I’ve been scrolling through job listings lately (not by choice, mind you - thanks redundancy), and something’s been grinding my gears. Why are recruiters and HR departments treating basic legal requirements like they’re generous gifts from the employment gods?

You know what I’m talking about. Those job ads that breathlessly announce “We offer 4 weeks annual leave!” and “We contribute to your superannuation!” like they’re revolutionising workplace benefits. Mate, that’s not a perk - that’s literally what the law says you have to do. It’s like advertising “We pay you money for your work!” or “Our building has functioning fire exits!”

So Commonwealth Bank has finally admitted what many of us suspected all along - those 283 “redundancies” weren’t really redundancies at all. They’ve just shuffled the work offshore to India, where they now have a staggering 6,800 employees. The audacity of it all really gets under my skin.

Let me be clear about what’s happened here. CBA told 283 Australian workers their jobs were no longer needed, paid them redundancy packages (hopefully), and then quietly moved those exact same roles to cheaper overseas workers. This isn’t restructuring or efficiency - it’s corporate sleight of hand, and frankly, it should be illegal.

The Commonwealth Bank’s recent backtrack on AI-driven job cuts has got me thinking about the messy reality of technological transformation in corporate Australia. After announcing they’d be leveraging artificial intelligence to streamline operations, CBA has now apologised for what they’re calling an “error” as call volumes surge and customer satisfaction plummets. It’s a fascinating case study in the gap between boardroom promises and real-world implementation.

What strikes me most about this whole saga is how it perfectly encapsulates the current AI hype cycle we’re living through. Companies are so eager to jump on the AI bandwagon that they’re making sweeping decisions without properly understanding the technology’s limitations or considering the human element that often makes the difference between success and failure. The fact that CBA hired 2,000 additional staff members after their AI experiment suggests they significantly underestimated the complexity of customer service interactions.