A very contraversial issue in a time of such austerity, many public sector workers are having wage freezes & cuts to their pensions whilst this man gets a bonus for running a still failing bank.
But on the other hand, he is doing a real job, whilst there are hundreds of guys out there being paid up to £4 million a year for kicking a football around for 90 minutes a week!
I concede. Deceitful, manipulative behavior and frequent lying are not traits necessary to sucessfully gain Boardroom status.
Game, set and match to Jeanette!
Don't worry, I am too old to have any of that stuff left... Just got stubborner!
Well yes, and is mine there not merely 'opinion' as well?
Game, set and match to Jeanette!
But for British Libel law, you would be reading more about the specifics of an 'incapacity for love, deceitful and manipulative behavior, frequent lying ' or any of their other 'needs'. The more sucessful use of these listed traits are necessary to advance within corporate ranks. Success within the system is a form of corporate 'natural selection'.
Blimey - how many do you have to suffer from to qualify? !!
Psychopaths, also called sociopaths, are categorized as those who exhibit superficial charm and intelligence, and are absent of delusions or nervousness. Their traits include:
Consider the above traits for any major CEO. They are traits that are necessary to be sucessful within the coroprate enviornment. Those that have mastered these traits are promoted, those that do not are either fired or promoted to thier level of incompetence.
Well said!
In this case 84% of RBS is owned by the UK government , or the taxpayer in reality. They bought RBS stock for £45 billion @ 50p per share. In 2011 the shares were valued a 19p which is a taxpayer book loss of £26 billion. Stephen Hester was to receive a much greater bonus originally until somebody pulled the plug, but even then nearly one million for losing £26 billion is pushing the limit. His employers, the taxpayers, were not asked about his bonus by their elected stooges, so those in power decided to walk over their own employers (also said taxpayers) and award the bonus. Upper management beyond the puppet board of this bank is elected by the people and were in the wrong but even now are not admitting it.
But there is no free & open market and particularly in wages and bonuses. Shareholders have little say in compensation or in coroprate governance. Upper management controll the process while the beholden Boards of Directors and compensation committees are made of the same men selected by the managment. Upper managment is self-selected to be sociopaths.
I was in on the petition and put it up on Facebook where some SFN people took it on and clearly signed. It is, it was wrong. It is said that various petitions and opposition shouts did nothing to persuade him to decline, but what the heck, he knows he is an unpopular leech now and let us hope that sticks. So; NO!
As for doing a REAL job, please do not insult the majority of people on this site with such a contrived and trite piece of utter rubbish. The people who really run banks are well paid themselves but this is just the frontman...
Footballers, etc, well market forces did that. In the wake of the second world war they earned around £20 a week which was well above normal workers' wages and even such people as teachers, medic and civil servants in general. In 1973 I was in a darts team with a Chelsea and England player who earned about £200 a week plus extra for his caps, winning bonuses for cup or league and public appear fees. So perhaps £3 to 400 a week at tops. That was around £20,000 a year at the top of the tree. Inflation has done nothing like that to most other 'professions' (OK, there are some, not many) so sure 90 minutes usually twice a week plus every single day training and even off season doing much the same. Whatever, not real and the blame lies with those who made/make sports into big business. See what tennis players get per match now, proportionately more than soccer players in terms of time plus far more 'other stuff' on top. It is all disproportionate, but I think the majority of us would agree.
So neither is justifiable.
I can't give a simple answer to this one. Morally of course it stinks, and we are I'm sure, all glad that he has caved into political pressure not to take it. The irony of this one being however, is that it was the Labour party who created this agreement in the first place. It raises a bigger issue however, he signed a legally binding contract, and that was part of the deal, like it or not. How would any of us feel if one party to a contract we had signed decided not to pay 50% of it? Angry and annoyed , and probably reaching for legal advice. To be fair to him, he has turned things around at the bank, it's not a glowing success, but it's not the basket case it was.
I think today has now brought a bigger piece of news with that inept swine Goodwin, who brought RBS to it's knees, then ran off with millions, and has now been stripped of his peerage - a very minor slap in the face. I think they should be considering legal action against him for gross incompetence, as most of the money he took was in bonus. Just think about that, he destroys a perfectly good business, and gets a bonus. That is a far bigger story for me.
You see he is one of those people we kept getting told about, that need a few million a year as they are so good, hmmmm.
There is when it is part of his pay package and not really a bonus at all. Due to the stupid way the tax system is set up in the UK, it is better to receive shares than straightforward real money. He won't cash the shares in but trade them to get the best possible return. If he has loads of money I assume he probably spends loads of it too. In those posh, London restaurants that emply all those waiters and buy fresh veg from the farmers who then go and pay their mortgages and spend some in Tescos who employ all those peaople...
All I can say to public sector workers is if you are so hard done by and poorly paid why are you paying your Union fees for the pathetic deal they have negotiated for you? Also, you can always leave and get a job in the private sector, where all workers have far superior pay packages and pension rights and have suffered no pay cuts - nobbody is twisting your arm and saying you must be a teacher, or nurse or......
Yes
If you want quality, high calibre strategic direction at the top you have to pay to attract and retain them.
If he can leave and go elsewhere and take a £1.2m bonus, why would he stay and conversley how will the government attract a new recruit to take over the position?
Sorry to hear that Sarah. I use my UK address for UK petitions and hadn't noticed. How about sending it to a friend or putting it on your Facebook?
Bummer - petition won't accept French postcode.......
NO
While we might be under contract to pay this bonus he does not have to accept it. As a long time RBS customer and a UK tax payer who bailed them out and owns 83% of RBS I think he should refuse the bonus. If you agree see this go to http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/rbs-chief-don-t-accept-your-1-mi... (I hope this is okay with Catharine and James).
Simple indeed. Morally none. Contractually no choice. The employer is the government, the shareholders are the taxpayers, and they of course have no say ! So take the medicine as usual and be annoyed. Capitalism at it's most perverse ?