” We should just take back all the money that we gave those executives.”
“If the government is bailing out corporations like AIG, why can’t the government simply not pay executives these bonuses that aren’t earned?”
“Obama sucks!” (just to keep these articles harmonious).
The economy has most people dusting off their old pickfork, lighting up that trusty torch, and joining the angry mob.
One of the stories that has received the most attention regards the bonuses that are being paid to executives of corporations now under majority control by the United States Government. Hearing of executives of these companies being paid bonuses during tough economic times, when their companies have performed terribly, using government money that objectively represents debt that will be paid by our children’s children, will cause anyone to get pissed off, and rightfully so. But there is a huge difference between what ought to be and what is.
These bonuses represent contactual obligations that these corporations are bound to pay their employees. The Rule of Law would be severely deteriorated if these bonuses were not paid despite their contractual validity, as counter-intuitive as that sounds. No amount of moralistic reasoning, or meritocratic logic allows this contracts to be dissolved. This would have severe implications for many contractual relationships between employers and employees, and the negatives will far outweigh the positives in the long run.
The Democrat-controlled House and Senate has advanced a plan to retroactively tax these bonuses, which amounts to stealing from these citizens.
These bonuses are gone, and the major media needs to start focusing on the lack of leadership the Democrats are showing in proactively instituting new reforms to ensure that this pattern of incompetence does not continue.
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 25, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Soviet Canuckistan
As the Devil’s legal cousel:
The railing against everything union on this website and the defence of these AIG bonuses are principally completely inconsistent.
Much has been said about the unworthiness of union wages, and the need to eliminate the institution of organized labour in order to solve the systemic problems the economy faces. The argument most often heard is, “too much money for doing too little work.”
Cutting through the frivolities of petty and shallow mainstream ideology, one may apply the same logic to the AIG executives making these millions in bonuses: too much money for doing too little work. Of course their work in this case was bankrupting the effing company. Their ignorance in light of their education is far more reprehensible than the less-educated auto worker supporting a decent Canadian family.
In principle, to take back what is rightfully owed is wrong. We learn that in kindergarten, religion, our family, and other sources of moral instruction.
I think it’s unfair to ask the unions to give back while giving bonuses to the guys that fucked up the world’s biggest insurer.
On the issue of Rule of Law, it’s true that the tax on the bonuses might be illegal or even unconstitutional, and that law is hardly subject to morality. At the same time, politicians need to keep the peace, and this little bonus giveback might prevent the need for far more threatening (to the corporate system) systemic overhaul of bonuses or transparency with regards to bailout money. Who would want that?
March 25, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Jon C.
Dear Mr. Canuckistan,
I am afraid the thrust of your article is conjecture that does not fully impress upon the point I was making in my original post.
I broadly touch on your point regarding the problem of “too much money for doing too little work” when I reference “meritocratic logic.” The sweeping point you are trying to make is tied together by rudimentary axioms that don’t really focus on the true nature of the post – the legal nature of the dispute.
Furthermore, your conclusion that a bonus giveback would threaten the systematic overhaul of bonuses, meaning that bonuses would be slashed and a company’s profit would be more “equally” redistributed amongst its employees and shareholders, should be what someone named Soviet Canuckistan would generally be trying to achieve, so I think your name betrays the point you are trying to make.
The key distinguishing factor between my point and yours is that for the point you are making, you need to properly weigh in the factor that regulation plays in the financial sector, and its relationship to the inherent capitalist tendencies of the Western corporate business model. Refocus your debate to account for the nuances of the two issues you are trying to synchronize and your post will be less… edentulous (just trying to use my “word of the day” widget).
March 26, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Soviet Canuckistan
Firstly, Jon C., I never revealed my ideological orientation, and no, it’s not soviet – I’m a businessman, and yes, I think obama sucks balls. I actually agreed with the your thesis if you didn’t notice. As devil’s legal council (read advocate) I’m merely making counterpoints and proposing different approaches to the same point.
I understand that the point of your article is “THE LAW IZ TEH LAWZZ DUHHH!!!111″. It wasn’t that difficult to figure out, but thanks for clarifying anyway.
Now, 1+1=2 aside, of course my response is tied together with axioms – it’s a theoretical postulation. I’m taking the PRINCIPLE of defending legally entitled money and applying it to execs and union workers alike – neither deserves to have contracts shredded, or should I say, THE LAW IS THE LAW… DUHHHHH.
“Furthermore, your conclusion that a bonus giveback would threaten the systematic overhaul of bonuses, meaning that bonuses would be slashed and a company’s profit would be more “equally” redistributed amongst its employees and shareholders, should be what someone named Soviet Canuckistan would generally be trying to achieve, so I think your name betrays the point you are trying to make.”
