|
|
Post by omnipleasant on Feb 9, 2009 13:19:52 GMT
Can't believe anyone would disagree with a word the PM says here. Spot on. The problem is that a lot of these cnuts have bonuses written into their contracts, and would scuttle straight to the lawyers if the banks just told them to whistle. Prime Minister Gordon Brown is "very angry" about proposed bank bonuses and wants bankers to consider waiving their right to them, his spokesman has said.
He said executives should "consider whether they actually receive" bonuses even if legally entitled to themnews.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7878418.stm |
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Feb 9, 2009 13:22:04 GMT
Angry?
Good. As he owns over 50% of the shares he can tell them to shove their bonus claims up their arses.
|
|
|
|
Post by omnipleasant on Feb 9, 2009 13:23:14 GMT
The govt might be their employers now, but the contracts remain the same. They'd just sue the taxpayer rather than the fatcats. It's a tricky one.
|
|
sushimo
New Member
One tequilla, Two Tequilla, Three Tequilla - Floor.
Posts: 243
|
Post by sushimo on Feb 9, 2009 13:23:50 GMT
Let them scuttle off to their lawyers then - so long as they pay the exhorbitant fees themselves, and judges are told to disallow any pleas.
Failing that, name every one of them, with photos, where they live and how much they ripped all of us off for!
|
|
mids
New Member
Posts: 61,078
Member is Online
|
Post by mids on Feb 9, 2009 13:25:40 GMT
Yep he's so angry he's going to.....commission a review! That won't report until the end of the year. That'll learn 'em!
|
|
|
|
Post by omnipleasant on Feb 9, 2009 13:25:47 GMT
"judges are told to disallow any pleas"
Hm. I'm no expert in contract law but I suspect it's not as straightforward as "telling judges to disallow claims". A contract is legally binding, innit.
|
|
Woolf
New Member
Look for the rainbow, don't just stare at the rain.
Posts: 1,761
|
Post by Woolf on Feb 9, 2009 13:25:54 GMT
Would love to see the wording on the 'legal entitlement'.
'We get the dosh, no matter how much we fcuk up' is not likely to be on the contract.
|
|
|
|
Post by minge tightly on Feb 9, 2009 13:27:45 GMT
What an utter cnut.
An utterly incompetent and impotent cnut.
|
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Feb 9, 2009 13:30:06 GMT
So if the bonus is, you know, a default payment, in what way is it a bonus?
|
|
|
|
Post by omnipleasant on Feb 9, 2009 13:30:30 GMT
You disagree with what the PM has said, Minge? Wierd.
|
|
sushimo
New Member
One tequilla, Two Tequilla, Three Tequilla - Floor.
Posts: 243
|
Post by sushimo on Feb 9, 2009 13:31:16 GMT
It should be commission on production - in which case they each owe us millions!
|
|
|
|
Post by Victor Meldrew on Feb 9, 2009 13:32:16 GMT
I'm sure he is very angry.
Angry at the media having cottoned on to the fact that the bonuses are still being paid, this time with the help of taxpayers' money, while the chief saviour of their institutions has sat back and let it happen.
Maybe he should have let the banks go bust, then set up new state owned banks, taking on these poor downtrodden out of work traders. I bet if their contracts were no longer worth the paper they were written on, they'd have gone running at full pelt to apply for the jobs at the new bank, without any bonus terms written into their new contracts.
|
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Feb 9, 2009 13:33:48 GMT
You disagree with what the PM has said, Minge? Wierd. You couldn't exactly disagree with it. But it's a bit like saying "You know, Fred West is a very naughty man." And implying "It's a shame that he's killing people and things, but I don't think we should interfere." |
|
|
|
Post by omnipleasant on Feb 9, 2009 13:34:55 GMT
They clearly are interfering, Andy. Whether they can break the law or not is another question.
|
|
|
|
Post by minge tightly on Feb 9, 2009 13:35:48 GMT
You disagree with what the PM has said, Minge? Wierd. The PM is a useless cnut, an impotent useless cnut. If he wasn't he'd just put a stop to the bonuses and let the bankers go fcuk themselves in the court. Brown is a fcuking sell-out lackey. But no, I don't disagree with Brown's assessment of himself as a useless impotent cnut |
|
|
|
Post by Victor Meldrew on Feb 9, 2009 13:38:23 GMT
I get an annual bonus where I work, which is largely governed by the profitability of the company. If we're doing well, we'll put some money away each month in a bonus provision account, and it's distributed out once a year.
We're seven months into this financial year, and to date, i've put nothing into that provision. Although bonuses have been paid every year since I started here, everyone knows none will be paid for this financial year. The bonus is that, at present, we're all in work, and having seen a proportion of the workforce made redundant, we're all just grateful for that.
I can't believe any employment contract has guaranteed bonus clauses written in to it. If it does, it's not a bonus, because it's not conditional upon anything. It's part of the person's salary.
|
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Feb 9, 2009 13:38:59 GMT
Interfering? My arse are they interfering. If they were interfering they'd take an Obama-like approach and just slash salaries. If they were interfering they'd tell the banks to lend at the rates the want banks to lend at. No. Like the good Thatcherites they are, they don't want to mess with the market because the market is god, knows best, is right, produces the best outcomes, and the government surely shouldn't dictate to the market, oh no.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenergrass on Feb 9, 2009 13:42:10 GMT
When Brown decided that we, the tax payers, should become the major shareholder he should have re-employed all the people on new contracts. A condition of their employment should have been made explicit that a bonus was not automatic. If the bankers did not wish to be employed under those conditions then they would have had to option to sell their skills elsewhere.
Unfortnuately for us, the tax payer, we have been left to fork out again.
Of course the bankers could opt not to take their bonus but then that would be like asking Jacqui Smith to explain herself. Both of which are not going to happen but both of which leaves the tax payer out of pocket.
|
|
ricklinc
New Member
Nostalgia
Posts: 2,597
|
Post by ricklinc on Feb 9, 2009 13:56:17 GMT
Brown sets new records for idiotic incompetence.
Didn't he see this one coming either? Didn't he think to keep hold of the money until he had received solid assurances that bailed-out banks wouldn't take the piss like this?
Nobody is ever to refer to Brown as having been an Iron Chanceller ever again. No more of this ridiculous fantasy that he was Mr Prudence.
|
|
|
|
Post by omnipleasant on Feb 9, 2009 14:08:37 GMT
"let the bankers go fcuk themselves in the court."
They wouldn't be fcuking themselves. They'd be fcuking us, the taxpayer.
"Unfortnuately for us, the tax payer, we have been left to fork out again"
Not quite. The bailout didn't "save the banks", it saved us from the banks. And we stand to make a tidy profit in the end. Of course, being sued by fcukwit bankers for breach of contract wouldn't help.
|
|
