I can never fully express the destruction in lives , the loss of homes, the clinical depression and the sad days that former US IBM employee families had to tell their kids that sorry we can’t send you back to your College cause 50 + year old mommies and daddies lost their jobs at the hands of Sam Palmisano. Or the 53 year old single women with 3 master’s degrees who was so bullied by Somers NY senior IBM executive VP Mark Ouellette and his all male team that he let her go when she was out on an IBM approved disability which the employee had paid into for 10 years.
“Despite his popularity with the investment community, Palmisano has proved a controversial figure during the recession and has come under fire in the media for his cost-cutting efforts, which have involved layoffs and shifting jobs to lower-cost parts of the world such as India,” James Rogers of The Street wrote. “The 26-year IBM veteran has nonetheless continued the company's shift from hardware into higher-margin businesses such as services and software.”
The union noted that Sam Palmisano, IBM's chief executive, saw his pension pot jump $20m this year to $40m.
However, as the 60-day consultation period on the changes draws to an end, Peter Skyte national officer for IT and communications industries at Unite, said: "The latest proposals, whilst modifying some of the detail and mitigating some of the impact in the short term, do little to alter the substance of the company’s original proposal and still propose the closure of the DB pension scheme and replacement with a vastly inferior money purchase scheme."
The UK Intelligence and Security Committee said in its last annual report, presented to Parliament in March, that phase 2 of the SCOPE program had been delayed numerous times and had finally been abandoned.
One important way outsourcers hold down costs is by keeping a lean workforce at each client site—then turning to smaller companies, such as Sterling, when they need to increase staff for specific projects, such as installing new software or building a new Web site. These companies are known as "body shops" because of their role, and often rely heavily on foreign workers who come into the country on H-1Bs and other visas. "This is where a lot of the shenanigans take place," says Ron Hira, an assistant professor of public policy at the Rochester Institute of Technology who has written extensively on work visas. A study by the federal government last year estimated that 54% of visa rule violations were committed by companies with fewer than 25 employees.
U.S. companies usually don't know—and don't press to find out—which body shops are tapped to support their tech operations. The result is that prominent American companies can easily end up doing business with tech service outfits that violate visa laws. Breslin wouldn't identify specific Sterling clients, but he says they include "significant companies." Dasondi named Computer Sciences (CSC) as one customer in a 2006 lawsuit: Dasondi wanted the technology giant to pay him for hiring away one of his employees. Computer Sciences would not comment on the case beyond saying it had been settled. ...
U.S. executives often have little visibility into the treatment of contract employees because several layers of companies are involved. One recruiter for a major U.S. outsourcing firm says there's no way his clients know how body shop workers are treated because, until recently, even he didn't know. He discovered that some of the firms he was hiring for short-term projects weren't using their own people but instead bringing in subcontractors, which often underpaid workers. He just put in place new policies so he knows when a firm he hires is using a subcontractor, but he still can't find out how much workers are paid or in which state they're supposed to be working. "We don't like it," he says. "The agreements seem almost criminal." ...
While American companies may overlook the treatment of contract workers in their midst, the workers are vulnerable because of government policies. When a foreign worker comes into the country on an H-1B visa, the visa is held by the employer, not the worker. If an employee complains, the company can terminate its visa sponsorship, forcing the worker to leave the U.S. Workers can't shift jobs unless they find another sponsor, which can be difficult. And while workers can gain their freedom with permanent citizenship, the wait even for high-skilled visa holders can be 5 to 10 years. "Many of these people don't know their rights," says Michael F. Brown, an attorney in Appleton, Wis., who handles immigration cases. "They're essentially captives." ...
Body shops have sprung up around major metropolitan areas to be close to their clients. One cluster is in northern New Jersey, across the Hudson River from Manhattan. Hundreds of small tech services firms operate in such towns as Belleville, West Windsor, and Edison, where Sterling is headquartered.
At times, the region feels like a front in the battle between foreign and domestic workers. U.S. tech workers in the area have lost thousands of jobs in recent years with the decline of AT&T (T) and Lucent Technologies, and many blame outsourcing firms for taking the remaining well-paid jobs in finance and other sectors. Tech services companies say they're simply responding to clients' needs and are being blamed unfairly for any loss of jobs. In this heated debate, cases of visa abuse, like those alleged against Sterling, have fueled passions on both sides.
John Miano, a 45-year-old software programmer and labor rights attorney, waits for a reporter in a booth in the Summit Diner, a classic mid-20th century eatery in tony Summit, N.J. Miano is the founder of the Programmers' Guild, an association of U.S. software programmers. Over cheeseburgers, he argues that the work visa program is hurting demand for American workers. "The job situation for American tech workers in this area is horrible," he says. "The consulting market has been wiped out. Now it's mostly Indian-owned companies, and they're looking for people with H-1B visas." ...
Even workers who land jobs in the U.S. can end up on the bench, without a paycheck for weeks or months. Rajiv Dabhadkar, an Indian who was assigned to such companies as AT&T and Merrill Lynch on guest worker visas, recalls that when a staffing company replaced him with a new visa holder from India, he was so short of cash he couldn't pay the electric bill for his Belleville apartment. He and his wife and their 5-year-old daughter had to wear coats indoors for a few days in the winter. Ultimately, he says, his wife returned to India and filed for divorce. "I am a survivor and a witness," says Dabhadkar, who now lives outside Mumbai and runs the National Organization for Software & Technology Professionals, which publicizes abuses of guest workers.
I cannot help but wonder whether my feelings and nostalgia regarding IBM would be a whole lot different had the company remained what it was in years past with 'Respect for the Individual', etc. All the evolutionary changes that IBM underwent were partially necessary to remain competitive, but left a bitter taste in many mouths, mine among them. I'd proclaim myself quite detached, too.
ps I do not miss business traveling. In fact, the first time I went to the airport after retiring was a few months later. I realized then that driving to the airport, parking, lugging baggage around, messing with check-in, standing in line for boarding, wrestling with finding a overhead spot for on-board carry ons, delays taking off and/or landing, etc., etc., were all a pain in the a__. My wife and I check out luggage now which is an event in itself. We've waited at carousels for far too long, too many times.
Peter Warr, an emeritus professor at the Institute of Work Psychology at the University of Sheffield in England, builds on this concept. He talks about the “needed nine,” or the main external sources of happiness and unhappiness, not just in work but in life. These include, he says, having some sense of empowerment, using and expanding your skills, enjoying some variety, having a clear sense of your situation and what is required, and doing something you believe in, as a worker, a parent or a member of your community. Professor Warr, who co-wrote the book “The Joy of Work? Jobs, Happiness and You” (Routledge, 2009), added three factors for the workplace: supportive supervision, job security and the possibility of promotion, and fair treatment.
Had that not happened, I most likely would have retired in 2008, after 30 years. Instead, I have held temporary jobs and have been underemployed in "permanent" jobs that use my varied skills in accounting, paralegal services and IT. During my stints of underemployment, I have probably taken a job away from someone already in that line of work, as when I worked at a customer-service job. This makes it harder for people like Roshonda Crenshaw, who was quoted in your article. Corporations are using the recession as an excuse to accelerate negative labor practices. IBM, for example, has by one estimate laid off nearly 10,000 people so far this year, while recording huge profits and continuing to hire offshore.
In the mid 1970's, I was offered the east coast disk storage specialist job by STC. I turned it down as I had turned down jobs offering 30-50% increases with other companies. I might have ended up changing jobs again, but I'm sure that I would have made a lot more money over the years.
While working for IBM, I visited the STK site in Louisville in about 2004 to help set up their test for disk subsystem development. IBM didn't have a competitive product, and decided to rebadge and market that STK product after they got it properly tested and working. It is a really beautiful city.
The reason I stayed with IBM was that IBM promised full employment as long as I did my job well, and lifetime medical to go along with a good pension. They promised that clearly, and often. I can't complain too much, but the free medical got expensive, and the 40% pension turned into about about 28%. For those younger than me, the retiree medical disappeared along with the pension. Full employment went from a policy, to a practice, to a tradition, to a goal, to history, to a joke.
Xerox had previously announced that up to 25 percent of its retirees will be stripped of supplemental health-care coverage beginning next year. Xerox had promised lifetime health benefits for all of its retirees, the association alleges. Association officials said many of the affected retirees had “relied, worked and made retirement decisions based on Xerox’s annual guarantees.” ...
In its filing, the association alleges that its members used to receive annual documentation from Xerox assuring them of guaranteed medical and dental benefits for retirees. In what is viewed as cost-cutting measure, Xerox announced plans to cap company contributions for certain health-care benefits. ...
The cuts are expected to save Xerox $11 million annually. The Norwalk, Conn.-based company, which has more than 54,000 employees worldwide, has annual revenues of more than $15 billion. The association said by dropping the “Post 65” benefits program, Xerox will save less than one percent of the $4 billion stock-repurchase program it began last year.
Our jobs, our industries and our community resources have been bundled up and exported to where the work can be done far cheaper, and the workers are compliant. Increasingly we are scrambling just to survive. Admittedly, our government remains absolutely dedicated to making sure that some of us do extremely well. It's just that that ‘some' doesn't include anyone you know.
What is absolutely astonishing about the moment that we live in is that we have been essentially invaded, we have been absolutely looted, and yet we don't seem to be the slightest bit angry about that.
If the Russians had done it, we would be absolutely furious. But in fact, it was our own overclass that did it, and not only are we not furious at them, we don't even notice the crime. Or, if we do notice, we're furious at some ridiculously inappropriate target, like a ‘liberal' president who isn't even remotely liberal.
America has always been a country with its full and fair share of flaws, but for quite some time during the middle part of the twentieth century, we got one thing reasonably right. There was a bargain then, between elites and the government and the public. According to the terms of the deal, the aristocracy would still be fantastically rich, but there would be limitations on their wealth, because some of that wealth, some substantial amount, needed to be shared with the working people and the middle class, and it was the role of government to make sure that that happened. Many among the well-to-do even shared that consensus.
Since Ronald Reagan rode into town, however, that deal is off the table, replaced by what is essentially a new New Deal -- or, more accurately, simply the Bad Old Deal. Under the terms of this new/old arrangement, the unregulated wealthy grab absolutely everything they can get their hands on, the middle class scrambles for whatever bare existence it can maintain, and the rest of America, the working class and the poor, fall deeper and deeper into third world-style poverty. Under the terms of this new system, the role of the government is no longer to provide for the welfare of the people, nor to ensure that there are limitations on what the plutocracy can liberate from them. Under the terms of this new arrangement, the function of the government is simply to serve as a tool, assisting that plutocracy in depriving America's own people of everything that can be taken from them.
That means that in the last thirty years we've entirely restructured the economy so that the super-wealthy have become obscenely-super-wealthy, and the middle class are lucky to have stood still, and haven't really even managed that. If one examines the destination of the considerable GDP growth that America has sustained over the last three decades, it's gone entirely to the richest of Americans. The middle class has actually lost ground. That's an astonishing fact, but think about it: Despite robust economic growth, workers today actually make less than they did back in the 1970s. ...
In this respect, Obama offers precious little "change", even from the crimes of George W. Bush. Look at his healthcare initiative, for example. I don't know about you, but I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that anything that the big pharmacological and big health insurance industries are in favor of is pretty much guaranteed to be a disaster for the rest of us -- you know, we the people of the United States. This bill no more represents an initiative for the purpose of bringing healthcare to Americans than George Bush's prescription drug bill was an initiative to improve the life of seniors. In both cases, whatever vicarious and accidental improvements that exist are simply diversionary window-dressing on what is really another example of legalized corporate colonialism.
In the case of Obama's healthcare legislation, what's happening is that enormous quantities of new customers are being forced to buy expensive health coverage from insurance industry predators who will be vastly enriched by means of this new legislation, which is precisely why they would favor something that ordinarily we would expect them to oppose, and that we certainly would expect them to oppose if Obama was any kind of progressive whatsoever, even if only in his personal fantasies.
The bank bailouts were absolutely no different. What an amazing episode, what an amazing looting of the American public, what an amazing chapter in the destruction of an empire -- and all brought to us by a supposedly liberal president. In fact, Obama was simply extending the tradition of the Bush administration, and the Reagan ideology prior to that, which calls for pillaging the federal treasury in order to divert the maximal amount of money to economic elites, and then leaving the bill for the American taxpayer.
If those who know the truth don't speak up then the "IBM is still one of the best companies to work for" and "IBM, a great place to work" type of reviews (yep, that's a couple of the titles of recent reviews, ugh) will be the primary ones out there. If you don't have a login id and password for the site I strongly encourage you to take a moment to join (its free) by simply posting your own review of IBM. Then, to do one better and take a moment to:
If enough people do that it will place these reviews at the top of the list when visitors look at the IBM ratings, since Glassdoor.com sorts the most recent reviews that are also the most highly rated, first in the list. Here's a link to a few accurate and recent reviews I would suggest you mark with a "Yes" vote (I already did) so they sort to the top. The whole exercise should take you no more than five to ten minutes. I especially like the last review by the wife of an IBMer.
Do not come to work here, you will not be respected!! Advice to Senior Management Pay more attention to your employees they are your assets. Do not discriminate against older employees because they cost more and will soon go into retirement with great benefits. Shame on you IBM for cutting costs by getting rid of your most loyal employees who have been with you for many many years! Now they cost too much so you're letting them go without due respect and benefits! read more: http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/postReviewComment.htm -ibm wife-
Alliance Supporter-, your job is already eliminated and you WILL be forced to train your offshore replacement. At the expense of your dignity and irregardless of your many years. Sam doesn't give a flying fig about you OR your degree OR your years of service OR your family. Sam cares only about Sam. So. Your manager will FORCE you to train your offshore replacement, under threat of severance/no severance, and if your manager can't deliver the threat, your Team Leader will deliver it for them. Bet on it, it WILL happen. Sammy Boy doesn't give a tinker's damn for you, he doesn't even know you exist. His AA is reading this board, but won't deliver your message to His Highness. After you train your offshore replacement and get FIRED, Sammy Boy will (if applicable) send you a 'congratulations on your retirement' letter, even though His Highness knows full well that you were FIRED, and did NOT voluntarily retire. Will Sammy and his henchmen and henchwomen stop until all the rest of the 28% U.S. employees are humiliated and demeaned and insulted and FIRED? No. SHOULD the remaining 28% U.S. employees form a union very quickly if they know what's good for them? Of course they should. NB: AT WILL EMPLOYEE, unionize or be screwed. -anonymouse-
Effective July 1, 1999, IBM amended the Retention Plan to provide a new benefit formula, but allowed participants who met certain age, service, and pay level conditions as of June 30, 1999 to continue to earn benefits under the prior formula if the prior formula provides a greater benefit. Messrs. Palmisano and Mills continue to earn benefits under the prior formula. Messrs. Loughridge, Daniels, and Elix earn benefits under the 1999 plan formula.
# Effective May 1, 2004, the Retention Plan was closed to new participants. Accrual of future benefits under the Retention Plan stopped on December 31, 2007. Accordingly, a participant’s Retention Plan benefit does not consider pay earned or service credited after December 31, 2007."
"We are about to force at least 30 million people into an insurance market where the sharks are circling," said California Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, a Democrat who served as the state's insurance commissioner for eight years. "Without effective protections, they will be eaten alive." Soaring premiums coupled with millions of new customers forced to buy policies would likely mean higher costs for taxpayers to cover government subsidies for lower-income families and individuals. They could also mean bigger bills for people who get benefits through work, as well as for their employers.
But far from harming elderly Americans, the various reform bills now pending should actually make Medicare better for most beneficiaries — by enhancing their drug coverage, reducing the premiums they pay for drugs and medical care, eliminating co-payments for preventive services and helping keep Medicare solvent, among other benefits. ...
We have long championed Medicare. And we believe elderly Americans, and all Americans, should closely examine the proposed health care reforms. But the Republicans have done far too good a job at obscuring and twisting the facts and spreading unwarranted fear. It is time to call them to account. President Obama and the Democrats in Congress have to make the case forcefully that health care reform will overwhelmingly benefit Americans — including the millions of older Americans who participate in Medicare.
Others, however, see problems of misalignment in the American system, fueled by industry advertising, physician fears about malpractice lawsuits and a culture that craves the latest, greatest everything. The situation here, they argue, is that there is not enough care for some, and too much for others. Often, people with generous insurance plans can run up large bills and face life-threatening complications from unnecessary care: back surgeries that result in wound infections, when physical therapy might have been a more effective treatment; imaging scans that expose patients to radiation; medication-caused side effects that must be treated.
On the opposite side is the health insurance industry, which says it's an unavoidable business decision because premiums are based on expected expenses and older people have higher health care costs. Caught in the middle are people like Colleen Malone-Engel, 53, of Culver City, Calif., who says her insurance premiums jumped when she turned 50 even though she's in good health. ''I don't think it's fair,'' said Malone-Engel, whose name was provided to The Associated Press by AARP. ''I understand why the insurance companies do that -- because they know that older people need more health care -- but I was pretty stunned to have that hit me at 50. Because 50 is still young.''
"If we do nothing, we will probably see another doubling effect in seven to 10 years," said John Vlajkovic, principal in Hewitt's health management practice, referring to the specter of Congress not passing health care reform legislation this year.
Next year, workers are expected to contribute about $174 a month, 10 percent more than they do now. And they'll be paying roughly an additional $162 in out-of-pocket costs each month, a 10 percent increase.
Mr. Schumer said the public option would hold down costs because it would not have to generate profits, answer to shareholders or incur marketing expenses. His proposal would have required the public plan to negotiate rates with doctors and hospitals, rather than setting prices based on Medicare reimbursement rates. Under Mr. Rockefeller’s plan, the payment of doctors and hospitals would have been based on Medicare rates for the first two years.
Mr. Rockefeller said the Congressional Budget Office had estimated that a government insurance plan could slice $50 billion from the cost of Mr. Baucus’s bill, originally put at $774 billion over 10 years. The budget office predicted that eight million people would initially enroll in the public plan — about one-third of those who would seek coverage through new markets, or insurance exchanges. ...
Senator John Ensign, Republican of Nevada, said he feared that a government plan would prove so popular it could never be uprooted. “Does anybody believe Congress would let this public plan go away once it has a constituency?” Mr. Ensign asked. “No way. Once it’s started, you will never get rid of it. Congress will subsidize it more and more, allow it to grow and grow.”
“These Blue Dog Democrats seem to know only one trick,” said Simpson. “That’s to roll over — to roll over for the insurance industry. They aren’t Blue Dogs, they’re insurance company lapdogs.” Simpson predicted that if the Democrats don’t stand up to the insurance industry and Congress passes health insurance “reform” without affordability guarantees, Democrats will lose their majority in both houses of Congress.
Mandating that everyone must buy insurance from private companies simply guarantees huge profits for the industry, he said. It is not reform. Representatives of Public Citizen, the California Nurses Association, the United Steelworkers Union and the National Organization of Women also spoke at the news conference. ...
The health care industry and its lobbyists have hosted at least 130 fundraisers this year for members of Congress who sit on the five key committees responsible for crafting a health care overhaul, according to a Consumer Watchdog analysis. Health industry PACs and individuals donated $30.7 million to members of those committees over the same period of time. ...
“Who can tell which hard decisions on health reform are being made over $1,000 high-balls shared by lobbyists and politicians while the public’s locked out of the room?” said Carmen Balber, Washington Director for Consumer Watchdog. “The public can’t be confident in health reform if Congress insists on accepting industry money while legislating.”
The industry and interest groups have spent $380m (£238m) in recent months influencing healthcare legislation through lobbying, advertising and in direct political contributions to members of Congress. The largest contribution, totalling close to $1.5m, has gone to the chairman of the senate committee drafting the new law.
A former member of Bill Clinton's cabinet says fears that the industry could throw its money behind the populist rightwing backlash against public insurance have scared the Obama White House into pulling back from the most significant reforms in return for healthcare companies not trying to scupper the entire legislation.
Drug and insurance companies say they are merely seeking to educate politicians and the public. But with industry lobbyists swarming over Capitol Hill ‑ there are six registered healthcare lobbyists for every member of Congress ‑ a partner in the most powerful lobbying firm in Washington acknowledged that healthcare firms' money "has had a lot of influence" and that it is "morally suspect". ...
Insurance companies have done even better as the new legislation will prove a business bonanza. It is not only likely to kill off the threat of public health insurance, which threatened to siphon off customers by offering lower premiums and better coverage, but will force millions more people to take out private medical policies or face prosecution. "It's a total victory for the health insurance industry," said Dr Steffie Woolhander, a GP, professor of medicine at Harvard University and co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Programme (PNHP).
"What the bill has done is use the coercive power of the state to force people to hand their money over to a private entity which is the private insurance industry. That is not what people were promised."
PNHP blames a political process it says is corrupted by millions of dollars poured into the election campaigns of members of Congress and influencing the discourse about health reform by funding advertising campaigns, supposedly independent studies and patients rights organisations that press the industry's interests. ...
Baucus took $1.5m from the health sector for his political fund in the past year. Other members of the committee have received hundreds of thousands of dollars. They include Senator Pat Roberts, who last week tried to stall the bill by arguing that lobbyists needed three days to read it. Baucus holds dinners for health industry executives at which they pay thousands of dollars each to be at the table, and an annual fly-fishing and golfing weekend in his home state of Montana that lobbyists pay handsomely to attend. They have included John Jonas, who represents healthcare firms for Patton Boggs, widely regarded as the top lobbying firm in Washington. Jonas, who formerly worked on the congressional staff, acknowledges that political contributions are intended to buy influence and says it works. ...
The health industry permeates the process in other ways. At Baucus's side, drafting much of the wording of the reform, was Liz Fowler, a senate committee counsel whose last position was vice-president of the country's largest health insurer, Wellpoint, which stands to be a principal beneficiary of the new law. ...
Robert Reich, the labour secretary in the Clinton administration, says the Obama White House, mindful of how the health industry killed off Clinton's attempts at reform, has grown so fearful of industry money that it has quietly reached agreement to pull back from price caps and public health insurance. "The White House made a Faustian bargain with big pharma and big insurance, essentially scuttling both of these profit-squeezing mechanisms in return for these industries' agreement not to oppose healthcare legislation with platoons of lobbyists and millions of dollars of TV ads." ...
The pharmaceutical companies are apparently pleased enough that they are now putting $120m into advertising supporting the emerging legislation.
Under this proposal, which offers something for everyone, it could finally come to this: Red America would get red health care reform and Blue America would get — you guessed it — blue health care reform. Yes, we're coming toward the end of the black-and-blue portion of the health care debate. And now, thanks to Tom Carper, a little-known senator from Delaware, we may be moving to the red-and-blue phase.
As you may have heard, the Senate Finance Committee beat back the health care public option this week for being, well, too public — like public libraries or public schools. In any case, there seemed to be too much government interference for these senators and not enough insurance-company interference.
And so, the so-called "centrist" Democrats and all Republicans on the committee voted against two public-option amendments, leaving us with more fights to come. Democrats, who have a super-majority in the Senate, can't even get a committee majority on two key votes. No wonder President Barack Obama decided to leave the country for a day. ...
Here's the beauty of Carper's compromise: Individual states would be allowed — but not required — to offer a version of the public option. Carper, a centrist himself who voted against one public-option plan and for another, would allow the states to set up co-ops or open their own state insurance plans or to set up a state-run public option that could become regional public option. Or they could do absolutely nothing. It's not as good as a national public option. Regional plans would be necessarily smaller than a national plan, meaning they wouldn't get the same economies of scale. But the Carper plan offers something else, which I'm sure is unintended. We can call it the let's-call-their-bluff plan. ...
If Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., and her fellow Arkansans don't want the public option, don't want cheaper drug prices, don't want a check on the insurance companies, don't want state, federal, local or any other kind of government involvement, that's up to them. They don't have to have it. If Ben Nelson, D-Neb., and his fellow Nebraskans don't want it, well, you get the idea. But if Colorado wants it, we can have it and join with, say, New Mexico and Nevada and California and Oregon and Washington and Montana. ...
"If certain states want to deny their citizens what other states have, they can do it," she said. "If their legislators vote that way and the governor signs it, end of discussion. Definitely, let's call their bluff." ...
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, it costs $13,374 to insure the average family — and the price keeps going up. That's not a bluff. The system has to change. ...
A mandate without a public option is just a big gift to the insurance companies. And Carper's compromise? It depends on the details whether it would help or hurt. Can it get 60 votes? Would we get to see a real filibuster? There's much yet to come.
“As health insurance premiums continue to go through the roof, now is the time to ensure that health insurance companies are not engaging in anti-competitive behavior that make it more difficult for Americans to get health coverage,” said U.S. Rep. DeGette. “Families across our nation – including those in Colorado – are feeling the pinch in their budgets from having to keep up with rising insurance rates. This bill takes an important step towards making sure our health insurance industry is competitive and is providing consumers with affordable health insurance. Simply put, the bottom lines of the big insurance companies should not be put above the American public’s ability to gain access to health care.”
The key provisions of the Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act will repeal the federal antitrust exemption for health insurance and medical malpractice insurance companies for flagrant antitrust violations, including price-fixing, bid rigging, and market allocations, and subject health insurers and medical malpractice insurers to the same good-competition laws that apply to virtually every other company doing business in the United States. In Colorado, health insurance premiums have skyrocketed for working families, increasing 75 percent from 2000 to 2007. Furthermore, one insurance company alone controls 76 percent of the market in Pueblo, Colorado.
“To paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of the death of the public health insurance option are greatly exaggerated,” said Congresswoman Capps. “The strong support for the public health insurance option is alive and well as demonstrated by our letter signed by Members representing the wide ideological spectrum of our diverse Caucus. Our letter makes clear that the best way to ensure competition and bring down health care costs is by making available a robust public health insurance option.”
"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.
Vault's IBM Business Consulting Services message board is a popular hangout for IBM BCS employees, including many employees acquired from PwC. Sample posts follow:
We all have to play nice-nice with our GR (global resource) peers. and when your GR team lead sends notes to IBM US mgmt that they need MORE WORK from their US counterparts, IBM mgmt. rolls over and gives them more work. Reminds me of an old CCR song: Fortunate Son.
And when you ask them, how much should we give? Ooh, they only answer more! more! more. What a sad, pathetic, f'ng company.
What's more pathetic is how India is not held accountable since they are Sam's chosen ones and how anyone who reports problems with India are considered anti-team, racist and uncooperative.
The sacred cows over in India aren't cattle, they're the "office boys" pretending to be IT professionals working for IBM. What a sad, pathetic f'ng company indeed.
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.