Dutch bankers' bonuses axed by people power

[Incognito]

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.

That's not what a bonus should be about though. Bonuses should be subjective and based on your performance, not the performance of a company as a whole.

If you are a damn good egg at your job and delivering everything you're meant to and your business unit is delivering targets and profits as predicted why should you be punished for some idiot who is in a role completely unrelated to you who fails to hit his targets?

By all means business units who do not meet targets should not get their bonus, but not the business as a whole.

[AtW]

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

If I screw up the company so that it goes bust then employees will lose their jobs, and I will lose mine.

Now let's say shareholders or even Govt bails it out then I'd expect to still lose job and even if I did nobody in the firm should expect to get bonus which is basically shareholders bailout money!

[AtW]

That's not what a bonus should be about though. Bonuses should be subjective and based on your performance, not the performance of a company as a whole.

I see what you mean here, but in extreme case when business is about to go bankrupt NOBODY gets bonuses, because business is bust - that's what happened in this case, only the business technically did not go bust as it was bailed out.

The money paid out as bonuses was shareholders (Govt) money - that's totally unacceptable: even if bank repaid all bailout money I'd still make sure no excessive bonuses are paid, what I mean by excessive is when bonus is so massive it makes base salary irrelevant.

[Mich the Tester]

Just to repeat; the retrospective tax will NOT be implemented; even those who voted for it know that, and some even say that they won't support the necessary legislation; it was simply a protest vote from parliament to get a message across.

[AtW]

Just to repeat; the retrospective tax will NOT be implemented

[Mich the Tester]

No, it's a good thing it won't happen; retrospective taxation and legislation would destroy the country's reputation as a safe place to do business. Even the left winged 'Socialist Party' know that and would not want to risk that reputation.

[AtW]

No, it's a good thing it won't happen; retrospective taxation and legislation would destroy the country's reputation as a safe place to do business. Even the left winged 'Socialist Party' know that and would not want to risk that reputation.

Yes, that's not ideal, bad even, however having bankers gambling future of the country and losing is much worse prospect - put a high tax up on all current bonuses paid in bailed out by the state companies, make it over 100% just to make the point.

[Mich the Tester]

That's not what a bonus should be about though. Bonuses should be subjective and based on your performance, not the performance of a company as a whole.

If you are a damn good egg at your job and delivering everything you're meant to and your business unit is delivering targets and profits as predicted why should you be punished for some idiot who is in a role completely unrelated to you who fails to hit his targets?

By all means business units who do not meet targets should not get their bonus, but not the business as a whole.

If you're a retired ING employee who was always a damn good egg at your job why should you put up with seeing your pension frozen and priority given to bonusses for directors who haven't yet succeeded in paying off the company's debt to the state or reaching the necessary capital levels?

[AtW]

If you're a retired ING employee who was always a damn good egg at your job why should you put up with seeing your pension frozen and priority given to bonusses for directors who haven't yet succeeded in paying off the company's debt to the state or reaching the necessary capital levels?

You mean 35-40 years old ING employee leaving the bank with a few million quid in cash bonus, fully paid off house, a few luxury cars, that kind of retired employee?

Anybody in a bank who got a bonus after they were bailed out should not have received it full stop.

Specific people who made deals that failed prior to bail out should also lose bonus, and some in my view even freedom as their greed caused massive damage - they are still getting their salaries, bonuses whilst other people lost their jobs as they were not "big enough" to be bailed out.

[Incognito]

You mean 35-40 years old ING employee leaving the bank with a few million quid in cash bonus, fully paid off house, a few luxury cars, that kind of retired employee?

Anybody in a bank who got a bonus after they were bailed out should not have received it full stop.

Specific people who made deals that failed prior to bail out should also lose bonus, and some in my view even freedom as their greed caused massive damage - they are still getting their salaries, bonuses whilst other people lost their jobs as they were not "big enough" to be bailed out.

ING is primarily a retail bank. They do not get the renumeration like the UK banks do. I believe the bonus they are all kicking off about was only £1m and even then the guy indicated he was going to refuse it.