# AIB - are they for real?



## ney001 (9 Dec 2010)

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/bailedout-aib-to-pay-top-staff-euro40m-bonus-2454086.html

So the ordinary front line staff can't have a christmas party yet the execs can get their bonuses? 

unbelievable!


----------



## orka (9 Dec 2010)

AIB tried not to pay the bonuses - the employees took them to court and won - AIB now have to pay the bonuses.  Hardly the bank's fault?


----------



## liaconn (9 Dec 2010)

Maybe those executives should take a long, hard look at themselves in the mirror.


----------



## boris (9 Dec 2010)

They could forfeit the bonuses in view of everything that is going on.  I would suspect that they suffer from the "I deserve it" culture.


----------



## TarfHead (9 Dec 2010)

liaconn said:


> Maybe those executives should take a long, hard look at themselves in the mirror.


 
+1

Their sense of entitlement is staggering. Maybe get Wikileaks on the job and have their names and addresses published  ?


----------



## Niall M (9 Dec 2010)

I always thought a bonus was based on performance, how or how can the executives be legally entitled to the bonuses.


----------



## Mpsox (9 Dec 2010)

2400 "executives"? 

Love to now what the typical role of someone getting this bonus is


----------



## Sunny (9 Dec 2010)

Niall M said:


> I always thought a bonus was based on performance, how or how can the executives be legally entitled to the bonuses.


 
As far as I know it is performance related to earlier years. Also many of these bonuses are structured on individual or team performance, not company. There are parts of all the banks still making money and meeting targets. Not defending it, just saying that the bank can do very little. The High Court has ordered them to pay. You would hope the guilt might stop one or two from taking it but the fact that they took legal action in the first place shows that is unlikely.

I hear that the same situation has arisen in Anglo but no-one has resorted to the Courts. Yet!

The term executive is used loosely. Most of them are just ordinary employees.


----------



## Latrade (9 Dec 2010)

Niall M said:


> I always thought a bonus was based on performance, how or how can the executives be legally entitled to the bonuses.


 
Legally: because their contracts would be based on their individual performance/unit/department's performance. If they made their targets within that, they're entitled to the bonus. I say legally, not morally.

Playing devil's advocate though, they're obviously entitled because some/most/all generated revenue for the bank. Think of it this way: how much revenue does it take to make €40m worth of bonuses? I'd say considerably more than the €40m, at a rough guess of some banking bonuses it's 10-20% of the revenue generated. If they hadn't gained this revenue how much worse would AIB be?


----------



## Bill Struth (9 Dec 2010)

And yet the insufferable windbag Eddie Hobbs continues to whine about a few civil servants getting a half day off at christmas...


----------



## DB74 (9 Dec 2010)

Bill Struth said:


> And yet the insufferable windbag Eddie Hobbs continues to whine about a few civil servants getting a half day off at christmas...


 
And he'd be right. The issues are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## Niall M (9 Dec 2010)

Surely though they cannot have reached targets, as their profits/returns must surely have been overstated.


----------



## Sunny (9 Dec 2010)

Niall M said:


> Surely though they cannot have reached targets, as their profits/returns must surely have been overstated.


 
Not really. I could work in FX and make millions for the bank. Bad property loans have nothing to do with me. Like I say, certain parts of the banks are making money.


----------



## PetrolHead (9 Dec 2010)

TarfHead said:


> Their sense of entitlement is staggering.




I think this comment could be leveled at many more than just the banking 'execs'...

...and at both ends of the employment/earnings scale!

Its time to start considering the term 'privilege' rather than 'right' when discussing what one feels one is due.


----------



## terrontress (9 Dec 2010)

Niall M said:


> Surely though they cannot have reached targets, as their profits/returns must surely have been overstated.


 
Not necessarily. Take, as an example, the people who work in the department which promotes and administers bank accounts for school kids.

No toxic debts there, no big mortgages.

Just people working away on the job they were assigned to do.

I doubt that it is the department in question but it shows that there are areas in AIB completely untouched by the crisis.

Should those people forego their bonus in spite of doing everything asked of them?


----------



## Bill Struth (9 Dec 2010)

DB74 said:


> And he'd be right. The issues are not mutually exclusive.


 He'd be wrong.


----------



## ivuernis (9 Dec 2010)

It must be for shorting AIB stock 'cos I can't think what else it's for.


----------



## Niall M (9 Dec 2010)

terrontress said:


> Not necessarily. Take, as an example, the people who work in the department which promotes and administers bank accounts for school kids.
> 
> No toxic debts there, no big mortgages.
> 
> ...


----------



## TarfHead (9 Dec 2010)

ivuernis said:


> It must be for shorting AIB stock 'cos I can't think what else it's for.


 
Some detail here. He's the guy, named in The Guardian, who took the legal action.

161K is a lot to let go without a fight.


----------



## Latrade (9 Dec 2010)

Niall M said:


> yep, take a construction company. Could you imagine a bonus being paid to accounts staff for producing management accounts on time even though the construction company is going to the wall!


 
The problem is that the individual worked in a profitable side of the business (ask JP Mcmanus how profitable FX is), he brought in the money as set by his employers and he was contractually obliged to a bonus on that basis. He isn't sat in administration doing his job on time. His bonus is linked to his own/his unit's performance and not the overall bank. 

While morally we can question his decision to persue this so vigorously, it's hardly the bank's fault the High Court said they must honour the contract.

How many of us would be prepared to lose €161K we had earned and were contractually obliged to?


----------



## zxcvbnm (9 Dec 2010)

Bill Struth said:


> He'd be wrong.


 
Ah...actually no...he'd be right.


----------



## Caveat (9 Dec 2010)

Latrade said:


> How many of us would be prepared to lose €161K we had earned and were contractually obliged to?


 
Ironic too since it is generally the "it's in the contract" stance that most PS and union-ites bang on about as a defense.


----------



## Bill Struth (9 Dec 2010)

zxcvbnm said:


> Ah...actually no...he'd be right.


 No, he'd be wrong.


----------



## Caveat (9 Dec 2010)

...right.


----------



## TarfHead (9 Dec 2010)

caveat said:


> ...right.


 
+1


----------



## TarfHead (9 Dec 2010)

Is this for real ?

You could not make it up !


----------



## Bill Struth (9 Dec 2010)

Still wrong.


----------



## Caveat (9 Dec 2010)

...yet so right.


----------



## Bill Struth (9 Dec 2010)

Nope. Completely wrong.


----------



## Niall M (9 Dec 2010)

so right.....


----------



## Complainer (9 Dec 2010)

Isn't it funny how we repeatedly get lectures here on AAM about how private sector staff pay the price if their business loses money?

Actually, it's just not funny any more.


----------



## Caveat (9 Dec 2010)

Complainer said:


> private sector staff pay the price if their business loses money?


 
Generally, historically, it is 100% accurate.

Aside from the banking sector, it still is.  

The Public sector sucks money from everyone regardless of how well they perform and suck even more if they perform badly.


----------



## Towger (9 Dec 2010)

Caveat said:


> The Public sector sucks money from everyone regardless of how well they perform and suck even more if they perform badly.


 
Whats this, a PS worker who sees the light?


----------



## delgirl (9 Dec 2010)

TarfHead said:


> +1


Do y'all want to be right or be happy?


----------



## truthseeker (9 Dec 2010)

Niall M said:


> so right.....


 
Ive forgotten what he will be right or wrong about!


----------



## Niall M (9 Dec 2010)

http://www.irishexaminer.ie/ireland/nama-has-information-banks-misled-agency-138934.html

will they get a bonus for this too.....


----------



## zxcvbnm (9 Dec 2010)

TarfHead said:


> Is this for real ?
> 
> You could not make it up !


 
What's so incredible about it?

