Beat the Banker

[Spartacus]

or maybe this should be shame the bankers

Over the past few weeks there has been more and more stories about how bankers are going to receive bonus payments for the past financial year, and our beloved prime minister (gawd rest his soul) is up in arms that banks that have been bailed out are still paying bonuses despite their obvious losses and failures.

According to today's papers (well the mail at least) the government is powerless to stop the bonus payments and the bankers due to receive them may well go to the European Court of Human Rights to keep them. As a result they are now appealing to bankers to not take the bonus payments rather then stopping them from being paid in the first place.

therefore, I wish to start a campaign on here to shame any bankers that read this into (or alternatively if you know a banker then tell him / her)

"DO NOT TAKING THAT BONUS PAYMENT"

okay a slim chance that anyone will listen, but if there are enough voices added to the call then who knows we may well shame them yet...

[red devil]

Maybe bankers are a bunch of shameless gits in the first place...

[HonaloochieB]

Spartacus Wrote:

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

>

> "DO NOT TAKING THAT BONUS PAYMENT"

>

Even if it was grammatically correct I doubt it'd have much effect.

[Jeremy]

Do you know ANYONE who will turn down money which their employer offers to them?

Would you *volunteer* to take a pay cut if your company was losing money (or if other companies in the industry were losing money)?

[Brendan]

This bonus pool they?re talking about, how much of it will be going to the normal staff of banks who form an integral part of the greater economy, shop on the high street, buy a new family car every few years, move house maybe 3 time in their lives etc?

Or will it all be going to those who are responsible for all the trouble in the first place but are completely financially independent from it and who will spend their bonuses on high end luxury products, 4th homes abroad or growing their own little property fiefdoms.

[matthew123]

Our "beloved prime minister" might be up in arms - but so are the rest of the country over Labour handing out Knighthoods and Peerages. I don't remember anyone saying no to be made a Lord however undeserving the case, so to ask someone to turn down a cash bonus seems far fetched. After all working is hardly a hobby for most people. What is sad is there is no clampdown on the 48 hour week maximum when there are thousands in the City who effectively have to work 12 hours a day just to keep their jobs (and then get a token bonus).

Sure there are scores of people who get big fat bonuses, bit like the Cabinet minister who retires and then goes off to earn millions in the City as some 1 day a week international "palm greaser" consultant. Maybe Gordon Brown should publicly suggest his old mate Tony Blair starts the ball rolling by handing back his ?5m salary he earns at JP Morgan and be happy with his wages/expenses he gets as a UN envoy..

It's all hypocrisy - starting with Gordon Brown and happily to be continued no doubt by whoever takes over in the future whether Labour or Tory.

If you really want to make a difference first port of call is to keep your money under your bed - to stop the banks lending it at a higher rate then they give your savings ;-)

[microbite]

What the Government are actually saying is that they are going to publicly "pretend" to decry the banks' actions so as to try and appease an already p'd off public, but at the same time they are also lining up their own very large "bonus" awards by way of "expenses", the amounts and proportions of which have all now been made hush hush! You couldn't make it up!

[dulwichmum]

My husband will certainly not be taking his bonus. I will (smirk)...

Have you any appreciation of how many local shop holders are depending on me? If I don't get what I need, everyone will suffer - and I shall see to it personally.

God how I adore a man with a big bonus(swoon)!

[Jeremy]

Brendan Wrote:

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

> This bonus pool they?re talking about, how much of

> it will be going to the normal staff of banks who

> form an integral part of the greater economy, shop

> on the high street, buy a new family car every few

> years, move house maybe 3 time in their lives etc?

>

> Or will it all be going to those who are

> responsible for all the trouble in the first place

> but are completely financially independent from it

> and who will spend their bonuses on high end

> luxury products, 4th homes abroad or growing their

> own little property fiefdoms.

If you believe the tabloids, it's all going to "fat cat bankers", who got everyone into this mess, etc etc.

It would be interesting to hear about the distribution. It would also be interesting to hear what the total RBS bonus pool was last year and the year before, to give this sensationalist story some perspective.

[Moos]

I like Obama's idea of capping top level compensation including bonuses across the board - here.

If the Government as a major shareholder were to insist on no bonuses for the banks they had bailed out, the medium-term result would be that they would lose their best staff across all levels, which would hardly be the best way to get back to profitability. Compensation caps would have to be applied to the whole industry for them to work.

I agree that it would be interesting to see the RBS distribution. I believe the retail banks did fairly well against their targets last year, so presumably retail bankers expect some bonuses.

[Brendan]

Moos Wrote:

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

> If the Government as a major shareholder were to

> insist on no bonuses for the banks they had bailed

> out, the medium-term result would be that they

> would lose their best staff across all levels,

> which would hardly be the best way to get back to

> profitability.

Lose them to where?

[Keef]

I was chatting to Mrs Keef about this last night, and admitted that if someone offered me a few grand bonus right now, there is absolutely no way I'd turn it down. I may think the system is a wrong, but at the end of the day, I have my own stuff to worry about. To try and put the individual on a guilt trip is just a pathetic nonsense.

The system itself needs sorting, but expecting someone to "do the right thing" when they have been brought up in your capitalist machine is just clutching at straws!

[Moos]

Brendan Wrote:

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

> Moos Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > If the Government as a major shareholder were

> to

> > insist on no bonuses for the banks they had

> bailed

> > out, the medium-term result would be that they

> > would lose their best staff across all levels,

> > which would hardly be the best way to get back

> to

> > profitability.

>

> Lose them to where?

Do you mean that there are no jobs at the moment? I did say medium term... and even now there are still people changing jobs in the City.

[Brendan]

Which begs the question, Why do we employ a government? Surely it?s their job to make sure that the system works and not just say, ?Sorry it doesn?t, you?re all screwed but we are very cross about it.?

[Jeremy]

Moos is right, there's not much they can do. They have to pay bonuses to at least the best staff, otherwise they will all leave as soon as things start to pick up.

[Gerrard]

I am sick of the perception that people who work for Banks in the City and who may be fortunate enough to receive a small bonus this year are living some sort of 'fat cat' champagne lifestyle. This is utter nonsense and simply does not apply to the vast majority of City workers, as Brendan quite rightly pointed out. The BBC's news coverage last night, laced with champagne glasses appalled me almost as much as the original post on this thread. Most people in the City had nothing to do with causing this situation, and earn a modest salary in return for a very long working week.

Spartacus, a Daily Mail reader - that figures....

[red devil]

Aren't the banks legally obliged to pay these bonuses?, if they don't there's talk of employees going to the european court etc,..as long as there is a bonus culture in the financial services it's only a question of time before greed kicks in, witness the mis-selling of pensions scandal of the late 80's early 90's...a cap on bonuses might work but doesn't that go agaianst the principals of the free market?...

[hintza]

But I deserve my Bonus!! I've met all my targets :-)

[Jah Lush]

As a tax payer who has helped bail out these fat cat banking swine I'm totally against the directors who have failed in their jobs getting a bonus of any sort whatsoever. We should not in anyway be rewarding failure.

I'm sure there are other staff at the lower end of the scale like IT workers, secretaries etc etc, who are probably relying on a much much smaller bonus and who have done nothing to ruin the economy and so I'm not against the ordinary worker getting their bonus but the fat cats can take a running jump.

I like what Obama did last week and more or less the same has been happening around Europe and Asia with salaries capped and bonuses put on hold until debts are paid or they'll receive shares in the company.

This current government are a bunch of pussies for not clamping down on this in exactly same way as what President Obama did last week. Rewarding failure should be a thing of the past.

[woofmarkthedog]

With a stick.......

Woof

[bigbadwolf]

I personally think that the bankers who have performed well should be rewarded accordingly but those who have severely screwed us over should be strung up with piano wire and have their privates blowtourched by single mothers while their families are made to watch, children included. I'm a rude boy Civil engineer and if I constructed a motorway crossing or multi storey car park and the whole lot came falling down I'd have my arsehole torn out not be handed squillions of pounds.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I agree with everyone who has said so far that it isn't on to tar everyone working in the city with the same brush. Most workers there are just average schmoes doing (probably) long hours in admin type jobs with no proximity to any of the decision making that went on in recent decades. Do they deserve a bonus? I say they.. I mean we, as I work in the city too. Although when Gerrard says modest salary, who is that in comparison with? What are we saying is a modest salary? Compared to most people living in Britain I would say even junior staff earn relatively decent money

However, I don't see what is so special about city workers (compared to other occupations) that says we should expect one. There is no point saying it's now a cultural thing - if we have learned any lessons from all of this then surely it's challenging cultural assumptions?

It's nice, and like keef says, if you are offered it you are going to take it. But I am not manning any barricades to say I have a right to one. Bonus to me means just that - if it's been a good year and there is money sloshing around I'll have some. But there is no point a farmer at the end of a back-breaking year saying he deserves more when all of his crops have turned to dust, just because he worked hard. If the result of a years hard work = bad results then why should bonuses be paid. Staff will leave? And go where? Even without a bonus this year, city people are doing fairly ok (if we hang on to our jobs). And where is this bonus money coming from? If the banks made a profit and haven't taken government funny they can do what they like. But to hear people on 30/40/50k an d upwards bleat about bonuses when some old shopkeeper in Bow is paying for it with his tax money.. it's not right is it?

[Jeremy]

I do pretty much agree with you, SMG... but banks wouldn't give bonuses if they thought they could get away with it, would they? If they thought they could retain the best staff without paying bonuses, then they wouldn't be doing it.

And in the case of RBS, it's now mainly owned by the government... so personally I want the company to get back on it's feet. And if paying a bonus to *some* staff is a necessary step, then I support it. Although of course I understand why some people are uncomfortable with it.

[SeanMacGabhann]

And I sort of agree with you (and others) too Jeremy. But one of the reasons banks think they can get away with it is tehy have been living in dreamland (I'm paraphrasing here - you know what I mean) for years and money was never an issue for them. It is now..

Ditto the RBS point - I want it back on it's feet. But on a level playing field with bonuses ceilinged, why would it be a necessary step?

[red devil]

Whilst working for a number of architectural practices up town it was the norm that once a year the whole office would be treated to a long weekend trip away, usually to places with architectural merit e.g Lisbon, Rome, Paris, that way the whole office was rewarded equally no matter what their position was in the company, even in a downturn we managed a day trip to Brighton!