Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 61 to 70 of 70

Thread: Citibank to lay off 50,000 workers.......

  1. #61
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,774
    Post Thanks / Like
    Nuu - Thos that don't understand how things work? you must have either worked on the Citi deal Or can't get passed what's written in a textbook. Otherwise you'd see how it's perceived. Seriously, step out on the sidewalk and ask.

    Your name on the side of a stadium does nothing for the large institutional customer. So who are they looking to? The retail consumer. Those same folks that have a pretty negative view on the co regarding this. And what does Citifield have to do with SmithBarney? You wouldn't know.

    Layoffs - Yes this is a time where all of wall street is laying off but to this scale. Plain and simple it looks pretty bad when you have the biggest bank (in terms of employees not market value or deposits btw) is spending cash on name branding when their stock has lost 70%. It looks bad to the common man and to the shareholders. The most recent layoff announcement comes 8-9 months too late to prop up the shareprice. This should have been done when they changed the guard. It acknowledges failed leadership and wreaks of desperation to the street.

  2. #62
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jman21;2870578]Nuu - Thos that don't understand how things work? you must have either worked on the Citi deal Or can't get passed what's written in a textbook. Otherwise you'd see how it's perceived. Seriously, step out on the sidewalk and ask.

    Your name on the side of a stadium does nothing for the large institutional customer. So who are they looking to? The retail consumer. Those same folks that have a pretty negative view on the co regarding this. And what does Citifield have to do with SmithBarney? You wouldn't know.

    Layoffs - Yes this is a time where all of wall street is laying off but to this scale. Plain and simple it looks pretty bad when you have the biggest bank (in terms of employees not market value or deposits btw) is spending cash on name branding when their stock has lost 70%. It looks bad to the common man and to the shareholders. The most recent layoff announcement comes 8-9 months too late to prop up the shareprice. This should have been done when they changed the guard. It acknowledges failed leadership and wreaks of desperation to the street.[/QUOTE]

    I see how it's perceived, as I noted in a previous post. I'm simply noting that those perceptions are fueled by misinformation. Not a single person was laid off because they bought naming rights or television commercials or magazine ads.

    And, btw, the bulk of their consumer ad dollars are spent boosting their credit-card business, which is aimed at consumers (who may, in fact, watch baseball).

    As far as the timing of the layoffs and whether it should have been sooner, it's completely irrelevant to this thread.

  3. #63
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,774
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2870619]I see how it's perceived, as I noted in a previous post. I'm simply noting that those perceptions are fueled by misinformation. Not a single person was laid off because they bought naming rights or television commercials or magazine ads.

    And, btw, the bulk of their consumer ad dollars are spent boosting their credit-card business, which is aimed at consumers (who may, in fact, watch baseball).

    As far as the timing of the layoffs and whether it should have been sooner, it's completely irrelevant to this thread.[/QUOTE] Yes Yes you've stated the misperception. But you cannot mistake that the perception is there among the retail base (which included your credit card folks btw) So indirectly yes layoffs are a result of the bloated naming rights deal. Why? In a very public way it highlights the bad decisions and mismanagement. The timing of the layoffs is very relevant. Pandit was handed a car with three flat tires and decided to ride around in it before fixing it. It was and still is fixable. It's just there is a lot more damage to fix.


    I'm done on this. Thanks for playing

  4. #64
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jman21;2870687]Yes Yes you've stated the misperception. But you cannot mistake that the perception is there among the retail base (which included your credit card folks btw) So indirectly yes layoffs are a result of the bloated naming rights deal. Why? In a very public way it highlights the bad decisions and mismanagement. The timing of the layoffs is very relevant. Pandit was handed a car with three flat tires and decided to ride around in it before fixing it. It was and still is fixable. It's just there is a lot more damage to fix.


    I'm done on this. Thanks for playing[/QUOTE]

    Layoffs are a result of a naming-rights deal? I'm sorry, but there's not a fraction of truth in that statement.

    Are you saying the company is laying people off because it anticipates a lack of future public goodwill because it bought naming rights?

  5. #65
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2870766]Layoffs are a result of a naming-rights deal? I'm sorry, but there's not a fraction of truth in that statement.

    Are you saying the company is laying people off because it anticipates a lack of future public goodwill because it bought naming rights?[/QUOTE]

    Why so shocked? Your political allies here say all the time that layoffs (and worse) are due to "CEO Salaries", right?

