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—July 30, 2005

  • USA Today's "Letter to Leaders": To: Sen. Paul Sarbanes, from Charles Cox. Full excerpt: Sir, Reading amended Bill HR2830 Several questions have come up. There is no teeth in the bill to prevent an corporation from changing a DB plan. IBM will and has broken the law by changing It's workers DB plan.
    I retired from IBM in 1965 at the age of 55. I am now 65. My whole income is Social Security and my pension. It costs me $411.00 a month for medical(including dental and eye care). Medical is $354 for my wife and myself. Any deduction in either S.S. or pension would be a financial disaster. I have worked 29 years to obtain these benefits and to have congress pass a bill that would allow a company to change them after I have retired under the guise of pension protection is out right stealing to improve that company's bottom line.
    Here are some questions I would like answered.
    Does the bill affect those already retired from IBM, over age 65, and receiving a DB pension ?
    Does the bill affect those already retired at the age 55 and are now over age 65 (early retirement subsidy)?
    Does the bill affect those who have left IBM and are already drawing a DB pension either in whole (annuity only) or in part (combination annuity and lump sum)? If "Yes", to what extent can they be affected?
    Does the bill affect those who have left IBM and are NOT already drawing a DB pension (such as those waiting until age 55 to draw to commence receipt of benefits? If "Yes", to what extent can they be affected?
    Does the bill affect those who remain employed by IBM? If "Yes", to what extent?
    The bill doesn't directly affect anyone at IBM until IBM amends its pension plan. The question is, will IBM be allowed to amend its pension plan to allow those changes? Thank You, Charles Cox.
  • Yahoo! message board post by Michael Oliver: Letter to Senators. Full excerpt:
    July 28, 2005
    Office of Senator Jim DeMint
    1901 Main St.
    Columbia, SC 29201
    Senator DeMint,
    My name is Michael Bruce Oliver and currently I am an active working employee with 28 years of service at IBM.
    For many years I've been saving money, working hard and planning to retire in 2007 with 30 years of employment, at which time I'll be 60 years old and fully qualified for retirement under the current plan.
    A key component of my plan was to relocate my family to our chosen place of retirement prior to 2007. Carrying out that part of the plan in 2003, my wife and I bought a home (through your sister Kit) in Timberlake Plantation located in Chapin.
    We were full of excitement and great expectations of being able to live out our retirement comfortably on beautiful Lake Murray. Today my life is full of stress and I live in fear that my 30 years of hard work and dreams of happy retirement will not be fulfilled. I am very apprehensive that legislation will soon be passed that could allow IBM to legally take away my current accrued, vested and protected retirement benefits before I can begin to draw them, or even after I retire.
    When you were running for the Senate Jan and I heard your pleas for support and we came though for you with our votes. We now implore you to heed our plea for your support for protecting not only my pension benefits but those of many thousands of South Carolinians who supported you.
    Please show us your support in the following matters:
    1. President Bush's proposals for pension reform say that "workers must be provided with the pension benefits they were promised by their employers". President Bush has also been quoted as saying "America's capitalist
      economy is built on trust". The Senate should support the president and enact new law consistent with those positions and legislate pension reform that is fair to older workers. To do otherwise would further undercut the remaining faith American voters have in their elected officials.
    2. Support (S.1304) the bipartisan proposal released by Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and Max Baucus of Montana. Support provisions similar to those contained in S.1304, Senator Harkin's "Pension Benefits Protection Act.
    3. When the Senate HELP Committee marks up a pension bill in the fall, please make sure that any legislation to legalize cash balance plans is:
      • PROSPECTIVE not retroactive
      • Bans wearaway of early and normal retirement age benefits
      • Provides adequate transition benefits
      • DOES NOT eliminate or remove early retirement subsidies
    4. Please contact the Senators of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (H.E.L.P.) committee. Inform them that you are supporting me in this effort and what we are after in this legislation. (I have included the names, email addresses and phone numbers of the members of the H.E.L.P committee in the addendum of this letter)
    I trust that you will work with members of the Senate to adopt bill language in line with the items listed above and that provides full protection of promised, vested, accrued and currently protected rights under ERISA.
