EBS building soc workers want annual Xmas bonus

stovelid

Fbjm wrote: »

Oh there's a whole backstory to that. The union wanted to use the library so they were allowed, then like 5 minutes before they went live or something they went down to the café bit downstairs in front of the cameras. That's obviously trying to get one up on the company, over something that's necessary.

Thrash the communist blighters like miserable curs, I say.

Freddie59

jester77 wrote: »

This is not a bonus payment.

Your total salary is divided by 13 instead of 12. So every month you get a little less and then at the end of the year you get salary 12 + 13 in one payslip. Num 13 is not guaranteed and may not be paid out if the company had a bad year and is struggling.

Or is, in essence, a bankrupt failed business entity which should no longer exist.

Snakeblood

Freddie59 wrote: »

Very far from black and white actually. Their contract was with a previous entity, which was bankrupt and no longer viable.

The problem is that they're apparently honouring the contracts with management who do get paid the 13th month, because for managers, it's 'base salary' and not 'bonus'. If they can just rip up contracts, then rip them all up.

I waver on this one. I don't think anyone should get the bonus, and I think they should have been told long ago this was coming. This month is a toss way to do it.

The company acknowledged that the 13th month Christmas bonus is specified in the employees' contracts. It said that the payment was not pensionable - and staff leaving before the Christmas payroll run in any given year would not receive the payment.

Asked why managers would continue to receive a "13th month", sources said their payment was "base salary", which they could choose to have paid over 12 or 13 months, but not a bonus.

So why the fúck do they use the term "13th month" in relation to a bonus? It's completely different.

Here our annual base salary is divided by 13. We receive 1 1/13th every month except December when we receive 2 1/13ths. Simples.

Either it's their base salary (which they're entitled to and I can't see anyone screwing with that) or it's a bonus, which they're not.

I'll grant that the timing is shítty. Although, if it IS a bonus, why have they been getting it up to now??

starbelgrade

El Weirdo wrote: »

Jesus, I'm not sure which side I should be rabbling on in this one.

What to do.

Just get off the fence, pick a side & run with that.

This time next week, there'll be something else to argue about and whether you were right or wrong on this debate won't matter a fudge.

LittleBook

Maybe they'll get a years subscription to the "Jelly of the Month" club, that'll cheer them up.

Wile E. Coyote

jester77 wrote: »

This is not a bonus payment.

Your total salary is divided by 13 instead of 12. So every month you get a little less and then at the end of the year you get salary 12 + 13 in one payslip. Num 13 is not guaranteed and may not be paid out if the company had a bad year and is struggling.

Is that really the case though? Does the contract state that your salary is, for example, €25k per annum. Or, as I would suspect, does it state something along the lines of your salary is €1,923.08 per month with an additional monthly payment of €1,923.08 to be paid out with your December wages subject to company performance etc, etc.

gigino

MagicSean wrote: »

You're the one that came on laughing and bragging about how your dad was the one who has put these people under massive financial pressure for Christmas.

What is a small bankrupt building society , in a small country the population of an ordinary city elsewhere in the world, doing getting bailouts of billions of euro from the Irish taxpayer - especially after the self same building socirty helped **** the country by sometimes lending people 10 and 15 times their salary, to inflate the property bubble during the boom ?
Now the boom is over, the building society is not lending out money / granting new mortgages. It is having to pay depositors twice as much ( about 4% ) for them to lend it money, than some people with mortgages are paying them ( about 2% ). And yet, despite this mess, the head of this ( relatively tiny ) building society - pays himself more than the President of America is paid. I would have thought running the free world, or at least a country nearly 100 times the population of Ireland , was / is a more difficult , 24/7 kind of responsible job.
The IMF is here, the taxpayer is bailing them out and now the workers in EBS think they should get a months xmas bonus ??? :rolleyes:

I heard a father of a disabled child crying on the radio yesterday because of the budget cuts.The world is gone mad.

starbelgrade

tightropetom wrote: »

Allow me to explain. There are 13 lunar months in a year.

You should present Q.I.

Not only do you seem to know stuff, but also seem to possess an air of smug superiority which would suit you perfectly in the role.

Fear Uladh

As long as me leccy is runin fore me haytin, let dem do whaever wha wha.

AnonoBoy

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

FAIL

Sharrow wrote: »

EBs the building soc not the ESB.

Welcome to the world of not getting the joke boys.

stovelid

Fbjm wrote: »

So you're suggesting the cuts were avoidable?

I assume the cuts were unavoidable.

Maybe acting like a cunt was though.

rich1874

Freddie59 wrote: »

Very far from black and white actually. Their contract was with a previous entity, which was bankrupt and no longer viable.

Granted, so at what point did their previous contract become void? And if so did they sign a new one? Because if they didn't i would fight tooth and nail to hold onto the terms in my existing contract, the one that was agreed. It matters not one bean how much they make or whether you think they make too much.

Snakeblood

rich1874 wrote: »

Granted, so at what point did their previous contract become void? And if so did they sign a new one? Because if they didn't i would fight tooth and nail to hold onto the terms in my existing contract, the one that was agreed. It matters not one bean how much they make or whether you think they make too much.

The contract is still valid, the issue is whether what is under discussion is something EBS is obligated to give under the terms of the contract, or has the option of withholding. Apparently for management, it's obligatory, and for the lower levels, it's not obligatory, just customary.

hightower1

Deank wrote: »

Right so Star, lets say you do enter a scheme with your employer to put aside €200 a month over 12 months from you salary and for the savings to paid in one lump sum in Dec, and then your employer turns around in Dec and says sorry your not getting it, do you not consider that robbery, your employer has just taken €2,400 of your hard earned cash!!!

So wait a min!

Lots of people put money into a place to mind their cash for them and now **** hit the fan and they've lost out????!!!!! Thats terrible alright.....



Mmmmmmmm the delicious irony of bank workers loosing THEIR savings for a change!

Snakeblood

hightower1 wrote: »

So wait a min!

Lots of people put money into a place to mind their cash for them and now **** hit the fan and they've lost out????!!!!! Thats terrible alright.....



Mmmmmmmm the delicious irony of bank workers loosing THEIR savings for a change!

What are you talking about? Who lost their savings?

tightropetom

starbelgrade wrote: »

You should present Q.I.

Not only do you seem to know stuff, but also seem to possess an air of smug superiority which would suit you perfectly in the role.

FYP - I was just trying to make a clear point. :mad:

mossyc123

Not legally entitled to it but should have been informed in July when the AIB takeover occured.

They don't seem to have a leg to stand on but nevertheless it's a sly move from Management at EBS that could well backfire on them with a strike.

Should they get the money? No

Should they strike? They might as well... could prevent these misunderstandings from occuring in the future

hidinginthebush

I heard on the radio that the staff were told two weeks ago they were getting the bonus / payment, then were only told yesterday, the day before they were due to get it, that they weren't, and that is why EBS are a shower of cunts :mad:

Regardless of the legalities of their entitlement to the payment, to be told at the end of November you'll have a nice wedge 2 and a half weeks before Christmas, then to have it cruelly snatched away from you, is fucking heartless. Shame on them.

Snakeblood

hidinginthebush wrote: »

I heard on the radio that the staff were told two weeks ago they were getting the bonus / payment, then were only told yesterday, the day before they were due to get it, that they weren't, and that is why EBS are a shower of cunts :mad:

Regardless of the legalities of their entitlement to the payment, to be told at the end of November you'll have a nice wedge 2 and a half weeks before Christmas, then to have it cruelly snatched away from you, is fucking heartless. Shame on them.

It's possible that they assumed they would be able to give the christmas bonus. The managers in EBS don't control the purse strings, AIB and the govt. do.

gigino

hidinginthebush wrote: »

I heard on the radio that the staff were told two weeks ago they were getting the bonus / payment, then were only told yesterday, the day before they were due to get it, that they weren't, and that is why EBS are a shower of cunts :mad:

They, Seanie Fitzpatrick and the others who inflated the bubble and destroyed the economy are a "shower of cunts" ( to borrow your phrase) for reasons other than not giving themselves a months Xmas 2011 bonus - especially when the taxpayer still pays employees of EBS up to 380,000 a year.

