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—January 16, 2010

• I, Cringely: IBM 2010: Customers in Revolt. By Bob Cringley. Excerpts: For the past 2-3 years I have been a pain to IBM, correctly pointing-out a number of policies and actions by the computer giant that have shown a pattern of disrespect to employees and customers alike. I can’t argue with IBM’s financial performance but I can argue that this performance has come at a cost that is too high for the people of IBM and even for IBM customers, which is why my 2010 prediction for Big Blue is Customers in Revolt.

  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.

• The Greater IBM Connection on LinkedIn: You have an Hour One on One with Sam Palmisano. No handlers, just you and Sam with an open agenda. What would you discuss with him? Selected contributions follow:
  • IBM has taken its eye off the customer and focused on the stockholder, and the result has been a loss in market share and the massive downsizing that started in August 2001; which I was part of. Why? IBM's greatest strength was in the core competencies held by us as consultants. Wouldn't it have been more prudent to change the corporate focus to the consumer and empower each of us to meet their needs with innovation, inventiveness, and vision?
  • I would ask him why they keep firing/resourcing or whatever those who can lead with excellence. I live through many resource actions where they just cut the heart right out of our ability to deliver with quality. Finally just couldn't take it anymore. DE's, Sr Archs, 1 PBC top performers just jettisoned. It didn't make any sense at all. Why Mr. Sam why??
  • I would tell Sam some stories from my personal experiences as an IBM employee who took early retirement after 31 years. I would tell him about the feelings stirred by silver spoons that welcomed the birth of each of my 4 children. I would tell him about the occasion of my father's funeral in a small town in West Virginia, after which I was approached by a representative from the nearest IBM branch office, wishing to express condolences on behalf of IBM. I would thank him for the tuition refund program and the graduate work study program that allowed me to earn degrees in math and computer science while working at IBM. I would tell him of the many friends and colleagues I had while working at IBM, some of whom I'm still in touch with. I would remind him that it was this feeling of loyalty and connectedness that made IBM the great company that it is today, and ask him if these feelings are still being engendered, and if not, why not?
  • I worked for IBM for 27 years. I dedicated my life to IBM and made many personal sacrifices with the promise of lifetime medical and an annuity pension. IBM was built on the basic beliefs established by Thomas Watson and the one fundamental belief that was lost was, 'Respect for the Individual'.

    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...

  • I would tell Sam to pay attention to the Global Pulse Surveys. Happy employees are productive employees. And employees are not happy right now. Fear is the primary motivating factor now, and this works during a recession - but as soon as the world economy improves, IBM will be losing it's most talented staff in droves. I would tell Sam to talk to staff level employees about what they need to become empowered to do their jobs, to bring back the concepts of long term planning, career development, training and respect.
  • I hope that Sam takes a great interest in reading this blog as it provides truthful valuable insight other than his immediate "Go to Swat Team" entourage. There's nothing more priceless than feedback from the ground and frontline troops. Any thoughts Sam ? I would like to tell Sam that changes in company direction (e.g. from customer support to leadership) should mean that existing employees skilled at supporting customer initiatives should be given the time needed to develop the necessary skills for the new world instead of being let go since their skills no longer fit the IBM marketing focus. An employee that was valuable and delivered profits for many years deserves the opportunity to continue to work with the company in these new roles.
  • @jean: IBM has changed completely since your days there. There IS a wonderful world outside of IBM. See it and enjoy it, even while you are still at IBM. Ignore your manager's request to be available 24/7 and complete 70 hours per week of work. Practice true work/life balance on your own terms. Turn off your cell phone after 7pm. Take 48 hours to respond to emails. Take 2 hour lunches and sip wine with old friends. Insist on traveling business class for air trips longer than 8 hours - or don't go. Keep dead fish in your office desk in Armonk. Play by your own rules. Beg, borrow and steal all ideas of others - it's a dog-eat-dog world and every person for themselves. But most importantly, never listen to your manager's advice on career. Your talents and abilities go way beyond what is recognized at IBM.
  • I would ask him if he realizes that people like me are voluntarily leaving IBM because they don't feel valued as employees? I would ask him if he clearly sees what is going on within the company. These people are top performers, with an unbelievable work ethic that would do anything for the company. In many cases, they are long-time employees, like myself with 21+ years. They know what it was like to be valued and rewarded for their work. These people are the core of the business, and built IBM into the respected company it was. To leave is so difficult, but basically, these people really have no other choice since the writing on the wall is so obvious. I would ask him if he realizes that this is going on at IBM, and would like him to explain why this is the case.

    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.

  • I would ask him why he is so disconnected from the field. This is a company that tolerates and, ins some cases, promotes mediocrity. Having come to IBM via an acquisition, my experience at IBM is one that is definitely not a sales culture but more so a Wall-Street driven culture. Its a perfect laboratory for the peter principle. Sorry to burst the bubbles of you career IBM'ers but even your largest competitors still manage to have a sales driven culture.
  • This may sound cold and calculating to many, but it needs to be appreciated (not understood) in order to rationalize the actions of IBM the commercial entity.

