Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
#1
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#2
Of course bonuses work, they do exactly as they are supposed to do. Alas, they do not, and cannot do what it is said they do. Just like teaching to the test does nothing to teach children to think.
Bonuses work simply to make bonuses work. They are a thing apart. They had/have their place with machining to a large degree in my experience, but then quotas will go up and the effectiveness of even these bonus structures shall deteriorate and workmanship is sure to suffer.
Bonuses are a vital part of any reliance on statistics over actual results. For blue-collar workers they were a way of denying a raise to the basic rate of pay and the further up the pay scale you go bonuses become an entitlement and are part of the pay-package. Do they do any general good? No...unless you are a politician.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#3
Complete academic balls from a man who has never had to face the realities of commercial life.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#4
i thought it was an interesting read setting out the distinctions between quantifiable things like production line bonuses, sportspersons winning things and the more complicated difficult to measure criteria.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
#5
As did I Howard. Tom has already made the point as to them being no more than part of the 'pay package' and the article tells how well that has worked.
If they were based on profit sharing there might be some sympathy for them but they are now reality resistant, the latest example of the Lloyds Names syndrome. I am sure we can all remember the names, signing on as such and collecting dividends on the basis of being there to cover shortfalls, being bailed out at public expense when actually having to do what they were paid to do.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,709
#6
Bonuses can and do work in all sorts of complex decision making roles, they are/should/must be for exceptional performance i.e. going beyond what is expected for the base salary.
So for example Project Managers are paid to deliver to time, cost and quality; if they deliver ahead of time or below cost but at the required quality they should receive a bonus, likewise a fund manager that exceeds benchmarks and delivers positive performance (ideally in absolute terms) should be rewarded.
The prospect of the ability to EARN a bonus is what motivates many to produce an above "on target" performance. All performance targets should be SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time constrained) and there should also be agreed stretch targets at which bonuses kick in. Measure-ability is not a pure arithmetic exercise, it can include qualitative measures and even use proxy measures to gauge. and assess success
Where there is issue with bonuses is the nonsense that crept into the City of "guaranteed" bonuses - this is pure tautology - as soon as it is guaranteed it is part of the basic salary. This nonsense practice has filtered through the City to other areas of business and it detracts hugely from the real incentivisation of senior staff, directors etc.
Ultimately bonuses in the private sector are none of our business they are mostly at the discretion of the management and the shareholders.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#7
barryw,whats ed balls done now.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
#8
Ross paragraph three is spot on.
As a side issue Morrisons give their store staff a very welcome bonus but refuse to give overtime even when a department is very short staffed. My daughter's department had one staff who had to try and do everything this morning from 6.00 until 11.00, normally there are three or more. This is a head office decision not local.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#9
Boardroom bonuses are wrong from the start, they are wrong by way of their intended results:
because they are reciprocal!
Thus, all the board votes to give all its members a bonus, clapping each other on the shoulder.
It has nothing to do with performance.
As can be seen in the case of Fred the Shred, chief executive of RBS until 2008: when that bank went bankrupt and needed bailing out by the State, this character received a lump-sum payout of well over £2 million and a package of over £700,000 a year without limit in time.
Yet his performance was reckless, disastrous, all based on greed, greed, greed...
He had just bought up the Dutch AMRO bank for £47 billion, so-by adding that bank's salary and bonuses to those of RBS.
In fact in 2007 he earned £4 million.
If sheer greed were not at the base of these bankster bonuses, then why did that man get such a huge bailout in 2008 when RBS went bust?
Nothing whatsoever to do with good performance.
The idea that these bankster bonuses have to do with good performance was invented in 2010, when the public had had enough of it. But we have all seen through it.
Their other big con is: "if you don't let us continue grabbing bonuses, we'll just go abroad and be employed for much, much more..."
Codswollop! There are far too many bankers around in search of jobs, and if these kranksters went abroad, no-one would employ them other than as cleaners!
