Capitalism red in Tooth and Claw

[En_Route]

Nothing provokes editorial fulminations here in the UK more than the vexatious issue of bonuses paid to bankers. The Independent vents its outrage that "John Hourican, head of global banking and markets, could receive as much as £5m, despite overseeing the redundancies of more than 3,000 staff." Am I alone in failing to see the logic here? Should someone who fails to cut back surplus  jobs be awarded a bonus whereas should someone who makes the necessary painful corrections  be penalised? Of course I have no idea if these redundancies were justified or properly implemented, but that not is the paper's bone of contention. Their argument is that anyone who reduces payroll should ipso facto be financially disadvantaged.All of this is  quite distinct from the wider question of whether such pay levels arise as a result of a defective model of corporate governance  being exploited by a greedy cartel of amoral wideboys (answer:yes).

[statichaos]

I think that it's the idea that if the business is doing so poorly that such cuts are necessary, then why is he getting a bonus while others suffer?

[En_Route]

I think that it's the idea that if the business is doing so poorly that such cuts are necessary, then why is he getting a bonus while others suffer?

It's supply and demand (or would be if it wasn't distorted by severe market imperfections). The logic is that those workers who are dispensable are dispensed with.Those with scarce managerial skills(which might indeed be at a premium when steering a business through the choppy waters of a recession) are rewarded commensurately. A corporation 's raison d'etre is  not to spread the psychic pain of its employees.

[Ali]

I think it depends on why the cuts were made.  Typically what we've seen in my company is that when they made layoffs, it wasn't really that they had found a more efficient way of doing business (although of course those that were left were expected to pick up the slack) but more because they needed to maintain an upward curve of profitability for the share holders.  And again, I would say that if they had an extra $5MM to gift to someone, they could have used that money to pay employees and still maintain profitability.  Of course, what do you bet that Mr. Hourican is also a shareholder?   

[En_Route]

I think it depends on why the cuts were made.  Typically what we've seen in my company is that when they made layoffs, it wasn't really that they had found a more efficient way of doing business (although of course those that were left were expected to pick up the slack) but more because they needed to maintain an upward curve of profitability for the share holders.  And again, I would say that if they had an extra $5MM to gift to someone, they could have used that money to pay employees and still maintain profitability.  Of course, what do you bet that Mr. Hourican is also a shareholder?   

I don't think they would see it as a gift but rather a goal-congruent method of incentivising a key change-agent, etc etc etc.

[Ali]

I think it depends on why the cuts were made.  Typically what we've seen in my company is that when they made layoffs, it wasn't really that they had found a more efficient way of doing business (although of course those that were left were expected to pick up the slack) but more because they needed to maintain an upward curve of profitability for the share holders.  And again, I would say that if they had an extra $5MM to gift to someone, they could have used that money to pay employees and still maintain profitability.  Of course, what do you bet that Mr. Hourican is also a shareholder?   

I don't think they would see it as a gift but rather a goal-congruent method of incentivising a key change-agent, etc etc etc.

Your corporatespeak is flawless.

[En_Route]

I think it depends on why the cuts were made.  Typically what we've seen in my company is that when they made layoffs, it wasn't really that they had found a more efficient way of doing business (although of course those that were left were expected to pick up the slack) but more because they needed to maintain an upward curve of profitability for the share holders.  And again, I would say that if they had an extra $5MM to gift to someone, they could have used that money to pay employees and still maintain profitability.  Of course, what do you bet that Mr. Hourican is also a shareholder?   

I don't think they would see it as a gift but rather a goal-congruent method of incentivising a key change-agent, etc etc etc.

Your corporatespeak is flawless.

Drink the Kool-Aid has always been my mantra.

[statichaos]

I used to be able to do decent corporate speak.  I've been out of the loop for so long, though, that I've thankfully forgotten nearly all of it.