IBM's spokesperson Douglas Shelton says that Project Match is one of several transition opportunities for laid off employees. "For example, if [laid off employees] want to go into teaching, we can help with that, or into non-profit work, we can help with that. They also have the choice to apply to work [in other positions] for IBM in the US."
Listen to MP3 interview with Rick Clark... (Editor's note: Do not miss this interview. It does an excellent job of providing the truth about IBM's "Project Match.")
While many companies practice outsourcing jobs to countries with lower wages, IBM is among a handful that proactively makes outsourcing easier for companies around the globe. Big Blue recently refiled a patent for software called Outsourcing of Services, which helps corporations move jobs offshore while maximizing tax breaks. The patent was introduced on March 26th according to Slashdot and withdrawn three days later, the same day that IBM cut 5,000 high tech jobs in the US.
IBM's offshore outsourcing software is a complex tool that combines statistical analysis and actuarial math with qualitative analysis to automate the process of pinpointing the cheapest, most exploitable human capital on the planet. According to the patent description, it analyzes: qualitative and quantitative attributes that influence performance of sourcing strategy with respect to one or more quantitative measures, quantifies an impact of said qualitative attributes using said one or more quantitative measures, and optimizes the sourcing strategy.
Lawmakers, IBM employees, and union leaders across the country have expressed outrage that IBM is asking for taxpayer handouts while aggressively engaging in offshore outsourcing of American jobs. IBM is one of the world's largest global sourcing firms, meaning IBM helps lots of other companies to send jobs offshore. It is impossible to determine how far-reaching IBM's offshore outsourcing tool is (beyond the thousands of IBM's own employees known to have been offshored) because no one knows how many jobs IBM has offshored at client companies.
Last week, IBM began notifying high tech employees that they had been selected for IBM's Resource Reduction Action -- IBM's polite way of saying, "You're fired." Many have reported to Alliance@IBM that they are being required to train their replacements who will be based on India, China, Asia Pacific, or Latin America. According to the Wall Street Journal, this month's layoffs will total around 5,000 jobs. This round follows nearly 5,000 job cuts made by IBM in January and February.
After the current round of offshoring, the Wall Street Journal estimates that 71% of IBM's workforce will reside outside of America. IBM employees in Rochester who were laid off last year were already voicing anger at seeing "job descriptions for their old positions popping up in China." ...
Lee Conrad, former IBM employee and National Coordinator of Alliance@IBM, said that IBM knows how to play the system so that even IBM's own layoffs are often obscured from the public eye due to loopholes in the Warren Act, which requires companies to report mass layoffs. He says Alliance@IBM has been receiving reports of layoffs from IBMs largest employment centers (i.e., upper New York, Minnesota, Iowa, North Carolina's research triangle, Vermont) and from workers who telecommute from remote locations all over the country. ...
Sources inside IBM say to expect more layoffs in June.
"IBM has been negotiating for "taxpayer incentives while applying for a patent for offshoring American jobs," Ball said. "That's an indicator that they were not negotiating in good faith." IBM cut 274 jobs one month after receiving $45 million in December, and has since announced more layoffs. It also filed a patent, since withdrawn, for a computerized system that calculates how to offshore jobs while maximizing government tax breaks.
The workers had been employed at IBM's Integrated Supply Chain Operations unit in Hopewell Junction, N.Y. They claim that they were laid off because IBM offshored their positions to a company-operated facility in China. ...
Labor Department officials said the workers at the plant did not qualify for TAA assistance because they weren't producing a saleable product that had been displaced by imports. A Labor Department investigation found that the workers "managed existing applications in the IBM procurement portfolio that were used internally for purposes such as invoice support, Web orders, and procurement," according to the Federal Register.
Those activities "are not considered production of articles within the meaning" of the Trade Act, the note said. "No production took place at the subject facility, nor did the workers support production of an article at any domestic location during the relevant period," officials ruled. ...
However, President Obama in February signed a bill that could result in the program being applied more broadly. "These workers need to be aware of changes in the TAA program that go into effect in May and resubmit their request for aid," said Lee Conrad, an official at an IBM workers group called Alliance@IBM. "They also need to keep the heat on the Department of Labor and if need be contact their congressional representatives. They deserve the assistance that TAA offers."
