And another one....

rjsterry

Presumably in the same way as in the private sector: There will be some facility for the contract to be amended. You can either accept the revised terms or find something else.

MaxwellBygraves

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Who said the Tories are fearing anything?

They're sh!tting the bed about the economy. They're loving the strikes. Blame strikers for general economic malaise. Like they'll vote for tories anyway.

Maxwellbygraves did, which is what I was responding to, and what you in turn responded to We're in agreement it would seem.

Again, I don't think the Conservatives are quite literally scared, but it's something that will be bothering them no doubt.

Whoever said on whichever thread (!) the comment about Ed Milibands hands being tied is exactly right.

More broadly, any economy based on neoliberal principles relies on the general populous to continue playing the role of consumer and worker - a small handful of private interests control as much as possible of social life to maximise profit. This is why you won't hear any politicians asking any of the questions that need to be asked. Naturally, ordinary people asking these questions is very undesirable - so don't ask difficult questions, get back to work and keep fighting amongst yourselves e.g encouraging the 'divide' between public and private sector is all you will hear from politicians, the media etc.

SimonAH

Whoohooo! I haven't heard that level of regurgitated party dogma in a veeerrry long time! What are the capitalist running dog lackeys doing these days?

greg66_tri_v2.0

rjsterry wrote:

Presumably in the same way as in the private sector: There will be some facility for the contract to be amended. You can either accept the revised terms or find something else.

I don't know for sure, but I would guess this. With the added ingredient of "well, if you're not willing to compromise, there's only so much money to go round, so we'll have to make some people redundant..."

walkingbootweather

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Presumably in the same way as in the private sector: There will be some facility for the contract to be amended. You can either accept the revised terms or find something else.

I don't know for sure, but I would guess this. With the added ingredient of "well, if you're not willing to compromise, there's only so much money to go round, so we'll have to make some people redundant..."

That's about the size of it. In theory terms and conditions of employment (including pensions) are covered by an employment contract. Consulation is supposed to take place to vary these but at the end of the day, if agreement cannot be reached I'd imagine the employer can pretty much say 'take it or leave it'. I suspect one of the reasons that public sector workers are unhappy is that the government defence for allow Fred the Shred to keep, what many thought was an over-generous settlement, was that those were the terms of his contact, however it seems that in the case of public sector workers these terms can be changed.

W1

walkingbootweather wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Presumably in the same way as in the private sector: There will be some facility for the contract to be amended. You can either accept the revised terms or find something else.

I don't know for sure, but I would guess this. With the added ingredient of "well, if you're not willing to compromise, there's only so much money to go round, so we'll have to make some people redundant..."

That's about the size of it. In theory terms and conditions of employment (including pensions) are covered by an employment contract. Consulation is supposed to take place to vary these but at the end of the day, if agreement cannot be reached I'd imagine the employer can pretty much say 'take it or leave it'. I suspect one of the reasons that public sector workers are unhappy is that the government defence for allow Fred the Shred to keep, what many thought was an over-generous settlement, was that those were the terms of his contact, however it seems that in the case of public sector workers these terms can be changed.

And terms can be changed in private sector employment contracts too. But what were RBS going to do, sack someone who was leaving anyway if he didn't sign up to new terms? Not a great comparator really.

rjsterry

W1 wrote:

walkingbootweather wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Presumably in the same way as in the private sector: There will be some facility for the contract to be amended. You can either accept the revised terms or find something else.

I don't know for sure, but I would guess this. With the added ingredient of "well, if you're not willing to compromise, there's only so much money to go round, so we'll have to make some people redundant..."

That's about the size of it. In theory terms and conditions of employment (including pensions) are covered by an employment contract. Consulation is supposed to take place to vary these but at the end of the day, if agreement cannot be reached I'd imagine the employer can pretty much say 'take it or leave it'. I suspect one of the reasons that public sector workers are unhappy is that the government defence for allow Fred the Shred to keep, what many thought was an over-generous settlement, was that those were the terms of his contact, however it seems that in the case of public sector workers these terms can be changed.

And terms can be changed in private sector employment contracts too. But what were RBS going to do, sack someone who was leaving anyway if he didn't sign up to new terms? Not a great comparator really.

Also, if they had contested it, it would have gone to court and the costs would likely have exceeded any claw back by the government.

W1

rjsterry wrote:

W1 wrote:

walkingbootweather wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Presumably in the same way as in the private sector: There will be some facility for the contract to be amended. You can either accept the revised terms or find something else.

I don't know for sure, but I would guess this. With the added ingredient of "well, if you're not willing to compromise, there's only so much money to go round, so we'll have to make some people redundant..."

That's about the size of it. In theory terms and conditions of employment (including pensions) are covered by an employment contract. Consulation is supposed to take place to vary these but at the end of the day, if agreement cannot be reached I'd imagine the employer can pretty much say 'take it or leave it'. I suspect one of the reasons that public sector workers are unhappy is that the government defence for allow Fred the Shred to keep, what many thought was an over-generous settlement, was that those were the terms of his contact, however it seems that in the case of public sector workers these terms can be changed.

And terms can be changed in private sector employment contracts too. But what were RBS going to do, sack someone who was leaving anyway if he didn't sign up to new terms? Not a great comparator really.

Also, if they had contested it, it would have gone to court and the costs would likely have exceeded any claw back by the government.

And contested it on what basis? Public opinion?

What is interesting is that some bankers have had revised employment agreements forced on them - meaning that they get higher salaries and lower bonuses (particularly due to the backlash against the "bonus culture"). The overall pay is largely the same.

Is that a good thing? Well on the one hand the bank has a higher liability for wages but without the income that a performance related pay automatically requires. On the other hand there is less incentive for risk-taking by their employees.

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

And contested it on what basis? Public opinion?

What is interesting is that some bankers have had revised employment agreements forced on them - meaning that they get higher salaries and lower bonuses (particularly due to the backlash against the "bonus culture"). The overall pay is largely the same.

Keep up W1 - that all happened last year. a large US bank for example, tied in little clauses which people could either sign or leave, are reining in basics already. Happened end of last month...

And the overall pay isn't the same. It's some proportion lower.

rjsterry

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

W1 wrote:

walkingbootweather wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Presumably in the same way as in the private sector: There will be some facility for the contract to be amended. You can either accept the revised terms or find something else.

I don't know for sure, but I would guess this. With the added ingredient of "well, if you're not willing to compromise, there's only so much money to go round, so we'll have to make some people redundant..."

That's about the size of it. In theory terms and conditions of employment (including pensions) are covered by an employment contract. Consulation is supposed to take place to vary these but at the end of the day, if agreement cannot be reached I'd imagine the employer can pretty much say 'take it or leave it'. I suspect one of the reasons that public sector workers are unhappy is that the government defence for allow Fred the Shred to keep, what many thought was an over-generous settlement, was that those were the terms of his contact, however it seems that in the case of public sector workers these terms can be changed.

And terms can be changed in private sector employment contracts too. But what were RBS going to do, sack someone who was leaving anyway if he didn't sign up to new terms? Not a great comparator really.

Also, if they had contested it, it would have gone to court and the costs would likely have exceeded any claw back by the government.

And contested it on what basis? Public opinion?

What is interesting is that some bankers have had revised employment agreements forced on them - meaning that they get higher salaries and lower bonuses (particularly due to the backlash against the "bonus culture"). The overall pay is largely the same.

Is that a good thing? Well on the one hand the bank has a higher liability for wages but without the income that a performance related pay automatically requires. On the other hand there is less incentive for risk-taking by their employees.

Performance related pay tends to have unintended consequences.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Performance related pay tends to have unintended consequences.

Bonuses in finance aren't that performance related.

After BofA saved Merrill the boss of Merrill was still arguing for bonuses to be paid to the Merrills guys...

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Performance related pay tends to have unintended consequences.

Bonuses in finance aren't that performance related.

After BofA saved Merrill the boss of Merrill was still arguing for bonuses to be paid to the Merrills guys...

Was going to make that point too - clearly if some of the banks are making big losses, then performance is pretty poor.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

And contested it on what basis? Public opinion?

What is interesting is that some bankers have had revised employment agreements forced on them - meaning that they get higher salaries and lower bonuses (particularly due to the backlash against the "bonus culture"). The overall pay is largely the same.

Keep up W1 - that all happened last year. a large US bank for example, tied in little clauses which people could either sign or leave, are reining in basics already. Happened end of last month...

And the overall pay isn't the same. It's some proportion lower.

If it happened yesterday, it sounds like I'm keeping up pretty well RC - don't have a big strop.

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

And contested it on what basis? Public opinion?

What is interesting is that some bankers have had revised employment agreements forced on them - meaning that they get higher salaries and lower bonuses (particularly due to the backlash against the "bonus culture"). The overall pay is largely the same.

Keep up W1 - that all happened last year. a large US bank for example, tied in little clauses which people could either sign or leave, are reining in basics already. Happened end of last month...

And the overall pay isn't the same. It's some proportion lower.

If it happened yesterday, it sounds like I'm keeping up pretty well RC - don't have a big strop.

What you were saying happened last year - this year the basics at some institutions are going back down again.

W1

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Performance related pay tends to have unintended consequences.

Bonuses in finance aren't that performance related.

After BofA saved Merrill the boss of Merrill was still arguing for bonuses to be paid to the Merrills guys...

Was going to make that point too - clearly if some of the banks are making big losses, then performance is pretty poor.

The banks might be, but individuals within those banks may be doing rather well - if they weren't there, the losses would be larger....

I am in two minds about performance related pay - at least it's earnt, whereas a big salary can hide a pretty dire performance.

walkingbootweather

W1 wrote:

I am in two minds about performance related pay - at least it's earnt, whereas a big salary can hide a pretty dire performance.

I'm inclined to favour performance related pay provided the right thing is measured, the resources available is considered, and the reward is consumate with performance. Just because a company makes a profit doesn't necessary mean that it's staff have performed well, and just because it makes a loss doesn't mean that staff have behaved badly.

Too often performance pay is based upon short term goals, like making a quick profit, or slashing costs which may leave the organisation weaker in the medium to long term than more moderate actions.

SimonAH

I can't recall the sage in question, but someone once said something of the lines of "Judge me by irrational measures and expect me to behave irrationally to meet them".

My own pay is roughly 35% based on bonus paid at the end of March, and believe me - some of the things I do to ensure that it is a healthy one are neither productive for the firm nor myself..

PRP often results in workers taking eight times as long as they need to tick eight boxes, where one would have done the job - on account of the bonus being related to the number of boxes ticked rather than the effectiveness of the worker.

Personally I don't like it much in the way it is normally implemented. I do however like getting rewarded for my contribution.

>- simple answers not available from SimonAH I'm afraid-<

greg66_tri_v2.0

I've just seen the full clip of Clarkson's piece on the TV earlier today.

Seriously, Unison need to go fcuk themselves. Quite hard, with something large and not very smooth.

First.Aspect

Greg66 wrote:

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It'll be a different story come election I'd suggest.

It's a shame that people have short memories and will forget to blame Labour for being at the helm when these problems were accruing.

Still, at least Miliband is unelectable.

I thought Miliband's crack about the ski holiday cost (which he fcuked up pretty badly anyway) at PMQs yesterday was ridiculously lame, even by his unambitious standards. This class war line he tries to propagate is pathetic. And so short sighted. Does he really think that the Mail or the Express won't be all over the cost of his next family holiday after that?

He just needs to sort out his sinuses, cut his hair short, frown more and call himself David. Then he'd be electable.

As it is, he might as well be Welsh.