It starts getting a less justifiable rule: that the pay given to someone who comes in for a couple of hours a day to empty the bins, or deliver sarnies, dictates what can be paid to the top of the organisition.

No less justifiable than offshoring or contracting out to avoid simple transparency.



As for bonuses, all business should follow the John Lewis model, an agreed percentage of salary. So if they want to pay the CEO 150% of his salary as a bonus, let them pay the cleaner 150% of his salary too

Well it now seems in his rush to blame the Labour government for everything that Nick Clegg is telling outright lies. Either that or he is incompetent. From here [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jan/27/anger-grows-rbs-chiefs-bonushere[/url



Clegg put the blame for the government's inability to stop the payout on the previous Labour administration.



He said: "The chancellor and the Treasury have explained the frustrating realities about all of this – which is that if we ripped up the contracts which the Labour government had signed with them, or changed the arrangements of these arms-length taxpayers bodies that manage our stake in the banks, we probably, as taxpayers, would have ended up paying even more money."



No 10 has said its hands were tied on the bonus because of previous contractual arrangements drawn up under the Labour government.



However, this argument appeared to be undermined by the intervention of Lord Myners, the former financial services minister, who negotiated the RBS deal.



Earlier on Friday, he said: "There is nothing in the employment contract of Stephen Hester or any director of Royal Bank of Scotland which binds the company or its remuneration committee to pay a mandatory bonus.



"All matters relating to bonuses are at the full discretion of the board of directors and the shareholders, including UKFI, who have elected them."

Precisely as reported in The Independent, quoted on the very first post on this thread.



I wonder if Clegg's related to XBrettKennyX?

Not really. Offshoring and outsourcing have much more justification than the idea of tying an exec compensation plan to the pay of a subcontracted bin collector.







Would the cleaner be prepared to put (e.g.) 80% of their compensation package at risk, taking home only 20% of it through the year and having the rest depend on how well they did their job over the year?



Different roles need compensating in different ways. For me, around half of my compensation is at risk and entirely dependant on the results I bring in. For someone higher, perhaps more should be at risk. For someone doing something pretty basic where excelling or screwing it up isn't going to affect the business much, then it makes sense to guarantee a greater proportion of payment and risk less of it.

I'm firmly of the opinion that people should be paid a good salary, whatever that may be, and any bonuses/commission etc should be exactly that. A thank you for doing a job well, not an encouragement to play the system.

Fair enough. Personally I'm firmly of the opinion that people should be compensated through a plan that allows significant variance according to the results they deliver.

I had a similar conversation with my boss in the US a couple of years ago regarding salary. Not surprisingly at the end of 2008 we started to have trouble hitting the quarterly sales target ("we" mean the team outside the US), that had a severe impact on what I was being paid. When that happens you suddenly start to wonder why you haven't had any pay rise in 3+ years.

Basically the guy who owns the company wants to incentivise people by making a significant amount of what we earn commission based. If we all had regular pay rises and increased salaries then the bonus scheme would be less generous.



I guess in summary our "bonus" scheme is realtively fictional at the moment and depends on what sales targets the management set and how our industry is affected locally (Pfizer this year closing for example cost one guy all his bonus as it was close to a million dollars worth of his quota). On the other hand I don't have too many issues with the way our pay is set up, it does make things interesting and in a lot of ways it's more fun that way. I wouldn't change it, I've had a flat salary and I wouldn't go back to that (unless it was a really, really big one).

The one main issue that I have with varying salary too much based on performance is that if you apply that too widely you have a lot of people who simply don't know how much money is coming in at the end of every month. That makes it near impossible to manage a monthly budget, mortgage etc. for those who don't earn quite so much.

Jeezus



Next time I am on here remind me to use "one" instead of the more widely used "you"



ONE SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO GET A 30K CAR ON MOBILITY.



What sort of people would that be? FRAUDS that's the type of people. Which bit don't you get?

They do actually.

I'd call it impossible because you can't get a 30k car on Motability. What bit about that don't YOU get

25k is too much too.



I have no issue with the money going to a Modded car. However, an "off the peg" car for £25k is too much.



Now enjoy your weekend spending money given to you through my efforts at work won't you?

You really are showing yourself up now

I'm sure she will and in just over five years time, when I can start drawing my state pension, I'm gonna enjoy every penny of it, down the pub, knowing you're buying my ale

I'm gonna have a fab weekend too thanks - my 40th next week

So you were not "given" money off the state?



Ok my mistake. I thought u were on benefits, handouts, charity.........



And to boot your husband is a public servant, who gets paid out of our taxes too..............



i.e. you are totally reliant on the private sector generating money to keep you fed...........





Now which bit's of the above are not facts?



There is only one person who is "showing herself up" here, despite your cliquey left wing supporters arguing to the contrary.

Enjoy it. Just remember where it is coming from, and think a little before you post your left wing tripe.

Gets even better!!! I worked for nearly 20 years in a full time and two part time jobs before I was diagnosed, think I paid my fair share of taxes into the system. If having a disability and illness is "showing herself up" then I don't think I'm doing too bad. Or, like this government, do you think I am weak and vunerable that you think I am fair game for your comments?

Must earn a hell of alot if you paid for your own education, your own public transport system, your own health care ans still have enough over to pay so much tax that you are supporting several members of this forum. Exactly how much do you earn and how much tax do you pay?

Well you are obviously well enough to type on this forum.



I'm sure there are jobs that you can do...............

Jeez what is it today with the pedants?



Ok replace "me" with "taxpayers".



Happy?



Jeez even on the history forum we aren't this anal.

They're welcome to you

But don't most personal taxpayers get subsidised by the State?

You can always tell when someone is beaten. They resort to smileys and ignore the question.



Wish I had £1 for everytime I have seen it.



Bye bye, work shy.

Are superfluous apostrophes commonplace on your 'proper debating sites' too?