AIB Not giving a toss as usual

thebaz

EoghanConway wrote: »

They have already won once, it seems as if victory is assured. Why should they feel shame? They did their job and did not get paid. Shame on AIB, shame on the ministers who have villified them.

because in any other industry , they would have lost there job , with minimum redundancy , and the bonus would not be an issue - they would be living on 190 a week - but instead of being grateful for having a job thanks to us taxpayers, they try to milk another 40 million of us - i would feal shame and would not have the arrogance to screw the country for more money when so may more people in this country are in dire straits, and it us people who have kept them in jobs

it appears the arrogance of bankers has no limits

Retail Hell

AIB was brought to its knee's by the reckless lending to property developers, and toa lesser extent by the mortgages lent to people to buy property from said developers.

the bonus's being discussed are not for the property lending team, or for the high street retail banking staff, but to 2400 people working in the international markets, money trading, etc...

if it is in there contracts then its legally binding, I know i would kick up a fuss if i was not be paid what had been agreed in my contract,

of all the people working there one one person is getting his bonus, I bet the other staff had wished it was a group action instead of an individual taking his employers to court.

the government should have agreed to have all bonus's suppended or stopped when they agreed to bail out the banks in this country, but didn't.

Complete incompotence by our overlords again. (don't mention the bond holders :mad: )

starre

Monty Burnz wrote: »

My understanding is that nearly all the bonuses will be paid - only the guys at the top will miss out.

Subject to correction of course...

No bonuses are to be paid to anyone, except the guy that got the high court judgement.

senordingdong

EoghanConway wrote: »

They have already won once, it seems as if victory is assured. Why should they feel shame? They did their job and did not get paid. Shame on AIB, shame on the ministers who have villified them.

Hardly.

Lenihan said that if the bonuses are paid then the guarantee won't be guaranteed.
If that were to happend, how would AIB pay the bonuses then.

I love the stupididty of some people in this country, greedily running themselves out of work.

steve9859

senordingdong wrote: »

Hardly.

Lenihan said that if the bonuses are paid then the guarantee won't be guaranteed.
If that were to happend, how would AIB pay the bonuses then.

I love the stupididty of some people in this country, greedily running themselves out of work.

But if staff go to the high court like their mate did, and the high court found that their bonuses had been unlawfully withheld (as they have done once already) then aib will have to pay them and lenihan is powerless. Lenihan can stop aib voluntarily paying the bonuses, But cannot overturn a high court decision. I can see more of the traders going to court

Pherekydes

senordingdong wrote: »

Hardly.

Lenihan said that if the bonuses are paid then the guarantee won't be guaranteed.
If that were to happend, how would AIB pay the bonuses then.

I love the stupididty of some people in this country, greedily running themselves out of work.

If AIB pays the bonuses the Govt will pull the plug; if it doesn't pay the bonuses it is bankrupt. Either way, AIB is de facto gone.

I had to laugh at Áine Lawlor calling the 2400 greedy. I wonder how much she is on.

senordingdong

steve9859 wrote: »

But if staff go to the high court like their mate did, and the high court found that their bonuses had been unlawfully withheld (as they have done once already) then aib will have to pay them and lenihan is powerless. Lenihan can stop aib voluntarily paying the bonuses, But cannot overturn a high court decision. I can see more of the traders going to court

No...but he could pull the plug on the AIBailout and then AIB would have no money to pay the bonuses. Or keeps its doors open.

Is a bonus unlawfully witheld if the bank goes under?

steve9859

senordingdong wrote: »

No...but he could pull the plug on the AIBailout and then AIB would have no money to pay the bonuses. Or keeps its doors open.

Is a bonus unlawfully witheld if the bank goes under?

On what basis could he do that? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face! High court made a ruling that the bonus was unlawfully withheld. You think lenihan would pull the plug if the high court had ruled that way on all € 40m? Basically you are saying that he would override a high court ruling? Thats ahainst the constitution dont u think?!? He has called the traders bluff and said basically if they want their bonuses then they need to go through the courts

thebaz

steve9859 wrote: »

On what basis could he do that? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face! High court made a ruling that the bonus was unlawfully withheld. You think lenihan would pull the plug if the high court had ruled that way on all € 40m? Basically you are saying that he would override a high court ruling? Thats ahainst the constitution dont u think?!? He has called the traders bluff and said basically if they want their bonuses then they need to go through the courts

the constitution is about equal rights of everyone - so 40 million should be paid to well off bankers still in a well paid job, thanks to the people of Ireland , whilst many less fortunate are in serious financial woes due to the stupidity of banks , others are homeless, some can not afford basic medical care - if the legal system backs the bankers , my thoughts on the judiciary will be re-in-forced , how out of touch they are with the ordinary man on the street - and more in tune with there banking buddies at their local elite golf club

senordingdong

steve9859 wrote: »

On what basis could he do that? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face! High court made a ruling that the bonus was unlawfully withheld. You think lenihan would pull the plug if the high court had ruled that way on all € 40m? Basically you are saying that he would override a high court ruling? Thats ahainst the constitution dont u think?!? He has called the traders bluff and said basically if they want their bonuses then they need to go through the courts

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1213/aib.html

No, I never said he would over rule the High Court.

I quoted Lenihan as saying that the bank guarantee is dependant on the bonusus NOT being paid.

The ruling can be upheld but it won't be worth a **** if AIB has no money with which to pay these people.

Rabble Rabble

steve9859 wrote: »

On what basis could he do that? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face! High court made a ruling that the bonus was unlawfully withheld. You think lenihan would pull the plug if the high court had ruled that way on all € 40m? Basically you are saying that he would override a high court ruling? Thats ahainst the constitution dont u think?!? He has called the traders bluff and said basically if they want their bonuses then they need to go through the courts

He said the guarantee is now dependent on the bonuses not being awarded. If there is no guarantee then the company has no money.

steve9859

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

He said the guarantee is now dependent on the bonuses not being awarded. If there is no guarantee then the company has no money.

The guy that went to court is getting paid his bonus of 160k is he not?? If others go to court they may well get theirs. Like o said, lenihan has stopped the voluntary payment of bonuses by aib. He hasnt exactly done anything soectacular yet seems to be getting loads of credit! Should others get a court order I find it difficult to believe that lenihan will demand that aib refuse to abide by a high court ruling! I

conorhal

steve9859 wrote: »

On what basis could he do that? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face! High court made a ruling that the bonus was unlawfully withheld. You think lenihan would pull the plug if the high court had ruled that way on all € 40m? Basically you are saying that he would override a high court ruling? Thats ahainst the constitution dont u think?!? He has called the traders bluff and said basically if they want their bonuses then they need to go through the courts

On this rather shocking basis (from the Irish Times_
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/1214/1224285490406.html?via=mr

"The official line from both AIB and the Government was that the bonus payments are simply a piece of normal bank business that is being resolved awkwardly late. The sequence of events, as I understand it, suggests something else."

"Instead, the relevant staff were individually called to unexpected meetings with senior managers on January 29th, 2009 – two months before they would normally have been informed of their bonuses. They were told that the bonus for 2008 was being brought forward and would be paid out on February 25th – two months before the normal date. The staff were explicitly told that the meeting they were then having constituted a verbal contract which was legally binding. In other words, senior managers at the bank created a legal obligation to pay the bonuses in AIB as it was effectively being nationalised. Staff were told to keep all of this to themselves.
Not only were the bonuses brought forward, however, they were also unexpectedly large. According to my source: “It was the general view of staff that this was the largest bonus that had been paid in any year by the bank, much to the surprise of employees. However, it was also the [well-informed] belief that this would be the last bonus paid for some time, hence the overcompensation.”
There was a feeling among AIB staff that it was unfair that Anglo Irish Bank staff had been paid bonuses in December 2008 just before the bank was nationalised. It was felt that AIB staff would miss out on the bonus given the intensifying furore."

"Three things need to be stressed. Firstly, there was no existing legal obligation on AIB to pay these bonuses at that time – the “contract” was deliberately created (verbally) by the bank itself in the meetings with staff. (Most of the staff in question had no bonuses specified in their written contracts. It was, as my source puts it, “more the expectation and unwritten rule that staff would be paid bonuses”

I for one an utterly gobsmacked at the amoral hubris of that move... but I really don't know why I'm so surprised.

dotsman

CiaranC wrote: »

Cry me a river. These banks lost any claim to autonomy or independence when they failed and brought down our entire economy with them.

Really? They brought down our entire economy? Can you please explain to me how they did that?

And for bonus points, please explain how the Capital Market traders were involved in all this?

CiaranC wrote: »

Funny how the bankers and their supporters have no objection to socialism when the state is socialising their massive debts due to their gross incompetence

In case you haven't noticed, they have been doing everything in their power to avoid any socialist policies being forced upon them. Unfortunately, it is as a result of these socialist policies that the banks still haven't been allowed recover.

sensibleken wrote: »

give me a f*ckin break. ah yes the great unwashed are getting upity when 40 million is being paid out to people who destroyed this country whicle they are having to pay for the mess. well excuse us.

as Ciaran stated, they have no objection to socialism when is pulls them out of the fire that free capitalism caused

You're post is the exact same as Ciaran's. See above for response.

Laois_Man wrote: »

I don't know wheter to be amused, be furious or be pityful for you!

If you were cleverer, you would be envious. For now, I guess you will just have to settle for "amused".

Beaucoupfish wrote: »

Don't put sensationalist and socialist in the same bracket.

Why not? They often go hand in hand. In fact, socialism has always survived on and grown under sensationalist BS.

Beaucoupfish wrote: »

If these bonuses are allowed this would be the dangerous precedent.

How so? You don't think a dangerous precedent has been set whereby a politician (whose sole job is "to be popular"), can change the law and backdate it, just to inflict pain on someone unpopular who has done nothing wrong?

Beaucoupfish wrote: »

It must be remembered that welfare has been cut for the disabled

So? WTF has that got to do with anything? Is the government bringing in a new law that anybody who claimed welfare in 2008 must now hand it back?

Beaucoupfish wrote: »

and these bonuses are tax payers money

WRONG. This money is AIB's. AIB owns the money 100%. The taxpayer doesn't own a single cent of it.

Beaucoupfish wrote: »

However I'm sure you'll be delighted to know that trader John Foy will recieve his grubby cheque on the advice of the Attorney General. I'm sure he doesn't care.

I'm far from delighted about how this whole mess has been carried out. I don't know John Foy so can't comment on him. Nor should anybody here. He's been attacked by the media witch hunt, just for standing up for his legal rights.

Beaucoupfish wrote: »

This is a question of morality.

You're damned right. And the immorality of the lynch mob absolutely stinks. I can only hope that they get what they wish for.

CiaranC

Bit early for the revisionism dotsman.

That IT article is almost unbelievable. But then again, these scumbags would clearly do anything to line their own pockets, so maybe not.

The apologists for the banks can dance their merry little dance about this one now too. Presumably if you oppose their latest antics you are part of some mindless "lynch mob".

Run_to_da_hills

"€40 million bonuses to AIB executives may have to be paid". :Gilmore.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/1214/breaking50.html

If this materialises I will take every single penny out of my AIB account and take my business elsewhere.

I hope that every taxpayer in the country follows suit.

dotsman

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

If this materialises I will take every single penny out of my AIB account and take my business elsewhere.

I hope that every taxpayer in the country follows suit.

That's a brilliant idea. Absolutely outstanding. I think I'll do the same. And then when the country is even more fukced that it already is, courtesy of the previous stupid ideas, we can still blame the **** bankers*.

*See what I did there, I said "****" first, but then crossed it out and said "bankers". That way, I am calling the bankers "****" which is really funny because the words sound similar. I smart am.

melekalikimaka

dotsman wrote: »

That's a brilliant idea. Absolutely outstanding. I think I'll do the same. And then when the country is even more fukced that it already is, courtesy of the previous stupid ideas, we can still blame the **** bankers*.

*See what I did there, I said "****" first, but then crossed it out and said "bankers". That way, I am calling the bankers "****" which is really funny because the words sound similar. I smart am.

i agree, everyone here is full of 'great' ideas of sticking one to the man, without really thinking it through...

Pherekydes

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

If this materialises I will take every single penny out of my AIB account and take my business elsewhere.

If it doesn't materialise you should move your account. You probably can't see that, though.

Snakeblood

melekalikimaka wrote: »

i agree, everyone here is full of 'great' ideas of sticking one to the man, without really thinking it through...

I think it's more like people are sick and tired of being told what's necessary for them to give in order to save the country, and then being slapped in the face by yet another wrong footed piece of idiocy by banks and government, to the point where it might be better to let the country sink because it can't survive as it is. Maybe something good will come from it in the future, but not now.

melekalikimaka

Snakeblood wrote: »

I think it's more like people are sick and tired of being told what's necessary for them to give in order to save the country, and then being slapped in the face by yet another wrong footed piece of idiocy by banks and government, to the point where it might be better to let the country sink because it can't survive as it is. Maybe something good will come from it in the future, but not now.

well personally i do not think its wrong. i am a tad jealous that people are getting bonuses, but if they were legally entitled to it, I do feel they should get it, but then again, I'm not the spiteful type

Snakeblood

melekalikimaka wrote: »

well personally i do not think its wrong. i am a tad jealous that people are getting bonuses, but if they were legally entitled to it, I do feel they should get it, but then again, I'm not the spiteful type

There's a difference between spite and paying money to the government so they can give money to a bank that has no money so they can pay money to people who work for them.

My spite is largely contained to the heads of the banks, and the government. These executives can go **** themselves for all I care, I've no interest in them except that the circumstances have changed so irrevocably that I think they should acknowledge that, and renegotiate the bonuses in the hopes that AIB will be able to afford to emply them next year.

melekalikimaka

Snakeblood wrote: »

There's a difference between spite and paying money to the government so they can give money to a bank that has no money so they can pay money to people who work for them.

My spite is largely contained to the heads of the banks, and the government. These executives can go **** themselves for all I care, I've no interest in them except that the circumstances have changed so irrevocably that I think they should acknowledge that, and renegotiate the bonuses in the hopes that AIB will be able to afford to emply them next year.

renegotiate is very different to not giving them their bonuses. maybe delaying the payment is a viable alternative, but out right loopholing to screw them over... and the fact the public are supporting it, makes me wonder if the governments lack of morals is a reflection of the publics

Snakeblood

melekalikimaka wrote: »

renegotiate is very different to not giving them their bonuses. maybe delaying the payment is a viable alternative, but out right loopholing to screw them over... and the fact the public are supporting it, makes me wonder if the governments lack of morals is a reflection of the publics

The government's lack of morals is a reflection of the people that voted for them. There's legitimate anger at the way the government has handled the meltdown, the banks, public sector, and every other aspect of the country.

Possibly not every single member of the public is up to date on contract law, and they don't see a good reason why their money is going to pay people who as they see it, bankrupted the country. That's the feeling that's going round.nd tying the governments lack of morals into the public as a whole, I find kind of insulting. Not to mention wrong.

Pal

the AIB staff should get their bonuses.
They earned them legit.
Its not good enough to say their colleagues fcuked the bank or the public don't agree with the payment.
i know I'm in the minority but fair is fair.

JonB

Pal wrote: »

the AIB staff should get their bonuses.
They earned them legit.
Its not good enough to say their colleagues fcuked the bank or the public don't agree with the payment.
i know I'm in the minority but fair is fair.

They are greedy ****s. They should be thankful they still have a job!

Snakeblood

Pal wrote: »

the AIB staff should get their bonuses.
They earned them legit.
Its not good enough to say their colleagues fcuked the bank or the public don't agree with the payment.
i know I'm in the minority but fair is fair.

Fair is fair would be the employees sacrificing to keep the business going. It paid them a huge amount when times were good, now they can sacrifice to keep their jobs under the new owner. Or is it only everyone else who should sacrifice?

dxhound2005

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

"€40 million bonuses to AIB executives may have to be paid". :Gilmore.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/1214/breaking50.html

If this materialises I will take every single penny out of my AIB account and take my business elsewhere.

I hope that every taxpayer in the country follows suit.

Dont be foolish. Give it to the guys in the trading division, they will make a load of cash for you.

Pal

JonB wrote: »

They are greedy ****s. They should be thankful they still have a job!

Perhaps they are grateful. I assume anybody in a job these days would be.

How is it greedy to expect an earned payment awarded 3 years ago ?

You did the work. You are entitled to be paid FFS !

(I don't work in AIB or have anything to do with them BTW)

Chucky the tree

Keep there jobs? I'm pretty sure any of the good traders in AIB have left or will be leaving asap. Why work for a company that won't give you a bonus for the forseable future? They will easily find a job somewhere else. The whole way the Government has dealt with this has been so short sighted, hardly surprising though.

melekalikimaka

Snakeblood wrote: »

Or is it only everyone else who should sacrifice?

I would consider this comment to contain a degree of spite. not EVERYONE else is sacrificing, lots of peoples jobs are very secure and are taking no pay decreases.

Snakeblood

melekalikimaka wrote: »

I would consider this comment to contain a degree of spite. not EVERYONE else is sacrificing, lots of peoples jobs are very secure and are taking no pay decreases.

Not everyone's company has been bailed out with billions of euro of taxpayers money. The banks obtained special benefits because of their systemic importance. I'm not sure why it's a bizarre concept that they should make special sacrificies in order to keep their jobs. You can consider it spiteful if you like, but it's not really what I'd call a rock hard criticism of my stance. I don't consider it spiteful, more just.

dotsman

Snakeblood wrote: »

Not everyone's company has been bailed out with billions of euro of taxpayers money. The banks obtained special benefits because of their systemic importance. I'm not sure why it's a bizarre concept that they should make special sacrificies in order to keep their jobs. You can consider it spiteful if you like, but it's not really what I'd call a rock hard criticism of my stance. I don't consider it spiteful, more just.

I don't know how many times this needs to be repeated before people begin to understand. The money lent to the banks is to secure their capitol positions. This money was not lent out of a case of charity or goodwill, but to the keep the economy from collapsing. It has nothing to do with employee wages or keeping jobs safe. The banks have been shedding huge amounts of staff, and will continue to do so over the next year. Employee remuneration has dropped dramatically (more so than in pretty much any other sector).

Many of the staff who have left the banks walked straight into another job. I don't know where this attitude of "being thankful to still have a job". 86% of people DO have jobs. Yes, the job market is a bit dry, so you shouldn't walk away from a good job on a whim. But you shouldn't put up with complete BS either.

Imagine you start a job tomorrow, and your employer gives you a contract, paying you a third of your wages on a monthly basis, and the rest in a lump sum at the end of the year, provided you have achieved certain goals. At the end of the year, you have achieved these goals (and possibly more), making your company a nice profit, earning them far more than they are paying you (which is as it's supposed to be). Your boss them comes up to you and goes:

Boss: Hey, well done, you had a brilliant year. Really like how you managed xyz. We could really do with more people like you etc.
You: Cheer's. Really enjoyed the hard work (mandatory ass kissing;))
Boss: You know the way I owe you your wages now?
You: Yeah, have been looking forward to them, bit behind on the ol' mortgage and with xmas coming up and the kids etc
Boss: Well, you see... do you know Paul over in abc department?
You: hmm, no, I don't think so.
Boss: Well, you see, he, you know, kind of... well he made a bit of a booboo.
You: ok...
Boss: And now the tabloids are screaming that you shouldn't be paid.
You:
Boss: Oh, and by the way, they hate you now as well.
You: Me? who hates me?
Boss: Well, pretty much everybody. You're being blamed for everything. 10 years of economic mismanagement? Your fault. Trade Unions eating this country alive? Your fault. Jedward? Your fault... Actually, there's a lynch mob outside. Suggest you leave via the back door...
You: But, but what did I do? I did everything right didn't I?
Boss: Of course. In fact, had everybody been as productive as you, we wouldn't have this problem.
You: But they still hate me and want to change the law just to fukc me and my family?
Boss. Yup. You know people... they're pretty stupid.
You: And, and what about this Paul guy?
Boss: Oh, he's been paid in full. And he's retired now on a great pension. Spending his time on the golf course and taken the grandkids on holidays etc. Golden handshake and all that.
You: And people hate me???
Boss: As I said, people are pretty fukcin stupid.

The question is: would you still be thankful to have such a job?

listermint

dotsman wrote: »

I don't know how many times this needs to be repeated before people begin to understand. The money lent to the banks is to secure their capitol positions. This money was not lent out of a case of charity or goodwill, but to the keep the economy from collapsing. It has nothing to do with employee wages or keeping jobs safe. The banks have been shedding huge amounts of staff, and will continue to do so over the next year. Employee remuneration has dropped dramatically (more so than in pretty much any other sector).

Many of the staff who have left the banks walked straight into another job. I don't know where this attitude of "being thankful to still have a job". 86% of people DO have jobs. Yes, the job market is a bit dry, so you shouldn't walk away from a good job on a whim. But you shouldn't put up with complete BS either.

Imagine you start a job tomorrow, and your employer gives you a contract, paying you a third of your wages on a monthly basis, and the rest in a lump sum at the end of the year, provided you have achieved certain goals. At the end of the year, you have achieved these goals (and possibly more), making your company a nice profit, earning them far more than they are paying you (which is as it's supposed to be). Your boss them comes up to you and goes:

Boss: Hey, well done, you had a brilliant year. Really like how you managed xyz. We could really do with more people like you etc.
You: Cheer's. Really enjoyed the hard work (mandatory ass kissing;))
Boss: You know the way I owe you your wages now?
You: Yeah, have been looking forward to them, bit behind on the ol' mortgage and with xmas coming up and the kids etc
Boss: Well, you see... do you know Paul over in abc department?
You: hmm, no, I don't think so.
Boss: Well, you see, he, you know, kind of... well he made a bit of a booboo.
You: ok...
Boss: And now the tabloids are screaming that you shouldn't be paid.
You:
Boss: Oh, and by the way, they hate you now as well.
You: Me? who hates me?
Boss: Well, pretty much everybody. You're being blamed for everything. 10 years of economic mismanagement? Your fault. Trade Unions eating this country alive? Your fault. Jedward? Your fault... Actually, there's a lynch mob outside. Suggest you leave via the back door...
You: But, but what did I do? I did everything right didn't I?
Boss: Of course. In fact, had everybody been as productive as you, we wouldn't have this problem.
You: But they still hate me and want to change the law just to fukc me and my family?
Boss. Yup. You know people... they're pretty stupid.
You: And, and what about this Paul guy?
Boss: Oh, he's been paid in full. And he's retired now on a great pension. Spending his time on the golf course and taken the grandkids on holidays etc. Golden handshake and all that.
You: And people hate me???
Boss: As I said, people are pretty fukcin stupid.

The question is: would you still be thankful to have such a job?

Third of your wages in a lump sum.... Its a bloody bonus. Not WAGES!!! Jobs that contain this sort of level of wages / bonus split are generally high risk for high reward. In this instance the risk was too high. Thats the failure of the group overall. They had it superbly in the good times, In fact more than bloody superbly. The whole sector was like one big P Diddy video.

Bonus fail. If you decide to work in a job with high risk bonus then deal with it. The AIB Group PLC effectively went to the wall, of the groups making.

Snakeblood

dotsman wrote: »

I don't know how many times this needs to be repeated before people begin to understand. The money lent to the banks is to secure their capitol positions. This money was not lent out of a case of charity or goodwill, but to the keep the economy from collapsing. It has nothing to do with employee wages or keeping jobs safe. The banks have been shedding huge amounts of staff, and will continue to do so over the next year. Employee remuneration has dropped dramatically (more so than in pretty much any other sector).

Many of the staff who have left the banks walked straight into another job. I don't know where this attitude of "being thankful to still have a job". 86% of people DO have jobs. Yes, the job market is a bit dry, so you shouldn't walk away from a good job on a whim. But you shouldn't put up with complete BS either.

Imagine you start a job tomorrow, and your employer gives you a contract, paying you a third of your wages on a monthly basis, and the rest in a lump sum at the end of the year, provided you have achieved certain goals. At the end of the year, you have achieved these goals (and possibly more), making your company a nice profit, earning them far more than they are paying you (which is as it's supposed to be). Your boss them comes up to you and goes:

Boss: Hey, well done, you had a brilliant year. Really like how you managed xyz. We could really do with more people like you etc.
You: Cheer's. Really enjoyed the hard work (mandatory ass kissing;))
Boss: You know the way I owe you your wages now?
You: Yeah, have been looking forward to them, bit behind on the ol' mortgage and with xmas coming up and the kids etc
Boss: Well, you see... do you know Paul over in abc department?
You: hmm, no, I don't think so.
Boss: Well, you see, he, you know, kind of... well he made a bit of a booboo.
You: ok...
Boss: And now the tabloids are screaming that you shouldn't be paid.
You:
Boss: Oh, and by the way, they hate you now as well.
You: Me? who hates me?
Boss: Well, pretty much everybody. You're being blamed for everything. 10 years of economic mismanagement? Your fault. Trade Unions eating this country alive? Your fault. Jedward? Your fault... Actually, there's a lynch mob outside. Suggest you leave via the back door...
You: But, but what did I do? I did everything right didn't I?
Boss: Of course. In fact, had everybody been as productive as you, we wouldn't have this problem.
You: But they still hate me and want to change the law just to fukc me and my family?
Boss. Yup. You know people... they're pretty stupid.
You: And, and what about this Paul guy?
Boss: Oh, he's been paid in full. And he's retired now on a great pension. Spending his time on the golf course and taken the grandkids on holidays etc. Golden handshake and all that.
You: And people hate me???
Boss: As I said, people are pretty fukcin stupid.

The question is: would you still be thankful to have such a job?

I'm surprised boss didn't say
Boss: As you know, there have been hard times here at the bank, things went totally off the rails in several departments, and now there is actually minus billions of money.
Me: Jesus Christ.
Boss: Yeah. As a direct result of this mismanagement at all levels of the company (although don't get me wrong, you're one of the few doing a fine job), the government has had to step in and guarantee the loans.
Me: Phew, the banks ok then?
Boss: Well, yes and no. I'm afraid this means that the bonuses that were agreed are really not available to be given. The bank simply doesn't have the money. Every penny is being used to prop up the banks
Me: But you're still getting your raise?
Boss: Well I shouldn't be.
Me: But I need that 170 grand for my houseboat.
Boss: I'm sorry, the taxpayers are pretty furious that the monolithic AIB bankrupt and they don't really care that a tiny cog in that made a small profit entitling him to a contracted bonus. They see the whole rotten edifice and rewards system as corrupt, and note that that guy you mentioned got his golden handshake and is walking off into the sunset. now they think that giving you money for something which for all they know, you didn't actually do, and you didn't actually earn but was just 'agreed' that you should have, stinks, because to them, all of AIB stinks, because as I may have mentioned earlier, AIB was pretty clearly mismanaged badly from the top down.
Me: Oh, I see your point. People don't care about me specifically, they just don't want more bonuses paid to people who are part of a company that has failed badly from their pocket.
Boss: Now you're getting it.

senordingdong

dotsman wrote: »

The question is: would you still be thankful to have such a job?

No, I'd be kicking myself for accepting such a stupid contract in the first place.

I mean come on, giving the boss the ablity to withold two thrids of your wages? Is that even legal?

I'm sure it is when it comes to post pay bonuses.
But on your wages? Surely not.

Pherekydes

senordingdong wrote: »

No, I'd be kicking myself for accepting such a stupid contract in the first place.

I mean come on, giving the boss the ablity to withold two thrids of your wages? Is that even legal.

Of course it's ****ing not!

Why do you think AIB ended up in the courts in the USA and the UK?

senordingdong

Pherekydes wrote: »

Of course it's ****ing not!

Why do you think AIB ended up in the courts in the USA and the UK?

I have to admit, I know nothing of AIBs actions in either the UK or the USA.

Snakeblood

senordingdong wrote: »

I have to admit, I know nothing of AIBs actions in either the UK or the USA.

They were getting sued by people int he US and the UK for not paying the bonuses, and they didn't offer a defence as their lawyer said that they didn't really have one...

senordingdong

Interesting.

Snakeblood

senordingdong wrote: »

Interesting.

The problem is, the lawyers are probably right.

Which is ANOTHER reason to be angry, as presumably Lenihan should have known this and explicitly said it, not sent that letter to the AIB management which now looks like he's completely incompetent, or like he knew it would be paid anyway and he was just doing it because the public demanded it.

I hate everyone and everything. They'll probably end up getting the money, and I'll be angry about it, but it's sort of a low level anger compared to the lack of some sort of punishment for the government and the management of the banks on a massive scale. I can't see a good reason why anyone who managed a bank from 2000-2009 should be in a job right now. Possibly there are some super bank managers who resisted the calls for giving interest free mortgages and whatnot, but I ****ing doubt it.

senordingdong

Snakeblood wrote: »

The problem is, the lawyers are probably right.

Which is ANOTHER reason to be angry, as presumably Lenihan should have known this and explicitly said it, not sent that letter to the AIB management which now looks like he's completely incompetent, or like he knew it would be paid anyway and he was just doing it because the public demanded it.

I hate everyone and everything. They'll probably end up getting the money, and I'll be angry about it, but it's sort of a low level anger compared to the lack of some sort of punishment for the government and the management of the banks on a massive scale. I can't see a good reason why anyone who managed a bank from 2000-2009 should be in a job right now. Possibly there are some super bank managers who resisted the calls for giving interest free mortgages and whatnot, but I ****ing doubt it.

It is very dis-hearting to think that these bonuses could still get paid.
Just like it's dis-hearting to note that despite all the seizures of files and computers, has the DPP brought anyone tyo justice for this.

When the country recovers from this mess, the only thing different will be that we will all be paying more taxes.

thebaz

Snakeblood wrote: »

The problem is, the lawyers are probably right.

how can the lawyers be right ?

A company goes to the wall ;
The goverrnment bails company out ;
the country nearly goes bust , IMF come in ;
bank still standing, thanks to utilising state funds -

meanwhile a huge proportion of the state citizens suffer extreme hardship - whilst a minority are homeless , in need of shut down medical services.

if the legal system backs Mr Moy aand his colleagues I want anarchy rather than an election

Liam Byrne

dotsman wrote: »

And for bonus points, please explain how the Capital Market traders were involved in all this?

I'm not involved in the whole "getting greedy" scenario that most government apologists throw at everyone, but I'm still being screwed.

AIB doesn't have the money to pay the bonuses, and there is no obligation on the citizens of this country to endure further hardship to pay them.

If AIB manages to make money further down the line, then let them pay them then, AFTER they've paid back the billions that have ensured that those involved still have a job.

Snakeblood

thebaz wrote: »

how can the lawyers be right ?

A company goes to the wall ;
The goverrnment bails company out ;
the country nearly goes bust , IMF come in ;
bank still standing, thanks to utilising state funds -

meanwhile a huge proportion of the state citizens suffer extreme hardship - whilst a minority are homeless , in need of shut down medical services.

if the legal system backs Mr Moy aand his colleagues I want anarchy rather than an election

I'm totally against it but:

Let's say you get paid to do something by me and we sign a contract. If you get it done in advance, I give you a bonus. That's written into the contract. You go and do your work, and get it done in advance, as agreed, so you are now legally entited tl the bonus for completion of the work. I come back to you and say 'Actually, my company went banktrupt, we had to accept a loan (it doesn't matter who from) and I amn't sure if you can be paid back'

I'd be looking into my legal rights if I were you.

Where it becomes more about the state of the country, and the exceptional circumstances, that's where I think there should be room to manouevre. But there may well not be.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/1214/1224285490406.html?via=mr

the question of bonuses for 2008 should have arisen in March 2009 – after the bank was effectively taken into public ownership. At that point, of course, the Government would have been in a position to veto the payments. (According to AIB yesterday, some bonuses were normally announced in late February to be paid in late March. This would still have meant that the announcement of bonuses would have happened after the Government bailout.)

This is not what happened.

Instead, the relevant staff were individually called to unexpected meetings with senior managers on January 29th, 2009 – two months before they would normally have been informed of their bonuses. They were told that the bonus for 2008 was being brought forward and would be paid out on February 25th – two months before the normal date. The staff were explicitly told that the meeting they were then having constituted a verbal contract which was legally binding. In other words, senior managers at the bank created a legal obligation to pay the bonuses in AIB as it was effectively being nationalised. Staff were told to keep all of this to themselves.

Three things need to be stressed.

Firstly, there was no existing legal obligation on AIB to pay these bonuses at that time – the “contract” was deliberately created (verbally) by the bank itself in the meetings with staff. (Most of the staff in question had no bonuses specified in their written contracts. It was, as my source puts it, “more the expectation and unwritten rule that staff would be paid bonuses”.)

Secondly, the bonuses appear to have been inflated as “compensation” for the probability that they would be the last to be paid.

Thirdly, AIB’s senior management must have known at the time that the bank was effectively insolvent. They certainly knew that AIB was on the brink of an effective State takeover.

Corporate looting.

dotsman

Deleted User wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/1214/1224285490406.html?via=mr





Corporate looting.

Tabloid journalism.

smellyanus

For all you people out there who can't read/hear past what Fianna Fail push RTE to report

http://www.swp.ie/news/more-behind-aib-bonus-story/3887

Stories from the people that are being affected by all this

http://news.efinancialcareers.ie/newsandviews_item/newsItemId-30063

public opinion

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2010/1216/1224285654363.html

There was also another very interesting article on Wednesday that I cannot find that outlined we the bonuses should be paid, and the implications of Lenihans attempted ( I use that word as McAleese has not yet signed the bill) actions.

Most of the posts on this thread are completely ignorant banker bashing
I don't think it matters how many times you try to explain it dotsman, people on here will continue to be outraged and shout how wrong it is until it is their contract that is broken............. then everybody else except them is wrong again.

CiaranC

smellyanus wrote: »

Most of the posts on this thread are completely ignorant banker bashing
I don't think it matters how many times you try to explain it dotsman, people on here will continue to be outraged and shout how wrong it is until it is their contract that is broken............. then everybody else except them is wrong again.

Wtf are you talking about, if the companies any of the rest of us work for fail, we get statutory redundancy at best. Of course our contracts would be broken, that is the way the business world works. This has happened to hundreds of thousands already. It would be absurd to expect their failed employers to pay them a bonus.

smellyanus

You obviously are still failing to understand the whole point of this Ciaranc.
These are not strictly bonuses that we are talking about. The people in CM (Capital Markets) are on performance related contracts, which often means they are on lower salaries than most other departments. If CM as a whole performs and reaches it's target then the people within that section receive what they are due - what people are referring too as a bonus.
CM did perform, and only the individual people that performed would then receive the payment.
From what I know CM has produced profits of around €1 billion since 2008, if they hadn't of done this there would be a much bigger bill for the taxpayer to foot.

What Lenihan is trying to do is nullify contracts that were signed in the past. If this is allowed to happen then potentially everybody can be affected by it.
He could say -
"hang on now, the arse has fallen out of the market. We paid abc construction €1.2m to build that building for us, that was too much so I want to take 300k of it back".
" Hi. I know I have contracted you to build this hospital for us and you have most of the work done but now I have decided I want it anymore and I can do that because the contract we signed is worthless GET OVER IT".
"apologies everyone who availed of the scrappage scheme and got themselves new cars lately. I have now decided that we were too generous with that so I want all the money back, I can do that because I am the minister for finance and I am not contractually bound to anything I don't want to"

Try to look past what RTE are reporting and see the bigger picture :rolleyes: