DBS Owners say: FUCK YOU SINKIES

[SneeringTree]

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.

So are they really deadwood or is DBS anticipating prolonged period of non-profitability?

If it's the first, they should not have been in the company in the first place. And having so many deadwood to get rid of speaks volume of the kind of company it is.

If it's the second, I still think they are using the axe way too soon. DBS has literally been profitably from day one. Sometimes, it has been obscenely profitable.

Easy for them to cut the 900 workers- whether they are deadwood or not is not the point.

 

[shOUTloud]

but seriously, what do they expect when they hire an American as a CEO? This is their culture. He is not local so he will not feel for the local workforce. He is here to maximise DBS profits so that he can enhance his pay package. Does anyone expect him to perform otherwise?

 

[KKC007]

So are they really deadwood or is DBS anticipating prolonged period of non-profitability?

If it's the first, they should not have been in the company in the first place. And having so many deadwood to get rid of speaks volume of the kind of company it is.

If it's the second, I still think they are using the axe way too soon. DBS has literally been profitably from day one. Sometimes, it has been obscenely profitable.

Easy for them to cut the 900 workers- whether they are deadwood or not is not the point.

A CEO is only as good as its company's last financial report. At least his/her remuneration is. I am in no position to say if the axe is too soon.

 

[SneeringTree]

A CEO is only as good as its company's last financial report. At least his/her remuneration is. I am in no position to say if the axe is too soon.

So maybe this is to improve the short term bottom line of DBS and the annual performance indicators of the CEO. For all we know, he will be leaving in a year or two's time, but the damage done to the name of DBS in the way they handled this will take years to heal.

In other words, what I am saying is that the short term benefits/goals of the CEO and the senior executives are not necessary the same as the long term goal/benefit of rank and file workers and the bank as a whole.

 

[KKC007]

So maybe this is to improve the short term bottom line of DBS and the annual performance indicators of the CEO. For all we know, he will be leaving in a year or two's time, but the damage done to the name of DBS in the way they handled this will take years to heal.

In other words, what I am saying is that the short term benefits/goals of the CEO and the senior executives are not necessary the same as the long term goal/benefit of rank and file workers and the bank as a whole.

What I've been saying applies to publicly listed companies. Of course, DBS is not any ordinary public listed company. As the unofficial people's bank of Singapore, it should have delayed retrenchment till as late as possible.

 

[SneeringTree]

What I've been saying applies to publicly listed companies. Of course, DBS is not any ordinary public listed company. As the unofficial people's bank of Singapore, it should have delayed retrenchment till as late as possible.

I don't disagree.

 

[downgrader]

dbs management should be hauled in for questioning

retrench only 900??

times are bad, how to survive if they don't retrench at least 3,000 and cut the pay of the rest by 33%

this kind of management don't dare to take tough measures

only can sell stupid products to stupid people

 

[SneeringTree]

DBS, like the rest of SIngapore, is not accountable to anyone.