AIB Job cuts how the gov deals with public and private sector

fliball123

Was listening to this on newstalk this morning and found it interesting how the government when it comes to the banks they are able to cut costs and force people out with lowering what there lump sums and pensions will be and forced redundancies but when the public sector are getting their redundancies they are asked to leave and given golden handshakes and overly generous pensions..

Now dont get me wrong I dont want to see any banker get anyones tax payers money but surely the same criteria of the banks fortune ala it is broke and borrowing money to keep the lights on aswell as being bailed out is that of our state...Just curious to find out why the softly softly approach is continued when dealing with the public sector when they can turn around and do this.


http://www.joe.ie/news-politics/current-affairs/aib-pushes-ahead-with-2500-job-cuts-0021966-1

antoobrien

fliball123 wrote: »

Was listening to this on newstalk this morning and found it interesting how the government when it comes to the banks they are able to cut costs and force people out with lowering what there lump sums and pensions will be and forced redundancies

They got a bit smarter here and waited for Ulster bank to announce their redundancy terms. Now the government can (legitimately) say to AIB et al. that UB is the industry standard in Ireland and we won't support you in paying any more.

fliball123

antoobrien wrote: »

They got a bit smarter here and waited for Ulster bank to announce their redundancy terms. Now the government can (legitimately) say to AIB et al. that UB is the industry standard in Ireland and we won't support you in paying any more.

But listening to Noonan he is saying the generous packages which were once paid can no longer be afforded in the current climate...So how much did the 8k Public sector workers who left volentarily there at the end of Feb get..Dont get me wrong I am glad they are doing this to the bank I just dont understand why they didnt use the same approach with the public sector

Riskymove

fliball123 wrote: »

they are able to cut costs and force people out with lowering what there lump sums and pensions

The Government is not changing AIB pensions or lump sums; AIB are having redundancies, not early retirements

but when the public sector are getting their redundancies

The PS did not have redundancies

given golden handshakes and overly generous pensions..

The PS who recently retired early did so on lower pensions and lump sums

fliball123

Riskymove wrote: »

The Government is not changing AIB pensions or lump sums; AIB are having redundancies, not early retirements




The PS did not have redundancies




The PS who recently retired early did so on lower pensions and lump sums

Exactly my point...They were feather whipped out the door with the lumpsums and pensions and entitlements in tact...My piont is that the same criteria that michael noonan sees for the banks ala being broke should of applied for the public sector aswell and people in the ps who are wasters (not all in the ps are ..just to clarify this) should of been the ones forced out instead of what happened...I garentee you people doing a good job in the banks will not be asked to leave...Sorry but your point on pensions and lumps sums the people who retired had their full pensions and lump sum entitlements in tact which was the carrot for them leaving as far as I know.

Riskymove

fliball123 wrote: »

I garentee you people doing a good job in the banks will not be asked to leave...

I'd say they they will start with voluntary redundancies and people near the end fo their careers will likely be the ones who go

They retain pension entitlements and get a lump sum redundancy as well (the cap was mentioned this morning asd €125,000)

Sorry but your point on pensions and lumps sums the people who retired had their full pensions and lump sum entitlements in tact which was the carrot for them leaving as far as I know.

no the pensions were actuarilly reduced for those leaving early

fliball123

Riskymove wrote: »

I'd say they they will start with voluntary redundancies and people near the end fo their careers will likely be the ones who go

They retain pension entitlements and get a lump sum redundancy as well (the cap was mentioned this morning asd €125,000)



no the pensions were actuarilly reduced for those leaving early

have you any links to the reduced pensions..not saying your wrong ..just would like to have a look if you have it handy?

fliball123

Riskymove wrote: »

I'd say they they will start with voluntary redundancies and people near the end fo their careers will likely be the ones who go

They retain pension entitlements and get a lump sum redundancy as well (the cap was mentioned this morning asd €125,000)



no the pensions were actuarilly reduced for those leaving early

As for the volentary redundancies ...not sure I know the bankers unions are now involved..I just hope the fecking gov do not pander and follow through on this as we really cannot afford the packages given out in yesteryear

Park Royal

The downside aspects include we have 2500 possible retires , now paying

much less Income Tax, possibly taking up a certain amount of temporary

/ fulltime jobs in a depressed jobs market......

BostonB

fliball123 wrote: »

Was listening to this on newstalk this morning and found it interesting how the government when it comes to the banks they are able to cut costs and force people out with lowering what there lump sums and pensions will be and forced redundancies but when the public sector are getting their redundancies they are asked to leave and given golden handshakes and overly generous pensions.....

For starters you are comparing dissimilar things, redundancies vs retirements, working in pubic sector worker vs a private sector. If you think they are all the same, and can be treated the same, you'll never understand it. Fundamentally you seem to think you can make a contract then renege on it. That's a recipe for chaos.

Besides which I don't see why your making a connection with the public sector, other than to call some of them wasters. Because the issue of bank staff getting more than they are legally entitled to has nothing to do with the public sector en masses. The only connection really is PS workers who get more than they are legally entitled to.

This is simply Cronyism and isn't really anything to do with the average bank clerk, or the person at the front desk in the local authority.

antoobrien

fliball123 wrote: »

But listening to Noonan he is saying the generous packages which were once paid can no longer be afforded in the current climate...So how much did the 8k Public sector workers who left volentarily there at the end of Feb get..Dont get me wrong I am glad they are doing this to the bank I just dont understand why they didnt use the same approach with the public sector

You're confusing

retirement: allowing somebody to leave break their contract a little early in order to retire

with

redundancy:telling somebody that they don't have a job any more and giving them some compensation for this

Both are methods of reducing the workforce, the first suggests that there may be a place for the person in the organisation. In the case of compulsory redundancies, it states categorically that there is no place in the organisation for the individual.

The payments for the second are set by industry norms - so the payments to UB are regarded as the current industry norms. The IBOA will no doubt come out and state that previous schemes got 6/8 weeks per year of service + statutory (which are the generous schemes that Noonan was referring to). Anybody involved in such negotiations in the past will note that the amounts given out change every few years anyways, so the logic that we can pay out at 2005 (or pre 2008 levels) is flawed.


Early retirement schemes of the kind that the government recently ran are common enough in the private sector here. My dad took advantage of one such scheme a number of years ago, having noted that the payments were getting smaller each year he decided that it was time to go.

fliball123

BostonB wrote: »

For starters you are comparing dissimilar things, redundancies vs retirements, working in pubic sector worker vs a private sector. If you think they are all the same, and can be treated the same, you'll never understand it. Fundamentally you seem to think you can make a contract then renege on it. That's a recipe for chaos.

Besides which I don't see why your making a connection with the public sector, other than to call some of them wasters. Because the issue of bank staff getting more than they are legally entitled to has nothing to do with the public sector en masses. The only connection really is PS workers who get more than they are legally entitled to.

This is simply Cronyism and isn't really anything to do with the average bank clerk, or the person at the front desk in the local authority.

Wasnt there redundancies (not forced) in the HSE not so long ago?? As for the contract your on about..usually when a company is bankrupt all contracts go out the window...So remind of how Ireland Inc is doing there?
The connection I am making is they are showing common sense with the banks..making sure they get the best deal for the tax payer by cutting down the redundancy package and forcing people to leave...Obviously the best will be kept and those deemed to be underperforming will be first out.. Why didnt they take the same approach with the public sector..Instead they are politely asked to leave and in the HSEs case back in 2010/2011 they were asked if they wanted to leave on Redundancy with a bit extra to soften the blow? So do you see that the same conditions for AIB (its broke and bailed out) is the same conditions for Ireland and its public sector ..yet both bodies have been dealt with completely differently

fliball123

antoobrien wrote: »

You're confusing

retirement: allowing somebody to leave break their contract a little early in order to retire

with

redundancy:telling somebody that they don't have a job any more and giving them some compensation for this

Both are methods of reducing the workforce, the first suggests that there may be a place for the person in the organisation. In the case of compulsory redundancies, it states categorically that there is no place in the organisation for the individual.

The payments for the second are set by industry norms - so the payments to UB are regarded as the current industry norms. The IBOA will no doubt come out and state that previous schemes got 6/8 weeks per year of service + statutory (which are the generous schemes that Noonan was referring to). Anybody involved in such negotiations in the past will note that the amounts given out change every few years anyways, so the logic that we can pay out at 2005 (or pre 2008 levels) is flawed.


Early retirement schemes of the kind that the government recently ran are common enough in the private sector here. My dad took advantage of one such scheme a number of years ago, having noted that the payments were getting smaller each year he decided that it was time to go.

HSE redundancies (not forced) at the end of 2010 no retirements there

Riskymove

fliball123 wrote: »

HSE redundancies (not forced) at the end of 2010 no retirements there

how did the HSE redundancy package compare to the present AIB one?

fliball123

Riskymove wrote: »

how did the HSE redundancy package compare to the present AIB one?

Welll they got the same 3 weeks..they got a fair whack more in their lump sum as it was their lump + a severance gratuaty and there pension entitlements are also maintained..So they got the severance gratuaty. Also anyone over 50 went straight onto their pensions. and comparing them the banks are forced where as the HSE was volentary

Riskymove

fliball123 wrote: »

Welll they got the same 3 weeks..they got a fair whack more in their lump sum as it was their lump + a severance gratuaty and there pension entitlements are also maintained..So they got the severance gratuaty. Also anyone over 50 went straight onto their pensions. and comparing them the banks are forced where as the HSE was volentary

so you are complaining that the Giovernment treat bank staff and PS differently, except the redundancy scheme is the same?

BTW AIB are seeking voluntary redundancies also, same as HSE did

Bank staff will also retain their pension entitlements and get their lump sum and pension in due course - anyone a long time in AIB is likely to be under the DB pension similar to PS terms.


seriously man, this is going nowhere

Nijmegen

There's a voluntary redundancy package, but they've said that if they don't get 2,500 people to sign up then they will take other measures. IE, force people out.

That has never been on the table for other employees of bodies, shall we say, equally or only slightly more owned by government.

fliball123

Riskymove wrote: »

so you are complaining that the Giovernment treat bank staff and PS differently, except the redundancy scheme is the same?

BTW AIB are seeking voluntary redundancies also, same as HSE did

Bank staff will also retain their pension entitlements and get their lump sum and pension in due course - anyone a long time in AIB is likely to be under the DB pension similar to PS terms.


seriously man, this is going nowhere

its ****ing not the same...the banks first off are forced ...thats a ****ing hell of a difference to start with and the HSE got a nice tidy bonus called a severance gratuaty so its not the same no where in the same ****ing ball park there...AIB are looking for volentary but have made it clear that if the numbers dont come it will be forced...

The differences are the gratuaty paid out to the HSE and the unforced nature which allowed possible good people to leave and allowed wasters to stay in the HSE... So yes I am complaining that the gov paid this gratuity and never bothered finding out the quality of people leaving its not like we are playing with Monopoly money now is it?

BostonB

fliball123 wrote: »

Wasnt there redundancies (not forced) in the HSE not so long ago?? As for the contract your on about..usually when a company is bankrupt all contracts go out the window...So remind of how Ireland Inc is doing there?
The connection I am making is they are showing common sense with the banks..making sure they get the best deal for the tax payer by cutting down the redundancy package and forcing people to leave...Obviously the best will be kept and those deemed to be underperforming will be first out.. Why didnt they take the same approach with the public sector..Instead they are politely asked to leave and in the HSEs case back in 2010/2011 they were asked if they wanted to leave on Redundancy with a bit extra to soften the blow? So do you see that the same conditions for AIB (its broke and bailed out) is the same conditions for Ireland and its public sector ..yet both bodies have been dealt with completely differently

Except they are not bankrupt so contracts and their legal entitlements are still valid.

You were talking about retirements. Now you realise thats a nonsense comparison, you want to compare two redundancies, without knowing the details of either package. How exactly are you going to do that. Yet you did without knowing the details. Not to mention you are comparing one situation in 2010 with on in 2012.

How about you go get the details, post them here then do the comparison.

fliball123

BostonB wrote: »

Except they are not bankrupt so contracts and their legal entitlements are still valid.

You were talking about retirements. Now you realise thats a nonsense comparison, you want to compare two redundancies, without knowing the details of either package. How exactly are you going to do that. Yet you did without knowing the details. Not to mention you are comparing one situation in 2010 with on in 2012.

How about you go get the details, post them here then do the comparison.

Sorry first off who isnt bankrupt?? AIB did the tax payer not have to bail them out? ..What retirments..AIB are redundanacies..and the HSE in 2010 DEC were also redundancies so how is it nonsense? ...I have put the differences up ..both are based on 3 weeks and a lump sum..the lump sum for the HSE is more as they got a sweetner called a severance gratuaty to sweeten the pot for them they also were not forced to take the deal...The situation in 2010 and 2012 is pretty much the same were and still are at the mercy of the IMF/EU ... we are still borrowing to pay the bills ?? The cpa still protects the PS ?? What other details do I need in your opinion

Riskymove

fliball123 wrote: »

its ****ing not the same...

I have looked up the details of the HSE voluntary redundancy and see nothing about a bonus gratuity...can you provide a link?

Part 2 HSE Voluntary Redundancy Package
Three weeks salary for every year of service

Service for the purpose of calculating the severance element (non statutory) is actual service accrued at the date of termination, expressed in whole years. The service to be reckoned for this purpose includes all service which has been included for the superannuation benefit.

The salary to be used for the severance element (non statutory) is the Current Wholetime Salary of the grade concerned at date of termination (30th December 2010).

This is your *actual salary and includes allowances, capping does not apply.
Actual salary equates to your normal weekly pay based on your contracted work commitment e.g. wholetime, job-share (50% basis), part-time (less than full wholetime hours)

This redundancy package has certain tax exemptions.

In order to calculate approximately how much redundancy you would receive add Part 1 and Part 2 together. It is important to note that the sum of both amounts cannot exceed 2 years of your gross salary or 50% of your salary due between now and your 60th birthday (65th for New Entrants), whichever is the lesser amount

AIB needed recapitilisation but it actually makes profits on operations

we are talking about a voluntary redundancy scheme for now; I dont see how you can comnpare a possible future compulsary redundancy scheme which you dont have any details of yet with the HSE scheme.

Kristopherus

fliball123 wrote: »

Sorry first off who isnt bankrupt?? AIB did the tax payer not have to bail them out? ..What retirments..AIB are redundanacies..and the HSE in 2010 DEC were also redundancies so how is it nonsense? ...I have put the differences up ..both are based on 3 weeks and a lump sum..the lump sum for the HSE is more as they got a sweetner called a severance gratuaty to sweeten the pot for them they also were not forced to take the deal...The situation in 2010 and 2012 is pretty much the same were and still are at the mercy of the IMF/EU ... we are still borrowing to pay the bills ?? The cpa still protects the PS ?? What other details do I need in your opinion

You are totally incorrect in your understanding of of the HSE deal, which is the same as was available to everyone else in the public service. The terms of the early retirement schemes in the PS were based on no. of years service. And there were certainly no sweeteners . See www cspensions.gov.ie. And have a look at the "Protection from pay reductions for certain pensions (2009 Act) and Pension Reduction (2010 Act)" in the Home Page to see how the pensions were reduced in line with the cuts in salary scales from 1st Jan 2010.

Kristopherus

Riskymove wrote: »

I have looked up the details of the HSE voluntary redundancy and see nothing about a bonus gratuity...can you provide a link?





AIB needed recapitilisation but it actually makes profits on operations

we are talking about a voluntary redundancy scheme for now; I dont see how you can comnpare a possible future compulsary redundancy scheme which you dont have any details of yet with the HSE scheme.

There were SFA applicants for that scheme. The vast majority of departees were over 50, so that scheme did not apply to them

Riskymove

both are based on 3 weeks and a lump sum..the lump sum for the HSE is more as they got a sweetner called a severance gratuaty

TBH Fliball, I think you just are misinterpreting how this works, its very similar to HSE

I think it works like this:

If I have 30 years in AIB and earn €1,000, I will get a lump sum of 3 weeks salary per year of service = 90 weeks = €90,000

I also get statutory redundancy of 2 weeks per year = 60 weeks (i think this is capped at €600pw) = €36,000

so therefore €126,000

Riskymove

Kristopherus wrote: »

There were SFA applicants for that scheme. The vast majority of departees were over 50, so that scheme did not apply to them

even so, we are talking about the terms of the schemes and the differences

BostonB

fliball123 wrote: »

Sorry first off who isnt bankrupt?? AIB did the tax payer not have to bail them out? ..

Who has declared bankruptcy?

fliball123 wrote: »

What retirments..AIB are redundanacies..and the HSE in 2010 DEC were also redundancies so how is it nonsense? ...

Yes but thats not what you said originally. Which was. ...

fliball123 wrote: »

...when it comes to the banks they are able to cut costs and force people out with lowering what there lump sums and pensions will be and forced redundancies but when the public sector are getting their redundancies they are asked to leave and given golden handshakes and overly generous pensions....

You only changed tack when the mistake was pointed out to you.

fliball123 wrote: »

.I have put the differences up .

both are based on 3 weeks and a lump sum..the lump sum for the HSE is more as they got a sweetner called a severance gratuaty to sweeten the pot for them they also were not forced to take the deal....

Sorry you haven't. At least not correct details.

fliball123 wrote: »

The situation in 2010 and 2012 is pretty much the same were and still are at the mercy of the IMF/EU ... we are still borrowing to pay the bills ?? The cpa still protects the PS ?? What other details do I need in your opinion

The facts, and some basic understanding of employment law.

You're basic premise that the Govt should reduce spending where it can. Is fine. You're just all at sea with the details of how to do that legally.

fliball123

Riskymove wrote: »

I have looked up the details of the HSE voluntary redundancy and see nothing about a bonus gratuity...can you provide a link?





AIB needed recapitilisation but it actually makes profits on operations

we are talking about a voluntary redundancy scheme for now; I dont see how you can comnpare a possible future compulsary redundancy scheme which you dont have any details of yet with the HSE scheme.

here you go
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0302/pay-business.html

fliball123

BostonB wrote: »

Who has declared bankruptcy?



Yes but thats not what you said originally. Which was. ...



You only changed tack when the mistake was pointed out to you.



Sorry you haven't. At least not correct details.



The facts, and some basic understanding of employment law.

You're basic premise that the Govt should reduce spending where it can. Is fine. You're just all at sea with the details of how to do that legally.

sorry I have pointed out the difference the hse staff were offered a servernce gratuity on top of their redunancy and having thier pension pot kept in tact

Details here

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0302/pay-business.html

Riskymove

fliball123 wrote: »

here you go
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0302/pay-business.html

??

Dr Galen

At this point I'd usually say to people to get back OT, but tbh, I'm kinda baffled as to what the real point of the thread was?

Is it about AIB? Is it about the Public Service? Is it just another thread sneakily taking swipes/bashing the PS? etc. etc. ad nauseum

Anyway

Locked

Cheers

DrG