Anglo irish bank get pay raises? what next?

dvpower

Liam Byrne wrote: »

THEIR. COMPANY. HAS. NO. MONEY.
THEY. CANNOT. GET. PAID. MORE.

Do I have to put that in bold and flashing lights ?

I've been trying to get this point across to public servants for a couple of years now.

smurgen

stealthyspeeder wrote: »

nobody in the financial sector will want to work at a bank which does not pay performance related bonuses.

if they were to be paid in relation to their performance they'd get nothing

melekalikimaka

Liam Byrne wrote: »

As a shareholder (courtesy of FF) I'm perfectly entitled to object.

wow i was paying attention til i read that

Liam Byrne

dvpower wrote: »

I've been trying to get this point across to public servants for a couple of years now.

Fair point.

But this fiasco - and Cowen's pathetic opinion on it - won't help the Government's position.

Leaving staff with the same salary and asking them to do a bit more isn't TOO bad in the current climate.

Asking them to take a pay CUT as well is a biggie.

And asking them to take a pay CUT while their taxes are allowing the most corrupt company in the history of the state to give pay RISES is a non-runner.

stealthyspeeder

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The government is throwing €18,000 per person into Anglo.

And if they were to become profitable in 5 years, and the share price rises to €25,0000 per person, would this be unacceptable to you? The government would have more money and could theortically justify a decrease in the amount of tax it needs. Its long run vs short run, and if any govenment ever shows a preference for the short run over the long run in any aspect of finacial policy, they get sold short and devalued in the finaincial markets.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The government is throwing €18,000 per person into Anglo.

We know all this. We know that Lenihan guaranteed it, etc.

That does NOT excuse throwing additional money at it for no reason.

Its not for no reason. It is to prevent future LARGER losses which the taxpayer would pay if they occurred. I believe this was the entire subject of my first post.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

As a shareholder (courtesy of FF) I'm perfectly entitled to object.

And please - less of the patronising "emotive headlines" and "simple reasoning".

Emotive ? Possibly. Because it's WRONG.
Simple reasoning ? More like simply cop-on.

Of course you entitled to your opinion, but that doesn not mean your opinon is based on a solid foundation of knowledge about the different facors involved which are specific to the banking sector. I am of the opinion that if you understood more, your opinion about the government choice of action would change.

Where did you find out the information you are basing your opinions on? Because unfortunately it sounds to mean like populist opinion based on tabloid newspaper stories. It is emotive and is wrong in the short term picture that is painted, but the end result is drastically different over a longer period of time.

I disagree about "Cop on", not paying bonuses would lead to a far worse situation than paying them in the long run for the taxpayer.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If we weren't bailing out Anglo I couldn't give a crap (as long as I wasn't paying interest to them, they can do what they like with THEIR money).

But THEY don't HAVE any money. It's OUR money.

Staff should do WHAT EVERYONE ELSE has had to do since THEIR EMPLOYER bolloxed up the economy......do extra work with no bonuses.

THEIR. COMPANY. HAS. NO. MONEY.
THEY. CANNOT. GET. PAID. MORE.

Do I have to put that in bold and flashing lights ?

This shows a lack of understanding about the industry and about the effect of time in a marketplace for jobs and stocks.

The government owns it, if it fails the taxpayer will pay, if it profits the taxpayer will profit.

If you dont pay the staff the same or better than the compitors, the best will leave, and the bank will make lower profits comparitively than its compditors and the banks share price will not rise and the taxpayer will continue to pay long term and large!

If it does pay well it will have a choice of profitable individuals who will make themselves and the bank more money. This will make the price go up and benefit the taxpayer.

Liam Byrne

melekalikimaka wrote: »

wow i was paying attention til i read that

What's that supposed to mean ?

Anglo is nationalised. That means it belongs to the country - i.e. us - (unfortunately).

melekalikimaka

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Fair point.


Leaving staff with the same salary and asking them to do a bit more isn't TOO bad in the current climate.

not in the banking industry, people who can fix things in banking are in serious high demand, you think its better to not pay them their market value and ley them leave so some inexperienced fella tries his hand at fixing thing... really...

stepbar

Look its as simple as this... You say peanuts you get monkeys. I wouldn't expect the average joe soap to be able to understand that.

Liam Byrne

stealthyspeeder wrote: »

Because unfortunately it sounds to mean like populist opinion based on tabloid newspaper stories.

Well that shows how little you know, because I wouldn't read a tabloid if you paid me.

stealthyspeeder wrote: »

If you dont pay the staff the same or better than the compitors, the best will leave

You're continuously assuming that "the best" are working there.

If they were, then they wouldn't have needed to come begging for OUR money.

Anglo is a tainted brand and there is NO HOPE IN HELL of it ever being worth "€25,0000 " (whatever that is - the misplaced comma looks like something out of Anglo's books)

stealthyspeeder wrote: »

Of course you entitled to your opinion, but that doesn not mean your opinon is based on a solid foundation of knowledge about the different facors involved which are specific to the banking sector. I am of the opinion that if you understood more, your opinion about the government choice of action would change.

Patronising in the extreme. As I pointed out to you earlier, EVERY company needs the best staff that it can afford, and yet you repeat that the banking sector is somehow "different", and has "specific" factors.