I seriously have no idea what you’re even saying in this one. It’s a run-on, for starters, with fragmented clauses every which where. And you say systematic when I said systemic which completely changes the meaning. You might want to reread what I wrote, and more importantly, figure out what in the above-quoted paragraph has to do with it, because I’m left guessing. It’s unclear.
“[financial regulation] and its relationship to the inherent capitalist tendencies of the Western corporate business model.”
If by capitalist tendencies you mean the socialized bailout bonus money and the laws that necessitate them then I don’t know what to say. This is soviet top-down socialism by definition, which makes my capitalist blood boil. Red and blue are guilty on this one. You tell me what’s so inherently capitalist about socialized bailouts or the “inherently capitalist” system that demands them and I’ll tell you you’re wrong any way you like. The law is never quite as simple as the law, hence why laws change.
The axiom of spatial rigidity that your point invokes in order to make its point falters in the face of temporality (read change). Laws tend to change, unless you’re Immanuel Kant; seeing as this isn’t the 18th century, you might want to get a clock widget and reformulate.
March 26, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Jon C.
Dear Mr. Canuckistan,
I wanted to thank you for clarifying the points I was making, as I believe that there has been some miscommunication in our exchange.
Apparently my learned friends’ beliefs are imputed on me regarding unions, and although I do agree with them, I was glad to know you went ahead and coloured my article, which didn’t mention unions once, with a different issue that had nothing to do with the point I was making. I guess we can change the name of the website to MAN’SYNC since we are all supposed to be singing the same song all the time.
I was impressed that you were able to reduce the thrust of my article to such a powerful legal maxim: “THE LAW IZ TEH LAWZZ DUHHH!!!111″
I do agree that there is a simple thread weaving through my post, and since I engage with this subject material seven days a week, trust me, I find it tired. For someone that has such a strong opinion on administrative and labour law issues, it is disappointing that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
With references to Kindergarten and the much needed clarifications you included in your post (read: unneeded), I will engage the subject on the level which I think you need to be able to digest the point I was making.
These CEOs are obtaining bonuses which are contractually guaranteed to them, for work they have already done. These contacts were made more than a year ago, a point that was used by the new AIG CEO in his defense. I don’t think I need to saying anything more – we agree they are rock solid.
These union workers are complaining because large auto companies might fire ALL OF THEM AT THE SAME TIME. In the laws today (I believe it is 2009, according to my new clock widget) this is probably legal (I say probably because I don’t think I will read the actual 500 page contract any time soon, but you can bet it includes clauses that refer to the financial viability of the plant’s business operation being at least an implied term of the continued employment of the union workers). When the economy was strong, these companies needed these workers to meet supply for the demand, and so the unions had a greater foothold in the negotiations. In fact, if you actually read Pat’s article, the distinguished gentleman noted that the plant’s owner was offering the workers the legally-guaranteed severance pay they are due. The reason the CAW union barricaded itself within the plant (if you continue to pretend you have a grasp on these legal issues I guess we can talk about the ramifications of actually welding the doors shut on private property) was because they have no other recourse to try to negotiate and sought to garner public support through a stunt.
The only way your comment would have been relevant is if my article was discussing how the current overpaid CEOs should be fired and not be paid bonuses/ huge salaries next year. Kind of like overpaid union workers being fired and not paid salaries next year because their jobs won’t exist… (hence axiom).
So to summarize, I have no idea how you are able to connect the two issues, and that is what I took issue with.
“Capitalist Tendencies:” You have to assume that large financial institutions will do everything that is legal, and everything in the grey area of legality, to make money. That is why I think the public outcry should focus on the regulatory bodies like the SEC, which is why I felt your comment about politicians needing to keep the peace rather simplistic and ill-focused. Either way, everyone will forget about this the next time CNN changes their focus to something else, so that peace is coming.
Laws do change, trust me I know. It will make my current education meaningless one day from a factual perspective. But since I was talking about financial institutions on a level that didn’t touch on the union issue Pat spoke of, I felt that you didn’t really digest what I was saying, which might be expected for an argument with no teeth.
I downloaded the clock widget, but strangely the case law that I relied on remains the same. I don’t have a new widget recommendation for you, but rather a website I think might prove useful.
http://www.proxify.com
That way the next time you choose to make an argument behind the mask of anonymity, it will actually be anonymous.
I do appreciate your continued support of MansInc. AleSovietander CanuckakowDionski.
March 26, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Soviet Canuckistan
Calmer than you are.
March 26, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Jon C.
I would never get worked up towards a fellow founding member of the Anti-Kyla Klub.