What's a fair redundancy package for AIB workers

Mushy

micropig wrote: »

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

In the case of the family member itll affect on my side, she wasnt going to go change profession in her 50s. No college education, where would she go? You ever think that everyones situation is different and not everyone can stroll into a new job? If everyone left a company because it was corrupt or did wrong we'd be left with a nation of unemployed people.

Blaming the front-line staff for the problems of the country....are you the type to scream at them and not help their situation leading to suicide as happened? Cop on and wake up, they didnt know it was like that.

Mahou

The staff laid off probably have mortgages and car loans with the bank so what they get would have to go back to the bank. It could be in the interest of the bank/state to pay above the minimum.

micropig

Mushy wrote: »

In the case of the family member itll affect on my side, she wasnt going to go change profession in her 50s. No college education, where would she go? You ever think that everyones situation is different and not everyone can stroll into a new job? If everyone left a company because it was corrupt or did wrong we'd be left with a nation of unemployed people.

Many people retrain in late life, In your 50's I don't think your leaving certificate is going to matter too much, more your experiences and achievements since then, they choose to stay in their job boo hoo . And if every one spoke out about rogue organisations and refused to work with them, I think we'd have a much better country

Mushy wrote: »

Blaming the front-line staff for the problems of the country....are you the type to scream at them and not help their situation leading to suicide as happened? Cop on and wake up, they didnt know it was like that.

No?


Ignorance is bliss:rolleyes:

Seen as you brought it up, Have you actually any idea of the number of suicides in the country because of the pressure banks are putting on people?

Mushy

micropig wrote: »

Many people retrain in late life, In your 50's I don't think your leaving certificate is going to matter too much, more your experiences and achievements since then, they choose to stay in their job boo hoo . And if every one spoke out about rogue organisations and refused to work with them, I think we'd have a much better country



No?


Ignorance is bliss:rolleyes:

As I said, situations differ from person to person. In my family members case, there was little hope of her retraining, even though it can be done. I'd like to think that too, but its somehow doubtful from my perspective.

You must live a very blissful life then.

If statutory redundancy was enough, that would be great. They cant be seen to do that though, as its effectively firing people. Doesnt look good on the govts jobs plan.

micropig

Mushy wrote: »

As I said, situations differ from person to person. In my family members case, there was little hope of her retraining, even though it can be done. I'd like to think that too, but its somehow doubtful from my perspective.

You must live a very blissful life then.

If statutory redundancy was enough, that would be great. They cant be seen to do that though, as its effectively firing people. Doesnt look good on the govts jobs plan.

We all make our own opportunities.

I think the government look bad enough and will look worse if they allow anything over statutory..

micropig

mikemac1 wrote: »

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

Sounds a bit bitter

Aib are not a rogue employer and crook?


I am out of touch:rolleyes:

sonyvision

mikemac1 wrote: »

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

Sounds a bit bitter

He wasn't a crook, the system allowed him not to pay us as he declared insolvency to the state. its then up to the state to decide if its true or not, which they declared is true.

my problem is the state after saying 2 months ago you have it next week is a bit of a joke tbh !!

sunflower27

Have they said in what areas the redundancies will be?

flanders1979

They should have a last in first out policy. But as in most cases its not what you know, its who you know.
I think the people at the top should foot the bill through more cuts.

AngryBollix

Theres a reasonab;e probability that a sizable portion of the staff being made redundant didnt do a lot wrong and are paying the price for other peoples failures and mismanagement.

Wouldnt it be reasonable that these people are treated fairly?

micropig

flanders1979 wrote: »

They should have a last in first out policy. But as in most cases its not what you know, its who you know.
I think the people at the top should foot the bill through more cuts.

Anyone there under 2 years is not entitled to redundancy http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/unemployment_and_redundancy/redundancy/redundancy_payments.html

Fighting Irish

I'm broke and mortgaged up to my eye balls, and it's all their fault, i say they get nothing!!!1

up for anything

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).

My friend has worked there since she left school at the age of 18 - so roughly 33 years. She's an ordinary teller and was lucky to get in when contracts were good so she's well paid but if I'd had to have put up with the amount of bull****, crap, shoddy treatment by both senior staff and the public, the fecky bits she's had to shoulder since the recession hit (she was on selling credit cards during 2009/10 and couldn't meet her targets - FFS! who was applying for credit cards those years!) I too would be looking for my union to get me maximum redundancy. Unfortunately for her, because it would cost an arm and leg under her contract to make her redundant she probably won't be allowed/picked.

