The executive compensation that dare not speak its name
You may be wondering what kind of advertising poster could possibly have taken the place of the deeply naff 'If you've reached the top... enjoy the view' Pan Peninsula Tower. So here are the far more appetising ads currently on display where PPT used to be: Coco Pops with Hot Milk, and the even more tasty Aussiebum. I am sure there is something meaningful and profound to be read into the fact that obscenely overpriced penthouse apartments have given way to cute male backsides and breakfast cereals advertised by monkeys, but I'm not sure yet what it is.
Meanwhile the word conspicuously not being spoken everywhere this week begins with B and ends with 'ON US', as in 'the joke is ON US'. This close to Christmas, season of performance reviews and ratings, the impact of said reviews on how much extra money might be on the way has historically been the topic of much aggrieved moaning and triumphalist speculation. This year, however, there are two schools of thoughts, neither of whom are expressing themselves for fear of being bludgeoned to death by an angry public.
School of Unspoken Thought One takes it for granted that there will be no bonusses paid within banks this year. Adherents of this school reason that even if their particular bank can afford it, they will seize the opportunity not to pay this year based on the fact that (a) nobody else is doing it and (b) if they do, they might be bludgeoned to death by an angry public.
School of Unspoken Thought Two knows that the first group is absolutely right and what is more, it would be morally reprehensible to accept a bonus even if a miracle happens and they are offered one, and yet, they think to themselves, and yet, and yet.... It's not over until the fat lady sings; they might make an exception for us; we were just obeying orders; etc. etc.
This group ignores the sound of well-endowed divas in full song on every rooftop and continues, secretly, shamefacedly, to hope. The most incredibly devious argument I've heard to support this thinking goes like this:
"1. Our part of the bank is not normally in line for the huge payouts when things go well. On the contrary, we always get the smallest possible slice of the pie".
"2. Therefore, by treating us in the same way as the parts of the bank that ARE in line for the huge payouts when things go well, i.e. by giving us nothing this year, the bank will create a dangerous precedent for giving our part of the bank equal treatment".
"3. Therefore, to avoid creating such a dangerous precedent and being forced to give us huge payouts in the future, the bank will probably give us our usual tiny slice of the pie this year and we will all still get a bonus".
No doubt you will have spotted the obvious flaw in this argument, which is that there isn't any pie, or rather, there is a negative pie which takes the form of being bludgeoned to death by an angry public.
Comments [0]