Welcome to IBM Employee News and Links

“News and links for IBM employees, retirees, ex-employees, and persons interested in pension, retirement, off-shoring and corporate governance issues”—The news you won't see on W3!

Our Friends:

Watching IBM Watching IBM Facebook

Quick Links:

Get involved! Insider trading After IBM Lenovo Employee Discount

Previous highlights:

April 2, 2016 March 26, 2016 March 12, 2016 March 5, 2016 February 27, 2016 February 20, 2016 February 13, 2016 February 6, 2016 January 30, 2016 January 16, 2016 December 26, 2015 December 19, 2015 December 12, 2015 December 5, 2015 November 28, 2015 November 21, 2015 November 14, 2015 November 7, 2015 October 31, 2015 October 24, 2015 October 17, 2015 October 10, 2015 October 3, 2015 September 26, 2015 September 19, 2015 September 12, 2015 August 29, 2015 August 22, 2015 August 15, 2015 August 8, 2015 July 25, 2015 July 25, 2015 July 18, 2015 July 4, 2015 June 27, 2015 June 20, 2015 June 13, 2015 June 6, 2015 May 30, 2015 May 23, 2015 May 16, 2015 May 9, 2015 May 2, 2015 April 25, 2015 April 18, 2015 April 11, 2015 April 4, 2015 March 28, 2015 March 21, 2015 March 14, 2015 March 7, 2015 February 28, 2015 February 21, 2015 February 14, 2015 February 7, 2015 January 31, 2015 January 24, 2015 January 17, 2015 January 10, 2015 January 3, 2015 December 27, 2014 December 20, 2014 December 13, 2014 December 6, 2014 November 29, 2014 November 22, 2014 November 15, 2014 November 8, 2014 November 1, 2014 October 25, 2014 October 18, 2014 October 11, 2014 October 4, 2014 September 27, 2014 September 13, 2014 September 6, 2014 August 30, 2014 August 23, 2014 August 16, 2014 August 9, 2014 August 2, 2014 July 26, 2014 July 19, 2014 July 12, 2014 July 5, 2014 June 28, 2014 June 21, 2014 June 14, 2014 June 7, 2014 May 31, 2014 May 24, 2014 May 17, 2014 May 10, 2014 May 3, 2014 April 26, 2014 April 19, 2014 April 12, 2014 April 5, 2014 March 29, 2014 March 22, 2014 March 15, 2014 March 8, 2014 March 1, 2014 February 22, 2014 February 15, 2014 February 8, 2014 February 1, 2014 January 25, 2014 January 18, 2014 January 11, 2014 January 4, 2014 December 28, 2013 December 21, 2013 December 14, 2013 December 7, 2013 November 30, 2013 November 23, 2013 November 16, 2013 November 9, 2013 November 2, 2013 October 26, 2013 October 19, 2013 October 12, 2013 October 5, 2013 September 28, 2013 September 21, 2013 September 14, 2013 September 7, 2013 August 31, 2013 August 24, 2013 August 17, 2013 August 10, 2013 August 3, 2013 July 27, 2013 July 20, 2013 July 13, 2013 July 6, 2013 June 29, 2013 June 22, 2013 June 15, 2013 June 8, 2013 June 1, 2013 May 25, 2013 May 18, 2013 May 11, 2013 May 4, 2013 April 27, 2013 April 20, 2013 April 13, 2013 April 6, 2013 March 30, 2013 March 23, 2013 March 16, 2013 March 9, 2013 March 2, 2013 February 23, 2013 February 16, 2013 February 9, 2013 February 2, 2013 January 26, 2013 January 19, 2013 January 12, 2013 January 5, 2013 December 29, 2012 December 22, 2012 December 15, 2012 December 8, 2012 December 1, 2012 November 24, 2012 November 17, 2012 November 10, 2012 November 3, 2012 October 27, 2012 October 20, 2012 October 13, 2012 October 6, 2012 September 29, 2012 September 22, 2012 September 15, 2012 September 8, 2012 September 1, 2012 August 25, 2012 August 18, 2012 August 11, 2012 August 4, 2012 July 28, 2012 July 21, 2012 July 14, 2012 July 7, 2012 June 30, 2012 June 23, 2012 June 16, 2012 June 9, 2012 June 2, 2012 May 26, 2012 May 19, 2012 May 12, 2012 May 5, 2012 April 28, 2012 April 21, 2012 April 14, 2012 April 7, 2012 March 31, 2012 March 24, 2012 March 17, 2012 March 10, 2012 March 3, 2012 February 25, 2012 February 18, 2012 February 11, 2012 February 4, 2012 January 28, 2012 January 21, 2012 January 14, 2012 January 7, 2012 December 31, 2011 December 24, 2011 December 17, 2011 December 10, 2011 December 3, 2011 November 26, 2011 November 19, 2011 November 12, 2011 November 5, 2011 October 29, 2011 October 22, 2011 October 15, 2011 October 8, 2011 October 1, 2011 September 24, 2011 September 17, 2011 September 10, 2011 September 3, 2011 August 27, 2011 August 20, 2011 August 13, 2011 August 6, 2011 July 30, 2011 July 23, 2011 July 16, 2011 July 9, 2011 July 2, 2011 June 25, 2011 June 18, 2011 June 11, 2011 June 4, 2011 May 28, 2011 May 21, 2011 May 14, 2011 May 7, 2011 April 30, 2011 April 23, 2011 April 16, 2011 April 9, 2011 April 2, 2011 March 26, 2011 March 19, 2011 March 12, 2011 March 5, 2011 February 26, 2011 February 19, 2011 February 12, 2011 February 5, 2011 January 29, 2011 January 22, 2011 January 15, 2011 January 8, 2011 January 1, 2011 December 25, 2010 December 18, 2010 December 11, 2010 December 4, 2010 November 27, 2010 November 20, 2010 November 13, 2010 November 6, 2010 October 30, 2010 October 23, 2010 October 16, 2010 October 9, 2010 October 2, 2010 September 25, 2010 September 18, 2010 September 11, 2010 September 4, 2010 August 28, 2010 August 21, 2010 August 14, 2010 August 7, 2010 July 31, 2010 July 24, 2010 July 17, 2010 July 10, 2010 July 3, 2010 June 26, 2010 June 19, 2010 June 12, 2010 June 5, 2010 May 29, 2010 May 22, 2010 May 15, 2010 May 8, 2010 May 1, 2010 April 24, 2010 April 17, 2010 April 10, 2010 April 3, 2010 March 27, 2010 March 20, 2010 March 13, 2010 March 6, 2010 February 27, 2010 February 20, 2010 February 13, 2010 February 6, 2010 January 30, 2010 January 23, 2010 January 16, 2010 January 9, 2010 January 2, 2010 December 26, 2009 December 19, 2009 December 12, 2009 December 5, 2009 November 28, 2009 November 21, 2009 November 14, 2009 November 7, 2009 October 31, 2009 October 24, 2009 October 17, 2009 October 10, 2009 October 3, 2009 September 26, 2009 September 19, 2009 September 12, 2009 September 5, 2009 August 29, 2009 August 22, 2009 August 15, 2009 August 8, 2009 August 1, 2009 July 25, 2009 July 18, 2009 July 11, 2009 July 4, 2009 June 27, 2009 June 20, 2009 June 13, 2009 June 6, 2009 May 30, 2009 May 23, 2009 May 16, 2009 May 9, 2009 May 2, 2009 April 25, 2009 April 18, 2009 April 11, 2009 April 4, 2009 March 28, 2009 March 21, 2009 March 14, 2009 March 7, 2009 February 28, 2009 February 21, 2009 February 14, 2009 February 7, 2009 January 31, 2009 January 24, 2009 January 17, 2009 January 10, 2009 January 03, 2009 December 27, 2008 December 20, 2008 December 13, 2008 December 6, 2008 November 29, 2008 November 22, 2008 November 15, 2008 November 8, 2008 November 1, 2008 October 25, 2008 October 18, 2008 October 11, 2008 October 4, 2008 September 27, 2008 September 20, 2008 September 13, 2008 September 6, 2008 August 30, 2008 August 23, 2008 August 16, 2008 August 9, 2008 August 2, 2008 July 26, 2008 July 19, 2008 July 12, 2008 July 5, 2008 June 28, 2008 June 21, 2008 June 14, 2008 June 7, 2008 May 31, 2008 May 24, 2008 May 17, 2008 May 10, 2008 2008 Stock Meeting April 26, 2008 April 19, 2008 April 12, 2008 April 5, 2008 March 29, 2008 March 22, 2008 March 15, 2008 March 8, 2008 March 1, 2008 February 16, 2008 February 9, 2008 February 2, 2008 January 26, 2008 January 19, 2008 January 12, 2008 January 5, 2008 December 29, 2007 December 22, 2007 December 15, 2007 December 8, 2007 December 1, 2007 November 24, 2007 November 17, 2007 November 10, 2007 November 3, 2007 October 27, 2007 October 20, 2007 October 13, 2007 October 6, 2007 September 29, 2007 September 22, 2007 September 15, 2007 September 8, 2007 September 1, 2007 August 25, 2007 August 18, 2007 August 11, 2007 August 4, 2007 July 28, 2007 July 21, 2007 July 14, 2007 July 7, 2007 June 30, 2007 June 23, 2007 June 16, 2007 June 9, 2007 June 2, 2007 May 26, 2007 May 19, 2007 May 12, 2007 May 5, 2007 2007 Stock Meeting April 21, 2007 April 14, 2007 April 7, 2007 March 31, 2007 March 24, 2007 March 17, 2007 March 10, 2007 March 3, 2007 February 24, 2007 February 17, 2007 February 10, 2007 February 3, 2007 January 27, 2007 January 20, 2007 January 13, 2007 January 6, 2007 December 30, 2006 December 23, 2006 December 16, 2006 December 9, 2006 December 2, 2006 November 25, 2006 November 18, 2006 November 11, 2006 November 4, 2006 October 28, 2006 October 21, 2006 October 14, 2006 October 7, 2006 September 30, 2006 September 23, 2006 September 16, 2006 September 9, 2006 September 2, 2006 August 26, 2006 August 19, 2006 August 12, 2006 August 5, 2006 July 29, 2006 July 22, 2006 July 15, 2006 July 8, 2006 July 1, 2006 June 24, 2006 June 17, 2006 June 10, 2006 June 3, 2006 May 27, 2006 May 20, 2006 May 13, 2006 May 6, 2006 2006 Stock Meeting April 22, 2006 April 15, 2006 April 8, 2006 April 1, 2006 March 25, 2006 March 18, 2006 March 11, 2006 March 4, 2006 February 25, 2006 February 18, 2006 February 11, 2006 February 4, 2006 January 28, 2006 January 21, 2006 January 14, 2006 January 7, 2006 December 31, 2005 December 24, 2005 December 17, 2005 December 10, 2005 December 03, 2005 November 26, 2005 November 19, 2005 November 12, 2005 November 5, 2005 October 29, 2005 October 22, 2005 October 15, 2005 October 8, 2005 October 1, 2005 September 24, 2005 September 17, 2005 September 10, 2005 September 3, 2005 August 27, 2005 August 20, 2005 August 13, 2005 August 6, 2005 July 30, 2005 July 23, 2005 July 16, 2005 July 9, 2005 July 2, 2005 June 25, 2005 June 18, 2005 June 11, 2005 June 4, 2005 May 28, 2005 May 21, 2005 May 14, 2005 May 7, 2005 April 30, 2005 April 23, 2005 April 16, 2005 April 9, 2005 April 2, 2005 March 26, 2005 March 19, 2005 March 12, 2005 March 5, 2005 February 26, 2005 February 19, 2005 February 12, 2005 February 5, 2005 January 29, 2005 January 22, 2005 January 15, 2005 January 8, 2005 January 1, 2005 December 25, 2004 December 18, 2004 December 11, 2004 December 4, 2004 November 27, 2004 November 20, 2004 November 13, 2004 November 6, 2004 October 30, 2004 October 23, 2004 October 16, 2004 October 9, 2004 October 2, 2004 September 25, 2004 September 18, 2004 September 11, 2004 September 4, 2004 August 28, 2004 August 21, 2004 August 14, 2004 August 7, 2004 July 31, 2004 July 24, 2004 July 17, 2004 July 10, 2004 July 3, 2004 June 26, 2004 June 19, 2004 June 5, 2004 May 29, 2004 May 22, 2004 May 15, 2004 May 8, 2004 2004 Stock Meeting April 24, 2004 April 10, 2004 April 3, 2004 March 27, 2004 March 20, 2004 March 13, 2004 March 6, 2004 February 28, 2004 February 21, 2004 February 14, 2004 February 7, 2004 February 1, 2004 January 18, 2004 December 27, 2003 December 20, 2003 December 13, 2003 December 6, 2003 November 29, 2003 November 22, 2003 November 15, 2003 November 8, 2003 November 1, 2003 October 25, 2003 October 18, 2003 October 11, 2003 October 4, 2003 September 27, 2003 September 20, 2003 September 13, 2003 September 6, 2003 August 30, 2003 August 23, 2003 August 16, 2003 August 9, 2003 Pension Lawsuit Win July 26, 2003 July 19, 2003 July 12, 2003 July 5, 2003 June 28, 2003 June 21, 2003 June 14, 2003 June 7, 2003 May 31, 2003 May 24, 2003 May 17, 2003 May 10, 2003 2003 Stock Meeting April 26, 2003 April 19, 2003 April 12, 2003 April 5, 2003 March 29, 2003 March 22, 2003 March 15, 2003 March 8, 2003 March 1, 2003 February 22, 2003 February 15, 2003 February 8, 2003 February 1, 2003 January 25, 2003 January 18, 2003 January 11, 2003 January 4, 2003 December 28, 2002 December 21, 2002 December 14, 2002 December 7, 2002 November 30, 2002 November 23, 2002 November 16, 2002 November 9, 2002 November 2, 2002 October 26, 2002 October 19, 2002 October 12, 2002 October 5, 2002 September 28, 2002 September 21, 2002 September 14, 2002 September 7, 2002 August 31, 2002 August 24, 2002 August 17, 2002 August 10, 2002 August 3, 2002 July 27, 2002 July 20, 2002 July 13, 2002 July 6, 2002 June 29, 2002 June 22, 2002 June 15, 2002 June 8, 2002 June 1, 2002 May 25, 2002 May 18, 2002 May 11, 2002 2002 Stock Meeting April 27, 2002 April 20, 2002 April 13, 2002 April 6, 2002 March 30, 2002 March 23, 2002 March 16, 2002 March 9, 2002 March 2, 2002 February 23, 2002 February 16, 2002 February 9, 2002 February 2, 2002 January 26, 2002 January 19, 2002 January 12, 2002 January 5, 2002 December 29, 2001 December 22, 2001 December 15, 2001 December 8, 2001 December 1, 2001 November 24, 2001 November 17, 2001 November 10, 2001 November 3, 2001 October 27, 2001 October 20, 2001 October 13, 2001 October 6, 2001 September 29, 2001 September 22, 2001 September 15, 2001 September 8, 2001 September 1, 2001 August 25, 2001 August 18, 2001 August 11, 2001 August 4, 2001 July 28, 2001 July 21, 2001 July 14, 2001 July 7, 2001 June 30, 2001 June 23, 2001 June 16, 2001 June 9, 2001 June 2, 2001 May 26, 2001 May 19, 2001 May 12, 2001 May 5, 2001 2001 Stock Meeting April 21, 2001 April 14, 2001 April 7, 2001 March 31, 2001 March 24, 2001 March 17, 2001 March 10, 2001 March 3, 2001 February 24, 2001 February 17, 2001 February 10, 2001 February 3, 2001 January 27, 2001 January 20, 2001 January 13, 2001 January 6, 2001 December 30, 2000 December 23, 2000 December 16, 2000 December 9, 2000 December 2, 2000 November 24, 2000 November 17, 2000 November 10, 2000 November 4, 2000 October 28, 2000 October 21, 2000 October 14, 2000 October 7, 2000 September 30, 2000 September 23, 2000 September 16, 2000 September 9, 2000 September 2, 2000 August 26, 2000 August 19, 2000 August 12, 2000 July 29, 2000 July 22, 2000 July 15, 2000 July 1, 2000 June 24, 2000 June 17, 2000 June 10, 2000 June 3, 2000 May 27, 2000 May 20, 2000 May 13, 2000 May 6, 2000 April, 2000

Highlights—May 14, 2011

  • Northwest Indiana Times: IBM could add workers to C. Indiana call center. Excerpts: Economic development officials say IBM Corp. could add several hundred workers to a call center it has in central Indiana.

    Workers at the IBM center take calls on behalf of a variety of clients. Officials say the new jobs would pay about $22,000 a year.

  • Yahoo! IBM Employee Issues message board: "Re: IBM could add workers to C. Indiana call center" by Lee Conrad, president of the Alliance@IBM. Full excerpt: Team562, saw this article this morning. $22k, amazing. Been working on some contacts there. Lee.
  • Yahoo! IBM Employee Issues message board: "Re: IBM could add workers to C. Indiana call center" by Lee Conrad. Full excerpt: By the way there is a 16% turnover rate at the facility in Dubuque. Lee.
  • Wall Street Journal, courtesy of Morningstar: When Benefits Bite Back. By Ellen E. Schultz. Excerpts: he Supreme Court is set to answer a question with huge implications for workers: Are employers' promises of benefits such as pension payments and health-care insurance worth the paper they are written on? So far, lower courts have answered with a resounding "no" -- leaving employees from managers to factory workers at risk of being short-changed when it comes time to tap benefits they have been promised.

    The case, which concerns the pension plan at Cigna Corp., could be decided as soon as Monday. At issue: If your employer deliberately provides inaccurate information about your benefits, and you rely on it to your detriment, do you have recourse? The outcome not only could reshape the pension expectations of Cigna employees. It also could have a significant impact on 401(k)s, health plans, disability insurance and other employer-sponsored benefits. ...

    Look beyond the official plan summary. Employers are required to disclose all critical details of their benefits plan in the so-called summary plan document, or SPD. In Amara v. Cigna, a lower court in New Haven, Conn., concluded that the global health-services company's SPD failed to disclose that employees' pensions would stop growing after it changed the plan in 1998, and gave them "downright misleading" information in handouts and meetings. In a decision affirmed in the Second Circuit in 2009, the court ordered Cigna to give the 27,000 employees the benefit it led them to believe they were entitled to receive, an estimated total of $80 million.

    The issue now before the Supreme Court isn't whether Cigna deceived employees -- Cigna isn't appealing that decision. Instead, the company is arguing that to qualify for the benefits, the employees would have to prove they relied on the information the company provided, to their detriment. For example, a person would have to prove that if he knew his pension was frozen, he would have retired or taken another job.

    Advocates for retirees say that if the court agrees with Cigna, the ruling would effectively preclude employees from bringing class-action suits and make it almost impossible for employees to win a claim, since they would have to prove they would have acted differently if they had known.

    This, they say, would essentially remove any penalty for employers that deliberately mislead employees about their benefits. "Is this court going to say it's OK to lie to participants?" asks Mary Ellen Signorille, senior attorney at AARP, which, along with the U.S. Department of Justice, filed briefs on the employees' behalf, as they also had done in the Xerox case. ...

    Where to Go for Help. The Pension Protection Act, which took effect in 2007, requires plans either to provide individualized pension statements every three years, disclosing the total benefits earned, or notify participants every year that benefit statements are available upon written request. (Quarterly statements must be provided for 401(k) and similar accounts, and annual statements for profit-sharing plans.)

    The only way to be sure the benefit is accurate is for the employee to check the plan's calculation against the terms of the pension plan and the formal plan document. "Since plan documents are extremely complicated, it's a good idea to ask for help," says Karen Ferguson, director of the Pension Rights Center. The American Academy of Actuaries' Pension Assistance List will provide up to four hours of free help to individuals interested in checking their plans' calculations. ...

    An Employee Checklist:

    • Use the company benefits hotline only as a starting point.
    • Don't believe anything you are told verbally -- even if it is straight from an HR administrator's mouth. Be especially skeptical of promises made before a spinoff or merger.
    • The only way to be sure a calculation is accurate is to check it against the formal plan document.
  • Selected reader comments concerning the Wall Street Journal article follow:
    • Since Paul Frommert received a written statement stating that he would receive benefits of about 3,000 dollars a month from the company, Cigna should honor that statement. Yet you suggest that he is among those people unwilling to follow the terms of the contract.

      Which is it? Is Cigna required to honor the Written statement they sent the retiree, or are they allowed to duck their responsibility and claim it was just an "honest mistake"?

      My mother taught me the answer to this question when I was seven years old. When you make a promise, you have to keep it (especially when it's in writing). If Cigna allows poorly trained HR staff to convey the wrong answer, well, that's tough. They have to honor it. The company should spend more money on training. People (and corporations) have to accept responsibility for their actions and their statements.

      Leaving out the fact that your pension is being calculated based in part on a "phantom account", as the article mentions, is a violation of the fiduciary duty of every officer in the HR dept at Cigna (and I didn't make that up...it's the law).

    • I guess some corporations figure they can gyp their pensioners because most of them are too old and frail to do anything about it. This is good motivation for people near retirement to keep themselves fit. Because they may have to go Michael Corleone on some of their company officers after retirement if they get chiseled out of their pension due to a "mistake" *cough* *cough* in paperwork. Bernie Madoff would be proud of the Cigna HR group.
    • I am sure Big Business would be on their best behavior if we privatized Social Security and let them do their calculations on what to pay us in retirement.
    • If you make it real difficult to understand, we can confuse the worker and take their money. One of the first principles one learns when becoming a CEO.
    • The only certainty is that the thief executives will received every penny they are promised while those who actually do the work will get screwed.
  • Yahoo! IBM Pension and Retirement Issues message board: "Re: Ellen Shultz in WSJ - When benefits bite back" by "willbefree25". Excerpts: Thank you, justa bean. This article should be printed out and kept close by those who are still working. This, especially, should be chilling:
    "you need to be aware that if your employer gives you wrong information -- even if it is in writing -- and you act on it, you may be out of luck."
    • Maybe employees don't do the numbers until they are RA'ed or close to making 'the' decision.
    • Many STILL don't know what the FHA is.
    • Many will rely on their managers or their peers for information.
    • Many will trust their managers.
    • Many will rely on the company's online calculations.

    Unless one is very high up in the company or otherwise has positioned themselves behind their manager in order to procure a large salary, the pension is NOT livable. Retiree medical, as everyone knows, is laughable.

    The best thing an employee can do is not to trust anyone and to look out for themselves, which it seems is still a difficult thing to do at IBM.

  • GlassDoor: Top 25 Companies for Work-Life Balance. Employees have reported how their companies rate for balancing work with personal life – find out which 25 companies provide the best work-life balance. (Editor's note: IBM is not in the top 25, despite the company's public image of being a company sensitive to work-life balance. The GlassDoor study is a survey of employees, not a review of printed corporate policies so perhaps IBM's problem is that its practices don't match its policies.)
  • truthOut: CEO Bonuses Rose by Nearly 20 Percent in 2010, While Average Worker Saw Income Stagnate. By Marie Diamond. Excerpts: As most American families continue to struggle with high unemployment and stagnant wages, CEOs at the country's 350 biggest companies saw their pay jump 11% last year to a median of $9.3 million, according to a study conducted for the Wall Street Journal. The survey looked at direct compensation — salary, bonuses, and long-term incentive awards — and did not include assets like stock options:
    For the surveyed CEOs, the sharpest pay gains came via bonuses, which soared 19.7% as profits recovered, especially in some hard-hit industries. … Net income rose by a median of 17%; shareholders at those companies enjoyed a median return, including dividends, of 18%.

    Corporate profits may be at sky-high levels, but they are not translating into shared prosperity for all. Median household income has fallen nearly 5% over the past decade and in 2010 was $50,221. The lack of wage growth has made it difficult for average Americans to keep up with rising prices on everything from gas to food.

  • Wall Street Journal: The Wall Street Journal/Hay Group Survey of CEO Compensation. Editor's note: According to this survey, IBM CEO Sam Palmisano's total 2010 compensation totaled over $24 Million, a 20.1% increase from 2009. In the three year period ending in 2010, Mr. Palmisano's total "realized" compensation was : $82,252,000.
  • Financial Times: Apple is world's most valuable brand. By Maija Palmer and Andrew Baxter. Excerpts: Apple has overtaken Google to become the world's most valuable brand with an estimated brand value of more than $153bn, according to new rankings published on Monday. For the last four years, Google has dominated the BrandZ Top100 ranking of the most valuable global brands, compiled by Millward Brown, a subsidiary of advertising company WPP. The ranking covers everything from cars to clothing and banks to telecoms providers. ...

    "The anecdotal evidence is that if employees are given the choice of two similar jobs they opt for the one with better technology for its employees – for example an iPad," Mr Walshe said. Apple, he added, had also succeeded in emulating luxury goods brands, in that making its products more expensive had increased their desirability. ...

    To be sure, most employees can rely on what their employers tell them about their benefits. But regardless of how the Cigna case plays out, you need to be aware that if your employer gives you wrong information -- even if it is in writing -- and you act on it, you may be out of luck. It is especially critical to keep this in mind when making life-changing and often irrevocable decisions -- such as whether to switch jobs, retire, take a payout or modify a life-insurance policy. Usually, the only thing that determines the benefit in the event of a dispute is the formal plan document.

  • Yahoo! IBM Pension and Retirement Issues message board: "Re: Deja Vu All Over Again" by Bill Britton. Full excerpt: My opinion is that Defined Benefit plans put the burden on the company to make investment decisions in order to meet obligations. Defined Contribution plans put the investment decision on the individual. We each own our lives and are responsible for our own future. I would rather own the responsibility for my future than rely on any company to make the choices that are best for me.

    Full disclosure, I am receiving a DB pension from IBM, but I know it might get cancelled at any time and will lose value as inflation continues since my DB check will never change. I can only hope IBM doesn't cancel my DB check and inflation stays low or deflation actually becomes a possibility. I took full advantage of IBM's 401K plan in terms of my contributions which meant I got the max IBM match. It was obvious IBM as well as almost all companies wanted to stop DB plans. I can't say I made the best decisions in my 401K plan, but I knew it was up to me and/or my advisor.

    My point is that no company will offer a DB plan unless competition requires it. It's a new world. DB plans are a thing of the past; I feel lucky to have a DB check each month as well as a 401K account that I do my best to manage given my knowledge, risk tolerance, etc.

    Health benefits are no different in my opinion. Instead of companies providing health benefits, I'd rather have a larger salary with the responsibility for securing health care up to me as I see fit. Obviously, if I believe I need to buy health care insurance, it would be cheaper if I'm part of a group seeking health care insurance, but those are the trade-offs I must consider. Maybe my local Credit Union can form a group to buy insurance. Again, if you think IBM or any other company OWES you health care, you need to wake up and smell the stench. Companies are in business to make profits for their shareholders; companies will only offer employee benefits that they consider mandatory to retain the type of employees they need to meet their profit objectives.

    Get the picture?

    You probably won't believe this, but I believe in Capitalism, but only when government gives no financial incentives for companies to do or NOT do this or that particular "plan".

  • Yahoo! IBM Pension and Retirement Issues message board: "Re: Deja Vu All Over Again" by "albanyblue2000". Full excerpt: Bill, your statement looks good in theory. The actual experience of IBMers, - unfortunately, - is quite different.

    Lets take a look at my experience. As a newly minted Wharton MBA in the 50's, I was offered jobs that paid as much as 160% as IBM's offers. For essentially the same level of skill, energy and foresight. I chose IBM because the interviewing manager posed two inducements. the first one was a job that was interesting in an industry that had a great future. The second was that the company had a reputation for integrity, -for treating its employees fairly, -and for providing non-payroll benefits that made up the deficit.

    The gutting of benefits by IBM management, -though it doesn't affect me financially, - does affect my personal reputation. I now, -in retrospect, -find myself having worked for a firm that doesn't meet its commitments. In retrospect, I should have gone on to Wall Street.

    You fail to mention that IBM has had NO problem meeting its defined benefit funding requirements, -as prior managements were frugal and fully funded those retirement trust funds.

    If you look at the letter sent recently from IBM dealing with its handling of those funds, you'll notice that IBM now keeps two sets of books as to "fully funding" those plans. Recently, rules were made allowing an employer to treat 85% funding as "meets expectations". IBM has taken advantage of that loophole to declare itself overfunded, - and continues to remove moneys set aside for us retirees in the past, - in order to boost its income, -its stock price, -and its bonuses.

    Bill, can you provide us with a reasonable answer as to the appropriateness and ethicality of IBM's treatment of those funds?

    Thanks in advance, Mike.

  • Yahoo! IBM Pension and Retirement Issues message board: "AETNA is here to help" by "chz_whiz". Full excerpt: Could somebody here with an IBM healthcare plan administered by AETNA report on any experience they've had with an RN who called from AETNA offering "to help." I haven't returned the voice mail. I'm a bit suspicious of what information they might be trying to latch on to, and why. Any experiences would be appreciated.
  • Yahoo! IBM Pension and Retirement Issues message board: "Re: AETNA is here to help" by Kathi Cooper. Full excerpt: My opinion (and I've received the same calls) is NOT to return the call. Do NOT talk with them. If you do, you give them implicit permission to record or use anything you say. They do NOT have all the details of what they are calling about. If you don't talk to them, they will never know.

    And that is good.

    When I was an auditor for Business Controls, I would walk in a room and announce that I was here to help. My job was to find something wrong, anything wrong.

    Do NOT engage in a conversation, in my opinion. Kathi

  • Yahoo! IBM Pension and Retirement Issues message board: "Re: AETNA is here to help" by "mr_quarkwrench". Full excerpt: I get these calls from UHC, too. Since it isn't in IBM's interest for me to live long and prosper, I ignore them. -- Don
  • Yahoo! IBM Pension and Retirement Issues message board: "Re: AETNA is here to help" by "ujourdan". Full excerpt: I do have first hand experience and it was rather pleasant. My wife had spinal surgery and had to have metal pates inserted to support the bones. Aetna assigned a RN that was helping us through (by phone) the rather difficult times for her and our family. I never had the feeling that they were spying rather the opposite. They never asked any questions outside what they were helping us with and I now can say that they were of great value to us. That was 5 years ago and nothing negative has happened to us because of it. Just my experience. U.J
  • Yahoo! IBM Pension and Retirement Issues message board: "Re: AETNA is here to help" by "madinpok". Full excerpt: I can't speak specifically about Aetna, but many insurance companies (and employers) have programs for disease management where a RN contacts you and offers to help you with your medical issues. Usually, this is used with people who have heart disease, diabetes or other chronic illnesses.

    They will encourage you to take your medications as recommended by your doctor, go for follow up visits as scheduled, stick to your diet, get necessary exercise, etc, and will check with you regularly to keep you on track.

    They can also help answer questions you may have about your disease and/or treatment - things you might normally have discussed with your doctor in the past, but maybe don't get a chance to these days with the limited amount of time doctors get to spend with each patient.

    The overall idea is to ensure that you are doing all you can to treat your disease, thereby lowering costs to your insurance provider and/or your employer. That's the theory, anyway.

    They typically promise that they will not share your information with your employer or your insurance provider. However, the fact that they are paid by at least one of them might give you pause to wonder if they can be trusted. I know a couple of people who have used disease management services (but not from Aetna) without any problems. They did what they said they would and did not interfere with the doctor-patient relationship, or with what the insurance provider covers.

    Usually, the RN who contacts you does not have any information about your medical history. You need to provide that to them or give them explicit permission to obtain it from your records.

    If you have a good relationship with your doctor and you follow his recommendations on your own, then this service probably has little benefit to you. If you don't take your meds or follow your doctor's instructions, then maybe they can help you do better.

    Here is some more information about such programs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease_management_%28health%29

  • Glassdoor IBM reviews. Selected reviews follow:
    • IBM Product Marketing Manager in Los Angeles, CA: (Past Employee - 2009) "The 'trust based company' that laid off 10,000 people after earning $10,000,000,000." Pros: For certain types of people, IBM can be the location of a long-term, growth filled career. The company enjoys long term relationships with clients, so it is able (in theory at least) to transfer that stability into long tenures for employees.

      Cons: I realize that I am biased, but being laid off along with10,000 others a month after IBM announced earnings of $10,000,000,000 and describing its employees as its greatest asset in a letter to shareholders certainly gives one pause considering that IBM brags about being a "trust based organization." Wake up call. It ain't a trust based organization. It's a greedy, short-sighted public company like any other. The fact that the company is so virtual - nearly 1/3 of employees are homebased and connected through phones and software - compounds the problem of extending any kind of culture to more recent hires. It's not the company it once was.

      Advice to Senior Management: IBM needs to practice what it preaches when it comes to commitment to employees. Laying off thousands of people just to create a little bump in quarterly earnings is the kind of short sighted move that will ultimately destroy the company. IBM's people are its greatest asset, but pious homilies aside, it will take actual action by senior management to make good on this idea.

    • IBM Mainframe Engineer in Bangalore (India): (Current Employee) "IBM ITD-GD(GTS) - good technical growth but..." Pros: 1. Exposure to latest technologies. 2. Interfacing with best in the business experts, SMEs, architects. 3. Some flexibility to work from home, unlimited casual leaves as long as your manager is on good terms. 4. Reimburse quite a lot of expenses which you wouldn't be able to in other companies, and you only need manager approval. 5. Shift allowance and night shift can add up to 2L. 6. Yearly Bonus apart from variable component to the tune of 70k up to 1.5L if you are on good terms with manager. Cons: 1. Cost cutting. 2. Transport sucks. 3. 'Bond's for anything and everything. 4. 3 month notice while quitting. 5. Long service agreements for even a short onsite trip, e.g., serve 6 months for 1 month trip, serve 1 year for 3+ month trip. 6. GDF/Lean process is driving people crazy. 7. Flexible options like work from home are slowly becoming scarce. 8. Unless you are a very critical resource, they will never hike your salary. Advice to Senior Management: You have the brightest minds in the business. Why are you training people involving lots of cost so that competitors can drag them away with higher salaries? Give the best in the industry and you will be successful in retaining the best. IBM is known for flexibility. Don't impose school like culture thru GDF in the name of process.
    • IBM Indentured Servant: (Current Employee) "it gets worse every year." Pros: Work from home. Great support from project teams. Cons: Work your butt off year after year - consistently get great reviews - little or no raise or bonus. Senior management is greedy - they do not care at all about the people in the trenches doing the work. It appears that Senior management's favorite activity is laying off experienced American workers and replacing them with clueless offshore resources (to be fair - not all offshore resources are clueless but a majority of them are.) IBM promotes work/life balance but that is a joke - most US resources must work most evenings and weekends. Have yet to meet anyone that regrets leaving IBM for another consulting company - I will soon follow their path. Advice to Senior Management: Sell GBS before you run it into the ground. Pretty soon you are not going to have any qualified people left to do the work. Listen to the people working on client projects - they know a lot more about what's going on than you do
    • IBM Managing Consultant in Dallas, TX: (Current Employee) "IBM is doing the same mistakes of the 80s all over again." Pros: Big company, global environment, good access to resources. Cons: compensation, promotion and evaluation process, bonus structure. Advice to Senior Management: To maximize shareholder's returns you need to take care of who's delivering your projects
    • IBM Senior Managing Consultant in Atlanta, GA: (Current Employee) "Poor decisions being made." Pros: IBM has good benefits and offers opportunities that vary across different jobs. Cons: Poor decisions around offshoring lately have caused client satisfaction issues. Advice to Senior Management: Don't just focus on costs
    • IBM Anonymous: (Current Employee) "GTS-SD is the same as ITD-GD. Not a good place to work." Pros: Work from home option (now that's getting restricted too.) Cons: They have implemented GDF (Global Delivery Facility) but they have not done the homework well. Different ticketing tools/connectivity methods and deviation from Industry standard process (ITIL) is causing inconvenience to employees. This is only to reduce staff. On one side they reduce technical staff but increase people only for implementing GDF. Senior management has no choice but to go along with GDF as they fear they might lose their jobs if they disagree. Its very difficult to get things done. There are dept like asset who do not even reply to requests. The focus on Service Delivery is lost. Advice to Senior Management: Listen to the voice of the people. Metrics are not everything and also customize the process as per the technology. Focus on Cost effectiveness not cost cutting.
    • IBM IT Specialist: (Current Employee) "Proud to be an IBM'er" Pros: IBM was a good place to work when i started my career. There are still a lot of opportunities to learn because of diverse nature of projects. Cons: The culture in the company has deteriorating been of late. Too many good policies have been dropped to reduce costs. Too much politics and group culture makes it difficult to work sometimes. Advice to Senior Management: Senior management has to find a way to check their mid level management. Mid level managers have a lot of power in their hands and sometimes they do not make good use of it.
    • IBM Senior Consultant in New York, NY: (Past Employee - 2011) "Pure bodyshop - employees are nothing but commodities." Pros: - work-life balance; -- work from home allowed. Cons: -- Absolutely no meritocracy; -- totally based on personal relationships; -- Raise and bonus are a joke, compared to industry; -- Career progression is bureaucratic and not merit based it is a heavily matrixed organization filled with ego-centric mediocre managers who have no competitiveness in them; -- IBM is successful not because of skill but because of size. It needs some decent competition to spin the leaderships head. Advice to Senior Management: - Get off the manufacturing company mentality!! At least in GBS. It is consulting business and consultants should be treated as prime assets not "resources"
    • IBM Advisory Software Engineer in Austin, TX: (Current Employee) "Good projects to work on, management too demanding of employees without proper compensation." Pros: Work with intelligent people, actual technology and development work is interesting. Cons: The work assigned to teams is consistently and significantly more than the teams can produce in the given schedule. Items/scope is rarely traded off or out, the teams are just required to work more overtime to contain the work effort. Advice to Senior Management: Too much thrashing on work items for the teams reduces the actual time available for development to deliver the product. Everything can't be the highest priority and need to be delivered yesterday.
    • IBM Customer Service Representative in Bangalore (India): (Current Employee) "Very Bad." Pros: Very Big Company to work for. Good brand name. Cons: Very bad compensation. No work appreciation. No night shift allowance provided to lower band employees. No appraisal if u even work continually for full year or more. Least amount of package given. Even a auto rickshaw driver is earning more than me. They will make you work on Indian holidays and even on 26 Jan and 15 Aug. And for compensation you'll get Rs 100/- meal. Advice to Senior Management: We are also humans do treat us like one. We work in night shifts with no allowance. You are hiring B.tech grads for customer support, Not gonna help employees getting hired now are getting more package than a tenured employee can't understand this thing.
    • IBM Senior Managing Consultant: (Current Employee) "Neutral, lukewarm. Ambivalent. But it's a paycheck." Pros: Reputation. Unlimited Resources. Good People (mostly). Interesting projects. Cons: Company lays off without regard for performance. Work Life Balance is a myth. Very little acknowledgement for above average performance. Bonuses non-existent. Technical ability not awarded or recognized in consulting group. It's all about sales and revenue. Advice to Senior Management: Senior Mgmt (consulting) should become more interested in delivering value to clients. Utilization is important, but it will burnout the team if only focus. Become more creative in measuring performance. Spinoff the consulting group if they don't appreciate it's value to the company.
    • IBM Consultant in Zurich (Switzerland): (Current Employee) "OK for starting, but career evolution extremely limited." Pros: - Opportunity to access some of the latest innovations - Good experience for IT project management Cons: - very administrative, processed - not a lot of recognition from management - very few trainings allowed - no support from management. Advice to Senior Management: "Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom." - Albert Einstein
    • IBM Senior Manager in New York, NY: (Past Employee - 2011) "Very knowledgeable and exciting." Pros: Great team with good and nice people! Bonuses are really making it great! High salary with a 4 week vacation! Good management! motivation and carrier (SIC) prospectives! Cons: High standards for newbies, requirements, that are hard to meet. Advice to Senior Management: I believe, you are doing a great work!
    • IBM Software Engineer in Beijing, Beijing (China): (Past Employee - 2010) "fantastic." Pros: I worked together with so many talents in the world and learned a lot from them. I love this company. Cons: There are too many negative people working in IBM and it is great loss to IBM. They should be fired. Advice to Senior Management: Senior management team has not enough experiences and skills to lead the big team in China Lab. They need to grow up.
    • IBM Anonymous: (Current Employee) "Process process process." Pros: Brand, breadth and depth, customer value. Cons: process, very London orientated, cold. Advice to Senior Management: Be human, have fun, treat people like people, encourage, reward and enthuse. Cut through the process. Manage bottom up as well as top down.
    • IBM Anonymous in East Fishkill, NY: (Current Employee) "Only good flexible work schedule" Pros: Flexibility on work hours and working from home when needed look to prevent same problems from reoccurring singles can get health care for free.

      Cons: Too many people asking for status on same issue. Too many process (if a word is missed in a change record that is buried in an 80 page document for a unique change it will be rejected.) No opportunity to transfer internally for a better job.

      Advice to Senior Management: All employees to transfer internally so their skills stay at IBM. Any employee under 30 years old will move to a new company and take skills learned at IBM elsewhere

    • IBM Senior Managing Consultant: (Current Employee) "Used to be good place to work, now people in the company get less pay than what the competitors pay for the same job." Pros: Great if you are in research or if you are working in sales.

      Cons: Very slow promotions. Company pays more for new 5 year exp folks than an employee that has 10 years exp in IBM doing a better job. Good people are leaving left and right.

      Advice to Senior Management: They make way too much money, they need to change and they need to concentrate on employee satisfaction, as of now they are treating employees as commodities.

    • IBM Software Engineer in Pune (India): (Current Employee) "Good." Pros: Good Work Culture, No time constraints, freedom. Cons: Low paid salary. No hike once u will join. Manager depends on ur luck... Advice to Senior Management: NA
    • IBM Technical: (Current Employee) "Potential to be great, let down by penny pinching and feral senior management.". Pros: A broad spectrum of job opportunities within IBM, some flexibility (e.g. work from home). Good access to on-line training. First line management is often very supportive, but higher levels are driven purely by financials, and only focused on achieving their own remuneration no matter what it does to the employees.

      Cons: Salary levels below industry. For the "new hires" of less than 2 or 3 years who think that "old-timers are complaining and whining", note that you have been initially hired at the industry rate to get you in, do not expect any pay rises, after 5 years your pay will be below industry.

      Pay is based on revenue and profit targets handed down from on high from HQ in the USA, and is designed to ensure that you cannot achieve your promised pay- one year we (technical team) were not even given the targets and the money you would get if IBM reached the (unknown) target, as these figures were "confidential", so there was no way to see if you were being paid properly.

      Targets are set to be unachievable, and are aggregated to such a level that "if China sneezes, your bank balance catches a cold".

      IBM forces you to take on a personal credit card to avoid carrying short term expenses on its books (is this even legal?)

      There is definitely an aggressive culture in the sales area, with micro-management of sales people (if you go into sales, expect that as you approach achieving your quota, that it will be raised to ensure you don't make it). Workload is high, and IBM has a lot of processes which are inefficient and time-sapping.

      Advice to Senior Management: You are burning up any good will your long term employees have. If you want IBM to end up as a company filled with "not my problem" employees, you are on the right track to do it. Loyalty is a two way street, you've screwed over your technical workforce by stealth pay cuts, while the top management got massive bonuses, share issues, and pay rises. A lot of things work in IBM because there are experienced people to band-aid over the problems, if you don't want these people around, just keep on treating them poorly.

    • IBM Managing Consultant: (Current Employee) "A SAD place to work in 2011." Pros: Smart people. Good benefits. Intellectual capital.

      Cons: Treat employees with Masters and Ph.D. degrees like they are so stupid they cannot figure out that their bonus (2+) was 2% because we did not meet goals, but the Bloomberg headline was "IBM CEO's Incentive Pay Almost Doubles on Profit Gains", and "IBM CEO Compensation Jumps 30% in 2011"

      No work like balance. Expense reimbursement rates are archaic. IBM keeps demanding more...for less. Employees are anxious with constant fear of being laid off, which creates a "blame game".

      It is sad to see good, hard working, smart, loyal people loose their jobs just so that IBM can offshore more work to India, Argentina, Costa Rica, Brazil.

      If you are a consultant and want to meet your targets, you cannot take all your vacation.

      IBM isn't showing up on the "Best Companies to work for" anymore.

      IBM used to be a fabulous company for employees who enjoyed working hard and took pride in their work.

      Advice to Senior Management: They just don't care, so why give advice.

  • The Washington Post with Bloomberg: Eight facts and three thoughts about Social Security. By Ezra Klien. Full excerpt: Earlier, I criticized Alan Simpson for not knowing — and, more to the point, being actively hostile to — accurate demographic data about Social Security, but perhaps it'd be more useful to run through some of the numbers I find it helpful to keep in mind while writing about the issue:
    1. Over the next 75 years, Social Security's shortfall is equal to about 0.7 percent of GDP. Source (PDF).
    2. For the average 65-year-old retiring in 2010, Social Security replaced about 40 percent of working-age earnings. That "replacement rate" is scheduled to fall to 31 percent in the coming decades. Source.
    3. Social Security's replacement rate puts it 26th among 30 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development nations for workers with average earnings. Source.
    4. Without Social Security, 45 percent of seniors would be under the poverty line. With Social Security, 10 percent of seniors are under the poverty line. Source.
    5. People can start receiving Social Security benefits at age 62. But the longer they wait, up until age 70, the larger their checks. Waiting to 66 means checks that are 33 percent larger. Waiting to 70 means checks that are 76 percent larger. But most people start claiming benefits at 62, and 95 percent start by 66. Source.
    6. Raising the retirement age by one year amounts to roughly a 6.66 percent cut in benefits. Source.
    7. In 1935, a white male at age 60 could expect to live to 75. Today, a white male at age 60 can expect to live to 80. Source.
    8. In 1972, a 60-year-old male worker in the bottom half of the income distribution had a life expectancy of 78 years. Today, it's around 80 years. Male workers in the top half of the income distribution, by contrast, have gone from 79 years to 85 years. Source.

    The conclusions I draw from these numbers are:

    1. Social Security's 75-year shortfall is manageable. In fact, it'd be almost completely erased by applying the payroll tax to income over $106,000. Source (PDF).
    2. Most opinion elites — Simpson being one good example, and the U.S. Senate being another — show a very strong preference for working as long as possible. Most Americans show a very strong preference for retiring as early as possible. Elites who enjoy their jobs need to be very careful about generalizing their experience to people who don't enjoy their jobs. More bluntly: Raising the retirement age is the worst of all possible options for reforming Social Security. It's not only regressive, but it also falls most heavily on those with the worst jobs. Means-testing would be much better.
    3. Social Security is fairly stingy and getting stingier. We also know most 401(k)s are underfunded, and the same goes for many defined-benefit pension systems, both public and private. We need to be very careful not to "solve" the Social Security problem by worsening a broad retirement-security problem, and that requires approaching Social Security as part of our retirement-security infrastructure rather than simply as a budgetary question. Here are some ideas on how to do that.
  • The Detroit News: GM retirees sue for lost pension benefits. By Robert Snell and David Shepardson. Excerpts: More than 100 former General Motors Corp. executives are suing the automaker in federal court to recoup millions of dollars in pension benefits lost during GM's historic bankruptcy. The retirees, including former vice presidents and other high-ranking managers, are trying to recover benefits plus interest, and increase their future payouts. GM says the executives' claims already were reviewed and properly rejected by the pension plan administrator.

    The former GM executives were among thousands of white collar retirees whose pensions were hit hard in the aftermath of bankruptcies by GM, Chrysler and a host of auto parts suppliers during the recession. Some pension plans were turned over to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Board, the government's pension insurer, because the companies couldn't pay them. ...

    Overall, GM saved $4.6 billion by trimming pension and retiree health care benefits as it reorganized in bankruptcy, it said in a filing last year. That includes $2.7 billion saved by eliminating health care benefits for salaried retirees who are 65 or older and eligible for Medicare, and capping the amount GM will spend on retiree health care for salaried retirees younger than 65.

New on the Alliance@IBM Site
Minimize
  • General Visitor Comments: Due to a lack of membership growth the comment sections will be closed until we see sufficient growth in full membership, associate membership or donations. Many of you that visit our site have not yet joined, but seem to value its existence. The only comment section that will remain open will be Job Cuts Reports. If you have information that you want the Alliance to know about please send to ibmunionalliance@gmail.com. Information of importance will be put on the front page of this web site. To join go here: Join The Alliance! or here: Join The Alliance!
  • Job Cut Reports
    • Comment 5/08/11: Pragmatist - IBM is not making a mistake. Read the business conduct guidelines. They own any and all technical work you do, even on your own time, even on your own equipment, even if it is unrelated to IBM's businesses. I am sure this is similarly detailed in the terms and conditions of Liquid Portal. I have had a lawyer go over IBM's documents - the language is deliberately broad. Ultimately it may not be enforceable in court in all circumstances, but I can't afford to fight 30,000 lawyers. Can you? JOIN THE ALLIANCE - it is the only hope for any kind of justice from this place. -MA_SWG-
    • Comment 5/08/11: -Gonnabetrue- Max. IBM severance is 26 weeks. Let's hope for those unfortunate enough to get RAed with over 13 years IBM employment service it is not WAS. But with a union contract we can get better than 26 weeks max. for sure maybe even quell RAs. and get it in writing..and an enforceable promise. More than taking IBM at their current word of "we can change our minds and terms and conditions for needs of the business". -anonymous-
    • Comment 5/10/11: I applaud the formation of the Global Union Alliance. Will this web site be posting any applicable charter information if any is recorded? Or maybe charter is not the correct word to use here. -Alliance-Member- Alliance reply: We will post what is applicable on this web site, the IWIS/Global Union link, and in the members section. By the way, Lee Conrad, our national coordinator has been appointed interim International Coordinator for the new IBM Global union Alliance.
    • Comment 5/12/11: GBS in EFK has already made its RA decisions. Quite a few will be told by June 1st. The RA's will temper the lack of raises that will be coming to EFK . If you hear "...be lucky you still have a job..." will be management's remarks. -anonymous-
News and Opinion Concerning Health Savings Accounts, Medical Costs and Health Care Reform
Minimize
  • FDL: Vermont Passes Final Version of Single Payer Bill. By David Dayen. Excerpts: The Vermont State House wrapped up work on a bill that would bring universal health care to the state, approving the final version and sending it to Governor Peter Shumlin for his signature. Shumlin plans to sign the bill within the next two weeks. The vote today was 94-49. The legislation works within existing structures but does guarantee publicly financed health care to every resident of Vermont.
    The legislation establishes a state health insurance exchange — mandated by the new healthcare reform law called the Affordable Care Act (ACA) — through which individuals and small businesses can purchase coverage. The bill envisions this exchange becoming a publicly financed health plan called Green Mountain Care that is available to all Vermont residents. Proponents of Green Mountain Care have touted it as a single-payer system, but the bill allows individuals covered under the state plan to buy supplemental policies from private insurers. In addition, individuals can keep the insurance coverage they already have.

    For these and other reasons, a group called Physicians for a National Health Program contends that the Vermont bill falls short of a true single-payer model. Although Governor Shumlin disagrees with that assessment, lawmakers removed the expression "single-payer system" from the bill and replaced it with "universal and unified health system."

  • Consumer Reports Health: Medicare - We'll all need it someday! Excerpts: Getting our nation's healthcare costs under control is important to reducing the deficit. But handing our healthcare in retirement over to the giant insurance companies isn't the solution.

    Rep. Paul Ryan's budget proposal – which already has passed the House – would privatize Medicare, giving future retirees a 'voucher' to buy health insurance. But independent analysts say that amount will fall far short of the actual cost of insurance and health care, leaving seniors to pay thousands out of pocket each year.

    Meanwhile, the private insurance companies would spend millions to market their products to seniors, and will take billions more off the top in profits. Medicare currently is not beholden to CEOs and shareholders – only to the public and the seniors it serves. It should stay that way.

    Tell your members in Congress to oppose the Ryan plan to privatize Medicare. A budget isn't just about reducing deficits, it's about our priorities and how we treat seniors and future generations.

  • New York Times: Critics Fear G.O.P.'s Proposed Medicaid Changes Could Cut Coverage for the Aged. By Jennifer Steinhauer. Excerpts: As Republicans inch away from their plan to reshape the nation's Medicare program, their equally transformative ideas for Medicaid, now largely in the shadows of the budget debate, are moving front and center.

    While the largest number of Medicaid recipients are low-income children and adults, who tend to be far less politically potent voices in battles over entitlement programs than older voters, the changes to Medicaid proposed by Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, the House budget chairman, could actually have a more direct impact on older Americans than the Medicare part of his plan.

    The House plan would turn Medicaid, which provides health coverage for the poor through a combination of federal and state money, into a block grant program for states. The federal government would give lump sums to states, which in turn would be given more flexibility and independence over use of the money, though the plan does not spell out what the federal requirements would be.

    Beginning in 2013, these grants would increase annually at the rate of inflation, with adjustments for population growth, a rate far below that of inflation for health care costs. As a result, states, which have said that they cannot afford to keep up with the program's costs, are likely to scale back coverage. Such a reduction, critics fear, could have a disproportionate effect on Medicaid spending for nursing home care for the elderly or disabled. ...

    "This is a huge deal for the nation's seniors, and it's been largely unrecognized," said Jocelyn Guyer, the co-executive director of the Center for Children and Families at the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute. "Obviously Medicaid is a program designed for low- and modest-income people. But when it comes to nursing homes, a lot of seniors start off middle class and pay for their care with private funds but end up using the Medicaid program." ...

    According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, which analyzes health care issues, 7 of 10 nursing home residents are on Medicaid, in large part because even middle-class patients often run through their savings while in a nursing home and turn to the entitlement program. ...

    It is likely that Democrats will strongly oppose block grants, arguing that such a plan would shift too many Medicaid costs to states that are already slashing their budgets. At a news conference last week, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia sharply criticized several of the ideas for reshaping Medicaid, calling broad-based cuts "almost beyond my moral understanding."

  • Los Angeles Times: Study: 44 million could lose Medicaid coverage under GOP plan. By Noam N. Levey. Excerpts: House Republican plans to repeal the new healthcare law and to convert the Medicaid insurance program into a block grant to states could force as many 44 million poor and disabled Americans out of the program over the next decade, according to a new analysis by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation. Hardest hit would be states, many in the South and West, that have not built up their healthcare safety nets in recent years. ...

    Many states are already struggling to hold together their Medicaid programs while trying to balance budgets and deal with millions of new enrollees who signed up for the insurance program during the last recession. Ryan has touted his budget plan as a way to preserve Medicaid by offering states more flexibility to wring savings from their programs. "States will no longer be shackled by federally determined program requirements and enrollment criteria," he said of the block grants.

    But many experts -- including the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office -- have concluded that House budget proposal would more likely simply result in major cutbacks. "The repeal of the ACA combined with the adoption of the Medicaid block grant would add millions more to the number of uninsured Americans and compromise Medicaid's role as the health safety net in the next recession," said Diane Rowland, executive director of the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured.

  • Healthcare Town Hall: Healthcare costs for typical family of four double. Milliman today released the results of the 2011 Milliman Medical Index (MMI), which measures the total cost of healthcare for a typical family of four covered by a preferred provider organization (PPO). The 2011 MMI cost is $19,393, an increase of 7.3% over 2010, which is the lowest annual rate of increase in more than a decade. Yet even though the rate of increase is the lowest in recent memory, the increase in total dollars—$1,319 in 2011—is the highest in the history of this study.

    "In 2002, American families had healthcare costs of $9,235, and those costs have now doubled in fewer than nine years," said Lorraine Mayne, Milliman principal and consulting actuary. "As costs continue to grow—and even as the cost trend decelerates—the total cost of care for American families constitutes a larger and larger portion of the household budget." ...

    "This year, six of the fourteen cities we studied exceeded $20,000 in total costs for a typical family of four," said Milliman principal and consulting actuary Chris Girod. "But we still have several cities, Phoenix, Atlanta, and Seattle, with less than $19,000 in total costs for the typical family. These cost differences result from variation in local practice patterns and from differing costs for healthcare goods and services."

  • Christian Science Monitor: Mitt Romney's health-care challenge: Did he pass his own test? In a much anticipated speech, Mitt Romney tackles head-on the central challenge to his undeclared candidacy. Can he defend his record as governor while attacking Obama on health care? By Linda Feldmann. Excerpts: Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney Thursday defended the health-care reform he instituted in his own state five years ago, then pivoted to a stinging rebuke of President Obama's health reform – even though the Romney plan served as the model for the national reform.

    In delivering the much anticipated speech on health care, Mr. Romney was tackling head on the central challenge to his as-yet undeclared second run for the presidency: how to trumpet his legislative accomplishments as a state executive while casting himself as a lead critic of Mr. Obama's health policy, a favored target of Republican leaders and voters.

    If Thursday's speech was an indicator, the logic of that dual stance may still elude the party faithful.

  • The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation: House Republican Budget Plan: State-By-State Impact of Changes in Medicaid Financing. Excerpts: House Republican Budget Plan: State-By-State Impact of Changes in Medicaid Financing This analysis projects the state-by-state impact of converting Medicaid into a block grant and eliminating the planned expansion of the program by repealing the health reform law, as called for under the House Budget Plan. It finds that the plan would trigger major reductions in Medicaid program spending that could result in significant enrollment decreases compared to current projections, a shift with big implications for states, hospitals and tens of millions of low-income Americans who likely would wind up uninsured. ...

    The effect on enrollment in state Medicaid programs could vary widely. By 2021, between 31 million and 44 million fewer people nationally would have Medicaid coverage under the House Budget Plan relative to expected enrollment under current law, the analysis finds, examining three possible scenarios using different assumptions about how states might respond to lower federal funding. Most of those people, given their low incomes and few options for other coverage, would end up uninsured.

    The House Budget Plan also could affect health centers, hospitals and safety-net facilities that serve low-income and uninsured people and rely heavily on Medicaid revenues. By 2021, hospitals could see reductions in Medicaid funding of between 31 percent and 38 percent annually, or as much as $84.3 billion, under the plan compared with projected funding under current law. The reductions would come at a time when millions more people would lack coverage, increasing the potential demand for uncompensated hospital care. The report includes an in-depth discussion of methodology and state-by-state data tables.

  • The Retiree Advocate: Preserving and Strengthening Medicare. By Congressman Jim McDermott. Excerpts: When I graduated from medical school in 1962, I sat in the audience and listened to Dr. Edward Annis who was then President of the American Medical Association (AMA). He talked about the dangers of "socialized medicine" at a time when older Americans were finding it almost impossible to get private health insurance coverage. It was either too expensive or denied altogether, and about half of all seniors in the U.S. had no hospital insurance. It was a dark time in American medicine.

    Just like today, the debate boiled down to providing secure, affordable health care or acceding to the interests of lobbyists and corporate money. Back then the most powerful doctors' organization in the country was against any form of government guarantee of medical care for seniors, and they did almost anything to stop it. The AMA even went so far as to ignore the dangers of smoking cigarettes – they opposed the 1964 Surgeon General's warning label on cigarette packs – in exchange for votes against Medicare from members of Congress who hailed from tobacco states.

    Despite these efforts, Medicare was signed into law, and it established a basic social commitment in our country: when you get older, you'll always have affordable quality health care. Today, more than 45 million seniors are enjoying the benefits of Medicare.

    However, every few years since 1964, the Republicans have tried to repeal Medicare and break that commitment. The difference about today's fight is that the Republicans may very well succeed – unless Medicare's beneficiaries and supporters understand what's at stake and speak out forcefully against the threat. ...

    It's important to note that seniors already spend close to a third of their income on health care, and that's with the protection of Medicare. Under the Republican budget proposal, all risk and costs associated with Medicare, which is shared by all of us today, would be shifted to the pocketbooks of seniors.

    It's also important to understand that Medicare is not a profit-driven program unlike private insurance companies who do everything they can to maximize profits at the expense of patients and taxpayers. While Medicare has consistently held administrative costs to 2%, private insurance companies' administrative costs and profits have often been higher than 30%. ...

    It is common for a party who wins an election in big numbers to think that the public actually endorses their policies – the idea being, "The voters didn't just put us in power, they love our ideas and want us to pursue them at all costs!" History, however, has shown that one doesn't always equal the other. Americans were upset about many things in the 2010 elections and voted accordingly; however, they certainly didn't elect Republicans because they wanted to see Medicare dismantled.

  • FDL: Budget Debates A Wake-Up Call For Older Voters. By Barbara Easterling. Excerpts: Budget debates in Washington are serving as a wake-up call for retirees, a key voting bloc in next year's elections. While success among older voters in 2010 propelled Republicans to victory both in Congress and in state capitals, recently we are seeing signs of buyer's remorse.

    House Republicans are having a rocky time back home, with much of the wrath coming from seniors. Their anger is fueled by a House-passed privatization of Medicare that would drive up seniors' health care costs as they fend for themselves in the wilds of the private insurance market. This plan, authored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), opens the door to cuts in Social Security benefits and a higher retirement age; the latter would be devastating for workers in physically-demanding blue collar and service sector jobs. Also, Medicaid – which helps seniors afford nursing home and long-term care – would be run by state governors such as Scott Walker, John Kasich, or Chris Christie. Seniors in those states better pray for good health.

    As seniors learn more details of this plan, plus hear the heated rhetoric around the debt ceiling, they are beginning to feel that the very future of retirement is on the line. What about their children and grandchildren – will they ever be able to retire?

    For this awakening of older voters to grow, seniors will need more reliable information than is currently provided by a news media that is easily distracted by sideshows of birth certificates and royal weddings. Americans must know that Social Security does not cause our deficit (it is supported by worker and employer taxes and has a $2.6 trillion surplus). Additionally, we cannot allow people to fall for Ryan's shrewd but cynical ploy exempting those currently over age 55 from Medicare privatization. It's not only bad policy, but also the tired politics of divide and conquer.

  • New York Times: Health Insurers Making Record Profits as Many Postpone Care. By Reed Abelson. Excerpts: The nation's major health insurers are barreling into a third year of record profits, enriched in recent months by a lingering recessionary mind-set among Americans who are postponing or forgoing medical care.

    The UnitedHealth Group, one of the largest commercial insurers, told analysts that so far this year, insured hospital stays actually decreased in some instances. In reporting its earnings last week, Cigna, another insurer, talked about the "low level" of medical use.

    Yet the companies continue to press for higher premiums, even though their reserve coffers are flush with profits and shareholders have been rewarded with new dividends. Many defend proposed double-digit increases in the rates they charge, citing a need for protection against any sudden uptick in demand once people have more money to spend on their health, as well as the rising price of care. ...

    "I am noticing my patients with insurance are more interested in costs," said Dr. Jim King, a family practice physician in rural Tennessee. "Gas prices are going up, food prices are going up. They are deciding to put some of their health care off." A patient might decide not to drive the 50 miles necessary to see a specialist because of the cost of gas, he said. ...

    For someone like Shannon Hardin of California, whose hours at a grocery store have been erratic, there is simply no spare cash to see the doctor when she isn't feeling well or to get the $350 dental crowns she has been putting off since last year. Even with insurance, she said, "I can't afford to use it." Delaying care could keep utilization rates for insurers low through the rest of the year, according to Charles Boorady, an analyst for Credit Suisse. "The big question is whether it is going to stay weak or bounce back," he said. "Nobody knows." ...

    High deductibles also can be daunting. David Welch, a nurse in California whose policy has a $4,000 deductible, said he was surprised to realize he had delayed going to the dermatologist, even though he had a history of skin cancer. Mr. Welch, who has been a supporter of the need to overhaul insurance industry practices for the California Nurses Association union, said he hoped his medical training would help him determine when to go to the doctor. "I underestimated how much that cost would affect my behavior," he said. ...

