4.8 million of tax payers money for 300 bank employees!!

waster81

Wow these bank employees really have it good

They havent taken any pay cuts since their crisis

The jobs lost so fair have received very generous redundency packages

And now we are paying into their pension schemes

Where is the madness going to stop

Let them strike, who cares they arent hurting anybody bar themselves

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0203/1224311175440.html

woodoo

If it truly is pay and not a bonus their unions should be asking to go back to 12 month pay. And forget about having some of the pay paid out in the form of a 13th month.

n97 mini

I worked in the bank many moons ago and we got paid 13 times a year. Two of our pay cheques came at the same. There was no bonus.

[Jackass]

It's one of a number of areas where pay is extortionate and to top it all off, extremely over staffed.

I'm involved in the financial industry and I think it's a disgrace, especially considering how it's a major source of the problem, but seems immune from the consequences of it's actions, with everyone else picking up the tab...

n97 mini

[Jackass] wrote: »

It's one of a number of areas where pay is extortionate and to top it all off, extremely over staffed.

Are you on the right thread?

It applies to staff across the EBS, not one area. Salaries start are €18k.

sarumite

waster81 wrote: »

Wow these bank employees really have it good

They havent taken any pay cuts since their crisis

The jobs lost so fair have received very generous redundency packages

And now we are paying into their pension schemes

Where is the madness going to stop

Let them strike, who cares they arent hurting anybody bar themselves

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0203/1224311175440.html

Going on past discussions on this forum, I guess some here would argue that they are entitled to it and stop being a begrudger.

Personally I am not at all surprised. It seems governments past and present are only too happy to play hard and loose with taxpayers money.

cursai

Nobody can give out about PS workers, some of whom get stupid perks and allowances, striking if this goes ahead. EBS wages may be low. But a 13th month is either an anomaly, some calendar related reason for it or just what it looks, like a bonus

n97 mini

Pay is paid over 13 equal pay cheques instead of 12. If your gross salary is €24,000 you get €1,846 in every pay cheque.

You get one pay cheque a month from Jan to Nov and in Dec you get two.

I really don't see how this is so hard for people to understand that this is not a bonus.

Head The Wall

If if was that simple and it was defined in their contact as such then the threat of a court case would have it sorted. It hasn't gone down that route though so I suspect it is classed as a bonus and the staff hope the taxpayer will over for them.

Cookie_Monster

n97 mini wrote: »

Pay is paid over 13 equal pay cheques instead of 12. If your gross salary is €24,000 you get €1,846 in every pay cheque.

You get one pay cheque a month from Jan to Nov and in Dec you get two.

I really don't see how this is so hard for people to understand that this is not a bonus.

seems a strange way to do it though. I've been paid every four weeks rather than monthly in one of my jobs but the extra payment fell during the year and I got paid twice in October the way it worked out and it moves around a bit each year. Why leave it to December, what financial reason is there to do it that way?

n97 mini

I believe badly-worded contracts are to blame. It's the way I was paid in '96-'97, but I no longer have that contract (naturally), so I can't tell for certain.

Alun

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

seems a strange way to do it though. I've been paid every four weeks rather than monthly in one of my jobs but the extra payment fell during the year and I got paid twice in October the way it worked out and it moves around a bit each year. Why leave it to December, what financial reason is there to do it that way?

It's quite common in the Netherlands, in fact sometimes you even get 13.5 months with the 0.5 months salary being paid just before the summer, and is know as 'holiday money'. The 13th month is usually paid in December, presumably to offset costs to families of Christmas presents etc. I found it quite a good idea actually.

murphaph

It's a traditional thing in many German companies too. You earn 26k a year for example, you get paid 13 x 2k (minus deductions). They do it so you have the "extra" money at Christmas time.

IBM used to pay every employee in the world on a weekly basis on Mondays, to ensure that if the "man of the house" was fond of a drink at the weekend that at least the wife and kids would get fed for most of the week. This tradition died out about 15 years ago or so.

I don't see this 13th payment as a bonus if it is included in your base pay in your contract, however if the employer is on the rocks then the employees (like in the real private sector: ie, not banking) should consider their actions carefully and be prepared to be made redundant as the employer can no longer afford their position.

waster81

How anyone can justify the state actually pumping money into private sector pension is quite unbelievable

Bank employees clearly arent contributing enough to their own pensions and it shouldnt be the taxpayer topping them up

Its clear that the banks are still running this country

waster81

n97 mini wrote: »

I believe badly-worded contracts are to blame. It's the way I was paid in '96-'97, but I no longer have that contract (naturally), so I can't tell for certain.

who give's a flying f### if they are badly worded

Its obvious that they werent entitled to the payments otherwise they would have got them if that's what their contracts said

sarumite

waster81 wrote: »

Bank employees clearly arent contributing enough to their own pensions and it shouldnt be the taxpayer topping them up

Hardly a problem that is limited to bank employees.

waster81

which other private sector employees pension schemes are the state topping up?

sarumite

waster81 wrote: »

which other private sector employees pension schemes are the state topping up?

I would hope not many. The government shouldn't be spending taxpayers money topping up pensions that have not recieved adequate contributions to cover the costs of said pensions....regardless of whether they belong to the banking sector or other sectors of our economy.

waster81

n97 mini wrote: »

Pay is paid over 13 equal pay cheques instead of 12. If your gross salary is €24,000 you get €1,846 in every pay cheque.

You get one pay cheque a month from Jan to Nov and in Dec you get two.

I really don't see how this is so hard for people to understand that this is not a bonus.

you able to justify why taxpayers ae paying into private pension schemes?

n97 mini

It was the agreement that was reached.

I don't have to justify anything, it was nothing to do with me.

waster81

n97 mini wrote: »

It was the agreement that was reached.

I don't have to justify anything, it was nothing to do with me.

INteresting you're happy with an agreement that benefits the private sector bankers

Would you have the same hands off aproach to a public sector agreement!

Seeing as its taxpayers money it does affect everyone

Welease

waster81 wrote: »

you able to justify why taxpayers ae paying into private pension schemes?

For the same reason taxpayers have been funding public pensions.. Weak Politicians, Strong Unions and agreements brokered by the LRC.

The EBS are essentially owned by the country now, so they will be able to avail of the same weak willed approach.. Aer Lingus (& DAA/SR Technics) will likely be next in line (and we only own 25%)

n97 mini

waster81 wrote: »

INteresting you're happy with an agreement that benefits the private sector bankers

Would you have the same hands off aproach to a public sector agreement!

Formerly private sector, now part of a state owned company, which makes them public sector. Albeit on the lower end of the pay scale. Think Clerical Officer on the first point of the scale, i.e. with no increments.

They're about as culpable as the staff in the Dept of Finance, possibly slightly less so, but without the job security.

deise blue

n97 mini wrote: »

Formerly private sector, now part of a state owned company, which makes them public sector. Albeit on the lower end of the pay scale. Think Clerical Officer on the first point of the scale, i.e. with no increments.

They're about as culpable as the staff in the Dept of Finance, possibly slightly less so, but without the job security.

They were certainly irredeemably Private Sector when the actions of their respective executives caused the depth of our recession.

BOI are majority owned by private investors with the Government being minority shareholders , AIB continue to be quoted on the ISEQ & of course a substantial number of employees in both our major Banks received the first tranche of 3.5% under the National Wage Agreement towards 2016 with pension contributions being a fraction of those currently being paid by Public Sector employees & of course many continue to earn salaries that would be the envy of many employees - public or private !

Welease

Would it be unfair to argue that if the government can plunder private pension schemes, then there should be no issue contributing to them also

n97 mini

deise blue wrote: »

They were certainly irredeemably Private Sector when the actions of their respective executives caused the depth of our recession.

This story pertains to the EBS. It's arguable that the Dept of Finance, Central Bank, and numerous other state agencies were more culpable. All public servants, all asleep at the wheel (or all getting fat on gravy).

deise blue wrote: »

AIB continue to be quoted on the ISEQ & of course a substantial number of employees in both our major Banks received the first tranche of 3.5% under the National Wage Agreement towards 2016

Many groups received it, for example 3rd level lecturers.

The fact of the matter is that AIB and EBS staff are now public servants, but as they are bankers they're disowned by the unions and have become the scapegoats for the current crisis. They're also not being afforded the same protection under the CPA as other public sector staff -- another failing of their union, the IBOA.

Where was the machinery of the government when the bankers were running riot? They had their sticky fingers in the tills too, getting fat off benchmarking, and as long as the gravy train was running they were on it (I should know, I was one of them ).

noodler

Welease wrote: »

Would it be unfair to argue that if the government can plunder private pension schemes, then there should be no issue contributing to them also

Silly argument of course - if only one small fund benefits.

Welease

noodler wrote: »

Silly argument of course - if only one small fund benefits.

Of course It was a joke.. but it demonstrates that the government can interfere in private pension funds when it suits it's will..

lmimmfn

They should call the 13th month Augtember.

waster81

n97 mini wrote: »

Formerly private sector, now part of a state owned company, which makes them public sector. Albeit on the lower end of the pay scale. Think Clerical Officer on the first point of the scale, i.e. with no increments.

They're about as culpable as the staff in the Dept of Finance, possibly slightly less so, but without the job security.

Lol oh what lengths people will go to defend the banks

Trying to moul them into public servants in the loosest terms possible

waster81

Welease wrote: »

For the same reason taxpayers have been funding public pensions.. Weak Politicians, Strong Unions and agreements brokered by the LRC.

The EBS are essentially owned by the country now, so they will be able to avail of the same weak willed approach.. Aer Lingus (& DAA/SR Technics) will likely be next in line (and we only own 25%)

utter nonsense - not unexpected but still nonsense

waster81

n97 mini wrote: »

This story pertains to the EBS. It's arguable that the Dept of Finance, Central Bank, and numerous other state agencies were more culpable. All public servants, all asleep at the wheel (or all getting fat on gravy).


Many groups received it, for example 3rd level lecturers.

The fact of the matter is that AIB and EBS staff are now public servants, but as they are bankers they're disowned by the unions and have become the scapegoats for the current crisis. They're also not being afforded the same protection under the CPA as other public sector staff -- another failing of their union, the IBOA.

Where was the machinery of the government when the bankers were running riot? They had their sticky fingers in the tills too, getting fat off benchmarking, and as long as the gravy train was running they were on it (I should know, I was one of them ).

Could you please stop with your nonsence that they are public servants - either you dont understand or are throwing out rubbish for the sake of it

The bank employees were getting obese, rolling in the bonuses etc that they made via all the loans, profits the banks were making

Welease

waster81 wrote: »

utter nonsense - not unexpected but still nonsense

What's nonsense.. Do you think public pensions have been funded completely?

waster81

Nonsense that your trying your hardest to compare bank employees to anything other than what they are private sector employees whos company has paid and now come on their hands and knees looking for taxpayers to pay their pensions

Welease

waster81 wrote: »

Nonsense that your trying your hardest to compare bank employees to anything other than what they are private sector employees whos company has paid and now come on their hands and knees looking for taxpayers to pay their pensions

I'm not trying anything.. I explained how they came to the agreement.. that part is correct.. and I explained that EBS are state owned.. that part is also correct..

Sorry if the facts don't fit your view of the world..

waster81

Welease wrote: »

I'm not trying anything.. I explained how they came to the agreement.. that part is correct.. and I explained that EBS are state owned.. that part is also correct..

Sorry if the facts don't fit your view of the world..

But you havent explained the most crucial point, why taxpayers should pump almost 5 million into private sector pension scheme for 300 employees

That you fail to explain - but try your hardest to make connection with semi state, public service etc

Welease

waster81 wrote: »

But you havent explained the most crucial point, why taxpayers should pump almost 5 million into private sector pension scheme for 300 employees

That you fail to explain - but try your hardest to make connection with semi state, public service etc

(as per my first post)
... Because the Unions, Government went to the LRC and that was the deal they brokered..

Are you asking do i agree that it should have been done? No, I don't, but then again the precident has been set many times before for the LRC, Union and Goverment to come to rediculous agreements. So I'm not surprised..

waster81

Welease wrote: »

(as per my first post)
... Because the Unions, Government went to the LRC and that was the deal they brokered..

Are you asking do i agree that it should have been done? No, I don't, but then again the precident has been set many times before for the LRC, Union and Goverment to come to rediculous agreements. So I'm not surprised..

I still havent seen where government has put taxpayers money into a private sector pension pot, which their employees werent fundin sufficiently, ( not a semi state company)

n97 mini

waster81 wrote: »

But you havent explained the most crucial point, why taxpayers should pump almost 5 million into private sector pension scheme for 300 employees

For the same reason the govt put 20 billion into a pension fund for other public servants. When there is a shortfall in a state-owned company it's not unheard of for a govt to make up the difference. Would you begrudge Central Bank staff a similar arrangement, because they already have one.

waster81

n97 mini wrote: »

For the same reason the govt put 20 billion into a pension fund for other public servants. When there is a shortfall in a state-owned company it's not unheard of for a govt to make up the difference. Would you begrudge Central Bank staff a similar arrangement, because they already have one.

Yet AGAIN you are trying to blur the lines - The central bank wasnt a private company that went bust - you're trying to compare apples and oranges

EBS was a private company, employees werent contributing enough to their pensions, the company went bust

Quote another example of a PRIVATE company going bust, and the taxpayer pumping millions into pension schemes

Welease

waster81 wrote: »

Yet AGAIN you are trying to blur the lines - The central bank wasnt a private company that went bust - you're trying to compare apples and oranges

EBS was a private company, employees werent contributing enough to their pensions, the company went bust

Quote another example of a PRIVATE company going bust, and the taxpayer pumping millions into pension schemes

Was.. but isn't now.. Thats why the government was involved, and thats why they came to an agreement with the unions via the LRC..

n97 mini

waster81 wrote: »

Yet AGAIN you are trying to blur the lines - The central bank wasnt a private company that went bust - you're trying to compare apples and oranges

EBS was a private company, employees werent contributing enough to their pensions, the company went bust

It didn't go bust, the govt bought it out before that could happen. If it had gone bust we wouldn't be talking about it.

waster81 wrote: »

Quote another example of a PRIVATE company going bust, and the taxpayer pumping millions into pension schemes

Public companies don't go bust because they get what is effectively a bailout every year if they're not profitable. There are any number of these.

noodler

n97 mini wrote: »

It didn't go bust, the govt bought it out before that could happen. If it had gone bust we wouldn't be talking about it.

That is a stupid argument.

The subordinated bondholders in the Irish banks already lost a legal battle when they tried to put it forward.

waster81

Welease wrote: »

Was.. but isn't now.. Thats why the government was involved, and thats why they came to an agreement with the unions via the LRC..

Again name another private company which failed, then the government stepped into prop up their pension scheme

why are the banks so different

waster81

n97 mini wrote: »

It didn't go bust, the govt bought it out before that could happen. If it had gone bust we wouldn't be talking about it.


Public companies don't go bust because they get what is effectively a bailout every year if they're not profitable. There are any number of these.

First point is nonsense and you know it - it adds nothing to the argument

Yet AGAIN we are not talking about public companies, the discussion is about private company having their pension schemes topped up by taxpayers

Why do you insist on comparing two different organisations

No private companies who fail, get their pension schemes topped up by the government

sarumite

waster81 wrote: »

First point is nonsense and you know it - it adds nothing to the argument

It is actually the essence of the argument. The fact is the EBS may have been bust, but it did not go into bankruptcy. The workers via their unions had a dispute with their (new) employer which is now the government and went to the LRC. The outcome of that dispute was agreed upon by both parties. This would have been the same process had it been with a public sector or semi-state union.

n97 mini

waster81 wrote: »

No private companies who fail, get their pension schemes topped up by the government

And it hasn't happened here either. EBS is not a private company, it's a subsidiary of AIB which is 99.8% state-owned.

To be honest I don't know why those staff aren't looking to be included in the CPA etc. As I said before the IBOA has sold them short, and they probably should be looking to SIPTU now.

waster81

OK guys you go off and continue to attack the real public servants

Keep trying to blur the lines of thats what suits your argument

sarumite

waster81 wrote: »

OK guys you go off and continue to attack the real public servants

Keep trying to blur the lines of thats what suits your argument

I call shenanigans. In summary

Waster81 unhappy with the results of an LRC recommendation that was accepted by both the employer and employees
Waster81 complains about the ruling.
Other poster point out the folly in Waster81's argument.
Waster81 shouts 'PS basher' (paraphrasing) and retreats
/thread

southsiderosie

sarumite wrote: »

/thread

Good idea, since it has turned into a squabbling trainwreck...which was probably inevitable, given the tone of the OP.

Closed.


SSR