Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (297194)	3/19/2009 8:52:27 PM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793817

Again, IF a company takes money from the Government to try to ward off bankruptcy, then no bonuses should be given. The contracts are faulty if they don't include that clause. You don't receive commission unless you produce, so why should people get bonuses if a company is going to fail? You're ignoring the point that I was trying to make. Many of these companies and their employees don't view these as bonuses in the way you're using the term. For many of these companies the "bonus" is a standard part of expected pay which the employee expects to receive EVERY year, regardless of corporate performance, but they call it a bonus. For example I worked at Toyota in Japan back in the 1980s. Twice a year all regular employees received three months of bonus. It wasn't a "bonus" for Toyota doing well, it was just a non-uniform pay schedule. I'm not saying the AIG or investment bank employees necessarily deserve their high pay, but part of the public backlash against "bonuses" is the public not correctly understanding the salary schedule for these companies. Even in bad years with no government help, their employees got "bonuses", they were just smaller than in good years.