On Mar 19, 2009, at 8:30 AM, Stephen Russell wrote:
> A bonus is just that, extra personal revenue for doing good work.
> They failed miserably in the good work department. That failure
> nullifies it IMHO.
If you take the time to read the actual contract, there were both
performance-based bonuses and retention-based bonuses. Not a penny was
paid out on the performance side of things, for obvious reasons. The
retention bonus required that the person stay employed through a given
date in order to qualify; nothing more.
While I agree that taking millions for merely showing up for work is
repulsive when your company is sucking the Treasury dry and millions
are suffering because of your actions, it isn't helpful to wrongly
claim that these bonuses had anything to do with performance.
-- Ed Leafe
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message:
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
