Madam, – I am more than a little perplexed by the rationale that seems to exist that forbids bonuses being paid to the staff of essentially bankrupt banks, yet justifies those bonuses being paid to staff of a bankrupt state.
Can B Lenihan Esq expect a letter from Olli Rehn or Ajai Chopra telling him not to pay such bonuses or there will be no more money forthcoming? Sauce, goose and gander come to mind! – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan claims that a supervening event is the justification for cancelling the AIB bonuses, which were subject to contract. Surely this is exactly the argument the bank traders would use to have the payments made.
They were not responsible for the recession and, even if the were, it is hardly likely that such a circumstance was the subject of a clause in the contract.
How is it possible, given our property laws, to create legislation that will govern contracts in retrospect? Is it now open to commercial property tenants to claim the supervening event of the recession as a defence when their landlords take them to court to recover unpaid rents? Where will it stop? Is contract law to be thrown out the window?
A question for the bank: if these payments are contractual and definably related to production, why are they called bonuses at all? Does the logic of the Minister’s action mean that piece workers in our few remaining manufacturing facilities are now susceptible to a similar action? Do certain salespeople run the risk of being confined to their meagre basic pay, which in some cases is actually nonexistent? – Yours, etc,