Originally Posted by
402Fanatic
I realize I could get flamed here for saying this and want to point out that I am no defendant of ridiculous bonuses...but isn't that argument exactly what everyone on here hates about the pilot group? Blasting the guy that is willing to work for less and lowers the bar for the rest? We all hate the guy who goes non-union and will work for table scraps so it just seems to me that this statement is a little hypocritical in a sense.
The problem most of us have with the recently publicized bonuses is that the executives didn't deserve them based on their performance. That's what Pilotfrog was referring to I'll bet. I have no problem whatsoever giving a bonus to a talented manager with a profitable track record. Bonuses for the talented ensure that you keep the talented. Bonuses for executives regardless of performance is the rub. If your company has poor executive talent, you're better off paying less for a new kid right out of MBA school. He/she couldn't do much worse - as witnessed by AIG, GM, Chrysler, Bear Stearns, etc....
Carl