481 Barclays Employees Were Paid Over 1 Million Pounds In 2013, Despite Losses, Mass Layoffs

Zero Hedge ^ | 03/05/2014 | Tyler Durden

[SeekAndFind]

It was less than a month ago when Barclays announced it would fire 12,000 workers after posting abysmal earnings with Q4 banking income crashing 37% and overall income sliding 9%. So, one would think, its employees would be punished with lower pay - those that are lucky enough to keep their jobs of course. One would be wrong. Reuters just reported that 481 of Barclays employees were paid 1 million pounds ($1.7 million) or more last year, 53 more than in the year before, and most of them were based in the United States.

The headscratcher continues:

Barclays said 57 percent of those paid at least 1 million pounds were based in the United States and 27 percent were based in Britain.

 

The bank said in its annual report that Chief Executive Antony Jenkins could be paid up to 7.2 million pounds this year, down 1.4 million from his maximum pay under his previous pay structure, although more is now guaranteed.

 

Barclays provoked anger last month when the bank said it paid 2.4 billion pounds in bonuses last year, up 10 percent on the year despite profits tumbling by a third.

Surely, this latest announcement will not provoke much happiness either. More improtantly, news like this is why, despite generating massive losses, Barclays employees are generally richer than you, if not quite richer than Jamie Dimon. Because in the New Normal, all one needs to make a million is to keep losing money. Barcalys' immutable rationale - fear of losing the traders to a better-paying competitor. Like who - is the Fed hiring again?

[minnesota_bound]

WOW!
How do I get a job working there?
Would being morally corrupt help?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

One more time.

These guys don't collect a weekly paycheck. They work all year for their end-of-year "bonus." The "bonus" is based on their performance. If they perform big, they get paid big.

[SeekAndFind]

The company losing money means they perform big? Very nice outfit they got there...

[AZLiberty]

It's good to be the king banker.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

They were contributing profit. Unfortunately, others were contributing losses, and they won.

So you believe that the contracts these people were working under should be ignored because you hate people who earn more than you?

[SeekAndFind]

RE: So you believe that the contracts these people were working under should be ignored because you hate people who earn more than you?

I don’t hate people for earning more than me — PROVIDED THEY DESERVE THEIR PAY.

I worked in Wall Street for over 15 years ( left in 4 years ago to work in another industry ). Believe me, MANY people got bonuses DESPITE their contributing nothing to the bottom line or even causing the company to lose money.

Let me count them — Lehman Brothers, Bear Sterns, Merrill Lynch, Washington Mutual, just to name a few ....

[E. Pluribus Unum]

PROVIDED THEY DESERVE THEIR PAY.

So you're the one who gets to judge?

Those people made their contracted goals. The ones who didn't were paid nothing for the year.

Are you willing to forego your pay for an entire year, and get paid based on your performance at the end of that year?

And get paid nothing if you fail?

[Buckeye McFrog]

Yessir. Wave of anti-banker populism is going to wash over our body politic anytime now.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: So you’re the one who gets to judge?

Those people made their contracted goals. The ones who didn’t were paid nothing for the year.

_________________

Let’s put it this way, sometimes, an outsider’s judgment based on the company’s performance is MORE CORRECT than the insiders who give the bonuses.

The Lehman folks had huge bonuses MONTHS before the company collapsed. So did Bear Sterns.

Yeah, they made their “goals” alright. Selling useless paper and derivatives to others.

And nope they were not paid nothing. Salaries were still 6 figures. ( not including the bonuses ).

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Let’s put it this way, sometimes, an outsider’s judgment based on the company’s performance is MORE CORRECT than the insiders who give the bonuses.

You and Ubama are certainly on the same page.

He decided to ignore established bankruptcy law and steal the equity of GM's secured creditors and hand it over to the unions.

You're decision to ignore the contracts of the workers and pay them what you think they deserve fits that mold exactly.

If you had told those contractors at the beginning of their service what you planned on doing they would have left and the bank would have had an even greater loss. I guess you would let them work the whole year before you told them what you planned on doing, right?

[SeekAndFind]

RE: You and Ubama are certainly on the same page.

Why? Obama wants government involved. I don’t.

I simply make an observation based on the people I know and HISTORY and make my conclusions.

My conclusion is simply this ( and please don’t add any more to what I said because I never said I wanted to supplant bankruptcy laws ).

SOMETIMES (note the word ) — the salaries and bonuses a person earns IS NOT DESERVED because they get paid EVEN when the company is LOSING money. I already cited the managers and directors of the many companies I have worked with in Wall Street who, even as they were lavishly paid, were slowly running their companies to the ground.

It happens in government, and ALSO in private companies. Especially in Wall Street.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

You want to void a legal contract because you don't like it.

That's what Obama does.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: You want to void a legal contract because you don’t like it.

I challenge you to show me where I said I want to void a legal contract...

Saying that the payment is UNDESERVED 9 an observation ), does not mean I want government involved ( I said that before, you seem to be ignoring what I said ).

Let’s say a player is promised baseball 20 Million dollars
by the Yankees and turned out to be a dud and the Yankees keep losing....

If I conclude that the player DOES NOT DESERVE his salary, why would you then say that I want government to void the pay that he was promised?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I hadn't realized that you were speaking as the official criticizer of the world.

I apologize.

[SeekAndFind]

Just remember this -— MAKING AN OBSERVATION DOES NOT NECESSARILY EQUATE TO WANTING GOVERNMENT INVOLVED.

Those higher ups who ran their companies to the ground DID NOT DESERVE their salary or bonuses.

Similarly, I’m not sure that this current batch at Barclay’s deserve theirs.

This bank has been caught and fined manipulating LIBOR rates. How many of these people who got their bonuses are involved and not only don’t deserve their bonuses, but deserve to be fired?

And how many of those who were let go did not deserve to be let go?

Hard to tell. But I do know based on my experience that many of those who should have been fired were not only retained, but paid handsomely and many of those who were let go, were let go because of the dishonesty and incompetence of their higher ups.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

As I said, I apologize. I didn’t realize that you had such an inflated sense of importance that you think your opinion is a big deal.

[Hot Tabasco]

You're decision to ignore the contracts of the workers and pay them what you think they deserve fits that mold exactly

Well then, you obviously support the UAW......

[E. Pluribus Unum]

How so?

[SeekAndFind]

RE: As I said, I apologize. I didn’t realize that you had such an inflated sense of importance that you think your opinion is a big deal.

SOME APOLOGY... NOT ACCEPTED.