Seriously, outside of short-sighted and short-lived cost cuts, has there ever been anything positive that can be associated with layoffs? We've been having one layoff after another, one restructuring after another, and nothing improves. In fact, it's the opposite. So what's the point?
18 replies (most recent on top)
Citi did the same to former co-workers in Risk Dept in Texas and New York City. They Laidoff the employees from Texas, then 4 weeks later I saw their same job descriptions and titles for jobs based in Getzeville/Buffalo, New York and Tampa, Florida !
In some cases, the newly posted jobs in Getzeville/Buffalo, NY and Tampa, Florida were for One-Level Up in Title e.g. AVP to VP, VP to SVP, SVP to Director.
It seems Citi believes that since Citi fired employees from the high cost locations (Texas and New York City), they can afford to hire One-Level Up in the low cost locations.
So messed up. They fired everyone on a team in NYC then posted their open role in Tampa the next day. Had the nerve to share it on LinkedIn too
And they are still posting job openings while layoffs are on going….seriously.
@ep Why don't Gonzalo and Jane show the way by cutting their own salary to half as a shining beacon to rank and file employees....oh wait....
@cm yup bc we dont generate enough revenue … she has risen to power on the backs of employees, cutting them to boost her numbers while talking abt empathy
A lot of very poor recruits in the last couples of years, especially in technology where a hiring drive was supposed to bring Citi in line with industry.
Hiring tech talent is difficult so they just hired BSers, chasers and an excessive number of PMs so that we can have calls where a PM tracks the work of a PM who tracks the work of a tech manager who manages their ICs' work.
The message that Gonzalo Luchetti gave was that Citi has a much lower ROE than the competitors, and the goal is to take it to similar levels, and the only way they have is to cut costs.
Unfortunately, their myopic view only sees salaries as a cost and not their bad decisions and stupid mistakes.
I think its to make the company seem profitable than other banks i mean she improved the stock price that was once under $50 bucks but also i remember them cutting managing directors who report to managing directors just go wait 9 months and fill those roles again. Now it’s time for more cuts. Why did you hire more of them is the question?
@d4 they were only doing the needful 😉
The appearance of less risk. You layoff half your local police force and crime metrics will go down. That doesn't mean crime went down; just there's not enough people to document it. Its the same principle. Some of this needed, as peak consent order work you had people making huge deals over nothing.
@OP They're reducing the bank's expense base so that it can appear more "profitable" and therefore justify C U Next Tuesday Jane's bloated salary.
@b2 - who created that fat? So called MDs who has no clue about transformation
Bonus for Jane, Biscuit for John!
Citi has alot of fat to trim
The Bottom Line, stock price and profit.
Apply for a leadership position and make some changes - you got this.
Jane’s bonus\raise…..don’t forget Jane. It’s her reward for a job well done.
It appeases the shareholders.