“The market is changing quickly, and IBM can’t move fast enough,” said A. M. Sacconaghi, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Company. “That’s what this suggests.” ...
Virginia M. Rometty, IBM’s chief executive, has candidly said that this year will be one of difficult transition. In a statement on Monday, Ms. Rometty said the quarter showed the wisdom of its strategy. “We again made progress in the transformation of our business to higher value,” she said. ...
But investors and analysts are concerned that the decline at IBM’s large, lucrative businesses may accelerate faster than the new businesses grow. Until the new businesses account for more overall growth, those worries will most likely persist.
“The math is working against them now,” said Frank Gens, chief analyst at IDC. “Modest declines in the older business overshadow the new businesses.”
Selected comments follow:
Yet the Baker administration on Wednesday granted $2.5 million in tax breaks over three years to IBM Corp. to encourage the company to bring its new digital health venture, known as IBM Watson Health, to Cambridge’s high-tech hotbed.
In return, IBM has promised to create at least 500 new jobs....
But some have questioned why a tax break is needed to draw a company to prime real estate in a neighborhood that’s been identified as the single most expensive office market on the East Coast outside of Manhattan.
“My basic takeaway is that it’s very likely that IBM would have chosen this same location without receiving any tax credits whatsoever,” said Adam Langley, a senior research analyst at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy in Cambridge. “That’s a windfall for the company that most businesses are not in a position to receive.” ...
A spokesman for IBM declined to comment about the tax break.
But IBM is in worse shape than it appears, and it's not because CEO Virginia Rometty is a bad manager or a bad person. It's just in the nature of technological change. It's in the clouds.
For enterprise companies like IBM, clouds are the "giant sucking sound" H. Ross Perot (who made his name in enterprise technology) warned you about. They are the most profound technology change since the PC, and IBM just can't get ahead of it. ...
What has been happening to IBM is evolution in action. The size of its legacy businesses made ultimate cloud success nearly impossible to achieve. And now success is, quite literally, impossible. All it can do, it seems, is keep consuming its seed corn, keep pretending its wasting away is a great diet (Watson is Hadoop with a front-end), until either there's another major change in the technology landscape or it withers away to nothing.
Selected reader comments follow:
It is true the "operational" type of services has been under tremendous price pressure forcing the majority of the work to be offshored. The key problem here is the financial neglect began 10-15 years ago. IBM has always equated revenue and profits to head count and billable hours. The more staff you can put on an outsourcing account the more money IBM can make. IBM never invested in productivity improvement and automation. Instead they started shopping for cheaper and cheaper labor. Coming with that cheaper labor was reduced skills and less experience. By 2005 the quality of IBM's outsourcing service was clearly headed for the dumpster. Customers were patient for a few years believing IBM would fix its problems, but it didn't. It only made things progressively worse.
IBM did not meet its contract obligations. This caused many of its customers significant financial harm. They stopped being IBM customers. At the core of IBM's problems is its credibility. IBM's customers now have 10 years of first hand experience of poor support and an unwillingness to fix things.
IBM's outsourcing side of services has been the face of IBM. Today that face is more like AMC's "Walking Dead" TV series. This is not a new thing. It should not be a surprise. IT spending are multi-year contracts and investments. It takes time for them to wind down, for replacements to be put in place. IBM's past decisions are catching up with it. Today IBM could have the best new products and services, and they would have a hard time selling them. IBM has lost a lot of credibility.
Every quarter we read many analysis from Wall Street on IBM. Some cling to the hope of the transformation, others hope the dividend and share buybacks will shore up shareholder value, others see doom and gloom. The only conclusion one should be making from 14 quarters of declining revenue is IBM's customers are now speaking loudly and clearly with their spending decisions. Revenue and net income comes from the sale of products and services. It comes from customers. IBM has alienated its customers. Until you see IBM take serious actions to make things right with its customers and the people who are the face of IBM to their customers, their employees; you can expect this slide to continue.
This IBMer was in charge of delivering turnkey outsourcing services for a huge healthcare corp. A really bright guy, he had 50+ people on his team and was understaffed as it was. Things were dropping off his plate, and client sat was dicey.
In one fell swoop IBM laid off virtually all CONUS workers, or about 45 of his team, without even asking him what the impact to the customer or to the contract delivery. This was a 7-year contact mind you, not a one shot project.
Mgmt then told him a freeze was in place, and he couldn't restaff those positions for 6 months! A freeze was on to avoid lawsuits from the freshly unemployed. After many weeks of getting ripped to shreds by his customer, he quit the company in disgust. And that company is forever lost for future services.
But hey, they "beat" greatly lowered guidance by 4 cents! How do you even deal with that kind of cluelessness? And why would you choose to "invest in it"?
Forget the charts and support levels. Forget the strategic initiatives and promises. At this point only actions matter. IBM's customers have been taking action for 14 quarters. When IBM takes action to make things right, then and only then should you consider investing in IBM.
General Motors, Sears, IBM, and countless others already out of business. The IBM company that the bulls refer to went out of business 15 years ago. It is time to realize this is a totally different company - one on a downhill slide. Yes there will be bright spots and quarters here and there with profit and bells and whistles - but the trend will continue downward.
Just look at the total value of IBM compared to a host of other tech companies - and this was the company with the 50 year head start and the best employees on the planet. Remove the name recognition and simply analyze the company based on the fundamentals and you'll not see much. I cannot think of one thing worth any real value that IBM leads in.
Watson - a solution looking for a problem. Cloud - that ship sailed before IBM even knew it existed. Technology - most of what IBM had was sold to keep the stock up for a quarter here or there.
When it comes to having software for a SaaS service, IBM has nothing. This is a prime example of the dangers in having a business plan to engineer the books to get to $20 EPS, and in doing so neglect the company. If the business plan was to embrace cloud, the software division should have been out buying or developing the applications that could be sold as services. They didn't, instead IBM spent over $100B buying back its stock.
"It looks like Big Blue has got the blues. From what I can see, IBM's new, faster-growing businesses, like the cloud, big data and cognitive analytics, just cannot offset the hideous declines in their older legacy divisions," the "Mad Money" host said.
Selected reader comments follow:
That's great, of course it is, but again other than Watson that's not going to be enough. Because of course the point is to produce profits, not revenue. And IBM's standard pricing policies just aren't going to work in this brave new world. For those pricing policies always have been to price at the value of the computing to the user, not anything to do with the cost to IBM. ...
The problem is, as Wired has pointed out, that things like cloud services just aren't going to provide the sort of margins IBM requires to support its overhead and R&D programs. Because what that cloud is doing is turning processing itself into a commodity. And the economic point about commodities is that those producing them a) doesn't have any pricing power and b) thus doesn't make decent margins on them. Anyone competing with Amazon on a price basis is about to enter a whole world of hurt, obviously. And when the various cloud offerings are largely and almost trivially interchangeable, what economists call substitutes, that's not a business which a high margin firm like IBM wants to be in.
“We’re a $90 billion company transforming,” Ms. Rometty said during an appearance at The Wall Street Journal’s WSJDLive 2015 global technology conference here. “We are doing that in the public eye.” ...
Ms. Rometty, who was set to leave the conference to fly to Beijing, also said recent tensions in that country over potential intelligence-gathering activities by the U.S. government haven't deterred its efforts. She said IBM’s strategy is to build trust, and to convince Chinese customers that IBM software doesn't have “back doors” that could aid foreign spies
But China is as much a place for IBM to recruit talent as a place to sell, she said. “Innovation doesn’t know borders, Ms. Rometty said. ”And good ideas don’t carry passports.”
Selected reader comments follow:
If I am reading the information correctly, there has been no stock buying by insiders during the last six months, only sales. Out of 671,000 shares outstanding to insiders, 124,000 were sold.
I attended a web meeting in which the group that includes Watson was encouraging entrepreneurs to build systems based on the Watson platform. The risk seemed to be all on the entrepreneurial side.
I am not sure what that all means.
My bearishness on IBM has been based on many things. Among them, I still feel IBM has no strategy to grow the business. I've based this on the fact that all IBM has done for the past decade or more is try to reduce the share count and engineer results instead of working on the actual business. This has left IBM in a hole it cannot get itself out of. The growth by reduced share count "strategy" hasn't worked and isn't going to work but IBM continues to try it. ...
And it's a good thing IBM reduced its SG&A expenditures because revenue continues to plummet. This is really where the bear case begins because without revenue growth IBM will continue to fall. My bear thesis has many pieces but none of them matter as much as revenue - a dying company isn't worth much in the stock market and IBM has been just that for a long time. ...
