What's a fair redundancy package for AIB workers

Frank Black · 09-03-2012 10:23AM #1

I heard one of the union spokemen for AIB workers on Matt Cooper yesterday evening saying that they would be trying to get the maximum possible redundancy payments for staff who are going to be let go - fair enough, that's their job I suppose.

My question is, why should the taxpayer, who owns AIB, and has kept these workers in full time employment for the last 3 years, be expected to fund a lavish redundacy package for them now as well? If they had worked in any other buisness, they would have all lost their jobs back in 2009.

talkinyite · 09-03-2012 10:25AM

Cause workers should have equal rights no matter what business they work in?

Mr. Loverman · 09-03-2012 10:25AM

The company has no money so it should be forced redundancies with the statutory payment. That's what a normal business would do. AIB should not be treated differently.

hairyprincess · 09-03-2012 10:29AM

A pint of Harp and a packet of dates

Toby Take a Bow · 09-03-2012 10:30AM

black francis wrote: »

My question is, why should the taxpayer, who owns AIB, and has kept these workers in full time employment for the last 3 years, be expected to fund a lavish redundacy package for them now as well? If they had worked in any other buisness, they would have all lost their jobs back in 2009.

I presume they're legally entitled to some form of redundancy above statutory. The company isn't going out of business (whether it should or not is another matter) so they'd have a fairly solid legal basis to argue for something more. They're also going to be entering a job market with few to no job prospects, which is the point of giving workers above statutory redundancy.

Freddie59 · 09-03-2012 10:30AM

talkinyite wrote: »

Cause workers should have equal rights no matter what business they work in?

Equal rights. Hmmmm. Double-edged sword really. In the normal course of events that business would have ceased trading. And millions would have been saved in salaries paid since. The workers would also have only received statutory redundancy payments.

I was amazed to see that only one-sixth of them are being laid off....and they're up in arms over it, with the IBOA making "demands" etc. FFS, I hope that this Government starts waking up soon, and realises that there is only so much money. We're closing hosptal wards, incresing taxes, tec. And for what? To compensate those who were a party to the collapse of our country? No fcuking thanks.

But, unfortunately, different rules seem to apply to the bankster sector. If they do pay them redundancy settlements above statutory, the future legal implications could be enormous, as it could be argued that the government increased statutory payments (because that is what they will be doing in essence).

Watch this space.

Frank Black · 09-03-2012 10:31AM

talkinyite wrote: »

Cause workers should have equal rights no matter what business they work in?

So that would be statutory redundancy payments then?

hoodwinked · 09-03-2012 10:32AM

i think a fair redundency package would be €-25,000 annually and pay AIB's golf fees!

Freddie59 · 09-03-2012 10:34AM

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

I presume they're legally entitled to some form of redundancy above statutory. The company isn't going out of business (whether it should or not is another matter) so they'd have a fairly solid legal basis to argue for something more. They're also going to be entering a job market with few to no job prospects, which is the point of giving workers above statutory redundancy.

But what about workers who were made redundant in the past four years with ONLY statutory, even though the firms stayed in business. A legal minefield if ever there was one.

talkinyite · 09-03-2012 10:37AM

I know feck all about it TBH sorry

Mushy · 09-03-2012 10:50AM

Freddie59 wrote: »

Equal rights. Hmmmm. Double-edged sword really. In the normal course of events that business would have ceased trading. And millions would have been saved in salaries paid since. The workers would also have only received statutory redundancy payments.

I was amazed to see that only one-sixth of them are being laid off....and they're up in arms over it, with the IBOA making "demands" etc. FFS, I hope that this Government starts waking up soon, and realises that there is only so much money. We're closing hosptal wards, incresing taxes, tec. And for what? To compensate those who were a party to the collapse of our country? No fcuking thanks.

But, unfortunately, different rules seem to apply to the bankster sector. If they do pay them redundancy settlements above statutory, the future legal implications could be enormous, as it could be argued that the government increased statutory payments (because that is what they will be doing in essence).

Watch this space.

You do know that the people who will be laid off will be the "ordinary" workers on the ground who have had to put up with unmitigated b/s from people who think that they themselves overspent the banks millions (read: now the country's millions/billions). Don't worry, the ones who protect your money in their big offices, making the decisions, they won't be the ones to go.

Is my family going to be affected by this? Yes, big time. Just lucky it could be seen a mile off and so is planned. Hope its enough, cos it'll be tough years if its not (yes, thats right, we live within our means).

stevenmu · 09-03-2012 10:57AM

The simple reason that they offer above statutory is that they want the redundancies to be as voluntary as possible. The better the package they offer, the more people will go for it voluntarily. The worse the package is, the fewer the people who will go for it, meaning more forced redundancies, possibly causing widespread strike action, which would ultimately cost more than decent redundancy payments.

Freddie59 · 09-03-2012 11:16AM

Mushy wrote: »

You do know that the people who will be laid off will be the "ordinary" workers on the ground who have had to put up with unmitigated b/s from people who think that they themselves overspent the banks millions (read: now the country's millions/billions). Don't worry, the ones who protect your money in their big offices, making the decisions, they won't be the ones to go.

Is my family going to be affected by this? Yes, big time. Just lucky it could be seen a mile off and so is planned. Hope its enough, cos it'll be tough years if its not (yes, thats right, we live within our means).

Am I sorry for the workers? I truly am. And I mean that. But do you think it is right - after all those who have been made jobless in this country; and which the banks caused; - that they should receive preferential treatment in their severance?

Freddie59 · 09-03-2012 11:24AM

stevenmu wrote: »

The simple reason that they offer above statutory is that they want the redundancies to be as voluntary as possible. The better the package they offer, the more people will go for it voluntarily. The worse the package is, the fewer the people who will go for it, meaning more forced redundancies, possibly causing widespread strike action, which would ultimately cost more than decent redundancy payments.

That would be in the normal course of events. This is a bankrupt company which has been kept artificially trading (at the expense of the taxpayer, and, IMHO in contradiction to every competition law) and should have ceased trading three years ago.

It makes no economic sense that the cash-strapped taxpayer should be expected to cough up even more.

Aka Ishur · 09-03-2012 11:28AM

I suppose that the vast majority of workers laid off will by the lower paid front line staff. These guys had no hand in making the decisions that hurt the economy so much. These guys should get a good package.

Anyone · 09-03-2012 11:29AM

The Irish state has been propping up companies since its inception. Look at every council, look at every semi state company. Ok so AIB is owned by the state, that doesnt mean the people who are employed there shouldnt receive their statotory reduncancies.

trooney · 09-03-2012 11:30AM

Freddie59 wrote: »

But what about workers who were made redundant in the past four years with ONLY statutory, even though the firms stayed in business. A legal minefield if ever there was one.

Not a legal minefield at all. They are legally only entitled to statutory redundancy payment. If other employees made redunadnt previously were given more they could use that to strenghten their argument that they should also recieve more, but legally, all they are entitled to is as prescribed in employment law. two weeks payment for each year employed (up to a max of €600 per week) once they have been employed for longer than two years.

Frank Black · 09-03-2012 11:32AM

Anyone wrote: »

The Irish state has been propping up companies since its inception. Look at every council, look at every semi state company. Ok so AIB is owned by the state, that doesnt mean the people who are employed there shouldnt receive their statotory reduncancies.

You should really learn to read things properly - because I can't see a single person who posted who has said they shouldn't.

We're talking about payments above statutory.

stevenmu · 09-03-2012 11:33AM

Freddie59 wrote: »

That would be in the normal course of events. This is a bankrupt company which has been kept artificially trading (at the expense of the taxpayer, and, IMHO in contradiction to every competition law) and should have ceased trading three years ago.

It makes no economic sense that the cash-strapped taxpayer should be expected to cough up even more.

There is a good argument that they should have just been left to collapse. But since that isn't happening the next best alternative is to downsize through voluntary redunancies and try to get back to profitability.

trishasaffron · 09-03-2012 11:36AM

Is the redundancy on top of maintenance of pension rights?

So how does this work for someone close to pension age? Take massive redundancy and shortly thereafter pension clicks in? Sounds nice to me.

I understand that bank pensioners continue to have golf club fees paid by AIB - that makes me sick. Please correct me if wrong - I'd like to feel better.

Mushy · 09-03-2012 11:36AM

Freddie59 wrote: »

Am I sorry for the workers? I truly am. And I mean that. But do you think it is right - after all those who have been made jobless in this country; and which the banks caused; - that they should receive preferential treatment in their severance?

The only thing that would make it right is if the people who responsible were to be punished. Will that happen? Not a hope.

I don't see this as preferential treatment, sure didn't/don't the HSE have voluntary redundancies on-going now? The workers being laid off just happened to fall under the control of the Government, and sure they be an easy target because 1) they want votes next time around so will have to give good redundancy and 2) they want votes next time so will have to be harsh on them too.

Understand fully where you're coming from about other workers who were made jobless without this, but I can't see why the blame/any animosity should be aimed towards the workers.

SEPT 23 1989 · 09-03-2012 11:38AM

There should be no such bank as the AIB

they should have been let go to the wall in the 80's

Swampy · 09-03-2012 11:38AM

Three fiddy

Anyone · 09-03-2012 11:41AM

black francis wrote: »

You should really learn to read things properly - because I can't see a single person who posted who has said they shouldn't.

We're talking about payments above statutory.

I was giving my opinion on your original question, not everything that followed after that:)

Logical Fallacy · 09-03-2012 11:43AM

The company I was with at the start of the auld recession downsized considerably at the time...I think they dropped about 25-30% of staff at that time, and another 15% of staff a year and a half later.

I went with the first batch and we all received payments that were well above that basic level.

A few other heads i know who lost their jobs at the time all received very handsome severance packages from other companies as well.

I don't think it's right to paint the picture that everyone who has lost their job during this economic crisis has been turfed out with the bare essentials tbh.

stevenmu · 09-03-2012 11:47AM

trishasaffron wrote: »

Is the redundancy on top of maintenance of pension rights?

So how does this work for someone close to pension age? Take massive redundancy and shortly thereafter pension clicks in? Sounds nice to me.

I understand that bank pensioners continue to have golf club fees paid by AIB - that makes me sick. Please correct me if wrong - I'd like to feel better.

Generally with redundancy plans like this, employees will have to apply for them and they will be evaluated against a set of criteria before being accepted or not. I'd guess that they will exclude people due to retire soon, the whole point of the plan is to reduce numbers so if they can get rid of people already retiring for free then they probably will.

Gurgle · 09-03-2012 11:47AM

black francis wrote: »

My question is, why should the taxpayer, who owns AIB, and has kept these workers in full time employment for the last 3 years, be expected to fund a lavish redundacy package for them now as well?

My question would be; Why did the state keep them in employment for the last 3 years? They have had feck all to do, as the bank has been almost completely nonfunctional. They could have been let go then with a really good package that would see them through retraining to do something useful.

To answer your question, because they are employed in permanent pensionable jobs and shouldn't lose their redundancy entitlements due to incompetence and corruption at the top.

Rightly or wrongly, the government at the time decided to 'save' the bank through privatization and keep the employees on. That includes taking responsibility for the employees.

tipptom · 09-03-2012 11:48AM

There was 250,000 people let go from the construction sector through no fault of their own who mostly all took pay cuts and were still let go with the bare statutory 2 weeks no matter how long they were with their employers.These people worked outside through rain hail or snow,there was nothing for them after that while Enda Kenny seems to imply yesterday that there is going to be an extra effort through every "instrument of the state" being used for aIB.They are working for a company that is broke and owes billions and have not taken a pay cut in the last 3 years,in that case I think 2 weeks per year is very fair and face down the strikers.

Mushy · 09-03-2012 11:55AM

tipptom wrote: »

There was 250,000 people let go from the construction sector through no fault of their own who mostly all took pay cuts and were still let go with the bare statutory 2 weeks no matter how long they were with their employers.These people worked outside through rain hail or snow,there was nothing for them after that while Enda Kenny seems to imply yesterday that there is going to be an extra effort through every "instrument of the state" being used for aIB.They are working for a company that is broke and owes billions and have not taken a pay cut in the last 3 years,in that case I think 2 weeks per year is very fair and face down the strikers.

Feel sorry for them but construction isn't an everyday necessity. How many people went into that sector cos there was loads being made in it during the mid-00s?

ahlad · 09-03-2012 11:59AM

talkinyite wrote: »

I know feck all about it TBH sorry

An honesty that is missing in many on here...

44leto · 09-03-2012 12:10PM

2500 is a lot of worker for our small economy, this is a step backwards, but AIB have little choice if the bank is to survive, we still are in danger of losing all the taxpayers investment. Plus the knock-on effect in the real economy would be dire.

So for the taxpayer AIB should make the redundancy as small as possible, but for industrial relations, in which an action could also damage the bank (our bank)they should at least make it fair and acceptable. So I would say 50% above statutory redundancy.

What's a fair redundancy package for AIB workers

Comments