Working people are losing their homes while these high level bankers are still creaming it.
but for most of our workers, this will be less than £1000
So...£120m in £1000 chunks...
£1m = 1000 x £1,000
£120m = 120,000 x £1,000
So either Lloyds have quietly grown their workforce to over 120,000 staff, or there's a number of fatter cats in there....
think the bonuses are usually 10% of your years wages, well, near enough a months salary, so call centre staff, branch staff etc will get about £1000, branch managers and mortgage advisers slightly more, IT staff, advertising and marketing etc etc.
quote:
Originally posted by blakep82
think the bonuses are usually 10% of your years wages, well, near enough a months salary, so call centre staff, branch staff etc will get about £1000, branch managers and mortgage advisers slightly more, IT staff, advertising and marketing etc etc.
Guess my point is - most of that money will be going to the traders / senior management...the people leading the banks into disaster....
The whole thing is a disgrace.
Working people are losing their homes while these high level bankers are still creaming it.
I thought bonuses were paid after a 'good year'???
seems quite simple to me, pay the bonuses for those who have met there objectives but set a maximum of £2k.... wonder what the £120m would look like then......
Those like myself (recently redundant as their overtaxed/over-regulated industry and employ folds and pretty much on the scrapheap it seems) would
regard a 'bonus' as keeping your job. The taxpayer (my wife) is providing that service to the State Employees right now.....
rant...
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
I thought bonuses were paid after a 'good year'???
I must be the only person in the entire country who doesn't have a problem with these peeps being paid a bonus.
Lets see, my boss tells me to do X (which just happens to be something very risky on the global investment markets). I do really well at X and make my
company lots of money. My contract says i get a bonus. Why the hell shouldn't I get a bonus?
Lets put it another way. You work for a machine shop. You get told the average machinist makes 10 things a day, for every thing above 10 you make
they'll pay you extra at the end of the year (as long as they are ok quality). End of year comes, business has been rescued due to some pillock
messing up the books - should you now not get your bonus? Like hell, you've done your job, you deserve your bonus.
The people who don't deserve the bonuses are the ones who where aware of the risk and still kept the business trading in the same way. i.e. some
of the directors. Now if their contract says they get a bonus what ever then they should get it (its contract law) but they should also lose their job
for gross miss conduct.
Your company offers you 10K bonus for a years good work. Your company folds 1 month prior to receiving your bonus, do you get 11/12ths of your bonus,
or, if you are lucky, do you get your last paypacket?
Bank requires bailing out to stop them going bust, you get to keep your job, and taxpayer pays your bonus.
It is not a case of whether you deserve the bonus or not, it is the fact that you wouldn't have a job had your business been allowed to
fail/bust.
To my mind it is a continuation of the greed that caused this mess in the first place.
Before any-one mentions contractual obligations, the government could change the law to enable the ceasation of bonus structures in businesses that
have been rescued by the state.
should'nt Bankers start whit a 'W'
was lloyds set to make a profit this year before the merger with HBOS? They do say there are no bonuses for board staff and most traders.
quote:
Originally posted by MikeR
I must be the only person in the entire country who doesn't have a problem with these peeps being paid a bonus.
Lets see, my boss tells me to do X (which just happens to be something very risky on the global investment markets). I do really well at X and make my company lots of money. My contract says i get a bonus. Why the hell shouldn't I get a bonus?
Lets put it another way. You work for a machine shop. You get told the average machinist makes 10 things a day, for every thing above 10 you make they'll pay you extra at the end of the year (as long as they are ok quality). End of year comes, business has been rescued due to some pillock messing up the books - should you now not get your bonus? Like hell, you've done your job, you deserve your bonus.
The people who don't deserve the bonuses are the ones who where aware of the risk and still kept the business trading in the same way. i.e. some of the directors. Now if their contract says they get a bonus what ever then they should get it (its contract law) but they should also lose their job for gross miss conduct.
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
quote:
Originally posted by MikeR
I must be the only person in the entire country who doesn't have a problem with these peeps being paid a bonus.
Lets see, my boss tells me to do X (which just happens to be something very risky on the global investment markets). I do really well at X and make my company lots of money. My contract says i get a bonus. Why the hell shouldn't I get a bonus?
Lets put it another way. You work for a machine shop. You get told the average machinist makes 10 things a day, for every thing above 10 you make they'll pay you extra at the end of the year (as long as they are ok quality). End of year comes, business has been rescued due to some pillock messing up the books - should you now not get your bonus? Like hell, you've done your job, you deserve your bonus.
The people who don't deserve the bonuses are the ones who where aware of the risk and still kept the business trading in the same way. i.e. some of the directors. Now if their contract says they get a bonus what ever then they should get it (its contract law) but they should also lose their job for gross miss conduct.
Fair point!
I just dont understand how the people who made these huge mistakes can even keep their jobs let alone get the huge bonuses its reported they are getting. its a joke
Folks - you've got to divorce the trader who was doing what he was told vs the person who decided on the strategy.
Strategy is decided at the top and they should be punished. The 'workers' did their job and don't deserve punishing.
As for the company going out of business so they shouldn't get their bonus....... think this through.
Company gets in trouble and gets bought out - does that mean the new owner doesn't have to stick to any contracts? err - sorry, yes they do.
If the company folds then you don't have to stick to contracts. The gov. decided that it couldn't let these businesses fold, apart from in
one area (mortgage) they are profitable.
You're suggesting no one should get bonuses..... well we need banks and if i was one of the employees my response would be the same as you lot.
If you're not paying me what I'm legally contractually entitled to, I'm going to start looking to work for someone else. Which leads us
back to the bank collapsing.
Now is not the time for knee jerk reactions.
At the end of the day the govt should have been a lot more specific about how our money was going to be spent before they started chucking it at the
banks like it grows on trees. Any other company that effectively went into administration would be giving staff an option, give up your bonuses or
we'll be making more redundancies. No bonus is better than no job.
I have symapthy for the 'common joe' who may well have worked very hard at what he does, but at the end of the day the company performance
was abysmal.
quote:
Originally posted by MikeR
You're suggesting no one should get bonuses..... well we need banks and if i was one of the employees my response would be the same as you lot. If you're not paying me what I'm legally contractually entitled to, I'm going to start looking to work for someone else.
I understand both sides of what people are saying.
It just seems silly that the goverment have paid out tax payers money to save the bank and £120m of that money is going towards bonuses.
Deserved or not, they are bonuses not the regular wage. Surely it would have been easy for the goverment to put a clause in the deal that stated no
bonus would be paid or even witheld until things stabilise.
As the ecomony is in so much trouble why are they giving £120m away. As said loads have lost jobs, if anyone from Lloyds complained about not getting
their bonus then they must have their head in the sand.
[Edited on 15/2/2009 by greggors84]
one thing to bear in mind here, some of these traders are contractually entitled to a bonus and therefore cannot be denied legally.
Certainly the senior underwriters at my company get paid a 'nominal' wage and their 'real' money is linked to their underwriting
performance... but with min level....
Personally I dont actually make money for the company so my bonus will be small - even smaller this year 
I certainly dont be grudge the average employee at lloyds... 1k is fairly small thanks for the hard times they are facing... make no mistake the
person you see every day in the bank is working much harder right now!
Neither I nor my fellow colleagues got a bonus last year. The company I worked for was bought out by another and they decided that because the bonus
was discretionary, they wouldn't pay it (even though the targets that drive the bonus had been achieved). Everyone was slightly annoyed to say
the least. Should I expect the British taxpayer to pay my bonus too?
Phil