Nama Board to get pay increase after 3 months

anymore

The Irish Independent is carrying a story NAMA board members have received a hike in salary -- despite being less than three months in the job. .http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/nama-board-get-pay-increase-of-up-to-70pc-2096957.html
As an example, according to Indo, former boss of the Revenue Commissioners, Frank Daly will get an increase in salary from € 100,000 to € 170,000 and the reason for the increase is apparently an increase in work load !
I don't know if there is another example of people receiving such extraordinary increases after such a short period in office. Mr Daly will of course be receiving what I assume is a generous defined benefits pension as former head of the Revenue.
Perhaps Mr Cowen will be able to explain this rise at a time when so many are on the dole or in receipt of cuts. It will be interesting to see the reaction of PS union bosses.

ei.sdraob

it begins

oh dear I better put "i told you so" in my signature

Liam Byrne

Sickening. A 70% pay rise ? Or maybe FF view it as a "discount" ?

The most sickening thing, however, is that I'm not surprised. I'd expect this sort of crap from FF re any of their appointees at this stage.

I wonder will they still suggest that NAMA will make a "profit" ?

anymore

Well I suppose it is possible that it was intended that that automatic salary increase would kick in once the process was up and running, but it is an unusual story that has the potential to portray the Government as ' asses'.

ei.sdraob

anymore wrote: »

but it is an unusual story that has the potential to portray the Government as ' asses'.

its astounding to think that no matter how badly FF mess up

they are still in power

there's no punishment for failure at all at all

SeanW

anymore wrote: »

the potential to portray the Government as 'asses'.

Like they need much help at that.

Cuddlesworth

Its possible he hard-balled them into the payrise. Its three months into the largest financial project this country has ever had, the head guy leaving would ruin it. Plus our politicians are a bunch of spineless weasels who would bend over at the slightest sign of actual work.

Tabnabs

I just read this story over on breakingnews.ie and I'm incensed! 100k to 170k, it totally beggars belief :mad:

Dublin Hibby

A pay rise, for someone affiliated to Finna Fail, cant be true. Bottom feeders such as i will just have to "lube up" a little bit more.

Time to start a Greece style response to these fraudulent thiefs.

97i9y3941

Expect the "because they are entitled to it and my hands are tied so i can’t reverse it" line from the gov...

Taxipete29

Unions and their members are demonised for not wanting to accept paycuts yet this is allowed to go on :rolleyes:

The only way to get this country back on track is to get rid of FF and their failed policies and crony capitalism

whynotwhycanti

I guess its time for us to drop our pants and bend over. This is bullsiht but am i really surprised, no of course not. I think we will be hearing alot more of these stories.

sirromo

I fully support the decision to give the NAMA people a pay rise. High salaries need to be offered to attract and retain intelligent and experienced people. The success of NAMA is far too important for us to risk not having the most talented people in the country at the helm of the ship.

Taxipete29

sirromo wrote: »

I fully support the decision to give the NAMA people a pay rise. High salaries need to be offered to attract and retain intelligent and experienced people. The success of NAMA is far too important for us to risk not having the most talented people in the country at the helm of the ship.

I assume this is a level?? If its not please define "the most talented"??

whynotwhycanti

sirromo wrote: »

I fully support the decision to give the NAMA people a pay rise. High salaries need to be offered to attract and retain intelligent and experienced people. The success of NAMA is far too important for us to risk not having the most talented people in the country at the helm of the ship.

Good one, i needed a laugh.

But if you are serious, were we not paying all these talented, intelligient people a very high salary in the first place who steered this ship into the mother of all icebergs.

ei.sdraob

sirromo wrote: »

I fully support the decision to give the NAMA people a pay rise. High salaries need to be offered to attract and retain intelligent and experienced people. The success of NAMA is far too important for us to risk not having the most talented people in the country at the helm of the ship.

you can have the most talented and well paid people

but the project can still fail if its based on a false premise

just think of Chelsea football club over last few years

anymore

sirromo wrote: »

I fully support the decision to give the NAMA people a pay rise. High salaries need to be offered to attract and retain intelligent and experienced people. The success of NAMA is far too important for us to risk not having the most talented people in the country at the helm of the ship.

You will be both pleased and reassured to know that the board has a former director of Bank of Ireland on it as well.

ei.sdraob

anymore wrote: »

You will be both pleased and reassured to know that the board has a former director of Bank of Ireland on it as well.

what could possibly go wrong

sirromo

Taxipete29 wrote:

I assume this is a level?? If its not please define "the most talented"??

The most qualified, intelligent and experienced people in their field. They're the kind of people who would normally be paid massive salaries by the private sector.

whynotwhycanti wrote:

But if you are serious, were we not paying all these talented, intelligient people a very high salary in the first place who steered this ship into the mother of all icebergs.

It's very simple, we're about to make a massive financial gamble on a venture that is not guaranteed to succeed. The question is whether the venture stands a better chance of success if it is run by the most able and most highly paid people from the private sector or if it isn't run by the most able and most highly paid people from the private sector. I go with the former and that's why I can understand and support these pay rises.

ei.sdraob wrote:

you can have the most talented and well paid people

but the project can still fail if its based on a false premise

That's an argument against NAMA rather than an argument against the pay rises of the NAMA staff.

anymore wrote:

You will be both pleased and reassured to know that the board has a former director of Bank of Ireland on it as well.

Would you rather the board of NAMA didn't have any former directors of major banks on it's board? Do you not think they bring valuable experience?

ei.sdraob

sirromo wrote: »

That's an argument against NAMA rather than an argument against the pay rises of the NAMA staff.

yes it is

if the project is based on false requirements or unachievable aims

it will fail, no matter how good the people involved are

happens all the time in project management

Liam Byrne

sirromo wrote: »

I fully support the decision to give the NAMA people a pay rise. High salaries need to be offered to attract and retain intelligent and experienced people. The success of NAMA is far too important for us to risk not having the most talented people in the country at the helm of the ship.

Leaving aside a debate on the level of "talent" he actually has, this could possibly be a valid point; were it not for the fact that the guy had already accepted the job at €100,000 a year.

So the ADDITIONAL €70,000 was not required in order to attract him.

And saying "I'll stop working / leave if you don't pay me more" is precisely what the Government are demanding everyone else does. Why should Daly be any different ?

sirromo

Liam Byrne wrote:

Leaving aside a debate on the level of "talent" he actually has, this could possibly be a valid point; were it not for the fact that the guy had already accepted the job at €100,000 a year.

So the ADDITIONAL €70,000 was not required in order to attract him.

It's not required to attract him to the job but it might be required to retain him in the position. If he already accepted and was secure and content in the position then the government would not have bothered wasting money on pay rises.

Liam Byrne wrote:

And saying "I'll stop working / leave if you don't pay me more" is precisely what the Government are demanding everyone else does. Why should Daly be any different ?

He's different because he's part of the very small handful of people in this country with the expertise and the experience to make a success out of NAMA.

whynotwhycanti

sirromo wrote: »

He's different because he's part of the very small handful of people in this country with the expertise and the experience to make a success out of NAMA.

How do you know that? How can you be sure? Nama could be an absolute failure and this guy may not be up for the task. You are basing it on the fact that these guys, albeit with expensive salaries, have what it takes to make NAMA successful. I will reiterate my previous point, didn't we have the best of the best, getting paid very good salaries, in the positions that oversaw this whole disaster. Sometimes you don't get what you pay for and there is no proof out there that says these guys are worth every penny. Its the age old arguement used by lobbyists, sure who else could do his job, he is worth every penny. I never see anything to back up these claims, its just empty rhetoric.

whynotwhycanti

sirromo wrote: »

Would you rather the board of NAMA didn't have any former directors of major banks on it's board? Do you not think they bring valuable experience?

Sorry are these the guys that oversaw the financial crisis in Ireland and made our banks bankrupt. The only real experience i believe they have is in self-interest. They caused banks to become bankrupt, and one of them is now on the board of NAMA to oversee the banks bail out by taxpayers money. By the end of this these directors will know exactly how to bankrupt a bank and then using taxpayers money make it competitive again. What a great list of skills. Worth every penny in my eyes. I would prefer independent, foreign economists to come in. Too much back scratching and vested interested among the elite in this country.

Liam Byrne

sirromo wrote: »

It's not required to attract him to the job but it might be required to retain him in the position. If he already accepted and was secure and content in the position then the government would not have bothered wasting money on pay rises.

Sorry - did I read that right ? You reckon the Government actually make decisions on money based on "value for money" and whether or not it's "wasted" ?

I could list off a page of things here - covering expenses to O'Dea payoffs to Bertie Bowl and eVoting that completely dictates otherwise, and that's not even mentioning the payoffs to people who didn't even bother doing their jobs.

So there's no basis in fact or track records to say that this Government wouldn't waste money, especially when it involves one of their appointees.

sirromo wrote: »

He's different because he's part of the very small handful of people in this country with the expertise and the experience to make a success out of NAMA.

He could be a genius and I don't think he could "make a success out of NAMA".

But that's a whole other debate....this is about a pay rise that the country cannot afford, at a time where people are unemployed - €70,000 would pay 3 people's wages, if you factor in what they're going to receive on the dole - and where people are being told "tough, we're going to pay you less and there's no point in striking".

Sickening, wrong, unethical and typical of this Government :mad:

sirromo

whynotwhycanti wrote:

didn't we have the best of the best, getting paid very good salaries, in the positions that oversaw this whole disaster.

Would they have behaved more responsibly if they had been paid the minimum wage?

whynotwhycanti wrote:

Sometimes you don't get what you pay for and there is no proof out there that says these guys are worth every penny. Its the age old arguement used by lobbyists, sure who else could do his job, he is worth every penny. I never see anything to back up these claims, its just empty rhetoric.

There's no guarantee that paying high salaries will attract the best people. The success of NAMA is far too important for us to take a chance on this though. We need the best people running the operation and if that means paying massive salaries then that's just what we'll have to do.

whynotwhycanti wrote:

Sorry are these the guys that oversaw the financial crisis in Ireland and made our banks bankrupt.

Yes, I think these people would have a valuable insight into the operation of the Irish banking system and for that reason they should play a role in helping to fix the banking system. Just as the police regularly enlist the services of former con-men and hackers, I think NAMA should be prepared to enlist the services of former bankers.

whynotwhycanti wrote:

The only real experience i believe they have is in self-interest.They caused banks to become bankrupt, and one of them is now on the board of NAMA to oversee the banks bail out by taxpayers money. By the end of this these directors will know exactly how to bankrupt a bank and then using taxpayers money make it competitive again. What a great list of skills. Worth every penny in my eyes.

That's a bit harsh. Most bankers have provided good service to our economy and many of them are genuinely remorseful about the role the banks have played in our collapse. I think they should be given the chance to redeem themselves by helping us to restore stability and get credit flowing again.

Liam Byrne wrote:

Sorry - did I read that right ? You reckon the Government actually make decisions on money based on "value for money" and whether or not it's "wasted" ?

Yes, I think the government makes decisions based on what they believe the media and the public reaction will be. If the government gives a massive pay-rise to an already highly-paid group of people then I would assume that they must have been aware of the potential for a popular backlash. That's why I'm assuming that the government had a good reason for giving this pay-rise.

Liam Byrne wrote:

this is about a pay rise that the country cannot afford, at a time where people are unemployed - €70,000 would pay 3 people's wages, if you factor in what they're going to receive on the dole - and where people are being told "tough, we're going to pay you less and there's no point in striking".

Oh please!

Liam Byrne wrote:

Sickening, wrong, unethical and typical of this Government

There's nothing unethical about doing everything possible to make a success of a venture that you deem to be critically important to the future of your country's economy.

Which would you prefer, a government that made popular decisions that they didn't believe to be in the national interest or unpopular ones that they did believe to be in our national interest? The former type of government got us into the mess we're in now, the latter type will get us out of it.

fontanalis

sirromo wrote: »

I fully support the decision to give the NAMA people a pay rise. High salaries need to be offered to attract and retain intelligent and experienced people. The success of NAMA is far too important for us to risk not having the most talented people in the country at the helm of the ship.

It's worked in the past, if it's not broken bust it til it's unrecognisable.

Liam Byrne

sirromo wrote: »

If the government gives a massive pay-rise to an already highly-paid group of people then I would assume that they must have been aware of the potential for a popular backlash. That's why I'm assuming that the government had a good reason for giving this pay-rise.

Under normal circumstances I might believe you, but the "vote of confidence" in O'Dea, etc, proves that they don't give a crap about "popular backlash" or "doing the right thing".

sirromo wrote: »

Oh please!