Do their victims get paid 380,000 a year with a months bonus at xmas because they done such a pathetically poor job ?

hidinginthebush

gigino wrote: »

They, Seanie Fitzpatrick and the others who inflated the bubble and destroyed the economy are a "shower of cunts" ( to borrow your phrase) for reasons other than not giving themselves a months Xmas 2011 bonus - especially when the taxpayer still pays employees of EBS up to 380,000 a year.

Do their victims get paid 380,000 a year with a months bonus at xmas because they done such a pathetically poor job ?

Yes, the Seanie Fitzpatricks of the world are indeed "a shower of cunts" (to take my phrase back). However, the desk clerks who are probably struggling as much as every poor punter who comes in, and who had very little to do with the inflation of the property bubble, were the ones duped into thinking they would be getting this payment then had it taken away.

I'm not debating or arguing about the morality of paying bonuses to the sector (has it been established yet if it was indeed a bonus, or a 13th payment / savings scheme type of deal?), I'm angered by the fact that the non-management, lower level staff were told they were going to get it, then were told the day before they were going to that they wouldn't. A heartless thing to do so close to Christmas.

They should have just been up front and told them they wouldn't be getting it, and checked out if they even could pay them, given the recent changes of the ownership of the building society. Another tribute to the lack of foresight and planning ahead by the upper management in an Irish financial institution.

MagicSean

hidinginthebush wrote: »

Yes, the Seanie Fitzpatricks of the world are indeed "a shower of cunts" (to take my phrase back). However, the desk clerks who are probably struggling as much as every poor punter who comes in, and who had very little to do with the inflation of the property bubble, were the ones duped into thinking they would be getting this payment then had it taken away.

I'm not debating or arguing about the morality of paying bonuses to the sector (has it been established yet if it was indeed a bonus, or a 13th payment / savings scheme type of deal?), I'm angered by the fact that the non-management, lower level staff were told they were going to get it, then were told the day before they were going to that they wouldn't. A heartless thing to do so close to Christmas.

They should have just been up front and told them they wouldn't be getting it, and checked out if they even could pay them, given the recent changes of the ownership of the building society. Another tribute to the lack of foresight and planning ahead by the upper management in an Irish financial institution.

You're wasting your time. Gigino can't understand the difference between ranks or jobs. As far is he is concerned, if you work in EBS then you earn the same salary as the person at the top. If you work in the public sector then you earn the same as the lads at the top. It's the reason he can't contribute to the Irish Economy forum anymore.

noodler

I'd wait and see if the bonus is contractual first but I wouldn't have much sympathy.

Plenty of firms have gone bankrupt since the recession and the Government didn't save them - such workers actually lost their job.

It is a bit much to expect taxpayers to fork out billions for the institution if it could afford things like a full month's bonus which does not even depend on performance.

MagicSean

noodler wrote: »

I'd wait and see if the bonus is contractual first but I wouldn't have much sympathy.

Plenty of firms have gone bankrupt since the recession and the Government didn't save them - such workers actually lost their job.

It is a bit much to expect taxpayers to fork out billions for the institution if it could afford things like a full month's bonus which does not even depend on performance.

As was previously mentioned, it isn't a bonus. It's there pay due from the previous eleven months.

gigino

MagicSean wrote: »

You're wasting your time. Gigino can't understand the difference between ranks or jobs.

Of course I can. And of course the desk staff / people in the lower level of the EBS are not paid as much as the head there, who according to media reports had his pay reduced from 500,000 per year to only 380,000.
I do not know what the ordinary office staff there are on ....but I doubt its less than most other people in equivalent jobs in the private sector - and they do not get a months bonus at xmas ( paid by the taxpayer ), so why should the EBS ?

MagicSean wrote: »

As far is he is concerned, if you work in EBS then you earn the same salary as the person at the top.

You are wrong there, I would say most peiople in the EBS would earn less than a quarter of what the top guy there gets. Maybe you can tell me what the lower workers in the EBS get, as you seem quite close ?

