Unfortunately it competes in an industry where big bonuses are common, if you stop this all the talented staff will leave. It's not always about what is right/wrong, RBS obviously needs top talent so they need to compete when it comes to pay and bonuses.
Should failed bank RBS be allowed to exceed EU bonus cap?
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
Not really, banking bonuses are not performance linked these days, they're a prerequisite, people get them even if they're doing crap.
Offer other perks to the top performers, money isn't the be all and end all of employee retention.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 5,321
- Location
- Southampton
so basically your argument is "derp"
pitchfork said:
that's the real problem - which has nothing to do with how much people that do deserve them get
Last edited:
But they DID perform!
That's the aim of them - if there are specific areas where you think that's the case and where you have viable solutions then you might find lucrative work as a consultant advising banks on how they can cut costs...
There are 100 or so people who are potentially affected by this bonus cap at RBS - I doubt many of them are perceived as 'doing crap'.
Money isn't the be all and end all of bonuses... they don't have to be 100% cash. Capping is silly regardless. What other perks aside from the components of a bonus would you think could retain a top performer who has had his bonus capped?
Last edited:
Capping is really a bad idea and will lead to massive salary inflation to retain top employees. The risk of excessively high salaries is lack of flexibility in case people underperform. RBS did exceedingly well last year in some sectors so a large bonus which is normal in that industry is due for any individual that performed above and beyond expectations.
I dont understand it and wont pretend like other people.
Im from Essex and the area has always been the breeding ground of the money driven brokers and bankers. Basically anywhere near a train to Fenchurch or Liverpool Street.
Back in my day most of the top traders and bankers were 9 GCSE wonders that have the gift of the gab and an insatiable hunger to earn their bosses ludicrous money for a fraction of it in return.
The only problem i have is the crap where they take home a big bonus regardless of their performance, i dont even know if this applies to RBS anymore? I dont really care they will get their cream one way or another, my outrage only upsets me not them in the least.
I think i'd prefer to see higher wages as that can at least be taxed at source and not fiddled away too much by clever accountants.
Personally i'd like to see the whole system burnt out and the top execs. lined up inside the Tower and beheaded.
Im from Essex and the area has always been the breeding ground of the money driven brokers and bankers. Basically anywhere near a train to Fenchurch or Liverpool Street.
Back in my day most of the top traders and bankers were 9 GCSE wonders that have the gift of the gab and an insatiable hunger to earn their bosses ludicrous money for a fraction of it in return.
The only problem i have is the crap where they take home a big bonus regardless of their performance, i dont even know if this applies to RBS anymore? I dont really care they will get their cream one way or another, my outrage only upsets me not them in the least.
I think i'd prefer to see higher wages as that can at least be taxed at source and not fiddled away too much by clever accountants.
Personally i'd like to see the whole system burnt out and the top execs. lined up inside the Tower and beheaded.
So basically this boils down to whether you dock people's salary (guarenteed bonus is basically part of the salary) because the company isn't doing well, even if they had nothing to do with it. Wow, employee rights, what employee rights? Interesting those that advocate employee rights the most are those that are also advocating against employees getting a bigger share of the pot... I guess employee rights only count if the employee makes little money..
No offence, but that's utter crap. There's considerable evidence, specific to banking IIRC, to suggest that when these so-called top performers leave for a new company they under perform for years at the new company. Why? because the success they had at their old company wasn't down to them it was down to knowing the procedures, people and politics at that company. Once that's gone they're just another also-ran.
Banking should be no different to any other industry, if your company isn't performing then the staff don't get big money giveaways.
The banking industry seems to have a little difficulty understanding this, but laws apply to them as well. Corporations are not more powerful than governments (yet).
Bankers have no special skill set, they are not "key revenue generators". There are, literally, hundreds of people who could replace every last one of them. If every banker left the country today (which is, of course, absurdly unlikely) they could be replaced by people on a fifth of the salary/bonus who are every bit as good at the job within a month.
Bankers don't profit because they're uniquely skilled, hard working individuals but because the nature of the game means they win. It's like paying croupiers vastly inflated bonuses because their table keeps making money for the casino.
Frankly, we should be looking at ways to make banking systematically less profitable so that they money accumulating to banks is more in line with their actual value to the economy and society and the problem of bankers bonuses would look after itself.
So they should be paid less because of that? The point still stands that if the remuneration isn't up to par the best (even if they end up becoming also rans at the next company) the best will leave first. Plenty of other industries gI've big bonuses to staff who have done very well, even if the company as a whole haven't. Just because you're company doesn't doesn't mean all don't.
No, you appear to have problem understanding it. You're the one suggesting they shouldn't pay out the bonus.
I find that incredibly difficult to believe.
This simply isn't true, the whole purpose of high bonus is to reward strong performance with the flexibility of reducing costs for underperforming personnel.
You have to realize that even if a company as a Whole makes a loss many departments will have made a profit. Furthermore, many departments that made a loss might have done tremendous work in minimizing losses- the loss was a given based on the current market conditions. It is far more important for a department that was expecting to loose 800million to only loose 200million than for another department to make 100million profit, especially if the department that made 100million profit was expected to make 500million but due to a series of underperforming staff and decisions massively cut the expected profits.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,316
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
In the case of RBS, the government is the shareholder. So the money is coming from the government.
Healthy bonus should be paid. But they should be paid when the company meets in target. The target is to be sold back into private hands at a profit for the treasury.
And a month later they would all leave as a company would pay then double to do so... Companies don't want to pay such high salaries, most wouldn't if they had the choice.
The only way reduced salaries could happen is if the entire industry worked together and reduced remuneration at exactly the same time. Problem is if they reduced it by too much many bankers would jump ship to other industries... Unfortunately bankers aren't cleaners, you can't just replace them and train someone up in a few days to do their job. The banks know this, which is why they pay so much to keep the good talent.