Petition against RBS big bonus payments
It makes sense to me:
Avaaz - Osborne: Stop the RBS Fat Cats
LAWFUL REBELLION ..........It's our Constitutional right!
RBS is an example of why Governments should not run business...
The decision to lean on top executives so they take reduced pay has nothing to do with the efficient running of the business. It is all to do with politics and grandstanding!
The prime objective should be to put people in charge who can turn RBS back into a going concern that can be sold back into the private sector at a profit to the tax payer.
Hester is turning RBS back into sustained profit with a healthier balance sheet. But the share price remains outside his control – Hester's forced cave-in has resulted in an immediate share drop!
Good one Miliband. Own goal!
I think there are bigger issues at stake here than simply those relating to running RBS.
It has been clear for many years that FTSE 100 bosses have been getting huge increases in pay which are disproptionate to their achievements. When you consider that 95% of FTSE 100 bosses got bonuses last year, it seems obvious that the bonus is now regarded as an extension of their salary.
My own view is Hester should have been sacked as an example to the others. It is time the UK stopped giving in to the blackmail that says the bosses will leave the UK and work elsewhere. My view is fine, off you go. There are any number of able people in the UK that could run RBS for the £1.2 million salary alone without any bonus.
If they want a big bonus potential, they should accept a much lower starting salary, not have it both ways.
Originally Posted by Patman Post
While the real owners of companies (the shareholders through their various representations) are content to pay the top executives to manage the businesses, why should government be involved?
Badly performing bosses are got rid of, often quite brutally. The mediocre performance in the public sector is because it attracts mediocre managers, who are seldom fired. Government should learn from that!
RBS is competing with the big boys. Unless government's intention is to keep it as a nationalised "people's" bank, it should let the managers get on with building up its value so the taxpayers' investment can be recouped with appropriate interest.
Who are the shareholders? Mostly pension fund managers who are also on the same gravy train. And overseas investors who aren't bothered about how much bosses are paid because it represents a small proportion of the value of the companies involved.
Why should the government be involved? Because if society at large feels top bosses pay is rising disproportionately whilst their own pay is being cut or frozen, it makes society at large potentially more unstable in hard economic times like the present.
Top bosses are part of society and they need to work to the same standards of fairness, not one rule for them and another for their employees. In Germany for example, the difference between the bottom 10% of earners and the top 10% is much lower than it is in the UK. If the Germans can achieve this result so can the UK.
CB, what about the flip side of the argument? I don't have too many feelings either way on this issue as both sides of the argument have valid points.
The country has pumped £45 billion into RBS, so £1m isn't going to break the bank. As it is he is being paid in the bottom 10% of the bank CEO league. He was awarded 60% of his potential bonus. My biggest problem is the retrospective change to the contract that was agreed, whether it be for bankers or any other job. He may well have been paid similar or more at another institution without being forced to give it back by some witch hunt that MSM and the Labour party have under taken. What happens if he now turns around and says "sod this for a game of soldiers" and moves on elsewhere - who is likely to replace him given the hassle that will likely face them? Is there a civil servant capable of running RBS and getting it back into profit?
It does seem that we might cut our nose off to spite our face (if he does leave) for the sake of only £1m.
I totally agree.If I'd have been in his position I'd have said "This was the salary and bonus agreed when I signed for the job. I'm taking it. Now I resign because I don't like the way I have been made a whipping boy so Cameron can get gullible members of the public on his side."
Like any other worker, he is entitled to the terms and conditions he signed up to.
This is England and .....
This is the classic bankers / fund managers proposition - because they are managing big numbers, giving them a few £million is only a tiny percentage. The point is they should be paid for skill and market worth and currently it is all managed by a group of self interested Boards, all voting pay up year after year and claiming it is market forces. It's a scam.
They are all paid far too much so the fact he is at the lower end of the scale is not the point.As it is he is being paid in the bottom 10% of the bank CEO league. He was awarded 60% of his potential bonus.
There are any number of skilled people in the private sector that could do at least as good a job as Hester. The size of the company doesn't make it harder to manage. He has a huge team of highly skilled people below him.My biggest problem is the retrospective change to the contract that was agreed, whether it be for bankers or any other job. He may well have been paid similar or more at another institution without being forced to give it back by some witch hunt that MSM and the Labour party have under taken. What happens if he now turns around and says "sod this for a game of soldiers" and moves on elsewhere - who is likely to replace him given the hassle that will likely face them? Is there a civil servant capable of running RBS and getting it back into profit? It does seem that we might cut our nose off to spite our face (if he does leave) for the sake of only £1m.
Btw, Mervyn King, governor of the bank of england is on £300,000 a year and no bonus.
But what about the agreed terms as per his contract of employment?
Who cares if all bosses are on the same gravy train? I certainly don't. Their self interest is an additional reason they will keep company performance under review. In that respect it doesn't matter whether shareholders are in the UK or overseas.
At the moment society's feelings are mostly manifested by noise. The majority can be swayed by whatever witch hunt is in fashion. What counts is to have an efficient and profitable private sector. Cosmetic tinkering with company pay policies by politicians ultimately achieves nothing.
Maybe when the UK has an industrial sector to rival Germany's, it might consider the German model. Not only the top management sector, but union structure too which, strangely, was largely devised from TUC wish-lists after WWII. What's the chances of them buying into that now? Meanwhile, the UK needs a highly profitable financial sector.
Last edited by Patman Post; 30-01-2012 at 02:08 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks