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—April 28, 2012

  • Roosevelt Institute: A Transformative Jobs Plan: What's Good for IBM"s Top Executives Is Not Good for the U.S. Excerpts: The problem that these structural changes pose for the prosperity of the U.S. economy is evident in the history of employment at International Business Machines (IBM). From the 1920s through the 1980s, IBM’s system of lifelong employment offered all personnel — including clerical and production workers — a career with one company. At the end of 1989, IBM employed 383,220 people worldwide. At the end of 1994, just five years later, that number had been reduced by 43 percent to 219,839. At first, IBM downsized by offering voluntary early retirement packages, thus clinging to the principle of lifelong employment. By 1993, however, with the recruitment from RJR Nabisco of Louis Gerstner as IBM’s CEO, the company fired tens of thousands outright. By 1994, as a result of the marketization of the employment relation, lifelong employment was a relic of the past. A truly transformative jobs plan will crack down on the self-interested ways in which U.S. executives allocate corporate profits so that they can be used instead to employ American workers. ...

    Meanwhile, over the past decade globalization has rapidly eroded IBM’s U.S. employment (USE), even as IBM’s worldwide employment (WWE) has grown significantly. From 1996 to 2000, the final year of the Internet boom, as WWE increased from 240,615 to 316,303, USE rose by about 28,000 people, with USE as a proportion of WWE falling slightly from 52 percent to 49 percent. From 2000 to 2008, however, IBM employment outside the United States soared by 116,000 people while USE plunged by 33,000, and the share of USE fell to just 30 percent, with employees in BRIC countries, preponderantly in India, accounting for 28 percent of WWE in 2008. ...

    So what proportion of its worldwide labor force does IBM now employ in the United States? We don’t know, because as of 2009 IBM ceased to include its U.S. employment data in its corporate responsibility reports. It even removed the 1996-2008 employment data from its website. IBM clearly does not want the American public to know its U.S. employment record. ...

    Is IBM investing in the United States? It has been highly profitable over the past decade, with net income of $96 billion on sales of $933 billion. But 84 percent of its profits — almost $81 billion — have been spent buying back its own stock. The buybacks account for 50 percent more than what it spent on R&D over the decade. Another 19 percent of its profits have been paid out as dividends, so that over the past decade it has given all of its profits and more to shareholders. In the first half of 2011 the beat went on: IBM wasted $8 billion on buybacks, equivalent to 123 percent of its net income and 254 percent of its R&D expenditures.

    Why do I say “wasted”? The only purpose of these buybacks is to manipulate its stock price. Who gains? Over the past decade, IBM’s CEO and other four highest paid executives have made a combined $271 million from exercising stock options. That includes $120 million to Gerstner in his last two years at the company in 2001-2002, and over $47 million to Samuel Palmisano, who became CEO in March 2002. In 2010, IBM’s five highest paid executives raked in over $23 million exercising their options. ...

    Which takes us back to America’s need for a transformative jobs plan. We cannot reverse the rationalization, marketization, and globalization of employment, all of which (as I have explained elsewhere) often have productive rationales. But we can eradicate the “financialization” of corporate resource allocation that places stock-price manipulation in the name of “shareholder value” ahead of job creation for the American labor force.

  • Delusions of Adequacy: Why IBM Layoffs Are Not Rebalancing. By John Simonds. Excerpts: IBM just announced that they are laying off people to “re-balance” the workforce. This is a code name to get as little negative press as possible. As predicted, IBM is cutting more jobs after the announcement date. Also, more layoffs are rumored to be planned.

    What is really going on here? There are a number of issues.

    Everyone Knew Months Ago Due to a Good Grapevine

    The worst thing that could happen is that people know months before this happens which is always the case for this layoffs. I don’t work there anymore, yet I knew it was coming. This paralyzes the work force putting everyone in self preservation mode by having to make themselves look good, often at the expense of others as I’ve witnessed over the years. The real result of this work stoppage will show itself later in the year when groups have to reorganize and jobs and work done by the affected will be assumed by others. As I’ll explain later, these people won’t be replaced, rather survivors now will have to assume more responsibility for no extra pay resulting in rock bottom morale, extra stress, longer hours, less productivity and lack of loyalty.

    Earnings Per Share, or Boiling the Frog Slowly

    There are two ways to make money, increase revenue or cut expenses. Inevitably, payroll is one of the highest costs on a financial statement. IBM is self insured, so benefits weigh heavily on this issue. IBM has promised $20 per share dividend by 2015. With the economy being hindered by oil prices, government regulation and uncertainty, making this on revenue alone is unlikely. Therefore, instead of laying off thousands as you near the date, cutting it little by little is a way to keep it under the radar as much as possible. In other words, they are putting the proverbial frog in a pot of cold water and warming it up instead of throwing it into a pot of hot water. The count keeps rising. ...

    The original numbers won’t reflect the actual layoffs as IBM is cunning about how to spin this by laying off more after the announcement date raising the actual figure to far more than what people focused on at news time. They wait for the news cycle to move along and then keep swinging the axe.

    IBM has an incredible spin machine and can keep some stories out of the major press due to it’s size and power. By calling it re-balancing, it can manipulate and tranquilize the media into thinking that this is just the normal course of nature. The tragic news for employees is that this will continue for a while, disrupting continuity and attitude.

    Unfortunately for the already overworked survivors, they will be doing other people’s jobs for which they are not trained. The pressure and tension level is already nearing the unbearable watermark with people being (unofficially) required to work nights and weekends or be labeled not a top achiever. I’ve seen the stress this puts on people and their families. I pitied the children of many of the executives who missed their kids growing up.

    With the jobs going overseas, calls at midnight or 5:00 AM are required just to get some work done with others. This disruption in your life is unnecessary as are about 50% of the meetings at IBM anyway (IBM – I’ve been in a meeting). Spouses loathe this increasing demand. Burnout is already happening. ...

    Liquid Strategy and Contracting

    The workforce strategy now is shifting to what is being described as liquid employees and contractors to move around to the job or need of highest need at the time. There is so much going on at IBM, it requires employees who specialize in the specific areas due to the complexity in the many areas of critical products. With this liquid pool of employees, you will now have a group of people semi-educated on the products, thus removing one of the core competencies that IBM has provided over the years and introduce average ability to the customer. As described below, it can fool the masses in messaging, but execution and delivery will continue to suffer.

  • I, Cringely: Magical thinking at IBM. By Bob Cringely. Excerpts: Looking back over the 35 years I’ve been covering this story I can see in IBM an emotional and financial sine wave as rapture leads to depression then to rapture again, much of it based on wishful thinking. The first IBM rapture I experienced was pre-PC under CEO John Opel, when someone in finance came up with the idea of selling to IBM’s mainframe customers the computers they’d been leasing. Sales and profits exploded and the amazing thing was the company began writing financial plans based not only on the idea that this conversion largess would continue essentially forever but that it would actually increase over time, though obviously there were only so many leases to be sold.

    When the conversions inevitably ended, IBM execs were shocked, but Opel was gone by then, which may have set another important precedent of IBM CEOs getting out of Dodge before their particular shit has hit a fan. We see that most recently in Sam Palmisano, safely out to pasture with $127 million for his trouble, though at the cost of a shattered IBM.

    Thanks for nothing, Sam. ...

    Gerstner created the current IBM miracle of offering high-margin IT services to big customers. It was a gimmick, an expedient to save IBM from a dismal low point, but of course it was soon integrated into IBM process and then into religion and here we are today with an IBM that’s half IT company half cargo cult, unable to get beyond Gerstner’s stopgap solution. ...

    Where will future IBM growth come from? Wherever it comes from, can IBM execute on its plan to grow new businesses using cheap, underskilled offshore talent? If Global Services is struggling to hang on, how well will this work for the new IBM growth businesses coming up? As IBM infuriates more and more of its customers, how long can IBM expect to keep selling big ticket products and services to those very same customers?

    Global Services is a mature business that has been around for about 20 years. In IBM’s 2015 business plan big income is expected from newer businesses like Business Analytics, Cloud and Smarter Computing, and Smarter Planet. Can these businesses be grown in three to five years to the multi-billion dollar level of gross profit coming from Global Services? Most of these businesses are tiny. A few of them are not even well conceived as businesses. It takes special skills and commitment to grow a business from nothing to the $1 billion range. Does IBM have what it takes?

    Probably not. ...

    IBM is still buying profitable businesses, of course, imposing on them IBM processes, cutting costs and squeezing profits until customers inevitably disappear and it is time to buy another company. It’s a survival technique but hardly a recipe for greatness.

    My opinion is that IBM’s services business profit will continue to decline as they try to cost cut into prosperity. Unless they find a way to grow revenue and provide a quality product (service), they’re either headed for a sell-off of the entire service business, probably to some Indian partner, or to a complete implosion. In short, it’s a race to the bottom and IBM is winning. ...

    If IBM is planning a 78 percent staff reduction, then that will of necessity involve all USA operations, not just Global Services. Hardware, systems, software, storage, consulting, etc. will all see serious staff cuts. This means IBM could be moving a lot of its manufacturing and product support offshore. Raleigh, Lexington, Rochester, and several other IBM communities are about to lose a lot of jobs.

    Every non-executive job at IBM is viewed as a commodity that can be farmed out to anyone, anywhere.

    Selected reader comments follow:

    • hdprice says: (April 19, 2012 at 11:23 pm) I worked for IBM briefly in Canada during the nineties. From the grunts to the managers there was constant bitching about how terrible Microsoft was all the while using Windows OS in their development computers. Nobody, except me, seemed to see the irony in that. Subsequently, I worked for Microsoft in Redmond. I don’t remember ever hearing IBM mentioned. As an employee, I felt much more valued and trusted at Microsoft than I ever did at IBM. The company cultures were different as night and day. At the end the workers that get laid off at IBM might be the lucky ones
    • Former IBM Employee says: (April 20, 2012 at 12:42 am) Among IBM’s many problems is that “respect for the individual” is often nothing more than a marketing slogan. In the groups where I worked, there was an explicit effort (stated by management) to reduce the need for and presence of “heroes”. The idea is that the “value” within the company is not within its people, but rather within process definitions and intellectual capital. As mentioned by other posters, people are intended to be nothing more than replaceable parts — “resources” that can be changed out and swapped at will. This effort manifested itself in employee pay (usually no more than industry average, by design), personnel assignments (one person is “as good as another”), and who got the axe during resource actions.

      Have you ever worked with someone who is truly SPECIAL? Maybe it’s the salesman who brought in millions of dollars of new business…year after year. Maybe it’s the awesome engineer, or perhaps the quiet programmer who cranks out line after line of bug-free code. How about the guy who just has average technical ability, but who will stay with the customer on-site late into the night until their problems are fixed? That lady who can magically calm down angry customers? You know the kind…I’ll bet you’ve worked with such people before.

      So have I. I’m pleased to have worked with legions of such people during my IBM years. I’m also displeased to have seen the way they were often abused. Whether it was shabby pay rates, lousy treatment by management, or just plain getting fired during resource actions, I have never in my life seen a company waste so much individual talent. Now that I look back on it, I’m utterly amazed…yet at the same time utterly disappointed.

      For what it’s worth, IBM still has great people working for it. Thousands of them, in fact. Bright and capable and hard-working — you name it, they’re still there. But their abilities will never be realized as much as they could be, because the corporate structure and management philosophy will not support it. It’s a real shame.

      • Doomed-IBMer says: (April 20, 2012 at 3:57 am) Well said. When I came onboard years ago, I was utterly shocked at how poorly the management team could (or couldn’t) utilize the various degrees of talent scattered around the company. They simply didn’t know how to put people in the right places to succeed and this is because of what Bob alluded to in a previous article – the management didn’t understand the business, didn’t understand the technology and therefore didn’t know how to utilize the talent they had to drive meaningful success. One must remember, the average IBM executive is lucky to know how to boot their laptop every day. And they are the ones running a technology services company… it’s a frightening reality.
      • IBM parolee says: (April 20, 2012 at 5:10 am) @Doomed-IBMer...I couldn’t agree with you more. I saw so much talent wasted during my sentence…err...I mean tenure at the company. Management would subtly or not so subtly discourage employees from attempting to move to new positions. Up to and including using the “critical resource” card to stop a transfer. This was prevalent in the support areas where it always appeared that the groups were always short-handed. People were burning out, but were not allowed to move on and “grow”. In some cases, people got tired of getting transfers blocked that they just quit.

        There was one area which people called the “Roach Motel” because you could check in, but couldn’t check out.

        When I was told I was going to be paroled…err laid-off, most people I told thought I was joking. They were shocked that I was getting the boot since I had a skill set that was needed in many areas. Such is life in the churn and burn environment of big blue.

        I also love how the manager says that you can try to find a new job within the company, knowing full well that it will be next to impossible to get a transfer when you have the RA mark on your forehead. I knew from a manager I knew well, who definitely had not drunk the kool-aid, that IBM quietly freezes most job postings prior to a RA to make it difficult to impossible for people to find new positions.

        Even if you can find a position to apply to and get an offer, it will take executive management approval for it to occur, even if it is outside of the tower you are currently in. The want you out of their tower in the worst way since it reduces their headcount and would prefer to have you out of the company.

      • IBM parolee says: (April 20, 2012 at 4:52 am) @Former IBM Employee .. I agree with your phrase “replaceable parts”. I have a friend who had a manager who said that employees were like machine parts. When they wear out, you replace them. That manager may not have used those exact words…but it definitely tells the story of the mindset of the management who drank the kool-aid.
      • IBM_DK says: (April 20, 2012 at 5:30 am) @Former IBM Employee: +5, Informative I have never ever witnessed as many failed projects as during my years with IBM. And the frightening norm was to keep projects alive looong after all sane technicians/programmers could see that all hope for a healthy project outcome was gone. The reason was, of course, that IBM had a lot of time/materials contracts sitting there. Not that project managers didn’t know exactly where we were heading (because we told them). For some odd reason, many of the customers kept coming back.
    • irRational says: (April 21, 2012 at 1:59 pm) During my “blue time” @ IBM, I personally saw people who were “resource actioned” interview for open positions (because they were told they could), be a good match for the position and get an offer, and then said offer was rescinded because the manager extending it had not realized that when IBM says people marked for disposal can interview, they’re only kidding — they want those people gone, regardless of whether they actually do have useful skills.

      When IBM is asked about resource actions and responds, the IBMers always give some chirpy baloney about the people who jobs “went away” being able to interview elsewhere in the company for jobs. It sounds so marvelous. “These people can seek employment elsewhere within IBM.” Who couldn’t like that? Talk to the people who found firsthand the difference between IBM’s rhetoric and reality. Being resource actioned is akin to being blacklisted within the company, and it really is a firing.

      • Njia says: (April 21, 2012 at 8:05 pm) Absolutely on the money. I saw the writing on the way in the middle of last year and made haste to get out of IBM and go elsewhere. It was the smarted decision I have every made in my professional career. Employees being RA’d are told they can interview for “open” positions, but to my knowledge, not a single one of the people I knew personally ever got one of the available jobs.
    • IBM USA says: (April 20, 2012 at 1:04 am) I heard another RA is coming in June, and a part of me fears job loss, but on the other hand, I am SO TIRED of the CONSTANT THREAT of RAs, I think it would feel a bit more like relief. I’ve lost a lot of talented co-workers to RAs. The environment could not be more demoralizing, depressing, and negative. The IBM execs know there’s a horrible morale problem, but they’re just turning the screw more on us, lowering appraisals, hoping to increase attrition in order to reduce severance packages.
      • Double-3 - USHR119 deal says: (April 20, 2012 at 4:46 am) Yes, it’s true, exec’s may be turning the screws more, lowering appraisals, hoping to increase attrition in order to reduce severance packages. But you can win at this game. Just lower your performance and become a small problem. Nothing blatant, just work less and have, hmm, let’s say, an opinion or two. If you want out, this is a twofold winning strategy for you and a total loser for the Blue Pig. First, you get your life back for a year or two, reduced stress, less working hours, etc and all for the same “great” pay. Eventually you appear on their radar and are offered a package (USHR119 – ISAP, look it up on W3) to leave. Same package as an RA, just less severance pay. Sweet deal, check it out. Otherwise, you can wait for an RA that may never come. I doubt the 78% will be offered the current RA deal, it will be reduced. So get out while there’s something left to take.
    • SMC says: (April 20, 2012 at 4:49 am) On IBM buying companies... to me, they are looking a lot like CA – the place where software goes to die. We have had very bad experiences as DataStage, then Cognos, were bought by IBM.
    • Current IBMer says: (April 20, 2012 at 5:01 am) Hi Bob, As a current IBMer, i agree partially to what you are saying. IBM (or rather, its top management), is trying anything and everything in its power to ensure that 2015 plan is met. Not meeting it is not an option!

      One fall out is heavy cost cutting. And, the job cuts you are mentioning is only one facet of this epic greed (or should i say, valiant effort) to meet a seemingly insurmountable target. Not sure what more plots are being hatched.

      Like any other big company, IBM too has labs all around the globe (and, i work at a GMU Lab). And, by first hand experience, i can tell you that the skill set is not anyway less in this part of the globe. It is only fair to say that there are highly skilled as well as those that aren’t...every society — oriental or occidental, has such a mixture. It is quintessentially part of the grand demographic design

      As far as the non-executive jobs are concerned, IBM seems to be increasingly thinking that they are just ‘resources’, and can be replaced anytime. It is ironical that these non-executive skilled workers, are the ones who are working on the field, making things happen, adding value to the customers. If only they were left alone to do their jobs better!

      IBM has a fat mid layer (several hundred VPs, and SVPs, and Directors, and all those fancy names), who are busy killing IBM’s business. These are the people who have spent decades at IBM, and if they cant have growth, and career, where else would they go. All those years for nothing? Their careers come above IBM (quite humane, perhaps). Cutting the fluff in the middle, might save IBM.

      What is more poisonous is such culture is spreading, and some senior non-executive managers have caught the virus as well. They put themselves before their people. They threaten, lie to get things done. Uh!

      IBM is heading towards a disastrous collapse. God forbid. In any case, IBM will still be remembered for years to come — as a case-study for management students, of how not to run a company! (Hope this is really anonymous )

      • irRational says: (April 21, 2012 at 2:06 pm) What’s truly poisonous is that IBM exports this culture of executive idiocracy to other companies. And not just the ones they acquire, stripmine, and destroy, but the ones that former IBM execs are hired into. When someone I know has had their employer bought by IBM, or has acquired new ex-IBM senior management, I always offer them my heartfelt condolences.
    • disgusted ibmer in the northeast says: (April 20, 2012 at 5:48 am) A few of you mentioned PBC ratings. I would like to comment further on this farce.

      Every year, the employee is required to fill out a portion of the PBC with their achievements for the year. At first glance, this sounds like a good thing. It’s the employee’s chance to prove their worth to the company and show Mgmt how they’ve added value to the company……….HOWEVER, the employee is never told that their PBC ratings have already been decided a month or two earlier.

      The information the employee added to the pbc is totally worthless and Mgmt doesn’t even care about anything in there.

      Furthermore, Your PBC has less to do with job performance than it does with saving the company money. You are graded on a bell shaped curve. The Mgmt teams get together and rates everyone to fit inside that curve.

      The rating system is totally unfair, and is demeaning to each and every employee. It is not merit based, as IBM wants the employees to believe.

      This year, top Mgmt came out with a new bell shaped curve graph. They were told that 60% of the employee population needed to fit into the category of 2s and lower. (Also lowering the numbers of 1s, and 2+s that could be given out).

      Last year’s model allowed 60% to be rated at 2+ and above.

      In IBM, this is called raising the bar. It allows IBM to withhold a bigger chunk of the variable pay award (Which is already far lower than other related companies in the industry). And it also allows them to forego giving the employee a raise for the year. It is another cost cutting exercise. But the employee thinks they don’t contribute enough to the company. They increase their hours and work hoping to get a better rating the following year. It’s a win-win situation for IBM no matter how you look at it.

      Also, I want to add one more thing. The variable pay. Each year, each dept is given a ‘bucket’ of money to hand out to each employee.

      Did any of you know, that the executives ask for a kick-back from that bucket of money? For lack of a better word, they ask for ‘donations’ from each individual pool to fuel more executive pay. This is totally voluntary on the part of each manager, but how many managers are going to bite the hand that feeds them. They end up giving up a portion of that pay back to the fat cats at the top of the food chain and the employee that was stiffed out of his raise for the year, is now also cheated out of some of that variable pay.

      • Lefty says: (April 20, 2012 at 6:25 am) Disgusted IBM : in GBS it’s not a donation, it’s mandatory on the holdback.
      • DarthVaderMentor says: (April 21, 2012 at 9:56 am) In 2004-2007 it was about 1% average of all pay buckets that was kicked back to the GM level as a donation. With pay raises so bad now that must have been increased, I guess.

        I hear some of the pay bucket hold back used to be sneaked back into an executive expense budget item so the executives could evade taxes at the GM and above level. They’d pay for incidentals out of that budget items expenses that HQ had banned for all employees or that couldn’t be deducted by corporate like Disease & Deformity free women (“D&D” contract staff) or foreign/customer bribes like the Japanese and the Vienna crowd got caught doing a few years back.

        Anyone know if they are still passing older excess inventory through 3rd party subsidiary countries like Central America GSM to avoid US technology? embargoes?

      • IBM parolee says: (April 20, 2012 at 8:23 am) grrrrrr… PBC and Variable were a crock when I was and and got worse. People I spoke with about it did not believe that management was appraising and I use that word very loosely, on a curve. They did not believe that the numbers were already decided weeks or months before and that it did not matter how hard you worked, you were not going to get that 1 you felt/thought you deserved.

        I stopped busting my hump when year after year I saw other people who put out less and screwed up more get the recognition. Definitely not a way to engender passion to one’s job. It’s a wonder that morale is not lower than it already is. As for the hold-back, I was told by a manager friend that it was mandatory for his group.

      • John Campbell says: (April 27, 2012 at 2:26 am) @IBM parolee: PBCs as high as 2′s, I recall, seemed to be political; I suspected that there were a small number of them available from a director and each manager had to find some way to get one for an employee. This, I believe, made the 2+ a requirement (a 2+ is between a 2 and a 3).

        I do not have any idea of how 1′s are rationed…

        I recall speculating with a manager that they were required to hand out a certain number of 3′s in order to increase attrition (I seem to recall that two — or was it three — consecutive years with a PBC 3 would be turned into a 4… which rhymes with door) and he said nothing but sure looked like he didn’t want to agree with me… and he was one of a small number of managers that were the exception to the “Idiots Become Managers” mantra.

        I’ve worked with four GREAT managers in my life… and the last one was an IBM manager.

        As for GBS… I’ve seen some of the work GBS does, like a file transcoder for mobile phone billing records exchanged with other companies…

        How can a GLOBAL business, with a date and time field, leave out the f**king time zone? The practical upshot of this is, should that company operate– or front– phone switches outside their expected time zone, the differing times mean that some of the calls we get happened in the future. (It might have been less of a problem if the GBS folks had converted local time into UTC/GMT for this record. I was appalled when I looked at the functional spec the phone company forwarded to us since we had to interpret the file format.)

        That being said, I suspect the IBM is like the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation where their minor design flaws cover the major design flaws. (I’ve seen an application Verisign developed that was a PERFECT example of this kind of principle.)

        I had been inside IBM for almost 9 years and was caught in the undertow of 2007 RIFtide… and, despite the hard times as a red-shirt (contractor) since, I feel bad for those still caught up in the gears.

        It might’ve been nicer if the patent I filed wasn’t abandoned just as the USPTO was going to issue it… and, no, it wasn’t a S/W patent.

        People talk about the dead Watsons providing power to upstate New York by attaching generators to the spinning bodies, has anyone consider how much more power they’d've gotten by connecting up to Herman Hollerith?

    • Former IBMer says: (April 20, 2012 at 6:20 am) IBM has some very talented people, but they can’t keep them. With the change in the pension, people who’ve been there 12 years or less really have no incentive to stay there. With lack of promotions or even lateral movements, people aren’t able to reach their maximum potential. I really didn’t like performing at a higher level and not get a decent raise or a promotion for years to be told “Well, maybe there’s a chance next year.” I’m not going to stick around for another full year for something that might happen. I can provide a ton of innovation, but it’s like talking to a brick wall because the executives have their favorites and your manager won’t advocate for you.
    • Tom Reximer says: (April 21, 2012 at 6:20 am) Those IBM TV commercials about Building a Smarter Planet (what is IBM’s definition of it anyhow?) and with an IBM employee saying “I’m an IBMer” is trying to put a personal stamp on the work IBM is doing really makes me wonder how many of these employees in the commercials are still IBM employees and if any are paid commercial pitchmen (women). I don’t see how this planet is any smarter because of IBM.
    • Thomas says: (April 21, 2012 at 9:56 am) Even a cursory look at the 2011 annual report (or the 2010 report, or the ones before then) can confirm that much of this article simply is not true. Margins are up. Net earnings have increased 50% since 2007. We have more customers and higher satisfaction than ever before. Global Services – GTS – is quickly becoming commoditized labor that can (and should) be sent overseas, while GBS is booming. There’s no 78% cut in headcount coming – you can count on that. The author here is trying to gin up page views with nonsense claims.

      Things probably look shitty if you’re a 25 year veteran in STG. If you’re in SWG or GBS, on the other hand, the future is bright. The company is changing, guys. Those who don’t change with it can say goodbye.

      • gavin says: (April 21, 2012 at 2:58 pm) Enron had an even better annual report.
      • Lefty says: (April 21, 2012 at 3:00 pm) There are rolling lay offs (i.e. firings) EVERY year, and most years twice. Rigged “low performers” are forced out (folks that go through this are demoralized) and 2 performers (the bulk of US IBMers) are pariahs.

        The EPS is artificially inflated due to layoffs, stock buy backs, draconian rules on what can be reimbursed, not paying OT (IBM was sued, not sure if successfully, for this), nonexistent raises/bonuses, and most of all- off shoring every fucking job they can, including all of US payroll function. The senior executive team are a bunch of greedy, immoral bastards.

    • OldSgt says: (April 23, 2012 at 6:59 am) I took a buyout at the end of 1997, with 30 years at IBM to protect my retirement plan & medical. At the time I worked for a Sr. Director who worked for the CIO who worked for Gerstner. A year later I came back to IBM in the same job as a contractor/consultant. I was working for a manager, who worked for a Director, who worked for a VP, who worked for a SVP who worked for the CIO who worked for another SVP who eventually reported to the CIO.

      In less than a year, Palmisano had destroyed the “flattened” management and added all these layers, who contributed nothing, because none of them wanted to “own” anything. It was all about not being responsible for delivering anything.

      As part of the Global CIO team, I had the opportunity to sit in Randy McDonald’s (Head of IBM HR) office and listen to him spout off about how he only wanted people at IBM for an average of 5 years, and how people were just replaceable resources. It’s this style of management that has contributed to the most talented people leaving IBM, either through RA’s or resignations.

      I now work for a Business Partner, and see the attrition that is damaging IBM. We find a good IBM salesman, who will work to close deals and deliver value to the customer, but IBM either forces that person out (to “manage income”) or they leave for a company that will actually pay them for what it’s worth, or they “reorganize” and lose all the customer knowledge and experience.

      IBM is no longer the pre-eminent sales company that it was through the 1980′s. Global Services has always been a smoke & mirrors organization, with the true cost/value of contract hidden in a maze complex deals…

      The “Gerstner Turnaround” was really all about re-branding “Mainframes” which had gone out of “style” as “Servers” and then selling more of them at less profit. Everything else was in cooked books and smoke & mirrors services deals.

      • IBM Escapee says: (April 24, 2012 at 4:07 pm) Randy MacDonald — HE should’ve been outsourced after 5 years. Another IBM Executive VP loser who would never survive being “in the ranks.” I was there when they cashed out your pension if you were under 40 (which I was), and I instantly lost over $200K. However, not surprisingly, the executive mgmt’s pensions were untouched. I’m SO glad I got out of there after 18 years. TOXIC!
    • Red says: (April 23, 2012 at 11:48 am) I feel so sad that this has happened to a once great company. I can only hope this and the many other blogs, emails, and other stories get to the IBM execs and they actually fix it. Else Tommy Watson will roll in his grave for all eternity.
  • I, Cringely: How to fix IBM in a week. By Bob Cringely. Excerpts: Enough horror stories, already! How do we just fix IBM? Well it can’t be done from the inside so it has to be done from the outside. And the only outside power scary enough to get through the self-satisfied skulls of IBM top management is IBM customers. A huge threat to revenue is the only way to move IBM in the proper direction. But a big enough such threat will not only get a swift and positive reaction from Big Blue, it will makes things ultimately much better for customers, too.

    So here is exactly what to do, down to the letter. Print this out, if necessary, give it to your CEO or CIO and have them hand it personally to your IBM account rep. Give the IBM rep one business day to complete the work. They will fail. Then go ballistic, open up a can of whoop-ass, and point out that these requirements are all covered by your Service Level Agreement. Cancel the contract if you feel inclined. ...

    Selected reader comments follow:

    • Anon says: (April 20, 2012 at 3:41 am) Bob, You hit the nail on the head! Customers should demand to perform their own spot audit of deliverable’s and compliance to their contract. Do not rely on what IBM provides. Customers should ask Who has access to their data? Where are these people? Customers should request copies of IBM’s own Security And Risk Management audits.

      Business Recovery Services ‘BRS’ is a farce. Equipment available, qualified personnel on site? My team once received a substantial award for signing on a customer for lying to them about that.

      Several years ago a customer once said to me having heard it at a trade show. IGS, you can always buy better but you will never pay more.

      • The Process says: (April 20, 2012 at 5:24 am) I can tell you IBM has some major multi-million dollar Business Continuity recovery contracts in place which employ their “Rapid Recovery” premium service that call for a 4 hour SLA to hot switch a customer’s business if the customer declares. What a joke! In many cases they don’t even have the necessary equipment in place. Not to mention that they have RA’s hundreds of their DR folks who were intimate with the customer’s recovery process. If one of these customer’s ever declare, say so long to their business. Thank you very much International Business Machines.
    • IBM parolee says: (April 20, 2012 at 5:32 am) If my group in IBM Services received this request, the crap would hit the fan. Management would be running around like chickens with their heads cut off trying to pull the information together. My manager would threaten the team with his “it’s a condition of employment” line that it needs to be completed in the requested time frame, no matter how ridiculous it was. He was one of the most unethical people I’ve ever dealt with. I am so glad I am no longer with that organization The reports would get done, but it would be useless as it would not be accurate or complete.
    • Depressed_IBMer says: (April 20, 2012 at 5:37 am) What a series of articles! Absolutely stunning and accurate information, to say the least. As a long time IBMer, I have seen and experienced these patterns and behavior by the IBM bigwigs.

      Having seen IBM as a research based company with good products, it is depressing to see that the company is now only making money of its services business. Sadly, the people providing these services are never paid well. Many of us have not received any raises in years. The PBC ratings are manipulated to reflect that one is inefficient, although in no way one is so! Non-technical managers are appointed to manage technical people, with frequent change of managers! Only the top management requires all those millions and stock options to survive and the regular employee does not. Regular employees have to pay to buy IBM stock! Even the stock option for $1000, allotted as pat of IBM’s centenary, can only be exercised in 2015, by which time perhaps all of us would become ex-IBMers!!

      I strongly believe that the top hierarchy of IBM should be classified as crooks-in-suits!

      With all the overseas off-shoring, trained folks are not retained at all, even in those overseas locations. It is like a revolving door with people coming and leaving. Most leave, as they are poorly paid, as compared to other companies, especially in India. It is no wonder that customers are not happy with the services provided by IBM.

    • Anon says: (April 20, 2012 at 5:49 am) Unbelievable this is not more widely known. Somehow the news channels need to get this story and blast it at 11pm. IBM restructuring to off shore all employees not in management by 2015! That will accomplish the same thing as the request above. Disney saw it, so do customers I have worked for as an IBM employee for quite a while. GBS employees myself included are either scared cowering lambs waiting for the slaughter, or brushing up their resumes looking for someplace that still respects their work. Wake up Wall Street, IBM is becoming an Indian. Chinese, Costa Rican, South American etc. Company no longer a bastion of US respect.
    • Lee says: (April 20, 2012 at 5:55 am) Another question should be: how do we fix the psychological and emotional damage done to the remaining employees who work in a low morale, stressful and demeaning workplace? I would contend that the only way for the remaining employees is to organize. To have a true voice in the company and a seat at the table. This means a union and a contract. No more “management way or the highway”. No more unilateral decisions by corporate without any employee input. No more getting blindsided. It is still not too late. http://www.allianceibm.org
    • been there says: (April 20, 2012 at 6:37 am) On the account I used to work on, which IBM has since lost, this information was readily available, and more. It was updated on a regular basis, and reflected the state of operations fairly accurately. This may not be true across all accounts, but it has been true in the ones I’ve worked on.

      This isn’t the problem, Bob. I understand your point, but being able to respond to ad hoc audits isn’t going to help. And, honestly, saying you can fix IBM in a week is ludicrous.

      But you’re on the right path. It will take a groundswell of IBM customers to get the attention of the execs. IBM’s customers are dedicated and committed to IBM for the long haul. You can’t ignore the investment they’ve made in hardware, software, services, training, and so on. They aren’t just going to throw that away.

      Instead of a confrontational “do this now or else” approach, what’s needed is a true, autonomous, Voice of the Customer organization to be formed, separate from IBM, which would be the group which holds IBM’s feet to the fire about delivering. It can’t work on a contract by contract basis with customers individually. The customers have a collective financial position which could get the company’s attention in a very influential way. We used to have groups somewhat like this, like Share and so on, but they were weak and had little real influence. This group would need to be known as the real collective influence on IBM and not be passive. It needs to brandish a very large financial stick to beat IBM over the head with when the company doesn’t deliver. Call it a union of IBM customers who all move together. Let them call a strike and stop contractual payments if IBM doesn’t deliver. Collectively, that would work.

      Stop nickel and diming IBM, and playing gotcha politics with them. Think Big. Hey, there’s the name of this new organization! THINK BIG. You have to do things on a scale which surpasses IBM if you want to have the kind of influence over the company you’re talking about. Only a group comprised of the majority of IBM customers, who speak to IBM with one voice, can do that.

      • Soon-to-be-ex-IBMer says: (April 20, 2012 at 7:15 am) Been There is absolutely right. Good comment. Further, it should also be said that producing reports is something IBM does well. Producing results? Not so much. Everyone knows groups that routinely produce reports for the executives which show all SLA commitments met and no issues at all, when that’s not really the case.

        If IBM customers began to create their own sets of reports measuring SLA attainment, and documented every breach, then used that as the opener to discussions with IBM, that would help. If they did this as a group, that might really provoke some change.

      • Robert X. Cringely says: (April 20, 2012 at 7:17 am) But that won’t happen. Yes, organized group effort would be better but piecemeal is all we’re likely to get. These questions are an easy start to changing the relationship one customer at a time. If IBM only came to install systems to answer just this one set of questions that would be a huge improvement because of the change of thinking it would require. Baby steps are possible here and this one requires only a few CIOs to implement.
    • Still_Here says: (April 20, 2012 at 7:31 am) Just like “been there”, I am an IBMer working on engagements with 2 Fortune 500 Companies – and both engagements can produce the lion’s-share of the data you are asking for – immediately. I do not think that the same could be said for all IBM engagements – but it’s true for many.

      The problem is not being able to answer those questions. IBM has processes in place to manage that aspect of the services they provide. The mantra on well-run engagements is “Compliance First – Service Next” – and the Compliance aspect generates the answers for the questionnaire being posed in the blog. The problem is with the “Service Next” aspect. Both these engagements are fraught with issues about being able to deliver beyond just keeping the doors open – which is really all the questionnaire is focused on.

      As for the off-shoring – IBM has been selling the kool-aid for over 12 years that cheaper off-shore “talent” will improve your bottom line by significantly reducing IT costs. And the CEO’s of their client base has drank heartily from the pitcher (Oh Yeah!). It wasn’t until 5 years ago that IBM got serious about doing the same off-shoring internally. Most of this cost-cutting, EPS improvement is driven by the PwC faction within IBM. (IBM acquired PwC Consulting in 2002)

      The MBA Bean Counters in the PwC faction are doing all they can to meet Wall Street’s needs for sexier numbers so they can be rewarded with a higher Stock Price. IBM is not sexy – Revenue growth is in the single digits, not double digit growth like those found at sexier startup companies. The only way IBM can show sexiness without those types of revenue growth rates is to improve it’s profit margin – which means significant cuts in expenses. That’s where the off-shoring and hiring of cheaper, less-skilled labor in the US comes into play.

      Execs do not get as rich from the salaries they garner from companies like IBM – as they do from the increase value of the Stock Options they are awarded. Stock Options reset the $0-price of a stock to the strike price. Over the past 10 years, Options have been issued with a Strike Price around $80-120. With the stock north or $200 recently, these options are worth a significant amount of money – with far more capital gain (100 times cost) than if these execs were forced to buy the stock @ $100 (merely doubling their investment).

      This is a large part of what is driving the actions taken by IBM. The other large part is that IBM is redistributing the work force offshore to localize the work force to where the new business is coming from – offshore.

    • Marc T. says: (April 20, 2012 at 7:41 am) The list is good for hardware. You need to be asking the same questions for software services. What people are working on what projects, what each one of those people has done for the week, their business experience, their software experience training. It is super easy for IBM and EDS HP to hide inadequate resources or bill for nothing even.

      I personally fired somebody from my project that couldn’t even write software for a simple report. I later found that India had moved the sorry resource to an even more complex part of the system where they could do greater damage because they knew that nobody was lining up resources or keeping track.

    • IBMesq says: (April 20, 2012 at 8:12 am) Once again, Bob, you failed to address the US IBM employees directly. What will be their fate if they continue to fear organizing? Obvious answer: They will be gone, way before 2015. Do you find that Alliance@IBM is irrelevant? I see that they recently posted all 4 of your article parts on their web site front page “Articles” section. Their ‘Your Comments’ section is also filled with discussions about you and those articles. Is there any ingredient that the employees can introduce to help IBM realize they are “circling the drain”? What if the employees are unionized? Why are you avoiding that aspect? I personally don’t see why the employees are not heavily picketing and making noise in the MSM. Care to make an addendum to your 4 part series, regarding the organizing of IBM US employees? Or are you avoiding doing so because you think it is irrelevant?
    • Soon-to-be-ex-IBMer says: (April 20, 2012 at 9:37 am) Bob, you should try to ferret out additional details about Roadkill 2015. It’s not even all about offshoring or divestitures, although those are big. I believe the effort includes other drastic cost-cutting measures, some of which may be just as crazy. I understand that there were a number of brainstorming sessions held to come up with ideas which included moving the entire company to Google mail, and similar propositions. My guess is that they are attempting to be “forward thinking”, as in, “What do we do to raise EPS when we’ve dumped all the employees and still aren’t making or selling anything?”
      • Robert X. Cringely says: (April 20, 2012 at 9:51 am) IBM has a shareholder meeting next week in Charleston, SC, where I used to live. I wanted to get this information out in advance of that meeting. It’s looking like I might do a follow-up net week with additional material and possibly anything (or, alas, nothing) that falls out of that event.
    • tootired says: (April 21, 2012 at 6:37 am) Bob, I have read all five of your articles now. Your website link circulated via ST (SameTime) like excrement through a goose. All are spot on! Thank you! Point 1: You say “open up a can of whoop-ass”. It is called a critsit. Point 2: Nothing will change until it has a negative effect on Executive compensation. Blogging, articles in NY Times, Forbes or Business Week will have NO IMPACT. The Execs DON’T CARE!
    • exIBMandenjoyingit says: (April 20, 2012 at 12:54 pm) Too many times I saw inside IBM the selective use of surveys to show a biased appraisal of our organizations capabilities. We were coached only to send surveys to sponsors that we were sure would give us good results.

      IBM is thoroughly corrupted inside and my former colleagues are playing the game. As US employees we accepted the internal corruption ourselves. We saw organizations providing bogus sales numbers yet we look the other way because we too may have been paid on those numbers.

      The IBM help desk in India participates in the corruption by closing older tickets and informing their internal customer to open a new ticket so that their time to resolution is not badly affected.

      This fish stinks through and though from decades of internal brain washing reducing employees integrity a little bit at a time. Glad to be gone but I wonder if my soul is intact.

    • stillanibmer says: (April 20, 2012 at 1:08 pm) Do other IBMers get the feeling that we are truly working for a bankrupt company? There is no money for even the most basic needs in IBM. I don’t feel like I am working or representing a successful company but one that is on the verge of going out of business.

      I have associates in other large US companies and I see what IBM used to look like. The look and feel of success is thrilling and motivating.

      Besides the constant thread of an RA, the depressed feeling of working for a bankrupt company does not motivate me to achieve. But, do not worry, because the sales numbers are never good enough there are plenty of micro managers ready to tell you how to do your job even though you know they only succeeded because the sold product during the dot com era.

      • Jeff Johnson says: (April 21, 2012 at 1:17 pm) I don’t think IBM is bankrupt or CEO salary wouldn’t have increased 5-6 times as fast as that of the average worker. The proper term would be ‘scrooge-like’, frugal. Needed resources, that require capital, aren’t available anymore. Granted, past austerity programs may have been beneficial, but it’s gotten to the point that schedules are being missed due to lack of resources. If you’d like a lift of spirit, interview elsewhere. It was refreshing and helped lift the dark veil that now shrouds most US IBM employees.
    • StillAnIBMer says: (April 20, 2012 at 1:51 pm) Your articles are good to see and as someone who has been with IBM for some time I think you’ve done an overall good job capturing lots of points.

      It is however fairly service oriented. You haven’t really addressed what is going on in Software Group or STG which is where products get made. This was something I was looking for.

      From my vantage point IBM management does not understand what it sells. It does not understand how to create much less sustain efforts to create and market products. IBM servers and software are not any better than it’s competitors. IBM *COULD* be the Apple of the business world but it’s not. For some the perception from the glory years remain and they think IBM is more than worth it but the reality today is buying IBM isn’t a good choice.

      These things are fixable. The change however is a management one. I doubt there is the motivation. Failure of product/services just results in more layoffs.

      There was a point in time in the not so distance past where intersite rivalries were quite bitter. Gerstner put a stop to that. As a result, it didn’t matter where one was located, we focused on what was right for the customer, what was right for making product.

      The management enforced “rivalry” now is intercountry. Preference is being given to India, and China who both have very poor track records when it comes to IBM accomplishments. Brazil is much better. It doesn’t matter what makes good engineering sense. It doesn’t matter what is right for the customer. India, China and Brazil are the answer over and over again. The skills aren’t there as Bob has rightly observed.

      IBM needs to change from a system fixated by minimizing for engineering costs to maximizing for revenue and profit by sale of top quality systems, software and solutions. IBM needs to be blind as to location and cost of employee and get back to quality. Apple does this and they are fabulously successful. There’s no reason why IBM couldn’t and shouldn’t be as well.

      It’s funny but US employees for instance have currently 4 year cycles to get an update to their current one and only office workstation / laptop. Doesn’t matter if the laptop can’t do the job. Nothing will be done until the time period is over. It’s not uncommon to hear about employees going out and buying their own replacement just to get their job done.

      There is dedication by IBM employees. It’s IBM leadership that has failed.

      I would like to hope your articles will turn things around at some level. I do know some executives within the company get it.

      • Stewart McKenna says: (April 22, 2012 at 7:00 am) “IBM needs to be blind as to location and cost of employee and get back to quality. Apple does this and they are fabulously successful. There’s no reason why IBM couldn’t and shouldn’t be as well.” You do know where Apple makes most of it’s products? It’s not in the US.
      • StillAnIBMer says: (April 22, 2012 at 6:26 pm) All aspects of Apple engineering is done in the USA. Manufacturing is done in China.
    • Maunderings says: (April 20, 2012 at 2:26 pm) I’ve thought for years that any company that would even consider to outsource with IBM, EDS/HP, or whomever must have a bloated wreck of an IT shop to begin with. I’ve heard horror stories over the years from companies that have turned to IBM, only to regret it almost immediately. If any CxO reads this series and is still contemplating having IBM run things for them, they’re making an egregious blunder. The irony, of course, is the old adage was that “nobody was ever fired by buying IBM”.
    • Ghost of TJW says: (April 20, 2012 at 3:08 pm) This series of articles accurately reflects the current state of affairs, and I appreciate what Mr. Cringely has done to draw attention to the situation. IBM was once the paragon of American business, and was well respected as an American institution. Unfortunately, it is still the paragon, but now it is the prime example of the subjugation of America’s innovative spirit to the financial interests controlling the global economy. As Mr. Cringely points up, there was a time when the IBM brand stood for innovation. Can anyone think of a recent(or even not so recent) innovation that came out of IBM?