    Another area that is also very important to me is promised retirement healthcare benefits. While current ERISA does not protect employees in this area it has significant implications to older retiring employees such as myself. I bring this item to your attention so that you might work within the Senate to bring all promised benefits under the ERISA umbrella.
    Following this eMAIL will be a hardcopy letter mailed to your local office in Columbia to avoid any problems with the mail processes in Washington D.C. When the letter is received in Columbia – please FAX it to the Washington office – Thank you.
  • Yahoo! message board post by "mrcammeron": Employee Morale Issues at IBM. Full excerpt: IBM recently initiated a program to help boost employee morale. Yesterday, a group of System Administrators I know were given the word from their management, that they all needed to update their resumes, because their jobs on the contract they were working on was being given to System Administrators in Argentina. This won't happen over night, their jobs will be transitioned over time, and they are expected to stay on and help the new admins get up to speed... What's wrong with this picture... It doesn't take a fool to figure out why morale is so low at IBM.
    You bust your buns to do a good job, performing the near impossible task of keeping the customer and management happy, only to be told that you job is going off-shore, but we want you to be happy about it... What B.S. all this is!
  • Financial Times: Tax break lets IBM repatriate $9bn. By Simon London. Excerpts: IBM plans to repatriate $9bn of foreign earnings during the current quarter, the latest US multinational to take advantage of a tax break offered by Washington. The information technology group will record a one-off tax charge of $450m in its third quarter earnings. Under the American Jobs Creation Act, US companies bringing foreign earnings back into the country this year will be taxed at only 5.25 per cent, compared with a 35 per cent standard rate.
    The tax break was designed to stimulate the US economy by encouraging companies to bring home capital parked in low-tax jurisdictions. Wall Street analysts estimate that US companies could repatriate about $500bn by the end of this year, when the preferential rate is withdrawn. [...]
    Critics of the legislation have questioned whether it will create jobs as intended. Companies do not have to detail how the money will be invested in order to get the tax break. Qualifying uses of the money include research and development, capital investment, pension funding and acquisitions.
  • BusinessWeek: Profits Head Homeward, But Where Are The Jobs? Excerpts: When it comes to corporate income taxes, it sure pays to be a multinational these days. U.S. companies fork over up to 35% of their domestic income in federal taxes. But for earnings from abroad, the tax rate is just 5.25% this year, thanks to the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. The election-year bill was aimed at spurring the U.S. economy by encouraging U.S. companies with international operations to bring home profits they had parked in lower tax countries.
    The one-year tax break has clearly opened the floodgates: U.S.-based companies are on track to repatriate upwards of $520 billion by the end of December, estimates Henry "Chip" Dickson, chief U.S. equity strategist at Lehman Brothers Inc. The drug industry is far and away ahead of the pack. Led by Pfizer Inc., which is returning $36.9 billion in foreign earnings alone, pharmaceutical and biotech companies could bring $120.5 billion into their U.S. coffers at the lower tax rate. High-tech equipment makers such as IBM and Hewlett-Packard Co. come next, with an estimated $62.9 billion in repatriated earnings. [...]
    One thing is clear, however: The money piling in from abroad as the result of the Jobs Creation Act has done little to actually spur hiring. In fact, six of the 10 companies repatriating the biggest totals are axing workers in the U.S. They include HP, which announced July 19 that it would cut its head count by 14,500 in the U.S. and abroad, and Pfizer, which has said it will shutter 20 factories with undisclosed U.S. job losses to lower costs by $4 billion by 2008.
  • Kansas City Star: Benefit inequity deepens gap. Executives keep bonuses while workers' nest eggs slashed. By Mike Casey. Excerpts: This year Congress passed a bankruptcy law with an amendment from Sen. Edward M. Kennedy that places restrictions on special retention and severance payments for executives. “My amendment is designed to stop the travesty of high-level corporate insiders who walk away with millions while the company’s workers and retirees are left empty-handed,” the Massachusetts Democrat told The Kansas City Star. Now lawmakers are considering what to do about pensions. A bill offered by House Republicans would prohibit companies from giving executives pension increases if their companies’ pension plans are less than 60 percent funded. Democrats are backing legislation that would prohibit companies from giving executives pension increases if their companies’ pension plans are less than 75 percent funded.
  • Christian Science Monitor: You deserve a refund for fat CEO pay. By David R. Francis. Executive pay has become so fat it is no longer just a matter of fairness or greed. It's squeezing stockholders, perhaps even damaging the economy. "The stakes from an economic perspective are quite substantial," says Lucian Bebchuk, a professor at Harvard Law School in Cambridge, Mass.
    Here's the problem: In 2003, the top five executives at each of the 1,500 major public companies followed by Standard and Poor's earned a grand total of $350 billion. That's not peanuts, even in the scale of an $11 trillion economy. It amounts to about 10 percent of the aggregate earnings of these companies. Worse, it's double the share paid out in the 1993-95 period, when executive compensation took only 5 percent of the profits of the S&P 1500.
    So corporate executives are today taking an extra 5 percent of profits for their own pockets - money that might have gone to dividends for shareholders or into investments to expand their firms. Or maybe that profit money, by boosting stock prices, could have pumped up the actual pensions or pension funds of millions of Americans. [...]
    If companies themselves won't subdue CEO pay, Congress should, says US Rep. Martin Sabo, a Democratic prairie populist from Minnesota. Earlier this month he reintroduced a bill, the Income Equity Act, which would eliminate tax deductions for compensation that exceeds 25 times that of the company's lowest paid full-time employee. Currently, the gap is more likely 300 to 500 times. The Sabo bill would mean that if the lowest-paid worker got $20,000, then the highest salary deduction the firm could claim would be $500,000. A company could pay its CEO more, but couldn't deduct more from its tax obligations. [...]
    Mr. Pizzigati writes a weekly online newsletter - www.toomuchonline.org - dealing with economic equity. He charges that many top executives devote more energy to manufacturing fortunes for themselves than to manufacturing quality products. They sacrifice long-term enterprise health for short-term gains by mergers that leave veteran employees without jobs, by reducing research, and by raiding pensions. But the Sabo bill has no chance of passage. Too many Republican and Democratic legislators depend on campaign donations from executives and their companies.
  • Computerworld: IBM Services Head Leaves Amid Reorg. Excerpts: BM last week said it is reorganizing its Global Services business and has chosen a pair of executives to replace the group's leader, John Joyce. Joyce, a 30-year veteran of IBM who once served as its chief financial officer, is joining Silver Lake Partners, a private technology investment firm. Taking charge of IBM Global Services will be Ginni Rometty, senior vice president of enterprise business services, and Mike Daniels, senior vice president of IT services. The two will report to IBM CEO Sam Palmisano. [...] The spokesman said the realigned services group will focus more heavily on "high value" skills, like those in the Business Consulting Services (BCS) group IBM formed around its acquired PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting practice. Rometty previously ran BCS.
  • New York Times: Yahoo Is Wooing I.B.M. Technical Talent. By John Markoff. Excerpts: Yahoo plans to announce Thursday that it is recruiting scientists who pioneered an advanced search-engine technology at I.B.M.'s Silicon Valley research laboratory. Beginning in the mid-1990's, the researchers at I.B.M. spent several years developing an Internet search engine, called Clever, employing a series of algorithms to improve the quality of the retrieval results. While that project has concluded, the I.B.M. researchers have continued other work in the field.
