ANZ creates 500 new jobs … in India
Well, at least someone is happy. Staff at ANZ's Bangalore (India) IT Centre celebrate Xmas - and the arrival of another 500 Australian jobs.
While the ‘fat cats’ splurge up big
The news that Australian bank ANZ has ‘outsourced’ 500 IT jobs to India, AFTER sacking 800 Aussie staff, is compounded by the further news that ANZ executives recently “enjoyed a $500,000 luxury island holiday,” and that this corporate ‘love-in’ was attended by non other than ANZ’s chief executive Mike Smith, who earns a piddling $13 million a year:
Since announcing a $3.3 billion profit last year, the bank has retrenched 1000 staff in total — many from its head office in Melbourne.
Unions want the Rudd Government to withdraw taxpayer-funded support from banks that ship jobs overseas.
The Finance Sector Union said the big four banks have shifted 3800 jobs to India during the past three years.
“If anybody can afford to absorb more costs and keep people employed, it is Australian banks. They are highly profitable companies,” union secretary Leon Carter said.
Comment:
I would defy anyone to defend these pricks. Withdrawing Government support doesn’t go far enough and the only way to bring these companies into line is to bring in amendments to the Corporations Act and/or the Industrial Relations Act that would require all large companies to seek Ministerial approval before sacking and/or outsourcing precious Aussie jobs. It need only be a temporary measure to stabilise our jobs market and our economy.
In ANZ’s case surely they could have deferred this decision until our economy picks up next year or the one after. It’s not like they’re going broke but tell me, where will the 800 Aussies now get another job – in India, on half the wage?
Unless ANZ and others are forced not to, they’ll just keep doing this and add unnecessarily to our current economic woes. It’s just ironic – and disgraceful - that a bank that profits so handsomely from the Australian public at large would act so callously in the current economic climate. Maybe they should just sack the CEO and outsource his job to India at, say, $100,000 a year. Someone might be interested.
Promoting 'Beautiful Bright'.
Click 
Agreed.
The government could use the telecommunications act to force these companies to pay domestic international call rates. That would put an instant stop to offshore call centres and save Australian jobs. Subsidising the call centre call rates, the Australian public are charged exorbitant phone charges to protect Telstra’s profits
Whilst it wouldn’t help the Australian economy, they could also allow the Australian public to enjoy the same international call rates that the banking system and big business enjoys in their call centre operations.
That’s a good idea, Greg, but these jobs are in IT, not call centres. And the Aussies they’re laying off are going to find it tough to get another job. Who’s hiring IT people at the moment? Not even our wonderful Alpine council is doing that – although they’re expanding the empire in other directions.
There’s an idea – put the Alpine CEO in charge of ANZ and he’ll create jobs in Australia, not India. Of course he’d want a pay rise too; I think he ‘only’ gets about $150,000. But I reckon he’d do a better job than ANZ’s $13 million man – and then I could get Ian’s job!
Hi My Name is gowtham i had completed my diploma in mechanical engg in the year 20005-2008. i had only 4 months of experience in tool room ,presently working in TVS motor company, if you have job matching my profile please mail to my address
Sure, just apply to ANZ.
This sucks…IT companies here are laying off as well..some of the biggest names are now using the situation as an excuse to cut staff and save money by getting 1 person to do the work of 3…
Yes, Vijay, you might notice ANZ have layed off a lot more Aussie workers than the jobs they’ve outsourced to India. Somehow they’re cutting back on overall jobs & costs – but not at the top level. I bet Mr Martin won’t cut back on his $13 million package! And I bet they still make $3 billion plus in profit this year. Cheers.
Isn’t it lovely how corporations are giving development aid to our third world friends.
Why do we think we deserve all the jobs and they don’t?
We don’t deserve “ALL” the jobs ANZ has to offer but this was a real bastard of an act. I seriously doubt they were thinking of anything other than their own bottom-line profits (and exec salaries) when they decided to give Aussies the chop and ship their jobs to India – on lower wages and, as Vijay points out, doing more work.
I believe that all corporations work to make profits…everything else for them is secondary. If you see ANZ has helped 100s of people who were impacted by the Bush fires and other natural disasters in Australia. Where does the money come from? In order to provide for all these and to sustain the jobs of other Australians the bank needs to be profitable. And in these tough times the only way they identified to get there is by utilizing the talents readily available in India. I see nothing wrong about the Bank’s decision though I feel sorry about those who lost their job in Australia. To me thinking about job losses in ANZ AU and blaming the bank is like looking at only the negative side of the world. When few people lost their jobs thousands are saved.
Thanks for your comment, Pramod. I’m not sure where you’re from but your views seem very out of touch. I wonder if you fully understand the position. To start with ANZ is a massively profitable company and they have not shed these jobs in order to preserve other jobs in Australia. They’ve clearly done so to boost their already huge profits ($3.3 billion last year, as reported above). The savings will most likely go towards executive bonuses!
Of course we “blame the bank” for these job losses. They didn’t have to do it, should not have done it (in these tough times) and would be no worse off if they hadn’t done it.
Maybe they should sack the CEO instead – that would save them $13 million per year, which is equivalent to the wages of about 200 – 250 ordinary workers.
If a company is profitable, it means they are charging too much for their goods and services ie ripping us off. Simple.
Sheesh, I sound like a communist!
I think you mean, if they’re very, very profitable, Robyn. If a company is not profitable it ceases to exist. Competition is meant to keep prices down but in a sector like banking, well, we know they’re always finding new ways of ripping us off!
what is the boundary between OK profit and ripping off profit?
Hi Ray, I’m from India.
An organisation might be profitable but still choose to shed employees if the analysis performed by their experts show that the company is going to have tough times ahead and the strategy to tackle those tough times turn out to be making the organisation more lean.
We are in a capitalist economy and money and power that comes along with it cannot be expected to be equally shared. They will go with people who are really worth having them and who really worked hard for it and capable. So even if the assumtion “The savings will most likely go towards executive bonuses” is true, there is nothing wrong with it.
In india software professionals are very highly paid. On the otherside we have enormous amount of people who don’t have a constant income or who are under poverty line. But we don’t ask software professionals to reduce their income and share it with poverty striken people. Because it works on demand-supply model. Software professionals are high in demand and low in supply so companies need to pay high to strike an emplyment deal. I think a similar rule works with ANZ CEO where whoever employed him thinks he’s worth 13 million a month and anything less would see him going for a better deal which is not acceptable for people who own ANZ comapany.
Sorry i meant 13 million a year
Chuntha you don’t sound like a very nice person but a nasty piece of work elitist money grabbing creature.
I hope you experience hard times to get your head out of your ass.
Sharing and caring makes the world go around you greedy bastard.
Thanks Chunthu but I think you’re being far too lenient on ANZ.
They’re not “going to have tough times ahead” and their profits are likely to be even higher than the $3.3 billion they made last year seeing as though they wrote off their bad debts in the US subprime disaster in LAST YEAR’s result.
Your view that there is “nothing wrong” with execs getting higher salaries & bonuses at the expense of lower paid workers is not shared over here.
As for the CEO, he is “employed” by the board and shareholders. The board doesn’t mind him getting that obscene salary because he looks after them too. And the main shareholders are other large institutions whose moral compasses are equally skewed.
He’s not “worth” $13 million per year and our Government is, at long last, thankfully looking at reining in such disgusting and barely legal practices.
Sorry if I sounded lenient on ANZ. I was only trying to express my views. In any organisation (from 10 people company Ekomate Systems to 100 000 people company Infosys) as you grow up the corporate ladder, you earn more money and bonuses and all other benefits (car, shares, club memborships, first class travel and number of others). But we cant say that higher paid worker gets his salary at the expense of lower paid worker because i think that the salary is determined by the value and potential of the worker as “perceived” by whoever employs him. Please note that the perception of the employer is what determines the salary and not anyone else because as onlookers we just cannot understand the value of the worker as we dont know the complexity of the work he does and benefit he brings in to the organisation.
I’m not advocating agaist sharing and caring. The more money an executive earns, more power he has in terms of where to spend that money. And thats the only thing he gets – the pwer to decide where to spend. “Spending” is inevitable. Whatever he does with that money, he cant sustain it unless he spends it wisely. And wise spending will mean giving back to the society in the form of charity, starting a organisation, investing in other organisations and a variety of other things. Even if, in the worst case scenario, the highest paid individual keeps all his money in a bank it is good for that organisation(bank). So the highly-paid individual only acts as a channel for the money flow as ultimately the money is given back to the society in the form of taxes and other means. Whatever he does with the money it only stimulates the economy benefitting people at all levels in the society.
Same is true with an organisation.
He IS getting that salary at the expense of lower paid workers – by sacking them. ANZ have laid off 1,000s of Australian workers and ‘outsourced’ their jobs overseas in recent years, all to increase profit & share price and, thereby, the CEO’s and other execs’ salaries, which are tied to those two indicators.
And I think $13 million spread among more people would result in more money flowing into the economy than it does by giving it all to the CEO to spend in Monaco, Paris, New York, Vegas, etc etc etc.
But you’re right, he also invests it … in buying a $10 million mansion in somewhere like Toorak – from another CEO of another company! Might help the real estate agent & the solicitor handling the sale though. Oh, he probably buys some artwork … from overseas. Charming, benevolent fellow he is.
Sorry, Pramod, you’re just making excuses for corporate excesses.
Hi Ray, you are making a number of asumptions here which need not be true:
1) CEO gets 13 million by sacking Australian workers.
2) He invests in 10 million mansion
3) He invests in Art
I dont think we can come to any conclusion here based on these…
No 1 is certainly correct, Pramod. The CEO’s salary is directly tied to profit & share price and it is fully documented how ANZ have increased profits by sacking workers and outsourcing their jobs.
As for 2 & 3 – they are not so much assumptions as they are known truths from various newspapers and other reports on the sickening excesses of a certain few.
Your assumption, on the other hand, that CEOs on obscene salary packages use their money to benefit society is a totally unsupported one – and plain absurd. Obviously if the wealth of ANZ is spread more evenly among its employees and they retain jobs, it carries far greater benefits for the economy.
I was recently the recipient of an ANZ offer, which I have politely declined. In my discussions I found that there was a distinct lack of strategy and at times an arrogance that does not match their stature within banking.
They talk of being global. I am sorry. It was hard to laugh. This is a small, debt laden bank which cannot even get its strategy right at a domestic level within New Zealand.
I think it is a case of watch this space, they are overinvesting without a clear direction, pinning their hopes on a piece of broken down RBS.
Global no, leading no, ethical well from my reading, absolutely not.
But ‘LOE’, they’re very profitable so it looks like they’ll keep going in spite of themselves. I still think the CEO’s job should be outsourced to India too. At about $50,000 per year – big bucks over there!
get your facts right ray……….$50,000/year ain’t big bucks in india for a ceo….nd definely not for a bank ceo….
I wouldn’t think so either, Sidmed. What’s an average wage for a CEO over there?
It’s the same in the public service Ray.
Many of the service jobs are being outsourced or set up through ‘help desk’ call centres ready for outsourcing. Not all outsourcing is overseas, many full time well paid jobs are being outsourced to companies that pay their employees much less than the old ‘staff’ used to get, the largest of these companies are not Australian but have an Australian arm. Like this one:
http://www.spotless.com/au/About-Us/About-Us.htm
This keeps the jobs in Australia (for now) but managers use it the same way to reduce costs and make their jobs easier.
I have yet to see a manager lose his job when all his workers were outsourced.
The beauty of this if your a manager is you no longer have to deal with managing people, providing support, sick leave and training, all that is looked after by the contractor, all you have to do is make sure the contractor meets his KPI’s (key performance indicators).
When this outsourcing is done it is usual to ‘streamline’ the tasks you ask the contractor to do (read – provide an inferior service) to keep the contract price down.
So the outcome of outsourcing (I’ve seen it a number of times in my career) is lower paid, lower skilled workers providing a lower standard of service, while the managers get paid more for doing less, plus some bonuses for the contractor meeting the KPI’s.
You can see why current managers hate staff and much prefer contractors that keep smelly workers at arms length. This fits nicely with the demands we all get for more productivity and greater efficiency. A manager can, in the main, only make things more productive by reducing costs, as most workers in the PS are maxed out already.
Still, everyone wants to be a manager and no-one wants to do real work anymore, so we have so many lazy managers and way too many over worked workers. Nursing is a good example of this.
Bring on the Revolution!