Eoin

flanders1979 wrote: »

They should have a last in first out policy. But as in most cases its not what you know, its who you know.

LIFO probably makes no sense for them (and for most companies in reality). Why would you get rid of the cheaper staff?

flanders1979 wrote: »

I think the people at the top should foot the bill through more cuts.

Always a catchy soundbite to use, but the sums rarely add up. Even if the people at the top worked for free, the savings aren't enough.

It's like people who think Ireland's economy will improve when TDs' incomes are reduced. I wouldn't call it a token gesture, but it's certainly not the solution.

conorhal

At counter staff level, the reasonable 6wks per anum of service I guess.

At management and board level, can I suggest .. a wave?

Unavailable for Comment

AngryBollix wrote: »

Theres a reasonab;e probability that a sizable portion of the staff being made redundant didnt do a lot wrong and are paying the price for other peoples failures and mismanagement.

Wouldnt it be reasonable that these people are treated fairly?

There's also a reasonable probability that a sizable proportion of taxpayers, barely scraping mortgage repayments, didn't do a lot wrong and are being asked to pay the price for other peoples failures and mismanagement.

Wouldn't it be reasonable that these people are treated fairly and not asked to contribute extra for what is in effect a greedy, grasping, failed business?

If AIB had let staff go three years ago when their business originally failed, they could have offered them handsome incentivised redundancy packages. Instead they put that money into keeping them employed for an extra three years with the help of the taxpayers largesse.

One could consider their three years of employment while the vast majority of them were literally redundant, to show that they have already benefited extremely well through taxpayer's generosity.

forfuxsake

I think in fairness they should each take home a large and generous share of the last three years' profit.

Popeleo

micropig wrote: »

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

Eh, no it's not. The €31,200 limit is right but to quote your own link:

"Two weeks' pay for every year of service over the age of 16 and
One further week's pay"

So, for example, statutory after 10 years would be 21 weeks pay.

blaze1

Depends whos getting it TBH. Normal workers should just get statutory. Banking bosses & high ups should get sweet fa.

Freddie59

kraggy wrote: »

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

No - people are bitching because they want AIB to be treated like any normal failed, bankrupt business entity would. i.e. statutory redundancy only.

Freddie59

blaze1 wrote: »

Depends whos getting it TBH. Normal workers should just get statutory. Banking bosses & high ups should get sweet fa.

Good suggestion.

Freddie59

AngryBollix wrote: »

Theres a reasonab;e probability that a sizable portion of the staff being made redundant didnt do a lot wrong and are paying the price for other peoples failures and mismanagement.

Wouldnt it be reasonable that these people are treated fairly?

Again, if fairness is to be used as a measure, they should only receive statutory redundancy payments. At the absolute maximum. There is no way these redundancies should be treated diferently to any other. No way at all. People are going on about people with service - some of the Waterford Crystal workers who were shafted by the government had service years of 40 or more.

And they actually provided something for the economy. It was one of the biggest tourist attractions in the country, and they were told to fcuk off when a loan of €25m was sought to keep the company afloat.

So forgive me for not shedding any tears about AIB or any of the rest of that banking mob.

Tipp Man

I wonder why anybody in any firm ever gets paid more than statutory redundancy - especially firms that are nearly bust

In fact the whole redundancy thing is a pharse to me - impossible to justify it

blaze1

Freddie59 wrote: »

Good suggestion.

Thanks,

I am availible for hire for advice and solutions to many economic problems.

Steven81

This is only the start if AIB get X amount of weeks the next people will know they are guranteed this and look for x plus a week or 2. From my experience they will have so many million to spend giving out the redundancies and wont want to go over budget, that is factories that are being properly managed this is the government so who knows!!!!.

I bet whoever is dealing with all the redundancies will get a nice earner out of it too.

mikemac1

Steven81 wrote: »

This is only the start if AIB get X amount of weeks the next people will know they are guranteed this and look for x plus a week or 2.

It's voluntary for now

If they don't get enough people or the right people to go it's mandatory and those packages are rarely as good as the first offer.

Packages get worse, not better

Edit: I think I've misread your post and you know this already

murphm45

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

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.

The question asks what's fair. Personnally i think that anyone who had this (i.e. statutory redundancy) infliced on them were f*cked over by the system. just because someone else was treated poorly doesn't mean everyone should and it certainly doesn't mean its fair!

The problem with what's "fair" is that it's incredibly subjective. I do consider statutory to be fair but given i don't have any commitments i might not be the best person to ask.

whwn the dust settles you'll see the "foot soldiers" who didn't gain to the same degrees will leave with bugger all while the higher ups will get a decent chuck of money due to their over inflated salaries they got for bs-ing people to death and throwing money out the door at any old half wit!!

To tell you the truth from experience i know that certain elements will feel they are entitled to "good" redundancy terms and even if they are offered something fair they will feel hard done by because someone else (i.e. another company) got more. This attitude is revolting, more so when you see it up close.

Just one other point on this the company/bank isn't closing, people will be left. If they feel their former colleagues were hard done they may have poor motivation ("sure what's the point they're only going to f*ck me over like they did to John/Mary"). that'll make any future "dealings" with the staff much harder.

I fully expect to be ripped to shreds over this so fire away but please rememeber they are people after all, try to have some compassion! And for what it's worth i have no affiliation with AIB (not even an account).

Eoin

It's not even just about it being fair to the employees.

It actually might make good business sense to offer voluntary redundancy packages rather than just let people go involuntarily - why else would private & non-unionised companies ever do anything but give the statutory if there wasn't something in it for them?

galway23

Mushy wrote: »

In the case of the family member itll affect on my side, she wasnt going to go change profession in her 50s. No college education, where would she go? You ever think that everyones situation is different and not everyone can stroll into a new job? If everyone left a company because it was corrupt or did wrong we'd be left with a nation of unemployed people.

Blaming the front-line staff for the problems of the country....are you the type to scream at them and not help their situation leading to suicide as happened? Cop on and wake up, they didnt know it was like that.

Couldn't agree with you more mushy. also I dont think anyone was complaining when they recieved their loans they wanted no problem or when the company was making big profits but also paying the relevant tax on them. A bit of perspective here, it is not the ordinary worker that caused it but they are they are paying for it as much, if not more, than anyone

up for anything

Fighting Irish wrote: »

I'm broke and mortgaged up to my eye balls, and it's all their fault, i say they get nothing!!!1

Haha! I hope that was tongue in cheek and not serious otherwise it makes you look like a toddler having a tantrum. Nobody forced you to get take out a mortgage so you can't blame anyone but yourself, if blame needs to be apportioned, for a decision you took.

forfuxsake

up for anything wrote: »

Haha! I hope that was tongue in cheek and not serious otherwise it makes you look like a toddler having a tantrum. Nobody forced you to get take out a mortgage so you can't blame anyone but yourself, if blame needs to be apportioned, for a decision you took.

Yeah I hate that sh1t. Just last week in England a fifteen year old boy died of a heroin overdose and people are trying to blame the dealers who offered it to him. Nobody forced him to stick that needle in his arm.

We shouldn't be listening to banks and financial experts for financial advice, we should carrying out our own global economic surveys and taking financial decisions based on our findings.

So what if the banks fcuked up and left us with a bill for billions? we should blame the working man trying to buy a home for his family before prices escalated any further. It's his fault. He didn't do his homework.

King of Kings

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.
.

I don't buy this ordinary worker thing. All those workers followed the company line and took the shilling. They all went to the propaganda meetings and pumped their fists, yelling "AIB!, AIB! , AIB!".
They all chased their targets and were happy with the bonus'.
Lets' not forget these "ordinary" workers got juicy bonus' too.

Did any of them rejected their preferential mortgages? No.
They all fawned colm doherty and worshipped at his feet.

I worked in AIb for a while and they were all company men.
None of the staff ever objected.

The excuse of "I was following orders" doesn't work as it hasn't in the past. Beverely Flynn was hung for following orders despite her only in being young at the time. That was ok cos her dad was an FF prick :rolleyes:
but "ordinary" workers are exempt from using their thought process.


I do feel sympathy for sure on a personal level but this idea that all bar a few are blameless is stupid.

They followed the piper and took his 30 pieces of silver now it's gone wrong people are saying "nowt to do with me".
Well it was.

Eoin

I'm not sure if you're actually being serious or not.

King of Kings

Eoin wrote: »

I'm not sure if you're actually being serious or not.

i am .
I wish no ill on anybody but to claim workers had no hand in it is tripe.

ok - clearly they didn't actually pump their fists yelling "AIB" but they all oooo'd and aaaah'd and worshiped Doherty.
Furthermore we were all told at regular propaganda meetings how great AIB was - better managed than the rest , due diligence that John Rusnak would never happen again yadda yadda...
Everybody bought this line and tried to mimic the theeme in a (mostly) vain attempt to ape up the corporate ladder istead of using their own thoughts process to think for themselves.

