• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

can obama plz stfu about wall st. salary/bonuses already?

at least let me get my share first.
😉

but seriously, i know for a fact that our top traders here will leave the company for another one that pays better in a heart beat.
you cannot expect to retain the good employees without compensating them accordingly.
 
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
at least let me get my share first.
😉

but seriously, i know for a fact that our top traders here will leave the company for another one that pays better in a heart beat.
you cannot expect to retain the good employees without compensating them accordingly.

So, you work for Citigroup?
 
if ur not the trader or SVP it's unlikely that your slice of that pie will be anything significant anyway.
 
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
at least let me get my share first.
😉

but seriously, i know for a fact that our top traders here will leave the company for another one that pays better in a heart beat.
you cannot expect to retain the good employees without compensating them accordingly.


quite right, which is why CEO's should forget their bonuses and pay their wage workers more. Companies are successful because of their actual workforce, not because of their management.
 
I do think that there may be some over the top bonuses which should not have been given out. However I would wager that many people are working under contracts which structure some bonus scale - meaning that many of those people *may* receive bonuses to fulfill the requirements of a legal contract. Which, I am fine with and understand.

That being said, if ones is contractually obligated to be paid some bonus then it may be more moral and ethical to refuse the bonus, accept it and trickle it down to the underlings, or do something else besides pocketing it.

The asshats that are using company monies to get a private jet and having crazy expensive holidays somewhere, though, should be canned for acting with such brazen stupidity in this market.
 
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
at least let me get my share first.
😉

but seriously, i know for a fact that our top traders here will leave the company for another one that pays better in a heart beat.
you cannot expect to retain the good employees without compensating them accordingly.

What I am wondering is when did the President get the power to decide how private companies pay their employees?
 
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
at least let me get my share first.
😉

but seriously, i know for a fact that our top traders here will leave the company for another one that pays better in a heart beat.
you cannot expect to retain the good employees without compensating them accordingly.

To expect bonuses when the entire economy is performing poorly is unrealistic. To expect bonuses when the taxpayers bailed out your poorly run businesses is absolutely ridiculous.

If you cannot be retained by your current employer without a bonus then leave. I don't give a fuck.
 
Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
at least let me get my share first.
😉

but seriously, i know for a fact that our top traders here will leave the company for another one that pays better in a heart beat.
you cannot expect to retain the good employees without compensating them accordingly.

What I am wondering is when did the President get the power to decide how private companies pay their employees?

apparently as soon as you receive a bailout.
 
Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
at least let me get my share first.
😉

but seriously, i know for a fact that our top traders here will leave the company for another one that pays better in a heart beat.
you cannot expect to retain the good employees without compensating them accordingly.

What I am wondering is when did the President get the power to decide how private companies pay their employees?

when those companies decide to beg the government for money.
 
I though when he get got into office that everything would magically be better. Worst president ever in the last 15 days.
 
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
at least let me get my share first.
😉

but seriously, i know for a fact that our top traders here will leave the company for another one that pays better in a heart beat.
you cannot expect to retain the good employees without compensating them accordingly.


news flash .. if you don't want to follow government rules, don't take government money. simple as that. your "good employees" must not be very good if the company requires billions of dollars to stay afloat. 😛

with that said, i agree that they all need to stfu. it's amazing that congress can whine about other people's salaries while they vote themselves another raise.
 
Originally posted by: Spydermag68
I though when he get got into office that everything would magically be better. Worst president ever in the last 15 days.

LOL exactly. That's what I keep saying to my friends that are card carrying members of Obama Nation.

On that note don't the people that use that it sounds EXACTLY like "abomination"?
 
Originally posted by: JDub02
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
at least let me get my share first.
😉

but seriously, i know for a fact that our top traders here will leave the company for another one that pays better in a heart beat.
you cannot expect to retain the good employees without compensating them accordingly.


your "good employees" must not be very good if the company requires billions of dollars to stay afloat. 😛

you must work for a company with 3 employees so i will let that ignorant statement slide.
 
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
Originally posted by: JDub02
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
at least let me get my share first.
😉

but seriously, i know for a fact that our top traders here will leave the company for another one that pays better in a heart beat.
you cannot expect to retain the good employees without compensating them accordingly.


your "good employees" must not be very good if the company requires billions of dollars to stay afloat. 😛

you must work for a company with 3 employees so i will let that ignorant statement slide.

At least his paycheck isn't being covered by a gov't bailout
 
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
Originally posted by: Pepsei
all i'm hearing is blahblah

didn't you get into any accident without insurance a few years back?
how did that go?

that's some other asian kid...... what's his name...... he syringered us.

edit, not the "stick out your left hand" kid, hmmm was he the one that wants his cousin?
 
Originally posted by: Homerboy
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
Originally posted by: JDub02
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
at least let me get my share first.
😉

but seriously, i know for a fact that our top traders here will leave the company for another one that pays better in a heart beat.
you cannot expect to retain the good employees without compensating them accordingly.


your "good employees" must not be very good if the company requires billions of dollars to stay afloat. 😛

you must work for a company with 3 employees so i will let that ignorant statement slide.

At least his paycheck isn't being covered by a gov't bailout

was that meant as an insult towards me? if so, it's pretty weak.
 
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
Originally posted by: Homerboy
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
Originally posted by: JDub02
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
at least let me get my share first.
😉

but seriously, i know for a fact that our top traders here will leave the company for another one that pays better in a heart beat.
you cannot expect to retain the good employees without compensating them accordingly.


your "good employees" must not be very good if the company requires billions of dollars to stay afloat. 😛

you must work for a company with 3 employees so i will let that ignorant statement slide.

At least his paycheck isn't being covered by a gov't bailout

was that meant as an insult towards me? if so, it's pretty weak.

and your "3 employees" was strong?
the argument/rant/whine in the OP is just stupid, ignorant and unfounded.
 
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
Originally posted by: Homerboy
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
Originally posted by: JDub02
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
at least let me get my share first.
😉

but seriously, i know for a fact that our top traders here will leave the company for another one that pays better in a heart beat.
you cannot expect to retain the good employees without compensating them accordingly.


your "good employees" must not be very good if the company requires billions of dollars to stay afloat. 😛

you must work for a company with 3 employees so i will let that ignorant statement slide.

At least his paycheck isn't being covered by a gov't bailout

was that meant as an insult towards me? if so, it's pretty weak.

Why don't you grow a pair and post in P&N?
 
Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
at least let me get my share first.
😉

but seriously, i know for a fact that our top traders here will leave the company for another one that pays better in a heart beat.
you cannot expect to retain the good employees without compensating them accordingly.

What I am wondering is when did the President get the power to decide how private companies pay their employees?

When the President started using the Constitution as toilet paper.
 
Back
Top