Which comes first, trading or traders?

14 December 2005

1 minute read

You'd think the human cost of terrorism would top priorities of anyone tasked with planning against a large scale attack. Yet a new report suggests banks' catastrophe planners could be overlooking staff.

Disaster planners have ensured IT systems will function after an atrocity according to the joint report from the FSA, the Treasury and the Bank of England, but less attention has been devoted to the potentially devastating effect on employees. Half of the 62 financial institutions surveyed had done nothing to prepare for human casualties; 20% had no details of next of kin. JP Morgan has apparently issued interested recipients with whistles and dust masks, however.

Does your organisation have a plan in place for its employees? Does the general lack of preparation say something about banks' attitudes to the people who work for them, or is it inevitable that crucial trading systems come first? Let us know what you think.

We will add your comment below. Please tell us if you would like to remain anonymous.

AUTHORAnonymous

Insider Comment

Al
Alistair
15 December 2005
Two years ago I applied for the job of Head of Business Continuity for a very well known and very large bank. I was their preferred candidate. Their attitude to business continuity was astonishing. They had no recovery plans outside the M25 box and their business continuity site was on the South Bank. I innocently asked what would happen if several bridges across the Thames were inaccessable. I was told all members of staff would be made to walk around to the nearest bridge. When I also pointed out that the most likely disaster would be a natural one, particularly the Thames flooding due to global warming, I was told that the bank had been guaranteed that the Thames would never flood!
I declined the job offer. If this is still the attitude of a major financial institution, I find this very worrying.
Reply