LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksYou can do it yourself in advanced edit i believeOriginally Posted by TheAnimus
You can do it yourself in advanced edit i believe
Not what I'm saying, he left a £1.8M role, to join RBS....
He met the conditions of his bonus, but thanks to the media attention he has really little choice but to hand it back.
Why on earth would any talented person, or even a person competent enough to hit targets work for RBS, when they are likely to be tried in the a court of the media over their remuneration.
The problem isn't that he was reciving such a reward, but that RBS felt it had to pay one.
Its a simple issue of supply and demand, so how do we create more supply? My immediate thoughts are by making incentives for firms to be smaller and more agile.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Given the free market (we allow choice of jobs), how do you propose persuading good people to work for RBS and get the best value for money out of the tax payers investment? £1m in isolation is a lot, but it pails into insignificance compared to the £45bn the public purse has invested. Put another way, would you rather save on that £1m and potentially cost the public purse £bns?
The only alternative is to either force someone skilled to work their rather than a competitor (doesn't tend to produce good results) or provide some other incentive (pension scheme etc.) - this tends not to save any money in the long run.
@The Animus: I think he's an odd case, he clearly doesn't need the money so he must be doing it for other reasons, which means his old salary/package isn't massively relevant. He's probably vastly underpaid compared to that type of role in a global scale even if he had taken the bonus.
I've often wondered why he tried to hold out for so long as he doesn't need the cash, I can only surmise that he felt the precedent was important.
It's beyond the point though, well it is for me anyway. If I say to you (or we have a contract stating) "I'll give you £500,000 to install Microsoft Office on my Windows PC" and you agree to it and complete the task, regardless of whatever anyone else says, or how many people say it, that's our agreement. You could be the richest man on earth, it was still our agreement.
Well I suppose he had the option of keeping the bonus and leaving RBS. I would think though that he's smart enough to know that the good 'ol days are gone, no, suspended and whilst joe bloggs has a pay freeze or job loss to contend with, 'bonus' restraint is the best choice. That's if he thinks he will be able to get by on 'just' his salary.
Done!(But the previous replies will continue to reflect the thread title at the time)
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Been helped or just 'Like' a post? Use the Thanks button!
My broadband speed - 750 Meganibbles/minute
TheAnimus (30-01-2012)
@raz: I quite agree, that was why I suggested he believed the precedent to be important.
It was and unfortunately the way this has been handled is a fiasco, it's unhealthy and unprofessional.
Incentive is just another word for "bonus" if it is financial in nature, after all "succeed or youre fired" is also an incentive.
A bonus is a bonus, unless you have to do nothing to earn it.
Just because its a case of hitting a target doesnt make it any less of a bonus reward for hitting the target, unless the target is so easy to hit that you dont have to do anything.
Of course, the big gripe is that they do seem to get a bonus regardless of performance or targets.
I have no problem with people being rewarded for good performance, but from what i have read on the BBC, that performance has not been entirely proportional to size of the bonus. As a tax paying citizen who is part of that £45Bn bailout, i think the public is right to have little trust of the bankers and their rather flamboyant 'incentive schemes'. I think the Bank has a long way to go and a lot of reparations to make before the public has enough trust in them for these bonus' to slip under the media radar, in reality i would hope that a more sensible and sustainable reward scheme could be implimented... such as a pay rise for the next year?
He must have known that things like this were going to be of huge public scrutiny when he took the job so i have no sympathy for him at all.
I could be wrong but I think we're saying mainly the same thing about the current nature of 'bonuses'.
We probably are, but my point was more that saying its not really a bonus isnt true, it is a bonus, just as incentives are bonuses if they give you something, otherwise theyre probably a threat.
So you wouldn't complain at the tax payer footing the bill for a ~£2m salaried banker? Cool. I was pretty sure there had already been enough complaints on that front.
50% of what?
Poor him!! How will he afford to put food on the table?!
Yeah, I'm sure you'll never get anyone to work for £1.2m p.a..
Does anyone else see the irony in the fact that some of the posters in this thread complaining that it's jealousy driving the opposition to these bonuses, are some of the same people who complain about the 'greedy' public sector workers and their 'unaffordable' pensions?
On one hand, these posters claim that these bonuses should be honoured because it's in the contract, and yet people who take the public sector pensions on offer are decried as having a superiority complex or an overinflated sense of self-worth.
The hypocrisy is staggering.
Yeah, I just get the feeling that a lot of the public don't view it as something worked for, I get a strong feeling its viewed as 'free' money.
@opel80uk: That hypocrisy cuts both ways. I don't see the union leaders crying that its in his contract either.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote