trimandson Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Lucky. As posted several pages back, our part of the business posted a 1.4bn profit. Hardly lucky. I should be getting more, I would've done last year. And also found out the payrise from April too, more then I expected. A good day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted March 9, 2009 Moderator Share Posted March 9, 2009 Nice one Trim. I'd keep this news to yourself mind in case another VT'er starts thinking about what you can spend it on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dappadan Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 I'm going on holiday You could always do what your good lady has done and donate some of it to Acorns through our Villa talk team in the sticky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trimandson Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 I'm going on holiday You could always do what your good lady has done and donate some of it to Acorns through our Villa talk team in the sticky I may send a fiver. And OBE, for the amount of Red Stripe she's brought me lately, she can have whatever she wants Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Lucky. As posted several pages back, our part of the business posted a 1.4bn profit. Hardly lucky. I should be getting more, I would've done last year. And also found out the payrise from April too, more then I expected. A good day I'm quite well ware of the returns of your part of the business, Trim - I read through all of the financial reports of HBOS. Sad reading. My comment was not personal but you ought to be considering yourself bloody lucky to still be in a job. That is in no way a comment that is aimed at you - you are not culpable for the extraordinary deficiencies of the organisation in which you worked - but without the intervention of the taxpayer, you'd be on the rock, mate. No, you may not have contributed to the collapse of your previous employer (i.e. HBOS), but you have still had to be rescued because of the shit-for-brains that led you. In my view, every contractual obligation incumbent upon HBOS or any other company needing to be rescued by UK plc ought to have been cancelled (or should be cancelled) at the very moment that assistance is taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 aactually snowy I think they are spot on with this as long as the departments that get the bonus made money Rubbish, Ian. Please see previous post as to why I disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted March 9, 2009 Author Share Posted March 9, 2009 it is actually called good will and keepig an under pressure workforce happy BTW seen the list of debts teh government are insuring from Llloyds, one that stands out for me is the whole debt book of HBOS's buy to let book ... that is ominous for those in private rented a lot could be chucked out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 it is actually called good will and keepig an under pressure workforce happy I vehemently disgree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted March 10, 2009 Author Share Posted March 10, 2009 well are we seeing green shoots ? or the dead cat ? citigroup (on it's kees) actually posts 2 months of profits and says it's captal base is strong, this has left shares up 5% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juju Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 I can see what snoeychap means, that many businesses of a large size going bust leave the employees with nothing. Certainly theres' a little ill feeling at RBs, that we as emplyees have been treated by the government differently to Lloyds/Hbos and Northern Rock. Both of those, the junior staff still got their "bonus's", but RBS staff didn't. Apparently they're scrapping any future profit related pay from us, so even if the bank returns to fully private ownership, we won't get that. Theres a suggestion that basic wages mightbe increased to make up for it, but I still await full details. Rather than give me a 2.5% vat cut on my purchasing power, I'd have stimulated the economy a lot more if I'd been paid properly. Still, I suppose despite the atmosphere getting steadilly worse as management seek to blame us junior staff for failings which we feel are clearly caused by strategic policy higher up (withinthe insurance arm), I should be grateful I have a job. But is that correct? I mean, I don't work in banking but in insurance. Regardless of the economy, people will stil be crashing cars, more people in a credit crisi will be claiming for their non existant injuries, and indeed, the chances of being taken on by a legal firm remain positive. so should I be "lucky" or should I be rewarded for staying with the company who have basically cut my wages by 10%+ this year? Perhaps I see why the civil service is perceived as wasteful, slack and not a career path for the ambitious, if they manage it like they do us, by panic and public opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 well are we seeing green shoots ? or the dead cat ? citigroup (on it's kees) actually posts 2 months of profits and says it's captal base is strong, this has left shares up 5% No. Yes and there will be plenty more. And we are now suddenly believing banks and what they say in memos, are we? It didn't 'post' anything, did it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 For me it is difficult to pay any bonus if a business is making losses, indeed there should be some kind of law against the paying of any kind of bonus in a loss making organisation. As a Barclays employee who was used to an annual bonus said to me recently "This year's bonus is that we still have a job" Bonuses are just that. The problem is that people have become so used to them they expect them and, even more worryingly, they budget* for them. *Budget in 21st century speak is