    And while the slowing down of demand is good for insurers, at least in the short term, the concern is that patients may be tempted to skip important tests like colonoscopies or mammograms. The new health care law will eventually prevent most policies from charging patients for certain kinds of preventive care, but some plans still require someone to pay $500 toward a colonoscopy.

News and Opinion Concerning the "War on the Middle Class"
Minimize "It is a restatement of laissez-faire-let things take their natural course without government interference. If people manage to become prosperous, good. If they starve, or have no place to live, or no money to pay medical bills, they have only themselves to blame; it is not the responsibility of society. We mustn't make people dependent on government- it is bad for them, the argument goes. Better hunger than dependency, better sickness than dependency."

"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.

  • New York Times: Critical Letter by Catholics Cites Boehner on Policies. By Laurie Goodstein. Excerpts: Speaker John A. Boehner, a Republican who grew up in a Roman Catholic family in Ohio, is scheduled to give the commencement address on Saturday at the Catholic University of America in Washington, a prestigious setting in church circles for its affiliation with the nation's bishops.

    But now Mr. Boehner is coming in for a dose of the same kind of harsh criticism previously leveled at some Democrats — including President Obama — who have been honored by Catholic universities: the accusation that his policies violate basic teachings of the Catholic Church. More than 75 professors at Catholic University and other prominent Catholic colleges have written a pointed letter to Mr. Boehner saying that the Republican-supported budget he shepherded through the House will hurt the poor, the elderly and the vulnerable, and that he therefore has failed to uphold basic Catholic moral teachings. ...

    The professors point out that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops also recently issued a letter expressing concerns about budget cuts in programs that aid the poor. The letter to Mr. Boehner is signed by professors at Xavier University, from which Mr. Boehner graduated, and the University of Dayton, both in Mr. Boehner's home state of Ohio, as well as at universities like Fordham, Marquette, Notre Dame and Santa Clara.

  • National Catholic Register: Catholic Academics Challenge Boehner. By Michael Sean Winters. Excerpts: A group of prominent Catholic academics have signed a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner, on the occasion of his forthcoming commencement address at the Catholic University of America. I will provide commentary later today, but the letter really speaks for itself, respectfully, clearly and in a way to challenge the Speaker to consider his policies. The letter will be delivered to Boehner's office personally by some of the signatories tomorrow morning. ...
    Dear Mr. Speaker,
    Mr. Speaker, your voting record is at variance from one of the Church's most ancient moral teachings. From the apostles to the present, the Magisterium of the Church has insisted that those in power are morally obliged to preference the needs of the poor. Your record in support of legislation to address the desperate needs of the poor is among the worst in Congress. This fundamental concern should have great urgency for Catholic policy makers. Yet, even now, you work in opposition to it.
    The 2012 budget you shepherded to passage in the House of Representatives guts long-established protections for the most vulnerable members of society. It is particularly cruel to pregnant women and children, gutting Maternal and Child Health grants and slashing $500 million from the highly successful Women Infants and Children nutrition program. When they graduate from WIC at age 5, these children will face a 20% cut in food stamps. The House budget radically cuts Medicaid and effectively ends Medicare. It invokes the deficit to justify visiting such hardship upon the vulnerable, while it carves out $3 trillion in new tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. In a letter speaking on behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Bishop Stephen Blaire and Bishop Howard Hubbard detailed the anti-life implications of this budget in regard to its impact on poor and vulnerable American citizens. They explained the Church's teachings in this regard clearly, insisting that:
    A just framework for future budgets cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor persons. It requires shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other spending, and addressing the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs fairly.
    Specifically, addressing your budget, the letter expressed grave concern about changes to Medicaid and Medicare that could leave the elderly and poor without adequate health care. The bishops warned further: We also fear the human and social costs of substantial cuts to programs that serve families working to escape poverty, especially food and nutrition, child development and education, and affordable housing.
    Representing the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Bishops Hubbard and Blaire have now endorsed with other American Christian leaders a call to legislators for a "Circle of Protection" around programs for the poor that you, Mr. Speaker, have imperiled. The statement of these Christian leaders recognizes the need for fiscal responsibility, "but not at the expense of hungry and poor people." Indeed, it continues, "These choices are economic, political—and moral. As Christians, we believe the moral measure of the debate is how the most poor and vulnerable people fare. We look at every budget proposal from the bottom up—how it treats those Jesus called 'the least of these' (Matthew 25:45)."
  • United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Office of Media Relations: U.S. Bishops Join with Other Christian Leaders to Call for 'Circle of Protection' Around Programs for Poor People. Excerpts: WASHINGTON (April 28, 2011)—A diverse coalition of Christian leaders, including Catholic bishops, the National Association of Evangelicals, Bread for the World, Salvation Army, Christian Churches Together in the USA, National Council of Churches and other Evangelical and mainline Protestants, has called for a priority for the poor in the current budget process through a common statement, "A Circle of Protection."
    "As Christian leaders, we are committed to fiscal responsibility and shared sacrifice," said the statement. "We are also committed to resist budget cuts that undermine the lives, dignity, and rights of poor and vulnerable people. Therefore, we join with others to form a Circle of Protection around programs that meet the essential needs of hungry and poor people at home and abroad." ...
    In the statement, the religious leaders recognize the need to reduce future deficits, "but not at the expense of hungry and poor people." They said, "These choices are economic, political—and moral. As Christians, we believe the moral measure of the debate is how the most poor and vulnerable people fare. We look at every budget proposal from the bottom up—how it treats those Jesus called 'the least of these' (Matthew 25:45). They do not have powerful lobbies, but they have the most compelling claim on our consciences and common resources. The Christian community has an obligation to help them be heard, to join with others to insist that programs that serve the most vulnerable in our nation and around the world are protected."
    The statement urges government leaders to explore other areas of the budget that can be cut to reduce deficits and to create jobs and spur economic growth, noting, "Decent jobs at decent wages are the best path out of poverty, and restoring growth is a powerful way to reduce deficits."
  • New York Times op-ed: The Unwisdom of Elites. By Paul Krugman. Excerpts: The past three years have been a disaster for most Western economies. The United States has mass long-term unemployment for the first time since the 1930s. Meanwhile, Europe's single currency is coming apart at the seams. How did it all go so wrong?

    Well, what I've been hearing with growing frequency from members of the policy elite — self-appointed wise men, officials, and pundits in good standing — is the claim that it's mostly the public's fault. The idea is that we got into this mess because voters wanted something for nothing, and weak-minded politicians catered to the electorate's foolishness.

    So this seems like a good time to point out that this blame-the-public view isn't just self-serving, it's dead wrong.

    The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. The policies that got us into this mess weren't responses to public demand. They were, with few exceptions, policies championed by small groups of influential people — in many cases, the same people now lecturing the rest of us on the need to get serious. And by trying to shift the blame to the general populace, elites are ducking some much-needed reflection on their own catastrophic mistakes. ...

    These days Americans get constant lectures about the need to reduce the budget deficit. That focus in itself represents distorted priorities, since our immediate concern should be job creation. But suppose we restrict ourselves to talking about the deficit, and ask: What happened to the budget surplus the federal government had in 2000?

    The answer is, three main things. First, there were the Bush tax cuts, which added roughly $2 trillion to the national debt over the last decade. Second, there were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which added an additional $1.1 trillion or so. And third was the Great Recession, which led both to a collapse in revenue and to a sharp rise in spending on unemployment insurance and other safety-net programs.

    So who was responsible for these budget busters? It wasn't the man in the street.

    President George W. Bush cut taxes in the service of his party's ideology, not in response to a groundswell of popular demand — and the bulk of the cuts went to a small, affluent minority.

    Similarly, Mr. Bush chose to invade Iraq because that was something he and his advisers wanted to do, not because Americans were clamoring for war against a regime that had nothing to do with 9/11. In fact, it took a highly deceptive sales campaign to get Americans to support the invasion, and even so, voters were never as solidly behind the war as America's political and pundit elite.

    Finally, the Great Recession was brought on by a runaway financial sector, empowered by reckless deregulation. And who was responsible for that deregulation? Powerful people in Washington with close ties to the financial industry, that's who. Let me give a particular shout-out to Alan Greenspan, who played a crucial role both in financial deregulation and in the passage of the Bush tax cuts — and who is now, of course, among those hectoring us about the deficit. ...

    Does any of this matter? Why should we be concerned about the effort to shift the blame for bad policies onto the general public? One answer is simple accountability. People who advocated budget-busting policies during the Bush years shouldn't be allowed to pass themselves off as deficit hawks; people who praised Ireland as a role model shouldn't be giving lectures on responsible government.

    But the larger answer, I'd argue, is that by making up stories about our current predicament that absolve the people who put us here there, we cut off any chance to learn from the crisis. We need to place the blame where it belongs, to chasten our policy elites. Otherwise, they'll do even more damage in the years ahead.

  • New York Times editorial: Democrats, Seduced by Secret Dollars. Excerpts: Last year several pro-Republican advocacy groups degraded the Congressional elections by spending at least $138 million in secret donations on advertisements. The public did not know which lobbying interests gave money, or how much, or what they would demand in return. But the donations became a significant factor in the Republican gains in the House and the Senate.

    Now several prominent Democrats are abandoning the high ground and have decided to raise millions of their own secret dollars. They have promised they will again try to pass a law preventing this secrecy if they win. (They were stymied in an earlier attempt by a Republican Senate filibuster.) Whatever they gain in money, they stand to lose far more by giving up principles that President Obama and party leaders once claimed to cherish. ...

    Mr. Burton now says he does not like the campaign finance rules, which the Supreme Court helped create, but is unwilling to cede the advantage to the Republicans. "The laws we have are not the ones we wish we had," he said. "But if you want to change the direction of the car, you have to have your hands on the steering wheel." ...

    A political system built on secret, laundered money will inevitably lead toward an increased culture of influence and corruption. Democrats would attract more support as a principled party that refused to follow the Republicans down that dark alley.

  • Wall Street Journal: Seeking Business, States Loosen Insurance Rules. By Mary Williams Walsh and Louise Story. Excerpts: Companies looking to do business in secret once had to travel to places like the Cayman Islands or Bermuda. Today, all it takes is a trip to Vermont.

    Vermont, and a handful of other states including Utah, South Carolina, Delaware and Hawaii, are aggressively remaking themselves as destinations of choice for the kind of complex private insurance transactions once done almost exclusively offshore. Roughly 30 states have passed some type of law to allow companies to set up special insurance subsidiaries called captives, which can conduct Bermuda-style financial wizardry right in a policyholder's own backyard.

