Having worked years ago for Bank of America, the headline in today’s paper that they had plans to let 30,000 employees go, to say the least, caught my eye. I believe the article reported this number to be around 10% of their total workforce, but from any angle you look at this news it is astounding to me that this place will be able to run with 30,000 fewer people.
My mind starts to race around how this can work. Do they really have 30,000 people so under performing that they will not be missed? Will the remaining employees be able to pick up the slack, or will they land up burning out in a few months?
I realize that some of this number is made up of people who would have retired, or been terminated for cause, or resigned for a better job. Yet, under normal circumstances each of those openings would have yielded a new hire. Someone that needs training, and will bring fresh ideas to the table. But this is not a matter of swapping out one body for another, as their plan is to keep on operating with 30,000 fewer bodies.
I work with primarily small to mid-sized organizations, and I can tell you first hand that there is a lot of unproductive employees scattered around taking up space and salaries from people who would like a job. It makes me wonder if Bank of America has realized the same pattern, and that losing 30,000 people will mostly save them salary and benefits. Maybe these individuals were not really pulling their weight, and their loss will not have much of an impact on other employees and client services.
Losing 30,000 employees should be a tragedy for all involved. Yet when a company is faced with stock values and profits falling like they are at Bank of America, you have to wonder if this won’t be a good thing in the long run for the bank. For those losing their jobs, the unemployment line is a long one!