AIB pay increase

dent

BOHSBOHS wrote: »

it is not performance related.
everybody gets it.

Chatting to a friend in there, IT staff, accountant's and management are not getting this raise.

cyclopath2001

murphaph wrote: »

Yes. Contracts usually (or at least very often) have an "act of God" clause for such exceptional circumstances.

Should the same logic apply to mortgage holders?

Sand

Good to see NAMA will help the bank afford its wage rises.

johnathan woss

Long Onion wrote: »

I was not commenting on the morality, but since you have brought it up, do you think that it is moral to be allowed renege on a contract entered into on good faith?

What part of "THESE PEOPLE SHOULD ALL BE UNEMPLOYED" do you not understand ?

mikemac

johnathan woss wrote: »

What part of "THESE PEOPLE SHOULD ALL BE UNEMPLOYED" do you not understand ?

Maybe but this wage increase is for lower grade staff. I'm not sure if it goes to officer level but it certainly goes below that

And none of these staff were responsible for the mess that was caused by AIB senior management. Hey, Bank of Ireland payed this increase last year, I don't remember much outrage at the time and staff were in a similar situation. Where you here posting in capital letters at the time?

I understand that the business failed and got taxpayers money as it was deemed a vital business.
All I can say is lower grade aren't responsible and it's sad if thousands have to laid off for the stupid and reckless decisions of the AIB board members.
I'd say the same for clerical officers in the civil service who face paycuts in December for the excesses of their managers

mickoneill30

Anybody hear George Hook on Newtalk yesterday evening about this? He was talking to some Irish Times guy.
George was ranting about how AIB is giving the fingers to the government and the people and the Irish Times guy was there to agree with him (that's probably not the official reason).
There was no mention of this being agreed a long time ago or even that AIB had tried to use the LRC to get a pay cut rather than a pay rise.
I'm not particularly a fan of AIB but if you can't make your case without leaving out kind of important facts you probably shouldn't be a host of a pretty major afternoon show.

Long Onion

johnathan woss wrote: »

What part of "THESE PEOPLE SHOULD ALL BE UNEMPLOYED" do you not understand ?

Well done on the populist rhetoric, any chance you could deal with the question now?

mickoneill30

mickoneill30 wrote: »

Now I'm no reporter but you think that little factoid would be in the Indo article. It's almost as if the paper has an agenda

Indo has another article today. This one is worse than yesterdays. Still don't seem to know about the LRC.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/aibs-nauseating-pay-rise-is-a-slap-in-taxpayers-face-1918252.html

Edit: It's posted in the Opinion section so I suppose that's how they get around not reporting all the facts.

jmayo

mikemac wrote: »

Because AIB agreed to do it last year. You don't just make agreements and then instantly cancel them.
And BOI already made this payment last year.

It's for staff on lower grades, all on pretty average salaries

Yes you do when the company is bankrupt and only still in business, because the government give it billions of taxpayers money becuase they deem it more important than for instance the option of giving operations to sick children.

Have you ever worked in a company that was going under or maybe you have and still striked because you still wanted your payrise even though there was no money ?

SueWho wrote: »

Not everyone working in AIB is a rich fat cat.

My friend has worked in AIB for three years, earns less than €35k per year. She has recently fully qualified as an accountant but is not getting her salary increased on qualification, she works more overtime than ever now (overtime is UNPAID) because of the increase in regulation on the banks and she will not get a bonus of any kind this year even though in the past her bonus was the reward for doing overtime.

Do you begrudge her getting a 3% increase when in reality her salary should be rising to about €45k?

Yes I do begrudge her her raise, since it is ultimately coming out of our pockets.
Banks are refusing to lend to viable businesses to keep them afloat and thus keep people in jobs, because
a) they were very reckless in their lending policies and thus have f***ed up their balance sheets and now
b) they are giving raises to their staff.

Long Onion wrote: »

The majority of bank staff had fcuk all to do with the current rectal situation, so I don't think that it is fully fair to tar all with the same brush.

The LRC are just doing what they have to, the fcat that the country is in a recession does not mean that all contractual agreements are now null and void. The agreement is there - honour it.

I find it funny that when it comes to the Drumm's bonus, it is accepted that he is entitled to it but people are saying that morally, he should decline it. For all those whoe are against the bank 3% increase, why not contact all the staff and aske them to decline it on moral grounds.

I don't think Drumm or anyone else in the HSE should get a penny of a bonus, not while people are left on trolleys, people are misdiagnosed and kids can't get a bed nevermind a timely oepration. :mad::mad:

FFS when will people cop on. :mad:
These companies are affectivewly bankrupt, they are only still in existence becuase our government have given them billions of taxpayers money.
And I am not even talkaing about NAMA but the recapitalisation billions.

I worked in a comapny that was on verge of bankruptcy and all bonuses, payrises were dropped because we either tried to keep the company alfoat or sunk. Then people wouldn't even have a job.

The mindset around here, particularly from those with a staunch union background and public sector background, is that payrises/increments etc must be paid because it has been agreed.

Here is an anlogy for all these people.
During the boom times, you took your kids to Disney in Orlando every 2nd year.
It was agreed in late 2007 you would go this year 2009 as well.
Then all the cuts/levies etc came in, your other half lost their job.
Now do you still honour your agreement to your kids and suffer the consequences of not having money to keep the household afloat for another year ?
Answers on a postcard to jimmy

mrgaa1 wrote: »

i think the point here is being missed. The government can't bail someone out, let them give give 3% pay rises and then cut the salaries of thousands of public servants.
From a PR point of view its a disaster and if it aint stopped then the amount of strikes that will be taking place could be well be justified.
Surely when bail-outs were being agreed that the now publicly owned banks could be ruled from the Dail.
Forget all these "we promised the pay rises last year " etc... its a f*cking joke

Exactly any company that is getting government subvention to stay afloat can not pay bonuses or payrises, even if it was written on a clay tablet on top of Mt Sinai in the presence of the Labour Court. :mad:

Long Onion wrote: »

So, you enter a contract to insure a car fully comprehensive for a motorist. The motorist pays a premium and then goes on to have a crash. The Insurance company refuses to pay out to repair your car saying that times are now tight and they do not have the money. You go to court and the judge rules that you do not have to pay, the contract is null and void because we are in a recession.

Would you be happy with this decision - I think not. A contract is a contract.

Great analogy NOT.

What happoens if the insurance company has no money to pay out to claimants because they have given payrises and bonuses to their staff ?

Even if the contract means you go bust and then there are no jobs.
Welcome to cutting off your nose to spite your face land. :rolleyes:

johnathan woss

Long Onion wrote: »

Well done on the populist rhetoric, any chance you could deal with the question now?

It's not populist rhetoric it's COLD HARD FACT.

How big a raise would these people be getting if they were on the dole ?
They would still have signed the same contract back in whatever year.
The minute AIB had to take tax payer's money to survive the game changed.

fearandloathing

at this stage the aib senior managers know their reputation is f**cked so why bother play ball with the government. they'll appoint whoever they want as CEO, give out pay rises as they please and all the top brass will "retire" with golden handshakes and smirks on their faces. why? cos who the fook is gona stop them? definately not the government.