"As sure as night follows day, IBM is using the almost unlimited resources it has available to it as one of the largest and richest multinationals in the world to try and stop a group of its employees exercising their rights to collectively bargain under Australian law. IBM have not even seen the reasons for the decision — but they are still appealing it!" she said, noting the ASU would fight the stay and appeal. "IBM have already informed the ASU that they intend to announce that at least 20 per cent of these workers will lose their jobs as they scramble to put in place their offshore centre in China," she added.
According to a news story in Sunday's Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, non-elected "advocate" working for the Indiana Home Care Task Force took particular umbrage at IBM's contention that the state owes it $9.3 million for computers and related furniture purchased by IBM as part of the wide-ranging contract. "Advocate" John Cardwell said the state failed to oversee IBM's expenditures properly: "IBM has already walked away with a goldmine worth of taxpayer money, and we've gotten very little out of it," he said according to the article.
Selected reader comments concerning the above article follow:
The parts of the proposal dealing with H-1B and L-1 visas are considerably more detailed: “This proposal also adds fraud and abuse protections for existing temporary high-skilled work visas,” the document reads. “It will amend current law regarding H-1B employer application requirements to: (1) revise wage determination requirements; (2) require Internet posting and description of employment positions; (3) lengthen U.S. worker displacement protection: (4) apply certain requirements to all H-1B employers rather than only to H-1B dependent employers; (5) prohibit employer advertising that makes a position available only to, or gives priority to, H-1B [non-immigrants]; and (6) limit the number of H-1B and L-1 employees that an employer of 50 or more workers in the United States may hire.” ...
The proposal’s focus on L-1 visas includes a prohibition from employers “hiring an L-1 [non-immigrant] for more than one year who will: (1) serve in a capacity involving specialized knowledge; and (2) be stationed primarily at the worksite of an employer other than the petitioning employer.”
Even as the United States continues to dig its way out from the wreckage of a multiyear global recession, the presence of H-1B and L-1 workers continues to be a point of contention for a number of critics within the tech industry, who see the visa program as riddled with problems and prone to loopholes that allow employers to import lower-wage technology workers under the guise of skill-set shortages.
The executives should be ashamed of themselves, but they're not. Shame on you, Sam!!! I have a feeling Bob Moffat was the tip of the iceberg in regards to under-handed actions.
The only place it hurts is in billable/customer arena, where valuable resources are leaving, and IBM has a hard time finding qualified replacements (the only ones they get are IBM India resources 'transferring over' and a sprinkling of professional hires. (University graduates want NOTHING to do with this company and who can blame them). Execs are finally realizing it pays to 'retrain' current employees in the hot areas and assign them to understaffed customer accounts. Finding Global Resources is becoming difficult too to staff these projects. The poor Resource Deployment Managers are getting beat up daily because they can't staff projects (and WHY is it there fault?)
We need a clean sweep of the top layer of execs - a total restaffing or we will continue to see the horrible death spasms of the U.S. IBM Corporation. Another Resource Action in June? Sure, bring it on, bitches!!!!! Tom Watson is truly rolling over in his grave.
For the most part I agree with many of the reviews of IBM and other large consultancies on this site, which is that it's a body shop first and foremost and depending on your industry, skillset, and practice area, you either have a decent experience for a few years or find yourself feeling very limited in assignment opportunities. It all ebbs and flows with the times and business conditions. For practitioners (i.e., consultants), your livelihood is largely dependent upon 1) the ability of Partners and those doing sales/proposal work to win business in your area and 2) being politically savvy enough to have someone above you look out for your career. Oftentimes you have no control over either of the above which is what can make the experience extremely frustrating at times.
I see two major problems with IBM's path forward in the States. First, it seems that every few years there's a decision to strategically enter a new business line in an effort to increase their footprint, which oftentimes ends badly. A few years ago IBM built up a Strategy and Change practice only to let many of these people go when the business didn't come trickling in. I fear this will be the same story with the company's new push in the direction of data analytics as well. Being a large company, the potential client field is pretty narrow and limited to other large organizations willing to negotiate a multi-million dollar service contract. The smaller, more boutique consultancies eat them for lunch with small and mid-size clients as they're able to offer far more competitive pricing and specialization. Government contracts aside, there's just not a ton of contracts they can earnestly compete for.
Secondly, IBM has struggled to become a true consultancy and remains an IT solutions/systems integration firm at its core. The best opportunities are still longer term ERP projects or those where IBM has a long-standing relationship and maintenance contract in place. Without these, the whole GBS division wouldn't be sustainable. It is simply too difficult for a practitioner to survive and thrive on smaller, short-term contracts because you risk ending up on the bench for periods of time - all things that count against you. And if your practice isn't winning work for you to be staffed on, consider it warning of a gathering storm.
In general, it's not hard to read the tea leaves. All of the company's growth is overseas in emerging markets and sales targets being assigned to most industries are completely unrealistic. From my view, this is only setting the stage for further workforce reduction plans so I think it's unwise for anyone to consider IBM as anything more than a stopover of 3-5 years in their career at most. If you get in at a good time when your particular industry or practice-area is doing well, you could have a few good years and work with some great colleagues. However, it's always a good idea to keep your eye on the business pipeline because when it slows down you should start plotting your exit.
Advice to Senior Management: Better execution when entering a new business line. Either someone didn't do their homework when determining that a new solutions area is a good idea (e.g., strategy, data analytics) or the sales team is not doing its part. Both seem to be problems at times.
During the recent recession, Honeywell took a different tack. The company's sales fell 15% last year, and its profits shrank 23%, but the diversified manufacturer used furloughs and benefit cuts to limit layoffs to 6,000 employees, about 5% of its work force. At the same time, Honeywell introduced 600 new products, including advanced industrial controls and fuel-efficient auto turbochargers. Now, with the economy seemingly on the mend, Honeywell is reaping the benefits of its choice. ...
"You can't shrink your way into prosperity," says Wayne Cascio, a business professor at the University of Colorado, Denver. Mr. Cascio has studied how companies in the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index have performed over 18 years. His conclusion: those who cut deepest, relative to industry peers, delivered smaller profits and weaker stock returns for as long as nine years after a recession. The current recovery will test those findings because many companies made unusually steep and rapid layoffs during the recession that preceded it.
"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 banks were caught empty-handed. To save them, the Federal Reserve cut interest rates to zero and ate the banks' poison: It bought with its own money $1.4 trillion of the remaining mortgage dreck; as a result, the Fed is now the least-capitalized bank in the United States and would not pass one of its own stress tests, although there isn't enough money in the world to bail it out if necessary. Besides that, the banks got the law changed so that they could keep optimistically boosting the value of these toxic mortgage securities still on their books, making their financial positions today look far stronger than they are.
So while Wall Street is swearing up and down it was dealing only with sophisticated investors, in reality every single part of the financial system, from high to low, was involved. Taxpayers and investors lost money in the bailouts while the banks made a killing: They were paid by clients to do sloppy deals, then paid again by the government to clean them up.
It's a top-to-bottom mess. So here's a radical idea: Instead of buying the notion that there's a difference line between sophisticated investors and the mom-and-pop variety, banks should tell the truth. To everyone. Wall Street is the factory for all the financial products in the United States, and you can't allow a factory to put out some poisonous products and claim the rest are healthy.
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.