Killing the goose that lays the golden eggs...in London

Spirit_2

shortchanged wrote: »

Great, won't this further help reduce the unemployment figures because I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who would step in to fill the void by those leaving.

I think you miss the point. That if London is an unattractive place for Bankers, Banks will make strategic decisions about where they do most of their business...and therefore where they need people. Specialist banking staff will relocate if they are talented so will not be unemployed, the lower down the food chain jobs will just go.

On the other hand it is perhaps another stage in economic evolution. It is a bit like UK not being an attractive place to manufacture or mine coal so we have few manufacturing jobs or coal mines. Perhaps we can replace banking jobs with more call centre, retail and leisure jobs.

[Deleted User]

Jim_B wrote: »

Where do you choose to draw the line? Presumably you're happy with a central authority telling people that they may not kill each other, or take each others property by force? Are you happy with a central authority telling companies they must reasonably ensure the safety of their employees? How about a central authority telling a company that they cannot renumerate based on gender or ethnic origin? Where do you choose to draw the line?

That is a really strange post - are you having a bad day? There are so many straw men in it - are you a farmer with fields of the stuff?

I am not drawing any line. I said none of the examples you listed. I think that it is no business of the EU to tell a company that it cannot pay a bonus of whatever that company chooses to negotiate with its existing or prospective employees.

I can take my custom elsewhere if I wish. Stop putting words in my mouth!

WR

IronWolf

Who are the EU to tell us, a sovereign nation, what our companies, which are publicly owned and in the free market, what they can pay out to their staff.

I'm not opposed to capping bonuses because the bankers will move, Im opposed to it because it's yet another dictation from the EU, and yet another constraint on the free market.

Jim_B_3

Wild_Rover wrote: »

That is a really strange post - are you having a bad day? There are so many straw men in it - are you a farmer with fields of the stuff?

I must have been not very clear. The point I'm making is that various central authorities already govern the ways in which people interact, and already govern a great deal about how companies pay their employees. You think that they shouldn't govern how companies pay their employees; that's fine, that's your opinion. You seemed surprised that nobody had brought this up already; I expect many people think that central authorities should have some say in how companies deal with their employees. That's their opinion.

All those examples I gave were with the intention of demonstrating that you do (probably) agree that central authorities should have some say in how companies deal with their employees.

[Deleted User]

Jim_B wrote: »

I must have been not very clear. The point I'm making is that various central authorities already govern the ways in which people interact, and already govern a great deal about how companies pay their employees. You think that they shouldn't govern how companies pay their employees; that's fine, that's your opinion. You seemed surprised that nobody had brought this up already; I expect many people think that central authorities should have some say in how companies deal with their employees. That's their opinion.

All those examples I gave were with the intention of demonstrating that you do (probably) agree that central authorities should have some say in how companies deal with their employees.

It would be no business of Europe, Westminster or Holyrood how much my salary or bonus would be if I worked in a sector where bonuses are paid.

For which other occupations do you think Europe should be allowed to determine pay packages? Yours?

WR

Jim_B_3

Wild_Rover wrote: »

It would be no business of Europe, Westminster or Holyrood how much my salary or bonus would be if I worked in a sector where bonuses are paid.

For which other occupations do you think Europe should be allowed to determine pay packages? Yours?

WR

Personally, none. I can, however, contemplate arguments in favour of regulating high pay.

gagahouse

Jim_B wrote: »

Personally, none. I can, however, contemplate arguments in favour of regulating high pay.

Good, then we should be able to cap the pay and expenses of our EU masters and technocrats too - see how far you get with that. Oh and while you are at it, also ask them to become accountable for this kind of decision making power by being directly voted by us - did you vote for Barroso, Van Rompuy et al? No, didn't think so.

[Deleted User]

Jim_B wrote: »

Personally, none. I can, however, contemplate arguments in favour of regulating high pay.

For me, the danger is that once the Europeans decide that it is within their competence to set pay arrangements for "high" earners, it will be open season on everyone else. Who gave them that competence anyway? I'm dam# sure nobody knew they were voting for that during the "EEC" referendum in the 70s, a referendum that I was too young to vote in.

And while I am on a rant:rotfl: I am not anti-Europe. I am anti- those individuals or institutions who take it upon themselves to stick their collective noses into individual liberties unless there is a good reason to do so. Interference in pay bargaining is none of Europe's business, any more than it is my business how much a French housewife might choose to pay to have her windows washed, or how much you might wish to pay to have your hair cut. (Assuming you have hair to cut..)

Rant over.
WR

Jim_B_3

Without addressing the rights/wrongs of regulating paw, I didn't vote for Dave Cameron. Some people did as an MP, and some members of the Tory party picked him to be PM, but I had no choice whatsoever in the matter. I see very little meaningful difference in this respect to having law laid down in London or somewhere else in Europe.

[Deleted User]

Jim_B wrote: »

Without addressing the rights/wrongs of regulating paw, I didn't vote for Dave Cameron. Some people did as an MP, and some members of the Tory party picked him to be PM, but I had no choice whatsoever in the matter. I see very little meaningful difference in this respect to having law laid down in London or somewhere else in Europe.

True, but even the most rabid right or left winger in the UK parliament would be very hesitant about interfering in matters like this - the government is entitled as an employer to decide how much to pay its staff. It has no business telling a company how to pay its staff. The UK government does not have the power to determine that in the UK - what makes Europe decide that it has the power to do it in Europe?

Believe me, I am no fan of the banks and bankers. However that is not enough to make me believe it is a good idea to accept that Europe has or should have such power. And why for banks and not insurance? Why banks and not food distribution? Why banks and not lawyers? This is dangerous, dangerous territory.

WR