Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
And how exactly would they have done that? Not fulfilling contracts they are required by law to honor?
Really not getting what you mean here. Sure, they could have handled a lot of other things differently, like the mistakes that were made to put us into this position, but bailout money is bailout money. And if given to a company to any company, WITHOUT restrictions, they will have stuff like this happen.
|
Maybe you've missed it, but I've written it twice already including in the post you partially quoted.
Contracts can be renegotiated and voided when not fulfilled by one party. You make it sound like a contract is set in stone, unbreakable. They're not. They can be, and regularly are, renegotiated and voided when one party does not fulfill it's obligations under the contract. And they should be in situations like this. While I am not arguing against this example, I'm sure there are many examples within the company that fall under this umbrella. If they had done this with the responsible people and departments there might not be this backlash.
The fact that they did not, coupled with their continued spending on other perks as stories broke early on, show there are (or at least were) many fat cats up at the top that just didn't get it and acted as it if were entitled to them.
They acted in bad faith with taxpayer money. They should be expecting backlash. The fact that it's hitting people within the company not responsible is unfortunate, but understandable.