Toby Take a Bow

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.

So your answer would be for everybody to receive statutory, in attempting to be 'fair'? If I were in the situation where I received the statutory but hear about this story, I'd be thinking 'fair play'. And yes, I've been made redundant and received less than others who have been made redundant in the same line of work. I wouldn't begrudge others who got a better, fairer deal.

Eoin

King of Kings wrote: »

i am .
I wish no ill on anybody but to claim workers had no hand in it is tripe.

Junior staff have little to no say in any policies whatsoever; I'm surprised you think any different having worked in AIB yourself. They're certainly not that well paid either. Maybe you're thinking of Anglo where the average salary was something like 60K a few years ago.

up for anything

forfuxsake wrote: »

Yeah I hate that sh1t. Just last week in England a fifteen year old boy died of a heroin overdose and people are trying to blame the dealers who offered it to him. Nobody forced him to stick that needle in his arm.

We shouldn't be listening to banks and financial experts for financial advice, we should carrying out our own global economic surveys and taking financial decisions based on our findings.

So what if the banks fcuked up and left us with a bill for billions? we should blame the working man trying to buy a home for his family before prices escalated any further. It's his fault. He didn't do his homework.

There are two sides to every bargain. I sold my soul to the banking devil too but blaming the ordinary worker in that bank gets me nowhere. It was Bertie who lied on the 9 o clock news for weeks before he abandoned ship - it was Cowen and Lenihan who lied to us nightly on the news up until that fatal week in September. It wasn't the tellers on the bank counters who lied to us. They were being lied to as well.

I should have known better too after getting caught up in the 90s recession in London but I was lulled into a false sense of security, after years of telling people there would be a crash and hearing them laugh at me, into entrapping myself again. My signature on the mortgage form, not anyone else's.

As for that '15 year old boy'... I doubt anyone told him with any degree of sincerity that taking heroine was good and would end well. Some of the blame lies with him too.

And it's pointless doing the 'don't blame the working man trying to buy a home for his family' pity thing.

galway23

King of Kings wrote: »

i am .
I wish no ill on anybody but to claim workers had no hand in it is tripe.

ok - clearly they didn't actually pump their fists yelling "AIB" but they all oooo'd and aaaah'd and worshiped Doherty.
Furthermore we were all told at regular propaganda meetings how great AIB was - better managed than the rest , due diligence that John Rusnak would never happen again yadda yadda...
Everybody bought this line and tried to mimic the theeme in a (mostly) vain attempt to ape up the corporate ladder istead of using their own thoughts process to think for themselves.

Right, but who was the large majority of the money being lended to? Developers and home buyers. How many people were buying 2nd, 3rd even 4th houses hoping to either live in it for a while and then sell it on for a massive profit or either rent it out or who knows what they were planning to do with them but you can be sure that most expected to make money on them. the bank was not forcing people to take out loans, all these people wanted the money and signed willingly for it. anyways if they didnt get it from AIB they could have just gone 5mins up the road and got the money from some other financial institution such was the culture at the time

micropig

Popeleo wrote: »

Eh, no it's not. The €31,200 limit is right but to quote your own link:

"Two weeks' pay for every year of service over the age of 16 and
One further week's pay"

So, for example, statutory after 10 years would be 21 weeks pay.

Thanks for clarifying that, I had only skimmed through it quickly earlier, this is the max. they should be paid,

Cicero

2, 500 less wage packets going into communities and local economies across Ireland....it can only be a bad thing....they should get as much as possible to enable them to keep going until they can get alternative employment..otherwise, they are a further burden on the state which will do no one any good,,

Cian92

micropig wrote: »

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.

The majority of these working in the bank are just ordinary workers, others would be nearing retirement. Those nearing retirement were the cream of the crop in their day when they got a prestigous job in the bank.

Those in the construction sector often left school at 16 and got a trade. Of course they would be paid less.

Repairs are necessary, but that wasn't what the construction sector was doing, it was building the Elysian and ghost estates.

Don't be so jealous.

To those who reckon they should receive the minimum redundancy, does this also apply to the Vita Cortex workers?

micropig

Cian92 wrote: »

The majority of these working in the bank are just ordinary workers, others would be nearing retirement. Those nearing retirement were the cream of the crop in their day when they got a prestigous job in the bank.

Those in the construction sector often left school at 16 and got a trade. Of course they would be paid less.

Repairs are necessary, but that wasn't what the construction sector was doing, it was building the Elysian and ghost estates.

Don't be so jealous.

To those who reckon they should receive the minimum redundancy, does this also apply to the Vita Cortex workers?

This has nothing to do with jealously, AIB is a corrupt company, it is also bankrupt........

Everyone that worked there benefited handsomely over the last few years with gym memberships and what not, bonuses etc.

These highly educated people in the bank should have no problem finding work over the dumb construction workers:rolleyes: but then maybe they have a sense of entitlement and delusion that they are somehow special. They might of left school at 16 but most of them where earning great wages and most of their skills are transferable in other countries,

But then of course, those working in the bank, put their in-depth knowledge of finance in to practice with their own finances and all have large savings

@cicero, they have kept the company going for the last couple of years, staff should have known this was coming. They're wages are already coming out of the public purse, it'll just be a lower amount of they receive on the dole, and it frees them up to look for other opportunities

Frank Black

Cicero wrote: »

2, 500 less wage packets going into communities and local economies across Ireland....it can only be a bad thing....they should get as much as possible to enable them to keep going until they can get alternative employment..otherwise, they are a further burden on the state which will do no one any good,,

They will be entitled to jobseekers benefit for 12 months regardless of the size of the redundancy package.

Rigor Mortis

They should get the going rate for state employees. They are not a special case.

I

Mushy

King of Kings wrote: »

I don't buy this ordinary worker thing. All those workers followed the company line and took the shilling. They all went to the propaganda meetings and pumped their fists, yelling "AIB!, AIB! , AIB!".
They all chased their targets and were happy with the bonus'.
Lets' not forget these "ordinary" workers got juicy bonus' too.

Did any of them rejected their preferential mortgages? No.
They all fawned colm doherty and worshipped at his feet.

I worked in AIb for a while and they were all company men.
None of the staff ever objected.

The excuse of "I was following orders" doesn't work as it hasn't in the past. Beverely Flynn was hung for following orders despite her only in being young at the time. That was ok cos her dad was an FF prick :rolleyes:
but "ordinary" workers are exempt from using their thought process.


I do feel sympathy for sure on a personal level but this idea that all bar a few are blameless is stupid.

They followed the piper and took his 30 pieces of silver now it's gone wrong people are saying "nowt to do with me".
Well it was.

Least I know that over half that is BS. At one of those lovely meetings where they stand up and chant AIB, my mother stood up and asked what the hell was going on, she could see something was amiss from a long way back. Og course, her managers never took it on board, so said it to one of them, but of course it was ignored with all buzz words used to explain the situation.

So yeah, there is an objection for ya, from a staff member. So its her fault she got flogged off BS from someone who apparently knew better? And yes, this all came at a time when she was told she wasn't meeting targets for selling credit cards/loans/mortgages....what the **** was wrong with those people in Ballsbridge?

micropig wrote: »

This has nothing to do with jealously, AIB is a corrupt company, it is also bankrupt........

Everyone that worked there benefited handsomely over the last few years with gym memberships and what not, bonuses etc.

These highly educated people in the bank should have no problem finding work over the dumb construction workers:rolleyes: but then maybe they have a sense of entitlement and delusion that they are somehow special. They might of left school at 16 but most of them where earning great wages and most of their skills are transferable in other countries,

But then of course, those working in the bank, put their in-depth knowledge of finance in to practice with their own finances and all have large savings

@cicero, they have kept the company going for the last couple of years, staff should have known this was coming. They're wages are already coming out of the public purse, it'll just be a lower amount of they receive on the dole, and it frees them up to look for other opportunities

Not everyone benefitted that handsomely. They got bonuses when it was a private company, as quite a few private companies do.

As I said, I understand why you only want them to get mandatory, that does happen a lot of people, has in the past, will in the future. Unfortunately due to the bailout, its coming out of taxpayers money. The governments hands are tied, and well I'm not a big fan of unions. The people getting laid off weren't all in favour of that as it was immoral. Unfortunately you sometimes have to spend money to make money.

And from what I've heard, a lot of these bank workers are just as much in the hole financially as non-bank workers.

dvpower

Rigor Mortis wrote: »

They should get the going rate for state employees. They are not a special case.

I

The going rate for a state employee is a job for life.

lividduck

They should get their statutory redundancy payments. nowt more nowt less, the country cannot afford to throw money at them.
If the union dont like it they can strike, who cares? People will move to BoI or Ulster and AIB will be gone.

up for anything

King of Kings wrote: »

i am .
I wish no ill on anybody but to claim workers had no hand in it is tripe.

ok - clearly they didn't actually pump their fists yelling "AIB" but they all oooo'd and aaaah'd and worshiped Doherty.
Furthermore we were all told at regular propaganda meetings how great AIB was - better managed than the rest , due diligence that John Rusnak would never happen again yadda yadda...
Everybody bought this line and tried to mimic the theeme in a (mostly) vain attempt to ape up the corporate ladder istead of using their own thoughts process to think for themselves.

Sweeping statement! :rolleyes:

micropig wrote: »

This has nothing to do with jealously, AIB is a corrupt company, it is also bankrupt........

Everyone that worked there benefited handsomely over the last few years with gym memberships and what not, bonuses etc.

These highly educated people in the bank should have no problem finding work over the dumb construction workers:rolleyes: but then maybe they have a sense of entitlement and delusion that they are somehow special. They might of left school at 16 but most of them where earning great wages and most of their skills are transferable in other countries,

But then of course, those working in the bank, put their in-depth knowledge of finance in to practice with their own finances and all have large savings

@cicero, they have kept the company going for the last couple of years, staff should have known this was coming. They're wages are already coming out of the public purse, it'll just be a lower amount of they receive on the dole, and it frees them up to look for other opportunities

More sweeping statements coupled with bitterness and a nasty sharp tongue. :rolleyes:

Anonymity is great isn't it. You can say what you like and don't have provide any proof.

micropig

Cian92 wrote: »

The majority of these working in the bank are just ordinary workers, others would be nearing retirement. Those nearing retirement were the cream of the crop in their day when they got a prestigous job in the bank.

Those in the construction sector often left school at 16 and got a trade. Of course they would be paid less.

Repairs are necessary, but that wasn't what the construction sector was doing, it was building the Elysian and ghost estates.

Don't be so jealous.

To those who reckon they should receive the minimum redundancy, does this also apply to the Vita Cortex workers?

micropig wrote: »

This has nothing to do with jealously, AIB is a corrupt company, it is also bankrupt........

Everyone that worked there benefited handsomely over the last few years with gym memberships and what not, bonuses etc.

These highly educated people in the bank should have no problem finding work over the dumb construction workers:rolleyes: but then maybe they have a sense of entitlement and delusion that they are somehow special. They might of left school at 16 but most of them where earning great wages and most of their skills are transferable in other countries,

But then of course, those working in the bank, put their in-depth knowledge of finance in to practice with their own finances and all have large savings

@cicero, they have kept the company going for the last couple of years, staff should have known this was coming. They're wages are already coming out of the public purse, it'll just be a lower amount of they receive on the dole, and it frees them up to look for other opportunities

up for anything wrote: »

Sweeping statement! :rolleyes:




More sweeping statements coupled with bitterness and a nasty sharp tongue. :rolleyes:

Anonymity is great isn't it. You can say what you like and don't have provide any proof.

Please quote the post that I'm responding to also, everything in context please

Proof of what exactly is it you seek?
Have you any proof of your claims?

micropig

:eek:Madness

http://whistleblowersireland.com/2010/10/19/aib-bank-whistleblower-complaint-being-investigated-by-financial-regulator/


The allegations include a claim that staff have been allowed to have mortgages more than TWENTY times their salary.

One AIB staff member who spoke last night said they have debts owed to AIB of more than €500,000 on a salary of less than €35,000.

Another employee at the bank – which employs 12,000 staff – claims that more than 1,000 employees have mortgages of more than €1million.

And they dispute the official figure €1.8billion AIB gave earlier this year for the total amount of staff mortgages.

They said last night: ’It is astonishing that officially the average mortgage amount for each employee amounts to €150,000-a-head.



A staff member added: ‘There was a culture at AIB where you could pretty much borrow whatever you wanted


They added: ‘As a member of staff, you were entitled to an almost automatic €20,000 loan, a gold VISA card, car loans, home improvement loans, overdrafts and of course, a mortgage

The €3.7 billion the government will be giving the bank is additional to the €3.5 billion its gave AIB last year - October 19 2010