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.

• "One Person's Thoughts" by "T_Slothrop". Excerpts: After a few years with C&L/PwC/IBM I have decided to leave. I have enjoyed reading the discussions in this forum, and would like to throw in my two cents. There are four post-takeover changes that have strongly influenced my decision:
  • Absence of Partner-Level Leadership on Client Engagements and Career Development: Over the last year most of the (old PwC) partners who had been responsible for ongoing projects have been shifted to internal roles or into business development in areas where we have historically had no presence and no experience. We have lost a lot of our strategic-thinking expertise, and it has been difficult for the band 8/9 managers to fill this vacuum. In some areas we have new relationship managers who are supposed to fill this role, but they lack prior consulting experience and I would not feel comfortable putting them in front of my client.
  • Shifting Emphasis from Sales & Delivery to Sales: We used to be rewarded for selling and delivering engagements. At the end of the year you were rewarded if you had done both; if you couldn't do both you lost out. Now the emphasis is almost completely on sales. The client service staff are just another group of workers producing product according to an IBM recipe.
  • Difficulty Working with Business Development Staff: BCS has a one-size-fits-all approach to business development; meaning that when we try to bring in a $250K BPR engagement we follow the same procedures as someone pursuing a multi-million dollar project. This includes a plethora of non-value-added organizations such as pricing, risk-management, and sales. These groups may be useful with the large engagements, but for most of our business development they are dead weight. The days of presenting a spreadsheet and a proposal to a partner for quick review and signature are gone. In practice the BD staff does not want to see low dollar proposals, they want the big $$$. So we go after IT implementations and shy away from small BPR.
  • Authority of HR over Career Development: The roles of engagement management and resource management have almost completely reversed. HR now dictates who goes on what project, and has developed a complex process for promotion from 8 to 9 that requires about two weeks of classes that seem to have little bearing on client work, they are more focused on learning IBM capabilities (and training has been cancelled due to not making first quarter numbers).
  I know some good people who are staying, and some good people who have already left. Now I will join the exodus.

• Rocky Mountain News: Hospital staff takes on role of guardian angel. By Bill Johnson. Excerpts: In a world where good things seem to occur only in dribs and drabs, I think we need this kind of story. It started about a month ago in the hallway of the obstetrics ward at St. Joseph Hospital on Franklin Street.

• Washington Post, Letter to the Editor: A Simple Save for Social Security. By Senator Robert Wexler (D-Fla.). Excerpt: Two-thirds of retired Americans rely on Social Security for more than half their income. Additionally, medical and prescription drug costs are far outpacing the growth of Social Security cost-of-living adjustments, and pension benefits are shrinking dramatically. In other words, The Post wants seniors to pay for the tax cuts for the wealthiest -- which were funded almost entirely from the Social Security surplus -- with benefits cuts for themselves. Where is the equity in that? The idea of lifting the cap on earnings is not original, but it is the right thing to do. My plan guarantees Americans 100 percent of their promised benefits while closing the Social Security funding gap. More important, benefits would be protected for retirees and future generations of Americans.
• Economic Policy Institute: Many already lack a steady job before the Social Security retirement age. Excerpts: In the Social Security debate, some policy makers have suggested raising the retirement age as a way to address the projected long-term gap in Social Security's finances. Those who favor a later retirement age seem to assume that people work right up until they become eligible for early retirement at age 62 or until the "normal retirement age" under Social Security, and then immediately retire. The "normal retirement age" is already in the process of increasing from 65 to 67. The assumption is that raising the retirement age further would induce Americans to continue working and to postpone claiming their benefits until they hit the new, later retirement age. If people behaved this way, it would raise revenue and reduce benefits. [...]
  Americans over 45 are disproportionately more likely than their younger counterparts to be among the long-term unemployed (those unemployed for 27 weeks or more). Americans older than 45 make up about 14% of the labor force but 37% of the long-term unemployed. Older workers—even those as young as their late 40s and early 50s—are disproportionately more likely to fall into the ranks of the long-term unemployed. One possible explanation for lower employment rates for older Americans is age discrimination in hiring practices. Compared to other charges of discrimination collected by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, age discrimination tends to display the strongest counter-cyclical trend. That is, charges of age discrimination fall during good economic times and rise during recessions; more so than discrimination based on race or sex. Companies trying to cut costs in bad economic times will benefit more from laying off older workers, who get paid more than younger, lower paid entry-level workers. About 23% of all discrimination charges in 2004 had an age component, compared to 18% of all charges in 1999.
• The Century Foundation: Let's Get Real about the Working Old. By Beverly Goldberg. Excerpts: Those determined to fix Social Security, or perhaps prove it is not really needed, by deciding that people can work forever instead of retiring seem all to be from the class whose work requires little physical effort and pays well enough that a cut in salary would make little difference to them. Their retirement jobs would probably involve writing a book or giving well-paid lectures. The latest expressions of those living in this state of unreality appear in a column in the New York Times today (June 21, 2005). [...]
  Yes, you, senior citizen, come on back to the workforce, and forget your pride. Join that crop of older workers who are not old enough to retire and have spent an average of twenty some weeks searching for a new position. (See Bureau of Labor Statistics here.) Heed the call from that store in the mall or that fast food restaurant and take a job. You were a manager for one of the big car makers, and they aren't hiring? Well, settle for less. A lot of people do just that, especially those too young to qualify for early retirement under Social Security.
  Think about it. You can be like the fifty plus Jim Morris of Woburn, Mass, a former IT manager who took a job at Staples after searching unsuccessfully in his field and has been promoted to a supervisor in a copy-center. Of course his net pay, he says, "barely covers his mortgage and condo fee." Or you can follow in the footsteps of Minna Vallentine, a fifty plus inhabitant of Mountain View, California, who lost her executive position in marketing when her software firm downsized and is patching together enough work to survive, explaining, "I've gone from a six-figure job to barely paying the mortgage every month." (Marilyn Gardner, "Laid off at 50: How Some Bridge the Retirement Gap," Christian Science Monitor, February 7, 2005)
• The Boston Globe: The new 'leisure class'. By Ellen Goodman. Excerpts: AS IF IT weren't bad enough to see the image of ''senior citizens" transformed into ''greedy geezers," now they're morphing into ''lazy geezers." It seems that Social Security recipients are gradually being redefined as members of the leisure class. The plan to reform Social Security by partially privatizing accounts is going nowhere, but another idea is creeping into the public consciousness: Raise the age of retirement. This notion recently came up in the Senate, where the average age is 60 and heavy lifting consists of dialing for dollars. The 71-year-old chairman of the Finance Committee, Charles Grassley, talked about lifting the age for full benefits to 69. Now it's being chatted up by think-tankers and commentators. [...]
  Today, 38 percent of those who retire early were forcibly retired by illness or downsizing. It's harder and takes longer to get another job after 55. Early retirement can be just another word for unemployment. A recent survey done by Civic Ventures says that baby boomers want to continue working at jobs that do ''good work." But when a huge proportion of the working population takes a reduced benefit to get out of work earlier, we can assume that they are leaving jobs they don't like. Or jobs where they aren't valued. [...]
  One of the best-kept secrets is that we have already raised the age of full retirement to 65 1/2. It's increasing gradually until 2027, when it will be 67. Raising the retirement age further is nothing but an attempt, in economist Alicia Munnell's phrase ''to find a socially acceptable way of cutting benefits." Before this gets out of hand, we have to ask whether this is the best reform. We also have to ask why it's becoming more socially acceptable to target older Americans than richer Americans. Want to talk about age and class? Try two other proposals for Social Security reform. The first is to raise the ceiling on earnings over $90,000. The second and most elegant idea comes from nonagenarian and former Social Security Commissioner Robert Ball: Designate the estate tax to shore up Social Security.

• Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin: IBM to transfer printer division. Endicott manufacturing will shift to Minnesota. By Jeff Platsky. Excerpts: A company-wide restructuring hit at least another 30 people at IBM Corp.'s Endicott operations on Monday when a group of workers in Printer Systems were told that manufacturing will shift to Rochester, Minn. The move will strip Endicott of virtually all of its printer manufacturing and make the site the center for Printer Systems administrative and engineering functions, a spokesman said. [...] Endicott was the site of high-end impact printer manufacturing, long the staple of banks, insurance companies and other financial services groups. That work will be transferred to Rochester, Minn., the center for computer servers. Endicott has a rich history with printers that dates back to the now- defunct Glendale Laboratory, where staff engineered and developed high-speed printers that were long favored in the financial services industry. [...] IBM has about 1,500 workers in Endicott, down from a mid-1980s peak of 11,000.
• Alliance@IBM: Attention IBM employees: IBM is blocking e-mail to and from the Alliance@IBM e-mail address endicottalliance@stny.rr.com from inside the company. Please send your job cut information and other correspondence from your home e-mail. You can also contact us the following ways: Phone 607 658 9285 or Fax 607 658 9283.
• IBM Pension Lawsuit FAQ about Cooper v IBM, Updated 6-2-05. Excerpt: Below is a list of frequently asked questions about the class action lawsuit against IBM's 1995 and 1999 pension plans. The answers are my personal opinions, have not been verified with either IBM or plaintiffs’ counsel, and should not be construed as legal advice. On July 31, 2003, a federal district court judge ruled in favor of the employees in this case. IBM will appeal portions of the ruling. On September 28, 2004, IBM and the legal team on Cooper v IBM announced that an agreement had been negotiated that settles some of the claims and set the amount of damages that IBM will pay to the class if IBM's appeal of the district court's age discrimination rulings is unsuccessful. Click on any question to jump to the answer. Or scroll down and read them all.
• Resource Action Tool Kit. Along with the CWA Job Survival Kit, here are some resources you can use when challenging or questioning a company policy, procedure or practice.
  • Reduction in Workforce actions (RIF)...
  • Escalations, Appeals and Skip level meetings...
  • Implied contracts vs. Employees at Will...
  • In General...
• Job Cuts Status & Comments Page. Excerpts: Job cuts are coming. Information needed: What is Your location? How many job cuts at your location? What locations are cutting jobs? Name of Division and Business Unit? Some sample submissions follow:
  • Comment 06/20/05: EMEA HR just found out this morning that the voluntary redundancies were not enough to meet the corporate targets. They need to go back to ALL departments and find more candidates for involuntary redundancies. No one is afforded any protection. Past notices sent out to calm nerves and improve retention of individuals with skills paid below market, are void. What was expected to be a minor involuntary RA will now be much larger. UK is especially going to get hit hard. -Anonymous-
  • Comment 06/20/05: From a reliable source...IBM's overall goal for global resource is to have ONLY 25% of the total to be US. -Anonymous-
  • Comment 06/20/05: Yes, I was one of those 70 at Rational and was band 8 and 41 years of age. I would be interested to know if any other minority employees were let go; visible or invisible? I feel that there was a level of "permissible prejudice" directed towards me over the last four years. Anyone else in a like boat? -Anonymous-
  • Comment 06/21/05: A resource action was announced on 06/20/05 in Endicott Printing Systems Division. While the exact numbers are still being collected, initial percentages indicate a 30% reduction, with rumors that the final number may go somewhat higher. At this time, it appears that only one PSD Manager was 'laid off'. Printing Systems business will eventually be dismantled, with all manufacturing moving to other locations across the country. The high end printers (4100) are going to Rochester, MN., with mid-range products following a direct ship model. Refurbishment of high end printers still remains for the time being, but common sense indicates this is only temporary. Rumors seems to suggest that the IBM Corporation has negotiated w/ the Huron Campus to 'buy out' the remaining time on the lease, and PSD will vacate B/57 by year end 2005, if not sooner. The supplies business and the spare parts business will most likely move, possibly to Mechanicsburg. The handwriting is on the wall for PSD as a Division to be totally absorbed by another Division, most probably Server, and cease to exist. Ignorance and arrogance are a dangerous combination, and the Witches of PSD have managed to soar to new heights of incompetence. Leadership has been replaced by reactionary short sightedness, although nepotism is one skill, at which, at least one of them excels. My heart goes out to those people and families that were let go today. -Anonymous-
  • Comment 06/21/05: Was wondering about the minority issue myself; my ex-team of about 11 employees is an homogeneous group of non-minority persons now that I'm gone. I was part of a visible minority who participated in a diversity group. And I also met many others like me at an out placement session where the demographics are quite obvious. -Anonymous-
  • Comment 06/21/05: This is a response to those concerned about race discrimination. Proving discrimination is not impossible as long as you can show some willful intent by IBM. IBM will usually bury these individuals in group resource actions so their claims are weakened for race discrimination. As the only minority laid off in a group resource action is worthy of studying! Your replacement may also be important especially in an offshoring example where you were replaced by a much younger and lesser paid employee. Use the 30 days wisely, apply for every job you can, keep contacts open once you leave, you want to find out who eventually got the jobs you applied for. Race discrimination is hard to prove but your efforts will certainly help others. Read Title VII. -Anonymous-
  • Comment 06/22/05: To quote from the 6/21/05 post, the person said, "I am on the fence when it comes to unions. I am a republican and believe in getting what I deserve instead of because the contract says it is due to me." So, are you saying you deserved to be layed off? Do you know how many IBM middle managers are pulling in 200K plus bonuses each year for doing nothing but creating bureaucracy, playing politics, spending IBM's cash, and sitting on their thumbs? They are a self protecting fraternity club of good ol' boys and girls within IBM who look only to serve their own self interests and protect each other. So, these non-producers deserve their fat salaries while the workers who actually produce something tangible for far less compensation deserve a layoff? It is so naive to say people get what they deserve. Very naive. I'm a Republican myself, but of the Teddy Roosevelt and Lincoln variety, certainly NOT of the corporate spin/greed variety. The country is no longer for the people, by the people. It's for the corporations, by the corporations, via the corporate lobbyists who command tremendous influence in D.C. via enormous wealth. We must be wary of this unbridled engine of fierce and heartless Capitalism, or it will steamroll all of us common folk. -Anonymous-
  • Comment 06/22/05: I have two sources that confirm that during the SWG Layoff planning (code named Maple) that managers would be told either by HR or legal to remove individuals from the layoff list. In one case no explanation was given. In another a comment made that this would be disparate. Can anyone confirm the profile of the people removed from the lists? SWG had to delay their RA 3 times because of such list adjustment requests. -Anonymous-
  • Comment 06/22/05: Forget "Title VII". Unless you can afford a lawyer, you are wasting your time. If you are in Minnesota, you will find the MN Dept. of Human Rights (MDHR) prides itself on handling cases within a year, and considers taking 9 months to "begin" an investigation "acceptable". As a result, employers know to increase the retaliation to the point where the victim is so humiliated they are forced to leave. The MDHR will ignore your pleas for assistance during the above year, and in fact appear to look more for reasons to not take action as opposed to reasons to take action. Many lawyers will provide free consultation, and this is your best route for good advice. Try "lawyers.com", or the State Bar Association (e.g. MSBA), which charges a $25 referral fee. If in Minnesota, avoid MDHR like the plague. Your complaint is little more than another bean counted in the MDHR's effort to justify their existence. Furthermore, under the current administration government assistance in these matters has become virtually non-existent (read the TRAC report). -Anonymous-
  • Comment 06/23/05: I received word of yet another resource action in IGS this morning. This is madness! -Anonymous-