And if Anglo was closed down + staff were let go, why not the EBS ? Its not lending any more + is a drain to the tune of billions on the taxpayer. If the rogue bank closes, should'nt the rogue building society ?

MagicSean wrote: »

If you work in the public sector then you earn the same as the lads at the top.

No no no. You are wrong there. Average public sector pay according to www.cso.ie is reduced to only 48,000 per year. The boys at the top of the public service earn a lot more than that. Many people in the Public service earn less than that. Nobody gets a months xmas bonus from the taxpayer. That type of thing only goes on in the worst of corrupt African countries. It does not happen in western countries.

noodler

jester77 wrote: »

This is not a bonus payment.

Your total salary is divided by 13 instead of 12. So every month you get a little less and then at the end of the year you get salary 12 + 13 in one payslip. Num 13 is not guaranteed and may not be paid out if the company had a bad year and is struggling.

MagicSean wrote: »

As was previously mentioned, it isn't a bonus. It's there pay due from the previous eleven months.

With respect I am reading seriously conflicting stories.

1) Its an extra payment they get contractually (not based on performance - madness in itself)

2) Its an extra payment that they usually get but aren't legally entitled to if the compnay has a bad year (or 10)

3) Its part of their normal salary (i.e. their annual salary is divided into 13 payments - if true the contract had better mention an annual salary explicitly)

4) Its part of a savings scheme (in which case I don't see how the Government has a leg to stand on).

Whichever of the above is true - I hope the practice will be examined next year.

tightropetom

starbelgrade wrote: »

It's not true. He just made that up.

That's not correct. You just made that up. I've stated what I've heard from two separate EBS employees. :rolleyes:

mickol

Fbjm wrote: »

Heh, my dad is the one who stopped them getting their bonuses. Cutbacks had to be made etc. Trust the union to get all pissy about it :rolleyes:

Funny actually, they were on the news yesterday and wanted to make a fuss, but dad got the place to shut and disable the blinds, thus a reporter standing outside a seemingly calm building. Union epic-fails :cool:

******* ****

Snakeblood

noodler wrote: »

With respect I am reading seriously conflicting stories.

1) Its an extra payment they get contractually (not based on performance - madness in itself)

2) Its an extra payment that they usually get but aren't legally entitled to if the compnay has a bad year (or 10)

3) Its part of their normal salary (i.e. their annual salary is divided into 13 payments - if true the contract had better mention an annual salary explicitly)

4) Its part of a savings scheme (in which case I don't see how the Government has a leg to stand on).

Whichever of the above is true - I hope the practice will be examined next year.

If they're legally entitled to it, they'd get it. They're not entitled, is the only construction you can put on it.

starbelgrade

tightropetom wrote: »

That's not correct. You just made that up. I've stated what I've heard from two separate EBS employees. :rolleyes:

Sure what would they know? Them guys think there's 13 months in a year.

noodler

Snakeblood wrote: »

If they're legally entitled to it, they'd get it. They're not entitled, is the only construction you can put on it.

Well, why is this any different to this?

http://www.politics.ie/forum/economy/145837-aib-not-award-bonuses-after-consultation-minister-finance-6.html

They may have been entitled to it in a pre-bailout era but I disagree that we can say, without any further investigation, that all contracts should be honoured as if billions of State money had not entered the society.

Anyway, jumping the gun until we find out more details.

Snakeblood

noodler wrote: »

Well, why is this any different to this?

http://www.politics.ie/forum/economy/145837-aib-not-award-bonuses-after-consultation-minister-finance-6.html

They may have been entitled to it in a pre-bailout era but I disagree that we can say, without any further investigation, that all contracts should be honoured as if billions of State money had not entered the society.

Anyway, jumping the gun until we find out more details.

I'm not saying the money should be paid at all, I think it shouldn't. But I think after they got their fingers burned the last time on bonus payouts, they made sure of what they could withhold and what they couldn't.

Although I could be wrong and you're absolutely right, this is conjecture. It does seem odd though, that Unite are going for industrial action rather than a legal challenge if they do have a good case for this.

