to think that bankers who sue take legal action to protect their bonuses should ...

[MmeReindor]

be made to live in a grotty mouldy B&B for a month, so they can see the consequences of their actions. There are people who have lost their jobs because of the recession, who have lost their home, lost everything.

And the bankers still insist on a bonus. On top of their already well paid job?

I am speechless.

The Guardian reports today that this may happen.

Already in Germany, the Commerzbank is facing a legal challenge from its subsiduary, DresdenKleinwort

The bankers claim that Commerzbank, which bought Dresdner Kleinwort, should have honoured an agreement to provide a ?400m bonus pool for 2008. Dresdner Kleinwort reported a ?6.3bn loss for 2008, which Commerzbank believes changed its commitment to the bankers

What really gets my goat is the comment about taxes, from a think tank.

City bonuses are expected to total £4.2bn in 2011, down 38% on the £6.7bn paid out last year, ... will generate about £2.5bn for the Treasury, ... this is still some distance ...from the £6.8bn collected in the peak of 2007-08, clearly illustrating how the taxpayer also misses out when the City pays lower bonuses,"

How in the name of all that is holy, does that even make a bit of sense?

We bail the banks out with taxpayers' money, but should be grateful that we are getting £2.5bn back - if we even get it back, as no doubt some of it will vanish in an off-shore bank account, or via shady tax avoidance.

erm. I wasn't really speechless, was I?

Yanbu.

I don't know. If it was in their contract, then I guess they have every right to be peed off, as much as it may grate.

I would imagine the bonus pool covers all levels of staff, so not just the top dogs?

Ninky
No, I don't think so. I think it is mainly the top dogs.

My DH has a bonus written into his contract, but it was not paid out last year. Because the company did not make as big a profit because of the recession.

He also had a 5% bonus (funnily called "hardship bonus") for living overseas that was not paid out for a year until the company got over the worst of it.

Bonuses are just that - a bonus, an incentive payment. Not a part of your salary, and can be struck off if the company did not do well.

no its disgusting, really this whole world is completly fucked. I have no idea how we can ever grow a society where morals are to be upheld when we have such unafir inequality shoved in our faces, is it really so surprising we have young people rioting? they take their behaviour from others, its fine for the bankers to take whatever they like buy a young kid steals some trainers and we throw them in prison and their families out of home.

How is any of this just? it isnt, and until governments really sort this out they have no right to expect ordinary citizens to "behave".

I agree with you NinkyNonker about a contracted bonus, however, with a £6.3bn loss surely their contract would state they have not reached an acceptable standard to receive it.

You would imagine so, Caramel.

Otherwise they would have to pay out even if the bank made a loss. And what company would agree to such a contract?

I know, just how some contracts are structured doesn't allow for that flexibility, bonuses are just seen as part of pay... deffo sucks. I don't think I'd have the balls to be honest.

And even if the bank made a profit - they would have been bankrupt if the government had not stepped in and bailed them out.

Why should the taxpayer pay £1trillion to the banks, and they continue to keep their bonus. Greedy bastards.

In this together, my arse.

Yup. They should hang their heads in shame for being so greedy and not taking any responsibility for this mess.

However - as ninky says - if something was in their contract and is now not being delivered, without any agreement or consultation, just 'we've decided you're not having that now' - that's a breach of contract and they have a legal right to sue. Just the same as if your employer decided you weren't getting some money you were promised in your contract.

Moral right - now that's a different thing altogether!

YABU. it's in their contract (well, if it is - I guess court will decide). Whatever thoughts I have about the ethics of unequal pay distribution, they're irrelevant to an indivdual's legal rights.
Where do you draw the line?
Can anyone who doesn't live in a B&B not sue if their employer doesn't honour a legal agreement with them?
Doesn't having courts recognise the legality of a legal contract HELP lower paid workers should they end up in a similar situation?
I certainly think there is a case for the government to insist on contract variation if it gives a bail out package - but contracts must be varied legally.

Whoever set the bonus structure was in the wrong. I've worked in a bonus focused industry but we only got the payouts, nothing like that but up to £900 a month on top of a decent basic, if we actually achieved sales targets, savings targets, profits targets and increased the profitability of the company.

Now if my boss had targeted me to get that £900 a month for making a loss and I hit that loss then I want to get paid. It's down to those setting the targets. In the same vein I also set targets for the individuals in my teams but it was always based on last years achievements and building in growth.

If I had screwed up with their targets and bonus structure I'd still have to pay them and carry the consequences. The only difference I can see here is the number of zeros at the end of the numbers.

Who set the targets and bonus structure? It's them I'd want hanging out to dry.

yawn

so bored of banker slating

this link that every single banker caused the recesson is naive, a big factor was everyones GREED

knittedbreast makes an excellent point about the hypocrisy/double standard aspect; a young person steals a pair of shoes or bottle of water (value -£50) and their family is thrown out of their home: the bankers fail, or falter and people lose their lives and livelihoods, and they demand huge recompense.

I see what you are saying about the legal binding contract.

But seriously, the only reason Commerzbank are truly fighting the court case is cause it is coming out of their pocket. Because the bank made a loss. Would they be going against it if they had made a profit this year? Probably not.

And that "profit" was paid for by the bailout.

It will be interesting to see what happens in UK.

Everyone is entitled to sue for breach of contract. It has nothing to do with morals or ethics.

Porca
That is a good point.

It wasn't just the bankers, but the manic property market, the get rich quick schemes.. but not everyone was getting rich.

The property market is pretty much in the doldrums now, and it seems that the bankers are still thriving.

It is the inequality that makes me angry.

i dont know if they all are thriving? most have a shitty work environment, most have had their bonuses cut and loads have been made redundant. I dont think banking is a super happy place right now

we read about the mega millions but there are lots of people that have a base of lets say £75K, they work long hours and they really do factor in their bonus as being a genuine part of their salary

Look I am not definding them, but they are an easy target and alot of them are normal people that work long long hours, deal with alot of stress, and have made a decision that this is the lifestyle for them. they are just people, albeit well paid people!

What really fascinates me about it is this; why are individuals suing for the bonus? Are their lifestyles actually based on bonus money, and not salary. Is that not a little bit silly?

I understand why the employer would structure it as a bonus however, the individual should structure their lifestyle on salary.
(just musing)

x-post

Porca
Well, for many £75k is a bloody great pay. And the high fliers are on much much more than that. MUCH.

Caramel
I think that there is an expectation of keeping up with the Jones. We have people like that in the village. Public schools for the kids, holidays in Gstaad, chalet in the mountains.

I spoke to one woman about holidays and she said they would have to try and spend less this year, they were trying to cut back, "but lets face it, a week away with the kids is just not doable under £7k".

im sick of this, 75k? relying on bonus`s to top up their salery? HELL fucking O. 75k? long hours? really? if you have trouble living off that sort yourself out.

Cant afford school fees? stop paying them, you dont have to sedn your kids to private school. cant afford the million pound mortgag? move.

Its not rocket science, they are too highly paid and dont deservef to be especially after whats happened.

Sorry get a fucking grip (not you them)

Actually, I think that those on £75k are more the junior bankers.

I don't know anyone here who would survive on that kind of money, and we know a good few high flier bankers.

That would just about cover school fees and a weekend in the mountains.

So your brains and work ethic make a company several billion profit and all that should go to the shareholders should it? But then, a lot of those bonues are given in the form of shares. Profit sharing is an incentitive to retain staff and push them to exceeding their goals

I really dont see why people get so arsy about rewarding those who work and work damned hard.

The property market was a merry-go-round of greed throughout society. It was a get rich quick scheme - even right back to people who bought council houses at a knockdown price and immediately sold for huge profits.

completely agree. After all the fighting over public sector pensions ("we're all in it together, everyone has taken a hit"), this is a little bit sick making.