Corporate America

[meresal]

Date: 1/8/2010 2:47:43 PM
Author: janinegirly
The hiring could be from specific departments that are making money. Might not be direct correlation with where layoffs are coming from. If it is, then my guess is it's some new top guy who wants to clean house and bring on his own contacts.

I'm curious which bank you're at..you're in Boston right? (not to sound stalkerish

)

LOL! We get our approvals for hirings from corporate. Our senior officer is notified that he can begin interveiwing and we just see it pop up on our "Hirings" website.

No "new" guy, as the hiring is strictly decided on by the people in my office.

I am in Houston, however our main office is on Wall Street. It is a bank that does not hold personal accounts, as in you can't walk in and open a checking account. We are primarily a Trustee Bank... named after a state.

ETA: If you figure it out, please don't say the name. I don't want it popping up on goggle under "BANK" and "Layoffs"

 

[janinegirly]

Date: 1/8/2010 2:52:47 PM
Author: meresal

Date: 1/8/2010 2:47:43 PM

Author: janinegirly

The hiring could be from specific departments that are making money. Might not be direct correlation with where layoffs are coming from. If it is, then my guess is it's some new top guy who wants to clean house and bring on his own contacts.


I'm curious which bank you're at..you're in Boston right? (not to sound stalkerish

)

LOL! We get our approvals for hirings from corporate. Our senior officer is notified that he can begin interveiwing and we just see it pop up on our 'Hirings' website.


No 'new' guy, as the hiring is strictly decided on by the people in my office.


I am in Houston, however our main office is on Wall Street. It is a bank that does not hold personal accounts, as in you can't walk in and open a checking account. We are primarily a Trustee Bank... named after a state.


ETA: If you figure it out, please don't say the name. I don't want it popping up on goggle under 'BANK' and 'Layoffs'

I think I know the bank, but don't worry won't say. I don't want to reveal the name of the bank I work at either since you never know! I did not hear they had layoffs though. I've passed the building/entrance a million times although now I'm midtown (not Wall St). I don't know where I got Boston from but was going to guess another big trustee bank (based in Boston), so I was sorta close!

 

[meresal]

Date: 1/8/2010 3:32:23 PM
Author: janinegirly

Date: 1/8/2010 2:52:47 PM
Author: meresal

Date: 1/8/2010 2:47:43 PM

Author: janinegirly

The hiring could be from specific departments that are making money. Might not be direct correlation with where layoffs are coming from. If it is, then my guess is it's some new top guy who wants to clean house and bring on his own contacts.


I'm curious which bank you're at..you're in Boston right? (not to sound stalkerish

)

LOL! We get our approvals for hirings from corporate. Our senior officer is notified that he can begin interveiwing and we just see it pop up on our 'Hirings' website.


No 'new' guy, as the hiring is strictly decided on by the people in my office.


I am in Houston, however our main office is on Wall Street. It is a bank that does not hold personal accounts, as in you can't walk in and open a checking account. We are primarily a Trustee Bank... named after a state.


ETA: If you figure it out, please don't say the name. I don't want it popping up on goggle under 'BANK' and 'Layoffs'

I think I know the bank, but don't worry won't say. I don't want to reveal the name of the bank I work at either since you never know! I did not hear they had layoffs though. I've passed the building/entrance a million times although now I'm midtown (not Wall St). I don't know where I got Boston from but was going to guess another big trustee bank (based in Boston), so I was sorta close!

You know, I can't say specifically, but I don't think that many(or any possibly) of our layoffs were localized in the NY office. Also, as it was specifically stated in the most recent email, lots of effort will go to, and has gone to, preserving as many jobs in our main offices: which are NY, London, and Boston. (We do have one there

)

 

[gardengloves]

Hi meresal,

We''ve had lay offs for the past two years. Started in 2008, two rounds a year, salary freeze for the past two years, reduced benefits. Morale is so low, hard to tell whose next- real talent has been axed, along with the redundant. Colleagues are developing all sorts of stress related medical conditions, tackling increased work loads, yet, inexplicably the company is on a hiring rampage, which increases the unease. These layoffs are from the top down, so its hard to understand what is going on. Its a very difficult environment.

