Irish bookmakers cutting staff pay

bernyh

Obviously we all understand we are in a very bad recession, it's hitting almost every family in the country...

But I would be interested in opinions on a national (irish) bookmakers who are cutting staff wages in the bricks and mortar shops.

Having in the last year cut ALL staff to minimum hours, many of whom were offered their mortgages etc based on their bonus/overtime payments, they now propose to cut bank holiday pay and Sunday pay.

Bearing in mind this is not a loss making company, profit of circa €60million last year, what do you think of this? Is this ethical?

My thoughts are that they are taking even more money out of the economy, because the staff will be taxed less, be able to afford to spend less etc?

Thoughts very much appreciated

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

bernyh wrote: »

Obviously we all understand we are in a very bad recession, it's hitting almost every family in the country...

But I would be interested in opinions on a national (irish) bookmakers who are cutting staff wages in the bricks and mortar shops.

Having in the last year cut ALL staff to minimum hours, many of whom were offered their mortgages etc based on their bonus/overtime payments, they now propose to cut bank holiday pay and Sunday pay.

Bearing in mind this is not a loss making company, profit of circa €60million last year, what do you think of this? Is this ethical?

My thoughts are that they are taking even more money out of the economy, because the staff will be taxed less, be able to afford to spend less etc?

Thoughts very much appreciated

Ironically, this was a very bad gamble...

Jesus Wept

bernyh wrote: »

many of whom were offered their mortgages etc based on their bonus/overtime payments, they now propose to cut bank holiday pay and Sunday pay.

Well that was poor thinking on the part of the banks, no surprises though.

Anyhow, which bookmaker?

epgc3fyqirnbsx

Thing is they just don't care, there's plenty of people who'd happily grab those jobs if they didn't like it

bernyh

can't say cos I'm sure yer man PP will cop who I am!! lol

jimmycrackcorm

Is ther going to be a tip in this thread?

Otherwise Mods, fell free to close.....

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Would I be right in guessing you're one of the employees...?:D Don't answer that:cool:

Anyway, the problem is that it's a company and it's whole point is to make a profit. If they can get more profit by hiring less, than so be it. They have no legal requirement to hire a set number of people and I'm pretty sure they don't care about how much tax the govt is or is nto receiving.

The bank holiday pay, though, I think is written in law. I may be wrong - some please correct me if I am.

Jesus Wept

Let's just refer to him as Teddy Tower from here on in.

bernyh

The-Rigger wrote: »

Let's just refer to him as Teddy Tower from here on in.

LOL feckin lol!!

Yes please do!!!

bernyh

removed under sound advice!

oppenheimer1

I suppose the real question is it moral for a highly profitable company to inflict pain on its employees because it can use the recession as cover? I have a feeling a good few companies did this over the past 18 or so months because they knew they could get away with it.

Unfortunately a company has to look out for the interests of its shareholders above all else.

Senna

bernyh wrote: »

they now propose to cut bank holiday pay and Sunday pay.

I now wish to confirm that with effect of 1st April, hours worked on a bank holiday will now be payed at double time.

oppenheimer1

Senna wrote: »

I guess it was triple time before the cut... what one of my mates was on when he worked in a bookies

Green Gooner

If I were you I would have a good long think about it (the proposal).

Is the job worth the hassle (re what you said some punters did)? You could quite possibly feel more frustrated at work with the new conditions - do you want to leave work angry?

I feel sorry that these condition have been put before you but if you're good enough at your job, you could always find somewhere else maybe?

Senna

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I guess it was triple time before the cut... what one of my mates was on when he worked in a bookies

Feck that, i get nothing extra for working every single sunday and nearly every bank holiday. Double time would be nice.

bernyh

Senna wrote: »

Feck that, i get nothing extra for working every single sunday and nearly every bank holiday. Double time would be nice.

