Dutch bankers' bonuses axed by people power

[Mich the Tester]

Update; ING have just made another huge PR blunder by sending a letter of explanation to their 300,000 wealthiest clients and their business clients, but not to the 8.6 million other clients, who now feel completely let down.

I did recieve the letter, being a business client, but I'm afraid the directors have no sense of reality and are, as such, not suited to looking after my money.

[AtW]

So if I work in bank and they decide I've done a decent job and give me a big bonus, I'm a criminal because other people screwed up?

If you work for a company whose actions were totally irresponsible and it would have gone bust like most companies in such cases, then IF whole company gets bailed out then everyone in that company who still got a job should consider any money they still get as a bonus because otherwise they would have been unemployed with bankrupt/failed company on their CV - that would sure increase employment prospects, not!

[AtW]

I did recieve the letter, being a business client, but I'm afraid the directors have no sense of reality and are, as such, not suited to looking after my money.

Do they offer "free" current accounts in Holland?

[d000hg]

If you work for a company whose actions were totally irresponsible and it would have gone bust like most companies in such cases, then IF whole company gets bailed out then everyone in that company who still got a job should consider any money they still get as a bonus because otherwise they would have been unemployed with bankrupt/failed company on their CV - that would sure increase employment prospects, not!

I hope if your company ever goes bust you'll do the right think and pay peoples' salaries out of your personal wealth.

Suggesting employees should be retrospectively taxed for someone else's mistakes is possibly the stupidest argument you ever made. The real measure of your idiocy is that on something so remarkably asinine, I still have to use the word 'possibly'.

[AtW]

I hope if your company ever goes bust you'll do the right think and pay peoples' salaries out of your personal wealth.

How is this relevant to example of banks?

Suggesting employees should be retrospectively taxed for someone else's mistakes is possibly the stupidest argument you ever made. The real measure of your idiocy is that on something so remarkably asinine, I still have to use the word 'possibly'.

Have you read the article? They are actually implementing this tax in Holland, it's a proper way to deal with the situation - they taxed only bonuses which should not have been awarded in failing companies.

I mean ffs, a company nearly goes bust due to wrong casino bets, it has to be bailed out by taxpayers, and then employees of that company get bonuses as if nothing happened - it's only fair that these bonuses are fully clawed back to the taxpayer who made those employees keep the jobs that pay pretty well.

[Sysman]

What really caused the trouble here was the combination of the bonusses with the fact that they froze the pensions; the bank claim to be profitable and for that reason the directors should get bonusses, but if they can't meet their pension commitments, then to my mind they're not profitable enough to be handing out bonusses. A Ltd director wouldn't get away with taking money out of the company while it can't satisfy the creditors, so neither should a PLC director.

The directors did indeed hand back the bonusses, but it seems to me they were living in cloud cuckoo land if they thought they'd get away with this; directors need to maintain good relations with government, consumers, customers, shareholders, creditors AND employees and they failed on several of those counts.

As for the vote in parliament to backdate 100% taxes on bonusses to 2008; this won't go ahead. It's unconstitutional and impossible to implement, and the parties who voted for it know that; they did it as a protest; a symbolic vote to give a signal to the banks that this behaviour just won't do.

There's one thing people forget in this hue and cry against bonuses.

What do the directors' contracts say?

Selectively ignore contract law and we all might as well pack it in.

Furthermore, shouldn't a director who has been recruited to turn around a loss making division be allowed a bonus when he does so? It might still not be making a profit, but could be well on the way to that. Surely a director should be rewarded for stemming a cash haemorrhage?

[AtW]

What do the directors' contracts say?

Contracts most certainly say director will have to pay all taxes.

This new tax does not break contracts, it just taxes those bonuses in order to restore some sense of justice.

[d000hg]

I mean ffs, a company nearly goes bust due to wrong casino bets, it has to be bailed out by taxpayers, and then employees of that company get bonuses as if nothing happened - it's only fair that these bonuses are fully clawed back to the taxpayer who made those employees keep the jobs that pay pretty well.

The individuals who got paid bonuses are not the ones who should be punished, the company should.
Make the company pay extra tax to cover those bonuses, making employees give money back is not workable.

This is the thin edge of the wedge... the moment you OK one retrospective tax on ethical grounds "they deserve it", you set a precedent.

If the governments didn't put measures in place to prevent banks doing what they want with the money, that's their mistake. If they did, the company should be liable to repay not the employees.

[AtW]

The individuals who got paid bonuses are not the ones who should be punished, the company should.
Make the company pay extra tax to cover those bonuses, making employees give money back is not workable.

Yes it's very much workable as Dutch appear to demonstrate - employees of a failed and then bailed out firm should be grateful they kept their jobs and don't have failed company on their CV, there should not even be a talk of bonuses.

This is the thin edge of the wedge... the moment you OK one retrospective tax on ethical grounds "they deserve it", you set a precedent.

The precedent should indeed be set once and for all - companies that failed and get bailed out (does not matter by whom) should not have any bonuses awarded to employees and directors.

[d000hg]

If you screw up your company is it your employees' fault?