|
|
Post by flatandy on Feb 9, 2009 14:10:04 GMT
Make them all redundant as their company is fcuked. Then re-employ them on our own terms.
|
|
|
|
Post by omnipleasant on Feb 9, 2009 14:11:40 GMT
"Make them all redundant as they're company is fcuked"
Not a bad idea actually... Suppose we'd have to pay them redundancy then though. When actually we now want them working, on our terms, to make a profit for the taxpayer.
|
|
ricklinc
New Member
Nostalgia
Posts: 2,597
|
Post by ricklinc on Feb 9, 2009 14:13:25 GMT
So because Brown is an incompetent fcukwit banks will be paying cash rewards to people who don't deserve them and the taxpayer may one day see some benefit if the those same bankers can't find a way to keep the money to themselves. And you can bet they'll be looking hard for one. Any fcuking idiot who didn't know enough to demand concessions is also the sort of idiot that can be conned again.
|
|
|
|
Post by omnipleasant on Feb 9, 2009 14:16:53 GMT
Rightwingers seem to be suggesting that we should have done something ages ago. So - er - why didn't they suggest it? Why were they still talking, as recently as a year ago, about too much regulation in the City? Utter cnuts.
Conservative leader David Cameron said ministers were "asleep on the job".
|
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Feb 9, 2009 14:26:56 GMT
"Make them all redundant as they're company is fcuked" Not a bad idea actually... Suppose we'd have to pay them redundancy then though. When actually we now want them working, on our terms, to make a profit for the taxpayer. Well yes. Re-employ them, and offer them salaries that we want to offer, and they can take it or not. And, you know, do we really want all the futures traders working for us? Don't we just want people to run the savings banks as savings banks and not get them pretending they're some kind of hedge-fund hot-shots; make their profit from lending money to people who can pay it back. |
|
|
|
Post by greenergrass on Feb 9, 2009 15:47:26 GMT
Do you not think redundancy would be cheaper - what is it currently a week for every year? Sounds much, much cheaper than a big fat bonus.
I was in no way suggesting anything illegal or underhand. I was merely suggesting the re-employment is what often happens when someone is taking over the assets of another company and they do not like the employment contracts. Its perfectly legal and happens all the time.
I am only stating the bleeding obvious.
|
|
|
|
Post by minge tightly on Feb 9, 2009 16:08:57 GMT
"They wouldn't be fcuking themselves. They'd be fcuking us, the taxpayer."
And we can tell them to go fcuk themselves if they don't like it, go and operate somewhere else. The law is changeable.
What a mealy-mouthed little sycophant you sound to these scions of Thatcherism
|
|
radge
New Member
Posts: 1,776
|
Post by radge on Feb 9, 2009 23:17:25 GMT
There shouldnt be any bonuses given out and if they are they should be severly reduced somehow. Definitely the top boys do not deserve Jack. Contract should mean jack sh!t after what has happened. As for the Prime minister. I agree with what he says,,, Im more miffed though that he DIDNT SAY IT EARLIER!!!!! I think it was a tactic on the governments part not to say anything so they dont have to deal with the details. Let it pass and start afresh. Which i think sucks d!ck.
|
|
