I understand why the French have such a sore spot with the word BOURGEOIS. I watch the U.S. with morbid facination and wonder about what events would be neccesary to provoke a revolt on the company doorsteps and private mansions of the bloated, greedy CEOs.

Yes. That is a good case for shaming. And also for salary capping regulations. They do it in sports, why not business? Corporations should be more than shamed for this. They should be penalized.

It's a lot of suck, that's for sure. But, I can't help but feel that the employees receiving phones should be happy that at least they got something and that they still have jobs.

I have much more problem with the fact the Communist leadership in China told Google what it wouldn't allow ( try googling "freedom" in China. Good luck.) And Google created a censorship search engine just for them. How despicable. They've been on my wall of shame for a long time. rated.

"Google Inc. said Tuesday it would launch a new version of its popular search engine that's specially designed for the China market to limit or screen out information from search results deemed inappropriate by authorities there." 2006

When, and if, I get a bonus it is because that is what my employment contract called for. So if they are paid their bonus based on their agreement what is wrong with that?


Before you got laid off how much of your salary did you give back to the company to help the bottom line?

Catnlion -- so where does the fact that many companies are suggesting employees take a pay-cut fit in your rationale? And the fact that many are graciously accepting these cuts over being laid off? I'm assuming their contracts and offer letters all stipulated something else in writing.

Exceptional times call for exceptional action. Especially from those at the top.

Uh, hello? Google was one of a very few companies out there that reported increased revenues and profits. So yes, I certainly think the execs who were in charge of the company deserved a little pat on the back.

And let's put things in perspective here. Yes, $6.3 million might sound like a lot of money to us. But do you know what Jeff Immelt's bonus was supposed to be, in a year when GE stock lost something like 70-80 percent of its value?

$12 million.

So, splitting $6.3 million among their c-level execs does not sound out of line at all. Remember, Google was successful.

So Tony, the executives deserve that pat on the back but the rest of the people working there get a phone? When the majority already have phones? I'll never understand how people can think that way. The executives ride the work of everybody else working there and take home all the benefits.

What Peter said.

Come on now- $6.3million in bonus for a company that is still making money and not needing a dime of taxpayer money; is a FAR CRY from the $209 million Merrill Lynch paid in bonus in 2008, when that corporation lost billions and had to be bought out in a taxpayer financed bail out!!!
Also- anyone crying for Google's employees- let's not forget that this is one of the most generous companies around with respect to employee compensation and all around benefits (free food, on site child care, video games, gym, couches for naps, pets at work, etc). So let's not cry for their employees yet, and let's not be bashing their execs for a relatively miniscule bonus yet.

Sorry, but the envy expressed in this piece is lame. It is also grossly uninformed.. to the point of being ignorant. You would know that if you had only bothered to take a moment to check. You'd also know it if you actually knew anyone who works at google.

Google employees still received their bonuses. It is a core component of their compensation.

The holiday bonus is completely separate. It is old news. It was already de-bunked.. again, if you had bothered to take a moment.

Those poor google employees also just had their strike price reset to match the recent low in the stock.

Google is doing very well at a time when most companies are not. They are making billions in profit. So, yes, the employees and execs should get large bonuses. And if they did not, you would surely whine about corporate greed.

How about a little less envy and whining, and more fact checking?

And how did this ever become an editor's pick? We had to do more fact-checking in my 9th grade journalism class when writing about JV basketball.

You know, Google's employees get treated very well. There is no reason their execs shouldn't be also.

I tell you what. Wander into the Google headquarters and see if anyone is upset that the execs got the bonuses.

Oh, and those phones? Google has over 20K employees. So, if you take 20K and multiply it by $180, you come up with $3.6 million. I know that this will be pooh poohed, but that's a pretty decent chunk of change.

I don't have a problem with successful execs and employees being rewarded. Bring in ten million bucks and take home a million? Fine. Help lead a company to record revenues and profits in a brutal economic environment? Take a bonus.

That's the way it should be. Those who succeed are rewarded.

What I do have a problem with are people who get rewarded when they screw things up. That is wrong. Immelt was right to turn down his bonus because he didn't earn it. The fact that he could have gotten one is what is outrageous.

Not to be totally obnoxious, but that isn't the phone they received, it was this one: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01088/connected-graphics_1088789a.jpg

Also, G-1 is the name of the phone, not the service type. It runs on G3 networks.

