Bankers Cry Over ‘Restricted’ Bonuses

December 2, 2009
By

Big Bank brings nation’s economy to the breaking point. Big Bank begs, pleads, or threatens the government in to giving it a massive bailout, (of which the citizenry disapproves nearly unanimously). Big Bank proceeds to offer extravagant bonus packages to its employees, which largesse is financed 100% by the taxpayers.

It should come as no surprise that the general public, aghast at being bled dry in order to provide for some C-Suite bankers’ Bentley or Rolls or vacation home on the Riviera, cries “Foul!”

The most appalling thing about the whole situation is the banks’ responses: generally they argue that “If we don’t give huge bonuses, we’ll lose our employees!”

Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc, recipient of the world’s biggest taxpayer bailout, said the British government’s “very restrictive” control over 2009 bonuses risks driving employees away.

—RBS Says ‘Restrictive’ Bonuses May Prompt Staff Exits

Cry me a river, will you? Your organization performed so poorly that it “needed” emergency life support from the nation’s taxpayers, which it took against their wishes and better judgment. This does not, under any circumstance merit “bonuses”. (In fact, in light of recent performance, I’m not so sure these are the sort of employees you should want to retain in the first place!) Not for anyone. Ever.

But in case you haven’t been paying attention, unemployment is staggering. All industries and sectors of the economy are hurting. The Banks could find a dozen qualified, competent applicants to fill any one of these positions at a fraction of the price of a single $500,000 bonus.

The Banks are worried about attrition? Defection? ROFLCOPTER.

Where are they going to go? Defection means they have options. They don’t.

If the employees threaten to quit, call their bluffs (that’s what it is, after all). I’d tell them, “Get f*cking lost. Don’t let the door hit you in the arse on the way out.”

3 Responses to Bankers Cry Over ‘Restricted’ Bonuses

  1. gilliganscorner on December 2, 2009 at 3:49 pm

    If it weren’t for a central bank cartelizing the banks into the inherently unstable debt-based fiat fractional reserve banking model, we’d see more bank failures.

    And that would benefit us all.

    No-one should distrust a bank more than bankers. They would all be *VERY* prudent w.r.t their deposits in other banks monitoring evidence of over-extension of credit or very low reserves.

    If we eliminated all regulations that protect incumbents within an industry and present barriers to inbound competition, within all industry, we’d be better off.

    The biggest barrier I know of is the outpost the State has planted into the minds of the zombies amongst us. Past and present ideas not sanctioned by the State and their mainstream media shills/trolls is met with, “WTF?”. Sometimes I step back in awe at the size and scope of central planner’s social engineering.

  2. Bankers Cry Over ‘Restricted’ Bonuses. on December 2, 2009 at 4:39 pm

    [...] Bankers Cry Over ‘Restricted’ Bonuses [...] (Trackback/Ping from Investment-Blog.net)

  3. Don on December 3, 2009 at 10:10 am

    Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc, recipient of the world’s biggest bank bailout, said the British government’s “very restrictive” control over 2009 bonuses risks driving employees away.
    +++++++++++++++++

    The RBSG spokesperson that said that should have had its whole head blowed off right on the spot instanter.

    Can anybody in their right mind believe the weird shit that is going on all around us all the time now?

    This ain’t my world no more.