Quick Links:
Get involved!Press articles
Important Links
Insider trading
Lou's Contract
Total Compensation
Subscribe:
Add or delete IDChange ID
Contact site owner
Previous Highlights:
CurrentApril 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
 Join your fellow employees who are fighting for your benefits - Join the Alliance! Retirees, Vendors, Contractors, Temps, and Active Employees are all eligible to become members of the Alliance. |
Highlights for week ending June 28, 2003
- Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin: Information gap angers villagers. Excerpts: The pollution from industrial solvents in Endicott (from a former IBM semiconductor plant) may affect as much as 350 acres, according to an update Friday from an IBM spokesman. Early reports from IBM that the plume of chemicals covers 55 acres are incorrect, said Richard Knight, IBM spokesman. A document published in 1999 by the state Department of Environmental Conservation lists the plume at 220 acres. Knight said Friday the pollution in the ground covers 275 acres. Researchers are still defining a boundary of a second plume of chemicals, moving through enclosed air pockets, conduits and enclosed spaces. This, called the vapor plume, does not coincide precisely with the plume moving with ground water. Although the precise boundaries are still being established, collectively the plumes cover about 350 acres, Knight said.
- Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin: Tainted air 'more harmful' than water. Lawyer says IBM dumped chemicals. Excerpts: The hazardous chemicals wafting into hundreds of homes and businesses in downtown Endicott are more dangerous in the air than in the water, a colleague of Erin Brockovich told more than 300 residents Wednesday night. ... IBM Corp. is the source of the pollution and responsible for cleaning it, according to records from the state Department of Environmental Conservation. IBM is in the process of installing ventilation systems in at least 430 buildings. Many who gathered for Schwarz's presentation expressed anger toward IBM and fear and despair about the situation. They broke into applause when Schwarz said he thought the mess was no accident. "I highly doubt this is a spill," he said. "What you have here is a systematic dumping of chemicals."
- Other articles concerning the Endicott chemical spill are available at this page on the Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin newspaper Web site.
- Social Science Research Network Electronic Library: Reality
Testing for Pension Reform, by Pamela J. Perun, Urban Institute, and C. Eugene Steuerle,
Urban Institute. Abstract: These are interesting times in the pension world now that there are
two diametrically opposed proposals for change before Congress. The first is the Pension Preservation
and Savings Expansion Act of 2003 recently introduced by Representatives Portman and Cardin.
This bill embodies the traditional type of pension reform, an omnibus statute that tinkers with
almost every aspect of the private pension system to make incremental changes. The second is
the Administration's attempt at radical change and simplification. Its proposal contemplates
a sweeping consolidation in the number and types of defined contribution plans. This paper evaluates
these two approaches - one evolutionary, the other revolutionary - and then considers an alternative.
Its analysis focuses on the nuts-and-bolts of the private pension system, that is, on the plans
that comprise it and the rules that govern them. Its thesis is that examining the architecture
and machinery of the private pension system can teach us much about directions for reform.
- Janet Krueger comments on this paper: This paper on pension reform is worthwhile reading, especially if you plan to spend any time talking to your congress critters about pension issues. While there are some aspects of their proposed 'alternative' that might raise your hackles, such as the elimination of early retirement subsidies, the authors take a more objective look at the legislative proposals currently on the table than many I've seen, and they raise some good points. I particularly enjoyed their lead-off quote from Dave Barry.
- Pension Rights Center: Fact Sheet on the Portman-Cardin Bill. Excerpt: The Pension Preservation and Savings Enhancement Act of 2003 (H.R. 1776), informally known as the “Portman-Cardin bill”, was introduced into Congress on April 11, 2003 by Congressmen Rob Portman (R-IL) and Benjamin Cardin (D-MD). The House Ways and Means Committee is likely to vote on the bill in July. There is still time to for you to contact your Representative to express your views on these provisions. H.R. 1776 would neither PRESERVE PENSIONS nor ENHANCE SAVINGS.
- Washington Post: U.S. Joining Suit Against Medco. Excerpt: The U.S. attorney in Philadelphia announced yesterday that he is joining a complaint against Medco Health Solutions Inc. that alleges the nation's second-largest pharmacy-benefit manager improperly canceled prescriptions, switched medications without physician approval and sent patients partially filled orders. (Editor's note: Most U.S. IBM employees are required to have long-term prescriptions filled by Medco).
- Washington Post: ATF Eyes Bargaining Exemptions. Excerpt: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is considering plans to exempt from collective bargaining 600 inspectors who have been represented by a union for more than 30 years. If Justice Department officials sign off on the move, the ATF would notify the Federal Labor Relations Authority that inspectors could no longer engage in collective bargaining through the National Treasury Employees Union, to which they have belonged since 1970. ... Colleen M. Kelley, president of the NTEU, which represents 150,000 employees in 29 agencies, called the plan a "disgraceful act of union-busting" that fits a pattern of anti-union decisions by the Bush administration.
- Yahoo! News: White House Won't Release Medicare Memo. Excerpts: The Bush administration's top Medicare accountant has calculated how millions of senior citizens would be affected by bringing private managed care into the program, but the administration won't release the information. An earlier analysis suggested that a Republican plan to inject market forces into Medicare could increase premiums for those who stay in traditional programs by as much as 25 percent. If that's still the case, it could help Democrats who argue that the GOP plan is risky for those who want to stay in traditional Medicare, where they can pick any doctor, rather than move to a managed care plan. The administration's Medicare chief threatened to fire his top actuary, Rick Foster, if Foster released his calculations to Capitol Hill Democrats who requested the analysis, officials said.
- New York Times: New Drug Plan Far From Cure-All, Retirees Find. Excerpts: In Washington, President Bush and Congressional leaders praise the Medicare legislation as historic. But here, as elsewhere in the country, retirees are experiencing what Robert J. Blendon, a health policy expert at the Harvard School of Public Health, calls "sticker shock" — the realization that, after so many promises, the proposed drug benefit will look nothing like what they expected. They are confused by the complex structure of the plans, and upset that the coverage will not begin until 2006; Mrs. Fox said she did not expect to live that long. They do not understand why the proposals have a "doughnut hole," a gap in coverage.
- Newsday: House Advances Health Savings Accounts. Excerpt: Republicans said the new accounts would give more choice to individuals at the mercy of inadequate or expensive plans offered by their employers. "We want power to go to the people. We want power to go to the consumers," said Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. Democrats said employers will use the new accounts as an excuse to raise out-of-pocket costs for employees or eliminate coverage altogether. "This is a radical effort to dismantle our employer-based system," said Sander Levin, D-Mich.
- New York Times: Very
Richest's Share of Income Grew Even Bigger, Data Show. Excerpts: he 400 wealthiest taxpayers
accounted for more than 1 percent of all the income in the United States in the year 2000, more
than double their share just eight years earlier, according to new data from the Internal Revenue
Service. But their tax burden plummeted over the period. The data, in a report that the I.R.S.
released last night, shows that the average income of the 400 wealthiest taxpayers was almost
$174 million in 2000. That was nearly quadruple the $46.8 million average in 1992. The minimum
income to qualify for the list was $86.8 million in 2000, more than triple the minimum income
of $24.4 million of the 400 wealthiest taxpayers in 1992. ... In 2000, the top 400 on average
paid 22.3 percent of their income in federal income tax, down from 26.4 percent in 1992 and
a peak of 29.9 percent in 1995. ...
The rate actually paid by the top 400 in 2000 was about the same as that paid by a single person making $123,000 or a married couple with two children earning $226,000, according to Citizens for Tax Justice, a labor-backed group whose calculations are respected by a broad spectrum of tax experts. The group favors higher taxes on the wealthy, and its director, Robert S. McIntyre, said yesterday that the I.R.S. data bolsters that viewpoint. "Regardless of which party these 400 are in, these are the guys Bush wants to help, even though they have so much money they don't know what to do with it," he said. "How Bush feels about the half of the population that doesn't have much money is he got them a tax cut worth an average of $19 each." If link is broken, view Adobe Acrobat version [PDF--21 KB].
- Forbes: The IRS 400.
Excerpt: The 400 highest-paid Americans earned $69.6 billion in adjusted gross income in 2000,
or just under $174 million each, according to a U.S. Internal Revenue Service report released
yesterday. The income of the IRS 400 has risen dramatically in recent years. In 1992, the top
400 reported adjusted gross incomes of just under $19 billion for an average of a relatively
paltry $46.8 million. The top 400's percentage of the overall pie has been growing too: In 1992,
the top earners garnered .52% of all reported adjusted gross income; in 2000 they earned 1.09%.
... Who are these guys? While the IRS doesn't name them--privacy concerns and all that--a peek
at the Forbes list of top-paid CEOs
for 2001 (which corresponds roughly to the 2000 tax year) can match some names with the numbers.
Editor's note: Former IBM CEO Louis Gerstner was the 6th highest paid CEO in 2001, with total
compensation of $103.4 Million.
- According to Forbes, in 2002 Lou Gerstner was the 364th richest American with a net worth of $630 Million.
- Money/CNN: 8 million may lose OT pay. Bush administration proposal would dramatically alter rules for paying overtime, study says. Excerpt: More than 8 million workers in the United States will be ineligible for overtime pay under a plan proposed recently by the Bush administration, a research group said Thursday. ... The EPI questioned the appropriateness of the Labor Department's implementing such sweeping proposals without Congressional approval. "There is no reason to believe...that Congress has authorized the Department of Labor to dramatically reduce coverage...taking overtime protection away from millions of workers," wrote the authors of the study, Ross Eisenbrey and Jared Bernstein. "Yet that is exactly what the Department of Labor has proposed." ... The proposal could also cause workers to work longer hours, since the Labor Department doesn't put any limit on the number of hours per week an employee must work, the group said in a study published on its Web site. "Once employers are not required to pay for overtime work, they will schedule more of it," the study said.
- The Economist: Is Big Blue the Next Big Thing? Excerpt: If IBM gets it right, on the other hand, and the firm escapes unscathed from legacies of the past decade (earlier this month IBM said that regulators are investigating its accounts filed in 2000-01), its new model could trigger broad, industry-wide changes. Sensing the danger, a rival group of technology firms has already begun to gather around now-struggling Accenture and mighty Microsoft, which feels the Linux threat to its own operating systems. And IBM's use of Linux is also encountering legal problems (see article). Having previously chosen not to overpay for PwC Consulting, HP may soon feel the need to look for another consultancy. So, too, might EDS, whose purchase of A.T. Kearney, another consulting firm, has not worked well. The engineers of Silicon Valley may still cling to the hope of finding, at long last, the Next Big Thing—a technology so whizzy it makes all those share options valuable again. But what if tech's next big thing turns out not to be a technology at all, but a better way to make it work?
|
Coverage on H1-B and L1 Visa and Outsourcing Issues
|
|
|
