More bank bonuses on the way.

parsi

I see that AiB is going to pay out 40 million euro in bonus payments despite having to beg for money from the taxpayer.

It is claimed that this is due to contractual agreements.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/08/allied-irish-banks-pay-bonuses-despite-bailout?CMP=twt_gu

That €40,000,000 would go a long way to providing services for the homeless , the disabled, leaking schools.

Gumbo

utter disgrace imo, while i get spilt at for having one extra privlidge (sp) day........

KylieWyley

i wish i could hit someone.


makes me sick.

later12

We spend more than that every day on welfare.

In fairness, this is a lot of money, but given the scale of bonuses in the past, and given also the fact that it is part of a contractual agreement and not broader bank policy itself, I don't really think it's a huge story.

Gumbo

later10 wrote: »

We spend more than that every day on welfare.

In fairness, this is a lot of money, but given the scale of bonuses in the past, and given also the fact that it is part of a contractual agreement and not broader bank policy itself, I don't really think it's a huge story.

this tax payers money being dished out, do you get a bonus?
i dont! and i dont think bank workers should be getting one either.

ebbsy

But the bank workers deserve the bonuses, cos they have done such a good job, destroying this country for generations.

Gumbo

ebbsy wrote: »

But the bank workers deserve the bonuses, cos they have done such a good job, destroying this country for generations.

dont get me wrong, i know its not the average bank workers fault, or the tellers or the admin as such, but the principle of a bonus being paid when they had to be bailed out by the government is annoying. the government doesnt pay all its PS workers a bonus, heck we dont even get a free cup of tea on xmas eve in work for gods sake!

Chucky the tree

kceire wrote: »

dont get me wrong, i know its not the average bank workers fault, or the tellers or the admin as such, but the principle of a bonus being paid when they had to be bailed out by the government is annoying. the government doesnt pay all its PS workers a bonus, heck we dont even get a free cup of tea on xmas eve in work for gods sake!

You get your Christmas shopping day and half an hour "cheque cashing" time. If any group knows about how important contracts are it's the PS.

Gumbo

Chucky the tree wrote: »

You get your Christmas shopping day and half an hour "cheque cashing" time.

jesus man, you need to read up these forums a bit more before you post on them :rolleyes:

for starters, its a HALF DAY SHOPPING, not a day as you put it and secondly i dont get it. a small % of Civil Servants get it, there are 30,000 CS workers in the state and only about 10% of them get it so please get some facts ready before you TRY spout your mouth off as it just turns around and bites you in the ass as you show your hand at knowing nothing about what your talking about........

plus, cheque cashing time hasnt been given to staff since 2004, i think were along way from 2004, dont you???????

namloc1980

An AIB capital markets employee won his court case a few weeks back where the court agreed that he had to be paid his bonus under his contract. This has tied the hands of the Bank, they could fight all the employees in the courts but they would lose each and every one as the precedent has been set.

Chucky the tree

kceire wrote: »

jesus man, you need to read up these forums a bit more before you post on them :rolleyes:

for starters, its a HALF DAY SHOPPING, not a day as you put it and secondly i dont get it. a small % of Civil Servants get it, there are 30,000 CS workers in the state and only about 10% of them get it so please get some facts ready before you TRY spout your mouth off as it just turns around and bites you in the ass as you show your hand at knowing nothing about what your talking about........

plus, cheque cashing time hasnt been given to staff since 2004, i think were along way from 2004, dont you???????

Yes it has.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6257523.ece

Gumbo

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Yes it has.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6257523.ece

how come i dont get it?

eurokev

B*nker ryhmes with W*nker

Chucky the tree

kceire wrote: »

how come i dont get it?

I'm guessing you joined after the cut off point? If not you'll have to get onto your union.

PCPhoto

who created these bankers "contracts" ...is there anything in them that means they have to actually meet "targets" or do their job properly ?

namloc1980

PCPhoto wrote: »

who created these bankers "contracts" ...is there anything in them that means they have to actually meet "targets" or do their job properly ?

They did meet targets. The bonuses relate to 2008 when capital markets were doing well. Even now capital markets are doing well in certain areas.

Liam Byrne

parsi wrote: »

I see that AiB is going to pay out 40 million euro in bonus payments despite having to beg for money from the taxpayer.

It is claimed that this is due to contractual agreements.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/08/allied-irish-banks-pay-bonuses-despite-bailout?CMP=twt_gu

That €40,000,000 would go a long way to providing services for the homeless , the disabled, leaking schools.

Until this bull**** is stopped we have no hope of rebuilding our society.

I am unbelievably glad that I closed by AIB account. They should be closed down in the morning for pulling stunts like this.

I would urge any account holder to move their accounts in protest.

melekalikimaka

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Until this bull**** is stopped we have no hope of rebuilding our society.

I am unbelievably glad that I closed by AIB account. They should be closed down in the morning for pulling stunts like this.

I would urge any account holder to move their accounts in protest.

and further drain the bank of money... forcing more injections from the government. your comment if taking on board would cost the taxpayer MORE than if the bonuses that the workers are LEGALLY entitled to were ILLEGALLY removed, you can't just change a contract becuase you feel ALL bank workers no matter their role are undeserving of a bonus for work which you don't have a clue what it consists of or department they work for. Sure if we went by your logic, I demand that everyone on social welfare be given food stamps instead of cash... becuase i dont feel they should be spending MY money on whatever they want. seriously this attitude on boards of spitefulness and in many cases jealousy is getting old

the_syco

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I would urge any account holder to move their accounts in protest.

Indeed. F**k the employees contract rights. And if the banks can change the contracts of their employees, I dare say other businesses will do the same.

melekalikimaka

the_syco wrote: »

Indeed. F**k the employees contract rights. And if the banks can change the contracts of their employees, I dare say other businesses will do the same.

yes lets started messing with contract rights, just what we need :rolleyes:. I assume your not working in the banking sector

namloc1980

Liam Byrne wrote: »

They should be closed down in the morning for pulling stunts like this.

Yeah feck employee rights, contract law and court decisions.

stepbar

namloc1980 wrote: »

Yeah feck employee rights, contract law and court decisions.

Ah yeah, shur fcuk the law while we're at it, fcuk everything :rolleyes:

melekalikimaka

Salem - Dublin Style...

the_syco

melekalikimaka wrote: »

yes lets started messing with contract rights, just what we need :rolleyes:. I assume your not working in the banking sector

I'm sorry, I forgot the "smiley face" icon.

From my post, I meant that should the banking sectors contracts get changed, the rest of our contracts would be changed shortly afterwards.

That's something people don't realise - if your wage worked out to be one euro more than minimum wage per hour, so you're on €9.65 an hour, why would you think your employer, to save money, not rewrite that to €8.65 an hour, or maybe just €8 an hour - "shur, ware all in da recession, loike"...:rolleyes: I'm sure a lot of skilled companies wouldn't do this, but at the same time, a lot would, and striking is not a clever an option as it once was, esp as there are no doubt hundreds of people looking for work.

SO yes, should you alter the banking sectors contract, why wouldn't the same clause not be used by every single recession hit employer in the country?

digme

parsi wrote: »

I see that AiB is going to pay out 40 million euro in bonus payments despite having to beg for money from the taxpayer.

It is claimed that this is due to contractual agreements.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/08/allied-irish-banks-pay-bonuses-despite-bailout?CMP=twt_gu

That €40,000,000 would go a long way to providing services for the homeless , the disabled, leaking schools.

And I bet you still use banks......

Gumbo

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I'm guessing you joined after the cut off point? If not you'll have to get onto your union.

im not in a union...............

melekalikimaka wrote: »

you can't just change a contract becuase you feel ALL bank workers no matter their role are undeserving of a bonus for work which you don't have a clue what it consists of or department they work for. Sure if we went by your logic, I demand that everyone on social welfare be given food stamps instead of cash... becuase i dont feel they should be spending MY money on whatever they want. seriously this attitude on boards of spitefulness and in many cases jealousy is getting old

the government done it to PS pay twice now......

1. pay cut
2. pension levy

Gumbo

sorry, double post.

Liam Byrne

melekalikimaka wrote: »

and further drain the bank of money... forcing more injections from the government. your comment if taking on board would cost the taxpayer MORE than if the bonuses that the workers are LEGALLY entitled to were ILLEGALLY removed, you can't just change a contract becuase you feel ALL bank workers no matter their role are undeserving of a bonus for work which you don't have a clue what it consists of or department they work for. Sure if we went by your logic, I demand that everyone on social welfare be given food stamps instead of cash... becuase i dont feel they should be spending MY money on whatever they want. seriously this attitude on boards of spitefulness and in many cases jealousy is getting old

It is not jealousy or spite. And it has nothing to do with whether the employees deserve it; I've works places where I deserved massive bonuses and got nothing; I've worked somewhere that an AGREED PAY RISE couldn't be paid because the company got into difficulty.

It is a basic acknowledgement that the banks have no money. If they had money, they could do what they liked.

If any commercial company has no cash then people don't get bonuses.

mrgaa1

But surely the government during its takeover of AIB should have removed all these legalities. Its not the employees faults - contracts were there - but times have changed and the government has to answer this.

Drumpot

Simple solution so.

Bring in a new levy tax on all bank employees. 100% tax on any bonuses while its state owned. Problem and legal issues solved.

danbohan

namloc1980 wrote: »

They did meet targets. The bonuses relate to 2008 when capital markets were doing well. Even now capital markets are doing well in certain areas.

well done those guys , they are entitled to their bonuses. however as their performance for , 2009 , 2010 has been dismal their employers ie the irish taxpayer is entitled to sue them for poor performance , breach of contract etc etc , we will settle for the sum of 120 million , payment by 31 dec or present yourselves at mountjoy jail by 2/january 2011 for imprisonment until debt is paid in full , interest will be charged at 12% per day on the outstanding balances from that date !

namloc1980

danbohan wrote: »

well done those guys , they are entitled to their bonuses. however as their performance for , 2009 , 2010 has been dismal their employers ie the irish taxpayer is entitled to sue them for poor performance , breach of contract etc etc , we will settle for the sum of 120 million , payment by 31 dec or present yourselves at mountjoy jail by 2/january 2011 for imprisonment until debt is paid in full , interest will be charged at 12% per day on the outstanding balances from that date !

You clearly have no idea what capital markets is or what you're talking about in general. Well done :rolleyes:

Liam Byrne

the_syco wrote: »

From my post, I meant that should the banking sectors contracts get changed, the rest of our contracts would be changed shortly afterwards.

That's something people don't realise - if your wage worked out to be one euro more than minimum wage per hour, so you're on €9.65 an hour, why would you think your employer, to save money, not rewrite that to €8.65 an hour, or maybe just €8 an hour - "shur, ware all in da recession, loike"...:rolleyes: I'm sure a lot of skilled companies wouldn't do this, but at the same time, a lot would, and striking is not a clever an option as it once was, esp as there are no doubt hundreds of people looking for work.

SO yes, should you alter the banking sectors contract, why wouldn't the same clause not be used by every single recession hit employer in the country?

Scaremongering and strawmanning.


I am proposing this for the specific case where a company has no money.

I know many, many people whose "contracts" have been changed and while some of them are on less money because of the recession, others are doing twice the workload.

The reason - because if they didn't they'd be out of a job.

It's what happens here in the real world where late-night undocumented meetings in the unfamiliar surroundings of a non-tent don't happen.

Every employer is "recession hit", but they haven't been bought out by the same taxpayer who is being made struggle to survive.

skydish79

2,400 bank employees getting on average €16,000 bonus.
This when the eegits ( bank managers) cant even get proper paper work to go with loans given out. If this is the calibre of do no wrong private sector work no wonder we are in such a mess.

Its an utter disgrace that these same people still have their jobs, and on top of this still received pay increases

Drumpot

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Scaremongering and strawmanning.


I am proposing this for the specific case where a company has no money.

I know many, many people whose "contracts" have been changed and while some of them are on less money because of the recession, others are doing twice the workload.

The reason - because if they didn't they'd be out of a job.

It's what happens here in the real world where late-night undocumented meetings in the unfamiliar surroundings of a non-tent don't happen.

Every employer is "recession hit", but they haven't been bought out by the same taxpayer who is being made struggle to survive.

Not just that. The bank was bought soley to protect the taxpayer. If it wasnt bought none of them would have a job or a bonus.

These are harsh times and if losing out on bonus's that you feel you were due is the worst thing you suffer, then so be it. What is sad is that the 40mil will have to be made up somewhere else. Maybe a couple of cancer vaccines or job losses.

Flimbos

skydish79 wrote: »

2,400 bank employees getting on average €16,000 bonus

I was just about to check what the average bonus is, that's a nice bonus for a company which has effectively gone bust to be handing out.

Regardless of what contract stipulations there are, this is taxpayers money... no, money taxpayers have borrowed, to be repaid with interest, to pay these bonuses. Crazy situation, and people have a right to be angry.

danbohan

namloc1980 wrote: »

You clearly have no idea what capital markets is or what you're talking about in general. Well done :rolleyes:

and you have , your full of it matey like most the bankers in this country , hence the mess

namloc1980

danbohan wrote: »

and you have , your full of it matey like most the bankers in this country , hence the mess

LOL you really haven't a clue. These people work in Capital Markets and have little to do with property lending. In addition, AIB didn't want to pay these bonuses but the High Court ruled that these bonuses had to be paid, but as usual on boards, never let the FACTS get in the way of a good RANT!

Drumpot

namloc1980 wrote: »

LOL you really haven't a clue. These people work in Capital Markets and have little to do with property lending. In addition, AIB didn't want to pay these bonuses but the High Court ruled that these bonuses had to be paid, but as usual on boards, never let the FACTS get in the way of a good RANT!

Doesnt matter which area they work in, if the bailout didnt happen they wouldnt have a job, let alone get a bonus.

Like I said, bring in an emergency levy of 100% on all bank bonus. Prob solved.

danbohan

namloc1980 wrote: »

LOL you really haven't a clue. These people work in Capital Markets and have little to do with property lending. In addition, AIB didn't want to pay these bonuses but the High Court ruled that these bonuses had to be paid, but as usual on boards, never let the FACTS get in the way of a good RANT!

everybody knows the facts dude , the fact that it is totally unacceptable no matter what high court ruled is whats relevant , ways have to be found that these bonuses are not paid or if they are paid taxed at 100%

melekalikimaka

Drumpot wrote: »

Doesnt matter which area they work in, if the bailout didnt happen they wouldnt have a job, let alone get a bonus.

Like I said, bring in an emergency levy of 100% on all bank bonus. Prob solved.

the bailout what to keep the banks running, if bonuses were withheld, courtcases would ensue, the banks would lose, costing the tax payer more. Also why would someone want to work for an employer that changes contracts at will, it would cause and exodus of the highly skill staff that and actually making the banks money... your arguement sounds great in theory... but in practice it would do no one good but cheer you up

melekalikimaka

danbohan wrote: »

everybody knows the facts dude , the fact that it is totally unacceptable no matter what high court ruled is whats relevant

I don't think acceptability is an option when its a high court ruling

Liam Byrne

melekalikimaka wrote: »

the bailout what to keep the banks running, if bonuses were withheld, courtcases would ensue, the banks would lose, costing the tax payer more. Also why would someone want to work for an employer that changes contracts at will, it would cause and exodus of the highly skill staff that and actually making the banks money... your arguement sounds great in theory... but in practice it would do no one good but cheer you up

It's not "at will", so that's even more strawmanning/scaremongering.

And how about phrasing that as "why would someone want to work" full-stop, considering they'd be out of a job completely if we hadn't bailed them out ?

Ginger Nut

melekalikimaka wrote: »

the bailout what to keep the banks running, if bonuses were withheld, courtcases would ensue, the banks would lose, costing the tax payer more. Also why would someone want to work for an employer that changes contracts at will, it would cause and exodus of the highly skill staff that and actually making the banks money... your arguement sounds great in theory... but in practice it would do no one good but cheer you up

No let the banks rot - I think this is obsene- if the staff think they are worth that much let them get the bonus in AIB shares - that will soften their cough. I'm nearly sure that this bonus is given to the higher ranks in the bank - not the branch staff - who are at the face of abuse from the public about this

melekalikimaka

Liam Byrne wrote: »

It's not "at will", so that's even more strawmanning/scaremongering.

And how about phrasing that as "why would someone want to work" full-stop, considering they'd be out of a job completely if we hadn't bailed them out ?

the money was not just to bail out the banks, it was to keep the bank running. if there was anything 'wrong' with the bonuses, it would not have been allowed by the EMF, its in their contract, the high court ruled in their favour, its happening, legally its the right think to do, people have issues with how tax money is spent everywhere, its a fact of life

skydish79

melekalikimaka wrote: »

the bailout what to keep the banks running, if bonuses were withheld, courtcases would ensue, the banks would lose, costing the tax payer more. Also why would someone want to work for an employer that changes contracts at will, it would cause and exodus of the highly skill staff that and actually making the banks money... your arguement sounds great in theory... but in practice it would do no one good but cheer you up

It is not just those in the capital markets that are receiving the bonuses, its the same bracnh managers that autorised loans without proper paperwork.
So if these are he "highly skilled" staff you refer to then Im sure we could do without one or two of them

Drumpot

melekalikimaka wrote: »

the bailout what to keep the banks running, if bonuses were withheld, courtcases would ensue, the banks would lose, costing the tax payer more. Also why would someone want to work for an employer that changes contracts at will, it would cause and exodus of the highly skill staff that and actually making the banks money... your arguement sounds great in theory... but in practice it would do no one good but cheer you up

Changes contracts at will ?

In all fairness , the government were able to bring in levies and reductions in public servants pay/pensions. They have been able to levy the lower paid. Why do you think its unfair or unreasonable to levy a sector that has caused the entire mess and is literally costing us billions ?

As soon as the government bailed out the banks, they saved the jobs of all bank employee's (good/bad/indifferant).

Anyways, its not changing their contracts if the government just levies/tax the bonus. Its a big presumption that all these "highly skilled" staff would do anything other then give out and get on with things. Where could they go ? In fact if you are in a position to quit your job in protest at a bonus, good look in the real world.

Cuts have to be made somewhere and if people get that upset about losing out on bonus's, then woopty doo. Disable people and people desperatly relying on social welfare are being hit, tell us your sob story! !

skydish79

Ginger Nut wrote: »

No let the banks rot - I think this is obsene- if the staff think they are worth that much let them get the bonus in AIB shares - that will soften their cough. I'm nearly sure that this bonus is given to the higher ranks in the bank - not the branch staff - who are at the face of abuse from the public about this

Branch managers are also receiving these bonuses.
When we see the government taking €90 million of disability, carers, blind allowances and these leeches taking €40 million in bonuses.

Couple that with the €55 million paid in bonuses last year, for what you might ask.

Wonder who contributes more to our society.

melekalikimaka

Drumpot wrote: »

Changes contracts at will ?

In all fairness , the government were able to bring in levies and reductions in public servants pay/pensions. They have been able to levy the lower paid. Why do you think its unfair or unreasonable to levy a sector that has caused the entire mess and is literally costing us billions ?

pay reductions are different to christmas bonuses written in a legal contract. i dont think they 'caused this entire mess' thats a gross generalisation and unfounded, Do you feel its fair for a huge portion on a sector to be punished for the actions of a minority?

melekalikimaka

skydish79 wrote: »

Branch managers are also receiving these bonuses.
When we see the government taking €90 million of disability, carers, blind allowances and these leeches taking €40 million in bonuses,

it was taken to the high court and ruled in favour of honouring the contracts

theg81der

Just because its legal doesn`t make it fair - sometimes the law is an ass!

Not sure what exactly we could do about it thou, suppose we`re just suppose to chalk it up to "life`s not fair" with the other 90 billion unfair things we`ve experienced this last few years.