Well more fool you, cos legally you are entitled to a premium for working Sundays, it may be 10c extra, but you are entitled to it..... unless of course you only work part time..... in which case it's a little differerent as far as I know.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

bernyh wrote: »

Well more fool you, cos legally you are entitled to a premium for working Sundays, it may be 10c extra, but you are entitled to it..... unless of course you only work part time..... in which case it's a little differerent as far as I know.

Is it not legally triple time or double time plus a day in lieu? I worked for a really tight company once, and that's what we got. Pretty sure they would have paid us less if they could have gotten away with it.

I may be wrong, but I'd check this one out, tbh.

billy the squid

Senna wrote: »

Feck that, i get nothing extra for working every single sunday and nearly every bank holiday. Double time would be nice.

Did you not get an extra 7.5 hours pay from the government for the bank holidays?

The-Rigger

The-Rigger wrote: »

Well that was poor thinking on the part of the banks, no surprises though.

Anyhow, which bookmaker?

People have to take responsibility for themselves.. If you sign a mortgage, it's not the bank's fault you took too much. I took out stupid loan in college which I'm still trying to pay off, at least I have the sense to admit I was the idiot, not the lenders.

biko

bernyh wrote: »

Bearing in mind this is not a loss making company, profit of circa €60million last year, what do you think of this? Is this ethical?

It's not a recession for everyone, it seems some are using it as an excuse to cut staff costs to increase profits.

***Everywhere I turn I hear another news story about big businesses laying off thousands of workers because of “the recession”. My mom works for Sony and she is wondering if she is going to have a job after wave after wave of layoffs. Because, you know, poor Sony must be on the brink of bankruptcy because of this crazy “recession”! There only choice is to fire (or force into retirement) thousands of their loyal employees. Right? Well, according to Sony, profits will now come in at a mere $1.54 billion for the fiscal year ending in March 2009. Yes, Sony profited $1.54 BILLION dollars. As in, after they paid all of their employees and expenses, they walked away with $1.54 billion dollars last year. Good thing they laid all those people off! Otherwise, they would have only made like $1,539,000,000.00.

Now I’m sure you’ve seen Caterpillar splashed across the news because they have been “forced” by “the recession” to lay off tens of thousands of their employees. Caterpillar reported revenue of $2.9 billion for 2008 (after expenses and taxes, they profited $385,000,000). Poor, poor Caterpillar !

Now why would businesses like Sony and Caterpillar use a supposed recession as an excuse to lay off employees? Because that way people feel sorry for Caterpillar, rather then become outraged that they would lay off “lifers” (employees that have worked their entire lives there), so that the company can look better on paper. Look shareholders! Profits are up $2million from last year (because we fired a bunch of loyal employees)! Yippy!

I understand that companies (mine included) need to constantly restructure and “cut the fat” so to speak, but I just don’t appreciate them blaming their greed on the recession.

geeky

In fairness to the bookmakers concerned, they're a PLC. With the legal company framework we have, the directors only have one responsibility: to maximise profit for their shareholders as far as is legally allowed.

CSR, paying employees enough to make their mortgage payments, adding to the tax base... they're all nice things, but subordinating their first responsibility for these things isn't obligatory. In fact, running the company all nicey-nice and eating into profits opens them up to lawsuits/other trouble from the shareholders.

Now, they may be doing well, but the fact is that they'll get away with cutting wages: if you or any of your colleagues walk, there are plenty of people who'll take their place. In this instance, because of the system we have, the directors can legitimately say they have an obligation to attempt this.

I sympathise with the OP, but the core problem is a company law system and notions about business based on the false notion of an efficient, benevolent market.

Jesus Wept

Deleted User wrote: »

People have to take responsibility for themselves.. If you sign a mortgage, it's not the bank's fault you took too much. I took out stupid loan in college which I'm still trying to pay off, at least I have the sense to admit I was the idiot, not the lenders.

I think it's both the banks fault and the customers fault.
And people are stupid, it's easier to legislate how banks act than people.

ejmaztec

The-Rigger wrote: »

I think it's both the banks fault and the customers fault.
And people are stupid, it's easier to legislate how banks act than people.

It's moreso the bank's fault for ignoring the risk factor, then handing out 90 to 100% mortgages. It's almost as if people with half a brain cell, and no banking experience whatsoever, were given the responsibility of lending money to people. Perhaps the cleaning ladies dealt with the customers when the bankers were in the pub.:eek:

stovelid

I've no doubt that some healthy companies are poor-mouthing about the recession and see an excellent chance to roll back previous wage increases and other concessions.

stepbar

The-Rigger wrote: »

I think it's both the banks fault and the customers fault.
And people are stupid, it's easier to legislate how banks act than people.

ejmaztec wrote: »

It's moreso the bank's fault for ignoring the risk factor, then handing out 90 to 100% mortgages. It's almost as if people with half a brain cell, and no banking experience whatsoever, were given the responsibility of lending money to people. Perhaps the cleaning ladies dealt with the customers when the bankers were in the pub.:eek:

Okay, you're the boss of AIB / BOI back during the Celtic Tiger....

What do you do? Watch the likes of BOSI, PTSB, Anglo and others agressively rob business off you because you won't give customers what they want? or do you try and be some what competitive?

I remember talking to collegues of mine bemoaning that "Fcuking Anglo, robbed such and such a deal off me" because they offered a miniscule margin on a such and such a business loan that could not be matched. And then you had Fingers Fingleton acting as the lender and credit committee all rolled into one. Then by the by, you had the former financial regulator (Patrick Neary) giving Willie McAleer in Anglo the "Thumps Up" when McAteer told Neary the bank would be "managing the balance sheet at year end'', to which Neary said, "Fair play to you, Willie". What kind of a fcukwit was he? What the fcuk were they up to during the celtic tiger?

So look, the banks were going to keep lending as long as they were allowed to. No one shouted stop. Our Government even actively encourage it! Remeber the famous line from our esteemed leader Bertie when he said he couldn't understand why some people didn't commit suicide. Joe Public having exhausted one line of credit, went off and found another institution, lied through their teeth and the party continued once again! So lets be clear about something... a lot of people are at fault and some more so than others.

TwoShedsJackson

Okay, you're the boss of AIB / BOI back during the Celtic Tiger....

What do you do? Watch the likes of BOSI, PTSB, Anglo and others agressively rob business off you because you won't give customers what they want? or do you try and be some what competitive?

If you had any sense and weren't motivated by greed, yes that is what you'd do because the 'gains' being made by the other banks were illusory. Of course who am I kidding, obviously as chairman of a bank you are going to be motivated by greed, and the need to keep shareholders (also motivated by greed and acqusitiveness) happy.

During the boom years, Canada regulated it's bank industry tightly, did not allow excessive mortgages to be given to customers or offered by banks, and generally kept a much tighter reign on the banks than any other developed Western democracy.

Canada is the one country in the G8 which has not had to bail out a single bank during the current economic meltdown. Will a lesson be learnt from this by the other countries? Will it fu<k.

geeky

Just on the 'greedy bankers' point...

Banks internationally (not just in Ireland, but we're a good example) were under massive pressure to lend in what we know recognise as a reckless manner. This is because so many of them are owned by pension funds (or people who effectively use their bank shares as a pension) which require more profit than ever before, as people are now living longer than ever before, meaning they need to accumulate more before they stop working.

Nobody seems to have traced the line between the credit bubble of the 1990s to c. 2007 and advances in healthcare over the last 30 years. That perplexes me greatly.

reprazant

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

If you had any sense and weren't motivated by greed, yes that is what you'd do because the 'gains' being made by the other banks were illusory. Of course who am I kidding, obviously as chairman of a bank you are going to be motivated by greed, and the need to keep shareholders (also motivated by greed and acqusitiveness) happy.

Are you saying that shareholders should not want to get a good investment?

When you are saving money, do you put it in a savings account with a good interest rate or do you put it under the bed? Obviously, you put it in a good savings account.

By your logic, everyone who saves money in a savings account, pension, etc of some sort is motivated by greed and acquisitiveness.

BillyBoyBad

Welcome to the labour market, remuneration will rise and fall according to market demands in the private sector.

geeky

reprazant wrote: »

By your logic, everyone who saves money in a savings account, pension, etc of some sort is motivated by greed and acquisitiveness.

Yes, they are!

Nothing intrinsically wrong in that I might add, but we seem to have a moralistic, guilty and hypocritical attitude to money - I despise the implication that anyone who wants to get enough to fund a decent lifestyle and have some security in life is somehow morally inferior.

3hn2givr7mx1sc

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Otherwise Mods, fell free to close.....

What gives you the right to say that?

Sofiztikated

bernyh wrote: »

Well more fool you, cos legally you are entitled to a premium for working Sundays, it may be 10c extra, but you are entitled to it..... unless of course you only work part time..... in which case it's a little differerent as far as I know.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/employment/employment-rights-and-conditions/industrial-relations-and-trade-unions/employment-regulation-orders-and-registered-employment-agreements

Check the JLC for your industry and area.

There are 14 (I think) different JLC areas in Ireland.

Oh, and there are ways around paying a Sunday premium. Like giving every second Sunday off.

Anyway, back OT.

Is it "fair"? No, not to the staff. BUT the company is there to make money. Less profit, unhappy shareholders. Unhappy shareholders, action taken.

But hiding behind "De Recesshun" is a cop out for many businesses.

For example, I know a business that actually increased their bottom line profit last year, even with falling revenue. How? Pulling bloated staff costs back into line, and getting better prices from suppliers, be it energy, stock, waste disposal, etc.

That is what a business does. People seem to see it from the wrong side. A company isn't there to provide you with your house/car/3 holidays a year. You work in a company to make money for the business. They just happen to pay you along the way.

ejmaztec

stepbar wrote: »

Okay, you're the boss of AIB / BOI back during the Celtic Tiger....

What do you do? Watch the likes of BOSI, PTSB, Anglo and others agressively rob business off you because you won't give customers what they want? or do you try and be some what competitive?

I remember talking to collegues of mine bemoaning that "Fcuking Anglo, robbed such and such a deal off me" because they offered a miniscule margin on a such and such a business loan that could not be matched. And then you had Fingers Fingleton acting as the lender and credit committee all rolled into one. Then by the by, you had the former financial regulator (Patrick Neary) giving Willie McAleer in Anglo the "Thumps Up" when McAteer told Neary the bank would be "managing the balance sheet at year end'', to which Neary said, "Fair play to you, Willie". What kind of a fcukwit was he? What the fcuk were they up to during the celtic tiger?

So look, the banks were going to keep lending as long as they were allowed to. No one shouted stop. Our Government even actively encourage it! Remeber the famous line from our esteemed leader Bertie when he said he couldn't understand why some people didn't commit suicide. Joe Public having exhausted one line of credit, went off and found another institution, lied through their teeth and the party continued once again! So lets be clear about something... a lot of people are at fault and some more so than others.

The guy running Lloyds TSB in the UK ignored all of that kind of crap, and the digs from the high-fliers who accused him of being a dinosaur in his attitude to banking. He ignored them and carried on in the traditional prudent way.

When the crisis hit, Lloyds TSB had hardly been scratched. Unfortunately for them, they got forced by the UK government into taking over Halifax Bank Of Scotland along with HBOS's huge dodgy debts caused by their reckless lending. The HBOS guy, who had been a critic of the Lloyds TSB "dinosaur", had to hand the reins over.

Most of the banks threw the rules into the shredder and went mad looking for a quick buck, getting involved in deals that a cretin wouldn't touch.