UNDECIDED

Wednesday, 01 February 2012 10:36

Written by Editor

After all the hoo-hah, do you think the boss of Royal Bank of Scotland Stephen Hester should have kept his bonus or not? It would seem that opinions are divided down the middle.

On the one hand, the public has put in billions to stop the bank going down completely and they should be paid back first. On the other hand, it was the previous boss of the bank that got it into such a terrible state so why should Stephen Hester who has pretty much done what he was supposed to do be penalised – especially as it was part of his original deal when he took on what must be an incredibly difficult and stressful job? It took him three days to decide not to take the bonus, under enormous political pressure, but decline it he did in the end.

The problem is, if Britain takes on people to do a certain job at a certain price then says, pretty much: “Ah, yes, well we know we said that then, but now, well, we think we shouldn’t actually give you that after all,” what is going to happen is that the people who can turn the businesses, and therefore the country round are going to say a probably-not- very-polite “up yours” and go to the States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, in fact, anywhere that will value them more than Britain.

Personally, I am in two minds still about whether he should have taken the money or not but, if offered a job with those conditions, about 99% of people would have kept it like a shot!