Treating people like used tissues is not a way for Corporations to run their business - and people will walk and ARE walking right out the door with better offers, (way) better job security and better working conditions. What kind of loser leaders does IBM have? It's no wonder the titanic is sinking.
I'm certain that the many failures reported in the trade press such as the State of Indiana, State of Texas and some others elsewhere are impacting IBM's business.
IBM execs should be doing something about IBM's inability to deliver quality services with under-skilled, over-utilized, inexperienced global resources.
They have ignored us employees who have sounded the alarm, but now they are ignoring the trade press. How many major disasters reported in the press does it take to wake up executives that their GR strategy and implementation is a colossal failure.
However, it appears IBM execs are rearranging their deck chairs on the Titanic comparing their bonuses rather than steering the ship to a much better course.
It's true that many of these employees are over 50 and even over 60. I know many of them personally. But do we have to constantly hear the LIE that there are insufficient US personnel to handle future staffing needs? We know these people are training their lower-wage replacements. We were told in 2004 that IBM was worried about the aging of the mainframe group. George Bush constantly repeated the mantra that American employees were losing their jobs because of lack of skill and needed retraining. Thanks for being a corporate shill, Mr. President.
This is not a rumor, this was discussed recently by management at IBM Poughkeepsie. You can write your congressman and keep on them that companies like IBM that accept stimulus funds are proceeding at a rapid pace in outsourcing the American workforce.
The prosperity of the 20th Century came from the sharing of some of the corporate wealth with the employee. People consumed both goods and leisure and stimulated the economy causing more growth and corporate prosperity. The 3rd world employee making 1/8th the American salary will not stimulate the economy as much. Revenues will continue to fall, but profits will rise. Wealth will concentrate even more.
IBM in the USA will become project managers and VPs, and more administrative in nature and of course much smaller in numbers, numbers no longer published.
But we can continue to organize and fight and of course, join the IBM Alliance. zOS development is the holy grail of IBM Software Engineering, an area where some of the brightest minds and most dedicated souls have plied their excellent craft for decades. It is estimated that it take 10 years to become an accomplished mainframe programmer. Good luck to the young people in China, and let's hope they continue to push for higher wages, better working conditions and a better standard of living in their country. Meanwhile, write your congressman. I promise I will. A 26-yr Engineer
Maybe what management really means is that there are not enough mainframe folks in the US who are willing to work 50 hours a week for $15K a year. Normally I would agree with Paul that we should write our congressmen, but does anyone really think our government will do anything about this? Especially since IBM and most large corporations control them. Labor solidarity is the only way to stop this.
Just have an exit plan ready to execute and prepare to watch IBM's demise from the sidelines. Until then, take those optional holidays and vacation days and get as much free internal education as you can. It's an excellent time to do any expensive medical work you need done, but have deferred such as knee and shoulder replacements etc.
Let me be the first to state that the four wannabees in line are a miserably mediocre group, so expect more of the same or an outsider to come in as Sam's replacement.
The official wanted to know why HCL, a $2.5 billion (revenue) company with more than 3,000 people across 21 offices in 15 states, wasn't hiring more people in his state. Vineet's short answer: because most American college grads are "unemployable." (In fairness to HCL, the company recently announced plans to open a delivery center in another state, North Carolina, and invest $3.2 million and hire more than 500 employees there over the next five years under a Job Development Investment Grant.)
Many American grads looking to enter the tech field are preoccupied with getting rich, Vineet said. They're far less inclined than students from developing countries like India, China, Brazil, South Africa, and Ireland to spend their time learning the "boring" details of tech process, methodology, and tools--ITIL, Six Sigma, and the like.
As a result, Vineet said, most Americans are just too expensive to train--despite the Indian IT industry's reputation for having the most exhaustive boot camps in the world. To some extent, he said, students from other highly developed countries fall into the same rut. ...
The cynical among you will counter that some American students, having seen tech jobs move to lower-wage countries or go to H1-B visa holders, have lost their appetite for process-oriented IT professions. But if this country's economic future is indeed rooted in technology--whether in health care, energy, transportation, or the tech industries themselves--then the status quo won't do.