And your opinion is not only patronising, but wrong. I understand that commercial operations that fail to make a profit CANNOT continue to be reckless and act as if they had an endless supply of cash. And no, it wouldn't change if I "understood more" :rolleyes: - it's called ethics, fairness and realism.

I'll repeat - there is NOTHING in any of your posts that is "specific to the banking sector".

Liam Byrne

melekalikimaka wrote: »

not in the banking industry, people who can fix things in banking are in serious high demand, you think its better to not pay them their market value and ley them leave so some inexperienced fella tries his hand at fixing thing... really...

They're the SAME STAFF as were there.....how can they possibly "fix things in banking" ?

melekalikimaka

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You're continuously assuming that "the best" are working there.

If they were, then they wouldn't have needed to come begging for OUR money.

Explain a bit more please, or am I to hazard a guess your assuming to suit you crumbling argument.

smurgen

melekalikimaka wrote: »

not in the banking industry, people who can fix things in banking are in serious high demand, you think its better to not pay them their market value and ley them leave so some inexperienced fella tries his hand at fixing thing... really...

im a master in financial economics and i understand all the risks and signals to the markets and the paying best salary things but i think the government needs to take a firm stand against this move. simple rule: do what you've always done and you will get what you've always gotten!they need a different approach that just firing money at people all the time.people got hight salaries in the past and look what happened.the financials sector job market is at the moment full of lemons and better screening processes are needed.id say a share in the bank itself would be a better option tbh

Liam Byrne

melekalikimaka wrote: »

Explain a bit more please, or am I to hazard a guess your assuming to suit you crumbling argument.

I'll respond, despite the "crumbling argument" bull (it'd be funny if it weren't so untrue).

If those people were so amazingly capable of running a bank, then they wouldn't have crashed like they did, with so many unsecured and dodgy loans, and wouldn't have transferred funds and loans around to hide them.

One or two dodgy ones, then fair enough, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt, but the exposure is more like the result of a drunken gambler at Cheltenham than a skilled banker that got unlucky.

They'd have taken a hit like all banks due to the worldwide crash and iffy practices, but they would not have been exposed as the cesspit that Anglo is.

The Lovely Muffin

Anglo Irish Bank aren't the only bank giving pay rises.

Last year (2009), another bank (won't mention who in case it causes legal trouble), gave a pay rise AND a Christmas Bonus. The pay-rise was 3% and the Christmas bonus was 5%. Another person who works for the same bank, who also got the pay rise and Christmas bonus, bought a watch that cost €1,000 for their (teenage) daughter.

I know because the people I am talking about are related to someone we know and it was the person we know who told us.

The whole thing about "no bonuses and pay rises" is absolute bullcrap and it's high time the government stopped lying to us and taking us for fools, but, it's doubtful that will ever happen.:mad:

KevinVonSpiel

Anglo Irish bank get pay raises? what next?

Handjobs?

Pepe LeFrits

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'll respond, despite the "crumbling argument" bull (it'd be funny if it weren't so untrue).

If those people were so amazingly capable of running a bank, then they wouldn't have crashed like they did, with so many unsecured and dodgy loans, and wouldn't have transferred funds and loans around to hide them.

One or two dodgy ones, then fair enough, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt, but the exposure is more like the result of a drunken gambler at Cheltenham than a skilled banker that got unlucky.

They'd have taken a hit like all banks due to the worldwide crash and iffy practices, but they would not have been exposed as the cesspit that Anglo is.

The people who ran the bank into the ground aren't there any more.

Anglo staff getting pay rises certainly rankles but we're talking about 70 people out 1200 here, and there could be very good reasons for those 70 people getting rises. I know for a fact that there are still some extremely capable people working there, and I also know that morale in the place is very low and the staff desperately want out. If the Government want to have any hope of turning the place around or at least recovering something, they're going to need to keep some good people in there. Others have already jumped ship to other banks.

lightspeed

if the people in anglo were /are so good then why they they crumble so badly?
i thought bankng jobs had decreased in number and yet we need to give them a pay rise from taxpayers money? i had no idea that the banking industry was having such a boom in jobs. is there actually any reason to suggest anglo irish will actually be profitable even in the longterm?
the taxpayers money is not an endless pit of money and i reckon any potential investors must realise this and see that its not a safe gamble.

sparklespark

If the people in Anglo Irish bank are soo unhappy with their salary why dont they leave. See how far they would get. Absolute disgrace if they get a pay rise. Absolute Disgrace.

Pepe LeFrits

lightspeed wrote: »

if the people in anglo were /are so good then why they they crumble so badly?

That's like asking if German soldiers were so good then why did they lose World War 2.

i thought bankng jobs had decreased in number and yet we need to give them a pay rise from taxpayers money? i had no idea that the banking industry was having such a boom in jobs. is there actually any reason to suggest anglo irish will actually be profitable even in the longterm?
the taxpayers money is not an endless pit of money and i reckon any potential investors must realise this and see that its not a safe gamble.

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.

sparklespark wrote: »

If the people in Anglo Irish bank are soo unhappy with their salary why dont they leave. See how far they would get.

Lots have already.

sparklespark

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

That's like asking if German soldiers were so good then why did they lose World War 2.

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.

Lots have already.

Obviously not enough of them have left.

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