Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The LU gets around 1 billion pounds of subsidy from the tax payer every year.


This means that any additional expenditure comes straight from the taxpayer.


Unions create 'fake' enemies of the 'management' and the 'government'. The people they are stealing from when they demand more money for eff all contribution is the taxpayer.


So when you ask whether ?500 -is a "big wad of cash?", who don't you ask it of the 1,000s of Londoners scraping by on the breadline worried about their jobs and their future from whom it is being stolen to give to these 'put-upon' station staff?

Exactly what "additional expenditure" is having to be covered by the taxpayer?


I suspect that the extra revenue LU will get from the three million extra tube journeys that will happen everyday during the Olympics will just about cover a ?500 payment to staff.

If the taxpayer is subsidising the tube, then it means that the tube's expenses do not cover it's outgoings.


Therefore ANY additional expenditure comes from the taxpayer - either in the form of subsidy that is not being reduced or subsidy that has to be increased.


That's it Chippy. It's maths.


The claim that it does not come from the taxpayer is a typical union con. That it would 'come from the additional journeys' is also a con. If the payment did not have to be made then the money from the additional journeys would go into LU running funds, and the subsidy would not need to be as high, or subsidy increases would not need to be so large.


Now I suspect you know that's the truth - as do the unions. The unions don't want to admit it because they secretly know that they're a parasite on the most needy people in society. Sucking money from hardworking people's pockets to put it in their own.


Whatever way you look at it this money is coming from the taxpayer. End of story.

I don't deny it's coming from the taxpayer, but it's not an additional net cost to the taxpayer as a result of the Olympics and as I stated right from the start, I have no problem with the principle of both the public and private sectors paying bonuses.


So after stating "if they were working more hours then I'd expect them to get paid for it, and to get a bonus if they were pressured into it" your problem isn't actually the fact that they're asking for a bonus, it's the fact that it's LU staff asking for it.


If you're worked up this much by a ?500 bonus for tube staff, your head must be close to exploding when it comes to Hestor.

No, my problem is that they appear to be demanding a bonus because they have to work harder.


You're trying to deflect from this point by claiming this is a grudge against LU staff - a typical union negotiating approach when their position is pathetic.


If they are being asked to work longer that's a different issue, and a fixed fee bonus for hitting a particular number of hours overtime is a sensible approach to hitting company objectives.


If the money comes out of LU and goes to the employees IT IS an additional net cost to the taxpayer, either in a less reduced subsidy or an increased subsidy.


It cannot be anything else. Money doesn't grow on trees.


Regarding Hester my understanding is that this was a performance based bonus for cutting 0.5 trillion quid off the banks exposure. Whether you think this is appropriate or not is completely irrelevant. Hester was brought in after the crash to save the bank. He was offered a performance based contract to achieve this and has.


There are questions over whether bonuses of this size are effective, and whether they influence performance - but that is fuck all to do with Hester, and is irrelevant to his payment now.


The board were correct to threaten to resign en masse if this was arrangement was overturned, as the bank would lose all credibility, most of the senior staff and its value would collapse.


As a result the taxpayers would risk losing the ?45bn they have so far invested in keeping it afloat.


My guess is the unions wouldn't give a shit about this, because they don't care about the taxpayer, and sticking one on the management would be much more important than fucking up the nation.

We're going round in circles here. I think the payment isn't just for working harder because it's also an allowance for additional shifts i.e. more work. End of story.


I'm not sure what your point is re unions and Hestor. If you're trying to say they don't care about the size of his bonus you're very wrong.

I imagine the unions are obsessed about the size of Hester's bonus


I'm saying the unions don't care about the taxpayer, the British public, or the importance of keeping the British banking system functioning.


As we saw in the 1970s, the unions are quite prepared to fuck everything up to indulge their stupid greed and power crazes.


Nor (for some reason) do they care about Hester's contractual expectation of performance related pay. If he was one of their own members they'd have the entire workforce out on strike.


The board of RBS identified an individual ro fulfil a critical role and created a package likely to attract him. Within that were performance related elements to save both RBS and the taxpayers 45 billion quid. This bonus is a payment attached to the achievement of that objective.


Whatever the unions view on executive salaries, Hester as an individual and his bonus are none of their business.

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No, my problem is that they appear to be demanding

> a bonus because they have to work harder.

