London 2012: RMT Union rejects Tube pay offer

[Huguenot]

The LU gets around 1 billion pounds of subsidy from the tax payer every year.

This means that any additional expenditure comes straight from the taxpayer.

Unions create 'fake' enemies of the 'management' and the 'government'. The people they are stealing from when they demand more money for eff all contribution is the taxpayer.

So when you ask whether ?500 -is a "big wad of cash?", who don't you ask it of the 1,000s of Londoners scraping by on the breadline worried about their jobs and their future from whom it is being stolen to give to these 'put-upon' station staff?

[Chippy Minton]

Exactly what "additional expenditure" is having to be covered by the taxpayer?

I suspect that the extra revenue LU will get from the three million extra tube journeys that will happen everyday during the Olympics will just about cover a ?500 payment to staff.

[Huguenot]

If the taxpayer is subsidising the tube, then it means that the tube's expenses do not cover it's outgoings.

Therefore ANY additional expenditure comes from the taxpayer - either in the form of subsidy that is not being reduced or subsidy that has to be increased.

That's it Chippy. It's maths.

The claim that it does not come from the taxpayer is a typical union con. That it would 'come from the additional journeys' is also a con. If the payment did not have to be made then the money from the additional journeys would go into LU running funds, and the subsidy would not need to be as high, or subsidy increases would not need to be so large.

Now I suspect you know that's the truth - as do the unions. The unions don't want to admit it because they secretly know that they're a parasite on the most needy people in society. Sucking money from hardworking people's pockets to put it in their own.

Whatever way you look at it this money is coming from the taxpayer. End of story.

[Chippy Minton]

I don't deny it's coming from the taxpayer, but it's not an additional net cost to the taxpayer as a result of the Olympics and as I stated right from the start, I have no problem with the principle of both the public and private sectors paying bonuses.

So after stating "if they were working more hours then I'd expect them to get paid for it, and to get a bonus if they were pressured into it" your problem isn't actually the fact that they're asking for a bonus, it's the fact that it's LU staff asking for it.

If you're worked up this much by a ?500 bonus for tube staff, your head must be close to exploding when it comes to Hestor.

[Huguenot]

No, my problem is that they appear to be demanding a bonus because they have to work harder.

You're trying to deflect from this point by claiming this is a grudge against LU staff - a typical union negotiating approach when their position is pathetic.

If they are being asked to work longer that's a different issue, and a fixed fee bonus for hitting a particular number of hours overtime is a sensible approach to hitting company objectives.

If the money comes out of LU and goes to the employees IT IS an additional net cost to the taxpayer, either in a less reduced subsidy or an increased subsidy.

It cannot be anything else. Money doesn't grow on trees.

Regarding Hester my understanding is that this was a performance based bonus for cutting 0.5 trillion quid off the banks exposure. Whether you think this is appropriate or not is completely irrelevant. Hester was brought in after the crash to save the bank. He was offered a performance based contract to achieve this and has.

There are questions over whether bonuses of this size are effective, and whether they influence performance - but that is fuck all to do with Hester, and is irrelevant to his payment now.

The board were correct to threaten to resign en masse if this was arrangement was overturned, as the bank would lose all credibility, most of the senior staff and its value would collapse.

As a result the taxpayers would risk losing the ?45bn they have so far invested in keeping it afloat.

My guess is the unions wouldn't give a shit about this, because they don't care about the taxpayer, and sticking one on the management would be much more important than fucking up the nation.

[Chippy Minton]

We're going round in circles here. I think the payment isn't just for working harder because it's also an allowance for additional shifts i.e. more work. End of story.

I'm not sure what your point is re unions and Hestor. If you're trying to say they don't care about the size of his bonus you're very wrong.

[Huguenot]

I imagine the unions are obsessed about the size of Hester's bonus

I'm saying the unions don't care about the taxpayer, the British public, or the importance of keeping the British banking system functioning.

As we saw in the 1970s, the unions are quite prepared to fuck everything up to indulge their stupid greed and power crazes.

Nor (for some reason) do they care about Hester's contractual expectation of performance related pay. If he was one of their own members they'd have the entire workforce out on strike.

The board of RBS identified an individual ro fulfil a critical role and created a package likely to attract him. Within that were performance related elements to save both RBS and the taxpayers 45 billion quid. This bonus is a payment attached to the achievement of that objective.

Whatever the unions view on executive salaries, Hester as an individual and his bonus are none of their business.

[Undisputedtruth]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No, my problem is that they appear to be demanding

> a bonus because they have to work harder.

>

> You're trying to deflect from this point by

> claiming this is a grudge against LU staff - a

> typical union negotiating approach when their

> position is pathetic.

>

> If they are being asked to work longer that's a

> different issue, and a fixed fee bonus for hitting

> a particular number of hours overtime is a

> sensible approach to hitting company objectives.

It seems you do have a grudge against LU staff. There are going to be thousands of people using public transport and this will increase the pressure on LU staff. There's nothing wrong in asking for compensation as a result. And ?500 is really is a small amount of money these days.

> If the money comes out of LU and goes to the

> employees IT IS an additional net cost to the

> taxpayer, either in a less reduced subsidy or an

> increased subsidy.

>

> It cannot be anything else. Money doesn't grow on

> trees.

As there are crowds of people using public transport then this in turn will increase the revenue for LU. To say that money grows on trees is simply daft.

>

> Regarding Hester my understanding is that this was

> a performance based bonus for cutting 0.5 trillion

> quid off the banks exposure. Whether you think

> this is appropriate or not is completely

> irrelevant. Hester was brought in after the crash

> to save the bank. He was offered a performance

> based contract to achieve this and has.

I had a quick look at the RBS company reports and it said nothing about knocking off the 0.5 trillion quid of their exposure. However, it seems you got yourself confused when actually RBS cut their balance sheet by ?600bn through the disposal of assets including their ?17m company jet.

I can't see why the banker's should get a bonus for clearing the mess that they themselves have created.

>

> There are questions over whether bonuses of this

> size are effective, and whether they influence

> performance - but that is @#$%& all to do with

> Hester, and is irrelevant to his payment now.

>

> The board were correct to threaten to resign en

> masse if this was arrangement was overturned, as

> the bank would lose all credibility, most of the

> senior staff and its value would collapse.

The boards behaviour is tantamount to holding the government to ransom over the bonuses issues. Since when did banks had any credibility since the financial crises started in 2007?

>

> As a result the taxpayers would risk losing the

> ?45bn they have so far invested in keeping it

> afloat.

More 'holding the government ransom' talk.

>

> My guess is the unions wouldn't give a shit about

> this, because they don't care about the taxpayer,

> and sticking one on the management would be much

> more important than @#$%& up the nation.

Irrelevant nonsense.

[Huguenot]

The lights are on but no-one's home.

Still, we're honoured to have your company despite the pressures of your premiership football career, exceptional hifi appraisal business, and the attentions of the paparazzi due to your much celebrated gardening expertise.

All you've done is reiterate claims I've already dismembered. Either you didn't read what I wrote or you didn't understand it.

Incidentally, Hester did not create the problems at RBS. he was employed afterwards to clear the mess up. Whatever people's thoughts on bankers, Hester took up a contract in good faith, delivered against performance goals, and does not deserve to be singled out and maltreated as a scapegoat for public disgust with bankers.

[Undisputedtruth]

Talking boll*cks again, Hugo.

I understood what you wrote and I do know, as another member had wrote, you're not that clever as you make out to be. Approximately 70% of your posts are total bullsh!t.

I didn't say that Hester had created the problems for RBS but he has a career in the banking industry for many years including a stint at Credit Suisse. I can't see why bankers should be paid a bonuses for sorting out a mess that they themselves have created and ultimately damaged the British economy.

The government has a majority share in RBS which means that we, as taxpayers, have a say on whether it's right for Hester to get an obscene bonus. Public opinion says no and rightly so.

[Huguenot]

"Approximately 70% of your posts are total bullsh!t."

Excellent, I'm most grateful for your exceptional statistical analysis. I shall add this to your list of accolades.

Come on UDT, you just came onto this thread looking for a fight as an excuse to throw insults at me didn't you? You haven't added anything intelligent.

It's impractical and foolish to attempt to run a business on the basis of public opinion applied in hindsight - particularly since the public (excepting your own extraordinary banking skills of course) is not qualified nor experienced enough to make those calls.

If HMG had not wanted to pay large performance bonuses they had the option to decide that at the time the contract was created and before Hester was employed.

Had they not done so it's possible that a smaller salary would not have attracted the appropriate staff and the business could have failed.

If that had been the case, the 'public' would have lost 45bn rather than paid out a 1m performance bonus (in shares not cash) and I have no doubt that the public would be yelling for blood on that basis.

So you see, your blah blah blah about bankers and bonuses is just hot air. It's uninspired and uninsightful. It's a knee jerk reaction that betrays no evidence of careful consideration at all.

In short - it's boringly half witted.

Next?

[Undisputedtruth]

It's irrelevant Hugo.

Have you looked at the RBS share prices over the last few years? They have halved under the stewardship of Stephen Hester. Yep, we the taxpayer already have a ?23bn paper loss on our investment on RBS.

Also Hester had failed in a major target to lend money to small businesses through Operation Merlin. The whole idea about Operation Merlin was to keep the economy in moving by ensuring that small businesses had access to funds. No wonder our economy has slowed down.

