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
Top management at IBM has nearly always come from the sales side of the business and it is that sales side that has been outdoing itself quarter after quarter helping IBM earnings to grow even in a recession. It doesn’t hurt, of course, that lots of IBM revenue comes from its international operations and has benefited from a weak dollar. But a fair amount of this success — at least on the services side — comes from very aggressively bidding for work.
But what happens if your bid is too low to actually make money for the company? At IBM, ironically, that’s not a problem for the sales people. It is a problem for the people charged with actually performing the services.
According to IBM customers I have spoken to, the company seems unable to create a solution and put a price to it that anyone would accept so the sales organization appears to sell almost anything at whatever price they can get. They collect their commission and move on to the next deal, leaving behind a mess for the service organization to deal with.
Dealing in this case means cutting costs to the point where the contract is profitable even if not truly fulfilled. Because there is such a big disconnect between the price of the contract and the cost needed to deliver it, crazy things are done, starting with offshoring on a massive scale.
While offshoring is not intrinsically bad, it leaves almost nobody working in the data centers, which are necessarily back in the U.S. When the server folks are thousands of miles from the equipment, how does the equipment get installed? Who does the hands-on work? If a machine breaks, how long does it take to get someone there to fix it? IBM customers are learning the rueful answers to these questions.
IBM is also building several new “global delivery centers.” One of these is in Dubuque, Iowa. Why Dubuque? It is my understanding that IBM hopes to reduce its labor costs and one way to do this is by choosing remote locations like Dubuque with few locals who could qualify to be IBM techs or engineers. Experienced IBMers being downsized in places like New York won’t move to Dubuque, so they can be replaced with cheaper (and younger) labor. Dubuque’s lack of native talent means IBM can staff the centers with mostly foreign H1-B personnel, again so they can pay them less and have no long-term benefits exposure.
I find it difficult to see how customers benefit from these global delivery centers.
But wait, there’s more! The offshoring, the spin off of network work to AT&T, the “global centers,” the new internal processes are not much compared to the latest IBM ploy I’ve heard about — the use of used equipment. To save money on its outsourcing contracts, I have been told that IBM is refurbishing old equipment and substituting it for new. The customer pays a service/lease rate for new, but in the IBM data center what’s actually in the rack is used hardware. Since IBM holds the title and lease and customers never visit the data centers anyway, the customers don’t know.
My passion for IBM and our customers turned my blood blue. My customers trusted me and were dedicated customers because of my 'added value'. In 1999 all that changed.
My conversation would be about how important IBM employees are to the leadership of the corporation. I would express how dedicated I was to IBM. Give examples of how my customers had the same contagious commitment to IBM products and services. I would express my grief over the perpetual layoffs as a way as cutting costs. I would express my deep sadness in the loss of my love of the IBM culture - and loss of my profound sense of pride that I once had.
Finally, I would let him know that in my life after IBM, as a decision maker, IBM is not 1st on my list for a source of products of services because of loosing my annuity pension and medical benefits. IBM cannot be trusted because of this...
Due to the demand that billable targets are met we are often assigned to projects where we do not have the skills required and must do our best to "rise to the occasion". This has the adverse affect on customer service since without the required skills, we cannot deliver anything better than the customer could obtain for themselves from their own staff. Meanwhile, because we are working on these projects there is no available time for getting additional skills.
In IBM, unlike the military and other non-profit organizations, an individual who is not in a lettered Band position is a resource, not an asset. IBM touts talent and loyalty all the time, but those are only tools to keep the talent product inventory shrinkage at a minimum. Talent and skills are product, just like servers, screws, etc. Although some individuals may display it temporarily or even permanently (there are always some decent people in the company who will risk everything for ethics or spiritual reasons) for a variety of reasons at certain times, the company has no room for compassion, nostalgia or any other natural human emotion. This is after all, just a business like any other. The only goal, the only thing that matters, is profit as defined by the accounting circumstances of the moment.
As a now famous IBM executive once told me to my face in the cabin of a Gulfstream at 30K feet above Austin one time, repeating what he said to a group of Austin IBMers 10 + years ago: "If you want loyalty, go get a dog. If you want nostalgia, become a historian. We're here to make money, not to feel good or be fulfilled."..and I was told first hand from Lou himself personally that he was one that had what it takes to be up at the top.
When you are a resource, your skill and talent is part of a supply chain, just like product inventory. The sooner you realize this, the sooner you realize that only those with unique and valuable (to the firm and to the leadership) will not be considered for one of the famed past and future RA's.
The question is for each and every one of us is what are you going to do about it? Many graduates of the firm have moved on and succeeded in other endeavors, even in their "early" forced retirement years. Some pragmatists in IBM offer advice in saying: "leave IBM before it leaves you". Whatever it may be, don't look back unless you are an attorney or historian, because only they can make use of the past. Look forward. Your future is so bright you need sunglasses! Ask folks like John Chambers, John Thompson, and the list goes on. Keep moving forward and don't look back. Sam is the past, not the future for you.
Anyone that knows me knows that I had highly unique skills at a large IBM site of about 3000. Literally, I was the only person on site who had my specialized skill. I was selected for a resource action. Without exception, every staff level person who worked with me and/or knew of my role, was confused by my selection. Comments to me included "I can't understand your selection. It makes no sense. Who is going to do your job ?" My response was that was no longer my concern. The reality is that my role at the site is now outsourced, but it involves IBM confidential information (long term planning) and thus would be better kept in house.
So, one might wonder why I was selected. There is a simple answer. I was the oldest and highest salaried staff person in my department. Age and wage discrimination. This is the great undiscussed activity in business today masked by the recession. Smart people know it is happening, and has been going on for years. Yet, because of fear and selfishness, nobody is willing to make this an issue.
It's important that people understand that if you are over 50 years old, you are 7 times more likely to be laid off than the average IBMer. Whomever said "leave IBM before it leaves you" hinted at this age issue, and hit the nail on the head.
The IT major has decided to scale up its outsourcing operations in India at a time when many global companies, hit by the financial turmoil, have downsized their outsourcing contracts. At present, IBM has BPO facilities in major cities like Mumbai, Hyderabad, Pune, Gurgaon and Kolkata. Rather than moving to smaller cities, IBM would prefer to expand its existing centres by opening new units, he said.
The Unite union claims hundreds of angry IBM workers have been joining up in readiness to fight the proposals, which they say will have “a devastating effect” on future pensions. It calculates that people in their mid-50s could typically lose up to £200,000. IBM adjusted its plans after staff consultation, but concerns remain.
“Rather than make a formal announcement and cop to itself, to Wall Street, and its employees that it is making layoffs despite what it heralded as a stellar 2008, IBM is sticking to its practice of doing tactical “resource actions” within departments throughout its geographical regions. “The layoffs have started and IBM is still denying it to the press. Dozens of people at my location (about 150 employees here) received their pink slips today. They have 30 days to find a new job within IBM or they will be officially on the dole. I have also spoken to an employee at another location. Their entire group of 30 was given their ‘resource action’ notice today. Doesn’t matter what IBM is saying publicly. It’s happening.”
P. S. When I was laid off from ibm, and went back to college in 2003, I took an unofficial poll from the college students in Burlington, concerning their potential employment towards ibm. NOT ONE OF THEM WANTED to work for ibm! They had all seen and heard of the way ibm was treating employees, taking away retirements, and simply did not want to join a company that was so obviously greedy. Instead they wanted to work for smaller, higher paying companies and use 401K's to control their retirements.
Performance review at IBM is a joke; it has been for years. At best, PBC's leave us scrounging for scraps (little or no raises for years), while management continues to live like royalty. It's just an excuse to decimate the American workforce; deny fair wages & benefits to honest, hard-working employees. Basically creating a slave labor workforce while Sam & his elite associates become rich beyond anyone's dreams.
Someone asked earlier, "Why would any good employees remain..." - I honestly don't believe they will. I think that IBM is currently poised to make an epic "race to the bottom", as the last of the employees who can retire on the traditional plan are able to leave.
The old appraisal system worked fine, rankings had been a part of the management game since I made first line manager in the early 70's. The rankings then where mainly done to ensure pay for performance, mangers ranked employees based on amount of salary versus contribution. This ensured that a manager had to be able to justify why the higher performing employee was so far done on the salary ranking. Being new or and old timer was not a justifiable reason unless plans where in place to correct that situation.
In those days the span of control was usually a reasonable number and managers knew and worked with their employees. The manager usually wrote the appraisal, the employee development plan with input from the employee. Employee retention, growth, promotability was a joint responsibility between the manager and employee. I remember one of the worst sins a manager could make was to have an employee mention that any rating was a surprise to the employee. The old system seems to me to have worked very well until the Greedy bastards took over the company and decided that they would rape the employees, retirees and stockholders simply to enrich themselves.
The report looks at real-world examples of wage abuse based on 2008 wages of several technical H-1B visa holders, including one whom Mabemah, based in Ocoee, Fla., paid $11.20 per hour for a Web developer job—well below the prevailing wage for that occupation. It also cites the example of a director of Medical Information Technology who made $11.90 an hour at The Pediatric Associates in Montrose, Colo. Tactics for wage repression of H-1B visa holders cited in the report include:
"Employers often set lower salaries by: selecting a survey source with the lowest salaries, misclassifying experienced employees as entry-level, giving an H-1B visa holder a lower job title than [his or her] work requires, or citing wages for a low-cost area of the country while the H-1B holder is unlawfully transferred to a higher-cost area."
The executive summary of the report expresses several of its key findings, (PDF) including U.S. graduation rates in STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) fields:
"Claims of shortages necessitating these programs, especially in the STEM fields, have been widely disputed and are not borne out by basic economic indicators. A Congressionally-mandated study released by the National Research Council found that, "the current size of the H-1B workforce relative to the overall number of IT professionals is large enough to keep wages from rising as fast as might be expected in a tight labor market. ... If a genuine labor shortage existed, wages in these fields would have risen dramatically in ways they have not. ... In addition, unemployment rates in this sector have increased dramatically over the past year, with engineers reaching their highest unemployment rate since at least 1972. Graduation rates in the STEM fields also indicate that the United States is producing enough graduates to meet the employment needs of the industry."
"This whole concept of shortages is bogus; it shows a lack of understanding of the labor pool in the USA," Videk Wadhwa, a professor at Duke University's Master of Engineering Management Program, said to Baseline Magazine in 2008. Wadhwa also rejected the shortage notion based on wages. "It doesn't add up. We live in a free economy," Wadhwa told Baseline. "If we were sitting in a government-controlled economy it would be one thing, but in a free economy what happens ... when shortages begin to develop is that prices rise and the money compensates for the shortage."
Not sure why you would find it over the top to say that 30k would be cut in all 3 countries. IBM actually laid off more workers than that last year in those locations. They just do it very quietly and without fanfare.
If you are thinking to offset the projected layoffs with all the new hires IBM is touting think again. The new jobs are at near poverty pay levels, and in no way reflect the wages being taken out of the communities where the cuts do take place.
I just haven't received any info from my sources saying that 30,000 in these 3 countries in 1 year is true, which was my point.
Do I believe the US population will continue sliding down? Yes.
One of our sources, even said it on the comments section of the Alliance, that he believed IBM US was working its way to 70,000 employees working at the company in the US in a few years. That's a lot of people and pretty close to the 30,000 number. If IBM keeps cutting 10,000 a year we will be there shortly. Of course we are all guessing at the "real" numbers. There is no doubt though that job cuts WILL happen.
But if these numbers are true employees need to be deeply concerned and angry. We have heard that IBM's job cuts in the US seriously disrupted some accounts. It goes without saying that executive management has their heads up their... if they think more job cuts are the answer.
If we had a union contract and recognition the company would be obliged to tell us the truth.
I remember my shock at hearing that word at the time. Little did I know that 16 years later, I too would be 'sodomized' by IBM. Fascinating, don't you think?
It sounds like Up In The Air is similar? I didn't get that image of the movie at ALL from the trailer on television. I thought it was a happy, yippee movie about air travel, much as lastdino (no surprise there at the mendacity) would have us think. It seems now that I have to make a point to see this movie. Thanks, Kathi.
I remember the 1993 Michael Douglas, "Falling Down". That was the year I left IBM, at 49 years old, and 25 years with the company. Bill Lederer.
The Supreme Court's decision in the hotly anticipated campaign finance reform case Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission -- which may be announced as early as Tuesday -- will show whether a majority of the Roberts court is buying their argument.
The case may be the turning point in a concerted, decades-long ideological campaign -- the "corporate free speech movement," as Robert L. Kerr and other scholars have chronicled. As far back as 1971, Lewis F. Powell Jr. (whom President Nixon would shortly nominate to the Supreme Court) sent a confidential memorandum to his friend Eugene Sydnor Jr. at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce arguing that corporate interests needed to take advantage of a "neglected opportunity in the courts." Because "the judiciary may be the most important instrument for social, economic and political change," the memo said, the chamber and other corporate interests should develop a cadre of constitutional lawyers to file lawsuits and amicus briefs to push a corporate-friendly legal agenda in the Supreme Court.
HP's proxy filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission comes as the company is undergoing a big transformation. With the $13.9 billion acquisition of Electronic Data Systems in 2008, HP is changing into a services powerhouse that competes with IBM Corp. for some of the most lucrative technology deals - long-term contracts for outsourcing and other services that can carry high profit margins.
He also urged government leaders to spend stimulus funds in areas where IBM sells products and services. IBM is increasingly looking to sell or manage computer hardware, software and services to cities, hospitals and other organizations.
Nonetheless, a study conducted for Bloomberg BusinessWeek by Ocean Tomo, a Chicago intellectual property consulting firm, concludes that IBM's collection of U.S. patents over the past five years ranks only eighth in value. No. 1 is Microsoft, which ranked third, with 2,906 patents issued last year. "The arms race approach doesn't pay off," says Mark Chandler, general counsel of Cisco Systems. "It doesn't do you a lot of good just to have a lot of patents." ...
IBM may be shortchanging itself, according to the Ocean Tomo study. To determine the firepower of companies' patent portfolios, the consulting firm analyzed five years of patents awarded to the world's 1,000-largest public companies by revenue. Among the dozens of measuring sticks Ocean Tomo used to judge the significance of a company's breakthroughs were the number of prior patents cited, patent renewal payments, and litigation. In all, Microsoft's portfolio was assessed at 3.3 times that of IBM's. "This is something that IBM people won't accept, but it's accurate nonetheless," says Steve Lee, president of Ocean Tomo's patent-rating division. He says IBM's portfolio includes a large number of service-related patents, which do not command as high a price as the video-game and software patents that heavily weigh in Microsoft's portfolio.
It's the first time in 85 years of IBM in Argentina that the workers will be able to choose their representatives. "We can be part of a new story, different from being mere spectators and victims of authoritarianism on the part of our employers" All workers will be able to vote, whether they are Cepetel affiliates or not, IBM workers or outsourced. "If you want to improve your work conditions, you have to vote; if you believe IBM is not paying you what you deserve, you have to vote", the announcement says.
For more information, check out: http://www.gremiodeinformatica.org.ar/Elecciones-de-Delegados-en-IBM.html
Actually, Europe’s economic success should be obvious even without statistics. For those Americans who have visited Paris: did it look poor and backward? What about Frankfurt or London? You should always bear in mind that when the question is which to believe — official economic statistics or your own lying eyes — the eyes have it. In any case, the statistics confirm what the eyes see.
Insurance companies such as Aetna, Cigna and UnitedHealth Group poured as much as $20 million into the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to fund ads attacking the healthcare bill, according to a report in National Journal. While spending millions in private to oppose the bill, insurance companies adopted publicly neutral stance, perhaps fearing a backlash from Democrats in the White House in Congress. ...
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and 18 Democratic colleagues released a letter calling for the final health bill to include a provision stripping the insurance industry of its exemption. “There is simply no reason for health insurance and medical malpractice insurance companies to be exempt from Federal laws prohibiting price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocation,” the lawmakers wrote. “These acts hurt consumers, drive up health care costs, and should be prohibited in the health insurance industry, as they are in virtually every other industry.” ...
Liberal advocacy groups have also blasted the industry and its trade association, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP). “AHIP has paid lip service to reform while paying the Chamber to oppose it,” said Richard Kirsch, national campaign manager of Health Care for America Now, a coalition of liberal and labor groups. “Insurers rigged and gamed the political system the same way they do with people’s health insurance claims and medical care,” he said “We simply cannot trust the health insurance industry to act in anyone’s best interest but its own.”
Their fears of going without appear justified: 28% of the self-employed were uninsured in 2008, as were a third of workers in businesses with fewer than 25 employees, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. The overall portion of Americans who are uninsured is much lower at about 15%. ...
The status quo is hurting business creation and job mobility, according to research done by Robert Fairlie, an economics professor at the University of California-Santa Cruz. "We're finding reasonably consistent evidence that people who are employed are delaying or not starting a business because of their fear of losing health insurance," he said. ...
"Millions of people are making decisions about whether to fuel our economy as entrepreneurs and create jobs because of health care," he said. "It's so anachronistic for a country and society that prides itself on rolling up our sleeves and individualism why we should have a system that prevents people from doing that in any significant numbers."
The U.S. has among the lowest share of employment in small businesses compared with its international peers, according to a study of internationally comparable data authored by John Schmitt, senior economist with Center for Economic and Policy Research, a nonprofit research group in Washington. "The data don't support the idea that universal health care is bad for small business because almost every country that has universal health care has a demonstrably larger small-business sector than the United States," he said.
J&J also sponsored Omnicare's annual national managers meeting at a Florida resort, spending as much as $50,000 each year from 1999 to 2004, the complaint said. In return, J&J sales managers could play golf with Omnicare managers and talk about why the pharmacy should buy more J&J drugs, the complaint said. The complaint was prompted by whistleblowers Bernard Lisitza and David Kammerer, former Omnicare employees who no longer work at the company, said Mr. Lisitza's lawyer, Michael Behn.
"But dependency on government has never been bad for the rich. The pretense of the laissez-faire people is that only the poor are dependent on government, while the rich take care of themselves. This argument manages to ignore all of modern history, which shows a consistent record of laissez-faire for the poor, but enormous government intervention for the rich." From Economic Justice: The American Class System, from the book Declarations of Independence by Howard Zinn.
What we don’t know will hurt us, and quite possibly on a more devastating scale than any Qaeda attack. Americans must be told the full story of how Wall Street gamed and inflated the housing bubble, made out like bandits, and then left millions of households in ruin. Without that reckoning, there will be no public clamor for serious reform of a financial system that was as cunningly breached as airline security at the Amsterdam airport. And without reform, another massive attack on our economic security is guaranteed. Now that it can count on government bailouts, Wall Street has more incentive than ever to pump up its risks — secure that it can keep the bonanzas while we get stuck with the losses.
The window for change is rapidly closing. Health care, Afghanistan and the terrorism panic may have exhausted Washington’s already limited capacity for heavy lifting, especially in an election year. The White House’s chief economic hand, Lawrence Summers, has repeatedly announced that “everybody agrees that the recession is over” — which is technically true from an economist’s perspective and certainly true on Wall Street, where bailed-out banks are reporting record profits and bonuses. The contrary voices of Americans who have lost pay, jobs, homes and savings are either patronized or drowned out entirely by a political system where the banking lobby rules in both parties and the revolving door between finance and government never stops spinning.
Industry executives acknowledge that the numbers being tossed around — six-, seven- and even eight-figure sums for some chief executives and top producers — will probably stun the many Americans still hurting from the financial collapse and ensuing Great Recession.
Goldman Sachs is expected to pay its employees an average of about $595,000 apiece for 2009, one of the most profitable years in its 141-year history. Workers in the investment bank of JPMorgan Chase stand to collect about $463,000 on average. ...
This year, compensation will again eat up much of Wall Street’s revenue. During the first nine months of 2009, five of the largest banks that received federal aid — Citigroup, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley — together set aside about $90 billion for compensation. That figure includes salaries, benefits and bonuses, but at several companies, bonuses make up more than half of compensation.
The general idea is to devise a levy that would help reduce the budget deficit, which is now at a level not seen since World War II, and would also discourage the kinds of excessive risk-taking among financial institutions that led to a near collapse of Wall Street in 2008, the officials said. But the president also has a political purpose — to respond to the anger building across the country as big banks, having been rescued by the taxpayers, report record profits and begin paying out huge bonuses while millions of Americans remain out of work. ...
Any fee that the president proposes is likely to exempt smaller banks, an official said. Community banks carry particular clout in Congress given their presence in nearly every member’s district. “Those that caused this train wreck ought to be the ones to pay to clean up the mess,” said Stephen J. Verdier, an executive vice president at the Independent Community Bankers of America. “The community bankers are every bit as much the victims as the average taxpayer in all this, so any tax ought to be devised with those principles in mind.”
Let’s be clear, the crisis spawned by banks’ recklessness has cost the country a lot more than $120 billion. Any calculation must also include the deepest recession since the 1930s and the loss of more than seven million jobs. What profits banks have made since then have not come from lending to credit-strapped businesses. They are trading profits made possible by trillions of dollars in cheap financing from the Federal Reserve.
The crisis occurred because banks that had grown too big to fail came too close to failure — driven by a reckless pursuit of risk and profit. Credit froze, and the government was forced to put enormous public resources at their disposal to keep them afloat. Though all that public money has pulled banks back from the brink, some too-big-to-fail banks have since got even bigger by swallowing their weaker brethren. That means, if they get in trouble, they could wreak even greater havoc on the economy. A levy on these financial giants would help by putting a brake on this consolidation — making the largest banks somewhat less profitable and steering investment and other resources into smaller banks, which, if they failed, wouldn’t take the rest of us with them.
Among banks, the stakes could be highest for Goldman Sachs and Mr. Blankfein. His bank has been under intense public fire for its decision to pay out billions of dollars in bonuses to its employees just a year after the firm, as well as others, accepted government money to bolster their balance sheets. In an effort to diffuse the anger, Mr. Blankfein gave a number of interviews and speeches in 2008, although the charm offensive backfired on occasion. In November he told a British-based reporter he is just a banker doing "God's work," a remark that reverberated around the world. Top Goldman advisers spent hours prepping Mr. Blankfein this week.
A number which gives a truer picture of the dire situation for the workers is the so-called official “underemployment” figure. This includes the 15.3 million workers who have looked for a job in the last four weeks and are officially out of a job; the 2.5 million workers who are “marginally attached” to the work force; and 9.2 million workers who are forced to work part-time even though they need a full-time job. Together these figures add up to 27 million workers — or almost one in five workers who are officially unemployed or underemployed!
The surge in bonuses comes barely a year after the government bailed out the U.S. financial system amid the worst economic crisis in generations. This year major U.S. banks and securities firms are poised to pay their employees a record amount in compensation and benefits—about $145.85 billion, according to the Journal's analysis.
And this disaster was entirely self-inflicted. This isn’t like the stagflation of the 1970s, which had a lot to do with soaring oil prices, which were, in turn, the result of political instability in the Middle East. This time we’re in trouble entirely thanks to the dysfunctional nature of our own financial system. Everyone understands this — everyone, it seems, except the financiers themselves. ...
But the truth is that the United States managed to avoid major financial crises for half a century after the Pecora hearings were held and Congress enacted major banking reforms. It was only after we forgot those lessons, and dismantled effective regulation, that our financial system went back to being dangerously unstable. ...
But there was nothing accidental about the crisis. From the late 1970s on, the American financial system, freed by deregulation and a political climate in which greed was presumed to be good, spun ever further out of control. There were ever-greater rewards — bonuses beyond the dreams of avarice — for bankers who could generate big short-term profits. And the way to raise those profits was to pile up ever more debt, both by pushing loans on the public and by taking on ever-higher leverage within the financial industry. ...
Wall Street executives will tell you that the financial-reform bill the House passed last month would cripple the economy with overregulation (it’s actually quite mild). They’ll insist that the tax on bank debt just proposed by the Obama administration is a crude concession to foolish populism. They’ll warn that action to tax or otherwise rein in financial-industry compensation is destructive and unjustified. But what do they know? The answer, as far as I can tell, is: not much.
To put the breathtaking scope of this irresponsibility in perspective, the Bush administration's swing from surpluses to deficits added more debt in its eight years than all the previous administrations in the history of our republic combined. And its spending spree is the unwelcome gift that keeps on giving: Going forward, these unpaid-for policies will continue to add trillions to our deficit.
This fiscal irresponsibility -- and a laissez-faire attitude toward the excesses of the financial industry -- helped create the conditions for the deepest economic catastrophe since the Great Depression. Economists across the political spectrum agreed that to deal with this crisis and avoid a second Great Depression, the government had to make significant investments to keep our economy going and shore up our financial system.
That is why President Obama and Congress crafted the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Despite Rove's assertion, it is widely accepted that the difficult but necessary steps Obama took have helped save our economy from an even deeper disaster. And while Rove conveniently ignores that it was President Bush -- not Obama -- who signed into law the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program bailout for banks, the Obama administration's rigorous stewardship added transparency and accountability that have cut the expected cost of that program by two-thirds.
Vault's IBM Business Consulting Services message board is a popular hangout for IBM BCS employees, including many employees acquired from PwC. Sample posts follow:
We all have to play nice-nice with our GR (global resource) peers. and when your GR team lead sends notes to IBM US mgmt that they need MORE WORK from their US counterparts, IBM mgmt. rolls over and gives them more work. Reminds me of an old CCR song: Fortunate Son.
And when you ask them, how much should we give? Ooh, they only answer more! more! more. What a sad, pathetic, f'ng company.
What's more pathetic is how India is not held accountable since they are Sam's chosen ones and how anyone who reports problems with India are considered anti-team, racist and uncooperative.
The sacred cows over in India aren't cattle, they're the "office boys" pretending to be IT professionals working for IBM. What a sad, pathetic f'ng company indeed.
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.