匯豐控股全球裁員，匯豐香港未來3年要裁減3000人，約為匯豐香港（不計恒生）人手的七分之一。從業績貢獻、成本效益比率來看，匯控要匯豐香港承擔的裁員責任，不能說公平，匯豐高層的理據未能使人信服。從現實和歷史感情因素審視此事，匯豐就歷史性大裁員，應該提出具說服力理據；另外，基於匯豐是香港三家發鈔銀行之一，而匯豐香港可能面對母公司苛待，特區政府有角色、也有責任向匯控深入了解此事，爭取匯豐香港得到公平對待。
就業績和歷史情感審視 港匯豐未獲獎賞反遭 「懲罰」
匯控對匯豐香港不公平，從現實上有以下4點值得討論。
（1）高層食言。今年5月，匯控亞太區行政總裁王冬勝說過「香港總員工人數不會減少」；6月，集團行政總裁歐智華說「集團在亞太區內具優勢，雖然要控制整體成本，但不會透過裁員達標」；上月初，歐智華在公布年度中期業績時曾明確表示，匯豐無意在香港裁員，甚至還說要增加人手，他說「香港業務非常重要，不能讓管理人員流失，流向對手，所以增加成本，是因為要有效挽留人才」，現在的做法，出爾反爾。
（2）匯豐香港裁員比率偏高。上月初，歐智華宣布未來兩年在全球裁減3萬名員工，佔全球員工總數約10%，以實現削減35億美元成本。不過，匯豐香港約有2.1萬名員工，要裁減3000人，即是每7人就要裁減1人，比率超過14%，較全球裁減比率高4個百分點。
（3）匯豐香港的成本效益比率早已達標，仍遭開刀——今年上半年，匯控整體成本效益比率為57.5%，5月間，匯控公布目標於2013年把成本效益比率降至48%至52%。就香港而言，今年上半年成本收益比率為43.2%，已經在集團2013年的目標之內；而北美洲55.8%、拉丁美洲65.3%、歐洲70.7%、亞太其他地區53%，要大力撙節改善，才可以追上香港。
（4）匯豐香港賺錢最多，仍遭開刀——在歐美低迷下，匯豐香港業績的貢獻甚為突出，本年度中期業績，匯控稅前盈利89.29億美元，其中匯豐香港稅前盈利為462.34億港元，打破歷年紀錄，佔集團盈利貢獻超過一半。
匯豐香港的業績有目共睹，業績亮麗，成本效益佳，理應得到獎賞，現在卻要大幅裁員，而且裁員比率高於全球數字，匯控以什麼準則衡量裁員政策，難以理解。就此，王冬勝給員工的電郵說「我們仍有空間除去官僚架構和提升效益。我們應盡本身的責任，使香港這個市場成為匯豐更強的一部分」，這種說法，即是坦言連乖孩子也要懲罰，怎能服人？特別是對靠工作維持一家生計的員工，要3000人犧牲「小我」，讓匯豐香港做得更強，這種說辭，只能以黑色笑話視之。
再就歷史感情角度，匯控這樣對待匯豐香港，可用不仁不義來形容。
1949年匯豐撤出大陸，以香港為基地，靠着地利和港英政府政策支持，執香港銀行業牛耳，被官方簡稱為Hongkong Bank（香港銀行），成為殖民地政府統治架構重要組成部分，並且逐步發展成為跨國、跨地域國際大銀行。不過，這樣一家對香港舉足輕重的銀行，在1991年香港政治前途最危疑詭譎之際，遷冊到倫敦，匯豐銀行在香港最需要她時，掉頭而去一幕，很多人仍然耿耿於懷。
不過，即使如此，港人對這家「香港銀行」，仍然寄託深情厚意，例如2008年金融海嘯期間，每逢匯控股票被拋售、股價插水，香港都會有大批小股民築起血肉長城，前仆後繼地買入匯控股票，頂住跌勢；2009年初，匯控半年業績錄得歷來首次虧損，要「世紀大供股」救亡，集資1381億元，當時全球匯控21萬股東，供股比率為96.6%，其中以香港股東供股比率最高，達到98.2%，當時匯控股價一度跌至33元，香港股東以現兜兜金錢支持，匯控主事人曾經公開表示感動之意。
所以，匯控靠香港起家，雖曾一度捨港而去，但是港人對匯豐之支持和情長，對照匯控今次「懲罰」業績貢獻明顯、成本效益比率最低的香港匯豐，不少人感到熱面孔貼冷屁股，情感遭到傷害，大有情何以堪之嘆。
匯控是一家上市公司，所採取策略和做法，在商言商有其邏輯，若說歷史情感，匯控主事人可能認為婦人之仁，感情誤事，視之為落伍迂腐。不過，對於類似匯豐銀行這樣的大企業，歷史情感是一筆珍貴無形資產，平時實際價值不能量化，但是到緊要關頭，歷史情感所發揮巨大威力，往往可以成為救命草、續命丹，世紀大供股最能說明這一點。
港匯豐若遭不公平對待 政府有責了解要求改善
即使不講感情，講數據，就已知情况，匯豐香港在這次匯控策略調整所承擔裁員責任，盡多使人難以理解之處。署理財政司長陳家強表示已經向匯豐了解情况，期望匯豐在調整人手方面，盡量減低對香港的影響。這種低度關注，並不足夠。我們認為，若匯控不全面交代裁員理據，又或理據未能使人信服，基於匯豐在港角色作用特殊，政府應該深入了解有關安排，例如歐美匯豐裁員情况，與匯豐香港是否相若等，若箇中有不公平情况，政府有責任向匯控反映，要求改善。
"Black joke"
THE HSBC GROUP is to reduce its global workforce. The
Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation is planning to reduce its staff
(excluding Hang Seng bank's) by 3,000, or a seventh. It has performed so well
and is so cost-efficient that the job-cut share HSBC Holdings has assigned to
it can hardly be called fair. The case its top executives have put forward is
unconvincing.
The bank's strong performance is obvious to all. It
deserves awards for its wonderful results and high cost-efficiency. However, it
is required to reduce its workforce by a higher percentage than any HSBC Group
entity elsewhere. It is unclear what criteria HSBC Holdings has used in
formulating its layoff policy. An e-mail Peter Wong has sent its employees
says, "There is still room to eliminate bureaucracy and improve our
efficiency. By doing our part we will help make Hong Kong an even stronger part
of HSBC". It as good as says even good boys should be punished. How can
that sound right to its employees and others? The bank wants 3,000 of its
employees to sacrifice their jobs to make it even stronger. This can only be
regarded as a black joke.
Considering the bank's history, one may say HSBC Holdings
treats it heartlessly and unfairly.
In 1949, the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation
evacuated from the mainland and based itself in the territory. Supported with the
Hong Kong British government's favourable policies, it became the city's
leading bank. Called Hongkong Bank by the authorities, it was an integral part
of the colonial government structure. It has since grown into a multinational
banking group. Despite its importance to the territory, it moved its domicile
to London in 1991, when Hong Kong was faced with great political uncertainty.
It walked out on Hong Kong when it needed it most. Many still take that to
heart.
The bank has thrived in the territory. It deserted Hong
Kong once, but Hong Kong people support it and have developed an attachment to
it. HSBC Holdings has decided to punish it though it accounts for much of its
profit and has the lowest cost-efficiency ratio. Thinking their ardent support
has met with a cold rebuff, many may lament they feel unendurably hurt.
HSBC Holdings is a listed company. Its strategies may
make business sense. Citizens have an attachment to it because of its history.
However, top HSBC Holdings managers may think they would be effeminately
mindless and indecisive if they had regard to such sentiment. However, such an
attachment to a big enterprise like the HSBC Group is its valuable intangible
asset. It cannot be quantified, but it may be a powerful lifesaver at a
critical moment. This is quite clear from the group's rights issue of the
century.
Available figures are such that it is hard to see why
such a share of the HSBC Group's layoffs has been assigned to the Hong Kong and
Shanghai Banking Corporation. Acting Financial Secretary Chan Ka-keung has said
he has talked with the bank and hopes it will try to minimise the impact of its
restructuring plan on the SAR. Such scanty concern is not sufficient. The bank
plays a special role in Hong Kong. In our view, if HSBC Holdings refuses to
tell the public why it should carry out such a layoff plan or its case is less
than convincing, the government should get thoroughly acquainted with its
arrangements. It has a duty to ask HSBC Holdings to put right any of them that
are unfair.
沒有留言:
張貼留言