Barclays Bank

[Greavswasthegreatest]

I believe for last year, Barclays bank has just awarded a pot of £2.4 billion for bonuses.

Also announced by the banking chief is that he expects to reduce the workforce by 1000 over the next year.

How immoral can they be?

£2.4 Billion in one year!

Profits down

Satisfy share holders by job reduction to save money. Absolutely obscene.

I know the argument I make is simplistic as there are potential mitigating factors that the bank would and can counter no doubt, but the principle is the key.

Just imagine the positive press of them (and all banks) stating...we were going to award £2.4 billion in bonuses and cut 1000 jobs but instead, from a moral and caring viewpoint, ‘We will not award bonuses for one year only and retain the 1000 staff’. We are a caring organisation and our staff understand the need to withdraw the bonus payment in order to keep 1000 colleagues at work and able to support their families without recourse to put more pressure on the benefits system!!!!!

The maths is quite simple.....assuming 1000 million = one billion

Assuming average wages of the staff to be laid off is £40k and add £20k overheads (e.g pension etc) each employee at risk costs the company £60k per annum.

Thus cost of the at risk staff per annum = £60,000000

£2.4 billion divided by £60 million = 40

So by deferring their bonus pot for one year would mean they could retain the 1000 staff for 40 years! (not taking inflation/rises into consideration of course but the principle is the key)

I doubt it would ever happen because staff on bonuses usually have these written into contracts and the banks crow about the need to retain superb top notch staff – well that’s worked hasn’t it with falling profits being the outcome! (sarcasm!)

So Mr Cameron, we are all in this together are we!

Well the banks that caused the crises still insist on ‘sticking their fingers up’ to the country by these types of action, and as their profits fall, they still reward failure.

How obscene...what has become of this country.....GREED is the answer. Surely retaining 1000 jobs far outweighs giving staff bonuses on top of salary in these austere times!

 

[ST2]

they've always been arses - the last UK bank left in old apartheid S Africa

 

[Spursex]

Greavswasthegreatest - 12/2/2014 19:49

I believe for last year, Barclays bank has just awarded a pot of £2.4 billion for bonuses.

Also announced by the banking chief is that he expects to reduce the workforce by 1000 over the next year.

How immoral can they be?

£2.4 Billion in one year!

Profits down

Satisfy share holders by job reduction to save money. Absolutely obscene.

I know the argument I make is simplistic as there are potential mitigating factors that the bank would and can counter no doubt, but the principle is the key.

Just imagine the positive press of them (and all banks) stating...we were going to award £2.4 billion in bonuses and cut 1000 jobs but instead, from a moral and caring viewpoint, ‘We will not award bonuses for one year only and retain the 1000 staff’. We are a caring organisation and our staff understand the need to withdraw the bonus payment in order to keep 1000 colleagues at work and able to support their families without recourse to put more pressure on the benefits system!!!!!

The maths is quite simple.....assuming 1000 million = one billion

Assuming average wages of the staff to be laid off is £40k and add £20k overheads (e.g pension etc) each employee at risk costs the company £60k per annum.

Thus cost of the at risk staff per annum = £60,000000

£2.4 billion divided by £60 million = 40

So by deferring their bonus pot for one year would mean they could retain the 1000 staff for 40 years! (not taking inflation/rises into consideration of course but the principle is the key)

I doubt it would ever happen because staff on bonuses usually have these written into contracts and the banks crow about the need to retain superb top notch staff – well that’s worked hasn’t it with falling profits being the outcome! (sarcasm!)

So Mr Cameron, we are all in this together are we!

Well the banks that caused the crises still insist on ‘sticking their fingers up’ to the country by these types of action, and as their profits fall, they still reward failure.

How obscene...what has become of this country.....GREED is the answer. Surely retaining 1000 jobs far outweighs giving staff bonuses on top of salary in these austere times!

Retaining jobs for the sake of it never works.

The shape and nature of banking is changing; less and less people go into a branch to conduct a transaction now, so Barclay's like others are closing down expensive branches where they simply don't pay for themselves anymore - can you blame them?

Within 10 years, you won't even find people in branches, that is if most branches aren't then part of a shopping centre/Apple/Supermarket.

As for the bonus, you have to remember that Barclays are a private business with no public money in it. They are free to do whatever they want.

