The lack of accountability in the AIG fiasco is stunning.
Imagine giving out billions in tax dollars and not having any strings attached?
Imagine giving bonuses to people who crashed the system in the first place?
Thats rewarding failure.
Ordinary workers such as autoworkers are required to open their contracts and make concessions for the failure of their corporate masters, yes, yes........the very ones who arrived at the halls of Congress in private jets to beg for a handout, but no-one asks those very same masters to take cuts in pay much less to give up their bonuses.
For autoworkers its quite acceptable to abrogate their contracts, but its absolutely not acceptable to cancel the contracts of people who made disastrous decisions that led to a disastrous loss of market share.
Its absolutely unacceptable to even consider cancelling the contracts of people who made decisions that led to a disastrous global economic meltdown.
There is something very wrong with this set of values if one can call it values.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Tainted Regulatory Boards
Yet another scandal involving a financial institution. Yet more questions about what the regulatory body was doing, who they were governing or not.
The elephant in the room, the problem no-one is willing to talk about is the fact that these regulatory bodies have been tainted by cronyism, political appointees and yes-men, who owe their allegiance to themselves first and foremost and the ones who appointed them and not to investors, certainly not to ordinary citizens.
Indeed it can be fairly argued that the worlds financial crisis in which millions of ordinary people have lost everything is directly tied to the lack of proper oversight these regulatory bodies were supposed to have provided.
In institutions big and small this cancer has been spread. Yes-men cover-up malfeasance and indeed outright crimes, because they are more concerned with protecting their own un-earned privileges, than in enforcing the laws.
This cancer is rife throughout the body politic, indeed has spread to the most unlikely of institutions.
The abuse of trust has ranged from the $50 billions in the Bernie Madoff case, to a million dollar over-run in a small outfit. In both cases innocent investors/taxpayers were defrauded.
It is high time that these people be removed from their cushy positions, held accountable for their lack of oversight and removed from whatever office they hold.
The elephant in the room, the problem no-one is willing to talk about is the fact that these regulatory bodies have been tainted by cronyism, political appointees and yes-men, who owe their allegiance to themselves first and foremost and the ones who appointed them and not to investors, certainly not to ordinary citizens.
Indeed it can be fairly argued that the worlds financial crisis in which millions of ordinary people have lost everything is directly tied to the lack of proper oversight these regulatory bodies were supposed to have provided.
In institutions big and small this cancer has been spread. Yes-men cover-up malfeasance and indeed outright crimes, because they are more concerned with protecting their own un-earned privileges, than in enforcing the laws.
This cancer is rife throughout the body politic, indeed has spread to the most unlikely of institutions.
The abuse of trust has ranged from the $50 billions in the Bernie Madoff case, to a million dollar over-run in a small outfit. In both cases innocent investors/taxpayers were defrauded.
It is high time that these people be removed from their cushy positions, held accountable for their lack of oversight and removed from whatever office they hold.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Top Wall Street bankers to receive $70bn pay deals
The Guardian October 17 2008
Top Wall Street bankers to receive $70bn pay deals
Simon Bowers
Financial workers at Wall Street's top banks are to receive pay deals worth more than $70bn (£40.4bn), a substantial proportion of which is expected to be paid in bonuses, for their work so far this year - despite plunging the global financial system into its worst crisis since the 1929 stock market crash, the Guardian has learned.
Staff at six banks including Goldman Sachs and Citigroup will pick up the payouts despite being the beneficiaries of a $700bn bail-out from the US government that has already prompted widespread criticism. The government cash has been poured in on the condition that excessive executive pay will be curbed.
Pay plans for bankers have been disclosed in recent corporate statements. Pressure on the US firms to review preparations for annual bonuses increased today when Germany's Deutsche Bank said many of its leading traders would join chief executive Josef Ackermann in waiving millions of euro in annual payouts.
The sums that continue to be spent by Wall Street firms on payroll, payoffs and - most controversially - bonuses appear to bear no relation to the heavy losses incurred by investors in the banks. Shares in Citigroup and Goldman Sachs have declined by more than 45% since the start of the year; Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley have fallen by more than 60%. JP MorganChase fell 6.4% and Lehman Brothers has collapsed.
