Stop ANZ National’s race to the bottom

37 comments on “Stop ANZ National’s race to the bottom ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Ted 1

   8 May 2008 at 6:35 pm

   Perhaps I’m wrong but didn’t ANZ National say they would find new jobs for all of the displaced workers?
2. Tane 2

   8 May 2008 at 6:38 pm

   Yes, they have said that (whether they follow through is another story – the experience in Australia was that they didn’t).

   The point is these are good jobs leaving the economy because ANZ National would rather pay its workers less. I don’t think that’s on.
3. Wayne 3

   8 May 2008 at 6:40 pm

   These foreign-owned banks are parasites. They extract millions of dollars from our economy every year and give nothing in return. I work for one of them but there’s no way I’d ever give them my custom.
4. Billy 4

   8 May 2008 at 6:46 pm

   Tane, to be consistent, shouldn’t you accuse Wayne of xenophobia:

   http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=1867#comments
5. Tane 5

   8 May 2008 at 6:49 pm

   I don’t think it’s xenophobic to oppose foreign-owned companies exporting profits overseas and out of the New Zealand economy. You’re confusing me with the Herald again Billy.
6. Santi 6

   8 May 2008 at 6:49 pm

   “The point is these are good jobs leaving the economy because ANZ National would rather pay its workers less. I don’t think that’s on.”

   Who cares about what you think is on, Tane.

   The market reality dictates the play, so ANZ is free to hire its workforce wherever is more convenient and effective.

   Wayne: the bank provides a service. Nobody is forcing you to take it (you’ve chosen not to). Nobody is forcing to work for ANZ either. Be consequent with your ideals and find another job.
7. Ted 7

   8 May 2008 at 6:50 pm

   I think the move is largely understandable if ANZ do follow through. Given the tight labour market, ANZ essentially have said that they would rather upskill existing staff and then send lower paying, less skilled work overseas while maintaining employment levels and shifting workers in to high skilled jobs.

   I’d rather see Finsec work constructively with ANZ National to hold them to that promise rather than breathlessly call for a boycott.
8. Billy 8

   8 May 2008 at 6:54 pm

   “You’re confusing me with the Herald again Billy.”

   Sorry, I’m always doing that. But, in fairness, you’ve got to stop forcing yourself through my letterbox at 6:30 every morning.
9. Tane 9

   8 May 2008 at 6:58 pm

   Who cares about what you think is on, Tane.

   Obviously you do Santi if you’re reading my blog and taking the effort to respond to me.

   The market reality dictates the play, so ANZ is free to hire its workforce wherever is more convenient and effective.

   That’s what I said in my post – it’s global capitalism at work. Finsec and the wider public are also entitled to oppose that decision – to send a market signal if you will.

   Ted:

   ANZ have said they’ll find jobs for workers who are laid off. I don’t believe ANZ has made a commitment to maintain current employment levels. What makes you think they’re going to put any extra effort into upskilling their remaining staff?

   Also, the work these people are doing isn’t particularly unskilled, it’s just ANZ can get others cheaper in India and without a lot of the pesky rights and entitlements NZ workers get.

   I’d rather see Finsec work constructively with ANZ National to hold them to that promise rather than breathlessly call for a boycott.

   Finsec aren’t calling for a boycott. I’m simply suggesting people who oppose ANZ’s behaviour should consider whether their money is better off in a publicly owned institution like Kiwibank.
10. Ted 10

    8 May 2008 at 7:09 pm

    A mistake on my part. I was clearly wrong when I said Finsec was calling for a boycott.

    “As many as 500 ANZ National staff are in for some retraining as the banking giant shifts back office work currently done in New Zealand to Bangalore in India.
    …
    “None of our staff need to lose their jobs,” he [Graham Hodges ANZ chief exec] said.

    Work was moving to India but the bank was confident it could redeploy workers to alternative roles.

    “It is very hard to get skilled workers. We are choosing to use our workers, who we want to retain, in a different type of work which is more sustainable longer term.

    “That fits with a what you call a higher wage, higher skill economy,” he said.”

    You can deride that as spin but I think if ANZ can be held to account on their plans to retrain staff and put them in to positions that fit with developing a higher wage, higher skill economy then the outcome is a good one.
11. ANZ Worker 11

    8 May 2008 at 7:15 pm

    A few points:

    – Some of these jobs being offshored are well paid (on an internal scale for the bank). The jobs people will transfer to aren’t – so staff will find they are at the top of the pay scale for their new jobs. They will therefore never get another pay rise unless the entire pay scale is renegotiated for their new role.

    – People might find they are moved to areas they don’t want to be in (The call centres are staying here, but not everyone wants to work there and be stuck with sales targets, call monitoring etc etc). I think they will be able to take redundancy but this remains to be seen how this ends up.

    – The average employee in Bangalore gets 50% of NZ pay rates.

    – Finsec have taken a constructive approach – asking for employees to be guaranteed their new jobs for three years, no further offshoring, and for the RBNZ to look closely at the move – there were conditions of ANZ buying NB and that included locating all core functions in NZ. I’m not entirely sure how this doesn’t contradict that part of the merger deal.

    – There has been no reference of upskilling current workers, only sending routine (non-customer facing, this means call centres stay in NZ) work to India.

    – ANZ-National made a profit of ovr $1bn in the last financial year but have some big spending plans and don’t want to reduce that profit.
12. Tane 12

    8 May 2008 at 7:17 pm

    I guess I’m a little more critical of company spin Ted, but I do hope ANZ treats their remaining workers fairly. I’m sure Finsec will be watching closely.

    Of course, none of this means ANZ National is right to cut decent jobs and send them to a low wage country and I suspect a lot of Kiwis feel the same way.
13. ANZ Worker 13

    8 May 2008 at 7:20 pm

    Ted – just saw your latest comment. People will be taken out of skilled processing and investigation work, and put in call centres.

    They want to grow customer-facing roles by quite a percentage which is good(iss) for customers (isn’t banking moving towards self-service?), but not good for staff in those roles. Whether the offshoring is bad for customers depends on how well the jobs sent overseas can be performed and integrated with work done in NZ. It will be very difficult to provide the same level of service, and even more unlikely to improve that service (with an exception – this gives the bank more flexibility with more hours a day to do work).
14. Supplier 14

    8 May 2008 at 8:21 pm

    As someone who used to work for a supplier of the ANZ National brand I know what they pay for some of their stuff…. take for example a simple wayfinder… two pieces of custom wood/mdf and a metal support pole… cost to supplier about NZ$65 landed… cost to ANZ around $250-300… if I was banking with them I would want to know what kind of checks had been put in place to ensure HUGE wastages of money like those outlined above didn’t continue to happen… lucky I don’t bank with them!
15. barnsleybill 15

    8 May 2008 at 9:40 pm

    rather than whining about the inevitable perhaps a look at the cause of this event would be more appropriate.
    Since labour came to power things have become more expensive and complex for all employers.
    Extra annual leave
    Maternity pay
    Kiwisaver (the paperwork around this is a complete clusterfuck and that is without mentioning the extra costs for employers.
    IRD has doubled it’s staff roster and rather than making things easier for it’s customers they continually invent new forms.
    Mismanagement of the economy has rooted our dollar and delivered the highest interests rates in the developed world.
    sweetheart deals for an aussie transport company which will significantly disadvantage all other trucking companies.

    Those examples are just off the top of my head but you get the picture.
    The problem is Tane that following Michael Cullens mantra of EAT THE RICH only works until there are none left to eat.
16. barnsleybill 16

    8 May 2008 at 9:41 pm

    Why is moderation switched on?

    [it’s blocking swear words. I’m sure you can express yourself without them. SP]
17. Steve Pierson 17

    8 May 2008 at 9:44 pm

    So we should race to the bottom, eh barnsley?

    Cut our workers’ rights to match those in the third world, or go lower and force other coutnries to follow us.

    The rich in NZ are richer than ever. Everyone is – real average incomes have grown by 15% since 1999. Plus we have all those improved work conditions you just said you want us to get rid of.
18. barnsleybill 18

    8 May 2008 at 9:53 pm

    Well , maybe we should just nationalise everything, all wear little grey uniforms and call ourselves New Korea.
    The point that all of you always miss is while you are prattling on about workers rights none of are acknowledging the rights of employers.
    The plain and simple truth is that you have all made it too easy for companies to reach the awful decision to shut up shop and fuck off somewhere else.
    It really does not matter whether lab or Nat are in charge by xmas because it is too late. We are drowning under the river of money that Cullen has squandered. This will be the worst recession NZ has seen since before WW2.
    Some of you need to step away from your policy analyst desks for a while and actually have a look at what is happening. The middle is rooted, everybody is leveraged and struggling to pay the bills.
    You can blame global conditions with some justification but a passing nod to the profligate waste by your govt would be appropriate.
    The irony is that now he absolutely has to curtail spending he can’t. That would just increase the angle of descent.
19. barnsleybill 19

    8 May 2008 at 9:55 pm

    swearing… got it. Thanks. how is it doing that? Very clever.
    Did you have a nome downloading Roger Mellie’s profanosaurus into a data table?

    [lprent: Ok – the current anti-spam list include sluts, cock, fuck, dvd, movie, pussy, and download. It will moderate on partials (embedded in other words). These get rid of a high proportion of spam that gets past the recaptcha. I’ve added recaptcha to the registration, that should get rid of another spam hole as well. There are a number of offshore IP ranges that are on permanent exclusion, including almost every IP range in russia. There are a number of IP ranges in NZ that automoderate, and a few names.

    It is required because in the last 8 months and some days there have been over 22k comments put into the system against 937 posts. This makes this site a valuable target for the spammers to penetrate. On average we have at least 4 or 5 web-crawlers going through the network every minute. The spammers like getting their links into that kind of exposure. I hate that kind of freeloader.

    I’ve finally got to the point where I’m starting to preempt their attacks rather than just reacting.]
20. r0b 20

    9 May 2008 at 12:23 am

    BB, you really are a bit of a whiner. According the the world bank we are the second most business friendly environment in the world.
    http://www.doingbusiness.org/economyrankings/

    See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_Zealand

    A survey 2008 study ranked it [NZ] 99.9% in “Business freedom”, and 80% overall in “Economic freedom”, noting amongst other things that it only takes 12 days to establish a business in New Zealand on average, compared with a world-wide average of 43 days. Other indicators measured were property rights, labour market conditions, government controls and corruption, the last being considered “next to non-existent” in the Heritage Foundation and Wall Street Journal study.
21. barnsleybill 21

    9 May 2008 at 7:43 am

    rOb, oh that’s okay then. If the world bank says everything is fine down here we can all stop worrying.
    I am sure the bank workers and F&P staff will find that very comforting. Along with every mortgage payer in the country, we can all take heart and stop fretting.
22. r0b 22

    9 May 2008 at 7:52 am

    BB, above you whined: Since labour came to power things have become more expensive and complex for all employers.

    I have responded that acccording the the world bank we are the second most business friendly environment in the world.
    http://www.doingbusiness.org/economyrankings/

    Does that mean everything is perfect in NZ – of course not. Does it mean you’re just whining about how hard it is to be an employer – hell yes.
23. higherstandard 23

    9 May 2008 at 8:32 am

    From the Authors of your linked to report r0b

    The ease of doing business index is limited in scope. It does not account for a country?s proximity to large markets, the quality of its infrastructure services (other than services related to trading across borders), the security of property from theft and looting, macroeconomic conditions or the strength of underlying institutions. There remains a large unfinished agenda for research into what regulation constitutes binding constraints, what package of reforms is most effective and how these issues are shaped by the country context.
24. r0b 24

    9 May 2008 at 8:36 am

    Interesting HS!

    It does not account for a country?s proximity to large markets

    Labour’s fault!

    the quality of its infrastructure services (other than services related to trading across borders)

    Which other surveys rate as excellent.

    the security of property from theft and looting,

    Crime falling under Labour.

    macroeconomic conditions or the strength of underlying institutions

    Reserve Bank Governor Allan Bollard on how well placed we are to weather the current storm:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=201&objectid=10488805

    “We have been able to absorb recent shocks reasonably well because of the improvements in our economic institutions and policymaking frameworks, avoiding the boom-bust cycles of the 1970s.”

    See also other surveys eg cited here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_Zealand

    A survey 2008 study ranked it [NZ] 99.9% in “Business freedom’, and 80% overall in “Economic freedom’, noting amongst other things that it only takes 12 days to establish a business in New Zealand on average, compared with a world-wide average of 43 days. Other indicators measured were property rights, labour market conditions, government controls and corruption, the last being considered “next to non-existent’ in the Heritage Foundation and Wall Street Journal study.

    In haste, byeeee.
25. Phil 25

    9 May 2008 at 9:17 am

    “We have been able to absorb recent shocks reasonably well because of the improvements in our economic institutions and policymaking frameworks, avoiding the boom-bust cycles of the 1970s”

    All thanks to the ’84 Labour Goverment and continued ‘new-right’ policies of the National party in the 1990’s.

    I’m pleased to see you can congratulation the right of centre from time to time.
26. Pascal's bookie 26

    9 May 2008 at 9:49 am

    But Phil, you ignoring the fact the the new right reforms stopped, against the advice of many. We could have continued down the slash taxes, slow spending growth, and deregulate everything model favoured by some. The GOP did it. We didn’t. Compare the books.

    Of course you can with some little justification claim that the GOP has not been ‘pure’ enough. They have pandered and started stupid wars, and not accounted properly and been riven with fraud and crime. But that’s what you get in a govt when your governing philosophy is that taxation is theft. Thieves take over government. You will also be making the same mistake that communists make when they claim that ‘real’ communism has never been tried. 😉
27. higherstandard 27

    9 May 2008 at 9:58 am

    PB

    Haven’t we had this debate before I terms of Reagan vs Bush.

    One can slate the current stat of the US’s economy and say that Republican economic management is poor but you must equally accept that the economic management under Reagan was excellent.

    It will be interesting to see how they perform under the new administration as it looks increasingly likely that McCain will win on the back of the Democrats tearing shooting themselves in the foot.
28. Pascal's bookie 28

    9 May 2008 at 10:10 am

    Yes we did HS, I think we finished up by noting that the present is more relevent than the past, and that Reagan would be unacceptable to the modern GOP. Which is the GOP that was under discussion then as well.

    McCain at present looks good in the polls but those polls are inflated by the fact that Dem voters are in an intra party squabble. It will be interesting to see how they look in august. Though I don’t discount the donkey party’s remarkable ability to suck at campaigning, the climate is extraordinarily bad for the gop. They are loosing deep red elections to congress at the moment, running campaigns based around opposition to Obama.

    McCains economic policy looks disastrousm IMHO. Massive tax cuts, unfunded. More war, unfunded. More of the same in other words.

    Must work, have a good weekend all.
29. DS 29

    9 May 2008 at 10:30 am

    “you must equally accept that the economic management under Reagan was excellent.”

    You have seen the deficit figures for the Reagan era, haven’t you?
30. higherstandard 30

    9 May 2008 at 10:47 am

    Yes
31. Draco TB 31

    9 May 2008 at 12:44 pm

    One can slate the current stat of the US’s economy and say that Republican economic management is poor but you must equally accept that the economic management under Reagan was excellent.

    If it was so excellent then why did GB (senior) need to raise taxes when he came to power?
32. j 32

    9 May 2008 at 1:05 pm

    About 4 years ago Air NZ, after the govnt bailed them out, fired about 400 back office staff. Anybody got something to say on that?
33. Matthew Pilott 33

    9 May 2008 at 1:08 pm

    Do you, j?
34. j 34

    9 May 2008 at 1:29 pm

    It’s more fun hearing the deafening silence of hypocrisy.
35. r0b 35

    9 May 2008 at 1:51 pm

    OK j, nature abhors a vacuum, and so do I. Links please to some details of this event and I’ll have a look.
36. higherstandard 36

    9 May 2008 at 2:11 pm

    TB – I had a very interesting discussion on this elsewhere on the Std and don’t want to go over it again to any extent apart from below.

    Some economists argue that Reagan’s tax policies invigorated America’s economy and contributed to the economic boom of the 1990s.

    Other economists argue that the deficits were a major reason why Reagan’s successor, George Bush snr, reneged on a campaign promise and raised taxes.

    Although I’m not an economist I favour the first view and believe on balance Reagan was a good an successful US President (unlike the incumbent President) he did however admit that his greatest disappointment as President was the increase in US debt.
37. killinginthenameof 37

    10 May 2008 at 3:46 pm

    J
    May 9, 2008 at 1:05 pm
    About 4 years ago Air NZ, after the govnt bailed them out, fired about 400 back office staff. Anybody got something to say on that?

    ————–
    Wasnt listening to carefully back then, but id say if firing them was nescersary for keeping the company afloat and keeping the rest of the employees employed then it probably was difficult but the right thing to do, just my take on it?

    So about the govt run business’ are inefficient meme? shoudln’t you be running that? and congratulating the government of making air nz so much more “efficent”? or does scoring cheap political points come before princepal?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS