Letter of resignation from an AIGFP executive: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/opinion/25desantis.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2
i think these "bonuses" are really just disguised salary so they can pay less tax on them (do payroll taxes apply to bonuses? id think so). i wouldnt give it back if i where them either, but would they still have gotten their bonuses if the gov allowed AIG to go under?
Just as the auto workers expect their legal contract to be honored. Where was your outrage for them? Or is it just non union, right wing white collar workers who should expect what's promised?
Are you dense? This guy ran an extremely profitable $100 million dollar multinational business that saved the a$$ of AIG and the American taxpayer for the last year for a whopping salary of $1. The fact that people like you don't see the difference between this and the UAW is why we've been talking about this for two weeks and flying the CEO to DC rather than focusing on the issues facing this company and thus, the american taxpayer. The bonus wasn't even really a bonus, it was deferred compensation. You need to identify your villains better.
something i read a couple of weeks ago that i wholeheartedly agree with: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-clemons/alexander-hamiltons-scorn_b_175575.html
I agree, to a point. My point is, I saw a lot of outrage on here about union auto workers making to much, and needing to take it up the wazoo before the auto companies get any bailout money. Keep in mind that these "overcompensated" auto workers made about 75K a year. There was much indignation about them recieveng 90% pay for a year after getting laid off. No one wanted to honor those contracts. This guy said himself that during the boom times he was probably overcompensated, but so what, good for him. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I'd just like to see a little of that sympathy so many have for these poor millonaires shared to some of the middle class, who happen to belong to a union.
No one asked them to return their rightly earned pay. Also, the "indignation" was because everyone seemed to think that the unions were killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Whether it's true, I can't say. I have learned believe nothing that I hear or read and half of what I see.
It's not that your point of view is different, it's that you seem upset that SF was defending a guy who was promised money, was doing a job that deserved at least a high six figure pay for $1. It's totally different than UAW. And both renegotiated the contracts in good faith. The UAW workers were paid what their renegotiations dictated while this guy has been asked to give 100% less one dollar of his compensation back. If there were no difference, the automakers and congress would be screaming for the UAW to pay back every penny of their compensation that was negotiated after all the problems came to light. See the difference now? My point was, if everyone would quit busting Ed Liddy's balls about 165 million in bonuses that everyone knew about, he could actually get back to AIG and work on fixing the mess that he is paid handsomely to fix. And another thing, it doesn't matter if I make $20k a year or $20 million, fair is fair. It's not fair to take away this guys 750k just because he has the means and it can be taken from him without major consequences. AIG managers are not my heroes, but anyone who will defer and risk his entire compensation with a company on the verge of collapse to help bring it around and get the taxpayer's money out of it, is a hero in my mind. A guy with these prospects could have hit the road long ago and made much more than 750k. I would like to think I would have stayed around but maybe not. So to reward him, we strip him of what we promised for a year was rightfully his if he would help us out? That's BS.