 

[ksinger]

I can''t imagine that anyone is surprised at this point. Virtually all of the highly trumpeted American "productivity gains" of the last 20+ years have been not due to actual increases in worker productivity (although American workers are indeed very productive) but came from laying people off. How often did we see a company''s stock jump after it announced layoffs? It''s just one more manifestation of the American business paradigm that got us into this mess: dummy the numbers for a short term "productivity" gain - by screwing the workers to the wall, then voila! take your bonus. It is indefensible ethically, and ultimately unsustainable (as we are seeing quite clearly now, although no one, it seems, has the actual balls to DO anything about it) as a long term strategy for our economy. But hey, all hail The Great Benevolent Hand of The Market, right?

 

[partgypsy]

More importantly, how can there be real, sustained improvements in the economy when there continues to be mass layoffs? Pundits were surprised when regular workers didn''t join the latest wall street run. Why should they, when unemployment is close to 10%, everyone is afraid of losing their jobs, and those who have invested have already been burned by two rallys and then huge loses in less than 10 years. People have started to notice that the emphasis on quarterly profits (and all the churn that goes with that) is shortsighted and hurting real investment (and the consumers who would buy the products of those companies) . And so, they are pulling back and protecting their own bottom line.

 

[Bella_mezzo]

Ah, yes, the great Benevolent Hand of the Market

It really does make no sense, and the desire to prop up short term gains at the expense of healthy long-term growth is really frustrating to say the least...

 

[NovemberBride]

What Meresal''s company is doing is very common and serves an important purpose. After mass lay-offs, morale is low and many employees start looking for jobs elsewhere. Companies want to raise morale and retain the employees that they have not laid off, so they pay them bonuses or give them raises. This is also the reason why they continue to pay large bonuses to top executives while not giving raises and bonuses to regular employees. Companies employee these top executives because they believe that they are among the few people with the skill to run these large corporations and they are afraid that if they don''t pay them these huge salaries they will leave for greener pastures. It''s much easier to replace a lower level employee than a CEO (larger pool of candidates that have the skill for the job).

Whether you think this is right or fair doesn''t really matter. The goal of a corporation is not to ensure that it''s employees can pay their mortgage, the goal is to make money for the shareholders and the boards of directors believe that these top executives are the ones that can ensure the company is profitable (the board of directors is the body that must approve executive pay). In fact, the board of directors has a legal duty to act in the best interest of the shareholders and they have no such legal duty to the employees.

 

[Bella_mezzo]

Problem is, in most companies, the expensive top leadership actually sucks and the shareholders would make a heck of a lot more money if those bonuses were significantly cut and more employees were retained. Also, the trend of propping up short term earnings (to ensure larger bonuses for management in the short-term, and pacify shareholders in the short-term) has disastrous long-term results...

 

[ksinger]

Date: 1/10/2010 12:00:33 PM
Author: NovemberBride
What Meresal''s company is doing is very common and serves an important purpose. After mass lay-offs, morale is low and many employees start looking for jobs elsewhere. Companies want to raise morale and retain the employees that they have not laid off, so they pay them bonuses or give them raises. This is also the reason why they continue to pay large bonuses to top executives while not giving raises and bonuses to regular employees. Companies employee these top executives because they believe that they are among the few people with the skill to run these large corporations and they are afraid that if they don''t pay them these huge salaries they will leave for greener pastures. It''s much easier to replace a lower level employee than a CEO (larger pool of candidates that have the skill for the job).

Whether you think this is right or fair doesn''t really matter. The goal of a corporation is not to ensure that it''s employees can pay their mortgage, the goal is to make money for the shareholders and the boards of directors believe that these top executives are the ones that can ensure the company is profitable (the board of directors is the body that must approve executive pay). In fact, the board of directors has a legal duty to act in the best interest of the shareholders and they have no such legal duty to the employees.

Yep, that''s the excuse anyway.

 

[iluvcarats]

Date: 1/10/2010 12:00:33 PM
Author: NovemberBride
What Meresal's company is doing is very common and serves an important purpose. After mass lay-offs, morale is low and many employees start looking for jobs elsewhere. Companies want to raise morale and retain the employees that they have not laid off, so they pay them bonuses or give them raises. This is also the reason why they continue to pay large bonuses to top executives while not giving raises and bonuses to regular employees. Companies employee these top executives because they believe that they are among the few people with the skill to run these large corporations and they are afraid that if they don't pay them these huge salaries they will leave for greener pastures. It's much easier to replace a lower level employee than a CEO (larger pool of candidates that have the skill for the job).


Whether you think this is right or fair doesn't really matter. The goal of a corporation is not to ensure that it's employees can pay their mortgage, the goal is to make money for the shareholders and the boards of directors believe that these top executives are the ones that can ensure the company is profitable (the board of directors is the body that must approve executive pay). In fact, the board of directors has a legal duty to act in the best interest of the shareholders and they have no such legal duty to the employees.

If they are using tax payer money, I should have a say. These banks are still treading water today because of "We the people." Our country borrowed money from China that we are still paying for, and will be paying back for years to bail out these banks. And the banks chose to reward the people that created the mess with borrowed tax payer money.

It's been argued that lots of people would be out of work if the banks failed. So it is up to the taxpayers and the government to insure that this doesn't happen? Let these great minds move on to other pastures. Aren't they largely responsible for getting us here in the first place? Every business school has a valedictorian who needs a job

link

 

[Mara]

re mat leave and job protection. you are not protected if your position is ''dissolved'' or there is no business need for it anymore. we just had a reorg where they got rid of a larger team, one gal was on mat leave and it was possible because they laid off the entire org not just her. she got a good package (honestly i think that companies try to cover themselves with stuff like mat leave even if they are technically ok by law) and was happy to not come back. they can''t fire you and hire someone else for your position. but your entire team, yeah.

 

[janinegirly]

Date: 1/10/2010 12:00:33 PM
Author: NovemberBride
What Meresal's company is doing is very common and serves an important purpose. After mass lay-offs, morale is low and many employees start looking for jobs elsewhere. Companies want to raise morale and retain the employees that they have not laid off, so they pay them bonuses or give them raises. This is also the reason why they continue to pay large bonuses to top executives while not giving raises and bonuses to regular employees. Companies employee these top executives because they believe that they are among the few people with the skill to run these large corporations and they are afraid that if they don't pay them these huge salaries they will leave for greener pastures. It's much easier to replace a lower level employee than a CEO (larger pool of candidates that have the skill for the job).


Whether you think this is right or fair doesn't really matter. The goal of a corporation is not to ensure that it's employees can pay their mortgage, the goal is to make money for the shareholders and the boards of directors believe that these top executives are the ones that can ensure the company is profitable (the board of directors is the body that must approve executive pay). In fact, the board of directors has a legal duty to act in the best interest of the shareholders and they have no such legal duty to the employees.

Yup. And people are free to work wherever they choose--the banking/corporate environment is not for everyone. Another point worth noting is only certain banks borrowed money from the government (TARP) and a number of those have already paid it back in full. So they are not obligated to be under the direction of the government with regards to bonuses or whatever business initiatives they pursue. Which honestly is how it should be in a free markets society. Without Wall Street success (including bonuses), the economy will never really recover. Not all bonuses / large paychecks are derived from unethical activities. Here in NYC they are what keep the city's economy afloat and it does impact several other industries as a result (not only NY's).

 

[AGBF]

Date: 1/10/2010 10:52:40 PM
Author: janinegirly


Another point worth noting is only certain banks borrowed money from the government (TARP) and a number of those have already paid it back in full.

It wasn't that simple. I am not going to address what the government did. Everyone knows the the government had to bail out the banks to make capitalism work, that the "free market" wasn't working on its own. So any chanting about how capitalism is supposed to work (i.e. the bank's stockholders get profits) is off key. Instead I am going to ask you to read the column by Frank Rich of, "The New York Times". It provides a different perspective.


AGBF

 

[janinegirly]

Date: 1/11/2010 6:27:37 AM
Author: AGBF

Date: 1/10/2010 10:52:40 PM
Author: janinegirly


Another point worth noting is only certain banks borrowed money from the government (TARP) and a number of those have already paid it back in full.

It wasn''t that simple. I am not going to address what the government did. Everyone knows the the government had to bail out the banks to make capitalism work, that the ''free market'' wasn''t working on its own. So any chanting about how capitalism is supposed to work (i.e. the bank''s stockholders get profits) is off key. Instead I am going to ask you to read the column by Frank Rich of, ''The New York Times''. It provides a different perspective.


AGBF

Well we''ll just have to say we have differing opinions. In my opinion banks that abused the system and were headed for collapse should have been allowed to collapse. And they only "bailed" out certain banks so don''t lump it all together. And please, do not refer to my posts as chanting. If people have intense anger towards banks for whatever reason, that''s a whole other issue. Like it or not it''s the banks that''s going to get this economy rolling again. And posting links that support one side of the argument won''t solve anything..we''ll just get in a link post war which is pointless.

 

[meresal]

For the record, my bank has paid everything back that we borrowed. We did it in one years time.

No one at my company is receiving bonuses funded by tax payers money. I was actually listening to the news this morning, and they had to specifically state that since many of the banks have paid back their borrowed funds, the government no longer has control over how much money is spent on Bonuses.

Duhh. The regular news sources (common man news, local 5'oclock... ie, not Fox, CNN, etc.) aren't as quick to publicize that major banks no longer have this money, as they were to dwell on the fact that the banks needed it in the first place.

Also, if anyone is interested, today is the day that they will publically release the bonus amounts being paid to the top executives on Wall Street and the major financial hubs.

ETA: I am personally very intereseted this year, because our Bank is typically heavey on Stock and less on the actual Bonus money (in relation to other banks anyway). It will be interesting to see if they still uphold that tradition, when it is projected that other banks are going to be paying out some of the higest numbers ever.

 

[movie zombie]

Date: 1/11/2010 6:27:37 AM
Author: AG

It wasn''t that simple. I am not going to address what the government did. Everyone knows the the government had to bail out the banks to make capitalism work, that the ''free market'' wasn''t working on its own. So any chanting about how capitalism is supposed to work (i.e. the bank''s stockholders get profits) is off key. Instead I am going to ask you to read the column by Frank Rich of, ''The New York Times''. It provides a different perspective.


AGBF

good article....and so true.

we are more at threat from bad business practices mascarading as capitalism than we are from foreign terrorists on planes.

mz

 

[janinegirly]

Date: 1/11/2010 1:19:17 PM
Author: movie zombie

Date: 1/11/2010 6:27:37 AM
Author: AG

It wasn't that simple. I am not going to address what the government did. Everyone knows the the government had to bail out the banks to make capitalism work, that the 'free market' wasn't working on its own. So any chanting about how capitalism is supposed to work (i.e. the bank's stockholders get profits) is off key. Instead I am going to ask you to read the column by Frank Rich of, 'The New York Times'. It provides a different perspective.


AGBF

good article....and so true.

we are more at threat from bad business practices mascarading as capitalism than we are from foreign terrorists on planes.

mz

Wow, not even going to touch that one. Thread seems to have taken a nasty turn which is usually my cue to no longer participate.

 

[swimmer]

Date: 1/11/2010 10:09:17 AM
Author: meresal
For the record, my bank has paid everything back that we borrowed. We did it in one years time.


No one at my company is receiving bonuses funded by tax payers money. I was actually listening to the news this morning, and they had to specifically state that since many of the banks have paid back their borrowed funds, the government no longer has control over how much money is spent on Bonuses.

Duhh. The regular news sources (common man news, local 5''oclock... ie, not Fox, CNN, etc.) aren''t as quick to publicize that major banks no longer have this money, as they were to dwell on the fact that the banks needed it in the first place.


Also, if anyone is interested, today is the day that they will publically release the bonus amounts being paid to the top executives on Wall Street and the major financial hubs.


ETA: I am personally very intereseted this year, because our Bank is typically heavey on Stock and less on the actual Bonus money (in relation to other banks anyway). It will be interesting to see if they still uphold that tradition, when it is projected that other banks are going to be paying out some of the higest numbers ever.

So true, I am pumped to find out what some of my relatives and former classmates made at Citi etc.

I might not make as much as them being an educator, but both of our salaries are available to the public and I have way more fun and much better cocktail party stories.