Nationwide's 'Fairer Share' £100 payment for eligible members

BooJewels

metrobus said:

Of course it’s fair for the real customers to get the pay out and not the parasite vultures.

I'd call myself a real customer - I have a savings account with a decent amount in it and a current account - but haven't been with them that long, maybe 7months.  I won't get the bonus because of one small detail.  Plenty of posters here have been with them for decades and won't get the bonus for some reason.  I wouldn't consider myself a 'passive vulture' in any way, nor are very many of the posters in this thread with long term current accounts and mortgages.

It seems that their selection criteria have bypassed many very real customers - I'm not bothered for myself as a newish customer, but don't feel they've been very fair to some of their longest and most loyal - and probably lucrative - customers.

metrobus

The terms looked very fair, the transactions requirement probably stops a lot of people but if it is your “real” current account and not a switcher bonus account or similar like so many on this forum talk about and even Martin Lewis try’s to get everyone to open for the “free” £200 that would not have been a problem.The parasites had to be weeded out somehow.

xylophone

The parasites had to be weeded out somehow.

Are members who have had savings accounts but not mortgage or current accounts "parasites"?

subjecttocontract

I suspect there is very likely to be a lot negative publicity for Nationwide BS over this. I thought  it was owned by its members. Management have taken assets owned by all the members and distributed them very unfairly. How can it be right for long term account holders to be excluded ? It's appalling.

TheBanker

xylophone said:

The parasites had to be weeded out somehow.

Are members who have had savings accounts but not mortgage or current accounts "parasites"?

Or those of us who have large mortgages. Without us and the savers, there would be no Nationwide. 

masonic

subjecttocontract said:

I suspect there is very likely to be a lot negative publicity for Nationwide BS over this. I thought  it was owned by its members. Management have taken assets owned by all the members and distributed them very unfairly. How can it be right for long term account holders to be excluded ? It's appalling.

Voting opens next month ahead of their AGM.

ForumUser7

masonic said:

subjecttocontract said:

I suspect there is very likely to be a lot negative publicity for Nationwide BS over this. I thought  it was owned by its members. Management have taken assets owned by all the members and distributed them very unfairly. How can it be right for long term account holders to be excluded ? It's appalling.

Voting opens next month ahead of their AGM.

Has anyone got their AGM email yet please? I think I’m eligible to vote this time, but I haven’t heard about it yet

masonic

ForumUser7 said:

masonic said:

subjecttocontract said:

I suspect there is very likely to be a lot negative publicity for Nationwide BS over this. I thought  it was owned by its members. Management have taken assets owned by all the members and distributed them very unfairly. How can it be right for long term account holders to be excluded ? It's appalling.

Voting opens next month ahead of their AGM.

Has anyone got their AGM email yet please? I think I’m eligible to vote this time, but I haven’t heard about it yet

I received an email on 12th April giving me a heads up that the voting emails would be coming in June (voting opens on the 12th).

Section62

masonic said:

subjecttocontract said:

I suspect there is very likely to be a lot negative publicity for Nationwide BS over this. I thought  it was owned by its members. Management have taken assets owned by all the members and distributed them very unfairly. How can it be right for long term account holders to be excluded ? It's appalling.

Voting opens next month ahead of their AGM.

Yes, with the inequality of this scheme one or more of the board members risks being re-elected with less than 96% of the vote.

Since Nationwide manages to ensure there are exactly the same number of candidates as there are available seats, no board member actually risks being voted out.

One of the reforms I'd like to see is a requirement for at least one candidate more than the number of seats they are standing for.

masonic

Section62 said:

masonic said:

subjecttocontract said:

I suspect there is very likely to be a lot negative publicity for Nationwide BS over this. I thought  it was owned by its members. Management have taken assets owned by all the members and distributed them very unfairly. How can it be right for long term account holders to be excluded ? It's appalling.

Voting opens next month ahead of their AGM.

Yes, with the inequality of this scheme one or more of the board members risks being re-elected with less than 96% of the vote.

Since Nationwide manages to ensure there are exactly the same number of candidates as there are available seats, no board member actually risks being voted out.

One of the reforms I'd like to see is a requirement for at least one candidate more than the number of seats they are standing for.

Interesting, so you are saying that a director would be re-elected even if there were a majority against the resolution to re-elect them? What about things like the remuneration policy? Nonetheless, an uncharacteristic jump in votes against resolutions would be a clear signal of dissatisfaction. If there were sufficient strength of feeling and the typical <5% turnout increased significantly, then it would shatter the illusion that members taking the "opportunity to have their say on the way the Society is run and to vote on the people standing for election or re-election to the Society’s Board" are listened to.