![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
On NPR I hear that the banks have a horrible dilemma. Because of the (implied irrational) resentment that the (implied ignorant and reactive) public has towards the "employees" (scare quotes explained in a moment) of the banks that caused our late meltdown, and "even though the banks have paid back their share of the bailout" (which is only true if you, as usual, ignore the true cost of the events), the banks are afraid to appear to be excessively "compensating their employees," but in order to attract and retain the best ones, they must offer competitive salaries and perks and bonuses.
Everything possible is wrong about this. I'm not sure where to start, so I'll start at the top, with my use of scare quotes. When NPR talks about "employee compensation" they are not talking about the custodians, the data entry techs, the accountants on the ground floor. Nobody gives any of these employees an extra paycheck that could buy a house on Nob Hill. Given the shrinkage of union membership these days and the tendency to temp out everything, they'll be lucky if they make more than minimum wage or have any benefits. So it's disingenious to use the word "employee" to blur the lines between these guys and the rest of us. And whether the copywriter did it on purpose or not, it does serve a purpose: to reinforce the message that the rest of the bit on the news is giving. Pity the poor banks. They are trying so hard to fix their mistakes, and we're so mean to them, and if we don't let them do what they want, they will just make a bigger mess . . .
When you use the word "compensation," too, you imply a lot of things. You imply thjat you're merely paying someone back for a tremendous sacrifice (or huge effort, or risk) they've made on your behalf. Now, in the case of the bank exectuives and board members, it might be true: they're all friends and cronies who have continued to get richer and richer for the most part during all this mess, so the sacrifice that's been made, and the effort that's been made, and the risk that's been taken, is, yes, on their behalf.
However the sacrifice and effort and risk has not been made by the people who are in line to get this money: no, I don't deny that they put in long hours in the office when they're not on tax-deductible lunches or paid vacations triple the length that the rest of us get if we get vacations (the closest many American workers get to a paid vacation is unemployment, or the pittance they get if they get hurt so badly they can't work any more). But the effort that is going into attempting to clean up the mess they made is being made by comparatively lower-paid government clerks and lawyers. The risk they took -- and failed to come through clean from -- was with the wellbeing of every human being on the planet. And the sacrifice that's been made has been the jobs, homes, health, general welfare, and peace of mind of countless working people who have still not been hired back to do the work of keeping society going.
Oh wow. Look at that. The work that these "best and brightest" executives in the financial industries have been doing over the last couple decades has caused widespread financial failure, greatly increased poverty, and social chaos. That's without getting into all the very central side issues, like the environment itself (I tried boiling that down to a phrase so I could reference it here, but I just can't). So -- how can you say they've been doing a good job that should be rewarded? How can you say that it's in anybody's interest, even the other exectuvies and board members of these companies, to retain them?
These people are either incompetent or criminal -- possibly both. But in either case, I don't think rewarding them is reasonable. So what if they leave?
They're worse than useless.
The financial industries should be looking for an entirely different sort of young executive to take their place. Only sociopaths and borderline sociopaths are solely motivated by reward. And we've seen what handing over your institutions to sociopaths leads to.
Alfie Kohn has made a life's work out of talking about the intrinsic rewards of doing competent, pro-social work (and how to raise and teach children with this in mind). Go read his stuff.
Just on the subject of getting the best to come work for you. I'm not much of a bragger, but I actually think I'm among the best at what I do. I am so much not a bragger that I had to force myself to write that sentence without qualifying it out of meaning, even though I know it to be true. Anyway. My boss got me to work for her, not by dangling large sums of money at me (she didn't have it to offer), but by offering me the chance to do the thing I do, and to do it in an environment that is devoted to that thing, and devoted to doing it well.
Just so you have something to compare, I make $14.00 an hour. My work saves lives. It keeps saving lives. It's a job that requires a college education, credentialing, and continuing education. In my case, there are three credentials and two years of graduate school involved. Most of the people where I work are bilingual or moving towards bilingualism.
(EMTs around here, who save lives more immediately than I do, make about the same, with worse benefits than I get)
So Anastasia Kelly, whose work at AIG helped to bankrupt thousands and to send them out of their homes and their jobs, not only left because she would no longer be making over $500,000 a year (which is a bit over $240 an hour if you work 40 hours every single week of the year) for her base pay</> not including benefits, perks, or bonuses: she will get several million dollars for her severance pay. She's entitled to it under AIG rules because she quit for a good reason, getting her salary lowered. But let's go back to AIG's other employees -- how much severance pay will they get if they quit when their salary is lowered?
Everything possible is wrong about this. I'm not sure where to start, so I'll start at the top, with my use of scare quotes. When NPR talks about "employee compensation" they are not talking about the custodians, the data entry techs, the accountants on the ground floor. Nobody gives any of these employees an extra paycheck that could buy a house on Nob Hill. Given the shrinkage of union membership these days and the tendency to temp out everything, they'll be lucky if they make more than minimum wage or have any benefits. So it's disingenious to use the word "employee" to blur the lines between these guys and the rest of us. And whether the copywriter did it on purpose or not, it does serve a purpose: to reinforce the message that the rest of the bit on the news is giving. Pity the poor banks. They are trying so hard to fix their mistakes, and we're so mean to them, and if we don't let them do what they want, they will just make a bigger mess . . .
When you use the word "compensation," too, you imply a lot of things. You imply thjat you're merely paying someone back for a tremendous sacrifice (or huge effort, or risk) they've made on your behalf. Now, in the case of the bank exectuives and board members, it might be true: they're all friends and cronies who have continued to get richer and richer for the most part during all this mess, so the sacrifice that's been made, and the effort that's been made, and the risk that's been taken, is, yes, on their behalf.
However the sacrifice and effort and risk has not been made by the people who are in line to get this money: no, I don't deny that they put in long hours in the office when they're not on tax-deductible lunches or paid vacations triple the length that the rest of us get if we get vacations (the closest many American workers get to a paid vacation is unemployment, or the pittance they get if they get hurt so badly they can't work any more). But the effort that is going into attempting to clean up the mess they made is being made by comparatively lower-paid government clerks and lawyers. The risk they took -- and failed to come through clean from -- was with the wellbeing of every human being on the planet. And the sacrifice that's been made has been the jobs, homes, health, general welfare, and peace of mind of countless working people who have still not been hired back to do the work of keeping society going.
Oh wow. Look at that. The work that these "best and brightest" executives in the financial industries have been doing over the last couple decades has caused widespread financial failure, greatly increased poverty, and social chaos. That's without getting into all the very central side issues, like the environment itself (I tried boiling that down to a phrase so I could reference it here, but I just can't). So -- how can you say they've been doing a good job that should be rewarded? How can you say that it's in anybody's interest, even the other exectuvies and board members of these companies, to retain them?
These people are either incompetent or criminal -- possibly both. But in either case, I don't think rewarding them is reasonable. So what if they leave?
They're worse than useless.
The financial industries should be looking for an entirely different sort of young executive to take their place. Only sociopaths and borderline sociopaths are solely motivated by reward. And we've seen what handing over your institutions to sociopaths leads to.
Alfie Kohn has made a life's work out of talking about the intrinsic rewards of doing competent, pro-social work (and how to raise and teach children with this in mind). Go read his stuff.
Just on the subject of getting the best to come work for you. I'm not much of a bragger, but I actually think I'm among the best at what I do. I am so much not a bragger that I had to force myself to write that sentence without qualifying it out of meaning, even though I know it to be true. Anyway. My boss got me to work for her, not by dangling large sums of money at me (she didn't have it to offer), but by offering me the chance to do the thing I do, and to do it in an environment that is devoted to that thing, and devoted to doing it well.
Just so you have something to compare, I make $14.00 an hour. My work saves lives. It keeps saving lives. It's a job that requires a college education, credentialing, and continuing education. In my case, there are three credentials and two years of graduate school involved. Most of the people where I work are bilingual or moving towards bilingualism.
(EMTs around here, who save lives more immediately than I do, make about the same, with worse benefits than I get)
So Anastasia Kelly, whose work at AIG helped to bankrupt thousands and to send them out of their homes and their jobs, not only left because she would no longer be making over $500,000 a year (which is a bit over $240 an hour if you work 40 hours every single week of the year) for her base pay</> not including benefits, perks, or bonuses: she will get several million dollars for her severance pay. She's entitled to it under AIG rules because she quit for a good reason, getting her salary lowered. But let's go back to AIG's other employees -- how much severance pay will they get if they quit when their salary is lowered?
Tags: