Well the thing that triggered this question was from the news about the AIG bonus scandal, where these employees agreed to $1 salaries and compensation in the form of a bonus at the end of a year
. AIG structured the compensation this way in order to retain their services for a full year and it's common for executives to be paid $1 in salary with their real compensation coming elsewhere (e.g. stock options). For example, the CEO and founder of Apple, Steve Jobs, gets a $1 salary and I believe this ($1 as opposed to nothing) is for some kind of legal reason for them to qualify as an employee.
So my question is, if these guys can agree to be paid $1 for the year, and if they get their bonuses taken away, what is the legal distinction that makes this not a violation of minimum wage. I'm sure it's something simple, like ownership of stock, or requirements on other forms of compensation, but I became curious as to what is preventing circumvention of minimum wage through similar means.