"Random House had its corporate Christmas party last night in New York and word is that Santa likes bondage. A lot," the paper of record wrote. "Call it 5,000 shades of green."

This, after all, is the year that Random House published Fifty Shades of Grey, the mega-bestselling S&M book, as well as two equally lucrative sequels. It's been a good year--the first book has been number one on the bestseller list for 37 weeks and shows no sign of stopping.

Next paycheck, all Random House employees can expect to see a little (or a decent-sized) extra added to their paychecks.

Random House imprint Vintage picked up the book at the beginning of last year after it was first published by a small Australian publishing house.Random House says that the book has sold more than 35 million copies in the US, the Times reports.

What do you know? There's money to be made in soft core porn.

Goldman isn't the only bank cutting staff, The Times notes politely:

Morgan Stanley reduced its work force by 2,935 during the 12 months that ended March 31. While it is a similar number to Goldman’s, this represents just 4.7 percent of its work force. If markets continue to deteriorate this summer, Morgan Stanley is likely to make additional small cuts.

Other firms have been cutting aggressively. Credit Suisse, for instance, had laid off people and earlier this year filed filed a notice with the New York Department of Labor, saying that it planned to lay off 109 people in the state before May 1.

Goldman Sachs managing directors earn a base salary of $500,000, with annual bonuses climbing into the millions, according to The Times. In absence of which pay, Greg Smith's seven-figure advance may be looking better and better.

Via Getty.

John Carney at CNBC's NetNet notes that, from what he hears, many at Goldman Sachs aren't exactly happy with what they're getting. It's ""really ugly," apparently. For example:

"One girl was actually crying, I think," a trader at Goldman said in a text message.

And:

"My number was so low I thought I was fired. My director had to convince me that the firm still wants me to stick around," said one person at Goldman.

Well, 99%: Are you happy now?! Look what you did! Someone is crying. Or they're just suppressing a huge grin:

"You don't want to walk out of your comp meeting with too big of a smile. People will think you took money out of their pockets," one midlevel Goldman employee said.

Briefly: Consider how waitstaff at restaurants often make minimum wage ostensibly because the meat of their salary comes in tips. This is how many an investment bank salary goes, except instead of making a bonus daily, they get theirs once a year, near the beginning of the new tax cycle (thus giving them a full year to come up with and catalog as many tax write-offs as they possibly can).

Investment banks didn't have the best year. Over at Dealbook, where they describe the bonus day process, they note Morgan Stanley, for example, taking the "drastic step" of capping their bonuses at $125,000 this year. As they explain, it wasn't always this grim: In 2006, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein raked in $68M for his Bonus Day takeaway. And yet, even on a bad day, some note that—hold on to your hathos—it's really not that bad.

"The worst fears haven't materialized. People are not receiving donuts. Base salaries aren't being cut. A lot of us thought it would be worse," said one person at the firm.

Like being burned at the stake by the quite-upset masses? Nope. Think they're just talking about not getting a solid bonus.

UPDATE: Bess Levin at Dealbreaker is hearing numbers. "First years: 40k annualized (base: 70k) Second years: 40-56k (base: 80k, 10k bump in August)."

Yup. Still making more than most of you their first year on the job.

fkamer@observer.com | @weareyourfek

Mr. Blankfein recently received a bonus of $5.4 million for 2010, which brought his total compensation for the year to just about $14 million. Mr. Blankfein made $1 million in 2009, which in the high-pressure, high-reward world of global finance is, well, peanuts. Yes, he did quite a bit better than he did in 2009. But let's bear in mind that he could be making a ton more at a hedge fund or at another firm.

Mr. Blankfein will be the first to admit that he is not doing God's work. He has taken no vows of poverty, nor does he pretend to be running a charitable enterprise. He's a businessman in a ruthless field, working on behalf of his company's shareholders.

If shareholders believe that Mr. Blankfein is worth $14 million, or $144 million, that's their business. Fake populists and demagogues can rail all they want about Mr. Blankfein's pay, but their opinions mean nothing. Mr. Blankfein certainly doesn't need us to defend his salary and his competence. But we'll take the opportunity to point out that he makes significantly less than a certain third baseman who works in the South Bronx. Despite the catcalls in Jersey City the other day, Mr. Blankfein and Goldman Sachs are having a better spring thus far than Alex Rodriguez, whose annual salary is double Mr. Blankfein's total compensation package, including his bonus, for last year.

Executive compensation is a private matter. That's how the free market works. Some politicians, however, appear to believe that somehow they ought to have a role in determining how much Mr. Blankfein and his colleagues should be paid, or what their pay ceiling ought to be.