The breakdown in the talks, said the second person close to the negotiations, came over the shifting balance of price and conditions for the deal. For example, I.B.M. scrutinized the “change of control” contracts with Sun executives, senior engineers and managers. I.B.M. felt that the payments to senior employees were higher and extended more broadly across the company than it had anticipated. I.B.M. pointed to the change of control contracts as one reason it was reducing its offer price.
The filing is the first public statement by the Obama administration about the controversial H-1B visa program. "All we have seen from Obama about looking out for the interest of U.S. workers is talk -- [we're] still waiting for the change," said John Miano, founder of the Summit, N.J.-based Programmers Guild. The Programmers Guild lawsuit contends that the student visa extension would exacerbate problems already created by the H-1B visa for U.S. workers in the science, technical and engineering fields -- including job losses and wage pressures through "a rule that creates more direct competitors for them by increasing the number of foreign workers" competing for jobs.
Any of you out there have a model for determining how and when you will offshore your workforce? No seriously - a real HR professional with a model like this? Lets hear from you...
I've worked there nearly 3 decades - IBM has become a sweatshop with insane workloads, incessant cost cutting, constantly pursuing a "how can we cheat them this year" agenda. Job security regardless of how well you do your job is nil. Every quarter for the last 5 years, you live in fear that you'll get fired, even though you are super at doing your job and you have more work than you can possibly handle.
Age discrimination is alive and well at IBM - when you look at the layoff packages, they are always skewed to take out older employees.
Add in the offshoring of everything that can be as fast as possible. A few years ago, IBM had around 170,000 US employees. At the beginning of this year it was 115,000. Now within a month from now, it will be 105,000. Last, they plan to be at 35,000 US employees at year end 2012 - that's 4-5,000 firings per quarter.
IBM is a third rate company, run by third rate thugs raping the company, stockholders and employees to get their insane executive pay. All that matters is the short term stock price, forget the long term viability of the company.
In recent years, we've often heard the words "we're returning to our core competencies". Translation: "We don't know how to manage this part of our business so we're... laying off the people, selling the business...etc..." When management fails to do it's job - manage the segments of its business they chose to be involved in, they should be accountable if it fails. But often, the victims are the workers who quickly go from assets to liabilities when management fails to manage. The layoffs or sell-offs (and subsequent layoffs) often translate into higher bonuses for executives making decisions to "return to core competencies" - after all, selling relatively low performing segments of your business or reducing the workforce and therefore the labor expense improves the bottom line. We've all seen examples where companies sell off low performing or under-performing segments of their chosen businesses only to have them flourish under management of a new owner. What does that say about the management of the existing company? Are those managers who chose those business segments, managed them poorly to the point of divesting themselves of those segments liabilities as well? You have all have seen and probably experienced this in your career.
It would seem that employees are mere commodities these days - a liability on the balance sheet. Ask your CFO or your CEO how they view employees - asset or liability. More on this in the next few days but in the meantime, are employees really assets in your business?
Take Edward Whitacre Jr., who retires this month as chairman and chief executive of AT&T. On his watch, the company grew from a regional telephone provider to the country's leading provider of wireless, broadband and regular phone service. AT&T now has more than 100 million customers and $63 billion in operating revenue.
Though its stock price rose 57% in the last year alone, "over the five fiscal years through 2005, Whitacre received $85.2 million in compensation, while total shareholder return was negative 40.3%," according to The Corporate Library, a corporate governance research firm. The Library, in turn, gave AT&T's board a "D" for overall effectiveness.
But Whitacre's golden parachute has quite the platinum lining. His pension package includes $4.5 million in annual payments for life, plus an $18.8 million lump sum. He'll also get $25,000 in country club fees, $6,500 in annual home security costs and access to the corporate jet for 10 hours a month. AT&T will also cover up to $19,000 in taxes for these benefits, except for use of the aircraft. Whitacre and his family will also receive free health insurance for life. Plus, he'll get just over $1 million a year for three years to work as a consultant to AT&T during his retirement. ...
IBM: Lou Gerstner got a 10-year consultancy contract worth up to $2 million annually, plus expenses and full use of IBM facilities and services, such as office, cars, aircraft and financial planning. He only has to work one month out of the year. His successor, Samuel J. Palmisano, stands to receive more than $3 million in pension annually for the rest of his life after he retires.
"The current economic environment has caused our communities to struggle with job losses," Albert Lord, Sallie Mae's CEO, said in today's announcement. "They need jobs, and we will put 2,000 of them into U.S. facilities as soon as we possibly can."
Oh my God, what a story. You can't make this stuff up. Unbelievable. You could tell the guy doing the interview was stunned with the stupidity of the whole thing. What a stupid company IBM has become. At the end of the interview I got teary eyed when I heard what Rick's 12 year old daughter said about what happened to her Dad's job. This is absolutely pathetic. Someone should grab Sammy by the balls and make him listen to this interview. Sammy and his executive stooges just don't get it. -IBMer-
Due to the reluctance to actually ship work at second and first line lever, those who remain behind are compelled to pick up the work of those who have left. I pray I get RAed in June and I am sure going to work towards it to get out of this day in and day out overload. Everything tells me this great company is getting screwed - royally. Off shoring may be cheaper only to the pure blind. Anyone who has used the offshored help desk services from India would know this. I have vowed never to call them. The offshoring work quality stinks.
In WebSphere the L3 was offshored. As far as I know it came back to US because they were jokers putting on a facade of servicing customers. When the Indian help desk is called they make you repeat 5 times everything that is already written in the ticket, and then once more finally when they understand it. In the end you get tired because of the time consumed and then give up because of the morons at the help desk.
This company is getting royally screwed. Let it be. I see long term benefits of getting screwed. The bean counters will learn the hard way. We will be out of job for 5 years and then many of us will be called back because of the disastrous results of offshoring. We can then piss on IBM or accept at our terms. The youngsters joining today are no match for us the long-termees. Sincere but generally not as hard working or good communicators. They will need us old timers who think the IBM way. The bean counter bastards will be lucky if they get some of us in mood to go back. So let us take the package as long as the company can afford it. I know there will be a brief hardship once RAed. But it is not worth staying in a sinking ship. Better be a truck driver rather than listen to these money slaves any more. -IBM-Toronto-CurRational-XWebSphere-
April 8, 2009
Thank you for contacting me about job cuts at IBM. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this issue.
Thank you for contacting me about job cuts at IBM. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this issue. Any government funding or support to corporations should be used to create jobs here in the United States, not to outsource them overseas. If IBM can afford to buy up smaller companies and pay its CEO millions with the economy in its current state, then it shouldn't be outsourcing American jobs while asking for government assistance. I recently cosponsored H.R. 1874, the Patriot Corporations of America Act, which encourages corporations to keep jobs here in the U.S. It gives a preference in federal contracting to and cuts corporate taxes for companies that:
H.R. 1874 has been referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means as well as the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Please be assured that I will fight to ensure it is considered this year. Again, thank you for sharing your concerns. If I can assist in any other way, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, John Hall, Member of Congress.
Nice one Ginni. She is still IBM's 7 million dollar woman and one of the 50 most powerful women in the business world. Why doesn't she use some of her power to save some IBM jobs in the US? Note that you can download a hi-res 2MB jpeg of Ginni so you can hang it on your wall. Just don't throw darts at it. LOL What a friggin joke. -IBMer-
I'm available at firstname.lastname@example.org, 00919920543869, or rworange (skype) Cheers and good luck, -Richard-
To enhance competition, multiple health insurance companies would compete for mail delivery business. Some companies would provide service only to citizens in cities with populations over 2 million and would deliver only to comparable cities with populations exceeding 2 million. To conserve costs, subscribers would be permitted to post mail only at selected in-network post offices.
People with preexisting high junk mail volume would pay a 300% surcharge.
Citizens with dogs would be required to get mail delivery through the state high risk mail pool.
It would cost $.42 to send a letter across town. Delivery to rural areas would cost $20. Delivery to another state would cost $40. However, the actual allowable charge paid to subcontractors would vary by company.
Any citizen with mail volume exceeding 30% of average mail delivery could be denied mail service. However, the percentage cut-off point would vary by company. Appeals of denial would be submitted to a specialist who is unemployable in any other business available in the western hemisphere. The specialist would work in an undisclosed location with no direct telephone access and would not respond to e-mail.
Pre-authorization would be obtained to mail packages with breakable objects. Requests would have to be submitted to the corporate office in Connecticut and reviewed by teams of disgruntled employees (much like the present system.)
Western Kansas, Wyoming, Nevada (except Las Vegas), the Texas panhandle and select counties of Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas and New Mexico would not receive daily mail. 40 million people would go without regular mail delivery. However, the Federal government would legislate that emergency mail must be delivered at no cost to the citizen.
Illegal aliens would receive mail at no charge at emergency mail stations.
Citizens away from home would pay out of network rates to send mail. ...
The CEO of one former health insurance company (now postal delivery service) would make $1.5 billion by selling his stock in the company. The average pay of CEO's would be $400 million annually.
Citizens would receive group mail delivery rates by applying through their employer and could join the group at time of employment or on predetermined sign-up dates without regard for preexisting mail volume overages. The cost of letter delivery to a citizen who belongs to a group would be discounted as much as 75%.
In some states, groups could comprise 2 or more unrelated people, not living in the same household. In all other states a group be be required to comprise 30 to 40 people.
The Federal government would legislate that citizens leaving a group would be able to take his/her postal privileges with him for a period not to exceed 18 months. However, the health insurance company could charge any fee it desired.
Advocates for a single company to organize mail delivery to everyone at a sensible rate would be branded as socialists and sent to Canada. However, shipment would be delayed because no one could calculate the postage.
A new public plan — to offer consumers greater choice, keep the private plans honest and, one can hope, restrain the relentless growth in health care premiums and underlying medical costs — seems worth trying. ...
Many reformers suggest that a public plan be modeled on Medicare. If crafted correctly, it would provide a valuable option for people who don’t trust private insurers to have a patient’s interest at heart and would offer a safe haven should private plans abandon a market, leaving their subscribers stranded. It would also serve as a competitive yardstick for measuring the performance of private plans. ...
What many critics seem to fear most is that a new public plan would sweep away its private competitors and evolve over time into a full-fledged single-payer system (sometimes called Medicare for all). No matter how fair the competition between public and private plans might be at the start, they warn that the government would find it irresistible to rig the outcome through its regulatory and pricing powers and its ability, in a pinch, to subsidize the public plan with taxpayers’ money.
That fear seems overblown. Innovative, nimble private plans with well-integrated service systems might outperform any government plan, just as some now outperform Medicare through better coordination of services, stronger preventive care and broader benefits. A new public plan is neither the cornerstone of health care reform nor the death knell of private insurance. It should be tried as one element of comprehensive reform. If, over time, a vast majority decides the government plan is superior, so be it.
Linda Lacewell, who led Mr. Cuomo’s investigation, testified that the industry engaged in fraudulent and deceptive practices to understate the “reasonable and customary” rate and thus keep its reimbursements low. Although the industry denies any such wrongdoing, UnitedHealth agreed to cough up $350 million to settle a class-action suit and agreed to shift responsibility for the calculations to an independent nonprofit organization. Eleven insurers, including some of the largest, have agreed to help finance the new database and use its findings wherever they operate.
"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.
Activist shareholders have been criticizing executive pay practices for well over a decade, accusing directors of being too cozy with C.E.O.’s, too eager to lavish pay on them and too ambiguous about the formulas they use for setting compensation. ...
“The problem isn’t just when people in a particular firm are getting rewarded in ways that take away from the shareholder. That’s been well recognized,” Mr. Hawley says. “What’s not been recognized is that the misalignment of incentives has resulted in firm, sector and systemic risks. None of the corporate governance activists ever made the connection.” It took the disastrous results of 2008 to expose such links, and to make compensation a central issue for politicians and corporate America.
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:
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.