Welcome to IBM Employee News and Links

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

Our Friends:

Watching IBM Watching IBM Facebook

Quick Links:

Get involved! Insider trading After IBM Lenovo Employee Discount

Previous highlights:

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

Highlights—May 19, 2012

  • Business Insider: IBM Employee Says The Company's Early Retirement Offer Is A Ripoff. By Julie Bort. Excerpts: We continue to hear daily from employees fed up with IBM. "What is happening at IBM is obscene," someone in manufacturing told us.

    He was just offered IBM's unusual early-retirement plan—which many employees believe is just a dodge to avoid paying them severance. ...

    This employee points out that it is also a way to get IBM out of paying severance, which would be a big chunk of cash for long-time employees. This person worked for IBM for 29 years. His dad had a 30-year career at IBM, too, he said.

    IBM is aiming to reduce costs so it can deliver earnings per share of $20 to investors by 2015, according to its Roadmap 2015 plan—but employees are bearing the brunt of the pain, we're hearing. "They are driving the company into the ground with their Roadmap 2015," said our contact in manufacturing. "I received their ridiculous offer which is just another method, for the worst HR department in history, to try to chisel people out of severance and save the company money."

    This person manages a team of people. Last week, IBM also told him that the company would no longer be paying any of them overtime: "But, we were actually told, if you'd like to come in and 'help out' they would compensate us with comp time. What a joke. ...

    "Morale could not be any lower, and respect for upper management any lower. Wall Street loves IBM management, but they are the pits, hated internally and distrusted by nearly all their employees," says this employee.

    Employees believe that IBM is trying to cut its U.S. headcount by 60 percent—down to 40,000 from its current estimated number of 90,000. It's shifting many jobs overseas, employees have told us. IBM stopped disclosing its U.S. headcount in 2010. So far this year, IBM has laid off about 1,800 workers in the U.S. and Canada, although it has not disclosed these layoffs. That stat comes from an IBM watchdog organization, Alliance@IBM.

  • Yahoo! IBM Pension and Retirement Issues message board: "Re: Separation Strategy" by "older_bassman". Full excerpt: Yes I am using the Future Health Account (FHA) to pay the full premium. I am also too young for Medicare so pay the non-Medicare rate. You can stretch how long it lasts by contributing some or all of the cost yourself. I probably should have mentioned that but is not something I think about since I am not and do not plan to contribute. From the conversations I have had with other folks in the same situation as me it is usually better to use the FHA until it is very low. After that it is more economical to go on your spouses medical policy keeping the IBM coverage as last resort.

    Since I have gone on the FHA it has had pretty stable premiums from year to year. I do not feel this will last as I believe IBM is/was receiving government handouts to keep retiree medical insurance in place and to offset increases. This all goes away in 2014 if I recall the details correctly. I also would not be surprised to see IBM and other large companies try to shift retirees to the health exchanges in 2014 as result of the subsidy loss.

    When the FHA was first announced I calculated that it was only intended to last 4-5 years as a way to bridge to Medicare. I also remember IBM publicly stating the intent was 4 to 5 years coverage around the same time the FHA was shoved on us. While other folks mileage may vary it appears to be accurate for me.

    Retiree medical coverage is one of the things I push with my legislators as needing to be protected under ERISA. But as folks around here know it is hard enough to keep the current protections let alone expand them.

  • Yahoo! IBM Pension and Retirement Issues message board: "Re: Separation Strategy" by Kathi Cooper. Full excerpt: I don't see IBM sending us to the exchanges in 2014. They self insure. They get tax breaks. I feel certain we make a nice profit center to them. Kathi.
  • Yahoo! IBM Pension and Retirement Issues message board: "Re: Separation Strategy" by "older_bassman". Full excerpt: Kathi, You might be right in that regard. It is the better alternative from a personal standpoint.

    What I base my suspicions on is the decreasing number of retirees on the old and older retiree medical plans and attrition of folks before they are eligible for the FHA. This is a case of diminishing returns that at some point will not be worth the effort to IBM. Of course there are factors such as when the FHA, I loosely say, "contribution" is credited for tax purposes. If it is at the time of earning then I guess IBM could keep it up for a long time without spending a dime of what is owed. If it is when paid out then it will eventually die out. Of course IBM might have figured out a way to double dip and take a credit on both ends.

    After having the FHA thrust upon me and IBM dropping commitments on a whim I treat the FHA like Personal Choice Holidays. Use them up first since there is no guarantee you will be able to use them when you truly desire to.

  • Yahoo! IBM Pension and Retirement Issues message board: "Re: Separation Strategy" by "chz_whiz". Full excerpt: Thanks for the additional info. You obviously understand the program, have thought thru it, and are using a solution that works for you. A lot of folks apparently expected FHA to cover all of their insurance premium, at least to Medicare, and are finding that they quickly run out of funds. The days of IBM paying all of the premiums is long gone - including FHA, "traditional" retirees, & active employees.
  • WRAL TechWire: IBM picks Ireland for 'several hundred' jobs, new tech hub. Excerpt: IBM is going to add several hundred jobs and create a global services integration hub in Ireland, according to Irish media reports. Big Blue will create the hub at its technology campus in Dublin, according to a report in The Irish Times as well as the website Silicon Republic. The additions will bolster IBM's Irish work force to well above 3,000.
  • Glassdoor IBM reviews. Selected reviews follow:
    • IBM Managing Consultant in Bangalore (India): (Current Employee) “Enriching from knowledge point of view but pathetic for the people angle.” Pros: IBM Research and global teams are excellent. We primarily have a grid system in which all the industries, sectors, service line and team merge to bring out a unique value proposition for the organisation and client all around the world. Also given that we have expertise and next generation solutions for each sphere of business, one tends to grow deep skills and expertise specific to their job or roles. Cons: Nobody cares about creativity, people management or even allowing flexibility. It's just based on who your boss is and he/she can either ruin or help you move up the career path regardless of how much or how effectively one works. Advice to Senior Management: They need to come down from their ivory towers and start paying attention to folks who actually drive the business. Too much politics within the system it will erode the company finally. Also people are not slaves.
    • IBM Anonymous in Philadelphia, PA: (Past Employee - 2012) “IBM = I'm By Myself (and it's true!)” Pros: IBM continues to hone its corporate marketing around Smarter Planet and Advanced Analytics. And IBM Research continues to be an innovation engine that develops industry-leading assets and IP.

      Cons: Unfortunately, the IBM culture over last 2 years has moved from a strategic to tactical approach with an intense, zealot-like focus on weekly cadence and pipeline. Management by edict is now the norm with little collaborative effort. “Every man, woman and child for themselves” is the new company mantra, or should be. Very little effort is invested in employee development, strategic asset development and long-term client relationship building. Overall client satisfaction is at or near historic lows by nearly all measures. The need to cut costs, to always make “the numbers” and drive share price has cast a long, dark shadow over the long-term viability of IBM’s inherit ability to innovate and deliver real, meaningful long-term value to its clients.

      Advice to Senior Management: To IBM Leadership I would say, work to strike a better balance between results and strategy and fostering people, Will Ginny stop slashing and burning to make her profit numbers and realize that the path to long-term growth has to be more balanced? Will IBM's famous 360 degree management feedback processes be reinstated? Will long-term strategy development be fostered and rewarded across all levels of the organization? The answers to these questions should begin to paint the mile markers on the roadmap for the future at IBM.

    • IBM Senior Managing Consultant in Melbourne (Australia): (Current Employee) “Great in the past but the 2015 plan is destroying the company.” Pros: The variety of work is amazing. The diversity of people you work with is a great outcome from past diversity programs. Sick Leave really helps out when you need it and so far has avoided the cuts. Still good on the resume but that is suffering. Worked here for 15 years and hope to survive 5 more.

      Cons: The 2015 Road Kill (Road Map) has the focus of senior management who have the most to gain from the share price hike and this is to the detriment of the IBM's employees, clients and long term viability of the company. The span of control is crazy and I have the greatest respect for the 1st line managers here trying to keep the business going and the team together. Senior management in Oz think they are leading, they are just feathering their own nest and following Ginni and her exec teams direction. The workload is not sustainable and sending more work to low skilled workers is not the answer. The hiring process has been busted for years and no one is fixing it. I have seen many good senior resource managers fail to fix this. Management feedback surveys have ceased...I know there is a good reason for that.

      Advice to Senior Management: Sending work to low skill workers must stop. This is crazy and the last two years has proved it does not work. All 1st line managers need proper training not the internal BS. Throw the hiring and onboarding process out with the dishwater and get one that really works. The RA's about to happen in June 2012...management in Oz must push back. We already are so low on good workers and you want to get rid of some more???? Bring back the management surveys but include the responses from 1st line managers into the senior VP's performance results. You will reap the rewards.

    • IBM Senior Consultant in Salt Lake City, UT: (Current Employee) “Get everything you can up front, because once they have you employed you'll have to beg.” Pros: Good pay, vast array of training and internal credentialing opportunities. The health benefits are also very competitive. Reasonable work/life balance. Cons: Hard to advance, and the company makes it very difficult to move around in the company. Each practice area is fairly territorial. Also, their love affair with their own inferior proprietary software programs (e.g. Lotus Notes) makes your life difficult on a daily basis. They are a "tech company" in name only sometimes. Advice to Senior Management: Get rid of Lotus Notes. Provide a decent program to mentor incoming employees. Quit using a bell curve to assess performance.
    • IBM Contractor (Previously A Professional At IBM): (Current Employee) “It's near impossible to get or keep a job at IBM if you are a U.S. employee.” Pros: Resume - everyone knows the name. Working at home. Cons: Low pay, no job security and rudimentary work. You are part of their machine and you'll do the work they see fit for you. Management maintains very tight controls and there is very little room for innovation or career (or personal) development. Advice to Senior Management: Don't treat employees as if they do not understand that the agenda for you is to cut corners and offshore. Respect supplementals and contractors (previously laid off people who are back to protect their benefits and retirement) as equals. Don't treat us as if you are doing us a favor by bringing us back.
    • IBM Sales Specialist: (Current Employee) “Tremendous 30 year career but the new IBM is very focused on bottom line results.” Pros: The name opens doors to clients. The products and support are exceptional. The employees have integrity and support each other. Cons: Not considerate of employees morale. Advice to Senior Management: Listen to employees.
    • IBM Human Resources Partner: (Past Employee - 2011) “Great cutting edge HR.” Pros: - Surrounded by knowledgeable HR Professionals; - HR is often consulted and they have a seat at the table; - Strong advocates for work life balance; - Culture of integrity; - One of the best things about working for IBM is the people. Cons: - Compensation does not reflect the market value of the job; - Limited opportunities in the US and the career advancement seems prolonged.
    • IBM Business Analyst: (Current Employee) “Great place to work in once you know the beast.” Pros: - Great knowledge sharing process; - Excellent career growth opportunities; - Ability to develop career in domain as the services sector has accounts in practically every domain; - One of the most respected companies in the world. Cons: - Too many employees can make you feel like a drop in the ocean; - Sometimes you can get stuck with too many processes. Advice to Senior Management: Simplify the processes especially around employee claims. Sometimes it becomes too tedious. Develop industry domain certifications in addition to the certifications around IBM products and technologies.
    • IBM Service Delivery Manager in Brno (Czech Republic): (Past Employee - 2012) “Years of frustration, disappointment and especially empty promises.” Pros: Great advancements possibilities and professional growth (abundance of trainings and education). Great place to start your career. Good place if you want to maintain your personal/work life balance (if you are not in a executive/management role). Home office and traveling opportunities.

      Cons: Locally, no relevant benefits except for the usual insurance package (no meal vouchers, recreation/wellness vouchers, significant bonuses, etc.) Due to the complexity of the organization certain activities are difficult to perform. Management personnel sometimes comprises of unskilled individuals for the job. Some job names are sometimes too pompous when the activities are merely administrative. Promotions mean much more work and responsibilities with absolutely no salary increase. Many good projects have no budget but the management expects results, however, the projects fail shortly after launch or remain stalled due to lack of resources.

      Advice to Senior Management: If you want to improve the service quality, you MUST improve the way you treat your employees, especially the ones that were faithful to the company for several years and own the knowledge to keep the game going. Knowledge means power, by losing people with knowledge you lose the power over the market...and a great deal of respect.

    • IBM Project Executive in Trenton, NJ: (Current Employee) “Thrilling at first, monotonous over the years.” Pros: 1. It's as entrepreneurial as you make it to be. If you are the entrepreneurial type, then you are already looking to being on your own, within IBM. If you are not entrepreneurial, be prepared to ask questions and get vague responses. 2. Colleagues/peers across towers are supportive, implying IBM-work-life is universal regardless of tower.

      Cons: 1. Base Compensation - your market intelli and what your manager tell you are not compatible. So where else is this not the case. 2. Additional Comp - seek and read the rules carefully. IBM is not giving $$ away. 2012 is perceived as an employers Market. 3. At companies the size of IBM you work within policy and procedures, approval limits, etc. If you are entrepreneurial, you will chase down the approval routes and document each one on the road to getting things done. If you are not entrepreneurial you will find the IBM policy and procedures, approval limits, a great selective buffer to actually NOT getting anything done.

      Advice to Senior Management: From director level up, hire more from the outside for a fresh perspective on balancing risk with change.

    • IBM IT Analyst in Newark, NJ: (Current Employee) “Blecch!!!!” Pros: Work at home. Got some trinkets and trash with logos. Did not have to physically meet with clients or co-workers. Cons: Bad management. Inconsistent behavior to values. No communications when downsizing happened. Health care benefits reduced. No career path or management support. Advice to Senior Management: Be open and honest with your workforce. Communicate, even unpleasant facts, to your workforce. Don't ship over 80% of workforce to India and expect your top US performers to pick up the pieces after all the Indians with tech certificates program themselves into a corner.
    • IBM Information Management Consultant: (Current Employee) “Getting worse every year.” Pros: Big, stable company. Offers massive potential for work, experience, training. Still offers a relatively generous pensions package, opportunities for travel. Big, bureaucratic system allows one to get round a lot.

