# It's our bank!



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7843124.stm

10% fucking bonus, at a time when we bailed the bank out. :twisted:


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

I fucking hate banks and I fucking hate the government.

If there are bankers on here wallowing in taxpayer bonus money then sorry, but I fucking hate you too.

Cunts. :evil:


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

rustyintegrale said:


> doodah. :evil:


It's the fucking flame room...

C U N T S... :wink:


----------



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

> "They have experienced the loss of friends and colleagues through compulsory redundancy yet have continued working solidly with dedication and commitment.


Anyone would think they didn't get a wage and the end of the month and atleast they have their jobs unlike some of their friends :?

Fuck off you greedy bastards :twisted:


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

jonah said:


> Fuck off you greedy bastards :twisted:


Yeah, buy a Mac.. :lol:


----------



## T3RBO (Dec 9, 2003)

FFS, this country just is becoming a bigger joke day by day :x


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

I don't get 10% bonus at the best of times! And I work in a fairly successful (before the crunch) FTSE250 company.

Cock suckers all of them. No bankers should be getting a bonus after the shit they have pushed the country in.


----------



## Private Prozac (Jul 7, 2003)

"He also stressed that no executives or senior management would benefit." ~ No. But the fuckers did get golden handcuffs to keep them there at the start of the mess when it all went tits up!

Apparently they will get another 10% when another lump of the loan is paid off and upto another 20% when it's paid off in full.

What a bunch of wankers.


----------



## Hilly10 (Feb 4, 2004)

Words just fail me. These Bonuses should be going to pay the loan back they might just get some respect back :evil:


----------



## jammyd (Oct 11, 2008)

Typical tripe from this country... I can t believe they can pay that, when I go in to NR and ask for a mortgage and get told dont you know we are in financial difficulty still.

Think it is time to leave...


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

I guess what we don't know, is if these people's employment CONTRACTS have a clause in regarding payment of bonuses.

Forget the morals for a second... if you were an employee (not director) of NR, and your Employment Terms specified that you would get a 'bonus' paid, irrespective of company performance (not uncommon) then you'd damn well expect it.

Yes, these people only have jobs because the Government bailed the business out, but whilst the business is still running as an entity, its staff are still entitled to whatever it states in their T&C. No?

Sure, they could have been rewritten - but the laws relating to takeover in this country also protect staff from having their T&C altered. I guess that also includes business which are taken over by the taxpayer, rather than another corporation.

I'm not suggesting for one second that payment of bonuses to staff in an obviously poorly performing business is RIGHT, especially when it is taxpayers' money which is funding it, but at the end of the day, I do think it is a bit "Daily Mail" to only consider the headlines... :?


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Not forgetting, of course, that a competitive 'package' needs to be paid to any staff in order to retain them.

I'm sure that it isn't EVERYONE at Northern Rock who are culpable for the poor state of the company. Just those who were in charge of lending policy, plus the usual % of 'bad apples' which every company has.

It isn't for the taxpayer to determine who is/isn't doing a good job. I would hope that the Government, as part of the nationalisation scheme, have put measures in place which enable poorly performing staff to be culled and replaced - but those who actively NEED to be retained, who ARE doing a good job... and are crucial to the business getting back on its feet again - why would you demotivate them, and effectively cut their pay?


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

A bonus should be just that - a bonus.

It should not be a contracted part of a salary and should be performance related only, otherwise what's the point.

I'm so fed up with these so called 'elite' who seem to have one set of rules for them and another for the rest of us. If I had money in Northern Rock it would be coming out today. Bring the fuckers down.

Cheers

rich


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

rustyintegrale said:


> A bonus should be just that - a bonus.
> 
> It should not be a contracted part of a salary and should be performance related only, otherwise what's the point.
> 
> ...


Maybe a bonus SHOULD be a bonus... but it is still a contractural obligation. I've not been a permie for a while, but at the last place I worked, employees were entitled to a corporate bonus (based on company performance) and a personal bonus (based on their own objectives). Even if the company made a loss, they were still entitled to their performance bonus if they met their targets. Can you imagine what the Unions (and any right-minded people!) would say, if a company had an obligation to pay a member of staff £2000, but turned round and said "Sorry, I'm not going to do it..."

The point is, many of the recipients of these 'bonuses' are loyal, normal, ordinary, run-of-the-mill staff members. They aren't the 'elite'. Why should they be 'punished'?

