These centers will enable IBM to increase its existing application services portfolio to support a growing global client base. With the addition of these centers, IBM's Global Delivery operations are provided from six(1) locations in India and the new centers will increase the company's presence in Northern India. These centers will be an integral part of IBM's global delivery network, spread across three dozen countries around the world.
IBM will increase its operations in Noida by hiring technology graduates and IT professionals with skills in IT strategy and architecture, business consulting, enterprise solutions (SAP, Siebel, and Oracle), testing, and business intelligence.
Citing company statements, the newspaper added: "The two systems were not entirely compatible, and a wide range of financial information was lost in the changeover. Inventory was in disarray, and workers were unable to find the parts they needed." According to U.S. Bankruptcy Court documents, the new system ALF set up with the help of IBM had "serious deficiencies" that had "a crippling impact" on the company's operations, according to The Post and Courier. The multitude of business and IT problems "forced American LaFrance to seek protection early Monday from its more than 1,000 creditors, who collectively are owed more than $200 million," the paper reported.
Question: Last year, several Indian outsourcing firms were asked by federal legislators to account for how they used H-1B visas in light of the fact that nearly a third of the visas went to nine Indian firms in 2006. Do you think that American companies should also be required to provide this sort of information? Matloff: Yes, the politicians should NOT pick on the Indian firms. All the firms abuse H-1B, not just the Indian ones. ...
Question: One issue that you've studied that doesn't seem to get much attention elsewhere is employers' apparent desire to hire younger workers with H-1B visas rather than older engineers and programmers to save money on salaries. Aren't there other factors as well, such as the desire to employ those with the most current skills? Matloff: The skills issue is a red herring. Just look at the major tech firms that have admitted to replacing Americans by H-1Bs and L-1s, and then forced the Americans to train their foreign replacements. Clearly, it's the Americans who have the skills, not their foreign replacements. I've seen numerous cases of American programmers and engineers who have the skills being advertised but who never even get called for a phone interview.
But this was no dream job come true. Goel's base salary was $23,310, about half the $44,000 that Patni had said it would pay on the visa application, according to a lawsuit he has filed against the company. When Goel complained, one official said that Patni would brand him a "troublemaker" and that his parents in India would be harassed unless he stopped, the suit alleges. Goel, who left Patni in 2005, filed suit in November, 2007, in federal court in Illinois. He's suing along with a former colleague, Peeush Goyal, who alleges he was subjected to similar treatment. Patni declined to comment, though in court documents it denies the charges.
Goel's is not an isolated case. A number of the most active users of the work-visa program, for what are known as H-1B visas, have been accused of underpaying or otherwise mistreating workers. Last year, Patni paid $2.4 million to 607 H-1B visa workers after a Labor Dept. investigation uncovered systematic underpayment of wages. "I highly suspect that these employment practices are widespread among the tech-outsourcing firms," says Ron Hira, assistant professor of public policy at Rochester Institute of Technology, who will testify as an expert witness in the Goel case. ...
The Goel lawsuit raises questions for U.S. workers, too. The H-1B program requires companies that bring employees into the U.S. to pay the prevailing wage in that job, so as not to depress the salaries of Americans in similar occupations. Documents filed in the suit appear to show that Patni told the Labor Dept. it would pay Goel a base salary of $44,000, which it said was more than the $43,867 prevailing wage it determined for a midlevel programmer and analyst. Yet even after working the equivalent of 23 days of overtime at $11.72 an hour, Goel earned a total of $35,305 in 2004. "Patni's underpayment of wages not only harms its H-1B employees but also harms the wages of U.S. employees," the lawsuit charges. ...
State Farm has had layoffs as it has brought in Patni workers. Outplacement specialist Challenger, Gray & Christmas says the insurer has let go 10,000 workers nationwide since 1995, though Luedke says only one quarter of those were "involuntary severances." He says Patni employees have not replaced staffers and the insurer's own IT staff has risen from 5,500 in 1995 to 5,900 in 2007. Luedke says State Farm doesn't track how many outsourced workers it uses.
George Moraetes is a U.S. worker who believes he was affected by the H1-B program. A specialist in info tech security, he worked at State Farm from 2002 to 2004, when the company declined to extend his contract. Now in Chicago, he's unable to find a staff position in his specialty. "The whole industry is being outsourced and contracted," he says. "The American IT worker is a dying breed."
Moraetes has empathy, not anger, for employees such as Goel who come to the U.S. on H-1Bs. "The workers are living in squalor," he says. "I feel sorry for them."
Last week, The Economic Times reported that IBM had dismissed 700 entry-level trainee programmers across India based on their performance in aptitude tests. IBM officials didn’t officially confirm the number but acknowledged they were exploring new ways for employees to certify their skill levels.
The firings could prove to be a setback for IBM’s aggressive recruitment of Indian technology talent. Big Blue even has a specific Web site set up for “fresher” recruits in India, where the company employs more than 47,000 people. Many of those have been hired over the past couple of years as IBM publicly boasted about its plans to make India a major hub of its international operations.
India also has been the destination for thousands of jobs in offshoring positions from the United States and Europe. Reasons include lower salaries and cheaper costs of doing business. Offshoring is an especially touchy subject around the Triangle where IBM employs more than 11,000 people - so far its largest employee campus.
In addition to validating some pension rollbacks that could save companies billions of dollars, the Treasury's action also could tip the outcome of long-running lawsuits alleging age discrimination by pension plans at AT&T Inc., Cigna Corp., Dun & Bradstreet Corp., El Paso Corp., and other major companies. The stakes are huge: In just the AT&T case, nearly 24,000 current and former workers had opted into a class action as of December, with potential claims exceeding $2 billion. ...
The crux of the issue is whether employers that change from traditional pensions to so-called cash-balance plans can freeze the growth of older workers' pensions for months or years following the change -- a phenomenon called "wearaway" -- even as younger workers' pensions continue to grow. Many companies let employees remain in the old plan for a time, but that only delays the onset of wearaway. The Treasury ruled that decades-old "backloading" laws that effectively prohibit companies from temporarily freezing pension growth don't apply when the freeze is delayed, even if it is eventually implemented. ...
Over the past decade, hundreds of employers shifted from traditional pensions to cash-balance plans. This saves companies money because instead of calculating benefits by multiplying years of service and salary, which produces rapid pension growth in the later years, the company converts the pension to a cash-out value. This becomes an account that then grows at a flat annual rate, commonly about 3% of pay.
Many companies low-balled older workers in establishing an opening account balance, setting it at, say, $80,000 even if the cash-out value was $100,000. The older person's pension thus was effectively frozen, since it would take years to grow back to the amount the worker was entitled to at the time of the changeover.
Thousands of employees sued, arguing that this violated a law requiring that pension growth occur with a certain steadiness -- for example, it can't fall to zero, then jump. The law was intended to prevent practices such as, say, a backloading formula by which an employee earned almost no pension for 19 years, with 90% of the pension benefit kicking in at year 20. This would be considered abusive because it would allow an employer to avoid paying a much bigger pension by firing an employee in year 19.
Some courts sided with employees in wearaway cases; wearaway was one of five claims in a suit that International Business Machines Corp. settled for $320 million in 2003. (In 2006, IBM won its appeal on a separate age-discrimination claim in that suit.) ...
Employers responded with a volley of lobbying, enlisting more than two dozen lawmakers to ask the agency to back off. With Friday's ruling, the Treasury and IRS are now agreeing that employers aren't violating backloading laws when they give employees a pension option that delays wearaway but doesn't eliminate it.
There has been a constant battle over freezing some older workers pension benefits since IBM ran afoul of its senior workers in 1999. That fight may be over as the U.S. Treasury has now issued a ruling that determined that no foul is committed when employers give pension options that delays what is known as “wearaway” (the effects of a freeze), but doesn’t eliminate it. ...
Like most complex rulings on tax and benefit laws, the jargon and rhetoric could lull an insomniac to sleep. So let’s cut to the quick and shed some light on the subject in the form of plain English language. The employers (primarily large corporations) want to save money on the pension plans in order to pay higher salaries to the CEO and greater dividends to stockholders. The employee’s on the other hand want to be paid what they thought was promised, and therein lays the problem. The employee’s lost.
Karen Friedman, a policy director at the Pension Rights Center said, "These companies that traditionally did right by workers have given a green light to other companies. This opened the floodgates. It became permissible." Director Friedman has compiled a list of more than 75 companies freezing pensions in the wake of the IBM and Verizon moves. "Companies are getting out of the pension business. They are backing out of promises to workers," she added. ...
IBM froze its pension plan in early January 2006, yet the retirement for the CEO at age 65, will be greater than $10,000 per day!
IBM still says this is a "pay remix" and your OT will make up the 15% of the base pay you lose. But how am I to make it up with OT now if I am out on a medical leave? Of course sickness or illness days are worth less now. Can we also infer that exempt medical or illness leaves are worth more than non-exempt ones due to the hourly vs. salary distinctions?
Another chilling and stark reminder: it's a pay cut by IBM and not a "pay remix".
You also need to remember that the manager gets a budget based on PBC and salary levels. They can distribute the $'s as they see fit as long as they don't go over budget. So a person making big $'s getting a 3% increase will kill the budget fast. Also there usually is a min % that they want to give instead of giving crumbs to everyone. So the 1 and 2+ performers get it first and if there is any other money left then the next highest ranked 2 performer gets a raise. Sometimes the high paid 1 performer does not get an increase because it will kill the 2+ group. That is why the number of 2+ performers are going down.
Also most promotions are around 5 years and only if you either perform at a 1 for the last 1 or 2 PBC's. That's the way I heard it from a few managers in the past. So if you are a 2 then don't plan on a raise. If you are a 2+ in the middle of the grid then don't plan on it. If you are a 1 and on the low end of the grid then plan on it. Go talk to your manager and see where you fit into the plan. You need to figure out what you need to do to get a 1. Simple as that.
For your retirement, though, the metaphor probably doesn't stand up. Maybe it's because you bounced around from job to job in your career, never staying one place long enough to build a real pension. More likely it's that your employer never offered a pension or froze the one it had. Indeed, the share of private-sector workers covered by a pension has fallen from 39% in 1980 to just 18% today.
The president said that "in the long run, Americans can be confident about our economic growth." I wish that was true. Unfortunately, Since President Bush has been in office it is important to understand that:
In other words, not only is the middle class being squeezed by skyrocketing prices; the middle class is actually shrinking and poverty is increasing. Meanwhile, the wealthiest people in our society have not had it so good since the 1920s.
GAINS ONLY FOR A TINY SLICE. No one is suggesting that trade is bad for the U.S. overall. According to estimates by the Peterson Institute and others, trade and investment liberalization over the past decades have added $500 billion to $1 trillion to annual income in the U.S.
Yet concern is rising that the gains from free trade may increasingly be going to a small group at the top. For the vast majority of Americans, Dartmouth's Slaughter points out, income growth has all but disappeared in recent years. And it's not just the low-skilled who are getting slammed. Inflation-adjusted earnings have fallen in every educational category other than the 4% who hold doctorates or professional degrees. Such numbers, Slaughter argues, suggest the share of Americans who aren't included in the gains from trade may be very big. "[That's] a very important change from earlier generations, and it should give pause to people who say they know what's going on," he says.
That report’s executive summary emphasized the growing challenges for Massachusetts companies in the face of international competition, and it listed IBM, alongside General Motors and Microsoft, as one of several U.S. companies expanding its global footprint and hiring large numbers of employees in places like India and China. In their note to us, IBM staffers expressed concern that readers of the summary might peruse that section and question Big Blue’s commitment to employment and innovation in Massachusetts.
But as I’ve tried to explain in previous columns, there really is a big difference between the candidates’ approaches. And new research, just released, confirms what I’ve been saying: the difference between the plans could well be the difference between achieving universal health coverage — a key progressive goal — and falling far short.
Specifically, new estimates say that a plan resembling Mrs. Clinton’s would cover almost twice as many of those now uninsured as a plan resembling Mr. Obama’s — at only slightly higher cost. Let’s talk about how the plans compare.
State projections obtained by the Globe show the program reaching 342,000 people and $1.35 billion in annual expenses by June 2011. Those figures would far outstrip the original plans for the Commonwealth Care program, largely because state officials underestimated the number of uninsured residents.
''The idea should be to encourage these procedures because of their lifesaving ramifications,'' said John Fanburg, counsel for the New Jersey State Society of Anesthesiologists and the New Jersey Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Society.
Researchers at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, suggested in that debate of the early 1990s that the answer was an individual mandate, an end to employment-based coverage and major changes in the tax treatment of health insurance benefits. They proposed that the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program was a perfect model, and that individuals could be allowed to buy into it if nothing else, as a replacement for employer coverage.
This year, most of the Democratic candidates have embraced a number of the Heritage Foundation proposals, though they don't agree that employers should be closed out of the system. Most support an individual mandate. Most would support the option of purchase into the federal employee program. Most support some tax policy modifications. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) does not favor a mandate, but did say in New Hampshire that his first preference was a single-payer system—he just doesn't think it could become law.
Republican candidates likely do not know that the individual mandate was a conservative think tank proposal. The head of the Heritage Foundation, Edwin Feulner, was a domestic policy consultant to President Reagan, and Edwin Meese, a top aide to Reagan and later attorney general, has been affiliated with the foundation since the end of that administration. As recently as the final New Hampshire Republican debate the candidates condemned the "socialist" proposal of an individual mandate "coming from the Democrats." In fact, staffers at Heritage were key actors in Gov. Mitt Romney's Massachusetts health care reform.
Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans United for Truth filed the suit in July 2007, alleging that VA is responsible for a "systemwide pattern of abusive and illegal administrative practices." The lawsuit claims VA failed to deliver the mandatory two years of disability benefits for veterans, failed to address staff problems that led to long wait times for care and provided insufficient care for post-traumatic stress disorder. The lawsuit also claims VA deliberately reclassified PTSD claims as pre-existing disorders as a way to avoid paying out benefits.
The company's owner, Nick Vailas, says widespread adoption of the plans will drive health care costs down, because people will have to pay more out-of-pocket and will shop for the best prices. But he laments the obstacles that he feels are holding back development of the consumer-driven market.
One of his customers — the owner of a small diner — talks about why she chose her plan and how it has worked out, and a Harvard economist talks about the market from a wider angle.
There are some intuitively obvious services that the government runs more productively and efficiently than private for-profit enterprises. For example, our armed forces and GI’s conquer and hold and protect territory more effectively and at a fraction of cost of private militias such as Blackwater USA and the Crescent Security Corporations. In addition, the government rules and regulations which our governments’ military adhere to insure an ethical cohesive fighting force compared to the unregulated for-profit corporate armies. Our GI soldiers assigned to kitchen duty prepare and cook meals at a fraction of the cost of identically prepared meals from the private for-profit logistics divisions of the Halliburton or Kellog Brown and Root Corporations. Government regulated public education in America such as the undergraduate and college systems of the City of New York and other large metropolises have for over a century produced more CEO’s, doctors, lawyers, accountants, engineers, chemists, poets, philosophers and military officers than any private school system, and at a fraction of the cost compared to all the private schools in the country combined. Take away the government grants, government tax breaks, and government sponsored free overseas labor from Americas top private Colleges and their classrooms and graduate programs would most likely shut down, no matter how large their private endowments. The government run and regulated public school systems of Israel, India and China are churning out competent engineers, scientists and entrepreneurs at a quality and rate much greater than that of any collection of private schools in any country in the world. These non-American people, highly educated by their government run school systems, have formed a new collective worldwide labor arbitrage system which is fueling the productivity of intercontinental private business. The Marshall Plan, Interstate Highways, Space Program, Peace Corps, and the GI Bill all demonstrate successful government run bureaucracies of their time.
In a similar fashion, our mammoth government-run health insurance company (Medicare) operates at a fraction of the cost of private insurance corporations such as Aetna, Cigna, United, Blue Shield Blue Cross, Kaiser Permanente and Humana. Medicare, the government health insurance for the elderly uses only 1-2% of your dollar to achieve rates of morbidity (sickness) and mortality (death) among their patients which are identical to those of the private health insurance corporations. However, private insurance corporate bureaucracies inefficiently siphon $350 billion per year, or 20-25% of your hard earned dollars away from doctors, hospitals and patient care into the pockets of their executives, administrative employees, shareholders and politicians. The recent stock option fraud perpetrated by the CEO of United Health Care demonstrates the negligent disdain the private insurance corporations have for physicians, hospitals, health care workers and patients. Since their founding 40 years ago, private health maintenance insurance corporations have failed to deliver what their business plans always promise; lower rates of morbidity and mortality associated with low costs to the patients. These insurance companies are financially profitable for their shareholders and executives, but medically bankrupt for their patients. Without their own massive government subsidies, government protection from malpractice lawsuits, and a government ban on collective bargaining by physicians the private health insurance corporate bureaucracies of Aetna, Cigna, United and Humana, and hundreds of other smaller health insurance companies of the health insurance industry would undoubted fail to exist. Most elderly people who call themselves Republicans, and conservative physicians in this Country have recognized the efficacy of our government regulated Medicare health insurance corporation and have enrolled themselves and utilized this Government run health insurance company for their own medical needs (despite the shrill cries of socialized medicine from their leaders). 40 years ago we heard these same shrill cries from organized medicine and Republicans concerning the establishment of Medicare. After accepting hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicare Insurance payments over the ensuing 4 decades, one can only wonder why conservative physicians still rally like Quixote against this government run insurance product.
Notice that there has NOT been any major signing announced? Notice that upper management is NOT rallying the troops like back a few years ago? Notice that rumor control is very very limited from management. THEY CONDONE this miserable work environment as a way to force folks out. Global Services as a whole is not worth the effort / returns that are generated. We have too many divisions competing with each other. There has been a concerted effort to realign, with poor results (project sydney). It's easier to spin off groups and departments due to the new drive for more profits with little overhead.
The forced attrition is the drive to weaken our morale even more so when we get hit with the news that we are being sold, most FTE's will have split. You can look to the high performers and high band members who have left ibm in droves. Talent is and will continue to flee this year. Look for 4th qtr / 1st qtr 09 for GS being sold to our indian competitor wipro and ? they will team the companies up in a partnership to buy GS. AS always, management will provide KY for those who need it -screwed by sam-
Hardly. IBMers: don't expect much more if any more over 1% more this year. Don't be surprised if you get even more less than last year, especially if you were dropped from a PBC "2+" to a "2". IBM purposely made more people "2's" to save money on this bonus payout. One would figure with a RECORD YEAR by IBM we should have not more PBC "2''s" but PBC "2+"'s and "1"'s. All that for your labors that gave IBM a RECORD EARNINGS in 2007. Expect Sam and the rest of the executives to do MUCH, MUCH BETTER with their bonuses to reward themselves lavishly for the RECORD YEAR at your expense of course! -GDP?-
Within my new division as a now non-exempt employee I have to use a tool for pre-approval for my o/t. Using historical data for the past two years in claim, for this month my request was submitted for 60 hours o/t. Average about 15 hours a week in overtime. I work 5 to 6 days, 10 to 12 hours per day. I have no back-up resources on the account I support, and I'm the only one left on the account from my previous team.
Those in the competency I just moved into and work with are not local. The client requires I am available 24x7 as needed (on-site!), and was given permission to distribute my cell phone to the business units I support. If there is an emergency, I am the only resource on-site. Submitted my overtime through the toolset for approval, listing the transition projects, sites I'm involved with for decommissioning, etc. and was denied. Told we needed to reevaluate my functions/role and support for the hours I work. This is already off to a great start! -Anonymous-
Alliance Reply: IBM has always maintained that prohibiting employees from discussing their personal information with each other, was for the employees 'protection'. Clearly, that's not their only motivation. As far as freedom of speech goes, inside IBM property or while working on IBM equipment; speech is limited and not free as defined by the Constitution of the USA. This is a little known fact. However, speech made while actively union organizing is protected under the NLRA or Wagner act of 1938. This has been consistently challenged in court by companies in the US, over time, who work to suppress union activity in their workplace. Unfortunately, some of those cases have been ruled in the company's favor. If you want to discuss your salary or personal IBM related information with your co-workers; that is your decision. While you're doing it, why not organize your co-workers? In the meantime, check out this link: American Rights At Work
This has now made my teams job redundant and pretty much useless because we can't do any work during the day normally. My manager is nonexistent and won't talk to us. Trying to get information from the PMs or anyone higher in the organization is useless because they are all trying to protect their own behinds by "cutting costs" and lying to customers and us. I'm waiting for IBM to come back any day now as say your fired. IBM made a brilliant financial move for this year. I hope they can afford it later when customers start pulling their contracts due to the fact they can't get what they want done. Thank goodness I cashed in all my IBM stock and got rid of all reference to IBM in my 401k. I'm not wasting my money supporting them when they can't even tell me the truth. -IBM peon-
Market reference salary is calculated from base salary + OT + assumed 6% GDP bonus = total compensation. The 6% of salary GDP bonus is if IBM meets 100% of targets. My brother-in-law is a global services manager and told me this year Sam is only contributing 5% per employee not the 6% to the GDP employee bonus pool. All the while Sam and the executives are telling investors and employees that the pool was increased when it was decreased. They are stealing 1% from everyone and the managers have to lie about it. When raise time doesn't happen HR will add the 6% GDP $ to your total compensation $ amount not the 5%. Your market reference salary looks bigger than it is and HR says your total compensation is fair already. More lies No raise -tangledweb-
Vault's IBM Business Consulting Services message board is a popular hangout for IBM BCS employees, including many employees acquired from PwC.
Since the entry level pipeline is now stacked heavily from Injuns, it stands to reason that after a few years of that, the middle levels will be as well. Most of them are capped in terms of upward mobility, but they are so thrilled to be living in a civilized society, they are willing to coast along at IBM career path speeds a lot longer than an American resource would. That makes them doubly attractive to IBM.
Let’s just ignore the fact that they can’t do much more than Gestapo command and control over their off-shore tech-head minions, and don’t bring anything to the table in terms of innovation or business process. Warm bodies are all we need to keep our heads above water, and besides, they are cheap as hell.
Today's highly compensated executives face many difficulties, including figuring out how they can possibly spend all of the rich rewards they've earned on the backs of ordinary workers. Take a look at the insider trading of many of our IBM executives—spending the cash from all that stock "acquired at $0 per share" must be a real challenge! Or, imagine the difficulty IBM CEO Sam Palmisano will face spending his $10,000 to $20,000 a day pension when he retires!
As a way of helping out our beleaguered, modern-day robber barons this site will periodically feature "spending opportunities" that the "upper crust" of our society may want to take advantage of!
This site is designed to allow IBM Employees to communicate and share methods of protecting their rights through the establishment of an IBM Employees Labor Union. Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act states it is a violation for Employers to spy on union gatherings, or pretend to spy. For the purpose of the National Labor Relations Act, notice is given that this site and all of its content, messages, communications, or other content is considered to be a union gathering.