Andrew Ross Sorkin defends the AIG bonuses in today’s New York Times, in the name of “the sanctity of contracts.” He asks, “If you think this economy is a mess right now, imagine what it would look like if the business community started to worry that the government would start abrogating contracts left and right.” Sorkin raises the specter of a fundamental change in our economic climate and business culture, evoking an arbitrary, despotic, and perhaps kleptocratic future.

How did this contract, and the ones that had AIG reportedly paying full value to counterparties like Deutsche Bank to satisfy collateral obligations on credit default swaps, become so sacred? Sorkin says this contract is different from others being renegotiated because “the auto industry unions are facing a similar issue—but the big difference is that there is a negotiation; no one is unilaterally tearing up contracts.”

I’m glad Sorkin raised this, because in many ways the AIG bonus agreement is like a union collective agreement. Both are negotiated based on the past, and expected future, performance of groups of employees. And both involve payments and benefits to groups of employees. (Sure, the bonus agreement is more tailored to individual performances, but it’s still a “bonus pool,” not a purely individual set of bonuses.) It’s become apparent that both had to be renegotiated. Where one party has the power to compel the other party to the table, it may not be “unilaterally tearing up contracts,” but it’s close. The UAW renegotiated not because it wanted to settle for less but because the company’s future, and therefore their members’ future employment, was in jeopardy. And isn’t the future employment of AIG workers also in jeopardy?

Union collective agreements aren’t the only contracts subject to recent renegotiation. These days, we’ve got plenty—all kinds of compensation and remuneration is being renegotiated, from furloughs at government workplaces and home mortgage modifications to the renegotiation of entire swaths of government debt. When new information comes to light, and when one party has the leverage, you can press for renegotiation.