Ross Miller- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,709
#10
Alexander, please go and read the UK Corporate Governance Code because you are clearly not aware of how remuneration committees are structured etc.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#11
the problem with it all is the greed of some
it needs strong leadership and people to say that horrible word,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,NO
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Ross Miller- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,709
#12
Absolutely Keith
But to glibly state "bonuses dont work" refutes masses of real world evidence to the contrary
Yes some have got greedy and believe their own hype and are managed by people with too much to loose to say no, but damning all with tired hackneyed phrases like "banksters" does all the honest people who work at the lower reaches of banking and financial services a disservice and belittles the person who uses the word.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#13
ROSS;
With most of your last post i agree
but you have to agree the GREED needs to be better managed more so in the present climate
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#14
Ross, actually the part of my above post regards boardroom execs clapping each other on the shoulder and voting each other bonuses comes almost word for word from Dave Cameron and Nick Clegg about 1 month ago, it was on Sky News.
The UK Corporate Governance Code might come in handy if Fred the Shred is summoned to court to answer for reckless banking. According to Treasury circles, he should be sent to court on account of existing laws in 2008 that he did not abide to.
Today the character has been stripped of his knighthood, so presumably it has been recognised that the individual did act in a reckless manner and did not abide to existing regulations. The Cabinet has stated today that he did exactly that.
The Cabinet, in fact, seem to be determined to get to grips with the bankers, and Labour is all for it. Perhaps they don't know about the UK Corporate Governance Code?
My guess is they do!
Ross Miller- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,709
#15
My guess they wouldnt on the whole know one end of a trial balance from the other, they are politicians not financial experts, practising corporate lawyers, etc etc.
The corporate governance code works well in most cases and is generally well policed by activist shareholders
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#16
Ross, to me it seems the ministers, those concerned with big-time finances and regulations, have consulted experts on the mater. They seem to be sure they have cards in their hands, as too do Labour and their leader Ed Miliband.
It probably took them a while, but since about a month or two, they do seem to have gained superior knowledge on the whole aspect of banking and share-holding regulations, and have started knocking off the diadems of arrogance from the crown of the likes of Fred the Shred, and are closing the iron belt around the whole lot of these "golden fingered" board executives.
Try reading the newspapers and listening in on the TV news to realise that Parliament and the media are warming the general public up to a final countdown with these guys.
In fact, they also know that the masses are really looking forward to big-time changes, to an utter clean-up, and that we'd like to see those responsible for economic collapse in the finances respond for their reckless behaviour, having been paid to do a job, failed, but even then rammed their pockets full of golden bars.
It's not over, it has just begun!
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#17
By the way, the three main-stream parties know this is an effective way to get a large turnout at the next General Election, to get the public involved in how our finances are governed.
That's why all three parties are now fully involved and are competing to get the public morally and emotionally involved in the coming Great Purge of the greedy.
I'm surprised that UKIP didn't make this topic one of their battle-cries when the theme was still vacant and void of a lobbying party. They'd have received a tremendous boost in support, but lo, now the world is going after Dave, Nick and Miliband
If UKIP did so now, people would say: they're only jumping on the bandwagon.
In fact, it's not a political, but popular theme, to demand an end to the corrupt and greedy self-helping attitude of these self-righteous and arrogant money-grabbers.
Ross Miller- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,709
#18
Oh so populism is the answer - it really is the politics of the vacuous and gutter now - what ever happened to the "art of the possible"?
Of course excess needs to be dealt with but and it is a damned big but, killing 1/8th of our economic activity and playing into the hands of our envious green eyed European friends by emasculating the City does us all no favours at all.
There are much better ways to deal with this than soundbite politics and red top headlines - but then what do I know, other than I have worked all my life in the City, been a trade union activist in financial services firms and also run 3 of my own businesses.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#19
I also run a business, Ross, it's not worth much financially, but has never to date gone in the red.
But if by emasculating the City you mean giving in to EU demands to tax City transactions and give the money to the EU, it won't happen unless there were a referendum in Britain and the majority expressly voted in favour. Which we won't.
So that has nothing to do with regulating bonuses.
Ross Miller- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,709
#20
No I dont meant a Tobin Tax
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi