Welcome to IBM Employee News and Links

Quick Links:

Get involved! Insider trading After IBM Lenovo Employee Discount

Previous highlights:

March 6, 2010 February 27, 2010 February 20, 2010 February 13, 2010 February 6, 2010 January 30, 2010 January 23, 2010 January 16, 2010 January 9, 2010 January 2, 2010 December 26, 2009 December 19, 2009 December 12, 2009 December 5, 2009 November 28, 2009 November 21, 2009 November 14, 2009 November 7, 2009 October 31, 2009 October 24, 2009 October 17, 2009 October 10, 2009 October 3, 2009 September 26, 2009 September 19, 2009 September 12, 2009 September 5, 2009 August 29, 2009 August 22, 2009 August 15, 2009 August 8, 2009 August 1, 2009 July 25, 2009 July 18, 2009 July 11, 2009 July 4, 2009 June 27, 2009 June 20, 2009 June 13, 2009 June 6, 2009 May 30, 2009 May 23, 2009 May 16, 2009 May 9, 2009 May 2, 2009 April 25, 2009 April 18, 2009 April 11, 2009 April 4, 2009 March 28, 2009 March 21, 2009 March 14, 2009 March 7, 2009 February 28, 2009 February 21, 2009 February 14, 2009 February 7, 2009 January 31, 2009 January 24, 2009 January 17, 2009 January 10, 2009 January 03, 2009 December 27, 2008 December 20, 2008 December 13, 2008 December 6, 2008 November 29, 2008 November 22, 2008 November 15, 2008 November 8, 2008 November 1, 2008 October 25, 2008 October 18, 2008 October 11, 2008 October 4, 2008 September 27, 2008 September 20, 2008 September 13, 2008 September 6, 2008 August 30, 2008 August 23, 2008 August 16, 2008 August 9, 2008 August 2, 2008 July 26, 2008 July 19, 2008 July 12, 2008 July 5, 2008 June 28, 2008 June 21, 2008 June 14, 2008 June 7, 2008 May 31, 2008 May 24, 2008 May 17, 2008 May 10, 2008 2008 Stock Meeting April 26, 2008 April 19, 2008 April 12, 2008 April 5, 2008 March 29, 2008 March 22, 2008 March 15, 2008 March 8, 2008 March 1, 2008 February 16, 2008 February 9, 2008 February 2, 2008 January 26, 2008 January 19, 2008 January 12, 2008 January 5, 2008 December 29, 2007 December 22, 2007 December 15, 2007 December 8, 2007 December 1, 2007 November 24, 2007 November 17, 2007 November 10, 2007 November 3, 2007 October 27, 2007 October 20, 2007 October 13, 2007 October 6, 2007 September 29, 2007 September 22, 2007 September 15, 2007 September 8, 2007 September 1, 2007 August 25, 2007 August 18, 2007 August 11, 2007 August 4, 2007 July 28, 2007 July 21, 2007 July 14, 2007 July 7, 2007 June 30, 2007 June 23, 2007 June 16, 2007 June 9, 2007 June 2, 2007 May 26, 2007 May 19, 2007 May 12, 2007 May 5, 2007 2007 Stock Meeting 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

Highlights—November 7, 2009

• Austin American-Statesman: Why do execs share privileged info? Ego gratification among possible motives, experts say. By Kirk Ladendorf and Tim Eaton. Excerpts: Senior executives aren't supposed to blab about their companies' innermost secrets to outsiders — but sometimes they do. Sometimes they get caught. That might be the case for Hector Ruiz, the former chief executive of Advanced Micro Devices Inc., according to The Wall Street Journal, which reported Wednesday that Ruiz was the unnamed AMD executive who federal investigators say disclosed confidential information about AMD's manufacturing plans to New York hedge fund executives last year. ...

  One of the defendants is Robert Moffat, a senior vice president at IBM Corp. who is accused of providing inside information about IBM, Sun Microsystems Inc. and AMD to a hedge fund employee. Moffat had been seen as a potential CEO. He is now on leave and is no longer an officer of the company, according to IBM. ...

  Why would successful executives risk their reputations — and possibly their careers — by sharing confidential company information with outsiders? One of the possible motivations that experts point to is ego gratification.

• The Register (United Kingdom): Moffat leaves IBM after insider trading arrest. By Timothy Prickett Morgan. Excerpts: Bob Moffat - IBM's top server, storage, and chip exec - has left the company following his arrest for alleged involvement in an insider trading scam. Moffat was arrested by the FBI on October 16 and charged by the US District Attorneys office in Manhattan, along with five others, in an alleged insider trading scam that allowed hedge funds Galleon Group and New Castle Group to benefit to the tune of more than $20m. The original complaint (PDF) filed on October 16 Danielle Chiesi, of New Castle, indicating that Bob Moffat passed her inside information. ...

  The complaint alleges that Moffat provided information regarding the impending spinoff of Advanced Micro Devices' chip making business and the quarterly financials of IBM and Sun Microsystems ahead of when they became public, thereby helping New Castle engage in insider trading in shares of those companies as well.

• The Register: Southwark council sues IBM. Pays public cash to lawyers to get it back from Big Blu. By Kable. Excerpts: A London local authority is taking legal action against IBM over a software solution it claims is not fit for purpose. The London Borough of Southwark has issued a writ against the company over the performance of a master data management system, developed by another company, for the cleaning up of information on several databases. It was meant to bring the data together onto one system, removing duplication and ensuring its accuracy. A spokesperson for the council told GC News that the system did not work and has slowed its progress in updating its other systems.

  "We are suing IBM over a matter concerning a software solution which we purchased through IBM and was unfortunately found not to be functionally fit for Southwark's purposes," the spokesperson said. "We did try and work with IBM over an 18 month period to get the problems resolved. However, IBM was unable to find a resolution to the problems that did not involve further significant financial outlay on Southwark's behalf. As the product was bought using public money, we had no option but to try to reclaim the money spent from IBM, as a duty to protect public funds.

• The Register: LibDem backs IBM staff in pension row... By Chris Williams. Excerpts: Hampshire MP Sandra Gidley has intervened in the row over IBM closing its final salary pension scheme, but hers is a confusing brand of support staff might rather do without. The Liberal Democrat has called on the government to boycott the firm, a move that would guarantee thousands of job cuts. "I have written to the Government to ask that they review their existing contracts with IBM, and do not consider IBM for future contracts until the company promises a fair deal to their longest serving employees," she said on Thursday. ...

  "Many workers at the Hursley site who will be reaching retirement age within the next ten years are rightly furious that IBM bosses are going back on clear verbal commitments made by senior managers in 2006 that the pension scheme will not be reduced," she said. An IBM spokesman declined to comment. The firm cited rising costs and the "volatile economic environment" when it shut the scheme.

• politics.co.uk: Government should boycott IBM - Gidley. Excerpt: Test Valley MP, Sandra Gidley, has today called on the Government to review their existing contracts to computer giant IBM unless it gives its most experienced, qualified employees, a fair deal on a threatened pension scheme. IBM employees in Hursley, which employs a large number of people living in the Test Valley, along with staff from other sites across the UK are extremely concerned over proposed changes to their pension and retirement plans. Sandra, having recently met with IBM Chief Executive Brendan Riley, said today: "I have written to the Government to ask that they review their existing contracts with IBM, and do not consider IBM for future contracts until the company promises a fair deal to their longest serving employees.
• The Register: Big Blue red-faced over Congestion charge crash. First day fumble of new systems. By John Oates. Excerpts: Things did not go entirely smoothly for IBM on its first day in control of Transport for London's Congestion Charge systems yesterday. Capita set up the system and ran it for five years before TfL handed the contract to IBM in October 2007. Some staff were moved across and new systems put in place. But sources told The Register on the morning of the first day that the system had not been live tested and staff were overrun with complaints. A TfL spokeswoman said: “We apologise to customers for any problems they are experiencing since the transfer of systems to our new contractor this weekend. There have been some issues with accessing the online Congestion Charging payment accounts this morning, which the contractor is working to resolve as soon as possible.
• Austin American-Statesman: Elections system pulled from IBM data center contract. Company's failures could have jeopardized 'fair, credible elections,' secretary of state's office says. By Kate Alexander. Excerpts: IBM Corp.'s failure to protect state information under an $863 million data center consolidation contract has prompted the Texas secretary of state's office to pull its elections system from the project. In August, the secretary of state got a "wake-up call" when a server crash led to a 13-day outage of the agency's business records filing system. It exposed serious weaknesses in IBM's ability to recover lost data, said secretary of state spokesman Randall Dillard. ...

  "We reached the point where we were no longer confident that Team for Texas could get servers and software for the elections system installed and properly tested," Cutrone said, referring to the IBM-led partnership. ...

  Under the seven-year contract, IBM is merging the separate data centers of 27 state agencies into two streamlined and updated facilities. The objective of the contract is to save money and improve security. But the project has been plagued with service issues, slow progress and high-profile data losses. A December completion date looms for IBM to get all the agencies' operations running in the consolidated centers but, as of this summer, the process was far behind schedule. In 2008, the loss of some critical state data at the office of the attorney general led Perry to suspend consolidation until IBM ensured that the state's data was protected. Although the consolidation resumed, the problems have persisted. On the heels of the secretary of state outage, the attorney general suffered another loss of data related to Medicaid fraud cases, just as it had in 2008.

  Selected reader comments for the above article follow:

  • "No one (at the agency) will lose their job when IBM takes control of the Data Center." - FACT: Their position 'just went away' when our data center was taken over by IBM. No position = no job. FACT: One Texas agency employee wanted five files restored from tape backup. What would have taken me less than 30 minutes to complete, took IBM SIX WEEKS before they acted on the request but only after they were forced to by our management. By that time the backup tapes had been over written and the files lost. oops!

    Any IBM employees who quit in our Data Center are not replaced. The rest have to try to keep up. good luck! FACT: Our server's hard drive has an error that can be corrected by reseating the drive in the server. 5-10 minute job? Nope. We have to contact our liaison who contacts IBM who contacts Dell who sends a Tech rep who reseats the drive. Around 10 hours.

    Texas Legislature - I hope you need help someday with your server which maybe maintained by IBM. "Please take a number and wait in line." Hmm, [196]. "Now serving number 2." I truly feel sorry for visitors and the citizens of Texas for the contract but, as the old say goes, I’m not allowed to run the train The whistle I cannot blow. I’m not allowed to say How far the little cars can go. I’m not allowed to blow off steam Or even clang the bell. But let it jump the _____ track And see who catches hell. - Unknown

  • Another example of IBM's mushroom treatment of customers.... Keep them in the dark and every once in a while throw a little manure on them. With all this negative publicity, I'm sure the company is crying all the way to the bank to deposit their $800+ million. If they're not performing up to contract requirements (and they apparently are not), throw the bums out.
  • IBM has been losing contracts this year because they get what they pay for -- inferior workers in India.
  • This is just more of Perry meddling with the IBM contract because IBM hasn't greased his palms. Perry has been actively trying to get this contract away from IBM and into the hands of another contractor who will make huge campaign donations to him. The reason why this project is doing so poorly is due to IBM's priorities. They maximize shareholder profits by not hiring enough people to work on the project, mostly using contract employees who are not actual IBM employees. After the last blow up about this contract IBM had to make financial concessions so they did it by cutting the contract workers pay by 10%. Great incentive for the contract workers to do a better job. NOT.
  • Virtually every board or commission member who had any business experience anticipated that the IBM deal would be a massive failure and so advised the staffs of the agencies involved. Yet hard-headed, naive politicos always looking for a simple answer to complex problems drove this fool-hardy effort. Independent agencies with elected Commissioners like GLO used their political heft to avoid this debacle. If you are going to have a management structure like Texas where what are in essence are volunteers are advising/managing major agencies it would serve the politicians well to listen to the gray headed folks on those boards/commissions.
  • Someone must be lying. Privatization is ALWAYS the right thing to do, ALWAYS the cheapest and ALWAYS the most efficient..... Snicker

• The Australian: Qantas IT staff snub job shift to IBM. ONLY 30 per cent, or 50 workers, with the Qantas IT project delivery team have agreed to move to IBM. By Fran Foo. Excerpts: IBM made employment offers to 178 Qantas staff as part of a seven-year outsourcing deal worth up to $200 million. "We believe only 50 people took up the IBM offer, well short of what they wanted," Australian Services Union assistant national secretary Linda White said. Ms White attributed the low uptake to several factors, including the fear that once they moved to IBM, their roles would in time be sent overseas, leaving them jobless. IBM would not comment on the figures, with a company spokesman saying: "We are unable to disclose specific details about offers of employment."
• Yahoo! IBM Pension and Retirement Issues message board: FHA Contribution. By "bimcall_85213." Full excerpt: I noticed in 3rd Qtr 2009 that there were no monthly credits posted by IBM to my FHA account. There were monthly interest credits, but no monthly credits as in past months. Has anybody else noticed the same? Has anyone seen a reason as to why IBM is not contributing to the FHA? Please let me know. Thanks.
• Yahoo! IBM Employee Issues message board: How many retiree's actually qualify for the FHA? by "nyjints5". Full excerpt: Does any know how to determine, (or even have a "guesstimate") of the percentage of retired IBM'ers who actually did qualify to receive The Future Health Account? My thinking is that it's probably a very low percentage.

  Recently, I was formally introduced to someone that I recognized only as a "familiar face" who had previously worked at one of the six different IBM sites where I had worked. This person completed 30 years of service, and has begun receiving a pension. Through the course of our IBM related conversation, I asked them if they were using the FHA, or did they have other medical insurance they were using.

  The sarcasticness in their voice startled me. "FHA?? What FHA?" came the response. Naively, I mistakenly assumed that since they had completed 30 years, like me, they were eligible for the FHA. Nothing could be further from the truth. Apparently there is an age factor involved, and if one does not meet it, even though someone has completed 30 years of service, they do not qualify for the FHA. That leads me to believe that I may be one of the lucky few. While I realize the FHA ain't much, at the very least I have a little something as opposed others who have absolutely nothing.

  I'm convinced that IBM has The FHA rigged so that even if you miraculously do get to 30 years, there's an excellent chance you'll never benefit from it. To think that someone could work for an employer for 30 years, and that employer gets to walk away without providing any healthcare benefits what-so-ever to their employee boggles my mind. To me, that's a criminal act of betrayal.

• Yahoo! IBM Employee Issues message board: "Re: How many retiree's actually qualify for the FHA?" by "computagal53@verizon.net". Full excerpt: I have worked for IBM for 36 years and am retiring at year end....I am appalled at the lack of concern for the retirees in regard to health care...When I first was hired the benefits package is what got me hooked as well as the career ahead of me. I have settled for years now for less pay under the mantra "we may pay less but think of all the benefits"...I have taken on more responsibilities in recent years for less pay and now am told 'It's only a benifit'....my senior years are approaching and illnesses will be on the horizon...what's next!!!! Unconscionable!!!
• Yahoo! IBM Retiree Information Exchange message board: "Re: Time" by "Tony". Full excerpt: That sure is a fact. I remember my Dad telling me when I was in high school: "Don't ever get tricked into giving you entire life to your job / company - you can devote the best years of your life to a company and all your efforts and work late and sacrifice time with your family - but in the end they will not think twice about throwing you out the door. " A company only has the institutional memory, ethics and morality of those currently in charge - when the regime changes, they can too.

  When I started with IBM, I thought it would be different there , but it really was not. Thankfully I did heed his advice and did not let my job totally interfere with my family life like so many people did and still do. Once I was offered a plum job that involved a lot of travel - and just told them - sorry, no can do and got that manager quite irritated at me though , I ended up taking a relocation to a new location and job to get out from under those folks but the family came with and I didn't have a lot of overnight travel.

  As I heard a Minister say once - I have visited a lot of people in the hospital in their final days and I have yet to hear one say "I wish I had spent more time at work."

• Yahoo! IBM Retiree - Information Exchange message board: "Re: Canada Drugs" by "torbilll". Full excerpt: Yup, I am ashamed. :-) Actually, I am VERY hopeful, because I am so fed up with the game playing of the pharma companies with prices and the insurance companies with prices/formularies/escalating co-pays/prior authorizations/step therapy/quantity limits/etc. I am exceedingly knowledgeable on medical and drug plans and options, and it is getting so complicated that even I have a hard time figuring it out.

  I just want to get to the point where I can go to my doctor, get my prescriptions, get my prescriptions filled without having to go through all of the above, and get on with my life.

  Did you know that Canadians have to pay for their own drugs? I just found this out. They have socialized medicine for the medical and hospitalization, but at least some of them have to buy their own meds. But prices are sane and don't break the bank. I guess I am hoping to become an honorary Canadian, and just pay reasonable amounts of cash money for my drugs, and have my prescriptions something that happens between my doc and me and get the f****** Part D insurance plans out of my life.

  If Canadians start dying of their prescription drugs, somebody please let me know right away! :-) Torbill

• Bloomberg: IBM to Give Employees 100% Coverage of Primary Care. By Tim Mullaney. Excerpts: International Business Machines Corp., the world’s largest computer-services company, will provide U.S. employees with 100 percent coverage for primary care, a policy designed to curb health expenses. Beginning next year, employees will no longer have to pay deductibles for visits to in-network doctors such as internists, general practitioners and pediatricians, Armonk, New York-based IBM said today in a statement. The company said it is one of the first U.S. employers to adopt such a policy.
• Yahoo! IBM Employee Issues message board: "Brillig..." by "ignatz713". Excerpt: Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant, brilliant, brilliant, brilliant. In light of the bad press from the crook Mo Fat and his gal pal Cheesy, and the employees who were PERHAPS THINKING about forming a union, IBM has now squashed ANY thought of there ever ever ever ever ever being a union in IBM. Ever. Ever. Ever. Ever. Ever. Ever. Ever. IBM is one clever company, aren't they?
• Yahoo! IBM Employee Issues message board: "Brillig..." by "ibmretiree2006". Full excerpt: Well, sure!!! With 16,000 less employees in the US it made sense to give those remaining a crumb. Heck, my copay as an employee for those services was FIVE FREAKIN' DOLLARS!!!!. Whoopdeedoo!!! A godsend for those employees who have not seen a raise for years or got that FABULOUS 1.3%, eh?
• Yahoo! IBM Employee Issues message board: "Brillig..." by "ibmretiree2006". Full excerpt: My copay as an employee for preventative exams - physicals, blood, dental, etc was $0.00 annually.
• Yahoo! IBM Employee Issues message board: "Brillig..." by "sby_willie". Full excerpt: So IBM Is going to pay 100% for my wellness visits to an in-network internist or GP. Not as generous a gesture as I thought from IBM when my IBM monthly premium goes up more and more: the monthly premium went up much more than the co-pay of one visit. I can't understand how any IBMer, ex-IBMer, or IBM retiree can think the latest change to medical benefits is much of anything.
• Yahoo! IBM Employee Issues message board: "Re: 100% coverage for check ups" by "workforlife". Full excerpt: Bull !!! They were covered before. My MVP has had no cost check ups for years. This year my FREE check up comes with a 10% increase to the policy. So much for free. Nice to see some still blow for Big Blue.
• eWeek: IBM Employees in U.S. to Receive Free Health Care. By Don Sears. Excerpts: In an effort to curb rising costs for employees and for the company, IBM will be picking up the tab on health care costs for primary care in 2010. "Employees enrolled in IBM plans will receive full coverage throughout the year--no coinsurance or deductible--for in-network primary care with their internist, family practitioner, pediatrician, general practitioner or primary osteopath," said IBM in a news statement.

  Selected reader comments for the above article follow:

  • IBM scams the media again. The truth is that co pay for employees is going up as high as 47%! Posted by IBMer | October 31, 2009 10:43 AM
  • This article is not accurate and completely distorts the truth. IBM has increased the cost of Healthcare coverage from 30-47%. For example, my family plan covers my family of 3 and costs are $312 a month. Next year that same plan and coverage will cost $459 a month. That's 47% and $147 a month increase. My current co-pays for primary and pediatric care average about $12 to $15 a visit when sick. If we each went to the Doctors once a month (which we don't, more like twice a year at that)....we're only paying $36-$45 a month on co-pays. So what you didn't cover is WHY the huge increase in policy cost to the employees. As the saying goes, if it looks too good to be true it usually is. Posted by Nancy Hegarty | October 31, 2009 11:40 AM
  • While it is true that IBM offers a no monthly fee program for care, there are charges for care such as x-rays, lab tests, maternity, specialists and emergency care with a deductible. Posted by IBM Employee | November 3, 2009 1:41 PM
  • It is FREE if you don't really get sick. Just a few doc visit won't matter much. IBM saves more money on self-insured health care because... more and more seasoned or older employee are gone or the job is replaced by contractor. I guess health care in BRIC country is really cheap. Posted by Former Long Term IBMer | November 3, 2009 10:41 PM
  • This article is way too distorting. IBM has no intention of patching things up with NA employees. They are hiring people locally in Dubuque, and laying off another 1000 across the country in the process. They do not care how good an employee is, only how much they cost. Posted by Future ex-IBMer | November 4, 2009 7:51 PM

• Wall Street Journal: Pensions for Executives on Rise. Arcane Techniques, Generous Formulas Boost Payouts as Share Prices Fall. By By Ellen E. Schultz and Tom McGinty. Excerpts: Pensions for top executives rose an average of 19% in 2008, with more than 200 executives seeing pensions increase more than 50%, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis. The executive-pension growth stemmed partly from generous pension formulas, which are based on executive pay, according to the filings. Also adding to the pension jumps are arcane techniques that have received little scrutiny, including increases triggered when an executive reaches a certain age or when companies change interest rates used to calculate the pensions.

  Executive pensions rose even as the share prices at the companies declined an average of 37% in 2008 and many firms froze employee pensions and suspended retirement-plan contributions. The growth of such supplemental executive retirement plans, or SERPs -- which can be worth tens of millions of dollars to executives -- largely has been overlooked amid a backlash against executive pay, particularly at banks and other companies receiving taxpayer bailouts.

• ABC News: People With Pensions Sleep Better After Retirement. Excerpt: Retirees have something else to look forward to besides playing golf -- much better sleep -- particularly if they have decent retirement benefits and retire relatively early. That's what Dr. Jussi Vahtera of the University of Turku in Finland and colleagues found in a study of 14,714 people who had retired from the French national gas and electric company. But because the workers in the study had excellent retirement benefits, including generous pensions, the findings don't apply to everyone, Vahtera noted in a prepared statement. "In countries and positions where there is no proper pension level to guarantee financial security beyond working age, however, retirement may be followed by severe stress disturbing sleep even more than before retirement," Vahtera said.
• New York Times editorial: After 40 Years, Age Discrimination Still Gets Second-Class Treatment. By Adam Cohen. Excerpts: Age discrimination is illegal. But when compared with discrimination against racial minorities and women, it is a second-class civil rights issue. The Supreme Court drove its inferiority home again in June of this year, ruling that older workers must show that age was the decisive factor in their firing — not merely a contributing factor, which can be enough for a race or sex claim.

  Congress is considering overturning the ruling. It should do so. It is particularly important in the current downturn, with age discrimination complaints soaring. But the problem is larger than any one legal standard. ...

  The courts have repeatedly thrown up barriers to age discrimination suits, long before the Supreme Court’s June decision. In 1993, in one of its most damaging rulings, the court decided that if employers fire workers whose pension costs or salaries are high, they are not discriminating — even if the overwhelming number of people fired are older workers.