I have been recruiting for 11 years now. I have seen a lot. A lot of mediocre offers. A lot of good offers. Some great offers. Incredible benefit packages. Flexible schedules. Companies where you get your birthday off. On-site health clubs. On site dining.
Tobacco companies where you can smoke at your desk. Stock options, equity positions. Ridiculously flexible work from home type scenarios, nice education benefits, relocation packages that went over and above.
Companies that provide coaching from the start for key executives to help ensure their success. Great work environments, memberships to clubs,season tickets, company cars, access to suites at sports venues, all that perk crap you see.
However, the one thing I have never seen is a contractually obligated bonus. These three words have never been used consecutively until now. It doesn’t exist – oh but at AIG it does. Shame on the individuals that took taxpayer money and paid these bonuses. Shame on AIG. The people that received the bonus are not the bad guys – although they will get their judgement when seeking their next gig.
I think we all need to agree with Leno – “AIG stands for Adventures in Greed.” Well said, Jay. Hey, AIG employees get your resumes ready and be sure to return your contractually obligated bonus so you can say you did, when you are seeking your next gig. That will set you apart and salvage your future career because you will not retire from AIG. Too big to fail – hilarious. Too stupid to succeed – i think that’s right. I think I read somewhere it is pride that comes before destruction.
You have never received a contractually obligated bonus but you are paying them. How about paying attention?
When I wrote this entry – the word retention was never used in the press to descibe these bonuses. Retention bonuses are certainly effective tools to keep people around. I am not pointing the finger at the recipient of the bonus – the principle is that the notion of bonuses being paid from taxpayer money is what disgusts me. It would seem to me something should have been altered in an agreement once the bailout occured. I thought this deserved clarification.