I was just about to send you this story about the world of corporate hospitality.

It’s a scandal that takes place every single day, with staggering amounts of money routinely thrown at bosses’ birthday parties, gala dinners or ‘motivational weekends’ at opulent exotic locations for top management – where celebrities are hired for a 20-minute-speech to the tune of thousands of pounds

In other news:

* people with homes mere yards from the River Thames still manage to get thirsty;

* man outraged at having to pay bus fare when “it was going there anyway”;

* dairy farmers squander water by not bathing in milk;

* Left continues to fail to understand why every last penny of a companies assets can’t be given directly and immediately to its employees.

“It’s a scandal that takes place every single day, with staggering amounts of money routinely thrown at bosses’ birthday parties, gala dinners or ‘motivational weekends’ at opulent exotic locations for top management – where celebrities are hired for a 20-minute-speech to the tune of thousands of pounds”

And how much money does it make them in return, indirectly, allowing them to continue to operate at the level they wish to, keeping people in employment?

And how much money does it make them in return, indirectly, allowing them to continue to operate at the level they wish to, keeping people in employment?

Sorry, mate. Read that 7 times to myself. I may have an idea, but I’m still not sure what you mean.

Meanwhile take a look at this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/gate-gourmet-boss-spent-10m-on-his-birthday-party-502687.html

And what about the loss of productivity and morale when employees realise that their highly paid bosses are willing to spend money on themselves and their friends rather than them – and yet ask them to take a paycut?

Or to ask them to work for free?

Googling for “taste of London” I came up with this:

http://tastefestivals.com/london/

It is not traditionally regarded as foolish or criminal for a company in trouble to spend some money advertising. And no one has provided any reason to belive that BA is doing anything else.

Note, by the way, that BAs chief executive and chief financial officer are also working for free in July. I do not know if any Unite national officers for civil air transport are doing so.

Lee Griffin @3
I get it now. Manly thanks to Sunny’s reply.

Not much money in return at all.
I mean, the BA one really takes the piss. These people are saying the company is at serious risk of going down and wasting money on Taste of London week is hardly gonna get the world population to re-populate their aircrafts is it?

The whole exercise is a feats of greedy corporate back-patting. ‘Course there will always be our ever-optimistic friend or two arguing the toss to defend the indefensible. But when you preach austerity, then at least be consistent with it.

#7ad
Note, by the way, that BAs chief executive and chief financial officer are also working for free in July.

Oh yes. They are forgoing their monthly £61,000. Willie Walsh, the CEO pocketed £1 million in extra payments at the end of 2008. My guess is he may be able to manage 30 days.

Here’s the deal, ad:
Pay me £61,000 one month and I’ll work the remaining 11 months for free.

Note, by the way, that BAs chief executive and chief financial officer are also working for free in July.

No doubt the financial pain he’ll feel will be terrible.

I’m not saying this particular case is all correct, I don’t know the ins and outs, I just really dislike the notion that a company can’t spend money on a)advertising, b)hospitality/networking that is intended to lead towards business and c) more contentiously perhaps, keeping management in the benefits situation they would expect.

Obviously you do a) to make money by spending money, similarly with b). From what I can tell this taste of London thing is precisely that, and if the business bods have ascertained that this sponsorship could bring them back £X in returns then it’s really not the employee’s place to get uppity about it.

And this comes perhaps to c), why does an employee have to be ok with what their management is doing? I understand your point that if they’re having to take pay cuts there has to be an expectation of savings across the board, but that assumes that this isn’t a strategy for increasing business in the first place.

It’s all well and good asking employees what they think, but everything in relative terms is fairness. Have the lower employees lost their benefits of working, if not then why should the upper management?

As I say, I don’t know the full ins and outs, but it’s just not on that some people that are working in a completely different level of the employee market can judge those on a different level by their own criteria, ignoring any and all deeper business strategy.

Did anyone actually visit the link provided by ad @7?

Taste of London is primarily sponsored by Channel 4, a broadcasting organisation that is broke. BA are the second named sponsor, and this link provides the rest:
http://tastefestivals.com/london/partners.html

Sponsors of the event signed up years ago. Whether or not their banner is associated with the event, they are going to pay anyway. Unless they go bust before the invoice arrives.

Take a look at some of the other sponsors: Peugeot (3,000 jobs worldwide lost in 2008, 11,000 under threat) or Laurent-Perrier (profits down by 45%). They wouldn’t be spending the money if there was any way to get out of the contract.