A guy got jail for attempting to rob a bank


----------



## orka (9 Dec 2010)

zxcvbnm said:


> What's so incredible about it?
> 
> A guy got jail for attempting to rob a bank


You need to read all the links in the thread - the guy who robbed the bank and got sent to jail has the same name as the AIB employee who took the bank to court to get his bonus.  I'm presuming they are not the same person...


----------



## TarfHead (9 Dec 2010)

zxcvbnm said:


> What's so incredible about it?
> 
> A guy got jail for attempting to rob a bank


 
If you read the whole thread, and the embedded links, you wouldn't need to ask the question.

Name of AIB official who took the court action to force AIB to pay the bonuses, happens to be the same name as the person jailed for armed robbery of a branch of AIB.


----------



## Complainer (9 Dec 2010)

Caveat said:


> Generally, historically, it is 100% accurate.
> 
> Aside from the banking sector, it still is.


So apart from the aquaduct, what did the Romans ever do for us?




Caveat said:


> The Public sector sucks money from everyone regardless of how well they perform and suck even more if they perform badly.



Just curious as to whether you've ever informed a public servant face to face that they are 'sucking money from everyone'?

It is a bit strange that somebody would think of Gardai, and schoolteachers, and speech therapists, and environmental inspectors, and building control officers as 'sucking money from everyone'. They are really just people who provide public services.


----------



## Bill Struth (9 Dec 2010)

Complainer said:


> Just curious as to whether you've ever informed a public servant face to face that they are 'sucking money from everyone'?
> .


 Nah, he's only brave enough to do it while hiding behind his computer.


----------



## Caveat (9 Dec 2010)

Complainer said:


> They are really just people who provide public services.



Well done on quoting the old so called front line and "compassionate" aspects (the union trick) whilst conveniently ignoring where the real problems lie - the monstrous admin overstaffing in the HSE & county council for starters.



> Just curious as to whether you've ever informed a public servant face to face that they are 'sucking money from everyone'?


Pretty much yeah - to those that I know for a fact to be wasters, why wouldn't I? Take pride in it actually.

Strange question anyway - why do you ask?


----------



## Caveat (9 Dec 2010)

Bill Struth said:


> Nah, he's only brave enough to do it while hiding behind his computer.



LOL 

Yeah, very dangerous that PS bunch. How would anyone dare say anything to them?


----------



## Towger (9 Dec 2010)

Caveat said:


> Pretty much yeah - to those that I know for a fact to be wasters, why wouldn't I? Take pride in it actually.


 
Can I take it you don't work in the same section of the PS as Complainer, where everything runs at 110% efficiency?


----------



## Deas (10 Dec 2010)

The IBOA showed their true colours this morning.  They only want the senior management and execs who will share in this bonus to defer the payments until the Bank can afford to pay!!!  AIB is practically a state company and will remain this way long after many of those involved are dead I would imagine - so he wants the taxpayer to look after them.  Larry Broderick, who confirmed that the individuals involved are not members said this on Morning Ireland this morning.

His own members that (rightfully) have not received anything on salary for the best part of two years can go swing; but those he does not represent should have their cake and eat it.  It says it all really.  Anyone who attended any union march against now know what IBOA and ICTU really think of them!!

If I was a member I'd withdraw my membership immediately.  Larry signifies all that is wrong with unions and their leadership in this country.


----------



## Bronte (10 Dec 2010)

Complainer said:


> Isn't it funny how we repeatedly get lectures here on AAM about how private sector staff pay the price if their business loses money?
> 
> Actually, it's just not funny any more.


 
But aren't the AIB now public servants if the bank is owned by the government?

In any case bank are not the same as normal businesses, they can gamble (using their well paid for skills )  and will never lose.


----------



## Complainer (10 Dec 2010)

Deas said:


> Anyone who attended any union march against now know what IBOA and ICTU really think of them!!


I'm just curious as to how you managed to work out the ICTU position on this issue?


----------



## Bill Struth (10 Dec 2010)

Caveat said:


> LOL
> 
> Yeah, very dangerous that PS bunch. How would anyone dare say anything to them?


 Keep trolling internet hard man...