  • Information Week: Why Kids Aren't Getting Into IT. By Mitch Wagner. Excerpts: Kids these days are worried about money and survival, in a way that we haven't seen since before the baby boom. The kids who will enter college in a few weeks are kids who turned 14 when the planes hit the World Trade Center. They spent most of their adolescence, the time when kids get ready to enter the world of adulthood, learning about terrorism, war, the economic downturn, outsourcing, layoffs, increasing deficits, the health-care crisis--am I leaving anything out here? They resemble, in outlook, the generation that grew up in the Depression and fought in World War II. They grew up knowing the world is a scary place.
    Even today, the headlines about IT careers fall far short of the exuberance expressed in Varley's short story. The headlines are mixed and cautiously optimistic, like we all have cancer and we've heard from the doctor that we might be in remission. IT staffing is finally back to its summer 2001 levels. Foote Research reports that pay for key skills like application development and database knowledge are gaining fast and returning to their pre-crash levels. On the other hand, fewer employers are offering IT students summer internships and part-time jobs this year. Hewlett-Packard cut 14,500 jobs. And hanging over it all is the miasma of fear that workers in India or China will take all our jobs, fear that is never dispelled by reassurances that outsourcing is not such a big problem or is even good for us.
    Why aren't more kids entering IT? It's because they, quite reasonably, don't know if there'll be any jobs for them when they graduate. That's easy to figure out, unless you're the richest man in the world.
  • Washington Post: Looking to Locate The Comfort Zone. By Albert B. Crenshaw. Excerpts: In the late 1970s, the nation appeared to be getting many of the economic problems of old age under control. A 1974 revision of federal pension laws required that employers set aside and invest the funds that would pay for pensions they promise their employees. A few years later, higher withholding, a tweaking of eventual benefits and other changes seemed adequate to deal with the Social Security system's problems for the foreseeable future.
  • Bloomberg: Why Is Company Pension Funding Such a Big Secret? By John Wasik. Excerpt: If you were working for or investing in a company, wouldn't you want to know how much cash it was putting into its pension plan? Some members of Congress know the answer, though they aren't telling. If disclosed, these figures might change company credit ratings, market valuations and accounting on how much cash is really going into defined-benefit pension plans. In some cases, more accurate figures are a lot lower than what is provided in 10-K annual reports. By one estimate from the Congressional Budget Office, only half of the $450 billion in pension shortfalls have been reported to investors in annual public securities filings. This so-called 4010 data shows how much a company would owe its pension if the plan were terminated at the end of 2004. Because of legal loopholes, companies can present a much rosier picture to investors and the public of how their pensions are financed, making it appear as if two sets of books are kept.
  • New York Times: How Wall Street Wrecked United's Pension. By Mary Williams Walsh. Excerpts: Had anyone listened to Doug Wilsman, tens of thousands of United Airlines employees would not be facing big cuts in their pensions. And the federal agency that guarantees pensions might not be struggling with its biggest losses ever. So who is Doug Wilsman? He is a retired pilot and a former fiduciary of United's pension plan for pilots, and in 1987 he discovered that the company had abandoned its older, tried-and-true approach of investing retirees' money in bonds timed to pay when the pensions came due. Instead, it had bought into the promises of Wall Street that it could put less money into the plan - and take out more later - if it just put most of the assets into the stock market.
    Mr. Wilsman was skeptical of such promises, and soon after learning of the change in strategy, he filed a grievance with his union, the Air Line Pilots Association. "Hey, you guys are really building yourselves a trap," he recalled warning them at the time. "Someday, at the worst possible moment, when the bottom falls out of the stock market, the plan is going to have to come up with new money, and it's going to be enough to kill the company." [...]
    While the money managers and other pension professionals who ran United's pension plan walked away from the wreck unscathed - indeed, they collected about $125 million in fees over the last five years alone, records show - the ones who will have to pick up the bill for the advisers' collective failure will be the airline's 130,000 employees and pensioners, the federal pension guarantor and probably, someday, the taxpayers. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation has said that since 1974, when the insurance program was created, United has paid a little less than $100 million in premiums to insure employees' pensions. Of the $6.8 billion the agency will pay United's retirees in coming years, all but what United paid in premiums will be borne by the other companies participating in the insurance program.
  • New York Times: Toyota, Moving Northward. By Paul Krugman. Excerpts: Modern American politics is dominated by the doctrine that government is the problem, not the solution. In practice, this doctrine translates into policies that make low taxes on the rich the highest priority, even if lack of revenue undermines basic public services. You don't have to be a liberal to realize that this is wrong-headed. Corporate leaders understand quite well that good public services are also good for business. But the political environment is so polarized these days that top executives are often afraid to speak up against conservative dogma. Instead, they vote with their feet. Which brings us to the story of Toyota's choice. There has been fierce competition among states hoping to attract a new Toyota assembly plant. Several Southern states reportedly offered financial incentives worth hundreds of millions of dollars. But last month Toyota decided to put the new plant, which will produce RAV4 mini-S.U.V.'s, in Ontario. Explaining why it passed up financial incentives to choose a U.S. location, the company cited the quality of Ontario's work force. [...]
    Canada's other big selling point is its national health insurance system, which saves auto manufacturers large sums in benefit payments compared with their costs in the United States. You might be tempted to say that Canadian taxpayers are, in effect, subsidizing Toyota's move by paying for health coverage. But that's not right, even aside from the fact that Canada's health care system has far lower costs per person than the American system, with its huge administrative expenses. In fact, U.S. taxpayers, not Canadians, will be hurt by the northward movement of auto jobs.
    To see why, bear in mind that in the long run decisions like Toyota's probably won't affect the overall number of jobs in either the United States or Canada. But the result of international competition will be to give Canada more jobs in industries like autos, which pay health benefits to their U.S. workers, and fewer jobs in industries that don't provide those benefits. In the U.S. the effect will be just the reverse: fewer jobs with benefits, more jobs without. So what's the impact on taxpayers? In Canada, there's no impact at all: since all Canadians get government-provided health insurance in any case, the additional auto jobs won't increase government spending.
    But U.S. taxpayers will suffer, because the general public ends up picking up much of the cost of health care for workers who don't get insurance through their jobs. Some uninsured workers and their families end up on Medicaid. Others end up depending on emergency rooms, which are heavily subsidized by taxpayers. Funny, isn't it? Pundits tell us that the welfare state is doomed by globalization, that programs like national health insurance have become unsustainable. But Canada's universal health insurance system is handling international competition just fine. It's our own system, which penalizes companies that treat their workers well, that's in trouble.
  • International Labor Communications Association (ILCA): Dismantling Retirement Benefits: The Next Phase. By Jack Rasmus. Excerpts: U.S. Corporations today are intent on restructuring the entire retirement system in America. The twin pillars of that retirement system—Defined Benefit Pensions and Social Security—are now under simultaneous attack, an assault that has escalated since George W. Bush took office and is about to intensify further in 2005 and beyond. This intensifying attack on retirement benefits appears, moreover, to be entering a new phase. Unlike in the past when corporate strategies targeted Defined Benefit Pension Plans and Social Security as two distinct and separate retirement systems, it now appears a single unified approach to rolling back workers’ retirement benefits is emerging. The assault on Defined Benefit pension plans and Social Security are about to be linked, integrated, and rolled into one coordinated corporate lobbying and legislative effort. [...]
    In the final analysis what Corporate America wants is a fully privatize total retirement system. It wants Bush’s private investment accounts for Social Security, which will allow banks and financial institutions to get their hands on workers’ payroll taxes. And it wants to convert Defined Benefit Pension plans into hybrid ‘Cash Balance’ 401k-like pension plans, which allow companies to get out from under the liability of having to guarantee levels of benefit payments for their workers. Linking and integrating the restructuring of Defined Benefit pensions and Social Security together may well prove a faster way to get both. It will certainly make it more difficult for pro-worker forces in Congress to continue to resist Bush’s privatization plans for Social Security. And it shows more clearly than ever that the true corporate-Bush strategy is to restructure the entire retirement system in America, replacing it with a privatized, 401k-like system of personal accounts.

