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—August 6, 2011

  • Yahoo! IBM Employee Issues message board: "$83,000,000 and counting" by "sby_willie". Excerpts: Sure looks like Sam is bailing out of IBM. Look below at all the recent direct stock sales. What impeccable timing of the recent market trend. This is not the first time he pulls this precise timing of a sale off. Not the first time an option exercise is orchestrated and conducted with maximum capital gains. Say if he just waited till today to sell he would not have made as much since IBM has fallen over $10 a share. Now that would hurt him lots I'm sure!

    Why can't Sam take the $29,277,000 in proceeds from his option exercise and buy more IBM stock with it? Or at least some stock with it? Now wouldn't that show some confidence in his leadership and actions IBM is doing or would it get him in trouble with the SEC (i.e. having them question the stock buy based on maybe having too much insider information)?

  • Yahoo! Finance IBM Insider Transactions. Excerpt:
    Date Insider Shares Type Transaction Value
    Aug 1, 2011 Samuel J Palmisano 300,000 Direct Option Exercise at $97.59 per share $29,277,000
    Aug 1, 2011 Samuel J Palmisano 32,944 Direct Sale at $180.64 - $180.9 per share $5,955,000
    Aug 1, 2011 Samuel J Palmisano 8,989 Direct Sale at $183.58 - $183.63 per share $1,650,000
    Aug 1, 2011 Samuel J Palmisano 15,361 Direct Sale at $183.06 - $183.54 per share $2,865,000
    Aug 1, 2011 Samuel J Palmisano 17,539 Direct Sale at $182.36 - $182.76 per share $3,202,000
    Aug 1, 2011 Samuel J Palmisano 15,147 Direct Sale at $182.04 - $182.34 per share $2,760,000
    Aug 1, 2011 Samuel J Palmisano 15,972 Direct Sale at $180.91 - $181.98 per share $2,898,000
    Aug 1, 2011 Samuel J Palmisano 39,213 Direct Sale at $180.45 - $180.63 per share $7,080,000
    Aug 1, 2011 Samuel J Palmisano 29,520 Direct Sale at $179.93 - $180.17 per share $5,315,000
    Aug 1, 2011 Samuel J Palmisano 33,254 Direct Sale at $180.18 - $180.44 per share $5,996,000
    Aug 1, 2011 Samuel J Palmisano 33,970 Direct Sale at $182.77 - $183.04 per share. $6,195,000
    Aug 1, 2011 Samuel J Palmisano 34,024 Direct Sale at $179.00 - $179.9 per share $6,106,000
    Aug 1, 2011 Samuel J Palmisano 23,898 Direct Sale at $178.72 - $178.99 per share $4,274,000
  • Computerworld: IBM tries offshoring yet more jobs. By Richi Jennings. Excerpts: IBM (NYSE:IBM) has kicked off a huge research program to improve how it manages its customers' IT systems. It aims to bring scientific rigor to outsourcing. But I can't help thinking this is just about moving more jobs overseas. Let me explain, in The Long View...

    I was reading an article by Joab Jackson earlier, and it struck me that this is an attempt by IBM to offshore even more jobs from high-wage economies to places where wages are lower.

    In the article, Mr. Jackson does his usual professional job of reporting the facts, and staying away from commentary or personal interpretation. I, on the other hand, have no such instinct.

    IBM is assigning 200 of its researchers to the help the company manage its customers' business systems with more scientific precision.
    ...
    The idea...is to "automate labor-based processes, make them more repeatable, more predictable, and work on business outcomes with our clients."

    Hmm, sounds like a laudable aim. Science. Precision. Rigor. Repeatability... These are doubtless key goals of the research project. They're also key to successful outsourcing of a workflow to a low-wage economy. And by "workflow" I mean your workflow -- managing IT systems.

    A common theme of complaints I hear about outsourced IT workers is the lack of ability to think outside the box. Outsourced jobs -- at least outsourced IT jobs -- are most successful when they are well documented, repeatable, unambiguous, and measurable.

    However, when there are grey areas, ambiguity, or the need to go "off script," my experience is that the offshore team typically struggles to cope. Naturally, customer satisfaction plummets -- be they external or internal customers. Typical outsourced teams simply can't cope with these sort of situations.

    Note that this isn't a stereotype of any particular culture or geography. Neither is it an implied statement that "all western IT people are brilliant."

    The need for an unambiguous workflow is a natural human response to being treated like a "resource" instead of a valued individual team contributor. It's also a symptom of needing to prove oneself in an organizational culture that doesn't permit one to say, "I don't know" or "I need help me with this."

    So what's IBM's solution? Is it to find out how to cope with natural ambiguity? Or is it to teach managers to stop dehumanizing people? What about working out how to persuade a low-wage worker to ask for help, even though there are thousands wanting their job?

    Nope; not a bit of it. Instead, this project seeks to do the same things that currently don't work, but better. Trying harder to force every possible situation into a tightly focused, unambiguous box, so it can be documented, repeated, and measured. ...

    Is it surprising that IBM has outsourced this work to its overseas workers? Although the project's director is based in IBM's T.J. Watson Research Center in New York, his "resources" will be based wherever IBM pleases. What hope do onshore IT people have that their skills will be valued over the next few years? Not much, if IBM has its way.

  • A reader comment concerning the Computerworld article follows:
    • It's all about the $$ Offshoring and H1B, L1, etc. has always been all about the money. Sure, some companies like to spread the big lie and say that there aren't enough "qualified" people in the US and so they must rely upon foreign talent...talent that is available much cheaper than its American counterpart. The real truth is that there is an overabundance of talent available in the US, and the high unemployment of high tech folks drives this point home. Companies like IBM are shipping jobs overseas so that they can replace higher paying jobs in the US with lower paying jobs overseas. They are also laying off workers in the US and replacing them with much cheaper H1B and L1 visa holders.

      This is really part of a larger trend that has been happening in IT for years. Pretty soon there won't be much left, as there aren't any jobs being created at home to replace the ones being lost and shipped overseas. I personally believe that if these companies that offshore and/ or use H1B, L1, etc. lost all their US tax breaks, that maybe then they might start making an effort to keep jobs here at home. It makes no sense to use government revenue (tax breaks) to reward companies that ship American jobs overseas. Lastly, our governments (federal, state and local) should never be using contractors who use foreign talent. It makes no sense whatsoever to use our own tax dollars to help support shipping US jobs overseas.

  • The Economic Times (India): IBM doing some of its most advanced work in growth markets: Mike Daniels. By Vinod Mahanta. Excerpts: For thirty five long years Mike Daniels has quietly run a plethora of businesses within the vast IBM tech-empire but that's changing fast as his name is being bandied about as a successor to Sam Palmisano. The 57 year old Senior Vice President and Group Executive Services, has a fair shot at the corner office at Big Blue because the division he runs not only brought in the moolah -- $56.4bn out of IBM's $99.9 bn revenues in FY10 -- but is one of the fastest growing businesses within the company's portfolio. Just the sheer range of services businesses he runs is staggering; it stretches from outsourcing to consulting to systems integration to technical services. A big champion of the growth markets, Daniels is no stranger to India, having run IBM's global services in Asia Pacific region before his elevation to services chief. In a tete a tete with CD he talks about the growth markets, the cloud revolution and of course why size matters. ...

    IBM has, in general, made a disproportionate investment in the emerging markets. Four years ago, we changed the way we allocate budgets. We formed a separate growth markets unit so that we could fund it, invest in it, measure it. We didn't let it get dragged down by managing the rest of the portfolio for productivity. The growth markets are now a central peg of the four initiatives that form the company today. Growth markets is first, smarter planet is second, cloud is another and analytics is the fourth. But the better piece of that strategy is really around the growth markets. ...

    One of the attractive things about the growth markets is that you are dealing with companies that are not dragging a huge legacy, so they are able to skip entire generations of technology. Some of the most advanced delivery that we do is in the growth markets. It is not like we spend time in the US doing these really complicated things and bring in a dumbed-down version into the growth markets. It is working the other way. We are doing our most advanced work in the growth markets and bringing some of that capability back to the major markets.

  • Yahoo! IBM Employee Issues message board: "Query regarding IBM US Salary and Band" by "Sujoy". Full excerpt: Hi, What would be the best salary and band for a 13+ years of exp.?
  • Yahoo! IBM Employee Issues message board: "Re: Query regarding IBM US Salary and Band" by "sby_willie". Full excerpt: I was 12+ years as a PBC 2+ in band 8 as a Sr. IT Specialist and never broke $80K in base pay. I asked my IBM director (who always looked out for himself) why I was so below the band midpoint and was told "you are paid very low but there is nothing I can do about it". I am not kidding: this is the truth. I'm sure I was not alone in this treatment by IBM management. Some folks made less than me, particularly after getting the 15% "pay remix" in band 8. Beware of IBM salaries. They are often below market and sometimes very much so.
  • Yahoo! IBM Employee Issues message board: "Re: Query regarding IBM US Salary and Band" by "divaberyl". Full excerpt: That director may have been telling you the truth. These decisions are made within the executive (above Band D) ranks. Every manager below Band C is struggling to retain the good employees by working the system.

    I wasn't a director but I was a 2nd and 3rd line mgr. I can't tell you how many low paid top performers that I tried to give money and couldn't. We couldn't promote anyone above Band 8 so we didn't have promo $$$. They cut education funding so we couldn't make IT Architects -- a job family with a higher pay range. The only thing I could do was try to give out awards until they cut that too!

    Band 8s had it the worse (especially the first line managers and exempt Service Delivery Managers). However, some of the non-exempt band 8s (like those in account management) made out well because they had to do OT. If we are contractually required to do something, the execs rather pay OT than penalties. I love watching those Band 8s making more than me and some execs.

  • Wall Street Journal MarketWatch: Corporate profits’ share of pie most in 60 years. Profits soar even as GDP and people limp along. Excerpts: It’s not news that Wall Street is doing much better than Main Street, but we didn’t know just how much better until the government updated the economic statistics going back to 2008. Here’s the grim report that will surprise no one who’s been paying attention the past three years: The fat cats are fatter than we thought, and the incomes of regular folk are worse than we thought. ...

    According to the latest data, profits of U.S. corporations are at record levels even as the U.S. economy gasps for air. Profits have been totally divorced from the economic fortunes of the American people. ...

    Corporate profits now account for the largest share of gross domestic product since 1950 — 12.6%. Wages and salaries account for the smallest share of GDP since 1955 — 54.9%. ...

    With unemployment still in the stratosphere, wages and salaries are depressed. Fewer people are working, and the ones who are working aren’t getting raises. According to separate report released Friday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, wages in the private sector have increased just 1.7% in the past year, only half as fast as prices have been rising.

  • Crooks and Liars: Microsoft Still Crying The Blues Over So-Called Lack of Skilled Americans When They Just Want Younger, Cheaper Foreign Workers. By Susie Madrak. Excerpts: What IT labor shortage? That's what reps for unemployed programmers and other IT workers are asking in response to Microsoft's claim that it needs to import more foreign help because the United States isn't producing enough individuals with the high-tech skills it needs.

    Workers' advocates say that if big tech companies are having a tough time finding qualified employees it's only because they are limiting their searches to younger, less expensive workers.

    "Experienced IT workers who are over 40 years old have a hard time even getting noticed by companies like Microsoft," said Rennie Sawade, communications director for WashTech, an affiliate of the Communications Workers of America. "They're really after the younger, more inexpensive workers."

    Sawade also rejects claims by Microsoft and other high-tech employers that more experienced IT workers are not getting hired because they lack skills in hot new areas like cloud and mobility. "I doubt the ones they are bringing over on H-1B visas necessarily have those skills. They give them a three-week crash course and then call them a Java programmer."

  • Glassdoor IBM reviews. Selected reviews follow:
    • IBM Sales Representative in London, England (United Kingdom): (Current Employee) “Still a good company to work for, just.” Pros: Work/life balance is acknowledged more than most companies and there is huge scope for moving between business units. Good career move and great training options though. IBM finds it difficult to fire people who have a successful career record. Cons: A consistent erosion of benefits packages over time at IBM. Poor benefit schemes. Little sales culture. Huge bureaucracy. Advice to Senior Management: A current employee earns £x, but the market rate for his salary is £x+20%. If he leaves, you'll need to replace him with someone from a competitor, who already earns £x+20%, so you need to offer him £x+40% to tempt him away. Wouldn't it have been cheaper, easier and more efficient just to pay the current employee the market rate salary?
    • IBM Business Analyst in Bratislava (Slovakia): (Past Employee - 2011) “Great starter form fresh graduates.” Pros: Good learning path and great value in education. A lot of new things to learn and explore. Cons: Not a 9-5 job. Signing up soul to a devil. You either are blue or not. Dedicated or not. All up to you how much you invest in the company the company will invest back to you.
    • IBM Advisory Systems Analyst, Project Manager in Bangalore (India): (Current Employee) “No great..!!!” Pros: Flexiwork time...but still depends on project to project!

      Cons: Less technical work for engineers...more of management processes. More of process work. Employees are pushed for more non-core activities. Bad hikes. Bad Rating system...no 180/360 degree feedback..one person (manager?) decides ratings/hikes! (for that they call it as TBDM!) No respect for employees though employees are the people who generates revenues. (Management managing employees in "Labour model"....where employee's area of expertise is not valued/never considered! Company values have no respect towards employees. Value system clearly projects all benefits are for employers only! No feeling of 'employee is important' for company. There are many Cons...never ending! All I can say is IBM has lost its charm!

      Advice to Senior Management: Learn to respect at least 'lateral hires'...and as a whole respect employees...they are the people who are driving your revenues. Putting them into the system and generating the revenue is not the only goal. Employees need to be developed, should be given ample growth he/she deserves as per his/her competence and experience and skills. Give feedback (constructive one) on time and every time. Don't behave like referees...ss managers you guys should be very proactive in communicating to employees. Don't dump bad schedules on employees and push employees unrealistic goals...which creates absolute 'no work Life Balance' situation.

    • IBM Senior Project Manager in Kolkata (India): (Current Employee) “Most colleagues continue with IBM out of inertia.” Pros: Good working environment, equal opportunity employer. Cons: Limited growth opportunities, cumbersome internal workflows and processes, too many approvals required for simple things.
    • IBM Managing Consultant in Durham, NC: (Past Employee - 2011) “It was okay, but a very large corporation and it felt that way.” Pros: Compensation, travel budgets are flexible, good way to see the world if you're in that stage of life. Cons: Long hours, very little time in home city.
    • IBM Consultant in Pune (India): (Current Employee) “Good to learn. Growth is slow.” Pros: Lot of Work From home available (esp for Girls). Work-Life balance is optimum. Pays good to laterals on joining - get as much as one can while joining. Brand name is one of the best in Industry. Cons: Annual Hike is very low as compared to other companies. Variable pay is never paid 100%. Policies are lengthy and very slow. Very long hierarchy of Positions. Advice to Senior Management: Review internal policies from time to time and try to enhance those to make it faster. Avoid redundant steps in the policies for internal processes.
    • IBM Anonymous in Boulder, CO: (Past Employee - 2010) “IBM preaches that there is great opportunity to move and expand your career.” Pros: Had some good people working for them. Cons: Worked for IBM over 10 years and was laid off in 2010 because my job was out sourced to India. Advice to Senior Management: Keep the good hard working people you have. Do not outsource them to other countries.
    • IBM Anonymous in Rochester, MN: (Current Employee) “Opportunity to work with good technical people, but slow moving and lacking in proactive strategies.” Pros: Excellent flexibility in work hours. Solid pay. Working on some IBM technology can be great experience for moving to career with IBM's customers.

      Cons: Tech company completely run by accountants and sales. Virtually no technical backgrounds in senior leadership. No emphasis on creating truly world class technology. With massive job cuts in the US workforce in recent years, it's nearly impossibly to move around in the company, which was previously a big positive.

      Advice to Senior Management: Stop trying to follow everyone else and be 2nd or 3rd to market. Go back to your roots and lead the way. Managers also need to voice opinions other than 'yes' ... there are far too many bad ideas that resources are spent upon that should have been squashed early, but managers seem reluctant to stand up to up-line managers

    • IBM Senior Product Manager: (Current Employee) “TUPEd into services organisation - not a pleasant experience.” Pros: Large employer, pay rates seem OK. Cons: Services organisation is hell. All that matters is billing the hours.
    • IBM Senior Software Sales in Bethesda, MD: (Current Employee) “It's not the old IBM.” Pros: Flexibility in work location, ability to change roles, benefits. Cons: No longer a company about "respect for the individual", unrealistic sales quotas, limited rewards structure.
    • IBM Advisory Software Engineer in Research Triangle Park, NC: (Current Employee) “Great People to work with but just too much work and too little life after work.” Pros: Great salary, flexibility to work from home, evenings, etc. Cons: No proper work planning. Deadlines are defined before understanding the scope of work by people who do not understand technology. As a result, people are expected to work round the clock all year. Too many meetings around the globe at odd hours. Too little face to face work. Advice to Senior Management: Listen to employees and listen to their concerns. Chasing a stock price will not pay off in long run.
    • IBM Anonymous in Foster City, CA: (Current Employee) “Good place to work for a management career but not for someone who just wants to be pure technical.” Pros: Good health and insurance benefits. Family and work life balance. Accessibility of good resources due to the size of the company. Cons: Not a great place to work if you want to be just technical - for someone who just wants to write code this isn't a company to work for. Advice to Senior Management: Need to treat the employees as people with certain skills and not really resources. Employees who do the real work (worker bees) have the least influence on the decisions being made.
    • IBM Senior Program Manager in Atlanta, GA: (Past Employee - 2009) “Decent stop, but always look for your next opportunity.” Pros: Usually viewed as a plus on the resume. Some truly excellent co-workers, though also some dead wood protected by management. Cons: IBM will take as much as you are willing to give, so you need to set boundaries. Rationale for raises/promotions is vague at best - management doesn't get much of a "raise budget" to pass around, and raises seem to go out based on personal relationships more than merit.
    • IBM Business Unit Executive in Toronto, ON (Canada): (Past Employee - 2010) “Lots of varying opportunities that really stretched by professional and personally.” Pros: Challenging work. Fantastic people. Many different career paths. Opportunity to work with colleagues and clients around the globe. Leadership training. Working for talented, experienced individuals. Cons: The biggest downside is the lack of autonomy -- at the individual level, the dept, even the country level. This can stifle innovation and personal growth. Lack of recognition and fun. Advice to Senior Management: Look for ways to allow employees more freedom and support to do new things -- take risks. And recognize them for doing so.
    • IBM Anonymous: (Current Employee) “Like living through the five stages of grief.” Pros: IBM can provide an environment supportive of work life balance especially in relation to those family events which occur from time to time.

      Cons: Extremely poor compensation. HR's sole focus is on reducing $ per head and this is reflected in the treatment of employees with respect to salary, pay increases and bonus payments. Penny pinching approach to cost savings. An example of this can be seen in the removal of any coffee or biscuits from the office kitchens. Dysfunctional management - senior management appears to have no idea how to improve sales performance and staff morale beyond offering the same bland statements quarter after quarter.

      Advice to Senior Management: To make this company great once again, more emphasis needs to be placed on staff morale - a motivated team will grow sales. A little money spent there will go a long way. Remove the internal barriers to sales. Finally, remove the company management from the Bean Counters and place it back in the hands of people that know the technology, marketplace and products.

