"It was probably the best quarter Big Blue has had in recent memory, if not ever," said Bob Djurdjevic, president of Annex Research. "Wall Street doomsayers and recession buzzards had better look for trouble outside the IT industry, for things could not be better in this sector." ...
IBM also said it signed new services deals worth $14.7 billion, up 12% from a year ago, giving the company a total backlog of $117 billion in services deals.
It's not much of a stretch to say that the environment at IBM is psychologically abusive. The constant threat of layoffs, the deliberately-circulated ominous rumors, management's incompetence, and the strangling red tape we all deal with, all combine to create a workplace that breeds anger and resentment, and stifles both productivity and creativity.
I'd like to respond to the commenter who asked why we don't quit. Most of us would love to quit, and intend to as soon as we can. But when you're the breadwinner of a young family, or in any situation where others depend on you to provide for them, quitting your job--no matter how miserable it is--is not a trivial matter. Many IBM sites are in places where there aren't many other employers to choose from, complicating things even more. Most of us signed onto a very different company than IBM is today, and as much as most of us would love to quit, the practicalities can make it almost prohibitively difficult. IBM knows this, and takes full advantage of it.
It's bad enough without Gordon emailing us all to rub it in; to paraphrase, "hey, what a great year it's been, and if we work hard it's just going to get better!". If this is a good year, I'm not sticking around again for a bad one... I've seen not far short of 20 years in IBM, and I can tell you that this is probably the worst period for employee morale that I have ever seen. I'm serious.
Looking wider than just our own immediate circumstances, these cost-cutting circumstances might result in a nice bottom-line for IBM in the short-term; mid- to long-term however, the future doesn't look so rosy. Those who leave will be the best (trust me, I've seen a few go already and I KNOW they are missed), those who stay will be the ones who know they're not up to scratch and might find it difficult to find another position, let alone survive in it.
What Palmisano has instigated here is a form of inverse-evolution of the IBM workforce; it's not "survival of the fittest", it's "departure of the fittest". IBM will become a shell of its former self, staffed by those who are either aren't really up to scratch or are so disillusioned they no longer perform to their capacity.
Advice to any shareholders reading this - by my reckoning you'd be advised to sell up within 12 months. I think you're "safe" to the end of the year - Palmisano will make sure of that - but the staff losses are really going to start to bite, and with that, so will the results.
Me? I've got a job interview at a competitor coming up. The easy route for me would be to go to a Business Partner - but if I do that I'm still effectively working for IBM, it's win-win for them. No, if I go, I'm going to a competitor. IBM has had more than its pound of flesh from me, I want some of it back.
Now the last thing you want to do as a company if you want to get rid of people is encourage them to stay with decent pay rises, pensions, etc. You piss them off enough that enough people vote with their feet, and bingo! - no redundancies to pay. Not only that, but you can turn around to your customers and say 'sorry Guys we really can't get the skilled staff here in the UK, but we've got lots in India who can do a job'. In the meantime the loyal IBMers are the ones who stick around long enough to allow IBM to make the transition before they lose their jobs too. I've seen it happen elsewhere. What can you do about it? Find another job!
Now the support is going to Hungary which is a no brainer, someday IBM will realise it's its techies that keep the company afloat - how many Salesman are gonna work for No money when the salary system crashes due to it being run by a load of people who 1_ don't speak english; 2) haven't a clue what they are doing; 3) are cheap. I've been here 30 years and just waiting to walk with a nice big wedge. As to pensions well forget it, even people who work for pensions UK are getting out of the schemes as its not worth paper its printed on And they wonder why the office is empty at 4.30!!!
Little wonder that in the UK it is 37 hours and everyone is done. We have a clueless exec team that while being very concerned about morale, do nothing to affect it. In fact, they make it positively worse by sending notes out that congratulate us for our hard effort. It's like an episode from "Are you being served?" where young Mr. Grace says "you've all done very well", and exits stage left. As HR remind us, people are not leaving. So, that's alright then.
It is not just individuals but the entire economy that is now suffering. Practices that produced record profits for many banks have shaken the nation’s financial system to its foundation. As a growing number of Americans default, banks are recording hundreds of billions in losses, devastating their shareholders.
To be sure, the increased availability of credit has contributed mightily to the American economy and has allowed consumers to make big-ticket purchases like homes, cars and college educations. But behind the big increase in consumer debt is a major shift in the way lenders approach their business. In earlier years, actually being repaid by borrowers was crucial to lenders. Now, because so much consumer debt is packaged into securities and sold to investors, repayment of the loans takes on less importance to those lenders than the fees and charges generated when loans are made. ...
For decades, America’s shift from thrift could be summed up in this familiar phrase: When the going gets tough, the tough go shopping. Whether for a car, home, vacation or college degree, the nation’s lenders stood ready to assist. Companies offered first and second mortgages and home equity lines, marketed credit cards for teenagers and helped college students to amass upward of $100,000 in debt by graduation. Every age group up to the elderly was the target of sophisticated ad campaigns and direct mail programs. “Live Richly” was a Citibank message. “Life Takes Visa,” proclaims the nation’s largest credit card issuer. Eliminating negative feelings about indebtedness was the idea behind MasterCard’s “Priceless” campaign, the work of McCann-Erickson Worldwide Advertising, which came out in 1997.
Mortgage lenders took to cold-calling homeowners to persuade them to refinance. Done to reduce borrowers’ monthly payments, serial refinancings allowed lenders to charge thousands of dollars in loan processing fees, including appraisals, credit checks, title searches and document preparation fees. Not surprisingly, such practices generated dazzling profits for the nation’s financial companies. And since 2005, when the bankruptcy law was changed, the credit card industry has increased its earnings 25 percent, according to a new study by Michael Simkovic, a former James M. Olin fellow in Law and Economics at Harvard Law School.
The “2005 bankruptcy reform benefited credit card companies and hurt their customers,” Mr. Simkovic concluded in his study. He said that even though sponsors of the bankruptcy bill promised that consumers would benefit from lower borrowing costs as delinquent borrowers were held more accountable, the cost of borrowing from credit card companies has actually increased anywhere from 5 percent to 17 percent.
According to a charging document (.pdf), Malhotra was the director of IBM global printer sales between 1997 and 2006. Two months before he moved to HP, he requested and received an internal memo titled "IBM Global Services, CC Calibration Metrics," which was marked "IBM Confidential" on each page, according to court records. The authorities said a pricing coordinator for Armonk, New York-based IBM informed the defendant that, "given the sensitive nature of the material, please do not distribute." ...
Emma McCulloch, a spokeswoman for Palo Alto-based HP, which has been embroiled in its own spy scandal, said in a statement that "The activity with which Malhotra is charged was in direct violation of clear HP policies, including HP’s standards of business conduct." McCulloch said "HP detected this activity, conducted an internal investigation, terminated Malhotra from his employment, and self-reported the activity to all appropriate enforcement agencies and to IBM. HP has cooperated fully with the government’s investigation."
The only difference between this brand and most other brands in the world is that the other brands deliver on some sort of morality and compassion and are willing to consider bringing back the worn or broken people they call assets into the family as valued equals, not as lower life forms called "contractors" or "supplemental resources" with no implied or moral commitment to them.
At the brand called IBM, you are easily exploitable or they aren't interested in you as a "resource". That's why they cherish innocent, willing youth they can ravish and grind to a mass of human used pulp in places like the IBM Global Slaves Division. Don't call it working for IBM. Call it legalized prostitution of your time, reputation and good health at the cost of your good name, life and family well being.
Funny.....most moral institutions and brands called their people "assets" IBM is one of the few that calls human beings resources. Even armed forces, sending young soldiers, sailors, airmen and guardsman to death call them "assets" all the way to the end because they know the moral value of life, unlike the cold hearted management of IBM.
A new study found that an increasing number of employees are raiding their retirement funds by taking out loans against their 401(k) accounts. Strangled by debt and rising consumer prices, workers are turning to these plans as the only stash of cash they have. "The result is that families leverage their future retirement security to ease their present financial insecurity," wrote Christian E. Weller and Jeffrey B. Wenger, authors of "Robbing Tomorrow to Pay for Today: Economically Squeezed Families are Turning to Their 401(k)s to Make Ends Meet." The report was issued by the Center for American Progress. ...
The report says that over a 15-year period, loans against retirement savings accounts increased fivefold in inflation-adjusted terms, to $31 billion in 2004, up from $6 billion in 1989 -- an increase of more than 400 percent. Between 1998 and 2004, an average of 12 percent of families with 401(k) plans borrowed from them.
Over 10 years ago, I read in the paper that Bank One was offering access via a card to 401(k) loans, and I thought, this is outrageous. America has to save. If people need to access their 401(k)s because of unusual circumstances, that’s one thing. But to encourage people to take money out with a card is encouraging all the wrong values. So I said then that I was going to put forth legislation, and the bank dropped it and I thought it was over.
Ms. Munnell and Mr. Sass define succinctly the problem faced by baby boomers, and for that matter, by all Americans who aspire to retire now or in the near future. They note that the nation’s retirement system, as embodied by Social Security and Medicare in the public sector and I.R.A.’s and 401(k) plans in the private sector, is contracting in its ability to replace workers’ lost income — even as life expectancy is increasing. ...
So what do we do about the looming retirement income crisis? Ms. Munnell and Mr. Sass recommend that people postpone their retirements from age 63, the current average, to 66. Interestingly enough, 66 was the average back in 1962. They also say that it is time to look at raising the earliest eligibility age for Social Security benefits. (It is currently 62.)The authors write that four more years of work alters the ratio of retirement to working years from 1 to 2, meaning 20 years of retirement and 40 years of work, to almost 1 to 3, or 16 years of retirement and 44 years of work. ...
As a baby boomer, I strive for the best, but I have learned to expect the worst. It may be a stretch to ask government to act rationally. Asking my contemporaries to recognize that it is in their long-term interests to delay the immediate gratification of retirement may be wishful thinking. As far as many of us are concerned, the Who’s rock anthem of 1965, “My Generation,” still says it all: “I hope I die before I get old.”
Suppose an older employee has 5 weeks of vacation, two weeks of non- billable time for education, 7 holidays, 5 personal choice holidays and 3 sick days (to make the math easier). That's a total of 10 weeks of time off. To reach the minimum 2080 hours and to rate no less that a 3 PBC, that person has to work 24% overtime or 9.6 hours of overtime per 40 hours week.
If you want more than a 3 PBC, you'll put in more than that.
Employees will never see that 2080 figure in print because IBM doesn't want that used against them in a possible legal case. I do have a hardcopy of manager foils with the date on them. Not long ago, there was a proposal to up that 2080 to 2160, primarily for GBS employees. Any resemblance to the IBM services business to a sweatshop is merely coincidental -NOT!
Also, it's becoming common now for projects to request and accept only low-band consultants, or "global resources." Even band 8's are now difficult to place. This, of course, means that projects are staffed with young, inexperienced consultants who now work without the benefit of more senior mentors...because projects can't "afford" senior people. It's a formula for failure, of course, but a formula that appears to be well established.
You'd need an army comprised of the world's smartest people to accomplish what IBM does regularly. Good luck hiring them; most already work for Big Blue. That's why it owns more patents than anyone else. At one time, it even considered selling R&D outsourcing services. With so much brainpower, IBM can afford to take risks, as it has in broadly adopting open-source software and ideas. Its newest idea is to put $1.5 billion into semiconductor manufacturing facilities in New York, IDG News service reports.
"The accelerating trend in pension freezes is disturbing, especially as employers face greater economic pressure today," Pomeroy said in the statement. “For older workers, a frozen pension can leave them with little time to make up for the loss in income under a 401(k) plan” ...
“GAO found that sponsors decided to freeze pensions for two main reasons - because of the impact on cash flow and funding volatility, both of which have increased under PPA (Pension Protection Act),” Pomeroy continued. “Unfortunately, faced with greater uncertainty employers may decide that offering a pension no longer makes good business sense. More frozen pensions would mean a big loss for workers who already are increasingly less confident about their retirement security.”
To the list of golden parachutes and golden handcuffs, add "golden coffins": lavish death benefits for CEOs that can include massive severance payments made to an executive's estate after he or she dies. According to an analysis of federal filings in June by the Wall Street Journal, companies such as Nabors Industries, Occidental Petroleum, Shaw Group, Lockheed Martin and others have promised their CEOs and their families death benefits of up to hundreds of millions of dollars.
At Nabors Industries, CEO Eugene Isenberg's estate will receive a "severance" payment of at least $263 million if he dies this year, according to the Journal. The estate of Brian L. Roberts, the CEO of Philadelphia-based Comcast Corp., will receive a $298 million "severance" if he dies, while the estate of Ray R. Irani, CEO of Los Angeles-based Occidental Petroleum, will receive $115 million after his death. ...
However, Rich McHugh, a partner at the law firm of Dow Lohnes in Washington, who specializes in employee benefits and compensation, says that, while there's no "consistent rationale" for golden coffins, they do play an important role in the war for talent. "It's all about attraction and retention of these executives," he says. "You've got to stay competitive." ...
Golden coffins have also been pushed by compensation consultants, who are, in many cases, brought in to justify excessive compensation packages, says Fugate. "They impress upon the board the need to 'stay competitive' with a list of 'comparable firms' by offering these perks," he says. "It's all about keeping up with the Joneses. And no one says, 'No.' " Johnson says he nearly always counsels compensation committees to turn down requests for golden-coffin packages by CEO candidates. "These things are expensive, a pain to administer and they drive a wedge between management and employees," he says.
Wharton faculty and compensation experts say the flap over Google's decision to change its employee day care program illustrates the difficulty in eliminating any employee perk. "Once you have the perk, to take it away is seen as a violation of a psychological contract you have with your employee," says Wharton management professor Nancy Rothbard.
Employee perks can range from traditional offerings -- such as a company car, use of the corporate jet and extended retirement benefits -- to highly personalized perks, such as personal trainers, laundry service, and pet-friendly offices. At Google, parents get $500 to spend on takeout dinners during their first weeks with a new baby. ...
Wharton management professor Sigal Barsade agrees. "I do not recommend taking away perks, but if a company has to, management needs to remember that taking things away from people almost always leads to feelings of unfairness," she says, noting that employees typically come to feel that even a small perk is something they "own." To remove it is one of the most direct routes to employee anger, which in turn, leads to lower levels of motivation and retaliatory behavior. The retaliation can take on a psychological form, such as less commitment to the job, or a behavioral form, such as working less hard. "If management does such a thing, it has to be very sure to explain very, very clearly why it was necessary -- in a way that seems fair to the employees," says Barsade.
Let's put it bluntly: Longer lives cost more money. Those who make it to 90 thanks to exercise and six daily servings of vegetables are more likely to suffer the expensive ravages of old age. Everyone dies of something. So he who avoids a fatal heart attack at 70 is more at risk of cancer at 80. Those extra 10 years can mean extra CT scans, hip replacements and physical therapy, even for those in relative good health. ...
Author of the book "Health Care Half Truths," Garson cites a recently published study on the high cost of healthy people. Dutch researchers found that medical spending on smokers, who died at an average age of 77, was $100,000 less than on non-smokers who were thin and died at 84. Companies that include wellness programs in their employee benefits may indeed see a savings in lower medical costs and absenteeism. But what they have done, really, is delay the onset of serious illness during the employees' working years and pass it onto Medicare, when the taxpayers take over.
If we are to finally achieve a fair, affordable, and truly universal health care system, other economic considerations need to frame the debate. These include: How efficient is the U.S. health system? How is the health care cost burden distributed between business, government, and the public? What are the trends in health care cost shifting? What is (and what should be) the role of insurance companies in the U.S. health system and the wider political economy? To their credit, single- payer supporters have been some of the loudest and most articulate voices raising these important questions. ...
As we stand at the brink of another major attempt to overhaul the U.S. health care system, organized labor is divided about how to define the alternatives. At one pole is Andrew Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the nation’s largest union, and arguably the best known labor leader today. He stridently contends that health care reform must be pitched primarily as an economic competitiveness issue, not a moral one. Stern also has indicated that the single-payer approach, for all its virtues, is a political nonstarter. At the other pole is the growing number of national unions, locals, labor councils, and rank-and-file members pledged to the single-payer solution. Somewhere in between is the AFL-CIO, the nation’s largest labor federation, which in March 2007 endorsed the idea of “Medicare for All” but carefully avoided mentioning the “s” word, that is, single-payer.
Whether Mr. Obama can deliver is a matter of considerable dispute among health analysts and economists. While there is consensus that the American health care system is bloated with waste, eliminating enough to save $2,500 per family would require simultaneous and synergistic solutions to a host of problems that have proved intractable for decades.
So this fall, Americans will discover an inconvenient truth about John McCain. He wants you to lose your employer-based health care. He thinks you aren't sufficiently conscious about the cost of your health care, and you are using too much of it.
His plan is designed -- with sugar and sticks -- to push you to negotiate on your own with the friendly insurance companies. He'll give you a tax credit -- $2500 for an individual; $5000 for a family -- to help you pay the price. And he'll revoke the tax exemption for any health benefits your employer provides. Under his plan, those benefits will be taxed as income. McCain says this will reduce our health care expenditures. He might be right. His preferred option -- health saving accounts -- generally feature low monthly payments and very high deductibles. People tend to insure themselves against catastrophe, and take a chance on routine health care.
On average, they'll work pretty well if you are young and healthy and lucky. But if you are sick, if you have suffered serious illnesses in the past, if you have what insurers call a "pre-existing condition," or if you are older and at higher risk, you're in trouble. For many, insurance won't be available at any price. That's why Elizabeth Edwards noted that, neither she nor McCain would be eligible for coverage since both have struggled with cancer. Many more will find adequate coverage unaffordable. Others will have to wrestle with choosing between paying to see a doctor or buying the weekly groceries. You'll be more "sensitive to price," but you might not think that a good thing.
McCain extols the benefits of private health insurance, but he's never had to negotiate with insurance companies. He's been on government provided health care virtually his entire life. He was raised on military health care, as the son of an admiral. He then went to the Naval Academy and to the military. A year after leaving the military, he was headed to the Congress and enjoying the best government supplied health care of all.
Schwarzenegger said, "Until we achieve comprehensive health care reform, stopping unfair health care rescissions is an urgently needed consumer protection," adding, "This terrible practice further illustrates the erosion of our health care system and the need for comprehensive health care reform." Schwarzenegger said he will "continue working with my partners in the Legislature to stop unfair health care rescissions once and for all" (Girion, Los Angeles Times, 7/23).
In the two years Medicare Part D has been in effect, drug manufacturers have taken in $3.7 billion more than they would have through prices under the Medicaid program, committee investigators found. "The drug companies are making the same drugs. They are being used by the same beneficiaries. Yet because the drugs are being bought through Medicare Part D instead of Medicaid, the prices paid by the taxpayers have ballooned by billions of dollars," Waxman said. He said Bristol-Myers made an additional $400 million from higher prices for a single drug, the stroke medication Plavix.
This scenario occurred in the 19th century and led to much strife between co-workers trying to 'get ahead'. What Cons fail to see is that once workers collectively discover that they are pitted against each other; they will develop Alliances to gain strength in numbers. That is why unions evolved in the first place, around the mid 19th century (pre-Civil war). The US underwent a swing to the right in the 1980's; and now the pendulum is swinging back. Yes, business is still exploiting illegal immigrants and children and selected ethnic groups.
Business has managed to successfully divide the working people by politics, religion, and race as well as income. It's time once again, for the working people in this country to fight back. Drop your resentment of H-1b's and L1's. Drop your resentment of illegals. Get them to organize, by example. Let's make a surge of our own. Organize your co-workers and build a group of contacts within your dept. or work group. Let's start changing the IBM workplace environment to suit us; not IBM executive management. Someone suggested a Global union; great idea, but we have to start here in the USA, and build outward. Alliance@IBM already has contacts in Europe and Asia. Alliance@IBM has, admittedly, a small core membership (dues paid). That core needs to act as one and make the effort that needs to be made. As a member of Alliance@IBM, it's the least I should do. Step up, step in and organize. -ubuntu2u2-
With the great 2nd QTR 2008 and a nice 1st QTR 2008 don't you deserve more? With a union contract you have more than a fair chance of getting a decent pay raise. And you'll get it in writing: a contract, a promise that IBM cannot got back on, like they have time and time again with our benefits. With a union contract you have a decent chance of keeping your job. Without a union contract as it is now you will not be getting a raise and/or not have a job. IBM delayed the pay raises 2 weeks due to the "global economic environment".
They knew the USA economy would be in the dumper and the longer they waited the worse it got. All to make you feel lucky you have a job even without a well deserved pay raise. They secured their fabulous 2nd QTR profits at your expense! And they did it. And you let them get away with it. Join the Alliance. Or else kiss a raise and quite possibly your job, goodbye. -sby_willie-
The math doesn't work on any level. The worst part is that a month prior to the STG layoff I was re-org'ed into another dept. and since that point my job has stagnated in a big way due to lack of focus and planning by the people who hired me with claims that "this is the next big thing." I feel now that my move was merely a way to shuffle staffing numbers and nothing more. Further I think that this "lost" time is one way or another going to result in my employment being ended with IBM. I feel this way because each passing day I seem like less and less of an employee of this company due to a process of disengagement that started when I took this new job. i.e. Old doors get closed, new doors get opened and go nowhere.....time passes...... nothing.....we ask questions, get no answers and all of sudden we are accountable for deadlines....Deadlines for WHAT !!! you haven't even told us what you want us to do ??? and then the cycle repeats....
Each morning I awake trying to think of a way to make this meaningful somehow, but so far, nobody seems to have a clue what to do with me or my peers in this new project. Since I have been most vocal in asking the questions, I have been renamed as "Application Architect." So now it's my job to assign work to my peers even though I still don't know what it is we are supposed to accomplish. Utterly pitiful... I have been with IBM for 14 years and never seen this much garbage. I think I am working in a project that has realized they cannot complete the goals they were funded for and are now looking for a scapegoat.
I'm feeling very much like my days are numbered here. The only thing I console myself with is that I should be able to find a job making around 40k/year with a BS degree, even if that means leaving behind my skills as a J2EE developer. Who knows, if the economy hasn't completely tanked yet I may find something on DICE, etc. that will allow me to continue the work that I enjoy. thanks for the vent -Anonymous-
IBM apparently didn't fund it just like they did fund the recent pay raises to speak of. Not that an MBA would even help you to substantially catch up..it would not. Being so low paid might have given you the 4% raise. That's one of the highest raises I have heard of this year. PBC 1's largely didn't even get a percent that high. But 4% for you is no real consolation since you are so low paid, I can empathize with you. You probably started like I did, as a low paid hourly worked, like a band 2 or 3 perhaps? I know I started in IBM in 1984 making $8.08 and hour as a computer operator. Suffice it to say I am now band 08 for the last 11 years and still am 25% below my midpoint and I have been a good PBC performer. the whole time.
.I have been pursuing the reason why my pay is so laggard and I never get a straight believable answer from IBM. They deflect it all the time. But I came to this conclusion: In short, if you started at real lowball pay in IBM you will have that "ball and chain on your feet" in an IBM career as being low paid in despite what IBM wants you to believe. Like the other poster mentioned to you: do market yourself. Java programmers are still in demand and in development shops they do make decent $$$, but not necessarily in this pale blue IBM. Good luck to you. You definitely deserve much better. -sby_willie-
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:
Since I don't know your background I'll only give you one word of advice if you are a tech seeking more tech work. Start a plan to get out of IT tech. The handwriting is on the wall. As IT continues to commoditize, IT as a career growth discipline will disappear. CIO's are now becoming CTO's and "change agents" to keep their jobs. "Techiness" is quickly becoming irrelevant except at tech companies and they themselves are under pressure (even IBM despite the propaganda). So if you like tech, make it a skill and move into a line of business. End of advice for techies, now to the question, based on no background.
Although there's an IT element to GT, the focus of GT is the business line, not the technology. Most of the GT folk I've encountered and financial or line of business types, some with IT as an adjunct skill. Although I'm not enamored by the future prospects of its real estate operations and investment service lines in the short term, the fact that they've focused on the mid-tier type of customer of public sector entity gives me warm fuzzies for their prospects. They also don't seem to have much complaining among their graduates when it comes to how they treat their people. GT also has according to many a better salary progression plan for its people than IBM.
If you've been offered something at IBM, if you are a techie, the depending on where you go it might be beneficial to have some technical exposure, but that's losing it's edge as IBM becomes more and more a technological has been company.
IBM and any line of business work? No way unless what you want is to work in a big federal agency. The current PS has basically abandoned most of the non-federal work except for large outsourcings to their business partners. Tech? May be IBM depending on where. Accounting and Line of Business true management consulting? - GT
The managers at IBM know this happens but are powerless to stop it. They know what they need to pay to keep their best people but their hands are tied. The one-size-fits all salary plans that come out of Armonk take away all their options. "I'm just a vice-president, I'm not able to have much influence on decisions like salary. That's decided at a level much higher than me." Aaaarrrggghhhhh!
IBM already has a 10 year outsourcing contract with the same ministry to manage the desktop (all pc's in gov). IBM succeeded in pissing off the muckymucks and f-ing up the contract so badly that the BC Gov is now looking much harder at these deals and performing what they call 'due diligence' to determine if the winning firm can actually deliver as promised. Well IBM was awarded the new contract for hosting services pending approval after they'd gone through the diligence process. That's when they were disqualified and now the contract is with EDS (unless they flub it too).
Nice to see some payback. IBM screwed over and pissed off almost every single government employee with the way the workstation deal was implemented. heeheehee.
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.