What do Bank Staff think of ICTU's Campaign against them?
- Thread starter Deas
- Start date
Not according to the Irish Times. To be honest, I didn't ask the people in Anglo directly what it was but like I say, they said people were happy enough with the terms considering what the bank has been like since this all began.
[broken link removed]
This is going to sound heartless and inappropriate, but it's all about contracts and golden handshakes are a necessary evil for executives.
Taking on the role of a senior exec, director etc is a huge risk. It's much easier to get rid of a director than an employee. Your position is vulnerable to any single downturn in figures, profits, performance, etc. This is well recognised and in a sense you put your head on the block (rightly so) taking that role.
For years it was actually harder to get a mortgage as a "director" because the job security was so weak.
So the contracts tend to have an incentive in not just the pay, but if you are fired, you get a nice parachute. It's the only way to get people to fill the jobs and its a gamble on both sides.
Not making excuses for their performance or the size of the compensation, but in many cases those packages were agreed a long time ago and wouldn't have been too extreme from the norm in a similar operation/size.
To be fair, that might be true for ordinary businesses but is certainly not the case in Irish banks. Irish bank executives were well overpaid relative to the size of their organisations compared to other Countries (I know the same can be said about most people). There is also no evidence that executives of large Irish companies expecially the banks faced the consequences for failures on their watch (apart from Mike Snoden for checking out an escort agency online). How many AIB executives were held accountable for the Rusnack affair or the overcharging etc. Golden handshakes and paracute payments just encourage people to not do their jobs. At the end of the day, what do Anglo executives care about the cost to the taxpayer because of their decisions when they are off on pensions of over €500k a year.
Executives should be paid a high basic salary (mainly performance related) but these clauses in the contracts with regard pension payments and pay offs in the case of dismissal need to end. Thats what the Government and regulator need to clamp down on. Not the fact that someone can earn €1.5 million a year. Good luck to him/her if they do their jobs.
Couldn't agree more in the effectiveness of controlling the executives, but the contracts would have been the contracts.
I suppose in a similar sense, any objections to the "perks" of the PS (sorry to bring it back, but there is some hypocrasy in demonising one section and not the other) is more against the contract and the enforcement or management of that. Is it the executives fault they were never punished?
But the realities of a senior executive is to shoulder the burden of complete operations. As such their contracts offer not just generous pay, bonuses and other perks, but also termination terms. The boards never enforced this, heck who would when the shares were doing so well? And neither did the regulator.
I'll be honest and say that if I were offered such a pay and termination package I'd probably break a finger trying to get my pen out too quickly.
I agree with you. I would of only being too happy to sign a contact that basically says no matter what happens, you will never have to worry about money again!
I just hope those days have passed and a new sense of accountability comes in to the upper levels of business and public life. I have my doubts though.
-1
Ridiculous comment. Hardly compareable killing someone to dealing with someone on a desk.
Do you really think that the executives were going to listen to someone who is scanning documents, delivering post, working on foreign exchange, answering phones?
Very poor redundancy package when compared to the recent Ulster Bank package which was 7.25 weeks per yer of service capped at 3 years salary plus a retraining grant of euro 9,280 whereas the Anglo package seems to be 4 weeks per year of service capped at 1 year.
Ulster Bank are of course unionised whereas Anglo are'nt.
terrontress
Registered User
- Messages
- 138
I worked in AIB for 8 years, leaving in 2008. In those eight years I got a bonus once. To get the bonus, we had to agree to change our terms and conditions under a process called "Career Framework". This change in terms and conditions included possible cuts in pay if we were deemed to be underperforming. Since I left, the bonuses have been suspended indefinitely. My former colleagues are not even getting a Christmas party this year.
Believe me when I say that at Bank Official Grade in AIB, few people were earning big money.
There were those who had got in early and stayed at Bank Official Grade for years and had got a good staff mortgage in the early 90s so had a lot of disposable income. Since 2000 with low interest rates the staff loans are of no real benefit. The pensions are "defined contribution" and with all of our contributions having been used to buy banking shares you know what state the pensions are in.
The majority of people in AIB on the bottom rung benefitted very little from the Celtic Tiger and were simply chasing an elusive dream to get a step up the ladder and try to be the next Robbie Henneberry or Eugene Sheehy.
The most worthwhile benefit that junior bank staff have is a free uniform and not getting penalty charges when your account goes out of order.
For those who think Banks are not letting anyone go:
http://news.efinancialcareers.ie/newsandviews_item/newsItemId-22139
hope the link works!
http://news.efinancialcareers.ie/newsandviews_item/newsItemId-22139
hope the link works!
A
AgathaC
Guest
I am probably going off-topic here, but if I remember correctly Soden got a very good settlement from BOI at the time?
it amazes me how the country seems to think the bankers are responsible for so much damage to the Irish economy.
are we forgetting about the Central Bank and Financial Regulator who failed in the roles as regulatory bodies of the Irish Banking System, not to mention the Department of Finance who are responsible for the Central Bank and Fin. Regulator. Finally govt policy for the guts of 10 years was to promote & assist the property boom through so many different incentive schemes and tax breaks.
Yes, bankers were reckless, yes Sean Fitz should be facing criminal charges but however culpable the banks are, equal blame should be apportioned to the Central Bank, Financial Regulator, Dept of Finance and our Government.
for the record i am not a banker and never have been
are we forgetting about the Central Bank and Financial Regulator who failed in the roles as regulatory bodies of the Irish Banking System, not to mention the Department of Finance who are responsible for the Central Bank and Fin. Regulator. Finally govt policy for the guts of 10 years was to promote & assist the property boom through so many different incentive schemes and tax breaks.
Yes, bankers were reckless, yes Sean Fitz should be facing criminal charges but however culpable the banks are, equal blame should be apportioned to the Central Bank, Financial Regulator, Dept of Finance and our Government.
for the record i am not a banker and never have been
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
Yep, I did make an complaint to the CEO, which was pretty much ignored.
You must be joking!
I suggest you have a read of Banksters by David Murphy and Martina Devlin or read some of the articles in the Financial Times over the last 12 months!
i cant see how there will not be big layoffs down the track in aib and boi.
With the losses they're making and the reduction in business activity .
Because they were jobs for life like the civil service there would be a fair bit of overstaffing and inefficiencies in the head offices anyway.
It is like the public sector now in that everyone else is paying to support them. It is not the employees fault but they are being protected ,compared to construction industry workers who have felt the full force of the free market
With the losses they're making and the reduction in business activity .
Because they were jobs for life like the civil service there would be a fair bit of overstaffing and inefficiencies in the head offices anyway.
It is like the public sector now in that everyone else is paying to support them. It is not the employees fault but they are being protected ,compared to construction industry workers who have felt the full force of the free market
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
While the regulators aren't blameless, they were operating within the legal environment set by the Government, and the whole ethos of 'light touch regulation', where it was deemed unthinkable for a mere civil servant to tell one of the captains of industry what to do.
1,700 staff have left BOI in the last 12 months
Redunancies may be inevitable but staff turnover in banks was always high
And to address the OP, if you're working in a bank then the unions are blasting the executives and top decision makers. They certainly aren't out to get the ordinary staff like the cashier in the local branch.
I don't know that I believe this. Many frontline staff are being harassed on the back of campaigns like this - remember what happened in Irish Permanent due to the media - it wasn't managers that were spat at. Did posters here not state they were moving funds from AIB recently because lower paid staff received a small increase.
Did any bankers turn up at the march last week? From what I say there was public anger and chanting against them.
nlgbbbblth
Registered User
- Messages
- 144
yes, some of us were on the march.
Re abuse - A trade union leader (IBOA) should not have to write a letter to a national newspaper pleading for members of the public to differentiate between high level bankers and ordinary officials.
The fact that he did speaks volumes for the intelligence of some of those sheep out there.