Don't we work for our wage?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16751691

Nice to see the government approving a bonus of almost a million pounds for doing his job.

[mattSV]

Originally Posted by TheOnlyNemesis

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16751691

Nice to see the government approving a bonus of almost a million pounds for doing his job.

Do you mind, that is my boss you iz dissing

I suspect that this will be unpopular, but why shouldn't he get a bonus - under his leadership, the bank has gone from a 2bn loss to 2bn profit.

It's a lot of money, but it sounds like he may have earned it.

[garynortheast]

Because nobody needs that amount of money.

“Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed”. - Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.

and he hasnt been given that amount of actual MONEY money, its in the form of shares, and that is what the government said would be the new rules, that huge bonus's would be in the form of shares rather than money.

anyway, if he fluffs it all up at the bank, those shares will be worth about £25 anyway

And all it actually does is devalue the public interest in RBS. (Whilst I appreciate £1m is not a lot in the grand scheme of things)

[Bri w]

If that's in his contract I don't have a problem with it.

What a lot of people don't realise is a lot of companies use the bonus system to not give the going rate for the job. Salaries have been held for number of years with less than inflation rises whilst bonuses have increased (disproptionately?) to encourage more output. I understand the logic but disagree with it, e.g. if a company doesn't hit target, bonuses can be zero which means someone doesn't get the true market rate for the job.

Originally Posted by Bri w

If that's in his contract I don't have a problem with it.

What a lot of people don't realise is a lot of companies use the bonus system to not give the going rate for the job. Salaries have been held for number of years with less than inflation rises whilst bonuses have increased (disproptionately?) to encourage more output. I understand the logic but disagree with it, e.g. if a company doesn't hit target, bonuses can be zero which means someone doesn't get the true market rate for the job.

i have heard about this, its almost like those jobs where you can only earn say 12k a year but if you hit all your targets etc you end up with about 36k a year,
its wrong but i suppose it must work for some companies.

[dizzyblonde]

Originally Posted by tom-k6

i have heard about this, its almost like those jobs where you can only earn say 12k a year but if you hit all your targets etc you end up with about 36k a year,
its wrong but i suppose it must work for some companies.

I used to get a yearly bonus at Willy Wonkas, last one I got was for 700quid. You had to fit a certain criteria, as far as Personal Developement was concerned, by meeting their standards of work targets, be it getting out tonnage or just being good within a team.

Pegs always has had a job where its bonus related. His last job was 14k basic, but he came out with 3k a month sometimes,.....and believe me.......to do that job you needed the patience of a saint, and be frickin awesome, they kept changing the goalposts to make it harder to acheive a bonus in the end, as the company were into grabbing money off the customers and not rewarding the poor buggers who had to deal with them.

Its not wrong for bonus schemes.....however, when someone earns 1.2million, I kinda can't understand why they would need another bonus of another million. In 2010 he got 2 million. They already get a vastly over inflated wage in the first place for the job they do, so is that not enough.

After all, our Prime Minister doesn't get a quarter of that as his salary......but I suppose hes rewarded in other ways, such as all those pies....................have you seen the size of his fat chins lately

[Biker Biggles]

Originally Posted by garynortheast

Because nobody needs that amount of money.

“Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed”. - Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.

True.But I think this whole top pay issue goes much deeper.We do live in a society where having more than just enough is the norm and many strive to be well off.What we are seeing is a small group of very powerful people taking whatever they can get because no one is stopping them.Judging by the public reaction over a number of years now this is an issue for the wider society to deal with,and I suggest legislation to regulate top pay is the only solution that would actually have any impact.
We do have a legal minumum wage now of about £6 an hour so why not a legal maximum wage too?Something quite high (30 times the minimum?)so we are not talking about putting these high flyers in poverty,but a statement nonetheless that we regard unbridled greed as morally wrong and damaging to society.
Afterall we ban other things that we judge to be bad for society generally so why not regulate pay as well?