If you are considering retiring, I would recommend you not say that to anyone.
This is what happens in NJ, other states may vary. In NJ you get unemployment right away. It is not reduced by the severance check nor if you choose to start your pension. This is because the pension was frozen a few years ago. And the severance check, probably, because it is a lump sum.
The severance check was reduced by an overly high tax amount, but I got a lot back with a big refund when I did my taxes.
I choose to not start my tiny little small pension until I have to at age 65. I believe there is a good chance it will be worth more if I wait due to inflation returning and rates increasing, and also because I will be a few years older. I am single and will select the immediate annuity as that is the only guaranteed income for life along with social security (which should increase for any substantial inflation going forward). In comparisons of the Net Benefits calculations, the IBM immediate annuity pays more than getting one outside based on review at the immediate annuity website - which is expected and typical for company annuities.
If you terminate your employment voluntarily, you will not be eligible for severance pay or for unemployment. So, if you submit a letter to IBM saying "I retire as of <date>" that will be considered a voluntary termination.
If you are RA'd, that is an involuntary termination and you will be eligible for severance (which has always been offered as part of resource actions in the past) and you may or may not be eligible for unemployment depending on the state you live in. The fact that you sign an agreement with IBM saying you accept the offered severance package does not make it a voluntary termination.
Even if you are part of an RA, you should still be able to receive the retirement "parting gifts" such as a coffee and cookies party and an official retirement gift. Note that this retirement recognition has nothing to do with collecting your pension!
As far as collecting your pension goes, when you choose to start receiving it is between you and the Employee Services Center. Your manger does not initiate this. You have to call the ESC yourself and make the arrangements.
In many states, you can collect unemployment even if you are receiving your pension at the same time. Although many states say that the amount of your pension will be deducted from your unemployment benefit, in many states (including NY, NJ and TX), this is only true if, during the last 5 calendar quarters, working earned you increased pension benefits. Since IBM froze the pension plan as of 12/31/2007, you did not earn any increased benefits and therefore you should be eligible to collect unemployment.
If you are denied unemployment benefits after your initial application, do not give up. Many workers in the unemployment office do not understand these fine points and you may be required to submit extra documentation to support your case.
My thoughts were that if I announced my retirement a couple of months in the future - my plans might change and put retirement on hold. You never know. I had seen that happen and the employee was not in good standing with management.
I will say that my boss probably had an inkling. I had 37 years of service and was 63 years old. I had previously put out the word, through the grape vine, that if I got axed it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. The grape vine replied - no way too valuable.
There is life after IBM. Retirement is good - I recommend it. Regards, 73, Bob Nelson. K2QPN. IBM 1967-2005, ITS NE Area Technical Support Staff.
I have seen a pile of retirements in the last 12 -14 months. A lot of people are happy that their investments are back somewhat and are just plain tired of coming in to work and want to do something else with the rest of their lives. Some have had health problems and realize that if they want to do things on their retirement 'bucket list' that they better get going while they are still physically able.
In 2010 we lost 1 person to RA. I got a 2 rating for 2009 work, no raise and less VPAY than 2008. Manager said, "we are lucky we have a job". I worked harder.
Manager called me into their office this morning. They said that it showed how hard I worked BUT gave me a PBC 2 for 2010 work.
I told them, "do NOT tell me I am lucky to have a job". They shut up. I left office and kept my door closed the rest of the day. So now I expect even crappier VPAY and no raise AGAIN!!!!!! Ask me how my morale is. I DARE YOU! Happy New Year, N.
It will be another 2 again. Although 3s are always possible too. The 'evil' flows down from the top, from those who set the tone for corporate governance and behavior at the highest levels of the company. The Fortune 500 pulled out of the USA and continue to do so. We've been hearing those words: "Growth countries" for many years.
I can only think of work environment our 3rd world counterparts face. Only through collective bargaining can companies like IBM be made to respect the individual again.. The benevolence and wisdom of the Watsons and others, towers over the current band of scoundrels in charge of many American corporations.
IBM has said that, for retirees like yourself, they would cap IBM's contribution at $7500 per year (and $3500 per year for medicare retirees). There is also a different set of caps of $7000/$3000 for retirees who retired a few years after you did. And recent retirees who are in the FHA plan have to pay the full price of medical coverage each year, which for some plans is over $2,000 per month.
IBM doesn't say what they are actually contributing each year, but it is something a bit below the cap. I'm guessing you are on Medicare, given when you retired, so the IBM contribution in your case is probably $3000.
Did something change in terms of Medicare eligibility for you or your spouse between last year and this year?
IBM Medical Plans, IBM Dental Plans, Survivor medical/dental coverage one year or lifetime depending on service, IBM Adoption Assistance Plan, etc.
At the end of this book is the following:
The foregoing illustrates IBM's benefits, policies, rules and regulations in effect at the time of this publication. Each or any may be changed as the company requires. Nothing contained in the book shall be construed as creating an express or implied obligation on the part of IBM.
Boy were we gullible and trusting.
The cheapest plan is High Ded PPO - MVP.
Here are the rates for the old (non-FHA) plan: 2010 non-FHA Self: $0.00; 2010 non-FHA Self+1: $381.00; 2010 non-FHA Self+2: $516.00.
Here are the rates for FHA: 2010 FHA Self: $541.27; 2010 FHA Self+1: $1,082.73.
Those are the rates for the CHEAPEST PLAN. Those are just the monthly rates for the high-deductible plan. The rates DO NOT INCLUDE THE DEDUCTIBLE. You pay the deductible IN ADDITION to the monthly rates.
If you need coverage for more than SELF, you really got nailed.
YOU. HAVE. A. HEALTHCARE. PROBLEM.
Cons: 1. Despite its claim, it is a very mechanistic organization, which has an engineering approach to its employees, who are viewed as cogs in a machine and left to feel used and dispensable. 2. Despite an elaborate on-boarding program, its treatment of new employees is casual and thoughtless, and the initial period for newcomers is hard. 3. It is particularly bad for younger employees, who haven't had long working experience and are not principally self-directed; they often rudderless and lost in a giant maze. 4. Most employees are now 'virtual' and get scant team or organizational support, leaving them isolated, unsupported and painfully on their own.
Advice to Senior Management: 1. Your organization is so big and so well-resourced that you can afford to do better than the usual hire-and-fire policy of a run-of-the-mill company. What you do now, you forfeit all loyalty and dedication. Think of retaining good, strong, skilled people, no matter what. 2. Your accent on virtual employment has its advantages, but you seem blind to its disadvantages: isolation of individuals, poor teamwork, huge leader-follower distance, scandalous work-life balance and, in essence, shameless exploitation of staff. Think of supporting your people. 3. You are imaginative with ideas and crassly primitive with people. You will hamstring your best ideas if you don't start thinking a little more of the people who can bring those ideas to fruition.
IBM RTP will be open on Tuesday, January 11. However, precipitation and cold temperatures forecasted throughout the Triangle area overnight may create hazardous road conditions in the morning. IBM employees should exercise caution and personal discretion when planning their commute, and should contact their managers to discuss alternative work arrangements as necessary.
Employees in departments which have their own inclement weather or emergency operating procedures should follow those procedures.
This message is also available via the Emergency Status Line: 919-543-5607.
Please note the following: All cafeterias will be closed on 1/11, and food service will be limited to the sundry shops located in buildings 713 (main site between buildings 001 and 201) and 500.
Repeal would also take away the best chance for reining in rising health care costs — and the government’s relentlessly rising Medicare burden.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that repealing the reform law would drive up the deficit by $230 billion over the first decade and much more in later years.
For all his claims of fiscal rectitude, John Boehner, the House speaker, immediately dismissed the budget experts’ report as “their opinion.” In a particularly cynical move, Mr. Boehner and his new team have exempted the repeal bill from their own rule that any increase in spending be offset by cuts in other programs.
Many individuals and businesses are already benefiting from reform, and they will benefit even more once it goes into full effect in 2014.
Thanks to reform, it is now illegal for insurance companies to deny children coverage because they have pre-existing medical conditions, or to rescind a policy after a person becomes sick, or to cap the amount that insurers will pay for medical care over a lifetime. After 2014, it will be illegal for insurers to set annual limits on the amount they will pay for medical care or deny coverage to adults with pre-existing conditions.
Young people are now allowed to remain on their parents’ policies until age 26. And insurers are now required to cover preventive care in new policies without cost-sharing, and to spend at least 80 percent of their premium income on medical care and quality improvements, not profits or administrative costs. Repeal would eliminate all of these new protections.
Repeal would also eliminate federal tax credits that are helping small businesses provide coverage to employees as well as a reinsurance program that is helping more than 4,700 employers, large and small, provide health coverage to early retirees.
"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.
Then he sweeps his hands far apart in his sun-filled warren of an office at the University of California, Berkeley.
“If you widen the lens, the public is being sold a big lie — that our problems owe to unions and the size of government and not to fraud and deregulation and vast concentration of wealth. Obama’s failure is that he won’t challenge this Republican narrative, and give people a story that helps them connect the dots and understand where we’re going.” ...
Mr. Reich served as labor secretary for President Clinton, and in his latest book “Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future” he applauds Mr. Obama for deft work in preventing the economy from toppling into a Depression. But the president demanded too little of the bankers he saved, Mr. Reich says, and he conflated a rising stock market and soaring corporate profits with an improving economy.
The majority of Americans, who derive much of their wealth from their homes rather than the stock market, are falling far behind the top 1 percent, who took in 23 percent of the nation’s income in 2007. That inequality, he says, is at the heart of America’s malaise.
“Obama had a chance to reboot the bailout,” he says. “He could have said to the bankers, ‘If you want more, you’ve got to put a cap on salaries, you’ve got to agree to modify X number of mortgages.’ ” ...
Democratic presidents, he goes on, raise money from and are surrounded by Ivy League-educated meritocrats, often of substantial wealth. “Their norms are of those who earn more than $300,000, whose kids go to private school and whose primary savings are in the stock market rather than in their homes,” he says. “Their assumptions are different in profound ways from most struggling Americans.”
The modern Democratic Party, he says, is removed from what he and Mr. Krugman view as a better time: the decades stretching from World War II until about 1970. The typical high-income earner then paid more than 50 percent of income as taxes. The economic bargain was explicit: government encouraged industry, and working Americans shared in the fruits, buying houses and cars, with pensions to tide comfortable retirements.
But now the right is going after public employees.
Public servants are convenient scapegoats. Republicans would rather deflect attention from corporate executive pay that continues to rise as corporate profits soar, even as corporations refuse to hire more workers. They don’t want stories about Wall Street bonuses, now higher than before taxpayers bailed out the Street. And they’d like to avoid a spotlight on the billions raked in by hedge-fund and private-equity managers whose income is treated as capital gains and subject to only a 15 percent tax, due to a loophole in the tax laws designed specifically for them.
It’s far more convenient to go after people who are doing the public’s work - sanitation workers, police officers, fire fighters, teachers, social workers, federal employees – to call them “faceless bureaucrats” and portray them as hooligans who are making off with your money and crippling federal and state budgets. The story fits better with the Republican’s Big Lie that our problems are due to a government that’s too big.
Above all, Republicans don’t want to have to justify continued tax cuts for the rich. As quietly as possible, they want to make them permanent. But the right’s argument is shot-through with bad data, twisted evidence, and unsupported assertions. ...
The final Republican canard is that bargaining rights for public employees have caused state deficits to explode. In fact there’s no relationship between states whose employees have bargaining rights and states with big deficits. Some states that deny their employees bargaining rights - Nevada, North Carolina, and Arizona, for example, are running giant deficits of over 30 percent of spending. Many that give employees bargaining rights — Massachusetts, New Mexico, and Montana — have small deficits of less than 10 percent. ...
Don’t get me wrong. When times are tough, public employees should have to make the same sacrifices as everyone else. And they are right now. Pay has been frozen for federal workers, and for many state workers across the country as well.
But isn’t it curious that when it comes to sacrifice, Republicans don’t include the richest people in America? To the contrary, they insist the rich should sacrifice even less, enjoying even larger tax cuts that expand public-sector deficits. That means fewer public services, and even more pressure on the wages and benefits of public employees.
It’s only average workers – both in the public and the private sectors – who are being called upon to sacrifice.
This is what the current Republican attack on public-sector workers is really all about. Their version of class warfare is to pit private-sector workers against public servants. They’d rather set average working people against one another – comparing one group’s modest incomes and benefits with another group’s modest incomes and benefits – than have Americans see that the top 1 percent is now raking in a bigger share of national income than at any time since 1928, and paying at a lower tax rate. And Republicans would rather you didn’t know they want to cut taxes on the rich even more.
This Menendez mandate requires America’s corporations to disclose, for the first time ever, the specific gap between what they pay their CEO, on an annual basis, and what they pay their most typical workers. Current law requires corporations to report how much their top five executives are making. Under the Menendez mandate, corporations must now also report their overall wage “median” and the ratio between this median and their top pay.
That information — from a public relations standpoint — could be explosive. CEOs who make 1,000 times more than their most typical workers would have to explain what makes them so much more valuable than competing CEOs who make just 100 times their worker pay. ...
In Britain, advocates for more reasonable executive pay levels are now making just this sort of proposal. The prospect of similar pressure here in the United States has Corporate America shuddering — and pressing the Securities and Exchange Commission to water down the Dodd-Frank Menendez mandate.
