Lloyds to sack yet another 1200!! must be those pesky green shoots!

The_White_Horse

Its all doom and gloom.

so why are shares doing ok?

Cannon_Fodder

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8153658.stm

HousingBear

The_White_Horse wrote: »

Its all doom and gloom.

so why are shares doing ok?

Fewer people should result in a leaner, meaner and hopefully more profitable company.

Assuming it's not in a terminal decline. But how can it fail? Lloyds have unlimited government funds to bail them out.

Conrad

Over capacity as several brands have been amalgamated. Why have 10 call centres when you can have 2.

cogito

I like this comment:

"Unite views the weekly cull of jobs as a disgraceful approach by this taxpayer supported financial institution," the union said in a statement.

Translation: The taxpayer should continue to pay the wages of people whose jobs no longer exist.

Rochdale_Pioneers

cogito wrote: »

Translation: The taxpayer should continue to pay the wages of people whose jobs no longer exist.

Unions always support the retention of surplus jobs. I work for a global manufacturer and we have seen various restructures of teams and functions over the last few years. The pattern used to be that some roles would cease to exist and those left behind would wonder how they would cope with the work load. And they always do because there are always efficiencies that can be found in structures and working practices to make each employee more productive without flogging them like dogs.

Unions clearly don't like such things. They would rather have more people being less efficient to keep the numbers up. Which is fine to a point, but ultimately if the role no longer exists then what are they arguing for exactly? It is madness to retain duplicate structures and teams and people in organisations that have amalgamated. In the case of the banks the reason why they have amalgamated is that they lost a fortune having so much duplication in a market which couldn't sustain it.

I know its hard for the people affected, but they have to accept it. the company should make every effort to find alternative roles for people, but ultimately its not a charity.

kennyboy66_2

cogito wrote: »

I like this comment:

"Unite views the weekly cull of jobs as a disgraceful approach by this taxpayer supported financial institution," the union said in a statement.

Translation: The taxpayer should continue to pay the wages of people whose jobs no longer exist.

What do you suggest unions are for ?

Cannon_Fodder

cogito wrote: »

I like this comment:

"Unite views the weekly cull of jobs as a disgraceful approach by this taxpayer supported financial institution," the union said in a statement.

Translation: The taxpayer should continue to pay the wages of people whose jobs no longer exist.

I view it more as criticism of an organisation that needs taxpayers money to avoid the normal risks of a free market economy - i.e the risk of going bust - whilst at other times using free market practices willy-nilly...

Their employees are also taxpayers funding the company's ongoing existence...

The bail-outs should have resulted in nationalisation, for a long time so that we can make many billions extra to the bail-out repayments.

Thrugelmir

HousingBear wrote: »

Fewer people should result in a leaner, meaner and hopefully more profitable company.

Assuming it's not in a terminal decline. But how can it fail? Lloyds have unlimited government funds to bail them out.

Unlimited Government funds?

The Government has no money. Its your money thats propping the Company up.

Doozergirl

It's no surprise to anyone at Lloyds that the job losses will keep coming and coming for a good while to come. They haven't even touched the actual branch network as far as I know. Presumably when that happens we will see higher numbers though I don't think that's anticipated too soon. Scotland I think will see that happen first as LloydsTSB is very small up there and the Bank of Scotland brand obviously stronger.

The disappointing thing, and I think I keep coming back to it, is that this merger was no good for anyone. Not for the staff, the shareholders, not even the taxpayer really considering how much has already been given out without Lloyds chucking in a few billion only to find itself on it's knees as well, not good for general competition either.

The only silver lining is that Lloyds are fair in their redundancy payouts and they give employees, many of whom have been there for years and years, a cushion of some sort. Some rather plump, some not so plump.

lostinrates

Doozergirl wrote: »

It's no surprise to anyone at Lloyds that the job losses will keep coming and coming for a good while to come. They haven't even touched the actual branch network as far as I know. Presumably when that happens we will see higher numbers though I don't think that's anticipated too soon. Scotland I think will see that happen first as LloydsTSB is very small up there and the Bank of Scotland brand obviously stronger.

The disappointing thing, and I think I keep coming back to it, is that this merger was no good for anyone. Not for the staff, the shareholders, not even the taxpayer really considering how much has already been given out without Lloyds chucking in a few billion only to find itself on it's knees as well, not good for general competition either.

The only silver lining is that Lloyds are fair in their redundancy payouts and they give employees, many of whom have been there for years and years, a cushion of some sort. Some rather plump, some not so plump.

Isn't afair bit of commercial/businessbanking handled by Lloyds in Scotland? (searching recesses of head for where this impression might hav been gained from.:o)