      Cons: Consistently driving down costs means consistently driving down salaries, reducing meaningful training, using inexperienced Indians offshore, meaning that we end up sorting out more and more problems. Somehow we get the blame as the customer facing end. IBM's myopic focus on the earnings per share target means that delivering quality to customers, employee satisfaction, indeed any marks of a quality employer have gone by the board. It is now all about hype; delivering a good job slightly over budget is far worse than delivering a bad job on-time. In 8 years my actual annual take home has dropped by about 15 - 20% due to allowances and bonuses being stripped off.

      Advice to Senior Management: Lower management needs to start making decisions rather than simply being a conduit. Otherwise what is the point of them? Upper management needs to address the poor morale (always below 50% now) before the rot goes so far it becomes obvious to the outside world.

    • IBM Technical Support Engineer: (Current Employee) “This company is Only good if you work under their PAYROLL else its a HELL.” Pros: The brand makes us proud but nothing inside. I hope it's only in Indian IBM. Cons: Have a disgusting policy towards contract employees who are very much underpaid and treated like slaves. Advice to Senior Management: The contract employees in IBM India are not well treated, and underpaid. This is making the brand of your company to collapse in India. If anything is not done soon then not even a Fresher will look to work in your company.
    • IBM Anonymous: (Current Employee) “Lot of opportunities across many lines of business.” Pros: Work life integration is possible. Cons: It's all about the earnings
    • IBM Accounting Analyst in Armonk, NY: (Current Employee) “Great flexibility.” Pros: Great Flexibility, laptops provided for telecommuting opportunities. Great for people with families. The office place is professional business casual. Great benefits. Cons: Global business, sometimes communicating with other across the world is a hassle. Some of the deadlines and projects are given with tight time constraints.
  • Alliance for Retired Americans: Friday Alert (PDF). This week's articles include:
    • Alliance Members in Northeast Round out the 2012 Regional Meetings
    • Part of the Paul Ryan Plan Gets a Bad Review from its own Creator
    • House Voter Rights Bill Aims to Stop Voter Suppression
    • Medicare Legislation Would Raise Eligibility Age to 70, Threaten Federal Workers
    • Online Social Security Statements Provide Earnings and Benefit Information
  • U.S. Government Accountability Office: Unemployed Older Workers. Many Face Long-Term Joblessness and Reduced Retirement Security. Unemployment rates for workers of all ages have risen dramatically since the start of the recent recession in December 2007, and workers age 55 and over have faced particularly long periods of unemployment. The seasonally unadjusted unemployment rate for older workers increased from 3.1 percent in December 2007 to a high of 7.6 percent in February 2010, before it decreased to 6.0 percent in April 2012. As in prior recessions, smaller percentages of workers age 55 and over became unemployed in comparison with younger workers. Some researchers attribute older workers’ lower unemployment rates to the fact that older workers tend to have longer job tenure, and are consequently less likely to be laid off than younger workers.

    Focus group participants told us that they believed employer reluctance to hire older workers was their primary reemployment challenge, and several cited job interview experiences that convinced them that age discrimination was limiting their ability to find a new job. Moreover, many experts, one-stop career center staff, and other workforce professionals we interviewed said that some employers are reluctant to hire older workers. Because of legal prohibitions against age discrimination, employers are unlikely to explicitly express a lack of interest in hiring older workers; however, one workforce professional told us that local employers had asked her to screen out all applicants over the age of 40.

  • National Public Radio (NPR): Certain Ford Retirees Face Major Pension Decision. By Lindsey Smith. Abstract: Ford Motor Company is making tens of thousands of white-collar retirees decide whether they want to keep getting their pension in monthly installments, or get a lump sum payout. Ford sees the unprecedented move as a way to reduce the company's liabilities.
  • Wall Street Journal: H-P to Slash Work Force by up to 30,000. By Ben Worthen. Excerpts: Hewlett-Packard Co. plans to cut its workforce by 25,000 to 30,000 employees, people familiar with the matter said, a record number for the venerable technology giant as it grapples with declining revenue and profits. Cuts in that range would constitute about 8% of H-P's total head count, which stood at approximately 349,600 at the end of October. The people familiar with the matter said that the cuts would be across the company and that the exact number wasn't yet final. One person said that a formal announcement could come when the company reports quarterly results next week.

    Selected reader comments follow:

    • Mr. Miller: Been there, done that with IBM. HP is no different, as is Sun, SAP, Cisco, Dell etc. Sorry to you HP folks, no one really cares about you/us and that is the reality in our new culture and economy, which you'll find when the door is shut on your final day. All the more reason to demand something from HP before you go....the board of directors get quite a few perks - make them share... you should get extra cash above/beyond severance offered, special retraining vouchers -- IDK free computers for life? Just get something more than they are willing to give. The way IBM lays off, by a dozen this week, dozens next week (repeat 52 weeks), its very difficult for IBMers to organize in any fashion and make such demands. You have 30,000 strong to make a difference for what you've already given them in return: Your irreplaceable time and lives. My heart goes out to you all big time.
    • Marie: That's a very nice comment Mr. Miller.
    • Mr. Miller. Thank you Maria. I cannot give fellow ITers any better advice than to prepare for the worst. If someone had just hinted the same thread to me following my 90-days notice at IBM in 2004... I'd have completely altered my approach to finding a new job. I very incorrectly assumed that 1) skills mattered in finding a new job, 2) having an IBM or HP or Sun career on the CV impressed hiring managers, and 3) professional, patriotic folks in the U.S. --especially fellow Republicans-- would be willing to pair up / network / whatever, in order to keep top talent in our nation's best companies when our jobs go to India as mine did.

      I was wrong on all counts -- and still am. The Republican issue bothers me the most of all. But I think there is a middle finger salute for that. :-) which I give my own party every time I pull the trigger at the ballot box now

    • Not a surprise. The "MBA's and business majors that now run this tech company have destroyed a once respected name", as David said above, is too true.

      HP used to have a business model based on innovation, making new, useful physical technology. It made enormous piles of highly profitable cash... right up until they stopped doing it, circa 1998-1999 (in the printing group, at least). I can see BOD's getting excited about some new business model and going after it with gusto... but don't they ever learn? It's been 13 years, and HP has been a laughingstock the entire time. Isn't it time to go back to what worked? Ignore Wall Street for a few years and get the mojo back?

      HP. Stop it with the politically correct, safe and sane SF Bay Culture thing. You've given it a couple decades, it does not work. Get back to where you once belonged, make some money, have some fun.

    • It all looks great as bullet points for a PowerPoint presentation, Ryan, but that is not what shareholders care about. IBM is the same - with their ''retain top talent'' initiative, but it is all a fable. I was a PBC 1 at IBM (the highest you can achieve) and I know other IBMers with PBC 1 who were also let go as those headcount funds went to India. Performance does depend upon motivated employees for every company, including my current employer. It is a shame, at least in my opinion, that shareholders and board members (in particular) of these public companies don't appreciate the benefits of their human capital.
    • Gerstner got $.5B for axing 100k IBMers so Meg should get about 1/3 of that; not a bad day's work you might say. And we need MBA and years of consulting to make such a decision? When will Americans say enough of this robbery of our wealth which is not done by any other nation on earth.
    • HP alone is sad, sad, sad... and as usual (just like every major, public tech firm in this nation today) these decisions are made at the board room level and never (repeat never) once do they inquire with their human capital in the trenches to reinvent.

      HP employees --just like IBMers-- know how to grow the business and are in touch with what customers need and want. You think HPers don't want to save their jobs? Would be a buffoon if you think not. Those who dare try informing the top brass by empowering innovation and drawing attention to areas of the business that must improve -- are the first to go... been there, done that. And I do not see that same m.o. at European branches of these same companies, btw, for their egos aren't as large as ours.

      The mandatory, old school, top-down approach to running a business is a death sentence. Google (for now) and smaller start-up firms of our day are agile, not managed from top down, and empower innovation while respecting that future success is solely due to human capital.

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 05/15/12: At IBM East Fishkill facilities meeting management was overheard commenting on "we have to tighten our belts" regarding future cost cutting measures. Next thing we are being told that there will be no additional overtime under any circumstance. The following week we are being told that Weekend Saturday and Sunday overtime is now being taken away and if you worked the weekend you must take two regular days off during the following week to cancel additional salary cost. Work is still expected To be completed with limited manpower and some employees are now working through their lunch breaks to meet work projections. No different then retail marketing. Another erosion of IBM benefits. Work more and get paid less !! -Just the Beginning-
    • Comment 05/15/12: I got dropped end of march in the big GTS resource action. Talked to mentor, and friends, basically after this last resource action, it is no longer about what can I do to avoid the next actions, they are really seeing the writing on the wall. IBM is going to dump people.

      They have not given raises in several years, this past year, managers ( they do look at Alliance website) basically 1st line managers give you a 2 or 1 , they get told by upper mgmt to reduce all PBC's by one, they are artificially finding ways to get rid of people.

      There is an IBM BUBBLE, so keep stock for time being, let them artificially raise stock price, but 2015 or maybe late 2014, then all of us that have stock, wait until it peaks then sell, because the IBM after 2015 is going to be a crap Yahoo. On the current course, they will fail, ask people to retire, make promises they will not keep. They are betting on filling the gap with Indian and Chinese that provide crap. IBM is a bubble, They will be the next Netscape -Anonymous-

    • Comment 05/17/12: Was just given a heads up that IBM Canada has cancelled the pay increase program and profit sharing program for 2012. So other than actually cutting our pay (which will be next for sure) they have taken away everything that they can... We have already lost OT, weekend and on call pay a long time ago. Can't wait to see the few good people that are left now leave. No good reason to work for IBM Canada anymore. :-( -Really?-
    • Comment 05/17/12: In GBS, utilization numbers are in the toilet. Expect demands to work Saturday -Anon-
    • Comment 05/17/12: Transition to Retirement is really the classic "Prisoner's Dilemma" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma How to put 2 people, or groups, against each other. The sad thing is that even if you are aware that's what they are doing it still usually works. In this case, its RA or NO RA. Take the "deal" and get NO RA, but the other guy/group, if they don't "take the deal" is then looking at a possible RA downstream. The only way to beat it is for nobody to take the "deal". If enough people take the TRIP, they guarantee the ones who didn't, will end up Getting RA'd as the number left is small enough to "hide" inside a bigger RA group so its harder to prove age discrimination. We either all hang together or we will for sure "hang" separately. -russ-
    • Comment 05/17/12: You are an "At Will Employee". You can be a 1 performer and they can fire you for no cause at all. Severance is also up to IBM -goodbye-
    • Comment 05/18/12: -Just the Beginning- , Fishkill management has a history of making non-exempts work overtime and not letting them code it. Public response from a third line was if you do not like it perhaps you should rethink your long term goals. They know it is illegal but they hold the cards and own the labor department in New York. -Ex-Fishkill-
    • Comment 05/18/12: -russ- I see this as applying to joining the Alliance...that is, individuals making a choice between 'working their own individual deal' and joining a group to get it done. The psychology of prisoners trying to escape and cooperating with each other, equates to the 'union' dilemma. The 1963 movie, "The Great Escape" is a good example. it clearly shows attempts that fail; but the "prisoners" continue to try again, because they KNOW their fate otherwise.

      This is true with IBMers that believe they will survive RA's if they"do things" IBM's way; knowing in the back of their mind that they too, will get RA'ed eventually. IBMers that visit this site, pro-union or anti-union are aware of the truth. Yet, some comments that have appeared here in the past, suggest that there are IBMers that don't know Alliance exists. The ignorance of IBMers NOT knowing, never quite shrinks in proportion to the RA's that occur. Why? Because those IBMers that find out about Alliance don't tell their co-workers that they know out of fear of being 'caught' and immediately put on an RA list.

      If a few IBMers with the "Great Escape" ideas and notions were to form a committee and reach out to IBMers that DON'T know Alliance exists; but are silently suffering from the fear of an RA just like everyone else...then the process to change EVERYONE's situation could truly escalate and IBM would 'lose' their grip of fear as a tool to destroy US IBM jobs. THINK about it. -Cooler_King-

    • Comment 05/18/12: I've been at IBM for many years, watched countless resource actions. Good people getting thrown out like garbage, with mgmt not even waving goodbye. So I see the handwriting on the wall and go find myself a new job with great opportunity and even a better salary. Send in my two weeks notice and you wouldn't believe the execs coming out of the woodwork asking "Why are you leaving, can you fill us in, have you really thought this out, we can't believe you are quitting IBM." The audacity is unreal, just shows how out of touch the leadership is with the underlying morale of the very company they are supposedly leading. But I suppose they are too busy counting their restricted stock units to even notice the psyche of the folks who actually do the work. Keep your heads up folks, the I/T job market is improving and there are greener pastures out there. I can vouch for that. -outta here-
    • Comment 05/18/12: As the culture of corporate America started changing to its current path of executives first and everyone else second even the executives themselves understood that you just couldn't trust a corporate entity to treat you fairly no matter what they may or may not have done in the past. Thus was born the employment contracts with Golden Parachutes for executives. Executives are in their lofty positions because they understand business and how corporations work. And they do not trust them one little bit.

      Why do we as employees and ex employees waste our time trying to second guess them? We should give them the credit they deserve and learn from them before its too late. We should collectively get our own employment contracts with benefits, bonuses and severance and retirement packages defined in them. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The faster the "99%" realize that the only way to change corporate America's culture is through labor unions the faster America will recover. You simply cannot legislate fair treatment. You cannot expect someone to negotiate in good faith if nothing forces them to the bargaining table. If Nascar removed all design and engine restrictions why would a crew chief restrict his car in any way? It would be silly to do so, so to think that IBM is going to stop squeezing profits out of your pockets and stop working you like a dog just because its not fair to you or that someone outside of IBM is going to force them to stop is equally as silly.

      Stop being a victim. If you want to occupy something to help your cause occupy the union voting booth. This applies not just to IBM but every job in America. Stop playing the helpless victim. JOIN and RECRUIT. -Exodus2007-

    • Comment 05/18/12: -Cooler _King-: good points! IBMers have to know if the majority of them are not happy with the policies and actions being done by IBM then there must be some effort somewhere to try to deal with it. IBMers have to THINK. If they do then they will find the way and ultimately find that the Alliance is the best way to deal with the unhappiness working at IBM and dealing with RAs on a continual basis. So any employee saying they haven't heard of the Alliance hasn't been thinking or searching hard enough. -anonymous- Alliance reply: Even a simple Google search for "IBM employees" brings up the Alliance web site. But we still need email lists of employees to help in our outreach, and for alliance supporters to actively recruit new members.
    • Comment 05/18/12: It appears SSR management is making up their own rules for the Transition to Retirement program for the non-exempt SSR's. They are trying to apply Exempt employee rules. It sure looks like they are doing their best to discourage the program for SSR's! -SSR-
    • Comment 05/18/12: Got the word today that June 29th is my last day. I was bugging them to tell me so I think I may have found out extra early, but I heard that most will find out next week. Good luck all! -Gone baby gone!-
News and Opinion Concerning Health Savings Accounts, Medical Costs and Health Care Reform
  • Politico: Health care reform: GOP preps plan for ruling on law. By Jake Sherman and Jennifer Haberkorn. Excerpts: House Republican leaders are quietly hatching a plan of attack as they await a historic Supreme Court ruling on President Barack Obama’s health care law. If the law is upheld, Republicans will take to the floor to tear out its most controversial pieces, such as the individual mandate and requirements that employers provide insurance or face fines.

    If the law is partially or fully overturned they’ll draw up bills to keep the popular, consumer-friendly portions in place — like allowing adult children to remain on parents’ health care plans until age 26, and forcing insurance companies to provide coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. Ripping these provisions from law is too politically risky, Republicans say.

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.

  • Rolling Stone: How Wall Street Killed Financial Reform. It's bad enough that the banks strangled the Dodd-Frank law. Even worse is the way they did it - with a big assist from Congress and the White House. By Matt Taibi. Excerpts: Two years ago, when he signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, President Barack Obama bragged that he'd dealt a crushing blow to the extravagant financial corruption that had caused the global economic crash in 2008. "These reforms represent the strongest consumer financial protections in history," the president told an adoring crowd in downtown D.C. on July 21st, 2010. "In history."

    This was supposed to be the big one. At 2,300 pages, the new law ostensibly rewrote the rules for Wall Street. It was going to put an end to predatory lending in the mortgage markets, crack down on hidden fees and penalties in credit contracts, and create a powerful new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to safeguard ordinary consumers. Big banks would be banned from gambling with taxpayer money, and a new set of rules would limit speculators from making the kind of crazy-ass bets that cause wild spikes in the price of food and energy. There would be no more AIGs, and the world would never again face a financial apocalypse when a bank like Lehman Brothers went bankrupt. ...

    Two years later, Dodd-Frank is groaning on its deathbed. The giant reform bill turned out to be like the fish reeled in by Hemingway's Old Man – no sooner caught than set upon by sharks that strip it to nothing long before it ever reaches the shore. In a furious below-the-radar effort at gutting the law – roundly despised by Washington's Wall Street paymasters – a troop of water-carrying Eric Cantor Republicans are speeding nine separate bills through the House, all designed to roll back the few genuinely toothy portions left in Dodd-Frank. With the Quislingian covert assistance of Democrats, both in Congress and in the White House, those bills could pass through the House and the Senate with little or no debate, with simple floor votes – by a process usually reserved for things like the renaming of post offices or a nonbinding resolution celebrating Amelia Earhart's birthday.

    The fate of Dodd-Frank over the past two years is an object lesson in the government's inability to institute even the simplest and most obvious reforms, especially if those reforms happen to clash with powerful financial interests. From the moment it was signed into law, lobbyists and lawyers have fought regulators over every line in the rulemaking process. Congressmen and presidents may be able to get a law passed once in a while – but they can no longer make sure it stays passed. You win the modern financial-regulation game by filing the most motions, attending the most hearings, giving the most money to the most politicians and, above all, by keeping at it, day after day, year after fiscal year, until stealing is legal again. "It's like a scorched-earth policy," says Michael Greenberger, a former regulator who was heavily involved with the drafting of Dodd-Frank. "It requires constant combat. And it never, ever ends."

    That the banks have just about succeeded in strangling Dodd-Frank is probably not news to most Americans – it's how they succeeded that's the scary part. The banks followed a five-point strategy that offers a dependable blueprint for defeating any regulation – and for guaranteeing that when it comes to the economy, might will always equal right.

  • Smirking Chimp: Jamie Dimon's JPMorgan Chase: Why It's the Scandal of Our Time. By Richard Eskow. Excerpts: They're missing the point. When CEO Jamie Dimon announced that JPMorgan Chase had incurred at least $2 billion in losses from risky, unsecured, derivatives-types trading, it uncovered the scandal of our time once and for all.

    The Chase disaster gives us a much-needed a glimpse into our corrupt political system, its Wall Street paymasters, and the media voices that allow people like Dimon to escape scrutiny.

    The JPMorgan Chase story is the story behind the financial crisis that has thrown millions of people out of work. It's the story behind our ever-growing wealth inequity. It's the story behind Washington's inability to prosecute criminal bankers, regulate reckless ones, and propose the economic solutions the rest of us urgently need.

    Predictably, the pundits who aid and abet people like Jamie Dimon are dismissing this story's importance, pointing out that $2 billion (it could become much more) pales against the $19 billion in profit Chase reported last year. But it was potentially $2 billion earned through crime. And more importantly, this story isn't just about Chase's errors and crimes. It's much bigger than that. ...

    Depending on the day and the measurement used, JPMorgan Chase is now the largest or second-largest bank in the world. Its Japan operation alone has been cited by that nation's regulators as a systemic risk because of its size. If Chase began to collapse because of risky betting, the government would be forced to step in again. Jamie Dimon knows that. It's a lot easier to gamble when you know somebody else will be forced to bail you out if you lose too much.

    Chase, like the other mega-banks, has systematically engaged in criminal activity for years. At the same time, it has used its vast wealth to corrupt our political and regulatory systems. And it has been aided and abetted by willing collaborators in the media, every step of the way. It gave up nearly three quarters of a billion dollars in settlements and surrendered fees to settle one case alone -- that of bribery and corruption in Jefferson County, Alabama. Chase has paid out billions to settle charges that include perjury and forgery (in its systemic foreclosure fraud and abuse), investor fraud, and sale of unregistered securities. And these charges were for actions that took place while Jamie Dimon was the CEO.

  • Huffington Post: Brooksley Born On JPMorgan Chase Loss: Nothing's Changed Since LTCM. By D.M. Levine. Excerpts: To Brooksley Born, JPMorgan Chase's trading blowup looks a lot like the Long-Term Capital Management debacle of 14 years ago. It's "happening all over again," Born told The Huffington Post on Monday. "We have to learn from these experiences, and we don't seem to be doing it yet."

    Born, head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from 1996 to 1999, was one of the earliest observers to warn about the dangers of unregulated derivatives. She was thwarted in her efforts to impose regulation in the late 90s despite the cautionary tale of LTCM, a hedge fund that needed a government bailout in 1998 after making risky bets on credit derivatives and government bonds. As a Public Citizens report released Monday, "Forgotten Lessons of Deregulation: Rolling Back Dodd-Frank's Derivatives Rules Would Repeat a Mistake that Led to the Financial Crisis," points out, Born and other regulation advocates at the time cited LTCM as a prime example of the need for regulation and the risks of the market's opacity.

    JPMorgan's $2 billion trading loss suggests the need for derivatives regulation is as urgent as ever. "As long as we don't have derivatives reform in place, this kind of loss can occur without any advanced warning," Born, now a retired partner at the law firm Arnold & Porter, said.

  • New York Times: A Generation Hobbled by the Soaring Cost of College. By Andrew Martin and Andrew W. Lehren. Excerpts: With more than $1 trillion in student loans outstanding in this country, crippling debt is no longer confined to dropouts from for-profit colleges or graduate students who owe on many years of education, some of the overextended debtors in years past. As prices soar, a college degree statistically remains a good lifetime investment, but it often comes with an unprecedented financial burden.

    About two-thirds of bachelor’s degree recipients borrow money to attend college, either from the government or private lenders, according to a Department of Education survey of 2007-8 graduates; the total number of borrowers is most likely higher since the survey does not track borrowing from family members.

    By contrast, 45 percent of 1992-93 graduates borrowed money; that survey included family borrowing as well as government and private loans. ...

    In the last decade, even as enrollment at state colleges and universities has grown, some states have cut spending for higher education and many others have not allocated enough money to keep pace with the growing student body. That trend has accelerated as state budgets have shrunk because of the recent financial crisis and the unpopularity of tax increases.

    Nationally, state and local spending per college student, adjusted for inflation, reached a 25-year low this year, jeopardizing the long-held conviction that state-subsidized higher education is an affordable steppingstone for the lower and middle classes. All the while, the cost of tuition and fees has continued to increase faster than the rate of inflation, faster even than medical spending. If the trends continue through 2016, the average cost of a public college will have more than doubled in just 15 years, according to the Department of Education.

  • The New Yorker: How Chief Justice John Roberts orchestrated the Citizens United decision. By Jeffrey Toobin. Excerpts: When Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was first argued before the Supreme Court, on March 24, 2009, it seemed like a case of modest importance. The issue before the Justices was a narrow one. The McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law prohibited corporations from running television commercials for or against Presidential candidates for thirty days before primaries. During that period, Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, had wanted to run a documentary, as a cable video on demand, called “Hillary: The Movie,” which was critical of Hillary Clinton. The F.E.C. had prohibited the broadcast under McCain-Feingold, and Citizens United had challenged the decision. There did not seem to be a lot riding on the outcome. After all, how many nonprofits wanted to run documentaries about Presidential candidates, using relatively obscure technologies, just before elections? ...

    In a different way, though, Citizens United is a distinctive product of the Roberts Court. The decision followed a lengthy and bitter behind-the-scenes struggle among the Justices that produced both secret unpublished opinions and a rare reargument of a case. The case, too, reflects the aggressive conservative judicial activism of the Roberts Court. It was once liberals who were associated with using the courts to overturn the work of the democratically elected branches of government, but the current Court has matched contempt for Congress with a disdain for many of the Court’s own precedents. When the Court announced its final ruling on Citizens United, on January 21, 2010, the vote was five to four and the majority opinion was written by Anthony Kennedy. Above all, though, the result represented a triumph for Chief Justice Roberts. Even without writing the opinion, Roberts, more than anyone, shaped what the Court did. As American politics assumes its new form in the post-Citizens United era, the credit or the blame goes mostly to him.

  • The Smirking Chimp: Why We Have A Deficit. By Dave Johnson. Deficit theater is coming to DC today, with a well-funded "fiscal summit." The plot summary is that we have Deficit Trouble - Right Here In River City! so to fix it we need to cut Social Security and Medicare and the things democracy does for We, the People -- while cutting taxes on the rich and their corporations to make us more "business-friendly." (This musical is sometimes billed as "Simpson-Bowles" but it's the same old song.)

    All of this deficit hysteria today - when just over ten years ago we had such a large a budget surplus that we were projected to pay off our entire debt in ... ten years! That's right, Ten Years Ago We Were Paying Off The Nation's Debt. But Then We Elected Obama.

    Just ten years ago this country was running huge surpluses and paying off its debt. But then we elected Obama and all hell broke loose. Oh, wait...

    Between the time ten years ago when we had big surpluses and were paying off the debt and now when we are told the "Obama spending and deficit" mean we have to cut back on the things We, the People do for each other, something happened. Something changed. The things that happened, the things that changed, are being ignored in the current DC discussion about what we need to do to fix things.

    Something happened. We had a surplus, and it was replaced by massive deficits. The last Bush budget year had a deficit of $1.4 trillion!

    Why We Have A Deficit. What happened under Bush? We cut taxes on the rich and doubled military spending. (And started wars.) And don't forget collapsing the economy, forcing people onto unemployment and food stamps. That is why we have a deficit. We have a deficit because of tax cuts for the rich, huge military budget increases and the consequences of deregulating corporations.

  • New York Times editorial: Not Too Late to Curb the Filibuster. Excerpts: Fed up and rueful, Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, made a startling admission on Thursday: he should have reined in the filibuster rule last year, when he had a chance. As Republicans engaged in yet another of their endless filibusters on what should have been a routine matter — reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank — Mr. Reid took to the floor and praised two senators for being right last year when he was wrong.

    Tom Udall of New Mexico and Jeff Merkley of Oregon were prophetic in wanting to change Senate rules, he said. “The rest of us were wrong, or most of us, anyway,” he added. “What a shame.”

    Since 2007, Democrats have been forced to try to break Republican filibusters 360 times — by far the highest rate in Congressional history. Ending them requires Democrats to get over a 60-vote hurdle. If Mr. Reid helped enact the proposal of the two senators, he would instantly make Congress more efficient and more democratic.

    The plan would prevent the filibuster from being used abusively, without eliminating an important tool to give a minority party a voice. Among other changes, filibusters would require 10 senators to start, and members would have to speak continuously on the floor to keep it going. In current practice, a single senator can simply declare a filibuster against a measure. This rule change could have been enacted on a simple majority vote on the first day of the session. But Mr. Reid and other Democrats did not want to lose the ability to obstruct the Republican agenda if they lost control of the chamber.

    On Monday, four Democratic congressmen, including John Lewis of Georgia, got so frustrated that they filed suit against the Senate, saying its filibuster rule is unconstitutional and illegally nullified their legislative votes. They argue that unlimited debate was never envisioned by the Constitution, and that supermajorities were required only in unusual cases, like overriding a veto or treaty ratification.

  • The Fiscal Times: Constitutional or Not, Let's End the Filibuster. By Bruce Bartlett. Excerpts: One of the things people constantly complain about is the tendency of the media to treat Republicans and Democrats as equally complicit on issues such as the deficit, even if one side actually deserves the bulk of the blame. However, there is one area in which both sides truly are almost equally to blame and that is in abusing the Senate filibuster. This means that the solution will necessarily have to be bipartisan.

    Politicians aren’t the only hypocrites favoring the filibuster when it is good for their side and opposing it when it benefits the other. In 1995, when Republicans controlled Congress and there was a Democrat in the White House, The New York Times said the filibuster had to go. It had become “the tool of the sore loser” and “an archaic rule that frustrates democracy and serves no useful purpose.” ...

    I have previously argued that if Republicans believe they will retake the White House next year, they would be wise to cut a deal with Democrats on the filibuster now while they are sympathetic to the idea. A year from now, when Senate Democrats are back doing the same thing to Republicans that Republicans are now doing to Democrats, Republicans will regret not acting when both parties think they may benefit from filibuster reform.

  • New York Times editorial: Mr. Boehner and the Debt. It clearly does not bother Speaker John Boehner that he pushed the United States to the brink of default last year. It does not matter that the deep spending cuts in the resolution he demanded to end that crisis will hurt economic growth. It does not even matter that the House he leads is determined now to break that agreement with even deeper cuts in vital programs. No, Mr. Boehner wants to do it all over again: he announced on Tuesday that the House will not agree to raise the debt ceiling when it is reached later this year or early next, unless the increase is matched by equal spending cuts. “We shouldn’t dread the debt limit,” he said, instantly forcing the country to do just that. “As a matter of fact, I think we should welcome it. It’s an action-forcing event in a town that has become infamous for inaction.”

    An official who actually wanted to help the country rather than appeasing the Tea Party might have remembered what happened a year ago, after Mr. Boehner first made that extortionate demand. The bond rating agencies said the country’s credit and reputation had been seriously damaged, and the government lost its AAA credit rating. (Mr. Boehner shamelessly blamed Mr. Obama for that on Tuesday.) The Federal Reserve warned of “catastrophic” and “calamitous” effects if Republicans carried through on their threat to default. The stock market sank, and Congress’s approval rating has never recovered. ...

    Washington’s need to deal with the long-term deficit can be met only with a combination of new revenues and rational cuts, not extortion. The overly deep cuts in last year’s deal were necessary only because Republicans refused to end tax cuts for the rich. ...

    Some members might be willing to reach a deal, but Mr. Boehner’s decision to again threaten a default shows that he is an unreliable budget negotiator. President Obama failed to recognize that last time, and Congressional Democrats gave in too easily. We hope both are hearing the message this time around. ...

  • Forbes: What Mitt Romney Is Really Worth: An Exclusive Analysis Of His Latest Finances. By Edwin Durgy. Excerpts: Mitt Romney isn’t the richest person to ever run for President – Ross Perot had him beat by a factor of ten. And if he’s elected, inflation adjustments might favor sprawling plantation owners like Washington and Jefferson, or Kennedy if family assets counted. But there’s no denying that in terms of total dollars a President Romney would be the wealthiest White House occupant ever, and would be even wealthier had he not set aside a trust, now worth $100 million, for his 5 boys. So just how rich is he? ...

    The Romneys own three properties now: a La Jolla, Calif. beach house that they bought for $12 million in 2008 but was reassessed last year at $8.7 million (a local agent thinks that even that figure is “pie in the sky” today), a townhouse condo in Belmont, Mass purchased for $895,000 in 2010 and an $8 million summer compound in Wolfeboro, N.H., on the shores of Lake Winnipesaukee, consisting of a main home, a converted stable and other land. ...

    Mitt Romney’s Total Wealth: $230 million

  • Washington Post: Romney, responding to Bain attacks, says Obama responsible for 100,000 auto job losses. By Philip Rucker. Excerpts: Personally responding for the first time to Democratic attacks this week over his business record at Bain Capital, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney on Wednesday accused President Obama of being responsible for the elimination of more than 100,000 auto industry jobs. ...

    “We were able to help create over 100,000 jobs,” Romney said of his tenure at Bain, the venture capital and corporate buyout firm he founded. “On the president’s watch, about 100,000 jobs were lost in the auto industry and auto dealers and auto manufacturers, so he’s hardly one to point a finger.”

    It was an unusual line of defense for Romney considering that the Obama administration’s rescue of the auto industry is one the president’s most popular accomplishments, especially in critical midwestern battlegrounds like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan. The federal bailout of two of the Big Three domestic auto companies has been widely considered a success, and Democrats have attacked Romney for instead advocating a managed bankruptcy in a New York Times op-ed titled, “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.”

    The Obama campaign, citing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, said auto industry employment actually increased by about 102,000 jobs since Obama took office in January 2009. ...

    The Post’s Fact Checker determined that Romney’s claim that he created 100,000 jobs at Bain was unproven and untenable.

  • New York Times op-ed: Why We Regulate. By Paul Krugman. Excerpts: One of the characters in the classic 1939 film “Stagecoach” is a banker named Gatewood who lectures his captive audience on the evils of big government, especially bank regulation — “As if we bankers don’t know how to run our own banks!” he exclaims. As the film progresses, we learn that Gatewood is in fact skipping town with a satchel full of embezzled cash.

    As far as we know, Jamie Dimon, the chairman and C.E.O. of JPMorgan Chase, isn’t planning anything similar. He has, however, been fond of giving Gatewood-like speeches about how he and his colleagues know what they’re doing, and don’t need the government looking over their shoulders. So there’s a large heap of poetic justice — and a major policy lesson — in JPMorgan’s shock announcement that it somehow managed to lose $2 billion in a failed bit of financial wheeling-dealing.

    Just to be clear, businessmen are human — although the lords of finance have a tendency to forget that — and they make money-losing mistakes all the time. That in itself is no reason for the government to get involved. But banks are special, because the risks they take are borne, in large part, by taxpayers and the economy as a whole. And what JPMorgan has just demonstrated is that even supposedly smart bankers must be sharply limited in the kinds of risk they’re allowed to take on.

    Why, exactly, are banks special? Because history tells us that banking is and always has been subject to occasional destructive “panics,” which can wreak havoc with the economy as a whole. Current right-wing mythology has it that bad banking is always the result of government intervention, whether from the Federal Reserve or meddling liberals in Congress. In fact, however, Gilded Age America — a land with minimal government and no Fed — was subject to panics roughly once every six years. And some of these panics inflicted major economic losses.

  • Washington Post: The deficit and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. By Jonathan Capehart. Excerpts: Folks such as Greg Sargent, Steve Benen and Jonathan Chait have effectively dissected Mitt Romney’s Monday chatter about the deficit and how President Obama is to blame. And now I want to add my two cents by jumping off something that Sargent, my colleague, wrote.

    He noted that the press coverage of Romney’s “prairie fire of debt” speech failed to note two things.

    1. Nonpartisan experts believe Romney’s plans would increase the deficit far more than Obama’s would.
    2. George W. Bush’s policies arguably are more responsible for increasing the deficit than Obama’s are.

    It is on Sargent’s second point to which I want to add. Talking Points Memo put out this handy graph, highlighting where the federal red ink comes from. ...

