Wordcraft Home Page    Wordcraft Community Home Page    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Potpourri    Bonus Culture
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Bonus Culture Login/Join
 
Member
Picture of BobHale
posted
My latest blog entry, as it's about word meanings, also merits posting here.

quote:
You'd have to have been in a coma for the last six months to be unaware of the financial crisis that is gripping the world. One of the current aspects of it is that, here in the UK as well as elsewhere, vast sums of public money have been spent in propping up financial institutions. There is a great outcry about how those institutions which have taken so much money, can still somehow find cash to dole out to their employees in the form of bonuses.

One thing that seems to have gone more or less unremarked is this interesting use of the word "bonus". The argument being repeated all over the place is that the Government has no power, even in these partly nationalised institutions, to prevent the bonuses being paid because they are contractually obliged to pay them and risk being sued by irate executives if they don't get the £50,000, £100,000 or whatever that they feel they are owed.

Hang on a minute! Contractually obliged to pay a bonus? Let's grab a dictionary or two.

bonus: something given, paid or received above what is due or expected (Collins English Dictionary)

bonus: something in addition to what is expected or strictly due as a) money or an equivalent given in addition to an employee's usual compensation (Merriam Webster On Line)

bonus: an extra amount of money that is given to you as a present or reward in addition to the money you were expecting (Cambridge Dictionaries On Line)

So, we're all agreed then, a bonus is something you get in addition to what you are supposed to have so how on earth can anything that is contractual be considered as a bonus? The truth is that these so-called bonuses are nothing of the sort, because if they were then there would be no legal reason to pay them. Interesting how bankers can manipulate the meanings of words as well as the financial markets.

And don't even get me started on their novel interpretation of the word "sorry".

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BobHale,


"No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson.
 
Posts: 9421 | Location: EnglandReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Richard English
posted Hide Post
I'm sure I read somewhere that the culture of obscene bonuses started in the USA. A Law was passed that limited the amount that CEOs could receive as salaries but, crucially, did not affect bonuses.

Thus we have the stupid situation where bank bosses have been receiving "only" $800,000 per annum but maybe ten times that as "bonus".

If I had my way I'd confiscate all their assets and let them make their way armed with noting but the clothes they stand up in and an introduction to the nearest dole shop - as happens to thousands of honest people every month.


Richard English
 
Posts: 8038 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UKReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of BobHale
posted Hide Post
For the record, I was making a linguistic point.


"No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson.
 
Posts: 9421 | Location: EnglandReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Richard English
posted Hide Post
quote:
For the record, I was making a linguistic point.

And I was making a suggestion that would do the whole world a great deal of good, by getting rid of some parasites.


Richard English
 
Posts: 8038 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UKReply With QuoteReport This Post
<Proofreader>
posted
quote:
A Law was passed that limited the amount that CEOs could receive as salaries but, crucially, did not affect bonuses.

The so-called Stimulus Packeage, due to be signed in law today, has a provision whereby CEOs and other higher-ups in companies accepting governmental largesse are limited to a salary of $555K. Bonuses cannot be paid where public funds are involved.

I know of no other law prohibiting CEOs from negotiating any salary or bonus their company wants to pay. The most reprehensible part is the money they receive does not depend on their success, merely their endurance.
 
Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of arnie
posted Hide Post
If they are contractual obligations they are not, as the media seem to think, bonuses. This type of agreement is often known as the golden handcuffs, whereby the company agrees to pay individuals large sums provided they stay with the company.

In the case of HBOS, which I think is the one that is causing the British media to have the conniptions at the moment, they were key personnel at AMRO Bank, which HBOS took over in 2007, very unwisely, as it turned out, of course. They wanted to be sure that these people didn't take their expertise to a rival bank.


Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 
Posts: 10940 | Location: LondonReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Richard English
posted Hide Post
I wish I could find the original reference - it was not a recent thing, it was some years ago. I took little notice at the time and could be quite wrong that it was a US action. It's difficult to know where to search but I'll have a go.


Richard English
 
Posts: 8038 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UKReply With QuoteReport This Post
<Proofreader>
posted
quote:
They wanted to be sure that these people didn't take their expertise to a rival bank.

What expertise? They lost money. I'll volunteer to lose just as much money for half the price.
 
Reply With QuoteReport This Post
<Asa Lovejoy>
posted
I'll do it for 1/10 the price! That would still give me ten times my present earnings.

Impecunious Asa
 
Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
quote:
For the record, I was making a linguistic point.
Good point, Bob. There are a lot of political forums out there. I'd really appreciate our keeping this about words.

I agree with you about the meaning of bonus. In checking Onelook, many definitions are what we'd expect, "something given or paid over and above what is due." However, there is a definition of "a premium paid for a loan, contract, etc." That's a little different. If the bonus is written into a contract, and everything else is met, then I guess the "bonus" should be paid. The key must be in how tightly the contract is written.
 
Posts: 24735 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by BobHale:

bonus: something in addition to what is expected or strictly due as a) money or an equivalent given in addition to an employee's usual compensation (Merriam Webster On Line)

bonus: an extra amount of money that is given to you as a present or reward in addition to the money you were expecting (Cambridge Dictionaries On Line)

So, we're all agreed then, a bonus is something you get in addition to what you are supposed to have so how on earth can anything that is contractual be considered as a bonus?

