No, it's called "enforcing the contract they signed".

And who said that the salary they would get instead of null plus bonus would be zero?

I am saying that if the companies had simply paid normal (if very high) salaries to their executives, instead of "bonusses", they wouldn't be in this situation now.

A "bonus" (Latin for "good") should be paid to an employee if he performed better than he had to and/or if the company did well. That's why people are upset now.

What are you talking about? I would happily sign a contract that binds me to a certain employer for one year.

Ok, let's go back to the beginning of this:

I: "If everything had just been a very high salary, rather than compensation and bonus, we wouldn't have this discussion."

Taltamir: "because they are paid 0$ in salary unless they stay with the company and don't quit for a set amount of time... if you stayed with the company for the bad times, then it will eventually pay you all at once as a "bonus" for not quitting."

I: "Why can they not let executives sign a contract not to leave?"

Taltamir: "Because forcing someone to work at a job he doesn't want for no pay is called slavery?"

I: "No, it's called enforcing the contract they signed. And who said that the salary they would get instead of null plus bonus would be zero?"

You: "Like I said, try getting someone to sign such a contract.  Let us know how you do."

I: "I would happily sign a contract that binds me to a certain employer for one year."

You: "I doubt you would @ $1.00 per year with no possibility of a bonus."

And that's where we return:

If everything had just been a very high salary, rather than compensation and bonus, we wouldn't have this discussion.

Thats the thing... they had very high salary... they wanted to leave because the company was failing and unable to pay it anymore... so they agreed to work without a salary with the promise that if they stick with the company through thick and thin they get a single large lump sum payment for their work. Calling it a bonus is like calling canola oil "rape oil" (from roman, rapa', means turnip, it isn't, but thats what the romans called it). It is a bad name for a good thing.

They just called it the standard industry jargon, it is the uneducated masses and the irresponsible press that are spinning it out of control.

If the press started raving about rape oil tommorow people will be getting up in arms and maybe we will see government bans on the second healthiest vegetable oil in the world (second only to flaxseed).

You can't fault a company for using the standard jargon of their field.

especially when CONGRESS doles out every last cent in their budget as bonuses to white house aides because if they didn't they'd have to give the money back.