What does this mean ? What I said was perfectly true and valid, and if someone is getting €100,000 a year for a part-time job then that's plenty. If someone said otherwise I could say "Oh please!" too, but that wouldn't add to the discussion.

sirromo wrote: »

Which would you prefer, a government that made popular decisions that they didn't believe to be in the national interest or unpopular ones that they did believe to be in our national interest? The former type of government got us into the mess we're in now, the latter type will get us out of it.

The old "necessary unpopular decisions are why we're hated" comment rehashed. :rolleyes:

It's unpopular, true. And it's wrong.

And btw, why the distinction between "former" and "latter" ? It's the same Government, and they're still wasting money and doing the wrong things.

BTW, if someone wants to give me €100,000 for a part-time job I'll gladly accept it, and I won't get sickeningly greedy and demand an extra €70,000 a year for doing what I've already agreed to do for the €100,000.

It's sickening......they pay off people who don't do their jobs because "it's in their contract", and then they turn around and unjustifiably change the contracts of people without any issues.....and in both cases we get shafted and screwed; in both cases it costs us extra money.

Go figure!

walshb

I haven't read all the posts relating to this thread, but I am betting someone has posted the lame and pathetic excuse, "You have to pay loads to get the best."

SkepticOne

Anyone who is going to be involved in NAMA, once they fully realise the scam that it is and that the finger is going to be pointed at them when it fails, is going to want a lot of compensation. It may not have been fully apparent to them when they first accepted the job. I think the legislation makes them immune from legal proceedings but there's still the likes of tribunals and media scrutiny.

whynotwhycanti

sirromo wrote: »

There's no guarantee that paying high salaries will attract the best people. The success of NAMA is far too important for us to take a chance on this though. We need the best people running the operation and if that means paying massive salaries then that's just what we'll have to do.




Yes, I think these people would have a valuable insight into the operation of the Irish banking system and for that reason they should play a role in helping to fix the banking system. Just as the police regularly enlist the services of former con-men and hackers, I think NAMA should be prepared to enlist the services of former bankers.




That's a bit harsh. Most bankers have provided good service to our economy and many of them are genuinely remorseful about the role the banks have played in our collapse. I think they should be given the chance to redeem themselves by helping us to restore stability and get credit flowing again.




.

Yes the police do use former criminals, informants etc but do not pay them 170,000 per annum for part time work. Yes, i just heard on the radio that the position in question is not even a full time job but part time. Throw in aswell that he is already on a state pention and it could make you physically sick. This is not the former bank of ireland executive i am referring to.

I don't group all bankers together, just like i don't group all developers together. I have plenty of friends and several siblings who are bankers. I have an issue with the executives in these banks, one of which is on the board of NAMA. This exectuive has already shown his utter incompetence and i for one do not want to see it again. You say some of these bankers are trying to redeem themselves. I believe it is only the banker on the street who feels ashamed, these big fish executives have acumulated massive wealth in the last ten years and something tells me they can live with the guilt and shame.

pah

sirromo wrote: »

I fully support the decision to give the NAMA people a pay rise. High salaries need to be offered to attract and retain intelligent and experienced people. The success of NAMA is far too important for us to risk not having the most talented people in the country at the helm of the ship.

Maybe there's something in your point but the problem is that the Govt are giving these rises when they're cutting everything else from salaries to welfare.

There might be some people on here annoyed if this was a 10% rise but 70% It's insane

MaceFace

Let me start by saying I am not a FF'er and never will be.

My understanding is that the 100k was for a part time job, and the reason it was increased to 170k is because it is now full time.
So, it is not just a 70% increase for the same work load.

So, does anyone have any real info on the subject before just bleating on about how the whole system is broke?

What I mean is:

• How many days a week was Frank Daly on previously?
• How much would a person of his experience/skillset expect to earn in the private sector doing a similar role?
• When the reports say he is expected to be available full time now, does this mean he will be working a 40 hour week?

I am just trying to understand how they can justify it because I don't think they would just give someone a 70% increase because "they are worth it".

pah

MaceFace wrote: »

Let me start by saying I am not a FF'er and never will be.

My understanding is that the 100k was for a part time job, and the reason it was increased to 170k is because it is now full time.
So, it is not just a 70% increase for the same work load.

So, does anyone have any real info on the subject before just bleating on about how the whole system is broke?

What I mean is:

• How many days a week was Frank Daly on previously?
• How much would a person of his experience/skillset expect to earn in the private sector doing a similar role?
• When the reports say he is expected to be available full time now, does this mean he will be working a 40 hour week?

I am just trying to understand how they can justify it because I don't think they would just give someone a 70% increase because "they are worth it".

I suppose you're right in that we don't have all the facts but there are plenty of people out there who have had both their salary decreased and their hours increased.

Liam Byrne

MaceFace wrote: »

My understanding is that the 100k was for a part time job, and the reason it was increased to 170k is because it is now full time.

This would certainly be a factor, but I didn't hear anyone on The Last Word today defend it on the premise that it was now full-time, which they surely would have.

Either way, the country does not have money to be throwing around.

MaceFace wrote: »

[*]How many days a week was Frank Daly on previously?

He was already retired and on a hefty pension, also paid for by us. And as far as I know he will still get this, despite no longer being "retired" due to - as you suggest - NAMA now being a full-time job.

MaceFace wrote: »

[*]How much would a person of his experience/skillset expect to earn in the private sector doing a similar role?

Irrelevant. What pension would a private sector person have ? What job security would a private sector person have ?

And more to the point, there will never, ever be a private sector equivalent to NAMA, so the above is simply not measurable.

MaceFace wrote: »

When the reports say he is expected to be available full time now, does this mean he will be working a 40 hour week?

As I said, I haven't seen any report that says this....do you have a link ?

And if it is now expected to be full-time, this shows just how incompetent and off-the-wall all of the Government's predictions re the task, and the profit and everything else are.......as I asked earlier the pertinent question is WHY he's suddenly required more, WHY the workload is more than predicted, and what factor this pay rise (and any other sneaky changes that will be made along the way will have in relation to the costs and the notional "profit" that Lenihan is always going on and on about.

Aside from all of the above, I would GLADLY take a job at €100,000 - full-time - in which I was getting paid that massive amount and also helping my country.....to me that would be win-win and patriotic, and foregoing a completely disposable €70,000 on the basis that the country could not afford it would not be an issue. And as Pah rightly pointed out above - lots of people have had their wages reduced while working longer hours, myself included; how come those on hundreds of thousands of our money get the opposite, while those with feck-all disposable income get hammered ?

Another pertinent question : after receiving this AND his pension, how much will he be on ?

Moriarty

Liam Byrne wrote: »

BTW, if someone wants to give me €100,000 for a part-time job I'll gladly accept it, and I won't get sickeningly greedy and demand an extra €70,000 a year for doing what I've already agreed to do for the €100,000.

Not to get personal, but that's the attitude of someone whose skills aren't valued at a six figure level. From your coments, you don't appear to have any idea of what this guy may be worth. Like it not, the talent goes where the money is. Most people who work to get into a high-value position expect the return of a high salary.

I don't think you're any more qualified than me to decide on whether this guy is worth the money. I have no idea if he is or not, I can't see how you could have a more qualified opinion.

That means you're ranting against high salaries in general. That means your contribtion is pretty much irrelevant to this specific issue if you'll apparently always say people are paid too much.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

and then they turn around and unjustifiably change the contracts of people without any issues.....and in both cases we get shafted and screwed; in both cases it costs us extra money.

Go figure!

You have no idea under what circumstances this change in salary was made. Pretending otherwise is pretty pointless. Go figure indeed.

MaceFace

Liam Byrne wrote: »

This would certainly be a factor, but I didn't hear anyone on The Last Word today defend it on the premise that it was now full-time, which they surely would have.

Either way, the country does not have money to be throwing around.

That may be true, but if this is what the going rate it for someone of his experience, then so be it. Surely we should not be trying to do it on the cheap by getting someone that may not be up to the job.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

He was already retired and on a hefty pension, also paid for by us. And as far as I know he will still get this, despite no longer being "retired" due to - as you suggest - NAMA now being a full-time job.

Irrelevant. What pension would a private sector person have ? What job security would a private sector person have ?

Not sure what your point is here. I can only assume that if Frank Daly decided to back into work full time, and he went into the private sector, he would be getting his pension as well, so not sure what difference it makes.
Do you think the government should not pay people as much due to other sources of income?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And more to the point, there will never, ever be a private sector equivalent to NAMA, so the above is simply not measurable.

Are you being serious or just trying to be anal about it?
Surely if Frank Daly were to step aside, the government would have to replace him with a certain skill set. I put it to you that there are not that many people with that particular set of skills, and the government would have to compete with the private sector for that person, so obviously would have to pay them a comparable wage.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

As I said, I haven't seen any report that says this....do you have a link ?

How about the national broadcaster

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And if it is now expected to be full-time, this shows just how incompetent and off-the-wall all of the Government's predictions re the task, and the profit and everything else are.......as I asked earlier the pertinent question is WHY he's suddenly required more, WHY the workload is more than predicted, and what factor this pay rise (and any other sneaky changes that will be made along the way will have in relation to the costs and the notional "profit" that Lenihan is always going on and on about.

Do you actually know how NAMA is working? Up until now, it has been involved in the initial planning stages, but now we have EU approval, it is moving into the implementation stage where the loans will move from the banks to the body. Obviously this is the major part of the operation and would require more time than the initial planning which involved the banks doing the majority of the work.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Aside from all of the above, I would GLADLY take a job at €100,000 - full-time - in which I was getting paid that massive amount and also helping my country.....to me that would be win-win and patriotic, and foregoing a completely disposable €70,000 on the basis that the country could not afford it would not be an issue. And as Pah rightly pointed out above - lots of people have had their wages reduced while working longer hours, myself included; how come those on hundreds of thousands of our money get the opposite, while those with feck-all disposable income get hammered ?

I would also take a job of 100k because it is more than I currently earn, but when it comes to patricism, obviously I don't know you and you could be that one in a milion person who would do that.
I assume with this attitude that you occassionally send the revenue some cheques with spare money you may have to help the country along as well?
No, didn't think so, so why expect someone else to?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Another pertinent question : after receiving this AND his pension, how much will he be on ?

Again, what difference does a pension make to the situation unless he would lose it if he went into the private sector.

The pay for this position should be the least amount possible but ensuring that the right person is in the job, and that is why I am more interested in knowing what the job entails, and how much a person with his skill set would get paid in the private sector to guide us on whether 170k is value for money.
I have little interest in jumping on the bandwagon of saying that we are wasting money until I actually understand the facts.

Can anyone say that if we refused to give the 70% increase that we would head off into the sunset and we would have to employ an under qualified person for the job and risk losing more money than we otherwise would?

SLUSK

Moriarty wrote: »

Not to get personal, but that's the attitude of someone whose skills aren't valued at a six figure level. From your coments, you don't appear to have any idea of what this guy may be worth. Like it not, the talent goes where the money is. Most people who work to get into a high-value position expect the return of a high salary.

I don't think you're any more qualified than me to decide on whether this guy is worth the money. I have no idea if he is or not, I can't see how you could have a more qualified opinion.

That means you're ranting against high salaries in general. That means your contribtion is pretty much irrelevant to this specific issue if you'll apparently always say people are paid too much.



You have no idea under what circumstances this change in salary was made. Pretending otherwise is pretty pointless. Go figure indeed.

What exactly makes him worth this salary? What are his accomplishments?

Liam Byrne

Moriarty wrote: »

Not to get personal, but that's the attitude of someone whose skills aren't valued at a six figure level. From your coments, you don't appear to have any idea of what this guy may be worth. Like it not, the talent goes where the money is. Most people who work to get into a high-value position expect the return of a high salary.

Talented or not, if the country doesn't have the money, then it shouldn't be paid.

And €100,000 is a high salary. That's a fact.

Also, re "whose skills aren't valued" is highly subjective. Wafflers and deluded party loyalists are probably of more "value" to Cowen as back-benchers to prop him up, but I wouldn't do that job in a fit, because I'd be selling out my morals and principles.

On the other hand, loads of my clients are perfectly happy to value me highly enough for my liking, and I'm not out to screw them so I factor in that I, personally, want to charge them a fair rate. Could I make more ? Probably. Do I want to ? No - money isn't everything.

So - with his current fragile majority - Cowen would "value" an incompetent yes man more than a competent person who wants to achieve things for the good of the country.

Moriarty wrote: »

I don't think you're any more qualified than me to decide on whether this guy is worth the money. I have no idea if he is or not, I can't see how you could have a more qualified opinion.

I'm not saying that I have a more qualified opinion; I am saying that he agreed to do a job and knew that it was a tough one. So the original salary should not have been increased.

If he was mis-sold the job based on the amount of work, then it shows - yet again - that Lenihan & Co don't have a clue.

Moriarty wrote: »

That means you're ranting against high salaries in general. That means your contribtion is pretty much irrelevant to this specific issue if you'll apparently always say people are paid too much.

I'm not "ranting"....I'm objecting. And yes, I do think that no-one is "worth" crazy money, particularly when we're paying for it while FF are trying to convince people that they should accept being paid less because the country has no money.

So my main objection is to double-standards and the two-fingers being shown to ordinary workers (both public and private sector).

Moriarty wrote: »

You have no idea under what circumstances this change in salary was made. Pretending otherwise is pretty pointless. Go figure indeed.

I'm not "pretending" anything.

FACT : The country doesn't have any money
FACT : NAMA is probably going to make a loss
FACT : The Government is trying to convince everyone to do more work while accepting lower wages
FACT : This pay-rise for even more FF appointees gives the two-fingers to ordinary, decent, hard-working people and tells them to stand their ground re pay cuts in an effort to show that double-standards will not be tolerated.

Moriarty

SLUSK wrote: »

What exactly makes him worth this salary? What are his accomplishments?

I've no idea. I haven't said that he deserves it, I've said that I don't know whether he does. I've said that people saying he doesn't deserve it when they apparently know no more than me about him have another agenda which is of little interest to the current topic.

pah

People we're missing the point here it's not the salary he's on it's the raise he got. Mostly because as a percentage of his current salary its 70% That's enormous by any standards.

We do need to know if it's now a "full-time" job :rolleyes: as opposed to what it was described as previously, a "part time" job

Like heading up the biggest project in the history of the state was ever going to be anything less than a full time job. FFS :mad:

Sounds just like Fianna Failure alright Sure we'll put this fella on it he's got the right stuff, sure 20 hours or so a week oughta do it

anymore

Moriarty wrote: »

I've no idea. I haven't said that he deserves it, I've said that I don't know whether he does. I've said that people saying he doesn't deserve it when they apparently know no more than me about him have another agenda which is of little interest to the current topic.

The pertinent point is that establishing a position at a certain salary and then increasing it by 70% 3 months later is unusual to say the least. Particularily at a time of recession and cutbacks and in an organisation which has attracted so much criticism.
Plus the other members of the board have also received increases.

pah

Liam Byrne wrote: »

FACT : The country doesn't have any money
FACT : NAMA is probably going to make a loss
FACT : The Government is trying to convince everyone to do more work while accepting lower wages
FACT : This pay-rise for even more FF appointees gives the two-fingers to ordinary, decent, hard-working people and tells them to stand their ground re pay cuts in an effort to show that double-standards will not be tolerated.

QED

SLUSK

Frank Daly was the boss of the Revenue Commisioners. So he is a tax collector. I wonder what skills he learned in collecting taxes is relevant for NAMA

Liam Byrne

MaceFace wrote: »

How about the national broadcaster

Who said (and I quote) :

He said Mr Daly would be expected to be available on a full-time basis

"Expected to be available" could involve taking phone-calls from "bosses", etc, which I am expected to do even when I'm not "at work".

At no stage does that report mention "a full-time job".

pah

A spokesman for the Department of Finance said it had been decided to increase the fees for the first year of the existence of NAMA because the volume of work to be done would be higher than in subsequent years.

Since when has the volume of work to be done been a factor in determining salaries at the beginning of the year? Anywhere?

I assume in the next year that the salaries will be decreased. :P

My volume of work changes on a daily basis. I didn't stop going today from 6am til 5pm covering all sorts of ground and hardly getting a break. Should I apply to the Dept of Finance on these grounds to have my wage increased for today? Tomorrow ought to be quiet though so he could cut it back again

Moriarty

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Talented or not, if the country doesn't have the money, then it shouldn't be paid.

And €100,000 is a high salary. That's a fact.

Also, re "whose skills aren't valued" is highly subjective. Wafflers and deluded party loyalists are probably of more "value" to Cowen as back-benchers to prop him up, but I wouldn't do that job in a fit, because I'd be selling out my morals and principles.

On the other hand, loads of my clients are perfectly happy to value me highly enough for my liking, and I'm not out to screw them so I factor in that I, personally, want to charge them a fair rate. Could I make more ? Probably. Do I want to ? No - money isn't everything.

Do you accept that not everyone has the same motivation as you? If you do, then I assume you accept that many people who are currently receiving high salaries are motivated by getting high salaries - that it's important for them. Generally it's at least as relevant to whether someone will take a job as whether they're going to enjoy it. Sometimes more relevant, sometimes less, but always very important.

So we accept the reality that most people will go where the money is, and that money is important in choosing a job. Therefore, the salary offered is important in attracting the people you want. Generally the higher the salary, the better the quality of person you get - otherwise market forces would level out everyones salaries at a comfortable high-five-figure salary. That isn't the case, so we must accept that in general you pay more for the best people.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'm not saying that I have a more qualified opinion; I am saying that he agreed to do a job and knew that it was a tough one. So the original salary should not have been increased.

If he was mis-sold the job based on the amount of work, then it shows - yet again - that Lenihan & Co don't have a clue.

You have no idea what sort of agreement was made in his contract. This is exactly my point. You have nowhere near a complete enough view of the facts to have an opinion of value. To offer an opinion in ignorance is pointless, would you not agree?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'm not "ranting"....I'm objecting. And yes, I do think that no-one is "worth" crazy money, particularly when we're paying for it while FF are trying to convince people that they should accept being paid less because the country has no money.

So my main objection is to double-standards and the two-fingers being shown to ordinary workers (both public and private sector).

No one has received a pay increase in the past two years? No one gets paid more than €170,000 in this country? I think it's perfectly possible that many people were being overpaid while others can still justifiably command a high salary. The two are nowhere near mutually exclusive.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

FACT : The country doesn't have any money
FACT : NAMA is probably going to make a loss
FACT : The Government is trying to convince everyone to do more work while accepting lower wages
FACT : This pay-rise for even more FF appointees gives the two-fingers to ordinary, decent, hard-working people and tells them to stand their ground re pay cuts in an effort to show that double-standards will not be tolerated.

Why is it that when anyone puts 'FACT' in a post, it's the most telling sign that it's just their opinion? The country has buckets of money. The country has far more going out than coming in, granted. Using the money we have wisely does not always mean using less of it.

pah

Moriarty wrote: »

Why is it that when anyone puts 'FACT' in a post, it's the most telling sign that it's just their opinion? The country has buckets of money. The country has far more going out than coming in, granted. Using the money we have wisely does not always mean using less of it.

I'm sorry but I think that a €20bn defecit and the amount of money being borrowed everyday just to pay the bills of the country coupled with the €4bn in cutbacks means that as a country we have no money. Whatever way you slice it.

Liam Byrne

Moriarty wrote: »

Why is it that when anyone puts 'FACT' in a post, it's the most telling sign that it's just their opinion?

I don't know. Then again, why is it that when people have differing opinions to some posters they use phrases like

Moriarty wrote: »

I've said that people saying he doesn't deserve it when they apparently know no more than me about him have another agenda which is of little interest to the current topic.

I can say categorically that my "FACT" prefix was more valid than your opinion/implication of "another agenda". Objecting to something that's landed on us out of the blue, while stinking of double-standards and indicating - at best - that FF hadn't a clue about the amount of work that their pet project of NAMA would involve (despite reassuring us that they'd thought it through and costed it and it would "make a profit") - does not imply "another agenda"

BTW - I let this implication lie earlier so as not to go off-topic, and I don't want to go off on a tangent now. I'm just pointing it out in "self-defence" on a one-off basis to show that opinions (or parts thereof) can indeed be wrong, but objections based on those opinions should not be automatically written off.

Shea O'Meara

Firstly I don't think any existing banker can claim competence and this is even less so the higher up you go. Unless of course we accept that they new full well what they were running us into and figured 'sure why not I'll make a few bob.' If this is the case, maybe they have the smarts, but you can be damn sure they'll milk it for every penny, no hurry to see it through even if it had a chance.
Also if NAMA is the way to go, sober thought was put into it...surley they had some kind of ceiling on the fees involved? Some idea of how big the task at hand was, some idea of the going rate for a 'genius'?

This is all indefensable. We're paying through the nose, it's Celtic Tiger all over...throw money at it and hope for the best.

jackcee

Why is it that people who cant spell, or who have no idea about grammar, are always the ones who are so irate, so irrational, so furious and so certain about the capabilities (or the opposite thereof) of other people???

Why is that????