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."
Web This Site

Quick Links:
  Get involved!
  Press articles
  Important Links
  Insider trading
  Lou's Contract
  Total Compensation
  Add or delete ID
  Change ID
  Contact site owner
Previous Highlights:
  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—September 11, 2004
  • BenefitNews.com: Groups unite on pension reform. Excerpts: A diverse coalition has proposed ways to expand employer-sponsored retirement benefits to the half of American workers who do not have it, with four suggestions targeting small businesses and low- and moderate-income employees. The recommendations came out of a three-year-old "Conversation on Coverage" that involved 45 experts from business, financial services, academia, labor unions and consumer groups. The Pension Rights Center, a nonprofit group based in Washington, D.C., organized the group and tasked it with developing real-world solutions to the vexing problem of inadequate retirement coverage for American workers "It's the first initiative of its kind that has brought together different voices to have this kind of dialogue. It's unprecedented in its scope," said Karen D. Friedman, who directs the Conversation project for the Pension Rights Center. The new proposals, outlined at a daylong meeting in July in Washington, D.C., are "works in progress," she added. Specific legislation and demonstration projects could emerge during the next year. The four savings proposals would strengthen the $4 trillion defined-benefit and defined-contribution systems by, among other things, encouraging automatic enrollment and increasing contribution limits. Despite some calls to mandate certain design features, in the end the coalition supported a voluntary system, with tax credits, lower costs and other incentives to increase participation.

  • New York Times: Older Workers Worry About Pension Security. Excerpts: Older workers and retirees who have toiled for their companies for decades have long viewed their pensions as money in the bank, even years before the checks arrived. Now some are beginning to wonder just how secure they really are. ... "You always hear how companies take care of you," said the Hibbing, Minn., resident. "I thought like everybody else that you do a job for them and they'll take care of you when it's time to retire. But it didn't pan out." After assuming for years that his retirement benefits were secure, Holmbeck is bitter over the unexpected reduction to his pension of $278 a month and the loss of his medical coverage. He and a group of fellow retirees are angry at their international union for not fighting harder for the pensions, they blame Congress for allowing pension underfunding and they are frustrated to see their restructured company back in business -- at their expense. "What really teed us off was, if you look, these companies go into bankruptcy and shed their pension obligations and shed their medical obligations and they continue to operate under a different name."

  • Boston Globe: Pension plan disclosures urged. Report calls for transparency in proxy votes. Excerpts: Senator Edward M. Kennedy yesterday said he would press US pension plans to disclose proxy votes on the stocks they hold -- as mutual funds must now do -- in response to a government report calling for greater transparency in pensions affecting 100 million workers and $4 trillion of assets. The report, written by the General Accountability Office, an agency that works for Congress, found that pension plans face the same potential conflicts of interest that mutual funds face when they vote on corporate matters each year for the stocks they own. The GAO urged Congress to pass legislation to make proxy votes public, in order to ensure that pension managers act in the best interests of the workers whose nest eggs they are overseeing. ''Millions of Americans rely on company pension plans for their retirement, and many of these plans hold and vote company stock," Kennedy said in a statement. ''The potential for conflicts of interest is obvious, and workers and retirees often pay the price."

  • Boston Globe: Workers need to evaluate firm's 401(k). Excerpt: There are software programs and websites, 800 numbers and glossy brochures. Companies dump avalanches of information on employees enrolled in 401(k) retirement plans. But employer-sponsored educational materials only tell one side of the story: the employer's. It's still up to workers to figure out whether a company plan meets their needs.

  • ZD-Net: Consultants pocketing raises this year. Excerpt: There has been a fivefold increase in management consultancy recruitment over the last year, according to the latest analysis by Top-Consultant.com. Much of the rebound has been in the UK market, but in the United States an upturn is also gathering pace--and globally firms are now firmly turning their attention back to the issues of effective recruitment and retention. Pay has always featured highly in consulting firms’ retention strategies. During the dot-com boom, salary rises of 20 percent-plus per year became commonplace, as consultancies fought to prevent their staff defecting to an investment bank or an e-business startup. Bonus payments reached new highs too. Efforts were made to improve work/life balance and to introduce greater career flexibility, as another means of improving retention. But there’s only so much room for maneuver here when a firm is stretched to meet the needs of an expanding client list. Somewhat inevitably, cash became king and consulting firms’ remuneration bills rocketed.