    Captives provide insurance to their parent companies, and the term originally referred to subsidiaries set up by any large company to insure the company's own risks. Oil companies, for example, used them for years to gird for environmental claims related to infrequent but potentially high-cost events. They did so in overseas locations that offered light regulation amid little concern since the parent company was the only one at risk.

    Now some states make it just as easy. And they have broadened the definition of captives so that even insurance companies can create them. This has given rise to concern that a shadow insurance industry is emerging, with less regulation and more potential debt than policyholders know, raising the possibility that some companies will find themselves without enough money to pay future claims. Critics say this is much like the shadow banking system that contributed to the financial crisis. ...

    The downside, though, is that the states are offering a refuge from other states' insurance rules, especially the all-important ones requiring companies to have sufficient reserves. California, for one, has already chosen not to try to lure such businesses. "We are concerned about systems that usher in less robust financial security and oversight," said Dave Jones, the California insurance commissioner. While saying that he wanted to remain open to innovation, Mr. Jones added, "We need to ensure that innovative transactions are not a strategy to drain value away from policyholders only to provide short-term enrichment to shareholders and investment bankers." ...

    Another issue is public oversight. State regulators normally require insurance companies to make available reams of detailed information. A policyholder can find every asset in an insurer's investment portfolio, for instance, or the company the carrier turns to for reinsurance. But not if the insurer relies on a captive. The new state laws make the audited financial statements of the captives confidential.

  • New York Times: Democrats See Strategy to End Big Oil Tax Breaks. By Carl Hulse. Excerpt: Linking two of the politically volatile issues of the moment, Senate Democrats say they will move forward this week with a plan that would eliminate tax breaks for big oil companies and divert the savings to offset the deficit. With high gas prices and rising federal deficits in the political spotlight, senior Democrats believe that tying the two together will put pressure on Senate Republicans to support the measure or face a difficult time explaining their opposition to voters whose family budgets are being strained by fuel prices.
  • AlterNet: Unlimited Secret Money Is Drowning Democratic Elections. By Kevin Zeeze. Corporate interests are flouting election law by using anonymous donations, which are drowning out the voices and votes of working Americans. Excerpts: The 2012 presidential election year promises to be the most expensive ever and unless the Department of Justice does its job, it also promises to be have the most anonymous campaign donations in U.S. history. Unknown corporate interests will fund massive advertising campaigns against and for candidates but the voters will not know who they are or their real agenda. The Obama administration can prevent this further corruption of U.S. democracy by enforcing existing laws.

    In the last mid-term elections we saw the evolution of a new form of campaign funding that avoided the disclosure requirements of the Federal Election campaign Law (FECA). The new approach was masterminded by Karl Rove and former Republican Party leaders through American Crossroads GPS. They created a non-profit organization under 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code -- organizations that are not supposed to be primarily involved in elections -- and used it to raise tens of millions in secret donations. In total, nearly $150 million was spent by these (c)(4) groups leaving voters in the dark as to the personal interests of the donors. We can expect that to more than double in 2012 if existing laws are not enforced. Indeed Rove has announced his group alone intends to raise $120 million for 2012. ...

    While the Citizen's United decision allowed unlimited donations by corporations and individuals, it did not allow anonymous donations. The federal election law requires that donors be identified. In order to do an end-around this requirement some political operatives have set up non-profit to hide donors identities. This not only violates FECA but IRS regulations as well. The Department of Justice has the authority to enforce criminal violations of FECA even without action by the Federal Election Commission.

  • New York Times editorial: Republican Demands and the Debt Limit. Even before the White House and the Republicans began talks on the debt limit, John Boehner made clear that he was looking for a political fight, not a compromise.

    Then, in a speech on Monday, the speaker of the House said that Republicans would insist on trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for votes to raise the debt limit. He did not mention a time frame, but even a fraction of "trillions" in the near term could do huge damage to the recovery. He also did not offer specifics on how he planned to make those cuts. After the beating Republicans took for their plan to slash Medicare, he clearly decided generalities were politically safer.

    There is no way to solve the country's fiscal ills without an accurate diagnosis and rigorous prescriptions for a cure. Mr. Boehner's speech was devoid of both.

    Among the "obstacles" to economic success he cited, he never mentioned the recession or the financial crisis, both Bush-era creations. Rather, he blamed Obama-era stimulus spending for harming the economy and job growth. Never mind that the Congressional Budget Office found that the stimulus staved off an even deeper disaster.

    Mr. Boehner charged that President Obama's policies have "crowded out" the private sector and "increased uncertainty" for "job creators." That makes no economic sense. If the government were competing with business, interest rates would be on the rise, not at rock bottom. If employers were uncertain about making new hires, they would get work done by increasing the hours of current employees. The average workweek is stuck around 34 hours, indicating a lack of work, not uncertainty.

  • BuzzFlash: Why Are Taxpayers Giving $4 Billion Dollars a Year to Oil Companies Making $4 Billion Dollars in Profits a Week? Excerpts: The following are recent remarks made by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid:
    "Saving money requires a lot of difficult choices. Which programs do we cut in tough times? Which priorities are more important than others? As we've seen here in the Senate and across the country over the last few months, a lot of people have a lot of different answers to those questions.
    "Then there are the choices that aren't so tough at all. There's clear waste in the federal budget and the tax code. And then there's Big Oil. We're giving billions and billions of dollars every year - $4 billion to be exact - every cent of it taxpayer money - to oil companies that already are more than successful.
    "These oil companies made $36 billion in profits during the first quarter of this year alone. Exxon made 70 percent more this year than last year.
    "The industry's $36 billion in quarterly profits means it's making $12 billion a month. That's $4 billion a week. And yet the U.S. government is giving these companies $4 billion a year in corporate welfare?
    "Why are taxpayers on the hook for oil companies that are doing just fine on their own?
    "If we're serious about reducing the deficit, this is an easy place to start. It's a no-brainer. Let's use the savings from these taxpayer giveaways to drive down the deficit, not drive up oil company profits.
    "Let's make one thing clear: wasteful subsidies have nothing to do with gas prices. These oil handouts have existed for decades. Prices have continued to rise. Oil executives' paychecks have gone up too. The $4 billion a gallon Americans are paying at the pump are not related to these subsidies - but those profits are proof enough that they don't need them.
  • Bloomberg BusinessWeek: Why CEOs Avoided Getting Busted in Meltdown. By William K. Black. Excerpts: The defining characteristic of crony capitalism is the ability of favored elites to loot with impunity and the failure of regulators to do their jobs. We have seen this in the financial crisis that started in 2008 and in an earlier era, when the savings-and-loan industry collapsed. ...

    Now it is true that banks made thousands of criminal referrals, but almost all involved low-level figures. The volume overwhelmed the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which failed to devote adequate resources. As late as 2007, the agency assigned only 120 investigators spread among 56 field offices to probe thousands of cases. More than eight times that number probed the S&L frauds, a far smaller epidemic.

    Unlike the S&L debacle, there was no national task force and no comprehensive prioritization. This made it difficult to investigate the huge, fraudulent subprime lenders. And since there were no criminal referrals of these firms, the FBI wasn't even attempting to pursue them.

    Two Lessons

    The two great lessons to draw from this epidemic of fraud is that if you don't look for it, you don't find it and that wherever you do look, you do find fraud. The FBI was concentrating on retail banking, or individual borrowers and smaller lenders. But the big problems were being created in the wholesale end of the business, where loans were pooled, packaged, sold and securitized. Because the FBI only looked at relatively small cases, it found only relatively small frauds. ...

    Deserted by Regulators. The FBI -- deserted by the banking regulators and undercut by the Justice Department -- was so desperate that it formed a partnership with the Mortgage Bankers Association in 2007. The trade association had created an absurd definition of mortgage fraud under which accounting frauds by a lender were impossible and bankers were the victims. By 2009 the financial crisis had become so acute that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner discouraged criminal investigations of the large nonprime lenders.

    Nobel laureate George Akerlof and Paul Romer wrote a classic article in 1993. The title captured their findings: "Looting: the Economic Underworld of Bankruptcy for Profit." Akerlof and Romer explained how bank CEOs can use accounting fraud to create a "sure thing" in the form of record short- term income, generated by making low-quality loans at a premium yield while making only minimal reserve allowances for losses. While it lasts, this fictional income allows the chief executive officer to loot the bank, which then fails, and walk away wealthy. ...

    Wealth Destruction. In criminology, we call these accounting-control frauds and we know that they destroy wealth at a prodigious rate. There's no "if" about the losses -- the only questions are when they will hit, how big they will be, and who will bear them. The record income produced explains why those involved get away with it for years. Private markets don't discipline firms reporting record profits. They compete to fund them. Fraudulent CEOs can control the hiring and firing and can create the perverse incentives that produce a dynamic in which bad ethics drive good ethics out of the marketplace.

  • New York Times editorial: A Big Whine From Big Oil. Excerpts: With gas at $4 a gallon, oil at $100 a barrel and profits at near-record levels, it is hard to feel sympathy for the oil industry. Yet sympathy is what the C.E.O.'s of the five biggest companies asked for when they appeared Thursday before a Senate hearing on a Democratic proposal to eliminate about $2 billion in tax breaks for the Big Five.

    Exxon's Rex Tillerson called the proposal "misinformed and discriminatory." ConocoPhillips's James Mulva, in a letter, called the idea "un-American" because it would supposedly cost American jobs, raise consumer prices and discourage investment — a position he reasserted during the hearings.

    The other three companies at the witness table, BP America, Shell and Chevron, raised similar complaints. How absurd are their claims? Utterly absurd.

    Take investment. In 2005, with oil nearing $60 a barrel, Mr. Mulva and other top executives told a Senate committee that the companies did not need the tax breaks to keep exploring for oil. Congress left them in place. Now that the Senate seems serious about getting rid of them, he and his colleagues have changed their tune — even though their companies obviously need them even less at $100 a barrel.

    Or take prices at the pump. In a memorandum to Senate Democratic leaders on Wednesday, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said that eliminating the tax benefits would have virtually no effect on the price of gasoline. The impact on industry profits — the Big Five earned a robust $35 billion in the first quarter of this year alone — would be trivial. ...

    Obviously, $4-a-gallon gas has something to do with this. But there is also an elemental matter of fairness here. As Mr. Obama put it in his radio address a week ago, when the oil companies are making huge profits and people are suffering and deficits are growing, "these tax giveaways aren't right. They aren't smart. And we need to end them."

If you hire good people and treat them well, they will try to do a good job. They will stimulate one another by their vigor and example. They will set a fast pace for themselves. Then if they are well led and occasionally inspired, if they understand what the company is trying to do and know they will share in its sucess, they will contribute in a major way. The customer will get the superior service he is looking for. The result is profit to customers, employees, and to stcckholders. —Thomas J. Watson, Jr., from A Business and Its Beliefs: The Ideas That Helped Build IBM.

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.