No, they just dont get any bonus' or performance based pay rises?
do you think they will quit?
- Thread starter mattheman
- Start date
No, they just dont get any bonus' or performance based pay rises?
They deserve a bonus for making more money than the basic expectation of them within their role. That is the nature of how bonuses get paid, you do more than expected and you receive the recognition of doing a good job in the form of a bonus. This then entices employees to work harder next year for an even bigger bonus.
Their job isn't to just make profit, they will have clear thresholds set out which they need to attain. If they don't hit the minimum standards they will most likely be facing some kind of disciplinary action whereas if they go over whatever the expectations are then they will receive a bonus.
Because we own a large proportion of the business to sell at a later date, 'bought' at a knockdown price. As long as we don't screw it up (by, for example, driving all the good staff to a competitor) then as the market picks up, we can improve massively on the investment made by the taxpayer?
If that is what their contracts say, then yes, absolutely.
Assuming your logic works out that way in practice, how do I know the treasury is going to return this investment to taxpayers? By the way I don't agree on the government having absolute control over the bonuses, which is what this is a test case for, in effect. I'm not sure if the directors themselves are beneficiaries and whether the general staff have expressed any opinion. I'd be interested to know what they think about the board's statement.
/facepalm no one is talking about taking away bonuses that people are contractually entitled to.
Oh please.
The treasury never took anything from you to make the investment, so why would they return it to you?
The treasury took the money from their coffers, which just happen to have been funded by your taxes. It's better not to think of it as your money as soon as it leaves your payslip. The whole concept of "cost to the taxpayer" is somewhat flawed, given the levels of abstraction between us and where the money actually is.
Alright, if you want to look at it that way, what about reducing the national debt? Instead of spunking what they get back.
Even more short-sighted sycophancy.
OK, now that's something that I'll agree with.
To be honest, I am arguing semantics to a degree in that if, say, we could reduce the national debt or stop buying out banks or whatever, then at least the treasury's money would be better spent...
Because aiming to maximize the taxpayer's ROI in a major bank is a short-sighted thing to do. Obviously.
I suppose I shouldn't be too critical, I could be doing project support at a bank one day
I have a feeling they'll counter with "the treasury bought up the bank shares and it is your own responsibility to better your position" or similar. Come to think of it, I haven't heard what Dolph's opinion on the current HE system is...
Maximising the taxpayer's ROI by continuing with exactly the same system of reward that encouraged bankers to take the very risks that got us into this mess in the first place? Riiiight...
All I want is for the banks to pay the taxpayers back, with a bit of extra profit for our troubles, and for us not to have to bail them out again in future. Change has to happen.
If the staff was that good why did the taxpayer bail them out?
Sack the lot of them.
EDIT= We don't give in to terrorists asking for money so why should give into these greedy gits.
Last edited: