Join your fellow employees who are fighting for your benefits -
Join the Alliance!
Retirees, Vendors, Contractors, Temps, and Active Employees are all eligible to become members of the Alliance.
Highlights—August 13, 2005
- Business Insurance: Court
approves IBM pension conversion settlement. by Jerry Geisel. Excerpt:
A federal court Monday gave final approval of a partial settlement between IBM Corp. and tens
of thousands of current and former employees over the conversion of its traditional pension
plan to a hybrid arrangement, moving the litigation forward to the next and potentially crucial
stage. The partial settlement approved by Judge G. Patrick Murphy of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois involves a 2003 ruling—which captured national attention—by
Judge Murphy that IBM's pension program is age discriminatory. Under one part of the settlement,
IBM will pay in the form of enhanced benefits more than $300 million to plan participants.
That part of the settlement relates mainly to claims involving IBM's conversion of a traditional
final-average-pay plan to a pension equity plan.
- In a Yahoo! message
board post, Janet Krueger comments on the Cooper v. IBM Settlement hearing.
Full excerpt: The hearing lasted an hour. I'm going to try to get a
transcript to post, as my handwritten notes do not do
Judge Murphy assured us that he had read through all
the objections and other papers that had been sent to
the court, and that he has become well acquainted with
the subject matter over the last 2 years.
Pat McTeague from out-of-blue.com
spoke on behalf on
Syverson et. al. to say they are dropping their
objection because they received a stipulation from IBM
saying IBM will not attempt to use the release
agreement in Cooper to preclude any of the charges
being made in the Syverson suit.
Judge Murphy then gave everyone in court who had an
objection to the settlement a chance to speak.
An employee from St. Louis who had not filed an
objection on paper talked about how much he lost in
the conversion as long term employee just months away
from his 40th birthday on July 1, 1999. He was dropped
into years of wearaway because the present value of
his vested immediate annuity was $100,000 higher than
the amount credited as the opening balance of his new
virtual cash balance account. Judge Murphy listened,
and that asked Doug Sprong to address the issue. Doug
explained that this employee, like many others, is
justifiably confused by the fact that lawsuit only can
ask for redress for the illegal actions IBM took, not
for the actions that were just blatantly unfair.
Putting someone's pension into wearaway is not
illegal, nor is eliminating an early retirement
subsidy with a conversion. After Doug's explanation,
Judge Murphy also explained that the court can only
address the illegal aspects of IBM's actions, and
suggested that the employee spend some more time with
class counsel after the trial to explain his
Willie Young, one of the people who filed an
objection, then explained his situation. He was sold
from Lucent to IBM. His IBM service record lists his
starting date as the day he started with Lucent, but
IBM has insisted that only the time he actually spent
at IBM can be used to calculate his pension. That
means he is receiving nothing for his 25 years of
service at Lucent! Everyone in the courtroom was very
sympathetic with his plight, but Doug Sprong and Judge
Murphy took turns explaining that the Cooper
settlement is very narrowly defined to address the
issues raised in Cooper, and that Mr. Young's
complaints with IBM and Lucent need to be raised in a
Next, Doug Sprong spoke about how the settlement was
designed and what he has learned since the notice was
distributed. Doug has communicated with over 500
class members, and most of them agreed after their
questions were answered that the settlement makes
sense. He talked about the fact that the settlement
locks in a benefit for all of the class members, that
explicitly cannot be placed into wearaway by IBM. He
also talked about the fact that appeals for all
remedial arguments such as Manhart have been waived.
IBM's counsels were given a chance to speak but had
Judge Murphy asked Doug to address the fairness of the
requested fees. Doug gave a synopsis of what is in
the motion filed on this board; this court is bound by
Synthroid to determine what the market driven rate for
this lawsuit would have been when it was filed.
Doug stated there was one housekeeping matter the
court needed to review. The IBMers who were
transferred to AT&T on April 30, 1999 as part of the
global services sale didn't have their final pensions
calculated until after the July 1, 1999 conversion, so
they will be shifted into subgroups 3 and 4.
Judge Murphy closed by telling us that this lawsuit
has been unique for many reasons, and may still end up
in the Supreme Court and America's DB pension system seems to
be collapsing, and future pension accruals are
completely voluntary and not protected by federal law.
