Bankrupt Solyndra seeking to pay bonuses

Now seems an unlikely time for handing out bonuses at bankrupt Solyndra LLC, but that’s the plan of company attorneys intending to dole out up to a half-million dollars to persuade key employees to stay put.

Nearly two dozen Solyndra employees could receive bonuses ranging from $10,000 to $50,000 each under a proposal filed by Solyndra’s attorneys in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware.

The attorneys say the extra money will add motivation at a time when workers at the solar company have little job security and more responsibilities because so many of their colleagues have been fired.

The names of the bonus-eligible employees are not disclosed in the court filings that outline the bonus proposal. None of the employees is among the so-called corporate “insiders” — top officers or members of the board of directors, records show.

The proposed bonus recipients include nine equipment engineers, six general business and finance employees and up to two information technology workers.

The biggest bonus, for $50,000, would go to a Solyndra employee whose job title is listed as a senior director with a base salary of $206,499 per year. Two senior managers stand to receive bonuses of $30,000 and $32,500.

Bankruptcy attorneys said the so-called “key employee incentive plan” aims to keep important personnel from leaving the company.

Solyndra went broke just two years after winning a more than $500,000,000 federal loan-guarantee package, and one year after President Obama toured its California headquarters and hailed its prospects.

Most of Solyndra’s employees were laid off last year. The company employed about 1,100 people last year. Just 84 remain. Of those who managed to avoid the mass firings, many have been scrambling to find jobs.

I get it, it’s just that there are many who do not.
It takes skill, luck, and good business sense to take a company and make it profitable.
It takes a sense of savvy to take an already successful company and make it better.
It takes zero talent to take a company apart and lay people off.

“I don’t want to hear them whine when the GOV’t/obama does the same thing when they closed dealerships, etc., can’t have it both ways.”

Exactly.
People need to be consistent on it, otherwise there is NO difference between them and the Democrats.
And the level of WHINE from those defending Romney is pathetic.
But at least we now know who would jump into a bonfire if the GOP elite put out a poll telling them that a high percentage of fellow travelers would do the same.

""""People need to be consistent on it, otherwise there is NO difference between them and the Democrats.""""

And there you have it, that is the bottom line.

That statement is right out of the mouth of Romney,he pretty much said he was no different than Obama. Like we didn't know already? lol

Thanks Darsheare.

Not even remotely the same — What Mitt did and Obama did. The difference is between private funds and taxpayer funds.

As I understand it, Bain Capital advances capital and management services to businesses that are in bad financial trouble. Bain Capital takes these risks with private investor funds. If Bain Capital is able to turn these “at risk” businesses around and make them profitable, they get rewarded.

Sometimes the turn around requires that employees of the “at risk” companies to be laid off. Sometimes, no matter what's done, the business cannot be saved. In that case, Bain Capital and its investors incur a loss of the capital and services advanced.

The bottom line is Bain Capital is playing a high risk game because it's seeking to rehabilitate a failing business without any guarantee of success. Bain Capital is the end of the line before an at-risk business goes under. When the business fails, everyone’s out of a job, and everything in the business is sold off.

In Obama’s case, General Motors and Chrysler were deemed “too big to fail”. Conventional bankruptcy laws were circumvented. Shareholders were defrauded of their money, the UAW was rewarded, Republican owned dealerships were closed, the government took defacto control of GM (Chrysler was sold to Fiat), and U.S. taxpayers were put on the hook for billions. These billions advanced to Chrysler and GM have never been repaid. Where Chrysler is financially, I don't know, but GM is STILL losing money.

Mitt's error is to equate what he and Bain Capital did with what Obama did. If Mitt doesn't understand the difference between private and public money, this is pretty fundamental. It IS muddled if he can't see a difference.

Mitt claimed it was the same.

What Bain did was take out a 100+ million loan against a company’s 30 million assets, stripped the company and then left it to default on the loan.
In other instances they parted a successful company out piecemeal.
{See what they did to Digital Electronics Corporation.}

That’s not capitalism or even taking on risk, that’s vulturism.
And we’ve had people for the past few days defending Mitt here on FR.

Eitehr way, it’s still scummy.
And Mitt invited the critique.
And.. he had his attack dogs waiting to go after anyone daring to critique his record.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.