a) the lavish Wimbledon event is an excellent thing and RBS can only benefit and make money in return from that (to say that this is far from obvious is an understatement) because, like someone said, they’ve done they’re maths and they’re infallible, just like the banks’ conduct in the last few years;

or:

b) the decision was proper crap, a sign of the opulent detached world certain executive inhabits, but it’s too late to reverse it.

Either one, or the other.

Whether the employee who signed the contract for an event still works at RBS is unimportant. The people who “organised the event” were the senior managers who agreed to pay for it or delegated responsibility, not the middle managers.

Some events do get cancelled, I agree, but other contracts are rock solid. RBS still sponsor the Williams F1 team (£10,000,000+ for 2009, I believe) and both parties have acknowledged that payment was unavoidable. My understanding is that the deal will end this year. Whether a sponsorship is cancelled or not will always depend on get out clauses, so my presumption is that when companies stump up today for deals agreed years ago, it is because they can’t get out cheaply.

Your final question is unnecessarily offensive.

@41
Of course, they also have a *right* to shit-stir about how BA spends its marketing budget, but that’s not their job.

It really isn’t complicated.
Let’s simplify it. Imagine your boss says that the company is fighting for survival at the moment. Not tight. Not in trouble. “Fighting for survival”. To the point that he’s asking you to work a month unpaid. Two minutes later, he gives himself a 6% payrise and five minutes later you find he’s treating 20 of his mates with champagne and caviar with the company’s money.

I personally believe a worker has the right to at least question what the f**k his boos is playing at. The day a worker is no longer allowed to even say that is going to be a very dark day.

Uh huh. Then perhaps the union members will judge that one? It may be that members working for BA hold a different view to yours as to whether or not their union should be commenting on this.

I’m not sure that anybody’s comments on the issue, including all of those here and on other blogs, constitute anybody’s job.

2) …and good luck to the unions in defending their workers and ensuring BA keeps in line with the law if and when it implements compulsory redundancies. That’s their job. Of course, they also have a *right* to shit-stir about how BA spends its marketing budget, but that’s not their job.

3) I’m not ‘to the right’ of the Daily Mail, I’m less knee-jerk populist (and less puritan about piss-ups – champagne and caviar are *nice*). I believe in defending workers’ rights, and I’m entirely sure I’m more pro-right-to-strike than the DM, but I don’t think there’s any reason why that should preclude companies sponsoring piss-ups if they think it’ll be a profitable business move.

Even if you agree that staff should be dumped on at every opportunity, as a shareholder of RBS (which we all are in effect) you have to question what value events like this add to the bottom line. If they don’t increase the share price then they shouldn’t be done.

You sure?

And you tell me I’m “shifting the goal posts”? From you? Eye, speck and plank?

Also, john b, don’t be a patronising one. I can delete gratuituous insults from my blog or moderate comments as much as I like in order to avoid cheapening the “debate”. Cos I’m sure if I started calling you a ‘wanker’ here on LC my post would be moderated in no time at all. And rightly so.

—
having read up on redundancy rules for various reasons recently, ‘refused to work for free’ isn’t a valid criterion.
There are ways. Stop living in fantasy world and believing in Pangloss. There are abuses out there. Some can be very subtle. All the Unions are doing is simply keeping a firm eye on it given the circumstances
—
@31 Lee Griffin
…that the management should be caving and redistributing money and cuts in favour of the employees and against the upper management.
No-one said that either. Don’t do a strawman as usual.
Do you realise that on this you and John “calling you a twat” B are on the right of the Daily Mail?

All some people, and the unions, are saying is: is it really necessary to go ahead with the “lavish corporate parties” mentioned in the OP at this specific moment in time?
No-one is arguing for a Bolschevik revolution or kill all bosses or anything similar. OK? Keep things within perspective. It wouldn’t be the first time opulence is flashed in front of workers in such vulgar, inconsiderate, inopportune way

But can you legally be sacked for going on strike?

@18, Walsh’s pay rise was epically stupid PR. However, worth noting he also chose at the same time not to take the gbp700,000 bonus that he was contractually entitled to: while obviously it’s the difference between rich and mega-rich, suggesting that he’s not sharing the pain is bizarre.

@24, having read up on redundancy rules for various reasons recently, ‘refused to work for free’ isn’t a valid criterion.

What was unethical was Goodwin’s amount being awarded at the time thousands were being made redundant because of alleged lack of funds.

It’s also worth mentioning that, in the case of people like Goodwin, they don;t contribute to pensions like us common mortals who pay for it bit by bit over the years. For them the sum is given like a massive ‘award’.

More importantly, you know far too well, Lee, that the point wasn’t so much Goodwin’s pension. It was his pension coupled with his humongous “golden handshake” when he left after leaving the company in tatters.