Presumably the same politicians would object to voters setting salaries for, say, members of Congress or the State Legislature. Say this about Mr. Blankfein: Unlike most legislators, he can't simply give himself a raise. He has to earn it. Government should aspire to that kind of accountability.

That's no way to win a PR war.

As other leaders of public-employee unions are beginning to admit--privately, of course--the tide of public opinion has turned against the excessive perks and benefits paid out to government workers, including cops and firefighters. That doesn't mean the sacrifices of cops and firefighters are any less appreciated, or that their courage is any less deserving of our admiration. But some benefits are simply unaffordable and in desperate need of reform.

Mr. Cassidy and Mr. Lynch insist that the $12,000 payment is a fairly won benefit given to retirees in return for other concessions regarding the investment of pension funds. That may be true, but the concession was granted in 1968. Times have changed, and so has the city's ability to fund basic benefits and pensions, never mind bonus payments, whatever they might be called.

Perhaps Mr. Bloomberg should stop calling them "Christmas bonuses" and simply call them what they inarguably are--unaffordable perks given to retirees on top of their pensions. Mr. Cassidy and Mr. Lynch would then have to stop calling the mayor a liar--a silly charge, in any case--and instead focus on defending the payment itself. It would be a hard case to make, for taxpayers are growing weary of footing the bill for pension deals made nearly a half-century ago.

Police officers and firefighters are courageous figures. The city's commitment to funding a dignified retirement for these heroes remains strong. But City Hall is broke, and so is Albany. The time has come to reconsider how best to help city workers in their retirement while keeping faith with taxpayers as well.

• Even though their salaries have risen substantially in recent years, it would still hurt Wall Street employees' feelings if they didn't get any bonuses this year. [NYT]
• The accountants at Ernst & Young are in trouble with the state of New York for allegedly twiddling their thumbs and whistling to themselves as their client Lehman Brothers lied to investors about the security of its balance sheet. [WSJ]
• Europe is still in a world of hurt. Following Moody's Dec. 15 announcement that it may cut Spain's credit rating, Standard & Poor's is looking at downgrading Portugal, Ireland and Greece. Even France -- France! -- is vulnerable. Quel horreur. [Bloomberg]
• Kohlberg Kravis Roberts wanted to buy Australian money runner Perpetual for $1.75 billion, but could not get a deal done. [FT]
• Online holiday spending is up 12 percent this year. There are also some new names for online shipping days, like "Green Monday" and "Free Shipping Day." [Reuters]

mtaylor [at] observer.com | @mbrookstaylor

mtaylor@observer.com

Twitter: @mbrookstaylor

The move is apparently part of an effort to counter a drain of talent from the investment bank after the U.K. implemented a 50 percent tax on bonuses of more than £25,000 paid between December 2009 and April 2010. Goldman had capped compensation at £1 million "in response to the U.K. government's demands," says The Journal.

Employees can't cash in on their stock bonuses for five years, and Goldman is reserving the right to revoke the bonuses in some circumstances. The bonuses are tied to 2010 performance, but employees may get another bonus at year-end.

mtaylor@observer.com

Twitter: @mtaylor

Sixty Goldman employees could lose their "partner" stamp "this year to make way for new blood," The New York Times reports. (Emphasis added.) The loss of the coveted position potentially means missing out on millions in bonuses, but such tragedy is relative, since the de-partnered retain base salaries of around $200,000 a year.

The entire process of relieving Goldman employees of their partnerhood is so opaque that few people besides those that lose their titles even know that it has happened. The Times does offer one potential method for telling who's still partner and who's not: "Goldman insiders are already speculating that de-partnered executives who decide to stay will have to give up their window view."

Credit Suisse, for example, told its London managing directors last week that they'd be getting an unusual midyear payment to make up for a one-time bonus tax imposed by the United Kingdom last year. Sadly for those London Credit Suisse, they'll have to keep their mitts off the money until 2012 at the earliest as the company adjusts payments according to performance.

Many firms are considering similar measures, the Journal reports. New employees are asking for their signing bonuses ahead of possible tax increases. Eager to keep their traders happy, many firms have in the past snuck bonuses in before the tax collectors came knocking. Still, there's a chance things could be a little different this time around: "[B]ig banks that accepted government assistance during the crisis will be reluctant to move bonuses to cut employees' tax bills."

It seems that there's at least some fear among Wall Streeters that taxpayers haven't yet forgotten the enormous bill they footed a few years ago. It remains to be seen who among them is tone-deaf enough to try to help its talent escape the IRS.