"Merrill Lynch & Co Chief Executive John Thain has suggested to directors that he get a 2008 bonus of as much as $10 million"
I responded in my away message with the quote and "its kinda sad that this isnt the craziest thing Ive heard about this whole economic crisis."
But is it really that crazy. Thain's own justification was that he helped to orchestrate the buyout of merrill lynch by BOA, and that this buyout created the differnce between the company going under and the company staying alive in some form.
Now, that means his decisions were probably worth more than ten million dollars, but to be honest the situation was at least partially his own fault, so, directing people to rowboats and to get life vests on a sinking ship shouldnt really warrant a bonus if you were the guy crashing the ship. (although I guess it would be worse if you didnt and just let everybody die)
But this brought attention to the fact that people in my own company were talking about entitlement for their own bonuses and other pleasantries afforded by my working condition (flexible hours, free lunch on occasion and snacks in the kitchen with a small donation jar).
Now is where I am getting into the actual thinking that I am undergoing.
Should people be paid for the effect of their decisions? I am currently imagining a system where benefits of decision making processes on large scale are tracked and traced up and down trees to assign blame or reward. Thus if you were the HR director for marketing and one marketing division failed, but the majority of the people responsible for poor choices were appointed by your own decisions you would be to blame.
But, doesnt the CEO deserve some entitlement? There must be some level in the company or some distance from events that leaves somebody immune to its effects. Yet if the company goes under because of a few people's decisions everybody is negatively effected.
Also, who decides what the strength of all the connections are? If I am in HR and hire a super genius who doubles our profit in two days how much of that do I deserve? There needs to be distinction between what the person in the position did versus what somebody else would do, and how valuable their expertise in the situation was at the point in time.
Clearly the methods of compensation are gray at best. But asking for a 10 million dollar bonus from a company that just sank and was only righted because it was worth so little to the open market that competition swooped in to buy up the rest at wholesale seems a bit ridiculous.
After finishing school I felt entitled to a job that paid what I thought was industry average. And to be fair, it seems about right. But I dont think my salary should have been set until some level of productivity had been determined about how much money I should be making based on how much money I was making my company.
