Yeah,it sounds like there are a lot of people who know, completely, what these contracts say.

What are the bonuses tied to (I assume there's a bit more than "you get a bonus if the company still exists at the end of the calendar year")? WHO is "guaranteed" a bonus? What "bonus" is guaranteed (ie: is it possible to reduce the bonus, basically to one pennye)? A lot of people are talking out of their asses, when there are pertinent questions to be asked.

All things considered, I like the idea of "if you don't refund every penny of bonuses paid since September, we're going to make sure you're all out of a job."

By the way, I guess I just completely misunderstood what a "bonus" was in the corporate world. I used to think it was an add-on that you'd be provided if a company (or you, personally) had a successful year, and there were no guarantees.
It sounds as if these "bonuses" are simply extra piles of cash that are given to these individuals just because they exist. If you ask me, that's not a "bonus."

DaShredda: pixistick: Shut up and keep mopping Shredd

If there wasn't somebody picking fruit there wouldn't be space shuttles.

Think about it.

A Mexican picking tomatoes does more for me than someone building airplanes.

Unless, of course, you want to buy fruit in the winter, in which case it would have to be flown in from New Zealand.

/What about a Mexican building airplanes?
//Wait, why does he even have to be Mexican in the first place?

bulldg4life: Nabb1: That's not it at all, but what's it to you, anyway?

Well, I make a point of reading your posts and Kapono's posts with regularity. And, I greatly enjoy watching you two talk about things with obdicut because there is usually a reasoned solution that comes about after an hour or two of semantic gameplaying from both sides.

I enjoy reading the posts from both sides and it's the third or fourth time I've seen you guys refer to him like that. I was just wondering why someone would start a conversation like that when, by and large, everybody is a reasonable person.

You and Kapono pride yourself on being above the general fray of a normal fark thread...but then you go and abandon it because you don't like obdicut?

It's just interesting to me, that's all.

I see. It just sort of stuck. A bit of a non sequitur. He said it doesn't bother him and when he said he had gone by it before I thought it was rather amusing. It's meant in good fun.

The Why Not Guy: Nabb1: Must have flown right over your head.

I'm just trying to get some clarification on the rules. You've told me in at least two threads that name calling is proof that one has no valid point to make. I'm wondering if this rule applies to you as well?

Playfully calling someone "Clarabell" when they call you "Bozo" is quite a bit different than calling someone, say, an "irredeemable, ignorant, waste of oxygen" as an argument, don't you think?

lunchinlewis: bulldg4life: That's his entire point. You guys were making the argument that having a contract nullified the idea of them being able to be fired at any point for any reason.

excuse me, where do you see me saying that?

I guess I'll restate my question in plain English and your words: Where did I post that having a contract nullified the idea of being fired at any point for any reason?

Tofu: Nabb1: Ex post facto, Equal Protection Clause, just off the top of my head.

Apparently, that doesn't apply to tax increases. Clinton famously proposed and saw passed, a retroactive tax increase in 1993.

I thought the "ex post facto" part was in haste, but if it just applied to these executives, I think you might have an Equal Protection problem, not to mention the Contracts Clause issue as it could be interpreted as a law that abrogates the law of contracts.

bulldg4life: Nabb1: Playfully calling someone "Clarabell" when they call you "Bozo" is quite a bit different than calling someone, say, an "irredeemable, ignorant, waste of oxygen" as an argument, don't you think?

I think he's referring to you calling obdicut "fluffy" for no apparent reason.

I don't know. It seemed odd to go back to some tangential comment from hours ago.

As for the "you guys" issue, if you lumped me in, I said it sounded like he had a contract with an at-will provision. I don't think the two are necessarily mutually exclusive.