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—August 13, 2005
  • Business Insurance: Court approves IBM pension conversion settlement. by Jerry Geisel. Excerpt: A federal court Monday gave final approval of a partial settlement between IBM Corp. and tens of thousands of current and former employees over the conversion of its traditional pension plan to a hybrid arrangement, moving the litigation forward to the next and potentially crucial stage. The partial settlement approved by Judge G. Patrick Murphy of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois involves a 2003 ruling—which captured national attention—by Judge Murphy that IBM's pension program is age discriminatory. Under one part of the settlement, IBM will pay in the form of enhanced benefits more than $300 million to plan participants. That part of the settlement relates mainly to claims involving IBM's conversion of a traditional final-average-pay plan to a pension equity plan.
  • In a Yahoo! message board post, Janet Krueger comments on the Cooper v. IBM Settlement hearing. Full excerpt: The hearing lasted an hour. I'm going to try to get a transcript to post, as my handwritten notes do not do it justice...
    Judge Murphy assured us that he had read through all the objections and other papers that had been sent to the court, and that he has become well acquainted with the subject matter over the last 2 years.
    Pat McTeague from out-of-blue.com spoke on behalf on Syverson et. al. to say they are dropping their objection because they received a stipulation from IBM saying IBM will not attempt to use the release agreement in Cooper to preclude any of the charges being made in the Syverson suit.
    Judge Murphy then gave everyone in court who had an objection to the settlement a chance to speak.
    An employee from St. Louis who had not filed an objection on paper talked about how much he lost in the conversion as long term employee just months away from his 40th birthday on July 1, 1999. He was dropped into years of wearaway because the present value of his vested immediate annuity was $100,000 higher than the amount credited as the opening balance of his new virtual cash balance account. Judge Murphy listened, and that asked Doug Sprong to address the issue. Doug explained that this employee, like many others, is justifiably confused by the fact that lawsuit only can
    ask for redress for the illegal actions IBM took, not for the actions that were just blatantly unfair. Putting someone's pension into wearaway is not illegal, nor is eliminating an early retirement subsidy with a conversion. After Doug's explanation, Judge Murphy also explained that the court can only address the illegal aspects of IBM's actions, and
    suggested that the employee spend some more time with class counsel after the trial to explain his individual situation.
    Willie Young, one of the people who filed an objection, then explained his situation. He was sold from Lucent to IBM. His IBM service record lists his starting date as the day he started with Lucent, but IBM has insisted that only the time he actually spent at IBM can be used to calculate his pension. That means he is receiving nothing for his 25 years of service at Lucent! Everyone in the courtroom was very sympathetic with his plight, but Doug Sprong and Judge Murphy took turns explaining that the Cooper settlement is very narrowly defined to address the issues raised in Cooper, and that Mr. Young's complaints with IBM and Lucent need to be raised in a different forum.
    Next, Doug Sprong spoke about how the settlement was designed and what he has learned since the notice was distributed. Doug has communicated with over 500 class members, and most of them agreed after their questions were answered that the settlement makes sense. He talked about the fact that the settlement locks in a benefit for all of the class members, that explicitly cannot be placed into wearaway by IBM. He also talked about the fact that appeals for all remedial arguments such as Manhart have been waived.
    IBM's counsels were given a chance to speak but had not comment.
    Judge Murphy asked Doug to address the fairness of the requested fees. Doug gave a synopsis of what is in the motion filed on this board; this court is bound by Synthroid to determine what the market driven rate for this lawsuit would have been when it was filed.
    Doug stated there was one housekeeping matter the court needed to review. The IBMers who were transferred to AT&T on April 30, 1999 as part of the global services sale didn't have their final pensions calculated until after the July 1, 1999 conversion, so they will be shifted into subgroups 3 and 4.
    Judge Murphy closed by telling us that this lawsuit has been unique for many reasons, and may still end up in the Supreme Court and America's DB pension system seems to be collapsing, and future pension accruals are completely voluntary and not protected by federal law. The legal fees in this case are massive, but when looked at from where we started, seem fair and in-line with prevailing rates. The settlement itself does not make people whole, and cannot guarantee future pension accruals in a voluntary system. However, it seems to address the issues raised in Cooper as fairly as possible. The Court will put together an order finalizing the settlement and the legal fees within days.
  • In a Yahoo! message board post, Janet Krueger answers another poster's question. (Janet's reply is in italics). Full excerpt: Did Doug Sprong actually say: "eliminating an early retirement subsidy with a conversion" is not illegal? If cash balance or hybrid plans that are conversions from traditional DB plans are are not considered by ERISA to be a termination of a DB plan, then how could eliminating an early retirement subsidy be legal if, according to IRC 411(D)(6), it is clearly illegal to eliminate or reduce an early retirement subsidy in a DB plan except if the reduction is "de minimus." I think Mr. Sprong may have misspoke on this issue.
    We'll have to wait for the transcript to see his actual words -- as I said, my notes are not entirely legible.. The problem with conversions and formula changes is that the termination rules in ERISA are not invoked.
    In subclass 3 of the lawsuit, a charge was made that the conversion SHOULD have been treated as a partial termination, and consequently the termination rules SHOULD have been invoked, but this charge was never ruled on, even though it was settled.
    Wearaway is not illegal under current ERISA law. In IBM's cash balance conversion, as has happened in many others, early retirement subsides were not included in people's opening balances, and therefore were placed in years of wearaway. Everyone agrees that this is extremely unfair, and also that it is what caused opening balances to be so far short of the value of the immediate annuity people could have collected if they retired before the conversion was
    done... I didn't write down the exact words for how this explanation was provided -- but the net is that fact that early retirement subsides were not included in opening balances was NOT declared illegal by the lawsuit. It IS addressed as one the required transition protections in the Senate finance committee version of the Boehner bill!
  • BusinessWeek: IBM'S Passage to India. Big Blue is making a big play in the subcontinent's tech sector, partly by hiring many more locals. Excerpt: You might say IBM has gone native. The company boosted its Indian staff from 9,000 at the end of 2003 to 23,000 at the end of last year, and, according to an internal planning document made public by a union, the total is on its way to 38,000 by the end of this year. The company says the 38,000 forecast is too high but acknowledges it will grow fast. Already, IBM India just blew by Japan as the company's second largest country operation -- after the U.S. "What you have seen in the past 5 years is nothing compared to what you'll see in the next 5 to 10," promises Mats Agervi, a tall, enthusiastic Swede who is vice-president for global delivery at IBM Global Services India. [...]
    So IBM is in the middle of a massive retooling and migration of its workforce. It recently fired 14,000 services employees in Western Europe, the U.S., and Japan -- even while it's hiring in India and Eastern Europe. The India strategy is isn't all about low-salary software coders, though. Not only does IBM have one of its eight basic research labs in Delhi but its 19 offices scattered across India include software labs in Bangalore and Pune, engineering R&D in Bangalore, and five data centers, including two brand-new ones. One of the new centers matches the capabilities of the company's so-called Level III facility in Boulder, Colo. -- the best of the lot.
  • BusinessWeek: Some Victories in CalPERS' War. It has battled for years to tie CEO pay to performance, against stiff resistance. Now, the fight may be shifting in the pension fund's favor. Excerpt: Public outrage over the $100 million stock-option awards of the 1990s has led to some changes in executive compensation. According to Mercer Human Resources Consulting, the percentage of a CEO's total pay tied to cash bonuses has risen to 23%, from 13% in 2001. Bonuses tend to be more reflective of performance, not just increases in the stock market. Meanwhile, chief executives at the companies with the worst-performing stocks actually saw a 3.6% decline in their compensation last year.
    Still, the gap between executive pay and the average Jane or Joe continues to widen. In their annual study, the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy report that the average CEO compensation of $8.1 million in 2003 was more 300 times that of the typical production worker. In 1980, that ratio was just 42 times.
  • Springfield (MO) News-Leader: Congress to tackle hybrid pensions. Employers, workers looking for guidance on legality of the controversial plans. By Brian Tumulty. Excerpt: An estimated 8.5 million out of the 44 million workers and retirees with employer-sponsored pensions are in plans with an uncertain legal status. In some cases, that uncertainty has resulted in employers freezing pension benefits for current workers or denying pension benefits to new hires. Pension legislation expected to make its way through Congress this fall doesn’t address the unresolved legal issues faced by these hybrid pension plans that have become popular at large corporations like IBM, AT&T, Georgia-Pacific and Kroger.[...]
    At issue are two types of hybrid pension plans — cash balance and pension equity plans — that calculate retirement benefits differently than the traditional plans and typically offer the option of a lump-sum payout to retirees. But they also operate under the same federal law. Since 1999, the Internal Revenue Service has had a moratorium on issuing new rulings on whether individual pension plan conversions to hybrids are legal.
    At the same time, some employers that have converted to these plans have lost lawsuits, with the most notable case involving a federal court ruling that IBM’s conversion constituted age discrimination. Other employers — Xerox and Georgia-Pacific — lost in court on more narrow technical issues. The IBM ruling is on appeal, but the company has announced that all new hires won’t be eligible for a pension and instead will be offered only a 401(k) savings plan.
  • Fort Worth Star-Telegram: Protecting older workers. Excerpts: Congress is considering sweeping reforms in federal regulations governing the troubled world of corporate pension plans. These reforms are especially relevant to tens of millions of Americans covered by traditional defined-benefit pension plans, as well as those workers' families. Among the powder-keg issues being debated in Washington is the manner in which controversial "cash-balance" pension plans will be treated under the reform legislation.
    In 2003, U.S. District Judge G. Patrick Murphy of Illinois found that IBM Corp. had illegally discriminated against older workers by switching from a defined-benefit retirement plan to a cash-balance plan that significantly cut their expected future pension benefits. The ruling put the status of hundreds of other corporate cash-balance plans in legal limbo. A variety of pension-reform bills are already filed or expected to be filed in Congress. The bills vary in how they treat cash-balance plans and older workers who might be negatively affected by companies converting to them. [...]
    A key issue is whether the reform legislation should mandate special protections for older workers who face a potentially sizable loss in expected future pension benefits if their companies convert to a cash-balance plan. The issue is especially relevant for workers involuntarily switched to a cash-balance plan when they were on the cusp of becoming eligible for valuable early retirement benefits under their defined-benefit plan. Some members of Congress say special protection isn't merited because companies have a right to eliminate early retirement benefits from defined-benefit plans even if they don't change employees' retirement plans to a cash-balance plan. [...]
    Various business interests and others who oppose special protections for older workers insist that relatively small numbers are affected -- veteran workers in their 50s, for example, who were poised to become eligible for early retirement benefits under their old plan. But advocates for older workers -- including the politically potent, 35-million-member AARP -- have questioned the legality of cash-balance plans under current federal law and argue that pension reform legislation should include mandatory financial safeguards for older workers who would be hurt by their companies' conversion to cash-balance plans. David Certner, director of federal affairs for the AARP, contends that veteran employees who have been under defined-benefit plans and are switched to cash-balance plans often get the "worst of both plans."
  • Financial Mail (United Kingdom): Why Firms Really Switched. By Michael Coulson. Excerpts: No wonder that the financing of retirement benefits has become a major issue, worldwide. At least the public sector can run on a pay-as-you-go basis, but private-sector employers come and go, so their obligations must be funded. For most of the post-1945 era, inflation and the long equity bull market, plus the fact that those who left retirement funds early were ripped off shamelessly, took care of this; many funds even built up huge surpluses. Ironically, no sooner were these surpluses turned to advantage by employers - in the shape of contribution holidays - and finance ministers (employee beneficiaries gained few if any extra benefits) than the fundamental situation went into reverse: lower inflation brought lower returns, and equities ceased to be a one-way bet. Within a few years, those surpluses had turned into massive deficits, even threatening some employers' solvency. It's against that background, and employers' desire to cap their potential liabilities, that the recent trend to switch from defined benefit (DB) to defined contribution (DC) funds must be seen.
    While SA funds were generally more soundly financed than their northern hemisphere counterparts, with enough surpluses to allow members to be in effect bribed into giving up assured post-retirement incomes, their motives, driven by employers, were no more altruistic. They seldom emphasized that they were taking advantage of the switch to reduce their contribution to retirement funding. And, if anything, the way they sold the change was even more hypocritical. It's true that a major disadvantage of how DB schemes operated historically was the way job-hoppers lost out; but this could have been overcome without scrapping the whole principle of linking pensions to final salary.
    The headlines have been dominated by the mis-selling and excessive costs of retirement annuities; I'm just waiting for the first disgruntled DC retiree to complain that the pension he can buy with his capital sum doesn't match up to what he thought he'd been promised. That could open up a whole new can of worms. Of course, as Karl Marx would have pointed out, it's all part of the class war. Helped by the IT revolution, upper echelons of management are paying themselves ever more extravagant incomes at the same time as they are cutting employee numbers and benefits (medical aid and company cars are other instances) lower down the ladder.
  • New York Times: We'll Work Because We Have To. By Paul B. Brown. Excerpts: Members of the generation that will be remembered for rock 'n' roll, antiwar protests and casual Fridays will begin turning 60 in January. Even more interesting than the increasing number of senior citizen discounts they will be receiving is what these people say they plan to do in the years ahead. The findings, as reported in the Fortune 2005 Retirement Guide, may surprise the members of younger generations counting on moving up the management ranks once all those people born between 1946 and 1964 begin to retire: boomers may not be going anywhere. Only 17 percent of the boomers said they would "never work for pay again," 6 percent said they were undecided, but the rest had definitive plans to remain employed. [...] One reason so many baby boomers may continue working instead of retiring to a life of leisure is because they have to. Survey after survey has shown that they are woefully unprepared to pay for a traditional retirement.
  • Employee Benefit News: Uninsured worsen medical inflation for workers. By Leah Carlson. Excerpts: You're probably aware that the uninsured add a chunk to the price of employer-provided health insurance, but did you ever wonder how big that chunk is? The answer is, pretty big-an average of $922 for family coverage and $341 for individual coverage, according to a new report from Families USA. Moreover, the Washington, D.C.-based health care consumer organization predicts those figures will jump to $1,502 and $532, respectively, in 2010. Extra costs associated with the uninsured account for one-twelfth of the price of employer-provided health insurance. A relentless cycle occurs, as higher premiums cause more people to forego insurance. [...]
    Uninsured people often forego preventive care and delay getting treatment until their illness reaches the point of crisis, when treatment is likely to be very expensive. Darling confirms, "When the uninsured don't have coverage, they don't get care. They do show up at hospitals and get care at a later time, and it's more costly." When an uninsured person is hospitalized, the result could be significant personal debt, bankruptcy or even job loss, if he or she isn't protected by FMLA. About one-half of personal bankruptcies are attributable to medical costs, according to a study published in Health Affairs in February. Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) says, "If you lose your health, you shouldn't lose your home. I wonder if many Americans understand what an irrational system we have for providing health care."
  • Employee Benefit News: It is time for national health care, unless you have a better idea. By Richard D. Quinn. Excerpts: There are many good reasons to say NO to a national health care program. But there also seem to be few alternatives to support "go away and leave it to the private sector." Is it time to capitulate and accept the faults of a government-run system? Have all the options been tried and failed, are we constantly on the road to uncontrolled health care costs? Do we care about the uninsured and under-insured? This subject was debated on BenefitNews.com in my June "Views and Vents" column. I'm going to highlight some of the comments here, but to fully understand the complexity of the issue, visit Views & Vents at Benefitnews.com
  • Chicago Tribune: Demand for `recent grads' simply age bias. By Carol Kleiman. Excerpt: Dear Coach, Isn't the terminology "looking for recent college graduates" age discrimination? Anyone can be a "recent" college graduate, but I don't think that's what employers mean when they use this language. Carol Kleiman: You don't have to be a college graduate--not even a "recent" one--to understand what's going on here: They're looking for people in their early 20s. And yes, that is age discrimination.