Let's be honest, you think it's right to reward boardroom failure, don't you? What you want is huge rewards for the elites while the rest of us struggle to make ends meet.

Anyway, at least Hester has done the right thing and given up his bonus.

[katie1997]

I have rewarded bedroom failure by simply turning it into an office instead.

[Undisputedtruth]

katie1997 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I have rewarded bedroom failure by simply turning

> it into an office instead.

Sign of man problems I think! ;-)

[katie1997]

I'm sure you are correct. As ever.

[Huguenot]

Katie you've just done what everyone else has done and laid the general problems of the financial industry at the feet of one man - effectively 'he can't be paid because I don't like banks'.

That's not good enough.

Individuals must receive performance targets for extraordinary achievements that are specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and time-bound. Upon their completion they should recieve whatever reward was agreed at the start of the process.

A breach in agreements of this kind means the end of effective internal motivation and organisation and usually a failed business.

You may well have an issue with the original performance targets and reward set by the board, but that's nothing to do with Hester, and he must not be singled out and attacked for completing his objectives.

Incidentally, if you had set an original target for Hester of solving the world financial crisis I don't think he'd have take the job, do you? So that would have been fucked up too.

It's notable that the bonus demand for the tube station workers fails the first part of the test for a bonus - in that they're for extraordinary achievement - something for which simply turning up at work during the Olympics and doing their mandated job doesn't count.

"Let's be honest, you think it's right to reward boardroom failure, don't you? What you want is huge rewards for the elites while the rest of us struggle to make ends meet."

Yeah sure I do.

Perhaps I should make some sweeping statements about what you think, start putting words in your mouth and see how you respond? Not that good huh?

[El Pibe]

Unless I'm missing something, hasn't Katie simply made a self-deprecating pun in an attempt at levity in this fractious thread?

Those quotes are all UDT's.

[katie1997]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Katie you've just done what everyone else has done

> and laid the general problems of the financial

> industry at the feet of one man - effectively 'he

> can't be paid because I don't like banks'.

I have? Have I? Oh good grief are we talking 'performance' targets for bedroom failure or perhaps you could make an appointment with an optician :)

> Perhaps I should make some sweeping statements

> about what you think, start putting words in your

> mouth and see how you respond? Not that good huh?

Wouldn't be the first time, would it? ;)

[Huguenot]

EDITED

Sorry katie1997, it was UDT who was talking RBS.

He listed RBS share price and general problems with business banking as reasons why Hester shouldn't get his bonus.

The first was undoubtedly part of his targets (but don't leap to any conclusions about what that target was, if he was under instructions to downsize the business the share price target may not have been higher).

The second as a general cause would not have been part of his target, although I understand there was an RBS specific target related to this, and that he achieved it.

There were also targets about shedding staff and cutting costs which he achieved. It may be that the public don't agree with these targets, but then that's why the public aren't running the bank.

[katie1997]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If you were it was so bloody clever it went over

> my head. ;-)

>

> You listed RBS share price and general problems

> with business banking as reasons why Hester

> shouldn't get his bonus.

>

> I don't get why that's related to the bedroom?

>

> The first was undoubtedly part of his targets (but

> don't leap to any conclusions about what that

> target was, if he was under instructions to

> downsize the business the share price target may

> not have been higher).

>

> The second as a general cause would not have been

> part of his target, although I understand there

> was an RBS specific target related to this, and

> that he achieved it.

>

> There were also targets about shedding staff and

> cutting costs which he achieved. It may be that

> the public don't agree with these targets, but

> then that's why the public aren't running the

> bank.

I'll get my (I loveheart bankers) coat.

[Huguenot]

X-Post methinks ;-)

[Chippy Minton]

It may be that the public don't agree with these targets, but then that's why the public aren't running the bank.

It may well be the public don't agree with the tube workers' bonus, but then that's why the public aren't running the tube ;-)

[Huguenot]

I didn't suggest that station staff shouldn't get a bonus because the public didn't like it.

I suggested that station staff shouldn't get a bonus simply for doing the job they're already paid to do. It breaks the basic relationship between incentive, performance and reward.

You claim that the bonus is for working longer hours - if that's so then I agree it should be made available for those who overperform.

Except there's no evidence of that as yet - just a lot of whinging about more people using the tube and the fact that if someone else is getting it they should too....

[*Bob*]

Surely when there are more passengers on board - as there will be during the Olympics - this will make the trains slightly heavier, thus requiring our valiant drivers to push on the stick with slightly increased pressure?

Seems only right they be compensated fairly for this.

[Huguenot]

Can you imagine the pressure of watching the automatic gates open more often than usual???