That is awesome.

/My employer was sold to a conglomerate.
//I got a rock water bottle

*boggle*

Some of those bonuses were what I made all of last year.
Ridiculous.

It's nice to see a company treating it's employees like they should be treated, instead of "bottom line liabilities"

cameroncrazy1984: Some of those bonuses were what I made all of last year.

Dude. You're poor.

There ought to be a law against extravagant bonuses like this. Don't those traitors to their class realize how bad this makes the rest of American businesses look ? This kind of thing just encourages a discontented, lazy rabble instead of a thrifty working class.

/I got a hot cocoa sampler AND a rock

I suspect there were some self-interested for doing this, but damn cool regardless--and I hope those employees are prepared for some monster income tax assessments next spring.

They could only do this because it was a privately owned company. If it had been a publicly traded company, that money would have gone to the shareholders.

Of course if it had been a publicly traded company, the employees would have all been fired long ago and manufacturing would have been moved to some 3rd world country where employees are paid $1 a day so the company could maximize profits for executives and shareholders.

DamnYankees: cameroncrazy1984: Some of those bonuses were what I made all of last year.

Dude. You're poor.

You kidding? Im single and I don't have a lot of debt. 30k is plenty.

Damn, that's pretty cool.

Reactron: There ought to be a law against extravagant bonuses like this. Don't those traitors to their class realize how bad this makes the rest of American businesses look ? This kind of thing just encourages a discontented, lazy rabble instead of a thrifty working class.

/I got a hot cocoa sampler AND a rock

Eff you. All I got was the rock!

/article made me tear up

And they were sold to Swedes, which means health insurance for everyone, paternity and maternity leave, and six-week vacations...

Psychotropic: They could only do this because it was a privately owned company. If it had been a publicly traded company, that money would have gone to the shareholders.

You seem to know more about the circumstances than are given in the article--care to fill us in? Or you're just making sh*t up, in which case, carry on.

Can you imagine what kind of society we would have if only 25% of U.S. companies functioned with this mentality? I know many, many CEO's and business owners and none of them think this way.

I have been a CEO of nonprofit organizations and to the best of my ability within our budget constraints, I have enacted policies with regard to my own compensation that would tie it to the average salaries and bonuses my employees made based on performance.

I bet this company has zero turnover and thus, has lowered its operating costs.

It's good business and it's the right thing to do. Good for them.

You stay classy Spungen fam....oh wait.

I love this story so much.

What a waste of money. That should have all gone to the CEO so he could afford a new yacht. What a selfish bunch of assholes.

Psychotropic: They could only do this because it was a privately owned company. If it had been a publicly traded company, that money would have gone to the shareholders.

Of course if it had been a publicly traded company, the employees would have all been fired long ago and manufacturing would have been moved to some 3rd world country where employees are paid $1 a day so the company could maximize profits for executives and shareholders.

That's not completely correct. There are examples of publicly traded companies that have personnel and compensation policies that provide performance-based bonuses for executives with salaries tied to the average of their workers and generous benefits. Costco comes to mind...look them up.

They don't do it as a charitable activity. They understand that in their industry, it costs more to recruit and train new employees constantly than it does to provide livable wages, great benefits and good working conditions to retain their great employees.

Perfect Christmas spirit! To the original owners; God bless you all...

Proof that there still are good and decent people in this world.

Howie Spankowitz: Can you imagine what kind of society we would have if only 25% of U.S. companies functioned with this mentality? I know many, many CEO's and business owners and none of them think this way.

I have been a CEO of nonprofit organizations and to the best of my ability within our budget constraints, I have enacted policies with regard to my own compensation that would tie it to the average salaries and bonuses my employees made based on performance.

I bet this company has zero turnover and thus, has lowered its operating costs.

It's good business and it's the right thing to do. Good for them.

If only 20% of U.S. companies did this?

I emagine it would lead to a intense loyalty to company found in japanese Corperations, people would fight long and hard to keep jobs, and work for the profit of the corp and themselves. It would change the perspective of class in the united states for the most part, and it would make america a profitable place to put factories in again.

ne2d: Psychotropic: They could only do this because it was a privately owned company. If it had been a publicly traded company, that money would have gone to the shareholders.

You seem to know more about the circumstances than are given in the article--care to fill us in? Or you're just making sh*t up, in which case, carry on.

Read the article a little closer. It mentions that the family owns the company (or they did until they sold it). So it is/was a private company.

Bless them.

wow. this is just the kind of story to be reading right now. i wish this would set a precedent, but i'm too damn cynical to think it will.



approves?

(i know Clark does, but this image is funnier)

cameroncrazy1984: DamnYankees: cameroncrazy1984: Some of those bonuses were what I made all of last year.

Dude. You're poor.

You kidding? Im single and I don't have a lot of debt. 30k is plenty.

Man, this is Fark. You do realize that $30k per put you (and me) in the third percentile, right? I happen to know, actually, that no fewer than 85,567 millionaires (and 700 or so billionaires) have Fark accounts, and no fewer than 250,000 Farkers make at least $85,000/year, and most of them only work about 15 hours a week to do so.

Hero tag, where are you?

I used to work for a medical device company that did this... annual bonuses of a percentage of salary based on performance targets for the whole company being met.

The largest bonus I heard of was 31%. Some employees took home $40k that year, most between $20-$30 or so. I worked as a contractor that year, so nothing for me :)

This was EVERY YEAR. They stopped doing it just before they sold the company... I think some executives got bent out of shape about it.

Up until they did that, you wouldn't find a company where employees cared more about what they did. Too bad it went to hell and got sold after that.

atomicmask: Howie Spankowitz: Can you imagine what kind of society we would have if only 25% of U.S. companies functioned with this mentality? I know many, many CEO's and business owners and none of them think this way.

I have been a CEO of nonprofit organizations and to the best of my ability within our budget constraints, I have enacted policies with regard to my own compensation that would tie it to the average salaries and bonuses my employees made based on performance.

I bet this company has zero turnover and thus, has lowered its operating costs.

It's good business and it's the right thing to do. Good for them.

If only 20% of U.S. companies did this?

I emagine it would lead to a intense loyalty to company found in japanese Corperations, people would fight long and hard to keep jobs, and work for the profit of the corp and themselves. It would change the perspective of class in the united states for the most part, and it would make america a profitable place to put factories in again.

Despite the abortion that is your grammar, I agree with what I think you are saying wholeheartedly.

A nice gesture, but too bad it will all be spent before these people find new employment.

I'm slightly confused as to why this article is two months after the fact?

Oh, don't worry. The followup headline is coming.
This was the last hurrah of the original founding owner. The new corporate overlords are here.

CoMoFo: I wish. The company I am working for was sold to the French about two years ago. Somehow, I LOST vacation days in the deal...

True story. Once upon a time I worked for a small (in people) family-owned company that was bought out by a huge international conglomerate. My salary wasn't much, but every year we got decent xmas bonuses - not 5 figures, but definitely into the mid-4 figure range. At the same time that the company was sold to a large international conglomerate, I got a job offer that I simply couldn't refuse elsewhere. Everyone got a larger-than-usual bonus that year, and I even got mine - even though they weren't distributed until AFTER I'd submitted my notice. I thought that was true class, and I miss that place.

Sadly, the "too good to be true" job was; I got laid off after six months. Ended up going back to work for the new iteration of my previous employer for another couple years; it just wasn't the same. No raises, no bonuses, same crappy pay. Everyone was frayed, overworked, and bitter. I ended up going to work for one of their largest competitors and it was one of the best moves I've ever made in my life.

/still sad about what happened to that company; I was honestly proud to work there.

Howie Spankowitz: Psychotropic: They could only do this because it was a privately owned company. If it had been a publicly traded company, that money would have gone to the shareholders.

Of course if it had been a publicly traded company, the employees would have all been fired long ago and manufacturing would have been moved to some 3rd world country where employees are paid $1 a day so the company could maximize profits for executives and shareholders.

That's not completely correct. There are examples of publicly traded companies that have personnel and compensation policies that provide performance-based bonuses for executives with salaries tied to the average of their workers and generous benefits. Costco comes to mind...look them up.

They don't do it as a charitable activity. They understand that in their industry, it costs more to recruit and train new employees constantly than it does to provide livable wages, great benefits and good working conditions to retain their great employees.

Private companies aren't immune to "maximiz[ing] profits for executives and shareholders" either. In fact, it's pretty much what any for-profit enterprise does (at least the shareholder part).

ThreeEyedOni: I'm slightly confused as to why this article is two months after the fact?

My guesses are...

A) The company may not have advertised it to the press, especially if they weren't trying to hike their stock prices because of it.

B) It's a much more interesting story
i) with the economy sucking, and
ii) being near Christmas, awww.

trancemission: A nice gesture, but too bad it will all be spent before these people find new employment.

RTFA...Christ...it takes two minutes. Most of them will keep their jobs under the new company.

Howie Spankowitz: trancemission: A nice gesture, but too bad it will all be spent before these people find new employment.

RTFA...Christ...it takes two minutes. Most of them will keep their jobs under the new company.

My bad; I guess the "laid off" part of the headline stuck in my head.

trancemission: Howie Spankowitz: Psychotropic: They could only do this because it was a privately owned company. If it had been a publicly traded company, that money would have gone to the shareholders.

