There's nothing we can do about it. It's a contractual matter, see? We'd love to, we really would, but our hands are tied, sorry!

http://www.tribune.ie/news/article/2009/feb/08/banks-dig-in-their-heels-on-bonuses-for-executive-/

Guide to banking sector salaries in Ireland - I don't know when this table was compiled but it's still pretty telling. Bear in mind that BoI are bunging 3.5% on this lot. Figs on the left are euro RoI - on the right £ sterling NoI:

BankingJOB TITLEROI €BELFAST £

TREASURY
Head of Treasury	145,000 - 180,000	45,000 - 85,000
Senior Dealer	75,000 - 100,000	35,000 - 50,000
Treasury Operations Manager (Back Office)	65,000 - 95,000	28,000 - 40,000
Middle Office Manager	62,000 - 72,000	30,000 - 35,000
Treasury Dealer	50,000 - 70,000	22,000 - 30,000
Treasury Settlements - Assistant Manager	38,000 - 56,000	N/A
Middle Office Supervisor	45,000 - 55,000	N/A
Treasury Settlements	33,000 - 42,000	N/A
STOCKBROKING
Institutional Equity Sales	90,000 - 120,000	N/A
Corporate Bond Sales	80,000 - 110,000	N/A
Private Client Portfolio Manager	55,000 - 65,000	45,000 - 60,000
Junior Stockbroker	30,000 - 36,000	32,000 - 45,000
Equity Analyst	42,000 - 55,000	N/A
Senior Equity Analyst	65,000 - 100,000	N/A
Corporate Actions	30,000 - 38,000	N/A
COMPLIANCE (across all banking sectors)
Head of Compliance	85,000 - 120,000	£30,000 - 45,000
Compliance Manager (> 5 years' exp.)	70,000 - 100,000	28,000 - 50,000
Compliance Manager (< 3 years' exp.)	50,000 - 70,000	20,000 - 40,000
Compliance Officer (> 2 years' exp.)	40,000 - 55,000	16,000 - 28,000
Compliance Officer (< 2 years' exp.)	32,000 - 45,000	12,000 - 20,000

Survey Provided by Brightwater Recruitment

Source

http://careeradvice.loadzajobs.ie/industry-insight/finance/salary-guide-banking-sector-in-ireland-3545

Those salaries aren't that high. They don't include the bonuses of senior staff which bring their total income to be much higher. According to that survey the Head of Treasury in a bank is earning half of what the Taoiseach earns. That sounds about right as a fractional basis... perhaps tells you as much about the Taoiseach as it does the banks.

Bonuses and share options.

I would say that list may be what the Bench Markers were working off - it looks pretty parallel to public sector wages to me - County Manager or Head of Department on about 140,000, lower paid on 30,000 euros.

County managers get bonuses too - but not in the order of millions.

I don't know many public sector workers to whom much of the following applies - btw the table was produced end 2007/beginning 2008:

Quote :

"A large number of European banks, domestic and small boutique asset management companies have budgeted for increases in head
count for quarter 1 and quarter 2 of 2008.

The skill sets currently in high demand are in the areas of credit, compliance, corporate banking, private banking, wealth management and
portfolio management. This is also reflected in the increase in salaries for quality/high calibre candidates within these areas. Some companies are
still willing to pay "sign on bonuses" to compensate for bonuses which may be lost due to candidates moving during the year.
Typical benefits in the Republic of Ireland include bonus (broad range from 10% to 100% depending on the role), pension, healthcare,
educational support, professional subscriptions, travel allowances & SAYE schemes. Roles within financial sales & marketing continue to offer
attractive commission or OTE packages which can push the total reward figure up considerably.
More and more clients are offering softer bonuses such as on-site courses, casual Fridays, social clubs, fruit on site and better health schemes.
With a significant number of new retail branches opening, and with business centres being the way forward for commercial banking, there is a
lot of movement in these areas throughout Munster and Connaught. Salaries are very competitive for candidates with substantial commercial
lending and credit analysis experience. High bonus and commission structures are being offered as the most common incentive. 2007 has seen a
significant increase in the number of candidates leaving Dublin to move for opportunities in the South and West."

What galls me about this is that it is the captains of the banking industry who are among the shrillest of those baying for the blood of public sector workers. Look at the perks and conditions they are all enjoying! Bloody hypocrites!

At any rate, the vast majority of Irish workers within either the public or private sectors earn nothing like most of these salaries. Thousands of people within the teaching profession eg are on unstable, part-time contracts with no benefits of any kind. No matter, they are selfish bitches etc who deserve a good kicking. The simple fact remains, if the government insist on bailing out toxic debt laden banks then it has no right to demand any cuts for people who are finding it hard, literally, to keep the mortgage roof over their heads. Or who must pay exorbitant rent.

Aragon wrote:

I don't know many public sector workers to whom much of the following applies - btw the table was produced end 2007/beginning 2008:

Quote :

"A large number of European banks, domestic and small boutique asset management companies have budgeted for increases in head
count for quarter 1 and quarter 2 of 2008.

The skill sets currently in high demand are in the areas of credit, compliance, corporate banking, private banking, wealth management and
portfolio management. This is also reflected in the increase in salaries for quality/high calibre candidates within these areas. Some companies are
still willing to pay "sign on bonuses" to compensate for bonuses which may be lost due to candidates moving during the year.
Typical benefits in the Republic of Ireland include bonus (broad range from 10% to 100% depending on the role), pension, healthcare,
educational support, professional subscriptions, travel allowances & SAYE schemes. Roles within financial sales & marketing continue to offer
attractive commission or OTE packages which can push the total reward figure up considerably.
More and more clients are offering softer bonuses such as on-site courses, casual Fridays, social clubs, fruit on site and better health schemes.
With a significant number of new retail branches opening, and with business centres being the way forward for commercial banking, there is a
lot of movement in these areas throughout Munster and Connaught. Salaries are very competitive for candidates with substantial commercial
lending and credit analysis experience. High bonus and commission structures are being offered as the most common incentive. 2007 has seen a
significant increase in the number of candidates leaving Dublin to move for opportunities in the South and West."

What galls me about this is that it is the captains of the banking industry who are among the shrillest of those baying for the blood of public sector workers. Look at the perks and conditions they are all enjoying! Bloody hypocrites!

At any rate, the vast majority of Irish workers within either the public or private sectors earn nothing like most of these salaries. Thousands of people within the teaching profession eg are on unstable, part-time contracts with no benefits of any kind. No matter, they are selfish bitches etc who deserve a good kicking. The simple fact remains, if the government insist on bailing out toxic debt laden banks then it has no right to demand any cuts for people who are finding it hard, literally, to keep the mortgage roof over their heads. Or who must pay exorbitant rent.

The reality is that a lot of them have and more will lose their jobs and bonuses were stopped some time ago for most. The real divide is not public sector versus private sector, it's people who have to go to work for their earnings and people who have so much wealth that they can live off the proceeds.

Aragon wrote:

I don't know many public sector workers to whom much of the following applies

I don't know many in the private sector it applies to either. You make these comments as if these situations are zero sum in nature. The average private sector employee, even the average bank employee, is not working for a "boutique asset management company" with the required skill set for "wealth management and portfolio management". Beyond that many of the perks outlined in your snippet do apply to some in the public sector. One of my family is a civil servant, they have a semi casual day every day, they have a group scheme for health insurance, he has pension entitlements, he is eligible for educational support from the department, if a barrister the Department will subsidise your fees to the bar and so on. Again, such issues are not zero sum. Your constant method of argument seems to pit the highest paid of the private sector against the lowest paid in the public sector, this is a disingenuous comparison and one which should be avoided. Let's compare things on something of a proportionate basis, shall we?

One of the reasons for allowing Banks to go into receivership was that you void all the legal obligations to staff!

On Public v Private, basically everyone is there trying to get paid as much as they can. What really annoys me about Public is the obvious gross inefficiencies. In hospitals expensive equipment and facilities used only 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, offices used 35 hours a week, school gyms and facilities not used at night, etc etc. It is hard to turn around attitudes in any institution once lethargy sets in, but generally the reason why it is there is bad management not bad staff.


Cactus

You are right about the divide being those with wealth and those that do not. It is a bit wider than that it is about access to resources. My secondary education was at a school where literally everyone goes on to University and from there generally into quite good careers. Now it would not be unfair to say that not all were of high intellect. Unfortunately contacts matter, but with it there is (or should be) a responsibility to uphold the 'family' reputation.

Anyone who thought the financial services sector was feeling even a little contrite ought to read this WSJ bloggers thoughts on cutting back on bonuses:

http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2009/02/04/mean-street-why-capping-wall-street-bonuses-wont-work/#comments

Makes me feel murderous.

johnfás wrote:

Aragon wrote:

I don't know many public sector workers to whom much of the following applies

I don't know many in the private sector it applies to either. You make these comments as if these situations are zero sum in nature. The average private sector employee, even the average bank employee, is not working for a "boutique asset management company" with the required skill set for "wealth management and portfolio management". Beyond that many of the perks outlined in your snippet do apply to some in the public sector. One of my family is a civil servant, they have a semi casual day every day, they have a group scheme for health insurance, he has pension entitlements, he is eligible for educational support from the department, if a barrister the Department will subsidise your fees to the bar and so on. Again, such issues are not zero sum. Your constant method of argument seems to pit the highest paid of the private sector against the lowest paid in the public sector, this is a disingenuous comparison and one which should be avoided. Let's compare things on something of a proportionate basis, shall we?

Again Johnfas you miss the point. This is about the banking sector - you know - the ones that we are subsidising by throwing other people out of work and cutting the pay of others again. Not to mention the hundreds of billions in guarantees they have had from us too. It is essential that we do not stop drawing attention to the discrepancy in treatment. It's easy if you move in well paid circles, I'm sure, to delude oneself that it's the norm and that all these silly little people really ought to stop griping and let you get on with it. You should try living on a low wage for six months with a couple of kids to feed, clothe and educate and see how you feel then. It'd put a whole new meaning on those 'zero sums' you're talking about.

Aragon wrote:

johnfás wrote:

Aragon wrote:

I don't know many public sector workers to whom much of the following applies

I don't know many in the private sector it applies to either. You make these comments as if these situations are zero sum in nature. The average private sector employee, even the average bank employee, is not working for a "boutique asset management company" with the required skill set for "wealth management and portfolio management". Beyond that many of the perks outlined in your snippet do apply to some in the public sector. One of my family is a civil servant, they have a semi casual day every day, they have a group scheme for health insurance, he has pension entitlements, he is eligible for educational support from the department, if a barrister the Department will subsidise your fees to the bar and so on. Again, such issues are not zero sum. Your constant method of argument seems to pit the highest paid of the private sector against the lowest paid in the public sector, this is a disingenuous comparison and one which should be avoided. Let's compare things on something of a proportionate basis, shall we?

Again Johnfas you miss the point. This is about the banking sector - you know - the ones that we are subsidising by throwing other people out of work and cutting the pay of others again. Not to mention the hundreds of billions in guarantees they have had from us too. It is essential that we do not stop drawing attention to the discrepancy in treatment. It's easy if you move in well paid circles, I'm sure, to delude oneself that it's the norm and that all these silly little people really ought to stop griping and let you get on with it. You should try living on a low wage for six months with a couple of kids to feed, clothe and educate and see how you feel then. It'd put a whole new meaning on those 'zero sums' you're talking about.

Yup, one of my best mates is a teller in the local branch of a bank. He earns barely above minimum wage, he gets the statutory minimum in terms of annual leave and has no particular pension benefits to speak of beyond the general defined benefit scheme payable to all employees. Of course he doesn't really earn enough to bother with a pension because if he were to make the contributions he wouldn't be able to pay his rent. You also delude yourself that the norm, even in the banking sector, is to earn a six figure salary with a mercedes as a perk and then you compare that to the clerical officer at the social welfare office.

Perhaps you need to examine life outside of the box which you live in and the circles which you associate with. Do not attempt to classify who I hang around with and what they do. You do not know me.

I don't think any of us are trying to get at the bank tellers; I would imagine that their contracts are devoid of bonuses anyway (or that they would be minimal).

What I for one would like to see is the removal of all bonuses from staff on over 50K per annum. These financial types (and I know a few of them too) are all full of the necessity for us to share the pain and that we cannot let banks go bust. Fair enough, but isn't it interesting that sharing the pain doesn't always include their good selves??

I do not see why I should subsidise a bonus for those working in AIB capital markets (or the BoI equivalent), when they earn twice what I do and are unlikely to be subject to the pensions levy (despite the fact that the Government might as well own them). I am happy to help bail out banks and accept any tax increases going, as someone with vaguely socialist leanings. THIS DOES NOT MEAN PAYING BANKER'S BONUSES. I accept it to pay the social welfare bill, for the NDP and the health service. Not to further fatten the obese pay packets of those largely responsible for this monumental phockup in the first place

We all know the commonsense difference between what is greed and what is a bona fide claim to a living wage. Let's start applying that common sense, shall we??

Two things: one is that lower paid bank staff in some banks had a choice between bonuses or marginally higher wages. Where they chose bonuses these have now stopped and they are all down on the take home pay.

The other is that one of the Swiss Banks is making its employees take their bonuses in toxic product: up to them then to make it into something of value.

cactus flower wrote:

Two things: one is that lower paid bank staff in some banks had a choice between bonuses or marginally higher wages. Where they chose bonuses these have now stopped and they are all down on the take home pay.

The other is that one of the Swiss Banks is making its employees take their bonuses in toxic product: up to them then to make it into something of value.

Now THAT's enterprising. I hope it works. Sort out the mess incentives! Love it.

So what would be the equivalent here though?? hand the bank employees Sean Dunne's phone no and tell 'em to get debt collecting??

Pat Carey on Morning Ireland believes that the top salary in the Civil Service and in the new nationalised, recapitalised and guaranteed banks etc. should not be more than twice the Taoiseach's ...

Sounds like more socialism coming from TDs although that to me is oak-smoked salmon socialism + 1982 Bordeaux.

And the Taoiseach's shoudl be no more than twice the back benche, can we agree on that? So Cowen will take a cut of over 100k.

johnfás wrote:

And the Taoiseach's shoudl be no more than twice the back benche, can we agree on that? So Cowen will take a cut of over 100k.

And what's the Back Bench's twice of? Where does it end? It's an infinite regress ...

Is that where you're going?

There must be a more equitable way.

Well it is about as idiotic as what he is suggesting. The Taoiseach earns too much for a start, he earns more than the President of the USA or the British Prime Minister, he is the highest paid Head of Government in the European Union and we are a peripheral state on the edge of Europe with a population less than a quarter of London or Paris, as well as rapidly becoming an economic backwater. How therefore do we think that paying senior bankers double that is good value?

TDs never tire of telling us that they are not in it for the money. We could put their selfless service to the Irish Nation to the test by fixing a TDs salary at the average industrial wage. A Minister's could be twice that, and maybe An Taoiseach could earn three time the average industrial wage. AFAIK, SF already do this and Joe Higgins did it too.

coc wrote:

TDs never tire of telling us that they are not in it for the money. We could put their selfless service to the Irish Nation to the test by fixing a TDs salary at the average industrial wage. A Minister's could be twice that, and maybe An Taoiseach could earn three time the average industrial wage. AFAIK, SF already do this and Joe Higgins did it too.

I'd 100% agree with this. You also get a pension to that effect too. Would we see people getting into office who might be interested in serving the nation?

There's some nonsense that they needed to be paid "properly" because they were taking bribes or something.... how can that be got around because it might be true. That's off topic a bit though.

Auditor #9 wrote:

coc wrote:

TDs never tire of telling us that they are not in it for the money. We could put their selfless service to the Irish Nation to the test by fixing a TDs salary at the average industrial wage. A Minister's could be twice that, and maybe An Taoiseach could earn three time the average industrial wage. AFAIK, SF already do this and Joe Higgins did it too.

I'd 100% agree with this. You also get a pension to that effect too. Would we see people getting into office who might be interested in serving the nation?

There's some nonsense that they needed to be paid "properly" because they were taking bribes or something.... how can that be got around because it might be true. That's off topic a bit though.

Are you suggesting that the recent hikes in politicians pay and benefits were in some way compensation for loss of brown envelopes due to greater regulation/trial by tribunal etc.?

If so, I'd say you're right.

Brian Goggin of BOI has taken a massive paycut of ONE MILLION DOLLARS from €3m to €2m.

What the feck does he do to earn that money ????

If he's a risk taker, there must be some desperate downside to that cash if the risk goes bad ..

CE of ILP Denis Casey announced resignation a short while ago.

RTE.ie

Gillian Boner finally got the message.

Bowler must go. Anybody who could stand by refusing the Chief Executive's resignation and could make a statement commending the integrity of the other people who had to go just doesn't get it. There can be no place for such people at the top of financial organisations.