While Chase will layoff hundreds, we also hire hundreds more in new opportunities and initiatives.
The layoffs are meant to pay for the new hires. As for the elimination of the jobs, it encourages managers to be more efficient with the hires at hand and offsets excessive overhiring. This is beneficial for the Chase in the long run.
On point post from @10YAFkDP-1ogg.
I hope you feel this way when it happens to you
To your credit I have to agree that managers are not very efficient when hiring people and this is because they are lacking management skills and fail to make good hires since they concern is to fill the positions ASAP because they might are competing for REC positions with other managers.
As far as the quality of the Executive Directors I think the vast majority are promoted due to favoritism and they lack the education/people experience/Technical experience. There is no meritocracy in JPM. GTI especially is a dog and pony show where 30% of the proposals actually make it to production. The rest is just Demon to MDs and above of things we "Could" do.
GTI needs restricting ASAP due to middle management incompleteness.
rather than complain or hide (like me), ideally we should form a union or at least require a employee bill of rights. If the Chase cares about employees like the CEO and other senior management always claim they do, we have the right to our representation and having tenure.
There is not a need for JPMorgan to lay-off employees. There is a desperate need for better leadership in the mortgage bank. For some id–tic reason, senior leaders who ran other major banks mortgage business into the ground (to the point they exited the mortgage servicing business entirely), were hired to lead Chase’s mortgage business. And guess what? The pattern is repeating itself. This company was once filled with top leadership talent that employees had pride and faith in. Now the pre-requisite to being a senior leader is to hire your friends that have failed miserably at other firms. It really is just astonishing, sad and pathetic. If you owned a business, would you hire people that wrecked other companies to lead yours?
Well, let me ask this: Do you think jpm tearing down 270 park and rebuilding over it would save money? The truth is jpm would rather spend billions building a monument for Jamie but not a few extra $k/yr for someone who had worked there for 20 years.
You are an employee. If you simply rationalize management decision, you haven't grown up.
Not only is the company sending jobs overseas, they are bringing in employees from other countries because they work for less and do what they are told. I was talking to a guy in the Chase Columbus, OH Polaris office. He told me he got a 3 year guaranteed contract to come here and work from India. I have been with the company a long time and I have no guarantees.
You can call that person a funny prick but it is true. People earn a salary and year after year they go up. Also there are some people that were hired on when the need for their position was at a great demand so as a result they got hired at a higher salary. So Chase can bring in new hires at a lower salary and save mega money. They have been doing this for years and I might say they are very good at it. If you take a job at Chase and think they care about you then you are WRONG. This is a business and they only care about their bottom dollar and their share holders. They will relocate people when there is a need to keep the talent and they are only closing a site. Even with that when there is a site change or closure how many of those people are willing to relocate? Yes this s—s for the employee but as they used to say "Chase What Matters" trust when they say that because you don't. Why do you think they are developing automated systems and shifting jobs offshore? To limit employees and save money bottom line.
Hah. You're a funny prick, aren't you?
JPMC could relocate people instead of layoffs. It saves the bank money and ruins people's careers. Quit your BS.