I'm assuming it was a contractual obligation to staff.
I'm assuming the new position has to do with the threat to solvency they payments would represent which the board were unable to act upon until it was made clear the state would not guarantee the solvency of the bank if the bonuses were paid.
what about all the public servants who earn a bonus, the country is broke, and hence their employers, so what about a 90% tax on bonus payments to NTMA, Central Bank, HSE etc. as whats the difference betweeen the GOVT pumping money into the banks and borrowing to pay the exenses of the state, but will these still getting bonus payments.
I would be surprised if a trader (the test case) didn't have a bonus written into their contract. If FO'T's article is correct and most employees didn't have a bonus written into their contract, then possibly the ruling on a written contract might not be considered a precedent for enforcing a verbal contract.Is there any chance that because of the initial high court case, that AIB could be forced to pay out the bonuses for the remaining staff?
If this case is setting a precedent could it be decided that MOF went against a court ruling and that would be unlawful?
Is there any chance that because of the initial high court case, that AIB could be forced to pay out the bonuses for the remaining staff?
If this case is setting a precedent could it be decided that MOF went against a court ruling and that would be unlawful?
It could possibly take months to sort out by which time it would happen on the next government's watch.
There has been NO suggestion anywhere that the people in the capital markets division (for the avoidance of doubt onq, that would be the investment division, not the lending division) are in any way incompetent. In fact, throughout this whole debacle it has been repeatedly pointed out that the capital markets division (for the avoidance of doubt onq, that would be the investment division, not the lending division) was pretty much the only bright spot in AIB’s performance – without them, AIB would be even further in the manure business.
Your post shows a huge amount of begrudgery that someone could possibly earn this kind of money. People do earn this kind of money all over the world and as long as they deliver for their employers, they will continue to earn this kind of money. I would prefer to pay a trader 250K and have him make 10M for the company – than a trader at 75K who loses the company 2M. Do you understand that you get what you pay for and you pay for what you get? That’s the whole point of low basic, high bonus structures – reward the people who deliver – do you have an issue with that concept?
These are normal pay rates across Europe and the world and the one sure thing to come out of this is that AIB won’t be able to retain or recruit any decent staff for their capital markets division (for the avoidance of doubt onq, that would be the investment division, not the lending division). Tough choice as a trader eh? Hmm, earn 75K plus 160K+ bonus in a solvent bank/investment company in Ireland, the UK, Europe, the US, anywhere, ... or earn 75K plus no bonus in AIB where I will be pilloried from a distance by people who think a trained monkey could do my job... decisions, decisions...
And finally, + 1 to Sunny’s post – what about Fingleton’s bonus and 27m pension pot? Or at least as a start, the 1m he said he would pay back.
And, again, what about Dermot Ahern’s retirement bonus and pension pot?
If you read the Fintan O'Toole article you will see that AIB didn't offer a defence to the action, they deliberately brought forward the issue of the bonuses so that they would be verbally agreed with staff, there's nothing in most of their contracts about bonuses.I am quite surprised at this to be honest. The guy that took the case had a high court judgement passed in his favour that AIB had to pay. As such they will, or may already have paid it.
Surely he cant be the only one is similar circumstances. Wasnt he just the test case. If the court ruled in his favour surely they will rule in the favour of others that have similar cases (not all of them will have but surely a lot will).
Then who will pay for AIB's defence if the rest of them decide to go to court? Guess who....Muggins of course...the Taxpayer.
The delay of these payments is only going to cost us more. Granted the Bank or State cant afford them but I cant see legally how they can get out of paying them, especially now as prescedent has been set with the payment of one of them.
Absolutely no tongue-in-cheek. I'm not defending AIB and I'm not supporting the payment on bonuses.Please tell me you said this with tongue firmly in cheek. Do the unions really want to go down the path of state intervention in contracts of employment due to public opinion being misinformed by the media? Of all those who I thought might some understanding that this isn't a blatant as "greedy bankers" as the media portray, it's the PS workers. But I suppose we're only supposed to see through media agendas when it's maligning them.
It is very simple: the payment covers a period before the whole collapse. It is based upon all the employees meeting/exceeding their income targets. €40m is tiny in comparisson to the money they brought in. Many businesses have an overall company performance "bonus" as well as individual/unit based "bonuses" where those units/employees generate income. A company can still have a bad year in other areas, but that unit/individual can meet their targets, they are contractually obliged to that payment, it has nothing to do with overall performance of the company.
I would prefer to pay a trader 250K and have him make 10M for the company – than a trader at 75K who loses the company 2M. Do you understand that you get what you pay for and you pay for what you get? That’s the whole point of low basic, high bonus structures – reward the people who deliver – do you have an issue with that concept?
These are normal pay rates across Europe and the world and the one sure thing to come out of this is that AIB won’t be able to retain or recruit any decent staff for their capital markets division (for the avoidance of doubt onq, that would be the investment division, not the lending division). Tough choice as a trader eh? Hmm, earn 75K plus 160K+ bonus in a solvent bank/investment company in Ireland, the UK, Europe, the US, anywhere, ... or earn 75K plus no bonus in AIB where I will be pilloried from a distance by people who think a trained monkey could do my job... decisions, decisions...
If the company isn't making the numbers, it doesn't get paid, simple as that
You don't seem to have a grasp on what the Capital Markets Group does.The fact that you say the Capital Acquisitions portfolio hasn't crashed yet means nothing to a layperson, so you might want to beef up your explanation with reference to what Mr, Foy and his fellow travellers actually do to earn their money.
If they're not selling something to earn that commission, it seems they are buying something. Sicne when do buyers get paid on commission? How is the value of what they have done for the company calculated? Comparison costings? I honestly don't know, I'm asking.
What bonus payments are you talking about?