DBS Owners say: FUCK YOU SINKIES

[SneeringTree]

Nov 18, 2008
PROFITS BEFORE STAFF
It makes the S'pore way seem irrelevant

I REFER to reports over DBS Bank's retrenchment of 900 staff, the first of which made front-page news ('DBS to cut 900 jobs', Nov 8).

Is it not a perverse system in which a company can reward its top few executives with multimillion-dollar pay packages (and, ironically, severance packages as well) but have no qualms about shedding hundreds of employees once profits dip?

I have always thought that retrenchment should be used as a last resort when a company remains unprofitable for a prolonged period.

Are not the years of sustained growth sufficient to buffer an occasional drop in profit?

The only explanation is that the majority shareholders insist on squeezing as much profit as possible from the company, even in these challenging times.

They owe no moral allegiance to the people or the workers but to money.

Who are these shareholders? They have literally poured scorn on our innovative tripartite government-worker-employer relationship, and on our call for a variable wage system and workers' willingness to make sacrifices always, such as working fewer hours, rather than lose their jobs.

If a drop in profit is an acceptable reason to retrench hundreds of workers, the world will be filled with jobless people.

Harvey Neo

 

[captainxerox]

Sinkies say, fuck me harder and deeper!

Let's put our money in maybank...wait, might get clobbered again.

 

[tonychat]

The only explanation is that the majority shareholders insist on squeezing as much profit as possible from the company, even in these challenging times.

They owe no moral allegiance to the people or the workers but to money.

Moral allegiance is not for sinkies.

 

[Leegimeremover]

Sinkies say, fuck me harder and deeper!

Let's put our money in maybank...wait, might get clobbered again.

Maybank only requires 200SD to waive 2SD maintenance fees. I am making preparations to close all my accounts with Singapore Banks.

 

[Leongsam]

I have always thought that retrenchment should be used as a last resort when a company remains unprofitable for a prolonged period.

"Retrenchment is good for Singapore. If there is no retrenchments, then I worry for Singapore." Goh Chok Tong

 

[papa san]

"Retrenchment is good for Singapore. If there is no retrenchments, then I worry for Singapore." Goh Chok Tong

It is indeed a sad day for Singapore that a senile minister of the ruling party has begun to talk rubbish. For someone who gets a salary of $3 mn per annum from our reserves we certainly do expect better stuff during these difficult and uncertain times.

Is Goh Chok Tong implying that "Singaporeans you die die is your own problem becoz I still have my job and pay. Therefore you take care of your own problems from now on ? ".

 

[Merl Haggard]

It is indeed a sad day for Singapore that a senile minister of the ruling party has begun to talk rubbish. For someone who gets a salary of $3 mn per annum from our reserves we certainly do expect better stuff during these difficult and uncertain times.

Is Goh Chok Tong implying that "Singaporeans you die die is your own problem becoz I still have my job and pay. Therefore you take care of your own problems from now on ? ".

Reserve where got marni left?

Citi - $8.89
Merrill - $11.78
UBS - 11.70
Barclays?
Standchart?

 

[KKC007]

I have always thought that retrenchment should be used as a last resort when a company remains unprofitable for a prolonged period.

What is this guy smoking?

 

[tomoko]

Who are these shareholders?

Is that Temasek? Nobody will buy DBS High 5 notes anymore so DBS is expected to shut down that business unit, this means the sales staff, RM for DBS High 5 have to go?

 

[2lanu]

Just cancel your account with them and go other bank...

 

[pweesng]

i think before this guy writes, he need to think.

"The only explanation is that the majority shareholders insist on squeezing as much profit as possible from the company, even in these challenging times."

ultimate owner of DBS is T. holding. Can Singaporean accept it if T Holding clock in some losses, without making any noise? That is the reason why DBS had to cut.

In any case, for what i heard and known, most of the people who got chopped are SVP and above. At least i think it is a case of cutting the top 20% for the beenfit of the bottom 80%.

This is also the reason why i think Mr Lim, aka, Mr NTUC was not consulted before the chop was made...

 

[SneeringTree]

In any case, for what i heard and known, most of the people who got chopped are SVP and above. At least i think it is a case of cutting the top 20% for the beenfit of the bottom 80%.

The fact of the matter is that is it right for a profitable company to have large scale retrenchment. If this is an excuse to cut deadwood, I wonder how long these deadwood have been in the company and why was there no attempt to remove them gradually over the years.

 

[borom]

If this is an excuse to cut deadwood, I wonder how long these deadwood have been in the company and why was there no attempt to remove them gradually over the years.

Good point.
I wonder how these so call "dead wood" got promoted to senior posts of SVP's/MD's ect2.

 

[Dan Now]

Makes you wonder what our Uniouns are for.

Lim Swee Say can howl in MOCK pretense to say that he was never consulted. What a joke, in that case, NTUC can always hit back by summoning DBS to some form of punitive actions.

At times of crisis, you will see the true cowardly wayang ways of the MIWs and our elites. I believe that all the settlements with DBS is probably settled over a golf session weeks before DBS dared made its move to retrench it workers.

The wayang show is put up for public entertainment.

Dan

 

[pweesng]

deadwood or not.. we really don't know. They could be from revenue generating "debt origination" team, and the bank no longer see a need to keep such a big team since debt mandates are expected to be extremely low in the coming year(s).

I heard some of them are newly promoted SVP or MDs, over the last 18 months.

In any case, these management people are not unionised, there is no need for Mr NTUC be be consulted. I guess when he made that statement, it was either he doesn't know the namelist and rank of the people retrenched, or he is geniunely speaking up for the minority group of unionised people that had been retrenched....

either way, this is not the time to laugh at anyone who loses their jobs. In times like these, we don't know who will be next.

 

[madmansg]

is just reinforce the point that singaporeans serve NS for nothing.

 

[peasantJUDGE]

Nov 18, 2008
PROFITS BEFORE STAFF
It makes the S'pore way seem irrelevant

I REFER to reports over DBS Bank's retrenchment of 900 staff, the first of which made front-page news ('DBS to cut 900 jobs', Nov 8).

Is it not a perverse system in which a company can reward its top few executives with multimillion-dollar pay packages (and, ironically, severance packages as well) but have no qualms about shedding hundreds of employees once profits dip?

I have always thought that retrenchment should be used as a last resort when a company remains unprofitable for a prolonged period.

Are not the years of sustained growth sufficient to buffer an occasional drop in profit?

The only explanation is that the majority shareholders insist on squeezing as much profit as possible from the company, even in these challenging times.

They owe no moral allegiance to the people or the workers but to money.

Who are these shareholders? They have literally poured scorn on our innovative tripartite government-worker-employer relationship, and on our call for a variable wage system and workers' willingness to make sacrifices always, such as working fewer hours, rather than lose their jobs.

If a drop in profit is an acceptable reason to retrench hundreds of workers, the world will be filled with jobless people.

Harvey Neo

LOL. Where have you been Harvey? You just got up? Good for you. Welcome back to reality. By the way, Harvey, thousands of Singaporeans are also shareholders of DBS.

 

[SneeringTree]

LOL. Where have you been Harvey? You just got up? Good for you. Welcome back to reality. By the way, Harvey, thousands of Singaporeans are also shareholders of DBS.

I think he meant majority shareholder, which I guess is Temasick. Actually, what's the point of these letters except to vent your frustrations???

 

[KKC007]

In any case, for what i heard and known, most of the people who got chopped are SVP and above.

900 was retrenched and you claim "most of the people who got chopped are SVP and above."

So there are more than 451 SVP and above in DBS?

 

[KKC007]

The fact of the matter is that is it right for a profitable company to have large scale retrenchment. If this is an excuse to cut deadwood, I wonder how long these deadwood have been in the company and why was there no attempt to remove them gradually over the years.

If they expect things to be bad, they have to cut cost. Companies are answerable to their shareholders. They cannot afford for things to turn bad before taking any actions.