Citigroup bonuses

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't see why it's an issue. These people are one of the profitable pieces of the company.

If you don't pay them, they'll easily find work elsewhere. Then all you'll be left with is a company not making money, with employees that don't know how or aren't ambitious enough to make money, owned by the government and funded by the taxpayers. Not exactly what they govwernment had in mind.
 
At my work I am one of the more profitable ones, too. But I can forget about bonuses or a pay raise, especially this year.
 
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
At my work I am one of the more profitable ones, too. But I can forget about bonuses or a pay raise, especially this year.


Same here, equivalent to a 12% pay cut.
 
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
At my work I am one of the more profitable ones, too. But I can forget about bonuses or a pay raise, especially this year.

Do you have a pay for performance contract with the company?

Quote:
Sorry but contracts don't mean much.

And this attitude is exactly the problem. Contracts mean EVERYTHING...including the one you have with the government. If government can break contracts at will, you have a VERY dangerous situation.
 
Quote:
And this attitude is exactly the problem. Contracts mean EVERYTHING.


Didn't you leave out "unless you're a union member"?? There it's 100% okay to not pay or provide an agreed pension or benefit ..but a CEO MUST get his contract amount. Sounds rational.
 
Quote:
If you don't pay them, they'll easily find work elsewhere.


Good. Who needs them for a hurting enterprise?

Quote:
Then all you'll be left with is a company not making money, with employees that don't know how or aren't ambitious enough to make money,


This goes on the assumption that the leaving executive is responsible for the former profitability of the company. One of my "hmmm..this appears to happen more often than not" observations is that when a company does great, it's due to the outstanding leadership and keen savvy of the guy at the helm ..and this needs to be rewarded. When business is bad, it's due to market trends and not lack of leadership ..and that avoided loses are the metric of divining and defining outstanding leadership ..and it too must be rewarded.

It appears like the dog gets a bone every time it rolls over.

There are plenty waiting in the wings just hankering for a chance at the slot when the white haired geezer quits.

It's a "take a number for better service" job opportunity.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
And this attitude is exactly the problem. Contracts mean EVERYTHING...including the one you have with the government. If government can break contracts at will, you have a VERY dangerous situation.


If the company is not going to be bankrupt. Ask how debt collectors end up buying debts for 50% of face value and less, and how debt renegotiation works.

It is very different in the real world.
 
Quote:
Ask how debt collectors end up buying debts for 50% of face value and less, and how debt renegotiation works.

Yes, those are done via contracts.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
Ask how debt collectors end up buying debts for 50% of face value and less, and how debt renegotiation works.

Yes, those are done via contracts.


which void the original contracts.
 
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
Ask how debt collectors end up buying debts for 50% of face value and less, and how debt renegotiation works.

Yes, those are done via contracts.


which void the original contracts.

Which is AGREED to by both parties, via a contract.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Which is AGREED to by both parties, via a contract.


Which is only agreed because the original contracts were not enforceable. Why else would you reduce debt that you were obligated to pay? because the alternative is bankruptcy and you are not going to collect a dime on.

There is always a balance between what is doable and what should be done. What good is a contract when it is not enforceable?
 
It's the principle of the thing, Panda ..unless you're a union worker. Then it's a cleansing of vermin and giving them what they deserve.

It's sorta like a stereo typical view, 'It is honorable to cheat and steal from you, for you are an infidel and do not deserve fair treatment" ..


crackmeup2.gif
 
It is not about cheating or not. Businesses fail and when they fail, in bankruptcy, you won't get everything you are owe to when there isn't enough to divide.

You can keep this entity (business or person) afloat out of bankruptcy or you can settle for less and get it. That's what debt settlement is about. The owner gets nothing or very little in the end.

Nothing cheating or stealing, just failure, which is part of life.
 
Quote:
It is not about cheating or not. Businesses fail and when they fail, in bankruptcy, you won't get everything you are owe to when there isn't enough to divide.


Check out the golden parachute the clowns that ran Bethlehem Steel through bankruptcy received. If there wasn't enough to float the pension, where did that money come from?

Oh, drop in the bucket? Not to the receivers of the parachutes.
 
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
If you don't pay them, they'll easily find work elsewhere.


Good. Who needs them for a hurting enterprise?

Quote:
Then all you'll be left with is a company not making money, with employees that don't know how or aren't ambitious enough to make money,


This goes on the assumption that the leaving executive is responsible for the former profitability of the company. One of my "hmmm..this appears to happen more often than not" observations is that when a company does great, it's due to the outstanding leadership and keen savvy of the guy at the helm ..and this needs to be rewarded. When business is bad, it's due to market trends and not lack of leadership ..and that avoided loses are the metric of divining and defining outstanding leadership ..and it too must be rewarded.

It appears like the dog gets a bone every time it rolls over.

There are plenty waiting in the wings just hankering for a chance at the slot when the white haired geezer quits.

It's a "take a number for better service" job opportunity.


First off they aren't hurting. It clearly says these guys are profitable. That means they are making the company money. Those are people I would want to stay working for me.

I believe in rewarding competence and encouraging hard work. Maybe you'd sit back and think "Man, I'm sure making alot of money in this division of my company, it must have nothing to do with the people working for me, so I'm going to clean house and replace everyone, because the other divisions of my company are losing money."

I don't really know where you're going with the rest of your ramblings.
 
Originally Posted By: D189379
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
If you don't pay them, they'll easily find work elsewhere.


Good. Who needs them for a hurting enterprise?

Quote:
Then all you'll be left with is a company not making money, with employees that don't know how or aren't ambitious enough to make money,


This goes on the assumption that the leaving executive is responsible for the former profitability of the company. One of my "hmmm..this appears to happen more often than not" observations is that when a company does great, it's due to the outstanding leadership and keen savvy of the guy at the helm ..and this needs to be rewarded. When business is bad, it's due to market trends and not lack of leadership ..and that avoided loses are the metric of divining and defining outstanding leadership ..and it too must be rewarded.

