Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sancho Panza

Rbs To Slash 20,000 Jobs

Recommended Posts

Telegraph 20/2/14

'Royal Bank of Scotland will next week announce a massive round of new job cuts that will take its staff numbers to their lowest level in more than a decade as the lender sets out how it will bolster its capital and return to profit. As much as a fifth of RBS’s staff could face redundancy as part of a new round of costs cuts that would see more than 20,000 of the bank’s 120,000 workforce lose their jobs in the coming years.

The announcement next Thursday is expected as part of chief executive Ross McEwan’s turnaround plan for the lender, as he faces pressure from the City to set out how he will get the business back into the black amid an expected loss last year of close to £8bn.

On top of the large-scale job cuts, Mr McEwan could announce RBS’s exit from its Connecticut-based US investment banking business, as well the shutdown of large parts of its remaining Asian investment bank.

The job losses and business closures will likely see RBS staff numbers, which stood at 161,000 at the time of its £46bn bailout in 2008, fall to below 100,000 for the first time since the bank’s 2000 takeover of larger rival NatWest.

Mr McEwan has been developing his plans for several months, but due to their sensitivity, even many senior managers have been kept in the dark about what he will announce.

However, sources with knowledge of the work said Project Cook, the internal codename for the plans, would see RBS cut tens of thousands of staff.

RBS has also faced pressure to explain how it will improve its core capital ratio. In an unscheduled market announcement last month the bank said its core Tier 1 capital ratio under the incoming Basel III rules could be as low as 8.1pc as of the end of last year.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IT... meaning I think I know what I'm doing with all this Technology...

Their world is akin to the film adaptation of Nolan's 'Logan's Run'.

By the time you're 30, you're finished.

Nobody is hiring old IT folk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Telegraph 20/2/14

'Royal Bank of Scotland will next week announce a massive round of new job cuts that will take its staff numbers to their lowest level in more than a decade as the lender sets out how it will bolster its capital and return to profit. As much as a fifth of RBS's staff could face redundancy as part of a new round of costs cuts that would see more than 20,000 of the bank's 120,000 workforce lose their jobs in the coming years.

The announcement next Thursday is expected as part of chief executive Ross McEwan's turnaround plan for the lender, as he faces pressure from the City to set out how he will get the business back into the black amid an expected loss last year of close to £8bn.

On top of the large-scale job cuts, Mr McEwan could announce RBS's exit from its Connecticut-based US investment banking business, as well the shutdown of large parts of its remaining Asian investment bank.

The job losses and business closures will likely see RBS staff numbers, which stood at 161,000 at the time of its £46bn bailout in 2008, fall to below 100,000 for the first time since the bank's 2000 takeover of larger rival NatWest.

Mr McEwan has been developing his plans for several months, but due to their sensitivity, even many senior managers have been kept in the dark about what he will announce.

However, sources with knowledge of the work said Project Cook, the internal codename for the plans, would see RBS cut tens of thousands of staff.

RBS has also faced pressure to explain how it will improve its core capital ratio. In an unscheduled market announcement last month the bank said its core Tier 1 capital ratio under the incoming Basel III rules could be as low as 8.1pc as of the end of last year.'

How much of this will affect Edinburgh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmmm....

I've dealt with their corporate side for about 8 years and in that time they have got significantly worse at sorting things out because the client relation managers (or whatever they're called) have been given significantly more clients to deal with and are now under a vast amount of pressure, you can see the health effects when you meet them.

I don't expect a rush of sympathy for them but their job has gone from a reasonable well-paid number to a stress-filled nightmare; I quite fancied it myself at one stage but wouldn't touch it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do they need 160,000 people to push paper? It's ridiculous. Cryptocurrencies and equity crowdfunding can't come soon enough.

They dont need any staff at all...or customers...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmmm....

I've dealt with their corporate side for about 8 years and in that time they have got significantly worse at sorting things out because the client relation managers (or whatever they're called) have been given significantly more clients to deal with and are now under a vast amount of pressure, you can see the health effects when you meet them.

I don't expect a rush of sympathy for them but their job has gone from a reasonable well-paid number to a stress-filled nightmare; I quite fancied it myself at one stage but wouldn't touch it now.

RBS Business services are now immeasurably poorer.

If I though any of the others were any better I might change.

The argument (or so I was led to believe) was that the banks are vital to the economy and to ensure the wheels of business continue to turn. Hence they are worth bailing out, at huge cost to everyone.

The reality is that the services for business have decreased dramtically, to be replaced no doubt with computer says no style mortgage advisors.

How the hell are small businesses going to help pull this country out of the mess it is in if they can't get remotely adequate banking services ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the investment bank people can always move for better elsewhere....that is why they are paid so well, so in that case for them redundancy and a new and better paying job would be a good thing? wouldn't it? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think of all the jobs he created....that has to be worth something. ;)

He wasn't called 'Fred the Shred' for nothing.

New guy needs a similar moniker though

"Ross the ****" ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RBS Business services are now immeasurably poorer.

If I though any of the others were any better I might change.

The argument (or so I was led to believe) was that the banks are vital to the economy and to ensure the wheels of business continue to turn. Hence they are worth bailing out, at huge cost to everyone.

The reality is that the services for business have decreased dramtically, to be replaced no doubt with computer says no style mortgage advisors.

How the hell are small businesses going to help pull this country out of the mess it is in if they can't get remotely adequate banking services ?

Save profits, get 8% interest on savings.

Outcompete the zombies using borrowed money.

All we need is higher interest rates....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Public sector job cuts are always hard,

Our local council has put 90 workers on the AT RISK list...I asked what this was, and these 90 posts are identified as surplus...cant make them redundant though, the 90 MAY get an interview to apply for other posts, or in the case of the 7 managers, the opportunity to take a downgrade.

In fact, the 90 should just go...they know the jobs are not there, yet they are only on notice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our local council has put 90 workers on the AT RISK list...I asked what this was, and these 90 posts are identified as surplus...cant make them redundant though, the 90 MAY get an interview to apply for other posts, or in the case of the 7 managers, the opportunity to take a downgrade.

In fact, the 90 should just go...they know the jobs are not there, yet they are only on notice.

I worked at a council that did similar, though smaller numbers involved, the reason then (I don't know if it applies in your example) was:

They wanted to change the structure.

They knew who they wanted for each new post.

They knew who they wanted to get rid of.

This was all going to happen anyway.

So they included everybody in the roles affected into the at risk (or whatever it was) category, and went through a series of consultations for the new structure, which came through "surprisingly" unchanged from the first one issued.

Then they had a process of intervieiwng for the new posts (farce) then they told people who had new jobs and who was out the door.

This was about IIRC 20 people and they actually gave the push to about five, some of whom were indeed useless but no more than the people they kept. Faces fitting and all that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I worked at a council that did similar, though smaller numbers involved, the reason then (I don't know if it applies in your example) was:

They wanted to change the structure.

They knew who they wanted for each new post.

They knew who they wanted to get rid of.

This was all going to happen anyway.

So they included everybody in the roles affected into the at risk (or whatever it was) category, and went through a series of consultations for the new structure, which came through "surprisingly" unchanged from the first one issued.

Then they had a process of intervieiwng for the new posts (farce) then they told people who had new jobs and who was out the door.

This was about IIRC 20 people and they actually gave the push to about five, some of whom were indeed useless but no more than the people they kept. Faces fitting and all that.

why cant someone just take charge?

course, the whole structure managing the change were vital.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   204 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.