One thing I absolutely cannot understand is IBM's unwillingness to spend on R&D. This is a company that has been left in the dust in the last few years as it concentrated on buying back shares at high prices instead of running its business. That means IBM's laggard status is due at least in part to its lack of innovation, and R&D spending is the poster child. If anything, IBM should be loading up on R&D spending to fuel its supposed growth categories like its cloud and analytics businesses. There are very few bright spots at IBM so the fact that it's seemingly unwilling to invest in them is mind blowing to me. I don't think this bodes well for IBM's long-term future, but we shall see. ...
Despite the fact that the cloud and analytics businesses continue to show promise, they are collectively nowhere near enough to make up for the rest of IBM's shrinking businesses. Reduced R&D spending is inexcusable but IBM is reducing SG&A expenses, saving a bit of money to salvage EPS in the short term. My bear thesis that IBM is a shrinking company is still very much intact, and with each successive guidance cut, my short case gathers steam. IBM may look cheap at $140, but analysts will be lowering their projections for next year in the coming weeks in response to yet another terrible quarter. IBM is not cheap yet and won't be until it figures out how to stop shrinking. This has thus far proven elusive, and until that happens, I'm going to continue to short it because it's going to keep going down.
Selected reader comments follow:
In the glory days IBM reps spent over 18 months in a training program which would rival a decent business school. This was all to sell fairly simple boxes and software to people who understood IBM was the best in the marketplace. Today reps are woefully under prepared in an age where you are attempting make a sale which involves relationships and major customer cultural change. This is at a time IBM is pulling away from direct customer coverage.
IBM's reduction in SGA over the years has brought them to the point where there is scant relationship capital to leverage.
For those who are going to say "but IBM has relationships with all of the fortune 500 ---" that's inaccurate old news from a time when IBM US direct coverage was greater than today's total IBM US employment.
In one of my previous employers, seeing those clueless contractor workers sitting in the never ending meetings listening to the employees talk about the company business and process starting from scratch while they claim themselves experts and charge company $460/hr and the project (mess) delayed by years, was hilarious.
IBM/Deloitte/Accenture need to justify their 80% management overhead. Their steeple client inventory is shrinking. that's why the earnings are going down not up.
Agreed that the amount of investment in new products and services is not impressive, especially compared to what has been spent on financial engineering.
Here is the best take I can come up with for IBM strategy (a question many have been asking:) Run "market research" to identify "high-margin" business. Reframe the list you develop as "strategic imperatives" and hit the PR button hard. Then repeat the cycle, starting with "market research" in a year's time.
"Here’s what’s most likely coming for IBM. As each quarter rolls by it will become more obvious to Wall Street that IBM’s business is flat and/or declining. IBM may make its income and profit goals each quarter, but revenue will continue to going down. The only thing that will change this is if the dollar drops dramatically — an effect that has helped Big Blue before. But if the dollar stays about where it is, perception is an important part of any stock price and when a business is flat or declining, Wall Street does not like that.
Regardless of how many jobs IBM cuts, then, the stock price will eventually go down. IBM can make all its income and profit goals yet the stock price will still drag down shareholder value.
What happens then? More share buy-backs, the sale of complete business units, and then, well then I don’t know what, because I see no end to this trend with current management. Maybe that’s it: IBM management will change, new management will blame everything on old management, and they’ll try to reset the clock. But it probably still won’t work because by then both worker- and customer loyalty will be gone completely.
Making its numbers is IBM’s only priority right now. IBM will push its customers to the breaking point and will abuse its employees to achieve this goal. IBM does not care who it hurts. The IBM that used to be the leader in social reform and good corporate citizenship no longer exists.
Where are the customers in this? In IBM’s big plans its customers are a necessary evil. When you look at the poor quality of service IBM is providing it is very clear IBM does not value its customers. Making the 2015 plan is the only priority and IBM is willing to compromise its service to customers and abuse its workforce to get there. …
At some point IBM will realize its 2015 plan has already failed (remember you read it here first). IBM’s stock price will drop… a lot. When the price is low enough it will force the company to change how they run the business. At that point they may actually go back to doing things right, and IBM’s value might improve again.
Frankly, by then it will probably be too late."
Let's compare two rather similar companies, IBM and Oracle (NYSE:ORCL), though they are run in quite different ways. Up until last year, IBM had a much larger market capitalization than Oracle. However, things have turned the other way around now. Oracle has a current market cap of about $157 billion, while IBM's market cap is $137 billion. That is embarrassing for IBM, of course! ...
IBM has been generating huge amounts of cash over the past ten years, ranging from $8 to $16 billion, and all that cash is almost nowhere to be found. Where is all that cash? Most of it has been given to those who have sold their shares to the company. Practically, the company, as things stand right now, has been rewarding the sellers of the shares at the expense of loyal shareholders who have been holding their ownership stakes. Of course, people do not usually see it like this, but when the stock price goes down, things turn out this way. When the share price goes up, it turns out better for loyal shareholders. ...
As I mentioned earlier, there is nothing wrong with buying back shares when you consider them bargain. But buying back your shares at the expense of endangering the future of the company, and hence the wealth of the remaining shareholders, is simply irresponsible. Can anybody in the world know for certain that any particular company will do very well in the coming 2-3 years? Can anybody know for sure no recession will come next year, or the following year? Nobody knows these things for sure. This is why prudent management is needed to safeguard a company against possible risks. How can you safeguard your company for possible mishaps? At least by NOT accumulating a lot of debt compared to your equity and your worst-case earnings potential. This is why I believe throwing away all your money (that's what IBM has done), and also taking on more than two years' worth of earnings (which seems to be going down for now) in debt is nothing short of crazy!
Pros: Good experience, very challenging environment, a lot of resources, and learning opportunities. A lot of free time.
Cons: No one cares whether you show up or work from home. IBM does nothing to support interns and treats undergraduates like mid-level professionals, who already have a family, car, and do not need extra support. My social skills were stunted after this internship since I barely got to talk to anyone.
Advice: this isn't Google, Apple, or Microsoft. Do not expect to do more than work. This will not be fun but it will be challenging. Be prepared to see the worst and kind-of-okay in people. Also I cried about 3 times during my summer there.
Advice to Management: Provide more support for undergrads. Supplement the internship experience. I did not relocate across the country to just watch Netflix every weekend.
Pros: There are lots of things to like about IBM, first their legacy. They have existed for a long time and are still vibrant and leading in major technologies. For instance, Watson is a great product helping to save lives. Most of their software too are cutting edge.
Cons: I am aware that every company has one reason or the other for personal opinion, but I strongly believe that most of these opinions can be bias. So, it depends on how determined someone is ready to succeed.
Advice to Management: The management is really good. They exit an informal as well as formal relationship among workers and management. Throughout my stay at the company I had the opportunity of meeting almost on weekly basis with the management.
Pros: Work flexibility. To be honest the list is short.
Cons: Lack of leadership, unrealistic business targets, poor staff morale, ordered to do tasks that add no value and deliver no business outcome; however this keeps their bosses happy. Offices have been redone and are impossible to work in — too much noise, not enough space (they want you to work from home).
Advice to Management: Focus on your people as an asset. remove the layers of people that run spreadsheets and do not have a client facing role. Ask what your clients are really expecting from you. Be honest with yourself and show some integrity when communicating with the team about CHQ issued targets. You need to recreate a culture for the team and establish a real identity for people to be part of.
Pros: Graduate program was a great start to my career (learnt a lot in short amount of time) Many opportunities to expand your skill-set if you put yourself out there. Wide range of experienced colleagues (especially technical). Flexible work environments.
Cons: Very political culture. Slow to change — company promotes first mover advantage but seems to be behind the curve in offerings. Internal red tape will drive you crazy — expected for a large firm but needs to be more agile. Slow career progression. The only means of getting a pay rise is usually to change teams (until at a management band level).
Advice to Management: After working 4 years in IBM I have learnt invaluable skills and will always be grateful for this. At a certain point I was being road blocked for career progression despite telling my manager and various executives multiple times that I was ready for the next step in my career (not a promotion, just moving into another space). When no action was taken I am now looking for other job opportunities.
Pros: Reasonable in most dimensions of employment, however, no "wow" factor in any either. With some luck, you can land a long juicy role, go onto an account and stick with it!
Cons: Versatility is not rewarded. If you don't have the luck or networks to stick to a long term role or into an account you will find it hard to keep your utilisation. Ah yes, huge focus on utilisation — no matter how good you are, you live and die by that. So if partnership haven't done a good job at selling, you'll suffer for it.
Advice to Management: Improve reward structure and recognise talent and innovation rather than conformity. Actually try to be clear about what you're selling (externally and internally)!
Pros: Work from home/telecommute options in many roles. Working with great people. Get to work with some interesting new technology.
Cons: Management recently instructed all team members to work 60 hour weeks for the next three months plus cancellation of all annual leave plans. Pay increases are less than cost of living increase despite achieving a very high PBC rating. Continual loss of productive team members through ongoing RA. Those left behind forced to stretch to the point of exhaustion. Conference calls start as early as 5:00 am and/or as late as midnight most days. Demands to do education, certification and giveback in own time.
Advice to Management: Front-line staff are not feeling respected or valued. Our team is being asked to work 22.5 hours per week of unpaid overtime to dig IBM out of a hole over 3 months. Burning staff out to cover cost reductions is not a sustainable way to achieve excellence. Positive customer experience is hard to achieve when staff is constantly tired and stressed. Remember to thank those that work hard, and cough up some coin for a Christmas lunch this year — your staff deserves it. Our teams are naturally motivated to deliver excellence but the desire to do so decreases when staff feels like they are trapped in a loveless marriage with a partner that demands the world and gives nothing back.
Pros: They are paying in time.
Cons: In Brno delivery center is only one key aspect which somehow matters - costs. Because centers around the world (India, Poland, Romania, ...) are actually competitors, this fact brings huge focus on salary and budget savings. Consequences are expected and easily to guess. People are generally underpaid and demotivated, constantly looking for new job and there is really huge employee turnover - this leads to constant massive hiring and dozens of opened positions.
Is almost impossible to get external education (I had one in 4 years) and salary raises are very symbolic or completely missing - depends on your manager luck.
Company is not so successful in last years, so also annual bonuses somehow disappeared and overall atmosphere is far from satisfaction.
There are no meal vouchers or any valuable benefits at all. First line managers are speaking trumpets of higher management, without single right or competence to change anything. Is normal, that manager have dozens of people to "manage", usually between 25-35. So now you can imagine, how he can help you with personal grow or achieving your career goals.
I'm still trying to find something positive on those years, which I spend in delivery center, but except few great colleagues and opportunity to learn lot of new things, I don't see anything else. Ahh well, now I know, that local tram is called "salina".
Advice to Management: Happy employees equals happy customers. And you don't have happy employees and you are so disconnected from reality in lower deck.
Pros: Every projects finishes and then there is always the opportunity to move onto another one. So if you don't like what you are doing there's always a chance to get out and mix it up.
Cons: Depends on project what hours you are doing and what exactly you are doing. I was on a very bad project with mostly ad hoc tasks and no organization whatsoever = late nights and very poor work-life balance and not worth the remuneration. Instead of people to do the work they had a bloated management team who just managed stakeholders and passed the work down to the few.
Now I'm in a project which is well established, client had a great relationship with IBM and the world is very well balanced. Team is smaller and leaner so you get more responsibility and you are not just another Excel monkey catching out pointless numbers to make the point of some partner who wants to satisfy the client before he/she flits off to another sales opportunity on another project. Unfortunately it's too little too late for me so I'm actively looking elsewhere.
Advice to Management: Don't promise the world to those who work for you and forget immediately once they have helped save your chestnuts. Also learn to use excel. Astonishing how many partners are inept at Excel.
Pros: As an external executive hire I was paid (market rates) which was 40% more than the veteran IBMers that were there for 20-30 years. I made more than my first-line manager, which was a big surprise to me.
Cons: IBM claims that they want to make significant changes to the way they are doing business and say we need to "Treasure the Wild Duck" but in fact they "Choke the Wild Duck" and put them at the top of the lay off list. Ideas and Opinions are not welcome, and, in fact there is a huge culture of lies, distrust, back stabbing, dishonesty, and fear across the whole of IBM.
The PBC process has made it easy for the VPs to get rid of any and everyone that does not march to the beat of their drum. As a result, it is not a place for creativity, new ideas, loyal employees, collaboration, or a sense of well being. Many people are suffering from post traumatic stress due to the horrible work environment and I know that some have even have heart attacks due to the stress.
Advice to Management: Get rid of your executives...all of them...because they do not know how to lead and motivate people. The culture of fear and distrust will continue to drive the company in the grave.
With the race for the 2016 presidential nominations well underway, candidates have begun floating proposals to shore up the program’s finances. For years, most of the plans that have been offered to ensure that the self-financing program can support itself have relied largely on cutting benefits.
But now Democrats like Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and the former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley are trying to reverse the usual conversation, calling for an expansion of the program by requiring higher-income workers to pay more in payroll taxes, the dedicated tax stream that pays for the benefits.
In contrast, most Republicans, adamantly opposed to any tax increases, continue to offer proposals that focus on cutting benefits, in ways that critics say could harm the most vulnerable retirees, while doing little to overcome the system’s financial imbalance. ...
But not everyone is living longer. Average life expectancies have grown in the last century, but better-paid, better-educated people tend to live longer than people who earn less. And the gap between them has grown over time, a recent report has shown. In fact, life expectancy has declined slightly for lower earners. ...
“Anyone who is making the argument that we should raise the retirement age because of an increase in the life expectancy — that argument, I think, is fundamentally misguided and misleading,” Mr. Orszag said. “The average is masking quite different patterns depending where you are on the income distribution.”
At least 13 unregistered Massachusetts investment advisers used Fidelity's platform, according to a statement from secretary of the commonwealth William Galvin.
For those advisers, “Fidelity served as a haven from regulatory oversight as it ignored blatant unregistered investment advisory activity,” according to a statement from Mr. Galvin's office.
She swore allegiance to the values of the company’s humble, Ford Taurus-driving founders, reciting their words at meetings. But she traveled in a chauffeured car — and when introducing herself in the employee newsletter, she highlighted her 52-foot yacht.
She showered workers with affirmation, once inviting an executive to meet the board of directors and placing a fake crown on his head. But she oversaw the layoffs of 30,000 employees in waves of downsizing that seemed gratuitously impersonal at times; some were fired over the phone.
The toll of failed co-op insurers, which were intended to challenge dominant companies that wield considerable power to dictate prices, has left about 500,000 customers scrambling to find health insurance for next year. A ninth co-op, which served Iowa and Nebraska, closed in February.
At a time when the industry is experiencing a wave of consolidation, with giants like Anthem and Aetna planning to buy their smaller rivals, the vanishing co-ops will leave some consumers with fewer choices — and potentially higher prices. ...
Created as a concession to Democrats who wanted the health care law to include a government-run plan as an alternative to private insurers, the co-ops faced significant hurdles from the start. The Republican-controlled Congress slashed their initial funding to $2.4 billion from $6 billion and, more recently, restricted the administration’s ability to help insurers with unexpectedly large costs in the first few years of the new exchanges.
Former Senator Kent Conrad, the North Dakota Democrat who proposed the co-ops, said they were “sabotaged.”
“Those who wanted to kill them — largely Republicans and competing insurance companies — just step by step took actions to subvert them and to assure they would have an extraordinarily difficult time surviving,” he said.
The drug, called Daraprim, was acquired in August by Turing Pharmaceuticals, a start-up run by a former hedge fund manager. Turing immediately raised the price to $750 a tablet from $13.50, bringing the annual cost of treatment for some patients to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Turing’s price increase is not an isolated example. While most of the attention on pharmaceutical prices has been on new drugs for diseases like cancer, hepatitis C and high cholesterol, there is also growing concern about huge price increases on older drugs, some of them generic, that have long been mainstays of treatment. ...
This is not the first time the 32-year-old Mr. Shkreli, who has a reputation for both brilliance and brashness, has been the center of controversy. He started MSMB Capital, a hedge fund company, in his 20s and drew attention for urging the Food and Drug Administration not to approve certain drugs made by companies whose stock he was shorting.
http://www.endicottalliance.org/thedisintegrationofemploymentinIBM.htm To all Alliance supporters, send and share the above link to the article "The disintegration of employment in IBM" far and wide. Put it on your FaceBook page; send it to newspapers; send it with comments to your political reps and send it to your co-workers. Help break the secrecy of IBM job cuts. Put some pressure on IBM. -Alliance-
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.