    At the top you see “Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.” During the George W. Bush presidency those costs were financed through supplemental spending that was not part of the appropriations process. In short, the funding was kept off the books. But in a speech to a joint session of Congress in 2009, a newly inaugurated Obama announced the end to that deceptive budgetary practice.

  • New York Times editorial: JPMorphing. Excerpts: When he disclosed a stunning $2 billion trading loss at JPMorgan Chase last week, Jamie Dimon, the bank’s chief executive, insisted that the trades had not violated the Volcker Rule, a crucial part of the Dodd-Frank reform law that is supposed to bar banks from doing risky trading for their own account.

    This week, however, the story changed. On Monday, a JPMorgan official told The Times that the trades — which have since ballooned to at least $3 billion — started out as allowable, but had “morphed into something” that crossed the line. On Tuesday, at the bank’s annual shareholder meeting, Mr. Dimon echoed that statement, calling for rules to ensure that permitted trades don’t “morph into something different.”

    It might sound as if Mr. Dimon, whose lobbyists have led the charge to undermine Dodd-Frank, is calling for more and better rules. If only. We still don’t know the details of JPMorgan’s disastrous bets. But the Volcker Rule was supposed to be clear: federally insured banks would not be allowed to make speculative bets with their own capital. The problem is that Mr. Dimon and other bankers have been fighting to make the regulations as loose and vague — and as prone to morphing — as possible.

    And before JPMorgan’s losses were disclosed, the bankers were almost certain to get what they wanted. In October, regulators issued proposed rules that were weak and toothless, and the final version due this summer isn’t expected to be any better. ...

    Without a strong Volcker Rule, taxpayers — via deposit insurance and bailouts — will continue to be on the hook for risky trades that boost bankers’ pay when things go well but that can wreak havoc on the financial system and broader economy when they blow up. ...

    For anyone who forgot what happened during the financial meltdown, the JPMorgan debacle should leave no doubts about the need for tougher regulations. The banks cannot be allowed to keep to their risky business as usual. The country cannot afford it.

  • National Journal: The 1 Percent Solution. Nick Hanauer is the kind of innovator and venture capitalist expected to power the country’s next wave of growth. So why does he insist that only the fading middle class can rescue America? By Jim Tankersley. Excerpts: Hanauer is 52 and worth several hundred million dollars. His brown hair is thick and mossy, with just a fleck or two of gray, and he is fond of wearing dark denim pants and shirts with open collars. An ace venture capitalist, he is the founder of several companies, including one called aQuantive that he sold to Microsoft for $6.4 billion. On the day of the sale he personally banked $270 million.

    In 2011, Hanauer says he paid an effective federal tax rate of 11 percent. He occupies the upper echelon of an elite group of Americans, the top 1 percent of all earners, who have amassed the lion’s share of the nation’s wealth gains over the past several decades. Many economists expect he and his class of entrepreneurs to fuel the country’s next great engine of growth.

    Like a lot of self-made rich guys, Hanauer has developed a theory on how to fix the ailing economy. He preaches it in op-ed columns, television interviews, political gatherings, and casual conversations with Seattle’s innovation royalty. He was invited to give a speech this spring by the organizers of TED, the nonprofit that has grown famous for commissioning “TED talks” on such diverse topics as the nature of innovation, the science of global warming, and the need to spread contraceptives throughout the developing world. Hanauer’s pitch took five minutes at the TED University conference on March 1. Afterward, organizers seemed keen to post it on their website. Then in May, they abruptly told him his remarks were too controversial, too political for TED, and wouldn’t be published online.

    The disqualifying notion at the center of Hanauer’s talk was that the innovators and businessmen are not, in fact, “job creators”—that the fate of the economy rests instead in the hands of the middle class. So Hanauer wants to tax rich guys like himself more, to pay for investments to nurture middle-class families.

    “We’ve had it backward for the last 30 years,” Hanauer said at the TED conference. “Rich businesspeople like me don’t create jobs. Rather, they are a consequence of an ecosystemic feedback loop animated by middle-class consumers.” When the middle class thrives, he said, “businesses grow and hire, and owners profit.” Emerging research from high-powered experts across the ideological spectrum backs that economic inversion. Their work shows how America’s long-term prosperity is in jeopardy because the middle class is struggling and the super-rich are pulling away.

  • New York Times opinion: Win Some, Lose Some Is it possible that I have misjudged Mitt Romney? By Paul Krugman. Excerpts: Is it possible that I have misjudged Mitt Romney? My take has always been that he’s a smart guy who also happens to be both ambitious and completely amoral; he decided that his career can best be advanced by pandering to the crazies of the right, and will say anything to that end.

    More and more, however, he has been coming out with statements suggesting that he is, in fact, a dangerous fool.

    The latest: JPMorgan’s loss was no biggie:

    This was a loss to shareholders and owners of JPMorgan and that’s the way America works Some people experienced a loss in this case because of a bad decision. By the way, there was someone who made a gain. The $2 billion JPMorgan lost someone else gained.

    Hey, when Lehman Brothers lost a lot of money, that was money someone else gained. No problem, right?

    Can Romney really not understand that key financial institutions are different from any old business — that when they fail they can wreak havoc? And can he really not understand that for that reason taxpayers are ultimately on the hook for large losses — and that JPMorgan in particular has government-guaranteed deposits?

  • Washington Post: Conservative groups outspending liberal counterparts 4 to 1 on congressional races. By Dan Eggen and T.W. Farnam. Excerpts: Conservative interest groups have dumped well over $20 million into congressional races so far this year, outspending their liberal opponents 4 to 1 and setting off a growing panic among Democrats struggling to regain the House and hold on to their slim majority in the Senate. The surge suggests that big-spending super PACs and nonprofit groups, which have become dominant players in the presidential race, will also play a pivotal role in House and Senate contests that will determine the balance of power in Washington in 2013. ...

    A number of super PACs have become de facto arms of the two political parties, whose leaders can help raise money for the groups within legal limits of $5,000 per individual. But once introduced, those same PACs can hit up donors for unlimited amounts on their own and then use those funds to help the party candidates. So far, the fundraising has primarily benefited conservative organizations such as the Club for Growth, the Congressional Leadership Fund and American Crossroads, the group connected to George W. Bush’s former White House adviser Karl Rove, which plans to spend up to $100 million on House and Senate races through its super PAC and nonprofit arms.

    Overall, congressionally focused super PACs have raised $100 million so far this election cycle, including $28 million by American Crossroads, according to FEC data.

    Democratic-leaning groups have lagged badly by comparison. House Majority PAC has reported raising $4.5 million since last year, primarily from unions, and had $1.7 million on hand at the end of March. ...

    Liberal groups have been hobbled by widespread reluctance among Democrats to support unlimited-spending groups, which have been criticized by President Obama and others as unhealthy for democracy. But Democratic strategists say donors are coming around. “It’s no secret that it’s not the way we would prefer to do things,” said J.B. Poersch, a strategist for Majority PAC, which is focused on bolstering Senate Democrats. “But we’re also recognizing that we have no choice but to compete. . . . You can’t just give away the store.”

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.