Because forcing someone to work at a job he doesn't want for no pay is called slavery?

So what they did was, promise to pay them later if they don't leave... and when later finally arrived, retroactively took back that money (after obama, congress, and AIG management repeadedly promised they would not do so... just stay in work and continue fixing AIG)

No, it's called "enforcing the contract they signed".

And who said that the salary they would get instead of null plus bonus would be zero?

I am saying that if the companies had simply paid normal (if very high) salaries to their executives, instead of "bonusses", they wouldn't be in this situation now.

A "bonus" (Latin for "good") should be paid to an employee if he performed better than he had to and/or if the company did well. That's why people are upset now.

Like I said, try getting someone to sign such a contract.  Let us know how you do.

I don't know the market for such a career, but from what I've read, the '$1 salary + retention bonus' contracts were not the 'norm' - these were contracts entered into specifically because the company was struggling.  Whether you agree with the way they were structured or not is irrelevant - post facto abrogation of legitimate contracts is immoral and, until recently apparently, illegal.

On the other hand, the bonuses being handed out to Fannie & Freddie execs are on top of reasonably generous salaries.

What are you talking about? I would happily sign a contract that binds me to a certain employer for one year.

I doubt you would @ $1.00 per year with no possibility of a bonus.  That's the sort of contract the poster was referring to.

Ok, let's go back to the beginning of this:

I: "If everything had just been a very high salary, rather than compensation and bonus, we wouldn't have this discussion."

Taltamir: "because they are paid 0$ in salary unless they stay with the company and don't quit for a set amount of time... if you stayed with the company for the bad times, then it will eventually pay you all at once as a "bonus" for not quitting."

I: "Why can they not let executives sign a contract not to leave?"

Taltamir: "Because forcing someone to work at a job he doesn't want for no pay is called slavery?"

I: "No, it's called enforcing the contract they signed. And who said that the salary they would get instead of null plus bonus would be zero?"

You: "Like I said, try getting someone to sign such a contract.  Let us know how you do."

I: "I would happily sign a contract that binds me to a certain employer for one year."

You: "I doubt you would @ $1.00 per year with no possibility of a bonus."

And that's where we return:

If everything had just been a very high salary, rather than compensation and bonus, we wouldn't have this discussion.

Actually, it is completely relevant whether I agree with the way they were structured or not. That's what the issue is about: people's opinions regarding this.

If a company make up a contract that uses the concepts of "salary" and "bonus" differently than usual it's no wonder that people are surprised.

And if the companies had been clever enough not to redefine the meanings of the concepts, they wouldn't be in this situation now.

Thats the thing... they had very high salary... they wanted to leave because the company was failing and unable to pay it anymore... so they agreed to work without a salary with the promise that if they stick with the company through thick and thin they get a single large lump sum payment for their work. Calling it a bonus is like calling canola oil "rape oil" (from roman, rapa', means turnip, it isn't, but thats what the romans called it). It is a bad name for a good thing.

Yes, as I said, they made a mistake with the arrangement.

They just called it the standard industry jargon, it is the uneducated masses and the irresponsible press that are spinning it out of control.

If the press started raving about rape oil tommorow people will be getting up in arms and maybe we will see government bans on the second healthiest vegetable oil in the world (second only to flaxseed).

You can't fault a company for using the standard jargon of their field.

Especially when Fannie & Freddie are getting away with both generous salaries and bonuses, with hardly a peep or raised eyebrow from the press.

especially when CONGRESS doles out every last cent in their budget as bonuses to white house aides because if they didn't they'd have to give the money back.

Of course I can fault a company for what the company is doing.

I realise that "bonus" instead of "salary" and terms like "integral player" are the standard jargon of the field. But a jargon like that is a luxury that an industry cannot afford if it created such huge problems.

Jargon is a product of arrogance that a failed field shouldn't display.

I know, in my industry we have a jargon too. And boy is it funny that outsiders don't understand those words. It makes us feel like a privileged group, our own tribe.