All the UK Banks are now losing some of it's best and brightest rainmakers to overseas non-european banks, and in turn they're losing fees/t/o and profits as a result - the reason..? The clampdown in bonus payments. The overseas trading units of many banks and dealers are now or have now moved their dealing operations to luxemburg, Singapore (20% tax), Dubai , UAE (none) and even Russia (20%).

We're caught in a downwards spiral of wanting to 'take it out on everyone and anyone' and our tax collection is paying the price for it. The top 10% that pay over 50% of our income taxes will continue to shrink. The top 1% of earners pay around one third of al income tax:

To qualify for that top 1 per cent, an individual would have to have an income of £160,000 a year. People who earn more than £1?million a year will contribute 11.8 per cent of all tax.

Total income tax revenue for HMRC is about £150?billion a year.

The share of total income tax paid by the best-paid has risen in recent years.

In 1997, it was 20 per cent; in 2007, before the financial crisis began, the figure was 24.4 per cent.

According to HMRC, there are about 29 million individual income taxpayers in 2010-11.

Of those, about 28 million pay the basic rate, while 4.3 million are higher rate taxpayers. Roughly 290,000 pay the top rate of tax, now 45 per cent.

So, you can see from the above, killing bonus's, putting even higher taxes in higher income earners is counter productive.

Attacking Banking and banks, finance houses, the city is also counter productive, the recovery is being fueled by the city and the south-east, according to the centre for cities, ( see: http://www.centreforcities.org/assets/files/2014/Cities_Outlook_2014.pdf) .

..are now 135,000 more people in
employment than there were at the
start of the downturn (although the
employment rate is still 1 percentage
point below its pre downturn peak).
Total hours worked is also now higher
than at the start of 2008.

79% of all new private sector jobs were created in London (the city).

The nature of banking, especially barcalys is changing, for every front of house job they lose, they'll be creating two in out-sourced back offcie funtions (IT, Processing, payments etc).

The internet cannot be rolled back, technology cannot be held back, automation is a reality and the World and every economy in it will have to learn to adjust and create new skills in our workforce that can meet the new needs..

IT in the UK is desperate for more skilled staff, many are now retraining to meet this need. keeping 'old economy' jobs doesn't help anyone in the long term.

I know it's odd to defend banks and the city, but unless we stop this brain drain and talent drain, the whole economy will be weaker for it. Of course we have to keep trying to rebalance our economy and since the crisis around 400,000 people have gone self-employed in new one-man band ventures , with around another 500,000 business start-ups funded or part funded by banks:


The number of workers who are self-employed in their main job rose 367,000 between 2008, the start of the economic downturn, and 2012.

60% of the increase in self-employed workers occurred between 2011 and 2012.

84% of the increase in self-employed workers since 2008 was for those aged 50 and above.

In 2012:

Self-employed people worked longer hours than employees, tended to be older than employees and were more likely to be male.

The proportion of workers who were self-employed was highest in London (18%), while the lowest proportion was in the North East (11%).



So, we can keep beating up on the Banks, but in the end all we're doing is cutting off our noses to spite our face. It's just not smart. The SE that runs off the dynamic energy of our single biggest tax and wealth generator fuels and underpins the whole of the UK, we should be helping it to recover and grow again, not trying to take chunks out of it..

let's save the blood lust for those that created the conditions for this crisis and for those greedy Directors who ran the banks like their banks were their own personal fiefdoms.

 

[oxfordspur]

firstly are there too many employees at the bank, based on increased competition and technology? Also did I hear that as a whole, they were getting rid of 12,000 worldwide?

You do have too wonder if banks still have to massively restructure to compete in the marketplace? also the banking industry for the average man/woman in the street is shite and offers little more than a current account service, as others, including supermarkets seem to offer the same product for cheaper, whilst banks still seem to live on old reputations.

 

[Spursex]

oxfordspur - 13/2/2014 12:25

firstly are there too many employees at the bank, based on increased competition and technology? Also did I hear that as a whole, they were getting rid of 12,000 worldwide?

You do have too wonder if banks still have to massively restructure to compete in the marketplace? also the banking industry for the average man/woman in the street is shite and offers little more than a current account service, as others, including supermarkets seem to offer the same product for cheaper, whilst banks still seem to live on old reputations.

