Bogus bonuses?

It's banker bonus season again, and the press is full of articles, reports and general grumbles about the whole thing. As a nation, we seem to have a huge problem with the bonuses, not in small part due to the fact that we, the taxpayers, have had to bail out some of the banks after the hideous financial crash in 2008. A survey done last year showed that 2,800 bankers received over £1 million as bonuses, and Stephen Hester (RBS Chief Executive) is in line for £2.5 million. In total, City bonuses could reach £7 billion.

So, what exactly is it about the bankers bonuses that gets our goat? Is it the size? We can argue that the country needs a functioning banking system, and if banks need to incentivise their investment bankers in order to turn a profit, the why not? After all, surely banks are fundamental to the economy? Bankers have a contract which includes bonuses. We would be unhappy if our employer suddenly stopped paying us our contractual dues, and bankers no doubt feel the same. If you can't beat 'em, you can always join 'em as a City slicker... But do bonuses make for better bankers, or just encourage greed? It seems that tax payers feel they are being hurt - in this economy, in its current state because of bankers, we are facing job cuts and pay freezes, whilst the people responsible for the situation are getting paid huge bonuses.

Another bone of contention to some Brits is the salaries and bonuses paid to our footballers. Not only do they command massive transfer fees (the largest on record being that of Cristiano Ronaldo in 2009 from Manchester Utd to Real Madrid, for a whopping £80,000,000), they also demand huge salaries. Reports suggest that Wayne Rooney is currently on £230,000 per week, although it is thought to be closer to £200,000. Nice work if you can get it. Which most of us can't. Unlike the bankers' bonuses, footballers are privately funded through clubs, who obviously make their money from selling tickets, merchandise, kit etc. So does this make us more accepting of their payouts? Not necessarily. There is some feeling that what footballers do isn't, well, worthy - not in the same way that, say, doctors or teachers are. Many people are also of the opinion that footballers in this country don't work hard enough to justify their huge salaries... look at the appalling shambles we call the World Cup team. Things aren't helped by the fact that lots of footballers are, well, a bit chavvy, and so seem less deserving of their vast sums than others may be.

At the moment, with bankers' bonuses being once more in the headlines, the ill-feeling is preserved for them and them alone. Seen by many as spoilt middle-class toffs who've ripped off a nation to pay for their Porsches, bankers are getting a very raw deal right now. Apart from the massive bonuses, that is. The morality of footballers' high wages has been long debated, with two distinct camps - the ones who think it's an outrage, and the ones who think footballers deserve their high wages and support them thoroughly through buying season tickets and each new strip. Somewhere in the middle are people (like me) who just don't care either way.

So how do we determine who is "worth" more? The bankers, the footballers or neither? If someone can turn a loss-making bank into a profitable one, don't they deserve recompensation for this? - after all, if they're not paid enough, they won't stick around. If a privately owned company wants to pay one of their footballers over £200k a week, where's the harm? If they are perceived by the organisation to be worth their weight in gold - or bonuses - then surely that's the main thing. After all, we all have an employment contract which clearly states our rights to a basic salary, plus any benefits and bonuses. Footballers and bankers have the same rights. Realistically, in any company, there will always be someone earning more than us, and someone earning less. I may work as an executive for a company, earning a nice tidy basic and the opportunity to receive a bonus based on company performance. The same company may employ a cleaner at just over basic wage, with no bonuses available. Who is the more worthy? I play a part in the running of the company and generating income, and get a deserved salary for it. The cleaner also has an important role, but won't get as much as me. I certainly don't feel that I should earn more than a nurse, or social worker, or teacher - but I might. It all boils down to one thing... money making. He who generates income gets paid more than those who don't, or who are dependent on public funds to pay their wages. Moral it ain't, but for those of us with no vocation to improve the world, it's great!

As for me, I will never be a footballer or a banker. Luckily, I have one son who aspires to investment banking, and one who's just started football training, so watch this space. They can use their bonuses to look after their old mum...

Older... and wiser?

Yesterday's news reported the removal of the Default Retirement Age (DRA), which will be phased out between April and October this year. No longer will employers be able to force retirement at the age of 65, which is good news for older workers and the removal of what is an unacceptable, ageist practice.

Age has been in the news quite a lot recently, thanks to Miriam O'Reilly. The former presenter of Countryfile, she has just won her case of ageism against the BBC after 14 months of wrangling. Claiming she was dropped from the show in favour of younger presenters, although 68-year-old John Craven was kept on, O'Reilly presented her case for ageism and sex discrimination, the latter of which was not upheld. Prior to being removed from Countryfile after eight years as a presenter, she was asked whether it was time for botox and advised to beware of wrinkles. The BBC - already accused of ageist practices after replacing Arlene Phillips (Strictly Come Dancing) and Moira Stewart with younger models - have apologised, and said they would like to work with the freelance broadcaster in the future. They will also be paying out an undisclosed sum as compensation. Whilst O'Reilly's case has been successful, for many workers across the UK, ageism is still a cause for concern.

A report last year by the CLG (Department of Communities and Local Government) indicates that hundreds of thousands of mature workers face ageist attitudes from recruiters. More older people are now seeking work due to changes in the benefits system - as Incapacity Benefit is becoming Employment Support Allowance - and an estimated 750,000 more mature workers will be re-entering the job market over the next 3 years.

Although Age Discrimination laws came into effect in October 2006, and businesses were forced to review their recruitment processes, prospective candidates still feel they are discriminated against because of their age. A survey of over 50's showed that 4% felt they had been refused a job due to their age. Interestingly, even more than this - 5% - of 16-24 year olds felt that THEY had been refused a job for being too young. It seems that ageism is out there, for the young as well as the old. Young people face discrimination in work too - they often feel they aren't taken seriously and are passed over for someone more mature. It cuts both ways, it seems.

Recruiters have to be particularly careful when advertising roles, to make sure nobody can accuse them of being ageist. Phrases such as "young and dynamic" or "recent graduate" should be avoided, as should words such as "junior" and "mature". Asking for a certain number of years experience in a role is okay as long as the job description specifies this, but it can make younger people feel they would not be considered and a lot of recruiters prefer to use phrases like "extensive experience in..." to skirt the issue. Interviewers should also be aware that certain questions (e.g. "How do you feel about taking on this job at this stage in your life?") are not legal under the Age Discrimination laws, and should steer away from any mention of age. We personally no longer provide dates of birth on CVs, to ensure that this is not a part of any shortlisting process. Obviously, looking at a person's CV can still tell you about their age - dates of education, for example, or the length in roles, indicate how long someone has been out of school and working. We may never be able to completely mitigate the risk of ageism being used in the recruitment process, but we can do our best. After all, the best person for the job is the best person for the job no matter what their age, and recruitment is all about finding that person, not discriminating against them.

I'd like to think that ageism is dwindling, and that we have more awareness of it thanks to Miriam O'Reilly and others like her who have fought for the right to be recognised as professionals regardless of their (advancing) age. Just in case, though, I'm saving up for my botox. And, p.s., I'm quite happy to retire at 35, let alone 65...