Cons: You come in at whatever pay you negotiated (or didn't). After that, especially since 2001, you would be very fortunate to see 3% raises. Half of any given department receives zero increase. Promotions have become so rare, there is much talk of leaving altogether (from all but those who only have a couple/few years left). I personally have made amazing improvements (yes, I'm blowing my own horn here) and positive changes that have amounted to only one, that number again is One, promotion. I've done the work of an engineer for most of my time here as a tech and recently have been given a new job. It's purely a lateral move with more of the same promise of 'the possibility of movement'. I've even had my schooling paid for, and so now (over a year) have been basically throwing away at least $30K a year by not moving to an engineering position. But internally, it would be a pittance of a raise even if I was offered a move to engineering. So what does IBM want? Something for nothing. And then more of the same, for even less. "Take what we give you, or leave."
Advice to Senior Management: What can I advise? They know what they're doing. It's a working model that saves them money and gets them more bang for the bucks they spend. The employee has fallen far out of focus. But there's a but. In other areas of IBM, the review will be quite the opposite. Certain areas, the area I chose to work in being one, are 'fortunate to have jobs'. Other areas thrive and these have folks who would speak well of IBM. I'd like to think IBM would be of the "One Team" approach, but they fall short by a long distance, when it comes to this depressed manufacturing plant.
"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.
Financial institutions got most of their bailouts in late 2008 and early 2009. A report issued Friday by the White House pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg, showed that by Feb. 17, 2009, when Congress established tighter pay standards, 17 banks — including Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America — had paid out $1.6 billion in bonuses, golden parachutes, retention awards and the like. One handed out bonuses equivalent to one-quarter of its bailout.
It is the right thing to do economically, politically and morally.
First the economics. When it comes to creating jobs, the last people who need more money in their hands are the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans.
The Republicans charge that eliminating these tax breaks on the rich -- and returning them to Clinton-era levels -- would be a "job-killing tax hike in the midst of a recession." Let's recall that while the Clinton-era tax rates applied to the rich in the 1990's, the economy created more than 22.5 million jobs in less than eight years -- the most jobs ever created under a single administration. Moreover, the Federal deficit had turned into a surplus for as long as the eye could see. The number of private sector jobs created during the Bush years: zero. The Republican position amounts to nothing more than baseless pandering to the greed of their many wealthy donors. ...
For three decades -- from Ronald Reagan through George W. Bush -- the American right wing peddled the notion that by transferring more money to the wealthiest among us, we would entice them to invest more and that the economy would grow. That was the fundamental premise of "supply side economics." In fact, of course, "supply side economics" was really a rationale for why rich people should be richer still.
The "supply side experiment" turned out to be a colossal failure. For eight years, George W. Bush applied the theory in its purest form: increase tax breaks to the rich, eliminate regulations on Big Oil, insurance companies and Wall Street.
The results are there for everyone to see.
The New York Times reported last year that, "For the first time since the Depression, the American economy has added virtually no jobs in the private sector over a 10-year period. The total number of jobs has grown a bit, but that is only because of government hiring." In fact, since George Bush and the Republicans in Congress passed two massive tax cuts, we have seen a massive, secular decline in the creation of private sector jobs. ...
Turns out that when they were given all of those tax cuts, the top two percent of the population used them to speculate in exotic derivatives, to drive up the prices of high-end real estate, pay exorbitant prices to the designers of $4,000 blouses and $2,000 shoes. There is absolutely no evidence that they made any more investments in new manufacturing plants, or started up any more businesses than they would have had they paid the same tax rates that they did when Ronald Reagan took office and private sector job growth was 3% per year.
This time, it's not the ire of Glenn Beck that has Team Obama's backbone turning to mush -- it's the fear of angering the bankers by appointing a consumer advocate who might actually advocate for consumers (the same consumers who, in their role as taxpayers, have spent hundreds of billions bailing the bankers out). According to the National Journal, the banking industry "privately grumbles that Warren would be their least favorite candidate to head the agency." Or, as Floyd Norris put it in the New York Times, "whether or not she is named to run the bureau may depend on how willing the president is to anger the banks."
In the mildly halcyon days before the 2008 crash, the one economic outlier was wages. Profit, revenue and GDP all increased; only ordinary Americans' incomes lagged behind. Today, wages are still down, employment remains low and sales revenue isn't up much, either. But profits are the outlier. They're positively soaring. Among the 175 companies in the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index that have released their second-quarter reports, the New York Times reported Sunday, revenue rose by a tidy 6.9 percent, but profits soared by a stunning 42.3 percent. Profits, that is, are increasing seven times faster than revenue. The mind, as it should, boggles. ...
What won't work as an economic solution -- indeed, it amounts to cruel and unusual punishment -- is blaming the unemployed for their failure to find jobs. There are now roughly five unemployed Americans for every open job, according to the Economic Policy Institute's most recent calculations, and that ratio isn't likely to decline much if we leave it to the corporate sector to resume hiring. Corporations have figured out a way to make money without resuming hiring. Their model is premised on not resuming hiring. If the public sector doesn't fill the gap, the era of American prosperity is history.
Stop and consider the implications. Then add the fact that continuing high levels of unemployment are now the consensus forecast. Long term unemployment will remain at record levels. In the US, where we provide only temporary support for the unemployed, this is a social catastrophe. Families break apart; drugs and despair increases; community institutions decline; domestic violence, racial and anti-immigrant hostility soar. The young graduating into this economy are likely to fare worse throughout their work lives.
In this context, the Washington debate seems particularly puerile. The business and financial elites are rolling out an attack on Obama as anti-business, accusing him of demonizing corporations. Given Obama's preternatural equanimity, the charge is risible. And utterly dishonest. (See for example, Paul Krugman's takedown of the latest screed by real estate mogul Mort Zuckerman, who Breitbarted an Obama quote, utterly distorting it to make his point.)
Republicans have returned to their supply side fantasies, arguing that top end tax cuts won't add to deficits, while filibustering against unemployment insurance and any jobs program. But we tried it their way in the Bush years. Deficit spending driven by top end tax cuts and wars produced a bubble economy, scarred by no jobs growth, stagnant wages, growing inequality, growing debt, and borrowing of $2 billion a day from abroad, largely from Chinese central bankers. And that was before the bubble burst. Surely, they have to offer something different.
Republican lawmakers, however, are crying that the Democrats' reform bill puts a crushing burden on the poor financial giants. While these Wall Street apologists wail and keen, though, slick operators like Dimon are wasting no time on tears. Instead, they're devising ways to slip out of the new regulatory reins. For example, the law limits the outrageous overdraft fees that banks have been sneaking onto our debit card accounts. No problem – the giants are quietly imposing new "maintenance fees" for basic checking accounts. Forget receiving a free toaster for opening an account, banks now hit you with up to $15 a month just for the privilege of putting your money in their bank.
Dimon insists that this is necessary: "If you're a restaurant and you can't charge for the soda, you're going to charge more for the burger," he lectures.
Come on, Jamie, drop the mom & pop pose. You're not a little restaurant struggling to make ends meet – you head a monopolistic financial behemoth that helped ruin the economy for America's moms & pops, then took billions in taxpayer bailouts, used the crisis to increase its monopoly power, continues to get federally-subsidized money, just announced a 78-percent hike in profits, and recently paid you a salary and bonus of $18 million.
The Dimons of Wall Street keep picking our pockets because they believe they're entitled to excessive profits and paychecks. To help bring these greedheads down to Earth, visit Americans for Financial Reform: www.ourfinancialsecurity.org.
Atta boy – go get those self-serving, narcissistic banksters!
But, wait – on the day that SEC officials imposed this supposed "humbling" penalty, Goldman's stock price went up by five percent. Far from being deterred by the penalty, high-rolling speculators saw it as a vindication of Wall Street's casino ethic. "It looks like a big win for Goldman," gloated one financial analyst, adding that SEC's $550 million assessment "seems like a paltry sum."
Now, I could never put "$550 million" and "paltry" in the same sentence, but if you do the Wall Street math, you can see his logic. Goldman hauls in half-a-billion dollars in profit every 15 days. In fact, that one-day five-percent boost that Goldman got in its stock price added far more than $550 million to its market value – so the giant actually made money off the deal!
What we have here is not punishment, but blatant political favoritism for the most politically-connected bank in our country. Goldman Sachs is not merely a huge bank, but a longtime inside-Washington player that literally helps bend the regulator rules for its personal gain. To help push structural reforms that really can restore "fair dealing" to our financial system, contact Americans for Financial Reform: www.ourfinancialsecurity.org.
Congress has now enacted new rules to govern America's huge banks, thus completing Washington's response to the unbridled Wall Street greed that crashed the financial system and crushed our economy. The regulatory reforms were hailed by Democrats as possessing powerful cleansing power, while Republicans wailed that the new rules were overly caustic, imposing such a heavy-handed governmental scrub that the delicate layers of Wall Street innovation and profitability will be rubbed away.
Meanwhile, big bankers are grinning from ear to ear, for the bill requires no restructuring and decentralizing of the monopolistic grip that these giants have on America's credit system. Thus, they still retain the power to rip off consumers, gamble with depositors' money, haul in exorbitant profits, and pay themselves ungodly bonuses – all while remaining "too big to fail."
Yes, the banking barons now have to adjust to stricter regulations, many of which are good and long overdue. But these guys are experts at slipping out of governmental leashes. JPMorgan Chase, for example, had 90 "project teams" plotting end runs around the regulations even before they were passed. Take electronic derivative trades, the casino game that caused the Wall Street implosion. Rather than outright banning them as an intolerable threat to our economy, Congress' bill attaches a bunch of strings to the game, hoping to tie it down. But JPMorgan alone has long had more than 100 of its derivative traders and other casino technicians scheming to untie the strings – so you can bet they'll keep their game going.
They won't stop gaming the system until we fundamentally restructure Wall Street. The way you'll know that real reform has come is that the bankers will have those grins wiped off their faces.
He recently offered a rather brutal budget that includes severe cutbacks. I have doubts about some of them, but at least Cameron cared enough about reducing his country's deficit that alongside the cuts he also proposed an increase in the value-added tax, from 17.5 percent to 20 percent. Imagine: a fiscal conservative who really is a fiscal conservative.
That could never happen here because the fairy tale of supply-side economics insists that taxes are always too high, especially on the rich.
This is why Democrats will be fools if they don't try to turn the Republicans' refusal to raise taxes on families earning more than $250,000 a year into an election issue. If Democrats go into a headlong retreat on this, they will have no standing to govern. The simple truth is that the wealthy in the United States -- the people who have made almost all the income gains in recent years -- are undertaxed compared with everyone else. ...
The other, from February, used Internal Revenue Service data to show that the effective federal income tax rate for the 400 taxpayers with the very highest incomes declined by nearly half in just over a decade, even as their pre-tax incomes have grown five times larger.
The study found that the top 400 households "paid 16.6 percent of their income in federal individual income taxes in 2007, down from 30 percent in 1995." We are talking here about truly rich people. Using 2007 dollars, it took an adjusted gross income of at least $35 million to make the top 400 in 1992, and $139 million in 2007.
The notion that when we are fighting two wars, we're not supposed to consider raising taxes on such Americans is one sign of a country that's no longer serious. Why do so few foreign policy hawks acknowledge that if they lack the gumption to ask taxpayers to finance the projection of American military power, we won't be able to project it in the long run? And if we are unwilling to have a full-scale debate over whether nation-building abroad is getting in the way of nation-building at home, we will accomplish neither. ...
I'm a chronic optimist about America. But we are letting stupid politics, irrational ideas on fiscal policy and an antiquated political structure undermine our power. We need a new conservatism in our country that is worthy of the name. We need liberals willing to speak out on the threat our daft politics poses to our influence in the world. We need moderates who do more than stick their fingers in the wind to calculate the halfway point between two political poles. And, yes, we need to reform a Senate that has become an embarrassment to our democratic claims.
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.