RBS chief to get £900,000 bonus

jonnyd281

Why do people get so upset when the CEO of a bank get a £1M bonus, yet its ok for some jumped up little thug to get get £1M a year just because he can kick a ball, who has more responsibilty the CEO or the premiership footballer?

A._Badger

I may be a dyed in the wool free market 'filthy capitalist' but I'd endorse almost every word of Jennifer Jane's.

All this 'they are worth it, they work so hard' is utter nonsense. The people who start what become giant companies are one thing - but the hired hands who flit from one PLC to the next, earning the sort of king's ransoms we've seen in the past few years, rarely are.

They get away with it because the salaries of the companies they are employed to run are not set by small investors but by similarly large investment concerns run by, essentially, the same type of parasite.

It's crony corporatism - not capitalism.

CLAPTON

jonnyd281 wrote: »

Why do people get so upset when the CEO of a bank get a £1M bonus, yet its ok for some jumped up little thug to get get £1M a year just because he can kick a ball, who has more responsibilty the CEO or the premiership footballer?

the answer is that the footballer's salary is paid for by people who choose to pay to go to football matches, buy sponsored products, pay for sky sport etc

whilst the CEO's salary is determined by remuneration committees which are made up of other CEOs or company directors whose salary is determined by remuneration committees made up of directors or CEOs whose salary is determined by remuneration committees made up of .........

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Personally, I feel the comparison to an afghanistan soldier is a good one.

Familes have been torn apart through protecting our country. Not just torn apart through work stress, but death.

What makes this man worth (in monetry terms) 117 serving British soldiers who risk their own lives for us?

Another moral high ground argument. Yes let's try and bring some emotion and shame into it - 117 British soldiers, how many nurses? how many old people struggling to pay their gas bills?

Whatever you do don't bring Premiership footballers into it or people that have million pound contracts for reading the news on telly or numerous celebrities - that would put his pay in a different context.

What British soldiers do is priceless and good nursing care is something that just can't be valued. However when it comes to monetary worth you already know the answer to your own question - an employee is worth whatever their employer will pay.

I don't think he should be getting a bonus because he's added no shareholder value in the last year. However, it appears that his pay package was agreed when he started and he's simply receiving what his employers agreed to pay - I'm over it.

molerat

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jan/24/cairn-energy-drops-plan-chariman-shares?newsfeed=true

Obviously not a member of the correct old boys network

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Another moral high ground argument. Yes let's try and bring some emotion and shame into it - 117 British soldiers, how many nurses? how many old people struggling to pay their gas bills?

Whatever you do don't bring Premiership footballers into it or people that have million pound contracts for reading the news on telly or numerous celebrities - that would put his pay in a different context.

What British soldiers do is priceless and good nursing care is something that just can't be valued. However when it comes to monetary worth you already know the answer to your own question - an employee is worth whatever their employer will pay.

I don't think he should be getting a bonus because he's added no shareholder value in the last year. However, it appears that his pay package was agreed when he started and he's simply receiving what his employers agreed to pay - I'm over it.

You know what, I'm really tiring of these "change the context" arguments.

I wrote...

It's a very crude comparison. One that can't even be taken seriously in a way. BUT it does somewhat highlight the enormity of the money being talked about.

Which you have decided to delete, and then attack as if I haven't already conceeded that it can't be taken seriously, rather it shows the enormity of it.

Renoman is trying desperately to do what you are doing. Trying to make out I suggested people should do the job for free. You just do it better and make it more subtle.

I'm not comparing him, I'm trying to show the enormity of the money. The afganistan soldier makes this point. I'm not the only one to use it. People are doing it all over the news.

If there is a sort of "ransom" involved in this bonus, which it appears there was....then I don't see ANY reason not to have a pop, and try and shame them. Don't really need to though. Theres hardly anyone out there backing RBS up on this one. Jeremy Vine is on now, he's only had ONE person ring in to back this bonus up. Everyone else is having a go and relating the money to cancer treatment, nurses, soldiers, orphanages, you name it.

homelessskilledworker

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

I have worked closely with 'Captains of Industry' albeit in PA roles. It's my view that they are surrounded by the people who actually do the jobs, make the presentations, advise on what to do. The top level make the ultimate decisions, and frequently the wrong ones.

Just take off a few noughts and the figures are manageable, the difference between them and us is probably that they are not overawed by words like 'billions', 'trillions'.

They make huge and costly mistakes which the 'lower orders' never hear about, and it's more luck than talent when the Companies they run are successful. In the meantime, the Company indulges in cost cutting of people, stationery, travel, salaries, and the Companies trundle on. There isn't that much difference between them and the rest of us - the intelligence levels are similar, education is similar - there are only 24 hours in their day and ours.

There doesn't appear to be a difference in the number of the top layer of Bank executives going on stress leave compared with anyone in other areas. In fact, I would say that they cause more stress to the ordinary employees.

These people, often knighted and indulged, with people virtually bowing and scraping before them, are often not running their companies well, chauffeurs, planes, etc smooth the path. The Board and Senior Executive teams are certainly NOT running the Companies on their own.

Every employee with a home laptop and mobile phone now has their life revolving around their jobs these days, if not previously.

When is Hester planning to return the bank to profitability? I would love him to receive a fabulous bonus when he does, but not in the meantime.

Quite frankly, they go from one Company to another, it's all 'the old boys' network' even if they've not in reality been successful. I refer to Sir Tom McK.... who moved from a pharmaceutical company to a bank. The share price at the pharmaceutical company has not really moved in decades.

Of course the share price doesn't affect the day-to-day running of a company, but it does reflect what the market thinks of the Board (amongst other things, of course). Performance is often connected to share price, and nothing I've heard yet makes me think that Hester deserves his huge bonus when he will be getting fabulous share options, a fabulous salary.

They are the feudal lords of the 20th and 21st Century.

Good post.

I have often thought and am even nearly convinced that these so called captains of industry and top bankers who "we cannot manage without" have somehow managed to hoodwink the whole nation, except maybe for the old boys network that allows them to get away with it.

I am convinced that there are hungry aspiring hard working younger people that would probably bust a gut at a tenth of the present day executive wage just to prove themselves.
These so called "top people" who threaten to take their skills elsewhere if they don't get their huge bonuses should be treated like the treacherous unpatriotic leaches they are.

RenovationMan

wotsthat wrote: »

Another moral high ground argument. Yes let's try and bring some emotion and shame into it - 117 British soldiers, how many nurses? how many old people struggling to pay their gas bills?

Devon is the King of emotive BS.

How about a more down to earth comparison. Do the panel (i.e. people on here) feel that during these times of austerity when key workers in the NHS are having their pay cut or being laid off that the NHS should pay a private sector IT contractor to sit on an internet forum all day, chatting or should he be laid off and his pay be given to key NHS workers who save lives?

Answer:

A) Yes, lay Devon off and give his pay to nurses who do a great job for not so great pay.
No, Devon should be paid to post on MSE all day by the NHS.
c) Devon is history's greatest monster!

kabayiri

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

...
I have often thought and am even nearly convinced that these so called captains of industry and top bankers who "we cannot manage without" have somehow managed to hoodwink the whole nation, except maybe for the old boys network that allows them to get away with it.
...

It may not even be them alone.

There is a concern that there is a self-fulfilling set of people out there, who derive great benefit from building each other up.

The top execs, who show a strong ability to circulate amongst the top FTSE companies, or top Public institutions for that matter.

The non-execs, who show too much compliance at times to vote in these pay awards. Non-execs of course are often amply rewarded for part time roles.

The recruitment / head hunting firms, with their pay benchmarking schemes. Of course, it is no coincidence that if top exec pay goes up then so does recruitment commission.


'Hoodwinked' - indeed a possibility.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm not comparing him, I'm trying to show the enormity of the money. The afganistan soldier makes this point. I'm not the only one to use it. People are doing it all over the news.

I think the people all over the news are wrong too.

Who doesn't know that £2m is a load of money - someone would have to be pretty stupid to need currency expressing in the salaries of soldiers or nurses before they realise that it's a significant pay package.

No - there's only one reason to do this and that's to try and clamber up the moral high ground. Banker bashing is simply popular groupthink and it gets in the way of solving the financial problems and preventing them happening again because real issues can't be discussed due to the growing hysterical fringe.

If we keep blaming bankers it means no-one else needs to look at how their own actions might have contributed to the problems.
That's certainly not on-message these days - wouldn't get applause on Question Time either.