  • The NewStandard: Wal-Mart’s New Workforce Plans Cut Pay, Benefits. By Brendan Coyne. Excerpt: The world’s largest retailer has instituted a new computerized plan for matching customer traffic with employee schedules, forcing many workers to lose pay and benefits as their hours fall below the full time level. The move appears to be spurring workers to leave the company, the South Florida Herald Tribune reported yesterday. Reportedly, Wal-Mart is using a centralized computer program to devise schedule templates to guide store managers in scheduling employees. Company officials declined to tell the Herald Tribune when the program was put into effect. The paper reported that several Wal-Mart employees in South Florida could no longer afford to pay for benefits the company offered after the company instituted the workforce management software. Several quit or are considering doing so, the Herald Tribune reported.
  • Wall Street Journal: Three Republican Governors Hit Unions. Bargaining Rights Are Rescinded For State Employees,
    One of Big Labor's Last Strongholds
    . By Joi Preciphs. Excerpts: Several Republican governors are trying to weaken organized labor in the one place it has remained strong: representing public employees. First-term Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt rescinded collective-bargaining rights for state employees this year, undoing an executive order issued by a Democratic predecessor, and has eliminated a state board overseeing union elections for public employees. Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, a former Bush White House budget director, overturned an executive order that for 15 years provided collective-bargaining rights for that state's public employees. And Maryland's Robert Ehrlich, backed by the state Supreme Court, suspended a 2% pay increase unions had negotiated for state employees with his predecessor. The three governors, following earlier moves by Kentucky's Republican governor, Ernie Fletcher, say that their actions are warranted in an environment where state budgets are just beginning to recover from severe stress, and that public employees' unions waste resources and block government restructuring efforts.

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. The following is an example post from the Vault message board.
  • "Value?" by "omegadoom". Excerpts: Since I know Chicago... lets take a look at some restaurants that are outside of IBM's pricing policies... Tsai's Cafe. (Sushi); Naniwa (Sushi); Hatsuhana ?sp? (Sushi); Gene and Georgetti (Steaks); Hubbard Grill (Steak); Erie Street Cafe (Steak); Chicago Chop House (Steak); Keefers; MKs; Cyrano's (French); Toppo Gigio (Italian); Italian Village (Italian); Rosebud (Italian); Tavern on Rush; Le Colonial; Zealous (American Fusion). Oh and there's more, much more. What do all of these have in common? Don't go to them on IBM's meal budget unless you want to eat a light fare. None of these restaurants are "five star" although all have great food. Want 5 star? Trotters, and Spiagia come to mind. You can't even have drinks at the front bar on IBM's expense policy. All of these restaurants listed have certain value points. (Hint: Do lunch at Tavern on Rush and sit outside. ;-)

New on the Alliance@IBM Site:
  • 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 08/09/05: I have twenty-four years of experience as a software developer, and am an American female. Prior to being rebadged to IBM from a major telecommunications company, I had finished a Java project with a good appraisal which culminated in a total of two years of Java experience with straight A's in several web development courses as well as a Bachelor's degree - not to mention having the concepts of I/T from so many years in the business; but, after the rebadging, and the signaling of the systems in my group to go overseas, I spent five months without anything to do.
      I no sooner had fifteen to twenty resumes submitted, within IBM, when H/R told me I didn't have "any job skills," while, at the same time, the telecommunications company began to renege on their contract that our systems should stay in the U.S. "for security reasons." Then when I asked, a few months ago, after I completed another good Java assignment, when IBM was going to deploy their jobs skills inventory list, so I could get my skills listed, I, suddenly, got told by H/R that I couldn't "talk about outsourcing," yet they couldn't provide me with any specifics/rules of wrong-doing, but, suddenly, a few days later, that job skills inventory was deployed for everyone! A couple months later, as I started a business analysis project, I asked about the status of my job skills inventory, and got told I had "a listening problem," yet H/R could, again, not provide any specifics of wrong-doing.
      I spoke to the H/R manager's boss, whereby I, finally, got to speak to a deployment (or recruiter) manager who helped place my resume in a database. As I got ready to wrap up my current project with what I feel was a good job, I was, suddenly, told by my H/R manager that a release date had been set for me on the end date of my project and that I lacked "communication skills!" The contract between IBM and this telecommunications company is still under debate as to whether the systems in my group, should stay in the U.S. or go overseas. Meanwhile I noticed that there were two MEN from India waiting for a cubicle - obviously, my cubicle!
      I barely make what a beginning college graduate, without any previous job experience, should make, according to industry standards; yet my H/R manager said that, for my salary level, they expected more skills! Granted that these two people were to work C++, which is two-thirds similar to the Java I've worked and I've only been trained in C++ - with straight A's - but the computer, on which we worked was an odd one that's not common, and I was told that these two men were to be "trained" on that particular computer! Due to my perseverance with the job skills inventory list, I was, immediately, placed in, at least, an old-fashioned mainframe 'telecommuting' position - that's a contract by 'month to month' I'm hearing that these people, from India, now, are only getting paid $12,000 to $13,000 while they're in this country. I feel horrible discrimination as an American, a person over forty and as a female! -Anonymous-
    • Comment 08/10/05: I was laid off effective 7/29 after the original date of 7/1 was extended because there was no one to complete my project. I was not really surprised about being selected and didn't mind an extra months pay and more time to regroup and figure out what to do next. But on the day of my exit interview, I was informed that I was not getting my 2 vacation days that I expected for the month of July because I didn't work the whole month of July. The separation date was on Friday and the end of the month was on Sunday so my boss explained that I didn't earn the 2 days that I expected. I should no longer be amazed at the new lows that IBM sinks to but this one caught me off guard.
      My manager waited until the last day to inform me of this (he knew I was expecting extra vacation days) and he also could have put in the 2 extra days for me because vacation is not tracked and he had to ask me how many days I took in order to inform payroll so they could calculate the last paycheck. I feel like I did IBM a favor by working an extra month after they got rid of me telling me that my skills were low (funny that they had no one else who knew my job though) but actually the project scope was reduced and I suspect they just needed to get rid of someone and I was the lucky one they chose.
      If I knew they were going to rip me off by taking my vacation, I would not have agreed to help them out for the extra month. I can't believe that my boss did not do the right thing and just put in for the 2 days for me. I can't believe that getting separated on the last working day of the month but not the last actual day of the month means that I did not earn vacation for that month. I feel like I have no rights and no where to turn for help. IBM holds all the cards and they are petty enough to take a few hundred dollars from a 21 year employee on their way out the door. -Anonymous-
    • Comment 08/10/05: Have you noticed, it's getting quiet. IBM has announced a better second quarter, and the press is quiet. We are all quiet as IBM continues to wreck havoc in the lives of its employees. As employees current or otherwise, keep the pressure on, keep writing your employee friendly state senators, congressmen, or US Senators. Join the cause of CWA Local 1701. The current new hires that IBM goes after need to know the truth. That profits will always come before people. If you do get a layoff notice, challenge it with the might of a billion dollar HR department. If you are sick and receiving benefits under the S&A, STD or LTD Disability plans, there is a return to work clause in those policies that may provide for the leverage you need to return to work and not be fired. Now is the time to stand together in unity. -Anonymous-
    • Comment 08/10/05: People from India are coming to the U.S to fill job assignments. They are young, unmarried and eager to learn so are willing to stay in the U.S for long periods of time without taking trips back home. From company's standpoint, such as IBM, these people are a cheap source of labor. Outsourcing doesn't necessarily mean the job goes overseas anymore. -Anonymous-
    • Comment 08/11/05: My coworkers and I were rebadged to IBM under an outsourcing agreement. Well it did not take us long to realize that IBM does not care about the business end of their clients. They have done absolutely nothing to improve any of the business cycles that run in our account. They offered some of my coworkers jobs as SDM's on other accounts. Needless to say all of them have been laid off by IBM after less than two years. The IBM managers are sneaky, backstabbing, unethical and untrustworthy. Yet the company just made us take a course on ethics! What a joke! Needless to say, my remaining coworkers and I are all united in our hatred for IBM. We have come up with our own acronym:IBM - Idiots Become Managers. -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.