3 ms·

I believe the article clarifies this - the "no bonuses" rule didn't exist when Booking.com claimed this aid. The rule existed for the second tranche of aid, wh

I believe the article clarifies this - the "no bonuses" rule didn't exist when Booking.com claimed this aid. The rule existed for the second tranche of aid, which Booking didn't claim.

jacquesm 5y ago
The fact that that even needed to be specified was pretty bad, the money was clearly earmarked for companies to spend on their regular employees to avoid lay-offs. Booking paying it out to their execs was absolutely mis-appropriation in every sense of the word, and only absolutely massive backlash here and significant talk of boycotts, including on national TV, is what turned them around on this.
- teachingassist 5y ago
  No doubt; Nonetheless, this is business as usual. Booking.com are masters of tax avoidance and I'd guess all of their usual bonuses are essentially covered by Dutch state aid in the form of reduced taxes.
NicoJuicy 5y ago
They were misleading the government. > Het niet uitkeren van bonussen was overigens door het ministerie van Financiën niet als harde eis vastgelegd in de voorwaarden voor de NOW-regeling waar Booking gebruik van maakte. Hoekstra had simpelweg de Kamer laten weten dat het “niet de tijd voor het toekennen en uitkeren van bonussen” is. Wel een harde eis was dat ontvangers van de staatssteun ten minste drie maanden lang niemand mochten ontslaan. Booking hield zich hier exact drie maanden aan, direct erop volgde een reorganisatie waarbij bijna 26.000 mensen hun baan verloren. Dit betrof ook zo’n duizend mensen op het kantoor in Amsterdam, de meesten van hen maakten gebruik van een vrijwillige vertrekregeling.
- smueller1234 5y ago
  Correction: I understand it to be a quarter of staff (the total staff being 26000). So the article is pretty grossly wrong in an important and obvious detail. Not sure how much I'd trust it on the more nuanced but. (Former booking employee here, but not for several years)
  - NicoJuicy 5y ago
    Correct. But it was 5000 in Amsterdam and 26k worldwide.

I believe the article clarifies this - the "no bonuses" rule didn't exist when Booking.com claimed this aid. The rule existed for the second tranche of aid, which Booking didn't claim.

jacquesm 5y ago

The fact that that even needed to be specified was pretty bad, the money was clearly earmarked for companies to spend on their regular employees to avoid lay-offs. Booking paying it out to their execs was absolutely mis-appropriation in every sense of the word, and only absolutely massive backlash here and significant talk of boycotts, including on national TV, is what turned them around on this.

teachingassist 5y ago
No doubt; Nonetheless, this is business as usual. Booking.com are masters of tax avoidance and I'd guess all of their usual bonuses are essentially covered by Dutch state aid in the form of reduced taxes.

NicoJuicy 5y ago

They were misleading the government. > Het niet uitkeren van bonussen was overigens door het ministerie van Financiën niet als harde eis vastgelegd in de voorwaarden voor de NOW-regeling waar Booking gebruik van maakte. Hoekstra had simpelweg de Kamer laten weten dat het “niet de tijd voor het toekennen en uitkeren van bonussen” is. Wel een harde eis was dat ontvangers van de staatssteun ten minste drie maanden lang niemand mochten ontslaan. Booking hield zich hier exact drie maanden aan, direct erop volgde een reorganisatie waarbij bijna 26.000 mensen hun baan verloren. Dit betrof ook zo’n duizend mensen op het kantoor in Amsterdam, de meesten van hen maakten gebruik van een vrijwillige vertrekregeling.

smueller1234 5y ago
Correction: I understand it to be a quarter of staff (the total staff being 26000). So the article is pretty grossly wrong in an important and obvious detail. Not sure how much I'd trust it on the more nuanced but. (Former booking employee here, but not for several years)
- NicoJuicy 5y ago
  Correct. But it was 5000 in Amsterdam and 26k worldwide.