What's a fair redundancy package for AIB workers

Freddie59 · 09-03-2012 12:16PM

Mushy wrote: »

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.

Not aiming at the workers, but the company cannot receive preferential redundancy treatment. It would be completely immoral.

Eoin · 09-03-2012 12:16PM

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

I presume they're legally entitled to some form of redundancy above statutory

No, statutory means their legal entitlement.

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.

That's not really relevant though. All that matters is that AIB exists today, and they want people to voluntarily take redundancy packages to avoid as much industrial action as possible. And to do that, you have to incentivise staff by offering more than the statutory.

Freddie59 wrote:

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).

No, they're not. AIB themselves could offer a smaller package next year, and then smaller again the next year if they wanted to. A lot of companies do this so staff know that it's not in their interest to hold out for a better package down the road.

Not a legal eagle etc, but I can't see any legal precedent being set here at all.

I know it's easy to get emotive about this topic, but sometimes you just have to think logically about it.

"Lavish redundancy packages" makes for great headlines, but if they can get rid of some of their higher paid people with a minimum of fuss, then the savings could be effective after a very short period of time.

Freddie59 · 09-03-2012 12:17PM

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

There should be no such bank as the AIB

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

Indeed. And I think everyone's forgetting that this is the SECOND time..

mikemac1 · 09-03-2012 12:19PM

Why are people talking about possible strikes?

The IBOA are one of the weakest unions in Ireland. They would not be capable of organizing anything. Whipped by management

The staff will get what Ulster bank staff got and there will not be a hint of trouble

Freddie59 · 09-03-2012 12:19PM

Eoin wrote: »

No, statutory means their legal entitlement.

That's not really relevant though. All that matters is that AIB exists today, and they want people to voluntarily take redundancy packages to avoid as much industrial action as possible. And to do that, you have to incentivise staff by offering more than the statutory.

No, they're not. AIB themselves could offer a smaller package next year, and then smaller again the next year if they wanted to. A lot of companies do this so staff know that it's not in their interest to hold out for a better package down the road.

Not a legal eagle etc, but I can't see any legal precedent being set here at all.

I know it's easy to get emotive about this topic, but sometimes you just have to think logically about it.

"Lavish redundancy packages" makes for great headlines, but if they can get rid of some of their higher paid people with a minimum of fuss, then the savings could be effective after a very short period of time.

I can see where you're coming from. But the reality is that this country is bankrupt. And is propping up bankrupt, failed business entities. Capitalism operates under two fundamentals: you succeed or you fail. Every rule is being change to accommodate bankers. It must be stopped now.

Freddie59 · 09-03-2012 12:20PM

ahlad wrote: »

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

What is there to know, really?

Honestly......AIB is a bankrupt, failed business entity which should have been closed long ago.

Honestly......why should bank staff in that same entity be paid more than their union brethren who have been ad redundant in the private Sector in the past few years.

Honestly.......why the fcuk are we even considering it?

Freddie59 · 09-03-2012 12:22PM

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.

Most incisive and sensible comment in a long time. Well said.

Eoin · 09-03-2012 12:38PM

Freddie59 wrote: »

I can see where you're coming from. But the reality is that this country is bankrupt. And is propping up bankrupt, failed business entities. Capitalism operates under two fundamentals: you succeed or you fail. Every rule is being change to accommodate bankers. It must be stopped now.

No rule is being changed. And don't lump the everyday workers in the banks who are on crap money with the execs who caused the damage.

Think about it for a second.

Imagine a fully private and non-unionised company - why would they want to offer more than legal minimum if they didn't have to? It costs them more than it needs to.

But they often do offer more, and there are solid reasons behind it.

Guy:Incognito · 09-03-2012 12:42PM

talkinyite wrote: »

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

They do have rights. Statutory redundancy, no?

Frank Black · 09-03-2012 12:45PM

Eoin wrote: »

No rule is being changed. And don't lump the everyday workers in the banks who are on crap money with the execs who caused the damage.

Think about it for a second.

Imagine a fully private and non-unionised company - why would they want to offer more than legal minimum if they didn't have to? It costs them more than it needs to.

But they often do offer more, and there are solid reasons behind it.

Yep, but there's a difference between a private company using their own money to provide additional redundancy payments above the statutory requirement and a company like AIB, where the additional money will come from the taxpayers - surely that's the main point.

ahlad · 09-03-2012 12:47PM

Eoin wrote: »

No rule is being changed. And don't lump the everyday workers in the banks who are on crap money with the execs who caused the damage.

Think about it for a second.

Imagine a fully private and non-unionised company - why would they want to offer more than legal minimum if they didn't have to? It costs them more than it needs to.

But they often do offer more, and there are solid reasons behind it.

My point is that the vast majority of people with AIB that are going to be affected by this will be the lower income earners in the bank, who would have had very little if any input into higher level strategic failures within the company over the years.
Its pretty disgusting that there should this widespread 'good enough for the f*ckers' sentiment in the country when at the end of it all, the main thing that going to happen is that 2,500 more people are going to be on the dole queue, by and large (as in the construction industry in the vast majority of cases) through absolutely no fault of their own.

micropig · 09-03-2012 12:48PM

Mushy wrote: »

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?

Construction isn't an everyday necessity?What? Obviously not building new houses but repairs etc?

The people who work in the bank also choose their profession in the 00's...and not for the good of their health, they were offered attractive packages.

I agree it would be immoral to pay anything above statutory.

If you choose to work for the mob, you're just as much to blame.

Mushy · 09-03-2012 12:48PM

Freddie59 wrote: »

Not aiming at the workers, but the company cannot receive preferential redundancy treatment. It would be completely immoral.

Morality and big business dont go hand in hand unfortunatly. I think that is something we agree upon.

Mushy · 09-03-2012 12:50PM

micropig wrote: »

This is nonsense, the people who work in the bank also choose their profession in the 00's...and not for the good of their health, they were offered attractive packages.

I agree it would be immoral to pay anything above statutory.

If you choose to work for the mob, you're just as much to blame.

I understand that, but these redundancies arent aimed at those who started recently. These are aimed at people who will opt for early retirement.

Eoin · 09-03-2012 12:55PM

black francis wrote: »

Yep, but there's a difference between a private company using their own money to provide additional redundancy payments above the statutory requirement and a company like AIB, where the additional money will come from the taxpayers - surely that's the main point.

Not necessarily though.

As I just said, why would a totally private non-unionised company offer more than the legal minimum if they didn't have to? Yet many do.

You can make savings within a very short period of time if you incentivise people to take redundancy. I've worked in companies where there have been voluntary and involuntary redundancies, and things run a lot smoother over the course of the redundancies when it's voluntary.

ahlad wrote: »

My point is that the vast majority of people with AIB that are going to be affected by this will be the lower income earners in the bank, who would have had very little if any input into higher level strategic failures within the company over the years.

I'm in total agreement.

micropig · 09-03-2012 12:56PM

Mushy wrote: »

I understand that, but these redundancies arent aimed at those who started recently. These are aimed at people who will opt for early retirement.

Ok, the ones that have been there the longest, having been lying with the dogs the longest, and have the most fleas,

deserve no more than statutory redundancy

If I was working for a rogue organisation, whose methods and I didn't agreed with, I would leave,

Yes, I know there's no jobs now, but there was plenty a few years ago.

I hold these people just as much to blame, for carrying out the dirty work

kraggy · 09-03-2012 12:58PM

black francis wrote: »

So that would be statutory redundancy payments then?

No actually.

HSE redundancies a while back were statutory (2weeks) plus 3 weeks per year service.

i.e. 5 weeks pay for each year's service.

If people think AIB should be treated like public sector, then AIB workers being made redundant should get a minimum of 5 weeks pay for each year worked.

But people will come on here and bitch otherwise even though it wasn't the bank clerk in your local branch who caused the ****.

sonyvision · 09-03-2012 01:01PM

Mushy wrote: »

micropig wrote: »

This is nonsense, the people who work in the bank also choose their profession in the 00's...and not for the good of their health, they were offered attractive packages.

I agree it would be immoral to pay anything above statutory.

If you choose to work for the mob, you're just as much to blame.

I understand that, but these redundancies arent aimed at those who started recently. These are aimed at people who will opt for early retirement.

They should recieve statutory, myself a full time student who worked part time in a shop for over 2 years closed in june of 2011, the owner claimedhe had no money but owned and ran in kilkenny. He refused to pay any redundancy and gave us 1 day notice. Today out of 7 employees in the store 5 have recieve cheques from the states in relation to a redundancy.

But yet today the other emoloyee was my mam a manager we both still did not recieve this after been promises by the states the cheque is been posted2 months ago. Yet after ringing them yesterday they refuse to give us any information in this story. I know for a fact we are not the only people this is happening to but why should aib staff be treated any better then the rest of the country.

micropig · 09-03-2012 01:02PM

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/unemployment_and_redundancy/redundancy/redundancy_payments.html

Statutory redundancy 3 weeks/year up to a max of €31,200/year

mikemac1 · 09-03-2012 01:05PM

sonyvision wrote: »

I know for a fact we are not the only people this is happening to but why should aib staff be treated any better then the rest of the country.

Just because you worked for a rogue employer who was a crook then everyone else should get the same?

Sounds a bit bitter

Mushy · 09-03-2012 01:05PM

micropig wrote: »

Ok, the ones that have been there the longest, having been lying with the dogs the longest, and have the most fleas,

deserve no more than statutory redundancy

If I was working for a rogue organisation, whose methods and I didn't agreed with, I would leave,

Yes, I know there's no jobs now, but there was plenty a few years ago.

I hold these people just as much to blame, for carrying out the dirty work

In the case of the family member itll affect on my side, she wasnt going to go change profession in her 50s. No college education, where would she go? You ever think that everyones situation is different and not everyone can stroll into a new job? If everyone left a company because it was corrupt or did wrong we'd be left with a nation of unemployed people.

Blaming the front-line staff for the problems of the country....are you the type to scream at them and not help their situation leading to suicide as happened? Cop on and wake up, they didnt know it was like that.

Mahou · 09-03-2012 01:06PM

The staff laid off probably have mortgages and car loans with the bank so what they get would have to go back to the bank. It could be in the interest of the bank/state to pay above the minimum.

micropig · 09-03-2012 01:11PM

Mushy wrote: »

In the case of the family member itll affect on my side, she wasnt going to go change profession in her 50s. No college education, where would she go? You ever think that everyones situation is different and not everyone can stroll into a new job? If everyone left a company because it was corrupt or did wrong we'd be left with a nation of unemployed people.

Many people retrain in late life, In your 50's I don't think your leaving certificate is going to matter too much, more your experiences and achievements since then, they choose to stay in their job boo hoo . And if every one spoke out about rogue organisations and refused to work with them, I think we'd have a much better country

Mushy wrote: »

Blaming the front-line staff for the problems of the country....are you the type to scream at them and not help their situation leading to suicide as happened? Cop on and wake up, they didnt know it was like that.

No?

Ignorance is bliss:rolleyes:

Seen as you brought it up, Have you actually any idea of the number of suicides in the country because of the pressure banks are putting on people?

Mushy · 09-03-2012 01:17PM

micropig wrote: »

Many people retrain in late life, In your 50's I don't think your leaving certificate is going to matter too much, more your experiences and achievements since then, they choose to stay in their job boo hoo . And if every one spoke out about rogue organisations and refused to work with them, I think we'd have a much better country

No?

Ignorance is bliss:rolleyes:

As I said, situations differ from person to person. In my family members case, there was little hope of her retraining, even though it can be done. I'd like to think that too, but its somehow doubtful from my perspective.

You must live a very blissful life then.

If statutory redundancy was enough, that would be great. They cant be seen to do that though, as its effectively firing people. Doesnt look good on the govts jobs plan.

micropig · 09-03-2012 01:21PM

Mushy wrote: »

As I said, situations differ from person to person. In my family members case, there was little hope of her retraining, even though it can be done. I'd like to think that too, but its somehow doubtful from my perspective.

You must live a very blissful life then.

If statutory redundancy was enough, that would be great. They cant be seen to do that though, as its effectively firing people. Doesnt look good on the govts jobs plan.

We all make our own opportunities.

I think the government look bad enough and will look worse if they allow anything over statutory..

micropig · 09-03-2012 01:23PM

mikemac1 wrote: »

Just because you worked for a rogue employer who was a crook then everyone else should get the same?

Sounds a bit bitter

Aib are not a rogue employer and crook?

I am out of touch:rolleyes:

sonyvision · 09-03-2012 01:27PM

mikemac1 wrote: »

Just because you worked for a rogue employer who was a crook then everyone else should get the same?

Sounds a bit bitter

He wasn't a crook, the system allowed him not to pay us as he declared insolvency to the state. its then up to the state to decide if its true or not, which they declared is true.

my problem is the state after saying 2 months ago you have it next week is a bit of a joke tbh !!

sunflower27 · 09-03-2012 02:18PM

Have they said in what areas the redundancies will be?

flanders1979 · 09-03-2012 02:25PM

They should have a last in first out policy. But as in most cases its not what you know, its who you know.
I think the people at the top should foot the bill through more cuts.

AngryBollix · 09-03-2012 02:29PM

Theres a reasonab;e probability that a sizable portion of the staff being made redundant didnt do a lot wrong and are paying the price for other peoples failures and mismanagement.

Wouldnt it be reasonable that these people are treated fairly?

What's a fair redundancy package for AIB workers

Comments