Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,192
No - worst case is that the court tells them to pay the €40m anyway.
Bailed-out AIB to pay top staff €40m bonus
- Thread starter fender
- Start date
No - worst case is that the court tells them to pay the €40m anyway.
W
witless1
Guest
Is that judgement in the public domain?
It mightn't necessarily apply to the contracts of all 2,400 staff getting bonuses this time. Maybe it's a nice convenient defence?
I agree. There are other banks and if people want to show their disapproval, change their account to a bank that is not paying bonuses (If there are any?) or a bank that has not been bailed out by taxpayers money.
charlie MacZ
Registered User
- Messages
- 70
A slap in the face to all taxpayers. It disgusts me.
the last sentence says: But the Government says its hands are tied on bonus payouts that were in people's contracts.
Firstly, the government have shown they can do anything they want. Secondly, what type of contract do these people have. I thought a bonus is performance related. Just turning up for work gets you a bonus???
This guy has it right: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koY6kXhQDQo
Im afraid that in the land of the politician "just turning up for work" is indeed worthy of a payment.
Guy named in The Guardian article shares a name with this guy.
To quote Jon Stewart, 'Sometimes the comedy just writes itself'
To quote Jon Stewart, 'Sometimes the comedy just writes itself'
rustbucket
Registered User
- Messages
- 751
I think the negative reaction to this is a little over the top, sparked once again by the media- who rarely present all the facts.
The bonuses are being paid to 2400 staff in AIB. Not all of them.
The bonuses are being paid to staff who have them written into their contracts. Thus the high court ruling that they have to be paid.
While there are probably a good few of those 2400 staff on good salaries, I would imagine that quite a lot of them are on very basic salaries with payments based on percentage of profits/business they bring in.
These might relate to certain areas of the bank eg Fund Management or Currency broking that MAY still be profitable.
Imagine you are a sales rep working for a sales company. Your contract is for €15K per year plus commission. You sell loads of product for the company, but the company is is not profitable overall. You dont get paid your commission. Is that fair?
Im not saying I agree with the overall bonus culture. It should be changed or capped. However, the media has blown this completely out of proportion.
The majority of the individuals receiving the 'bonus' or in some case 'commission' payments have them in their contracts. They legally have to pay them.
Most bonuses are performance related. So as above, If they did their own job, and brought in x amount of business or x amount of profit for a particular unit or from particular clients then why shouldnt they get their bonuses? Its in their contract.
Public sector workers went on strike and protests when the terms and conditions of their contracts were in danger. Granted they made some concessions, and ideally the staff in AIB receiving the bonuses should also make some concessions.
Common sense should prevail here. The judge obviously agreed and legally they should be paid.
Discretionary bonuses on the other hand are different. These are simply whether the company feels you have done a good job and are paying out a bonus- like a Christmas bonus- thats a different story
The bonuses are being paid to 2400 staff in AIB. Not all of them.
The bonuses are being paid to staff who have them written into their contracts. Thus the high court ruling that they have to be paid.
While there are probably a good few of those 2400 staff on good salaries, I would imagine that quite a lot of them are on very basic salaries with payments based on percentage of profits/business they bring in.
These might relate to certain areas of the bank eg Fund Management or Currency broking that MAY still be profitable.
Imagine you are a sales rep working for a sales company. Your contract is for €15K per year plus commission. You sell loads of product for the company, but the company is is not profitable overall. You dont get paid your commission. Is that fair?
Im not saying I agree with the overall bonus culture. It should be changed or capped. However, the media has blown this completely out of proportion.
The majority of the individuals receiving the 'bonus' or in some case 'commission' payments have them in their contracts. They legally have to pay them.
Most bonuses are performance related. So as above, If they did their own job, and brought in x amount of business or x amount of profit for a particular unit or from particular clients then why shouldnt they get their bonuses? Its in their contract.
Public sector workers went on strike and protests when the terms and conditions of their contracts were in danger. Granted they made some concessions, and ideally the staff in AIB receiving the bonuses should also make some concessions.
Common sense should prevail here. The judge obviously agreed and legally they should be paid.
Discretionary bonuses on the other hand are different. These are simply whether the company feels you have done a good job and are paying out a bonus- like a Christmas bonus- thats a different story
The contracts were signed before 2008. Things have changed dramatically since then. The employees receiving the bonuses may be in a profitable part of the company, but the company is essentially broke. If it were not for taxpayers money and the NPRF, they may not have a company to work for.
I agree the bank has to abide by the court ruling but there is no moral justification for taking this money.
It's just typical of this country. Everyone agrees sacrifices have to be made, once it doesn't affect their terms and conditions.
I agree the bank has to abide by the court ruling but there is no moral justification for taking this money.
It's just typical of this country. Everyone agrees sacrifices have to be made, once it doesn't affect their terms and conditions.