Freddie59

hidinginthebush wrote: »

I heard on the radio that the staff were told two weeks ago they were getting the bonus / payment, then were only told yesterday, the day before they were due to get it, that they weren't, and that is why EBS are a shower of cunts :mad:

Regardless of the legalities of their entitlement to the payment, to be told at the end of November you'll have a nice wedge 2 and a half weeks before Christmas, then to have it cruelly snatched away from you, is fucking heartless. Shame on them.

FFS these people shouldn't even be in a job. and they're moaning about a fcuking bonus????? Highlights all that is wrong with this country. Anyone employed by the government - or in a business bankrolled by the government - still thinks its 2005. Clowns.:mad:

Freddie59

Snakeblood wrote: »

I'm not saying the money should be paid at all, I think it shouldn't. But I think after they got their fingers burned the last time on bonus payouts, they made sure of what they could withhold and what they couldn't.

Although I could be wrong and you're absolutely right, this is conjecture. It does seem odd though, that Unite are going for industrial action rather than a legal challenge if they do have a good case for this.

Are this shower for real???? FFS. Fcuk them. Let them go out - and stay there.

Snakeblood

Freddie59 wrote: »

Are this shower for real???? FFS. Fcuk them. Let them go out - and stay there.

They're balloting their members, it's what they should be doing for the people whose interests they represent.

jpm4

LittleBook wrote: »

Maybe they'll get a years subscription to the "Jelly of the Month" club, that'll cheer them up.

"Clark...that's the gift that keeps giving all year long!"

gigino

jpm4 wrote: »

"Clark...that's the gift that keeps giving all year long!"

yeah, a Clarkes shoe up the a**, thats what they want.

Like the Anglo workers, many of them done well during the celtic tiger, which they helped create by over-lending. Now those days are gone, and they are no longer functioning as a proper building society, their bonus's should stop. They are lucky the taxpayer is keeping them in their jobs / pumping billions in to their little building society. Many people whose companies are insolvent / bust are on the scrapheap.

Freddie59

Snakeblood wrote: »

They're balloting their members, it's what they should be doing for the people whose interests they represent.

Their interests should be in retaining their jobs, and being damn glad they're not on the fcuking dole, which is where they would have been had those banks been treated in a normal commercial fashion.

MagicSean

Freddie59 wrote: »

FFS these people shouldn't even be in a job. and they're moaning about a fcuking bonus????? Highlights all that is wrong with this country. Anyone employed by the government - or in a business bankrolled by the government - still thinks its 2005. Clowns.:mad:

Why shouldn't they have a job?

Freddie59

MagicSean wrote: »

Why shouldn't they have a job?

Why should they? A failed business entity which should never have been bailed out in the first instance. Completely out of touch with reality.

Snakeblood

Freddie59 wrote: »

Their interests should be in retaining their jobs, and being damn glad they're not on the fcuking dole, which is where they would have been had those banks been treated in a normal commercial fashion.

Their interests are retaining everything they had before. If they don't stand up for their interests, no one else will. These are people on the lower end of the spectrum, who weren't involved in the big risk taking decisions. Dunno why you are so angry at them really.

gigino

MagicSean wrote: »

Why shouldn't they have a job?

because they f**ked up big time. Lending some customers 10 and 15 times their salary to buy a property. Normal building societies never done that ...they do not do it now .... but they did that during the tiger years and over inflated the property bubble. They got greedy. Hell, the head fellow there is still paid more than the President of the USA, so you could say the culture of greediness is still there.

Snakeblood

gigino wrote: »

because they f**ked up big time. Lending some customers 10 and 15 times their salary to buy a property. Normal building societies never done that ...they do not do it now .... but they did that during the tiger years and over inflated the property bubble. They got greedy. Hell, the head fellow there is still paid more than the President of the USA, so you could say the culture of greediness is still there.

It's there for those at the top. You don't seem to be able to realise that this isn't about the people at the top. this is the people who were ****ed over by the people at the top's poor decisions.

