The Bank having their Xmas Party tonight...

mossyc123

donalg1 wrote: »

So what you are saying is if I am unhappy that there is a ghost estate in my area I can go and throw my own sh*t at any builder or carpenter I see then as its their fault?

They really are lucky to be still working.

The principles of capitalism would dictate that the organisations they work for shouldn't even exist anymore!

Therefore taking even one cent from their benefactors to entertain staff is just not on.

Equally abusing individuals in their work place (whether it's Seanie Fitz or Jane Bloggs the cashier) isn't on either.

Basically, what he said:

JonathanAnon wrote: »

A lot of private businesses arent having Christmas parties this year because they have closed down or because they cant afford it.. The banks would have closed down except for the fact that the Government really had no choice but to save them to save the economy... This doesnt happen for any other private business, so they should feel lucky that they even have their jobs this Christmas...

I dont agree with taking it out on the lower level staff... but I think that given the billions we've pumped in to the banks to save them, wasting more public money on Christmas parties for them is taking the p1ss altogether.. You'd have to wonder, if the banks hadnt received so much public money, would they be having Christmas parties this year??

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Unavailable for Comment wrote: »

Why should my taxes pay for any of it?

Lol... what a weak argument.

Are people really that bitter to begrudge the bottom of the rung 1 night out? Seriously? :rolleyes:

gerryo777

KeithAFC wrote: »

I think they are entitled to a Christmas party. It is the socialists in society now who are trying to take all the fun away from people. It isn't easy running these banks and all the work that goes into it.

People moan about big bankers bonuses, the work they put in is massive. They should get bonuses.

Trolling again....:rolleyes:

Noopti

So where is the proof that any tax payers money is being spent on this party?

Lot of assumptions going on in this thread.

mossyc123

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Because they're owned by RBS and haven't gotten any Irish taxpayers money.

Seeing as the OP is refusing to name the bank in question, I'm suspecting it's Ulster Bank or National Irish (part of Danske Bank)

Show some solidarity... why should the UK taxpayer have to pay for it either?

Would you think it ok if an AIB in the UK was funding staff entertainment?

KeithAFC

gerryo777 wrote: »

Trolling again....:rolleyes:

A genuine opinion. People are mislead about bankers and believe the myths.

Riskymove

Snakeblood wrote: »

They should, they just shouldn't use public money to do it.

I see, there is some public money in banks, therefore anything they spend money on is public money; is that it?

mossyc123

Noopti wrote: »

So where is the proof that any tax payers money is being spent on this party?

Lot of assumptions going on in this thread.

Most people aren't assuming anything really.

Theoretically, I and others have put forward the idea that tax-payer funded staff entertainment is unacceptable.

The staff can do what they like with their after tax wages, no one has suggested they can't afaik.

Noopti

mossyc123 wrote: »

Show some solidarity... why should the UK taxpayer have to pay for it either?

Would you think it ok if an AIB in the UK was funding staff entertainment?

Oh ffs.......where is the evidence this is being paid for by taxpayers....anywhere!?

Typical "rabble rabble" response to this thread. My argument was against the arse of a customer who thought it was ok to take it out on the cashiers.

Snakeblood

Riskymove wrote: »

I see, there is some public money in banks, therefore anything they spend money on is public money; is that it?

If the bank is only in business because it got public money, then it should be treated as if it is dependent on public money, and treated like its spending money it got from the public coffers. I'm not sure how that's a crazy proposition.
I'm not entirely happy, for example (actually, I'm furious) about TDs pensions, or the Dail Bar, for example, and I'll happily criticise that in another thread, because it's public money taken from the taxpayers (or to be repaid by the taxpayers at least) that is not being used to best effect.

I don't think subsidising a christmas party for a bank is best effect either.

Noopti

mossyc123 wrote: »

Most people aren't assuming anything really.

Theoretically, I and others have put forward the idea that tax-payer funded staff entertainment is unacceptable.

The staff can do what they like with their after tax wages, no one has suggested they can't afaik.

So in "theory" they are using their own tax to pay for their own party?

Theory in this case is arse, deal with the facts - which is a prick of a customer decided to take out his anger on the cashiers. That is not on.

melekalikimaka

Snakeblood wrote: »

If the bank is only in business because it got public money, then it should be treated as if it is dependent on public money, and treated like its spending money it got from the public coffers. I'm not sure how that's a crazy proposition.
I'm not entirely happy, for example (actually, I'm furious) about TDs pensions, or the Dail Bar, for example, and I'll happily criticise that in another thread, because it's public money taken from the taxpayers (or to be repaid by the taxpayers at least) that is not being used to best effect.

I don't think subsidising a christmas party for a bank is best effect either.

well i dont think people on social welfare should get double for holidays... but I accept it as something that happens... and its something that is accepted, get over it

mossyc123

Noopti wrote: »

Oh ffs.......where is the evidence this is being paid for by taxpayers....anywhere!?

Typical "rabble rabble" response to this thread. My argument was against the arse of a customer who thought it was ok to take it out on the cashiers.

Oh ffs yourself, i've already said IF it's being funded by the Bank in anyway it's unacceptable.

melekalikimaka

mossyc123 wrote: »

Oh ffs yourself, i've already said IF it's being funded by the Bank in anyway it's unacceptable.

what if its funded by the profits made from the bank and not the tax bailout?

Snakeblood

melekalikimaka wrote: »

well i dont think people on social welfare should get double for holidays... but I accept it as something that happens... and its something that is accepted, get over it

If you're talking about the christmas bonus, that's been gone for 3 years due to changing circumstances. Not accepted.

Snakeblood

melekalikimaka wrote: »

what if its funded by the profits made from the bank and not the tax bailout?

Then they should be paying back the bailout from the money they've made.

gerryo777

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Because they're owned by RBS and haven't gotten any Irish taxpayers money.

Seeing as the OP is refusing to name the bank in question, I'm suspecting it's Ulster Bank or National Irish (part of Danske Bank)

I know who owns them but ulster bank are still covered under the deposit guarantee scheme, so if RBS ever goes tits up it'll still cost us.....

mossyc123

melekalikimaka wrote: »

what if its funded by the profits made from the bank and not the tax bailout?

Ah here, don't start with that sh!te now

TwoShedsJackson

massiveattack wrote: »

No truer word spoken! Everyone hitting the public service while the teachers look after their scumbag un-educatable kids every day

Uneducable

ejmaztec

To summarise:

Christmas parties for bank staff are ok as long as they pay for them themselves, and they string up some token executives to round off the evening.

Sounds fair.

mossyc123

And as for the "they were just the little people, just doin their jobs" argument...

So was everybody fcukin else!!!

What most people didn't have was the safety net of a massive bailout from the State to keep their company afloat/in the country.

A lot of us got nice bonuses and parties around Christmas time during the good times but for most, times have changed.

Some working in Private Sector companies doing well still do get treated to bonuses and perks and fair play to 'em.

The difference is that none of those companies owe their very survival to the State.

ThinkAboutIt

8 pages and all I read was RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE.

podgemonster

I said this in a recent thread but i think its worth saying again...

I detest Christmas parties. Couple of years back I got dragged to my wifes workplace Christmas party (they are kinda like a bank) I though I'd make the effort for her. It was in the other side of the country so it took me ages to get their at which point I was wrecked.

The place was real slick but I didn't know anyone there, I was completely under dressed for the whole evening. A group of foreign lads showed up and ruined the night, pushing people around, shouting etc... I had a few run-ins with them through the night. The office itself was so big I spent most of the evening looking for my wife and chatting to some fat guy I'd never met.

Eventually I found her in the vault, shot Hans Gruber and threw him out the window.

I am pie

mossyc123 wrote: »

And as for the "they were just the little people, just doin their jobs" argument...

So was everybody fcukin else!!!

What most people didn't have was the safety net of a massive bailout from the State to keep their company afloat/in the country.

A lot of us got nice bonuses and parties around Christmas time during the good times but for most, times have changed.

Some working in Private Sector companies doing well still do get treated to bonuses and perks and fair play to 'em.

The difference is that none of those companies owe their very survival to the State.

A large amount small business survive on credit lines from banks.....can you see where this is going ?

Stop ranting, start thinking.

byhookorbycrook

We pay for our own night up (primary teachers.)Always have done, so don't see why anyone would expect to have the night paid for by anyone else.

Be||e

melekalikimaka wrote: »

what if its funded by the profits made from the bank and not the tax bailout?

Profits? lol

xzanti

feelingblue wrote: »

There was a man behind me in line and as I was leaving I heard him say to the cashier "A Christmas party, after what you shower got up to, you must be kidding me"

He was obviously a retard if he can't differentiate between an innocent hard working cashier and the fat cat bank bosses who got us into said mess.

That, or a troll.

mossyc123

I am pie wrote: »

A large amount small business survive on credit lines from banks.....can you see where this is going ?

Stop ranting, start thinking.

Exactly why we shouldn't have their profit margins dented by any unnecassary (although admittedly tiny) expenses...

35notout

gerryo777 wrote: »

I know who owns them but ulster bank are still covered under the deposit guarantee scheme, so if RBS ever goes tits up it'll still cost us.....

The Deposit Guarantee Scheme and bank bailouts are 2 completely different things and cannot be compared. DGS also includes Credit Unions and Postbank - so are these guys not allowed a party either ???

feelingblue

Thanks for everyones opinion. I stand by what I say and am glad to hear so many of you do too


Am dying to go up on Monday and see who rode who