At one point last week Morgan Stanley's $10.7bn pay pot for the year to date was greater than the entire stock market value of the business. In effect, staff, on receiving their remuneration, could club together and buy the bank.
In the first nine months of the year Citigroup, which employs thousands of staff in the UK, accrued $25.9bn for salaries and bonuses, an increase on the previous year of 4%. Earlier this week the bank accepted a $25bn investment by the US government as part of its bail-out plan.
At Goldman Sachs the figure was $11.4bn, Morgan Stanley $10.73bn, JP MorganChase $6.53bn and Merrill Lynch $11.7bn. At Merrill, which was on the point of going bust last month before being taken over by Bank of America, the amount accrued in the last quarter grew 76% to $3.49bn. At Morgan Stanley, the amount put aside for staff compensation also grew in the last quarter to the end of September by 3% to $3.7bn.
Days before it collapsed into bankruptcy protection a month ago Lehman Brothers revealed $6.12bn of staff pay plans in its corporate filings. These payouts, the bank insisted, were justified despite net revenue collapsing from $14.9bn to a net outgoing of $64m. None of the banks the Guardian contacted wished to comment on the record about their pay plans.
Behind the scenes, one source said: "For a normal person the salaries are very high and the bonuses seem even higher. But in this world you get a top bonus for top performance, a medium bonus for mediocre performance and a much smaller bonus if you don't do so well."
Many critics of the investment banking model have questioned why firms continues to siphon off billions of dollars of bank earnings into annual bonus pools rather than using the funds to shore up the capital position of the crisis-stricken institutions. One banking source said: "That's a fair enough question - and it may well be that by the end of the year the banks start [to] review the situation."
Much of the anger about investment banking bonuses has focused on boardroom executives such as former Lehman boss Dick Fuld, who was paid $485m in salary, bonuses and options between 2000 and 2007. Last year Merrill Lynch chairman Stan O'Neal retired after announcing losses of $8bn, taking a final pay deal worth $161m. Citigroup boss Chuck Prince left last year with a $38m in bonuses, shares and options after multibillion-dollar write-downs.
In Britain, Bob Diamond, Barclays president, is one of the few investment bankers whose pay is made public. Last year he received a salary of £250,000, but his total pay, including bonuses, reached £36m.
One London-based banking source, who worked for a US bank, said many in the City were expecting star traders to see little reduction in their bonuses.
"The real 'rain-makers' will not notice an impact. It will be the more middle-ranking people who will be really hit."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/17/executivesalaries-banking
Top Wall Street bankers to receive $70bn pay deals
Simon Bowers
Financial workers at Wall Street's top banks are to receive pay deals worth more than $70bn (£40.4bn), a substantial proportion of which is expected to be paid in bonuses, for their work so far this year - despite plunging the global financial system into its worst crisis since the 1929 stock market crash, the Guardian has learned.
Staff at six banks including Goldman Sachs and Citigroup will pick up the payouts despite being the beneficiaries of a $700bn bail-out from the US government that has already prompted widespread criticism. The government cash has been poured in on the condition that excessive executive pay will be curbed.
Pay plans for bankers have been disclosed in recent corporate statements. Pressure on the US firms to review preparations for annual bonuses increased today when Germany's Deutsche Bank said many of its leading traders would join chief executive Josef Ackermann in waiving millions of euro in annual payouts.
The sums that continue to be spent by Wall Street firms on payroll, payoffs and - most controversially - bonuses appear to bear no relation to the heavy losses incurred by investors in the banks. Shares in Citigroup and Goldman Sachs have declined by more than 45% since the start of the year; Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley have fallen by more than 60%. JP MorganChase fell 6.4% and Lehman Brothers has collapsed.
At one point last week Morgan Stanley's $10.7bn pay pot for the year to date was greater than the entire stock market value of the business. In effect, staff, on receiving their remuneration, could club together and buy the bank.
In the first nine months of the year Citigroup, which employs thousands of staff in the UK, accrued $25.9bn for salaries and bonuses, an increase on the previous year of 4%. Earlier this week the bank accepted a $25bn investment by the US government as part of its bail-out plan.
