KINDA GLAD HE DIDN'T TAKE THAT BONUS !

[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.

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.

They most certainly are public sector workers, and so long as the government, and by extrapolation, the taxpayer, is the major shareholder, ipso facto, they are a public sector company, and therefore public sector workers - whether you, or anybody else likes it, or not, or disagrees. So my point about their remuneration, and terms and conditions, whilst under the umbrella of public ownership, deserves just as much scrutiny and cyncism as that levelled at other public sector workers' pension schemes. An inconvenient truth, I suspect, for some.

 

[RobMac]

Can someone just clarify this for me please. :shock:

Do employees expect a bonus for doing a job their paid to do?

Is the bonus system a reward/incentive to perform above average?

Am I explaining that properly? :?

 

[greenstiles]

I think it's nieve to think voting actually changes the way fat cats make their money.

As a tax payer and RBS customer I'm not happy the way this government claims to be cutting back yet still lines pockets for poor results.

If pay cuts/freezes/bonus cuts are good enough for the lower pay scale, then I'm sure the upper pay scale can afford to eat and pay their bills with a little less coming in.

The pay equivalent now compared to the 80's is disgusting. Where most people earn under 50% more than their 80's counterparts the upper pay scalars are getting 200-300% more for the same job in the 80's.

You can have a minimum wage and make sure it drags it's feet along the years.................but maximum pay doesn't exist it seems.

I think it should.

He was going to take his bonus, but now he's saying no one should be rewarded for failure, what a smooth talking hypocrite, if it wasn't for all the media hype, that would have been another cool million for worse results and massive losses than last year.

This world has become very twisted indeed. GREED !

 

[NAILTRAIL96]

The bail out wasn't a simple shares purchase.
The media will have you believe that the taxpayer simply bought a percentage of the company and now could sit on the board as the major share holder with full control.
Thats not how it is, the bailout was just secured on shares and as such the government has no control and does not employ staff at RBS.
The bonuses are down by over half so they are getting less, the public sector are still getting a pension, it's just worth less.

@RobMac, it's similar to a sales job ie a basic salary which is padded by "bonuses" for reaching certain thresholds.
These are usually different according to the department, so if you turn £20 million on your pension hedge fund and your threshold was £20 million you get your bonus.
If the bank payed out £100 million in PPI claims then it will make a loss.
Some think you shouldn't get your bonus even though you personally have done everything required.

@greenstles, voting will change the government and therfore the policy they spend under.
They should never be allowed to interfere with how private businesses spend or pay.
A maximum wage or earnings goes against everything the UK stands for, those who work hard will be rewarded.

 

[greenstiles]

Those that work hard are sometimes on minimum wage !!!!!!!!!!!!


Change of government does not always mean change of policy, believe it or not they sometimes lie !

It's nice that you still believe in this system, and i do agree with a basic economic system of profit (ie weak exploitation) but i don't believe in strong exploitation.

 

[Neil]

Can someone just clarify this for me please. :shock:

Do employees expect a bonus for doing a job their paid to do?

Is the bonus system a reward/incentive to perform above average?

Am I explaining that properly? :?

In all jobs I've had where bonuses were available, they were firstly dependent on things like the company performance (ie profit), then personal performance, then how much had been allocated out of the budget available for bonus payments.

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

Nope.

However, I'd very much expect that bonus payments wouldn't materialise.

When the company involved has, effectively, financially failed, had to be bailed out by public finances, and effectively become public sector (these banks will need to be privatised again...), I'd very much expect that the taxpaying public will most likely have an opinion on the subject - and in most cases, significant ground-swell in public opinion does tend to be listened to.

I'd also expect in the previous furore about other public sector conditions (eg pensions) that had many up in arms talking about a sense of entitlement, and the politics of envy, that in context of this bank now being publicly owned (I'll define that as the government being the major sharedholder - so by extension, publicly owned), having failed, financially, as a financial institution in a capitalist society, and still making serious loss, that any previously agreed bonuses would attract the same scrutiny and cynicism that public sector pensions did, previously.

 

[Neil]

The bail out wasn't a simple shares purchase.
The media will have you believe that the taxpayer simply bought a percentage of the company and now could sit on the board as the major share holder with full control.
Thats not how it is, the bailout was just secured on shares and as such the government has no control and does not employ staff at RBS.

The government is the major shareholder.

Therefore this bank is no longer private sector. Period.

The bonuses are down by over half so they are getting less, the public sector are still getting a pension, it's just worth less.

Surely the same court of public opinion applies - plenty, here, showed a sense of outrage (and really jealousy) and the current pension conditions of public sector workers - I'm not seeing the same people, with the same sense of outrage, and people who are now public sector workers (therefore the public have a right to voice opinion - as it's their taxes that have made it all still possible) still expecting bonuses from a company that failed financially, and is still making dire losses.

Every private sector job I've worked in, bonuses were most definitely related to both the company's performance as well as individual performances - and were only granted on budget and fiscal "affordability".

@RobMac, it's similar to a sales job ie a basic salary which is padded by "bonuses" for reaching certain thresholds.
These are usually different according to the department, so if you turn £20 million on your pension hedge fund and your threshold was £20 million you get your bonus.
If the bank payed out £100 million in PPI claims then it will make a loss.
Some think you shouldn't get your bonus even though you personally have done everything required.

Well "some think" are entitled to opine as they're currently doing all this in a public sector organisation, only still possible because of public finances. And secondly - "some" will probably think that bonuses should also take into account company performance, too.

If you're just going to stick to the "contract" terms and conditions argument, then surely public sector workers pension schemes are golden.

@greenstles, voting will change the government and therfore the policy they spend under.
They should never be allowed to interfere with how private businesses spend or pay.

This isn't a private business, as long as the government is the major shareholder - so enough with the private sector rubbish.

A maximum wage or earnings goes against everything the UK stands for, those who work hard will be rewarded.

So why all the furore about public sector pensions, then.

 

[NAILTRAIL96]

The current losses aren't due to market conditions they are down to PPI claims and as such the losses are a one off and will have a minimal effect on the long term profitability of any of the banks.

The public out cry is understandable, but the bailout was nessesary to secure the thousands of jobs dependent on it and the pensioners and investers who would have lost out had it gone under.
The finer details of the bailout were never made public but it's suspected by many in the know the government agreed to be a silent partner and have no control over the running of the bank. In effect the bailout was a loan.

As for them being public sector workers :roll:

 

[Neil]

The current losses aren't due to market conditions they are down to PPI claims and as such the losses are a one off and will have a minimal effect on the long term profitability of any of the banks.

PPI claims are in themselves down to the banks and financial instituitions business practices and market conditions - they brought all that on themselves - much like their other financial troubles.

The public out cry is understandable, but the bailout was nessesary to secure the thousands of jobs dependent on it and the pensioners and investers who would have lost out had it gone under.

I think generally, I'd agree - not purely on a jobs basis, mind - but I think I'd edge towards agreeing that the bail-outs were the lesser of two evils.

All the same, there's some - and I don't completely disagree with - that say that proper capitalism, means having the strength to let such institutions fail when they have themselves. Some say that the safety net they were given, is in themselves, something of a damaging effect for that market.

The finer details of the bailout were never made public but it's suspected by many in the know the government agreed to be a silent partner and have no control over the running of the bank. In effect the bailout was a loan.

In effect, the bailout makes the company(ies) public sector, all the time that the government is the major shareholder.

As for them being public sector workers :roll:

Roll your eyes all you want - you simply don't understand the term.

Whilst the company(ies) have the government as the major shareholder, they are public sector organisations. And, ipso facto, their direct staff are public sector workers until such time as they're not public sector companies.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_sector, see that 2nd paragraph?

"Publicly owned corporations (in some contexts, especially manufacturing, "state-owned enterprises"); which differ from direct administration in that they have greater commercial freedoms and are expected to operate according to commercial criteria, and production decisions are not generally taken by government (although goals may be set for them by government)."

Now much of the public outcry isn't so much that the government isn't wading in - I suspect most people expect a certain degree of autonomy. However, I suspect what a lot of the public expect, is that banks like this, only still trading (and workers still having their jobs) because of the massive public funds used to become the major shareholders, that significant policies like this pass the scrutiny of the court of public opinion - in just the same way that many applied their opinion to the strikes by public sector works because of their pension schemes being assailed.

 

[brocklanders023]

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.

Well, my pension contributions are going up in April. The Government has stated the extra money is not to pay for pensions but to pay off the debt. I am losing part of my pay because some one else in the company of thousands didn't perform.

If it's good for me, why not for the bankers?