Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
Essentially that would be the banks - the ones we all own.
|
That would be the shareholders, which would include far more than just the partly nationalised banks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
Which isn't helped by the attitude of the banks - the ones we all own.
|
Irresponsibility and being too relaxed got them into the mess, wouldn't want them to get back into trouble by not being suitably controlled with their extension of capital again now would we?
For banks to do well they must invest properly and wisely, so if companies aren't running efficiently they are obliged to invest in better run companies to get a better return for their own shareholders - us the taxpayers.
It seems a bit odd to suggest that the banks that are largely owned by the tax payer should invest in less efficient companies so that they'll pay their staff more. Strikes me as suggesting the public as a whole should subsidise unionised workers. We already do that quite enough to the detriment of their non-unionised industry colleagues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
Speak to your union. |
I did - and the union of one (me) was perfectly content as he received performance related bonus and everything was in line with the industry rather than being a random figure picked out of the union's rectum.
It could be worse. My union of one could have been the same union that took lower pay rises for other members in other companies this year while complaining about this one not compensating for inflation and ignoring that the employees of this particular company already receive higher pay and better perks than others in the industry.
Same syndrome as BA really, striking despite being better paid and having better perks than those who aren't ex-public sector.