AIB pay increase

daithicarr

amazing are they completely unaware of the situation the country faces ?

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/lenihan-is-powerless-to-prevent-aib-paying-3pc-raise-to-staff-1917569.html

ei.sdraob

well thats what happens when you hand over money to bankers

they give themselves a raise

mickoneill30

Hang on

I'm not a fan of the banks either but from the article it said AIB wanted to give a cut but that the LRC said AIB should give the pay rise. Why the hell would the LRC do that?

"This culminated in staff refusing management's proposal of a 5pc across-the-board pay cut and ultimately, a referral to the Labour Relations Commission, which subsequently ruled that the bank should pay staff the 3pc increase."

daithicarr

perhaps they pick their rulings out of a hat ?

mikemac

mickoneill30 wrote: »

Why the hell would the LRC do that?

Because AIB agreed to do it last year. You don't just make agreements and then instantly cancel them.
And BOI already made this payment last year.

It's for staff on lower grades, all on pretty average salaries

godtabh

Why is this becoming an issue now? Its been in the public domain for a fair few months

SueWho

Not everyone working in AIB is a rich fat cat.

My friend has worked in AIB for three years, earns less than €35k per year. She has recently fully qualified as an accountant but is not getting her salary increased on qualification, she works more overtime than ever now (overtime is UNPAID) because of the increase in regulation on the banks and she will not get a bonus of any kind this year even though in the past her bonus was the reward for doing overtime.

Do you begrudge her getting a 3% increase when in reality her salary should be rising to about €45k?

mickoneill30

mikemac wrote: »

Because AIB agreed to do it last year. You don't just make agreements and then instantly cancel them.

Now I'm no reporter but you think that little factoid would be in the Indo article. It's almost as if the paper has an agenda

mickoneill30

SueWho wrote: »

Do you begrudge her getting a 3% increase when in reality her salary should be rising to about €45k?

I don't begrudge her but why should her salary be rising to about 45K? AIB nearly went under recently. Nobodys salary should be rising in a company that needs a huge injection from the government just to keep it running. If her job is valued at €45K and she's getting less than €35K then she can always go elsewhere. If she can't get more than €35K elsewhere then why should she be getting €45K in AIB?

This comment has nothing to do with the 3%. If that was already negotiated before the proverbial hit the fan then there's not much they can do there.

godtabh

mickoneill30 wrote: »

Now I'm no reporter but you think that little factoid would be in the Indo article. It's as if the paper has an agenda

thats what I was thinking

godtabh

Something I just found out that its perfirmance related, some people arent getting anything

So some people may actually be doing a good job in there

Boskowski

kearnsr wrote: »

Something I just found out that its perfirmance related, some people arent getting anything

So some people may actually be doing a good job in there

Well, so are some people in the company I work for. For instance me personally I received a glowing review for 2008. I was simply told, 'unlucky to have a good year this year', and of course I got nothing.

But of course my company isn't subsidized with billions of tax payers money. We just have to live of the moneys we generate ourselves...

gerry28

You don't just make agreements and then instantly cancel them.
And BOI already made this payment last year.

Wasn't there a similar agreement for public service pay inceases made 18 months ago - no sign of that coming - quite the opposite on its way in dec budget.

The banks are recieving billions of taxpayers money (our money). Its galling to think they will get pay rises in the current climate while everyone and their dog are calling for the PS to take big cuts.

BOHSBOHS

it is not performance related.
everybody gets it.

DJDC

Do you begrudge her getting a 3% increase when in reality her salary should be rising to about €45k?

Wrong. €45k maybe 2 years aqgo but the market for qualified accountants is absolutely decimated at the moment for the same problem as the solicitors market..huge oversupply. AIB are paying her €35k because thats the new market value.

conorhal

SueWho wrote: »

Not everyone working in AIB is a rich fat cat.

My friend has worked in AIB for three years, earns less than €35k per year. She has recently fully qualified as an accountant but is not getting her salary increased on qualification, she works more overtime than ever now (overtime is UNPAID) because of the increase in regulation on the banks and she will not get a bonus of any kind this year even though in the past her bonus was the reward for doing overtime.

