Conversation in a Tokyo bar on a recent night: investment banker, analyst and a few equity salesmen mulling over news this week that Citigroup is planning to raise “rank-and-file employees’ salaries” — some by as much as 50 per cent.
“I’m a market participant”… “No, I’m a market labourer” … “Hold on, how about ‘market serf’, my shirt is blue today, after all”.
The story, reported this week by the New York Times, referred not just to “rank-and-file employees” but also “workers” and “bank employees” — all terms, we presume, intended to encompass everyone from the junior secretary upwards.
Not surprisingly, the biggest increases, according to Bloomberg, will go to investment bankers and traders. “Workers” in consumer banking, credit cards, legal and risk management will see smaller salary adjustments, while stock options may also be awarded in the push to retain employees. Reuters adds that the changes at Citi mean “some employees may be paid more and others less, but overall compensation should remain unchanged as higher salaries offset lower incentive payouts”.
Citi joins Morgan Stanley and UBS in plans to boost salaries for executives and employees. But it’s Morgan Stanley that seems to know its (top-down) priorities - saying last month it will increase base pay for many top executives and double the pay of its chief financial officer Colm Kelleher, according to Bloomberg. No mention of the “rank and file” there.
But in these more - err, austere times, some traders, investment bankers and assorted high fliers are clearly wondering whether they might not be better off being described as “workers”. After all, as one trader observed, “trader” and “investment banker” are hardly seen as the most admired professions these days.
We could think of a few other designations but wonder if anyone else has any ideas. Oh and hold the insults…
