Bollitics - Ireland, the Euro and the future of the EU

[peterms]

Half truth turned into a vile article by a vile man.

Bonuses were normally paid in March in respect to the previous years performance. We were called in at the end of January 2009 and told our bonuses would be paid in February not March (ie one month sooner) I assume as the bank wanted it out of the way so as not to have this issue become a media circus. Irish times got hold of this and said they would run it as the front page article so we found out that weekend that bonuses were deferred indefinately in the media. Until John Foy's case in the high court last month.

Also the bank was and still isn't nationalised. In fact the government only owns 8% of the bank even today so what he's on about there I don't know. Also November 2008 is when the bank guarantee was issued. 10 months of work was done by the division before that date, with €300mil profits for the full year 2008.

The problem with the media these days. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Doesn't address the issues, which are:

was the bonus paid sooner than normal?

was this done in the knowledge that the bank was, or was becoming, insolvent?

did this create a liability to staff which usurped pre-existing liabilities to others?

was this legal?

[CVByrne]

Bonuses are pay. Is paying staff at all a liability?

[CVByrne]

Pay comes out of company earnings, the division made €300mil, then reneged on its contracts with it's staff for work already done. Court case was taken and high court ruled the bank was wrong to with hold staff pay.

I'm not arguing the rights and wrongs of banking bonus policy. I'm arguing that having staff work 2008 under contract, then after the year is complete and the division made a record profit for the bank to turn around and not honour its contracts with it's employees.

[peterms]

Bonuses are not pay. They are a supplement to pay.

Pay is contractual. Bonuses are conditional and discretionary. Note the bit in the report about the meeting "forming a verbal contract". Such a claim could only be made because bones are neither pay, nor contractual.

It matters not whether the bank made a profit, what staff expected, or whatever. It does matter that an insolvent organisation made arrangements which fraudulently and illegally benefitted some creditors (staff) at the expense of others. That's a criminal offence, isn't it?

[snowychap]

Bonuses are not pay. They are a supplement to pay.

Pay is contractual. Bonuses are conditional and discretionary.

One would have to see each employees contract in order to judge what was and was not contractual.

Are you inferring from the article that, prior to the meeting, there was no contractual obligation to pay any bonuses and this comment about a 'verbal contract' at this meeting was the first attempt to make them contractual?

[peterms]

Bonuses are not pay. They are a supplement to pay.

Pay is contractual. Bonuses are conditional and discretionary.

One would have to see each employees contract in order to judge what was and was not contractual.

Are you inferring from the article that, prior to the meeting, there was no contractual obligation to pay any bonuses and this comment about a 'verbal contract' at this meeting was the first attempt to make them contractual?

Yes, otherwise the bit about it being a verbal contract would be redundant. Not that I'm suggesting that bankers don't normally include redundant phrases in most of their utterances, but they are described as being at pains to include this particular one.

And yes, I'm arguing from first principles, not from sight of contracts. That's because I did philosophy, not law. Thank god.

[CVByrne]

This verbal contract talk from the article is a lie, not a single person from my department was told that this is a verbal contract. So please don't quote a piece media report when I actually was there.

You will find bonuses are contractual and conditional on earnings targets, the level of bonuses are decided by management but the bonus pool is made up from a % of department and division earnings. Please don't tell me what was in my contract.

People have said today in work that no one has to honour any notice period or anything in our contracts any longer as the bank has breached the contract, then a court has sided with the employees on this dispute.

A pity Governments feel a witch hunt is a good way of spending its time and has changed the laws to suit the clamour of the people.

[snowychap]

Yes, otherwise the bit about it being a verbal contract would be redundant.

I understand why you drew that inference and I can see its merit. What I would wonder, though, is why the report did not explicitly say that the bonuses due/expected/obligated to be paid out were not contractual if that were the case rather than alluding to this by mentioning something about a verbal contract.

It's certainly the first question I would ask even being a layman sat at home and not 'a respected author who has written extensively about the banking collapse.'

Is it not possible that the verbal contract thing regarded the bringing forward of the payment date rather than the obligation about paying the bonus?

And yes, I'm arguing from first principles, not from sight of contracts. That's because I did philosophy, not law. Thank god.

Well, I read the former, too (for the year I could afford - even then it was too expensive to be a student in my eyes ).

I'm not sure that you are arguing from first principles - though I have the fear that this will lead us off topic and headlong towards another semantic argument. :winkold:

I don't have much sympathy for or empathy with those who may or may not be receiving their bonuses, one likely way to change that, however, would be for an employee (or many employees) to have some of their agreed benefits withheld (illegally) by their employer.

[CVByrne]

The worst part of this whole affair is the banks treatment of its staff, not least the chairmans comments yesterday and today. As if we were some enemy of the bank, how he was relieved he didn't have to pay despite a high court ruling, (I still can't believe the government are circumventing the courts to placate the masses), how this is not how the bank wants to conduct itself. Then why has the bank never made an effort to give us new contracts, just breach our old ones and expect us to hope they don't breach any more. The fact the division has made almost €1bln in three years at a time when the bank and country needed it. No we're enemies.

It's such a cynical world. Money is just money, you can always make more money and most of the things you spend it on you probably dont need anyway. But to be treated like some sort of vile criminal is not necessary, I'm turning my back on this country a land of begrudgers. I hope it is doomed. I shall not shed a tear.

[CVByrne]

The verbal part is the amount of your bonus, as I said the pool sizes are done on % of department and division earnings. Then managers have to decide how the bonus pool is split up between employees, depending on performance. As in Risk we don't have a direct earnings but we support the traders, so our bonuses are split up based on how good a job you did.

So on that day we were told the amount of our bonuses, which was also held in HR records as this was used in the court case. I assume this is the "verbal contract" he's talking about. The article is rubbish by the way as you can see clearly, omitting many things to suite the author, a rather nasty individual.

[peterms]

This verbal contract talk from the article is a lie, not a single person from my department was told that this is a verbal contract. So please don't quote a piece media report when I actually was there.

The article says that "the relevant staff" were involved in this. Your colleagues not being involved does not disprove this. And of course people don't have to be told that a verbal contract has taken place, for a verbal contract to take place.

Your "being there" doesn't actually address either point.

You will find bonuses are contractual and conditional on earnings targets, the level of bonuses are decided by management

This is contradictory. What you imply is that the level of bonuses was a contractual commitment.

But what you actually say is that some bonus, be it 1p, was contractual.

The point is that what was done was not a contractual commitment.

[CVByrne]

The pool is based off % of earnings, how the pool is divided up is down to management. But the pool must be fully divided up between staff.

If I did a terrible job I could get 0 bonus, but the money would have to be given to someone else, but when we were told our actual amounts in Jan 09 then there was an actual figure on your bonus.

I don't really know what more I can say. If you are determined to draw your own conclusions fine, but I'm trying to tell you how it works.

[Gringo]

So counting has started in the Irish election, (almost certainly) returning Enda Kenny as the new Taoiseach. If he has half the accounting skills of the last Mayo born Taoiseach he should have no trouble sorting out the country's debt problems.

beeb"]Projecting the number of seats from the share of the vote is not an exact science.

However, based on the results of the RTE exit poll, Professor Michael Marsh from Trinity College Dublin made the following estimate of the shape of the next 166-strong Irish parliament:

* Fine Gael 72 seats

* Labour 38 seats

* Fianna Fail 20 seats

* Independents 20 seats

* Sinn Fein 15 seats

* Greens 1 seat

Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny has said he will try to re-negotiate the terms of the 85bn-euro (£72bn) bail-out.

Voters blamed Fianna Fail for the end of the "Celtic Tiger's" economic boom.

Haven't they just - the govt (of fianna fail and the greens) dropped from a combined 83 seats at the last election to about 21 this time around

[BOF]

Haven't they just - the govt (of fianna fail and the greens) dropped from a combined 83 seats at the last election to about 21 this time around

Yeah. As I mentioned in the general chat thread, the consistently largest political party since our independence has overnight become a bit part player. And it's thoroughly deserved.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Massive turn-out apparently, looking at the figures. Looks like "the beard" will get elected in Louth.

[CVByrne]

Yay useless independents exactly what the country needs. FG / Labour bet was nailed on at 1/3.

[Zatman]

Dont trust Enda Kenny myself and knowing how much of a cabbage he is he will probably tru go into coalition with the last remaining Fianna Failers.

Good to see the old mafioso a lot of them wont be returning and the freshness of this campaign can be a good thing for future as a lot of young politicians

[Gringo]

Yay useless independents exactly what the country needs.

Better off having independents than party line followers, as you may have noticed it's the old parties that have fkd up.

[Zatman]

Dont think Greens are going to get any seats by looks of it . THeir leader looks to have lost his seat already

So counting has started in the Irish election, (almost certainly) returning Enda Kenny as the new Taoiseach. If he has half the accounting skills of the last Mayo born Taoiseach he should have no trouble sorting out the country's debt problems.

Haughey went to my school but except for that he was a dodgy customer Berlusconi look like an angel. Id rather Enda Kenny was like John Bruton who was last non FF Taoiseach

[Gringo]

So counting has started in the Irish election, (almost certainly) returning Enda Kenny as the new Taoiseach. If he has half the accounting skills of the last Mayo born Taoiseach he should have no trouble sorting out the country's debt problems.

Haughey went to my school but except for that he was a dodgy customer Berlusconi look like an angel. Id rather Enda Kenny was like John Bruton who was last non FF Taoiseach

My point was that he was good at making money appear from nowhere (normally into his bank account) which is exactly what's needed now.