No, we're not all agreed.

First, let's look at those two definitions you posted from on-line sources.

M-W
quote:
bonus : something in addition to what is expected or strictly due: as a: money or an equivalent given in addition to an employee's usual compensation b: a premium (as of stock) given by a corporation to a purchaser of its securities, to a promoter, or to an employee c: a government payment to war veterans d: a sum in excess of salary given an athlete for signing with a team


Cambridge Dictionaries
quote:
bonus
1 an extra amount of money that is given to you as a present or reward in addition to the money you were expecting:
a productivity bonus
a Christmas bonus
The company used to give discretionary bonus payments.

2 a pleasant additional thing:
I love the job, and it's an added bonus that it's so close to home.

So, bonus has a broader definition than you presented.

A bonus is something of monetary value (money, stocks, extra time off) given to you above your usual salary, whether it's expected or not. Cambridge Dictionaries specifically mentions productivity and Christmas bonuses. Productivity bonuses
are often written into a contract. If you exceed your quota, you get a bonus; if you don't, you don't. Bonuses are often given to contractors for finishing ahead of schedule (at least in the USA). There are signing bonuses (M-W: d), but they are not restricted to athletes. Union members are often offered a "signing bonus" as an incentive to get them to approve a contract. Of course, a signing bonus is a one-time thing, while a salary increase gives you more money every paycheck. And a signing bonus offered a union member is considerably less that that offered an athlete. The U.S. military offers "enlistment bonuses of up to $40,000."

A bonus isn't usually given as a gift out of the blue from a kind-hearted employer. It's more than likely a contractual obligation if certain conditions are met. It's the carrot to sweeten the pot.

I understand your point, but I think you're nit-picking.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: tinman,
 
Posts: 2878 | Location: Shoreline, WA, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of BobHale
posted Hide Post
I accept that a contract could say something like "bonuses will be paid as a percentage of profit" or "bonuses will be paid in accordance with an increase in productivity".

I don't accept that a fixed amount paid regardless of other circumstances can be called a bonus. It could be separated in the contract and called something else but "you will be paid a salary of £100,000 and a bonus of £200,000" isn't a bonus by any definition that I'd be happy with.


"No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson.
 
Posts: 9421 | Location: EnglandReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of shufitz
posted Hide Post
quote:
"you will be paid a salary of £100,000 and a bonus of £200,000" isn't a bonus by any definition that I'd be happy with.
I think the conceptual distinction is that the "bonus" part is a one-shot deal, not to be included in the "base amount" upon which future percentage raises will be calculated.
 
Posts: 2666 | Location: Chicago, IL USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of bethree5
posted Hide Post
Tinman, you were saying,
quote:
A bonus isn't usually given as a gift out of the blue from a kind-hearted employer. It's more than likely a contractual obligation if certain conditions are met. It's the carrot to sweeten the pot.

I understand your point, but I think you're nit-picking.


I'm not sure Bob is really nitpicking. And Kalleh, I'm not sure we can isolate this word from its current political context and still figure out whether it is being used correctly.

I think Tinman's quote contains the issue. A bonus is given 'if certain conditions are met'. The terms under which a bonus can be earned must be spelled out in a contract for services, and often are in an employment contract as well. There are also many companies which disburse discretionary bonuses. It goes without saying that such bonuses are a percentage of profit, and are distributed in recognition of an employee's part in bringing in that profit.

What defies common sense as well as any dictionary sense of the word is the disbursement of enormous sums of money as "bonuses" to CEO's of companies whose clients and stockholders are losing money by the bucketful-- clearly there is no profit being distributed here!

We (that is we the clients and stockholders, and taxpayers doing the bailing out) already get where the money for those bonuses came from-- obviously, out of our pockets. It adds insult to injury to claim a failing company must pay a large bonus to its CEO 'due to contract'-- where's the consideration?

I think Bob's blog post is spot on as you Brits say, because it points out the fishy use of the word 'bonus', reflecting the fishy use of the bonuses themselves.
 
Posts: 2605 | Location: As they say at 101.5FM: Not New York... Not Philadelphia... PROUD TO BE NEW JERSEY!Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Yes, the CEO gets the bonus; we get the bone.
 
Posts: 2878 | Location: Shoreline, WA, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
<Proofreader>
posted
It seems to me there are several different pay packages called “bonuses.” There is the “incentive” bonus” which is given when the company makes money and rewards its workers. Then there’s the “contractual bonus” which is given to executives as an incentive to remain with the company and also as a “golden parachute” awarded to them when they leave.

The major difference between the two is the worker bonus is directly linked to the success of the company while the executive bonus is required to be paid, no matter how badly the exec has done his job or how low the company finances have sunk.

You can tell which category you fall under if you’ve ever been called into the boss’s office and told, “You’ve done a terrible job. We never want to see your face around here again.”

Then, either (A), you are escorted out of the building by security, or (B), you are given a check for several mil, and offered a position on the Board of Directors.
 
Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  
 

Wordcraft Home Page    Wordcraft Community Home Page    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Potpourri    Bonus Culture

Copyright © 2002-12