Regarding your feelings on the issue, in a time when a lot of big name places are failing, perhaps the execs should be rewarded for keeping google afloat.

Okay, I can take my comeuppance when I've gone out on a limb that was a bit too thin.

spacevalkyrie: Clearly, I was wrong about the phone. Mia culpa.

Indignation: I did state this was a holiday bonus, and yes I had checked, and yes I did understand it was separate from any bonus written into any comp agreement. But assuming like with most companies, the lowest-paid do not receive significant bonuses, this had to be a disappointment. If you have info about how other bonuses compared to the C-level execs, it would be great to know for sure.

The fact remains they laid off over 100 employees this year. If they had done so well that they could have avoided any lay-offs, I'd see it differently. But that was not the case.

Tony, Indigantion etc: I've always found it hard to buy 'other-people-did-far-worse' defense of behaviour. Of course, there are terrible examples of corporate greed and incompetence. That in itself doesn't explain anything. But I accept that you believe these bonuses are deserved in their own right. I see it differently.

P.S. For those extolling the life of employees at Google, often nothing is quite as good as a mythology that grows up around it.

Here is a link I found to an article that appeared in TechCrunch last month.

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/01/18/why-google-employees-quit/

In 2008 Google HR set up a private Google Group to ask former employees why they left the company. TechCrunch was "forwarded what appears to be authentic posts to the thread by a number of ex-Googlers, which we reprint below minus identifying information other than their first names."

As TechCrunch found, "top amongst the complaints is low pay relative to what they could earn elsewhere, and disappearing fringe benefits seemed to elevate the concern. Other popular gripes - too much bureaucracy, poor management, poor mentoring, and a hiring process that took months."

if you want socialism, please speak up. the usa runs on the principle 'take what you can,' a british tradition since william the bastard came ashore with some equally piratical associates.

"yes I had checked, and yes I did understand it was separate from any bonus written into any comp agreement."

Then why didn't you mention it? Were you being disingenuous or merely sloppy when you tried to make it sound like grunt employees received no cash bonus, while execs raked it in? You incorrectly compared apples and oranges (holiday bonuses vs. cash incentive).

"But assuming like with most companies,"

Umm, surely you know what they say about assume?

And since when is google like most companies?

Why do you assume the worst? You clearly have an axe to grind with google. Just a guess, but with your sloppy fact-checking and sins of omission, I would wager you didn't get past the initial phone screen and are sore about not getting hired (or maybe even interviewed).

You were again being disingenuous when you mentioned the 100 layoffs. You omitted that they were recruiters. Don't you think that is a rather serious fact to omit?

Should the employees who actually generate the revenue forgo their compensation to pay recruiters who have nothing to do?

It is common knowledge that google base salaries are lower than microsoft, amazon, etc... But the bonuses make up for it. Many companies reward their highest performing employees with performance bonuses that are 50-100% of base salary. At google, bonuses are a core component of compensation.

If you bother to look up the exec salaries, you would find their bonuses are inline with those percentages.

You seem to be opposed to some people getting paid more than others. Have you ever had a great idea that was worth serious money? Like a great marketing campaign? Did you have the business savvy to negotiate a deal where you were paid for all those late nights spent developing the idea? Wouldn't that be fair, even if it meant your compensation dwarfed that of your colleagues who spent their evenings getting drunk or having fun?

The folks who work at google are typically good enough to go work anywhere they'd like, even in a recession. Google must keep them happy, or they leave. The lowly peons are getting robbed? Laughable.

(I don't work at google)

No, I really don't have an axe to grind with Google. I've like Google. I use it everyday. That said, Deborah Young's comment about their practices in China are concerning.

No, I've never applied to work at Google. It's not my field.

No, I didn't intend to obfuscate the facts by not mentioning other bonuses. I was only commenting on the fact that a valued perk was being withheld.

No, I've never been successful getting paid for all those late nights.

And no, I was not being disingenuous by not mentioning the employees laid off were recruiters. Their role is no longer needed, but they were -- from what I read -- full-time employees and they no longer have a job.

And no, I'm not opposed to some people getting paid more than others.

Maybe my problem here is the same problem I have with the salaries of professional athletes. They're too big. But that's just me.

I just have a difficult time absorbing these large pay-outs at a time when so many people are hurting incredibly. Cognitive dissonance I suppose.

Plus, for me, swapping the phones for cash seemed a hypocritical move. I appreciate in your eyes it's not, but just a reasonable reward reduction.

I find all this moral indignation misplaced. Google's informal coporate motto is: "Do no evil." And the first chance they had to exercise that intent, they did the exact opposite by conforming to China's demand for a censored search engine. And I also believe they turned in a Chinese freedom fighter's private email address to the authorities when the authorities demanded it. So their motto is actually: "Do Evil." They took a page out of the book "1984", they say one thing while doing the exact opposite.

I used to work for the Big-G - you might want to consult some of us Googler and ex-Googlers next time you want to go on about these things.

I wasn't around for the phone thing - but it's worth noting that the phone in question is the unlocked developer version which retails for $400... Since many staff are programmers, I would guess that this was an effort to get staff to develop for the phone platform.

In any case, the christmas bonus is not a core part of the compensation. I know $1000 seems like a lot, but in comparison to 5-figure bonuses and total comp in the 6-figure area, I have not heard a single bit of grousing from any of my friends.

So, ping me, if you're in the area I can fill you in over coffee what it means to work for big companies at talented tech positions.

I'm just curious. What do you think deserves a bonus? If record earnings and record revenues in a very difficult economic environment doesn't, what does?

Do they have to come up with the cure for cancer and AIDS as well? World peace, too?

"And no, I was not being disingenuous by not mentioning the employees laid off were recruiters. Their role is no longer needed, but they were -- from what I read -- full-time employees and they no longer have a job. "

So you have 100 talented people who you do not need any longer. Their job is gone. What do you think they should do with them?

unfortunately, i do not agree with you on this one. google is a private company not a government entity. at one time google shares were selling for over $600 today at about$250. so the guys at the top lost hundreds of millions. they started the company, they run the company, so aren't they entitled. would you want them to be paid by the hour. this is a private compnay, where's the outrage toward the government at the recent $7 billion in "earmarks" in the budget just to get the country to 9/30/09. that could be $50,000 for 140,000 families....$25,000 for 280,000 families...i could go on, but i think you get the point.

I admit I took what may be an undeserved snarky tone here. My apologies.

And so I’ve thought about why I still am bristling here. I’m not comfortable with knee-jerk positions, especially in myself, so when enough people call you a donkey's ass (if you know the old joke) I have to look in the mirror. And so I am taking an honest look at why I still am uncomfortable.

So I ask you to forget the phones or holiday bonus or Google employees. And yes, I readily acknowledge that compared to the obscene mismanagement by so many that got us into the current mess, Google's brand flies untarnished.

I believe what’s at the bottom of this is my discomfort with the huge inequity in the distribution of wealth in America, much of it due to increased executive compensation.

According to 2007 sources:

American CEOs earned 411 times as much as average workers in 2005, up from 107 times in 1990.

From 1990 to 2005, CEOs' pay increased almost 300% (adjusted for inflation), while production workers gained a scant 4.3%. The purchasing power of the federal minimum wage actually declined by 9.3%, when inflation is taken into account.

Top executives in the U.S. make about twice the pay of their counterparts in France, Germany and the U.K., and about four times that of Japanese and Korean corporate chieftains.

In 1962, the wealth of the richest one percent of U.S. households was roughly 125 times greater than that of the typical household. By 2004, it was 190 times.

The top one percent of households received 21.8 percent of all pre-tax income in 2005, more than double what that figure was in the 1970s.

The richest one percent of U.S. households now owns 34.3 percent of the nation's private wealth, more than the combined wealth of the bottom 90 percent. The top one percent also owns 36.9 percent of all corporate stock.

The next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 51%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 84%, leaving only 16% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers).

Since the systematic dismantling of LBJ’s Great Society during the Reagan years, America has continued on a road fueled by greed of a few at the expense of many from which it has never recovered, but instead has resulted in the current crisis and the pain felt by so many.

I may have been misguided in singling out Google here. Certainly they’ve been a well-run private company. Google.org oversees millions in worthy donations for worthy causes.

Maybe the reason I did is because I did indeed believe Google stood for “Do no evil.”

But when any company – no matter how ‘good’ pays those at the top annual compensation packages in the millions, evil across society results.

That is my belief.

Sources:
http://www.demos.org/inequality/numbers.cfm
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

I cant help but think that FFN is just playing devil's advocate with this argument.