Do you begrudge her getting a 3% increase when in reality her salary should be rising to about €45k?

In reality her salary is based on what the market can afford to pay, and a bank-rupt business can afford to pay nothing.
The bailout money should have been contractually ring fenced. If the bank wants to pay out bonuses and pay rises, it should have to do it from it's own (ie. no) profits. End of story.

Gang of Gin

SueWho wrote: »

Not everyone working in AIB is a rich fat cat.

My friend has worked in AIB for three years, earns less than €35k per year. She has recently fully qualified as an accountant but is not getting her salary increased on qualification, she works more overtime than ever now (overtime is UNPAID) because of the increase in regulation on the banks and she will not get a bonus of any kind this year even though in the past her bonus was the reward for doing overtime.

Do you begrudge her getting a 3% increase when in reality her salary should be rising to about €45k?

I worked in AIB only a couple of years ago and I started working at entry-level. Overtime was paid when I was there, and paid quite handsomely. And to be honest 35k is a pretty decent living. To think I was happy enough with my job after I left the bank on 26k and a degree, like your friend, to boot. And I can begrudge, to be honest - that's a 10k jump, and considering the furore of late they're the last people that should be entitled to that kind of raise.

Long Onion

The majority of bank staff had fcuk all to do with the current rectal situation, so I don't think that it is fully fair to tar all with the same brush.

The LRC are just doing what they have to, the fcat that the country is in a recession does not mean that all contractual agreements are now null and void. The agreement is there - honour it.

I find it funny that when it comes to the Drumm's bonus, it is accepted that he is entitled to it but people are saying that morally, he should decline it. For all those whoe are against the bank 3% increase, why not contact all the staff and aske them to decline it on moral grounds.

murphaph

Long Onion wrote: »

The majority of bank staff had fcuk all to do with the current rectal situation, so I don't think that it is fully fair to tar all with the same brush.

But their employer (and with it their jobs) would have gone under but for taxpayer support (and plenty of it!). These staff are blessed that they work in a sector that the government deems so important that it must be saved with our money.

Long Onion wrote: »

The LRC are just doing what they have to, the fcat that the country is in a recession does not mean that all contractual agreements are now null and void. The agreement is there - honour it.

The agreement should not have been honoured given the changed circumstances. They are honouring their agreement with our money! The employees should have been told-no pay rise, strike if you want but the bank will fold if you do and then welcome to 204 quid a week.

Long Onion wrote: »

I find it funny that when it comes to the Drumm's bonus, it is accepted that he is entitled to it but people are saying that morally, he should decline it. For all those whoe are against the bank 3% increase, why not contact all the staff and aske them to decline it on moral grounds.

They should really, given their employers are bankrupt and only exist because we have subvented them.

At least AIB management tried to withhold this nonsense increase. The banks appear to be hamstrung by the unions in much the same way as the government. Makes you wonder who runs the country.

mrgaa1

i think the point here is being missed. The government can't bail someone out, let them give give 3% pay rises and then cut the salaries of thousands of public servants.
From a PR point of view its a disaster and if it aint stopped then the amount of strikes that will be taking place could be well be justified.
Surely when bail-outs were being agreed that the now publicly owned banks could be ruled from the Dail.
Forget all these "we promised the pay rises last year " etc... its a f*cking joke

Long Onion

So, you enter a contract to insure a car fully comprehensive for a motorist. The motorist pays a premium and then goes on to have a crash. The Insurance company refuses to pay out to repair your car saying that times are now tight and they do not have the money. You go to court and the judge rules that you do not have to pay, the contract is null and void because we are in a recession.

Would you be happy with this decision - I think not. A contract is a contract.

ParkRunner

Long Onion wrote: »

So, you enter a contract to insure a car fully comprehensive for a motorist. The motorist pays a premium and then goes on to have a crash. The Insurance company refuses to pay out to repair your car saying that times are now tight and they do not have the money. You go to court and the judge rules that you do not have to pay, the contract is null and void because we are in a recession.

Would you be happy with this decision - I think not. A contract is a contract.

Towards 2016 is dead! Tens of thousands of workers will not get their promised rises!

eoinbn

The best part of this will be that the unions will use this pay rise as ammo to resist the public sector cuts- after the unions themselves DEMANDED the pay rise!!

murphaph

Long Onion wrote: »

So, you enter a contract to insure a car fully comprehensive for a motorist. The motorist pays a premium and then goes on to have a crash. The Insurance company refuses to pay out to repair your car saying that times are now tight and they do not have the money. You go to court and the judge rules that you do not have to pay, the contract is null and void because we are in a recession.

Would you be happy with this decision - I think not. A contract is a contract.

Then the bank should get the money back by making redundancies. This money was given to the banks to help them lend again, not to pay their staff increases. Do you think it's morally right that these staff are being paid increments out of taxpayers' money (many of whom have since lost their job and are on welfare), even if it is legally so?

Long Onion

murphaph wrote: »

Then the bank should get the money back by making redundancies. This money was given to the banks to help them lend again, not to pay their staff increases. Do you think it's morally right that these staff are being paid increments out of taxpayers' money (many of whom have since lost their job and are on welfare), even if it is legally so?

I was not commenting on the morality, but since you have brought it up, do you think that it is moral to be allowed renege on a contract entered into on good faith?

murphaph

Long Onion wrote: »

I was not commenting on the morality, but since you have brought it up, do you think that it is moral to be allowed renege on a contract entered into on good faith?

Yes. Contracts usually (or at least very often) have an "act of God" clause for such exceptional circumstances. When your employer is effectively bankrupt and relies on the taxpayer to pay your wages, then you should get zilch tbh. The taxpayer has enough burdens without supporting the pay increments in AIB.

Long Onion

So the recession is an act of God? Methinks you may be a little too flattering to the Bankers.

murphaph

Long Onion wrote: »

So the recession is an act of God? Methinks you may be a little too flattering to the Bankers.

It is an exceptional circumstance when the taxpayer has to underwrite the losses of the countries 2 largest banks (and I believe AIB was Ireland's largest company altogether at one point).

These pay increments are obscene and I think you know that.

Liam Byrne

Long Onion wrote: »

So, you enter a contract to insure a car fully comprehensive for a motorist. The motorist pays a premium and then goes on to have a crash. The Insurance company refuses to pay out to repair your car saying that times are now tight and they do not have the money. You go to court and the judge rules that you do not have to pay, the contract is null and void because we are in a recession.

Lousy analogy. You've forgotten that the motorist went bankrupt and the Insurance company ALREADY had to give them a load of money.

dearg lady

Gang of Gin wrote: »

I worked in AIB only a couple of years ago and I started working at entry-level. Overtime was paid when I was there, and paid quite handsomely. And to be honest 35k is a pretty decent living. To think I was happy enough with my job after I left the bank on 26k and a degree, like your friend, to boot. And I can begrudge, to be honest - that's a 10k jump, and considering the furore of late they're the last people that should be entitled to that kind of raise.

Just to be clear, if the girl in question is a qualified accountant she has completed a professional qualification(considered equivalant to a postgraduate/masters degree) so I would expect she would be earning more than someone with a bachelor. How much more though...well that's subjective

Long Onion wrote: »

So, you enter a contract to insure a car fully comprehensive for a motorist. The motorist pays a premium and then goes on to have a crash. The Insurance company refuses to pay out to repair your car saying that times are now tight and they do not have the money. You go to court and the judge rules that you do not have to pay, the contract is null and void because we are in a recession.

Would you be happy with this decision - I think not. A contract is a contract.

Long Onion, I take your point about a contract, but there are workers all over the country who signed up for pay increases and aren't getting them. And if the insurance company did in fact go bust and have no money you could complain all you want, you wouldn't get paid.
Take for example the people who put deposits on new build house and apartments in Milners Square Santry, developer went bust, what did the examiner recommend, 1% of the deposits could be paid.
http://www.rte.ie/business/2009/0624/laragan.html

mikemac

SueWho wrote: »

Not everyone working in AIB is a rich fat cat.

My friend has worked in AIB for three years, earns less than €35k per year. She has recently fully qualified as an accountant but is not getting her salary increased on qualification, she works more overtime than ever now (overtime is UNPAID) because of the increase in regulation on the banks and she will not get a bonus of any kind this year even though in the past her bonus was the reward for doing overtime.

Do you begrudge her getting a 3% increase when in reality her salary should be rising to about €45k?

I hear what you're saying but it's been said already, the market value of a newly qualified accountant has dropped.
Yep, 45k was normal enough two years ago, it isn't anymore!
Anyway, when I worked in AIB we always got overtime. If you're working for a large company and you're not a manager, then realy you have to wonder about working unpaid overtime. Is there even a possibilty of a promotion sometime next year? If not, then it might not be worth it


Your friend may have to leave to get a wage raise but that has several disadvantages too

dent

BOHSBOHS wrote: »

it is not performance related.
everybody gets it.

Chatting to a friend in there, IT staff, accountant's and management are not getting this raise.

cyclopath2001

murphaph wrote: »

Yes. Contracts usually (or at least very often) have an "act of God" clause for such exceptional circumstances.

Should the same logic apply to mortgage holders?

Sand

Good to see NAMA will help the bank afford its wage rises.

johnathan woss

Long Onion wrote: »

I was not commenting on the morality, but since you have brought it up, do you think that it is moral to be allowed renege on a contract entered into on good faith?

What part of "THESE PEOPLE SHOULD ALL BE UNEMPLOYED" do you not understand ?

mikemac

johnathan woss wrote: »

What part of "THESE PEOPLE SHOULD ALL BE UNEMPLOYED" do you not understand ?

Maybe but this wage increase is for lower grade staff. I'm not sure if it goes to officer level but it certainly goes below that

And none of these staff were responsible for the mess that was caused by AIB senior management. Hey, Bank of Ireland payed this increase last year, I don't remember much outrage at the time and staff were in a similar situation. Where you here posting in capital letters at the time?

I understand that the business failed and got taxpayers money as it was deemed a vital business.
All I can say is lower grade aren't responsible and it's sad if thousands have to laid off for the stupid and reckless decisions of the AIB board members.
I'd say the same for clerical officers in the civil service who face paycuts in December for the excesses of their managers

mickoneill30

Anybody hear George Hook on Newtalk yesterday evening about this? He was talking to some Irish Times guy.
George was ranting about how AIB is giving the fingers to the government and the people and the Irish Times guy was there to agree with him (that's probably not the official reason).
There was no mention of this being agreed a long time ago or even that AIB had tried to use the LRC to get a pay cut rather than a pay rise.
I'm not particularly a fan of AIB but if you can't make your case without leaving out kind of important facts you probably shouldn't be a host of a pretty major afternoon show.

Long Onion

johnathan woss wrote: »

What part of "THESE PEOPLE SHOULD ALL BE UNEMPLOYED" do you not understand ?

Well done on the populist rhetoric, any chance you could deal with the question now?

mickoneill30

mickoneill30 wrote: »

Now I'm no reporter but you think that little factoid would be in the Indo article. It's almost as if the paper has an agenda

Indo has another article today. This one is worse than yesterdays. Still don't seem to know about the LRC.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/aibs-nauseating-pay-rise-is-a-slap-in-taxpayers-face-1918252.html

Edit: It's posted in the Opinion section so I suppose that's how they get around not reporting all the facts.

jmayo

mikemac wrote: »

Because AIB agreed to do it last year. You don't just make agreements and then instantly cancel them.
And BOI already made this payment last year.

It's for staff on lower grades, all on pretty average salaries

Yes you do when the company is bankrupt and only still in business, because the government give it billions of taxpayers money becuase they deem it more important than for instance the option of giving operations to sick children.

Have you ever worked in a company that was going under or maybe you have and still striked because you still wanted your payrise even though there was no money ?

SueWho wrote: »

Not everyone working in AIB is a rich fat cat.