>

> You're trying to deflect from this point by

> claiming this is a grudge against LU staff - a

> typical union negotiating approach when their

> position is pathetic.

>

> If they are being asked to work longer that's a

> different issue, and a fixed fee bonus for hitting

> a particular number of hours overtime is a

> sensible approach to hitting company objectives.


It seems you do have a grudge against LU staff. There are going to be thousands of people using public transport and this will increase the pressure on LU staff. There's nothing wrong in asking for compensation as a result. And ?500 is really is a small amount of money these days.



> If the money comes out of LU and goes to the

> employees IT IS an additional net cost to the

> taxpayer, either in a less reduced subsidy or an

> increased subsidy.

>

> It cannot be anything else. Money doesn't grow on

> trees.


As there are crowds of people using public transport then this in turn will increase the revenue for LU. To say that money grows on trees is simply daft.

>

> Regarding Hester my understanding is that this was

> a performance based bonus for cutting 0.5 trillion

> quid off the banks exposure. Whether you think

> this is appropriate or not is completely

> irrelevant. Hester was brought in after the crash

> to save the bank. He was offered a performance

> based contract to achieve this and has.


I had a quick look at the RBS company reports and it said nothing about knocking off the 0.5 trillion quid of their exposure. However, it seems you got yourself confused when actually RBS cut their balance sheet by ?600bn through the disposal of assets including their ?17m company jet.


I can't see why the banker's should get a bonus for clearing the mess that they themselves have created.


>

> There are questions over whether bonuses of this

> size are effective, and whether they influence

> performance - but that is @#$%& all to do with

> Hester, and is irrelevant to his payment now.

>

> The board were correct to threaten to resign en

> masse if this was arrangement was overturned, as

> the bank would lose all credibility, most of the

> senior staff and its value would collapse.


The boards behaviour is tantamount to holding the government to ransom over the bonuses issues. Since when did banks had any credibility since the financial crises started in 2007?

>

> As a result the taxpayers would risk losing the

> ?45bn they have so far invested in keeping it

> afloat.


More 'holding the government ransom' talk.

>

> My guess is the unions wouldn't give a shit about

> this, because they don't care about the taxpayer,

> and sticking one on the management would be much

> more important than @#$%& up the nation.


Irrelevant nonsense.

The lights are on but no-one's home.


Still, we're honoured to have your company despite the pressures of your premiership football career, exceptional hifi appraisal business, and the attentions of the paparazzi due to your much celebrated gardening expertise.


All you've done is reiterate claims I've already dismembered. Either you didn't read what I wrote or you didn't understand it.


Incidentally, Hester did not create the problems at RBS. he was employed afterwards to clear the mess up. Whatever people's thoughts on bankers, Hester took up a contract in good faith, delivered against performance goals, and does not deserve to be singled out and maltreated as a scapegoat for public disgust with bankers.

Talking boll*cks again, Hugo.


I understood what you wrote and I do know, as another member had wrote, you're not that clever as you make out to be. Approximately 70% of your posts are total bullsh!t.


I didn't say that Hester had created the problems for RBS but he has a career in the banking industry for many years including a stint at Credit Suisse. I can't see why bankers should be paid a bonuses for sorting out a mess that they themselves have created and ultimately damaged the British economy.


The government has a majority share in RBS which means that we, as taxpayers, have a say on whether it's right for Hester to get an obscene bonus. Public opinion says no and rightly so.

"Approximately 70% of your posts are total bullsh!t."


Excellent, I'm most grateful for your exceptional statistical analysis. I shall add this to your list of accolades.


Come on UDT, you just came onto this thread looking for a fight as an excuse to throw insults at me didn't you? You haven't added anything intelligent.


It's impractical and foolish to attempt to run a business on the basis of public opinion applied in hindsight - particularly since the public (excepting your own extraordinary banking skills of course) is not qualified nor experienced enough to make those calls.


If HMG had not wanted to pay large performance bonuses they had the option to decide that at the time the contract was created and before Hester was employed.


Had they not done so it's possible that a smaller salary would not have attracted the appropriate staff and the business could have failed.


If that had been the case, the 'public' would have lost 45bn rather than paid out a 1m performance bonus (in shares not cash) and I have no doubt that the public would be yelling for blood on that basis.


So you see, your blah blah blah about bankers and bonuses is just hot air. It's uninspired and uninsightful. It's a knee jerk reaction that betrays no evidence of careful consideration at all.


In short - it's boringly half witted.


Next?

It's irrelevant Hugo.


Have you looked at the RBS share prices over the last few years? They have halved under the stewardship of Stephen Hester. Yep, we the taxpayer already have a ?23bn paper loss on our investment on RBS.


Also Hester had failed in a major target to lend money to small businesses through Operation Merlin. The whole idea about Operation Merlin was to keep the economy in moving by ensuring that small businesses had access to funds. No wonder our economy has slowed down.


Let's be honest, you think it's right to reward boardroom failure, don't you? What you want is huge rewards for the elites while the rest of us struggle to make ends meet.


Anyway, at least Hester has done the right thing and given up his bonus.

Katie you've just done what everyone else has done and laid the general problems of the financial industry at the feet of one man - effectively 'he can't be paid because I don't like banks'.


That's not good enough.


Individuals must receive performance targets for extraordinary achievements that are specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and time-bound. Upon their completion they should recieve whatever reward was agreed at the start of the process.


A breach in agreements of this kind means the end of effective internal motivation and organisation and usually a failed business.


You may well have an issue with the original performance targets and reward set by the board, but that's nothing to do with Hester, and he must not be singled out and attacked for completing his objectives.


Incidentally, if you had set an original target for Hester of solving the world financial crisis I don't think he'd have take the job, do you? So that would have been fucked up too.


It's notable that the bonus demand for the tube station workers fails the first part of the test for a bonus - in that they're for extraordinary achievement - something for which simply turning up at work during the Olympics and doing their mandated job doesn't count.


"Let's be honest, you think it's right to reward boardroom failure, don't you? What you want is huge rewards for the elites while the rest of us struggle to make ends meet."


Yeah sure I do.


Perhaps I should make some sweeping statements about what you think, start putting words in your mouth and see how you respond? Not that good huh?

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Katie you've just done what everyone else has done

> and laid the general problems of the financial

> industry at the feet of one man - effectively 'he

> can't be paid because I don't like banks'.


I have? Have I? Oh good grief are we talking 'performance' targets for bedroom failure or perhaps you could make an appointment with an optician :)


> Perhaps I should make some sweeping statements

> about what you think, start putting words in your

> mouth and see how you respond? Not that good huh?


Wouldn't be the first time, would it? ;)

EDITED


Sorry katie1997, it was UDT who was talking RBS.


He listed RBS share price and general problems with business banking as reasons why Hester shouldn't get his bonus.


The first was undoubtedly part of his targets (but don't leap to any conclusions about what that target was, if he was under instructions to downsize the business the share price target may not have been higher).


The second as a general cause would not have been part of his target, although I understand there was an RBS specific target related to this, and that he achieved it.


There were also targets about shedding staff and cutting costs which he achieved. It may be that the public don't agree with these targets, but then that's why the public aren't running the bank.

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If you were it was so bloody clever it went over

> my head. ;-)

>

> You listed RBS share price and general problems

> with business banking as reasons why Hester

> shouldn't get his bonus.

>

> I don't get why that's related to the bedroom?

>

> The first was undoubtedly part of his targets (but

> don't leap to any conclusions about what that

> target was, if he was under instructions to

> downsize the business the share price target may

> not have been higher).

>

> The second as a general cause would not have been

> part of his target, although I understand there

> was an RBS specific target related to this, and

> that he achieved it.

>

> There were also targets about shedding staff and

> cutting costs which he achieved. It may be that

> the public don't agree with these targets, but

> then that's why the public aren't running the

> bank.


I'll get my (I loveheart bankers) coat.

It may be that the public don't agree with these targets, but then that's why the public aren't running the bank.


It may well be the public don't agree with the tube workers' bonus, but then that's why the public aren't running the tube ;-)

I didn't suggest that station staff shouldn't get a bonus because the public didn't like it.


I suggested that station staff shouldn't get a bonus simply for doing the job they're already paid to do. It breaks the basic relationship between incentive, performance and reward.


You claim that the bonus is for working longer hours - if that's so then I agree it should be made available for those who overperform.


Except there's no evidence of that as yet - just a lot of whinging about more people using the tube and the fact that if someone else is getting it they should too....

Surely when there are more passengers on board - as there will be during the Olympics - this will make the trains slightly heavier, thus requiring our valiant drivers to push on the stick with slightly increased pressure?



Seems only right they be compensated fairly for this.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...