Earlier this month, the Examiner reported that the IBM has given an option to its 2,000 ex-employees who were recently laid off in Canada and the US to relocate to cheaper destinations like China, Brazil, India and Europe. However, an insider told the Examiner, it’s not just ex-employees but even existing employees are being asked to make the move.
"Those who shift will be paid at the prevailing wage of the country they shift, and may even include a lower position. The company will pay for their movement to the other country but will not guarantee a job length or help in moving back to the original country. The exception to this is for executives," said the insider.
“IBM’s goal is to move all non-customer facing jobs off North American soil," he added. An IBM Bangalore spokesman told IT Examiner: "We do not comment on internal employee movement."
The leader of IBM team, Vice President David J. Kappos said his company is prepared to invest in the sector to further help Nigeria to develop and produce software and hardware. He sought Government's assistance to actualise the target. Daily Trust recalled that IBM relocated from Nigeria to Ghana some three decades back as a result an Indigenisation policy by the then military administration.
The USSD Summary Plan Description Page 3 (at the top) states: "For employees on a commission plan on the date of their termination, payroll will calculate the employee's average income including base salary equivalent and commissions for continuous months of service on commission up to a maximum of 36 months. (36 month average). If this calculation provides a greater payment than the initial base salary separation payment, an adjustment will be paid approximately 60 days after the the employee's termination date. Appropriate taxes will be withheld."
Sounds nice, even though rather than current salary it will be based on 36 month average. So if you had a raise in the last few years, some of that will average out.
Here's the trick: The people on commission who received their "Resource Action" last month were, without notification, moved from their commission plan to 100% salary, retroactive to January 1, 2009. I only found out by noticing the apparent increase in "regular salary" in my February 15 payroll stub. It turned out that was due to no longer having anything held back pending commission earnings.
Since these people will not be on commission on their termination date (the day they leave IBM) they will not be eligible for the 36 month average income calculation and payment.
There are no jobs in BTV site right now and I guess a move to another location for 4-5 months is not worth the upheaval to myself and family. I would not move my family and do not want to separate for them. I am not hopeful of finding another job within IBM where I can stay in VT.
I have read on this site that i can sign the papers, get the severance pay and then file an age discrimination complaint. I'm just wondering if anyone else has been in this situation and thought of something that helped them get this bridge that I haven't thought of yet. Thanks. Carol P.
What is not frozen is that your benefit still can increase with age. In this case the most critical variable is "retirement eligibility". That can only be achieved with 30 years service if you are below age 55. You cannot retire with 29 years service at age 50. All you can do is collect your "vested rights" which are age dependent. Once you have 30 years service, you can retire at any age.
As a last resort, what I would recommend is that you write an OPEN DOOR Letter to the IBM CEO before your last day with IBM...ASAP...requesting an OPEN DOOR. You have a most reasonable request. I would request a panel review. They will refuse that. Do not allow them to foist an HR employee on you as the investigator. Insist on someone that works for the exec you report to or someone similar. I would give this option a 20% of succeeding...particularily if you make a good case based on past job performance, willingness to work for the last 4 months anywhere and for any salary...even $0.00. Be exceedingly polite at all times throughout this process....and good luck.
"Q3. I'll be just short of 30 years when this change takes effect. Doesn't this mean I'll never get to my 30-year milestone for pension purposes in the PCF?
A3. No, that is not true. Age and service continue to count toward retirement eligibility even after the plan changes take effect for 2008 -- so you can still "grow into" early retirement. The pension you've earned through year-end 2007 won't grow any further as a result of new pay increases, and you won't earn any more points, but the benefit payment will still increase at key early retirement milestones -- by as much as 25% in some cases -- as you continue to work for IBM. So in other words, if you were going to reach 30 years in January 2010, even though the accrual of your additional pension benefit stopped two years prior, you would still receive a bump-up at your 30-year milestone for reaching early retirement. The same applies if you are 51 now, and reach age 55 (with at least 15 years of service) some time after the 2008 changes go into effect. So reaching these key early retirement milestones is still important."
The proportion of claims disputed by former employers and state agencies has reached record levels in recent years, according to the Labor Department numbers tallied by the Urban Institute. Under state and federal laws, employees who are fired for misbehavior or quit voluntarily are ineligible for unemployment compensation. When jobless claims are blocked, employers save money because their unemployment insurance rates are based on the amount of the benefits their workers collect. ...
Unemployment compensation programs are administered by the states and funded by payroll taxes that employers pay. In 2007, employers put up about $31.5 billion in such taxes, and those taxes typically rise during and after recessions, as states seek to replenish the funds. With each successful claim raising a company's costs, many firms resist letting employees collect the benefit if they consider it undeserved. "In some of these cases, employers feel like there's some matter of principle involved," said Coleman Walsh, chief administrative law judge in Virginia, who has handled many such disputes. But, he said, "nowadays it appears their motivation has more to do with the impact on their unemployment insurance tax rate. Employers by and large are more aware of unemployment as a cost of business."
I have a feeling that our hotel was one of the targets specifically because the terrorists knew the iconic role it plays for Indians. Opened in 1903, it was built by the Parsi industrialist Jamsetji Tata after he was refused entry to a Mumbai hotel with a strict Europeans-only policy. Incorporated as the Indian Hotels Company, it was the first company of the Tata Group. ...
While reopening the hotel was important, our first response was to our fellow employees and guests. Within 24 hours of the attack, we set up five outreach centers for our associates and guests. We had 15 experts in post-trauma counseling talking with people individually and in small groups. It’s a process that will continue for quite some time.
Families of the 15 Taj employees who died will be paid their deceased’s salaries for the rest of their lives, as well as all medical benefits and education for those up to age 24. In addition, the Taj Hotels have set up a trust to provide immediate relief to all families of those who were killed, whether from the general public, the security forces, employees of the Taj or of other establishments affected by the terrorists
Locally, Microsoft had more than 1,000 H-1B visas approved for 2008, the fifth-highest for any U.S. employer. Others, like the University of Washington, got approval for 104; Seattle Children's Home for one. At best, though, these foreign professionals have tenuous acceptance in the U.S. labor force. Critics say they displace U.S. workers and sometimes are hired on the cheap, paid less than their American counterparts in violation of program rules. They say some workers — beholden to employers — allow themselves to be exploited in exchange for the ultimate reward that comes with these visas: a green card.
A federal report last year detailed fraud in 21 percent of applications for H-1B visas that it examined. And the government last week arrested 11 people in six states and indicted a New Jersey employer in a suspected H-1B fraud case.
Now, with joblessness soaring in the U.S., employers are under mounting pressure to cut their foreign work force first, to save American jobs. This is happening even as employers prepare and submit government paperwork that would allow them to hire up to 85,000 new H-1B workers nationwide.
The 7th Circuit is tougher. It generally assumes that benefit promises expire with the labor contract. And the 3d and 4th circuits take an even harder line, requiring retirees to show a "clear and express" contract statement that benefits vest. "It's a mess," said James P. Baker, co-chairman of the Jones Day employee benefits practice in the firm's San Francisco office. ...
The trend to pull back on retiree health benefits began in the 1980s and sped up in 1992 with an accounting rule change requiring employers to treat future health costs as a current expense, according to Baker. The central question for circuits has been whether a company commitment to provide health benefits vests when workers retire, given the often murky or conflicting language in union contracts or retiree benefit plans. The disputes boil down to the retiree's right to rely on a promise of medical care, often repeated in contracts over decades, or whether it is trumped by a reservation-of-rights clause added to contracts allowing companies to change or eliminate benefits some time in the future.
In a striking admission, UBS said that from 2000 through 2007, some of its private bankers and managers had “participated in a scheme to defraud the United States” and the I.R.S. by helping American clients set up and conceal offshore accounts. The scheme involved falsifying or not properly obtaining or filing certain tax forms required of both the bank and its clients. UBS’s offshore private banking business once employed some 60 private bankers in Lugano, Zurich and Geneva. Prosecutors claimed UBS referred clients to lawyers and accountants who set up secret offshore entities to conceal assets from the I.R.S.
UBS urged some American clients to destroy records and to stash watches, jewelry and artwork that they had bought with money hidden offshore in safe deposit boxes in Switzerland. The bank also encouraged them to use Swiss credit cards so the I.R.S. could not track purchases. In a statement on Wednesday, Peter Kurer, the chairman of UBS, said that “UBS sincerely regrets the compliance failures in its U.S. cross-border business that have been identified by the various government investigations in Switzerland and the U.S., as well as our own internal review. We accept full responsibility for these improper activities.”
Its members agree that something should be done to revamp health care in the United States, and there's consensus on a vague set of general principles that include making coverage more accessible, affordable and efficient. But they differ over important details, including what roles the government and private businesses should play.
The emerging rifts highlight how difficult it will be for Obama and the Democratic-run Congress to deliver what they say they are committed to: a health care overhaul that would guarantee everyone affordable coverage.
“My first reaction was to start laughing — I just kept saying, ‘No way, no way,’ ” Alanna Boyd, a 28-year-old receptionist, recalled of the $17,398 — including $13 for the use of a television — that she was charged after spending 46 hours in October at Beth Israel Medical Center in Manhattan with diverticulitis, a digestive illness. “I could have gone to a major university for a year. Instead, I went to the hospital for two days.”
In the parlance of the health care industry, Ms. Boyd, whose case remains unresolved, is among the “young invincibles” — people in their 20s who shun insurance either because their age makes them feel invulnerable or because expensive policies are out of reach. Young adults are the nation’s largest group of uninsured — there were 13.2 million of them nationally in 2007, or 29 percent, according to the latest figures from the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit research group in New York. ...
When Robert Voris last had health insurance, in 2007, he stockpiled insulin pumps, which are inserted under the skin to constantly monitor blood-sugar levels and administer the drug accordingly. He said the tubing for the pump costs $900 a month, so lately he has instead been injecting insulin with a syringe. But Mr. Voris, 27, a journalism student at the City University of New York who works at a restaurant in Park Slope, Brooklyn, is constantly worried about diabetes-induced seizures like the one that sent him to the hospital last summer. (Because it happened at work, his boss covered the ambulance and other bills.)
The reform law has not achieved universal health insurance coverage, although half or more of the previously uninsured now have some type of insurance policy.
The reform has been more expensive than expected, costing $1.1 billion in fiscal 2008 and $1.3 billion in fiscal 2009. In the face of a state budget crisis in fall 2008, Gov. Deval Patrick announced that he will keep the reform afloat by draining money from safety-net providers such as public hospitals and community clinics.
While the number of people lacking health insurance in Massachusetts has been reduced, several recent surveys demonstrate that substantial problems in access to care remain in the state. While the new health insurance improved access to care for some residents, many low-income patients who previously received completely free care under the state’s old free care program now face co-payments, premiums and deductibles that stop them from getting needed care.
In addition, cuts to safety-net providers have reduced health resources available to the state’s remaining uninsured, as well as to others who rely on safety-net providers for services in short supply in the private sector. These safety-net services include emergency room care, chronic mental health care, and primary care. The net effect of this expensive reform on access to care is at best modest, and for some patients, negative.
By mandating that uninsured residents purchase private health insurance, the law reinforced the economic and political power of health insurance firms. Thus, the reform augments the already high administrative costs of health care. Moreover, the agency that administers the new law (the “Connector”) adds an extra 4 to 5 percentage points to the already high overhead of private health insurance policies.
The reform failed to reduce overreliance on expensive, high-technology services. Indeed, some of its provisions such as changes in Medicaid rates and cuts to safety-net providers (who do more primary care) have further tilted health spending toward expensive, high-technology care.
A single-payer system of non-profit national health insurance could save about $8-$10 billion annually in the state through reduced administrative costs. This money could be used to cover all of the state’s uninsured residents and to improve coverage for those who now have insurance, without any increase in total health care costs.
The Massachusetts reform law is not providing universal access to care, even in a state with highly favorable circumstances, including previously high levels of spending on health care for the poor, high personal incomes, and low rates of uninsurance. It is not a model for the nation.
They hope the Obama administration and lawmakers consider the ideas as they move forward this year with plans for major changes in the health care system. This plan is one of many being advanced as U.S. policymakers move toward action. The proposal favors a mix of public and private insurance options over the idea of a fully government-run health system. Every American would be required to have some form of public or private health insurance, and one choice would be a new nationwide government program for anyone under 65, the age when eligibility for the existing Medicare program begins.
Many of the parties, from big insurance companies to lobbyists for consumers, doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies, are embracing the idea that comprehensive health care legislation should include a requirement that every American carry insurance.
While not all industry groups are in complete agreement, there is enough of a consensus, according to people who have attended the meetings, that they have begun to tackle the next steps: how to enforce the requirement for everyone to have health insurance; how to make insurance affordable to the uninsured; and whether to require employers to help buy coverage for their employees.
The talks, which are taking place behind closed doors, are unusual. Lobbyists for a wide range of interest groups — some of which were involved in defeating national health legislation in 1993-4 — are meeting with the staff of Mr. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, in a search for common ground.
"But dependency on government has never been bad for the rich. The pretense of the laissez-faire people is that only the poor are dependent on government, while the rich take care of themselves. This argument manages to ignore all of modern history, which shows a consistent record of laissez-faire for the poor, but enormous government intervention for the rich." From Economic Justice: The American Class System, from the book Declarations of Independence by Howard Zinn.
The pay packages, ranging from 50% to about 260% of a broker's annual production, are rubbing some the wrong way, especially at a time when financial-services firms have taken government money and many of the brokers' clients are suffering losses. Depending on the size of the individual broker's business, the payments can exceed $10 million. "I'm incredulous that the regulators" and administrators of the government's bank investments "aren't focusing on this," says Michael Campbell, head of boutique brokerage firm Dominick & Dominick. "It's been a mindless recruiting war."
That's because most Japanese chief executives don't earn anywhere near the big paychecks of their Western counterparts. CEOs at Japan's top 100 companies by market capitalization earned an average of around $1.5 million, compared with $13.3 million for American CEOs and $6.6 million for European chief execs at companies with revenues of higher than $10 billion, according to an analysis of 2004-06 data by Towers Perrin, a Stamford (Conn.) human resources firm.
It shows, too. Japan's corporate bigwigs might travel around in chauffeured cars and play golf on the company's dime, but they don't trot around in designer suits, shuttle between cities in private jets, or order up multimillion-dollar houses. And the moment the company's profits plunge, they often take one for the team. Last month, Sony announced plans to halve the pay packages for Chairman and CEO Howard Stringer and his top lieutenants, while Honda has said its board members will take a 20% pay cut.
Uh, wait – isn’t this the bank that just got a multi-billion dollar bailout from you and me in January? Well, yes. And less than a month later they’re hosting a Super Bowl Blowout? Yes. What did this thing cost? Well, Bank of America won't tell us. The NFL, however, conceded that was a “multi-million dollar” event. Indeed, the tents alone ran more than $800,000.
Meanwhile, Citigroup announced that it’s a sporting sort of corporation, too. Despite losing billions of dollars last year, firing 5,000 employees, and getting $345 billion from us taxpayers, the bank now says it intends to blow $400 million for the right to put its name on the New York Mets’ new baseball stadium.
Not to be outdone, Morgan Stanley, recipient of a $10 billion taxpayer bailout last fall, showed that it can rise above hard times. Late in January, its top bankers gathered with clients for a lavish three-day confab at the Breakers, a five-star oceanfront resort in sunny Palm Beach. These bankers, too refused to reveal the price of their outing, but they did report that they’d gotten a discounted room rate. Only $400 a night, per person. Let’s hope they gave a champagne toast to us taxpayers.
While Merrill Lynch was collapsing last year, requiring a $25 billion salvage job from us taxpayers, its CEO was merrily redecorating his office, picking out such necessities as $28,000 worth of curtains, a $35,000 antique commode, and a $1,400 waste basket. Then he magnanimously doled out $4 billion in executive bonuses.
Citigroup, which lost $28 billion in the past 15 months, has now been given a $345 billion bailout from Washington and is presently holding a fire sale of its corporate parts in a desperate effort to survive. But this didn’t stop top executives from trying to buy a new, $50-million, Dassault Falcon corporate jet for themselves. Never mind that the bank already had five executive jets.
Despite losing billions of dollars last year, then going hat in hand to the government for multibillion-dollar bailouts, Wall Street investment bankers paid themselves $18 billion in bonuses at the end of the year. In a poll of these bankers, 46 percent felt they deserved bigger bonuses.
We have to have some new words. “Greed” doesn’t say it. “Outrageous” falls way short. “Shameful” has no effect on bankers. Help me out here: How shall we describe their abominable sense of self-entitlement? Channel your furry into creativity, and send me your ideas for new words that nail these bankers. Top three winners get an autographed copy of my book, Thieves In High Places. Send us your suggestions!.
At one level this should come as no surprise. For most of the last decade America was a nation of borrowers and spenders, not savers. The personal savings rate dropped from 9 percent in the 1980s to 5 percent in the 1990s, to just 0.6 percent from 2005 to 2007, and household debt grew much faster than personal income. Why should we have expected our net worth to go up?
Yet until very recently Americans believed they were getting richer, because they received statements saying that their houses and stock portfolios were appreciating in value faster than their debts were increasing. And if the belief of many Americans that they could count on capital gains forever sounds naïve, it’s worth remembering just how many influential voices — notably in right-leaning publications like The Wall Street Journal, Forbes and National Review — promoted that belief, and ridiculed those who worried about low savings and high levels of debt. ...
If you want to see what it really takes to boot the economy out of a debt trap, look at the large public works program, otherwise known as World War II, that ended the Great Depression. The war didn’t just lead to full employment. It also led to rapidly rising incomes and substantial inflation, all with virtually no borrowing by the private sector. By 1945 the government’s debt had soared, but the ratio of private-sector debt to G.D.P. was only half what it had been in 1940. And this low level of private debt helped set the stage for the great postwar boom.
Since nothing like that is on the table, or seems likely to get on the table any time soon, it will take years for families and firms to work off the debt they ran up so blithely. The odds are that the legacy of our time of illusion — our decade at Bernie’s — will be a long, painful slump.
But be careful: If you're not paying close attention, the incentives that you set up can have perverse consequences--even, in some cases, causing people to work against the goal you were trying to achieve. On Wall Street, year-end bonuses made sense--until traders discovered they could reap million dollar rewards by hiding billions of dollars of risk.
Having won and taken office, Obama proceeded to rip right into the bankers' shameless avarice, denouncing their "culture of narrow self-interest and short-term gain at the expense of everything else." Great stuff! Go get 'em, Barack!
A week later, however, the president's treasury chief, Timothy Geithner, rolled out the administration's plan to add more than a trillion dollars to the ongoing Wall Street bailout, and — Holy William Jennings Bryan — Obama's populist bark had been reduced to a puppy whimper! It seems that Geithner and Obama's top economic advisor, Lawrence Summers — both of whom have long been cozy with the very same greed-headed bankers who caused the financial mess we're in — had been cooing into the president's ears about the "danger" of "harshly" punishing executives and "spooking" private investors.
Thanks to them, even though populist politics won, populist policy lost. Gone from Obama's proposal is the idea that top managers of the failed banks — the executives who made the foolhardy investments that brought the system down — should be ousted (if not tarred and feathered). Instead, our trillion-plus bucks are to be put right into those same hands! If ignorance is bliss, Geithner and Summers must be ecstatic. ...
In the past couple of decades, the ethical notion that business leaders should be trustees for the enterprise — with responsibilities to future shareholders, employees and the larger society — has been displaced by a singular focus on amassing short-term wealth for the few by driving up the stock price, no matter what shortcuts must be taken to achieve that soulless goal. CEOs who can jack up those prices, by hook or crook, are hailed as geniuses and treated as royalty, no matter how much damage they're doing to their company or our country. ...
This celebration of manipulated wealth has even fostered an absurd bit of conventional wisdom that we can't get competent executive talent for a mere $500,000 a year. This stems from the prevailing (and pernicious) corporate fiction that the best are, by definition, the ones who're paid the most. Yet 500K is 25 percent more than our country's president makes, more than our top-rated non-profit leaders receive, more than most community bankers take and way more than America's finest teachers are paid. Wall Street conveniently equates compensation with value — and since CEOs compensate themselves extravagantly, they've come to assume that they are America's most valuable people. Indispensable, even.
Our customers have been very happy with us. In light of great customer satisfaction the accounts keep going overseas and the complaints are non-stop from lack of experience, knowledge and many times English. Accounts that take a couple of years to master are pushed out to countries that are only allowed a few weeks training - and no one in upper management seems to care or notice. A five year old could have planned these transitions better.
America - we lost 1.8 million jobs in the last 3 months. It's not stopping and the fat cats on top keep making more money while we lose jobs and these poor third world countries which continue to create sweat shops for the while our clients are paying for poor service which is hurting their business. This is not a Global Economy - it is a legalized sweatshop mentality and some day we may get our jobs back if we're willing to work for 8 to 15 thousand dollars a year.
I'm not going down without a fight and the only place to go for help is the Alliance - if we all pull together. Yes there are better companies to work for and I'm so happy for those of you that will find them but jobs are getting harder to find. Lets work on keeping ours. -brokeback-
No, the much-trumpeted India "offer" is nothing more than a sensational smokescreen to hide the REAL scandal here: Namely, IBM's demand that US employees move *within* the USA at their own expense and with scant job security. By openly publicizing the *India* offer, IBM has very cleverly steered the press onto a much more"sensational" story. Predictably, the public lost interest once everyone realized it wasn't a forced move. The real outrage - the callous way a once noble and respected US institution kicked their friends in the teeth - has been cleverly buried. These guys are smart. Very smart. -Consultant Dude-
For a US worker, IBM has given you three choices; 1) leave IBM, 2) reband 3 levels down and move yourself, or 3) take a full time travel job. As far as I can see, choice #1 is preferred over choice #2, because the rebanded pay scale will be less or equal to the pay scale found in the SMB sector and may not involve a move. IBM is hoping fear of the unknown will keep IBMers loyal. The ability to do choice #3 depends on individual circumstances. And here IBM is leveraging economic circumstances to force workers, who normally would never consider full time travel, into these perpetually vacant positions. However you interpret it, one thing is painfully clear and that is IBM does not want to pay a US wage. -anotheronegone-
It is a VERY bad environment in which to work, and I've never been more unhappy at IBM in my life as I've watched my myself become increasingly irrelevant as more and more responsibility is handed on a silver platter to India. If they cared about America, they would at least ease up on this off-shoring in 2009, given the rising unemployment rate, but instead, off-shoring is just accelerating. What gripes me is that Sam Palmisano goes to the media and brags about how IBM is sitting strong and pretty on a mound of cash and how 60% of employees will get bonuses/raises, and then he proceeds to massacre the American workforce in 2009 during the Great Depression II. -Unhappier yet-
Alliance reply: Fear is, every bit, IBM's main strategy against union organizing. It always will be. If you and -Unhappy Camper- are afraid of standing up for what's right and for your jobs and your families, then don't expect someone else to do it for you. It won't get done. There are plenty of people working for IBM that are in exactly the same shoes you are. Alliance members have taken some very public stands against IBM management over the years, from speaking out at stockholder meetings, to walking picket lines at IBM sites, to doing media interviews and writing letters. They did this as employees of IBM. Do you not think they thought IBM would retaliate? Of course they did and they have spouses and children too.
But they believe in something bigger than themselves. They believe the pension change in 1999 was theft. They believe IBM employees need and must have a voice and an union contract. They believe that pay cuts for workers as the executives get huge raises and bonuses is flat out wrong. They believe this and have put their names to it. It is time for others to do the same. If we ALL don't speak up as individuals AND as a collection of voices; Sam Palmisano will keep getting away with all of it. When you get 'griped'; do something about it!
i was told the only chance i had of even remotely staying on with ibm was to take a full time travel position in another division. in retrospect i count my lucky stars that i turned it down. best of luck to all those being RA'd, best thing you can do is start being proactive about finding another job and leave ibm behind. whether you've been given notice or not. too many of my friends at ibm are sitting around like cattle waiting to be slaughtered, either convinced it wont happen to them or playing some defiance game of "I'm gonna make them give me a package!!".. all the while slowly swallowing each new "plan" ibm shoves down their throats (read: GDF)... it's just not healthy and in the end you'll still be left standing there with nothing but a closet full of stupid ibm logo'd backpacks and no job. and to another person who asked about Boulder gdf.. yes it's in place, yes people are now coming into the office.. they have managers and employees side by side in a big bullpen with its very own mini-cafe!! yay ibm. or something. -left-awhile-ago-
Alliance reply: It is our opinion that IBM wants employees terminated in the US. The company is offshoring at a record pace. Offering pay cuts for job retention is not in the plan. They want you out.
Alliance reply: We appreciate your support. Thank you. As for the FHA; there are no real grounds for a law suit regarding that account. Alliance determined in 1999-2000 that the FHA is nothing but "vapor money" because very few people end up qualifying for it (blame layoffs, separations, and firings). FHA was created by IBM for false security and 'feel good' purposes only. The plan, from the beginning, was to cut jobs in the US and get out the responsibility to those employees for FHA, and even pension; if they could manage it. All of this would be a moot point if IBMers had joined Alliance in bigger numbers, over the years, and enabled us to actually work toward a union contract. A contract would have eliminated the sad discussion about benefits, pension, and salary.
Just a note here in 2007 the split on the 2+ to 2's was 60/40, so the 2008 goal was to flip this percentage. I believe that more pressure will be to increase the MIS number and bring the 3's up to 8% for 2009. good luck -retired-
Alliance Reply: Your stats explain what pressure there is on management, by management. What they don't indicate is the pressure on employees to organize and push back on the ridiculousness of the PBC program, altogether. You've posted other information like this, here, in the past; but you never advocate actions the employees could take to counter this kind of manipulation..why is that?
I have also "ranked" as PBC 4 for 2008 in spite of PBC 2 for 2007, and my salary for 2009 will be down over 20%. In this annual income reduction, my household economy is a situation in front of a breakdown. I am very surprised at viewing your site that IBM in US acts the same as in Japan.
During last quarter, IBM Japan has not only cut over 1,000 job, but also posts the mail includes the preliminary announcement for low evaluation to many employees who did not accept the "resource action program", and almost all of the "projected" PBC score had realized last month.
I think that Your site, especially "IBM Employee News and links" is excellent at informing the situation around IBM. I shall make the English-language site for excerpts from our Japanese union website and "Kaina" (an Japanese old term means "Arms") paper articles in the near future. I am certain that we have to fight against the dismissal and low evaluation, salary decrease attack from IBM in worldwide basis. Let me share the information each other, and fight together to stop the "resource action program"s. -Takayuki Ishihara-
Vault's IBM Business Consulting Services message board is a popular hangout for IBM BCS employees, including many employees acquired from PwC. A few sample posts follow:
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.