Thursday, February 12, 2009

Catching Up

Well, yet again it's been a while. My excuse is that I've been back in the workplace - for far more hours a week than counts as any kind of work/life balance. I know this is not the time to complain about having a job, but really - my job stinks - despite supposedly being in a glamorous media environment. It's just like The Devil Wears Prada but without any shoes to compensate. (And it would take one hell of a lot of shoes anyway.) So I'm working on reclaiming my life and returning to doing something more creative, which will hopefully allow more time to blog, as I'm still not short on opinions.

In the meantime, I've just heard (on Channel 4 News) the most sensible question I've heard in a long time, from a member of the US Congress Financial Institutions Committee. He asked a group of (allegedly) top US bankers to explain the culture of bonuses, by enquiring as to exactly what parts of their jobs they would not do if they weren't given bonuses? His point was that most of us in the real world do what we're paid to do and perceive that as the whole point of having a job. Once the job description and the salary are agreed - we do one in return for the other. But not bankers, it seems.

Just how did we get to a point where bankers have to be given bonuses for doing what they are employed and already paid to do? And then when they totally f*ck it up, why do we the taxpayers then fund their bonuses which seem to be payable to reward even spectacular failure? Yes, yes, I know we had no choice - but surely to God it can't be beyond the abilities of either our government or the US Senate and Congress to get some restitution for the taxpayer for the added insult of these bonuses having been paid. The argument that bankers need to be offered "competitive" salary and bonus packages to stop them going elsewhere would be laughable if not so serious. Let 'em go!!!!! I can't see anyone queuing up to employ them anyway.... and it would behove the Government to take the mood of the country seriously on this one - especially when considering the relative proximity of the next election.

Back soon....

No comments: