5 ms·

>The company’s proposal will reportedly offer bonuses to 19 executives amounting to up to $8.4 million over the next six months if the company is successful in

>The company’s proposal will reportedly offer bonuses to 19 executives amounting to up to $8.4 million over the next six months if the company is successful in hitting certain financial goals. The employees would also be eligible for more money in bonuses if the retailer is in a position to hit those financial targets when sold, an attorney for the company reportedly said at the hearing. It appears that the bonuses are contingent on the company hitting financial goals. This is a normal practice of a company in bankruptcy trying to retain talent during a wind-down or rebuild.

lostlogin 8y ago
The current talent hasn’t done all that well though. Maybe some turn over is needed?
- fullshark 8y ago
  Starting with the owner
  - travisoneill1 8y ago
    The bankruptcy process is literally that.
- i_am_proteus 8y ago
  Maybe! Bear in mind that this is a rather swift process. Finding people who are both capable of and willing to take on this sort of project is not easy. Even if they could be found, they are not likely to have deep knowledge of the internal structure of the company, which is (ironically) critical given that the company is restructuring. So, perverse as it seems, existing talent with explicitly-performance-linked compensation is often the least worst choice during a wind-down. It's bankruptcy. It's a failing company. It's ugly. Theoretically these folks are making a lot less than they would have had the company not failed.
  - scoggs 8y ago
    I guess then the simplest way to look at the people retained is that they most likely weren't instrumental to the company's downfall and their experience / knowledge / familiarity with said company is absolutely more valuable than their participation in the company's downfall is threatening to future prospects?
  - madrox 8y ago
    It's disappointing how often the knee-jerk "why are they getting paid millions to fail" implication comes around given this is exactly why things happen the way they do. It weaponizes people's desire for fairness.
    - lovich 8y ago
      If everyone was still getting paid it wouldn't be as big a deal. What's happening is that now in the bankruptcy that was either caused or not prevented by this same leadership, they have decided that paying out to employees as per their agreements is something to be axed but they have to keep paying the executives. They cause the problem and then make others deal with the fallout. Being angry at this isn't weaponizing people's desire for fairness. It's the same as if someone had a factory generating industrial waste that they piped on to your land. They are keeping the profit, and making others pay for it
paulddraper 8y ago
> It appears that the bonuses are contingent on the company hitting financial goals. Naturally. That's normal everywhere. The question is how can the financial goal rewardable with 10 (EDIT: 8) digits be bankruptcy?
- lokidokiro 8y ago
  10 digits? You need to go back to kindergarten and relearn counting.
- ryanwaggoner 8y ago
  Eight digits, as you usually don’t count the cents :)
Upvoter33 8y ago
I love the line "This is a normal practice". Perhaps what is being called into question here is the acceptance of these normal practices...?
- diminoten 8y ago
  Why is there anything wrong with this? The value of these people, to this company, is very high. People complain all the time about not being compensated relative to their value to the company, but when people are compensated relative to their value, people still complain. There's no win.
  - jjeaff 8y ago
    Everyone thinks everyone should be compensated according to their value... Unless someone else's value is way more than their own.
    - nitrogen 8y ago
      Fair compensation also requires fair opportunity to increase one's own value. For most of us, there is no path that leads from "valuable employee" to "indispensable executive", which is where I think some frustration is justified.
      - 83457 8y ago
        Using the word "opportunity" is debatable here. Only so many people can be executives. Just because most don't have the abilities to be an executive doesn't mean they don't have the same oppurtunity.
        manicdee 8y ago
        Most executives don’t have the abilities to be an employee. The main limit to executive entry is having access to an executive vacancy. The short version is that if you are an honest hard working employee that access will never be available to you.
manicdee 8y ago
So if I am an executive looking for a big bonus, just let the company run down to the brink of bankruptcy then accept a performance bonus when I miraculously save it?

lostlogin 8y ago

The current talent hasn’t done all that well though. Maybe some turn over is needed?

fullshark 8y ago
Starting with the owner
- travisoneill1 8y ago
  The bankruptcy process is literally that.
i_am_proteus 8y ago
Maybe! Bear in mind that this is a rather swift process. Finding people who are both capable of and willing to take on this sort of project is not easy. Even if they could be found, they are not likely to have deep knowledge of the internal structure of the company, which is (ironically) critical given that the company is restructuring. So, perverse as it seems, existing talent with explicitly-performance-linked compensation is often the least worst choice during a wind-down. It's bankruptcy. It's a failing company. It's ugly. Theoretically these folks are making a lot less than they would have had the company not failed.
- scoggs 8y ago
  I guess then the simplest way to look at the people retained is that they most likely weren't instrumental to the company's downfall and their experience / knowledge / familiarity with said company is absolutely more valuable than their participation in the company's downfall is threatening to future prospects?
- madrox 8y ago
  It's disappointing how often the knee-jerk "why are they getting paid millions to fail" implication comes around given this is exactly why things happen the way they do. It weaponizes people's desire for fairness.
  - lovich 8y ago
    If everyone was still getting paid it wouldn't be as big a deal. What's happening is that now in the bankruptcy that was either caused or not prevented by this same leadership, they have decided that paying out to employees as per their agreements is something to be axed but they have to keep paying the executives. They cause the problem and then make others deal with the fallout. Being angry at this isn't weaponizing people's desire for fairness. It's the same as if someone had a factory generating industrial waste that they piped on to your land. They are keeping the profit, and making others pay for it

paulddraper 8y ago

> It appears that the bonuses are contingent on the company hitting financial goals. Naturally. That's normal everywhere. The question is how can the financial goal rewardable with 10 (EDIT: 8) digits be bankruptcy?

lokidokiro 8y ago
10 digits? You need to go back to kindergarten and relearn counting.
ryanwaggoner 8y ago
Eight digits, as you usually don’t count the cents :)

Upvoter33 8y ago

I love the line "This is a normal practice". Perhaps what is being called into question here is the acceptance of these normal practices...?

diminoten 8y ago
Why is there anything wrong with this? The value of these people, to this company, is very high. People complain all the time about not being compensated relative to their value to the company, but when people are compensated relative to their value, people still complain. There's no win.
- jjeaff 8y ago
  Everyone thinks everyone should be compensated according to their value... Unless someone else's value is way more than their own.
  - nitrogen 8y ago
    Fair compensation also requires fair opportunity to increase one's own value. For most of us, there is no path that leads from "valuable employee" to "indispensable executive", which is where I think some frustration is justified.
    - 83457 8y ago
      Using the word "opportunity" is debatable here. Only so many people can be executives. Just because most don't have the abilities to be an executive doesn't mean they don't have the same oppurtunity.
      - manicdee 8y ago
        Most executives don’t have the abilities to be an employee. The main limit to executive entry is having access to an executive vacancy. The short version is that if you are an honest hard working employee that access will never be available to you.

manicdee 8y ago

So if I am an executive looking for a big bonus, just let the company run down to the brink of bankruptcy then accept a performance bonus when I miraculously save it?