“The Alliance believes this is another example of IBM firing US workers and moving the work offshore,” Conrad added. “Some of the employees have told us that they have been terminated while training offshore replacements. It is time our political leaders called IBM to task on this.” ...
The breakdown by work group as reported by the union:
The latest cuts follow 10,000 layoffs in 2009 as IBM reduced its U.S.-based work force. The latest numbers, based on IBM data as posted at the Alliance@IBM Web site:
iTnews quoted IBM spokesperson Matt Mollett as saying that IBM “continuously transforms its business, rebalancing skills and capabilities in order to meet the changing needs of clients and our business as a whole.” He also said IBM would "continue to hire in 2010, and ... end the year with more employees than when the year began.”
So much for IBM’s lifetime employment concept. In 2009, the company sacked as many as 10,000 employees. Now comes word of thousands more losing their jobs in what the company likes to refer to as “resource actions.”
The Alliance@IBM/CWA Local 1701 Web site, which tracks layoffs at IBM (IBM), reports that some 2,544 IBM employees have been let go this week, with more to follow. And unsurprisingly, the group says off-shoring is, once again, to blame. Evidently, RA’d employees are being asked to train their overseas replacements before they’re cut. “IBM is shifting work offshore,” Alliance@IBM national director Lee Conrad told me. “The company appears to be abandoning the US workforce.” And this, not two months after IBM announced that its full-year profit will be at least $11 a share, exceeding earlier targets.
What was that about investing in our people, again, Sam?
IBM's policy in the past few years has been to remain silent as to the numbers and locations, though in earlier years, representatives were permitted to give such details. "We continually remix our skills and structure to meet the changing needs of our clients," corporate spokesman Douglas Shelton said in an e-mail Tuesday.
The mix is ever downward in the recent U.S. record. At the end of 2008, IBM had 398,455 employees worldwide, with the U.S. portion at 28.9 percent. It was 50.1 percent in 1993.
“IBM cuts hundreds of jobs, sliver of 400k workers.”
Here’s the first paragraph of the AP story:
“IBM Corp. cut more than 1,500 jobs across a number of divisions Monday, a sliver of the technology company's nearly 400,000 workers worldwide.”
There’s that word again – “sliver.” Am I oversensitive? Well, I’ve been fired. I’ve been “RA’d” as IBMers call layoffs in a “resource action.” I’ve laid off people. I’ve worked at newspapers that went belly up. I had my pay cut 40 percent to keep a business alive even as I fought cancer. I have seen my family fight off tears with fear replacing hope.
The missing context of IBM’s cuts: But, here’s the context ignored by AP’s headline and accompanying short story:
When does the madness end?Where are those jobs headed? You known darn well where they are headed. The “sliver” of U.S. jobs shipped overseas in search of lower costs and foreign markets is a flood. When does this madness stop? The U.S. economy is being torpedoed, capsized and sunk before our very eyes. Real unemployment is at 20 percent. And if this economy slips into a double-dip recession, then watch out. The depression word will be back. And we won’t be talking about any more “slivers” but bullets to our economic corpse.
Need evidence? If you want some mind-boggling reading about the outsourcing flood, then read this bulletin in the Federal register about employees who are eligible for tax-subsidized benefits due to jobs being off-shored and outsourced. "Slivers," indeed.
"IBM is clearly offshoring things where they can," said one IBM employee who received his notice yesterday and spoke on the condition of anonymity because he didn't want to jeopardize his severance. A 10-year veteran and UNIX administrator, this employee said his customer support team once had 15 U.S.-based workers. That staff was reduced over time to just three workers in the U.S., with other members of the customer support team now in Brazil, Argentina and India.
Selected reader comments concerning the above article follow:
Also, the image of talent in Manila and India makes me laugh. There is great talent there, but as soon as they get their basic training through a large company like IBM, they go for themselves, or shop around for other jobs. Keeping an employee for more than a year is a big issue for large companies like IBM in India. And finding employees at IBM India with more experience is extremely hard.
What is happening is that Executives have lost respect for talent. It's as simple as that. They all believe that talent in Software has become a commodity. I have had an executive tell me personally that software engineering requires no talent: any 13 year old, without an education can hack a market leading application today. This type of thinking is the major driver here. Plus costs of course. I am sure that if costs were the same, and children labor laws were abolished in the US, IBM would start hiring high school kids to do work for babysitting-level wages.
One more thought, we are going to wake up and look at EDS, IBM, HP, and a host of other integrators and then realize these preeminent companies are no longer American entities, they are solely South Asian entities. The American Executives had sold these companies, their shareholders and their knowledge and talent pool down the river years ago. Our politicians ought to get with what is going on instead of trying to curry favor with their executives. The first thing Obama did a POTUS was a meet and greet with IBM Sam.
IBM makes billions of USA $ in record profits. But its revenues are dismal at best. The reason it's revenues are down is because of it's greedy, self serving leadership who can't fix the revenue stream since they don't care to. They only care to do the easy stuff and know how to cost cut and that's it. It's too much work to do for these overpaid and compensated folks to even study the revenue issues.
These executives say they have to continually rebalance the workforce to meet client needs is because these executives are not willing to fix the real bottom up issues that affect revenue growth possibilities. IBM does not do a good job face-to-face with the customer. How many IBMers are meeting with the customer to bail a contract or a project out now? Plenty. Too many. IBM wastes tons of time and money in the process. It blows more money than most smaller companies could ever make.
The money wasted is recovered by RAing productive workers. But the middle management and executive ranks stays the status quo. The real inefficiency is in it's middle and upper management and executive ranks but it is never addressed. And this inefficiency has been around for a long, long time (since the early 1990's).
IMHO the only way IBM can fix it's present ills is to clean house from middle management on up. If this means hiring all middle management and upper management and executives and a whole new BOD in the BRICs then so be it.
Expectedly, I was confused, hurt, betrayed, and most of all, worried. Being a new home owner and in the midst of a total-home renovation – I was stressed enough. The next 8 months were the worst times of my life. Serving tables again? Really? It's that bad? Ugh. Shoot me.
My life was turning upside down. Interview after interview = nothing. Arguments, bills, and stress was at its peak! This carried on for awhile. I contemplated Restaurant Management. Then I snapped out of it. Long hours, 6 days a week... Thanks, but no. Don't get me wrong, Restaurant Management is an honorable career, just not for me.
About a week before I was about to go legally insane, I got a phone call from an employer that I had interviewed with; they had my resume on file (Yippee!). I went into the interview thinking "I have nothing to lose". I kept my head up, was attentive, made them laugh, and said my thanks. I was selected for the position.
It's been two months... Life is great - I love my job – my salary doubled – I couldn't ask for more - I feel truly blessed - each and every day.
Reflecting, while I was at IBM I knew that road was a dead-end. I needed a push; someone to kick me out of the nest and see if I could fly. I flapped my wings... hard, took some major nose dives - but I swooped back up and caught a ride with the wind. (Corny? I know – Sorry)
Being laid-off was definitely a blessing in disguise. To those who are impacted, this is cliche, but keep your heads up... take a deep breath and catch your ride. Uncover your blessings. Good Luck!
For me, I knew IBM Global Services was a dead-end job when I asked to do more and was politely told no, keep doing what I'm already doing because that's where I'm needed most.
Now I'm getting paid to leave. It doesn't get much better than that when dealing with a job that had zero career opportunity.
I'm looking forward to the opportunity to finally grow. True, the door to leave is always open but why leave and get nothing as thanks for years of service? If you can tolerate things I say stay for the paycheck and take the package when offered.
I just wish time travel were possible. I would bring Tom Watson into the future to see what today's executives have done to the company. That old man would be whipping a few knots on some heads up at the executive level. My thoughts and prayers for everyone affected by an IBM layoff.
IBM HR has put gates for every group/division. so if you are in GBS you can't move to STG and SWG etc., and even within SWG you can't move from Tivoli to websphere or IM till the RA employees leave. No one seems to know till when the gates are closed and everyone believes (including some managers I have talked to) that this will open up once RA employees leave.
In other words they are stating to the world that RA employees can find other jobs, but internally closing all avenues and gates so RA employees don't stand a chance to find a job.
Being a RA employee and seeing all this nonsense I have decided not to work for a company which has no respect and integrity to stand by what they state. Advice to RA employees: don't waste your valuable time and expertise with IBM. The company's jobs are not worth it, irrespective of your personal situation, you will be happier outside of IBM. Best of luck to all RA employees.
Naturally there are as many positive outcomes to be found, if you want to find them, as there are people in this common situation. On the converse, it is easy and natural to be angry, bitter, or even depressed. Though these are very understandable reactions, my advice is to spend as little time in this space as you can. Turn your anger into action. If you need help to do this there are many folks who are willing to help.
Now there is something important that I wanted to share with you. Thanks to a member of the class from April 09, David Heck, there is a Ning group set up. It is called Surplus Capacity Reintegration Effort there are a number of groups set up in the site that you may find useful. As a group we met daily, facilitated by our friend Art Conklin, during our 30 day cooling period and continued to meet for several months afterward. Many participants found the support useful, a place to ask questions from peers - of all levels, and even opportunities for employment. The choice - obviously - is yours. My intent today is to simply share awareness with you that this exists. That there is hope and that in the end we will all be ok.
I am a member of the April 09 class. It was actually the second time my job was eliminated at IBM. My career was a good one and I am proud of everything I accomplished. I do reserve my guilt to the client projects I architected that in the end had not one US citizen on the team. But this too is now just history. I and my colleagues are of a common mind at the moment - as long as there are out of work Americans, our company Strategy and Design Solutions (SDS) will not engage a single "off-shore" resource.
The story of SDS is I am told an inspiring one, and not the only one of the Blue No More community that has accomplished remarkable progress in just under one years time. If there is an interest, the calls may again convene. In addition to addressing what you as a group wish to cover, presentations from some of these success stories would be easily arranged.
Ok last things - there are several Linked in Groups you may wish to join if you have not already -Blue No More ande426.orgare two you may not have found - the others are bigger communities like IBMers,IBM Alumni ,The Greater IBM Connection and IBM co/ex workers independent group Best of Luck. And I hope to meet many of you in the days ahead.
That carried over into our work. When we went to clients, we were taught to have done plenty of research and to have formulated a recommendation, one backed up by solid data and analysis. We were expected to portray ourselves as smart (and frankly, that meant smarter than the clients) and advised to do nothing that might demonstrate a lack of confidence or authority.
As a result, many of my colleagues, including me, came to dislike our jobs. And to be fair, it didn't feel as if our clients liked us much, either. But that was the world of consulting, and unfortunately, in many places, it still is.
When I left that job and joined a "real" company, I became a client myself, bringing in consultants to do projects for my organization. I suppose it was sometime during that period that I developed my current approach to consulting, one we've been using in my firm for the past dozen years. It's called naked consulting and, yes, it's as intriguing as it sounds.
The essence of naked consulting is that clients are more interested in candor, humility, and transparency than they are in confidence, authority, and perfection. That's not to say that competence is irrelevant; clients need to know that we have the knowledge and experience to help them. But once we've reached that level, the best way to differentiate ourselves from the competition—not to mention help a client implement our recommendations—is to be vulnerable with them. Read more...
I have 36 years with IBM and will be 58 years old later this month, so I am retirement eligible under the old plan, although I had hoped to work a few more years. I know my odds of finding another job in my field at a comparable salary are pretty slim. And frankly, I'm feeling burned out enough that I'm not sure I *want* another job in my field! Though I'm certainly open to the idea of a part-time job perhaps.
I'll be working half a year, and then will get another half-year's pay (and still have to understand what my unemployment eligibility is) so I should be set for 2010 at least. But when 2011 rolls around I'll still be 15 months from being able to draw from my 401k or IRA plans (yes I know I can do a 72(t) thing with the 401K - but I would prefer not to be locked in for 5 years when I'm so close to having unrestricted access to the funds).
So my retirement plan options seem to be: 1) standard annuity; 2) lump sum + residual annuity; 3) income leveling annuity.
I ran some of this past my financial planner. His recommendation was to go with option 2. He said that his basic philosophy about retirement planning is "don't have all your eggs in one basket" and he likes to see people have at least 3 and better yet 4 income streams, so that if something happens to one of them you are not totally hosed, but still have other income sources. Of course, as I said to him, this *also* assumes that the place you invest that lump sum money is likely to be more financially secure than the IBM pension plan.
He said that IBM actually has one of the better pension plans around, and participates in the PBGC, but you still "never know". So he sees my income streams as being: 1) residual annuity; 2) lump sum suitably invested in some way; 3) 401K, and then later social security as a 4th income stream.
He also brought up the point that if I were run over a truck right after retiring my heir(s) would get nothing from the IBM plan, but they *would* get the lump sum if I had taken it. Although it does look as though I can actually elect a non-spousal survivor option. I was not aware of this.
And this is not that much of a worry for me. I am not married. My only direct heir is my son. He would still inherit my 401K and various other things. I am in the process of fixing up my house so I can put it on the market, and am thinking of just taking the money and renting somewhere. So I would have house money proceeds to invest also.
From my own viewpoint I had seriously been thinking about the income leveling option. That would give me a fair amount of monthly money right up front, and would indeed easily be enough to live on for a few years, assuming I get my house sold and find somewhere reasonable to rent. Yes I know it drops back drastically when SS kicks in, but I figure by then my 401K and house-profit investments will have had more years to grow and help provide another income stream.
Yeah I know the IBM pension is non-COLA, so I would have to account for that. Not having had a raise for the last six years I can easily see how money gets eaten away!
If I take the financial planner's option I don't see *any* way to get a monthly income anywhere close to what the IBM income leveling option would give me - at least not without dipping into the 401K much sooner than I want to.
But I am not a "number cruncher" so all the above assumptions are based just on high-level numbers and gut feel. I did some searching here on "income leveling" and didn't get one single hit, so it doesn't seem to have been discussed here.
I'm read about people here saying the did crunch the numbers to determine which made the most financial sense, but I'm not even sure how one goes about it! Are there any tools (that would need to be at a "For Dummies" sort of level for me to understand them) or things available to help me with my decisions? Or even personal experiences?
By taking the lump sum, you will be giving up a portion of the early retirement subsidy which is part of the annuity payments. The subsidy boosts the monthly payment above what the underlying lump sum would normally pay. The subsidy is worth the most the younger you are and disappears the closer you are to age 65 when you retire.
At age 58, the subsidy is still fairly significant. As a result, it is difficult to invest the lump sum at a rate of return that would provide the lifetime income that the full annuity would have provided. One thing that might make you take the lump sum anyway is that if you believe we are in for years of high inflation in the future. The lump sum might protect you there, assuming you can find a way to invest it that will beat inflation.
The Income Leveling option is a form of a loan, which IBM charges a fairly high interest rate on. By paying you more now, before you are eligible for social security, IBM is loaning you some of your future social security income. To pay the interest on that loan, IBM reduces the amount of your pension. So you need to think about whether you are willing to pay the interest cost of that loan. Your financial planner should be able to compare the two payment options and calculate the hidden interest cost.
If you need the extra income now, you may not have a choice. But if you can afford to live without the leveling income, you will probably be better off in the long run. Unless of course, there is something in your family history that makes you think you will not live a long life.
So my retirement plan options seem to be: 1) standard annuity; 2) lump sum + residual annuity; 3) income leveling annuity. I ran some of this past my financial planner. His recommendation was to go with option 2. He said that his basic philosophy about retirement planning is "don't have all your eggs in one basket" and he likes to see people have at least 3 and better yet 4 income streams, so that if something happens to one of them you are not totally hosed, but still have other income sources. Of course, as I said to him, this *also* assumes that the place you invest that lump sum money is likely to be more financially secure than the IBM pension plan.
WARNING: A lot of "financial planners" "might" like to recommend lump sums because lump sums need to be invested and "financial planners" make money by "managing" peoples investments.
He said that IBM actually has one of the better pension plans around, and participates in the PBGC, but you still "never know". So he sees my income streams as being: 1) residual annuity; 2) lump sum suitably invested in some way; 3) 401K, and then later social security as a 4th income stream.
Have you run the numbers to determine how much #1 - #4 are? Even before that, have you constructed a BUDGET to determine what your initial $ requirements are? This is the FIRST step for a financial plan. (Don't forget about inflation. You could either assume a reasonable inflation factor, or you could try to construct a plan that is inflation based, i.e. makes an assume on your return on investment in real (inflation adjusted terms). Note that your pension is not inflation adjusted, so you need to make a estimate of what percentage of your pension would need to be reinvested to keep up with inflation.)
He also brought up the point that if I were run over a truck right after retiring my heir(s) would get nothing from the IBM plan, but they *would* get the lump sum if I had taken it. Although it does look as though I can actually elect a non-spousal survivor option. I was not aware of this.
Yes, you can designate a non-spousal survivor for up to a 50% J&S option on the IBM plan. (I know because I did so.)
From my own viewpoint I had seriously been thinking about the income leveling option. That would give me a fair amount of monthly money right up front, and would indeed easily be enough to live on for a few years, assuming I get my house sold and find somewhere reasonable to rent. Yes I know it drops back drastically when SS kicks in, but I figure by then my 401K and house-profit investments will have had more years to grow and help provide another income stream.
Your decision on leveling (in statistical terms) depends partially on how long you expect to live. There is a break even point (I don't remember the age off hand). If you die before that age, taking leveling was a good economic decision. If you die after that age, a bad decision.
Yeah I know the IBM pension is non-COLA, so I would have to account for that. Not having had a raise for the last six years I can easily see how money gets eaten away!
I had done (but can't seem to find it now) a simple spreadsheet where I entered three factors, a) expected years to live b) expected inflation rate, c) expected return on investment and then used goal seeker to tell me what % of my pension would theoretically need to be reinvested (and therefore what percentage remained for me to use) to keep a constant after inflation buying power. A similar spreadsheet could be used to calculate a break-even point on the lump-sum vs annuity decision.
If I take the financial planner's option I don't see *any* way to get a monthly income anywhere close to what the IBM income leveling option would give me - at least not without dipping into the 401K much sooner than I want to.
Another way to look at the lump-sum vs. annuity is to use one of the single premium immediate annuity quotes (e.g. Berkshire has one... google Berkshire SPIA). It will tell you what it would take to purchase a SPIA to give you a given income stream for life.
But I am not a "number cruncher" so all the above assumptions are based just on high-level numbers and gut feel. I did some searching here on "income leveling" and didn't get one single hit, so it doesn't seem to have been discussed here. I'm read about people here saying the did crunch the numbers to determine which made the most financial sense, but I'm not even sure how one goes about it! Are there any tools (that would need to be at a "For Dummies" sort of level for me to understand them) or things available to help me with my decisions? Or even personal experiences?
The "retireearlyhomepage.com" contains some very useful information. Some other things to look at are the firecalc calculator (www.firecalc.com) (fire = financial independence retire early). Also see the early retirement forum, www.early-retirement.org. Finally, feel free to ask additional questions or ask for more detail on things that don't make sense.
This will of course, have a disastrous impact on the democratic sovereignty of us actual people. But the Court’s idea of turning corporate entities into persons has also prompted a gusher of fun, irreverent ideas and questions from you human-type persons. ...
Then there’s the issue of “next steps.” If corporations have the First Amendment political right to support candidates, how can they be denied the right to become candidates? Indeed, one corporation, Murray Hill Inc., has already filed for a Maryland congressional seat. A Murry Hill executive says that his corporation simply decided to "eliminate the middleman," and he's urging other corporate brothers and sisters to take the political plunge. “We’re saying to Wal-Mart, AIG and Pfizer, if not you, who? If not now, when?”
Fear mongering has been a part of the "retirement readiness" landscape since workers began having to invest for retirement on their own through Individual Retirement Accounts and 401(k) plans. Companies that make money selling investments also make a regular practice of floating "workers are woefully unprepared and should save more" surveys.
Kmak's firm used a different methodology. It used corporate tax filings to determine how much money was actually in workers' 401(k) accounts, and extrapolated Social Security benefits from salary information. It used fairly conservative figures from Aon Consulting and Georgia State University (here) showing that retiring workers typically need to replace between 72 percent (high earners) and 95 percent (low earners) of their pre-retirement incomes. And it found the average worker already had 92 percent of what was needed to be on track for retirement. Most workers could make up the difference with small additions to their savings, or by working a little bit longer, or living a little bit smaller when they retire. ...
Most measurements of retirement readiness focus on how much you'll need in the first year or two after you retire. But the vast majority of retirees end up cutting their spending sharply by the time they are in their mid- to late 70s, according to the Federal Government's Consumer Expenditures reports. So those necessary replacement rates may be overly conservative.
You can retire happily on less. It's important to have enough money in retirement to cover everyday expenses and some joys. But many people fund their retirements, at least in part, by moving to a smaller home or a cheaper town. They still enjoy life. Falling a few dollars short doesn't mean destitution, it means making the same budget choices you're already making during your working life.
I am a Project Manager in ITD Div 07. So this is going to be a long day for many. For me, I have seen this coming and am prepared for it. But, I feel sorry for those that do not have a clue, as this will be really hard on them. There are many in my department like that. They put their nose on the line IBM draws on the ground and start following it with the attitude IBM is there to protect them. The package I received is a normal package with 1 week for every 6 months from "most recent hire date". I am happy I am done with IBM. -Still Ducking-
Do I think the Alliance is going to save me? No. But it's a statement. I'm a member for the same reasons I write letters and call companies who jerk me around - because they shouldn't get away with it. Are they going to change their policies because one 'nuisance customer' complains? Nope. But again, that's not why I do it. It's the principle. And it's the fact that if I feel that way, I can guarantee you that millions of others do too. And if they spoke up too, just imagine.
Stop being pushed around, even if it doesn't matter - say something. Join a union, call someone, write a letter, call ALL of your representatives. Do *something* instead of nothing from now on, even if you think it won't make a difference. Because it will, at the very least you'll have done the right thing and told "them" that they didn't. And tell everyone you know to do the same. Get a bumper sticker, a t-shirt, a hat, and get your a## out to the next rally or protest and be counted. It's not just IBM, it's everything these days - corporations are getting larger and greedier and individuals are counting for less and less and getting @#$% on. You have to start speaking up, whether you got RA'd or whether you didn't. Because things aren't going to get better by themselves. -juggernaut-
However, if you have less than 15 years of service, you are not eligible for the FHA money. You just have access to purchase the plans. I found it twice as expensive for the FHA premiums as for COBRA. So while it is access to a group plan, you might find cheaper insurance elsewhere, like a spouse's or association's plans. And hopefully the Health reforms in Washington will help out.
Note that once you are bridged to retirement - reach at the end of the month you turn 62, or are otherwise retired (and have access to the FHA retire health plans) you are no longer eligible to receive the federal COBRA subsidy that pays 65% of the COBRA premium. You do get to keep COBRA for the 18 months if you choose to select COBRA when first unemployed. -anonymous-
IBM uses earned vacation. It's generally not strict earned vacation where you cannot take more vacation in a month than you haven't yet earned though. For instance, you can take the first week of January for a vacation even though you haven't earned it yet as long as you work after taking it to "pay it back". So if you already taken more vacation than you earned and got RAed then you will get less of a severance check since IBM will take the money of vacation time you haven't earned. If you have taken less than your earned vacation before being RAed then IBM will add what was not taken, but earned, to your severance check. So, if you are RA'ed on 3/31:
BTW, take ALL your personal choice holidays before you are RAed! It's generally "use 'em or lose 'em" based on any part of the year worked (exception, I think, is CA where you can be paid for not taking them(?) -VacMan-
Kudos to those who give us a heads up, and especially to those who are alerting the media. Last year it finally hit the big news but somewhat late. Now it should hit faster. Someone needs to do a story on how IBM is helping to make America a poorer nation and making India a richer nation. Clients have no idea, and if they did they would be furious at what level of resources they will get in the future.
No blanket disrespect, as many people in other nations are very intelligent, but the ones we work with are not equipped to make intelligent decisions and think through problems outside the normal script of their role. NO problem solving, thought provoking solutions offered. Maybe to help those that have been laid off the alliance could host something with all the what to do and not due when laid off. Either a paper, conference meeting, pre-recorded session... or a separate listing of all the suggestions that are buried throughout these -frustrated-
Also, don’t think they care about the quality of service; they care about how the customer perceives it only! Like a sales rep selling a customer on the concept that IBM has 100K+ professionals available to solve the issue they have – ever try to find those resources? And as to skill set – I KNOW the deployment model our RDM used was first free, first deployed, regardless of skill set. I even was told to go to a client and read the Redbook once there to do a job. Consider this like surgery – it hurts a short time, but life will be better afterwards. I didn’t think so at the time, but it’s true now. -RA'd 2009-
Because these fat-cats are so dumbed down that their survival is possible only by cutting the resources underneath to the bones. There was a very serious discussion in our dept meeting today about the impact on the work-load of the people let go. How can we absorb all the additional work-load :( ? We, who stayed, do realize that we have indirect 20% pay-cut by working 20% more just by this RA. The team is so stressed out, we may just resign en-mass. It is also becoming clear that those who will continue, have higher chances of lower benefits, no severance payouts in future, more cuts and pay cuts. It was evident this time it was not performance or skill based, it was just mindless cuts.
Some of my peers feel envy of the people who let go in this cycle. Honestly, it feels like we are on Titanic deck looking at the boats being lowered with people in it and we can't jump because we will be forced to sink with the ship by our fate or force against our will. The Indians who are happy to take up more and more are going a big indigestion. They are bring set-up for a huge failure. Indians are becoming slaves in India and overworking in unhealthy conditions and will revolt. I remind everyone, never forget the day when IBM was kicked out of India overnight for becoming too mean for Indian customers and people in 1977. That day is coming soon. -iThink-
Instead the executive pockets get lined with more money and people who have given their lives to this company are thrown out the door with a shred of what they should have had. They've become a joke but this unfortunately will be on them as the spirit and infrastructure which are being destroyed spread at the rate they're going, unabated. It's a travesty, and an alarm this once great company has fallen so far.
The Alliance@IBM is the one shining light that stands for everything good which is being stripped away from IBM's backbone - its people - here in the US and other locations where affected. The Alliance carries the true spirit that made this company great, and that says it all. PLEASE JOIN. -Former True Blue-
File for unemployment. Take some days to just be nice to yourself like a vacation. Take some time to think about what you might do next - it is a great opportunity to change your life in many positive ways. You might even trade overtime and stress on the job for a lower paying job with more family and personal time. You might relocate to a place you've always thought about. You might switch careers out of IT. You can get retraining money as part of the IBM severance package ($2500, I believe), and free grant money up to $4000 from the state level of the Dept of Labor. Check out your local PSG (professional services group), an arm of the state DOL. for additional training in resume writing, mock interviews and more, as well as networking events. The one near me is far better than Right Management. Here is a great website for info: http://www.careeronestop.org/
Unemployment greatly varies by state so go to your state's website. The NY one seems to have good general info in any event. State benefits are for 26 weeks, but there are federal extensions (several tiers). Learn more at this website: http://www.unemployedworkers.org/sites/unemployedworkers/index.php Click Ask the Expert. It is usually uptodate on what Congress is doing and news. Right now Congress passed one month's new funding that covers March 2010. My guess is that the new bill now being discussed in Congress, which will fund unemployment benefits to year end and is retroactive to March 1, will be passed pretty quick. The sooner you let go of IBM, and just move on, the better it will be. -anonymous-
CoxHealth Hospital in Springfield, Mo., has one of the busiest emergency rooms in southwest Missouri. In the span of a few minutes, an elderly woman arrives in an ambulance, a police officer escorts a young woman through the doors, and children in the waiting room become progressively restless. Officials at this hospital say more and more of these patients walking through the doors are pretending to be someone else so they won't have to pay for their own medical bills.
And that's only the public part of the health care bill. In 2009, total health care costs increased to 17.3 percent of GDP, with escalating premiums eating into both corporate profits and worker take home pay. The consensus among the usual policy experts is that there is no good solution. The march of technology and demography will just continue to raise health costs.
But you can reach that conclusion only by ignoring how the rest of the club of affluent countries manages to insure everyone for 9 or 10 percent of GDP, and have a healthier and longer-lived population, to boot. They do it, of course, through universal, socialized insurance.
There is no single formula. The Canadians do it with a single payer system for the insurance part, but physicians are private. The Brits have an integrated National Health Service. The Germans achieve near-universal coverage through a system of nonprofit health insurance plans.
What every other nation has in common is that they have taken the commercialism out of their health systems. As a consequence, they can direct health spending to areas of medical need rather than letting the market direct health dollars to areas of greatest profit. And with everyone covered, they can use highly cost-effective strategies for prevention, wellness, and public health. That's how you cover everyone for ten percent of GDP.
Our one island of single-payer medicine, Medicare, is phenomenally popular -- so popular that the Republicans' most effective attack on the Obama plan is that it would divert some money from Medicare. The Republicans, on the one hand, fiercely attack "government-run health insurance," while on the other they defend Medicare (which they would just as soon privatize).
The Goldman Sachs analysis shows that while insurers can be aggressive in raising prices, they also walk away from clients because competition in the industry is so weak, the White House said. And officials will point to a finding that rate increases ran as high as 50 percent, with most in “the low- to mid-teens” — far higher than overall inflation.
"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 problem, not too surprisingly, lies in the Senate, and mainly, though not entirely, with Republicans. The House has already passed a fairly strong reform bill, more or less along the lines proposed by the Obama administration, and the Senate could probably do the same if it operated on the principle of majority rule. But it doesn’t — and when you combine near-universal Republican opposition to serious reform with the wavering of some Democrats, prospects look bleak.
How did we get to this point? And should reform advocates accept the compromises that might yet produce some kind of bill?
Many opponents of the House version of banking reform present their position as one of principle. House Republicans, offering their alternative proposal, claimed that they would end banking excesses by introducing “market discipline” — basically, by promising not to rescue banks in the future.
But that’s a fantasy. For one thing, governments always, when push comes to shove, end up rescuing key financial institutions in a crisis. And more broadly, relying on the magic of the market to keep banks safe has always been a path to disaster. Even Adam Smith knew that: he may have been the father of free-market economics, but he argued that bank regulation was as necessary as fire codes on urban buildings, and called for a ban on high-risk, high-interest lending, the 18th-century version of subprime. And the lesson has been confirmed again and again, from the Panic of 1873 to Iceland today.
I suspect that even Republicans, in their hearts, understand the need for real reform. But their strategy of opposing anything the Obama administration proposes, coupled with the lure of financial-industry dollars — back in December top Republican leaders huddled with bank lobbyists to coordinate their campaigns against reform — has trumped all other considerations.
Yet few voices are raised when America's leading investment banks secretly encourage foreign governments, such as those in Greece and Spain, to manipulate their national budgets to conceal real deficits; and then those banks receive huge profits for doing so. The net result is to destabilize international financial systems and cause markets to fall, including in the United States.
Something is wrong here. Are investment banks chartered in the U.S. free to make profits that are distinctly not in the interest of the U.S. and dismiss their counter-productive manipulations in the name of "free markets"? Apparently the answer is yes. If the guardians of our country's economic interests, such as Mr. Geithner or Mr. Summers, have spoken out to condemn this activity, then they have done so quietly. These are the same banks that became "too big to fail" and thus demanded, and received, bailouts from the U.S. taxpayers even while piling up continuing huge bonuses.
But what if wages lag because productivity itself is being grossly overstated, especially in the nation’s manufacturing sector? Then, suddenly, a cornerstone of American economic policy would begin to crumble.
Productivity measures how many worker hours are needed for a given unit of output during a given time period; when hours fall relative to output, labor productivity increases. In 2009, the data show, Americans needed 40 percent fewer hours to produce the same unit of output as in 1980.
But there’s a problem: labor productivity figures, which are calculated by the Labor Department, count only worker hours in America, even though American-owned factories and labs have been steadily transplanted overseas, and foreign workers have contributed significantly to the final products counted in productivity measures. The result is an apparent drop in the number of worker hours required to produce goods — and thus increased productivity. But actually, the total number of worker hours does not necessarily change. ...
This continuing mismeasurement leads economists and all those who rely on them to assume that recorded productivity gains always signify greater efficiency, rather than simple offshoring-generated cost cuts — leaving the rest of us scratching our heads over stagnating wages. ...
Above all, if offshoring has been driving much of our supposed productivity gains, then the case for complete free trade begins to erode. If often such policies simply increase corporate profits at the expense of American workers, with no gains in true productivity, then they don’t necessarily strengthen the national economy.
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.