The post you are reporting:
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!