Vault Message Board Posts
Vault's IBM Business Consulting Services message board is a popular hangout for IBM BCS employees, including many employees acquired from PwC.
  • "It just gets worse and worse..." by "bluebell7". Excerpts: I just need to vent about this place that just provides more misery each day... I'm sorry but why isn't there a system for you to rate your managers? I just received a Project Assessment from January 3rd and the comments from my reviewer and evaluator were just entered this morning! They wrote such demeaning and horrible things for less than a month of my work that I am just beside myself. I was bullied and treated like crap (and everyone I worked with agreed and knew about it)...Of course as soon as I stood up for myself, I was let go on the project, which was ultimately for the best. I just don't see how writing comments about someone who was on the project over 6 months ago can even be taken seriously! I'm new to IBM and consulting and No,I'm not the best at it, thanks..I'm supposed to have leaders that teach and guide as opposed to torment and harass...
    And why aren't there people you can go to talk to about this stuff? I went to my previous manager about it right when I saw it all about to blow up, and my manager did nothing. And now, I have a manager that is never available to talk with me and when that manager can, they just laugh everything off like I'm new and I'll learn. Wow, really comforting. I'm sorry to let it explode but as you just read, there is no one here I can talk with or get advice from. :(
  • "The only answer" by "Dose of reality". Full excerpt: Upward feedback will never be a real part of the management processes here. The iron fisted approach to management is absolutely necessary to hold this he[[h0[& together. Most of the project manager class here are in over their heads - a combination of talent deficiencies, politically-driven career advancements and battlefield promotions due to the high attrition rates. The only way incompetent managers can continue to survive is to blame their problems on those that work for them. If you are coming into a practice, or are on loan to a project, you are extremely vulnerable to being the scapegoat for a failing project. If you are looking to be mentored, overall this is the worst place to be. Even if your superiors had your best interests at heart, most don't have the time or mentoring skills needed. There are a few decent practices left, but they are hard to find. My advice to you is the same as anyone else – go find another career opportunity outside of IBM. That is the only solution.
  • "Dose and the others are right" by "junkie2004". Full excerpt: I argued against Dose and the others on this board some time back. I have been with IBm for 2 months now and realize what Dose and others were saying. IBM is a C***y company. The worst company I have ever worked for and I have been here 2 months and am already looking for a new job. Please Please Please, Hope you take the advice of Dose and the others on this board seriously. Dose: Now that I have been at IBM for 2 months (10 yrs Ind. Exp, top 10 MBA), how do I salvage my career?
  • "Thanks for taking the time" by "Dose of reality". Excerpt: unkie2004, It was really good of you to take the time to post this message. Having someone like you, (who was initially seduced into the Blue Pig and quickly saw the light once on the inside) post a warning has ten times more impact than the 200th such warning from me! I do recall some of our exchanges - they were a bit contentious, but I would commend you in that you never made it personal, unlike some of the recent would-be inductees.
  • "Thanks Dose" by "junkie2004". Excerpt: Initially, I thought this board was so biased against BCS, but now realize that this board doesn't portray BCS accurately, IBM is a 100 times worse and it's your worst career nightmare come true. The utilization rates, sharing cars, horrible expense policy and the bait and switch is appalling. The portrayal of IBM during recruiting was so much different from what BCS really is. It's a complete bait and switch. One of the RDM's wanted some new recruits to drive 4 hours for a 1 hr meeting at their own cost. The projects are all cost at fixed cost and you practically stay at a dump! You are only allowed to share rental cars and the list goes on and on. The on-boarding process was another story...It only gets worse.
  • "Interesting Approach" by "Frank_Reality". Full excerpt: My management never has any "feedback" for me until it's appraisal time, then they stab me in the back and twist the knife a few turns and come up with an insignificant half-truth to knock me down. My impact on business results never matter at appraisal time. Management never has offered any suggestions, even when I specifically ask for them. Per your suggestion, I will start asking more often and documenting such things as you suggest.
    This is what happens when appraisals are done not by merit or by results, but by cronyism, and by whatever the manager has to do to get himself promoted, e.g. pushing forward the careers of minorities. And let's not forget the screw of the skew of the distributions. I'm not going anywhere myself - too old to be promoted and too technically skilled (with no backup or successor in line) to be dumped. Call it a stalemate.

New on the Alliance@IBM Site:
  • IG Metall: staff cuts at IBM and HP might just be the beginning. Excerpts: IG Metall, German Metalworkers' Trade Union, fears that the staff cuts at the computer manufacturers IBM and Hewlett-Packard (HP) might merely be the tip of the iceberg. "I wouldn't exclude the possibility that all facilities of IBM in Germany expect for the R&D laboratory will disappear in the long run," the head of the Stuttgart section of IG Metall Jürgen Stamm said. Computing centers, service and branch offices too are on the line, according to Mr. Stamm's assessment. A short time ago IBM and HP had each announced plans to lay off 14,500 staff worldwide. How many jobs will as a consequence vanish in Germany, is as yet unclear. IBM's staff in Germany currently adds up to about 27,000 people, that of HP to some 9,600.
  • 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 6-21-05. 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.
  • 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 07/25/05: Does Palmisano realize with these layoffs that he is fast building a 100,000 strong anti-IBM sales force?? That's many times more people than the sales force the company keeps. These people he lays off stay in the industry. For example: A while back a client asked me who was more ethical and trustworthy between HP and IBM. I told them, given my experience, HP. Internally they had decided on IBM in a multi-million $ deal, but were concerned with the quality of management promises. That negative reference cost IBM the deal. I'll bet his finance people never figured in the cost of 'badwill' generated by abusive layoffs. Message to Sam: Layoffs are bad business. -Anonymous-
    • Comment 07/26/05: RE: Information Developer's (a.k.a. Technical Writer's) 06/27/05 comments on the "Job Cut Status" board. IBM has already outsourced most of its technical writers and technical editors; very few are left. Why? They are not part of IBM's "core business". For example, technical writers and editors do not have a formal career development path as do consultants, IT architects, and project managers. The only places with small pockets of information developers left to my knowledge are RTP, Austin, and Boulder. Even then, competition for the few remaining information development jobs is fierce - and most are also suffering cuts. In other words, being an information developer/technical writer at IBM is like being in a dying industry. Join the Alliance to help fight for your rights on the job. And, consider whether you have the appropriate skills - or if you can learn them - to join a growth industry, such as technical writing in the pharmaceutical or medical industries. -Anonymous-
    • Comment 07/26/05: RE: 7/19/05 comment requesting help with a newspaper story about Leave of Absence processing. Seeking any employee who took a "personal Leave of Absence, Educational Leave, pregnancy leave" and were fired or demoted afterwards - what about medical leaves? I've seen many, many people go as soon as their medical leaves were up. -Anonymous-
    • Comment 07/27/05: What Sam Palmisano and his highly compensated senior staff have forgotten is that customers and prospects have developed relationships with the representatives of the vendors they are working with. When IBM reduces headcount senior management figures that the relationship remains with IBM. As noted in an earlier posting, in many cases, the relationship is stronger with the laid off employee(s) than with IBM. So keep up the good work Sam and company and the lost opportunity costs will continue to climb. The sad thing is that in order to continue to bolster earnings, pensions and health benefits will continue to come under attack and headcount will no doubt continue to be reduced. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy! Sam, if you treat your people right, they will go to the ends of the earth for you. If you don't the consequences are going to be costly! You've obviously forgotten what Thomas Watson Sr. and Jr. knew and practiced! -Anonymous-
    • Comment 07/28/05: Want to know the companies posting the most jobs in June on Monster, Hot Jobs and Career Builder? Workforce Management's Newsletter lists the number 1 and number 2 job posting for jobs in the US as the U.S. Navy and then IBM. Nice to know that working at IBM is nothing more than a big flush. -Anonymous-

"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.