  • Washington Post: EDS Ready to Trim Payroll Over 2 Years. Excerpts: Electronic Data Systems Corp. could cut 15,000 to 20,000 jobs -- more than 10 percent of its workforce -- over about two years to help reduce costs by about $3 billion, chief executive Michael H. Jordan said Thursday. ... Jordain has said the company is trying to improve productivity to reduce the cost it charges for its services, making its offers more competitive with rivals such as IBM Corp. ... Baum said it was impossible to tell where cuts might be made. He said, however, that the company was likely to grow faster outside the United States than at home.

  • New York Times: House Votes to Block Administration's Rules on Overtime. Excerpts: The House voted Thursday to roll back new Bush administration rules governing overtime pay, providing Democrats a rare victory over the Republican majority in a debate colored by the approach of the November elections. The vote, 223 to 193, came on a spending-bill amendment that would bar the Labor Department from carrying out the new rules. Later in the day the broader bill, providing $142.5 billion for an array of health and labor programs, passed overwhelmingly, 388 to 13. ... The vote was a rebuke to both the House leadership and the White House, which has threatened to veto the spending bill if the amendment survives. The Senate has already voted to block the rules but has done so in a bill different from the one that the House passed on Thursday. That other bill remains in conference negotiations between the two chambers. "The Republican leadership in Congress will stop at nothing to strip this provision from whatever final bill is sent to the president," said Representative George Miller of California, who sponsored the amendment along with another Democrat, Representative David R. Obey of Wisconsin. House Republicans said they were confident they could eliminate the overtime provision during negotiations with the Senate, and so avoid a veto of the spending bill.

  • San Francisco Chronicle: The eroding stature of workers. Excerpts: One irony of Labor Day 2004 is that so much political oratory speaks of values and morality when the dignity of human labor is under relentless assault. The overriding manifestation of this -- affecting all levels of full-time workers, not just the working poor -- is the decline in wages, as shown by studies from both the U.S. Department of Labor and Internal Revenue Service documenting an increase in poverty during the first three years of the Bush administration. Never has the maxim reiterated last week by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in New York that "If you play by the rules you will get ahead" proved so false. ... Of course, the decline in wages and fringe benefits (in addition to health care, airline workers' pension benefits are now imperiled) is substantially attributable to the fact that workers do not have representatives and thus lack a democratic voice in the workplace. In the mid 1950s, unions represented approximately 35 percent of all workforce employees. According to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, unionized employees now represent 12.9 percent, with the number of union workers falling by 369,000 just in the past year. Fewer than 1 in 10 workers in the private sector belong to a union. This, along with a growing inequality in income, has undercut labor's weapon of last resort where it cannot resolve differences with employers -- the strike. The existence of a sea of nonunion workers who are able and willing to take unionized jobs when labor strikes has meant that most strikers can be easily replaced and the law allows the replacement to be permanent. Workers are not likely to protest conditions if they will lose their jobs as a consequence of so doing. ... Although it plays a secondary role, the weakness of the National Labor Relations Act, designed to provide employees the right to organize and bargain collectively, is relevant. The National Labor Relations Board, now composed of Bush appointees, has excluded from the act graduate teaching assistants at private universities such as Stanford and Harvard, by declaring them not to be "employees."

  • Ralph Nader: The Cruel Legacy of Taft-Hartley. A Labor Day Call for Rights for Working People. Excerpts: With the demise of union influence, almost every aspect of workers' rights is given short shrift. Minimum wage has been allowed to languish far behind inflation as executive pay skyrockets. The gap between the wages of now two-job (or more) working families and wealth of the privileged widens even as worker productivity rises. The average worker takes home takes home $517 per week, while the average CEO of the largest companies takes home $155,769 per week. The gap between workers and large companies is now greater than 300 to 1. In 1982 the gap was 42 to 1. Over 45 million workers--one in three--do not make a living wag, i.e. under $10 per hour gross. This is insufficient for an individual to live on and certainly not enough for a family. ... The marginalization of organized labor and its agenda for working people within our corporate dominated political process is in sharp contrast to Western Europe. There unionization is industry -wide and not within a single company. The political support enjoyed by labor results in statutory rights available to union member and non union member alike. A month's paid vacation, longer sick, maternity and family leave and of course health care that is entirely portable are benefits taken for granted in other Western capitalist economic systems.

  • Washington Post: Middle Managers in the Class War. Excerpt: They are certainly no longer the Organization Man (or Woman) of the 1950s and beyond, who, while conformist and restricted in what they could do, at least tended to have job security. Many of today's middle managers have more opportunity to be creative entrepreneurs within their companies, but, like other workers, they now also tend to have, at best, modest job security. Waves of corporate restructuring have left them vulnerable to layoffs and outsourcing. Also, like other workers, many of these middle managers feel their "bosses" are making poor decisions beyond their control and even their understanding. But unlike traditional workers, who use unions or ties to political parties to make their case and press for relief, these middle managers tend to be apolitical and have little sense of alternatives to their insecure world and how politics might reduce their insecurity. These millions of Americans are thus trapped between two worldviews. On the one hand, they accept the proposition that the same economic forces that create their insecurity are both inevitable and lead to efficient outcomes for their firms and for the economy. On the other, they often see their work devalued by leaders of their own organizations, who they think should owe them something in return for their years of loyalty.

  • New York Times Opinion, by Bob Herbert: An Economy That Turns American Values Upside Down. Excerpts: From 2000 through 2003 the median household income fell by $1,500 (in 2003 dollars) - a significant 3.4 percent decrease. That information becomes startling when you consider that during the same period there was a strong 12 percent increase in productivity among U.S. workers. Economists will tell you that productivity increases go hand-in-hand with increases in the standard of living. But not this time. Here we have a 3.4 percent loss in real income juxtaposed with a big jump in productivity. "So the economic pie is growing gangbusters and the typical household is falling behind," said Jared Bernstein, the institute's senior economist and a co-author of the new book. This is the part of the story that spotlights the unfairness at the heart of the current economic setup in the U.S. While workers have been remarkably productive in recent years, they have not participated in the benefits of their own increased productivity. That doesn't sound very much like the American way. According to the institute, "Between 1947 and 1973 productivity and real median family income both grew 104 percent, a golden age of growth for both variables." That parallel relationship began to break down in the 1970's, but it is only recently that it fell apart altogether, leaving us with the following evidence of unrestrained inequity... The end result of all this is a portrait of American families struggling just to hang on, rather than to get ahead. The benefits of productivity gains and economic growth are flowing to profits, not worker compensation. The fat cats are getting fatter, while workers, at least for the time being, are watching the curtain come down on the heralded American dream.

  • Forbes: Labor Has Had Better Days. Excerpts: The BLS also reported late last week that the real (adjusted for inflation) earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers fell by $2 per week between July 2003 and July 2004. This decline has occurred despite a surge in productivity, which rose at a 2.5% annual rate again last month. Rising productivity should ultimately lead to higher wages. But that has not been happening even as productivity improved by 4.3% in 2002 and 4.5% in 2003. Productivity is defined as output divided by hours worked, and most of these gains have been from employers producing the same amount or more with fewer workers. The still sluggish labor market has not allowed those on the job to obtain more pay, despite producing more per hour.

  • BusinessWeek: Can This Man Save Labor? Andy Stern wants to radically retool the U.S. labor movement. But first he must win over some powerful union leaders. Excerpts: Nothing less than a deep sense of desperation about the fate of organized labor drives Stern & Co. The forces of globalization that began pounding labor's manufacturing strongholds in the late 1970s have intensified in recent years as offshore production has exploded. Membership has slid steadily in service industries, too. In everything from retailing to health care to office work, deregulation, heightened competition, and cheap immigrant labor have forced employers into a ceaseless struggle to keep down costs, including wages and benefits. The so-called Wal-Martization of the economy has fueled the trend: Many companies feel pressure to seek out the lowest costs, even if it means paying skimpy wages. American paychecks have slid again after the gains of the 1990s, more employees are losing company-paid health coverage, and worker anxiety has been heightened by the shift of white-collar jobs overseas. ... Heightened corporate power has checked union growth, too. Unionization elections are typically so lopsided today that most unions have all but given up on them. Most employers pull out the stops when labor organizers appear, using everything from mandatory antiunion meetings to staged videos showing alleged union thugs beating workers, backed by streams of leaflets and letters to workers' homes. While most of these tactics are legal, companies also illegally fire union supporters in 25% of all elections, according to studies of federal data by Cornell University labor researcher Kate Bronfenbrenner. That's triple the percentage of the 1960s. So companies are often able to turn employees against a union, even though a rising number of Americans have said in national polls over the past two decades that they would join one.

  • Project Censored: Wealth Inequality in 21st Century Threatens Economy and Democracy. Excerpt: During the short boom of the late 1990s, conservative analysts asserted that, yes, the gap between rich and poor was growing, but that incomes for the poor were still increasing over previous levels. Today most economists, regardless of their political persuasion, agree that the data over the last 25 to 30 years is unequivocal. The top 5% is capturing an increasingly greater portion of the pie while the bottom 95% is clearly losing ground, and the highly touted American middle class is fast disappearing. According to economic journalist, David Cay Johnston, author of “Perfectly Legal,” this trend is not the result of some naturally occurring, social Darwinist “survival of the fittest.” It is the product of legislative policies carefully crafted and lobbied for by corporations and the super-rich over the past 25 years. New tax shelters in the 1980s shifted the tax burden off capital and onto labor. As tax shelters rose, the amount of federal revenue coming from corporations fell (from 35% during the Eisenhower years to 10% in 2002). During the deregulation wave of the ‘80s and the ‘90s, members of Congress passed legislation (often without reading it) that deregulated much of the financial industry. These laws took away, for example, the powerful incentives for accountants to behave with integrity or for companies to put away a reasonable amount in pension plans for their employees—resulting in the well-publicized (too late) scandals involving Enron, Global Crossing, and others. ...

  • CNN.com: Patients pay price for public hospital care. Shrinking resources and space lead to painful waiting game. Excerpts: Adam Fira found himself in a hospital room after a car crash last year with half his skull missing and his head sunken in like a deflated basketball. The high school football player couldn't run, lift weights or wrestle with his sisters. The slightest bump or fall could harm his brain, protected only by skin etched with a road map of pink scars. For months, he wore a skateboarding helmet to school and waited for doctors at Parkland Memorial Hospital to schedule surgery to implant a plastic skull. Doctors said it might happen before Christmas, but it didn't. When it was delayed again in May, the handsome, popular athlete lost confidence. He stopped talking to friends. He stopped leaving the house. Finally, on July 12, the phone rang. Parkland had scheduled surgery for the next morning. Fira's mother used up her cell phone minutes spreading the news to family, coaches and church members. Her son couldn't sleep that night. His stomach churned like it used to on Fridays before the game. Before dawn, they drove two hours from the small town of Hillsboro to Parkland. In room 229, his black curls shaved, stomach empty, an IV in his arm and 15 relatives camped out nearby, Fira waited for his new skull. Hours went by. Noon passed. Another soap opera droned on TV. Fira grew more hungry and frustrated the longer he waited. After 13 hours, doctors told him to go home. Another patient's aneurysm and other emergencies at the public hospital had tied up doctors and operating rooms all day. Fira's surgery, considered elective, would just have to wait.

  • President George W. Bush: Fact Sheet: President Bush's Plan to Make Health Care More Affordable. Excerpt: President Bush believes all Americans should have access to affordable, high-quality health care. Rising health care costs impose a burden on families and small businesses and put coverage out of the reach of many Americans. The President's plan will help reduce the rising cost of health care; provide new and affordable health coverage options for all Americans; and provide not just a government program, but a path to greater opportunity, more freedom, and more control over your own health care and your own future.

  • Senator John Kerry: Affordable Health Care for All. Excerpt: We deserve a president who understands that in America, regular check-ups shouldn't empty family checkbooks - a president who will put people ahead of insurance and drug companies. John Kerry and John Edwards have a plan to address soaring premiums and cut Americans a break. Their plan will lower family premiums by up to $1,000 a year, cut waste from the system, lower the cost of prescription drugs to provide real relief to seniors, and use targeted tax cuts to extend affordable, high-quality coverage to 95 percent of Americans, including every child. And because John Kerry and John Edwards believe that everyone's health is equally important, they will provide all Americans with access to the same coverage that members of Congress give themselves. To make affordable health care a right - not a privilege - for every American, John Kerry and John Edwards will...

  • New York Times: Cost of Insuring Workers' Health Increases 11.2%. Excerpts: The cost of providing health care to employees has risen 11.2 percent this year, according to the results of an authoritative national survey reported yesterday. It was the fourth consecutive year of double-digit increases in health insurance premiums, which has resulted in a steady decline in the number of the nation's workers and their families receiving employer health care coverage. ... The survey found that the share of companies of all sizes offering health benefits to their workers declined to 61 percent, down from 65 percent in 2001. As a result, an estimated five million fewer workers have access to employer health care coverage than the 127 million reported in 2001, said John Gabel, vice president of Health Research and Educational Trust. With health care high on the list of voter concerns in election year polls, the Bush and Kerry campaigns quickly jumped into the fray. Senator John Kerry blamed Bush administration policies. "It's wrong to allow skyrocketing health care costs to choke off new jobs, eat up family incomes and leave millions uninsured," Mr. Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate, said yesterday during a campaign stop in Des Moines. The Census Bureau said last month that the nation's total number of uninsured people had risen by 1.4 million in 2003, to a record 45 million. Reed Dickens, a spokesman for the Bush-Cheney campaign, said: "This administration has helped slow the rate of increase for the first time in seven years. The president's approach to this is a consumer-driven approach, and John Kerry's philosophy is to shift the decision-making power to the federal government and shift the financial burden to the taxpayer."

  • Dallas Morning News: Most uninsured Texans work full-time. Excerpts: Three-fourths of uninsured Texans have full-time jobs but cannot afford health insurance, according to a report released Wednesday by the Texas Association of Business. The study also shows that more than half of Texans without health coverage live in households earning more than $75,000 a year. Texas has the highest rate of uninsured non-elderly residents, about one-fourth of the state's population, according to U.S. census data. Some 4.8 million Texans had no insurance in 2003, an increase of 300,000 from 2002, according to the National Academy of Sciences.

  • UC Berkeley News: UC Berkeley study finds little union impact on company survival, wages. Excerpts: Despite popular claims to the contrary, labor unions in recent years have had little impact on either company survival or average wages in private sector manufacturing, according to researchers from the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Michigan. In a working paper for the private, nonprofit and nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research, UC Berkeley Assistant Professor of Economics David Lee and University of Michigan Professor of Economics John DiNardo analyzed firms where union organizing drives narrowly won or lost from 1984 to 1999. Detailed examination of data about these businesses about 10 percent of them in California - showed little union impact in terms of worker productivity or hours, manufacturing output, total value of shipments, sales volume, the number of company employees, or a firm's ability to stay in business.

  • Wall Street Journal: Bush vs. Kerry On Your Tax Bill. Analysis Shows How Much Key Income Brackets Would Have to Pay Under Competing Plans. Excerpts: A hypothetical married couple earning $1 million, including $27,000 in dividend income and $250,000 in capital gains, would pay $34,850 more under a Kerry administration than under the current one, according to Deloitte. A single taxpayer with $275,000 in income, including $5,000 in dividend income and capital gains of $20,000, would pay only $2,500 more under Sen. Kerry's plan. Deloitte analysts estimate that Sen. Kerry would raise taxes for married couples filing jointly with adjusted gross incomes of about $225,000 or higher, and for single taxpayers with an income of $185,000 or higher. These estimates are based on representative taxpayers with typical itemized deductions. Kerry aides emphasize their plan would raise taxes on only about the top 2% of the nation's taxpayers. They also say the taxes these people would pay under Kerry would be lower than what they paid under President Clinton. The Bush campaign's press secretary, Scott Stanzel, says that the president "has called upon Congress to make tax relief permanent so small businesses and individuals have certainty in their planning." ... No matter who wins, though, some strategists say higher taxes are inevitable in coming years. "Higher-income people are going to be paying more in the way of taxes at some point, because the deficits can't go on forever," says Len Burman, co-director of the Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, and a former Clinton Treasury official. "In some ways, Kerry is just accelerating the day of reckoning."

  • New York Times: Interactive Graphic: A Look At Those Who Died. Tracking the troops that have died in the war in Iraq, based on the 994 dead for whom detailed information was available. The dead come from all branches of the armed services and represent the highest toll since the Vietnam War. (Editor's note: Although not related to the usual subject matter of this site, we've included this link because it provides personal and highly compelling insight into the American military victims of the Iraq war.)

Coverage on H1-B and L1 Visa and Off-Shoring Issues
  • Enterprise Systems: Who Benefits From Outsourcing? A new report says CEOs do, and disproportionately at that. Excerpts: CEOs at some of the biggest outsourcers in the United States may be lining their own pockets with the money they’ve saved, according to a new new study from two prominent employment researchers. According to Sarah Anderson and John Cavanaugh at the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), and Chris Hartman, Scott Klinger, and Stacey Chan at United for a Fair Economy (UFE), compensation for CEOs at the 50 largest outsourcers of service jobs shot up by 46 percent last year. That’s one heck of a cost of living adjustment—especially in light of the fact that executives at these companies also earn 28 percent more than their peers at other large companies. “These 50 CEOs seem to be personally benefiting from a trend that has already cost hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs and is projected to cost millions more over the next decade,” the report authors conclude. Tellingly, researchers contrasted this result with a Business Week survey that found that CEOs at 365 large firms realized an average rise in compensation of 9 percent. According to the publication, the average CEO salary is $8.1 million, which is 56 times the pay of a U.S. Army general with 20 years of experience ($144,932) and 634 times the starting salary of a greenhorn soldier ($12,766). For the record, the average salary for a CEO at one of the 50 largest outsourcers was $10.45 million. That comes out to $5,022 per hour, per the estimates of the authors.

    The report is the latest in a backlash against outsourcing, which, many economists argue, ends up creating more or less as many new jobs as are sent overseas. The authors contest this belief, however, arguing that there’s no evidence the savings derived from outsourcing has resulted in more—and, most importantly, better—American jobs. “U.S. software-related jobs—which are among those most vulnerable to outsourcing—have been in steady decline, dropping 16 percent between 2001 and 2004,” the researchers write, building up to a potentially incendiary conclusion. “Firms appear to be channeling their outsourcing profits not into U.S. jobs, but rather into the pockets of chief executives.” ... Not surprisingly, several technology companies are prominent among the list of the 50 biggest outsourcers—including Cisco Systems Inc., Dell Inc., Electronic Data Systems Corp., IBM Corp., Hewlett-Packard Co., Intel Corp., Oracle Corp., and Unisys Corp.

  • CNET News: Students saying no to computer science. Excerpts: At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as in other schools across the country, computer science enrollments are dropping, raising questions about the country's future tech leadership. This fall, there are just under 200 new undergraduate majors in MIT's electrical engineering and computer science department, down from about 240 last year and roughly 385 three years ago. The Rutgers University computer science department has canceled some course sections and expects total enrollment in classes in the major this year to be thousands less than its peak of 6,500 several years ago. Saul Levy, chair of the undergraduate computer science program, said the ongoing decline stems from the way students perceive career prospects. "They don't believe in the job market in computers anymore," Levy said.

Now on the Alliance@IBM Site:
  • The Inquirer (United Kingdom): Lloyds Bank Union challenges outsourcing. With a little help from friends. Excerpt: Lloyds Bank workers is taking the bosses to court over a move to outsource work to India. The Union briefs are issuing the challenge on the basis that the move does not meet stringent legal data protection requirements. In a newsletter sent to members, the Union said that European legislation requires that sensitive personal data may only be transferred outside the European Economic Area with the express permission of customers.

  • JOB CUT Alert September 8th! Alliance is receiving reports of job cuts happening today in Rochester Minnesota. If you have any information on this or any other cuts happening, please e-mail: endicottalliance@stny.rr.com

  • Governor Signs Executive Order Protecting New Jersey Jobs. Excerpt: Governor James E. McGreevey today signed an Executive Order that will protect New Jersey jobs by restricting the manner in which State agencies outsource work to foreign countries. “With the threat of more companies outsourcing their work to add to their bottom line, it is our responsibility to protect our jobs from going over seas,” said McGreevey. “I am proud to sign an Executive Order that will restrict the State from doing business with any company which chooses to take jobs away from our hard working people and send them offshore.” The Executive Order directs and mandates that State agencies must require vendors (and their subcontractors) seeking state contracts for services to disclose the country in which the services under the contract will be performed.
In Politics—
Note: The views expressed in the editorials in this section do not reflect the views of the Alliance@IBM. They do reflect the views of the editor of www.ibmemployee.com.


"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.