What's a fair redundancy package for AIB workers

Frank Black

I heard one of the union spokemen for AIB workers on Matt Cooper yesterday evening saying that they would be trying to get the maximum possible redundancy payments for staff who are going to be let go - fair enough, that's their job I suppose.

My question is, why should the taxpayer, who owns AIB, and has kept these workers in full time employment for the last 3 years, be expected to fund a lavish redundacy package for them now as well? If they had worked in any other buisness, they would have all lost their jobs back in 2009.

talkinyite

Cause workers should have equal rights no matter what business they work in?

Mr. Loverman

The company has no money so it should be forced redundancies with the statutory payment. That's what a normal business would do. AIB should not be treated differently.

hairyprincess

A pint of Harp and a packet of dates

Toby Take a Bow

black francis wrote: »

My question is, why should the taxpayer, who owns AIB, and has kept these workers in full time employment for the last 3 years, be expected to fund a lavish redundacy package for them now as well? If they had worked in any other buisness, they would have all lost their jobs back in 2009.

I presume they're legally entitled to some form of redundancy above statutory. The company isn't going out of business (whether it should or not is another matter) so they'd have a fairly solid legal basis to argue for something more. They're also going to be entering a job market with few to no job prospects, which is the point of giving workers above statutory redundancy.

Freddie59

talkinyite wrote: »

Cause workers should have equal rights no matter what business they work in?

Equal rights. Hmmmm. Double-edged sword really. In the normal course of events that business would have ceased trading. And millions would have been saved in salaries paid since. The workers would also have only received statutory redundancy payments.

I was amazed to see that only one-sixth of them are being laid off....and they're up in arms over it, with the IBOA making "demands" etc. FFS, I hope that this Government starts waking up soon, and realises that there is only so much money. We're closing hosptal wards, incresing taxes, tec. And for what? To compensate those who were a party to the collapse of our country? No fcuking thanks.

But, unfortunately, different rules seem to apply to the bankster sector. If they do pay them redundancy settlements above statutory, the future legal implications could be enormous, as it could be argued that the government increased statutory payments (because that is what they will be doing in essence).

Watch this space.

Frank Black

talkinyite wrote: »

Cause workers should have equal rights no matter what business they work in?

So that would be statutory redundancy payments then?

hoodwinked

i think a fair redundency package would be €-25,000 annually and pay AIB's golf fees!

Freddie59

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

I presume they're legally entitled to some form of redundancy above statutory. The company isn't going out of business (whether it should or not is another matter) so they'd have a fairly solid legal basis to argue for something more. They're also going to be entering a job market with few to no job prospects, which is the point of giving workers above statutory redundancy.

But what about workers who were made redundant in the past four years with ONLY statutory, even though the firms stayed in business. A legal minefield if ever there was one.

talkinyite

I know feck all about it TBH sorry

Mushy

Freddie59 wrote: »

Equal rights. Hmmmm. Double-edged sword really. In the normal course of events that business would have ceased trading. And millions would have been saved in salaries paid since. The workers would also have only received statutory redundancy payments.

I was amazed to see that only one-sixth of them are being laid off....and they're up in arms over it, with the IBOA making "demands" etc. FFS, I hope that this Government starts waking up soon, and realises that there is only so much money. We're closing hosptal wards, incresing taxes, tec. And for what? To compensate those who were a party to the collapse of our country? No fcuking thanks.

But, unfortunately, different rules seem to apply to the bankster sector. If they do pay them redundancy settlements above statutory, the future legal implications could be enormous, as it could be argued that the government increased statutory payments (because that is what they will be doing in essence).

Watch this space.

You do know that the people who will be laid off will be the "ordinary" workers on the ground who have had to put up with unmitigated b/s from people who think that they themselves overspent the banks millions (read: now the country's millions/billions). Don't worry, the ones who protect your money in their big offices, making the decisions, they won't be the ones to go.

Is my family going to be affected by this? Yes, big time. Just lucky it could be seen a mile off and so is planned. Hope its enough, cos it'll be tough years if its not (yes, thats right, we live within our means).

stevenmu

The simple reason that they offer above statutory is that they want the redundancies to be as voluntary as possible. The better the package they offer, the more people will go for it voluntarily. The worse the package is, the fewer the people who will go for it, meaning more forced redundancies, possibly causing widespread strike action, which would ultimately cost more than decent redundancy payments.

