I spent 3 days catching up with my sleep and casting off the stress of the last 20+ years since the Gerstner era. When I woke up my wife said I was a different man, more like they guy she married 35 years ago. She said my demeanor has improved so much she is stunned. She believes the layoff will add 10 years to my life.
The same day I left I got 3 calls from IGS and SWG for me to come back immediately as a sub-contractor. She took all the calls and joyfully told them all to just jump in a lake. I never realized how much my wife and kids disliked IBM and the arrogance of many higher echelon IBMers and newly minted MBA types, especially the executives my wife had dealt with over the years.
One of my close friends and a neighbor have both retired from IBM and been IBM contractors and they told me in no uncertain terms that it's much better if you want to be a freelance contractor to subcontract with other firms like Cisco and HP. They believe IBM is a poor choice of a company to sub-contract for. I heard from them that technical services contractors for GTS get screwed with all sorts of "surcharges" like a 7% "skim charge" for GTS "administration" expenses. I call it a kickback! My friends believe that the company believes many of you are still coercible and available as cheap slave labor.
I know it's a tough world out there and that many IBMers only realize after they get thrown out of IBM that the company really never gave them a chance to get skills that would have value in the marketplace. Most of us were just pigeonholed, given highly focused education and skills to do the compartmentalized job they wanted you to do, filled your head with "Spirits" that made you think you were special, paid an average but not stellar compensation then cast off like obsolete or broken tools when they felt you couldn't give enough to meet their outrageous financial objectives or just pay the price for management that failed to forecast accurately the market and economy.
I am glad that I started actively "coasting" after my 30th anniversary and instead of working like a good slave I spent my time refreshing my skills and fostering my contacts in the market. I essentially started getting ready for the day I'd get canned. I feel good even if my management dinged me on PBCs many times for "not being 150% behind our objectives" and instead picked up skills now that are valuable and contacts that can help me grow as a professional. I only wish that I had done more for myself, not IBM. I should have not waited until my 30th anniversary, I should have started at the 29 year mark.
Keep working at it and don't get hoodwinked a second time. My wife says that many long term ex-IBM employees she knows seem to have the same symptoms that spousal abuse victims portray after long term abuse. They feel trapped, desperately seek token approval from those they think are their true colleagues and keep going back for more abuse, even as sub-contractors.
I come from an IBM family (70 years combined). I bled blue. I marched and carried the flag blinded by my own delusions thinking I was different. IBM would not do that to me! They will take care of those that take care of them.HA!!! And there really IS an Easter Bunny!
Like Joe Rocket, I have been restored to sanity and returned to the kind of life we all deserve. I am now working for a company that appreciates ME! I am having the time of my life! After all, who wouldn't like to have the kind of employee that made IBM the company it USED to be?
I will do nothing more for the company that continues to do less for me every day. Signed: 'Embarrassed to admit I worked for IBM'
Three decades ago, individually controlled retirement plans like 401(k)s barely existed. Most Americans counted on a pension, with funds contributed and managed by their employer, to provide for retirement along with Social Security payments. But today, workers have accumulated $3 trillion in 401(k) accounts, up from $1.6 trillion in 2002 - making them a tempting target for households looking to get through tough times. ...
The growth of hardship withdrawals is cause for concern among many financial specialists who say people aren't saving enough for retirement as it is. Richard Gottlieb, a Boston bankruptcy attorney, says that a quarter of the 150 clients he sees in a typical month have taken a hardship withdrawal at some point, but that still hasn't kept them from seeking protection from creditors. Many, he said, were trying to stay in a house they couldn't afford in the first place.
For a lot of people, this is going to be a problem. In a defined-contribution (DC) scheme, the eventual pension depends on the investment performance of the fund that the employee has paid into—and he takes the risk of poor investment performance. By contrast, defined-benefit (DB) schemes promise employees a retirement income based on their pay and length of service. The employer takes the risk.
But an even bigger problem is that the level of contributions from both employers and employees into DC schemes is lower than it is into DB schemes. Whatever the arguments about the merits of the new wave of schemes, if you put less money in, you will get less money out. To make the shortfall worse, the costs of running DC schemes are, on average, higher. And finally, DC pensions call for a degree of decision-making that their members are often ill-equipped to undertake. As a recent paper* published by Britain's Pensions Institute points out: for “financial products extending over long periods of time, many consumers are clearly not well-informed or well-educated. The retirement-savings decision needs accurate forecasts of lifetime earnings, asset returns, interest rates, tax rates, inflation and longevity; yet very few people have the skills to produce such forecasts.”
The result may be that many employees face retirement with an income well short of their expectations. An employee who pays into a DC scheme for 40 years may get only half the retirement income he could have expected under a final-salary system. When pension experts were polled by Watson Wyatt their biggest concern was that DC schemes will yield inadequate pensions for DC members. As the Pensions Institute paper says: “When the plan member eventually discovers how low his pension really is, it is by then too late to do anything about it.”
But for some staffers, the move is a slap in the face to employees. "It is sad to see that the largest newspaper company in North America is treating its employees so shabbily," said Lou Mleczko, president of the Newspaper Guild of Detroit, whose members include those at the Gannett-owned Detroit Free Press. "They can afford to maintain this [pension] plan, it is not an expensive plan. It is an abandonment of their own employees."
Hamilton Court, meanwhile, is rarely courted at election time. Inside its gates, the Chands have everything they might need: the coveted Sri Ram School, a private health clinic and clubhouse next door, security guards to keep out unwanted strangers and well-groomed lawns and paths for power walks and cricket games. ...
“Women and children are not encouraged to go outside,” said Madan Mohan Bhalla, president of the Hamilton Court Resident Welfare Association. “If they want to have a walk, they can walk inside. It’s a different world outside the gate.
Dozens of other companies offer lush death-benefit packages to their top executives, according to a Wall Street Journal review of federal filings. Many companies accelerate unvested stock awards after a death, which by itself can amount to tens of millions of dollars. Some promise giant posthumous severance payouts, supercharged pensions or even a continuation of executives' salaries or bonuses for years after they're dead.
Established tech companies with pensions have been terminating or freezing them, like the rest of corporate America. In 2006, IBM Corp., profitable and with an impeccable credit rating, froze its pension plan and transferred employees to its 401(k) retirement plan. The emergence of the tech industry as an economic force in the 1980s, in fact, helped hasten the demise of the traditional pension.
As Alicia Munnell and Mauricio Soto of Boston College pointed out in a 2007 academic paper on corporations freezing their pensions, the tech industry was part of a dramatic shift in attitudes toward retirement security: "Employment was declining in large, unionized, manufacturing firms, which typically offered defined-benefit plans, and was growing in 'high-tech' firms and small, non-unionized companies in the services and trade sectors, which typically did not." ...
The move away from pensions is part of a huge shift in risk from corporations to workers. ...
The risk shift is not a good thing for workers, tech or otherwise. Besides the generally poor level of financial literacy in the U.S., studies show that as many as one-third of workers with access to a 401(k) plan at work do not participate.
For years, Mr. Takano regularly worked into the wee hours as a store manager at the McDonald’s Company Japan. With his health deteriorating and the company, a Japanese business that operates many local restaurants here, refusing to pay overtime, Mr. Takano sued three years ago, and won. In January, a Tokyo court ordered McDonald’s Japan to pay him $75,000 in back overtime wages. Last month, the company announced it would pay more overtime to store managers.
Slowly and reluctantly, Japan’s salarymen are learning to stand up for their rights, and in the process rewriting the social contract that had once bound workers to companies with near feudal bonds of loyalty. While this renegotiation is still under way, a new generation of Japanese like Mr. Takano is seeking to limit the demands of employers with more American-style legal protections. These changing attitudes reflect a broader shift as Japan, Asia’s first high-growth success story, struggles to mature into a postindustrial economy.
But what workers with defined-benefit pensions and those who already have tapped Social Security benefits might not realize is that there are significant financial disincentives that make working into retirement age a tricky proposition.
Without understanding where the financial time bombs lie, many older workers could find their Social Security payments reduced and their pension payout rates at serious risk, says Chantel Sheaks, a principal at Buck Consultants, an international employee benefits and human resources consulting firm.
He shows how the radical idea of the “ownership society” is overturning the DB paradigm, not only in traditional pensions, but also in health-care financing, such as with health savings accounts, and higher-education savings programs. It is advancing into ideas of creating “re-employment accounts” to replace conventional unemployment compensation programs and “individual developmental accounts” used by some states “to encourage self-reliance and entrepreneurial efforts among the poor.”
Only 16% of employers offer full pay for childbirth leave, down from 27% in 1998, based on a nationally representative sample of 1,100 employers by the nonprofit Families and Work Institute. The average maximum length of job-guaranteed leaves for new mothers shrank too, to 15.2 weeks from 16.1 weeks a decade ago; leave for dads fell to 12.6 weeks from 13.1.
That's all talk, says Paul Fronstin, director of health research for the Employee Benefit Research Institute in Washington, which studies economic security. It's just not happening. Employers see their benefit programs as a way of attracting and keeping better workers. They also are doubtful about the alternative -- a government-run, Medicare-ish program whose costs and benefits they can't control.
They've floated their ideas in a proposal called the New Benefit Platform for Life Security, developed by the ERISA Industry Committee, or ERIC. The committee represents the nation's major employers. ERISA is the federal law that regulates employee benefits.
ERIC contends that health care should be delivered through large, third-party benefit administrators, all of them competing for the business. A government-authorized entity would design three to five standard health plans, with input from all the stakeholders (medical, consumer, insurer, employer and regulator). Employers would have the option of keeping their current plan or -- as ERIC expects -- contracting for coverage through the new system.
Promotion of incremental reform demonstrates lack of political will - the same failure to confront corporate profit-taking by insurance and pharmaceutical industries that wrote Medicare prescription drug reform with billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies and inflated profits to benefit their bottom lines.
Commercial health insurance is the 800-pound gorilla, responsible for 20 to 30% of health care dollars siphoned to excessive administrative costs, lobbying, marketing, CEO salaries and profit-taking - $1.4 billion stock options to former UnitedHealth CEO William McGuire; $30 billion annual after-tax health insurance profits, plus $32 billion insurance underwriting and marketing costs, revealed by the McKinsey Group Report of 2007.
Profit is a perverse incentive for quality health care: imagine for-profit fire or police protection. Underwriting is the art of evaluating and avoiding risk, insuring profits by covering the healthy and rejecting everyone else as a “pre-existing condition.” “Market-driven” health care treats health as a commodity, to be negotiated like a car or a house. Free-market health care has also spawned “designer hospitals,” built to offer only the most profitable specialty services, e.g., cardiac procedures, eliminating less profitable care, such as emergency room and mental health.
"She just couldn't weasel it out of them," said Reinhardt, who works at Princeton University and this year chaired a high-profile commission that evaluated the financial health of New Jersey's hospitals. So Reinhardt tried himself. He was able to extract a number from a supervisor, but only after he had explained rather haughtily who he was.
In health-policy circles, there has been a lot of talk in recent years about "consumer-directed health care" and "price transparency," fancy ways of saying Americans might spend a few gazillion less dollars on health care if they could figure out, in advance, how much things cost and had a reason to care. With the number of people with high-deductible insurance plans or no insurance growing, more people have a reason to care.
The Bush administration has strongly endorsed the idea that information about prices will drive Americans toward more cost-effective care. Barack Obama and John McCain are calling for greater price transparency.
You are among the masses/One of 47 million people without health care access . . . Focus on the laws that must be enacted/Because we know there are flaws in our health care practices.
These may sound like lyrics only a lobbyist could love, but the video -- sponsored by the American Cancer Society -- expresses the frustration felt by those trying to end the United States's status as the only industrialized nation whose citizens don't have universal access to health care.
Here's a cold truth: Despite much media hand-wringing on the subject, most of us give about as much thought to those who lack health coverage as we do to soybean subsidies.The major obstacle to change? Those of us with insurance simply don't care very much about those without it. It's only when health care costs spike sharply, the economy totters or private employers begin to cut back on benefits that the lack of universal health care comes into focus. Noticing the steadily growing ranks of the uninsured, the broad American public -- "us" -- begins to worry that we'll soon be joining the ranks of "them."
News stories about the uninsured typically offer poignant profiles of people with whom the public can easily identify. As an award-winning article in Redbook last year informed its readers, "Increasingly, this is a problem for the middle class." Similarly, the Cover the Uninsured Web site, sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, highlights personal stories of seven appealing uninsured individuals. Several are current or former small-business owners. Six are white, and one is an African-American woman. There are no identifiable Hispanics. ...
When the general public talks about a health care crisis, what they're generally talking about is rising costs, a constant complaint since the Hoover administration (though Richard M. Nixon was the first president to officially declare a health care "crisis"). In response to this public clamor for cost control, those who advocate for the uninsured have decided to talk not only about the 22,000 of "them" who die annually because of a lack of access to care, but also to emphasize the money that providing coverage to "them" could actually save the rest of "us."
The Commonwealth Fund recently tallied the ways in which universal health care would save hundreds of millions of dollars, most of which were related to lowering the societal costs exacted by the greater burden of illness among the uninsured. The list was an exhaustive and exhausting one that nonetheless had the whiff of desperation, as if civil rights activists had appealed for support against segregation because it was reducing the pool of qualified candidates for the Selma, Ala., police department.
The study noted that adults with annual incomes below $20,000 were at the highest risk of being uninsured or underinsured, But people in higher wealth brackets have also been affected: 22 million people with income between $40,000 and $99,999 said they had insufficient coverage, compared to 9 million in 2003. Meanwhile, seven million people who make more than $100,000 said they were uninsured in 2007, up from one million in 2003.
What makes this case particularly troublesome is that the Harvard group’s research has helped fuel an explosion in the use of powerful antipsychotic drugs to treat children, as was described in The Times on Sunday by Gardiner Harris and Benedict Carey. Although supporters praise the most prominent of the trio, Dr. Joseph Biederman, as a visionary who has saved many lives, critics complain that the Harvard studies have been too small and loosely designed to provide conclusive results. Critics say they also were subject to biased interpretation through use of a subjective rating scale. ...
Under pressure, two of the researchers acknowledged receiving $1.6 million apiece in consulting fees from drug companies between 2000 and 2007 and the third reported earning more than $1 million. That was far more than the researchers had originally reported, a number that Mr. Grassley pegged at a couple hundred thousand dollars apiece. Even the updated numbers left out other payments that drug companies reported separately that they had made to the trio.
"Solutions that purport to be a silver bullet — or solutions that tackle one of these pieces without addressing the others — will not transform the health care system in a way that Americans deserve," Williams said in testimony given to the Senate Committee on Finance.
But the amount retirees will need is a bit of a shocker. According to new information from the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a male retiree with health insurance benefits subsidized by a former employer will need at least another $122,000 to have a 90 percent chance at covering all medical costs. Women, who on average live longer than men, will need even more money: $140,000 for a 90 percent chance to cover all their health care needs.
The news gets worse. Male retirees who rely on employment-based benefits that are not subsidized will need $196,000 to have a 90 percent chance of meeting their health care needs. Women retirees with unsubsidized benefits will need a whopping $224,000. ...
Paul Fronstin, EBRI senior research associate and co-author of the report, said the high levels of savings now needed by employees is a result of employers shifting more financial responsibility for retiree health benefits to employees.
Back in the 1960s and 1970s, it was common for workers to have what is called a defined benefit pension plan. The worker got a promise from the employer that when retirement came he'd get a certain monthly benefit--often about 60% of his final average earnings. That might be $2,000 a month--every month for the rest of his life. Therefore a defined benefit.
But starting in the 1980s, employers came to find that they couldn't afford these very expensive defined benefit pension plans. Employers started backing away from these plans by no longer making new employees eligible for them or simply terminating them and freezing the benefits for those who had been participants.
Instead, employers more often offered a defined contribution plan--most often in the form of a 401(k) plan. A 401(k) pension plan is based primarily on employee contributions that are made pre-tax. Often, the employer matches the employee's contribution at some percentage of what the employee contributes--a defined contribution plan.
401(k) plans are popular with employers because they have no big funding requirement--defined benefit plans required them to contribute whatever it cost to keep the expensive benefit promise. Now, the risk of having enough money to retire on was shifted from the employer to the employee.
The pension plan story is what the big idea difference between McCain and Obama's health plan is really about.
Obama: Do we continue down the same incremental line with health care reform--building on the employer-based system where the employer provides so many of us with generous defined benefit health insurance plans that the employer continues to pay most of the cost of no matter how expensive they are?
McCain: Or, do we change the health insurance focus from relying on the employer to relying on individual responsibility and a structure that enables the individual to build their own health care security and not have to rely upon the generosity of one employer or another?
"We're two to three years behind most Western countries at this point," says University of Pennsylvania demographer Samuel Preston, a member of a National Academy of Sciences panel that convened for the first time last week to try to explain the lag. "We may be gaining, or not, depending on the rate at which their life expectancy is increasing."
The pair struggle to be heard above the din of nearby caffeine-fueled conversations and the roar of a fire engine flying past. But if they feel any sense that their efforts are futile, they do not show it. Wearing ties designed to look like American flags to honor their hosts, they patiently answer question after question about health care in Taiwan, rejecting American notions about what a single-payer system means.
“In Taiwan, we have no waiting lists,” says Hou. “In Taiwan, the doctor works on Saturday. They operate on Saturday afternoon.” Moreover, the government does not tell its citizens where they must go for care, he said. Sophisticated information technology is a part of the health system. Each resident of the country carries a “smart card” to entitles them to health care.
“With the smart card you can go to any clinic at any time without an appointment,” Hou said. And there is no “gatekeeper” denying access to specialists, a frequent complaint among Americans about U.S. managed care companies. This freedom of choice helps improve quality because providers must compete to attract patients, Hou says. ...
The climate now in Taiwan is a marked contrast with its situation before its adoption of a single-payer system of universal coverage in 1995. Only 59 percent of the population had health insurance at the time, and health costs were growing at double-digit rates. Now 99 percent of the Taiwan population is covered and health costs are growing between 4 and 5 percent annually.
Hou says the single payer approach is key to keeping costs generally affordable because everyone is in the same insurance pool. That means premium money left over because of the relatively low costs of healthy people can be used to pay for the care of sick people. In a system of multiple smaller insurers, sicker people have a hard time finding affordable coverage because insurers try to make money by appealing to good risks and avoiding bad ones. ...
Having just one payer eases uniformity of billing and payment systems unlike a system in which multiple insurers compete for profits. Administrative costs average below two percent of all health spending in Taiwan. In the United States, however, administrative costs gobble up 15 to 30 cents of the health care dollar, analysts say.
That is the disturbing finding of a survey by the Commonwealth Fund, a private foundation specializing in health policy research, that was published by the journal Health Affairs. The survey found that some 22 million adults with health coverage all year still spent a large chunk of their incomes — at least 10 percent for middle-class families — for out-of-pocket medical expenses. Another 3.4 million were saddled with high deductibles that would cause financial problems if they became ill.
Conservative health theorists and insurance industry leaders have long argued that the best way to slow soaring health care costs is to force people to pay a significant share of the bill so that they will buy medical services more judiciously, and sparingly. But as out-of-pocket expenses and deductibles have risen, many families are instead postponing or forgoing treatment.
Many of those surveyed had put off seeing a doctor when sick, failed to fill prescriptions or skipped tests, treatments and preventive care. About half had difficulty paying their bills; many took out loans, mortgages or credit card debt to pay them.
The task of protecting consumers in the individual market has, for the most part, been left to the states. States have taken some steps to protect consumers, but they face limitations. The insurance lobby is strong, and many insurers would prefer an unregulated market in which they accept only consumers who are good risks for their business. This leaves consumers with a patchwork of protections that are inadequate as a whole and that vary greatly from state to state. In one state, consumers may be able to buy insurance that will cover their medical needs, but only at a very high price. Just across the state line, neighbors with similar medical conditions may find that although policies are cheaper, no insurer will sell to them or insurers will only sell them polices that exclude coverage of the very services that they most need. Consumers are put at the mercy of insurers and the vagaries of states’ insurance laws. ...
We found that protections vary greatly across the country, and in many states, because of a lack of consumer protections, insurance companies can deny people coverage, raise premiums significantly, refuse to cover treatment for certain conditions, and even revoke the coverage of policyholders who have been paying premiums for years.
The executive levels within ITD are ignoring the quality problems, lack of productivity issues, the high turnover rates and the rapidly escalating pay in BRIC. Total denial. Even so, they aren't so stupid that they think they could offshore all of the IGA work by the end of 2008. If they did, major breakdowns would occur with a devastating impact on the business. But every quarter, the execs will be relentlessly pushing to reduce US headcount and will be demanding more work moving offshore. Every damn quarter, they will be back for looking for more to cut and more to offshore. Not unlike Chinese water torture for the survivors.
Over time, the US jobs moved offshore will become higher and higher skilled. operators, then system admins, then IT specialists then lower-band project managers, then lower-band architects and eventually the high band PMs and architects. Think year end 2010 as a more reasonable target than 2008.
Finally, this offshoring is not limited to IGS and ITD - virtually everything is on the table for global integration and migration to a low cost country. IBM US layoffs, counting the layoffs already executed in the last 3 to 4 years and including the ones to come yet this year, in 2009 and in 2010 could reach 100,000 if they execute their plan. I believe they are already behind plan because of the unanticipated issues noted above, so completion by 2010 is in doubt. -Frank-
I remember when I became an IBM employee. I was actually pretty excited. Working for a technology leader. Little did I know how dysfunctional and disorganized IBM is! I have no clue how they stay in business. Never seen managers move around a company so much. Are they running and hiding because different accounts are finding out how incompetent they are?
I was actually one of the lucky ones as I really liked my first manager. She actually was human and cared about her employees. She got smart and left. Anyway, just wanted to give my two cents worth to those that remain. There is life outside of IBM...and it's GREAT! No more 60-70 hour weeks and getting calls when you are not on call. I am ME again and it FEELS SO GOOD!!!! -LuvMyJobNOTatIBM-
I left after being extended a few times on my RA, I finally told them to shove the next extension up their collective asses. I landed a job with the competitor shortly after leaving. Life is soooooooooooooooooooo much better outside ibm. The rest of the IT / Workforce is not based or as screwed up as ibm.
I use to be proud to be an ibm'er. That changed around 2002 when the cuts kept going past the fat and muscle, into the bone. Management doesn't give a rats a$$ about you.. they don't.. really , they don't. Once they killed off spirit and the other initiatives to keep the employees happy and address our complaints, we knew the game was over. sam has made the street completely clear that he will delivery quarter after quarter, thru 2012 or something, record profits. The ONLY way he can do this is cut back on expenses / overhead. The US worker is the most expensive and the biggest overhead, so we are considered the lowest hanging fruit. I have seen folks go into mental breakdowns or worse at ibm. They dint care about us. IBM use to care about us.. we use to be family, now we are a cost and no longer considered an asset.
Polish your resume and don't quit.. keep contacts line up job opportunities. If you quit, they win. Let them RA you so you collect the money.. There is ZERO future at IBM as an employee... zero. You are just as if not more than expendable than the contractors now. Contractors make less, you are now lower in the pecking order.. welcome to the new ibm with zero work life balance.
As far as the one commenting on PBC's.. thanks for the laugh... we have not be judged by those in a decade.. its a waste of time. I copy and pasted the same crap every year. Its ALL based on your 1st and 2nd line and the "bucket" available. I was treated well.. My last three ratings before being RA'd were 1 2 2+ had a great record and great skills and was still screwed. Good luck all.. it was great working with everyone for a decade. The people are the only thing I will miss about ibm.. -RA'd Last May-
Vault's IBM Business Consulting Services message board is a popular hangout for IBM BCS employees, including many employees acquired from PwC. Some sample posts follow:
That's why you'll see that the past IBM will always be better than the current IBM. In the geographies mostly represented by this forum, IBM has moved from being the pre-eminent US multinational employer to an employer on par with the general market. Nothing wrong with that strategy, unless you are an employee with some history with the company. As a new employee, you'll have no knowledge of the past, so ignorance in this case is good, but as you acquire a historical perspective the inexorable movement down the hill will become noticeable to you.
There are good jobs in IBM, but not in the services, sales or engineering areas. The problem here is that IBM tends to pigeonhole people as part of their assimilation process into the company.
The other problem is that IBM is now designed for short stints. All the programs, plans for retirement, medical etc. are designed for people to come in for 3-6 years than leave. Anyone staying there for long actually loses in the long term financially, unless you move up into the executive ranks.
The good areas I would certainly recommend for an individual for a short stint are:
Other than these areas, I can't honestly tell you there's any good jobs that would grow you in the marketplace without some inordinate personal cost.
Maybe not the type of points you were expecting, but these are my positives at the moment. Naturally, they're balanced with a long list of negatives. Looking through them, they're pretty much the same as what everyone else has expressed.
Remember, you are a new person so your bennies will be less as the other poster so aptly stated. The trend is downward for bennies in large multinationals. Do your homework and make sure you compare all of the bennies apples to apples. The difference between boutiques and large firms are that you can tailor even more the bennies to fit your individual profile, except for maybe the 401(k) investment options.
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.