howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
have to agree
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
about time to,but could have done better.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Of-course workers are happier if they are paid above peanuts, of-course they will work better and bring in better results.
Destroy enthusiasm at work through low wages and you'll get little or no enthusiasm in return.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
alexander
at last i find a post i can agree with you on
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Low wages for just turning up, bonuses for superior performance.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Peter, those who just turn up are precisely the ones who get fat bonuses and all the servings and trimmings.
Superior performance, understood as hard work, is often rewarded with the low paid minimum wage and peanuts wage salary.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Only in the public sector Alex.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Have you forgotten the banking sector, Peter, and the share-holding sector. These are the worse offenders!
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
It's not all in the Banking sector who get huge bonuses; I worked for Natwest for over 24 years and only got a small bonus at Christmas.
I was in the Computer Operations section, so not part of the finance/investment side, but without our good work, there'd have been no profits.
I'm also a share holder (for what it's worth) and get SFA.
Roger
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
'worse offenders' - what offence? explain more Alex.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
peter
you will(if your honest)
find them in both the public and private sectors
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Yes Keith I am sure you are right; but I have only ever worked in the private sector where generally, if you don't do your job effectively, you will be replaced eventually.
In the banks, for example,bonuses are only paid out of profits. The only exceptions I can think of are in those banks which collapsed and are now taxpayer-owned, therefore part of the public sector.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
peter;
i think even in the PRIVATE banks you will find the same i have
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Keith I have never witnessed it in either Barclays or HSBC, the only two banks I worked for after the market reforms of 1987. I can't speak from personal experience of any other banks and neither, I assume, can you. But a moment's reflection should show you that it makes no sense to pay bonuses where the profits are not there.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
peter
interesting that you think you know me better than i do.
yes have witnessed it in the hsbc
agree with you on parts of your comment on bonus's
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Didn't realise you had worked in HSBC, we must have been colleagues once upon a time!
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 695- Registered: 30 Mar 2010
- Posts: 426
Peter, did you mean colleagues or comrades?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
This is new news to me too Peter - so what did you actually do then Keith? and for how long? or is this just having us on?
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Barry, surely the people working behind the counter, those who come into contact with the customers in a banking institution, and those working inside the office, such as Roger did, do more than "just turning up".
But their bonuses, if they get any, are comparitively very small.
The top bankers get very high salaries in comparison, hundreds of thousands of pounds a year. But then, on top of it, they also get bonuses that exceed their salaries.
If their basic salary is very high, then why give them such exagerated bonuses on top of it?
If a bonus were to be 10% of the annual salary for an average worker, or even 20%, it would certainly make them happy.
On, say, £20,000 a year, that would be 2 to 4 thousand a year more.
So why does some top guy on, say, £300,000 a year, end up with a 1 million pound bonus? That's 330% more than their (top) salary.
Where is the justice, and what's the point?
If my colleague has daily two slices of bread and I have a whole loaf, why should I receive another 3 loaves of bread on top of it, every day? Do I need it?
Would it not be better to divide the 3 loaves among those who each have a few slices of bread?
Similarly, the chief executives of large share-holding companies take for themselves in the form of bonuses the dividends that should go to the share-holders.
Not content with their top salary, they slap a bonus on top that exceeds their (top) salary by many times.
These people are paying themselves money that does not belong to them, because they are making up the rules of "who gets how much".
They are not the private owners of the banks and share-holding companies, but help themsleves to the pantry in a way that is not worthy of a self-respecting person.
And they do it, because their top salary, which is possibly 10 times higher than that of the average "colleague" working in the same institution, "is not enough to live off".
What total and sheer utter insult!