The legal fees in this case are massive, but when
looked at from where we started, seem fair and in-line
with prevailing rates. The settlement itself does not
make people whole, and cannot guarantee future pension
accruals in a voluntary system. However, it seems to
address the issues raised in Cooper as fairly as
possible. The Court will put together an order
finalizing the settlement and the legal fees within
- In a Yahoo!
message board post, Janet Krueger answers another poster's question.
(Janet's reply is in italics). Full excerpt: Did Doug Sprong actually say: "eliminating
an early retirement subsidy with a conversion" is not illegal? If cash balance or
hybrid plans that are conversions from traditional DB plans are are not considered by ERISA
to be a termination of a DB plan, then how could eliminating an early retirement subsidy
be legal if, according to IRC 411(D)(6), it is clearly illegal to eliminate or reduce an
early retirement subsidy in a DB plan except if the reduction is "de minimus." I
think Mr. Sprong may have misspoke on this issue.
We'll have to wait for the transcript to see his actual words -- as
I said, my notes are not entirely legible..
The problem with conversions and formula changes is that the termination rules
in ERISA are not invoked.
In subclass 3 of the lawsuit, a charge was made that the conversion
SHOULD have been treated as a partial termination, and consequently the termination rules
SHOULD have been invoked, but this charge was never ruled on, even though it was
Wearaway is not illegal under current ERISA law. In IBM's cash balance conversion,
as has happened in many others, early retirement subsides were not included in people's opening
balances, and therefore were placed in years of wearaway. Everyone agrees that this is extremely
unfair, and also that it is what caused opening balances to be so far short of the value of
the immediate annuity people could have collected if they retired before the conversion was
done... I didn't write down the exact words for how this explanation was
provided -- but the net is that fact that early retirement subsides were not
included in opening balances was NOT declared illegal by the lawsuit. It IS
addressed as one the required transition protections in the Senate finance
committee version of the Boehner bill!
- BusinessWeek: IBM'S
Passage to India.
Big Blue is making a big play in the subcontinent's tech sector, partly by hiring many more
locals. Excerpt: You might say IBM has gone native. The company boosted its Indian staff from
9,000 at the end of 2003 to 23,000 at the end of last year, and, according to an internal planning
document made public by a union, the total is on its way to 38,000 by the end of this year.
The company says the 38,000 forecast is too high but acknowledges it will grow fast.
Already, IBM India just blew by Japan as the company's second largest country operation
-- after the U.S. "What you have seen in the past 5 years is nothing compared to what
you'll see in the next 5 to 10," promises Mats Agervi, a tall, enthusiastic Swede who
is vice-president for global delivery at IBM Global Services India. [...]
So IBM is in the middle of a massive retooling and migration of its workforce.
It recently fired 14,000 services employees in Western Europe, the U.S., and Japan -- even
while it's hiring in India and Eastern Europe.
The India strategy is isn't all about low-salary software coders, though. Not only does IBM
have one of its eight basic research labs in Delhi but its 19 offices scattered across
India include software labs in Bangalore and Pune, engineering R&D in Bangalore, and five data
centers, including two brand-new ones. One of the new centers matches the capabilities
of the company's so-called Level III facility in Boulder, Colo. -- the best of the lot.
- BusinessWeek: Some
Victories in CalPERS' War.
It has battled for years to tie CEO pay to performance, against stiff resistance. Now, the
fight may be shifting in the pension fund's favor. Excerpt: Public outrage over the $100
million stock-option awards of the 1990s has led to some changes in executive compensation. According
to Mercer Human Resources Consulting, the percentage of a CEO's total pay tied to cash bonuses
has risen to 23%, from 13% in 2001. Bonuses tend to be more reflective of performance, not just
increases in the stock market. Meanwhile, chief executives at the companies with the worst-performing
stocks actually saw a 3.6% decline in their compensation last year.
Still, the gap between executive pay and the average Jane or Joe continues
to widen. In their annual study, the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy
report that the average CEO compensation of $8.1 million in 2003 was more 300 times that of the
typical production worker. In 1980, that ratio was just 42 times.
- Springfield (MO) News-Leader: Congress
to tackle hybrid pensions. Employers,
workers looking for guidance on legality of the controversial plans. By Brian Tumulty. Excerpt:
An estimated 8.5 million out of the 44 million workers and retirees with employer-sponsored
pensions are in plans with an uncertain legal status.
In some cases, that uncertainty has resulted in employers freezing pension benefits for
current workers or denying pension benefits to new hires. Pension legislation expected to
make its way through Congress this fall doesn’t address the unresolved legal issues faced
by these hybrid pension plans that have become popular at large corporations like IBM, AT&T,
Georgia-Pacific and Kroger.[...]
At issue are two types of hybrid pension plans — cash balance and
pension equity plans — that calculate retirement benefits differently than the traditional
plans and typically offer the option of a lump-sum payout to retirees. But they also operate
under the same federal law.
Since 1999, the Internal Revenue Service has had a moratorium on issuing new rulings on whether
individual pension plan conversions to hybrids are legal.
At the same time, some employers that have converted to these plans have lost lawsuits, with
the most notable case involving a federal court ruling that IBM’s conversion constituted
age discrimination. Other employers — Xerox and Georgia-Pacific — lost in court
on more narrow technical issues.
The IBM ruling is on appeal, but the company has announced that all new hires won’t be
eligible for a pension and instead will be offered only a 401(k) savings plan.
- Fort Worth Star-Telegram: Protecting
older workers. Excerpts: Congress is considering
sweeping reforms in federal regulations governing the troubled world of corporate pension plans.
These reforms are especially relevant to tens of millions of Americans covered by traditional
defined-benefit pension plans, as well as those workers' families.
Among the powder-keg issues being debated in Washington is the manner in which controversial "cash-balance" pension
plans will be treated under the reform legislation.
In 2003, U.S. District Judge G. Patrick Murphy of Illinois found that
IBM Corp. had illegally discriminated against older workers by switching from a defined-benefit
retirement plan to a cash-balance plan that significantly cut their expected future pension
The ruling put the status of hundreds of other corporate cash-balance plans in legal limbo.
A variety of pension-reform bills are already filed or expected to be filed in Congress.
The bills vary in how they treat cash-balance plans and older workers who might be negatively
affected by companies converting to them. [...]
A key issue is whether the reform legislation should mandate special protections
for older workers who face a potentially sizable loss in expected future pension benefits
if their companies convert to a cash-balance plan.
The issue is especially relevant for workers involuntarily switched to a cash-balance plan
when they were on the cusp of becoming eligible for valuable early retirement benefits
under their defined-benefit plan.
Some members of Congress say special protection isn't merited because companies have a right
to eliminate early retirement benefits from defined-benefit plans even if they don't change
employees' retirement plans to a cash-balance plan. [...]
Various business interests and others who oppose special protections for
older workers insist that relatively small numbers are affected -- veteran workers in their
50s, for example, who were poised to become eligible for early retirement benefits under their
But advocates for older workers -- including the politically potent, 35-million-member AARP
-- have questioned the legality of cash-balance plans under current federal law and argue
that pension reform legislation should include mandatory financial safeguards for older workers who
would be hurt by their companies' conversion to cash-balance plans.
David Certner, director of federal affairs for the AARP, contends that veteran employees who
have been under defined-benefit plans and are switched to cash-balance plans often get
of both plans."
- Financial Mail (United Kingdom): Why
Firms Really Switched. By Michael Coulson.
Excerpts: No wonder that the financing of retirement benefits has become a major issue, worldwide.
At least the public sector can run on a pay-as-you-go basis, but private-sector employers come
and go, so their obligations must be funded. For most of the post-1945 era, inflation and the
long equity bull market, plus the fact that those who left retirement funds early were ripped
off shamelessly, took care of this; many funds even built up huge surpluses.
Ironically, no sooner were these surpluses turned to advantage by employers - in the shape
of contribution holidays - and finance ministers (employee beneficiaries gained few if any
extra benefits) than the fundamental situation went into reverse: lower inflation brought
lower returns, and equities ceased to be a one-way bet.
Within a few years, those surpluses had turned into massive deficits, even threatening some
It's against that background, and employers' desire to cap their potential liabilities, that
the recent trend to switch from defined benefit (DB) to defined contribution (DC) funds must
While SA funds were generally more soundly financed than their northern
hemisphere counterparts, with enough surpluses to allow members to be in effect bribed into
giving up assured post-retirement incomes, their motives, driven by employers, were no more
altruistic. They seldom emphasized that they were taking advantage of the switch to reduce
their contribution to retirement funding.
And, if anything, the way they sold the change was even more hypocritical. It's true that
a major disadvantage of how DB schemes operated historically was the way job-hoppers lost
out; but this could have been overcome without scrapping the whole principle of linking
pensions to final salary.
The headlines have been dominated by the mis-selling and excessive costs of retirement annuities;
I'm just waiting for the first disgruntled DC retiree to complain that the pension he can
buy with his capital sum doesn't match up to what he thought he'd been promised. That could
open up a whole new can of worms. Of course, as Karl Marx would have pointed out, it's all part
of the class war. Helped by the IT revolution, upper echelons of management are paying themselves
ever more extravagant incomes at the same time as they are cutting employee numbers and benefits
(medical aid and company cars are other instances) lower down the ladder.
- New York Times: We'll
Work Because We Have To. By Paul B. Brown. Excerpts: Members
of the generation that will be remembered for rock 'n' roll, antiwar protests and casual Fridays
will begin turning 60 in January. Even more interesting than the increasing number of senior
citizen discounts they will be receiving is what these people say they plan to do in the years
ahead. The findings, as reported in the Fortune 2005 Retirement Guide, may surprise the members
of younger generations counting on moving up the management ranks once all those people born
between 1946 and 1964 begin to retire: boomers may not be going anywhere.
Only 17 percent of the boomers said they would "never work for pay again," 6 percent
said they were undecided, but the rest had definitive plans to remain employed. [...] One
reason so many baby boomers may continue working instead of retiring to a life of leisure is because
they have to. Survey after survey has shown that they are woefully unprepared to pay for a traditional
- Employee Benefit News: Uninsured
worsen medical inflation for workers. By
Leah Carlson. Excerpts: You're probably aware that the uninsured add a chunk to the price of
employer-provided health insurance, but did you ever wonder how big that chunk is?
The answer is, pretty big-an average of $922 for family coverage and $341 for individual coverage,
according to a new report from Families USA.
Moreover, the Washington, D.C.-based health care consumer organization predicts those figures
will jump to $1,502 and $532, respectively, in 2010. Extra costs associated with the uninsured
account for one-twelfth of the price of employer-provided health insurance. A relentless
cycle occurs, as higher premiums cause more people to forego insurance. [...]
Uninsured people often forego preventive care and delay getting treatment
until their illness reaches the point of crisis, when treatment is likely to be very expensive.
Darling confirms, "When the uninsured don't have coverage, they don't get care. They do
show up at hospitals and get care at a later time, and it's more costly."
When an uninsured person is hospitalized, the result could be significant personal debt, bankruptcy
or even job loss, if he or she isn't protected by FMLA. About one-half of personal bankruptcies
are attributable to medical costs, according to a study published in Health Affairs in
Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) says, "If you lose your health, you shouldn't lose your home.
I wonder if many Americans understand what an irrational system we have for providing health
- Employee Benefit News: It
is time for national health care, unless you have a better idea. By
Richard D. Quinn. Excerpts: There are many good reasons to say NO to a national health care
program. But there also seem to be few alternatives to support "go away and leave it to
the private sector."
Is it time to capitulate and accept the faults of a government-run system? Have all the options
been tried and failed, are we constantly on the road to uncontrolled health care costs? Do
we care about the uninsured and under-insured?
This subject was debated on BenefitNews.com in my June "Views and Vents" column.
I'm going to highlight some of the comments here, but to fully understand the complexity of
the issue, visit Views & Vents at Benefitnews.com
- Chicago Tribune: Demand
for `recent grads' simply age bias. By Carol Kleiman.
Excerpt: Dear Coach, Isn't the terminology "looking for recent college graduates" age
discrimination? Anyone can be a "recent" college graduate, but I don't think that's
what employers mean when they use this language.
Carol Kleiman: You don't have to be a college graduate--not even a "recent" one--to
understand what's going on here: They're looking for people in their early 20s. And yes,
that is age discrimination.
- The NewStandard: Wal-Mart’s New Workforce Plans Cut Pay, Benefits. By
Brendan Coyne. Excerpt: The world’s largest retailer has instituted a new computerized
plan for matching customer traffic with employee schedules, forcing many workers to lose pay
and benefits as their hours fall below the full time level. The move appears to be spurring
workers to leave the company, the South Florida Herald Tribune reported yesterday.
Reportedly, Wal-Mart is using a centralized computer program to devise schedule templates
to guide store managers in scheduling employees. Company officials declined to tell the Herald
Tribune when the program was put into effect.
The paper reported that several Wal-Mart employees in South Florida could no longer afford
to pay for benefits the company offered after the company instituted the workforce management
software. Several quit or are considering doing so, the Herald Tribune reported.
- Wall Street Journal: Three
Republican Governors Hit Unions. Bargaining Rights Are Rescinded
For State Employees,
One of Big Labor's Last Strongholds. By Joi Preciphs. Excerpts: Several
Republican governors are trying to weaken organized labor in the one place it has remained
strong: representing public employees.
First-term Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt rescinded collective-bargaining
rights for state employees this year, undoing an executive order issued by a Democratic
predecessor, and has eliminated a state board overseeing union elections for public employees. Indiana
Gov. Mitch Daniels, a former Bush White House budget director, overturned an executive
order that for 15 years provided collective-bargaining rights for that state's public employees.
And Maryland's Robert Ehrlich, backed by the state Supreme Court, suspended a 2% pay increase
unions had negotiated for state employees with his predecessor.
The three governors, following earlier moves by Kentucky's
Republican governor, Ernie Fletcher, say that their actions are warranted in an environment
where state budgets are just beginning to recover from severe stress, and that public employees'
unions waste resources and block government restructuring efforts.
|Vault Message Board Posts
- "Value?" by "omegadoom".
Excerpts: Since I know Chicago... lets take a look at some restaurants that are outside
of IBM's pricing policies...
Tsai's Cafe. (Sushi);
Hatsuhana ?sp? (Sushi); Gene and Georgetti (Steaks);
Hubbard Grill (Steak);
Erie Street Cafe (Steak);
Chicago Chop House (Steak);
MKs; Cyrano's (French);
Toppo Gigio (Italian);
Italian Village (Italian);
Tavern on Rush;
Le Colonial; Zealous (American Fusion). Oh and there's more, much more. What do all of
these have in common? Don't go to them on IBM's meal budget unless you want to eat a
None of these restaurants are "five star" although all have great food.
Want 5 star? Trotters, and Spiagia come to mind. You can't even have drinks at the front
bar on IBM's expense policy.
All of these restaurants listed have certain value points. (Hint: Do lunch at Tavern on
Rush and sit outside. ;-)
on the Alliance@IBM Site:
- Alliance@IBM: Attention IBM employees: IBM
is blocking e-mail to and from the Alliance@IBM e-mail address email@example.com from
inside the company. Please send your job cut information and other correspondence from
your home e-mail. You can also contact us the following ways: Phone 607 658 9285 or Fax
607 658 9283.
- IBM Pension
Lawsuit FAQ about Cooper v IBM,
Updated 6-21-05. Excerpt: Below is a list of frequently asked questions about the class
action lawsuit against IBM's 1995 and 1999 pension plans. The answers are my personal
opinions, have not been verified with either IBM or plaintiffs’ counsel, and
should not be construed as legal advice.
On July 31, 2003, a federal district court judge ruled in favor of the employees in
this case. IBM will appeal portions of the ruling.
On September 28, 2004, IBM and the legal team on Cooper v IBM announced that an agreement
had been negotiated that settles some of the claims and set the amount of damages that
IBM will pay to the class if IBM's appeal of the district court's age discrimination
rulings is unsuccessful.
Click on any question to jump to the answer. Or scroll down and read them all.
Cuts Status & Comments
Page. Excerpts: Job cuts are coming. Information needed:
What is Your location?
How many job cuts at your location?
What locations are cutting jobs?
Name of Division and Business Unit?
Some sample submissions follow:
- Comment 08/09/05: I have twenty-four years of experience as a software
developer, and am an American female. Prior to being rebadged to IBM from a major telecommunications
company, I had finished a Java project with a good appraisal which culminated in a total
of two years of Java experience with straight A's in several web development courses as
well as a Bachelor's degree - not to mention having the concepts of I/T from so many years
in the business; but, after the rebadging, and the signaling of the systems in my group
to go overseas, I spent five months without anything to do.
I no sooner had fifteen to twenty resumes submitted, within IBM,
when H/R told me I didn't have "any job skills," while, at the same time, the telecommunications
company began to renege on their contract that our systems should stay in the U.S. "for
security reasons." Then when I asked, a few months ago, after I completed another good
Java assignment, when IBM was going to deploy their jobs skills inventory list, so I could
get my skills listed, I, suddenly, got told by H/R that I couldn't "talk about outsourcing," yet
they couldn't provide me with any specifics/rules of wrong-doing, but, suddenly, a few days
later, that job skills inventory was deployed for everyone! A couple months later, as I started
a business analysis project, I asked about the status of my job skills inventory, and got
told I had "a listening problem," yet H/R could, again, not provide any specifics
I spoke to the H/R manager's boss, whereby I, finally, got to speak
to a deployment (or recruiter) manager who helped place my resume in a database. As I got
ready to wrap up my current project with what I feel was a good job, I was, suddenly, told
by my H/R manager that a release date had been set for me on the end date of my project
and that I lacked "communication skills!" The contract between IBM and this telecommunications
company is still under debate as to whether the systems in my group, should stay in the
U.S. or go overseas. Meanwhile I noticed that there were two MEN from India waiting for
a cubicle - obviously, my cubicle!
I barely make what a beginning college graduate, without any previous
job experience, should make, according to industry standards; yet my H/R manager said that,
for my salary level, they expected more skills! Granted that these two people were to work
C++, which is two-thirds similar to the Java I've worked and I've only been trained in C++
- with straight A's - but the computer, on which we worked was an odd one that's not common,
and I was told that these two men were to be "trained" on that particular computer!
Due to my perseverance with the job skills inventory list, I was, immediately, placed in,
at least, an old-fashioned mainframe 'telecommuting' position - that's a contract by 'month
to month' I'm hearing that these people, from India, now, are only getting paid $12,000
to $13,000 while they're in this country. I feel horrible discrimination as an American,
a person over forty and as a female! -Anonymous-
- Comment 08/10/05: I was laid off effective 7/29 after the original
date of 7/1 was extended because there was no one to complete my project. I was not
really surprised about being selected and didn't mind an extra months pay and more time
to regroup and figure out what to do next. But on the day of my exit interview, I was
informed that I was not getting my 2 vacation days that I expected for the month of
July because I didn't work the whole month of July. The separation date was on Friday
and the end of the month was on Sunday so my boss explained that I didn't earn the 2
days that I expected. I should no longer be amazed at the new lows that IBM sinks to
but this one caught me off guard.
My manager waited until the last day to inform me of this (he knew
I was expecting extra vacation days) and he also could have put in the 2 extra days for me
because vacation is not tracked and he had to ask me how many days I took in order to inform
payroll so they could calculate the last paycheck. I feel like I did IBM a favor by working
an extra month after they got rid of me telling me that my skills were low (funny that they
had no one else who knew my job though) but actually the project scope was reduced and I
suspect they just needed to get rid of someone and I was the lucky one they chose.
If I knew they were going to rip me off by taking my vacation, I
would not have agreed to help them out for the extra month. I can't believe that my boss
did not do the right thing and just put in for the 2 days for me. I can't believe that getting
separated on the last working day of the month but not the last actual day of the month means
that I did not earn vacation for that month. I feel like I have no rights and no where to
turn for help. IBM holds all the cards and they are petty enough to take a few hundred dollars
from a 21 year employee on their way out the door. -Anonymous-
- Comment 08/10/05: Have you noticed, it's getting quiet. IBM has
announced a better second quarter, and the press is quiet. We are all quiet as IBM
continues to wreck havoc in the lives of its employees. As employees current or
otherwise, keep the pressure on, keep writing your employee friendly state senators,
congressmen, or US Senators. Join the cause of CWA Local 1701. The current new hires
that IBM goes after need to know the truth. That profits will always come before
people. If you do get a layoff notice, challenge it with the might of a billion
dollar HR department. If you are sick and receiving benefits under the S&A,
STD or LTD Disability plans, there is a return to work clause in those policies
that may provide for the leverage you need to return to work and not be fired. Now
is the time to stand together in unity. -Anonymous-
- Comment 08/10/05: People from India are coming to the U.S to fill
job assignments. They are young, unmarried and eager to learn so are willing to
stay in the U.S for long periods of time without taking trips back home. From company's
standpoint, such as IBM, these people are a cheap source of labor. Outsourcing doesn't
necessarily mean the job goes overseas anymore. -Anonymous-
- Comment 08/11/05: My coworkers and I were rebadged to IBM under
an outsourcing agreement. Well it did not take us long to realize that IBM does
not care about the business end of their clients. They have done absolutely nothing
to improve any of the business cycles that run in our account. They offered some
of my coworkers jobs as SDM's on other accounts. Needless to say all of them have
been laid off by IBM after less than two years. The IBM managers are sneaky, backstabbing,
unethical and untrustworthy. Yet the company just made us take a course on ethics!
What a joke! Needless to say, my remaining coworkers and I are all united in our
hatred for IBM. We have come up with our own acronym:IBM - Idiots Become Managers.