Of course if it had been a publicly traded company, the employees would have all been fired long ago and manufacturing would have been moved to some 3rd world country where employees are paid $1 a day so the company could maximize profits for executives and shareholders.

That's not completely correct. There are examples of publicly traded companies that have personnel and compensation policies that provide performance-based bonuses for executives with salaries tied to the average of their workers and generous benefits. Costco comes to mind...look them up.

They don't do it as a charitable activity. They understand that in their industry, it costs more to recruit and train new employees constantly than it does to provide livable wages, great benefits and good working conditions to retain their great employees.

Private companies aren't immune to "maximiz[ing] profits for executives and shareholders" either. In fact, it's pretty much what any for-profit enterprise does (at least the shareholder part).

I agree. Not sure if you extrapolated something different from my post, but...

"He and other family members signed, by hand, two thank-you cards to each employee, one in Spanish and one in English."

Howie Spankowitz: trancemission: Howie Spankowitz: Psychotropic: They could only do this because it was a privately owned company. If it had been a publicly traded company, that money would have gone to the shareholders.

Of course if it had been a publicly traded company, the employees would have all been fired long ago and manufacturing would have been moved to some 3rd world country where employees are paid $1 a day so the company could maximize profits for executives and shareholders.

That's not completely correct. There are examples of publicly traded companies that have personnel and compensation policies that provide performance-based bonuses for executives with salaries tied to the average of their workers and generous benefits. Costco comes to mind...look them up.

They don't do it as a charitable activity. They understand that in their industry, it costs more to recruit and train new employees constantly than it does to provide livable wages, great benefits and good working conditions to retain their great employees.

Private companies aren't immune to "maximiz[ing] profits for executives and shareholders" either. In fact, it's pretty much what any for-profit enterprise does (at least the shareholder part).

I agree. Not sure if you extrapolated something different from my post, but...

No - I was supplementing your response to Psychotropic.

Whodat?: cameroncrazy1984: DamnYankees: cameroncrazy1984: Some of those bonuses were what I made all of last year.

Dude. You're poor.

You kidding? Im single and I don't have a lot of debt. 30k is plenty.

Man, this is Fark. You do realize that $30k per put you (and me) in the third percentile, right? I happen to know, actually, that no fewer than 85,567 millionaires (and 700 or so billionaires) have Fark accounts, and no fewer than 250,000 Farkers make at least $85,000/year, and most of them only work about 15 hours a week to do so.

If I woke up making 85,000 a year tomorrow, I'd shoot myself.

/Just kidding
//I would cancel the cable and start turning off the lights in the house though...

Damn!

The motor home company my father managed got sold in 1972 to AMF which promptly forced out anyone who knew what they were doing on the job and ran the business into the ground as a tax loss. AMF actually stands for Amoral Mother farkers.

Fifteen years ago, the company I worked for, Alexsis Risk Management, got caught with its executives cooking the books twice. Then they came in on May 1 and told us they were closing out office on the 31st and to not tell the clients. Then tried to short us by 6 months on severence pay. They are no longer in business. Too bad the execs aren't all in jail.

/not bitter
//no really
///fark 'em all

I work for a printing company and a few years ago we produced a card for a large company that informed each of their employees that instead of an Xmas bonus, a donation had been made to a charity. The amount of the "donation" and the name of the "charity" were not disclosed.

The problem with many family/privately owned companies is the owners look at the profits as "their" money and not the business's. So Bravo! to them for sharing the wealth.

This article just proves, there are decent people out there running successful businesses and treating the employees as human beings. They need to write a book and send it out to all business owners and CEOs.

/Now if we could only teach that in business school.

Whodat? Don't forget they served in at least two branches of the armed services and moonlight as a special forces consultant. Plus a law degree.

They could only do this because it was a privately owned company. If it had been a publicly traded company, that money would have gone to the shareholders.

I work for a publicly traded company and we get two bonuses a year. I am on the lower end of the payscale for my dept. and in June my bonus was 6k. In our end of year meeting last week we were told that our bonus program was funded by more than double what it was in June. Now there are a lot of variables but I am expecting at least 8k and my co-workers think I am being conservative. So that's 14k in one year for someone making less than 100k per year.


Now, next year... that will be a different story. I am using my bonus to spoil my kids a little then pay off a large debt that has been haunting me. It would be nice to splurge on myself but eliminating a $400 payment is the smart move.

trancemission: Private companies aren't immune to "maximiz[ing] profits for executives and shareholders" either. In fact, it's pretty much what any for-profit enterprise does (at least the shareholder part).

I dont think you understand the difference between a private and public company. Only public companies have shareholders...

Republican view: damn Socialists!

God Bless Us Everyone.


too cool

DamnYankees: cameroncrazy1984: Some of those bonuses were what I made all of last year.

Dude. You're poor.

you're next!! have a nice day patriot.