Comments on: Merger “synergies” can’t just be code for job cuts http://blogs.reuters.com/breakingviews/2016/06/08/merger-synergies-cant-just-be-code-for-job-cuts/ Mon, 26 Sep 2016 03:26:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: QuietThinker http://blogs.reuters.com/breakingviews/2016/06/08/merger-synergies-cant-just-be-code-for-job-cuts/comment-page-1/#comment-19283 Sun, 12 Jun 2016 12:13:14 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/breakingviews/?p=36708#comment-19283 The author omits the very important fact that all those layoffs frequently result in major losses in quality of customer service. How do the merged companies get away with such terrible service? They can give poorer service and sometimes even raise prices a little because the merger has eliminated competition. Enforcement of anti-trust laws under both parties in the US has been a farce for decades.

]]>
By: wolverine824 http://blogs.reuters.com/breakingviews/2016/06/08/merger-synergies-cant-just-be-code-for-job-cuts/comment-page-1/#comment-19233 Wed, 08 Jun 2016 18:28:34 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/breakingviews/?p=36708#comment-19233 A lot of numbers got thrown around in this article. Would be interesting to understand how much of proposed synergy figures is headcount related. $4.5 billion of annual savings with 12,500 job losses implies $360k per employee (even if fully burned with tax, benefit, bonus, pension, not to mention probably off set by severance), which seems high. Also, would be interested to know how many of those jobs are in G&A (HR, Finance, Accounting, IT, Facilities, Legal, etc.) versus some other potentially redundant departments such as Sales and Marketing and R&D, if applicable. I think once you start breaking down the headline numbers, you’ll get a better sense of how much savings are headcount related and if the jobs that are loss are more or less transferable.

]]>