I don’t know the details of all the employees involved but for the publicised case, this is not a little ‘well-done’ bonus at year-end that can be easily foregone. Traders are paid relatively* low basic salaries and expect large bonuses for doing their jobs well – that’s the structure put in place to incentivise them to perform well in a high-pressure environment. When a trader takes a job, he might be choosing between a job at 150K basic plus potential for a 50K bonus or a job at 75K basic with potential for 300K bonus. The low basic/high bonus is preferred by employers for low cost upfront and incentive purposes; and by employees sure of their worth because they expect to perform well and get a big bonus. If I were an employer taking on a trader, I would be worried by someone who wanted a high basic/low bonus because they wouldn’t exactly be sure of their worth. That this guy took the risk of a low basic and performed well should be applauded and rewarded as contracted – if he hadn’t performed well, AIB would be in even smellier manure business than they currently are (AIB capital markets has performed well throughout the crisis and a good trader can make millions for his company). If he had been on a basic of 150K, paid as scheduled in 2008, no-one would have heard of him or be moaning about his remuneration.
As state shareholders of AIB now, would you rather pay a trader 235K and have him make millions for the company? Or not? A good trader is not that easily replaceable but a good trader can find another job at the same rate.
* relative to their overall expected annual compensation – I know there will be a clamouring on here that it was a fantastic basic salary but in a job where the going rate for a good trader is at least a few hundred thousand, it’s really not.
As state shareholders of AIB now, would you rather pay a trader 235K and have him make millions for the company? Or not? A good trader is not that easily replaceable but a good trader can find another job at the same rate.
* relative to their overall expected annual compensation – I know there will be a clamouring on here that it was a fantastic basic salary but in a job where the going rate for a good trader is at least a few hundred thousand, it’s really not.
Ask the dog
Registered User
- Messages
- 22
This guy has it right: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koY6kXhQDQo [/QUOTE]
SteH - Listening to that guy has made my day. His reponse to the interviewer when told "Michael Flately is from Chicago" is priceless. Thanks for the laugh.
SteH - Listening to that guy has made my day. His reponse to the interviewer when told "Michael Flately is from Chicago" is priceless. Thanks for the laugh.
contracts , contracts - what contracts ?
I thought i had a contract when the govnt offered to forego taxes on all rental income, (regardless as to whether it was all section23) until an agreed level had been reached.
I accepted the offer and I bought -with a large loan - section-23 type properties in order to lessen tax on my non-23 rental
The fact they've collapsed in price is my bad luck, the fact rents have gone down is my bad luck, the fact that "second property" fees are increased each year is my bad luck.
But telling me to pay tax on rental income from 1 January on non23 properties must surely be a breach of contract. (besides the fact i just dont know where I'll find the money).
if the govnt can do that , and so far the consensus is that they can, then why not cancel the bonus payments ??
I thought i had a contract when the govnt offered to forego taxes on all rental income, (regardless as to whether it was all section23) until an agreed level had been reached.
I accepted the offer and I bought -with a large loan - section-23 type properties in order to lessen tax on my non-23 rental
The fact they've collapsed in price is my bad luck, the fact rents have gone down is my bad luck, the fact that "second property" fees are increased each year is my bad luck.
But telling me to pay tax on rental income from 1 January on non23 properties must surely be a breach of contract. (besides the fact i just dont know where I'll find the money).
if the govnt can do that , and so far the consensus is that they can, then why not cancel the bonus payments ??
H
Hoipolloi
Guest
The Government should explain to the Court:
"Your Honour, the AIB does not have any cash at the moment, as you might be aware, but we are anxious to pay our debt to these employments.
On this basis we are delighted to give each one of them €17,000 worth of shares in AIB."
Attorney General smiles and leaves.
"Your Honour, the AIB does not have any cash at the moment, as you might be aware, but we are anxious to pay our debt to these employments.
On this basis we are delighted to give each one of them €17,000 worth of shares in AIB."
Attorney General smiles and leaves.
That's even worse....€16.5k a head!!
There are big differences between bonuses and commissions...for one, tax.
And this is what i found disturbing, €16.5k paid tax free paid to some employee of a bailed-out bank while min wage dropped by 12%.
I would close my accounts if i was an AIB customer.
Where are you getting tax free from?
I know people who work in a private company who are entitled to pay rises and a bonus depending on performance. Down through the years there have been times when the company has had a bad year and has said there will be no bonus in a given year nor a pay rise. Despite the contract one would never sue so I don't understand how AIB staff would sue. If one sued one would be fired. Plain and simple. And if one were not fired immediatly it would happen that the job would no longer exist. If one then sued for unfair dismissal one would get paid a certain amount but it would not equal one's salary for the rest of one's life.
So I cannot understand contract or not when a business is bailed out by the taxpayer why the staff aren't all called together and told times are tough, no bonus and 10% pay cuts all round.
So I cannot understand contract or not when a business is bailed out by the taxpayer why the staff aren't all called together and told times are tough, no bonus and 10% pay cuts all round.