We have fallen for it hook, line and sinker

K-9

RGS wrote: »

Most Public servants are married or have family in the private sector and are not immune to the job losses etc. As a family i work in the private sector an my wife in the public sector.

Its amazing that a proposal of unpaid leave in the public service is dismissed as a stunt when its use in the private sector is deemed good management of resources and prudent salary savings.

Public sector are asked to look at the private sector and copy their work practices but when they copy the private sector they are scoffed at and accused of living in lala land.

The suggestion that overtaxing high earners will mean these high earners will go and work elsewhere is utter rubbish--where will they go and who will employ them? Our overpaid bankers are non an employment currency.

I accept the need for prudent management of the public finances and pay cuts are required but our top earners need to lead.
The proposal that Cowen will reduce his salary to €220,000 is a total joke, he will still be close to the top of the league table for european leaders.

I suppose with unpaid leave we all know health and education will be the worst affected. I think the galling thing was the Union bosses had the gall to present this as a better solution than a straight pay cut. Nobody bought it, members or the public.

On taxing the rich, you probably have a point but people want to pay less tax! Even Bono!

Cowen should half his wage or more. So you put him on €100,000, then you have some teachers earning 60/70k!

As for the private sector, benchmarking is over. Will people ever get out of the benchmarking mentality. In most cases, you cannot compare the two sectors.

994

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh for heavens sake.
Think about what you are saying.

Firstly, moneys thrown at the banks are entirely independent of the nearly 500 million a week we are borrowing to run the country.
This country wouldnt have got the money it's lent to the banks for any other purpose and definitely not to pay public servants.
Secondly,Moneys lent to the banks have to be paid back with interest [8% I believe]
Thirdly,Money's going to Nama would have to be paid out even if we nationalised the banks because when we nationalise them we'd be taking on their liabilities aswell.
Fourthly,We need indiginous banks here so we had to do something.God help us if we were depending on British based banks and no competition.


So really hitting public service pay packets is necessary because the borrowing capacity and the taxing capacity can't keep up with the crazy expense of it all.


As regards bankers salaries...The problem is [unpalatable as it may be],we live in a global world where paying senior bankers in most western countries hundreds of thousands is the norm..even after this financial crisis.
Trying to impose ridiculously low caps in Ireland would soon drain the banks here of the clever people and we'd be left with the dross.
Ergo €500,000 as a cap seems reasonable to me.


Those are the facts.

That is utter nonsense. Managing a bank does not require superhuman intelligence and CEOs rarely have it. Would you be worried that your surgeon was incompetent because the hospital was only paying her €3,000 per week?

PeakOutput

994 wrote: »

That is utter nonsense. Managing a bank does not require superhuman intelligence and CEOs rarely have it. Would you be worried that your surgeon was incompetent because the hospital was only paying her €3,000 per week?

you do understand that the principle of the free market extends to employment?

if someone is good at their job they will be offered more money to do it. there is alot of money in the banking industry. the heads of banks control alot of money so have a lot of responsibility. therefore they get paid alot of money. why would someone with a proven track record in profitably running banks come to ireland to work here for 500K when they can work somewhere else for 1mill / 2 mill / 3mill etc???

also how many ceos do you know personally?

jake59

irish_bob wrote: »

excellent post , in terms of workplace , the public sector is still living in a pre rescession bubble , they have not witnessed mass lay offs , thier wages are still ( excluding the average 4% levy ) at boom time levels for the most part , as such , they cant see what all the fuss is about when they cry UNFAIR at the mention of their wages being reduced , the public sectors rescesson ( and it will be mild compared to that experienced by most people )has only really begun , two years after it hit everyone else

Unfortunately this post misses the point that public sector workers work in a wide variety of areas. I think it is naive of the poster to suggest that public sector workers don't come face to face with the problems that this recession is causing. I for one as an ES worker have to deal on a regular basis with suicides, domestic violence, alcoholism,families been torn apart due to the financial pressures of job losses. Suicides in particular are on the rise especially due to the loss of a business or job.
In relation to the cost of the public sector we all know that something has to be done but don't tell me that my colleagues and I are living in some public sector lala land cut off from the realities of life. You may want to consider that public sector workers have partners etc. who have lost their jobs in the private sector. Things are not always as black and white as you may like to think.

ghost_ie

seclachi wrote: »

The state arent going to enforce that cap, and with good reason, how will the banks expect to get experienced management if anybody with the credentials can just go to another bank and get paid twice the amount ?

Its the same flawed logic as piling on more to the upper band of tax, Ireland isnt some island a million miles away from anywhere else, and these people arent going to stick around out of the goodness of there hearts, they are after all already adept at dodging taxes.

Cowen would be terrified that if he did enforce it and the bank had to hire someone who was a muppet the blame would fall on the governments shoulders.

You`ll get tax osmosis, people will flock to where its cheaper and it will just cause a brain drain of highly paid positions.

We've been paying bankers huge salaries and look at the mess they've got us into. Surely we can't get into any more of a mess by capping bankers' salaries at even less than the OP suggested. I'd say give them €100,000 myself

cson

ghost_ie wrote: »

We've been paying bankers huge salaries and look at the mess they've got us into. Surely we can't get into any more of a mess by capping bankers' salaries at even less than the OP suggested. I'd say give them €100,000 myself

Sure why don't we resurrect Stalin, stick him in as Taoiseach and go Communist altogether? What you're suggesting there is very, very close to a Communist philosophy.

fingal hoop

Barker wrote: »

Yeah. 14% unemployment. It's huge. 425000 or thereabouts on the live register. Thats over 14% of the working age population (using my own very quick calculations based on 2006 census and ignoring the over 65s and children under 15).

The problem is that public sector workers only talk to other public sector workers in the work place. So they can't feel the agony that is there for those people who have been put into this position. They are not seeing their workmates laid off in droves, wondering is it going to be them next and their family who have to cancel christmas.

They are removed from it, and they represent the largest section of the populace that can make a difference to the overspending. I can understand why they feel they are being picked on as a group, it's because they are! For a good reason. There's not enough tax payers left to justify your holidays, sick days, duvet days or whatever else you get as perks. I certainly hope they don't get christmas bonuses.

I recall plenty of public servants who have taken a paid duvet day because they decided they had worked hard and deserved it. Anyone who has done that deserves everything that comes to them. A friend of mine reports getting a text during the strike from a teacher that read "Anyone coming for Strike Pints?". Other teacher friends seem to have taken laods of holidays abroad too this year. Its a different feckin world I tell ya.

but their friends,partners etc work in the private sector:rolleyes:

PeakOutput

ghost_ie wrote: »

We've been paying bankers huge salaries and look at the mess they've got us into. Surely we can't get into any more of a mess by capping bankers' salaries at even less than the OP suggested. I'd say give them €100,000 myself

and yourself would destroy the country

Dickerty

gleep wrote: »

The man who ran HSBC into the ground was considered a top banker. He is now overseeing NAMA.
We don't need anyone who has been running a bank that has gone bust, (these guys are still lauded as the Top Men in Banking),we need someone who's presided over a prudent yet profitable bank. Pay them double what their earning now to get them in, if neccessary.

What are you talking about? NAMA's current boss is the NTMA director. Meanwhile, HSBC have survived the credit crunch better than most - they have been lending to other UK banks to survive, and making aquisitions of strugglers.

And ther are lots of great top men who got hammered by this, through the speed and indiscriminate nature of it. When Lehman's collapsed, banks who had no problems in Subprime lost billions just through their open positions.

Dickerty

hinault wrote: »

The profits reported by AIB and BOI from 2003-2008 were not profits.
They couldn't be.

It's clear that the banks have been insolvent for the past few years - because their loans (which is income, in the banks books), have now turned to dust (because the loans cannot be repaid by the people who borrowed those loans).

Brian Goggin - BOI CEO - received €23m in salary and benefits in 2003-2008.

The banks profits were delusional.
The CEO's pay was delusional because it was based on false profits.

More nonsense. Do you understand banking?

These profits were real profits. And just like any other business, the man at the top is rewarded based on profits he makes for shareholders. If this was some sort of falsehood, the market would have known and would have reined them in.

Like it or not, they made a lot of money overleveraging themselves, that was the problem. They were loaning out several times what their deposit base was. But practically every bank in the English speaking world did the same. If any CEO had refused to do this because of the potential risk, they would have lost their job. The shareholders demanded bigger profit, and that comes with bigger risks.

woodseb

ghost_ie wrote: »

We've been paying bankers huge salaries and look at the mess they've got us into. Surely we can't get into any more of a mess by capping bankers' salaries at even less than the OP suggested. I'd say give them €100,000 myself

i agree - let's get somebody completely unqualified to run our banks, because that's what you will get

if we pay our top CEOs 100k can we have another benchmarking review for the public service, that would be interesting

Sleipnir

woodseb wrote: »

i agree - let's get somebody completely unqualified to run our banks, because that's what you will get

As opposed to the guys who were qualified, but ran them into the ground?

woodseb

Sleipnir wrote: »

As opposed to the guys who were qualified, but ran them into the ground?

so your answer is to hire unqualified people anyway - is that what you are proposing?

Sleipnir

woodseb wrote: »

so your answer is to hire unqualified people anyway - is that what you are proposing?

Did I suggest that? Show me where.

What's your answer? Pay them more? Pay them the same?

woodseb

Sleipnir wrote: »

Did I suggest that? Show me where.

What's your answer? Pay them more? Pay them the same?

i didn't say you suggested that, i asked you if that's your opinion given what was implied from your comment above:rolleyes:

my answer is to hire the best person for the job and pay them the market rate

given the profits a well run bank should make, it's nonsense to be quibbling over a few hundred thousand per year

Sleipnir

woodseb wrote: »

i didn't say you suggested that, i asked you if that's your opinion given what was implied from your comment above:rolleyes:

Ah, I see, you made an assumption that that is what I was suggesting. I didn't imply that we should hire unqualified people at all. I merely stated that qualified people were hired before and made a complete mess of it. :rolleyes:

woodseb wrote: »

my answer is to hire the best person for the job and pay them the market rate

The "best people for the jobs" were hired before, and paid handsomely too, and they ****ed the system up royally.
Given the fact that they screwed up so badly, should they be paid the same as before?

woodseb wrote: »

given the profits a well run bank should make, it's nonsense to be quibbling over a few hundred thousand per year

Given the fact that the banks were not well run and are now making losses do you think those who run the banks should be making the same huge salaries and bonuses that they received when the banks were in profit?

woodseb

Sleipnir wrote: »

Ah, I see, you made an assumption that that is what I was suggesting. I didn't imply that we should hire unqualified people at all. I merely stated that qualified people were hired before and made a complete mess of it. :rolleyes:

yes, i made an assumption, but i also asked you to clarify if that's what you meant - no need to get tetchy


The "best people for the jobs" were hired before, and paid handsomely too, and they ****ed the system up royally.
Given the fact that they screwed up so badly, should they be paid the same as before?

the best people were obviously not hired before, the major bank heads in ireland came up through the system internally and had a cosy culture with the builders ingrained in them

Given the fact that the banks were not well run and are now making losses do you think those who run the banks should be making the same huge salaries and bonuses that they received when the banks were in profit?

I'm talking about different people being hired from outside who weren't running the irish banks, punishing new CEOs for the previous failings of old bank heads doesn't solve any problems

what's your solution?

Barker

jake59 wrote: »

In relation to the cost of the public sector we all know that something has to be done but don't tell me that my colleagues and I are living in some public sector lala land cut off from the realities of life. You may want to consider that public sector workers have partners etc. who have lost their jobs in the private sector. Things are not always as black and white as you may like to think.

A point well made, and I agree that we have begun the unfortunate process of black boxing people.

So I presume that as one of the public sector workers who do see what the results of this catastrophe has had on the private sector, you will be calling for reform within your own istitution? I presume you will not be striking, backing unions with their overpaid executives who believe that no cuts in pay (except for the puny 7% effective paycut that was attached to pension perks that went down like a dose of salts amongst the Public Sector) can be tolerated by their members.

Good for you. I'm glad that the Public Sector have people like yourself who are striving to change the Public Sector from within, and I hope there are more of you out there. It's just hard for the rest of us to see the results of that when the only voices we hear are "No paycuts! Hit the rich not us! We didn't get the benefits of the boom and now we're not budging!"

As you evidently know yourself, life for 15% of the population has come to an effective halt. People who had professions, good jobs and worked hard to build the economy of the "noughties" now find themselves not only with no jobs, but with no careers and no funds available to retrain.

I'm not making glib of the work you do, but I'm sure you realise that the future suicides and broken homes might be some of the voices you read in forums like this. It's perhaps only a matter of time and breaking point for so many people...

Sleipnir

woodseb wrote: »

I'm talking about different people being hired from outside who weren't running the irish banks, punishing new CEOs for the previous failings of old bank heads doesn't solve any problems

what's your solution?

Ah, equally qualified people as those who fecked it up, but different people.

I don't mind talented people being paid what they deserve but equal to being recompensed when the bank performs well, they should be answerable when they have personally profited from short term actions that are based on fundamentally unsound decisions.

Banks doing well on sound banking practices? Well done, here'a a bonus.

Bank appears to be doing well because it's making huge profits, but those profits are based on loaning to people who will not be able to re-pay, but the loans are re-packaged as something else and sold on. That's unsound. You have made poor decisions so you get no bonus, you're fired and the government will investigate to see if any fraud has taken place.

Sleipnir

For example, the EBS board of directors contained several members who were previously on the board of The Mater Private Hospital (qualification to run a building society?)

Mater Private Hospital director Brian Joyce bequeathed the EBS chair to Mater private hospital chairman, Mark Moran.
Dr Jim Ruane, another Mater Private hospital director, joined Mark on the EBS board.

When the **** hit the fan, they all jumped ship. No payback, no claw back, no investigation; nothing. They all made shed-loads of cash and when it was found that they had made poor decisions, they just left.

woodseb

i don't disagree with what your are saying there but surely the solution is to get the best candidates for the job and pay them accordingly?

what's the alternative?

irish_bob

jake59 wrote: »

Unfortunately this post misses the point that public sector workers work in a wide variety of areas. I think it is naive of the poster to suggest that public sector workers don't come face to face with the problems that this recession is causing. I for one as an ES worker have to deal on a regular basis with suicides, domestic violence, alcoholism,families been torn apart due to the financial pressures of job losses. Suicides in particular are on the rise especially due to the loss of a business or job.
In relation to the cost of the public sector we all know that something has to be done but don't tell me that my colleagues and I are living in some public sector lala land cut off from the realities of life. You may want to consider that public sector workers have partners etc. who have lost their jobs in the private sector. Things are not always as black and white as you may like to think.

are you a social worker ??? , what is an ES worker may i ask

ArmaniJeanss

irish_bob wrote: »

what is an ES worker may i ask

I think it means Emergency Services - guard, paramedic, coastguard etc.

Darragh29

Dickerty wrote: »

More nonsense. Do you understand banking?

These profits were real profits. And just like any other business, the man at the top is rewarded based on profits he makes for shareholders. If this was some sort of falsehood, the market would have known and would have reined them in.

Like it or not, they made a lot of money overleveraging themselves, that was the problem. They were loaning out several times what their deposit base was. But practically every bank in the English speaking world did the same. If any CEO had refused to do this because of the potential risk, they would have lost their job. The shareholders demanded bigger profit, and that comes with bigger risks.

This is only true up to a certain point. If the loans end their natural life in good condition, then what you are saying makes sense, but that is clearly not what has happened here. The banks are out on a plank, they have taken on, not just a hgh degree of risk, but an insane degree of risk. The profits came in for the first few years but the risk was always there, there was no financial provision set aside for it, sure it was not possible to provide for the risk, it was too high...

How people leading the same industry can have the brass neck to even mention the word "bonus" in our, or our children's lifetime, is utterly beyond me!!!

Again, people will do what they can get away with, political dithering and indecision here will give people an opportunity to try anything. If I was in Lenihan's position, I'd have a trapdoor built into the floor in front of my desk in government buildings and anyone who uttered the word "bonus" in relation to a banking salary, would rapidly decend through the floor, down into some one mile deep pit under government buildings...

hinault

Dickerty wrote: »

More nonsense. Do you understand banking?

These profits were real profits. And just like any other business, the man at the top is rewarded based on profits he makes for shareholders. If this was some sort of falsehood, the market would have known and would have reined them in.

What?
The profits between 2003- 2008 were real?
They weren't.
They could not have been real.

Any organisation which is insolvent is unprofitable.

You do know how all businesses, regardless of their sector, calculate profitability?

For the banks :
Loans made = turnover,
Costs = wages, other overheads such as bad debts.
Turnover less costs = profit before tax.

Between 2003-2008 banks turnover rose because they're loan books grew substantially.
In other words, turnover grew substantially.
Costs were kept in check, because most loans were being serviced.

But many of the loans granted in that period have since become dountful/bad.
The cumulative effect of the bad debts - which are crystalising now - mean that the "profits" made in 2003-2008 are being wiped out effectively.

Those banks were not as profitable as reported during 2003-2008.

Dickerty wrote: »

Like it or not, they made a lot of money overleveraging themselves, that was the problem. They were loaning out several times what their deposit base was. But practically every bank in the English speaking world did the same. If any CEO had refused to do this because of the potential risk, theyould have lost their job. The shareholders demanded bigger profit, and that comes with bigger risks.

I can see your point - but if the CEO of said banks had acted prudently then the banks would not have ended up in the mess that they're in.

Just because the herd are prepared to make loans to people who had neither the income/jobs/assets (NINJA) to repay those loans, that does not vindicate the actions of individual CEO's.

Let me tell you that several banks did not go down the route of RBS.