These times of crisis and economic hardship can sometimes be
very resentful times. Times in which old bills are settled between people and
between companies. Sometimes this even leads to the dismissal of people and
companies for (small) things that they apparently do wrong now or did wrong in
the past.
You
put an awkward picture on Facebook?! You’re fired! You said something
bad about your company or made a bad joke about your superior?! Pack your
things in a box and act like a tree. Just leave!
In good and optimistic times, ‘clumsy’ people get often away
with a fire-and-brimstone sermon and by making a promise to do such things
never again. However, in these times?! You’re gone. For you there are ten
others…
Some companies even lay off personnel that showed only a little
less than outstanding performance in the recent past. Or people that simply don’t
fit in the ambitions of their new boss. Because they can’t change very well or show
too little flexibility in the execution of their job.
In my opinion, these are depression-like signs, as they can
turn an economic recession in a long-lasting depression: as a consequence of
such events, people (other workers) become scared and overly careful.
They stop taking any risks, as they have angst to do
something wrong. They try to ‘blend in’ and survive in their jobs, without
showing themselves in a negative or overly positive way. As a consequence, they
might lose their self-esteem and ‘pizazz’.
This is bad news for themselves, but also for the companies
where they work, as it puts a brake on innovation, entrepreneurship, good ideas
and risky gambles that turn out fine eventually. Besides that, anxious people
consume less for pleasure and make fewer large investments in durable goods for
the future: they are busy with surviving, not flourishing. Survival comes first
and consumption and luxury will come later.
However, it are not only people who are under the looking
glass currently. Companies and government bodies also watch their suppliers Argus-eyed.
Companies which deliver mediocre or poor quality will not get contract prolongations
from their principals. And even companies that basically performed (very) well
must deliver more service for less money… Or else…
Sometimes companies are even sent away for seemingly far-fetched
reasons. A small article in today’s Telegraaf proved that such thing can happen
to even the largest companies.
The city of Amsterdam
wants to break up its ties with ING Bank, because the bank apparently does not
do ‘fair banking’. The city is looking for a new house bank for its annual
budget of €3 billion.
Yesterday, this was
decided by the city council, where a majority endorsed an initiative by the
Partij voor de Dieren (Party for Animals). According to council member Van
Lammeren, “ING is not an honest bank as it invests in weapon systems and does do
‘other things wrong’”.
Amsterdam is now going
to investigate whether their money can be stored at another bank, like Triodos
Bank or ASN Bank [both are idealistic banks which endorse idealistic and green
goals and reject ‘unethical’ investments – EL].
For various reasons, I cannot have an objective view in this
matter. The only thing that I can do, is handing to you the information that
the Amsterdam City Council used for making their decision. This is the Eerlijke
Bank Wijzer (i.e. Honest Bank Guide).
Nevertheless, I think that the Amsterdam city council made a
quite impulsive decision by wanting to abolish its contract with ING, seemingly
based on a combination of rather soft facts and gutfeeling. To make things even
worse, someone leaked this decision to the press, thus turning it in an almost irrevocable
fact. Unfortunately, this event damaged both the city of Amsterdam and ING bank.
In my humble opinion, a far better strategy for Amsterdam would
have been to start talks with ING and try to persuade them in changing the
parts of their policy that are not well-received in the city council. By
leaking this news to the press, the latter now seems virtually impossible.
This is the kind of decision that seemingly fits perfectly
in these (sometimes) resentful, depression-like times, where people and
companies punish each other, instead of trying to solve things together.
They just want to control 3bln themselves IMHO. Moscow also has the Bank of Moscow to control its money.
ReplyDeletePrivet Sergei,
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't think so, actually, as it is much too hard for a relatively small city with few civil servants to run a bank: the banking laws for prudential supervision have become quite strict in The Netherlands.
I rather think that it was exaggerated idealism that spurred this development: a matter of acting without thinking first, without having an eye for the consequences.