7 ms·

The issue is (only slightly) more nuanced: while the executives collected bonuses, they did go for a few months without pay and their overall bonus' for 2020 we

by jlos 5y ago

The issue is (only slightly) more nuanced: while the executives collected bonuses, they did go for a few months without pay and their overall bonus' for 2020 were lower than in previous years. It does reveals the reality of our managerial class--in a sort of distributed, quasi-feudalism they are entitled (legally and practically) to extract massive amounts of wealth from large corporate entities regardless of any negative impact on the company. - Running the business into the ground (Target Canada) - Running the business into the ground while underfunding the company pension (Sears) - Lobbying for billions of dollars of tax dollars while cutting thousands of jobs (Bombardier, Air Canada)

NicoJuicy 5y ago
They promised to protect jobs and no bonuses in return for state aid. That's exactly what they didn't do. They laid off 5000 people and got bonuses.
- lrem 5y ago
  But giving the money back now would bankrupt the company, which no government would do. And since the people involved are powerful donors, no politician will even mention holding the people responsible.
  - NicoJuicy 5y ago
    If a company has almost has no employees, then why help with state aid?
    - lrem 5y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_carrier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_carrier Air Canada/France/whatever is not just a company. It's an important aspect of globalisation and the country whose flag it carries treats it as such. Transformation into a formal corporation is usually a ploy to make it cost effective. And, in many countries, is only partial, often resulting in the worst of both worlds.
charwalker 5y ago
If a company receives federal aid, or their employees receive federal aid due to low pay ex Walmart in the US, they should have to cap payouts. Maybe based on a ratio to the lowest paid employee or federal minimum wage. Make execs lobby to raise the minimum wage so they can increase their bonus or something.
- NicoJuicy 5y ago
  In the netherlands, it was mentioned for "no bonuses" as part of the agreement/state aid.
  - teachingassist 5y ago
    I believe the article clarifies this - the "no bonuses" rule didn't exist when Booking.com claimed this aid. The rule existed for the second tranche of aid, which Booking didn't claim.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      The fact that that even needed to be specified was pretty bad, the money was clearly earmarked for companies to spend on their regular employees to avoid lay-offs. Booking paying it out to their execs was absolutely mis-appropriation in every sense of the word, and only absolutely massive backlash here and significant talk of boycotts, including on national TV, is what turned them around on this.
      - teachingassist 5y ago
        No doubt; Nonetheless, this is business as usual. Booking.com are masters of tax avoidance and I'd guess all of their usual bonuses are essentially covered by Dutch state aid in the form of reduced taxes.
    - NicoJuicy 5y ago
      They were misleading the government. > Het niet uitkeren van bonussen was overigens door het ministerie van Financiën niet als harde eis vastgelegd in de voorwaarden voor de NOW-regeling waar Booking gebruik van maakte. Hoekstra had simpelweg de Kamer laten weten dat het “niet de tijd voor het toekennen en uitkeren van bonussen” is. Wel een harde eis was dat ontvangers van de staatssteun ten minste drie maanden lang niemand mochten ontslaan. Booking hield zich hier exact drie maanden aan, direct erop volgde een reorganisatie waarbij bijna 26.000 mensen hun baan verloren. Dit betrof ook zo’n duizend mensen op het kantoor in Amsterdam, de meesten van hen maakten gebruik van een vrijwillige vertrekregeling.
davedx 5y ago
Don’t forget Nissan’s Ghosn! https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/19/business/carlos-ghosn-nissan-renault/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/19/business/carlos-ghosn-nissan-...
- totalZero 5y ago
  That guy is brilliant and probably the best thing to have ever happened to Nissan and Renault. The airline execs, on the other hand, ran a glorified bus service in a year where business was so bad that the government had to give them more money than the IMF loans out to entire countries.

by jlos 5y ago

NicoJuicy 5y ago

They promised to protect jobs and no bonuses in return for state aid. That's exactly what they didn't do. They laid off 5000 people and got bonuses.

lrem 5y ago
But giving the money back now would bankrupt the company, which no government would do. And since the people involved are powerful donors, no politician will even mention holding the people responsible.
- NicoJuicy 5y ago
  If a company has almost has no employees, then why help with state aid?
  - lrem 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_carrier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_carrier Air Canada/France/whatever is not just a company. It's an important aspect of globalisation and the country whose flag it carries treats it as such. Transformation into a formal corporation is usually a ploy to make it cost effective. And, in many countries, is only partial, often resulting in the worst of both worlds.

charwalker 5y ago

If a company receives federal aid, or their employees receive federal aid due to low pay ex Walmart in the US, they should have to cap payouts. Maybe based on a ratio to the lowest paid employee or federal minimum wage. Make execs lobby to raise the minimum wage so they can increase their bonus or something.

NicoJuicy 5y ago
In the netherlands, it was mentioned for "no bonuses" as part of the agreement/state aid.
- teachingassist 5y ago
  I believe the article clarifies this - the "no bonuses" rule didn't exist when Booking.com claimed this aid. The rule existed for the second tranche of aid, which Booking didn't claim.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    The fact that that even needed to be specified was pretty bad, the money was clearly earmarked for companies to spend on their regular employees to avoid lay-offs. Booking paying it out to their execs was absolutely mis-appropriation in every sense of the word, and only absolutely massive backlash here and significant talk of boycotts, including on national TV, is what turned them around on this.
    - teachingassist 5y ago
      No doubt; Nonetheless, this is business as usual. Booking.com are masters of tax avoidance and I'd guess all of their usual bonuses are essentially covered by Dutch state aid in the form of reduced taxes.
  - NicoJuicy 5y ago
    They were misleading the government. > Het niet uitkeren van bonussen was overigens door het ministerie van Financiën niet als harde eis vastgelegd in de voorwaarden voor de NOW-regeling waar Booking gebruik van maakte. Hoekstra had simpelweg de Kamer laten weten dat het “niet de tijd voor het toekennen en uitkeren van bonussen” is. Wel een harde eis was dat ontvangers van de staatssteun ten minste drie maanden lang niemand mochten ontslaan. Booking hield zich hier exact drie maanden aan, direct erop volgde een reorganisatie waarbij bijna 26.000 mensen hun baan verloren. Dit betrof ook zo’n duizend mensen op het kantoor in Amsterdam, de meesten van hen maakten gebruik van een vrijwillige vertrekregeling.

davedx 5y ago

Don’t forget Nissan’s Ghosn! https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/19/business/carlos-ghosn-nissan-renault/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/19/business/carlos-ghosn-nissan-...

totalZero 5y ago
That guy is brilliant and probably the best thing to have ever happened to Nissan and Renault. The airline execs, on the other hand, ran a glorified bus service in a year where business was so bad that the government had to give them more money than the IMF loans out to entire countries.