Over the past few days, though, economists here offered a litany of reasons why the reforms fall short. Among their concerns: The new capital requirements aren't tough or simple enough, there is too much uncertainty about how governments will deal with distress at the biggest lenders, and little has been done to prevent the kind of crisis that could occur if trouble broke out at many smaller institutions, such as hedge funds.
"I just don't think we're doing what we need to do," said Anat Admati, a finance professor at Stanford University. "We've allowed bankers to confuse us into keeping things pretty much the same."
Inequality in the U.S. doesn't get the attention it deserves. Many of us brush it off, thinking, "So the rich get richer -- it's always been that way." Or we think: "I'm doing OK myself – and I want to be really rich someday, too."
The lopsided distribution of wealth in the U.S. doesn't get the blame it deserves for our budget problems, either. On the contrary, since our economic system is based on individual freedom, most of us believe in the inalienable right to make unlimited amounts of money. The thought of taking back a greater share from innovative and industrious business leaders is (shudder) "socialism."
So instead we increase sales taxes and service fees. We cut police forces and educators. We remove funding for food pantries, homeless shelters and elder assistance. ...
U.S. GDP has quintupled since 1980, and we all contributed to that success. But our contributions have earned us nothing. While total income has also quintupled, percentage-wise almost all the gains went to the richest 1 percent. ...
The deception has persisted for 30 years. According to Forbes magazine, the top 20 private equity and hedge fund managers took an average of $657.5 million in 2006. The salaries of these 20 people could have paid for 25 police officers, 25 firefighters, and 50 teachers for every one of the 3,000 counties in the United States. Instead we see counties like Ashtabula in Ohio, which cut back its police force from 112 to 49, while a judge advises the residents to "get a gun" to defend themselves.
Some hedge fund managers made up to $4 billion in one year. That's like one man telling my son and 100,000 other young men and women: "I have jobs for you, but my personal stimulus from the top will start with a yacht and an estate -- and then we'll just wait a while." ...
It gets worse. According to noted researcher Edward Wolff (pdf), only the top 5 percent of American families increased their percentage of the country's total household net worth from 1983 to 2007. So unless you make $160,000 or more, your household value has decreased, percentage-wise, over the last 25 years. Taxing the 1 percent of America responsible for all this is not "soaking the rich." The soaking has already been done, in the opposite direction. The inequality caused by this sickening theft and deception is not just a plague on poor people -- at least 90 percent of us should be feeling it, and fighting back.
With unemployment and underemployment devastating millions of families in our country, perhaps you've assumed that U.S. corporations simply aren't hiring these days. Nonsense. They added 1.4 million jobs last year alone -- overseas. ...
Such homemade brands as Coca-Cola, Dell and IBM are also among the multitude of corporations abandoning our shores and our middle class. Of course, they keep their posh headquarters here so they and their top executives can continue enjoying all that America has to offer.
Calvin Coolidge once famously asserted that "what's good for business is good for America." That's myopic enough, but today's narcissistic CEOs are even more self-centered, declaring that "what's good for business is good for business, America be damned." ...
No one at the top wants to admit it, but big business has quietly been imposing a structural transformation on our economy, shifting from a workforce of permanent employees to one in which most jobs are temporary, scarce, low-paid, without benefits and with no upward mobility. Of the 1.2 million jobs created by the private sector last year, for example, 26 percent were temporary positions, and in November, temp jobs soared to 80 percent of that month's total.
What's happening here is not merely a matter of a few million folks being momentarily down on their luck, but of an intentional dismantling of America's middle-class structure.
From 1950 to 1965 median family income rose from $24,000 a year to $38,000 a year. That's close to 4% a year, close to 60% over 15 years. That's a rising tide.
In 1979 the richest 1% of Americans earned 9% of all US income. Now they earn 24% of all US income. One percent of Americans earn nearly one fourth of all the income in the country. ...
Timothy Noah, in The United States of Inequality (Slate, 9/30/10), wrote, "Income distribution in the United States [has become] more unequal than in Guyana, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, and roughly on par with Uruguay, Argentina, and Ecuador."
Take a look at that list. Countries with wide income inequality don't lead the world in research, technology, industry, and innovation. They're unstable. They have large underclasses. They have high rates of crime. They have little opportunity.
In such countries the rich have disproportionate power. They take control of all aspects of society, especially government, the police, and the judiciary. They become self perpetuating. If current trends continue, "the United States by 2043 will have the same income inequality as Mexico." (Tula Connell, Mar 12, 2010, AFL-CIO Now).
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.