Mar 16

As I'm sure you've heard, AIG is handing out bonuses to employees of its Financial Products division. From what I've read, the Financial Products Division was responsible for billions in losses, and handled Credit Default Swaps. In short, the Financial Products Division is blamed for much of the current financial heartache at AIG, and possibly the rest of the world.

So, as the story goes, AIG had promised bonuses, via contracts, to a bunch of the employees in the FP division. Total cost? Somewhere around $165 million. That's a crapload of money. Although, if you compare it to the amount of money AIG has received from the government, *cough*$170 billion*cough*, we find that it's a mere 0.1% of the total bailout. That's barely a drop in the bucket.

That's not to say that it should be ignored, however. In fact, it's an outrage and has even caught the ire of the President. And while I'm frustrated that these people are getting these bonuses, I believe I understand what's going on here. Let me explain ...

Until relatively recently, I worked for a large telecommunications company. Working for a large corporation, I learned that bonuses were handed out yearly, supposedly based on performance. The definition of performance seemed to change each year, though, just to ensure that we got our bonuses. So for one year, it was based on customer retention, and the following year it was based on the number of lines we had.

In addition to changing the definition of performance, there was a good deal of "cheating" that occurred. Sales numbers were artificially inflated through creative accounting methods such as breaking apart bundled sales and counting them as separate sales. Or, my favorite, giving away "free second lines" and then counting them as both sales and part of the total line count. This way, they met their bonus requirements AND made the company look better to potential buyers. Insanity, in my opinion.

What made all of this worse was how they handed out bonuses. Regular employee bonuses could be anywhere from 0-10% of their base salary. Managers received a flat 10%. VP's got something like 20% and EVPs got up to 40%. I don't remember if the EVP rate was variable or not. Regardless, the higher you were on the food chain, the more money you received as a bonus.

I find this entire bonus structure to be both offensive and wasteful. I've heard numerous claims that bonuses are essential to obtaining and keeping high quality employees. I cry bullshit. As a potential employee, I would rather have a job with a guaranteed high salary and potential low bonus rather than a low salary and high bonus. Sure, bonuses are nice in that it's a quick infusion of cash, but it's by no means guaranteed. In fact, I'd argue that the creative accounting and cheating is a result of offering bonuses like this.

Instead, how about a new bonus structure. First, offer higher salaries across the board. Make sure your managers can properly manage their employees and trim out anyone who can't pull their weight. This way you get the best employees without lugging around any dead weight. Next, set up the bonus tiers in such a way that the lowest employees on the totem pole get the highest bonus percentages. Look at it this way; managers and VPs make more money than the average employee to begin with, so a lower percentage generally still results in a higher bonus anyway. Doing it this way still ensures bonuses for the higher ups, while increasing morale for employees because it appears that they get larger bonuses. And, in one way, they do.

Finally, for those employees in VP or higher positions, drop bonuses completely. Instead, offer stock (in reasonable amounts) and tie their "bonus" directly with the company. This way, if they work hard, inspire the employees, and grow the company, their stock increases in value and they make money. Do nothing and the stock drops and they lose money. Thus, their "bonus" becomes directly tied with the health and financial well-being of the company.

Unfortunately, I don't see any of the current practices changing anytime soon, so I expect to see more of the same. Thankfully, I have escaped from the corporate machine, so I can avoid much of this insanity for the foreseeable future. But for those of you on the inside, I say fight. Fight against the insanity. Those of us on the outside support you.


Posted by Jason Frisvold

Defined tags for this entry: , , , , ,
Vote for articles fresher than 7 days!
Current karma: none, 0 vote(s) 469 hits
Mar 5

Washington DC has this little problem, they have no voting rights. That is, they have no representation in the house or the senate, though they have been able to vote for a president since 1961, when the twenty-third amendment passed. Oh, and they get to pay taxes too. I suppose that makes this taxation without representation? Perhaps they should throw a nice Tea Party?

DC has been clamoring for a representative in congress for quite a number of years. They were granted a delegate in 1971, but a delegate cannot cast a full house vote. They can cast a vote as a committee member, but that severely limits their effectiveness.

In 1978, Representative Don Edwards proposed the "District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment," which would repeal the twenty-third amendment and effectively treat Washington DC as a state. However, the amendment was not ratified by the states and expired in 1985.

In 2007, Representative Tom Davis and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton proposed the "DC Voting Rights Act," which would grant representation in congress to Washington DC. The bill was approved by the house, and although there were enough votes in the senate to pass it, it was ultimately defeated by a filibuster initiated by Mitch McConnell. The bill expired at the end of 2008.

In 2009, Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton again proposed the "DC Voting Rights Act," with hopes that the new administration would see it passed. On the same day, Senators Joe Lieberman and Orrin Hatch introduced the senate version of the "DC Voting Rights Act." The senate bill was voted on and passed. In the process, however, the bill was amended to include a provision about DC gun laws. The provision would remove gun registration requirements, limit the city's ability to restrict firearms, and make semi-automatic weapons legal. The amendment also passed the senate.

And that's where the matter sits at the moment. The house is reluctant to move forward with the bill because of the included gun amendment. The NRA stated that it might "keep score" when the house votes, and that "score" could possibly be used against the representatives in the future. In short, the NRA could claim that those representatives that voted against the bill are not gun supporters, which may hurt chances for re-election.

So now we have a voting bill tied together with a gun rights bill. And all I have to ask is, what the hell? Other than the two of them being intended for Washington DC, what do they have in common? And why the hell do they keep jamming crap like this together? Seriously, it's CHEATING THE SYSTEM. If the bill cannot stand on its own, and there is nothing else you can tie it to that is similar in nature, then perhaps that bill shouldn't pass. This is how pay increases, pet projects, tax breaks, and other unnecessary crap makes it through congress.

That isn't to say that gun rights is not a legitimate issue, but it should not be tied to a voting bill. And now, because the NRA wants to turn this into a pissing match, it seems likely that Washington DC residents will miss out on gaining a representative, yet again. In fact, John Ensign, the Senator from Nevada, stated that he would rather see the voting rights fail and his gun amendment pass. Thank you Senator, it's nice to see you're more interested in allowing people to shoot each other than to let them have proper representation. Oh, and since you're from Nevada, might I ask why the hell you're poking your nose in the business of Washington DC?

I hope the DC voting rights are eventually passed. I think they need to have a voice in the house, and eventually in the senate. I definitely don't think it's right to tack on additional crap to the bill, though, just because it has a high chance of making it through. Yet again, maybe it's time for line item veto?


Posted by Jason Frisvold

Defined tags for this entry: , ,
Vote for articles fresher than 7 days!
Current karma: none, 0 vote(s) 303 hits