      Mr Cringely’s laundry list of questions about support can be collapsed into one question. Ask IBM to tell you about the Service Activation Deactivation process. SAD – yes, sometimes acronyms speak louder than words – was instituted at the inception of the massive US layoffs. It is essentially a process of watchers watching the watchers watching the doers. It was put in place to stabilize the problem, well documented here, of untrained, unskilled, inexperienced workers supporting large, complex data center environments.

      One might think that an IBM data center is operated in the fabled ‘lights out’ manner, with machines autonomically running machines with automatic provisioning, and sensor based self healing problem detection and resolution. Indeed, that is what the Smarter Planet strategy is selling, e.g., machines that can be leveraged to manage our electrical grids, water systems and so on.

      The SAD fact is that this is no closer to reality than it was in the days of the 360; in fact, mainframe environments are probably closer to the mark than the more common decentralized, distributed data center environments that exist today. So while Smarter Planet is being sold as a panacea, and Watson is playing Jeopardy, the reality is SAD – an army of people making sure the wheels don’t come off, using an extremely labor intensive process. Some have wondered whether it would be less expensive to just let the wheels fall off. From a customer perspective, it’s a bit like buying a performance car, then getting it home to find there’s a bunch of mice on a treadmill under the hood.

      hat’s the SAD part. We once put a man on the moon in less than ten years from a standing start. That used to be us. American ingenuity, IBM know-how, can make Smarter Planet a reality, instead of just another failed marketing slogan. We have the technology. We’ve proven repeatedly we have the native intelligence. The world is at a crossroads, and there is no more time for delay. Can IBM truly accept this challenge? To do so would make it a revered institution once more.

      • gavin says: (April 21, 2012 at 4:07 pm) I hate to break it to you, but there is a VIBRANT start up community in your country where innovation is the stock in trade. And I can guarantee you if you work for one, you won’t need 10 forms in triplicate signed by 45 managers to change a shell script.
    • Deanston says: (April 20, 2012 at 3:57 pm) Bob, I think the problem is that IBM does not want to be fixed.

      The same thing happened to Sony some time ago that preceded their downfall from the top of techno gadget world. Middle managers, many of them not from the US or Japan, took the business opportunities and processes they learned from US and Japan shops and shipped them overseas to duplicate the same product at fraction the cost.

      Trouble was, all the creative that invented and designed new things either left or let go, for sake of efficiency to market or cost trimming.

      The thing is, the middle to upper management at IBM, HP, Yahoo, AOL, and so on, no longer have any loyalty to anyone, much less to a company or its people. The same product and processes they learned to use to pad their bonuses and severance packages they can repeat anywhere.

      They are only there to milk the cow dry, not to take care of the ranch.

      Smarter Planet (she’s fighting back). Dumber people. Slogans are the only products that IBM management can create.

    • Mike says: (April 21, 2012 at 2:24 am) Here is the problem – the premise that IBM can be fixed. It can’t.

      The IBM that many of us knew and loved 20 or 30 years ago had some key qualities – excellent customer service and respect for the individual (employee). If you take care of your customers and employees, your investors will probably do well too. When I joined in 1992 to do operating systems work it was a long dream come true.

      Old IBM had problems – it was bloated with many people who essentially retired on the job. Performance problems were not dealt with using the existing mechanisms because people were too afraid to hold others accountable except in the most egregious cases. Group-think dominated. Old IBM was not sustainable and there had to be changes to make IBM a little leaner, a little more agile, a little less risk averse.

      Lean doesn’t have to be mean though. In the last 10 years the culture as devolved from “respect for the individual” to “office survivor.” For 364 days a year people are supposed to team and collaborate selflessly – and then on day 365 somebody gets thrown or voted off the island. The unrelenting drive to cut costs instead of growing revenue has had some nasty effects on employee morale and the quality of products and services. In the quest to become competitive IBM has become average. And you can’t charge above average prices for average or below average products and services.

      Pockets of resistance exist in IBM, but they are aging out. You can’t turn time backwards; you have to move forward. The new IBM isn’t the core problem – it is a manifestation of problems we have as a society. IBM was able to grow and prosper because it had the benefits of our society; a good educational system, clean air, a reasonable government, etc. IBM now (and many other companies) don’t seem to recognize or care; they owe no allegiance to anybody. (See “mercenary” in the dictionary.)

      I’m proud to have worked on some great projects with some great people while I was there. But I’m dismayed to see what happened.

    • Jimo says: (April 20, 2012 at 6:31 pm) IBM is arguably a well managed company. They don’t have the ability to produce innovative new products but they do have a reputation that still carries weight and a potent sales force. They will make good money almost until the day they file for bankruptcy. The cash cow analogy was nearly perfect.
    • Current IBMer says: (April 20, 2012 at 9:34 pm) I’m a current IBMer, since July 2010. My IBM career is a story about why IBM is in trouble.

      I joined the Software Group with a particular skillset that’s not about installing and configuring software (ITSM – I’m ITIL Expert with plenty of process consulting experience) . It was a hire-for-fit rather than hire-for-specific-role — and I think the intention was good. But they’ve been totally unable to find work for me to do, and meanwhile paying me a full salary.

      Of the 21 months I’ve been with IBM, I’ve been working and billing for about 10 months. I haven’t done a single day of work in 2012 yet. My management tree has been completely unable to engage me on anything.

      And it’s not like I don’t want to work. I’ve been talking to everyone who’ll listen in IBM over the last 6 months, and I’ve found 3 different positions in other division of IBM that needed someone with my skillset and I could’ve done the work. But my division wanted to *internally* charge the other division $1600/day for my time (blue dollars) and the other division could only afford $850/day. So I couldn’t do the work. Yes, IBM would rather have me do nothing and pay me a full salary + benefits than work for a paying customer, because two groups can’t agree on an internal rate for my time.

      And yes, I’m interviewing at other companies at the moment. I’ve had a couple of offers, but I’m taking my time to make sure I pick the right company for my next position.

      • Current IBMer says: (April 20, 2012 at 9:39 pm) Oh, and when I have been engaged, they’re billing me out at $2250/day. That’s just ridiculous! I’d like to think I’m worth that, but I’m not (12 years experience, but not worth that much!). It staggers me that clients (usually big govt depts) will happily sign the purchase orders for 6 months work at those kind of rates. As a taxpayer it makes me furious!
    • Frank says: (April 20, 2012 at 9:36 pm) Bob – This low cost, low skill, no experience global resourcing strategy is not limited to the services part of IBM. It is hitting product development, maintenance and support with the result of products that are so bad they cannot be sold or have to be rewritten by experienced person in the US, the UK, Canada, Japan, Germany and other highly developed nations. It is also hitting virtually all IBM processes that effect customers from sales, to ordering, to fulfillment, to billing, to service. Literally everything that effects IBM internally and IBM clients/customers is being offshored as fast as possible to cut costs.

      I see the effects and the failures of this daily. Customers are leaving, others are upset and suing or threatening to do so. These resources cannot do the job, yet IBM rewards them by giving these incompetents more work to do. The executives literally do not give a damn – all that matters are the short term numbers, making that 2015 target and collecting their bonuses.

      We have our own name for “2015 Roadmap” – we call it “Death March 2015″. The company will pick us off one by one until there is no US personnel left other that boots on the ground that are required to service machines. The hall talk is that these survivors will become contractors – perhaps sold off to some service company like Qualserv.

      The experienced craftsmen and women that used to design, build and support product have been pruned out of the business through getting RA’d solely because of maniacal cost-cutting.

      If IBM had to write a new operating system from scratch, there is no way the company could do so – the skills and experience are gone.

      IBM can’t develop its own new software either – the software portfolio innovation is through acquisition of agile, innovative companies that built products IBM wants. Then IBM croaks off half the employees of the companies they buy, effectively killing off the innovation machine they just bought.

      IBM executives are such morons – they actually expect US employees to implement Death March 2015 and to sacrifice their own jobs for the good of the company. This after IBM declared war on its US employees when they misused LEAN to dump employees.

      Every quarter, you live in fear that you will be sacked – it is a terrible place to be sitting between an executive and his bonus.

      Services executives continue to deny there are problems, meanwhile blaming US employees for the failures of their overseas counterparts. But the bean-counters are happy whenever the penalties for missing SLOs are less than the savings of using global resources. Net – the money counts, quality and adverse impact on the customer doesn’t.

      IBM services clients would be well-advised to hire some IBM services business castoffs – we know where and how IBM works (or more aptly said doesn’t work). We know where the dead bodies are.

      Last, as an IBM vet with 30+ years of service, I can say that IBM is now one of the worst companies to work for in the US and is doomed to fail. The heart and soul of the company is mortally wounded – it is too late to change course to recover.

      The question is not whether IBM will fail, it’s a matter of when and how precipitous the failure will be.

    • Jim Perry says: (April 21, 2012 at 2:36 am) The customer always gets ripped off – I’ve seen software engineers buying a $3 drink paying a minimum $30 card charge in a bar – on expenses.
      • Mike says: (April 21, 2012 at 5:51 am) Really? When I was traveling for IBM doing consulting work, the per-day meal allowance would not have bought two drinks at that rate in any city. McDonalds seemed to be the expected lunch. (Another example of cost cutting going too far – not covering reasonable expenses.) Don’t confuse engineers with sales critters – I have no idea how those guys do it.
    • Charles Moorehead says: (April 21, 2012 at 2:47 am) What is all this nonsense about shareholder value? Since when do the top brass at big companies care about shareholder value? Since never, probably. Let’s call a spade a spade. Shareholder value is just a code word for “Is my stock option worth more this quarter?”

      None of the top dogs want to reveal how truly greedy they are, so they spin this nonsense about shareholder value. As if they care in the slightest how happy their shareholders are. Of course, if things really went to pot and there was the possibility of officers or board members being replaced… But again, its not the happiness of shareholders they care about. It’s all about their personal lust for money and power.

      If they (the top dogs) could find a way to keep their money and power without having to keep the shareholders happy, it would be lights out for shareholders.

      If life were fair, companies wouldn’t place shareholder value at the top of their list of priorities. No, it would be satisfying customers first, making an honest profit next, then treating employees fairly, and on down to all the other stakeholders. (Just my opinion, of course.) Satisfied customers, not happy shareholders, are the key to company survival. Let’s get real, kiddies.

      When companies go bankrupt, is it due to unhappy shareholders? No, it’s because they ran out of money. Which situation in turn is likely due to not being able to satisfy their customers — their main source of sustainable money.

      • Retired from IBM says: (April 21, 2012 at 6:30 am) Charles, Actually the shareholder value thing started up in US business school in the late 60′s. At that time the academics said that companies had their priorities wrong and their only responsibility was to the shareholder. Up to this point it was generally thought that a company was responsible to shareholders, customers, society and employees (not necessarily in that order) and needed to balance one against the other. Out of this came the so called need to align executives to the needs of the shareholders and the excessive use of stock options is born. Voila greed takes over.

        Of course the part that got lost in all of this is if you balance the needs of the customer and to a lesser degree society and employees your are taking care of the shareholders. By having satisfied customers you keep them and grow your business. Help society and you get good will and positive perceptions that again help to grow business. Satisfied employees tend to produce better results which takes us back to satisfied customers. Grow the business and the shareholders see an increase in value (either dividends or stock price). But this is a long term plan not quarter to quarter.

    • HP 2100B says: (April 21, 2012 at 4:10 am) It can happen. Think about the airline industry. Think about car industry. Think about Amdahl, Apollo, AST, Atari, Burroughs, Commodore, Compaq, Data General. Digital, GE, Honeywell, Mitsubishi, Nokia, Remington Rand, Sinclair, Sperry, SUN, Tandy… What’s NeXT?
      • gavin says: (April 21, 2012 at 3:19 pm) And why exactly should we care if a business fails?
      • Buckaroo Banzai says: (April 21, 2012 at 10:31 pm) There is a difference between a business failing, and a business being looted and actively driven into he ground. The mafia calls it a “bust-out”. When you get your business model from organized crime, that’s a problem.
    • Retired from IBM says: (April 21, 2012 at 6:15 am) IBM is not just a services company. None of these suggestions will do anything in fixing the problems in the product and software divisions.

      In your part three you brought up failed IBM strategies as a problem. Most of what I saw were failed software projects. In at least one of the strategies, OnDemand, I know that IBM had existing products that customers were generally satisfied with. What the customers were looking for were ways to modernize the way these programs were accessed by the end user. The rank and file development folks were saying it was better for the customer and IBM financially to improve the existing product. Instead we “stabilized” them and forced the OnDemand solutions on to them. As there were competitive products to IBM’s a number of customers switched. Their rationale was we have to do the work to move to IBM OnDemand anyway so what does it matter if we look somewhere else to fill our needs. When a customer left management did not care.

      The problem here is how to fix the development management process. In many cases IBM technical folks are aligned with the customer technical needs however IBM management is off in left field. The result is failed products and a loss of customers. However to IBM management, always trying to chase the next big thing, these are not failures just obsolete technologies to be discarded. This same thing occurs to companies IBM buys. As they get more integrated into IBM, the less responsive they become until one day they too become obsolete technology. This churn is unsustainable as there are too many competitors in today’s world that the customer can turn to.

      To fix this issue will require a change of culture. While I don’t believe you have to be an automotive engineer to run GM you have to love and understand cars. Likewise to run IBM I don’t feel you have to be a software or hardware engineer but you better love and know how to use computer. To this end I would require management come from technical backgrounds at least at the levels that determine product development and marketing. I would require more direct contact between the customer technical staff, IBM development staff and IBM product marketing staff. This will eliminate the “phone game” that always takes place in the current IBM structure.

      Last I would reduce the number of executives involved in the product development structure. During the point in my career where my division president was 4 levels above me I was able to reduce my development cycles. Most of this was due to decisions being made in a timely fashion instead of a bunch of mid-levels arguing over turf and what colors the foil presentation should use.

    • Mr Lee says: (April 21, 2012 at 7:42 am) Unless something has changed since I left IBM three years ago, everything on that list was always easy to produce with the exception of number 7 which is dumb and not usually part of the SLA. The notion of continuous improvement is the same nonsensical concept that put the US economy where it is now and therefore led IBM down the same path. Economists like to call it ‘growth’ and if your company sells a billion widgets per year at $10 per widget and it only costs them 1 cent to make the widget if they don’t sell more than a billion widgets the next year they are not ‘growing’ and wall street tanks their stock.

      If you really think demanding this list from your PE/DPE will make their knees knock with fear you are sadly mistaken and it makes me doubt everything else you have said about IBM in these articles.

      IBM does make a lot of money from the service business but the statement that the outsourcing of 70%+ of their employees to offshore is merely to get more profitable is to misunderstand the real agenda. Global Services is on the auction block. As soon as the numbers match up to what some Indian company wants it will be sold.

      By 2020 IBM will only be made of management, sales and the research centers which generate the highest concentration of revenue for the company because they don’t have to bulk manufacture anything, just invent it and license the patents to everyone else.

      If you want to change the way IBM works then you have to do it as a consumer. Don’t buy products that license their technology from IBM. Good luck with that because there are few alternatives.

    • Jeff Johnson says: (April 21, 2012 at 10:22 am) Why I’m Ashamed to be an ‘IBMer.’ I’m ashamed because IBM places profit ahead of all other considerations. I’m ashamed because IBM executives are arrogant and place accolades above employees’ livelihoods. I’m ashamed because IBM skirts laws to avoid exposing their actions to the public. I’m ashamed because IBM lacks patriotism. I’m ashamed because IBM has lost its integrity internally and soon will loose its integrity publicly. I’m ashamed because IBM is where I work, but that will change soon.
    • Russ P. says: (April 21, 2012 at 9:08 pm) Oh and be sure to ask for evidence that all the software running on your devices is licensed, That one will be funny! This series of columns has been accurate to my observations and experience. It’s stunning to me that after 13 years with IBM working on services, I’ve never once spoken to a salesman or contract negotiator enquiring if what they wanted to offer (promise!) the customer was do-able. They make their deals, take their bonuses and leave us to deliver the bad news.
    • Maxi says: (April 22, 2012 at 12:05 am) Is IBM not innovative? It was granted more patents than MS, HP, Oracle, EMC & Google combined in 2010, with 5,896. In 2011 it was awarded 6180 patents. One of the key reasons fort his lead is that IBM consistently spends about 6% of sales on R&D versus e.g. Apple’s 2.2%. Where does Apple sit? Number 46 with 563 patents… So, yes, IBM is highly innovative and thus is the dominant US engine of highly skilled labor.

      And yes, IBM off shores, but off shoring is a cut throat business, hence your second article is probably correct to a large extend

      But how is that different from apple’s model, it designs in California, but all its products are put together in China? In relative terms it off shores various degrees more than IBM, and it does so for the very same reasons, ample available, ‘unskilled’ cheap labor… or, you could call it slave labor?

      Where and why does IBM off shore and does it matter?

      It offshores in delivery of ERP projects, in response to price pressure from the highly standardized SAP & Oracle Corporate IT software choke. Off shoring is done for software integration, testing and maintenance. This is a price sensitive market, hence all the big SIs have to resort to off shoring to be competitive. And with that, do we strangle the development of highly skilled labor? No, the highly skilled labor will set the requirements, off shoring is merely the delivery mechanism. Just like Apples ‘designed in California model, assembled in China’ model

      Bob, please get over your IBM aversion and blind admiration for Apple. They are variants of one and the same model called profit maximization.

      The interesting question is how corporate IT will get rid of the ERP Oracle/SAP choke.

      • Jack says: (April 22, 2012 at 7:02 am) Alas most IBM patents are indeed junk. In IBM Research and parts of SWG, there are roaming patent attorneys who routinely ask what ya got, and then they take idea forward, write it up, and you get a check (a tinier check all of the time). These attorneys know how to file patents that have a chance, but often don’t understand the technology. Pretty sad combination.

        Make friends with one of these guys, and you can become a ‘master inventor’. If you are on the WRONG division — GBS, GBS AS, CIO — you pretty much get no help in getting your patent filed. You get 5 mins to pitch your idea to a committee and if you don’t know the lingo, forget it. It is really really hard on your own. If you get past the initial hurdles, a tech ignorant outside attorney will help you write it up — badly.

        The IBM patent system is too easy for the select few, and way too damn hard for the vast majority. End result is there are a lot of successful, but totally craptastic patents written by the professional patent machine and the rest with so little guidance and help it is laughable.

        IBMers — got a great patent idea? Take it to your next employer.

      • Twice IBMer says: (April 22, 2012 at 2:36 am) While it’s true that IBM files a lot of patents every year, many of those are “junk patents.” I have seen and read some of those, filed by my colleagues. My reaction to many was “You’re going to file a patent for this???”, and most of the time the reaction was, “Hey, it doesn’t cost me anything and it gets me some brownie points…”
    • Jack says: (April 22, 2012 at 7:17 am) Outsourcing — IBM fires first to meet headcount targets. Management doesn’t have a solid outsourcing plan most of the time. Many jobs can’t even be outsourced, so they hire them back as contractors. Since these people get no benefits, IBM still counts this as a big win. Quality is affected everywhere.

      IBM is now working hard to eat the same poop they are selling other companies — SAP ERPs. Horrible, horrible software that only a CIO who has never seen it or used it can love. The mantra is out of the box, and use perpetual training since with this software you need to be taught where to click. Perpetual because of 40% attrition rate in India. You never stop training people— it is incredibly expensive but the cost is hidden in a different BUDGET. IBM pays way more overall but each exec gets to claim they met their numbers since not one of them needs to look at the big picture costs which should include the never ending costs of training, that they are spending more than ever overall.

      Not only is quality poor, but often outsourcing drives the cost up because of the turnover — sometimes functions are implemented more than once because the new people didn’t even know if it had been implemented once already, and because no one can use SAP’s Solution Manager, not even most of the SAP consultants.

      In the last Resource Action, I have never seen more irreplaceable people canned. And no, they won’t be replaced, not really. Quality will continue to decline and it feels like some of the infrastructure is positively crumbling. IBM truly believes everybody except the execs are interchangeable cogs, that there is no so such thing as technical talent (only exec talent) and no such thing as a SME. The average IBMer has less than 5 years experience, and boy is it telling. Talent in the East just jumps ship to get bigger salaries, whereas in the first world, talent is under appreciated and trapped by mortgages and college tuition, and have no choice but to wait for the end. Denial is our best friend.

      IBM has replaced Respect for the Individual with a new motto: “KNOW THE PRICE OF EVERYTHING, AND THE VALUE OF NOTHING”.

    • Poughkeepsie Engineer says: (April 22, 2012 at 3:18 am) Although most of IBM stock is in the hands of a very few people, true for virtually the entire world stock market, I have seen some stockholder initiatives muster as much as 28% votes. Yet how many of us (not me) take our proxies and toss them. You have the chance to register a small voice against the Sam/Ginny/Randy plan to gut IBM of all its first world employees, customers be damned. When you vote your proxy statement, vote out the whole board and vote the opposite way the board recommends on every other item. I’ve done this for years and now my long-retired dad is doing it too.
    • IBMer says: (April 22, 2012 at 5:54 pm) IBM CEO Ginni Rometty says that culture is a company’s #1 asset. The question is whether she is out of touch or whether she is just a blatant liar? I suppose that anyone who achieves such business success is not a good person, so I am guessing the latter.
    • Mr Windows says: (April 22, 2012 at 9:05 pm) Two things: first, I used to be a contractor for a large electronics manufacturer that also has a hosting division where IBM was parking some of their overflow customers. This is actually pretty common, as IBM has very little of their own available datacenter space. If a customer were to hand this query to IBM, there is no way they could get an answer back in 24 hours. The service delivery manager would need to contact the ‘off-shore’ admin team who would then have to contact our team. We would have to ask the monitoring team to run a report. Too heavily siloed to be able to do it ourselves.

      Until I got there they didn’t even have a working hardware monitoring console and no way to know what patch level was on any particular machine.

      Second, I now work for an IaaS division of one of the large Indian outsourcing companies. One of our big money makers is migrating customers onto our shared mainframe infrastructure. Customers are abandoning the endless cycle of maintenance contracts and software upgrades (with IBM) and having us do it for them. We can host multiple customers on a larger Z series and the customer gets to pull the plug on the big iron. This is helping to eat away at IBM GS and at their mainframe services revenue.

      Point is, IBM GS has been having problems with customer satisfaction for years. Ask American Express, among many others. Couple that with the erosion of their hardware business, and you’re absolutely right, IBM is looking like one big cooked goose. They got Compaq (and then HP) and Dell to follow along in their footsteps, too. No wonder why both those companies have also been stumbling.

    • dan says: (April 24, 2012 at 6:50 am) We’re a very long term IBM customer. The US reduction of workforce will be the last nail in the coffin for IBM’s business at our company, many other nails` having been driven by both IBM’s issues and the relative advantages of other companies in the same business as IBM. Loyalty still means something to our company– to our employees and to our locales around the globe and to where we were founded and have operated for more than a hundred years– and companies like IBM that pursue stock price increases without being at least somewhat loyal to their communities, employees and customers (i.e. service levels) are businesses that we tend to eliminate here.

      Sadly, good riddance given all of this.

    • IBMer1968 says: (April 26, 2012 at 2:40 pm) Bob, you are sooo…. close!!!!! I think at some level these questions are going to challenge some IBM service delivery teams on some account. Many of the accounts I have worked on had this information readily available. This is a good thing because many clients today could not do this type of reporting at all.

      You see, IBM has been working on addressing these types of gaps over the last decade; and to a degree some steps backward occurred as “the more and highly skilled resources” outside the USA left these type of capabilities in the closet while they focused on keeping production environments running properly. How about that “highly skilled employee” who faked being a mainframe system administrator for several months before being caught. Sorry, I digress.

      What I was hoping you were going to say was for clients to request and demand IBM employee surveys be performed and published to the very clients being supported by these personnel. I have seen this happen and IBM’s initial response was to *not* share the surveys; knowing full well they were obligated per their contract to do so. Needless to say, the results were shared and did not satisfy the client. IBM was told to do more to recognize and motivate their employees. This client had the right idea.

      Customers, shareholder and employees need a balanced management approach to sustain long-term growth and prosperity for both parties. Today, I can unequivocally say Shareholders are #1, Customers are #2 and Employees are a distant #3 as you can possibly get. I am not bitter or vindictive. I don’t need to be. The facts are here and they are black-and-white. Fortunately for me, IBM is doing a great job supplying these facts. Disney,State of Texas, etc….. SMART COMPANIES!!!! Interview them please!!! Again, sorry…. I digress.

      The only employees that seem to love IBM was the “highly skilled employees outside the USA” and “those that say they are happy just because they believe they need this job at IBM”. I have not run into an IBM employee Band 10 or below that hasn’t a story about how the greater IBM executives with employment contracts and lucrative salaries have screwed them over one way or another to the point where they have become experts in dealing with internal adversity more so than satisfying the client.

      The brand is tarnishing from the inside and it is beginning to show. You see, the CEO has a list of troubled accounts and those tend to get all of the focus everyone above and below shares in the blame. I have seen instances where IBM has determined a solution was UNDERLIVERABLE per our standard risk management approaches and went ahead with the deal anyway.

      You can only imagine what the employees had to do just to survive being an IBM employee servicing a client that simply expected IBM to deliver what they promised they would deliver; and performed enough spin doctoring to survive. Then!!!! Only to be told we got a below average rating because the account was not profitable. HUH?!?!?! REALLY!?!?!?!

      In closing, surveys, surveys, surveys…. Clients should see them and demand IBM to be transparent and explain how this statement is wrong…. Shareholders are #1, Customers are #2 and Employees are a distant #3.

      • Rick says: (April 27, 2012 at 7:52 am) Correction: executives are #1, everyone else is a distant #2, and employees will someday be replaced with slaves.
  • Following are links to all the articles in Bob Cringely's series on IBM:
  • Minnesota Public Radio: IBM layoffs: 'Rock bottom' morale at Rochester campus. By Elizabeth Baier. Excerpts: Union officials say cuts to the IBM workforce made Monday and Tuesday are affecting employees at the Rochester facility. ...

    "Morale is pretty much rock bottom," said Lee Conrad, the national coordinator for the Alliance@IBM, a labor union at the company. "It's like IBM no longer values the expertise of U.S. employees. Going to work everyday for IBM is a challenge for a lot of people." ...

    Conrad said workers have been telling him the cuts are a result of moving jobs out of the country. "The work is being moved offshore to places like Bratislava, India, China, Philippines, all around the world," Conrad said. "This is frankly, what IBM calls its re-balancing. They're re-balancing from here in the United States and moving the work out of the country."

  • WRAL (RTP, NC): Union official: IBM headcount in RTP, NC is plummeting. By Rick Smith. Excerpts: IBM's employee headcount in North Carolina is now under 10,000 and soon will be just 6,000 in Research Triangle Park, says the Alliance@IBM union official who traveled to RTP on Tuesday to protest job cuts. ...

    Conrad says that sources within the company whom he won't identify told him IBM now has some 6,700 RTP "regular IBMers," or full-time employees, not contractors. That number will drop to about 6,000 when IBM completes the recently announced sale of its "Point of Sale" business unit that employs several hundred people in the Triangle area.

    In 2006, IBM sold its PC division, which was primarily based in Raleigh, to Lenovo. That decision was among the biggest in reducing IBM's local work force. In 2007, IBM had some 11,000 employees in RTP and the site was widely acknowledged as Big Blue's largest campus. ...

    Asked why sources were providing Alliance with employee numbers, Conrad cited anger and frustration. "They are tired of seeing what is happening at IBM in the United States," said Conrad, who worked at IBM for 26 years before quitting to organize Alliance as an affiliate of the Communication Workers of America. "They are not happy." ...

    The latest round of layoffs at IBM totals nearly 1,900, according to documents provided to the union, but insiders have told Conrad that the actual count is around 2,500. Based on workers' comments posted at the Alliance website and on emails sent to WRAL, some layoffs have occurred in RTP.

  • WBNG (Binghamton, NY): Nationwide Rally In Support of IBM Employees. By Lindsay Nielsen. Excerpts: A group in support of IBM employees organized a nationwide rally Tuesday. The picket lines are drawn at seven IBM facilities throughout the U.S. A group with the Alliance at IBM and the Communication Workers of America had two objectives in Endicott.

    The first, grow their ranks. and the second, to draw attention to what they call out-of-control outsourcing at Big Blue. ...

    "We're trying to send a message to IBM to stop off shoring the jobs and we want them to stop taking federal and state subsidies and tax breaks as long as they are off shoring jobs," said organizer for the Alliance at IBM, Rick White.

  • eWeek: IBM Union Calls for Pickets to Protest Job Cuts. By Darryl K. Taft. Excerpts: “IBM employees and their communities continue to see IBM cut employee jobs while shifting the work offshore,” Tom Midgley, president of the Alliance@IBM, said in a statement. "This destruction of IBM jobs is unacceptable, and we will be sending a message to IBM—'Stop off-shoring our jobs.'"

    “The recent termination of 2,500 IBM U.S. employees shows that IBM clearly does not value the experience and expertise of U.S. workers,” Lee Conrad, national coordinator of the Alliance, said in a statement. “To have IBM U.S. employees help transfer work out of the country and then get terminated is outrageous and a threat to all jobs and our economy.”

    IBM no longer releases headcount numbers by country. The Alliance estimates that the IBM U.S. employee population is now at 95,000, down from 132,000 in 2005. Meanwhile IBM employee numbers worldwide, especially in low-cost countries continue to increase, the Alliance maintains.

    In its press release on the pickets, the Alliance@IBM calls for no tax breaks or incentives for companies that shift jobs offshore and terminate U.S. workers, full disclosure of IBM job cuts and where the jobs are being shifted, and an end to moving work offshore and firing U.S. workers.

  • Poughkeepsie Journal: Workers: IBM cuts jobs. Group organizes protest, says the company keeps off-shoring positions and not sharing its success. By Shantal Parris Riley. Excerpts: An IBM workers’ group held an informational picket Tuesday in Poughkeepsie and at seven other IBM Corp. sites nationwide. “We’re protesting the fact that IBM keeps off-shoring and cutting jobs,” said alliance President Tom Midgley on Tuesday, as he and about a dozen others held protest signs along South Road in the Town of Poughkeepsie. As random cars honked their horns, Midgley, 51, said American workers were being let go with minimal fanfare. ...

    Midgley said the company’s success is not being shared with its employees. “They won’t give us raises, they’ve frozen pensions,” he said. “Our standard of living keeps going down, but the execs are making profits. We’re not sharing in the success of the company.”

    Longtime IBM software engineer Paul Sutera of New Paltz said workers were being asked, in some cases, to train their off-shore replacements. “Speaking for myself, IBM is planning a series of ever-increasing layoffs of U.S. workers — experienced, tenured employees — and replacing them with Third World new hires,” he said. “Often, we’re expected to train them before a loss of a job.”

  • Burlington Free-Press: Vermont protesters urge IBM to protect jobs. By Dan D’Ambrosio. Excerpts: Earl Mongeon, a 34-year employee at the chip manufacturing plant, said IBM is reducing its U.S. workforce while it continues to hire in the so-called BRIC countries — Brazil, Russia, India and China — and elsewhere across the world. “That’s where high tech is moving because of cheaper labor,” Mongeon said. “Of course, many of them are trained by U.S. workers.” ...

    Jeff Couture, spokesman for the IBM facility in Essex Junction, declined to comment on Tuesday’s protest.

  • Charleston Post & Courier: IBM’s new CEO Ginni Rometty paints rosy picture at annual stockholder meeting. By Brendan Kearney. Excerpts: Following in the footsteps of current IBM Chairman Samuel Palmisano, Rometty said her goal is to “constantly reinvent the company.” Investors seemed to like what they heard. Larry Silvestre, who worked at IBM from 1961 to 1991, traveled from Mobile, Ala., to the Charleston Area Convention Center with wife Jeanne “to hear the new CEO on her feet.” “And I was very impressed with her,” Silvestre said.

    Cornelis De Vente, who met his wife, Phyllis, on his first day at IBM in 1955 and traveled from Atlanta for the annual meeting, agreed. “I know that Tom Watson Sr. would be totally proud,” De Vente said of IBM’s first chief executive. “It’s a great thing for the corporation.”

    The morning event, which ran less than an hour, was what you might expect from “Big Blue,” a business machines company that has grown to more than 400,000 employees and $100 billion in annual revenues since its founding in 1911. ...

    Palmisano, who chimed in frequently during the shareholder question session, likened the potential there to that of China 25 years ago. “We have the same hope for Africa maybe a quarter century from now,” he said.

    He also handled some of the thornier questions, rejecting the idea of a stock split and offering no answer when asked about a cost-of-living increase for retirees and whether Rometty was offered membership to the exclusive, all-male Augusta National Golf Club during this year’s Masters tournament. ...

    And in less than an hour, the meeting was over, allowing the IBM executives and board members, like Boeing CEO W. James McNerney, to go on their way and leaving shareholders, like 30-year IBMers and recent retirees Howard and Joyce Sykes, to take stock. “I think IBM’s got a great future,” Howard Sykes said.

  • LinkedIn's IBM Official Alumni Group: Freshly out as of April, 2012. Any other recent ex IBMers? Selected posts follow:
    • 10 years ago yesterday 4/9, I was given 30 days downsizing notice after being promised 60 days just the week before; so I guess that I am not exactly recent. I would suggest that you take a month or 2, if you need and can afford to, but then get very serious about the job search. Good luck.
    • I got the call on 27-Feb (this year). I was originally told end of June, then that was changed to end of April. Only 2 weeks left. So, I'm there in the boat with you. Recently revised my resume with assistance from Right Management (they're pretty good at helping you get your strategy together). Finally getting away from project commitments so I can start focusing on the job search.
    • Like Tom I was RA'd almost 10 years ago (5/2/02). His advice is very sound, take some time to regroup and plan your strategy. I jumped right into my search and really wish I had not. Stay positive and good things will happen.
    • I was RA'd in June 2011. I echo the other comments made here. I'd like to add that, if you receive any separation pay and/or draw a pension, that may affect your ability to collect unemployment for the time period equivalent to the money you receive. Check your state laws on that. I found the services provided by Right Management to be very valuable. I registered as a home-based participant, but also received invitations to events held at the local office. Also, I found that joining a local job-seekers group provided a very supportive environment. It was key in helping me stay positive and feel less isolated. Good luck!
    • Sept. 30, 2011 was my last day as a senior tech writer/doc lead at IBM. My (new) manager notified in late May and I spent my last month training my (cheaper) replacement. I haven't found the right job yet but the market is definitely improving.

      I'm using my retraining allotment to take some courses I've wanted to take but couldn't get funding for. When you do start your search, definitely take advantage of the LinkedIn profile options - breaking your resume out into the different sections, updating it every week or so to keep it fresh (Reading List app is great for that).

      Right Management was useful for financial seminar but little else. My consultant has yet to "reformat" my resume in spite of numerous requests from me. They don't seem to know what a tech writer does or how to "customize" my resume to generate better response. Their first suggestions were to follow their standard Word template that does NOT showcase Word skills at all - which would get my resume kicked out of any recruiter's search for writers. Good luck with your next steps.

    • I was part of the 2009 wave. At the time there was plenty of competition for a very small number of openings. The job market has improved since then.

      This is a good time to re-connect with former IBMers who worked with you in the past and know the value you can bring. Although I did get some interviews without having connections in the company, most of my high-quality leads came from ex-IBMers. That's how I landed my current position.

      I think the best advice I got from Right Management was to treat job search like a job. Make a plan and work your plan. The most important thing is to take care of yourself and stay positive. Good luck!

    • Use your retraining money to the max! You'll be surprised at what qualifies as career retraining. After I was RA'd from my tech writing/programming job in early 2009, friends of mine suggested I join their scuba diving shop. I wasn't certified as a dive instructor, but my retraining money paid for advanced scuba diving classes so I could see if I wanted to pursue that new career. I eventually decided I didn't want the life-and-death responsibility of that job, but the classes were fun and are useful for my continued diving hobby.
  • The Week: How 401(k)s are failing millions of Americans. More than half of U.S. workers have no retirement plan at all. And even those who do have a 401(k) typically don't have enough money to retire comfortably. Excerpts: The average balance in all 50 million 401(k) accounts is just over $60,000, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute. Even people within 10 years of retirement have saved an average of only $78,000, and more than a third of them have less than $25,000. More than half of U.S. workers have no retirement plan at all. With Social Security averaging $14,780 a year for individuals and $22,000 for couples, many Americans will exhaust their savings in just a few years. Since millions of boomers are likely to live into their 70s and 80s, the country is headed toward a major crisis. "It looks like most middle-class Americans will become poor or near-poor retirees," said Teresa Ghilarducci, a retirement specialist at the New School in New York.

    Why are balances so low? The financial crisis is partly to blame. It knocked $1.6 trillion, or about a third of the total value, off the nation's 401(k) accounts. But the larger truth is that most Americans do a poor job of anticipating the future and saving money. People don't seem to grasp that the pensions their parents' generation enjoyed have been almost entirely supplanted by 401(k)s, leaving them largely on their own to fund the final stage of their lives. In one recent survey, 43 percent of workers between the ages of 45 and 54 said they weren't currently saving for retirement at all. Very few 401(k) participants contribute the annual maximum of $17,000, and people tend to stop funding their retirement — or even borrow against balances — when they change jobs or have debts to pay. Most 401(k) account holders have little knowledge of how to manage stocks and bonds over decades to produce the best returns.

    How did we come to depend so much on 401(k)s? The Revenue Act of 1978 created 401(k)s — their name comes from the relevant subsection of the Internal Revenue Code — as a way for corporate executives to supplement their traditional pensions with extra cash. But when employers realized that they could use them to slash their pension costs by shifting the burden of retirement funding to employees, they adopted 401(k)s in droves. In 1980, 60 percent of private-sector workers with retirement plans had employer-paid pensions; by 2006, only 10 percent did, and 66 percent had 401(k)s. The chief selling points of 401(k)s are that they allow workers to take savings with them if they change jobs and to decide how — and how much — to invest in their retirement. But even automatic enrollment and free financial counseling haven't compelled people to save enough. ...

    Skimming off the top Future retirees don't have only themselves to blame for paltry retirement savings. Excessive management fees also play a role. Every day, Americans pay about $164 million in 401(k) fees to the financial industry. "There are enormous dollar amounts involved," said Frank Cirullo, a former plan consultant. "Employees are getting ripped off." Fees vary from plan to plan, and can run anywhere from 0.5 to 2 percent of assets per year. An extra 0.5 percent annual fee can cut an employee's savings by 10 percent by the time he's 65, according to Vanguard. Most 401(k) fees have long been hidden, but under new rules taking effect this summer, plan providers have to give detailed breakdowns of all the fees to employers, who in turn have to inform employees. Savers can only hope that transparency kicks off competition that will lower fees.

  • Wall Street Journal: Congress Eyes 401(k)s Again. By Kelly Greene. Excerpts: Some of the most popular retirement-savings tools are coming under the congressional microscope. As policy makers gear up for the tax-reform effort expected after the presidential election, they are asking: Can 401(k) plans, individual retirement accounts, and other tax-deferred vehicles be streamlined while getting more traction among people with lower incomes? ...

    At the very least, the increasing focus on retirement savings is a reminder that tax treatment of the accounts, once considered permanent, is anything but. Here's what you need to know about lawmakers' eyeing your nest egg.

  • Glassdoor IBM reviews. Selected reviews follow:
    • IBM Staff Software Engineer in Rochester, MN: (Current Employee) “28 years with IBM, was great at the beginning, could not wait to leave at the end.” Pros: Lots of opportunity to learn and build your skills. Cons: Long hours. Company only cares about showing a profit, no longer has any real concern for it's employees. Advice to Senior Management: Quit worrying about making large dividends. Start caring about your employees again so they car about the company.
    • IBM Anonymous: (Current Employee) “Shareholder Value trumps Customer Value.” Pros: The company has a matrix management approach which is good when it works and very bad when it doesn't. Lots of colleagues and lots of published materials internally and externally Cons: Much less interested in customer value than when I started. Management has become "box tickers" and there is no cross pillar cooperation at all. Advice to Senior Management: Review compensation structure, clean out middle tier management, create incentives for teams to collaborate and combine SWG and GBS into a single business unit with shared KPIs
    • IBM IT Architect: (Current Employee) “Slow and full of red tape.” Pros: - good salary; - relatively solid; - flexible working hours; - work/home good balance; Cons: - no real option to move to another position; - everything is a process; - environment is very static, no risks taken; - management is unwilling to make real decisions. Advice to Senior Management: Wake up.
    • IBM Advisory Software Engineer in Raleigh, NC: (Past Employee - 2010) “Not the same company that hired me.” Pros: Good people. Exciting technology. Work-life balance for most of my time working there. Cons: In the 80's and 90's, I think IBM still had a foundation based on respect for the individual. That seems to have gone by the wayside over the last ten years. The core of the company, the "IBMer" who signed on, and stayed loyally with the company for their entire career, is a thing of the past. Advice to Senior Management: IBM's greatest asset has always been its workers -- unfortunately, the last ten years have seen IBM lose sight of that fact as they move software development off-shore.
    • IBM Senior User Experience Designer in Durham, NC: (Past Employee - 2011) “Difficult challenge to be on an internal design team within a relatively non-progressive technology environment.” Pros: Extremely flexible schedule with relatively competitive design salaries. Projects offer challenging design problems even though they center around enterprise technology, security, and development requirements. Opportunity to work on projects that affect millions of users. Cons: Company is extremely slow and conservative. Design is always listed as a high priority yet frequently left out of major product decisions. Transparency of business goals and directives is lacking. Cross-team communication is difficult given silo'ed departments. Hierarchal/pyramid recognition structure with little 'team' acknowledgement.
    • IBM Anonymous: (Current Employee) “Good company, but need to have the right mindset to succeed here.” Pros: work-life balance, employee-friendly, lots of resources for career development. Cons: requires a different mind-set to be able to operate within large companies. Very east-coast centric in North America. To make it to the top in NA, you will need to move to the east-coast. Advice to Senior Managemen:t be & stay paranoid about the large number of highly successful startup and mid-size companies out there!
    • IBM SSR in Sacramento, CA: (Current Employee) “no room for growth, very political.” Pros: the freedom you get and the benefits are good, the pay is below average. Cons: the pay is below average. Advice to Senior Management: IBM used to treat its people great now its just like the rest.
    • IBM Renewal Sales in Boston, MA: (Current Employee) “Great place to start a career in IT.” Pros: Great place to start a career in IT. Work with large Enterprise customers. Part of the large deals that are executed within IBM. Cons: IBM's 2015 Roadmap will kill US jobs in order to reach their target goals. Layoffs layoff layoffs. Pay is awful with the amount of responsibility that is on your plate. The more IBM layoff accrue, the more work that is on your plate. Advice to Senior Management: Take care of the employees that are working long hours and hitting their goals. At least provide a cost of living increase. It's not all about earnings per share!
    • BM Anonymous: (Current Employee) “Company is very regimented and does not empower mid level managers.” Pros: Wonderful colleagues and clients. Knowledge sharing is encouraged. Lots of diversity in people, jobs, clients and opportunities. Multiple locations and ability to not have to relocate. Cons: Those who create the policies and rules are too distant from the work force to do it effectively. Lack of planning results in reduced effectiveness and results. Advice to Senior Management: Think and act "outside" of the box. Work within company guidelines, but use discretion and common sense when dealing with employees. Cut out the excuses that it can't be done and be innovative in managing staff.
    • IBM Sales Specialist: (Current Employee) “Not enough skilled workers.” Pros: Great brand, many opportunities, innovation, travel opportunities. Cons: Overburdened with middle management and process. Advice to Senior Management: Clean out yourselves instead of the skilled workers.
    • IBM Software IT Architect in Dallas, TX: (Current Employee) “You are a salesman, and a peon at that.” Pros: IBM has a great reputation and good products. We have some autonomy to do what the customer needs. If you do a good job, your sales people will come to you and take your advice. Cons: Do NOT believe that you will be able to grow your career easily. The field technical team is treated like peons who have no expertise and there is little ability to show your expertise to the brand or other managers. As a result, you are stuck. Furthermore, we are expected to be (as one colleague puts it) a mile wide and a millimeter deep. We've become"demo monkeys" who have to follow the script. Most of us don't know what/how to handle off script questions because we can't specialize in one pert of the portfolio and we get no real training opportunities. Advice to Senior Management: Grow the tech teams so that people can specialize. Encourage the field to become experts and then use that expertise to influence the products.
  • Alliance for Retired Americans: Friday Alert (PDF). This week's articles include:
    • New Social Security, Medicare Projections No Excuse for Radical Changes
    • Report: Media Coverage Skews Social Security Debate
    • 2012 Congressional Races: Pro-Seniors Candidate Wins in PA, Coyle Outlines Plans to Machinists
    • Voting Law Changes: NH Alliance Highlights Taxpayer Cost, Civil Rights Group Publishes Manual for Activists
    • Connecticut Alliance Members Rally, Lobby at State Capitol
  • InformationWeek: U.S. Suspends Controversial Outsourcing Training Program. Funding stopped for USAID program that trained students in the Philippines to work in offshore, English language call centers serving U.S. companies. By Paul McDougall. Excerpts: The U.S. Agency for International Development has suspended funding for a program under which Filipino nationals were trained to work in offshore, English language call centers that serve U.S. companies. The program, first reported by InformationWeek, drew heavy criticism from lawmakers who said it posed a threat to American call center workers.

    "In response to the concerns you have raised, the Agency is suspending its participation in the English language training project in Mindanao pending further review of the facts," said USAID deputy assistant administrator Barbara Feinstein, in a letter Monday to Congressman Tim Bishop (D-N.Y.). "Furthermore, the Agency has established a high-level task force to review these matters." ...

    "We have a serious jobs deficit in this country and the fact that we would spend U.S. taxpayer dollars to prepare foreign nationals to take over jobs that can easily be done by Americans is shocking" he said. AT&T, Expedia, and JPMorgan Chase are among the U.S. companies to have outsourced call center operations to the Philippines. Bishop said more than 500,000 call center jobs have moved offshore in the past five years. ...

    There are about 23,000 Filipino students currently enrolled in the program, which requires 400 hours of training over two years.

  • About.com: Roth IRA Conversions. Converting from a Traditional IRA to a Roth IRA. By William Perez. Excerpts: If you have been saving for retirement in a traditional IRA, you can convert some or all of your traditional IRA funds into a Roth IRA. Beginning in the year 2010, all restrictions on converting to a Roth IRA have been removed. Prior to 2010, individuals were not allowed to convert to a Roth IRA if their income exceeded 100,000. Is converting to a Roth a good idea? That depends on several factors. ...

    Converting to a Roth IRA is pretty simple. All you need to do is tell your bank or other financial institution to convert some or all of your traditional IRA funds to a Roth. That's the easy part. You can keep your funds at the same financial institution. You can even keep them invested in the same investments. All you're doing is changing the type of account.

    The tricky part is figuring out (1) what the tax cost of converting to a Roth will be, (2) whether converting to a Roth will save or cost you money over the long-run, (3) whether it makes sense to take advantage of the government's one-time only offer to spread the cost of a Roth conversion over two years, and (4) how much to convert. I want to make one point clear: you do not have to convert all of your traditional IRAs to a Roth. You can convert none, some, or all of your traditional IRA savings (whether deductible or nondeductible) to a Roth.

  • Wall Street Journal: U.S. Firms Add Jobs, but Mostly Overseas. By Scott Thurm. Excerpts: Thirty-five big U.S.-based multinational companies added jobs much faster than other U.S. employers in the past two years, but nearly three-fourths of those jobs were overseas, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis. ...

    The companies included in the analysis were the largest of those that disclose their U.S. and non-U.S. employment in annual securities filings. All of them have at least 50,000 employees. Collectively, they employed roughly 6.4 million workers world-wide last year, up 7.7% from two years earlier. Over the same period, the total number of U.S. jobs increased 3.1%, according to the Labor Department. ...

    Where American companies are creating jobs is a hot political issue. President Barack Obama has proposed tax benefits for companies to create jobs in the U.S., and tax penalties for those with large operations in other countries. His tax-overhaul plan—which has no real chance of passing Congress this year—would require, for the first time, that U.S. companies operating overseas pay a minimum tax on their foreign earnings.

New on the Alliance@IBM Site
  • Letter to the President of the United States: Re: Reform of L-1B Visa “Specialized Knowledge” Definition (PDF). Excerpts: Dear President Obama: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and 62 multi-national corporations sent you a letter on March 22, 2012 asking you to make it easier for them to transfer employees with “specialized knowledge” from their overseas offices to the U.S. The undersigned organizations urge you to reject their request to weaken the L-1B visa definition of “specialized knowledge,” because the change is not in the best interest of foreign or domestic workers.

    The L-1B visa gives employers access to a large labor force that has very few rights in the workplace. First, employers are not required to pay L-1B visa beneficiaries a minimum or prevailing wage. Workers are not in a position to negotiate better wages, because they can be easily fired, which renders them out of status and requires that they leave the country immediately. Second, the L-1B visa is not a long-term investment in the U.S. economy since only a small fraction of L-1B visa beneficiaries will be sponsored by their employers to stay in the U.S. permanently. The L-1B visa is really about businesses having ready access to a powerless, low-wage workforce.

    The L-1B visa also has a significant impact on U.S. workers. U.S. workers can be fired and replaced with L-1B visa beneficiaries. A report by the Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General in January 2006 found “[t]hat so many foreign workers seem to qualify as possessing specialized knowledge [that it] appears to have led to the displacement of American workers.” Labor unions support the use of nonimmigrant visas for high-skilled workers, but also strongly support assessing the impact of work visas on the U.S. workforce.

    The L-1B visa is largely a black box. We do not know how many beneficiaries are currently working in the U.S., where they are working, what their qualifications are, and how much they are earning. We should have answers to these very basic questions and a thoughtful debate before the standard for “specialized knowledge” is weakened. ...

    Editor's note: I can attest that IBM abuses the L-1B visa program extensively. Before leaving IBM recently, most of my IGS projects were staffed with over 50% (and sometimes nearly 100%) employees from IBM India here on L-1B visas. The IBM India employees included program managers, developers, database administrators, business analysts, and others...hardly employees with "specialized knowledge." In fact, many of the IBM employees were newly hired into IBM India and their first IBM job was in the United States on an L-1B vista.

    Unlike the H1-B visa, which is more closely monitored, the L-1B visa program has provided IBM with a means to bring unlimited numbers of offshore employees to the U.S. to staff projects, instead of employing North American employees. It is a travesty.

  • Job Cut Reports
    • Comment 04/22/12: I am glad to see much more media coverage on IBM's fall from grace. What they are doing to their US work force is disgusting. We need this to get on national TV. IBM is a train wreck out of control and Wall Street seems to be unaware. -Cringing- Alliance reply: The job cuts and downsizing of IBM has been reported throughout the media over the years. We have alerted everyone about this. Maybe employees should be contacting them as well.
    • Comment 04/23/12: Having been laid off at the end of March, and looking at job sites, I see a few things. One, IBM has posted a LOT of "intern" jobs. While they will use this to say they are being positive; what they have actually done is fire seasoned professionals and their business model is to replace with interns. So interns, if you like 70-80 hour weeks, you are in luck! For even low level jobs on an IBM job site, they do specifically ask if you have previously worked for IBM. I am sure this is in place so they can filter out anyone that has been laid off. I am going to apply both ways one saying I have and one saying I have not. My thinking is if you check yes that you have worked for IBM before, they have a filter to take you out if running. I really do NOT want to work for IBM again, but since I am job searching, I'm going to take some time with recruiters and collect data. -Anonymous-
    • Comment 04/23/12: It is amazing how management removes the jobs and then repost them after the big day. I checked from March 30 - April 3rd and hundreds of jobs were posted during those dates -IBM Rochester-
    • Comment 04/24/12: Good luck to all my Blue brothers and sisters today with the informational pickets. All here wish you luck! We will win! Whether it be via the media to stop this or by joining together to have a unified voice against the wrong and unfair treatment of IBMs most precious asset...their American workforce. It's just not right. We will win. Money is not everything. IBM will pay dearly with its collapse if Roadkill 2015 continues. -Cringing-
    • Comment 04/25/12: LOL - just got an email about the "Simba Technologies Win" - for $5K. That'll make up for Texas and Disney. LOL, way to win the big ones, IBM. -anonymous-
    • Comment 04/25/12: In the past few days have been getting "inspirational" emails from IBM brass. Such as "wins" and another about putting our customer first. They sense the ship is sinking. The win was a $5K (hoping that was a typo) for Simba. Also employee sat survey for Education and advancement. LOL! All they need to do to regain morale is admit their mistakes and assure us that the madness will stop. -toolatebaby-

      Alliance reply: OK let's review: It doesn't matter what IBM brass does; it's what IBM workers need to do to "stop the madness". Whether IBM brass 'sense the ship is sinking' or not, makes no difference. Their actions, that imply desperation may be in fact; rats repositioning chairs on the deck. It's the IBM workers that need to unite and do something that can steer the ship in a new direction. First step: Organize. Gather yourselves together and take action to let IBM brass know that you've had enough. Staying away from public pickets only encourages IBM brass to continue with their same destructive policies. Overcome the fear. Join Alliance@IBM and let's do this!

    • Alliance reply: OK let's review: It doesn't matter what IBM brass does; it's what IBM workers need to do to "stop the madness". Whether IBM brass 'sense the ship is sinking' or not, makes no difference. Their actions, that imply desperation may be in fact; rats repositioning chairs on the deck. It's the IBM workers that need to unite and do something that can steer the ship in a new direction. First step: Organize. Gather yourselves together and take action to let IBM brass know that you've had enough. Staying away from public pickets only encourages IBM brass to continue with their same destructive policies. Overcome the fear. Join Alliance@IBM and let's do this!
    • Comment 04/26/12: Yahoo finance wants to hear our stories. C'mon people. If you don't want to show up at a picket line, at least SHOW UP virtually. What have we got to lose except our jobs? Tell your story. Yahoo might not be the most prestigious media outlet but at least millions of people will hear what they are doing to US!!! Are you a current or ex-IBM employee with a story to tell? We want to hear it. We are discreet. jbort@businessinsider.com -StandUpForUSWorkers-
    • Comment 04/26/12: The IBM brass is not putting the customer number one. They only put themselves number #1. The IBM brass only cares about signing the contract so they get their stock bonuses and awards. After that they could care less and always know they can scapegoat the sales, delivery, and support teams for anything the customer might target. If the customer has praise then the IBM brass only see it. It is no wonder Disney, State of Texas, and AstraZeneca among other have quit their contracts with IBM. The Alliance response to -toolatebaby- is right dead on. -anonymous-
    • Comment 04/26/12: IBM just lost VF Corp account because of poor security -Anonymous-
    • Alliance needs contact with ex-IBM employees who were RA'd while h1b visa worker remained. Please contact Lee Conrad ASAP at ibmunionalliance@gmail.com -Alliance-
News and Opinion Concerning Health Savings Accounts, Medical Costs and Health Care Reform
  • Wall Street Journal: Facing Health-Plan Cuts. By Ellen E. Schultz. Excerpts: Retirees are paying more than ever for their employer-sponsored health coverage, often in the form of higher premiums, copays and deductibles. Companies often say spiraling health-care costs force them share the pain with retirees.

    But that isn't the whole story. Many employers have been shifting more costs to retirees even as they receive billions of dollars in government subsidies to offset their own costs.

    Knowing what's really driving up the amounts you pay can help you anticipate what's ahead. At the very least, you'll be more skeptical when you receive the next glossy notice announcing changes to your plan based on factors beyond the companies' control. Here's what to look out for.

  • Huffington Post: Obama Publicly Backs Means-Testing Medicare. By Sam Stein and Ryan Grim. Excerpt: President Barack Obama formally acknowledged on Friday that he would support a plan to means-test Medicare as a part of a deal to raise the nation’s debt ceiling. “I have said that means-testing on Medicare, meaning people like myself -- I’m going to be turning 50 in a week, so I’m starting to think a little bit more about Medicare eligibility -- but you can envision a situation for somebody in my position, me having to pay a little bit more on premiums or co-pays would be appropriate. And again, that would make a difference,” the president said at a press conference. “What we are not willing to do is restructure the program in the ways we have seen coming out of the House in recent months.”
  • AARP: 5 Myths About Canada’s Health Care System. The truth may surprise you. By Aaron E. Carroll, M.D., M.S. Excerpts: Myth #1: Canadians are flocking to the United States to get medical care. ...

    Myth #2: Doctors in Canada are flocking to the United States to practice. ...

    Myth #3: Canada rations health care; that’s why hip replacements and cataract surgeries happen faster in the United States. ...

    Myth #4: Canada has long wait times because it has a single-payer system. ...

    Myth #5: Canada rations health care; the United States doesn’t. ...

    And remember: We’re spending way more on health care than any other country, and for all that money we’re getting at best middling results. So feel free to have a discussion about the relative merits of the U.S. and Canadian health care systems. Just stick to the facts.

  • The Council for Affordable Health Insurance: The 2012 Presidential Candidates and the U.S. Health Care System. A CAHI “Plank” Summary (PDF). Excerpt: Although the 2012 presidential election is still months away, candidates are already positioning themselves on an issue which will take center stage during the campaign—the state of the U.S. health care system. The Council for Affordable Health Insurance’s (CAHI) plank summary provides a current snapshot of the candidates and their various blueprints for reform. Our intent is to be thorough and accurate in compiling what they have said or indicated they will do. As plans take shape, CAHI will explain what the proposals really mean for our health care system and, most importantly, for Americans’ access to affordable health insurance coverage. And we’ll eliminate the “spin” so you don’t have to.
  • The Kaiser Family Foundation: Patient Cost-Sharing Under the Affordable Care Act. Abstract: Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), four tiers of health insurance will be offered in the health insurance exchanges and throughout the individual and small group markets beginning in 2014. Under the minimum coverage plan, the “Bronze” plan, the insurance plan will pay for 60 percent of the costs of covered benefits on average while the individual enrolled will pay the remaining 40 percent in deductibles, copays and coinsurance. Individuals will have the option to purchase plans with more comprehensive coverage at higher premiums.

    The study projects what deductibles and coinsurance would meet the requirements of a Bronze plan, presenting two alternatives: One with a deductible per individual of $4,375, with consumers paying 20% of their health care expenses once meeting the deductible. The other with a deductible of $3,475 and patient coinsurance of 40%. Under both plans, total patient out-of-pocket costs would be capped at $6,350, as required by the health reform law. Deductibles for families would be double these amounts.

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: Conservative Nonprofit Acts as a Stealth Business Lobbyist. By Mike McIntire. Excerpts: Desperate for new revenue, Ohio lawmakers introduced legislation last year that would make it easier to recover money from businesses that defraud the state.

    It was quickly flagged at the Washington headquarters of the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, a business-backed group that views such “false claims” laws as encouraging frivolous lawsuits. ALEC’s membership includes not only corporations, but nearly 2,000 state legislators across the country — including dozens who would vote on the Ohio bill.

