Chris28 wrote:
Looks like the mother forgetter ((c) Robert Webb on buzzcocks) has been given and accepted £963000 as a bonus. While people struggle to make ends meet this douchebag laughs in the face of taxpayers
And if you read Robert Peston on the BBC even though the government as majority shareholder could have vetoed it the treasury accepted the remuneration committees recommendation because they feared if they didn't Hester and the board of directors would have resigned.
What I want to know is did they threaten resignation or not?
If they did and basically blackmailed Cameron they should have been sacked not given a bonus.
If the treasury just thought it was a risk (i.e. there was no outright threat of resignation) and paid it because they
thought they might resign then that is equally unacceptable and shows incredibly weak government from Cameron (as does succumbing to blackmail).
Either way this demonstrates even when the bank is state run bankers can ignore calls from the majority shareholder to curb bonuses and Cameron is weak or has no desire to deal with the bonus culture.
So what if they all resigned? The shares are worth little as it is and their bluff needs to be called at some point or nothing will change.
Put someone in charge who is salaried. There is no need for bonuses in the first place. If you do your job you take home your agreed wages. That is what the majority of us do. Bankers should be no different. The bonus culture of "if we don't pay it they will leave" is just self serving drivel.