My friend has worked in AIB for three years, earns less than €35k per year. She has recently fully qualified as an accountant but is not getting her salary increased on qualification, she works more overtime than ever now (overtime is UNPAID) because of the increase in regulation on the banks and she will not get a bonus of any kind this year even though in the past her bonus was the reward for doing overtime.

Do you begrudge her getting a 3% increase when in reality her salary should be rising to about €45k?

Yes I do begrudge her her raise, since it is ultimately coming out of our pockets.
Banks are refusing to lend to viable businesses to keep them afloat and thus keep people in jobs, because
a) they were very reckless in their lending policies and thus have f***ed up their balance sheets and now
b) they are giving raises to their staff.

Long Onion wrote: »

The majority of bank staff had fcuk all to do with the current rectal situation, so I don't think that it is fully fair to tar all with the same brush.

The LRC are just doing what they have to, the fcat that the country is in a recession does not mean that all contractual agreements are now null and void. The agreement is there - honour it.

I find it funny that when it comes to the Drumm's bonus, it is accepted that he is entitled to it but people are saying that morally, he should decline it. For all those whoe are against the bank 3% increase, why not contact all the staff and aske them to decline it on moral grounds.

I don't think Drumm or anyone else in the HSE should get a penny of a bonus, not while people are left on trolleys, people are misdiagnosed and kids can't get a bed nevermind a timely oepration. :mad::mad:

FFS when will people cop on. :mad:
These companies are affectivewly bankrupt, they are only still in existence becuase our government have given them billions of taxpayers money.
And I am not even talkaing about NAMA but the recapitalisation billions.

I worked in a comapny that was on verge of bankruptcy and all bonuses, payrises were dropped because we either tried to keep the company alfoat or sunk. Then people wouldn't even have a job.

The mindset around here, particularly from those with a staunch union background and public sector background, is that payrises/increments etc must be paid because it has been agreed.

Here is an anlogy for all these people.
During the boom times, you took your kids to Disney in Orlando every 2nd year.
It was agreed in late 2007 you would go this year 2009 as well.
Then all the cuts/levies etc came in, your other half lost their job.
Now do you still honour your agreement to your kids and suffer the consequences of not having money to keep the household afloat for another year ?
Answers on a postcard to jimmy

mrgaa1 wrote: »

i think the point here is being missed. The government can't bail someone out, let them give give 3% pay rises and then cut the salaries of thousands of public servants.
From a PR point of view its a disaster and if it aint stopped then the amount of strikes that will be taking place could be well be justified.
Surely when bail-outs were being agreed that the now publicly owned banks could be ruled from the Dail.
Forget all these "we promised the pay rises last year " etc... its a f*cking joke

Exactly any company that is getting government subvention to stay afloat can not pay bonuses or payrises, even if it was written on a clay tablet on top of Mt Sinai in the presence of the Labour Court. :mad:

Long Onion wrote: »

So, you enter a contract to insure a car fully comprehensive for a motorist. The motorist pays a premium and then goes on to have a crash. The Insurance company refuses to pay out to repair your car saying that times are now tight and they do not have the money. You go to court and the judge rules that you do not have to pay, the contract is null and void because we are in a recession.

Would you be happy with this decision - I think not. A contract is a contract.

Great analogy NOT.

What happoens if the insurance company has no money to pay out to claimants because they have given payrises and bonuses to their staff ?

Even if the contract means you go bust and then there are no jobs.
Welcome to cutting off your nose to spite your face land. :rolleyes:

johnathan woss

Long Onion wrote: »

Well done on the populist rhetoric, any chance you could deal with the question now?

It's not populist rhetoric it's COLD HARD FACT.

How big a raise would these people be getting if they were on the dole ?
They would still have signed the same contract back in whatever year.
The minute AIB had to take tax payer's money to survive the game changed.

fearandloathing

at this stage the aib senior managers know their reputation is f**cked so why bother play ball with the government. they'll appoint whoever they want as CEO, give out pay rises as they please and all the top brass will "retire" with golden handshakes and smirks on their faces. why? cos who the fook is gona stop them? definately not the government.