Anglo irish bank get pay raises? what next?

Liam Byrne

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

I don't agree with it but if they've decided they want to continue operating the bank and operating it properly they'll need people and not the cheapest they can find.

Where is this "cheapest they can find" bull**** coming from ?

They're the EXISTING staff (otherwise they would be new contracts, not pay rises).

Morale is low in LOADS of places; so tough! In most of those places part of the reason morale is low is because people are doing extra work for LESS money.

Suggesting that Anglo "needs the best people" is insulting and a two-fingers to any of the "best people" working in other industries - some of them in the public service - who have taken pay cuts, and at this stage I'd nearly hope it goes under, drags FF and the country down with it and we start completely from scratch, rebuilding a fair and equitable country that has no ties with the up-to-now cronyism.

Any how come having the "best people" is only important now, after we bail them out ? How come they were happy to have the worst at the top and pay them millions ?

After all, if a company - or this new Anglo can do it, why can't a country ?

I have never, ever been as sickened in my life!

Pepe LeFrits

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Where is this "cheapest they can find" bull**** coming from ?

They're the EXISTING staff (otherwise they would be new contracts, not pay rises).

Morale is low in LOADS of places; so tough! In most of those places part of the reason morale is low is because people are doing extra work for LESS money.

Suggesting that Anglo "needs the best people" is insulting and a two-fingers to any of the "best people" working in other industries - some of them in the public service - who have taken pay cuts, and at this stage I'd nearly hope it goes under, drags FF and the country down with it and we start completely from scratch, rebuilding a fair and equitable country that has no ties with the up-to-now cronyism.

Any how come having the "best people" is only important now, after we bail them out ? How come they were happy to have the worst at the top and pay them millions ?

After all, if a company - or this new Anglo can do it, why can't a country ?

I have never, ever been as sickened in my life!

First of all, I'm not sure why you're putting "best people" in inverted commas. Has someone said they need the best people?

My 'cheapest they can find' remark was exaggerating to make a point. If a business wants to be successful they need to pay the going rate for good staff and I don't believe they were in certain cases. A large percentage of the staff in Anglo are not 'bankers' and have a wide range of industries that they could leave for, and some have. A highly skilled but low ranking IT geek for example has nothing to do with the ****storm that's happened and doesn't have to take your blame for it.

You want your pound of flesh which is understandable, but it's not an efficient way to run a business. The senior management of Anglo, the ones who ran it into the ground, are gone.

JuliusCaesar

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Morale is low in LOADS of places; so tough! In most of those places part of the reason morale is low is because people are doing extra work for LESS money.

Suggesting that Anglo "needs the best people" is insulting and a two-fingers to any of the "best people" working in other industries - some of them in the public service - who have taken pay cuts, and at this stage I'd nearly hope it goes under, drags FF and the country down with it and we start completely from scratch, rebuilding a fair and equitable country that has no ties with the up-to-now cronyism.

Any how come having the "best people" is only important now, after we bail them out ? How come they were happy to have the worst at the top and pay them millions ?

After all, if a company - or this new Anglo can do it, why can't a country ?

I have never, ever been as sickened in my life!

+1

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

My 'cheapest they can find' remark was exaggerating to make a point. .

If you need to exaggerate to make a point, the point is worthless.

Le King

Pay-rises for AIB are wrong. But there is probably a good few people who have worked hard, but rite now, no-one in the banking sector deserves to be paid, never-mind a pay rise.

Pepe LeFrits

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

If you need to exaggerate to make a point, the point is worthless.

An extract from 'JuliusCaesar: A deep thinker's collection of worthless mumbo-jumbo'.

Osu wrote: »

Pay-rises for AIB are wrong. But there is probably a good few people who have worked hard, but rite now, no-one in the banking sector deserves to be paid, never-mind a pay rise.

It's a noble sentiment, but the banking sector as is popularly referred to is mishmash of lots of different trades. A company can be losing money and still have to give some staff members pay rises if the company is dependent on them, and I know Anglo is in certain areas. A 10% payrise for a low ranking staff member would cost a lot less than the alternative.

Liam Byrne

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

First of all, I'm not sure why you're putting "best people" in inverted commas. Has someone said they need the best people?

Loads of people have suggested it in this and similar threads in an attempt to "justify" the pay rises.

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

My 'cheapest they can find' remark was exaggerating to make a point.

It didn't work. If anyone exaggerates against Anglo to make a point (or even cites a worst-case scenario) they're shot down immediately, so that tactic is obviously frowned upon.

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

If a business wants to be successful they need to pay the going rate for good staff and I don't believe they were in certain cases.

Lots of businesses are paying ****e wages for "good staff" at the moment, and those staff have to put up with it because there aren't jobs available, and because they realise that their employers HAVE NO MONEY.

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

A large percentage of the staff in Anglo are not 'bankers' and have a wide range of industries that they could leave for, and some have. A highly skilled but low ranking IT geek for example has nothing to do with the ****storm that's happened and doesn't have to take your blame for it.

No, he doesn't. But as a "highly skilled IT geek" who does NOT work for a subsidised bank, I am PERFECTLY entitled to object if some of my NOW LOWER wages are going towards giving him a ******* pay rise.

Actually, I know a few now-unemployed people from my university class who would do the job for whatever the PREVIOUS, pre pay-rise rate was; I'd nearly even do it myself if I thought it was simultanously (a) paying me more and (b) helping the country.

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

You want your pound of flesh which is understandable, but it's not an efficient way to run a business. The senior management of Anglo, the ones who ran it into the ground, are gone.

And the current Anglo DOES NOT HAVE THE MONEY TO GIVE OUT PAY RISES.

Pepe LeFrits

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Loads of people have suggested it in this and similar threads in an attempt to "justify" the pay rises.

Well then you should address them and not try to make it look like I've said it.

Actually, I know a few now-unemployed people from my university class who would do the job for whatever the PREVIOUS, pre pay-rise rate was; I'd nearly even do it myself if I thought it was simultanously (a) paying me more and (b) helping the country.

The point is that you might not be able to do it, and even if you did, the time it would take to get up to speed would cost more than simply paying an extra few grand to keep the original staffer on.

And the current Anglo DOES NOT HAVE THE MONEY TO GIVE OUT PAY RISES.

Technically Anglo doesn't have the money to pay the staff but it does it anyway.

KevinVonSpiel

Can't you two see that you're in love with each other?

Actually, the explanation for the pay raises seems more of the same bull that got us here... essentially, the line is: you, the public, don't understand the business, we're the specialists, we know who can do the job, these guys are worth gold dust.

If you disagree then you are as mad as that lot who questioned whether the boom was built on anything but cheap credit that wouldn't last forever.

In a way they're right, you are a crackpot if you protest... like, what are you going to do?

We don't even have the illusion of political choice between two wings of politics any more, as I see it.

Liam Byrne

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

Well then you should address them and not try to make it look like I've said it.

I didn't.

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

The point is that you might not be able to do it, and even if you did, the time it would take to get up to speed would cost more than simply paying an extra few grand to keep the original staffer on.

Yet again, mildly patronising. How do you know that I might not be able to do it ? And THEY DID NOT NEED TO PAY THE "EXTRA FEW GRAND".

You're happy to claim that I "might not be able to do it", and simultaneously ignoring the fact that "the original staffer might not get another job"

Why are you taking this double-standards stance ?

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

Technically Anglo doesn't have the money to pay the staff but it does it anyway.

"Technically" ???? How do you "technically" not have money ? Surely the fact that we're bailing out the cesspit to the tune of billions and the fact that the majority of their clients are bankrupt and the fact that NAMA exists means there's nothing "technical" about it. It's a FACT.

* Of course, real facts re their financial situation never stopped Anglo lying and cheating their way out of telling the truth.

There's no "technically"; they don't have money. FACT. Which is the reasoning behind the objection.

And there is absolutely no sense in throwing OUR money at this cesspit while they CONTINUE to waste it.

goat2

KevinVonSpiel wrote: »

Anglo Irish bank get pay raises? what next?

Handjobs?

golf balls

Pepe LeFrits

Liam Byrne wrote:

Yet again, mildly patronising.

This coming from the person who has been incessantly using caps (and now bold text), just in case any idiot with a different opinion to yours isn't intelligent enough to read lower case sentences.

How do you know that I might not be able to do it ? And THEY DID NOT NEED TO PAY THE "EXTRA FEW GRAND".

You're happy to claim that I "might not be able to do it", and simultaneously ignoring the fact that "the original staffer might not get another job"

Why are you taking this double-standards stance ?

We're talking about a hypothetical job - how can I or you or anybody else possibly know whether you're qualified for it? Do you think you're capable of performing to a good level every single job in the banking industry? If the answer is yes, then you're deluded. If the answer is 'no', then 'you might not be able to do it.'

Whether the original staffer could get another job isn't relevant to Anglo (but some people can and do find jobs in this environment, difficult as it is). What is relevant to them is if the staffer were to leave, would it cost them more than it would to persuade them to stick with it?

If the answer is yes, and only the management in Anglo can answer this, then it makes sense for them to offer the staff member a small pay-rise than let them walk and then bring in a new staff member and lose time and money training them in.

"Technically" ???? How do you "technically" not have money ? Surely the fact that we're bailing out the cesspit to the tune of billions and the fact that the majority of their clients are bankrupt and the fact that NAMA exists means there's nothing "technical" about it. It's a FACT..

Are you missing the point deliberately? Yes, they're broke - but if they can still pay their staff, then they can pay a number of them a fraction extra, if they want to. It may be terrible PR, but they can do it, and there may be a certain method to their madness.

Liam Byrne

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

Whether the original staffer could get another job isn't relevant to Anglo (but some people can and do find jobs in this environment, difficult as it is). What is relevant to them is if the staffer were to leave, would it cost them more than it would to persuade them to stick with it?

If the answer is yes, and only the management in Anglo can answer this, then it makes sense for them to offer the staff member a small pay-rise than let them walk and then bring in a new staff member and lose time and money training them in.

That, frankly, is complete bull.

NO company offers someone a pay rise in a recession "in case they might decide to look for another job". If someone comes in to HR and suggests that they're leaving, they might be offered something to stay - if the company can afford it.

If not, then the company says - like all normal companies - OK, fair enough.

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

We're talking about a hypothetical job - how can I or you or anybody else possibly know whether you're qualified for it? Do you think you're capable of performing to a good level every single job in the banking industry? If the answer is yes, then you're deluded. If the answer is 'no', then 'you might not be able to do it.'

You're the one who mentioned an IT job. And I'd stand over my skills 100% in that area.

But now it's "every single job in the banking industry" ? Why did you change from your example ? Surely no one person can be good at "every single job" ?

Or is the "every single job" your exaggeration tactic again, trying to "prove a point" :rolleyes:

I repeat - the IT job was your example. And now that you've been called on that, you move the goalposts.

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

Are you missing the point deliberately? Yes, they're broke - but if they can still pay their staff, then they can pay a number of them a fraction extra, if they want to. It may be terrible PR, but they can do it, and there may be a certain method to their madness.

I think it is you that is missing the point. They cannot afford to pay extra, and they are only doing so because it is our money, a bottomless pit (as they see it) that they can beg from because FF won't bat an eyelid.

If any decent company did this they would go bankrupt due to incompetence, and their shareholders would be up in arms......

......oh - point proven. They are bankrupt. And we are (unfortunately) their shareholders.