Article: A.I.G. Bonuses of $50 Million Will Be Repaid
published on 23.03.2009
by s564897
Mary Williams Walsh and David M. Herszenhorn wrote the article “A.I.G. Seeking Return of Half of Its Bonuses” about the American International Group. A.I.G, “the largest insurance company in the United States before it suddenly collapsed.”
In the article it is stated that a few employees have already volunteered to give back their bonuses, and “the money doesn’t belong to A.I.G.”, accordance to Steve Israel, Democrat of New York. “It belongs to the American taxpayer and we are going to get it back.”
In accordance to “what we owe others” I think A.I.G. is acting morally wrong. I think they have a moral duty to give back the money, what in principle doesn’t belong to them. The employees earned it by doing harm to their own company, they are responsible for the problems that even affected the society. So it is morally wrong to pay out the bonuses, also if we use a consequentialist theory.
Therefore what is the morally right thing to do? If we take a look at the publication of the list with the names of the people who received the bonuses, but not yet gave it back to the “society”. Moral standards deal with matters that we think, can seriously injure or seriously benefit human beings, but it also advances moral standards above self-interest. So should the list go public for everyone, even though the workers of A.I.G. received death threats?
I think the list should go public, because this is how people are forced to give back their bonuses they received. It is not like they have to give back a need, but moreover a want. They still keep their annual income, don’t get harmed in their lives, and by giving now back the money to the government. They step aside from their self-interest, and choose for the society. It helps the society in this financial crisis, and helps them self and everyone else in the short run but also in the long run.
Link to the lecture:
Morality of "what we owe others"
13 comments:
In terms of what we owe others, i also agree with you that it is their moral duty to give their bonusses back to the 'society'. Since, like you said, it were they who did harm to the company.
SO, they would act morally wrong by not giving back the bonusses.
They owe the society that money.
However, getting out their names, i do not agree with that because, in that case WE would be acting morally wrong by getting them in danger [death threats etc when the names are published].
In the article:"I think the list should go public, because this is how people are forced to give back their bonuses they received" in terms of the morality of what we owe others,it is actcing morally wrong.
Futhermore,in business
ethic:"right" is materialize in the basic structure of legal system.They also violate the "right" if they reveal the list to the public.
s538632
I agree that the people involved shouldn't receive a bonus. In the present it is often forgotten that a bonus is based on extra profit someone generates. If a company makes a loss, it would be absurd to give or receive a bonus. It is morally wrong in my opinion to accept something which does not actually belong to you.
Of course measures should be taken against people who don't want to return their bonus, but it is too radical give the names public.
They should return the bonuses because you cannot receive a bonnus when your company is in bankrupcy caused by your missmanagement, and especially if you just received a grant from the goverment.
It is not fair that the goverment uses the money of the citicents (most of them with their own economics problems) to save a company and half of the bank money from that grant ends up in the bank accounts of the same rich people whose evil work has led the company to be ruined. From an utilatiarism point of view the managers should return the bonus.
A bonus cannot be handed out by getting a grant from the govermentto your company because then you are abusing to the government
s212796
S169041
“AIG Bonuses…”
I wholeheartedly agree that the AIG execs that caused the company to fall, should give back their bonuses. Their haphazard decisions should not be rewarded without any consequence. To have the government force them to do so would be morally wrong. The means to do this would be to make the names of the execs made public, and that would just lead to more trouble. With all the uproar over this issue, there will no doubt be strong opinioned citizens that will harass the execs.
As a society, we must respect the privacy and maintain security for these workers. Another case to consider is the battle to make abortion lists available for public use. These women’s privacy must be protected for their well-being and out of medical respect. While there are no direct laws to protect the privacy of the executives, we cannot test their morality without securing our own.
The execs need to realize independently “what they owe others,” and realize that they are abusing the government bailout to keep their company afloat. The taxpayers are basically supporting and keeping the AIG bonus receivers with a job and a steady income. The power of “what we owe others” only becomes stronger in a financial crisis. It is not Right to be greedy and in a way distress other households financially. We should work towards financial security as a society.
I agree that the AIG execs that caused the company to fall, should give back their bonuses. To have the government force them to do so would be morally wrong. Making the executive’s names public would cause more trouble. With the uproar over this issue, strong opinioned citizens will harass the execs.
We must respect the workers privacy and not cause harm to their security. Another case to consider is the battle to make abortion lists available for public use. These women’s privacy must be protected for their well-being and out of medical respect. While there are no direct laws to protect the privacy of the executives, we cannot test their morality without securing our own.
They must realize independently “what they owe others,” and they are abusing the government bailout to keep their company afloat. Taxpayers are supporting and keeping the AIG bonus receivers with a job and steady income.
s347055
What we often forget is that not paying the bonusses is breaking a contract, which is also considered to be morally wrong; since you should act upon your promises. Like for ING a lot of bonusses are already determined in advance, and are in the contract the company has with the employee.
I in fact think this is a moral hard case, the company wants to be honest with their employees but they also want to/need to take care for the society as a whole.
Making the list public is a morally wrong action, since it can bring the safety of the employees in danger. And according to the contract they have the right to receive this money, so forcing them to pay it back would be morally wrong.
I agree with 347055 that, this case is a moral hard case. According to "what we owe others", the managers in A.I.G should consider the American taxpayer into account when they make the decision of bonuses. Also, the consequentialist theory support the repaid action, since the company suddenly collapsed, they should take responsibility of the bad results.
On the other hand, getting bonuses is in the contract, forcing employee's to repaid it is not just for them, the financial crsis covered the whole financial system, and caused by many problems, it's hard to blame someone or judge their work. And they have the right to get the bonuses if they worked hard indeed.
By:
Zhe Gong
s479253
The predicament A.I.G. finds itself to be in is one of major contradictions. An analysis of this case should be done with very much caution. Basically, what is needed in this situation is an evaluation of the contractual agreements signed upon by both A.I.G. and its employees long before the credit crunch was apparent.
According to the theory, one has a moral duty to obey the law. Since a contract is a legal commitment between the employer and the employee, it is required that all prescriptions enclosed in the contract are met. It could be the case that a bonus structure is included, most likely promising excess rewards in case of performance exceeding expectations. Then, employees are entitled to these bonuses.
However, with regard to the morality of what we owe others, because of legality one is not obliged to return his bonus but should feel that this is the morally right thing to do, simply because it should not be the case that employees are still rewarded while their employee runs a major deficit.
René Megens
s113313
I think A.I.G. is acting morally wrong in accordance to “what we owe others” because they have a their moral duty to give their bonuses back to the 'society'. I agree that those bonuses was promised to them, so the company has the legal duty to pay those bonuses, but I think it can be only in the case if they gain the profit to the company, not by making the loss. Publishing the list with a names is a moral hard case but why should be protect those peoples who are self-interested and who act against the society? In my opinion this list should go public, than it will force them to pay back them bonuses.
S506668
First of all, I agree that giving back the bonuses is a moral thing to do. It is at the best interest the tax payer’s benefit, and also of AIG’s reputation in the society. However, it is debatable if the bonus receivers SHOULD give back the money. Since under no moral principles has anyone the right to FORCE others to pay back their bonus. When the decision was made, it was made on the free will of the company’s board, and there were no force, or unequal, or injustice conditions involved. On the other hand, AIG did ignore its responsibility to the tax payers after being bailed out of the crisis with the tax payer’s money. It was morally wrong to use the money for a small party’s benefit while ignoring the majorities’ well-being. However, AIG’s mistake does not give anyone any reason to punish the bonus receivers with an unequal force and make them do anything against their will. Such action is a violation of freedom as well as their Right.
H.Zhou
s928163
Should the list go public for everyone, even though the workers of A.I.G. received death threats? NO!
Indeed, the employees earned bonuses by doing harm to their company and they are responsible for the problems that even affected the society. But we should absolutely not make the names public! We would be acting morally wrong because we do not safeguard their lives anymore, we should simply not get them in danger.
By the way, I also agree that we should not make abortion lists available for public use. This for the same reason.
Consequentialist theories focus on the consequences of an action when determining whether it is morally right. S564897 said that it is morally wrong to pay out these bonuses if we use this theory. How about the deontological theory? Deontological theories focus on the action itself when determining whether it is morally wrong. In this case, paying out bonuses to employees when doing harm to their company. Bonuses should only be paid out when an employee does good to the company, for example attract an enormous client or generate extra profit and thus not by harming the company! It would be morally wrong to even pay out the bonuses.
BUT on the other hand, we break a promise and this is also morally wrong! The bonuses are determined in the contract beforehand and this should be corrected of course. You’ll only earn a bonus if you do good to the company, simply as that.
Debbie van Deursen
s358901
I do think the situation is slightly more complicated than stated in the initial article. Of course it is true that huge mistakes have been made, but does that mean that you can pile everything together? No! You cannot say without having detailed information, that every manager who has had a bonus, did not deserve it. Maybe there have been a few managers that did create value for the company!
Is it honest to let the good suffer for things, the bad have created? I don’t think that is the meaning of WWOO. So I do not think all managers should give their bonus back, before any further research.
Post a Comment