spend the hell out of your credit card in the expectation that you will receive a bonus that will pay it off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juju Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 See, I see that argument. But in the way you see bonuses as something people are used to, for those who are working on a lower basic salary, its not so much expected, as part of "the pay". it ceased to be a bonus when basics were left otherwise uncompetitively low. And like others, the business Iwork in, ispretty "disconnected" from the bank. Working for their Insurance arm, who made £738 million profit, its hard to tell me that working hard, making helping make my bit of the business protifible, doesnt count for anything except a slashed bottom line. Its not as if anything I can buy is dropping. The govt that stitched me up in pay, still expect their full slice of council tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 The govt that stitched me up in pay The government didn't stitch you up, though. The people who ran the company for which you work did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted March 10, 2009 Author Share Posted March 10, 2009 The govt that stitched me up in pay The government didn't stitch you up, though. The people who ran the company for which you work did. agreed actually for some they saved your jobs if the govt had not stepped in Lloyds and RBS were gone and where would that have left some even if you were in a bit making money, ot many around to buy you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juju Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Quote: The govt that stitched me up in pay The government didn't stitch you up, though. The people who ran the company for which you work did. Bit of both. Its the govt who have as majority shareholders veto's the bonuses for the lower ranks, due to the amount of publicity and public opinion at the time. I give you Hariet Harman as exhibit 1of the "Make Fred Goodwin illegal" law she was proposing. But its one thing no one feels sorry for bankers. But MG rover didn't make much of a profit in the last 20-30 years and was bailed out for years by taxpayers. But no one objected to shift bonuses and productivity bonuses for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 See, I see that argument. But in the way you see bonuses as something people are used to, for those who are working on a lower basic salary, its not so much expected, as part of "the pay". it ceased to be a bonus when basics were left otherwise uncompetitively low. And like others, the business Iwork in, ispretty "disconnected" from the bank. Working for their Insurance arm, who made £738 million profit, its hard to tell me that working hard, making helping make my bit of the business protifible, doesnt count for anything except a slashed bottom line. Its not as if anything I can buy is dropping. The govt that stitched me up in pay, still expect their full slice of council tax. As I see your argument. Years ago, when I was an employee, my stock market listed company failed to make a profit, although they didn't make a loss. In that particular year I made roughly half the revenue of the company and it remained my 'best ever year', until 2008. I wasn't paid a penny in bonus as the company needed to be in profit, something that I accepted without question. Now the boot is on the other foot as I am an employer within the same organisation, but we are no longer stock market listed. If we failed to make money in a given year there would be no bonus for me, but I would still consider paying bonuses to hard working staff if I felt that they merited one. Pay scales are a different matter, but I have a simple view of that. If you think that you are worth more money, ask. If they don't agree with you find another job and leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juju Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Pay scales are a different matter, but I have a simple view of that. If you think that you are worth more money, ask. If they don't agree with you find another job and leave. Again, you'r totally correct. But if the running of the company by the govt means the first thing employees do en masse, is defect to somewhere where there are jobs, at more reasonable pay scales, is that a resonsible way to look after the company? Moving forward, RBS have made huge losses, but is collapsing the company morale and losing staff the way to turnthings round? Remember, the losses made were done so by agroup of less than 500, out of a total staff of 177'000, and by a relatively small part of the overall group. Do you kill the head of the patient whilst the heart is unhealthy? I can really understand that those who dont understand the low pay/decent bonus balance of the average bank employee, the majority of whom earn less than£ 25k pa would be against these payments. What gets me is that those who know better, such as MP's, many of whom have close "relationships" with them, were simply making political capital, now willing to distinguish between the city boys with their bonuses of 3-4 times basic salary, and most of us, looking at 10%. It was just a stick to beat us all with for point scoring. The fact the Govt can't as major shareholder bring itself to treat us all the same, shocks me genuinely. They couldn't "prefer" one part of the civil service over another, in the way they have bank emplyees. Thats what makes me bitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Its the govt who have as majority shareholders veto's the bonuses for the lower ranks, due to the amount of publicity and public opinion at the time. That would be the opinion of the majority shareholder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 EDIT: Duplicate posting nonsense. :oops: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts