In my activist days, when I would get riled up enough about something I read in the paper (which was fairly often), I wrote Letters to the Editor. I wouldn’t say I was prolific, but regular. Being back in the days before websites were ubiquitous, it was undeniably satisfying when one would be printed. I count a few letters to the Los Angeles Times, and one to GQ among my successes.
It is a very small satisfaction, after a couple of days of outrage over AIG, that a letter I wrote to the NYT was selected as an Editors’ Selection today. The letter, in response to a column by Andrew Sorkin making a case in support of the bonuses, was one of 38 selections out of 1900+. More satisfying, obviously, would be to know that any of these actions (or any of the other genius ideas put forth by the many other readers/writers) will come to pass.
This was my letter (which can also be read via the title link above):
A few thoughts -
1) I don’t know the particulars of the contracts or the wording of a ‘retention payment’, but what is to stop these greedy traders from taking the money and going to a position where they will make more money betting against AIG?
2) “Inconvenient contracts”? This is an unprecedented case and time we are in. And what these (argh, I can’t even think of a printable word) have wrought is unprecedented. I believe in this case we would be right to abrogate those contracts. Bottom line - they have taken government/taxpayer monies, without which the company would not be in existence, and we, the taxpayer now own 79/80% of it. It galls beyond belief that we still do not have any say in this matter.
3) Trust and commitment to employees? Apparently it’s only a one-way street? Why can’t we force AIG employees to negotiate? I haven’t even seen this mentioned as a possibility in this case.
4) I say do not give them the bonuses. I say make them sue for it and let the whole world know, by name, which of them have the temerity to sue for bonus which they do not deserve. What they are not willing to do themselves, I am willing to do for them. They should all be publicly named so they cannot escape the public wrath.
5) I am appalled that so far, no one at AIG has seen fit to say “Hey, maybe we don’t deserve our bonuses”. As Grassley was trying to intimate - a little humility at this point would be appropriate.
— Lelaine Lau, New York