The fact is, when a company decides to implement a bonus scheme, for whatever reason, it becomes part of the employment contract. An employment contract is there to protect the staff from companies reneging on their obligations...

Whether this is true in the case of NR, I've no idea. I don't have any information regarding the bonus scheme other than what I briefly heard over breakfast this morning - but to condemn the staff, and to ride roughshod over their employment rights - that seems a little harsh.

What if someone takes over the company you work for, and makes wholesale changes to YOUR working hours / salary / place of employment, without consultation and negotiation. Would you just accept it? Like hell you would.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

jampott said:


> The point is, many of the recipients of these 'bonuses' are loyal, normal, ordinary, run-of-the-mill staff members. They aren't the 'elite'.


Well i don't know anyone who automatically gets a bonus so to me they are the 'elite'... :roll:

I accept your point about contracts etc but don't you think it's a little crass that the taxpayer bails all these banks out and they then reward the staff on top of saving their jobs?

Cheers

Rich


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

rustyintegrale said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > The point is, many of the recipients of these 'bonuses' are loyal, normal, ordinary, run-of-the-mill staff members. They aren't the 'elite'.
> ...


Bonuses, for many people, form part of their anticipated annual 'package', and are paid "as salary". Whether it should be called a 'bonus' or not is a matter for debate - but if it is considered as 'salary', then it is an obligation, UNTIL THE GOVERMENT RENEGOTIATES CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT. I do know people who automatically get a 'bonus', and they aren't 'elite' (trust me!).

I do think it is crass, but ONLY if the 'bonus' is considered a 'reward'. As per above, if it is deemed part of a person's salary, then it isn't really a bonus. The fact that it is paid annually, or quarterly doesn't, in itself, make it a 'bonus'.

But I also put forward some other points - namely to keep NR running, and to protect the taxpayers' investment, it needs to retain some/most/all of its existing staff - particularly the ones who ARE performing well.

I know it doesn't seem morally right, but if someone is doing a bloody good job, and is going to help turn the company round, it would be REALLY stupid to demoralise and demotivate them by refusing to pay their 'deserved' bonus. Wouldn't it? Of course I don't advocate the payment of bonuses to the people who took the bank into the mess it is currently in - but I did just want to put up a valid counter-argument to rather naiive Tabloid Journalism which is tarring everyone at NR with the same brush, and crying 'foul'.

If NR has no choice but to pay these 'bonuses' because of a contractural obligation OR are paying bonuses to workers who are performing well, inspite of the current situation, then I don't think it is newsworthy at all.

I'd rather concentrate on what the Government is doing to weed out the useless policy makers who took the bank into that mess, and make sure THEY don't get paid bonuses, and are sacked instead.


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

In my experience any "bonus" tends to be contractually "discretionary", but that doesn't stop it being expected - and it being obvious there would be a total meltdown if the employer "just decided" not to pay it. I'm with Tim on this one - so long as any corporate performance related element is not being paid.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

I've just read the BBC News article which was linked in the first post:



> Northern Rock was nationalised in February 2008 after a run on the bank in 2007.
> 
> Once Britain's fifth-biggest home loan provider, it was taken into public ownership after it failed to find a suitable buyer from the private sector.
> 
> A Northern Rock spokesman refused to be drawn on how much money was being paid out, but pointed out that the staff-wide bonus scheme had been announced in October.


So, nationalised in Feb 2008, but the bonus scheme is newer than that. Ergo it is a bonus scheme which was brought in under Government control. Blame New Labour, not Northern Rock...



> "These have been very difficult times and this bonus agreed with the Treasury was promised if targets were met. Their dedication and commitment has meant that they have not only achieved but exceeded the targets set."
> 
> Asked whether Mr Brown approved of the bonuses, the prime minister's spokesman said: "Northern Rock, as I think is well known, has repaid its debts to the government at a rate faster than originally planned for.


And there we have it. The Treasury set some targets for the repayment of NR's borrowing. Despite everything (the increasing slowdown etc) these targets are being exceeded. This triggers the bonus payments which the Treasury (or someone else in the Government) agreed back in October.

Sorry guys, but I think this is Tabloid Scaremongering and politica bandwagon jumping (by the Liberals) at its very worst.

