Company giving all 1,400 employees $100k bonus

[dude]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/nation-now/2015/12/17/company-gives-every-employee-100k-bonus/77473988/

[Pooplips]

Wow. Thats Awesome.

[Schaefer Light]

They must have had one helluva year.

[alleykat]

That is so nice.  I think all companies should do this. The top management certainly makes enough and the wealth should be shared.

[HPstache]

$140 million... that's not messing around!

[James]

That is so nice.  I think all companies should do this. The top management certainly makes enough and the wealth should be shared.

As an owner of many thousands of companies, I highly hope all companies don't do this. It's certainly a nice thing for this company to do, but hardly a model for other businesses to practice. The top management payout is almost inconsequential to the bottom line, but a payout like this would make most companies unprofitable and certainly destroy any return I hope to achieve as an owner. (this is not to say I think top management compensation isn't ridiculous in many cases, it's just not comparable to a payout like this)


I fully respect highly profitable private companies that do things like this, and I'm sure it provides benefits to both employees and the company to some extent, but as a model for all companies I don't like it. If employees want a cut of the profits then get some skin in the game. On a bad year do they take away half the employees earnings? Owners of businesses take most of the risk and should retain most of the profits after employees are appropriately paid. This is simply a nice one-off bonus by a generous owner.

[Josiecat]

That's super nice.  I hope the employees spend the money wisely.  I hope the employees don't expect that kind of bonus every year, because it's probably not happening.

[Apocalyptica602]

That is so nice.  I think all companies should do this. The top management certainly makes enough and the wealth should be shared.

As an owner of many thousands of companies, I highly hope all companies don't do this. It's certainly a nice thing for this company to do, but hardly a model for other businesses to practice. The top management payout is almost inconsequential to the bottom line, but a payout like this would make most companies unprofitable and certainly destroy any return I hope to achieve as an owner. (this is not to say I think top management compensation isn't ridiculous in many cases, it's just not comparable to a payout like this)


I fully respect highly profitable private companies that do things like this, and I'm sure it provides benefits to both employees and the company to some extent, but as a model for all companies I don't like it. If employees want a cut of the profits then get some skin in the game. On a bad year do they take away half the employees earnings? Owners of businesses take most of the risk and should retain most of the profits after employees are appropriately paid. This is simply a nice one-off bonus by a generous owner.

This. I got into a discussion the other day with someone at work who was lambasting our executives for making so much money (the publicly displayed info in the annual reports)

Initially when you add it up, the corporate officers making a combined $100 million a year in compensation SEEMS astronomical (and it is)..

But if you took away EVERY dime they made that year (assuming their 90% stock-based compensation was instantly able to be exercised - which obviously is impossible) and redistributed it among our 45,000 employees...

Everyone would only get a $2,000 bonus, less taxes. The associate in question would also consider $2,000 a 'shit bonus', and probably complain that it should be proportional to our salaries because 'socialism bad!' quickly forgetting the hypothetical situation where we forcibly removed 100% of executive compensation and redistributed it evenly across the employees.

[Roboturner]

Not that it changes much, but the bonus was prorated for time served over the past 5 years.

[TheAnonOne]

Wow, that would be an immediate 10%(abouts) closer FIRE for me.

Oh well, 100k is pretty inconsequential to the average MMMer, we can generally save that within a year or two.

[Proud Foot]

Since this was based on reaching the company's 5 year performance goals, I wonder what kind of bonus the employees received during those 5 years, if any. And it sounds like this is not something new for this company, they did something similar in 2010 with the choice of $35k cash or a $50k car.

I think it is awesome when a company is able to do something like this. 

[I'm a red panda]

Oh well, 100k is pretty inconsequential to the average MMMer, we can generally save that within a year or two.

What's your data on the average MMMer? I would say that most would love a $100k bump and that it isnt inconsequential at all. 

Probably wouldn't change anyone's day to day, but would certainly make FIRE closer. 



I've never worked a job that got a bonus.  Seems like that would be nice!

[mm1970]

That is so nice.  I think all companies should do this. The top management certainly makes enough and the wealth should be shared.

my company is in the red, ha!

I'd be happy with a raise.  Or a $5k bonus.  Either one really.

[big_slacker]

Since this was based on reaching the company's 5 year performance goals, I wonder what kind of bonus the employees received during those 5 years, if any.

Oil and gas is not stingy with pay or bonus from what I hear. 

[TheAnonOne]

Oh well, 100k is pretty inconsequential to the average MMMer, we can generally save that within a year or two.

What's your data on the average MMMer? I would say that most would love a $100k bump and that it isnt inconsequential at all. 

Probably wouldn't change anyone's day to day, but would certainly make FIRE closer. 



I've never worked a job that got a bonus.  Seems like that would be nice!

That's just it. It wouldn't probably change many's life here. That's all I meant, really.

'FIRE' is the ultimate unneeded luxury, and putting it off a year or bringing it up a year is all pretty small in the grand scheme. Where as, for the average American, this may mean a way to get out of debt collectors gaze, or avoid losing the house.

[alleykat]

That is so nice.  I think all companies should do this. The top management certainly makes enough and the wealth should be shared.

As an owner of many thousands of companies, I highly hope all companies don't do this. It's certainly a nice thing for this company to do, but hardly a model for other businesses to practice. The top management payout is almost inconsequential to the bottom line, but a payout like this would make most companies unprofitable and certainly destroy any return I hope to achieve as an owner. (this is not to say I think top management compensation isn't ridiculous in many cases, it's just not comparable to a payout like this)


I fully respect highly profitable private companies that do things like this, and I'm sure it provides benefits to both employees and the company to some extent, but as a model for all companies I don't like it. If employees want a cut of the profits then get some skin in the game. On a bad year do they take away half the employees earnings? Owners of businesses take most of the risk and should retain most of the profits after employees are appropriately paid. This is simply a nice one-off bonus by a generous owner.

I do agree, I was really referring to companies that are large and profitable.  Of course, not all companies can do it.  But, I do think the wealth should be shared with the employees for the companies that can.  I know some CEO's make into the 10's of millions, so yes, I do think some of that can be given downward.   And I do have skin in the game and it isn't even my company. I don't go in the office doing as little as possible, even though some do. I work hard and it would be nice if that was appreciated with a nice monetary award at the end of the year.  It is not only higher management that makes a company work.

[acanthurus]

Since this was based on reaching the company's 5 year performance goals, I wonder what kind of bonus the employees received during those 5 years, if any.

Oil and gas is not stingy with pay or bonus from what I hear.

Depends. E&Ps and integrated oil and gas tend to be much better than service companies. Also with the boom/bust you basically have to make hay while the sun shines. I've been laid off twice this year in oil and gas and just got hired on to another company. Each time I got a big raise (even in this oil market) but job security keeps getting worse.

[libertarian4321]

Since this was based on reaching the company's 5 year performance goals, I wonder what kind of bonus the employees received during those 5 years, if any.

Oil and gas is not stingy with pay or bonus from what I hear.

It tends to be a feast or famine business.  Or Boom and Bust.

This bonus was for the past 5 years.  For the first 4 of those years, oil and gas were BOOMING in Texas (shale oil and gas) and just about every company involved made big money, but over the past 12-15 months, prices have tanked and the profits have gone way down.

If they stay down, these folks likely won't be getting that kind of bonus in 2020.

[nobodyspecial]

So if the company's amazing performance when oil was $120 was due to the diligent employees - are the losses their fault now that oil is $35?

[TheAnonOne]

So if the company's amazing performance when oil was $120 was due to the diligent employees - are the losses their fault now that oil is $35?

Heh, as sad as it sounds, this is pretty true. The employees probably had little or no effect on the company profits other than keeping it going.

[gReed Smith]

The goal wasn't profit; it was production.  The company doubled its production of oil and gas in 5 years.  In the current climate where energy workers are losing their jobs by the thousands, it's impressive that Hilcorp would pay a huge bonus when there is so little competition for employees.