Playing political games by picking on sponsoring companies performs no useful benefit to workers who may be sacked or laid off. There are legitimate arguments about how companies should spend their promotions budget, but this post doesn’t contribute to them.

The post also mentions an RBS jolly at Wimbledon — but that jolly was organised by the people who no longer run the company. Now that we are all shareholders, we should ask RBS about its *future* plans. And we should ask how many “real” RBS employees will be attending this year’s £600 per head Wimbledon jolly.

My problem with this post is that it displays outrage at corporate entertainment spending when employees are being told to wear hair shirts The real problem is that corporate entertainment is a disguise for a company jolly (sort it by the Inland Revenue) or low level corruption.

@12
but that jolly was organised by the people who no longer run the company
Not true. To my knowledge people in charge of RBS’s marketing and corporate vents departments are all there. Events get cancelled, you know? Were you born yesterday?

@11
But for god’s sake Lee, hello…?, have you ever heard of companies dropping enormous clangers with the mismanagement of corporate money?

You really act as if whatever consultants and marketing ‘buffs’ advise them with was the bloody gospel. As if miscalculating a decision and squandering funds on ill-advised moves was a once-in-a-while accident!

When councils took millions to the Icelandic banks did you go all “the business bods have ascertained that this particular investment could bring them back £X in returns then it’s really not the employee’s place to get uppity about it”?

@Claude in #12

..then it’s really not the employee’s place to get uppity about it?

You’ve (completely accidentally) hit the nail on the head. Employees have many (sometimes too many) rights. One right they do not have is to control the function of other parts of the business that employs them.

If the managers/owners of a business decide to advertise only in the Daily Mirror, or sell the product in bright purple plastic bags, or change the company logo into some cartoon genitals, it is precisely fuck all to do with the staff. They are paid a salary to carry out a defined role.

In the case of BA, stewardesses don’t tell the pilots how to land the plane, pilots don’t tell the stewardesses how to pour the drinks, and neither of them tell the marketing division how to engage with corporate clients or build a corporate image.

Couldn’t be simpler…

Also @Claude in #1

Do you want the other participants in this thread to know that – after shamelessly link-whoring your own blog in comment #1 – you’re censoring the discussion over there by deleting comments?

When I made similar comment there, some idiot attacked me (“squalid”, “you were paid to type that”), but my response was deleted by you for “petty name calling”. Want to debate that here?

Constantly Angry:
In the case of BA, stewardesses don’t tell the pilots how to land the plane, pilots don’t tell the stewardesses how to pour the drinks, and neither of them tell the marketing division how to engage with corporate clients or build a corporate image.

So let’s not criticise the BBC editorial line ever, shall we? That’s not our job! Or a court judgement. That’s the judge’s decision and his alone. You keep your head down and do your job and mop the floor.

Welcome to democracy according to a Tory! It sounds wonderful. In the meantime, people can spot what you’re doing, i.e. the well-oiled technique of changing the topic and shifting focus towards something else.

One right they do not have is to control the function of other parts of the business that employs them.
Control? No. Right to criticise and debate? Yes. It really is that simple.

What can you possibly debate with someone like this.? For the record, you go to somebody’s blog with all guns blazing, calling people “twat”….and what do you expect? A thank you letter and a box of chocolate?

I hope they ask you to work for free or else the sack.

a) nobody’s been asked to “work for free or else the sack” at BA.

b) Yes, consultants, marketers and CEOs all sometimes make mistakes – but they more often don’t, which is why we have iPods and Tesco’s and live in heated houses, rather than wearing sacks, eating leaves and living in caves. That suggests, absent other evidence, that sponsoring Taste is either expected to generate ROI for BA, or would’ve been expected to generate ROI pre-crisis and now can’t be got out of. Which makes the whole discussion a complete waste of time.

(and if you don’t want strangers to call you a twat on your blog, you could perhaps consider not acting like one?)

16. totally gratuituos that was, john b. Manners don’t cost much.

There are points in reply to your points a) and b) but if you decide to lower the whole thing like you just did then it all becomes even more futile than it would be anyway.

Let’s all call each other names and we’ve done our ‘liberal’ deed for the day, eh?

For the record, I just found out Willie Walsh CEO awarded himself a 6% pay rise a mere few days before he asked staff to work for free.

Companies and management may be free to do what they wish but basic practices of industrial relations (as well as common sense) would suggest such decisions are not beneficial to negotiating terms and conditions. Especially in difficult times.

But well…let’s not criticise big corporations. I am awfully sorry. Otherwise you get the net vigilantes telling you that i should say three Hail Marys for having Tescos and iPods.

So let’s not criticise the BBC editorial line ever, shall we? That’s not our job! Or a court judgement. That’s the judge’s decision and his alone. You keep your head down and do your job and mop the floor.

What? What? You really are all over the shop. Either you’ve been drinking, or you can’t argue effectively. Perhaps both. There’s no link, no link at all, between what I said and what you just said. This comment doesn’t connect to mine, or to the original argument, or to anything at all, really.

And the tired “You’re a Tory” insult? Meh. I’m not.

If only all slaves were as obsequious as Constantly Furious we’d still have an Empire.

“Slave”? To whom?

“Obsequious”? To whom? Do you even understand the meaning of the word?

Fuck me, it’s now 2009, for Christ’s sake.

Are we still stuck with the idea that anyone who has the temerity to think that “t’workers” shouldn’t be handed control of every business in the land is an Evil Tory?

Are we?

Or is this just an illustration of ‘the best we can do’ in the espousal of Left wing policy? “Don’t worry about an argument – just rubbish the opposition”

Do you prefer lickspittle?

Obviously you do a) to make money by spending money, similarly with b). From what I can tell this taste of London thing is precisely that, and if the business bods have ascertained that this sponsorship could bring them back £X in returns then it’s really not the employee’s place to get uppity about it.

And some people really, really do believe that!

Where are the figures? A company spends 3 million on splashing out so bosses can have a good work over by a bunch of other bosses and that brings in how much?

Utter bollox – and brainwashed drivel, too.

@19
I did tell you it’s impossible to debate with you. There’s no point.

A simple reminder of the fact. British Airways are saying they’re battling for “survival”. The battle is so tight that they’re asking workers to work up to a month without pay. The week before, the CEO awarded himself a 6% pay rise. 6 months before he’d taken his end-of-year-additional payment of £1m. Now they’re offering free luxury food at Taste of London week. You raise an eyebrow? Then according to the debater called COsntantly Furious you’re a twat. You dare to answer back? John B will call you a double twat.

At Royal Bank of Scotland, after thousands have been losing their job in the last 9 months, we all heard of Sir Fred Goodwin obscene £2.7m tax free lump sum and £700,000 a month pension. Then you hear their Wimbledon party worth another 300,000. John B and Constantly Furious think that whoever asks questions about the opportunity of such conduct at this precise moment should be verbally attacked.

More. Here’s what Constantly Furious said:
“If the managers/owners of a business decide to advertise only in the Daily Mirror, or sell the product in bright purple plastic bags, or change the company logo into some cartoon genitals, it is precisely fuck all to do with the staff. They are paid a salary to carry out a defined role”. and “…and neither of them tell the marketing division how to engage with corporate clients or build a corporate image.”

OK. So, in your view, when RBS decided to award Sir Fred Goodwin the (in)famous superpension that was only a matter between him and the salary department, right?

All those obese bonuses that got a knicker or two in a twist even at the Daily Mail’s. I guess workers at your average bank and the unions should keep their mouth shut cos “they’ve got too many rights already?

What in the name of god are you talking about?

John B cannot even see (or didn’t read) the Unions’ legitimate concerns that, when it comes to ‘restructuring’ at BA, those workers who volunteered to work unpaid may just, only just, be given preference over those who didn’t. You may know about macroeconomics mate, but industrial relations isn’t your forte.

No, us slaves (“twats”) should keep your mouth nice and shut and appreciate that we got Tesco. I mean????!!!!…

“You really act as if whatever consultants and marketing ‘buffs’ advise them with was the bloody gospel. As if miscalculating a decision and squandering funds on ill-advised moves was a once-in-a-while accident!”

No Claude, I accept that this can happen, that mistakes do happen. I’m fairly sure I’ve stated in each of my comments that it can be different for individual cases…even this one. It seems to be you that wishes to assume that each instance is this act of economic blunder is happening first and foremost though.

“OK. So, in your view, when RBS decided to award Sir Fred Goodwin the (in)famous superpension that was only a matter between him and the salary department, right?”

Yes, and in all fairness it was only a superpension by the standards of us lowly desk jobbers. The treatment of Goodwin with regards to his pension is one of the most seriously undermining actions for the rights of any employee nationally. If “we” can force a persons salary to be lessened after the financials have all made their deals, including the person themselves paying in a significant quantity of that pension, then should we be surprised down the line if our employers start using that tact of “we can’t afford it, it’s unethical” and cut our much lower and more vital pensions?

should we be surprised down the line if our employers start using that tact of “we can’t afford it, it’s unethical” and cut our much lower and more vital pensions

Then welcome to the world of corporations, Lee. A world where this has been happening every week for a long time. Where they tell you exactly that, “we can’t afford it” about your salary, your time off, your pension, your paid overtime. Far too often. A world that I’d have thought you’d be a tiny more critical of.

The point, which you’ve clearly missed, Claude…is that our pensions by the time we retire are paid for. Lowering them at that point is completely unethical, and just because it’s a boss taking a “superpension” doesn’t make it any more righteous when that level is cut.

I disagree, Lee.
The point is exactly that some companies have a habit of bewailing their lot unless it’s for top management or for, in the original instance of this debate, corporate events for top management.

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.

This might be as much of a PR gaffe as PR benefit, but john b (@16) is of course correct.

I see that the filthy-rich corporate-is-good hands-off-my-bonus is back en vogue. The faux-outrage didn’t last very long, did it?

No-one is saying that Claude, just like no-one should be falling in to the simplistic argument that because the lowest workers in a company are unable to pay attention to relative scales of actions, and indeed to the structure of organisations, that the management should be caving and redistributing money and cuts in favour of the employees and against the upper management.

@16, I didn’t call you a twat for raising concerns about BA, I called you a twat for deleting someone’s response on your blog to a personal insult directed at them, and your fingers-in-ears, goalpost-shifting debating style. But it wasn’t necessary, you’re right.

@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.

No, it wouldn’t.

But can you legally be sacked for going on strike?

No. Unless you go on strike without bothering to have a ballot first, in which case it’s legally the same as if you’d just not bothered turning up for work.

What legislation are you thinking of particularly?

Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and the Employment Acts 2002 and 2008. This is a useful summary of UK law on strikes (unusually, the rules are the same in England and Scotland).

Thanks. (The 2002 Act is after period of trades union activism and Wikipedia, unusually for matters of law, is unhelpful on the subject.) I confess though that I don’t find the pdf 100% helpful – or at least (and my reading may be at fault here) I cannot see anything that explicitly says that employees may not be sacked for taking part in a lawful, even “protected” strike although the passage on page three (beginning “these rules have the result”) seems to hint at this. The absence of a legal right to strike seems to me to be possibly pertinent here.

@32 John B
So Walsh is a hero, basically, “sharing the pain”!.
Are you aware that you’re equating someone on 12k a year forgoing a month’s pay with a millionaire who makes 61K a month and pocketed 1m 6 months before? You’re equating the two and calling it “sharing the pain”! Have you got wool over your eyes or what?

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

Cos I’m sure if I started calling you a ‘wanker’ here on LC my post would be moderated in no time at all.

You sure?

“Left continues to fail to understand why every last penny of a companies assets can’t be given directly and immediately to its employees.”

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.

@38:
1) I’m aware that Walsh’s salary-waiving gesture is pretty trivial; forgoing three quarters of a million quid is not.

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.

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

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

@40, the idea is that for the money, your sales people get to spend several hours in front of a client impressing them with how great your company is, compared to the 15 minutes you might get while pitching at them in office time. There are industries where this works very well and clearly generates value (professional services is an obvious one). I don’t know whether RBS’s specific spending here falls into that value-generating category, but I wouldn’t automatically dismiss it as a waste.

@42, well, no, but unlike the rest of us, Unite have put out a press release on the subject, presumably created by a press officer in work time who’s paid for out of union subs.

@ 40. I’m aware of the theory, but is it true in reality ? Tthere’s very little evidence that “marketing” actually works to anything like the extent that marketing companies/PRs etc would have you beleive. There are lots of FTSE 100s who spend next to nothing on corporate jollies, and there are quite a lot of now defunct companies who spent a fortune on it.

sorry that should be @ 43

<i<presumably created by a press officer in work time who’s paid for out of union subs.

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.

@44, @47
I’m a T&G Unite member and I find that press release was spot-on. You’ll find most unionised members at BA are absolutely peed off and with morale down the drain.

@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.

Claude @13: “Not true. To my knowledge people in charge of RBS’s marketing and corporate vents departments are all there. Events get cancelled, you know? Were you born yesterday?”

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.

Well, guys. You have to make up your mind. Either:

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.