Bonuses for banking bosses have been a hot topic during these turbulent credit crunch times. 'Regular' people ask themselves "how can these bosses get these outrageous sums in bonuses when the bank is going down the drain? My savings are going down the drain!!". Had it not been for the government bail outs, many banks would have seized to exist and many many people would not have any savings for their future. Still, so many people have been badly affected by this as they go jobless and in the worst cases, homeless.
So, people are demanding that the bank bosses hand their bonuses back to the banks. Some of the bosses have agreed and given the money back and with that received an approving nod from the general public, while others, like Sir Goodwin from Royal bank of Scotland, have fought for his right to his bonus. People hate that. They have even demonstrated that by vandalising his house in Scotland. But how could it get this far? How come a bank boss earns such a big salary and bonus that he would actually be able to have a noticeable positive impact on the bank, giving the bonus back? I say it's a mix between a vicious circle and human nature.
Money is the oil in the machinery of all business. Without it the machinery will collapse. There are not many people who would work for free, especially if they have spent years and years and money on studies. You want return on your intellectual investment, right? Usually at that stage, this is called ambition. You strive to do good and please your boss so you can move on up on the career ladder. You are ambitious. However, somewhere along thee ladder something happens to the definition of the person you are if things go too well and employers start paying you 'too much'. You are no longer described as ambitious, the description of you starts to shift to 'greedy'. But all along you are only doing what your boss/es are telling you to do. The higher up you go the more money related it is. If you are a CEO of a company your boss/es are the shareholders. "Generate more profits so we can get return on our invested capital!!" is what the general consensus usually is among them. You have to do it even though it might mean firing people, otherwise you might get fired yourself and your replacement will have to do it instead. It's hard but you get rewarded for it. You might even be so skilled that an employer decides to give you a very favourable bonus package - even if the performance of the company isn't very good. "That's a great deal!! I'll take it!!" you think and sign the paper that says the company is legally obligated to pay you that sum no matter what... Who's being stupid in this deal? Me for accepting or the company for offering me this?
I just say: Don't hate the players - hate the game.
1999
2009
