poorcocoboiboi
|
Why shouldn't they? |
|
GEE-GEE
|
What do you mean, SHOULD they be allowed to? Who is going to force them to keep those people? If they want to let them go and do layoffs, its their right. |
|
redunicorn
 |
They are a business and have that right. However if they are filling jobs with people in another country, take your money to a local bank that doesn't do that. |
|
TedEx
|
Who is going to stop them?? |
|
Simply Lovely
|
They can do whatever they want. |
|
src50
 |
Who is going to "disallow" them? |
|
fly_bikes06
|
they do what they want, its their own buisness. |
|
harty_2k
 |
BoA recently put put a very poor performace report on their SEC filings. If I understand correctly, they showed a loss of 32% this quarter over the last one. This would make them nervous and take drastic steps to manage their balance sheets and if it means cutting costs then so be it. Unf, the first thing they do is job cuts.
From the look of things, the 3000 is only a beginning. They will do layered job cuts which means let more people go over time. Here is the way you can help - ask them if their CEO, CFO, and CTO, Presidents and VP's have had their paycuts in proportion to the 3000 people they are laying off. For example, by so doing if they save say $12 million, then have the executives shaved off their pay by that much first ?? Something to think about... |
|
boyg
 |
Yes, they have the right to fire anyone they want to, but they cannot fire them by discrimate them. |
|
violin_duchess86
 |
Yes. If you had a business would you let someone else tell you how to run it? I highly doubt it. A business, for the most part, should be able to run however they want. If they are hurting the public or the economy, they will eventually fail. |
|
John96
|
Out of context I must say yes on the basis that the jobs are in some way related to their business, IE they are not forcing another company to fire 3000 people in some sick arch-villain like plan.
You need to provide the context as to what this is in relation to in order to get the most valid responses. |
|
SgtMoto
 |
Like it or not this is a capitalist society, which means making money. There so many stock holders now that have to be pleased about the bottom line that businesses think they have to draconian methods to keep these share holders happy, They have the right to do this. Of course, if they keep letting people go who is going to be able to purchase things,.
I don't agree with all these eliminations and their lack of concern for the workers. |
|
Salsa Shark
|
Why not...they're being allowed to extend their predatory lending practices to illegal immigrants. It would seem the last thing on the list of concerns they probably don't have is whether or not they keep 3000 jobs in rotation. |
|
Frank Castle
|
Yes.
They should eliminate 30,000 jobs.
I am a Bank of America shareholder.
Bank of America is behind Fortis, Crédit Agricole and Citigoup in sales.
Bank of America is behind Citigroup in profits. |
|
JustChillin
|
No |
|
ummmm. the name is ...
|
no. if they did that would effect the world's society. we have enough unemployed as it is. they should not make it worse. |
|
Rodeo Queen
 |
No way |
|
| |
|
Homepage 
Financial
Forum 
Personal Finance 
No Spam
Adult 
Gambling
Unfinished
Deception
Plagiarism
Not English
