funny how everyone is outraged at the AIG bonuses. But you don't hear any outcry for the bonuses congress keeps giving themselves and their friends.

We should be outraged at the congress and President Obama for their reckless spending.

Obama now wants to reward Detroit school system with 546 million dollars. That's after they have lost 56million.

So where's the outrage Obama bots?

You Obama lovers know Obama is looking like a fool more and more each day. He is in self-destruct mode, and with a moron like Biden who keeps putting his foot in his mouth, this has got to be the most comical 2 people ever elected as Pres/VP.

Without a tele-prompter Obama is nada.

I demand an apology from all the people who voted for the Idiot.
 
How 'bout....if you bought a company (that had lost major-buck$), and one o' the better-paid employees said you were obligated to pay him a bonus, that the last-owner promised....you'd pay him, huh....you'd actually reward sub-par performance??


:rolleyes:

Legally speaking, the government did not "buy" AIG. Therefore your analogy is useless.
 
AIG is in shambles for one reason. The Government. They got involved in 93 and never took their paws off.

It is the constant government intervetnion that keeps screwing up things that will work themselves out.

The government trying to solve problems IS the problem.
 
How 'bout....if you bought a company (that had lost major-buck$), and one o' the better-paid employees said you were obligated to pay him a bonus, that the last-owner promised....you'd pay him, huh....you'd actually reward sub-par performance??


:rolleyes:

There is no 'owner' because it's a publicly traded company. The CEO is just that, the chief executive officer. But he's no more an owner, than anyone else on the board.

Further, the contracted bonuses are with the corporation. The CEO can change a million times. Your contract is right where it always was, with the corporation.

Finely, the government did not technically 'buy' AIG. It bought stock in the company. Which changes nothing with employee contracts. Now if you wish to get rid of all the employees that's one thing. But if you do that company crashes. When everyone, or even a majority, in a company is let go, thing tend to not improve much.

Think about it another way... Why would GM be paying higher costing Union wages, if every time the CEO changes, the contracts were null? Or even every time someone new had majority stocks? Well of course it's because the company is who the contract is with. The only time you can force people to renegotiate a contract, is by filing bankruptcy.

So you can whine and complain all you want, the people at AIG have a legal right to bonuses, and they likely will sue the company, for roughly 3 times their entitled bonuses. (after you include legal fees and so on). And if they do not get their money, they will likely ditch the company, causing it to fail, and then all the billions we idiotically gave them, will be gone in smoke.
 
AIG is in shambles for one reason. The Government. They got involved in 93 and never took their paws off.

It is the constant government intervetnion that keeps screwing up things that will work themselves out.
Whew......that's quite the list (of various ways the Government intervened)!!!

:rolleyes:
 
So you can whine and complain all you want, the people at AIG have a legal right to bonuses, and they likely will sue the company, for roughly 3 times their entitled bonuses. (after you include legal fees and so on). And if they do not get their money, they will likely ditch the company, causing it to fail, and then all the billions we idiotically gave them, will be gone in smoke.
Yeah.....that's what it's all-about.

:rolleyes:

"In Wall Street's high-stakes competitive culture, paying top people to stay in their jobs has been the norm for years.

"It's basically a bribe, so your employees don't bolt and take their clients with them," said Chuck Collins, a senior scholar at the Washingon-based Institute for Policy Studies and an executive compensation expert."
 
In recessionary-depressionary times when the middle class is sinking into the lower class ...

... Rapidly losing their "contract with America" ...

... While also being asked to pay for bail-outs and bandaids on the way down via regular taxation and state tax increases respectively ...

... It's quite understandable that such a sinking middle class and their representatives would be at least a little miffed by relatively obscene remuneration to top cats whom the sinking middle class rightly sees as not paying their fair share of the recession.

When times are tough in a country, everyone needs to shoulder the load, and those receiving obscene remuneration at the taxed expense of the masses who are failing most certainly and understandably creates justified animosity.

Those who can't see this accurate perspective of reality because they're blindly addicted to a form of Money System management (eg. dog-eat-dog neurotically competitive Neanderthalistic capitalism) would do well to transcend their erroneous fantasy-causing dominant paradigm and sling their ideological rose-colored glasses onto the ground and stomp them under foot ... thereby improving their vision :eek:.

:cool:
 
Werbung:
Yeah.....that's what it's all-about.

:rolleyes:

So you want the employees to leave the company, and cause the company to implode, taking with it the billions of dollars the government retardedly gave them?

Why didn't we just not bail the out to begin with, and save the billions of tax dollars?
 
Back
Top