At Goldman Sachs the figure was $11.4bn, Morgan Stanley $10.73bn, JP MorganChase $6.53bn and Merrill Lynch $11.7bn. At Merrill, which was on the point of going bust last month before being taken over by Bank of America, the amount accrued in the last quarter grew 76% to $3.49bn. At Morgan Stanley, the amount put aside for staff compensation also grew in the last quarter to the end of September by 3% to $3.7bn.
Days before it collapsed into bankruptcy protection a month ago Lehman Brothers revealed $6.12bn of staff pay plans in its corporate filings. These payouts, the bank insisted, were justified despite net revenue collapsing from $14.9bn to a net outgoing of $64m. None of the banks the Guardian contacted wished to comment on the record about their pay plans.
Behind the scenes, one source said: "For a normal person the salaries are very high and the bonuses seem even higher. But in this world you get a top bonus for top performance, a medium bonus for mediocre performance and a much smaller bonus if you don't do so well."
Many critics of the investment banking model have questioned why firms continues to siphon off billions of dollars of bank earnings into annual bonus pools rather than using the funds to shore up the capital position of the crisis-stricken institutions. One banking source said: "That's a fair enough question - and it may well be that by the end of the year the banks start [to] review the situation."
Much of the anger about investment banking bonuses has focused on boardroom executives such as former Lehman boss Dick Fuld, who was paid $485m in salary, bonuses and options between 2000 and 2007. Last year Merrill Lynch chairman Stan O'Neal retired after announcing losses of $8bn, taking a final pay deal worth $161m. Citigroup boss Chuck Prince left last year with a $38m in bonuses, shares and options after multibillion-dollar write-downs.
In Britain, Bob Diamond, Barclays president, is one of the few investment bankers whose pay is made public. Last year he received a salary of £250,000, but his total pay, including bonuses, reached £36m.
One London-based banking source, who worked for a US bank, said many in the City were expecting star traders to see little reduction in their bonuses.
"The real 'rain-makers' will not notice an impact. It will be the more middle-ranking people who will be really hit."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/17/executivesalaries-banking
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Happy New Year
HAPPY NEW YEAR...Everyone.
The "Accountability" tidal wave is rolling along quite merrily with new developments being reported globally.
In my own backyard members are openly questioning past decisions and the merits or lack thereof that they were/are based on.
We believe that Premium Dues should equal Premium service.
The membership wants the leadership to answer these questions;
Why a position was left vacant for two or more months, at the very time that the company was demanding clawbacks?
Why was an in-house job out-sourced?
Why is this position a "Monopoly"?
Is a monopoly the best way to assist employees?
Why has this position been reviewed-But never the individuals performance or history? Why? Why is it a Monopoly?
The "Accountability" tidal wave is rolling along quite merrily with new developments being reported globally.
In my own backyard members are openly questioning past decisions and the merits or lack thereof that they were/are based on.
We believe that Premium Dues should equal Premium service.
The membership wants the leadership to answer these questions;
Why a position was left vacant for two or more months, at the very time that the company was demanding clawbacks?
Why was an in-house job out-sourced?
Why is this position a "Monopoly"?
Is a monopoly the best way to assist employees?
Why has this position been reviewed-But never the individuals performance or history? Why? Why is it a Monopoly?
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
The tide is getting stronger
The Warmonger's Brigade
22 Dec 2006
by Michael Gaddy
It appears the Bush administration has a real problem on its hands – the war effort is not going well at all and the military is on the verge of "breaking." I do believe I have a plan, which if implemented right away could provide the needed relief Bush is desperately searching for. Desperate times call for desperate measures. If this country is indeed in danger of having to fight the enemy on our soil, it is time to pull out all stops. If the Bush administration is serious about "protecting our freedom" and this is not a war started on lies to increase the bottom line of companies from the Military Industrial Complex, it is time to deploy the Warmonger’s Brigade.
http://www.freedomunderground.org/view.php?v=3&t=3&l=2&aid=23108
22 Dec 2006
by Michael Gaddy
It appears the Bush administration has a real problem on its hands – the war effort is not going well at all and the military is on the verge of "breaking." I do believe I have a plan, which if implemented right away could provide the needed relief Bush is desperately searching for. Desperate times call for desperate measures. If this country is indeed in danger of having to fight the enemy on our soil, it is time to pull out all stops. If the Bush administration is serious about "protecting our freedom" and this is not a war started on lies to increase the bottom line of companies from the Military Industrial Complex, it is time to deploy the Warmonger’s Brigade.
http://www.freedomunderground.org/view.php?v=3&t=3&l=2&aid=23108
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Tide of accountability
There is a surging in the oncoming tide of accountability.
