News2 mins ago
Turning Down A Bonus
This poll is closed.
- No! - 129 votes
- 92%
- Yes! - 11 votes
- 8%
Stats until: 20:36 Thu 16th May 2024 (Refreshed every 5 minutes)
© AnswerBank Ltd 2000 - 2024. All Rights Reserved.
Answers
If I was offered one........I certainly wouldn't turn it down, particularly if the sum was "peanuts" in the greater picture.
15:08 Mon 30th Jan 2012
Interesting to note that the tax man has lost £500,000 on the deal.
http://www.telegraph....ves-1m-RBS-bonus.html
http://www.telegraph....ves-1m-RBS-bonus.html
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
@Ed - I imagine this poll has been inspired by the recent actions surrounding the payment of Steven Hesters bonus - but his situation bears little relevance to the vast majority of the UK public - which sort of invalidates this poll, at least as it is presently written, in my opinion anyway :)
1. His base salary was 1 million or so.This is so far from ordinary peoples experience as to put him on a different planet!
Were I to be offered a bonus equal to my salary, I would have to make some significant impact on my companies shareholder value, turnover and/or profitability -preferably all 3. In Hesters time at RBS, He has failed on all of these counts - so v.difficult to justify any kind of bonus, I would have said.
2. Most people work in the private sector - Hester is effectively a state employee, so again the Hester situation is not really relevant to that for most people. Indeed, for most state employees, they are having to suffer a pay decrease and wage cap.
Many politicians, the media, the man on the Clapham omnibus have spoken with disgust at the way these super rich award themselves bonuses out of all proportion to company performance.The remuneration commitees are effectively a cosy cartel, each sitting on each others commitees and helping each other out. Cameron/Osbornes preferred stated solution is to empower shareholders to employ a measure of control on these extortionate salary packages. It must surely be an embarassment to them then that the Govt, the majority shareholder in RBS, claimed an inability to effect such bonuses - how then do they expect regular and small shareholders to effect change in other companies, given their own conspicous failure at RBS?
It took a Labour proposal to pass a parliamentary motion to shame Hester into giving up his bonus - Cameron and Osborne should be equally ashamed at their ineffectual actions, which just appear to reinforce the notion of crony capitalism...
1. His base salary was 1 million or so.This is so far from ordinary peoples experience as to put him on a different planet!
Were I to be offered a bonus equal to my salary, I would have to make some significant impact on my companies shareholder value, turnover and/or profitability -preferably all 3. In Hesters time at RBS, He has failed on all of these counts - so v.difficult to justify any kind of bonus, I would have said.
2. Most people work in the private sector - Hester is effectively a state employee, so again the Hester situation is not really relevant to that for most people. Indeed, for most state employees, they are having to suffer a pay decrease and wage cap.
Many politicians, the media, the man on the Clapham omnibus have spoken with disgust at the way these super rich award themselves bonuses out of all proportion to company performance.The remuneration commitees are effectively a cosy cartel, each sitting on each others commitees and helping each other out. Cameron/Osbornes preferred stated solution is to empower shareholders to employ a measure of control on these extortionate salary packages. It must surely be an embarassment to them then that the Govt, the majority shareholder in RBS, claimed an inability to effect such bonuses - how then do they expect regular and small shareholders to effect change in other companies, given their own conspicous failure at RBS?
It took a Labour proposal to pass a parliamentary motion to shame Hester into giving up his bonus - Cameron and Osborne should be equally ashamed at their ineffectual actions, which just appear to reinforce the notion of crony capitalism...
No I wouldn't. But then as I work in the public sector this will never be offered to me. This chap effectively is also a goverment employee too since the bank got bailed out and if can be given a bonus for doing his work well, superceding his targets and generally improving the service within a year of being there then I think I would like the same courtesy extended to me. The difference being that I actually did all things listed whereas I think this fella may need a bit of a performance review actually...