Supermarkets, Large store chains are and have been taking chunks out of the banks business for year i.e. loans, credit cards, foreign currency, insurance - and they've added thousands of jobs in this area, but done it all without the need for dedicated branches..

retail banking now costs banks more than it generates for standard accounts and has been this way for sometime.

banks as we currently understand/see them, will not exit for much longer - technology i.e. digital payments/digital wallets/on and mobile banking is udnermining their whole retail model.

Bank jobs have to go, or they'll become extinct.

 

[Greavswasthegreatest]

You all note my comment in my post.....

"I know the argument I make is simplistic as there are potential mitigating factors that the bank would and can counter no doubt, but the principle is the key".....

Thank you all for stating all the obvious counter arguments on behalf of the banks ( I am well aware of all these arguments )..........still a sad state of affairs IMO

 

[oxfordspur]

I certainly wasn't trying to defend banks, far from it. I totally agree that making public job losses and declining profits don't really go with 2.4b bonus payments.

 

[Departed]

Greavswasthegreatest - 13/2/2014 13:13

You all note my comment in my post.....

"I know the argument I make is simplistic as there are potential mitigating factors that the bank would and can counter no doubt, but the principle is the key".....

Thank you all for stating all the obvious counter arguments on behalf of the banks ( I am well aware of all these arguments )..........still a sad state of affairs IMO

The balance between social responsibility and profit is best achieved through the use of fraternal structures. Personally, I think you will see a rise in the prevalence of these organizations. Foresters is a great example. Look for these types of organizations when you make your decisions on who you will deal with.

The equity markets are still very necessary.

 

[ST2]

?

are they like freemasons?

 

[Spursex]

80deg16minW - 13/2/2014 14:14

Greavswasthegreatest - 13/2/2014 13:13

You all note my comment in my post.....

"I know the argument I make is simplistic as there are potential mitigating factors that the bank would and can counter no doubt, but the principle is the key".....

Thank you all for stating all the obvious counter arguments on behalf of the banks ( I am well aware of all these arguments )..........still a sad state of affairs IMO

The balance between social responsibility and profit is best achieved through the use of fraternal structures. Personally, I think you will see a rise in the prevalence of these organizations. Foresters is a great example. Look for these types of organizations when you make your decisions on who you will deal with.

The equity markets are still very necessary.

We have the equivalent with the Co-Op bank, but they ruined themselves by taking a labour patsie councillor that was parachuted in by the labour party as the new chairman, who of course knew absolutely nothing about banking, but knew alot about crystal meth, gay orgy's with 'rent boys'...and how to fiddle massive expenses..and of course handing out large donations to labour..

Of course, it's come home to bite labour in the arse as the co-op contributions to labour MP's of around £900k p.a. will drop by at least £300k this year and the new chief exec wants it cut to nil within the following 2 years..

Once again, because of weakening regulations and over-sight, no one was paying attention to how the co-op had accumulated a £1.5 billion hole in it's balance sheet...

 

[Galvin's Shinpads]

Spursex - 13/2/2014 12:20

So, we can keep beating up on the Banks, but in the end all we're doing is cutting off our noses to spite our face. It's just not smart. The SE that runs off the dynamic energy of our single biggest tax and wealth generator fuels and underpins the whole of the UK, we should be helping it to recover and grow again, not trying to take chunks out of it..

let's save the blood lust for those that created the conditions for this crisis and for those greedy Directors who ran the banks like their banks were their own personal fiefdoms.

The Banks are not in this to do anybody but themselves favours.

As ST2 has said before... bring out the firing squads.
They are the single most corrupt entities in the World. Hopefully we will evolve to not need them in the future

 

[Spursex]

oxfordspur - 13/2/2014 14:01

I certainly wasn't trying to defend banks, far from it. I totally agree that making public job losses and declining profits don't really go with 2.4b bonus payments.

It's why they should split the banks accounting reports for their respective divisions - it would at least make a distinction that the average person might understand...

But Greavsie is right about one thing, upping bonus's when the business overall is underachieving is simply dumb and does no matter how it's painted smack of 'greedy bankers'..

 

[Galvin's Shinpads]

Spursex - 13/2/2014 15:51

80deg16minW - 13/2/2014 14:14

Greavswasthegreatest - 13/2/2014 13:13

You all note my comment in my post.....

"I know the argument I make is simplistic as there are potential mitigating factors that the bank would and can counter no doubt, but the principle is the key".....

Thank you all for stating all the obvious counter arguments on behalf of the banks ( I am well aware of all these arguments )..........still a sad state of affairs IMO

The balance between social responsibility and profit is best achieved through the use of fraternal structures. Personally, I think you will see a rise in the prevalence of these organizations. Foresters is a great example. Look for these types of organizations when you make your decisions on who you will deal with.

The equity markets are still very necessary.

We have the equivalent with the Co-Op bank, but they ruined themselves by taking a labour patsie councillor that was parachuted in by the labour party as the new chairman, who of course knew absolutely nothing about banking, but knew alot about crystal meth, gay orgy's with 'rent boys'...and how to fiddle massive expenses..and of course handing out large donations to labour..

Of course, it's come home to bite labour in the arse as the co-op contributions to labour MP's of around £900k p.a. will drop by at least £300k this year and the new chief exec wants it cut to nil within the following 2 years..

Once again, because of weakening regulations and over-sight, no one was paying attention to how the co-op had accumulated a £1.5 billion hole in it's balance sheet...

Spoken like a true UKIP newbie. :15:

 

[Spursex]

Galvin's Shinpads - 13/2/2014 15:54

Spursex - 13/2/2014 15:51

80deg16minW - 13/2/2014 14:14

Greavswasthegreatest - 13/2/2014 13:13

You all note my comment in my post.....

"I know the argument I make is simplistic as there are potential mitigating factors that the bank would and can counter no doubt, but the principle is the key".....

Thank you all for stating all the obvious counter arguments on behalf of the banks ( I am well aware of all these arguments )..........still a sad state of affairs IMO

The balance between social responsibility and profit is best achieved through the use of fraternal structures. Personally, I think you will see a rise in the prevalence of these organizations. Foresters is a great example. Look for these types of organizations when you make your decisions on who you will deal with.

The equity markets are still very necessary.

We have the equivalent with the Co-Op bank, but they ruined themselves by taking a labour patsie councillor that was parachuted in by the labour party as the new chairman, who of course knew absolutely nothing about banking, but knew alot about crystal meth, gay orgy's with 'rent boys'...and how to fiddle massive expenses..and of course handing out large donations to labour..

Of course, it's come home to bite labour in the arse as the co-op contributions to labour MP's of around £900k p.a. will drop by at least £300k this year and the new chief exec wants it cut to nil within the following 2 years..

Once again, because of weakening regulations and over-sight, no one was paying attention to how the co-op had accumulated a £1.5 billion hole in it's balance sheet...

Spoken like a true UKIP newbie. :15:

LOL!

as opposed to an old luddite labourite?!

 

[Galvin's Shinpads]

Spursex - 13/2/2014 15:55

Galvin's Shinpads - 13/2/2014 15:54

Spursex - 13/2/2014 15:51

80deg16minW - 13/2/2014 14:14

Greavswasthegreatest - 13/2/2014 13:13

You all note my comment in my post.....

"I know the argument I make is simplistic as there are potential mitigating factors that the bank would and can counter no doubt, but the principle is the key".....

Thank you all for stating all the obvious counter arguments on behalf of the banks ( I am well aware of all these arguments )..........still a sad state of affairs IMO

The balance between social responsibility and profit is best achieved through the use of fraternal structures. Personally, I think you will see a rise in the prevalence of these organizations. Foresters is a great example. Look for these types of organizations when you make your decisions on who you will deal with.

The equity markets are still very necessary.

We have the equivalent with the Co-Op bank, but they ruined themselves by taking a labour patsie councillor that was parachuted in by the labour party as the new chairman, who of course knew absolutely nothing about banking, but knew alot about crystal meth, gay orgy's with 'rent boys'...and how to fiddle massive expenses..and of course handing out large donations to labour..

Of course, it's come home to bite labour in the arse as the co-op contributions to labour MP's of around £900k p.a. will drop by at least £300k this year and the new chief exec wants it cut to nil within the following 2 years..

Once again, because of weakening regulations and over-sight, no one was paying attention to how the co-op had accumulated a £1.5 billion hole in it's balance sheet...

Spoken like a true UKIP newbie. :15:

LOL!

as opposed to an old luddite labourite?!

:19: