How does Bankrupt AIB plan to pay staff very generous more than statutory redundancy?

B

Bronte

Registered User
Messages
14,673
With what does the CEO plan to pay the AIB staff more than statutory redundancy?

Would that be with taxpayers money?
 
Branches are still making operating profits which in turns pays the salaries and the pensions to retired bank officials and widows/widowers of same allegedly. If this bank is almost state owned, then the government will have an input into the redundancy issue.

You would not expect these sacrificial lambs who have taken the brunt of sins committed by senior management to leave empty handed? At worst, they would be entitled to statutory redundancy which is the law. Think of the PRSI etc. which has been paid by these officials over the years.
 
Mopsy said:
Branches are still making operating profits.
Click to expand...

Have you a citation for branches being profitable? I know their retail division declare an operating profit if you ignore all the losses. There was some profit on the sell off of some branches I believe.

Branches are very expensive and generally rely on product sales rather than transactions to make profits. Given the state of lending, I doubt there is much going on in the way of sales. Will be interested to see how they are making a profit running branches as banks push customers online.
 
the CEO said on radio this morning the package SHOULD be generous as many of the staff have given years of loyal service.....the Variable rate mortgage holders will take another few hits to help pay for it no doubt
 
Mopsy said:
You would not expect these sacrificial lambs who have taken the brunt of sins committed by senior management to leave empty handed? At worst, they would be entitled to statutory redundancy which is the law. Think of the PRSI etc. which has been paid by these officials over the years.
Click to expand...

No problem with statutory redundancy. No problem with more than that But why should a bank that is bankrupt pay staff more than that when the money they will use is taxpayers. I'd prefer them to pay back the exchequer. I think the boss has an inordinate amount of cheek to suggest anything else. And as someone whose taxes is going into that bank I'd like to be consulted first. And of all banks AIB. Nothing ever changes.
 
Bronte said:
No problem with statutory redundancy. No problem with more than that But why should a bank that is bankrupt pay staff more than that when the money they will use is taxpayers. I'd prefer them to pay back the exchequer. I think the boss has an inordinate amount of cheek to suggest anything else. And as someone whose taxes is going into that bank I'd like to be consulted first. And of all banks AIB. Nothing ever changes.
Click to expand...

I agree fully with this. If a private business goes bust then only statutory redundancy is paid. If the business is unable to pay it comes from the social insurance fund.

Why should a busted bank be any different?
 
The dogs in the street know that the staff will get 6/7 weeks pay per year of service capped at a maximum payoff of 2 years salary.

That's obviously quite a bit better than statutory redundancy (which is 2 weeks pay per year of service plus an extra week).
 
Ireland is really really sick. We can afford to pay Grant Thornton fees of 1.7 million, we can seemingly pay off the AIB's debts so it is effectively state owned and the staff who brought that bank to it's knees are to be paid up to 10 weeks extra leave, but we cut home carer's allowance, prevent people having operations on time, destroy their lives, if in power hire family members, award pay rises in the semi states, threaten strike action at the very mention of a slight change in work practice in well paid jobs in the old national airline, part state owned, we can threaten to cut the extra Sunday pay for the lowest pay workers and it's all tickedy boo.

Ireland is so fundamentally rotton, uncaring and hateful to it's citizens.

Not one person has been charged, never mind brought to court or convicted of any crime. The accountants and lawyers with the nod of the political class are straddled over the carcas of collapsed Irish business eating it's very young, devouring every last morsal with relish, ensuring that they will get richer, dropping intelligent sound bites of how we need cuts while they insulate themselves and legally put the bill on those with nothing and those with nothing who will have even less. We might as well have Gadaffi here, at least he's honest, he's going to kill every man woman and child who opposes him. They're doing that in Ireland, but they don't call it genocide here or rape or pillage. But it surely is the same thing. Just slower. Is there not one person to stop this madness.
 
No unionised bank in Ireland has ever had large scale compulsary redundancies. I believe there is a fear of significant industrial action if AIB went down this route or offered a low package which potentially could result in a national bank strike.

Bear in mind as well that a quick cull could be cheaper in the long run that a long drawn out protracted battle between unions and management

However I also don't accept the arguement that "ordinary" bank staff are totally innocent as to what happened. Plenty of them earned commision for sales of products to people that were unsuitable for their long term needs. I know people in one bank for example whose sole interest was getting a commision and damm the paperwork and damm the risk assessment and management and anyone who argued otherwise, got steamrollered.

As for crimes? Let's be honest here, most of us in Ireland were infected by the madness of the Celtic Tiger, plenty of people made profits from selling property and creating nothing. Yes, there are individuals in certain banks who took greed to an extreme and yes, it would be great to see them locked up (and maybe we will) but if you locked up everyone who helped fuel the mess the country is in, the streets would be very very empty
 
Mpsox said:
No unionised bank in Ireland has ever had large scale compulsary redundancies. I believe there is a fear of significant industrial action if AIB went down this route or offered a low package which potentially could result in a national bank strike.
Click to expand...

Imagine that a bank strike. Still doesn't answer the question, with what money can the bank pay above statutory. Why are bank staff any different to staff in other companies that go bust? Can taxpayers money being pumped into the banks be used to pay more than statutory redundancy?
 
Bronte said:
Imagine that a bank strike. Still doesn't answer the question, with what money can the bank pay above statutory. Why are bank staff any different to staff in other companies that go bust? Can taxpayers money being pumped into the banks be used to pay more than statutory redundancy?
Click to expand...

I work in banking and I agree with you. If bank makes people redundant to cut costs while profitable, they should pay redundancy packages but when they are bust, they are no different to any other company. Same goes for public sector redundancies as well.
 
Sunny said:
Ok, slightly off topic but ..
Click to expand...

Off topic posts will be deleted. If you want to discuss teachers then start your own thread and dont hijack this thread which is about how management at distressed AIB propose to pay more than statutory redundancey to their staff.

aj
(moderator)
 
I laugh at the way the unions refer to 'sectoral norms' for the amount of redundancy. You would not hear them using those terms if it was a shop or manufacturing industry.

IMHO the amount of redundancy paid across all the banks will be determined by the Ulster bank negotiations. The government can argue that it is the market rate. I would speculate that Ulster bank will probably settle at 5 weeks plus statutory.
 
I asked for it to be reopened (and thanks for that and for deleting the off post comments which was why it was closed) because it is in the news again that there are negotiations ongoing to pay the staff more than statutory.

In light of what happend with vtech (spelling?) and the other company (clothes company Dublin ) where staff get basically statuory or less than statutory, and in light of the fact that Irish tax payers have bailed out AIB (et al) why should Irish tax payers subsidise the redudancy of workers in a private entity. Nobody else in a private entitly gets a state subsidy to boost their redundancy. What's so special about bank staff.

AIB cannot afford more than statutory so they or me or you shouldn't have to pay for it.
 
Perhaps the rationale now being used is that AIB is now a State owned entity. The State can (technically) afford to pay redundancy at a higher level than statutory. As such, the staff/union expectations are that the proposed redundancy deal will be commiserate with that being offered by other banks.
The alternative option is to apply the statutory rules, In that instance there is likley to be minimal take-up for a voluntary pacakage & therefore enforced redundancy will be applied. Is there a Government appetite to go down that route??
 
It's a complete non-story. Anglo were recently offered terms that matched those that were offered to the HSE. The other State Owned banks will do the same. What banks like Ulster Bank offer staff is no-one elses business (apart from the UK taxpayer).
 
Bronte said:
Imagine that a bank strike. Still doesn't answer the question, with what money can the bank pay above statutory. Why are bank staff any different to staff in other companies that go bust? Can taxpayers money being pumped into the banks be used to pay more than statutory redundancy?
Click to expand...

Sadly, taxpayers' money gets squandered on all sorts of things such as IMO public sector increments (250m?) (imagine a broken, private company borrowing money to give their staff an increase?). That's why I'm so against all these calls for extra taxation...although some of it is needed, it gives the government less incentive to tackle waste. I, for one, would much prefer government spending to be slashed across the board and reduce income taxes at the same time. But to answer your question....it's hard to see why anyone paid from the public purse should receive over and above the statutory minimum...afterall the government purse is not some magic money tree, but rather it is financed by you and me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top