Publics, hypersensitive after revelations that some of the worlds most influential governments lied their people and the rest of the world into an illegal invasion of Iraq, are now flailing about their own communities looking to see if they have been similarly hoodwinked.
Here in Canada, our Conservative government got elected at least partially on a platform of accountability. They even have an Accountability Act.
The Commisisoner of the R.C.M.P. Canadas well known and widely respected federal police force, has resigned from his post on an issue of accountability.
A community organization, MADD, or Mothers Against Drunk Driving, a well respected organization that warns against the proven dangers of drunk driving is going through demands for accountability at the moment.
It involves how money is spent within that organization. Volunteers are asking revealing questions. They want an outside firm to probe the books, but the executive/management says their own internal process is enough.
In Nixonian terms managements response could be called stonewalling.
This demand for accountability is worldwide, far reaching, ever expanding.
In India, the judiciary is holding politicians to account, leading to charges that they are being over-activist. And so the demands for accountability continues to grow and reach all sectors of society.
This is good for democracy.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HL14Df01.html
Publics, hypersensitive after revelations that some of the worlds most influential governments lied their people and the rest of the world into an illegal invasion of Iraq, are now flailing about their own communities looking to see if they have been similarly hoodwinked.
Here in Canada, our Conservative government got elected at least partially on a platform of accountability. They even have an Accountability Act.
The Commisisoner of the R.C.M.P. Canadas well known and widely respected federal police force, has resigned from his post on an issue of accountability.
A community organization, MADD, or Mothers Against Drunk Driving, a well respected organization that warns against the proven dangers of drunk driving is going through demands for accountability at the moment.
It involves how money is spent within that organization. Volunteers are asking revealing questions. They want an outside firm to probe the books, but the executive/management says their own internal process is enough.
In Nixonian terms managements response could be called stonewalling.
This demand for accountability is worldwide, far reaching, ever expanding.
In India, the judiciary is holding politicians to account, leading to charges that they are being over-activist. And so the demands for accountability continues to grow and reach all sectors of society.
This is good for democracy.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HL14Df01.html
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Term Limits
When one has been in office for a long, long time, one gets to form close friendships.
Its simply a human trait. You excuse each others foibles, cover up each others faults
and tend to treat outsiders, even constituents as the enemy. Its commonly seen even inter-departmentally, in the same organization.
Sometimes but rarely an us-versus-them attitude develops, prevails and is carried on generationally, by successive new leaders.
Hence the tragedy of bright young leadership
becoming tarnished by defending outdated ideas.
I have long advocated a proper system, indeed culture/practice of training and equipping alternate office-holders for the job they may have to step into in case of emergency.
Indeed I practiced it on committees I chaired. I always had two or three people trained and ready to go if I got hit by a bus on my way home.
My practice of having trained alternates and my preaching of it, did not make me many friends, especially among those who believed such behaviour was arrant nonsense.
For years I have been advising the President of our Local and the various chairpeople of my unit to appoint an alternate to one of our reps. who provided a critical service. Its a tough job, a heavy load for one person to be carrying.
My reasoning for this was that if anything happened to this rep, all the valuable knowledge gained through these last 16 plus years would be lost.
This is needed knowledge that belongs to the collective that created the position.
The leadership of our local has always claimed personality differences as an early excuse to duck making a decision or the fact that they were happy with things as they were and no change to the status-quo was going to be considered.
On Dec./19th/2005 I had a meeting with the Chair again and mentioned that given the tone of the previous Sundays meeting, a decision had to be made regarding alternates. He agreed, that Monday morning.
In July I had conversations with the Big 2 individually and indicated my interest in chairing a local standing committee.
Once again I was told that the original reasons stand. Folks are just happy, happy, happy with current arrangements.
