Member |
My latest blog entry, as it's about word meanings, also merits posting here. This message has been edited. Last edited by: BobHale, "No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson. | ||
|
Member |
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 | |||
|
| Member |
For the record, I was making a linguistic point. "No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson. | |||
|
| Member |
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 | |||
|
Member |
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. | |||
|
| Member |
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 | |||
|
| <Proofreader> |
What expertise? They lost money. I'll volunteer to lose just as much money for half the price. | ||
|
| <Asa Lovejoy> |
I'll do it for 1/10 the price! That would still give me ten times my present earnings. Impecunious Asa | ||
|
Member |
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. | |||
|
| Member |
No, we're not all agreed. First, let's look at those two definitions you posted from on-line sources. M-W
Cambridge Dictionaries
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, | |||
|
| Member |
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. | |||
|
Member |
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. | |||
|
Member |
Tinman, you were saying,
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. | |||
|
| Member |
Yes, the CEO gets the bonus; we get the bone. | |||
|
| <Proofreader> |
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. | ||
|
Copyright © 2002-12