Freddie59

Mushy wrote: »

You do know that the people who will be laid off will be the "ordinary" workers on the ground who have had to put up with unmitigated b/s from people who think that they themselves overspent the banks millions (read: now the country's millions/billions). Don't worry, the ones who protect your money in their big offices, making the decisions, they won't be the ones to go.

Is my family going to be affected by this? Yes, big time. Just lucky it could be seen a mile off and so is planned. Hope its enough, cos it'll be tough years if its not (yes, thats right, we live within our means).

Am I sorry for the workers? I truly am. And I mean that. But do you think it is right - after all those who have been made jobless in this country; and which the banks caused; - that they should receive preferential treatment in their severance?

Freddie59

stevenmu wrote: »

The simple reason that they offer above statutory is that they want the redundancies to be as voluntary as possible. The better the package they offer, the more people will go for it voluntarily. The worse the package is, the fewer the people who will go for it, meaning more forced redundancies, possibly causing widespread strike action, which would ultimately cost more than decent redundancy payments.

That would be in the normal course of events. This is a bankrupt company which has been kept artificially trading (at the expense of the taxpayer, and, IMHO in contradiction to every competition law) and should have ceased trading three years ago.

It makes no economic sense that the cash-strapped taxpayer should be expected to cough up even more.

Aka Ishur

I suppose that the vast majority of workers laid off will by the lower paid front line staff. These guys had no hand in making the decisions that hurt the economy so much. These guys should get a good package.

Anyone

The Irish state has been propping up companies since its inception. Look at every council, look at every semi state company. Ok so AIB is owned by the state, that doesnt mean the people who are employed there shouldnt receive their statotory reduncancies.

trooney

Freddie59 wrote: »

But what about workers who were made redundant in the past four years with ONLY statutory, even though the firms stayed in business. A legal minefield if ever there was one.

Not a legal minefield at all. They are legally only entitled to statutory redundancy payment. If other employees made redunadnt previously were given more they could use that to strenghten their argument that they should also recieve more, but legally, all they are entitled to is as prescribed in employment law. two weeks payment for each year employed (up to a max of €600 per week) once they have been employed for longer than two years.

Frank Black

Anyone wrote: »

The Irish state has been propping up companies since its inception. Look at every council, look at every semi state company. Ok so AIB is owned by the state, that doesnt mean the people who are employed there shouldnt receive their statotory reduncancies.

You should really learn to read things properly - because I can't see a single person who posted who has said they shouldn't.

We're talking about payments above statutory.

stevenmu

Freddie59 wrote: »

That would be in the normal course of events. This is a bankrupt company which has been kept artificially trading (at the expense of the taxpayer, and, IMHO in contradiction to every competition law) and should have ceased trading three years ago.

It makes no economic sense that the cash-strapped taxpayer should be expected to cough up even more.

There is a good argument that they should have just been left to collapse. But since that isn't happening the next best alternative is to downsize through voluntary redunancies and try to get back to profitability.

trishasaffron

Is the redundancy on top of maintenance of pension rights?

So how does this work for someone close to pension age? Take massive redundancy and shortly thereafter pension clicks in? Sounds nice to me.

I understand that bank pensioners continue to have golf club fees paid by AIB - that makes me sick. Please correct me if wrong - I'd like to feel better.

Mushy

Freddie59 wrote: »

Am I sorry for the workers? I truly am. And I mean that. But do you think it is right - after all those who have been made jobless in this country; and which the banks caused; - that they should receive preferential treatment in their severance?

The only thing that would make it right is if the people who responsible were to be punished. Will that happen? Not a hope.

I don't see this as preferential treatment, sure didn't/don't the HSE have voluntary redundancies on-going now? The workers being laid off just happened to fall under the control of the Government, and sure they be an easy target because 1) they want votes next time around so will have to give good redundancy and 2) they want votes next time so will have to be harsh on them too.

Understand fully where you're coming from about other workers who were made jobless without this, but I can't see why the blame/any animosity should be aimed towards the workers.

SEPT 23 1989

There should be no such bank as the AIB

they should have been let go to the wall in the 80's

Swampy

Three fiddy

Anyone

black francis wrote: »

You should really learn to read things properly - because I can't see a single person who posted who has said they shouldn't.

We're talking about payments above statutory.

I was giving my opinion on your original question, not everything that followed after that:)

Logical Fallacy

The company I was with at the start of the auld recession downsized considerably at the time...I think they dropped about 25-30% of staff at that time, and another 15% of staff a year and a half later.

I went with the first batch and we all received payments that were well above that basic level.

