BoI staff to receive 3.5% pay rise after Gov bailout.

Martyr

With BoI receiving 7 billion euro of tax payers money, is it appropriate that staff receive a 3.5% pay rise?

HashSlinging

No it is not, Obama went ballistic when the banks over there started handing themselves bonus payments, there has to be something done about this. The irish public needs to wake up to what is going on here.

Its only a matter of time before AIB follow suit, this cannot be accepted, we are getting screwed like never before.

Is there a protest being organised or are people just going to take this..

brayblue24

Martyr wrote: »

With BoI receiving 7 billion euro of tax payers money, is it appropriate that staff receive a 3.5% pay rise?

There are no grounds for this. For once, the Greens are right. This is clearly provocative.

Jebus, they have just taken 8% of the weekely income from my house. What a country....

annon123

Oh my god. I'm furious reading this. Obviously i realise i don't know enough about it as yet to make a proper informed comment but just reacting on what i have read i'm not happy. How can they justify a pay rise using government money that's meant to bail them out when the money used is being taken from other peoples pay packets in forms of levys. Am i not mistaken in believing that they will be using the capital from the public funds pensions to fund the bail out? It's time people wake up and smell the bacon and start demanding that the banks take responsibility for their part in our current economic climate! Sry for the rant. Just getting things off my chest. Perhaps i've been misinformed and there is a perfectly plausible reason as to why they are getting a pay rise. For the moment i remain sceptical!

silverharp

RBS is doing the same but they are only paying out half the bonuses of last year, thats nice of them. The argument will be in some cases that the bonuses are contractual however

from the film network - classic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dib2-HBsF08

bonkey

Martyr wrote: »

With BoI receiving 7 billion euro of tax payers money, is it appropriate that staff receive a 3.5% pay rise?

What was the basis on which the 3.5% was agreed on? Was it because the staff were already underpaid and had a valid claim to a rise?

I know it angers people, but the reality is that the vast, vast majority of bank employees had absolutely nothing to do with bringing about the need for a bailout. They're regular people, working regular jobs.

According the link offered, its for 6,000 branch workers. Lets go mad, and assume they have an average salary of 100k each. That makes 600 million Euros. 3.5% of that is 21 million Euros. Branch workers don't get paid anywhere near 100k on average, but even if they did we're talking about chump change here, when compared to the millions on bonuses paid out to small numbers of people, or to the overall costs racked up by bad investment strategy. So from the bank's perspective, cutting (or freezing) normal staff costs isn't going to make a huge difference to the issue. If they can't become profitable again without doing this, then not doing this wouldn't save them either.

So then we get to the real question...if this doesn't make a huge difference...why do it? Well...the question there boils back to why it was agreed on in the first place. Were the workers already underpaid? Have the workers agreed to other conditions which were part of the same parcel, which the bank will have to renegotiate if they don't hold to their side? What will be the cost of that?

It may be that the payrise is unjustified...that branch workers are well paid and there is no good reason for them to get their payrise. It may also be that they're not all that well paid, that they've already agreed to and implemented other conditions which went along with the payrise negotiation, and/or that the cost of not implementing it would be higher than the cost of implementing it.

A knee-jerk reaction of "how dare they", though, strikes me as somewhat missing the point.

HashSlinging wrote:

Obama went ballistic when the banks over there started handing themselves bonus payments

With respect, there's a difference between a bonus paid to those who created and/or oversaw this mess and a small payrise for the "rank and file" workers who had little or nothing to do with the mess in the first place.

Saruman

What the hell? The banks caused the recession and now they pat themselves on the bank?

What can we do about this? I have been made part time so almost 50% cut in salary and many more have lost their jobs around the country. This makes me sick.

If i could sell my house now, i would move the US. Their economy sucks but being such a vast economy they will be more stable than ours. Oh and moving to the US is no problem as my wife is American.
I do not want to move there as the working life over there is horrible compared to Europe but if i have to i will.

silverharp

bonkey wrote: »

With respect, there's a difference between a bonus paid to those who created and/or oversaw this mess and a small payrise for the "rank and file" workers who had little or nothing to do with the mess in the first place.

That not the point though, there is no economic , moral or other law that says that people get what they deserve. Running a business is a simple proposition ,make a profit or go bust. To the extent that the Irish taxpayer is now subsidising these operations they should thank their lucky stars that they still have a job given that as a country we are completely overbanked for the next decade at least.

AMIIAM

The reality is, it is our money the "government"?? is mishandling. TAXPAYERS money. Good money thrown after bad.

dhorgan3

HashSlinging wrote: »

...this cannot be accepted, we are getting screwed like never before.

Is there a protest being organised or are people just going to take this..

You are totally right. Enough is enough. I am absolutely sickened by this government. We have to pull together says brian cowen. Its ok for overpaid TDs but ordinary workers like myself on minumum wage with a family will find it tougher and tougher. We will be the ones who feel the pinch. Pat kenny took a pay deduction...wow...so what. He is stil getting paid a six fugure sum. The guys upstairs in the bank are to an extent the main reason why we are here...along with a corrupt government.

bonkey

silverharp wrote: »

That not the point though, there is no economic , moral or other law that says that people get what they deserve.

So when all the complainers say that these people deserve nothing, you agree that there is no economic, moral or other law that says that is just what they should get?

Running a business is a simple proposition ,make a profit or go bust.

At a simplistic level, yes. At a even-slightly-less-simplistic level, most companies realise that staff are a key factor in determining whether they make that profit or go bust.

Punishing some of your staff - particularly in the areas that have performed honestly and well - because other staff have cocked things up is not a smart move from a business perspective...particularly when one is talking about chump change in proportion to the scale of the problems being dealt with.

To the extent that the Irish taxpayer is now subsidising these operations

The Irish taxpayer is not subsidising anything, but rather loaning the funds which are to be repaid with interest.

dhorgan3

bonkey wrote: »

So when all the complainers say that these people deserve nothing, you agree that there is no economic, moral or other law that says that is just what they should get?


At a simplistic level, yes. At a even-slightly-less-simplistic level, most companies realise that staff are a key factor in determining whether they make that profit or go bust.

Punishing some of your staff - particularly in the areas that have performed honestly and well - because other staff have cocked things up is not a smart move from a business perspective...particularly when one is talking about chump change in proportion to the scale of the problems being dealt with.


The Irish taxpayer is not subsidising anything, but rather loaning the funds which are to be repaid with interest.

Get off the moral high ground. Yes they may be loaning...but that is not getting away from the fact that people are getting decreases in their public sector pay and others are getting pay rises. You can be as technical as you want but where is the fairness??

bonkey

dhorgan3 wrote: »

Get off the moral high ground.

I'm not the one getting outraged that there is something wrong going on here.

I lay no claim to the moral high ground, nor am I appealing to anyone's morals.

I'm asking that we not look on this as an emotional issue, but rather pay some attention to those sometimes-inconvenient things known as facts...y'know...like the fact that we're not subsidising anything, the fact that we're not talking about rewarding the people who created this mess, or the fact that good business is not just about the immediate bottom line (which, ironically, is the real reason this mess was created).

Yes they may be loaning...but that is not getting away from the fact that people are getting decreases in their public sector pay and others are getting pay rises. You can be as technical as you want but where is the fairness??

Fairness? That would be a moral issue. Are you asking me to get off that high ground because there isn't space for both of us up there?

Also, I'm not entirely sure how you interpreted my comments that this payrise may not be unreasonable to somehow mean that I also believe the public-sector pay-cuts are perfectly ok.

silverharp

bonkey wrote: »

So when all the complainers say that these people deserve nothing, you agree that there is no economic, moral or other law that says that is just what they should get?

they should get what the company can afford. I know of profitable companies that have introduced pay freezes which I would argue is prudent. It would seem odd for a technically insolvent company to pay increases given that it is only possible in the light of a gov bail out.

calex71

at first glance this makes me furious but i will bite my lip and wait to hear their justifications.

bonkey

silverharp wrote: »

they should get what the company can afford.

BoI obviously feel they can afford this....so then why shouldn't they get it?

I know of profitable companies that have introduced pay freezes which I would argue is prudent.

I know of normally-profitable companies who have given small pay-increases during periods while they were making a loss. Hell, I've worked for such companies.

A pay freeze can be prudent in some cases...particularly when staff costs are a significant proportion of a company's running costs and/or would have a significant impact on the bottom line. In other cases, it can be irrelevant or even counter-productive.

It would seem odd for a technically insolvent company to pay increases given that it is only possible in the light of a gov bail out.

Lets leave aside that the money came from the government. The bank needed an injection of cash, which it will need to repay. It received said injection. Its priority now is to make itself as profitable as possible, partly because thats what a business should do, and partly because it needs to repay its loans.

If that priority is - in part - best helped by giving rank-and-file a small pay increase, to ensure that a previously-profitable part of the business remains so, and to show that they are in no way held responsible for, or made to pay for, the mistakes of others...then that is what should be done.

If Ireland is, as was claimed above, "over-banked" for the coming years, then one place that this will be felt is through increased competition at the branch-banking level. Pissing off your branch staff by reneging on a previously-agreed payrise, despite their not having done anything wrong themselves is not a good way to gear up for that challenge.

Biting off your nose to spite your face is not good business.

To be honest, if there wasn't the idea that this is somehow connected to the public-sector paycuts, I doubt there'd be anywhere near the outrage.

Mr.Micro

It looks like the banks can do no wrong. Massive bonus payments during the boom times leading to the collapse of the giant global pyramid scheme, and now in the mess get bonus payments again. What sort of message is that for the future a) the banks know that they have us all over a barrel and b) the public lack of confidence in a system where the bank will always be bailed out, which means business as usual. It defies logic.

The money would be better spent in funding public infrastructure( not FAS by a mile) projects that would provide jobs, revenue, much needed infrastructure and big money into the economy and make the banks go back to basics and earn our respect and trust.

gandalf

TBH in the current climate and given taxpayers money is bailing them out there is no justification for this. Others are taking pay freezes and cuts (and have been doing so for over a year now) the PS have the pension levy so personally I feel the banks especially as they cannot transact business without a state bailout should at very least be freezing pay until such time that they can stand on their own two feet.

bonkey

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Massive bonus payments during the boom times leading to the collapse of the giant global pyramid scheme, and now in the mess get bonus payments again.

Did you even read the article?

Its a payrise for branch staff, not a bonus for those who created the mess.

Seriously...when you go to a teller in a branch, do you honestly see them as someone who's involved in trading derivatives and/or receiving millions in bonuses???

What sort of message is that for the future

I dunno.

Government cut pay for public sector, and tehre's outcry on the grounds that the public sector didn't cause this mess.
BoI give their rank-and-file a payrise, and there's outcry, on the grounds that...well...even though the recipients of the payrise didn't cause this mess, they should pay for it.

I'm honestly trying to figure out what message people want sent here...either those who didn't cause it should, or should not be held accountable and have to pay for it. I wish we'd make up our minds on that one.

the public lack of confidence in a system where the bank will always be bailed out,

As a member of the public, I'd be quite disturbed by the idea that my life's savings could be wiped out by the collapse of the financial institution(s) holding them. I'd certainly be disturbed if I was told that because of some derivatives trading gone really south, my pension and other savings had all been written off, along with those of thousands of other people...and we'd now be dependant on the state for our future because that self-same state wouldn't intervene on the behalf of the common man.

gandalf

bonkey I don't think anyone is blaming the bank tellers or the public sector directly for this mess. I think however that everyone has to accept that times have changed and agreements that may have been negociated when times seemed better need to be revisited especially as the banks need help from the irish taxpayer to continue trading.

Mr.Micro

bonkey wrote: »

Did you even read the article?

Its a payrise for branch staff, not a bonus for those who created the mess.

Seriously...when you go to a teller in a branch, do you honestly see them as someone who's involved in trading derivatives and/or receiving millions in bonuses???


I dunno.

Government cut pay for public sector, and tehre's outcry on the grounds that the public sector didn't cause this mess.
BoI give their rank-and-file a payrise, and there's outcry, on the grounds that...well...even though the recipients of the payrise didn't cause this mess, they should pay for it.

I'm honestly trying to figure out what message people want sent here...either those who didn't cause it should, or should not be held accountable and have to pay for it. I wish we'd make up our minds on that one.


As a member of the public, I'd be quite disturbed by the idea that my life's savings could be wiped out by the collapse of the financial institution(s) holding them. I'd certainly be disturbed if I was told that because of some derivatives trading gone really south, my pension and other savings had all been written off, along with those of thousands of other people...and we'd now be dependant on the state for our future because that self-same state wouldn't intervene on the behalf of the common man.

Its wholly inappropriate to give pay rises to bank staff at this time, especially when most others have to bite the bullet. Bank staff are not to blame of course for carrying out policy of the top brass, a bit like soldiers who may know what they are doing maybe/is wrong but follow orders anyway. The public perception though will see the very machinations of the banks, in the form of the staff being rewarded for all the damage they have caused, and worse still using tax payers money to do it. Its wrong at this time, it only further alienates public opinion.

silverharp

bonkey wrote: »

I know of normally-profitable companies who have given small pay-increases during periods while they were making a loss. Hell, I've worked for such companies.

that's cool if we are talking about private companies , if we are taking about state companies or state sponsered companies we have stopped talking in terms of free market forces.

bonkey wrote: »

A pay freeze can be prudent in some cases...particularly when staff costs are a significant proportion of a company's running costs and/or would have a significant impact on the bottom line. In other cases, it can be irrelevant or even counter-productive..

thats fine in a free market, not when the money comes out of taxpayer funds

bonkey wrote: »

Lets leave aside that the money came from the government. The bank needed an injection of cash, which it will need to repay. It received said injection. Its priority now is to make itself as profitable as possible, partly because thats what a business should do, and partly because it needs to repay its loans.

There is no guarantee that they will get the money back. The market wouldnt put money into these banks as it judged the risk/reward to be not favourable

bonkey wrote: »

If that priority is - in part - best helped by giving rank-and-file a small pay increase, to ensure that a previously-profitable part of the business remains so, and to show that they are in no way held responsible for, or made to pay for, the mistakes of others...then that is what should be done.

maybe management isnt aware of how bad things are , which is cool, time and the market will judge this later , still doesnt get around the fact that they are using taxpayer money where there is no guarantee that the state will get any or all the money back.

bonkey wrote: »

If Ireland is, as was claimed above, "over-banked" for the coming years, then one place that this will be felt is through increased competition at the branch-banking level. Pissing off your branch staff by reneging on a previously-agreed payrise, despite their not having done anything wrong themselves is not a good way to gear up for that challenge. .

The game has changed mate , every week that said bank branch staff get paid will be a bonus as far as they are concerned. Compare to say a self employed tradesman, as business dries up and gets paid less does he start doing a shoddy job, I dont think so.

bonkey wrote: »

To be honest, if there wasn't the idea that this is somehow connected to the public-sector paycuts, I doubt there'd be anywhere near the outrage.

I dont know about that , In the US people are pretty angry about bonuses being paid out,

murphaph

bonkey wrote: »

BoI obviously feel they the taxpayer can afford this....so then why shouldn't they get it?

Fixed that for you. BoI CANNOT afford this or they wouldn't have gone cap in hand to US, the TAXPAYER for capital (money).

It is totally unacceptable for any bank staff at any level to be getting pay increases. If their employers were normal private sector companies (ie, not of systemic importance to the economy) they would all be out of work as they have run out of money and would be bankrupt.

bonkey

silverharp wrote: »

that's cool if we are talking about private companies

Which we are.

, if we are taking about state companies or state sponsered companies we have stopped talking in terms of free market forces.

The banks are neither state-run nor state-sponsored. They have been given a loan from the state.

still doesnt get around the fact that they are using taxpayer money where there is no guarantee that the state will get any or all the money back.

This whole "guarantee of getting it back" has, quite honestly, nothing to do with the payrise given to the branch staff....which is the point I'm trying to make. If it is the best way for the bank to use that money, then the money should be used that way....the thing is that no-one seems to care about why the money is being spent the way it is. They've skipped over finding out the details, and jumped straight to the outraged conclusions.

Imagine that instead of the article linked to by the OP, we had one saying that despite having received no pay-increases in 5 years, and having negotiated a modest pay-rise which still left them well-behind the curve, branch staff were now getting in the neck with bank management reneging on a binding agreement, despite insisting on enforcing the rest of the agreement...there'd be outrage on behalf of the poor staff. I'm not saying that this is what happened, mind, I'm saying that no-one seems to care what the details really are.

I dont know about that , In the US people are pretty angry about bonuses being paid out,

And so they should be. Bonuses are - or should be - a reward for good performance. The bonuses they're getting pretty angry about are bonuses being paid to the people who cocked things up, being paid on the grounds that they are contractual obligations.

As a simple example, the banks have private banking "salesmen" who's job it is to bring in X million of new investment capital. If they meet that, they get 1% of what they bring in. These people are still being paid their bonuses, even though the capital they signed up has disappeared, or (worse) turned out to be toxic and has been a loss-generator. I can understand people getting angry about these guys getting bonuses. I can understand them getting angry about CEOs gibing themselves hundreds of millions / billions collectively after going to the government to save the business they drove into the ground.

But we're not talking about those types of things. We're not talking about the investment bankers, or even the high-rolling private bankers. We're not talking about bonuses at all. We're talking about a previously-negotiated pay rise for rank-and-file branch workers.

That you seem unable or unwilling to make that distinction only reinforces the point I'm trying to make. No-one cares about the details...because they're too busy being outraged.

CtrlSource

This is disgraceful, coming as it does in the wake of recapitalisation plans and massive public sector spending cuts. We're being asked to take one in the you know what from far too many angles at the moment. i don't care if this 3.5% is for branch staff or senior management. It is totally inappropriate given the current plethora of circumstances.

What will An Taoiseach expect us to swallow next? Team building trips to Disneyland for the new Board of Anglo Irish?!

jaffa20

The branch staff are on a wage between 21k and 25k. That is not massive wage. Most banking staff receive bonus payments each year depending on their performances. It still hasn't been confirmed whether bonuses will be paid this year or not but it's a one of payments that is received each year. Some bonuses reach as much as 5% if there is a promotion involved. Most businesses do this, i don't see the problem. BOI just havn't decided whether to do it this year or not. People on here blaming banking staff for a recession is hilarious. They employ 18,000 people. Yet in the article it only states bonuses will be paid to 6000.

CtrlSource

i am not blaming banking staff for the recession. Just because the group you mentioned are lower paid does not entitle them to a raise in the current climate

nesf

As much as I agree with Bonkey about this, Dan Boyle did hit the nail on the head when he described it as provocative. Rightly or wrongly this is going to incite anger in the mob who are already pretty pissed off and I think BoI are just throwing petrol on the flames by announcing this.

silverharp

bonkey wrote: »

But we're not talking about those types of things. We're not talking about the investment bankers, or even the high-rolling private bankers. We're not talking about bonuses at all. We're talking about a previously-negotiated pay rise for rank-and-file branch workers.

I dont know when it was negoiated but unless it was agreed in the last month then all parties should accept that things have changed. We are headed for the Zombie bank syndrome a la Japan , so as entities they are going to be comercially dead, with teams of underwiters and new loans departments sitting around twiddleing their thumbs. Any productivity measures will go out the window in most cases even at branch level. If the taxpayer is being stiffed with the bill for this BAILOUT then they have a right to express concern.

BroomBurner

IF this is true, then it will be entirely inappropriate.

Regardless of WHO will be getting the payrise, a payrise can only be paid when a company is posting profits. That's the long and the short of it. It is unsustainable to do otherwise.

Bank of Ireland are in financial trouble. They would hardly be posting enough profit to give everyone a 3.5% increase when they are about to receive a share of €7billion of taxpayers money.

So, if a company is not profitable, is receiving funding from the government to bail them out, then why would all staff members receive a payrise?

It just makes absolutely no sense.

OhNoYouDidn't

If I were a civil servant I would be outraged by this.

dresden8

BroomBurner wrote: »

So, if a company is not profitable, is receiving funding from the government to bail them out, then why would all staff members receive a payrise?

The company is still profitable because the government is not insisting that they tell us how much they have lost and are covering up those losses.

In fact, the government itself is insisting they don't tell us.

Remember, they only appear to be profitable in the hope of conning the taxpayer who is giving the 7 billion and more remotely in the hope of conning investors into thinking they're a good bet.

*Honey*

Bloody typical... the Government take with one hand (public sector workers) and allow a private company who they, to all intents and purposes, are supporting through taxpayers money, to use that money to give pay rises to their staff??? Rubbish, God awful business managment, and bloody typical.

I no longer want to hear the usual gripe of public v priviate workers... seems to me that the public servants really are the ones bailing out the country, esp if the Government allow this pay rise through to private sector workers.

BTW, on another point, is it true that top civil servants, including the TD's, awarded themselves a 1.1% pay rise the day before the "pension levy" was announced??? I could be wrong, just looking for clarification on this.

BroomBurner

*Honey* wrote: »

BTW, on another point, is it true that top civil servants, including the TD's, awarded themselves a 1.1% pay rise the day before the "pension levy" was announced??? I could be wrong, just looking for clarification on this.

They tabled a motion for this on the same day as the motion for the pension levy, but as far as I know it has yet to be voted on, or passed.

OhNoYouDidnt, yeah, I'm mad as hell now. The pension levy was one thing, but I got over it, thankfully I'll still be ok. However, that, matched with the ESB giving their payrise (instead of reducing our bills seeing as fuel has decreased), and the fact that a motion was even SUGGESTED to give PO's a 1.1% increase; all of it really sickens my stones.

*Honey*

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

If I were a civil servant I would be outraged by this.

I am sickened by it... I don't have the energy for outrage anymore.

I keep wondering if it can get more surreal and laugh at myself and say no... but then it does.

For all those bitching about the public service, apparently the BoI is the place to work these days!!! They can do on wrong it seems.

This country and this Government is an utter joke. Why the hell are we putting up with this circus???

*Honey*

BroomBurner wrote: »

They tabled a motion for this on the same day as the motion for the pension levy, but as far as I know it has yet to be voted on, or passed.

OhNoYouDidnt, yeah, I'm mad as hell now. The pension levy was one thing, but I got over it, thankfully I'll still be ok. However, that, matched with the ESB giving their payrise (instead of reducing our bills seeing as fuel has decreased), and the fact that a motion was even SUGGESTED to give PO's a 1.1% increase; all of it really sickens my stones.

Thanks for that... if they award it themselves, I think there'll be mutiny to be honest.

All I heard as backlash to the ESB pay rise was Mary Coughlan saying it really wasn't a good idea... brilliant love, you tell them!! :rolleyes:

Give. Me. Strength.

ixoy

BroomBurner wrote: »

However, that, matched with the ESB giving their payrise (instead of reducing our bills seeing as fuel has decreased)

I thought the prices were decided by the regulator and not the ESB itself?

Quick question: How many of the CS/PS people here are going to receive a pay rise when they go up the next step on the "ladder" for their grade?

Question #2: Obviously all execs, etc should have their pay frozen, but do you resent the lowly bank clerk also getting a rise? I do recall seeing a paper showing their wages were lower than that of a clerical officer.

BroomBurner

ixoy wrote: »

I thought the prices were decided by the regulator and not the ESB itself?

Quick question: How many of the CS/PS people here are going to receive a pay rise when they go up the next step on the "ladder" for their grade?

Question #2: Obviously all execs, etc should have their pay frozen, but do you resent the lowly bank clerk also getting a rise? I do recall seeing a paper showing their wages were lower than that of a clerical officer.

The ESB apply to the Regulator for any rises, who then awards them. I still think that the pay award shouldn't have been granted. Though that's an argument on a different thread.

On the increment thing, I have no idea whether I will get my increment, it is a long way off so who knows. They might stop that by that time. I can only speak for myself in answering that, and I can't give you a definite answer as it's out of my control.

On your last question, I don't "resent lowly bank workers", however, I do resent one section of society taking a dock in pay while another section take a payrise when the two are linked. I'm not complaining about the likes of Zurich staff getting their payrises, as the government isn't spending the levy money to bail them out.

gandalf

BroomBurner wrote: »

On your last question, I don't "resent lowly bank workers", however, I do resent one section of society taking a dock in pay while another section take a payrise when the two are linked. I'm not complaining about the likes of Zurich staff getting their payrises, as the government isn't spending the levy money to bail them out.

And what about all the people who lost their jobs or who are in danger of losing their jobs and those who have been on pay freezes or cuts since last year. My god I am getting sick and tired of all the PS/CS types throwing themselves up on a cross thinking they are the only ones feeling pain out of this situation. The government have made a complete and utter mess of things, when times were good they should have trimmed the fat out of the Public Service but instead they bloated it more. The money is not there and as people lose their jobs and the tax take constricts there will be even less.

The bank should freeze any payrises and the Government if they had any leadership qualities at all would ensure this while tax payers money are being used to bail the banks out.

*Honey*

gandalf wrote: »

The government have made a complete and utter mess of things, when times were good they should have trimmed the fat out of the Public Service but instead they bloated it more. The money is not there and as people lose their jobs and the tax take constricts there will be even less.

For the Lord's sake, read the OECD report - the Irish public service is only on a par with comparative countries... inform yourself before you start making sweeping statements. :rolleyes:

ParkRunner

ixoy wrote: »

I thought the prices were decided by the regulator and not the ESB itself?

Quick question: How many of the CS/PS people here are going to receive a pay rise when they go up the next step on the "ladder" for their grade?

Question #2: Obviously all execs, etc should have their pay frozen, but do you resent the lowly bank clerk also getting a rise? I do recall seeing a paper showing their wages were lower than that of a clerical officer.

Regarding the first question any recent increment or pay rise has been wiped out by the pension levy and chances are if we were to get an increment this would be wiped out by an income tax increase.
Question two - I don't resent a lowly bank clerk getting a rise. We don't have the transparency to know who exactly is getting this rise though and I can't see a bank of ireland pay analysis thread starting off

gandalf

*Honey* wrote: »

For the Lord's sake, read the OECD report - the Irish public service is only on a par with comparative countries... inform yourself before you start making sweeping statements. :rolleyes:

I make my opinion based on my business dealings with departments within the PS/CS. From that it is clear that work practices are totally out dated and some people are promoted into jobs that they have no qualification to do just because they were next in line with no motivation to take responsibility for their jobs.

I see the wastage that the tax money that I and the rest of the irish tax payers fund. That has now got to end and because the Government failed in their duty when times were good it is going to be a painful process.

Unfortunately for you and the other cheerleaders for no pain in the Public Service/Civil Service I am informed based on my actual experiences.

If the money is not there then something has to give.

miju

gandalf wrote: »

TBH in the current climate and given taxpayers money is bailing them out there is no justification for this. Others are taking pay freezes and cuts (and have been doing so for over a year now) the PS have the pension levy so personally I feel the banks especially as they cannot transact business without a state bailout should at very least be freezing pay until such time that they can stand on their own two feet.

+1 every was so eager for a PS pay cut / levy and talks about benchmarking working both ways.

*Honey*

gandalf wrote: »

I make my opinion based on my business dealings with departments within the PS/CS. From that it is clear that work practices are totally out dated and some people are promoted into jobs that they have no qualification to do just because they were next in line with no motivation to take responsibility for their jobs.

I see the wastage that the tax money that I and the rest of the irish tax payers fund. That has now got to end and because the Government failed in their duty when times were good it is going to be a painful process.

Unfortunately for you and the other cheerleaders for no pain in the Public Service/Civil Service I am informed based on my actual experiences.

If the money is not there then something has to give.

My experience is from working in the Public Service where I have worked for 14 years. Yes there are useless lumps working with me but I imagine every single one of us can point to some useless lump working with them too, public or private service. I worked in private businesses too and I didn't find such a huge difference between the two - there are good and bad about both (actually the managers in the private businesses were far more vindictive and nasty and I've seen people fired for no reason other than the manager just didn't like them - at least you have protection from that in the public service). I word hard as do 99% of my colleagues... what fat there is is at the top of the hugely bureaucratic system which we, the front line workers, had no part in making.

With regard to promotion to positions that people have no qualifications for, for any promotion I've applied to, I've had to attend an interview board with a minimum of 5 people on it (usually 6 incluidng a rep from HR) and I've always had to do a presentation which is specifically related to the area I was applying to work in. It was a far more in depth, nerve wracking interview process than for any job I had in private businesses. Also, those who didn't meet the relevant qualification criteria, weren't interviewed in the first place so I really don't know where you're getting your information from other than some tabloid nonsense spewed out and regurgitated on boards like this and pubs around the country.

You might not like it, but this country needs a public service. Without it, there would be chaos. And to provide this, costs money. Public servants are tax payers too and we have every right to defend ourselves against sweeping statements such as the one you (and others) have made on these boards.

gandalf

I'm not going to address all your points because this thread is about the Banks and their raise. My point was raised as an aside to comments made that appeared to show the CS/PS were taking all the pain because of a pension levy.

*Honey* wrote: »

My experience is from working in the Public Service where I have worked for 14 years.

My experience is from 18 years working in the private sector. Quite a few of those years dealing from various businesses with quite a selection of the PS/CS.

With regard to promotion to positions that people have no qualifications for, for any promotion I've applied to, I've had to attend an interview board with a minimum of 5 people on it (usually 6 incluidng a rep from HR) and I've always had to do a presentation which is specifically related to the area I was applying to work in. It was a far more in depth, nerve wracking interview process than for any job I had in private businesses. Also, those who didn't meet the relevant qualification criteria, weren't interviewed in the first place so I really don't know where you're getting your information from other than some tabloid nonsense spewed out and regurgitated on boards like this and pubs around the country.

As I have said previously this is from dealing with organisations directly in a business capacity and if thats the process these individuals I had to deal with went through then the pool was extremely poor or the interviewers were operating in auto pilot and people such as yourself should feel extremely hard done by that candidates of this calibre were let through.

You might not like it, but this country needs a public service. Without it, there would be chaos. And to provide this, costs money. Public servants are tax payers too and we have every right to defend ourselves against sweeping statements such as the one you (and others) have made on these boards.

I am sorry if I have hit a soft spot but tbh these are my experiences as a private sector worker who has to dealt with the PS/CS on a daily basis for my business and I know I am not the only one.

You and the people who do work hard are being done a dis-service to not address issues like these and while having a PS/CS does cost money it is the Government responsibility to ensure the tax payer gets value for money. I sincerely believe this is not the case.

I'm not responding any further on this thread about this as its about the banks and their pay rise and thats what I will respond to.

Mr.Micro

Anyway, coming back to the BoI payrise for its staff is like 2 fingers up at the taxpayer and the Government. When the banks went in the night to ask the Dept of Finance to help them or bail them out Brian Lenihan had the upper hand to exact conditions, guarantees the lot in return for saving them. He delayed and delayed until the initiative swung back somewhat in the banks favour and the banks realised we can play this get what we want and not have to give up much. So now we see who is leading whom. It would perhaps be better if the lot of them had been fully nationalized as they will continue to behave as if they are a great success and are now drunk on taxpayers hard earned cash and cannot believe their luck.

jenzz

I know nothing - im a lay person giving an opinion here - my opinion !

Why are we giving them 7 b in the first place ? (We - being the taxpayer or we being the government however you look at it .) We are giving it to them because they have no money,because it was sensationalised that it would get to the stage where no money would come out of the ATM, because they were close to having no money to give out etc etc. If this is the real reason then how can they afford to give staff pay rises ? If its not the real reason then why are we giving them the 7 b in the first place !

Every company no matter who they are has income & expenditure & it generally needs to balance. The banks had no money in the pit as such so the government had to bail them out . This is what I the joe soap on the strret is hearing. There was no money left so the government was called in to help ! How can the banks then actually justify using it for another purpose?

Another point is - has the money physically been handed over as such? Well if not these einsteins running this country should maybe be start to ask a few more questions of our banking sector rather than as usual we find out about the scandal 6 months after its been dead & buried!


The BOI in Bray has been getting a face lift since the day the bail out was announced. A face lift ! Does anyone ever question anything in this government of ours - because thats the first thing I would be asking - explain yourselves & start at the very beginning !

Mr.Micro

Every company no matter who they are has income & expenditure & it generally needs to balance. The banks had no money in the pit as such so the government had to bail them out . This is what I the joe soap on the strret is hearing. There was no money left so the government was called in to help ! How can the banks then actually justify using it for another purpose?

Quite right. The banks have hit the motherlode, realized their importance, they cannot be allowed to fail ( this what the Government has said several times)so now will milk the bottomless pit that is the taxpayer.

bonkey

EF wrote: »

Regarding the first question any recent increment or pay rise has been wiped out by the pension levy and chances are if we were to get an increment this would be wiped out by an income tax increase.

An income tax increase would equally hit those who don't get an increment, such as bank clerks or anyone on a pay freeze.

We don't have the transparency to know who exactly is getting this rise though and I can't see a bank of ireland pay analysis thread starting off

From here:

...6,000 branch workers received a 3.5% pay rise backdated to last November — meaning up to €10m more will be paid out to bank officials this year.

The increase, which involves workers in employment grades below branch management, is linked to the same national pay deal as the ESB pay rise...

Exact enough?

Caint cóir

I fully understand the anger if this pay rise goes to those who are already earning inflated wage packets, but if this pay rise is directed toward BoI staff who are due a wage increase in line with inflation, I think it is totally justified.

*Honey*

Why? Why do they deserve it? When we're told over and over again, ad nauseum, that the banks have no money ... so the Government bails them out with taxpayers money.. and yet now they have the money to pay the pay increase?? C'mon!!! There simply is no logical reason for this. If they don't have the money, if they are in such bad financial straits they have to go, cap in hand, to the Government and beg to be bailed out.. then they sure as hell don't have the money to be giving staff wage increases.