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."
Search:
Web This Site

Quick Links:
  Get involved!
  Press articles
  Important Links
  Insider trading
  Lou's Contract
  Total Compensation
Subscribe:
  Add or delete ID
  Change ID
  Contact site owner
Previous Highlights:
  Current
  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
 

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—August 28, 2004
  • Parade: We Lost Our Health Insurance. Excerpt: Ten years ago, PARADE Contributing Editor Dotson Rader reported on the President’s Task Force on Health Care Reform, an important federal initiative that sought to repair America’s failing health care system. At the time, 37 million Americans were without health insurance coverage. While a majority of the country favored a new national health care policy that guaranteed medical services for everyone, Congress did not act. No national system of assured medical care for every citizen was ever established. Today, 44 million Americans are without any health insurance, an increase of 10 million since 1989, with 2003 marking the highest increase in a decade. Eight out of 10 uninsured, including children, are in working, tax-paying families; more than one-third are in households earning $25,000 to $49,999 a year. We asked Rader to take another look at the nation’s health-insurance picture. What follows is a portrait of three working people and their families, all of whom had to make difficult choices in a society without a true safety net.


  • Jim Hightower: CEOs pay themselves $7,452 an hour (on average). Excerpts: A national magazine recently featured a story about the paychecks of corporate CEOs. The cover featured a pink-faced pig dressed in a business suit, and the title said it all: “Oink!” The magazine bluntly labeled today’s executive class “a symbol of cartoonish greed,” asking in exasperation, “Have they no shame?” The significance of this article is that it was not the cover story of some leftie rag . . . but the April 14 issue of Fortune, the very Bible of CEO-dom! Even some of the in-house set are astonished by the audacious avarice of America’s top corporate leaders, gaping open-mouthed at the miserable moral example of CEOs continuing to practice the imperious ethic of “I.” These thieves in Guccis are grabbing all they can for themselves at a time when their corporate performance stinks, shareholders are being stiffed, millions of workers are being dumped, pensioners are ripped off, unemployment is skyrocketing, college graduates are trading mortarboards for hairnets, and the general economy is rolling into the ditch. The stickiest-fingered Iraqi looter with a big cart and two mules has better ethics than our current corporate crowd. ... CEOs are always eager to have the public focus on their published salaries as the measure of how they’re doing compared to the corporate serfs—but the official salary is the least of it, for the bulk of executive pay these days is “stealth wealth,” such unpublicized payouts as bonuses, stock options, long-term comp, deferred compensation, a catchall category called “other,” and a new one called SERP—Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan. Like others in the company, top execs draw regular corporate pensions, which pay all retirees a percentage of their annual salaries. But in the nineties, CEOs began to chafe at this, for federal law capped these payouts at $160,000 a year and ... well, who can retire on such a paltry pension as that? So boards of directors began setting up supplemental, executive-only pensions.


  • IBM's Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan and other compensation for executives is described in this section of the 2003 Annual Report. According the AFL-CIO's Executive Paywatch Database, "in 2003, S. J. Palmisano raked in $20,195,532 in total compensation including stock option grants from International Bus. Machines. And S. J. Palmisano has another $32,781,374 in unexercised stock options from previous years."


  • Consumer's Union (non-profit publisher of Consumer Reports magazine): The Health Care Divide. The False Promise of “Consumer-Driven” Healthcare. Excerpts: Last year, Congress passed, and President Bush signed into law, legislation expanding high-deductible health insurance. This law also includes tax-advantaged “health savings accounts” (HSAs), designed to provide consumers with funds to use before they spend enough to meet the deductible. The IRS recently released guidance that is likely to make these accounts even more appealing to employers. Supporters of this approach would like you to believe that these so-called “consumer-driven” health plans are consumer-friendly. Unfortunately, the term is merely a euphemism for a policy that favors the healthy and wealthy and leaves the working poor and chronically ill to carry a greater financial burden. In fact, a more apt term for this type of medical plan is a “defined contribution health plan.” Like defined contribution retirement plans such as 401(k)s, these plans replace comprehensive benefits with more limited benefits and shift costs and responsibilities to employees. In health care, this means a higher deductible (between $1,000 and $10,000), combined with a tax-advantaged health savings account, possibly with a contribution from the employer. Most “consumer-driven” plans build in a “gap” of coverage, assuring that the employee must pay for some health care costs entirely out-of-pocket before any coverage kicks in.


  • Linda Guyer speculates on how layoffs occur in IBM, and how they have a disparate effect on older employees. Full excerpt: I don't think Palmisano, at his level, knows IBM is firing more people over 40 than under 40. What I think he does is demand financial goals be met. Vice Presidents cut budgets and demand better profit margins and cutting people is one way of doing this. Meanwhile, over in Dogbert's evil HR empire, many studies are done on the cost of employees. Hundreds of spreadsheets and powerpoint graphics show employee costs broken down by country, skill set, time of service, age, disabilities, medical benefit costs, pension costs, comparisons to the competition, and so on. Consultants are brought in to recommend ways to increase employee ROI - meaning how does IBM get the most profitable work out of each human unit.

    Then HR gets called in when a VP has to deal with a budget cut. The VP is advised how to do the layoffs that accommodate the budget cut in the most financially favorable way. A "disparate impact" results, meaning more older employees are laid off. The older employees fight back with a lawsuit, venturing into the legal limbo of trying to prove "disparate impact". This alarms HR, who then advises VP's to institute a program of "Forced 3 Ratings" to get the oldsters out on the pretext of poor performance. The strategy is to do this quietly, one employee at a time. No need to report layoff numbers to the State Labor Boards, no press coverage, no headlines on the Alliance web site. Employees are embarrassed and don't want to talk to the press about this. Less risk of an age discrimination lawsuit. Very effective.

    HR's constant analysis for employee unit ROI also lead to the recent rebanding in IGS - where many people are being forced into a lower band. Some will get pay cuts, others will be too high in their band for pay raises. This means in the long term they will be eligible for fewer pension dollars. And of course the ultimate cost-saving strategy is "global resourcing" meaning sending jobs from the US and Europe to (the
    original term) low-cost countries. Much cheaper people units over there.


  • KTLA Television (Los Angeles): Offshore Jobs Bill Is OKd. Measure would prevent companies from moving labor abroad. It now goes to the governor. Excerpts: The Legislature is considering six measures to clamp down on California companies, as labor organizations argue that the state should make sure it is not unwittingly sanctioning corporate behavior that hurts Americans. The California Chamber of Commerce and other business interests have been aggressively lobbying against the measures, particularly Liu's bill, AB 1829, which now goes to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger after passing the Senate 21 to 14. Other bills under consideration would prohibit the state Office of Homeland Security from having any of its work done abroad; require all companies doing business in California to report how many employees worked out of the country; and block healthcare companies from transmitting abroad private medical information about patients. The Legislature has already passed a bill requiring that call-center workers disclose where they are located if a California customer inquires. The debate has largely been polarized along partisan lines, with Republicans saying the measures would end up costing jobs in California and Democrats saying the opposite. ... Barry Broad, a Sacramento labor lobbyist, said the argument that moving jobs abroad increases jobs stateside is ludicrous. "That's what they said about NAFTA," he said, referring to the North American Free Trade Agreement. "All it is, is you fire a bunch of people here and replace them with a bunch of people in the Third World and pay Third World wages, and somehow, magically, the U.S. economy grows."


  • University of California, Berkeley: Linguistics professor George Lakoff dissects the "war on terror" and other conservative catchphrases. Excerpt: Q: But wouldn't conservatives argue, as they have with Social Security, that individuals can invest their money better than the government? A: That's simple. Would you prefer to have the government build and maintain the highway system, or do it yourself? Would you rather have a private company owning the highway system and the Internet, and charging you God knows how much to use them? You like the army, but do you want to build your own? How about your own police and fire departments? No. You want a government that can do the things you need, in the areas where private companies can't or won't do them or simply can't be trusted to do them right. One of progressives' main goals is a better future for all. A wise and efficient government is needed for that in hundreds of ways. When it comes to government investment of your tax money, businesses benefit even more than ordinary people. To start a business, you don't have to invent computer science or the telephone network, you don't have to build a highway system. They're just there for businesses to use, as is the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department, the SEC, the Commerce Department, and the courts. A company doesn't have to make up a way to adjudicate its disputes with other companies; we paid for it already. Nine-tenths of the courts are there for corporate law. Corporations get enormous benefits paid for by other taxpayers, but they've stopped paying their way. Corporate income tax used to make up about 38 percent of all U.S. taxes. Now it's less than 10 percent. Ordinary taxpayers are making the investments in infrastructure, and corporate stockholders are getting the dividends. And that's just not fair.


  • Associated Press: Ranks of Poor, Uninsured Rose in 2003. Excerpts: The number of Americans living in poverty increased by 1.3 million last year, while the ranks of the uninsured swelled by 1.4 million, the Census Bureau (news - web sites) reported Thursday. It was the third straight annual increase for both categories. While not unexpected, it was a double dose of bad economic news during a tight re-election campaign for President Bush (news - web sites). Approximately 35.8 million people lived below the poverty line in 2003, or about 12.5 percent of the population, according to the bureau. That was up from 34.5 million, or 12.1 percent in 2002. The rise was more dramatic for children. There were 12.9 million living in poverty last year, or 17.6 percent of the under-18 population. That was an increase of about 800,000 from 2002, when 16.7 percent of all children were in poverty.


  • Council for Affordable Health Insurance: Kerry vs. Bush, The Future of Health Care Reform? [PDF]. Excerpt: Unlike Bill Clinton, who as a presidential candidate inspired a national debate with his sweeping health care reform plan, Sen. Kerry has proposed some measured changes intended to encourage employers to continue — or begin to offer — health coverage. Even so, the Kerry proposals would exacerbate the problems of the current system by redirecting it from its transition into a consumer-driven system to a government-driven system. President Bush also supports relatively modest reforms, perhaps because two of his previous campaign promises—a prescription drug benefit for seniors on Medicare and Health Savings Accounts — have already become law.


  • Washington Post: How to Heal Health Care, by Bill Frist (Republican, TN) and Hillary Clinton (Democrat. NY). At a time when much of our public discussion is riddled with disagreement, there is an emerging bipartisan consensus in one vitally important area: that the challenges facing U.S. health care require major, transformative change. Some steps are already underway. Recently the Department of Health and Human Services announced a 10-year plan to build a new health information infrastructure. And while there is no consensus yet on all the changes needed, we both agree that in a new system, innovations stimulated by information technology will improve care, lower costs, improve quality and empower consumers.


  • Connecticut Coalition for Universal Health Care: The Case For Single Payer, Universal Health Care For The United States. Excerpts: Why doesn’t the United States have universal health care as a right of citizenship? The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee access to health care as a right of citizenship. 28 industrialized nations have single payer universal health care systems, while 1 (Germany) has a multipayer universal health care system like President Clinton proposed for the United States. ... Myth One: The United States has the best health care system in the world. ... Myth Two: Universal Health Care Would Be Too Expensive. ... Myth Three: Universal Health Care Would Deprive Citizens of Needed Services. ... Myth Four: Universal Health Care Would Result In Government Control And Intrusion Into Health Care Resulting In Loss Of Freedom Of Choice. ... Myth Five: Universal Health Care Is Socialized Medicine And Would Be Unacceptable To The Public. ... Myth Six: The Problems With The US Health Care System Are Being Solved and Are Best Solved By Private Corporate Managed Care Medicine because they are the most efficient. (Editor's note: Each "myth" is refuted with a set of "facts" and a "conclusion.")


  • New York Times Opinion: America's Failing Health, by Paul Krugman. Excerpts: Working Americans have two great concerns: the growing difficulty of getting health insurance, and the continuing difficulty they have in finding jobs. These concerns may have a common cause: soaring insurance premiums. In most advanced countries, the government provides everyone with health insurance. In America, however, the government offers insurance only if you're elderly (Medicare) or poor (Medicaid). Otherwise, you're expected to get private health insurance, usually through your job. But insurance premiums are exploding, and the system of employment-linked insurance is falling apart. ...

    The fact is that the mainly private U.S. health care system spends far more than the mainly public health care systems of other advanced countries, but gets worse results. In 2001, we spent $4,887 on health care per capita, compared with $2,792 in Canada and $2,561 in France. Yet the U.S. does worse than either country by any measure of health care success you care to name - life expectancy, infant mortality, whatever. (At its best, U.S. health care is the best in the world. But the ranks of Americans who can't afford the best, and may have no insurance at all, are large and growing.) And the U.S. system does have very high overhead: private insurers and H.M.O.'s spend much more on administrative expenses, as opposed to actual medical treatment, than public agencies at home or abroad.

    Does this mean that the American way is wrong, and that we should switch to a Canadian-style single-payer system? Well, yes. Put it this way: in Canada, respectable business executives are ardent defenders of "socialized medicine." Two years ago the Conference Board of Canada - a who's who of the nation's corporate elite - issued a report urging fellow Canadians to bear in mind not just the "symbolic value" of universal health care, but its "economic contribution to the competitiveness of Canadian businesses." My health-economist friends say that it's unrealistic to call for a single-payer system here: the interest groups are too powerful, and the antigovernment propaganda of the right has become too well established in public opinion. All that we can hope for right now is a modest step in the right direction, like the one Mr. Kerry is proposing. I bow to their political wisdom. But let's not ignore the growing evidence that our dysfunctional medical system is bad not just for our health, but for our economy. If link is broken, view Adobe Acrobat version [PDF--111 KB].


  • Cincinnati Post: Census: 170,000 Ohio jobs lost. Excerpt: Ohio has seen 170,000 people lose their jobs since April 2000, according to numbers released Thursday by the U.S. Census Bureau. That translates to an unemployment rate that rose from 5 percent to 7.9 percent at the end of 2003, the numbers show.


  • Wall Street Journal: Steel Union Backs Retired Executives In Halliburton Suit, by Ellen E. Schultz. Excerpt: Retired executives at Halliburton Co. who lost health benefits earlier this year have an unexpected champion: the steelworkers' union. In an unusual move, the United Steelworkers of America filed an objection yesterday in U.S. District Court in Houston asking the court to refrain from granting the company's request for class action status in a lawsuit. Halliburton filed the suit earlier this year against some of its retired managers. The situation is unusual not only because Halliburton has taken its retirees to court in an attempt to sever benefits, but also because a union is weighing in to defend them. These events are taking place at a time when more employers are adopting aggressive legal maneuvers in an effort to shed health coverage for retirees-both union and salaried. How this suit plays out could have implications for all sides.


  • SmartMoney: Falling Through the Cracks. Excerpts: Hoping To retire early? You might want to reconsider. According to insurance experts, the most expensive period of a person's life to buy individual health coverage is between the ages of 55 and 64. Too young to qualify for Medicare, they're also old enough to be considered highly risky by insurers. And clients that are perceived as risky usually end up paying through the nose — if they're lucky enough to be offered coverage at all, warns Alice Burton, director of the state health policy group at Academy Health, a health research and policy center. ... In all, 3.7 million Americans between the ages of 55 and 64 (13%) have no health coverage whatsoever, according to U.S. Census Bureau data released on Thursday. An additional 3 million Americans (10.5%) in that age group pay for coverage on their own. Many experts warn that these numbers could rise as more companies drop their retiree benefits in the face of rising health costs. That certainly has been the trend over the years: in 1988, 66% of all large employers (200 or workers) offered retiree coverage, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation's annual survey of health care benefits; by 2003, that figure had plummeted to 38%.


  • Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Make Payroll Tax Part of Discussion. Excerpts: A couple of weeks ago I had a chance to hear the president talk about taxes. "We didn't play favorites in the tax code. We said, 'If you're paying taxes, you ought to get relief.' Seems to make a fair way to me to make policy," he said. "So everybody who paid taxes got relief." But that's not exactly correct -- unless you add the word "income" before the word "taxes" -- because more Americans are hit harder by payroll taxes. More than 70 percent of all taxpayers now pay more in payroll taxes -- mostly for Social Security and Medicare -- than they do in income taxes. The total collected is projected to reach $747 billion in the current fiscal year, just short of the $762 billion collected in income tax revenue. Both taxes collect about 41 percent of federal revenue -- but just four years ago, payroll taxes accounted for only 32 percent of federal revenue. ... When I asked Bush about a payroll tax cut, he said: "Well, obviously, I chose to provide tax relief by income tax cuts, not by payroll tax cuts, and the reason why is payroll tax will affect the solvency of Social Security. So I chose not to deal with the payroll tax." But the payroll tax has significant implications for most Americans. For some households with incomes below the median, the marginal tax rates are about 50 percent (including both income and payroll), according to the Economic Policy Institute. This is a tax on working people. Switch the source of the money around, say, most of the household income is generated from capital gains (a preferred tax) instead of labor, then the rate might not exceed 15 percent. But beyond fairness, the payroll tax makes it that much more difficult for businesses to hire new workers. Under the law, employers pay half the tax. Already many businesses say they aren't hiring new workers because of the increasing cost of benefits, including medical care. But one part of that equation is also the increased cost of payroll taxes.


  • Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Hunting for an agenda, Bush has Social Security in his sights. Excerpts: In urgent need of some fresh ideas for a second term to present at the Republican Convention, President Bush is framing an economic message called "the ownership society." That sounds swell. Who doesn't want to own the personally important things that make life comfortable? But what exactly does the slogan mean? How do we get to this ideal society? The major policy incentives that advisers are saying the president should tout aren't really new. Unless some secret surprise is pending, it's old wine in a new bottle. ... Bush might propose a raft of tax credits to reward people for buying property, investing in stocks and bonds and putting their money in private health insurance or job retraining. The trouble with this, however, is that you have to have the money to do those things. If you don't, then you don't get a tax credit. The pressure to spend now on current needs is compounded by the fact that the costs of most purchases are steadily going up but bank-account interest is bogged down at little more than 1 percent. Bush is pushing for individually funded, tax-sheltered savings accounts that would compete with 401(k) plans and other employee accounts to which employers now contribute. The centerpiece of this patchwork tax catchall, astonishingly, seems to be a revival of his 2000 campaign proposal to partially privatize Social Security. When the stock market went into a swoon, Bush stopped talking about the idea. But he raised the subject again in this year's State of the Union address and in his economic report to Congress in February. ...

    Now he calls the concept "personal retirement accounts." He claims this Social Security "reform" would give individuals "control" over their own future -- as in control to blow it as well as protect one's retirement. The plan would encourage workers to set up their own retirement accounts as vehicles to siphon off some of their payroll taxes that would normally go to support Social Security. Bush says that in the long run it could reduce the growth of Social Security and cut the benefits it provides. He thinks that is a good idea. He's wrong. Reducing benefits is a terrible idea. Social Security is the bedrock of stability on which millions of retirees rely. And future retirees should have that security. It is not irrelevant that these private accounts would also benefit the banks and financial institutions that contribute generously to Republicans. ... The devotion to tax cuts as the all-purpose answer to everything is as dangerous as it is shortsighted. A recent Congressional Budget Office study concluded that Bush's cuts had shifted more of the tax burden from the nation's rich to the middle class. And the big tax cut bears some responsibility for the federal budget deficit, now more than $400 billion this year and growing. Vice President Dick Cheney once said deficits don't matter, but those hefty interest payments the government must pay suggests they do.


  • Seattle Post-Intelligencer guest commentary: Overtime cut undermines workers, by John Sweeney, AFL-CIO President. Excerpts: Yesterday, the biggest pay cut in American history took effect: The Bush administration's overtime pay cut became official. It's a new federal rule that could strip up to 6 million workers of overtime pay protection, forcing them to work longer hours without fair compensation. Nurses, police lieutenants, chefs, team leaders, working supervisors, assistant managers and financial services workers are just some of the millions of workers who used to earn overtime pay when they worked more than 40 hours a week -- and who will now lose that eligibility. Not only will these employees no longer get overtime pay -- they'll be working extra hours for free, earning only their base salary. That means a huge pay cut. Currently, time-and-a-half premium pay for overtime work accounts for 25 percent of the income of those who work overtime. That averages out to about $161 every week. And what incentive will employers have to keep workers' hours reasonable if they don't have to pay extra for extra work? Workers without overtime pay rights are twice as likely to work more than 40 hours per week, three times as likely to work more than 50 hours and three times as likely to work more than 60 hours. The fact is that workers will have less time with our families, thanks to President Bush's new overtime rule.

Coverage on H1-B and L1 Visa and Off-Shoring Issues
  • Jim Hightower: Who Needs American Workers? Excerpts: Maybe you're one of the two million Americans who've recently had their jobs offshored to India, Pakistan, and elsewhere, or one of the millions more expected to have your jobs shipped abroad in the next few years. If so, don't worry, Bucko, for a new growth industry has arisen that offers exciting job opportunities for you discarded Americans. You, too, could become an "American accent and culture trainer." It seems that while such corporations as Citibank, Dell, GE, and Microsoft are eager to abandon the U.S. and move their telephone service jobs to low-wage workers abroad, these English-speaking foreign workers are...well, foreign, so their accents and cultural references can be jarring to U.S. customers placing orders or seeking help. Thus, offshoring companies are hiring Americans to teach foreign replacement workers to sound and behave like Americans. Yes, this means you could end up teaching the Indian or Pakistani or Russian who was given your job how to sound like you! ... Of course, it won't be long before the corporations train low-paid foreigners to teach American accents and culture to foreign workers––then there'll be no need for American workers at all.


  • ZDNet Australia: Offshoring: Don't shoot the messenger. Excerpts: India's image as a paragon of outsourcing took a severe beating last week after revelations of offshoring jobs gone awry shook the entire medical fraternity in the United Kingdom. Facing an acute shortage of medical transcribers, eight hospitals in London decided to outsource transcription services. Instructions and letters were dictated into digital voice recorders and the files forwarded to a company called Omnimedical, which would then send the recordings to a team of transcribers in India. In theory, it's a straightforward process but reality proved otherwise. The mistakes in the transcriptions were so serious, it prompted the Association of Medical Secretaries to go public with spokesman Michael Fiennes citing several horrific examples in the Daily Mail: below knee amputation became "baloney amputation" and phlebitis (vein inflammation) left leg was changed to "flea bite his left leg". ... They say the prime motivation behind outsourcing the workload is to provide better service to patients but they fail to address the ramifications of such a move. The root cause behind the dearth of medical secretaries--a combination of low wages and dim career growth--has been skirted in favor of offshoring, the magic short-term solution. The monthly wage of medical secretaries in India is reportedly one-third that of their British counterparts. The hospitals will argue that cost wasn't the only factor in deciding to outsource. In fact, any suggestion that hospitals willfully put patients' lives at risk would surely be met with furious rebuttals.

Now on the Alliance@IBM Site:
  • ThinkTwice for August/September 2004 [PDF]. Articles this month include:
    • Organizing IBM — Rev it up!
    • The Employee Free Choice Act
    • Take Action! Help us Strengthen Workers’ Right to Form Unions!
    • New IBM Program to Help Employees Whose Jobs are Offshored
    • The Value of a Union Contract
    • Offshore Contractors Target State Government Work

  • AFL-CIO: Union Members Come to the Aid of Hurricane Charley Victims.


  • Boston Magazine: The Man Who Knew Too Much. A BU professor fights to publicize his report claiming there's a link between cancer deaths and IBM plants. But Big Blue is doing all it can to stop him. Excerpt: Dick Clapp knows cancer. "This is my bible," he says, holding up a purple book thicker than an actual Bible. The title Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention is printed on the spine. A plaque on the wall in Clapp's tiny office at Boston University's School of Public Health recognizes his work studying the prevalence of breast cancer on Cape Cod. Among the journals lining his shelves is one he edited on sewage sludge. Not the most glamorous topic perhaps, but sewage sludge can contain dioxins, which when spread on agricultural fields can attach to vegetables and cause -- that's right -- cancer. Clapp has spent many years trying to pinpoint the environmental factors that cause this disease. He acted as an expert for the Woburn residents who sued W. R. Grace and Beatrice Foods, claiming those firms were poisoning the residents' well water with chemicals -- a legal battle that served as the basis for the book and film A Civil Action , starring John Travolta. So Clapp was a natural person to call when workers at an IBM semiconductor plant in San Jose, California, sued, alleging they were contracting cancer from chemicals they worked with. After he was hired by the plaintiffs to analyze data turned over by IBM, Clapp concluded that the plant workers, compared to the national average, were four times as likely to get brain cancer, twice as likely to get breast cancer, and six times as likely to contract multiple myeloma, a rare cancer of the plasma cells. But Clapp and co-analyst Rebecca Johnson never got a chance to present these conclusions. In the first related case against IBM, brought by a woman who had breast cancer and a man with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, the judge ruled Clapp's analysis inadmissible on grounds of irrelevance. When Clapp tried to publish the study in a scientific journal, IBM threatened to sue. Though it denies that its plants have caused cancer in its workers, IBM settled with about 50 former employees in a second suit, demanding that the settlement amounts be kept secret. (More than 100 similar suits are pending in New York.) If IBM has its way, Clapp's analysis -- which suggests, he says, that the company should have known its employees were dying of cancer at high rates -- will never see the light of day.
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have too much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." — Franklin D. Roosevelt
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.