Included in the document package given to every person terminated is a list of the number of employees cut by job title, and the age of each person cut – and in addition there is a longer list of employees NOT cut, also with ages and by job title.
This report analyses the age data in this report. It is a factual analysis. I use only the data included in this report, do not import other data and do not overlay subjective analysis. I do not speculate on how IBM chose employees for termination. I am not claiming here that IBM chose employees for layoff based on age. There may have been other reasons – but the end result is that older workers were laid off. I reserve my personal opinion for another report. ...
On the morning of January 27, the average age of the 19,226 STG employees was 45.6 years old. This is a seasoned, experienced workforce. The average age of the 1,213 employees laid off was 49.5 years old, or almost 4 full years older than the average. Of the 1,213 laid off, 727 of them were 50 years old or older, or 60% of the cuts. The net effect of the layoff was to make the STG workforce younger. After the layoff, the average age of an STG employee is now 45.4 years old – marginally lower.
A look at the distribution of the overall numbers shows a more startling picture. The chart below shows the percentage of employees in each age group (in their 20’s, 30’s, 40’s etc.) that were laid off. In round numbers, about 4% or workers in the age groups of 20’s, 30’s and 40’s were laid off. The number jumps up to 8% of workers in their 50’s, and jumps up again to almost 18% (17.60% to be precise) of workers in the 60’s. There is a slight decline then for those in their 70’s. ...
A brief comment on the layoff numbers in management: There were 154 staff with the title of “Director.” Only 3 of those 154 were laid off, or less than 2%. There were 101 staff with the title of “Vice President.” Only 1 of those 101 were laid off, or about 1%. The percentages of management level employees that were cut is much lower (1 to 2%) than the rate at which staff level employees were cut (about 7%). This contradicts with the pattern of laying off older workers, since management workers are typically older than the average.
My messages to different groups:
Now the situation is different. IBM is really treating employees as liabilities. IBM wants to compete not by having better people and providing services no one else can do (like developing supercomputers for example), but by providing the same commodity grade services cheaper than others.
That is a totally different game. Now IBM needs cheaper employees and a lot of them. So if you think from that prospective, the employee is described by one parameter now - cost, and it'd better be below market.
Some companies have done that with a great success - look at Walmart for example. So IBM might have bright future ahead. But it will be a different company and the kind of employees who brought IBM 5 Nobel prizes will probably instead of being the greatest assets will be the biggest drag on the bottom line.
Just don't try and explain that $100.00 in SPIFs would make more of an impression than a single nice meal that they would forget in a week. (T-shirts last much longer and they become walking bill boards.) Naw, that concept doesn't make sense.
With respect to the reward program, from what I saw, it was never really used by many as an actual reward. It was a way for employees who were overworked and under thanked by management to get SPIFs as long as they and their friends 'gamed' the system. How many times did you see an IM where a friend wanted you to spiff him, he'd spiff someone else and that person would spiff you? LOL... I can't be the only one. Don't get me wrong. I had a lot of my team pull customer's asses out of the fire.
At IBM, you're a number. Your IBM serial number, your band level... etc . And your management is trained to think that you can easily be replaced.
The loss of this program is just another cost cutting measure so that IBM can make their record breaking numbers and line the exec's bonus programs before Sam retires.
Sorry for being cynical, and no, it's not that I have a grudge against IBM. Heck a lot of people I work with were at one time within IBM. Still have friends inside the borg.
Now IBM is becoming very fragmented. The Thanks! award is one example. I did notice that in the US it's quite common to see people in December who didn't get all their 3 awards and when I tried to send Thanks! to someone in India I discovered they all had the limit maxed out way in the 1st qtr or the year. Another example is cost cutting. In IBM the mentality was let's create an environment where people can achieve something no other company can. It was not always about making employees life easier (like strict dress code in the old days), but it had a purpose to raise IBM above the competition by doing better job.
Now looks like a lot of people in the countries where IBM is expanding quickly joined a very different company based on cost cutting and volume. What sounds shocking for the IBM old timers in the US is very natural to the people in India.
Another example. In the US it was common to join IBM for life or many many years. It was viewed as a long time commitment from both side. So when IBM is laying off thousands of top performers in the US it's really mind blowing for the people in the US. And people in India probably don't see it as a big deal at all.
I'm not saying one way is better than another but it's just amazing how polarized the company is.
When people think of IBM transformation it used to be something like a tree dropping leaves in fall but turning green in spring so the same people were becoming a part of something bigger and stronger. What I see happening now is more like annual flowers where old culture is spreading the seeds and dying off and the new plants will bloom in the new places. To the outsider it will look like not much changed but for the old flowers it meant dying off and for the new ones it means a fresh short life.
But I'm not going to spend time explaining my ratings. I want to point out to you current IBM employees that your whining and complaining is completely POINTLESS if you just keep doing it on sites - like this one and others, notably those connected with Alliance@IBM. I keep reading comments about IBM being "unfair" and "heartless"; about IBM taking advantage of people, etc, etc.
What I don't read is letter after letter saying "I want a union, I am joining Alliance, I am urging all my co-workers to do the same". Or letters like, "I have contacted my congressman/woman. I have let them know that I (and others like me) will NOT vote for any politician who does not get OVERTLY serious about the job drain in this country (off-shoring), nor will I/we vote for anyone who keeps handing companies like IBM tax breaks and incentives that are NOT an investment in this country.
In other words......"I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more!" Get off your butts, people. Do you really think all the blogging and venting us going to change anything? Stand up on your hind legs and ACT! How obvious does it have to be that you're not alone and that there are thousands and thousands of IBMer's who are in the same boat. Organize! Act! But do some damned thing besides the endless (and useless) whining.
Respect: Maybe because of the mexican culture, I have seen always respect between colleagues.
Benefits: IBM has been constantly reducing everything that seems to be an additional cost. Job Security: If you perform bad in a tough year, even if you were a Top Performer in the past years do not doubt it... you will get fired. IBM's memory is really short.
Work Life Balance: If you apply to Sales... how can I say this... there is no balance in anything.
Career/ Potential Growth: What I have seen these years is simple. If you already work for IBM and you are not well paid, you better quit, find a job with some competitor and remain there for a couple of years, and then return to IBM. Your salary will magically double or triple... in two years!!! I have seen that more than once. The last one with a very close friend of mine.
Co Worker Competence: In IBM we say: "Do not try to kill a bug... It can become your boss" ... Many low profiled, inexperienced, and poor performers, can be managers with a little help from their friends.
Bureaucracy and processes is killing IBM.
Work environment: Full of stress... You do not have a name in there. Your name is the sales quota you sign for.
Regards, Mr. "10MillionUSD" Perez Martinez.
I think IBM is very aware of the fact that it's the employee's with at least 20 years of service that are the most pissed off at IBM. And I think they probably know exactly how many active employee's fall into that category. That in turn should give them an approximate idea of when there will no longer be any active employee's remaining in that category. Of course, IBM can and might take actions to move that timeframe closer to 2010. When IBM gets to that point, that's a good thing for them, but I'm not sure if it's good for organizing a union.
So how much longer does anyone think it will be when there aren't any more employee's that remember yesteryears "good" IBM? It's probably not as far away as many people think it is.
The decision overturns more than a century of laws regulating the influence of corporations in elections. Not only is the decision a radical departure from longstanding precedent, it defies common sense: it argues that corporations and American citizens have identical rights under the Constitution. As Justice Stevens pointed out in his dissent, corporations are not people. They can not vote, they can not hold office, and they should not be allowed to pour billions of dollars into our system of government.
Thanks to the Supreme Court, though, they'll be able to do just that. In fact, even foreign corporations may well be able to spend unlimited sums of money to support or defeat candidates-something flesh-and-blood non-citizens are still banned from doing.
If Americans are frustrated now by the corporate influence in the system, wait until they see what's next.
In the next few months, for example, Congress will be asked to enact tough new regulations on the banking industry-a recommendation supported by experts across the ideological spectrum. The legislation might be good for the American people, but bad for big banks. For a given Congressperson, a vote against the legislation might lead to some angry phone calls from engaged constituents, but a vote for the legislation could unleash tens of millions of dollars of attack ads. If that number sounds exaggerated, consider that Goldman Sachs posted annual profits of $13.4 billion dollars on the same day the decision was handed down.
The cooperation between the company and federal immigration agents is recounted in sworn depositions by Signal managers who were involved when tensions in its shipyard in Pascagoula, Miss., erupted into a public clash in March 2007.
Since then, hundreds of the Indian workers have brought a civil rights lawsuit against the company, claiming they were victims of human trafficking and labor abuse. Signal International is fighting the suit and has sued American and Indian recruiters who contracted with the workers in India. The company claims the recruiters misled it — and the workers — about the terms of the work visas that brought them to this country.
Now that I'm gone, my friend who still works at the same branch just got a 3 rating in Jan. He happens to now be one of the 2 highest paid SSR in the branch (now that I'm gone). This is no coincidence, The contract workers and lower paid technicians are getting the better ratings while the more experienced are getting the shaft. When they cut, they start from the top and work their way down so the cuts add up to more money saved. And I bet my ex manager is getting bonuses and 1 ratings by keeping salary costs down.
I'm glad I'm out of IBM now that I found a job in the medical sector where they treat their employees much better. If I have a message for the more senior non-management IBM employees, it would be to start looking elsewhere now and find a better job before you get the axe. Because all your years at IBM don't mean a thing. -Gone_in_09-
We all know that the potential is there for anyone to be let go at anytime, so knowing that will happen, there's only two choices, sign up with Alliance IBM and take back IBM like they did in Argentina, or work on an exit strategy (or both). The only enticement to stay with this company is if there's a union representing us. That's the only way IBM will become the company it once was, one that valued its employees and their talents, not one that bids out the work to the lowest country with no experience.
It's a poor way to run a company, and it really does hurt the stockholders because they could be making more money per share each quarter. Until IBM changes, it's just going to be a cash cow for the execs, with a Board policy to drive away the most talented workforce in the world, by forcing everyone to chase the now illusive carrot, and taking away any monetary incentive to remain loyal to IBM. For those that think they're in a safe place, think again. I was there once... the RA's will find you or your team, department or organization. So what are you going to do now to prepare for then? -Anonymous-
Subject: I have a policy comment on Job Creation
Dear President Obama,
I voted for you and supported your campaign in 2008. I agree wholeheartedly with this statement from 2010 State of the Union address: "It is time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas, and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs right here in the United States of America." PLEASE APPLY THIS POLICY TO IBM!
IBM has been reducing its US staff for years:
In 2009 alone, IBM terminated more than 10,000 US employees.
Yet IBM continues to hire offshore. IBM’s 2009 hires were:
...while IBM’s CEO Sam Palmisano was receiving personal compensation of over $20 million per year and asking for billions of stimulus dollars! I would appreciate a reply. -Gorya-
Before then I had worked for the same company for thirty years. I joined the company, had medical insurance, and didn’t think about it too much except for the annual grumping. Yeah, I complained when we had to start contributing to the coverage, and I complained when we had to figure out which plan to choose, and I complained each year when the cost went up.
I truly didn’t know how good I had it.
In 2009, it became very clear to me why so many people are without medical insurance. Here are my top four reasons: (read more...)
At 70 she is still a part-time area manager for a small management firm and has a company provided car and apartment. Her monthly salary still isn't enough even with social security. Turns out she has a sizable amount deducted for her supplemental insurance. She's going back to work full time this month and even will be going without a part-timer to take over her current work load. She'll be working 48 hours every week.
My sister is a special ed teacher and has been after me for a few years now to be officially evaluated for Asperger's. I don't see the point at my age, but Asperger's is also a condition that can get you denied health insurance. It's a hell of a list. Amazing anybody can get health insurance privately with everything that's on it.
Too bad nobody has a serious plan for fixing any of this. I'd love to see one of the parties be serious about it.
Please read on - this gets more interesting as years go by. Our joint premium was $840 USD with a $3K deductible. Then premiums started creeping up - and I started increasing the deductible and stabilizing the premiums until I attained the age of 65 - when to my surprise with a deductible to $6K our premium was raised to $1410 - and of course since I have been in USA for 7 Years only, when I went to Social Security Office - they laughed at me and said no Medicare for another at least 3 years - you need to have worked in this country for at least 10 Years and accumulated 40 SSC Points.
OK - what shall I do - I cannot afford $20,000 per annum for our healthcare insurance - and an insurance that does not cover my wife's pre-conditions. I cannot believe I live in the richest country on Planet Earth and any minute I can go bankrupt - if God forbid - something unforeseen happened to me or to my wife. This system needs fixing and needs fixing fast - don't know how!!!
I'm now a small business owner. One of the things that kept me from going into business was that I have a pre-existing condition and would probably not be able to buy an individual plan on my own. My business has a small group plan and pre-existing conditions aren't considered when hiring new employees. However, in the past two years, our premiums have increased 50%. Our health insurance bill is now 10% of our gross company revenue, and 15% of our payroll. (We are a services business.) It is by far our second largest expense after salaries. Sometimes I just don't know how we're going to pay this giant bill every month, but we manage.
One of the interesting things is maternity coverage. You either have to provide it to everyone or no one in your group. This has put me in the awkward position of asking my sister, who is my business partner and is the only one who needs maternity coverage in our company, if she's done having children. I HATE being put in this position. It really is none of my business, except that it is 30% of the total cost of our company's health insurance bill, which is becoming unaffordable. And by EEO rules, it should be none of my business, but the insurance company makes it one of the conditions that would lower our bill. We're fortunate to have good coverage, but it is very costly!
Is it? Maybe the problem is that neither party has any ideology anymore -- it's just all about getting the money you need to run commercials at election time, and being against whatever the other party is for. For example, why is the decision to have the trial of Khalid "Shake Shake Shake" Mohammed in New York a Democratic position, and not having it in New York a Republican position? Republicans are usually the 24 loving macho warriors. Isn't it the more macho position to be saying, "Damn right we're going to try them at the scene of the crime! We're going to make that bastard look at Ground Zero right out the window of the courtroom every day -- we're going to stick his nose in it like a dog who's made a mess on the rug: 'Look what you did! Bad dog! Bad!!'"? I can much more easily imagine Bill O'Reilly making that case than Obama.
And yet, because its the Democrats who suggested it, the Republicans automatically piss all over it and find themselves backing the opposite approach, then make up a bunch of stupid reasons why: it'll fuck up traffic in Manhattan; it'll be a platform for Mohammed to "mock" us.
Insurers cannot set higher co-payments and deductibles or stricter limits on treatment for mental illness and addiction disorders. Nor can they establish separate deductibles for mental health care and for the treatment of physical illnesses. Such disparities are common in the insurance industry. By sweeping away such restrictions, doctors said, the rules will make it easier for people to obtain treatment for a wide range of conditions, including depression, autism, schizophrenia, eating disorders and alcohol and drug abuse.
"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.
Yet as the world’s attention shifts from financial rescue to financial reform, the quiet success stories deserve at least as much attention as the spectacular failures. We need to learn from those countries that evidently did it right. And leading that list is our neighbor to the north. Right now, Canada is a very important role model.
Yes, I know, Canada is supposed to be dull. The New Republic famously pronounced “Worthwhile Canadian Initiative” (from a Times Op-Ed column in the ’80s) the world’s most boring headline. But I’ve always considered Canada fascinating, precisely because it’s similar to the United States in many but not all ways. The point is that when Canadian and U.S. experience diverge, it’s a very good bet that policy differences, rather than differences in culture or economic structure, are responsible for that divergence.
And anyway, when it comes to banking, boring is good.
First, some background. Over the past decade the United States and Canada faced the same global environment. Both were confronted with the same flood of cheap goods and cheap money from Asia. Economists in both countries cheerfully declared that the era of severe recessions was over.
But when things fell apart, the consequences were very different here and there. In the United States, mortgage defaults soared, some major financial institutions collapsed, and others survived only thanks to huge government bailouts. In Canada, none of that happened. What did the Canadians do differently? Read more...
GOP strategists hope to benefit from the reaction to the White House's populist rhetoric and proposals, which range from sharp critiques of bonuses to a tax on big Wall Street banks, caps on executive pay and curbs on business practices deemed too risky.
Yet they aren’t facts. Many economists take a much calmer view of budget deficits than anything you’ll see on TV. Nor do investors seem unduly concerned: U.S. government bonds continue to find ready buyers, even at historically low interest rates. The long-run budget outlook is problematic, but short-term deficits aren’t — and even the long-term outlook is much less frightening than the public is being led to believe.
So why the sudden ubiquity of deficit scare stories? It isn’t being driven by any actual news. It has been obvious for at least a year that the U.S. government would face an extended period of large deficits, and projections of those deficits haven’t changed much since last summer. Yet the drumbeat of dire fiscal warnings has grown vastly louder.
To me — and I’m not alone in this — the sudden outbreak of deficit hysteria brings back memories of the groupthink that took hold during the run-up to the Iraq war. Now, as then, dubious allegations, not backed by hard evidence, are being reported as if they have been established beyond a shadow of a doubt. Now, as then, much of the political and media establishments have bought into the notion that we must take drastic action quickly, even though there hasn’t been any new information to justify this sudden urgency. Now, as then, those who challenge the prevailing narrative, no matter how strong their case and no matter how solid their background, are being marginalized.
And fear-mongering on the deficit may end up doing as much harm as the fear-mongering on weapons of mass destruction.
Let’s talk for a moment about budget reality. Contrary to what you often hear, the large deficit the federal government is running right now isn’t the result of runaway spending growth. Instead, well more than half of the deficit was caused by the ongoing economic crisis, which has led to a plunge in tax receipts, required federal bailouts of financial institutions, and been met — appropriately — with temporary measures to stimulate growth and support employment. ...
Why, then, all the hysteria? The answer is politics.
The main difference between last summer, when we were mostly (and appropriately) taking deficits in stride, and the current sense of panic is that deficit fear-mongering has become a key part of Republican political strategy, doing double duty: it damages President Obama’s image even as it cripples his policy agenda. And if the hypocrisy is breathtaking — politicians who voted for budget-busting tax cuts posing as apostles of fiscal rectitude, politicians demonizing attempts to rein in Medicare costs one day (death panels!), then denouncing excessive government spending the next — well, what else is new?
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.