|
You can argue that it was unseemly for execs to get nice packages when employees are being laid off, and on that I'll agree with you. But one didn't cause the other. You need to show me a causal link, Pan - show me that the employees would not have been fired absent the pay raise. That's what I was talking about. There's no causal link. The fact that separate decisions get made at the same time for different reasons doesn't mean that one caused the other. That's the missing link here. Delta was bankrupt - you really think the employees would have all come through the bankruptcy unscathed, no matter what happened to top management?
Plus, IIRC Gerry Grinstein retired once Delta came out of Chapter 11, and IIRC he was brought in specifically to steer the company through the reorg. Anderson was brought in to run the newly reorg'd company. I'm just going off memory here. And again, IIRC, the rationale for the pay package was that running a company newly out of bankruptcy is a high-risk proposition, which shouldnt surprise anyone, and that you need to pay to get good people or keep them. Again - you can argue with the reasoning, but to say that these decisions CAUSED layoffs is batty.
|