I’m sorry. I just love that headline and believe I shall use it every chance I get.
But it kind of fits here. The U.S. Treasury is supposed to announce soon that companies that received big government bailouts will have to slash the compensation for their executives.
Here’s more, from the New York Times:
The companies are Citigroup, Bank of America, the American International Group, General Motors, Chrysler and the financing arms of the two automakers.
At the financial products division of A.I.G., the locus of problems that plagued the large insurer and forced its rescue with more than $180 billion in taxpayer assistance, no top executive will receive more than $200,000 in total compensation, a stunning decline from previous years in which the unit produced many wealthy executives and traders.
In contrast to previous years, an official said, executives in the financial products division will receive no other compensation, like stocks or stock options. And at all of the companies, any executive seeking more than $25,000 in special perks — like country club memberships, private planes, limousines or company issued cars — will have to apply to the government for permission. The administration will also warn A.I.G. that it must fulfill a commitment it made to significantly reduce the $198 million in bonuses promised to employees in the financial products division.
Well, it’s a start. And thanks, Slate, for the link.
Dating Jesus 
I hope they make the announcement soon before big bonuses are paid. I wonder if it would be retroactive through the year.
And I wonder if it’s going to expand beyond the few companies named in these early news reports.
“I wonder if it would be retroactive through the year.”
Wouldn’t THAT be something. And wouldn’t it cause great gnashing of teeth? Dentists asking “are you grinding your teeth, Mr. CEO?” (‘Cuz they’re mostly Mr.’s, right?)
Right.
My husband is telling me that these guys will just leave for other companies. Wouldn’t they have done that already if it were really an option? And who wants to hire the guy that just tanked AIG?
Someone tell me I’m right and make it sound really smart so my husband will know he’s WRONG.
You are right on the money, Vegas! I don’t know about sounding smart, but there aren’t many companies looking for new employees and it’s cheaper to promote someone from within the company if they need to fill an open spot. As you said, who would boot out an exec of a successful company to hire in an exec from a failing company?
Dear Mr. Vegas, Ms. Vegas is completely right. We have taken a group consciousness (more egalitarian than a vote) and we’ve decided they would have jumped ship long ago, if they could have.
Thanks for trying. He still thinks we’re wrong.
We can do a home visitation, if you think that would work.
Couldn’t be retroactive, I thnk. The checks have already been cashed and the new luxury cars and yachts purchased.
So, they leave for other companies? So what?
Plenty more folks would love jobs like theirs.
Even losing half their compensation packages, they each could still buy me, my family, and most of our friends three times over. The turds.
“these guys will just leave for other companies. Wouldn’t they have done that already if it were really an option? And who wants to hire the guy that just tanked AIG?”
This was something that had me amazed — when the first rumblings were heard about execs still getting huge bonuses even after their companies had to be bailed out, the excuse was “but we have to keep them from going to other companies, so we have to pay them a lot.”
It made no sense to me, let ’em go awready, but then I’m not the apologist — I mean the treasurer — of a big bailed-out company.
And if you did the crap-ass job of tanking your own company where you needed to get an unprecedented government bail-out, why would you be worth keeping?