´óÏó´«Ã½

It is completely predictable that businesses, particularly those which profited most from the Bubble, will have to cut costs dramatically now the Bubble is burst.

Maybe Fred the Shred will make a comeback??

The key question is how many British tax payers jobs will be outsourced abroad to supposedly save money?

Why should ordinary workers in the Bank be held responsible for the errors of their masters, save money by clawing back all the bonuses paid out already...its not as if they can justify the comment that we need to pay it to keep the best people...where else can the go?

get fred the sheds pension back and save a thousand jobs

The bank grew exponentially over the past few years and I'm sure there is a degree of fat in the back office as the various parts of the disparate businesses are rationalised.

In any recession, in any business not just banking, if you don't either deal with customers or materially contribute in an area that is critical to the business your job is on the line. Thats just the way it is.

Everyone else is having to cut costs to survive. Aviva announced 1,100 staff and 700 contractors are to go in their UK life business last week and every day one company or another announces something similar. It's not just the banks.

The government has a difficult decision to make at RBS. The long term strategy is surely to re privatise the bank and get hopefully all or most of our money back as well as keep the business afloatas a viable business in the mean time.

For this a number of staff, business areas and branches will have to go. It's sad for those involved but they are not alone in being in this position.

A little reality check here (even though thats been said before...)

RBS made a loss of £24Bn last year. Without being bailed out by the government it would not exist at this point, have gone to the wall, and 100,000 or more staff would have been made redundant. (As an aside I wonder if Messrs Brown and Darling lie awake at night pondering if that might have saved them a whole load of bother... relativley speaking...)

There is a substansially smaller amount of business being done at the moment that requires fewer people. The unions need to get real and start helping thier members in other ways than wringing thier hands and demanding no job losses.

The individuals who do a good job day in, day out, are always caught up when cut backs come around. It's just the way it is.

The US based company I work for made a profit of £2.5Bn last year and cut backs in jobs are being made here. I don't see the people leaving here being offerred anything like the options ex-RBS staff are - and Im not talking about you know who...

#5 Ian_the_chopper

Have a look at on this.

The cuts are back office, and primarily relate to areas of the business that are being dumped. The core of RBS as a retail bank is quite sound, and there should be no reason to cut branches.

Come on, Douglas. Instead of quoting 4,500 job losses to us, express it as :
a percentage staff reduction.

How many normally retire or move employer per annum ?
How many are part-time posts ?
How many are temporary jobs ?
How many are agency staff ?

After THESE facts are available, then, and only then, will be see the real job losses for RBS. (There might not be any.)

Whatever the Government does, it must run RBS as a competitive bank, and not meddle because of politically undesirable job losses.

If they do not, banks such as the Clydesdale, that has not called on the bank for bail out funds, could justifiably sue Westminster for intervening unfairly in the market place.

It's just a pity local and national government couldn't be pared down in a similar fashion.

#9 kaybraes

"It's just a pity local and national government couldn't be pared down in a similar fashion."

They can be. Get rid of Westminster and its waste.

Speed up the debate on sharing resources between authorities/ emergency services etc.

We are burdened by a politically determined Tory, LA structure of 32 authorities for a population of 5 million. It's wholly unnecessary - especially as the LAs simply operate as the agencies of implementation for national policies on most of the expensive issues.

It's probably been said before, but wouldn't the ex-chief-execs pension cleared a fifth of that loss?

No - let's not be charitable to the much-maligned bank bosses.

It is absolutely critical that we keep on their backs and watch their every move in order to prevent the mess they have created being repeated.

Post 7 branches will go there can be no doubt about that.

I work in the centre of Birmingham and there are two RBS branches within 5 minutes walk of my office plus a major Corporate Centre opposite the Cathedral. In addition to this there are six Nat West Branches within a mile walk. Surely some will go.

I looked at the RBS website and put in the postcode EH1 and there are 19 branches within half a mile. In G1 it is 15.

Will they be joining the FRED'R brigade, aka Forgotten, Ripped Off Excluded & Debt Ridden. Probably not! can't see many of them living in any undesirable housing scheme....what goes around comes around!

Conundrum, what conundrum?

Jobs were lost when the bank was profitable, hence the "shred" part, although Fred didn`t start the process, George Matthewson did, then he recruited Goonwin to accelerate the process within NatWest.

Don`t recall politicians getting hot and bothered then so why worry now?

Come to think of it the unions are just as bad and still repeating the same platitudes they did then. Despite being an unpaid branch official for a good number of years when my job was "restructured" the paid union rep didn`t even return my calls.

On Philip Hamptons figures of £21k one job loss would only buy 20 rolls of Fred`s wallpaper. To misquote and old song you can be sure its the rich wot gets the pleasure and the poor wot gets the pain. Why would we expect this round of job cuts to be any different.