I believe that GS was one of the financial companies that did not want/need the bailout and had it forced upon them. If they didn't need/want it but had to take it anyway, why would we expect them to act as if they were bailed out?
With that being said:
GS bonuses are historically extremely large though. Average (across the whole employee base, for the last few years) has been usually north of 50% of your salary.
Non-financial industry people don't really get it, but when you get bonuses like that year after year, and they are large industry-wide (for the most part they have been), you come to expect them. They actually become part of the "normal" pay for the job. People start negotiating pre-defined bonuses based on ability and performance metrics (just like you would do with salary/raises).
In finance, if you did a good job and got a crappy bonus, often times you can easily find another job across the street, doing the exact same thing you are good at, and negotiate a higher base salary and a higher bonus. Obviously this year is very different than normal, but companies still feel the need to give bonuses to their good employees (the ones in profitable departments, not responsible for the meltdown), in order to prevent said "good" employees from leaving and becoming their competiton.
In the finance industry, your products are only as good as the people you have running them, so there is a massive emphasis placed on retaining good people. The surest way to retain people is to fatten up their wallet.
You might think that this situation is immoral or that these employees are not loyal or whatever, and that's fine, that's your perogative. However this is real life, not a morality play, and its just the way it is. People are selfish and usually do what's right for themselves. And in the financial heart of Corporate America, it's all about the money.
Facebook
Twitter