£100 payment - Nationwide Fairer Share

HonestJohn

Look out for the email about voting at the AGM.
I have just voted against the re-election of all those standing. I have also voted to reject their remuneration report.
LETS STICK IT TO THEM.

horsewithnoname

I would forego the £100 for them not to be so damn smug about it! I’ve had numerous emails, texts, messages about it - yeah ok, you’ve shared a tiny amount of massive profits with me. Stop banging on about it🙄
still, better than a slap round the face with a wet haddock 😉

yippeekiay

HonestJohn said:

Look out for the email about voting at the AGM.
I have just voted against the re-election of all those standing. I have also voted to reject their remuneration report.
LETS STICK IT TO THEM.

Ditto, just got my email notification, went straight there & did exactly the same.

ForumUser7

HonestJohn said:

Look out for the email about voting at the AGM.
I have just voted against the re-election of all those standing. I have also voted to reject their remuneration report.
LETS STICK IT TO THEM.

What does voting against all of them do, other than of course expressing dissatisfaction and showing Nationwide that some public opinion is they made the wrong choice? To be clear, this is a genuine question - I’m not trying to be sarcastic etc. so sorry if it comes across that way. 

If I’ve understood correctly, if they don’t get a majority vote they don’t get re-elected/elected. So then would that mean there was no one running the society? Because that may be quite chaotic. And then does that force demutualisation/a merger? Albeit it is unlikely (IMO) that not a single director will receive more than 50% of the vote, but just curious - never considered this situation before.

I think the remuneration votes are advisory, but I don’t think the election votes are - so it’s not like they could just ignore it.

HonestJohn

ForumUser7 said:

HonestJohn said:

Look out for the email about voting at the AGM.
I have just voted against the re-election of all those standing. I have also voted to reject their remuneration report.
LETS STICK IT TO THEM.

What does voting against all of them do, other than of course expressing dissatisfaction and showing Nationwide that some public opinion is they made the wrong choice? To be clear, this is a genuine question - I’m not trying to be sarcastic etc. so sorry if it comes across that way. 

If I’ve understood correctly, if they don’t get a majority vote they don’t get re-elected/elected. So then would that mean there was no one running the society? Because that may be quite chaotic. And then does that force demutualisation/a merger? Albeit it is unlikely (IMO) that not a single director will receive more than 50% of the vote, but just curious - never considered this situation before.

I think the remuneration votes are advisory, but I don’t think the election votes are - so it’s not like they could just ignore it.

It's just another way to show our dissatisfaction. They, hopefully, will see a larger than normal vote against the board. Not going to cause any problems to Nationwide as a society. I felt better too.
If you check Trustpilot you will see a lot of unhappy customers. No one would use a company with that level of dissatrisfaction.

kaMelo

ForumUser7 said:

HonestJohn said:

Look out for the email about voting at the AGM.
I have just voted against the re-election of all those standing. I have also voted to reject their remuneration report.
LETS STICK IT TO THEM.

What does voting against all of them do, other than of course expressing dissatisfaction and showing Nationwide that some public opinion is they made the wrong choice? To be clear, this is a genuine question - I’m not trying to be sarcastic etc. so sorry if it comes across that way. 

If I’ve understood correctly, if they don’t get a majority vote they don’t get re-elected/elected. So then would that mean there was no one running the society? Because that may be quite chaotic. And then does that force demutualisation/a merger? Albeit it is unlikely (IMO) that not a single director will receive more than 50% of the vote, but just curious - never considered this situation before.

I think the remuneration votes are advisory, but I don’t think the election votes are - so it’s not like they could just ignore it.

The remuneration vote is not binding as you correctly point out so it wouldn't block the proposed package.

But it is inconceivable the board could continue with what would in effect be a vote of no  confidence in them.

DS_MSE

As I posted before - With only 530,000 or so Votes cast on each resolution last year perhaps its time for some of us to use our Vote and not throw it in the Bin !

Question is are there more than 265,000 or so disgruntled Savers with what Nationwide describe as 'Shallow Relationship' but that still have a Vote and are prepared to reflect that dissatisfaction by voting against all the resolutions ? By my calculation that's less than 2.2% of the 12.6M members that were excluded from the Fairer Share Distribution !

Perhaps the Nationwide Board will discover that 'Sharks' with a bite swim in the Shallows too.

HonestJohn

DS_MSE said:

As I posted before - With only 530,000 or so Votes cast on each resolution last year perhaps its time for some of us to use our Vote and not throw it in the Bin !

Question is are there more than 265,000 or so disgruntled Savers with what Nationwide describe as 'Shallow Relationship' but that still have a Vote and are prepared to reflect that dissatisfaction by voting against all the resolutions ? By my calculation that's less than 2.2% of the 12.6M members that were excluded from the Fairer Share Distribution !

Perhaps the Nationwide Board will discover that 'Sharks' with a bite swim in the Shallows too.

You make a very valid point.

boingy

The reality is that most people still won't vote or make a complaint, even if they are annoyed.

Maybe there will be a slight uplift in dissenting votes. Nationwide already know they have some annoyed members. They will just put a positive spin on it, like this: "97.5% of all our members say they are happy or very happy with our service" and "We've been in the top 10 for customer service for over a decade". Or maybe "This year we've had a record number of votes and we're giving 10p to Shelter for each one so we'd like to thank you, our members, for engaging with us and helping Shelter make a real difference to peoples' lives." I'm making these numbers up but one thing you won't hear is any official statement about dissent and complaints. 

Section62

boingy said:

...Or maybe "This year we've had a record number of votes and we're giving 10p to Shelter for each one so we'd like to thank you, our members, for engaging with us and helping Shelter make a real difference to peoples' lives."...

Only for the first 500,000 votes.  There's a cap of £50,000 on the donation.

So some member votes may be worth more than other member's votes.