What on one seems to realise is that this bonus is NOT cash, it is in the form of share options. These can not be used for 2 or 3 years and even then using them depends on the share price being sufficiently high at that time.
He could take the bonus and then the share price drops so it is worthless .
Also this bonus is less than 50% of what was originally agreed so if the newspaper headlines had read
'' RSB Chairman's bonus cut by more than 50%''
do you think there would have been the same outcry ?
He could take the bonus and then the share price drops so it is worthless .
Also this bonus is less than 50% of what was originally agreed so if the newspaper headlines had read
'' RSB Chairman's bonus cut by more than 50%''
do you think there would have been the same outcry ?
Concur with what LazyGun said.
The question in the OP is too broad spectrum. If you're on £1.2 million p.a. you don't exactly need your salary doubled in order to get by or have a few treats, it's a given if you're on that sort of wedge!
What is abhorrent is that these bonuses are given to people whose banks have been bailed out by the taxpayer as a result of financial stupidity by previous chairmen/CEO's, so how can such payments be justified?
Those that haven't been bailed out are still massively in the red so to me the rule is simple: If you're business is more than 51% state owned you don't get a bonus. If you're in the red and not in the black the same, no bonus, otherwise we could all live life on the never-never and be entitled to huge salaries and bonuses from failing, indebted companies, couldn't we?
The question in the OP is too broad spectrum. If you're on £1.2 million p.a. you don't exactly need your salary doubled in order to get by or have a few treats, it's a given if you're on that sort of wedge!
What is abhorrent is that these bonuses are given to people whose banks have been bailed out by the taxpayer as a result of financial stupidity by previous chairmen/CEO's, so how can such payments be justified?
Those that haven't been bailed out are still massively in the red so to me the rule is simple: If you're business is more than 51% state owned you don't get a bonus. If you're in the red and not in the black the same, no bonus, otherwise we could all live life on the never-never and be entitled to huge salaries and bonuses from failing, indebted companies, couldn't we?
Phil
///If you're on £1.2 million p.a. you don't exactly need your salary doubled in order to get by or have a few treats, it's a given if you're on that sort of wedge!//
This is nothing to do with a "few treats" or "getting by" this is a deal done in the light of market forces in attempt to get the right man to turn around the fortunes of the "busted bank"......which he has done.
////otherwise we could all live life on the never-never and be entitled to huge salaries and bonuses from failing, indebted companies, couldn't we?///
You are quite correct Phil and this was why the recession hit, because we were all living on borrowed money.........despite the NHS always haemorrhaging money, there was always big salaries for the CE's and pay increases for Drs and ancillary staff which could not have been afforded........both public and private sectors have a lot to answer for.
redhelen/Lazygun
\\\\My argument for Hester turning down the bonus is that as a public servant he should get that type of bonus in the first place!!\\\
There is a difference of opinion here.........my information is, that although he was appointed by the labour Party to run a 82%state owned bank, he was told to run it as a private sector institution, so as such this absolves him for the title of "public servant"
///If you're on £1.2 million p.a. you don't exactly need your salary doubled in order to get by or have a few treats, it's a given if you're on that sort of wedge!//
This is nothing to do with a "few treats" or "getting by" this is a deal done in the light of market forces in attempt to get the right man to turn around the fortunes of the "busted bank"......which he has done.
////otherwise we could all live life on the never-never and be entitled to huge salaries and bonuses from failing, indebted companies, couldn't we?///
You are quite correct Phil and this was why the recession hit, because we were all living on borrowed money.........despite the NHS always haemorrhaging money, there was always big salaries for the CE's and pay increases for Drs and ancillary staff which could not have been afforded........both public and private sectors have a lot to answer for.
redhelen/Lazygun
\\\\My argument for Hester turning down the bonus is that as a public servant he should get that type of bonus in the first place!!\\\
There is a difference of opinion here.........my information is, that although he was appointed by the labour Party to run a 82%state owned bank, he was told to run it as a private sector institution, so as such this absolves him for the title of "public servant"