A few other heads i know who lost their jobs at the time all received very handsome severance packages from other companies as well.

I don't think it's right to paint the picture that everyone who has lost their job during this economic crisis has been turfed out with the bare essentials tbh.

stevenmu

trishasaffron wrote: »

Is the redundancy on top of maintenance of pension rights?

So how does this work for someone close to pension age? Take massive redundancy and shortly thereafter pension clicks in? Sounds nice to me.

I understand that bank pensioners continue to have golf club fees paid by AIB - that makes me sick. Please correct me if wrong - I'd like to feel better.

Generally with redundancy plans like this, employees will have to apply for them and they will be evaluated against a set of criteria before being accepted or not. I'd guess that they will exclude people due to retire soon, the whole point of the plan is to reduce numbers so if they can get rid of people already retiring for free then they probably will.

Gurgle

black francis wrote: »

My question is, why should the taxpayer, who owns AIB, and has kept these workers in full time employment for the last 3 years, be expected to fund a lavish redundacy package for them now as well?

My question would be; Why did the state keep them in employment for the last 3 years? They have had feck all to do, as the bank has been almost completely nonfunctional. They could have been let go then with a really good package that would see them through retraining to do something useful.

To answer your question, because they are employed in permanent pensionable jobs and shouldn't lose their redundancy entitlements due to incompetence and corruption at the top.

Rightly or wrongly, the government at the time decided to 'save' the bank through privatization and keep the employees on. That includes taking responsibility for the employees.

tipptom

There was 250,000 people let go from the construction sector through no fault of their own who mostly all took pay cuts and were still let go with the bare statutory 2 weeks no matter how long they were with their employers.These people worked outside through rain hail or snow,there was nothing for them after that while Enda Kenny seems to imply yesterday that there is going to be an extra effort through every "instrument of the state" being used for aIB.They are working for a company that is broke and owes billions and have not taken a pay cut in the last 3 years,in that case I think 2 weeks per year is very fair and face down the strikers.

Mushy

tipptom wrote: »

There was 250,000 people let go from the construction sector through no fault of their own who mostly all took pay cuts and were still let go with the bare statutory 2 weeks no matter how long they were with their employers.These people worked outside through rain hail or snow,there was nothing for them after that while Enda Kenny seems to imply yesterday that there is going to be an extra effort through every "instrument of the state" being used for aIB.They are working for a company that is broke and owes billions and have not taken a pay cut in the last 3 years,in that case I think 2 weeks per year is very fair and face down the strikers.

Feel sorry for them but construction isn't an everyday necessity. How many people went into that sector cos there was loads being made in it during the mid-00s?

ahlad

talkinyite wrote: »

I know feck all about it TBH sorry

An honesty that is missing in many on here...

44leto

2500 is a lot of worker for our small economy, this is a step backwards, but AIB have little choice if the bank is to survive, we still are in danger of losing all the taxpayers investment. Plus the knock-on effect in the real economy would be dire.

So for the taxpayer AIB should make the redundancy as small as possible, but for industrial relations, in which an action could also damage the bank (our bank)they should at least make it fair and acceptable. So I would say 50% above statutory redundancy.

Freddie59

Mushy wrote: »

The only thing that would make it right is if the people who responsible were to be punished. Will that happen? Not a hope.

I don't see this as preferential treatment, sure didn't/don't the HSE have voluntary redundancies on-going now? The workers being laid off just happened to fall under the control of the Government, and sure they be an easy target because 1) they want votes next time around so will have to give good redundancy and 2) they want votes next time so will have to be harsh on them too.

Understand fully where you're coming from about other workers who were made jobless without this, but I can't see why the blame/any animosity should be aimed towards the workers.

Not aiming at the workers, but the company cannot receive preferential redundancy treatment. It would be completely immoral.

Eoin

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

I presume they're legally entitled to some form of redundancy above statutory

No, statutory means their legal entitlement.

Freddie59 wrote:

That would be in the normal course of events. This is a bankrupt company which has been kept artificially trading (at the expense of the taxpayer, and, IMHO in contradiction to every competition law) and should have ceased trading three years ago.

It makes no economic sense that the cash-strapped taxpayer should be expected to cough up even more.

That's not really relevant though. All that matters is that AIB exists today, and they want people to voluntarily take redundancy packages to avoid as much industrial action as possible. And to do that, you have to incentivise staff by offering more than the statutory.

Freddie59 wrote:

If they do pay them redundancy settlements above statutory, the future legal implications could be enormous, as it could be argued that the government increased statutory payments (because that is what they will be doing in essence).

No, they're not. AIB themselves could offer a smaller package next year, and then smaller again the next year if they wanted to. A lot of companies do this so staff know that it's not in their interest to hold out for a better package down the road.

Not a legal eagle etc, but I can't see any legal precedent being set here at all.

I know it's easy to get emotive about this topic, but sometimes you just have to think logically about it.

"Lavish redundancy packages" makes for great headlines, but if they can get rid of some of their higher paid people with a minimum of fuss, then the savings could be effective after a very short period of time.

Freddie59

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

There should be no such bank as the AIB

they should have been let go to the wall in the 80's

Indeed. And I think everyone's forgetting that this is the SECOND time..

mikemac1

Why are people talking about possible strikes?

The IBOA are one of the weakest unions in Ireland. They would not be capable of organizing anything. Whipped by management

The staff will get what Ulster bank staff got and there will not be a hint of trouble

Freddie59

Eoin wrote: »

No, statutory means their legal entitlement.



That's not really relevant though. All that matters is that AIB exists today, and they want people to voluntarily take redundancy packages to avoid as much industrial action as possible. And to do that, you have to incentivise staff by offering more than the statutory.



No, they're not. AIB themselves could offer a smaller package next year, and then smaller again the next year if they wanted to. A lot of companies do this so staff know that it's not in their interest to hold out for a better package down the road.

Not a legal eagle etc, but I can't see any legal precedent being set here at all.

I know it's easy to get emotive about this topic, but sometimes you just have to think logically about it.

"Lavish redundancy packages" makes for great headlines, but if they can get rid of some of their higher paid people with a minimum of fuss, then the savings could be effective after a very short period of time.

I can see where you're coming from. But the reality is that this country is bankrupt. And is propping up bankrupt, failed business entities. Capitalism operates under two fundamentals: you succeed or you fail. Every rule is being change to accommodate bankers. It must be stopped now.

Freddie59

ahlad wrote: »

An honesty that is missing in many on here...

What is there to know, really?

Honestly......AIB is a bankrupt, failed business entity which should have been closed long ago.

Honestly......why should bank staff in that same entity be paid more than their union brethren who have been ad redundant in the private Sector in the past few years.

Honestly.......why the fcuk are we even considering it?

Freddie59

tipptom wrote: »

There was 250,000 people let go from the construction sector through no fault of their own who mostly all took pay cuts and were still let go with the bare statutory 2 weeks no matter how long they were with their employers.These people worked outside through rain hail or snow,there was nothing for them after that while Enda Kenny seems to imply yesterday that there is going to be an extra effort through every "instrument of the state" being used for aIB.They are working for a company that is broke and owes billions and have not taken a pay cut in the last 3 years,in that case I think 2 weeks per year is very fair and face down the strikers.

Most incisive and sensible comment in a long time. Well said.

Eoin

Freddie59 wrote: »

I can see where you're coming from. But the reality is that this country is bankrupt. And is propping up bankrupt, failed business entities. Capitalism operates under two fundamentals: you succeed or you fail. Every rule is being change to accommodate bankers. It must be stopped now.

No rule is being changed. And don't lump the everyday workers in the banks who are on crap money with the execs who caused the damage.

Think about it for a second.

Imagine a fully private and non-unionised company - why would they want to offer more than legal minimum if they didn't have to? It costs them more than it needs to.

But they often do offer more, and there are solid reasons behind it.

Guy:Incognito

talkinyite wrote: »

Cause workers should have equal rights no matter what business they work in?

They do have rights. Statutory redundancy, no?

Frank Black

Eoin wrote: »

No rule is being changed. And don't lump the everyday workers in the banks who are on crap money with the execs who caused the damage.

Think about it for a second.

Imagine a fully private and non-unionised company - why would they want to offer more than legal minimum if they didn't have to? It costs them more than it needs to.

But they often do offer more, and there are solid reasons behind it.

Yep, but there's a difference between a private company using their own money to provide additional redundancy payments above the statutory requirement and a company like AIB, where the additional money will come from the taxpayers - surely that's the main point.

ahlad

Eoin wrote: »

No rule is being changed. And don't lump the everyday workers in the banks who are on crap money with the execs who caused the damage.

Think about it for a second.

Imagine a fully private and non-unionised company - why would they want to offer more than legal minimum if they didn't have to? It costs them more than it needs to.

But they often do offer more, and there are solid reasons behind it.

My point is that the vast majority of people with AIB that are going to be affected by this will be the lower income earners in the bank, who would have had very little if any input into higher level strategic failures within the company over the years.
Its pretty disgusting that there should this widespread 'good enough for the f*ckers' sentiment in the country when at the end of it all, the main thing that going to happen is that 2,500 more people are going to be on the dole queue, by and large (as in the construction industry in the vast majority of cases) through absolutely no fault of their own.

micropig

Mushy wrote: »

Feel sorry for them but construction isn't an everyday necessity. How many people went into that sector cos there was loads being made in it during the mid-00s?

Construction isn't an everyday necessity?What? Obviously not building new houses but repairs etc?

The people who work in the bank also choose their profession in the 00's...and not for the good of their health, they were offered attractive packages.


I agree it would be immoral to pay anything above statutory.


If you choose to work for the mob, you're just as much to blame.

Mushy

Freddie59 wrote: »

Not aiming at the workers, but the company cannot receive preferential redundancy treatment. It would be completely immoral.

Morality and big business dont go hand in hand unfortunatly. I think that is something we agree upon.

Mushy

micropig wrote: »

This is nonsense, the people who work in the bank also choose their profession in the 00's...and not for the good of their health, they were offered attractive packages.


I agree it would be immoral to pay anything above statutory.


If you choose to work for the mob, you're just as much to blame.

I understand that, but these redundancies arent aimed at those who started recently. These are aimed at people who will opt for early retirement.

Eoin

black francis wrote: »

Yep, but there's a difference between a private company using their own money to provide additional redundancy payments above the statutory requirement and a company like AIB, where the additional money will come from the taxpayers - surely that's the main point.

Not necessarily though.

As I just said, why would a totally private non-unionised company offer more than the legal minimum if they didn't have to? Yet many do.

You can make savings within a very short period of time if you incentivise people to take redundancy. I've worked in companies where there have been voluntary and involuntary redundancies, and things run a lot smoother over the course of the redundancies when it's voluntary.

ahlad wrote: »

My point is that the vast majority of people with AIB that are going to be affected by this will be the lower income earners in the bank, who would have had very little if any input into higher level strategic failures within the company over the years.

I'm in total agreement.

micropig

Mushy wrote: »

I understand that, but these redundancies arent aimed at those who started recently. These are aimed at people who will opt for early retirement.

Ok, the ones that have been there the longest, having been lying with the dogs the longest, and have the most fleas,

deserve no more than statutory redundancy


If I was working for a rogue organisation, whose methods and I didn't agreed with, I would leave,

Yes, I know there's no jobs now, but there was plenty a few years ago.

I hold these people just as much to blame, for carrying out the dirty work

kraggy

black francis wrote: »

So that would be statutory redundancy payments then?

No actually.

HSE redundancies a while back were statutory (2weeks) plus 3 weeks per year service.

i.e. 5 weeks pay for each year's service.

If people think AIB should be treated like public sector, then AIB workers being made redundant should get a minimum of 5 weeks pay for each year worked.

But people will come on here and bitch otherwise even though it wasn't the bank clerk in your local branch who caused the ****.

sonyvision

Mushy wrote: »

micropig wrote: »

This is nonsense, the people who work in the bank also choose their profession in the 00's...and not for the good of their health, they were offered attractive packages.


I agree it would be immoral to pay anything above statutory.


If you choose to work for the mob, you're just as much to blame.

I understand that, but these redundancies arent aimed at those who started recently. These are aimed at people who will opt for early retirement.

They should recieve statutory, myself a full time student who worked part time in a shop for over 2 years closed in june of 2011, the owner claimedhe had no money but owned and ran in kilkenny. He refused to pay any redundancy and gave us 1 day notice. Today out of 7 employees in the store 5 have recieve cheques from the states in relation to a redundancy.

But yet today the other emoloyee was my mam a manager we both still did not recieve this after been promises by the states the cheque is been posted2 months ago. Yet after ringing them yesterday they refuse to give us any information in this story. I know for a fact we are not the only people this is happening to but why should aib staff be treated any better then the rest of the country.

micropig

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/unemployment_and_redundancy/redundancy/redundancy_payments.html

Statutory redundancy 3 weeks/year up to a max of €31,200/year

mikemac1

sonyvision wrote: »

I know for a fact we are not the only people this is happening to but why should aib staff be treated any better then the rest of the country.

Just because you worked for a rogue employer who was a crook then everyone else should get the same?

Sounds a bit bitter