    One of them, Bill Seitz, a prominent Republican state senator, wrote to a fellow senior lawmaker to relay ALEC’s concerns about “the recent upsurge” in false-claims legislation nationwide. “While this is understandable, as states are broke, the considered advice from our friends at ALEC was that such legislation is not well taken and should not be approved,” he said in a private memorandum.

    The legislation was reworked to ease some of ALEC’s concerns, making it one of many bills the group has influenced by mobilizing its lawmaker members, a vast majority of them Republicans. ...

    “We know its mission is to bring together corporations and state legislators to draft profit-driven, anti-public-interest legislation, and then help those elected officials pass the bills in statehouses from coast to coast,” said the president of Common Cause, Bob Edgar. “If that’s not lobbying, what is?” ...

    Even so, the effectiveness of ALEC’s bill-production system is a major part of the group’s appeal to businesses. A membership brochure last year boasted that ALEC lawmakers typically introduced more than 1,000 bills based on model legislation each year and passed about 17 percent of them. A members-only newsletter from 1995, found in an online archive of tobacco company documents, bluntly characterized that success ratio as “a good investment.”

  • New York Times opinion: The Drywall Chronicles. By Paul Krugman. Excerpts: So Mitt Romney gave a speech at a closed Ohio drywall factory, which he tried to use as a symbol of Obama’s economic failure. The symbolism was perfect — not as an illustration of Obama’s failure, but as an illustration of just how stupid Romney thinks we are.

    Even regular reporters noticed that the factory in question closed under, yes, George W. Bush — a fact Romney failed to mention, although his campaign scrambled to cover for him afterwards.

    What I didn’t see mentioned was the point that this was a drywall factory — that is, a supplier of a product largely used in home construction. It’s one thing to say that Obama should have revived the economy as a whole; it’s another to say that he should have brought back the housing bubble!

    Finally, why should we believe that Romney’s policies — basically tax cuts for the rich, as usual — would yield great economic results? Well, I guess you can point to Bush’s example; how did his administration at this point compare with Obama? From BLS data:

  • New York Times: Employees, Too, Want a Say on the Boss’s Pay. By Gretchen Morgenson. Excerpts: Finally, the shareholders are stirring. Here and there this proxy season, executive pay is coming under attack from the people who actually own public companies, which is to say, stockholders. At Citigroup last week, a $15 million paycheck for Vikram S. Pandit, the chief executive, got a big thumbs down. Some 55 percent of votes cast went against the package.

    One potentially powerful class of shareholders — employees — seems to be rousing, too. And, to the degree that employee-shareholders band together to have their say on the boss’s pay, they can be a formidable force.

  • Washington Post: Bill Clinton Democrats: Attacking Social Security, Ignoring the Real Crisis. By Richard (RJ) Eskow. Excerpts: Brace yourself for another round of ideologically-driven hysteria from wealthy right-wing power brokers, aided and abetted by the entrenched power elite which Bill Clinton and his kind of Democrat have come to represent.

    They won't call it "hysteria," of course. They won't even call it "ideology." But they're really peddling an ideologically-driven assault on two of government's finest programs, Social Security and Medicare, in the form of a "Grand Bargain" which President Barack Obama has proven all too eager to embrace in the past.

    Don't fall for the hysteria or the hype. Benefits cuts to Social Security and Medicare will only make things worse. Social Security is essentially healthy, and its long-term issues can be fixed by lifting the payroll tax cap. To fix Medicare, which should be our sole concern, we need an overhaul of our health system to remove the corrosive effects of the profit motive on our medical economy. But they don't want to talk about it.

  • New York Times Opinion: We Are Not Stupid. By Charles M. Blow. Excerpts: Romney tried Tuesday night to frame the debate largely around economic issues, but as the 2010 midterm elections showed, economic issues are something of a Trojan horse for the right.

    Let’s just get this out of the way: Times are tough. But most people are smart enough to know that these tough times were long in the making and will be long in the fixing. There are no magic words or silver bullets or emerging bubbles that will quickly and easily return us to a pre-recession, pre-collapse sense of prosperity.

    That is because we were all complicit in a lie. The government spent too much (on tax cuts and wars), many banks gambled too much and many people borrowed too much. That was the economy. All that money swirling around lulled us into a false sense of security.

    When it all fell apart, an overextended government had to help overextended banks and overextended borrowers. The money stopped swirling. Jobs that flourished during the boom became scarce.

    The debt grew and the economy shrank.

    The government underestimated the crisis and underfinanced the stimulus package aimed at fixing it. So things got worse before they slowly began to get better. And structural economic issues, like the deflation in the housing market, remain.

    In an oversimplified nutshell, that is what happened: a complex mix of poor choices and inadequate responses. Now we have to ask ourselves if things have fundamentally changed forever.

    The president tried to help fix a mess that he didn’t make, but the fixing has come slowly. Is that failure? Romney and the Republicans say yes.

    And, if they can keep framing it as a failure, they can push for, and maybe even push through, their brutal budgets, which cut programs that help the poor and struggling and benefit the rich.

  • The Smirking Chimp: Will a Young Generation's Dreams Be Rescued - Or Bundled and Sold on Wall Street? By Richard Eskow. Excerpts: Interest rates for student loans will double on July 1 unless Congress acts. That's outrageous -- but the fiscal abuse of our nation's young people runs far deeper than that. An entire generation has been trapped into debt servitude and joblessness by the implacable machinery of Wall Street greed. Bank-servile scolds insult the young people of America while the bankers' economic engines strip-mine their financial future.

    Jobless or overextended college graduates aren't even allowed to declare bankruptcy -- a privilege that's extended to every reckless investor and mismanaged corporation in the nation. Once they finally find work, college graduates face years of garnished wages to repay the loans that funded their often-overpriced educations. If they haven't repaid that debt by the time they grow old -- a very real possibility at the cost of a college education today -- they'll even be forced to surrender part of their Social Security benefits. ...

    Meanwhile banks have been slicing and dicing student loans into derivative financial instruments called "SLABS" -- student-loan asset backed securities. We've seen this movie before -- the one where big banks mass-market loans to a population with stagnated wages and dwindling economic prospects, then bundle them and sell them to investors who haven't reviewed the way they were underwritten and sold.

    Hey, what could go wrong? ...

    Why are these graduates facing such a bleak job market? Because Wall Street's gambling on other financial bets crashed the economy, leaving an entire generation without much of a future to give them optimism and hope. Their parents can't help them much, because most of their assets were taken by Wall Street, too. So as an entire generation of college students graduates with unprecedented debt -- and joblessness that's unprecedented in modern memory -- they're looking forward to a lifetime of reduced expectations.

  • Washington Post opinion: The Swedish model for economic recovery. By Robert J. Samuelson. Excerpts: Amid all the grim economic news from Europe, it’s worth noting that there are also some success stories. Well, of course, you say: Germany. Okay. But there’s another conspicuous candidate, and it might seem surprising: Sweden. To many Americans, Sweden is a bloated, inefficient welfare state. But the reality and the stereotype don’t match.

    Look at the record.

    Sweden’s job growth (as a percentage) rivals Germany’s since 2006; present unemployment at 7.5 percent is low among advanced economies; inflation averages about 2 percent; economic growth in the past five years slightly exceeds Germany’s; and government debt as a share of the economy is lower than Germany’s, according to a detailed presentation this week from Anders Borg, Sweden’s finance minister, at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington. ...

    Conservatives can take heart that many post-crisis policies came right from their playbook. Sweden’s income tax base was broadened and tax rates were sharply reduced. (In 1996, the average marginal rate — the rate on the last bit of income — was 46 percent; in 2010, it was 33 percent.) Spending was cut on old-age pensions, child allowances, unemployment benefits and housing subsidies. Union power over wages was reduced. Many markets (banking, air travel, telecommunications, electricity production) were deregulated. Low inflation and balanced budgets became broadly embraced popular goals.

    On the other hand, liberals will also be reassured. Although Sweden trimmed social benefits, it hardly abandoned the welfare state. Overall government spending is still about 50 percent of the economy (gross domestic product), much higher than in the United States ,where the usual ratio is about 35 percent. To reduce income tax rates, the government raised other taxes. Gasoline and cigarette taxes were increased; so were taxes on dividends and capital gains, hitting the rich. Altogether, deficit reduction totaled a huge 12 percent of GDP from 1991 to 1998. Slightly more than a third of that came from higher taxes. ...

    Can the Swedish model be applied elsewhere? It requires, Borg said, a broad political consensus about what needs to be done. Although spending cuts are “preferable to tax hikes,” deficit reduction should rely on both. He also argued that Sweden has been much more successful than the United States in controlling health spending. As recently as 1980, health spending in both countries — as a share of GDP — was roughly equal. Now Sweden’s spending is about half the U.S. level. Among other things, he said, Sweden has relied on higher patient co-payments to discourage people from overusing health services.

  • AlterNet: Wells Fargo, Terrified to Face Victims of Its Foreclosure Fraud and Predatory Lending, Locks Shareholders Out of Annual Meeting. The move to lock out shareholders was unprecedented, according to organizers. By Joshua Holland. Excerpts: On April 24, Wells Fargo, assisted by dozens of Bay Area police, took the unprecedented step of locking more than 100 of its shareholders out of its annual meeting – a meeting they had every legal right to attend.

    These shareholders had a story to tell, and Wells' Chairman and CEO John Stumpf was not in a listening mood. They'd purchased stock in the bailed-out Wall Street giant, and then travelled from around the country to tell the board how its corporate citizenship gad ruined lives and wrought profound economic pain on entire communities. ...

    Last year, about eight activists had attended the annual meeting. This year, more than 150, with shares in hand, descended on the bank's global headquarters in downtown San Francisco, only to be greeted by throngs of police manning barricades around the building's entrances.

    What followed was, literally, a runaround that lasted several hours, as police at one barricade sent shareholders around the block to another, only to be told by officers there that the only way in was at the blocked entrance from which they came. Organizers said that some shareholders – not affiliated with the protests – continued to be let in, a move organizers said was illegal.

    About 25-30 community shareholders did manage to make it into the meeting before Wells executives declared the room full. But one woman who got in reported that the room was largely empty, and another said that many of those in attendance were Wells Fargo employees (this could not be independently confirmed). The woman also said that as soon as one of the community shareholders attempted to speak, they were immediately threatened with arrest and removed from the building.

  • The Fiscal Times: The Lose-Lose Job of Cutting Your Top Tax Breaks. Excerpts: Eliminate What? The couple hundred tax deductions and refundable tax credits currently on the books will cost the government as much as $1.3 trillion in foregone revenues this year, according to Treasury estimates. According to an upcoming report by the Brookings Institution’s Hamilton Project, Congress would have to eliminate all but about $200 billion a year in tax breaks, or roughly four fifths of their value, to reduce the top individual and corporate tax rates to 25 percent, according to the Washington Post.

    “It’s an inexorable equation,” Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., told The Fiscal Times. “If they lower the top rate from 35 to 25 and say that capital gains and dividends must stay where they are, it is impossible to be revenue neutral without clobbering middle class exemptions that have broad support.

    Among the biggest tax deductions with huge political constituencies are these:

    • Tax-free employer-provided health care and other health spending constitutes the single largest tax expenditure: $214 billion a year.
    • Retirement savings, including IRAs and 401(k) programs: $206 billion annually.
    • Mortgage interest deductions on homes and second homes: $113 billion a year.
    • Preferential rates on capital gains and dividends: $91 billion.
    • State and local income, property and sales tax deductions: $84 billion.
    • Earned income, child and dependent care tax credits: $76 billion. ...

    Camp and other Ways and Means committee Republicans and Democrats began preliminary conversations last week on how they might begin to whack away at the thicket of special tax provisions, including “tax-favored retirement accounts.” However, Camp cautioned that an “overwhelming majority of full-time workers rely on those provisions.” Indeed, an analysis by the Hamilton Project shows that while eliminating the biggest tax deductions would yield substantial savings for the government, it would sharply cut into the after-tax income of families in almost every income bracket.

  • Huffington Post: Bank CEOs To Tell Fed Regulation Is 'Unrealistic': Report. By Mark Gongloff. Excerpts: The banking industry is getting personal in its tireless fight against regulation. Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase and the industry's regulation-basher in chief, has called for a sit-down next week between the heads of four of the nation's biggest banks -- JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Morgan Stanley -- and Federal Reserve Governor Daniel Tarullo, the Wall Street Journal is reporting.

    The purpose of this friendly get-together will be to express the banks' displeasure about financial regulation, particularly a Fed plan to limit the banks' exposure to derivatives tied to the credit of foreign governments and other banks.

    According to the WSJ:

    bankers will tell regulators that the rule is based on "unrealistic" standards and could foster "potentially destabilizing" market shifts, according to two draft letters reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

    In other words: Nice economy you've got there. Shame if anything should happen to it.

    Together the four too-big-to-fail banks attending this meeting had $166.2 trillion in "gross notional" exposure to derivatives and the end of 2011, according to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, or about 72 percent of the $230.8 trillion held by all U.S. banks and U.S. subsidiaries of foreign banks.

  • USA Today: The country club remains a perk for many CEOs. By Gary Strauss. Excerpts: While many companies are stripping away some of the costly perks bestowed on CEOs, one remains a staple of many executive compensation packages: the country club membership.

    A USA TODAY analysis of corporate filings finds scores of firms paying for execs' club privileges. The perk remains pervasive among regional bank and financial firms. Of more than 130 companies paying for clubs, nearly 50% are local or regional financial firms. The cost can be eye-popping. In last week's proxy filing, California-based Pacific Mercantile Bancorp says it bought a $125,000 membership for CEO Raymond Dellerba for "business development purposes." PMB didn't respond to requests for comment. ...

    Country clubs are frequently part of a broader perk program that includes stipends for investment planning, medical costs, cars, use of the corporate jet and other goodies.

  • Los Angeles Times: Lehman Bros. elite stood to get $700 million. Bankruptcy case reveals pre-crash pay for 50 Lehman Bros. employees that shocks even Wall Street veterans. By Walter Hamilton, Andrew Tangel and Stuart Pfeifer. Excerpts: Less than a year before the 2008 collapse of Lehman Bros. plunged the global economy into a terrifying free fall, the Wall Street firm awarded nearly $700 million to 50 of its highest-paid employees, according to internal documents reviewed by The Times.

    The documents, which were among the millions of pages submitted in Lehman's bankruptcy, show the list of top earners each were pledged $8 million to $51 million in cash, stock and other compensation. How much, if any, of the stock was cashed in before the bankruptcy wiped out its value couldn't be determined.

    Still, the rich pay packages for so many people raised eyebrows even among compensation experts and provided fresh evidence of the money-driven Wall Street culture that was blamed for triggering the financial crisis.

    "Many people are going to be stunned at how well some people were being paid," said Brian Foley, an executive compensation expert in White Plains, N.Y. "This wasn't a matter of five or six people being paid a lot."

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.