Layoffs have been ongoing all quarter, according to one employee posting to the Union website, who said the last layoff in his unit finished in May. ...
IBM won't disclose the number of people it cuts and doesn't have to report that figure under the WARN act unless it conducts a layoff that cuts 500 people or more at once.
When we asked IBM, a spokesperson declined to comment.
IBM tends to talk about layoffs in financial terms, how much a "workforce rebalancing" – as IBM calls it – costs the company in any given quarter. ...
In fact, IBM is so closed-lipped about layoff numbers it stopped releasing information about job titles and ages of workers being let go in 2014, Bloomberg reported at the time. This even though employers are required by U.S. federal law to reveal that data if they want employees to waive their right to file age discrimination lawsuits as part of their severance package.
Today IBM asks workers to agree to binding arbitration as part of their severance package, Bloomberg reported. ...
In April, Senator Grassley wrote a letter to IBM demanding to know details about its layoffs and its usage of foreign Visas. IBM told him, "For competitive reasons IBM does not release data on workforce changes."
The deal comes as IBM is rumored to be facing another round of job cuts across the nation. But so far the IBM jobs in New York have largely been saved from the company’s downsizing, in large part because of contractual obligations between the state and the company.
First the misconception as laid out in a blog post shared with me by a reader. This blogger maintains that we wouldn’t be so bound to H-1Bs if we had better technical training programs in our schools. This is a popular theme with every recent Presidential administration and, while not explicitly incorrect, it isn’t implicitly correct, either. Schools can always be better but better schools aren’t necessarily limiting U.S. technical employment.
His argument, like that of Google and many other companies often mentioned as H-1B supporters, presupposes that there is a domestic IT labor shortage, but there isn’t. The United States right now has plenty of qualified workers to fill every available position. If there are indeed exceptional jobs that can’t be filled by ANY domestic applicant, there’s still the EB-2 visa program, which somehow doesn’t max-out every year like H-1B. How can that be if there’s a talent shortage? In truth, H-1B has always been unnecessary. ...
I learned (while working) at (an unnamed public technology company) a LOT about H1B. We had contracted with several of the Indian firms such as Infosys, Wipro, Tata, Impetus, TechMahindra for ‘outsourcing’ and ‘offshoring’ ordinary tech work like programming, DBAs’s, documentation, etc.
The rates were very enticing to any corporation: we were paying anywhere from $15/hour to a *max* of $28/hour for H1B folks from those Indian firms (which BTW, had set up US subsidiaries as ‘consulting/contractor firms’ so that American companies were hiring “American workers”).
The jobs we were hiring from TechMahindra, Wipro, etc., were jobs that American workers of same skillset and experience would be paid in the range of $80k-$170k (annual, which translates to $52-110/hour when you factor in benefits, medical, etc.). Quite a considerable difference in cost to the corporation.
At one point we had ~800 staff in India that worked for Infosys/Wipro/etc.) but had H1B ‘project managers’ onsite in the US from Infosys/Wipro/etc. to manage those armies of people in India (i.e. – deal with language issues, scheduling, etc.).
I got to know some of the H1B’s that were in the US working for us. I asked them, “How can you afford to live here on $15/hour?” The answer was they were living in group homes (e.g. – 8 guys would rent a townhouse and pool their money for food, etc.), plus had “no life” outside of work.
Selected reader comments follow:
As I listened to the man talk the term “Digital Sharecroppers” came unbidden to mind. But this is worse than sharecropping because an H-1B worker can’t switch employers.
What Cognizant and the rest of the H-1B abusers are doing is exploiting the promise/hope of US Citizenship while suppressing near-term wages (and the value of the citizenship they use as a lure), with indentured servants.
Cringely is right in saying the E2-B program is an appropriate alternative. Another good option would be the Entrepreneur Visa. I say trade an Entrepreneur Visa program which creates new jobs in exchange for killing the H-1B visa which only suppresses wages and supports corporate dinosaurs trying to cut their bottom line rather than actually innovating.
Both IBMs were on display in an incident earlier this year involving the hottest of hot startups, Uber. At the end of March, IBM's accounting department issued a new edict banning reimbursement for use of Uber and other ride-sharing services over safety and security concerns, Yahoo Finance has learned. But the decision was almost immediately reversed after a single 20-something IBM employee took to the company's internal social network, Connections, to petition for a change.
Pros: Layoffs have been reduced (not eliminated). Now hiring to replace laid off workers. Work from home opportunities are good.
Cons: As a 30+ year employee, I regularly work 60+ hours per week and I bring home less than I did 5 years ago due to increased medical premiums and infrequent raises. Last 5 years of raises were 0%, 2.1%, 0%, 0%, 2.2%, all while working 60+ hours per week. IBM's official policies are:
Actual pay is a bit under average.
Advice to Management: There needs to be appropriate financial return for hard work and dedication.
Pros: Great teammates. Iconic brand. Decent benefits.
Advice to Management: Too much corporate nepotism; the company needs fresh blood at the very top. Stop recycling lifers into new executive roles. Get rid of all executives that have no direct reports. Stop laying off worker bees; they are the life blood of the company.
Advice to Management: Great job; high praise from me at least!
Pros: Ermm, this is is hard. It's seriously hard to find something above "very bad" level here. We have 14 inch laptops for all tech employees, as an example.
Advice to Management: Stop Watson business. Throw Tivoli monster out of the window. Forget AIX. Get people under 30 making technical decisions. Just close the shop, seriously.
Pros: Some very nice and professional co-workers. (No idea where they get their patience, other than there are no other jobs so they go along to get along but hate the company).
Cons: Poor work/life balance (your whole life is supposed to be about IBM).
Poor middle management; your manager will 'have your back' until the manager above him/her complains and then they will throw you under the bus and put you on a 30-60 day 'plan' to exit you out of the company.
Advice to Management: Grow up; being a middle manager at IBM doesn't mean a thing. You're not the President of the United States or anyone of any significant importance. Treat your people like humans and stop hiding behind titles.
Pros: Great people, lots of flexibility, can move around inside to different jobs. Good work/life balance and alternate work options.
Cons: The pay is lower. Expense controls to drive you nuts. No clear strategy or vision at least in my division.
Advice to Management: Give loyal employees the benefit of the doubt. After 16+ years I would not have expected a simple paperwork error to have resulted in termination.
Pros: Remote work from home option supporting execs in domestic USA or global countries. Working in a virtual world.
Cons: Corporate savings since employees are responsible for paying for own home/phone; internet; and printer usage sometimes exceeding limits. No pay raises for 10+ years. Many women in management trying to get ahead therefore disrespecting others.
Advice to Management: Moving in the direction as WANG Laboratories but with much more greed!
Pros: Big company, lots of opportunities to learn new things and career choices. Working from home positions!
Cons: IBM keeps cutting workforce in the US every year moving the work to APAC; customers do not want to deal with people who are not local to the US so they cling onto the few US resources left overloading them with work...fewer and fewer people make for very long work weeks. The added aggravation of all the overhead activities to be performed to align with management initiatives turns this company into the only relationship you will entertain as you won't have time for anything else.
Advice to Management: Stop this madness of firing US resources. The 80/20 rule does NOT work when you are offshoring jobs to India and the like. There is too much time difference; the difference in work ethics are too wide and constitute a huge barrier and your customers are willing to pay extra for US based resources!
Advice to Management: Mean what you say, push boundaries, include all employees, be interested in them.
Pros: A few good employees left to work with
Advice to Management: All management should be fired from first-line management up to Ginnie. Start again.
Advice to Management:
Pros: Benefits, plenty of opportunities for those willing to travel, many positions can be performed at home. Good place to get experience at the beginning of one's career, plus working for IBM looks great on a resume.
Cons: Most of the money, bonuses, and opportunities go to people in specific areas (those that IBM is focusing on at a given moment). Currently that would be big data, cloud, mobile, etc.
Advice to Management: Find ways to recognize and reward your "meat and potatoes" employees. Many excellent, much needed employees are demoralized and feel unappreciated.
Pros: Average to normal work environment and lots of flexibility. Mostly a work at home environment and full of strong employees.
Cons: No career growth 1 to 2% raise year over year ONLY for top 10% employees. Anything outside of that is not eligible for an increase. Only 2 people on a team of 10 can land in that category.
Advice to Management: Be more people oriented and so trying to be IBM cool. Offer more learning support.
Pros: IBM's partnership with Apple is a great idea and if it goes well may benefit the company. Opportunities for learning are always available and a lot of great people work for IBM.
Cons: Valuing employees is a thing in IBM's past. Hard work and dedication are expected but rarely appreciated except by your coworkers and if you are lucky, your manager.
Advice to Management: First-line managers; you're powerless so no advice here. Second-line managers, quit making a once great company the main laughing stock of the IT world.
Pros: Flexible enough to trust work from home employees, works well with minor changes to work schedule as long as it fits the client/account needs; most mid-level managers have heart and do care how changes in the company policies effect their employees.
Advice to Management: I've worked for IBM 27 years, and have seen the culture change. Money should not be your driving factor. Care more about the employees. A happy employee makes for a happy client — more happy clients make for more money in the end — you need to turn around your thought process before you destroy what was painstakingly built before you came.
Pros: When I was recruited to join IBM from another large company, it appeared to be a wonderful opportunity. The people were nice and friendly. The work was interesting and I felt like I was contributing straight away.
Cons: There is a horrible culture of distrust among the executive management team that flows downstream to the workers. The VPs are not transparent and communication is nonexistent. Many layoffs, so morale is extremely low. IBM does a wonderful job ensuring that the brand appears to be leading edge, and in reality, the emperor does not have any clothes. The Cloud, Mobile, Social and Analytics are really far behind the industry but the world would never know because of the great Brand Management team that continues to promote a sinking ship. In the end I was treated horrible as IBM management does not like external hires.
Advice to Management: Get rid of the horrible VPs that you have in place today...that is why Ginni is failing at her job because IBM lacks real leaders.
Advice to Management:
Okay, here we go. If you have at least 10 years of employment (or have been married long enough to someone with the requisite 10 years), you can begin drawing Social Security retirement benefits at any time between ages 62 and 70. The longer you wait to start, the bigger your monthly benefit — but the fewer years you have to collect it. ...
Conventional wisdom is to wait until 70 if you can afford it and are in good health, because higher benefits offset the risk of outliving your money — that’s longevity risk. However, unless you live to your mid-80s, you don’t come out ahead by waiting: It takes 12 1/2 years of a 132 percent benefit to make up for the four years of 100 percent benefit you gave up. Should you die at 69 and 11 months, you and your spouse are out of luck. That’s what’s called mortality risk. ...
But your feelings could be different. And file-and-suspend is easy to do — at least for now — by following instructions in the popular new book “Get What’s Yours: The Secrets to Maxing Out Your Social Security.” My longtime friend Philip Moeller, a journalist who specializes in retirement issues, is one of the co-authors. The others are Paul Solman of “PBS NewsHour” and Laurence J. Kotlikoff of Boston University. It’s a very useful book.
File-and-suspend works like this. When one member of a benefits-eligible couple hits 66, for example, he or she files for Social Security but immediately suspends receiving payments; the other member files for “spousal benefits,” which are equal to half what the filer-and-suspender would have gotten. After reaching 70, the filer-and-suspender refiles. So the couple gets four years of partial age-66 benefits plus full age-70 benefits rather than not getting a dime until age 70.
One of the other reasons we tolerate unreasonably high health care costs is gullibility’s close and symbiotic relative: blind adherence to ideology. By this I mean the belief that the free market — the invisible hand Adam Smith wrote about more than two centuries ago and that many Americans hold as a nonnegotiable tenet of faith — can work as well in health care as it can in other sectors of the economy.
While the free market is alive and well in the world’s other developed countries, leaders in every one of them, including conservatives, decided years ago that health care is different, that letting the unfettered invisible hand work its magic in health care not only doesn’t create the unintended social benefits Smith wrote about, it all too often creates unintended, seemingly intractable, social problems.
That's how it's supposed to work, at least.
But new data out this spring from the IRS gives us a closer look of how the income tax works at the pinnacle of the income distribution -- not just the top 1 percent, or even the top 0.1 percent, but among the rarefied realm of the 0.01 and even the 0.001 percent. Those latter two categories are new in the IRS report this year, reflecting a growing public interest in the ultra-wealthy and their effects on the economy.
The IRS found that as you go from being merely wealthy (the 1 percent) to super-duper wealthy (the 0.001 percent), your average federal income tax rate actually goes down. In other words, the progressivity of the federal income tax starts to fall apart at the upper reaches of the income distribution. Take a look.
Alliance reply: Unless someone from Canada can answer this we suggest you contact your labor board.
Alliance reply: We are sorry to hear of your RA notice and probable job loss. You can find plenty of advice, if you read through our Job Cuts Reports Archives.
Please provide Alliance with more RA information; such as the same information we've requested from IBMers training their replacements, in our previous comment, also on this page:
We will be better able to share this information with all US IBMers and the media, if there is an RA occurring at this time. Thank you for your support. Report job cuts here: http://www.endicottalliance.org/jobcutsreportsTUfm.php
Message: I feel for those that have received an RA. I was laid off in March of 2014 with the same MO. I always had 1's or 2+ and for 2-13 all of a sudden I got a 2. I also firmly believe that it was age discrimination. IBM used to have to publish the demographics of a RA but they did not in the 2014 RA. Most everyone I know that was RA'd was between 45 and 65 and a band 9 and higher. If I can help you in anyway please let me know — email@example.com. Is their anyone out there that also believes it was age discrimination and if so what can we do about it? Is there anyway we can get the demographics? -Gina-
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.