----------



## Deiseblue (10 Dec 2010)

Deas said:


> The IBOA showed their true colours this morning.  They only want the senior management and execs who will share in this bonus to defer the payments until the Bank can afford to pay!!!  AIB is practically a state company and will remain this way long after many of those involved are dead I would imagine - so he wants the taxpayer to look after them.  Larry Broderick, who confirmed that the individuals involved are not members said this on Morning Ireland this morning.
> 
> His own members that (rightfully) have not received anything on salary for the best part of two years can go swing; but those he does not represent should have their cake and eat it.  It says it all really.  Anyone who attended any union march against now know what IBOA and ICTU really think of them!!
> 
> If I was a member I'd withdraw my membership immediately.  Larry signifies all that is wrong with unions and their leadership in this country.



Mr. Broderick is undoubtedly aware that the High Court has ruled that these contentious bonuses must be paid , indeed Brian Lenihan representing the majority stockholder is most reluctantly of the same view .

Mr. Broderick , it appears to me , is simply suggesting that now is definitely not the time from both AIB's economic point of view and particularly from a public perception point of view to pay these bonuses - hence the suggestion to defer same - he could have suggested that they waive such bonuses but I think we all know what the response to that would be !

To be honest I don't have any problem with Mr. Broderick's comments.


----------



## TarfHead (10 Dec 2010)

Bronte said:


> But aren't the AIB now public servants if the bank is owned by the government?


 
No - AIB still has an ISEQ listing so is still, legally, a private company.


----------



## Staples (10 Dec 2010)

Caveat said:


> The Public sector sucks money from everyone regardless of how well they perform and suck even more if they perform badly.


 
Of course when the public sector is forced to absorb the debts of supposedly private concerns, this becomes decidedly easier.


----------



## TarfHead (10 Dec 2010)

Staples said:


> Of course when the public sector is forced to absorb the debts of supposedly private concerns, this becomes decidedly easier.


 
There was no 'forced', unless you mean coercion by the DoF civil servants ? That was a political choice.

And that was for the banks. The rest of the private sector don't deserve to be tarred with that brush.


----------



## Caveat (10 Dec 2010)

Bill Struth said:


> Keep trolling internet hard man...


 
Maybe you should direct this to your comrade Complainer who started this particular tangent in post #31?

Quite common really - then 20 posts later somebody starts whinging about public sector bashing.


----------



## capall (10 Dec 2010)

Everyone knew this situation would arise , why didn't the gov implement this 90 % tax 2 years ago
Is the capital markets a separate division that is profitable independent of the rest of the bank or is it responsible  for any of the current debacle ?
If it is separate and making money then it is better for us that it keeps making money, they will need to hang onto key skills here , however not 2400 people don't know where that figure is coming from


----------



## Complainer (10 Dec 2010)

Towger said:


> Can I take it you don't work in the same section of the PS as Complainer, where everything runs at 110% efficiency?


Would you like to point any of my posts that come within an asses roar of me claiming that 'everything runs as 110% effeciency'?



Caveat said:


> Well done on quoting the old so called front line and "compassionate" aspects (the union trick) whilst conveniently ignoring where the real problems lie - the monstrous admin overstaffing in the HSE & county council for starters.



Oh not the old 'front-line good, back line bad' simplistic nonsense again. There are wasters everywhere and over-staffing everywhere - front line, back office, public sector, private sector. 

PS Do you really get compassionate about environmental inspectors and building control officers? Sweet...


Bill Struth said:


> Nah, he's only brave enough to do it while hiding behind his computer.



I think you might have touched a nerve there, Bill.


----------



## z107 (10 Dec 2010)

> Of course when the public sector is forced to absorb the debts of supposedly private concerns, this becomes decidedly easier.


The bank guarantee and subsequent bailouts were most certainly a public sector decision.
Do you see now what happens when the public sector interferes with free market capitalism? Those banks should have been left to default. Instead, thanks to the public sector, everyone gets to pay.


----------



## Sunny (10 Dec 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> The bank guarantee and subsequent bailouts were most certainly a public sector decision.
> Do you see now what happens when the public sector interferes with free market capitalism? Those banks should have been left to default. Instead, thanks to the public sector, everyone gets to pay.


 
Ah come on. Are you seriously blaming the public sector for this mess? They have a small part to play due to the performance of the regulator but the banking mess was created by incompetent people in the private sector. (And incompetent politicians)


----------



## Complainer (10 Dec 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> The bank guarantee and subsequent bailouts were most certainly a public sector decision.


Not true. They were a political decision - a Government decision.


----------



## Shawady (10 Dec 2010)

capall said:


> Everyone knew this situation would arise , why didn't the gov implement this 90 % tax 2 years ago


 
Because it's easier for FF to let the next government deal with it.


----------



## Shawady (10 Dec 2010)

Complainer said:


> Not true. They were a political decision - a Government decision.


 
Were there also external experts paid to advise the government?


----------



## Staples (10 Dec 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> The bank guarantee and subsequent bailouts were most certainly a public sector decision.
> Do you see now what happens when the public sector interferes with free market capitalism? Those banks should have been left to default. Instead, thanks to the public sector, everyone gets to pay.


 
I think I've heard it all now.  Public Sector ultimately responsible for effects of bank calamity.  Priceless.


----------



## z107 (10 Dec 2010)

> Not true. They were a political decision - a Government decision.


I would classify the government as public sector. They're certainly not private sector!
It was their decision to interfere, and look where we are now.


----------



## Shawady (10 Dec 2010)

I think it was there decision not to interfere, regards regulation of the banks, that has us in this mess.
If a banking system is essential to our economy (and it obviously is), the MOF should have been all over the regulator when concerns were raised about the property boom. 
Cowen met him twice in 4 years, I believe.


----------



## Complainer (10 Dec 2010)

Shawady said:


> Were there also external experts paid to advise the government?


Advisors advise. And we don't know what advice was given because the Gov won't release the papers. Ministers decide. 



umop3p!sdn said:


> I would classify the government as public sector. They're certainly not private sector!


Most people don't classify the Govt as public sector. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_sector



umop3p!sdn said:


> It was their decision to interfere, and look where we are now.


So are you suggesting the Govt should have sat back and waiting for the entire banking system to collapse?


----------



## z107 (10 Dec 2010)

> Most people don't classify the Govt as public sector.


What are they then?



> So are you suggesting the Govt should have sat back and waiting for the entire banking system to collapse?


Yes.


----------



## Complainer (10 Dec 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> What are they then?


See http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showpost.php?p=1116220&postcount=58


umop3p!sdn said:


> Yes.


And have you given much consideration as to the possible impacts of the collapse of the entire banking system on our society?


----------



## z107 (10 Dec 2010)

> And have you given much consideration as to the possible impacts of the collapse of the entire banking system on our society?


Yes, I have. There would be chaos and riots as people lose their money. (The share holders have already lost out) There might even be expulsion from the Euro. Then, once that's out of the way we can rebuild and carry on. Not a nice solution. 

However, this is better than being eternally in debt to the EU/IMF. Better than being forced to give our money to the banks. It's better than a long, long drawn out debt by a thousand cuts. What way do you think Ireland will be in five or ten years time? - You'll be wishing we'd let the banks fail then. When the ESB, phone network and our other public utilities have been sold off. When there's 40+ children to a class, when there's no hope of a hospital bed, and going to hospital is a death sentence anyway etc, etc... Oh, and we'll still be in debt.


----------



## z107 (10 Dec 2010)

> See


That just links back to your earlier post in this thread.
I'm wondering how you would classify the government, if not public sector?
They are paid by the state.


----------



## ajapale (10 Dec 2010)

I would say ministers and TD's are part of the Public Sector but as public representatives ther are not categorised as part of the civil or public service.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (10 Dec 2010)

Folks

As this is giving rise to too many reported posts for personalised attacks, I am closing the thread


----------