Move along, people... there's nothing to see here. NR staff are being correctly rewarded according to the rules set out by Brown/Darling. You want to complain, don't complain to NR... :?


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

jampott said:


> I do think it is crass, but ONLY if the 'bonus' is considered a 'reward'. As per above, if it is deemed part of a person's salary, then it isn't really a bonus. The fact that it is paid annually, or quarterly doesn't, in itself, make it a 'bonus'.


Well maybe the "rather naiive Tabloid Journalism which is tarring everyone at NR with the same brush, and crying 'foul'." is because of the rather misguided use of the term bonus within employee contracts.

I haven't been an employee since the early 80s and my recollection of a bonus was one paid at Christmas and was TOTALLY performance related. I think that is most people's interpretation of the word and certainly how the readership of any tabloid would understand it.

Maybe the sensible thing would be for employers to stop referring to it as part of a contracted salary package altogether..?

Cheers

Rich


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

rustyintegrale said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > I do think it is crass, but ONLY if the 'bonus' is considered a 'reward'. As per above, if it is deemed part of a person's salary, then it isn't really a bonus. The fact that it is paid annually, or quarterly doesn't, in itself, make it a 'bonus'.
> ...


See above. :wink:


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

jampott said:


> So, nationalised in Feb 2008, but the bonus scheme is newer than that. Ergo it is a bonus scheme which was brought in under Government control. Blame New Labour, not Northern Rock...





rustyintegrale said:


> I accept your point about contracts etc but don't you think it's a little crass that the taxpayer bails all these banks out and they then reward the staff on top of saving their jobs?


I believe I did... :lol: :lol:

But after your quotes from the BBC explaining the deal struck with the government I accept that I made a rash judgement about the employees of NR, so apologies to any reading this thread... :wink:

But doesn't this deal make a mockery of the targets set by the government?

It's a bit like asking a championship steeplechaser to leap a kerb for a prize bag of carrots... :wink:

Cheers

Rich


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

rustyintegrale said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > So, nationalised in Feb 2008, but the bonus scheme is newer than that. Ergo it is a bonus scheme which was brought in under Government control. Blame New Labour, not Northern Rock...
> ...


You made the judgement which the newspapers wanted you to make.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

jampott said:


> You made the judgement which the newspapers wanted you to make.


Perhaps the journos should be the ones on the bonuses then... :wink:

Seriously though, happy to admit when I'm wrong and it appears I was... :roll:

cheers

Rich


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

The little company that i work in used to pay a bonus to all employees twice yearly. Bonus was company performance-related on a number of metrics. Amount was declared by execs and was often as high as 10% of salary (base salary if in sales and on variable pay. Everyone got a share, but it was discretionary and not part of OTE nor a legal entitlement in UK. it could be (but never was) zero. (In France they are leaglly entitled to a bonus whatever the business/markets are doing  )

Nowadays, the company performance bonus only goes to those on fixed salaries. It is also awarded to managers at team level, to distribute amongst their teams in line with appraisal rankings and in lieu of _any _pay rises. What this means is that the top performers (or arse-lickers) get most and bottom performers get nothing, with those middlers getting a bit too. Which is OK unless a whole team has done really well, but someone still has to come last.

So this is all very well, until you hear that your CEO took $34M last year, that the company turned record results, completely bucking the IT market trend, and yet, because of market conditions no pay rise will be given this year, and therefore there will be no bonus declared. Clever. Doing away with pay rises and bonus in one foul swoop.

So that NRock are allowed to reward their staff bonuses for doing their jobs, but now backed by the taxpayer, it must have been supported by the Govt. But we know they are twats, so why get upset?

Good luck to them. I am more annoyed that tax payer still has to sponsor football scum to the tune of £5m a year until 2010 undr NRocks ongoing agreement. I'd rather see the non-managment staff of NR have a bonus.


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

When I first heard this, I thought it was pretty poor, but I'm with TIm and Clive and (I think) Gary on this.

What I am against however, is the fact that I know for definite some of the other banks are giving their traders bonuses - and they're ones that have been bailed out.

Unfortunately, it's an incredibly complicated situation. Bankers and banks should, in a truly capitalist society, be allowed to fold. But the repercussions of that happening for the 'man in the street' is far worse than bailing them out. With our own money.