Edit: Just for clarities sake: I don't think they should get the bonus, but I think their union is right to ask them what they want to do about it.

gigino

Snakeblood wrote: »

It's there for those at the top. You don't seem to be able to realise that this isn't about the people at the top. this is the people who were ****ed over by the people at the top's poor decisions.

In the real world if management make bad decisions and have poor management controls in place, and get greedy, and go bust to the tune of billions, they are not bailed out by the taxpayer. EBS should have been allowed fail / go bust. Its tough on the ordinary staff, as it was on the ordinary " ground floor level" Anglo Irish staff, but thats the real world. The government / taxpayer cannot and should not pump billions in to every business which goes bust like EBS.

hidinginthebush

gigino wrote: »

In the real world if management make bad decisions and have poor management controls in place, and get greedy, and go bust to the tune of billions, they are not bailed out by the taxpayer. EBS should have been allowed fail / go bust. Its tough on the ordinary staff, as it was on the ordinary " ground floor level" Anglo Irish staff, but thats the real world. The government / taxpayer cannot and should not pump billions in to every business which goes bust like EBS.

What about Anglo, AIB, Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac (see it's not just Ireland). The problem with letting building societies and banks go bust, as I see it*, is that these places have given out mortgages, so people have taken loans to pay for their homes. Now, if all these places went bust, as part of the bankrupcy hearings, their debtors would be able to demand the amount owed by everyone who has a house with them, which as we are all aware now, could be hundreds of thousands more than the house is even worth. So the debtors could demand that the house is given over. So you have thousands of families (maybe even some of your noble private sector workes) made homeless. That's why the government bail these people out.

[*disclaimer - I may have just highlighted my complete lack of understanding of how the financial world works, ninja edits to follow...]

MagicSean

gigino wrote: »

because they f**ked up big time. Lending some customers 10 and 15 times their salary to buy a property. Normal building societies never done that ...they do not do it now .... but they did that during the tiger years and over inflated the property bubble. They got greedy. Hell, the head fellow there is still paid more than the President of the USA, so you could say the culture of greediness is still there.

The guys at the counter didn't lend any money

gigino

hidinginthebush wrote: »

What about Anglo, AIB, Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac (see it's not just Ireland). The problem with letting building societies and banks go bust, as I see it*, is that these places have given out mortgages, so people have taken loans to pay for their homes. Now, if all these places went bust, as part of the bankrupcy hearings, their debtors would be able to demand the amount owed by everyone who has a house with them, which as we are all aware now, could be hundreds of thousands more than the house is even worth. So the debtors could demand that the house is given over. So you have thousands of families (maybe even some of your noble private sector workes) made homeless. That's why the government bail these people out.

[*disclaimer - I may have just highlighted my complete lack of understanding of how the financial world works, ninja edits to follow...]

Actually what happens when a financial instution goes bust is the loan book is sold / transfered to another financial instution. If Mr + MRs X had a mortgage with the EBS, its transfed to another bank / building society : they still owe it.
Anglo the rogue bank has effectively been closed down ; the rogue building society(s) need to be closed as well. The government has an interest in keeping either or both AIB + B of I going, at least until they can be sold off ; they control the current accounts of businesses , most ATM's etc etc.

By contrast, EBS is not of critical importance to the Irish economy : it is not even lending money on a day to day basis now. It is having to offer about 4% to attract funds, while it only get 2% from some mortgages. Its not a working business model. It has absorbed / wasted billions of taxpayers money. It made incredibly bad decisions during the boom like offering some people mortgages for 10 or 15 times their annual salary. This contributed to the bubble. For that reason alone they should be closed down, and the burden on the taxpayer lessened. The head lad in this little building society still pays himself more - courtesy of the Irish taxpayer - than the President of the USA earns. That shows they still are making bad decisions. At least Seanie Fitzpatrick is still not being paid a big salary by Anglo. Nor is he looking for a months xmas bonus.

gigino

MagicSean wrote: »

The guys at the counter didn't lend any money

tough, they were part of the machine which did.

MagicSean

gigino wrote: »

tough, they were part of the machine which did.

Very few people in this country played no part in it's downfall.