It appears like the dog gets a bone every time it rolls over.

There are plenty waiting in the wings just hankering for a chance at the slot when the white haired geezer quits.

It's a "take a number for better service" job opportunity.


First off they aren't hurting. It clearly says these guys are profitable. That means they are making the company money. Those are people I would want to stay working for me.

I believe in rewarding competence and encouraging hard work. Maybe you'd sit back and think "Man, I'm sure making alot of money in this division of my company, it must have nothing to do with the people working for me, so I'm going to clean house and replace everyone, because the other divisions of my company are losing money."

I don't really know where you're going with the rest of your ramblings.


What I'm ask is (and I'll state it as simply as possible here) WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT THESE CLOWNS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROFITABILITY? SUPPOSE ANY NUMBER OF "OTHERS", WHO ARE PROBABLY JUST WAITING FOR THESE TYPES TO "GET OUT OF THE WAY", ARE THE REAL DOERS THAT MAKE THESE PLACES PROFITABLE??

..and do it for LESS??
 
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Originally Posted By: D189379
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
If you don't pay them, they'll easily find work elsewhere.


Good. Who needs them for a hurting enterprise?

Quote:
Then all you'll be left with is a company not making money, with employees that don't know how or aren't ambitious enough to make money,


This goes on the assumption that the leaving executive is responsible for the former profitability of the company. One of my "hmmm..this appears to happen more often than not" observations is that when a company does great, it's due to the outstanding leadership and keen savvy of the guy at the helm ..and this needs to be rewarded. When business is bad, it's due to market trends and not lack of leadership ..and that avoided loses are the metric of divining and defining outstanding leadership ..and it too must be rewarded.

It appears like the dog gets a bone every time it rolls over.

There are plenty waiting in the wings just hankering for a chance at the slot when the white haired geezer quits.

It's a "take a number for better service" job opportunity.


First off they aren't hurting. It clearly says these guys are profitable. That means they are making the company money. Those are people I would want to stay working for me.

I believe in rewarding competence and encouraging hard work. Maybe you'd sit back and think "Man, I'm sure making alot of money in this division of my company, it must have nothing to do with the people working for me, so I'm going to clean house and replace everyone, because the other divisions of my company are losing money."

I don't really know where you're going with the rest of your ramblings.


What I'm ask is (and I'll state it as simply as possible here) WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT THESE CLOWNS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROFITABILITY? SUPPOSE ANY NUMBER OF "OTHERS", WHO ARE PROBABLY JUST WAITING FOR THESE TYPES TO "GET OUT OF THE WAY", ARE THE REAL DOERS THAT MAKE THESE PLACES PROFITABLE??

..and do it for LESS??


Well let me ask you, what makes you think these guys are clowns and that they aren't responsible for making the money? It doesn't even say who the money is going to other than "key employees". I'm just looking at the facts;

1. Division of company is profitable
2. Company wants to reward "employees" for being part of profitable division.

That's all the information that is there, and that's where my conclusion comes from. Sounds like someones been watching too much of Fox News' economic coverage.
 
How many females do you think are capable at being outstanding CEO's? Plenty. Why aren't there more of them since they represent 55% of the work force? I'll tell you why. Since the beginning of the title, male MBA's have been cranked out to the tune of hundreds of thousands (fake number) ..while females have been in a fractional percentage. Even if they got exactly what they deserved, in terms of merit, they're competing in a room of 10,000 equally qualified males ..and to achieve a .00000% position, would have to be so brilliant (each one of them) to beat out 9700 of the competition.

The could do the job JUST AS WELL ..but are in a "take a number for better service" situation.

If you can wrap around the concept I'm trying to display here, there's no shortage of people that are qualified and eager to be in the BIG OFFICE (or bigger offices). What there is is "people in the way that aren't going anywhere due to the compensation".

Cut the pay in half. I assure you the same motivators will produce the same profits. There are plenty ready for the chance.

You overly reward common and expected performance from these people.

Look at what the screw up at The Home Depot got for a lousy job as his "exit bonus".
 
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
How many females do you think are capable at being outstanding CEO's? Plenty. Why aren't there more of them since they represent 55% of the work force? I'll tell you why. Since the beginning of the title, male MBA's have been cranked out to the tune of hundreds of thousands (fake number) ..while females have been in a fractional percentage. Even if they got exactly what they deserved, in terms of merit, they're competing in a room of 10,000 equally qualified males ..and to achieve a .00000% position, would have to be so brilliant (each one of them) to beat out 9700 of the competition.

The could do the job JUST AS WELL ..but are in a "take a number for better service" situation.

If you can wrap around the concept I'm trying to display here, there's no shortage of people that are qualified and eager to be in the BIG OFFICE (or bigger offices). What there is is "people in the way that aren't going anywhere due to the compensation".

Cut the pay in half. I assure you the same motivators will produce the same profits. There are plenty ready for the chance.

You overly reward common and expected performance from these people.

Look at what the screw up at The Home Depot got for a lousy job as his "exit bonus".


Lol, where does it say the money isn't going to any females, Gary?

How do you know this money isn't already going to the people that you are describing?

Are you even trying to stay on topic anymore?
 
OMG!!! The point!! The POINT!!! THE POINT IS!!!

The point was that there are PLENTY of qualified people that are waiting for these Pb balloon hogging fat cats to DIE so they can get into the big (or bigger) chairs. They would LOVE to do the same job as the slug in front of them ..for HALF THE MONEY.

Kick the fat cats to the curb. Plenty where they came from.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top