RBS Boss To Get £900,000 Bonus!

[Pete]

If you think this is unfair - and remember we own four fifths of the bank after we bailed them out - please sign the petition below

http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/rbs-chief-don-t-accept-your-1-million-bonus

[Alsatian]

Done !

[Fly]

Already done what he said. 

[Pete]

Interesting comparison - check this out

http://boingboing.net/2012/01/27/top-rbs-banksters-compensati.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+boingboing%2FiBag+%28Boing+Boing%29

[therealjr]

There was a woman on the radio this morning from something called the Cranfield School of Management who claimed that the CEO was actually underpaid compared to what he could be getting elsewhere if he hadn't been brought in to get RBS out of the crap and as such his bonus was justified

[Kent]

Done

[Fly]

Done to no avail by the looks of it.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2012/01/29/rbs-chief-executive-stephen-hester-won-t-hand-back-his-1m-bonus-86908-23725147/

[k4blades]

Ahh, good old politics of envy.

If he was working for a private company would this be such an issue. I heard this being discussed on the radio the other day and someone mentioned footballers who get paid vast amounts for doing very little, to which someone else replied that footballers aren't public employees.
But the point is, if you set up a publicly owned football club with pay limits, how long do you think it would last in the premier league when having to compete with the likes of Man Utd / City.
That is the dilemma because if this chap is not on a similar package to others in the business, he will simply leave and go somewhere else, just like Rooney would if Man Utd didn't pay him what he thought he was worth.
I have seen several reports, including one from the BBCs Robert Peston, say that this is likely to be one of the lower benefits packages, when compared to what will be the case with the private banks, though they haven't released this information hasn't been released yet.
Surely the best thing that any off us want, is for the bank to go back into private hands, or does anyone think it was a good idea that billions of taxpayers money was used to bail them out. If we want that money back, we need RBS to succeed and do well on the markets over the longer term, so that it can be sold off, at a profit, which will benefit  the taxpayer.
I don't know much about this fella but he wasn't around during the banking crisis, (so can't really be blamed for it), is meant to be very good at turning business' around, and was there for given that job, (and pay package) by Labour, with the view of it being in our best long term interests.
Or would you rather pay peanuts and have some Monkey, (maybe Sir Fred Goodwin), running the bank.
Its very naive and simplistic to attack this man and his pay structure just because you don't like whats happened with the banking sector over the past few years.   

[Pete]

Not envy at all - just looking for a little balance for ordinary folks suffering - especially the old, infirm and young people.

Now I read this:

"Now RBS boss to get ANOTHER £8m bonus as he racks up £35.5m (and counting) in earnings from the taxpayer in just three years"

Someone's taking the piss.

http://bit.ly/ywMblN

[Scimitar]

Not envy at all - just looking for a little balance for ordinary folks suffering - especially the old, infirm and young people.

Now I read this:

"Now RBS boss to get ANOTHER £8m bonus as he racks up £35.5m (and counting) in earnings from the taxpayer in just three years"

Someone's taking the piss.
The points I am going to make were posted on the other place, and have for some reason disappearred. It not only ties is with the tax payers rescue of RBS and HBOS, but tha fact that after this has taken place, Scotland wants its independance.
Fine after the event, but if Scotland was already independant, what would they have done to bail out their banks.
Is the English tax payer in line for a refund if Scotland gets its way then - I think not.Took the money and ran.
Are they going to finance their own armed forces to protect themselves - I think not.
Do they want their cake and eat some of ours too - I suspect so.
Just my thoughts, not forced to be right, but there we go.

http://bit.ly/ywMblN

[Pete]

Result! 

[k4blades]

Depends what your long term plans are.

There already appears to be a bit of a backlash this morning. Business sector asking if someone with this mans reputation, and seemingly doing a good job, can be treated this way, and be subject to so much "political" intervention, then is it really good for business. (And like it or not, banking is the one sector in this country that is booming, and creating lots of tax revenue).
Milliband has started to get a reputation of being anti-business. Cameron could have played on that and used it for his own advantage, but he hasn't got the guts to make a political point and went for the easy, short-term option. One thing I think we can all agree on is that Cameron has come out of it as weak and feeble.

[k4blades]

I hear today that he was educated in a comprehensive school, worked in a sweet factory and climbed his way to the top to become one of our best industrialists.
He then took a pay cut to go to RBS.
He signed a contract drawn up by Labour, which promised him a bonus based upon him achieving certain things including;
making the bank profitable for the first time in a few years, which he has done
and increase lending to small business' which he has done......

.......so what a shame that he has been made a scapegoat to please those petty minded and vindictive types who seem to think that by taking his promised shares away, will some how benefit the old lady up the road living off benefits. (these same people are the ones who moan about all the public money going into banking, how the hell do they expect it to grow as a private institution, please explain.)

[Pete]

>> the old lady up the road living off benefits

Cheap shot.

What about the folks that paid National Insurance every week of their working lives to support the NHS and a state pension?

[k4blades]

I was just responding to this:

"especially the old, infirm and young people."

I assume this fella also pays his tax and insurance. However, the overall pot will be better served when billions of our taxes aren't used to keep banks afloat. Do you think that the public finances are better served by banks being in the private sector, or public, and if private, why do you think everyone has a right to dictate what benefits this fella should get. If public, do you disagree with all those people who say public money shouldn't have been used to bail out the banks, you can't have it both ways.

And just because you are more politically to the left, it doesn't give you a monopoly on having the interests of the poor in mind. We all want the same thing, its just about how best to achieve it.