Salaries | UK bank bosses paid 120 times more than average employee

UK bank bosses paid 120 times more than average employee

Bosses at Britain’s biggest banks are paid on average 120 times more than the median pay of their U.K. employees according to bank documents - Reuters Reports.

Lloyds Banking Group was revealed to have the widest pay difference, with Chief Executive Antonio Horta-Osorio on 169 times as much as the median paid employee on £37,058, the company’s annual report showed last Wednesday.

Banking giant HSBC had the next largest pay disparity, with new chief executive John Flint receiving £4.6million last year - 118 times as much as its median paid employee in Britain.

“HSBC’s pay strategy is designed to appropriately reflect the role, responsibility and skills of the individual and to also be competitive in order to ensure we are able to attract and retain individuals with the appropriate skills for each role,” a spokeswoman for the bank told Reuters.

Lloyds declined to comment.

These pay ratio reports come as the City of London Corporation, which manages London’s financial district, on Monday launched a campaign against low pay at financial firms. The body is urging companies to pay their staff at least the London Living Wage of £10.55 per hour.

Companies with more than 250 employees will soon be required to report their Chief Executive's pay as a multiple of the 75th, the median and 25th percentile of the pay distribution of their UK employees. In layman's terms, this means how much they earn compared to the thresholds for the top quarter, top half and bottom quarter of their staff.

From our magazine

Previously, Director of the High Pay Centre Luke Hildyard, told Executive Grapevine that this is likely to have an impact on the way businesses attract, retain and reward staff.

“If workers have more information about pay throughout their organisation and perceive that they are being undervalued or treated unfairly then this may have an impact on staff turnover or absenteeism,” he explained. “Pay ratios could also provide evidence in support of better pay for lower-paid workers."

"For example, if those in the bottom quarter can see how their pay compares to those in the top quarter, they might be able to demand a specific reduction in the ratio."

“It will be harder to argue that pay increases for low or middle earners are unaffordable when they (or campaigners or trade unions) can point to how much more they are lavishing on those at the top.”

You might also like

Comments (2)

  • john
    Tue, 26 Feb 2019 1:09pm GMT
    This is such a great area for all folks who espouse value of talent and people analytics to explore. what is relationship between employee turnover, low engagement and 1. gender pay gap 2. C Suite front line pay multiples divide?
  • Sir
    Tue, 26 Feb 2019 12:38pm GMT
    This is all very well, but doesn't the key question have to be "what ratio is right ?" Here we are, all wringing our hands at 169:1 or 113:1, but is 100:1 ok ? - or 75:1 ? or 6:1 ?
    It's like that moment on QI when it suddenly says "nobody knows". Until we have some of notion as to what is appropriate, in what circumstances, then this kind of debate isn't really going very far.

You are currently previewing this article.

This is the last preview available to you for the next 30 days.

To access more news, features, columns and opinions every day, create a free myGrapevine account.