Just because the organisation itself made a lost doesn't mean that individuals within it didn't meet their targets and thus deserve a bonus.
Welcome to the real world then.
Our local business unit had our best year ever last year, but globally the company didn't perform quite so well.
We have many excellent employees, arguably performing well beyond expectations and delivering results beyond our local targets. But due to external factors, bonuses and pay increases have been frozen.
This isn't abnormal - businesses all around the world have to take tough decisions.
The rewards for individuals that meet targets are needed in order to retain those people that are helping RBS in the best way they can. Without them, RBS would have likely made an even bigger loss or gone under completely due to a lack of staff. People arn't going to stick around otherwise.
Has our local unit suddenly lost all our 'top performers', that did so well last year? No.
Now you could argue that banking is different and that rival banks
do pay these large bonuses and so key staff would leave and go elsewhere without them.
But do you not see the problem?
They only pay these huge bonuses because they 'have' to. Why do they 'have' to? Because the all the other banks do? Why do the other banks do it? Because all the other banks do?....
Banks haven't been allowed to fail in the same way as other businesses do.
And why are people annoyed? Because banks that have been saved by the tax payer are now back in the same old self-perpetuating loop of paying the going wage, because they have to, because everyone else does. And they do it, because....
If banks were allowed to fail like other businesses, then there wouldn't be this driving force for 'undeserved' (overinflated) bonuses. But then if the banks had failed, everyone would probably be worse off, so I guess we should all just be really happy that someone is making money out of the whole situation
