Another Bank gets it's bonuses at our expense.

chewmylegoff

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax wrote: »

Quite simple. They have a SALARY to do the job and a bonus is a BONUS!

I've already said that if a company is profitable, then bonuses aren't an issue. Next we'll find that companies are paying out bonuses based on how little their company loses!

performance related bonuses are common. plenty of public sector organisations pay them - they don't make profits, so by your logic should not incentivise employees through financial reward. they should probably only be paid in food stamps, as only people like yourself should be able to earn more money by working harder or longer.

Graham_Devon

The only argument I keep seeing from people on the end of these bonuses is what I'm seeing here.

"its not fair, I went to work, I should get it"

Getting real tiresome.

racheyg

I used to work for an investment bank, not as a banker, but I supported bankers in my role.

I got paid a bonus based on how I performed, not whether I made profits. Trouble is, without bonuses, people 'work to rule' and in this climate, people are expected to do more, but won't do it without a bonus, ie, incentive.

I'm not sure whether I agree or not, but, I can't see the difference between £1000 bonus for someone without very much responsibility, or £100,000 to someone with LOADS of responsibility.

A decision should be made across the board whether to pay or not, and its discriminating against the higher earners if they don't receive bonuses, but shop floor do, except if they are responsible directly for the mess, and most aren't.

longtimelurker_2

racheyg wrote: »

I got paid a bonus based on how I performed, not whether I made profits. Trouble is, without bonuses, people 'work to rule' and in this climate, people are expected to do more, but won't do it without a bonus, ie, incentive.

Where I work (smallish company) we don't get bonuses, but we work slightly more than our contract states to do a good job. Where my partner works (NHS) he works far more hours than his conrtact states to do a good job.

It should be about meeting expectations and having pride in your work, not incentivisation. I suppose you can't quantify that though can you? (edit: as in 'one' not you personally)

I think the main issue is bonuses becoming completely ingrained and expected - taken for granted.

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax

chewmylegoff wrote: »

performance related bonuses are common. plenty of public sector organisations pay them - they don't make profits, so by your logic should not incentivise employees through financial reward. they should probably only be paid in food stamps, as only people like yourself should be able to earn more money by working harder or longer.

I'm not saying they should be rewarded in food stamps! I'm saying they shouldn't be rewarded at all!

What is so difficult to understand about the fact that if there isn't a profit, or reserves in the pot from previous years profits, then there shouldn't be any bonuses due to an obvious lack of profitability?

As for my own earnings. I take the risk of getting NO PAY AT ALL. I'm not getting a bail out from the Government in order to pay my self a bonus for losing money last year

chewmylegoff

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax wrote: »

I'm not saying they should be rewarded in food stamps! I'm saying they shouldn't be rewarded at all!

What is so difficult to understand about the fact that if there isn't a profit, or reserves in the pot from previous years profits, then there shouldn't be any bonuses due to an obvious lack of profitability?

As for my own earnings. I take the risk of getting NO PAY AT ALL. I'm not getting a bail out from the Government in order to pay my self a bonus for losing money last year

because it's not just about the bottom line over the last financial year. it's about the performance of each individual within the organisation. especially if you have told them that's how they will be rewarded.

Graham_Devon

chewmylegoff wrote: »

because it's not just about the bottom line over the last financial year. it's about the performance of each individual within the organisation. especially if you have told them that's how they will be rewarded.

Is it? Really?

Thats a rather skewed description if I've heard one, based on the ex being a bank worker, and knowing what actually goes on in terms of charts, points and leagues.

chewmylegoff

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Is it? Really?

Thats a rather skewed description if I've heard one, based on the ex being a bank worker, and knowing what actually goes on in terms of charts, points and leagues.

well that's how my bonus gets set.

i'm sure it varies a lot from organisation to organisation, and i am sure the bonuses for the rank & file in retail banking are set on vastly different criteria to those of traders in the investment banking division.

if the bonus structure in place says that you don't get a bonus if the company makes a loss, then that is what happens. if the bonus structure in place is based on the isolated performance of your business unit or similar, then that is how it is set. if it is on income generation then so on.

clearly halifax bonuses are not based on consolidated profit before tax.

leveller2911

chewmylegoff wrote: »

because it's not just about the bottom line over the last financial year. it's about the performance of each individual within the organisation. especially if you have told them that's how they will be rewarded.

Im sorry but it is about "the bottom line" we are talking about private companies here and NOT local government etc.

BOTOOM LINE = BANKS ARE MORE OR LESS BUST (if it wasn't for the fact that people would lose savings they should have been left to go to the wall)......
The Key word here is "PROFIT" if you don't make any ,you don't get a bonus... To say I work hard so I "DESERVE" a bonus ,tell that to the Woolworths workers or The BMW workers...........Not justified at all:rolleyes:

SamIAm_3-2

chewmylegoff wrote: »

clearly halifax bonuses are not based on consolidated profit before tax.

In ordinary circumstances I would agree with you; they should adhere to what the individual's contract states.

The difference here is that HBOS has had to take a government bailout which is financed by the tax payer. The issue is that, had the bailout not occurred then there would be no HBOS. And therefore those that were employed by HBOS would not get a salary, let alone a bonus.

So the question for me is: Should the government have demanded a review of those contracts where bonuses were guaranteed when it offered the bailout? As a tax payer, and therefore a stakeholder in this, I would say yes they should. In my opinion the money should be used to invest in the company to make it profitable again at which stage bonuses can be paid.

In any case this is somewhat academic since the bailout has occurred, and the bonuses are being paid. What can we do as tax-payers other than voice our concerns about it?