Well.........an emergency has occurred and a program that is contractually guaranteed has come to a crashing halt.....unfortunately....just as I had predicted.
The position has remained vacant for going on 3 weeks now, because everyone was caught unaware as is usually the case with emergencies.
People, insanely busy themselves, are being called in to help in case they are needed.
This takes away from their current responsibilities and has a ripple effect through the organization.
This at a time when the corporation is looking for jobs to eliminate.
As for the people who need help....well... ??...!!
The usual complaints against unions take the form of"Failure to represent"
Our Local seems to be coming up with new and innovative ways to misrepresent the membership.
In the case of this service they have created ........."The Refusal to Represent".
If left unchecked and unchallenged, loyalty to pals override duty to the membership.
This also, rarely but sometimes happens and serves as the very justification for term limits.
Term limits in these cases tend to liberate an organization, bring new ideas to the fore and free the membership from decisions made a long long time ago.
Last December we had a raucous and rowdy Union meeting that served as further justification for term limits. In fact that where the idea of Term Limits first became an option in my thinking about my Local.
Once again it pitted ol' pals sticking together to oust a young new leader-But the membership spoke loudly that day and our new young leaders job was saved.
The current leadership group should face reality that its no longer business as usual. The membership has spoken loud and clear.
In our Local the time for Term Limits has come.
Its simply a human trait. You excuse each others foibles, cover up each others faults
and tend to treat outsiders, even constituents as the enemy. Its commonly seen even inter-departmentally, in the same organization.
Sometimes but rarely an us-versus-them attitude develops, prevails and is carried on generationally, by successive new leaders.
Hence the tragedy of bright young leadership
becoming tarnished by defending outdated ideas.
I have long advocated a proper system, indeed culture/practice of training and equipping alternate office-holders for the job they may have to step into in case of emergency.
Indeed I practiced it on committees I chaired. I always had two or three people trained and ready to go if I got hit by a bus on my way home.
My practice of having trained alternates and my preaching of it, did not make me many friends, especially among those who believed such behaviour was arrant nonsense.
For years I have been advising the President of our Local and the various chairpeople of my unit to appoint an alternate to one of our reps. who provided a critical service. Its a tough job, a heavy load for one person to be carrying.
My reasoning for this was that if anything happened to this rep, all the valuable knowledge gained through these last 16 plus years would be lost.
This is needed knowledge that belongs to the collective that created the position.
The leadership of our local has always claimed personality differences as an early excuse to duck making a decision or the fact that they were happy with things as they were and no change to the status-quo was going to be considered.
On Dec./19th/2005 I had a meeting with the Chair again and mentioned that given the tone of the previous Sundays meeting, a decision had to be made regarding alternates. He agreed, that Monday morning.
In July I had conversations with the Big 2 individually and indicated my interest in chairing a local standing committee.
Once again I was told that the original reasons stand. Folks are just happy, happy, happy with current arrangements.
Well.........an emergency has occurred and a program that is contractually guaranteed has come to a crashing halt.....unfortunately....just as I had predicted.
The position has remained vacant for going on 3 weeks now, because everyone was caught unaware as is usually the case with emergencies.
People, insanely busy themselves, are being called in to help in case they are needed.
This takes away from their current responsibilities and has a ripple effect through the organization.
This at a time when the corporation is looking for jobs to eliminate.
As for the people who need help....well... ??...!!
The usual complaints against unions take the form of"Failure to represent"
Our Local seems to be coming up with new and innovative ways to misrepresent the membership.
In the case of this service they have created ........."The Refusal to Represent".
If left unchecked and unchallenged, loyalty to pals override duty to the membership.
This also, rarely but sometimes happens and serves as the very justification for term limits.
Term limits in these cases tend to liberate an organization, bring new ideas to the fore and free the membership from decisions made a long long time ago.
Last December we had a raucous and rowdy Union meeting that served as further justification for term limits. In fact that where the idea of Term Limits first became an option in my thinking about my Local.
Once again it pitted ol' pals sticking together to oust a young new leader-But the membership spoke loudly that day and our new young leaders job was saved.
The current leadership group should face reality that its no longer business as usual. The membership has spoken loud and clear.
In our Local the time for Term Limits has come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)