    Since when did being accurate matter when the topic was "how to hate Corporate America"?:rolleyes:

  6. #66
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,364
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2870820]Why so shocked? Your political allies here say all the time that layoffs (and worse) are due to "unions and low level workers", right?

    Since when did being accurate matter when the topic was "how to hate Working Class America"?:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    ;)

  7. #67
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,774
    Post Thanks / Like
    At this rate that sign might not be there when the ballpark opens:eek:

  8. #68
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Durham, CA
    Posts
    8,402
    Post Thanks / Like
    Didnt see this posted, but found it comical....
    I love howw they need to be called out @ this, before addressing it.:rolleyes:




    msnbc.com news services
    updated 14 minutes ago
    DETROIT - General Motors Corp will return two of its leased corporate jets amid intense criticism in Washington this week on the luxury travel arrangements of its chief executive even as the company pleads for federal aid.

    CEO Rick Wagoner was in the capital to testify on the company’s dire financial situation but his testimony was overshadowed by irate lawmakers who blasted him for flying on a private jet to ask for public funds and failing to make personal sacrifices in exchange for federal assistance.

    Chief executives from Ford Motor Co, and Chrysler LLC, who were also there to plead for $25 billion in federal aid, came under fire too for flying to Washington in private jets.


    GM spokesman Tom Wilkinson said on Friday GM decided to return the aircraft because of a “really aggressive cutback in travel.”

    The company, which is in a cost-cutting mode, is scrutinizing every trip, he said, but declined to disclose the name of the company it leases the airplanes from.

    GM leases its planes rather than owning them, according to Wilkinson. The automaker once had seven planes and eliminated two planes in December, and will cut two more soon. Wilkinson said also the decision to return the leased corporate jets was made before this week’s hearings and the company has also cut about half of the staff of its corporate aviation program.

    “There is a perception issue,” Wilkinson said of Wagoner’s travel to Washington on a private jet. “We need to be very sensitive to that going forward.”

    He, however, said the company has not decided on what mode of transportation Wagoner would take if had to travel to Washington again. While it might have looked bad to fly private jets to Washington to ask for loans to save the business, flying commercial had risks, too, Wilkinson added.

    "It's not something where you'd want to stand in line on a commercial flight and risk having your flight canceled," he said. "Pretty high stakes when you're testifying in front of the House and Senate like that."

    Wagoner and Ford CEO Alan Mulally are required by their companies to fly by private aircraft for security reasons, according to company documents filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

    The policy for Chrysler CEO Robert Nardelli is not required to be disclosed because the company is not publicly traded.

    Skeptical lawmakers took to task the three CEOs for their luxurious travel arrangements at congressional committee hearings.

    “Couldn’t you have downgraded to first class or something, or jet-pooled or something to get here?” Rep. Gary Ackerman, a New York Democrat, asked the executives at a hearing held by the U.S. House Financial Services Committee.

    Even Democrats who said they were sympathetic to the automakers’ plight expressed frustration that the executives used private jets while professing ruthless cost-cutting measures.

    A Chrysler spokesman said the automaker also leases or charters jets. He, however, declined to comment on whether the company was rethinking the use of private jets for executive travel, saying it was a “private matter.”

    Ford did not have an immediate comment on its corporate jet policy.

  9. #69
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE]Skeptical lawmakers took to task the three CEOs for their luxurious travel arrangements at congressional committee hearings.

    “Couldn’t you have downgraded to first class or something, or jet-pooled or something to get here?” Rep. Gary Ackerman, a New York Democrat, asked the executives at a hearing held by the U.S. House Financial Services Committee.[/QUOTE]

    I've heard some great stories about Ackerman from a local who worked for him, about the ritzy rooftop parties he used to throw down here in DC where he not only has his favorite NY foods flown down special, but flies the staff of his favorite Deli down as well, amog other things.

    And they didn't fly commercial. And from what I hear, Ackerman didn't pay for these parties himself either, they were "fundraisers" where no actual funds were raised.

    "Do what we say, not as we do" - the definition of Modern U.S. Government.

  10. #70
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,774
    Post Thanks / Like
    So let's recap. They are laying off 50K, taking 25b from the Govt to stay afloat, Keeping the sign in Flushing AND shipping jobs out of the the state and country in favor of India in 2009. Did I get everything?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us