I find bonuses, the amount of salaries and all other working conditions a matter between the bank and their employees.When I don’t like that as a consumer, I can search for another bank with a different policy.
However, there are banks that needed public money to survive the 2009 crisis.In that case, I find it reasonable that the lender (government) bonuses freezes until every euro tax money is refunded.
I think that a bonus should be proportionate to the personal risk incurred and its contribution in the result of the company.
A salaried employee has another risk if someone puts their own money into the company.However, you can also make appointments with an employee about what is “more than normal for the job” and link a reward to it.
This has to do with the rigidity of the salary/function house, in the Netherlands the culture is a little “equal sheep, equal heads”, or: everyone with the same function must deserve about the same.If someone performs better than the pay scale, you’ll soon have to grab a bonus scheme for additional compensation, unless you’re going to use vague constructions such as “market surcharge”. A market surcharge is a certification of inability of the mounted salary house, it actually says: We are not willing to pay more for this feature, but because otherwise we are bankrupt-or at least unacceptable risk-go because people (specialists ) do not come to us to work for the real salary we offer we have to invent something to pay more. Our salary house is so sacred that we do not think about it again.
Back to the bankers.This is a field of expertise that offers some space for extra reward. With someone in direct sales you can also make agreements about a partly variable reward; You sell more than you earn more.
For a banker there is an extra restriction: you work with someone else’s money and therefore your extra return and the associated reward can only be achieved if you stay within your customer/portfolio risk profile.
For top functions in banks you can also make demands from the shareholders to the directors, for example that they respect both long-and short-term goals.A firm reorganizing can increase profitability in the short term, but if this damages the long-term return or jeopardize the organization-this “profit” is not proportional to the damage. And with that, a high (variable) reward benefit would also be unjustified.
What you notice is that I am bydoing the word bonus, and I do not want to concentrate on a percentage either.The word bonus is very contaminated in public opinion (bankers are mowers, they get top rewards while we don’t get interest on the savings account) and a percentage is a weird thing because this says nothing about the added value of the work of a Employee.
If I save ten million with a proposal, this will not be at the expense of the organisation, and this saving also leads to additional market potential (distinctive character, which allows us to attract more customers), my employer might be willing to A much higher bonus than 100% to be returned.Especially if I am the Post Room employee working for minimum wage.
As far as I am concerned, the relevant social discussion is given that people work with the money of others, and these others also receive something (service, product, return) for them, how do we know what a good reward is?Either, how do we create transparency? And if we find the reward too high, do we want to take the risk of a lower reward? For a bank, this means reduced service, (even) lower savings rates, higher interest rates on loans, an increased risk that the bank goes bankrupt.
Running and optimizing a conveyor belt or production process at Scania or Struik is already a challenge, the good management of risks in financial services is many times more complex.
No.A bank is a private institution whose owners (shareholders, members) determine what someone deserves. If you do not like it, you can sell your shares, take another bank or resign. I have also opted for a bank where salaries and bonuses are not excessive. Everyone in the Netherlands can make the same choice. There is no need for a ban.
If the state (taxpayer) holds a bank, the state can of course set rules.Incidentally, I believe that the State should not intervene with aid or rescue operations. Leave the risk to the shareholders and account holders who have opted for the bank in question.
Because much too much money is being earned in that sector!This is about the backs of individuals and companies.