    • IBM Anonymous in Toronto, ON (Canada): (Past Employee - 2010) “Great place for geeks.” Pros: You're always able to participate in emerging technology. Cons: Long long hours, competing priorities with insufficient support.
  • Retiring Worldwide: Being a Company Man, and the Alternatives. By Scott Gillette. Excerpts: We are brought up to do well in school, get a secure job after college, get married, get a mortgage, raise some kids, and all in all, follow the traditional path that society lays out for us. I describe this traditional pattern as the “company man” path.

    I do not consider this path to be inherently wrong. Indeed, if everyone thought as I did, society would have more difficulty functioning. But the company man approach to life has two major problems.

    First and unfortunately, being a company man has become increasingly difficult. Think of all of the problems that have sprouted up in the last few years: massive unemployment, deep uncertainty about the future, and a “new normal” for all workers. The United States is close to insolvency, and all of the debt issues (student loans, credit cards, underwater mortgages) mean that the traditional path, while not impossible, is sure a lot less viable.

    The second issue related to being a company man is that, well, even though you have followed the correct path, you do not have ultimate control over your future. That control ultimately lies with the people you are working for.

    It’s hard to accept that regardless of what one achieves in one’s career, it’s for someone else to reap the benefits and determine its value. But that’s the way things are. Moreover, these people may not have your best interests at heart. Hopefully they do, and many people do have a concern for those they employ. But too often loyalty on your part is not reciprocated.

    I think a lot of what people term “mid-life crisis” is actually awakening to the reality that the path laid out by others just isn’t what it was cracked up to be. This can lead to severe disillusionment. What was it for? What was the positive result of the struggle and hard work and sacrifice? ...

    The point of this article isn’t to decry the entire social system or to advocate some anti-capitalist manifesto. The point of this article is to empower individuals when their companies or their countries may let them down. Keep your options open.

  • Wall Street Journal: Fired? Quitting? How to Write a Goodbye Email. By Nick Andersen. Excerpts: There is an art to the goodbye email, and it’s an increasingly important one for workers to master. With the U.S. Department of Labor’s coming July jobs report promising to be less than rosy, it’s likely that a lot of people out there in corporate America will be composing similar emails this week, although not necessarily in as optimistic tones as mine. ...

    “People tend to look at email as a private form of communication,” Pulido said. “It’s not. Anything you put in an email, you should be willing to say to the entire company, because it might go to the entire company.”

  • New York Times: Five (And Then Some) Tech Tips for Travel. By David Pogue. Excerpt: In the big airports, you sometimes see three different lanes for the X-ray machines. They’re marked by a black diamond (expert travelers who know the routine and have their laptops out and shoes off), blue square (casual travelers) and green circle (families and people who need extra help).

    I have no idea if that self-selecting system actually lets anyone get through the lines faster. But it occurred to me that if there were such a thing as a black-diamond lane for technology, I’m probably in it.

    I’ve been racking up about 70 round-trip flights a year, so I know this space pretty well. I’ve got the tech part of it down to a science. Here’s what I’ve learned along the way—tips for maximum flying efficiency and minimum misery.

New on the Alliance@IBM Site
Minimize
  • Job Cut Reports
    • Comment 8/06/11: @going, I don't think US workers are that stupid and foolish to hang around for a measly 1,000 dollars worth of stock grant. I think it was geared more towards foreign countries where 1,000 bucks is a month's salary or more, and to help curb turnover, esp. in India, where it is several 100%, annually. -NotStupid-
    • Comment 8/05/11: Hello y'all i heard some rumblings out of IBM NY. There up to there old tricks. Techs now have to work on laptops. No training and get those numbers up -- Yeah boys, you do that -- just ask your fellow workers that went to Qualxserv (oh yea that's right they went out of business)where getting the numbers up got them ! the unemployment lines. Its the past repeating itself ! Be fore warned, your time is limited! -Rrrrrrrr-
    • Comment 8/04/11: Was resource action-ed today being told there are many others from same State account. At least they gave me one days notice this time. Last time I worked 3 more days till a manager finally realized I was RAd -Anonymous-
    • Comment 8/04/11: The strike in Argentina will have widespread implications with customers in the USA as much of the domestic work that was outsourced to IBM from other US companies was matrixed out and sent there. Argentina is considered a higher quality operation over India so more critical customer specific tasks are sent there. It also has the advantage of being on USA time. I should imagine that what staff that is left in the US will have to bear the brunt of the work stoppage. -anonymous-
    • Comment 8/03/11: I think by 2014 IBM will largely abandon the USA. It's a reason why USA employees got the paltry stock grant and was to just dangle a carrot so IBM can string along as much of it's USA workforce as possible so IBM can follow it's purge of USA workers without any exodus of critical workers leaving before IBM wants them to. IBM plays you USA employees as fools. Look at IBM Chile and Argentina? The USA IBMer who is not an Alliance member has no backbone. -going-going-and soon gone-
    • Comment 8/02/11: Re: Software Division, Tivoli -- No cuts YET. Exact same thing happened to me. Our product is successful, makes tons of money, I've been supervising a global team, no back-stabbing complaints from any peers, only praise, I'm not insubordinate, I'm doing massive amounts of overtime, etc. They so *wanted* to put me in the middle (liars), but just had to drop me to the top of the bottom group. And I'm there with all the global employees who are so much cheaper but don't care a whit about the customers, so insulting. What a joke this despicable company is. The moron manager who has no clue what is going on, will never leave. Why should she? Cushiest job ever for her. They're crucifying themselves. Unfortunately, in this town, there are few to no other choices for employment. They laid off 52 or 54 from the hardware group in May, trying to keep the software folks scared "straight" (the timing was odd, as per usual). -Anonymous-
    • Comment 8/02/11: IBM, IBM's Lenovo and their consultants knowingly displace top performing American workers with less qualified, less experienced, lower performing foreign workers in science, technology, engineering, mathematics and analytic roles. Many IBM and IBM-Lenovo employees filling engineering jobs have no engineering degree, no professional engineering qualification and no engineering credential. -Anonymous-
    • Comment 8/01/11: Officially informed by my manager today that other than sev 1's, there will be NO overtime for nonexempts and contractors for the rest of the quarter and also likely to be extended to 4Q. Please folks, we HAVE TO STOP THE INSULTS! -Anon-
    • Comment 7/31/11: Several contractors were let go in AIX support. I do not know the numbers. Might be as high as 20% and located across multiple sites. Also told some regular headcount is included in the cut. -Contractors let go-
    • Comment 7/30/11: Comments after a recent IBM Services question and answer session.

      Question: Maxim I. Novikov 21 Jul 2011 at 04:04 AM EDT Hello Victoria. Carrying out of such conferences is very useful and I always like IBM for this openness in working background, when we have feedback with higher management, staying in touch with future plans, growth and opportunities. Nevertheless I want to support Vishal here, because I have same situation. I had 2/2+/2+ during my working years with IBM, and my salary grown on 1%. I am not kidding, exactly on 1%))). I heard same stories from my colleagues, from all over the world, because I am working in Global Services and they all have the same problem, even worse for some. Like it was told by manager in

      Quest1 : "We always moving to high value...". This is not bad actually, in our capitalist world may be the only way. But why not make value for employees? We(employees) also having our values in this challenging world, we have to plan our future and think about future generation and aging generation. Does price for stocks making more sense? Sometimes I really do not understand why people, who making all job done by their hands and minds, are staying always somewhere behind... When I started to work at IBM, my colleague gave me a book of Buck Rogers : "The IBM way", and I was really impressed of its content and how highly he rated IBM capital - our People - he wrote, I and started to believe that many things will change in my life from that moment, but after 3 years of successful job I am getting more and more confusion. Regards, Maxim Novikov. -Soon2BxIBMer-

    • Comment 7/30/11: Folks, Posters here were right. Liquid Portal is going to allow IBM to get rid of all Java and Lotus Notes programmers inside the company. You failed to unionize, so you're gone!
      HIRING! Freelance! IBM Liquid Challenge Stefanini TechTeam is engaging Software Professionals to participate in the Liquid Player Program with IBM.
      In the Liquid Challenge Program, IBM project managers outsource design and programming components to freelancers aka IBM Liquid Players. The design and programming components are part of a larger technical application (solution) that IBM is building. IBM will be the one to select the Liquid Players who will design or program a particular component. Once a Liquid Player has successfully designed and/or programmed the specified component, IBM will notify the player that the submittal was successful and accepted. Payment will be issued by Stefanini TechTeam within 15-20 days of successful completion, and range anywhere from $60-840 USD, minus applicable taxes and program fees, and depending on the component that was completed. The payment for the component will be seen by the Player in the Liquid Portal. A component is payable only when approved and accepted by IBM.
      Project description:
      • 100% work from home opportunity.
      • You choose the programming components you want to develop!
      • Addresses really small units of work, usually partitioned from a larger unit of work, that can be defined and accomplished within ½ to 7 days
      • Players are paid on successful programming events, meaning that earning potential is unlimited!
      • The more successful you are as a Player, the more IBM will request you to work on programming events!
      Key Programming Languages Include:
      • JAVA/J2EE
      • Lotus Notes
      Key Platforms Include:
      • Windows
      • UNIX (Solaris, AIX, Linux)
      • DB2
      • Websphere
      If interested in joining the IBM Liquid Challenge program, please forward your updated Resume to cristina.zarici@stefanini-usa.com.
News and Opinion Concerning Health Savings Accounts, Medical Costs and Health Care Reform
Minimize
  • Washington Post/Bloomberg: Health-care law could give rise to entrepreneurs. By Jill Lawrence. Excerpts: One character in the novel was a milliner who made fashionable hats in a home studio. A second was helping get a neighborhood newspaper off the ground. A third quit her job at Sotheby’s and bet her savings on what she had always wanted to do: open a vintage clothing store. I kept wondering, “Why aren’t these people obsessing about health insurance?”

    Then, it dawned: The story was set in London, where there’s universal coverage. No one there has to make life decisions based on getting or keeping insurance.

    This will be true for almost all Americans in 2014, if the Affordable Care Act is not repealed or unraveled in court. That’s when online health-insurance marketplaces called exchanges are supposed to be up and running in each state, offering private policies at reasonable rates to the uninsured — regardless of their medical histories — with subsidies available to help low-income buyers.

    The Department of Health and Human Services this month released guidelines on how to set up exchanges, and more than half the states already are taking steps to build them. Once they’re up and running, you’ll be able to quit your job at Large Company X and start that plumbing or carpentry business, that mom-and-pop restaurant or barbershop, without putting your family’s health or finances at risk. You can open that dance studio, play in that band, live off savings while you write or paint or launch the tech venture that could make you the next Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg.

    There’s nothing more American than starting a business. Yet contrary to our self-image, most developed countries have larger small-business sectors than the United States does. The Affordable Care Act could help close the gap — and spur the economy — by removing an obstacle to business creation and self-employment. ...

    Some studies have found that job lock — people who don’t change jobs for fear of losing health insurance — reduces voluntary turnover by 25 percent. How many of those people would quit to start their own businesses if they didn’t have to worry about insurance? At least two studies have found that people whose spouses have health insurance are more likely to start businesses. The most recent, a RAND study published last fall, found that 4 percent of all men earning wages or salaries start a business. For those with employer health insurance, the rate was 2.9 percent. Among those with insurance through a spouse, the rate was 6.6 percent.

    The RAND study also found that the business-ownership rate among men rises in the month they turn 65 and can rely on Medicare. The rate doesn’t change in birthday months at any other age between 55 and 75. “It appears that what’s happening is that when they qualify for Medicare, they decide it’s a good time to start a business,” said economist Robert Fairlie, one of the authors. “One of the big constraints to starting a business is gone. They know they’ll have health insurance.”

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 op-ed: Bring Back Poppy. By Thomas L. Friedman. Excerpts: Watching today’s Republicans being led around by an extremist Tea Party faction, with no adult supervision, I find my mind drifting back to the late 1980s when I was assigned to cover the administration of George H.W. Bush, who I believe is one of our most underrated presidents. I have long admired the elder Bush for the deftness with which he dealt with the collapse of the Soviet empire. But, in later years, I came to admire him even more for the fact that he believed that math and science were not matters of opinion — a view increasingly rare in today’s G.O.P.

    Despite having run on the promise of “Read my lips: No new taxes,” when the deficit started spiraling to dangerous levels under his presidency, Bush agreed to a compromise with Democrats to raise several taxes, along with spending cuts, as part of a 1990 budget deal that helped to pave the way for the prosperity of that decade. It definitely hurt his re-election, but he did it anyway. ...

    On the economy, the G.O.P. has gone from the magical thinking of Vice President Dick Cheney — who argued that “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter” and used this argument to help run up the deficit to its current astronomical levels with huge tax cuts — to an anti-tax cult that spurned a “Grand Bargain” with President Obama because it would have not only cut $3 trillion in spending over the next decade but also involved $1 trillion in tax increases. Somehow, the G.O.P. has forgotten that even Ronald Reagan didn’t believe deficits don’t matter and he raised taxes when our fiscal stability demanded it. As for prudence today, well, the willingness to risk a default on America’s financial obligations by refusing to raise the debt ceiling may be many things, but it is not prudent. ...

    Where have all the adults in this party gone? Where is Dick Lugar, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Colin Powell, Hank Paulson and Big Business? Are you telling me that they are ready to fall in line behind Michele Bachmann, Grover Norquist, Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin? Are these really the pacesetters of modern conservatism?

  • New York Times op-ed: The President Surrenders. By Paul Krugman. Excerpts: For the deal itself, given the available information, is a disaster, and not just for President Obama and his party. It will damage an already depressed economy; it will probably make America’s long-run deficit problem worse, not better; and most important, by demonstrating that raw extortion works and carries no political cost, it will take America a long way down the road to banana-republic status.

    Start with the economics. We currently have a deeply depressed economy. We will almost certainly continue to have a depressed economy all through next year. And we will probably have a depressed economy through 2013 as well, if not beyond.

    The worst thing you can do in these circumstances is slash government spending, since that will depress the economy even further. Pay no attention to those who invoke the confidence fairy, claiming that tough action on the budget will reassure businesses and consumers, leading them to spend more. It doesn’t work that way, a fact confirmed by many studies of the historical record.

    Indeed, slashing spending while the economy is depressed won’t even help the budget situation much, and might well make it worse. On one side, interest rates on federal borrowing are currently very low, so spending cuts now will do little to reduce future interest costs. On the other side, making the economy weaker now will also hurt its long-run prospects, which will in turn reduce future revenue. So those demanding spending cuts now are like medieval doctors who treated the sick by bleeding them, and thereby made them even sicker. ...

    In the long run, however, Democrats won’t be the only losers. What Republicans have just gotten away with calls our whole system of government into question. After all, how can American democracy work if whichever party is most prepared to be ruthless, to threaten the nation’s economic security, gets to dictate policy? And the answer is, maybe it can’t.

  • truthOut: Ransom Paid. By Robert Reich. Excerpts: Anyone who characterizes the deal between the President, Democratic, and Republican leaders as a victory for the American people over partisanship understands neither economics nor politics. The deal does not raise taxes on America’s wealthy and most fortunate — who are now taking home a larger share of total income and wealth, and whose tax rates are already lower than they have been, in eighty years. Yet it puts the nation’s most important safety nets and public investments on the chopping block. ...

    Many months ago, when Republicans first demanded spending cuts and no tax increases as a condition for raising the debt ceiling, the President could have blown their cover. He could have shown the American people why this demand had nothing to do with deficit reduction but everything to do with the GOP’s ideological fixation on shrinking the size of the government — thereby imperiling Medicare, Social Security, education, infrastructure, and everything else Americans depend on. But he did not.

    And through it all the President could have explained to Americans that the biggest economic challenge we face is restoring jobs and wages and economic growth, that spending cuts in the next few years will slow the economy even further, and therefore that the Republicans’ demands threaten us all. Again, he did not.

  • New York Times op-ed: Tea Party’s War on America. By Joe Nocera. Excerpts: You know what they say: Never negotiate with terrorists. It only encourages them.

    These last few months, much of the country has watched in horror as the Tea Party Republicans have waged jihad on the American people. Their intransigent demands for deep spending cuts, coupled with their almost gleeful willingness to destroy one of America’s most invaluable assets, its full faith and credit, were incredibly irresponsible. But they didn’t care. Their goal, they believed, was worth blowing up the country for, if that’s what it took.

    Like ideologues everywhere, they scorned compromise. When John Boehner, the House speaker, tried to cut a deal with President Obama that included some modest revenue increases, they humiliated him. After this latest agreement was finally struck on Sunday night — amounting to a near-complete capitulation by Obama — Tea Party members went on Fox News to complain that it only called for $2.4 trillion in cuts, instead of $4 trillion. It was head-spinning.

    All day Monday, the blogosphere and the talk shows mused about which party would come out ahead politically. Honestly, who cares? What ought to matter is not how these spending cuts will affect our politicians, but how they’ll affect the country. And I’m not even talking about the terrible toll $2.4 trillion in cuts will take on the poor and the middle class. I am talking about their effect on America’s still-ailing economy.

    America’s real crisis is not a debt crisis. It’s an unemployment crisis. Yet this agreement not only doesn’t address unemployment, it’s guaranteed to make it worse. (Incredibly, the Democrats even abandoned their demand for extended unemployment benefits as part of the deal.) As Mohamed El-Erian, the chief executive of the bond investment firm Pimco, told me, fiscal policy includes both a numerator and a denominator. “The numerator is debt,” he said. “But the denominator is growth.” He added, “What we have done is accelerate forward, in a self-inflicted manner, the numerator. And, in the process, we have undermined the denominator.” Economic growth could have gone a long way toward shrinking the deficit, while helping put people to work. The spending cuts will shrink growth and raise the likelihood of pushing the country back into recession.

    Inflicting more pain on their countrymen doesn’t much bother the Tea Party Republicans, as they’ve repeatedly proved. What is astonishing is that both the president and House speaker are claiming that the deal will help the economy. Do they really expect us to buy that? We’ve all heard what happened in 1937 when Franklin Roosevelt, believing the Depression was over, tried to rein in federal spending. Cutting spending spiraled the country right back into the Great Depression, where it stayed until the arrival of the stimulus package known as World War II. That’s the path we’re now on. Our enemies could not have designed a better plan to weaken the American economy than this debt-ceiling deal.

  • New York Times editorial: Pork? That? What Do You Mean? Excerpts: The road to Washington is paved with broken campaign promises. But few are so rich in hypocrisy as those of House Republican freshmen caught engineering hometown pork even as they vow to slash the federal budget for the supposed good of the nation.

    In March, just months after being sworn in, 22 of them plumped for more military spending in their districts than President Obama requested.

    Representative Steven Palazzo, of Mississippi, who campaigned fiercely against earmarks, voted to slash military spending and then voted for an amendment to quietly restore the same money, including $150 million for a warship to be built in his district. Pork? Earmark? No, he insists, saying he merely voted for a package that happened to include that hometown goodie and the Pentagon now must decide how to finance it. ...

    Representative Tim Scott, a Tea Party favorite from South Carolina, helped secure the down payment on a $300 million harbor dredging project back home. Not at all pork, said Mr. Scott, pronouncing the dredging a matter of the national interest. In the case of a new bridge in Wisconsin, Representative Sean Duffy reasons it’s no earmark since the legislation listed no specific costs. Representative Michele Bachmann, Minnesota’s three-term incumbent and presidential aspirant, also supports the bridge — and calls for a “redefinition” of what an earmark is. “There’s a big difference between funding a teapot museum and a bridge over a vital waterway,” is Ms. Bachmann’s head-scratching guidance.

  • The Guardian (United Kingdom): Debt deal: anger and deceit has led the US into a billionaires' coup. The debt deal will hurt the poorest Americans, convinced by Fox and the Tea Party to act against their own welfare. By George Mombiot. Excerpts: There are two ways of cutting a deficit: raising taxes or reducing spending. Raising taxes means taking money from the rich. Cutting spending means taking money from the poor. Not in all cases of course: some taxation is regressive; some state spending takes money from ordinary citizens and gives it to banks, arms companies, oil barons and farmers. But in most cases the state transfers wealth from rich to poor, while tax cuts shift it from poor to rich.

    So the rich, in a nominal democracy, have a struggle on their hands. Somehow they must persuade the other 99% to vote against their own interests: to shrink the state, supporting spending cuts rather than tax rises. In the US they appear to be succeeding.

    Partly as a result of the Bush tax cuts of 2001, 2003 and 2005 (shamefully extended by Barack Obama), taxation of the wealthy, in Obama's words, "is at its lowest level in half a century". The consequence of such regressive policies is a level of inequality unknown in other developed nations. As the Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz points out, in the past 10 years the income of the top 1% has risen by 18%, while that of blue-collar male workers has fallen by 12%.

    The deal being thrashed out in Congress as this article goes to press seeks only to cut state spending. As the former Republican senator Alan Simpson says: "The little guy is going to be cremated." That means more economic decline, which means a bigger deficit. It's insane. But how did it happen? ...

    The movement started with Rick Santelli's call on CNBC for a tea party of city traders to dump securities in Lake Michigan, in protest at Obama's plan to "subsidise the losers". In other words, it was a demand for a financiers' mobilisation against the bailout of their victims: people losing their homes. On the same day, a group called Americans for Prosperity (AFP) set up a Tea Party Facebook page and started organising Tea Party events. The movement, whose programme is still lavishly supported by AFP, took off from there.

    So who or what is Americans for Prosperity? It was founded and is funded by Charles and David Koch. They run what they call "the biggest company you've never heard of", and between them they are worth $43bn. Koch Industries is a massive oil, gas, minerals, timber and chemicals company. In the past 15 years the brothers have poured at least $85m into lobby groups arguing for lower taxes for the rich and weaker regulations for industry. The groups and politicians the Kochs fund also lobby to destroy collective bargaining, to stop laws reducing carbon emissions, to stymie healthcare reform and to hobble attempts to control the banks. During the 2010 election cycle, AFP spent $45m supporting its favoured candidates. ...

    AFP mobilised the anger of people who found their conditions of life declining, and channelled it into a campaign to make them worse. Tea Party campaigners take to the streets to demand less tax for billionaires and worse health, education and social insurance for themselves. ...

    What's taking place in Congress right now is a kind of political coup. A handful of billionaires have shoved a spanner into the legislative process. Through the candidates they have bought and the movement that supports them, they are now breaking and reshaping the system to serve their interests. We knew this once, but now we've forgotten. What hope do we have of resisting a force we won't even see?

  • Jim Hightower: America's real "job creators" are broke. Excerpts: As narrators used to say in Western movies: "Meanwhile, back at the ranch..." Our policy makers in Washington have totally lost sight of what's happening at the ranch. Both John Boehner's GOP-controlled House and Barack Obama's White House are riveted on slashing trillions of dollars from the federal budget, as though that's America's most important need. Bovine excrement! If they'd lift their vision to the countryside, even they could figure out that our great economic urgency is for the creation of good, middle-class jobs to get America moving again – moving upward and moving together.

    Today, we are a dangerously dis-united society. Elite CEOs and big investors are grabbing all the gains, leaving the vast majority mired in recession and facing falling incomes. Since the recession technically "ended" 18 months ago, corporate profits have zoomed, sopping up an unprecedented 88 percent of America's economic growth. Meanwhile, only one percent of the growth that we all help produce has gone to wages and salaries, which is the source of income for about 90 percent of us.

    Yet, those same CEOs say they won't invest in new jobs or raise wages until consumers start buying again. That's like saying, "The beatings will continue until morale improves." Hello – the consumers CEOs are waiting on are the workers whose jobs and wages the CEOs won't increase.

    You see, despite the GOP's ideological claptrap about corporate executives being "job creators," it is ordinary Americans who actually create jobs by spending from their paychecks. This is why our obtuse policy makers need to quit pampering the rich and fussing over budgets – and start launching a national, FDR-style jobs program that'll immediately increase paychecks, perk up consumer spending, and generate grassroots economic growth.

  • New York Times: Even Marked Up, Luxury Goods Fly Off Shelves. By Stephanie Clifford. Excerpts: Nordstrom has a waiting list for a Chanel sequined tweed coat with a $9,010 price. Neiman Marcus has sold out in almost every size of Christian Louboutin “Bianca” platform pumps, at $775 a pair. Mercedes-Benz said it sold more cars last month in the United States than it had in any July in five years.

    Even with the economy in a funk and many Americans pulling back on spending, the rich are again buying designer clothing, luxury cars and about anything that catches their fancy. Luxury goods stores, which fared much worse than other retailers in the recession, are more than recovering — they are zooming. Many high-end businesses are even able to mark up, rather than discount, items to attract customers who equate quality with price.

    “If a designer shoe goes up from $800 to $860, who notices?” said Arnold Aronson, managing director of retail strategies at the consulting firm Kurt Salmon, and the former chairman and chief executive of Saks. ...

    The luxury category has posted 10 consecutive months of sales increases compared with the year earlier, even as overall consumer spending on categories like furniture and electronics has been tepid, according to the research service MasterCard Advisors SpendingPulse. In July, the luxury segment had an 11.6 percent increase, the biggest monthly gain in more than a year.

    Tiffany’s first-quarter sales were up 20 percent to $761 million. Last week LVMH, which owns expensive brands like Louis Vuitton and Givenchy, reported sales growth in the first half of 2011 of 13 percent to 10.3 billion euros, or $14.9 billion. Also last week, PPR, home to Gucci, Yves Saint Laurent and other brands, said its luxury segment’s sales gained 23 percent in the first half. Profits are also up by double digits for many of these companies.

    BMW this week said it more than doubled its quarterly profit from a year ago as sales rose 16.5 percent; Porsche said its first-half profit rose 59 percent; and Mercedes-Benz said July sales of its high-end S-Class sedans — some of which cost more than $200,000 — jumped nearly 14 percent in the United States. ...

    Apparel stores are holding near fire sales to get people to spend. Wal-Mart is selling smaller packages because some shoppers do not have enough cash on hand to afford multipacks of toilet paper. Retailers from Victoria’s Secret to the Children’s Place are nudging prices up by just pennies, worried they will lose customers if they do anything more.

  • Slowpoke Comics: Deficit Memories.

  • New York Times op-ed: The Wrong Worries. By Paul Krugman. Excerpts: In case you had any doubts, Thursday’s more than 500-point plunge in the Dow Jones industrial average and the drop in interest rates to near-record lows confirmed it: The economy isn’t recovering, and Washington has been worrying about the wrong things.

    It’s not just that the threat of a double-dip recession has become very real. It’s now impossible to deny the obvious, which is that we are not now and have never been on the road to recovery.

    For two years, officials at the Federal Reserve, international organizations and, sad to say, within the Obama administration have insisted that the economy was on the mend. Every setback was attributed to temporary factors — It’s the Greeks! It’s the tsunami! — that would soon fade away. And the focus of policy turned from jobs and growth to the supposedly urgent issue of deficit reduction.

    But the economy wasn’t on the mend. ...

    Consider one crucial measure, the ratio of employment to population. In June 2007, around 63 percent of adults were employed. In June 2009, the official end of the recession, that number was down to 59.4. As of June 2011, two years into the alleged recovery, the number was: 58.2. ...

    These may sound like dry statistics, but they reflect a truly terrible reality. Not only are vast numbers of Americans unemployed or underemployed, for the first time since the Great Depression many American workers are facing the prospect of very-long-term — maybe permanent — unemployment. Among other things, the rise in long-term unemployment will reduce future government revenues, so we’re not even acting sensibly in purely fiscal terms. But, more important, it’s a human catastrophe. ...

    To turn this disaster around, a lot of people are going to have to admit, to themselves at least, that they’ve been wrong and need to change their priorities, right away. Of course, some players won’t change. Republicans won’t stop screaming about the deficit because they weren’t sincere in the first place: Their deficit hawkery was a club with which to beat their political opponents, nothing more — as became obvious whenever any rise in taxes on the rich was suggested. And they’re not going to give up that club.

    But the policy disaster of the past two years wasn’t just the result of G.O.P. obstructionism, which wouldn’t have been so effective if the policy elite — including at least some senior figures in the Obama administration — hadn’t agreed that deficit reduction, not job creation, should be our main priority. Nor should we let Ben Bernanke and his colleagues off the hook: The Fed has by no means done all it could, partly because it was more concerned with hypothetical inflation than with real unemployment, partly because it let itself be intimidated by the Ron Paul types. ...

    Well, it’s time for all that to stop. Those plunging interest rates and stock prices say that the markets aren’t worried about either U.S. solvency or inflation. They’re worried about U.S. lack of growth. And they’re right, even if on Wednesday the White House press secretary chose, inexplicably, to declare that there’s no threat of a double-dip recession.

  • New York Times editorial: End the Debt Limit. Excerpts: It has long been clear that the federal debt limit is far too dangerous and unstable for lawmakers to use as a political weapon. Allowing that to happen in the last few traumatic weeks created an artificial national crisis that put the economy and the savings of Americans at risk and helped produce a loss of confidence that lingered as a cause of Thursday’s stock-market plunge.

    None of that, however, has stopped Republican leaders, who announced this week that they intend to repeat this explosive episode over and over, in perpetuity. With the bad memory still fresh, President Obama should quickly seize the opportunity to make clear that he will not allow it even once more, never mind permanently. Instead of raising the debt ceiling every few years, it’s time to eliminate this dangerous game once and for all.

    As this page said in 1961 — not remotely for the first time or the last — the “debt limit does not limit the debt.” It’s an illusion of a law, instituted in World War I, to persuade gullible taxpayers that Congress is exercising responsible oversight over borrowing. Congress already controls spending and taxation, and if it wants a smaller debt it can cut spending or raise taxes at will. To allow the deficit to rise, and then refuse to pay for it months later, is the definition of financial irresponsibility. ...

    The 14th Amendment, adopted during Reconstruction, says the validity of the public debt of the United States cannot be questioned. Threatening the economy with calamity to achieve partisan goals does just that. President Obama should use every power at his disposal to fend off Republicans’ irresponsible threats and invite them to meet him in court if they want to resist.

  • truthOut: America in Decline. By Noam Chomsky. Excerpts: “It is a common theme” that the United States, which “only a few years ago was hailed to stride the world as a colossus with unparalleled power and unmatched appeal is in decline, ominously facing the prospect of its final decay,” Giacomo Chiozza writes in the current Political Science Quarterly.

    Another common theme, at least among those who are not willfully blind, is that American decline is in no small measure self-inflicted. The comic opera in Washington this summer, which disgusts the country and bewilders the world, may have no analogue in the annals of parliamentary democracy.

    The spectacle is even coming to frighten the sponsors of the charade. Corporate power is now concerned that the extremists they helped put in office may in fact bring down the edifice on which their own wealth and privilege relies, the powerful nanny state that caters to their interests.

    Corporate power’s ascendancy over politics and society – by now mostly financial – has reached the point that both political organizations, which at this stage barely resemble traditional parties, are far to the right of the population on the major issues under debate.

    For the public, the primary domestic concern is unemployment. Under current circumstances, that crisis can be overcome only by a significant government stimulus, well beyond the recent one, which barely matched decline in state and local spending – though even that limited initiative probably saved millions of jobs.

    For financial institutions the primary concern is the deficit. Therefore, only the deficit is under discussion. A large majority of the population favor addressing the deficit by taxing the very rich (72 percent, 27 percent opposed), reports a Washington Post-ABC News poll. Cutting health programs is opposed by overwhelming majorities (69 percent Medicaid, 78 percent Medicare). The likely outcome is therefore the opposite. ...

    Meanwhile new gifts are regularly lavished on Wall Street. The House Appropriations Committee cut the budget request for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the prime barrier against financial fraud. The Consumer Protection Agency is unlikely to survive intact. ...

    “The major political parties borrowed a practice from big box retailers like Walmart, Best Buy or Target,” Ferguson writes. “Uniquely among legislatures in the developed world, U.S. congressional parties now post prices for key slots in the lawmaking process.” The legislators who contribute the most funds to the party get the posts.

    The result, according to Ferguson, is that debates “rely heavily on the endless repetition of a handful of slogans that have been battle-tested for their appeal to national investor blocs and interest groups that the leadership relies on for resources.” The country be damned.

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.