KINDA GLAD HE DIDN'T TAKE THAT BONUS !

[greenstiles]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17128477
"We all understand that a company that is making losses at the bottom line tests the patience of those who depend on it," Mr Hester said in the results.

Despite that performance, the bank paid out £785m in bonuses to staff in total last year. WHAT FOR....???????????????

 

[NAILTRAIL96]

Because they did what was required of them to qualify for it :roll: .
There's more to a company than the bottom line.

 

[greenstiles]

In a recession and cuts i'd say bottom line counts 1st. :roll:
Why not have no bonus and have less losses !

 

[saltyman]

My bonus for last year.....£135 from a company worth billions.

 

[greenstiles]

And no milk in their coffee ant more

 

[NAILTRAIL96]

In a recession and cuts i'd say bottom line counts 1st. :roll:
Why not have no bonus and have less losses !

Because the bonus makes up part of the salary, Why should someone lose part of their pay because some one else in a company of thousands didn't perform?

It's niave to think that its so black and white.

 

[Neil]

In a recession and cuts i'd say bottom line counts 1st. :roll:
Why not have no bonus and have less losses !

Because the bonus makes up part of the salary, Why should someone lose part of their pay because some one else in a company of thousands didn't perform?

Soooo.... public sector pensions, then, and the strikes about them being assailed - no harm no foul?

After all, weren't people talking about a sense of entitlement, and others just saying they simply wanted the conditions they were employed under...

It's niave to think that its so black and white.

Quite.

You can't have it both ways...

The difference, here, though - is that the public finances have been used to bail out and prop up a failling capitalist business, at huge public expense, and public and other private sector workers are finding their terms and conditions, remuneration, or jobs assailled, and that's just fair game, but (now) publicly owned and propped up, previously private sector companies can't have their bonuses assailed - oh no - after all, that would be unfair - it's their term and conditions - so what if they're largely, now public sector workers, and so what if their business effectively failed, if not for huge, public sector finances to prop it up, and so what if the public think they can have a voice of criticism that after all that, bonuses are still to be paid - it's not as if they're public sector pension schemes, is it.

You can't have it both ways...

 

[NAILTRAIL96]

They are not public sector workers, To remain competitive RBS must be allowed to function as a bank, not an extension of government.

Public funds bailed them out but the public and government have no say.
It's like the mortgage company telling you what colour to paint your living room, they lent you money secured on a property, but it's your responsibility.

I'm not trying to have it anyway, it is what it is.
If you disagree then show them come election time, thats how it works.

The press have distorted this to make you believe all the bonuses are going to fat cat city traders in massive pay outs and thats not the case.

If your employer starts doing badly would you expect him to just stop paying you?

 

[Neil]

They are not public sector workers, To remain competitive RBS must be allowed to function as a bank, not an extension of government.

Public funds bailed them out but the public and government have no say.
It's like the mortgage company telling you what colour to paint your living room, they lent you money secured on a property, but it's your responsibility.

I'm not trying to have it anyway, it is what it is.
If you disagree then show them come election time, thats how it works.

The press have distorted this to make you believe all the bonuses are going to fat cat city traders in massive pay outs and thats not the case.

If your employer starts doing badly would you expect him to just stop paying you?

Two points: 1) right now, effectively, they are public sector workers, and 2) in response to your last sentence: so what's the difference compared to public sector pensions, then - and I'll add the answer: nothing.

 

[NAILTRAIL96]

They are not public sector workers, To remain competitive RBS must be allowed to function as a bank, not an extension of government.

Public funds bailed them out but the public and government have no say.
It's like the mortgage company telling you what colour to paint your living room, they lent you money secured on a property, but it's your responsibility.

I'm not trying to have it anyway, it is what it is.
If you disagree then show them come election time, thats how it works.

The press have distorted this to make you believe all the bonuses are going to fat cat city traders in massive pay outs and thats not the case.

If your employer starts doing badly would you expect him to just stop paying you?

Two points: 1) right now, effectively, they are public sector workers, and 2) in response to your last sentence: so what's the difference compared to public sector pensions, then - and I'll add the answer: nothing.

No they aren't public sector workers whether you think they should be or not.

If your contract changes you're entitled to leave, they need to reduce the public sector and so can afford to lose some.

Because they aren't public sector (and they are not) they are not under the same contracts and the current ensuing legal argument as to what the government can and can't do will tell the difference, not retrobike forum users.