NP Rank:
‘Obama’s Outrage’ Aimed at Punishing Achievers
Representative of the mainstream media, the front page of today's Chicago Sun-Times features a photo of an angry-looking President Barack Obama above the all-caps headline, OBAMA'S OUTRAGE. The headline, in turn, leads to a Lynn Sweet article about Obama's "somewhat tardy" outrage over AIG paying $165 million in bonuses to some of its employees.
If you've never worked in sales, you might not understand where I'm going with this piece. If you have, you'll understand why I contend that AIG should not hesitate to pay $165 million in bonuses to its employees who earned the money.
I worked as a commissioned sales consultant for four years. My job involved working with prospects to understand what their short- and long-term needs were and then crafting solutions to fit those needs. If I did my job well, those prospects found my proposals worthy and purchased the goods and services my company had to offer. But the job wasn't finished yet.
After completing the sale, I had to deliver on my promises. Depending upon the customer's needs, that might include shipping equipment, installing equipment and providing training and support after the sale. And did I mention that all of the post-sale deliveries had to be made in a timely fashion? They did.
What did I get in exchange for my efforts? A commission check equivalent to a percentage of the profit I netted for my employer. The more profit I generated, the more money I earned and the more people my employer was able to employ.
How would I have reacted if, for some reason, my employer had reneged on compensating me per the terms of my employment contract? I would have filed a lawsuit, plain and simple, for breach of contract.
Now, let's apply the same basic principles to AIG.
Had the top performers at AIG not met their goals and, in turn, not qualified for their bonuses, the company would have been in even worse shape when it appeared on the nation's economic radar screen. In fact, "worse shape" might have resulted in AIG requiring billions more in bailouts. And no one wants that!




Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (1)
at 08:02 on March 17th, 2009
There is also the issue of the fact that the bonuses are based on legal contracts which the government can't legally alter (as far as I understand). You write "$165 million in bonuses to some of its employees" do you have any insight as to which employees are getting the bonuses? Your argument may hold true for some commissioned sales staff, but probably not for those executives who's job it was to be custodians of the company's overall wealth... as they failed miserably and should possibly be held accountable, don't you think?
at 06:32 on March 18th, 2009
Outrage my butt. Chris Dodd was the number one recipient of campaign funds from AIG at 100,000 and guess who was second? No other than Barrack Obama. Geithner knew of the bonuses on Thursday but did not convey them at his Senate hearing. Makes one wonder when he told the President.