Should any staff at RBS get a bonus?

[TheAnimus]

Banks like Barclays have done it their own way without scrounging that much off the taxpayer and hence they are free to pay whatever they want and rightly so.

Ok, this one couldn't be a better name to have picked.

Barcap is the affectionate nickname of Barclays Capital, which has come out of this smelling like roses, but it could have been so differen't.

One and almost the only reason for RBS been so badly hurt was because of the acquisition of ABN Amro:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle1851664.ece

If they hadn't done that, things might have been a bit different. First off this was quite lucky for barcap because it ment they had a surplus of cash, just as cash became a good investment. It then meant they could cherry pick the best bits of Lehmans NY operation, because they where cash rich.

Now this brings me back round the question, its not a case of morality, or Daily Mirror prejudice but a simple question of which will help YOU as a taxpayer best.

Now that is undoubtedly RBS performing well again, they had many profitable businesses, and they still have managed to retain some. Their bonus it could be argued, would be coming from their own profit, and the taxpayer money just to plug the gap of ABN. However if its said no, you've worked hard made money but are getting no bonus, are they going to stick around? Hell no, they will be off like a shot. This is the problem if you don't pay a bonus, there will be plenty of people left..... All the people you wouldn't want in the first place.

I'm actually now going to be very un-professional even by my standards. I had the miss fortune of working with a total idiot in one of my first city jobs. The guy broke something important on a major production server responsible for a multi-hundreds-of-millions business. He was scared of owning up so lied for the first hour. Then after admiting his pointless stupid action, he went home because he didn't know how to fix it, leaving myself and another co-worker there till the small hours of the morning with reg-mon manually fixing a few hundred COM server entries.

He works at RBS now, he got sod all bonus last year and I'd imagine will get none this year. You pay peanuts, you get chips.

[shaithis]

So your saying that they are all to blame, and that profitable areas should receive no bonus because we don't want them to continue making money at all as punishment.

It's a company. A single entity. You surely cannot just say "well, these guys turned a nice profit lets give them a bonus, even though the guys next to them virtually bankrupted us".

Until the company has paid it's debts and are back to profitability, then bonuses are a luxury they cannot afford, especially after the way in which they were kept afloat and the way that the public are watching them like hawks.

[Phage]

May I recommend
http://blogs.bankingtech.com/blog/20...s-the-cartoon/

[TheAnimus]

It's a company. A single entity. You surely cannot just say "well, these guys turned a nice profit lets give them a bonus, even though the guys next to them virtually bankrupted us".

Until the company has paid it's debts and are back to profitability, then bonuses are a luxury they cannot afford, especially after the way in which they were kept afloat and the way that the public are watching them like hawks.

Actually its not normally one company technically.

I can't think how to say this without been condescending, but all those so far saying no seem to simply be ignorant.

If you take the attitude that a desk (normally a separate legal entity sometimes only part owned by the parent) should all be tared with the same brush your in a very fast race to the bottom, its also rather like communism.

It would be the same as been told your not allowed to go on holiday or buy any luxury items because your neighbour hasn't paid off his mortgage. He lives on the same street after all, and the government had to bail out the street, even thou you never received a penny of it.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Well the fact is that Barclays still by the skin of teeth managed to do OK and most of the others did not. The other banks made bad business decisions or maybe were unlucky. I don't care TBH as they still needed a huge amount of money from the government to stay afloat and this is what most people care about.

Like I said many qualified and highly intelligent people in other areas of the economy are suffering as a result of the knock on effects of the banking fiasco.

Just give the chaps in the profitable areas their stupid bonuses otherwise they won't stop their whinging on about it and how hard life is for them as a result if they don't get them.

Everyone else gets little more than inflationary pay increases.

[TheAnimus]

None of the banks will be giving bonuses to un-profitable teams, not even the support staff (who it could be argued did their jobs perfectly). There is an exception to this rule, if you got a contractual obligation, which they can't welch on anyway.

Banks are capitalist internally, if you've lost money your normally out the door quite quickly. I've seen this happen to someone over an incorrect interpretation of the maths by someone in Risk Control, he actually made them money, but they had already fired him without bonus.... Interesting law suite i'd imagine.

[shaithis]

I can't think how to say this without been condescending, but all those so far saying no seem to simply be ignorant.

Did you put the poll/thread up to hear an honest cross-section of opinions from people or just to parade your knowledge of this one sector of business?

I am sure the vast majority of RBSes shareholders (i.e. the public taxpayer) does not understand the internal working of a bank or the banking system as a whole. If they do not like our "ignorance", then they should not have taken our money.

[TheAnimus]

I put it up because I'm amazed at the reaction this has garnered from the public.

If brown knowing full well it will be cam's problem in a few months decided to persuade them not to bonus, people think it would actually help them, rather than make their debt burden even higher.

This is what I just can't comprehend, how anyone can think its a good idea to NOT pay what are effectively the Tax Payer's employees market rate!

I'm assuming people think it is a good idea to retain the good staff however, so assuming its ignorance of the technicalities of what is a secretive world.

[abaxas]

Maybe the government should print up £100,000,000 and pay bonuses to ex Worthworth staff.

They were insolvent too.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Maybe the government should print up £100,000,000 and pay bonuses to ex Worthworth staff.

They were insolvent too.

They are obviously not good enough as people who work in banking as bankers are obviously more important to keep happy than any one else. Screw everyone else who has to take pay cuts and have massive job insecurity even if they are good at what they do.

[Phage]

Lots of them bit the dust as well.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...job-losses-cbi
I'm afarid these arguments are emotinally based and neither side is listening to the other.

[TheAnimus]

Maybe the government should print up £100,000,000 and pay bonuses to ex Worthworth staff.

They were insolvent too.

Ah but they didn't nationalise or buy up any of wollies.

If they had say bought up a large chunk of wollies, and found that the sales managers where expecting bonuses shouldn't they still get them?

The cost of replacing a significant number of them would be high, and failure to have them would lower the value of the asset.

Once you've gone into something like buying up banks you have to try and get out at some point, preferably with the company in a healthier state.

Stopping them getting people is NOT the answer.

If people are envious of the bonuses flingged about (I know I am) then apply for job that pays that well if your smart enough. I know a fellow I used to sit opersit was earning easily 100 times more than I was. The thing is he was working much more hours, with more stress and crucially could comprehend events faster than I could. Of course not by 100 times, however he was able to command that because of the money he generated for the management company and the investors. I could have been replaced by one of probably a hundred tech guys. He couldn't be, loosing him was a real blow to them, and their performance this year has suffered. In short, he made them a LOT more money than he cost, even as a multi-million per year expenditure.

It is the lovely thing about capitalism, there is nothing stopping anyone who wants to, to make that much money, there is nothing stopping them making even more. Only themselves, I know i'm too lazy, bad at certain types of maths to earn that much, watching someone do it just doesn't make me hate them (thou god damn envious at times!).


So in short people voting No, do you honestly thing YOU will be better off if they didn't?

[b0redom]

People who made their targets or exceeded them should be paid a bonus.

People who didn't make their targets, but have a contractual right to a bonus (if this happens it's nuts) should be given their bonus in stock

People who didn't make their targets should get nothing.

Presumably bonuses are at least partially linked to company performance in addition to overall group performance anyway.

[Zak33]

I've not read ANY of the above posts.... cos it won't change my view

If someone does better than average they should be rewarded in some way

If a person is employed on a basis that involves paying a bonus for "winning" in their sector they should get it if they earn it and to earn it they have to hit targets set by their boss.

If I were employed on a commission style basis, as I have been for much of my working life, and a global recession caused by many people, not by me (either not at all, or not by me alone but by thousands of others) effected a year's worth of trading, but then the decisions I made brouyght profit to my company, I'd expect paying the bonus I was entitled too.

If this isn't the case, then everyone who ever does overtime at work, or who sells more tv's in Dixons than anyone else, or who signs up more people for pensions than anyone else, should also not be paid any extra over the common average employee. Ad then we end up with average being acceptable. Average is not acceptable. We should be striving for the best.. and money, sadly for everyone, needs making from people.

I dunno why success is a rude word or why profit is currently so vulgar ?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I've not read ANY of the above posts.... cos it won't change my view

If someone does better than average they should be rewarded in some way

Does not happen in all sectors though!!

Do teachers and lecturers get overtime then??

You should read this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4291553.stm

What about all the time they spend outside the classroom for example??

Is their contribution any less important than anyone else??

[Zak33]

Does not happen in all sectors though!!

no reason to stop in the sectors where it does happen though is it? It needs introducing ont he sectors where it doesn't happen.

Just cos working as a nurse is the hardest damn job in the world ever, doesn't mean we should make everyone else's job so damnably hard. It means we shuld help nurses to have a better job with more support.

Lets not bring things DOWN to a level, but bring them UP to a level