MSE News: Bank charges fighting on: a new legal argument

Chrysalis

natweststaffmember wrote: »

There are bodies but how long do you want US(that's me and you) to have our money used for them rather than them making profits and therefore allowing us to sell our shares and claw back some of the money we have paid out?
I am not a fan of bonuses per se, but to be honest, no bonuses leaves no incentive to work for that company.

I think many people would jump at the chance to work for a bank.

Listen to yourself, who would take a job with no bonus???

Do you not take jobs with no bonuses then?

We in a era of high unemployment, its an employer's market.

Centium5000

Sorry Chrysalis but I don't think the point you're making is valid in this instance.

In the banking industry bonuses are a standard part of the pay package, even down to call centre workers.

If the ability of the part-nationalised banks to offer bonuses is restricted too much they won't be competitive with other firms (non state-owned) when recruiting staff.

You'd end up with all the best staff going elsewhere (why wouldn't they?) which would affect the quality and therefore competitiveness of the bank.

I believe this is (one of) the points natweststaffmember is making.

This may also be a step towards greater governement intervention in private affairs, worryingly so as salar15 notes. First bank bonuses, who next? Yours? Mine? Everyone's?

Your feelings are understandable and I sympathise but we don't want to cripple the banks we now (part) own.

oscar52

Centium5000 wrote: »

In the banking industry bonuses are a standard part of the pay package, even down to call centre workers.

I agree with most of your post - bar this point - MBNA scrapped their monthly bonuses for staff a long time ago, most people took an average £200 a month pay cut. (and before anybody points is out! ) I am aware you shouldnt rely on monthly bonuses/incentives, but after two or three years of continually getting the same amount, thats exactly what happens.

I can understand the arguement to give icentives out - as stated, it could lead to an exodus of staff, however, I can also understand the arguement of why people should be rewarded for complete failure. (then again, people have voted for Tory and Labour Governments for some time and that is about all they have acheieved)

natweststaffmember

oscar52 wrote: »

I agree with most of your post - bar this point - MBNA scrapped their monthly bonuses for staff a long time ago, most people took an average £200 a month pay cut. (and before anybody points is out! ) I am aware you shouldnt rely on monthly bonuses/incentives, but after two or three years of continually getting the same amount, thats exactly what happens.

I can understand the arguement to give icentives out - as stated, it could lead to an exodus of staff, however, I can also understand the arguement of why people should be rewarded for complete failure. (then again, people have voted for Tory and Labour Governments for some time and that is about all they have acheieved)

Can I ask what the effect was on MBNA staff as a result of the incentives being cut, so to speak? Did they change the way that the incentives were made and what incentives were given instead?

oscar52

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Can I ask what the effect was on MBNA staff as a result of the incentives being cut, so to speak? Did they change the way that the incentives were made and what incentives were given instead?

As above - essentially a pay cut. They wernt cut, they were completely scraped. nothing has been given instead.

natweststaffmember

oscar52 wrote: »

As above - essentially a pay cut. They wernt cut, they were completely scraped. nothing has been given instead.

And did the targets improve?
Did staff remain?
Did morale improve?

oscar52

natweststaffmember wrote: »

And did the targets improve?
Did staff remain?
Did morale improve?

Some staff were leaving anyway, some made redundant. Targets have been masively increased, morale is rock bottom.

Nothing is being done to resolve the situation and it is many peoples opinion (and with respect to certain departments is fact) that shortly the bank will no longer be based where it is.

pingchris

natweststaffmember wrote: »

The banks' contribution to the Exchequer prior to the crash was over 42 billion pounds in tax. The better the banks do the more money the Exchequer gets in cash Furthermore, where did the £250 billion pounds figure come from?

ray mallen,ex middlesbrough council police chap,he was commenting on the chorus steel factory that has closed in redcar i believe,im certain he mentioned that was the figure the government pumped into the banking system

natweststaffmember

pingchris wrote: »

ray mallen,ex middlesbrough council police chap,he was commenting on the chorus steel factory that has closed in redcar i believe,im certain he mentioned that was the figure the government pumped into the banking system

"Likely cost to the taxpayer
In the 2009 Budget, the Treasury estimated that the final net cost to the 15 taxpayer might lie within a range from £20 billion to £50 billion, depending on the length and depth of the economic recession and the strength of any recovery. The final net cost to the taxpayer will depend primarily on the scale of any losses arising from the Asset Protection Scheme, and on the prices at which the Government eventually disposes of its holdings in RBS and Lloyds Banking Group. However, following Lloyds Banking Group’s decision not to enter the scheme and changes to the terms under which RBS will participate, the estimated net cost is likely to be lower."

Directly from the National Audit report itself.

pingchris

natweststaffmember wrote: »

"Likely cost to the taxpayer
In the 2009 Budget, the Treasury estimated that the final net cost to the 15 taxpayer might lie within a range from £20 billion to £50 billion, depending on the length and depth of the economic recession and the strength of any recovery. The final net cost to the taxpayer will depend primarily on the scale of any losses arising from the Asset Protection Scheme, and on the prices at which the Government eventually disposes of its holdings in RBS and Lloyds Banking Group. However, following Lloyds Banking Group’s decision not to enter the scheme and changes to the terms under which RBS will participate, the estimated net cost is likely to be lower."

Directly from the National Audit report itself.

ok if it says so but there are figures being banded about that are a lot higher