There should be regs now put in place that prevent any of those banks needing bailing out from paying any bonuses. I haven't had a pay rise or bonus in five years, but currently count myself lucky to have a job.


----------



## GhosTTy (Oct 10, 2007)

Just sack the incompetent bastards, then you don't have to give them a bonus. I'm sure there are are plenty of people better qualified to do the job, probably well educated, but missing the 'old school tie'.
In more honorable times, the captain used to go down with his ship, now they just take the piss.


----------



## hooting_owl (Sep 3, 2008)

jampott said:


> And there we have it. The Treasury set some targets for the repayment of NR's borrowing. Despite everything (the increasing slowdown etc) these targets are being exceeded. This triggers the bonus payments which the Treasury (or someone else in the Government) agreed back in October.


the reason they have exceeded the payback target is by not lending any money to anyone, and by ramping up the number of repo's on poor bastards who are having a tough time keeping a roof over their heads.

10% bonus? no. these are exceptional times and damn-near everyone is going to have to accept a drop in their standard of living for the time being. until the banks ease off on their greedy claw-back of the money they lent, the economy is not going to get any better. if the employees don't like the terms, then they can take a walk and find another job in the real world. (they may struggle)

look at it this way, what about the poor bastards who bought pensions and other investment products on the promise of a 10% return? so it is okay for them to take a sharp one up the arse but not the cocksuckers who are responsible by association for causing the mess. a mess which was the result of pure greed and nothing else.

banking has long been a refuge for lazy twats who are unable to make a living off their own backs using their two hands. i hate the bastards and if there is a hell, you can guarantee there will be a branch of natwest there.

<tin hat on> :wink:


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

hooting_owl said:


> banking has long been a refuge for lazy twats who are unable to make a living off their own backs using their two hands. i hate the bastards and if there is a hell, you can guarantee there will be a branch of natwest there.


 :lol: :lol: That pretty much sums up how I feel about them too. Non-productive, arrogant garbage.

Cheers

Rich


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

Actually its my bank ,its on my favourite shirts :wink:


----------



## denTTed (Feb 21, 2007)

I don't have an objection to the operators on the shop floor getting a _performance_ related bonus, I do have objections to the directors (all of) and senior management (of under performing sectors) receiving bonus.

I am fairly certain the gov't still has to adhere to tuupe, which means all T&C's of employment stand regardless of owners (summarized) so their bonuses stand, legally. Directors bonuses, would be morally wrong and should be surrendered.


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

denTTed said:


> I am fairly certain the gov't still has to adhere to tuupe, which means all T&C's of employment stand regardless of owners (summarized) so their bonuses stand, legally. Directors bonuses, would be morally wrong and should be surrendered.


Surely this isnt a TUPE scenario? The employees have not moved from being employed by the bank to being civil servants - just the balance of ownership of the bank itself has shifted, right?


----------



## jammyd (Oct 11, 2008)

clived said:


> denTTed said:
> 
> 
> > I am fairly certain the gov't still has to adhere to tuupe, which means all T&C's of employment stand regardless of owners (summarized) so their bonuses stand, legally. Directors bonuses, would be morally wrong and should be surrendered.
> ...


I think your right, the goernment does not run the bank... this is still run by NR /RBS/Lloyds etc... The government is just the major stakeholder in the company... Therefore does have the right of Veto over this... IMHO 8)


----------



## ResB (Apr 17, 2005)

Private Prozac said:


> What a bunch of wankers.


Or the collective noun. "A wunch of Bankers"...


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

ResB said:


> Private Prozac said:
> 
> 
> > What a bunch of wankers.
> ...


Haha how do I get the wanky smiley? i could use that all day long... :roll:

Cheers

Rich


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

rustyintegrale said:


> ResB said:
> 
> 
> > Private Prozac said:
> ...


use quote function, then cut n paste the icon that you like. Or just save the url


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

garyc said:


> use quote function, then cut n paste the icon that you like. Or just save the url


 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Lovin' it!










Thanks Gary!

rich


----------



## mde-tt (Aug 7, 2007)

rustyintegrale said:


> I fucking hate banks and I fucking hate the government.
> 
> If there are bankers on here wallowing in taxpayer bonus money then sorry, but I fucking hate you too.
> 
> doodah. :evil:


Totally agree.
Its a fucking farce and this government wil do nothing of any real substance to sort it out. Its shit.


----------

