Another Bank gets it's bonuses at our expense.

StevieJ

Innys wrote: »

It is desirable for a distinction to be made between those bankers who caused this mess and those on the "front line". Arguably, those on the front line should still be paid bonuses for they are blameless.

However, if the banks were still fully privately owned, made massive losses, asked for more money from their shareholders and then still insisted on paying bonuses to anyone in their company - whether they caused the losses or not, you can bet the shareholders would not be sympathetic. So why should we, the taxpayer, be any more so?

Personally, I don't blame front line staff for causing it, but given the redundancies in the rest of the economy, I think they should be glad they have a job - never mind a bonus.

Not true, I am a shareholder and I am sympathetic, also I am sure all the bank employees who may be shareholders will be to. If the bank has a pay structure that includes performance related pay, then honour what was agreed.

Graham_Devon

Those comments are all quite right.

You can get annoyed, but those are the facts. They wouldn't have a job now, never mind a bonus if the taxpayer had not bailed them out. Them are the facts. So I don't feel bad for saying them.

Also, a point here. Whether ground level or not. It really makes no difference. Woolworths ground leve staff didnt bring it to the ground. British Rail workers didnt bring the rails to its knees. Coal Miners didnt say they wanted to stop mining for coal. Dock workers didnt have anything to do with other docks and countries becoming more profitable and ships and companies using other countries docks. Car makers for Rover didnt make Rover unprofitable.

Fact is, they all lost their jobs, contracts and bonuses. Yet you expect bankers to be somewhat cocooned and to have their bonus regardless of the economy, regardless of bailouts and regardless of any other type of business?

Graham_Devon

StevieJ wrote: »

Not true, I am a shareholder and I am sympathetic, also I am sure all the bank employees who may be shareholders will be to. If the bank has a pay structure that includes performance related pay, then honour what was agreed.

You may want to say how you sharehold. Did you buy these as an investment? I doubt it.

Of COURSE bank workers who hold shares will be sympathetic, its for their own good, and your totally confusing what was said there.

chewmylegoff

Innys wrote: »

I have been paying 40% tax for well over 20 years. However, I have no kids, never claimed the dole, HB, tax credits or any of the multitude of handouts on offer. Therefore I too am a net contributor to the Brown regime.

If I were to follow your logic would I qualify for a bonus as well, not to mention a state bail out if I became insolvent?

it wouldn't be called a bail out, but yes you would get state help if you needed it.

chewmylegoff

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax wrote: »

I'm sure that there are many 'team building' events and 'brain storming' sessions held within the organisations we are talking about, where all of the attendees are told the same old lines "there's no I in team", "you're all makeing a difference", "we're in it together" etc etc etc. Now that the !!!!!! has hit the fan, they can't say "ah, but it was that departments fault", "oh, it was his fault" etc.

No profits, No bounses! Jeez, I'm starting to sound like John Prescott!

I, and I'm certain most who have commented, don't think it is the fault of the majority of the workers, that the banks are in the situation they are in, but "they are in it together"!

and given your profession you have about as much credibility moaning about all this as old two jags does.

what next, estate agents complaining about bankers' bonuses?

lukekelly_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You can get annoyed, but those are the facts. They wouldn't have a job now, never mind a bonus if the taxpayer had not bailed them out. Them are the facts. So I don't feel bad for saying them.

They would have gotten no basic salary either, so if this argument holds then they should receive no pay at all, or at least severely reduced pay. Thousands of non-banking businesses would have gone bust if the government hadn't propped up the banks so those jobs also wouldn't exist if it wasn't for that tax-payers money. By your argument they should receive no bonuses or basic pay either -- their jobs only exist by virtue a taxpayer bailout.

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You may want to say how you sharehold. Did you buy these as an investment? I doubt it.

Of COURSE bank workers who hold shares will be sympathetic, its for their own good, and your totally confusing what was said there.

I actually hold Barclays direct, but those other banks through funds and taxation, of course I bought them for an investment! I would like to see the employees forward looking and motivated to pull those organisations off their !!!!. I must add I am looking to invest directly in Lloyds at some point,

gerkin

What is this nonsense argument about wages being topped up with bonuses etc ? You get wages and you get bonus. Bonuses are determined by the profits the company makes. Its not a guaranteed sum of money. If you wanted more wages you choose a higher paying job. By accepting part of the payment in bonus you agreed to the risk that this pot of money may not materialise.

So if a bank is bust and needs tax payer money to stay afloat then there is no bonus pot. I do not want my tax money going to line some bank worker's pocket. They are fortunate enough to have a job and get wages in the first place.

The smugness of some bank worker's is beyond belief. To all of them my only message is look at Woolworth's staff or look at Zavvi staff.

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax

chewmylegoff wrote: »

and given your profession you have about as much credibility moaning about all this as old two jags does.

what next, estate agents complaining about bankers' bonuses?

You have me at the disadvantage of you knowing my occupation, but I don't know yours, and so I can't slag you off in the same way. However, My profession only existed in the first place, due to the unwillingness of the lenders to give competitve rates to their borrowers.

How can a profession which saves people money, possibly come in line for your criticism and what has it got to do with this thread what I do for a living?

lukekelly_2

gerkin wrote: »

What is this nonsense argument about wages being topped up with bonuses etc ? You get wages and you get bonus. Bonuses are determined by the profits the company makes.

That's not true. Some bonuses are like that and some are not. As explained earlier some bonuses are company profit sharing, some are a reward for making individual targets and some are essentially a component of basic pay. No-one has argued that anyone employed by a loss-making organisation should receive a profit-sharing bonus.