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@IBM
On May 29, IBM said it had structured a $12.5 billion stock repurchase to take advantage of funds it earned overseas without making them subject to U.S. corporate tax rates. Tax attorneys call such deals "Killer B" transactions because they are designed to circumvent IRS section 367 B covering U.S. taxes on repatriated earnings.
On May 31, the IRS announced plans to issue regulations making companies pay U.S. taxes when they buy back their stock, even if the shares are purchased by an international subsidiary. It said the planned ban on the practice would take effect that day, even though the regulations won't be finalized for some time. [...]
Mr. Rosenbloom said that it is possible that the IRS could challenge IBM's structure on the grounds that it didn't serve any business purpose except reducing taxes. However, other attorneys noted that the IRS had previously asked for comments about such transactions, indicating it accepted them. The new regulations are subject to comments from the public and issuance of final regulations in the U.S. Federal Register. [...]
The regulations involve what the IRS calls a "Triangular Reorganization." The way it worked at IBM involved forming a new IBM subsidiary in the Netherlands. The unit spent $1 billion in cash and $11.5 billion in borrowed funds to buy 118.8 million shares -- 8% of IBM shares outstanding -- from a group of investment banks that had borrowed the shares from institutional investors. The investment banks will return the borrowed shares with shares they buy on the open market over the next nine months. IBM will cover any added costs the investment banks suffer if its stock rises.
In response to questions raised about the April 5 conference call, an IBM spokesman said in subsequent weeks that a portion of the 14-cent impact was attributable to higher pension costs; some analysts, however, disputed that notion. During the presentation, titled "IBM Equity Compensation Expensing," IBM showed a slide illustrating "current" and "adjusted" estimate figures that made no mention of pensions. In any case, the SEC said that IBM officials should have disclosed the options impact as 10 cents.
The SEC said IBM's conduct "violated the reporting provisions of the federal securities laws." However, the agency stopped short of finding that fraud had been committed, and it imposed no fine.
Nine days before the company released its quarterly earnings in April 2005, IBM's chief financial officer, Mark Loughridge, held a conference call accompanied by a chart showing that if IBM had been accounting for options as an expense a year earlier, the cost would have been 14 cents per share. Loughridge indicated that the 2005 quarter would be similar, and analyst forecasts incorporated a 14-cent charge for options. As it turned out, the cost from expensing options was 10 cents per share. [...]
The difference mattered when IBM said its first-quarter earnings amounted to 84 cents per share, or 85 cents based on continuing operations. Analysts had been expecting 90 cents, but the forecast would have been 94 cents had the precise options-expensing figure been known. Some analysts suggested that IBM had misled Wall Street about the options figure so as to cushion the disappointing results and hide weakness in the business.
"The facts here are particularly troubling because the disclosure decision was driven, in part, by management's perception of how the news would be interpreted by analysts," said Scott W. Friestad, the SEC's associate director of enforcement.
On the other hand, the analysts are now warned and many won't forget they were ridiculed by IBM Communications and Loughridge's gang when they pointed out the "accounting discrepancies".
How or even whether the differences in executive salary will impact the market remains unclear: multinational companies are hiring their own executives in these regions, too, after all. Nonetheless, the numbers are tough to ignore: engineers aren't the only "talent" that costs less in developing markets. Executives cost a lot less, too.
Shanghai's SunTech Holdings, for instance, has moved from being a bit player in solar panels to becoming one of the largest manufacturers in the world. Most of the company's panels end up overseas, and it can produce those panels more cheaply than American competitors for various reasons. Among them: the company isn't lavishing huge compensation packages on its executives.
"There aren't 10 executives in the company that make more than $200,000," said Steve Chan, vice president of business development at SunTech Power Holdings.
U.S. execs make far more. In a survey conducted by Forbes last year, the magazine found that the average big company CEO made $3.3 million in salary and bonuses.
IBM: Lou Gerstner got a 10-year consultancy contract worth up to $2 million annually, plus expenses and full use of IBM facilities and services, such as office, cars, aircraft and financial planning. He only has to work one month out of the year. His successor, Samuel J. Palmisano, stands to receive more than $3 million in pension annually for the rest of his life after he retires.
But new evidence suggests that shifting production overseas has inflicted worse damage on the U.S. economy than the numbers show. BusinessWeek has learned of a gaping flaw in the way statistics treat offshoring, with serious economic and political implications. Top government statisticians now acknowledge that the problem exists, and say it could prove to be significant.
The short explanation is that the growth of domestic manufacturing has been substantially overstated in recent years. That means productivity gains and overall economic growth have been overstated as well. And that raises questions about U.S. competitiveness and "helps explain why wage growth for most American workers has been weak," says Susan N. Houseman, an economist at the W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research who identifies the distorting effects of offshoring in a soon-to-be-published paper.
Fly in the Ointment: The underlying problem is located in an obscure statistic: the import price data published monthly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Because of it, many of the cost cuts and product innovations being made overseas by global companies and foreign suppliers aren't being counted properly. And that spells trouble because, surprisingly, the government uses the erroneous import price data directly and indirectly as part of its calculation for many other major economic statistics, including productivity, the output of the manufacturing sector, and real gross domestic product (GDP), which is supposed to be the inflation-adjusted value of all the goods and services produced inside the U.S. (For a detailed explanation of how import price data are calculated and why the methodology is suspect, see page 34.)
The result? BusinessWeek's analysis of the import price data reveals offshoring to low-cost countries is in fact creating "phantom GDP"--reported gains in GDP that don't correspond to any actual domestic production. The only question is the magnitude of the disconnect. "There's something real here, but we don't know how much," says J. Steven Landefeld, director of the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), which puts together the GDP figures. Adds Matthew J. Slaughter, an economist at the Amos Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College who until last February was on President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers: "There are potentially big implications. I worry about how pervasive this is." [...]
Phantom GDP helps explain why U.S. workers aren't benefiting more as their companies grow ever more efficient. The cost savings that companies are reaping "don't represent increased productivity of American workers producing goods and services in the U.S.," says Houseman. In contrast, compensation of senior executives is typically tied to profits, which have soared alongside offshoring.
He's just one of thousands of American employees who took massive pay cuts in 2003, costing them $1.6 billion every year since. It was necessary, the workers were told, to save the airline from bankruptcy. Share the sacrifice, promised the top executives, and we'll share the gains with you.
He's just one of thousands of American employees who took massive pay cuts in 2003, costing them $1.6 billion every year since. It was necessary, the workers were told, to save the airline from bankruptcy. Share the sacrifice, promised the top executives, and we'll share the gains with you.
So, to show his appreciation, Arpey handed out generous bonuses to everyone! Everyone in the executive suite, that is. Arpey personally pocketed a $6.6 million bonus. Four other top dogs split another $12 million in bonuses.
And the workers? They're to continue sacrificing, not getting a penny of the gain. In other words, just as the mechanic sensed, Arpey was lying to them from the start.
Needless to say, American's annual meeting in May was a bit "testy," with workers openly calling the executives "arrogant, greedy, selfish, and heartless individuals." Arpey, who had brought dozens of hired security agents into the meeting to protect him from his own employees, added insult to injury by saying that the executive bonuses were granted as a reward for solid performance. And what about the solid performance of the employees? Rather than answer that, Arpey abruptly adjourned the meeting.
A talent supply crunch in the booming services sector in India, coupled with a sharply appreciating rupee against the dollar, is threatening to knock the country off its perch as the world’s leading outsourcing centre.
“We see costs rising in India and people becoming less available,” Gabriel Rozman, president of TCS in Latin America, Spain and Portugal, said. “That’s why we’re going to places like Latin America, which has professionals and reasonable costs.” [...]
TCS is not the only software group to express concern at the rising cost of doing business in India. It and several of its rivals, including Wipro, Infosys and Satyam, have set up operations in China, where an excess supply of well-trained software engineers has kept salary inflation under control. [...]
The rupee has gained 9.2 per cent against the dollar this year, eroding the earnings of Indian companies that generate a large proportion of their sales in the US. The National Association of Software and Service Companies (Nasscom) the trade body for India’s $48 billion IT industry, has said that the rupee’s surge will blunt the country’s competitive edge.
So it's a little strange to see him sitting pensively or to hear him expressing doubt.
But that's what he's doing.
He's worried.
I ask what's on his mind.
"The Social Contract," he answers. He says it the way some people would say, "My visa bill."
"I've just become really unsettled with the hardball way senior management (in Corporate America) wants to play with the masses.
"I think we're missing a bet. We shouldn't eat our children to avoid starvation. We have too few businesses focused on what's good for the country, too many focused on their very short term business interest," he says.
"What's the Social Contract," I ask?
"It's basically a covenant between the worker and the business. It determines the quid pro quo. The worker gives his labor--- and (the contract says) what he gets in return. The rub is that some people think the business owes the worker a fair days' pay for a fair days' work--- that you don't owe him the gift of a pension because you've already paid for the work.
"The question is whether retirement in dignity is part of the Social Contract. I've never thought that a pension was a gift. The phrase "wages, hours, and other conditions of employment" includes a pension. What you were required to do was structure compensation so it included 'retirement in dignity.
"What has bothered me is that our business schools have taught slash and burn--- if you can cut payrolls to make a profit, you get an "A."
"Remember, things have changed. A century ago you might do forty years of work and four years of retirement, all within 50 miles of all your relatives. There was family support. Today, you work forty years in different cities. You go where the job is, you're 1,000 miles from any of your relatives, and retirement lasts a lot longer. If we lose the purchasing power of retirees we're not talking about losing a small amount.
"So, I'm worried. We're in trouble. What will happen when 20, 30, or 40 million workers retire to despair and run out of money in their 70's?
"It means you become the executor of your own estate--- you get to sell everything and have the nightmare experience of selling everything you treasure because you want to eat. That's the fate I see in store for tens of millions of American households.
"But the solution is in plain sight. It's to understand that capitalism is the strongest mechanism ever built by man and if we can sell a Starbucks coffee for $3.50, we can also sell it for $3.55. Yet the entire concept of employee benefits seems up for grabs.
"We shouldn't be talking about making the profit plan by cannibalizing benefits. You have to make your profit plan while honoring your obligation to employees. If you make your profit plan by cannibalizing benefits, you're not a very good businessman."
Can American companies really provide " retirement in dignity" just by adding a nickel to the price of a cup of fancy coffee, I asked?
He responded by telling me two stories, one international and one domestic.
On a trip to Tokyo he and his wife had noticed fifteen or twenty "Elevator Ushers." The ushers asked each guest what floor they wished to go to, stepped inside the elevator to push the button, and thanked them for being a guest. Impressive--- but Hamilton thought it was a wasteful "make work" practice. They saw the same thing at the major department stores.
Finally he asked a Japanese businessman, why were they so wasteful with labor?
"Our culture believes that honorable employment costs far less than your American welfare system. Because all work in Japan, we have no unemployment, no welfare," the businessman answered.
Confronted with a major business problem, Henry Ford came up with a solution that changed America. Paying $2.25 a day, Ford suffered high turnover and a multitude of work injuries. In 1916, Hamilton noted, the Ford Highland Park plant recorded nearly 200 severed fingers and more than 75,000 cuts, burns, and puncture wounds.
So Henry Ford doubled wages, creating the $5 a day job. In one stroke he reduced turnover, built skill levels, cut accidents and injuries, increased morale, and created thousands of buyers for his cars.
In 21st Century America, we just cut jobs, benefits, or both.
But can you really offer retirement in dignity for just a nickel on a fancy cup of coffee, I asked again.
To prove his point, Hamilton showed me a spreadsheet. It showed a company whose sales were 5 times payroll that had only 40 percent of its employees contributing only 3 percent of pay to their 401(k) plan and the company match was 50 percent of the first 6 percent of payroll--- not enough for "retirement in dignity."
"How much", Hamilton asked, "do you think it will cost to offer a good retirement plan, one where 90 percent of employees participate, contribute 8 percent of pay, and get a company match that's 100 percent of the first 6 percent of payroll?
I told him I didn't know.
He showed me. Although the cost of the employer match increased 9 times it was still a small amount as a percent of sales--- less than 1 percent.
"That would add 3 cents to the $3.50 price of a Grande Latte--- or a Happy Meal. Three cents!"
Maybe Executive America needs to do something more imaginative than cost cutting.
The book addresses the widespread problem of social friction in the workplace and how it can affect morale, undermine performance and cost a company dearly in both talent and money. How much money? Sutton, who also posts on Arianna Huffington's blog, says while estimating the "TCA," or "total cost of a--holes," is difficult, it's an instructive way to think about the costs of putting up with bullies at work. Sutton cites a Silicon Valley company that calculated the cost associated with one of its most highly paid salespeople, a "certified a--hole" who had a terrible temper, insulted co-workers, and had to attend anger-management classes (on the company dime). Managers estimated that costs in terms of time and dollars spent related to this employee's treatment of people totaled about $160,000.
But last week Barack Obama, after getting considerable grief for having failed to offer policy specifics, finally delivered a comprehensive health care plan. So how is it?
First, the good news. The Obama plan is smart and serious, put together by people who know what they’re doing.
It also passes one basic test of courage. You can’t be serious about health care without proposing an injection of federal funds to help lower-income families pay for insurance, and that means advocating some kind of tax increase. Well, Mr. Obama is now on record calling for a partial rollback of the Bush tax cuts.Also, in the Obama plan, insurance companies won’t be allowed to deny people coverage or charge them higher premiums based on their medical history. Again, points for toughness.
Best of all, the Obama plan contains the same feature that makes the Edwards plan superior to, say, the Schwarzenegger proposal in California: it lets people choose between private plans and buying into a Medicare-type plan offered by the government.
Since Medicare has much lower overhead costs than private insurers, this competition would force the insurance industry to cut costs — making our health-care system more efficient. And if private insurers couldn’t or wouldn’t cut costs enough, the system would evolve into Medicare for all, which is actually the best solution.
"If you can't afford the deductible, it really isn't affordable insurance," said Jerry Flanagan, an advocate with the Santa Monica-based Foundation for Consumer and Taxpayer Rights.
Nancy Warrington said she and her husband, an electrician, believed they were in relatively good health. But soon after getting their insurance, the couple experienced a series of health problems. None were serious, but all were expensive, including MRIs for Todd's back pain and a skin cancer test for Nancy, which turned out to be negative.
"It just kept snowballing," Nancy Warrington said. The couple have since moved into a more comprehensive employer-subsidized plan with smaller deductibles after Todd got a job with health benefits, but they are still feeling the effects of their old deductibles. One hospital has tapped into their checking account and collects $82.22 every month, she said.
Little wonder then that the health-care establishment is bracing itself for the release of Moore's next film, the decidedly anti-medical industry Sicko. Moore will begin stumping for his film this week, with a June 5 appearance on Oprah Winfrey's show and then late night chats with David Letterman and Jay Leno. The movie, which is scheduled to hit theaters June 29, wowed audiences in Cannes last month, even reducing some to tears during a heartfelt scene in which an infant dies because she can't get medical care.
In Idaho Falls, Idaho, anyone suffering from the sort of lower back pain that may conceivably be helped by the fusing of two vertebrae is quite likely to have the surgery. It’s known as lumbar fusion, and the rate at which it is performed in Idaho Falls is almost five times the national average. The rate in Idaho Falls is 20 times that in Bangor, Me., where lumbar fusion is less common than anywhere else. [...]
Still, we shouldn’t be naïve: a lot of people would lose if medical care came to be based more on what actually worked. Right now, drug companies and medical device makers can go to the Food and Drug Administration and get approval for an expensive new product so long as they show that it’s as effective as its predecessor. They can then turn around and suggest to doctors that the new product is more effective than its predecessor. The doctors often profit, too. And many patients demand the latest, most expensive procedure, regardless of the evidence.
So reforming the system will require a fight — not just over the meaning of the word “universal” but also over finding tough, sensible ways to save money. As David Cutler, one of the Obama campaign’s health care advisers, said, “These things are really hard, so they ought to be in the foreground.”
Both men are enrolled in an increasingly popular — and controversial — type of health insurance that gives limited coverage to more than 1 million Americans. Their cases reflect a building debate about whether such policies provide a false sense of security, and raise the question: Is a little coverage that much better than none at all? [...]
Under limited-benefit plans, "people think they have insurance, get sick and find out that they don't," says Beverley Brakeman of Citizens for Economic Opportunity, an advocacy group in Connecticut. [...]
Insurers are targeting the estimated 39% of employers who currently don't offer health insurance. "The market has a potential 14% to 16% annual growth rate," says Eric Motter, vice president of marketing for Cigna's emerging markets segment. Cigna began offering limited plans last year after purchasing Star HRG from HealthMarkets.
This might be due to the salary changes based on location (another game). However, I work at the Boulder site where the median house costs $500,000+. IBM is playing accounting games to save money at our expense. By the way, I've been a band 7 for 10 yrs. I've been team lead several of those years, an architect, ratings of 1's, 2+'s, and nothing lower than a 2. -tired of the games-
Vault's IBM Business Consulting Services message board is a popular hangout for IBM BCS employees, including many employees acquired from PwC. A few sample posts follow:
Fact is, you already started at a low base, so the 20% increase is what you should have been paid in the first place. Its all pr and there is no way you would get that increase staying in the same position internally. Hence, you gotta leave - which is what they count on since it is the model to replace you with cheaper resources - either offshore or newbies straight out of b-school.
You want market rate? You gotta jump. Simple as pie.
Frankly, I give India 2-3 years before they have to show value or the work will be moved elsewhere that is cheaper.
Now the question is: Will the Indians allow the movement of work and opportunity out of the country as unobstructed as the US and ECM countries have allowed?
As a CEO, are you comfortable in being able to answer to your board of directors that question? Has the pursuit for the lowest priced IT by your CIO clouded your judgment and placed the company in a potential strategic risk situation?
How do you think CEOs that have critical infrastructure operating in Poland and Russia feel right now with the escalating tensions between those geographies and the US?
If India went back to the government it had in the 70's when it threw US companies out of the country and nationalized everything, firms like the Blue Pig would have a real financial liability, if not brand destruction.
Hmmmm....there may be a good consulting opportunity as an independent forensic offshore outsourcing lawsuit trial SME!
You can possibly grow thru band increases, if you have a good manager that supports you. Its tough as hell to get a band bump, but it will get your pay into a better sweet spot were its more likely to get you an increase to get you to the median pay.
But after the recent turn of events, I cannot even vouch for this path. Polish up the resume and keep your eyes open on the outside market. There are tons of good companies out there.
Today's highly compensated executives face many difficulties, including figuring out how they can possibly spend
all of the rich rewards they've earned on the backs of ordinary workers. Take a look at the insider
trading of many of our IBM executives—spending the cash from all that stock "acquired at $0 per share" must
be a real challenge! Or, imagine the difficulty IBM CEO Sam Palmisano will face spending his $10,000
to $20,000 a day pension when he retires!
As a way of helping out our beleaguered, modern-day robber barons this site will periodically feature "spending opportunities" that the "upper crust" of our society may want to take advantage of!
That’s what Robert Frank has done. He writes the Wealth Report column for The Wall Street Journal. (Who writes the Euchred by Capitalism column, I wonder?) In his new book, “Richistan,” he posits the existence of a little-known country within our country. This “parallel country of the rich was once just a village, he argues, but now it’s an entire nation.
The data bear Frank out. It was a huge deal when John D. Rockefeller became the country’s first billionaire. Adjusted for inflation, he had $14 billion — less than the net worth of each of Sam Walton’s five children today. There were an estimated 13 American billionaires in 1985. Now there are more than 1,000. In 2005, America minted 227,000 new financial millionaires, men and women with more than $1 million in investible assets. There are as many millionaires in North Carolina as there are in India. And so on.
Frank argues that the rich are “financial foreigners” within their own country. They have their own health care system, staffed by “concierge doctors.” They have their own travel network of timeshare (or private) jets and destination clubs. For her birthday, one 11-year-old “aristokid” pleads to fly commercial, “to ride on a big plane with other people. I want to see what an airport looks like on the inside.” [...]
Frank also plumbs Richistan’s secret status codes. You might have thought that a Mercedes SLK or a Rolex were flash possessions. Wrong! In Richistan, they are reverse status symbols. The affluent drive Mercedes; the rich drive Maybachs. Franck Muller hardly advertises their bejeweled watches, which top out around $600,000, because they might attract the wrong kind of attention. Like yours. [...]
If “Richistan” is travel journalism, then ... do we want to go there? Not much. The people sound dreadful and not very happy, to boot. But consider the alternative. Frank gets a glimpse of the world outside when he attends Fort Lauderdale’s International Boat Show, right after Hurricane Wilma has plowed through town. “Thousands of residents in the poorer sections of Fort Lauderdale (most of them black or Hispanic) were left homeless,” Frank writes, “sweating through the tropical heat, without electricity.” Meanwhile, at the Bahia Mar Marina, a chocolate fountain gurgled and the $20 million yachts and vendor pavilions were “perfectly chilled.”
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.