thieves

[happythoughts 0]

clicky

Quote

MCI Inc., which plans to trim 12,000 workers from its payroll this year, agreed to make a $8.1 million severance payment to a former executive who worked just seven months for the long-distance company.

Roscitt will be paid $8.1 million plus a bonus of $450,000 related to his performance while at MCI. Roscitt has an unlisted phone number and could not be reached for comment.

Roscitt is also due pay for four weeks of vacation under the agreement along with "secretarial support, continuation of Internet access, and reimbursement of fees for cellular phone service for up to six months." The company also provided him with a computer for use at his home.

One guy gets $8.1M plus 450K bonus, but here is the kicker - 1 month of vacation and he only worked there 7 months.

clicky

Quote

MCI Inc. and 18 former executives have agreed to pay as much as $51 million to settle suits filed by workers whose retirement accounts lost billions of dollars after an accounting scandal caused the company's stock to plummet.

18 people cost 50,000 people their jobs, savings, and retirements.
There should be a special jail for these b*&^@.

Quote

Under the agreement, MCI and its insurers will contribute nearly $46.8 million to a fund for about 50,000 employees whose retirement plans lost money, company spokeswoman Brittany Hoff said Wednesday. The balance will be paid by onetime executives including former CEO Bernard Ebbers.

50,000 people lose their retirement savings and they get $46.8M to split. A little less than $1,000 a piece.

Oh wait, the lawyers will probably get a third. How'd you like to hear, "Your retirement savings are worth $700."

[billvon 3,120]

I just don't get the "thieves" part. Let's say you had ten million dollars, and you had a bunch of people (tax accountants, drivers, investment analysts etc) who worked for you. Then you decided to drive yourself, so you gave your drivers six month's notice. (Pretty nice of you, eh?) And you liked your accountant (and she was cute) so you gave her a million. Should you be called a thief and thrown in jail for being an #%$^!@?

[PhillyKev 0]

The thieves part is that they didn't have ten million dollars. They were corporate officers with a fiduciary responsibility to stock holders.

[billvon 3,120]

> The thieves part is that they didn't have ten million dollars.

They had a heck of a lot more than that; a corporation is a congolmerate, independent legal entity, and is often represented by its executive officers. I think they should be able to do whatever they want (subject to applicable laws of course.) If they want to be assholes, they should be allowed to do so. Of course, all their employees are free to quit and their stockholders are allowed to dump them, which would rapidly make them penniless.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I think they should be able to do whatever they want (subject to applicable laws of course.)

Fair enough. But considering there have been numerous convictions for fraud and indictments still coming, I believe the thief moniker fits pretty well.

[happythoughts 0]

The analogy is a little lost on me.

Anyway, let's say that the "driver" was a poor man who worked and saved all his life. Then he gave you his life savings to buy you the car that he drove for you, paid for the gas and repairs, and your garage. He paid your salary too.

Then you didn't give any of the money back.

That is the thievery part.

The corporate officers looted Enron and MCI. If a company is hemorraging money and you know it is about to go under, then you write yourself a "loan" for $300 million without the intent to repay it, that is very wrong.

Then, the companies who were competing (AT&T, Verizon) reconfigured their companies to compete. That cost more people jobs. Thousands of people lost their jobs and their life savings.

If I rob a liquor store for $100, I go to jail for 10 years. These guys should never get out of jail, ever.

[happythoughts 0]

This is amazing. We may have stumbled on the one person in the world who thinks that these guys were just doing a day at the office.

[billvon 3,120]

>Anyway, let's say that the "driver" was a poor man who worked and saved
>all his life. Then he gave you his life savings to buy you the car that he
> drove for you, paid for the gas and repairs, and your garage. He paid
>your salary too.

>Then you didn't give any of the money back.

If the driver wanted to do that, and he didn't want the money back, then there is no thievery involved. If the driver made you sign a contract that said you'd employ him for X years, then the driver should go to the courts and to force you to honor your contract.

And if the driver told you it was a gift, and secretly hoped you would be so appreciative that you'd hire him forever and pay him lots of money? His gamble, and his loss if it doesn't pay off.

Americans have an amazing opportunity here to succeed big, often by taking big risks. That means they also have the opportunity to fail big if they take poor risks or make bad gambles. Working for a company like Enron is one of those gambles. I wouldn't work for a company that produced nothing and made its money through paper-shuffling; that would be a bad career move in my book. Someone else might want to do it because Enron offered a good salary. If so, great - they are allowed to take that risk. They may do great there. The company may fold and they may fail miserably. That's a risk they take.

>If I rob a liquor store for $100, I go to jail for 10 years.

And if you own the store and take $100 out of the till, you don't. Should I be able to get you arrested for "stealing" your own money? How about if I think it will increase the cost of my beer; should I be able to get you arrested then? After all, why should I get penalized for your desire to spend your own money?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

And if you own the store and take $100 out of the till, you don't. Should I be able to get you arrested for "stealing" your own money? How about if I think it will increase the cost of my beer; should I be able to get you arrested then? After all, why should I get penalized for your desire to spend your own money?

The CEO doesn't own the company anymore than any of the other shareholders do. I'm sure Calpers owns more shares than he does. Can they come in and take their $100 whenever they feel like it?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I wouldn't work for a company that produced nothing and made its money through paper-shuffling; that would be a bad career move in my book. Someone else might want to do it because Enron offered a good salary. If so, great - they are allowed to take that risk. They may do great there. The company may fold and they may fail miserably. That's a risk they take.

Bill, you're ignoring the fact that they were charged with crimes in the shuffling of those papers. And there were convictions. Motive to defraud was proven.

Forget about the analogies, the corporate officers were charged and convicted of felony fraud. Thief is completely applicable.

[billvon 3,120]

>Can they come in and take their $100 whenever they feel like it?

Absolutely; Etrade is a very easy way to do that.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

>Can they come in and take their $100 whenever they feel like it?

Absolutely; Etrade is a very easy way to do that.

If you're talking about the stock that you own. Do you know anything about this case? They didn't just manipulate stock prices and buy and sell their own stock (even though that in itself violates numerous laws). They took company assets, property of share holders, property of share holders besides themselves, and spent it on personal items.

They lied about performance numbers by deliberately and illegally includenig leased equipment as company assets in order to boost their performance based salaries, paid for by stock holder other than themselves.

[PhillyKev 0]

Here's some more thieves. Bill, please note the part about being found guilty of fraud.

Adelphia's Rigas Guilty of Fraud

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>Can they come in and take their $100 whenever they feel like it?

Absolutely; Etrade is a very easy way to do that.

sorry, Bill, that ignores the question and the point. A CEO is *not* the owner of a company. There is no relationship to a storeowner who removes money from the till.

A CEO can sell his stock, with proper notice and outside of the quiet periods. That's not the subject at hand though, is it? Stock manipulation is illegal whether it's committed by internal or external shareholders, and insider trading has always been illegal.

[billvon 3,120]

>If you're talking about the stock that you own. Do you know anything about this case?

Just what was posted. I was responding to the original poster, who seemed to want to punish a company that gave a huge severance package to someone. I think companies should be able to do pretty much whatever they want (that doesn't violate the law) even if people think it's unfair. Boycotts and strikes are better solutions to that than lawsuits.

I agree that if someone breaks laws they should go to jail though.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I was responding to the original poster, who seemed to want to punish a company that gave a huge severance package to someone. I think companies should be able to do pretty much whatever they want (that doesn't violate the law) even if people think it's unfair.

Well, the problem with that is these were huge severance packages that corporate officers awarded to each other, and made look legitimate by lying about the assets of the company so that they wouldn't be questioned. The severance packages themselves should probably be viewed as part of the overall conspiracy to defraud.