    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.

  • Richard: You make excellent points and are exactly correct regarding the goal of the corporation: profits. However, I must disagree that staffing decisions are based on skills inventory. Your comments imply that those with unique skills are valuable is not correct. Skills inventory is not the criteria for being selected for layoff.

    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.

  • I'd discuss the limits to innovation that any company of IBM's size, brand stature, and customer concentration can have. There's not a lot he can do about that, but it sets the stage. I'd then discuss how all the propaganda about being an innovation company rings hollow when these limits are hit. And finally I'd discuss how the above leads to causing the truly innovative risk-taking employees to leave or be laid off... completing the cycle.
  • Ditto to Dan Clark's remarks. And, if IBM is truly global, consider making all job reductions with a global mentality. The balance of talent should be made my skill and not geo. I know people are being resourced in the US because of the ease of doing it here, versus in Canada or Europe or generally elsewhere, regardless of the level of skill. IBM should rethink that model, especially because many jobs do not need to be geographically located.
• The Economic Times (India): IBM to scale up India BPO operations; plans to hire 5,000. Excerpts: Betting big on the India story, global IT giant IBM plans to scale up its BPO operations in the country and would hire 5,000 staff. "We plan to focus more in the services sector by opening more BPO centres in India. We would recruit at least 5,000 people to support this expansion," IBM Poland's senior advisory consultant, Selby Mascarenhas, said in New Delhi. ...

  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.

• Romsey Advertiser (United Kingdom): MPs unite to challenge IBM pension changes. Excerpts: Four south Hampshire MPs have backed a Commons motion challenging IBM on its retirement plans. Nearly 100 MPs from all parties have now signed up to the parliamentary motion calling on the US technology giant to protect the pension benefits of its employees. They include the Eastleigh MP, Chris Huhne; Romsey MP, Sandra Gidley; Winchester MP, Mark Oaten; and Gosport MP, Peter Viggers. It comes after mounting concern by IBM employees at Hursley. ...

  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.

• BBC: Debate on the IBM pension scheme. Excerpt: Liberal Democrat MP Sandra Gidley led a debate in Westminster Hall on 13 January 2010 on IBM's pension scheme. The computer giant announced last July it was consulting on the closure of its final salary pension scheme to existing members of its UK workforce. Ms Gidley said the firm announced the change - which will affect more than a quarter of IBM's 20,000 UK staff - "out of the blue". The Hampshire MP said long-serving employees felt the government was offering them no protection against IBM's "bully boy tactics". Work and Pensions Minister Angela Eagle said the issue remained a matter for IBM, but added that she was sympathetic to members of the firm's pension scheme. Ms Eagle said she hoped IBM's board would take note of the anger and worry the decision had caused many of its employees.
• InformationWeek: Exclusive: IBM Reorganizes Software Group. By Doug Henschen. Excerpts: IBM's Software Group has reorganized its vast portfolio and more than 50,000 employees into two units: Software Solutions Group and Software Middleware Group. In the process it has promoted two executives and reassigned long-time executive Ambuj Goyal. The Software Group realignment was outlined in memo sent out this morning by senior vice president and group executive Steve Mills. A copy of the memo was obtained by Intelligent Enterprise. IBM declined to comment on the moves, but a source inside the company confirmed the memo's authenticity.
• BizCovering: Ibm Management Initiated Separation Rule for The Day in 2010. Excerpts: Oh yea of little faith looking to stick your heads in the sand, looking for any shred of hope about how IBM operates, those of you who would like to believe that IBM has ethics – you need a check up from the neck up. Some have asked for confirmation of what this site has been saying while most others agree strenuously with the predictions. For you doubting Thomas’s one case in point:

  “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.”

• Yahoo! IBM Employee Issues message board: "Re: Smart Play - Barron's article" by "madinpok". Full excerpt: What you are describing is normal. In my group, the PBC projection process starts around the end of January. The funny part is that most of the employees haven't even written their PBC objectives yet and the managers are determining how they will be rated on those objectives. And if an employee actually does better than expected, it is VERY difficult for a manager to increase their rating. The whole PBC process is a big joke. Except for that fact that they may fire you based on what you get.
• Yahoo! IBM Employee Issues message board: "Re: Smart Play - Barron's article" by "lastdino1". Full excerpt: This is not new news. The only exception is that the ranking is done before the PBC number is assigned. Managers do the ranking in late Dec or early Jan and do a roll up to the 2nd line. They fight out who is ranked where and the 2nd line makes some changes based on either ass kissers or super performers. Once the ranking is done they get the PBC distribution from HR. Usually 3% 1's and 5% 3's. The 2 and 2+ people are split at 70/30. They still use the Jack Welch model of turning over (firing) the bottom 3-5%. Also back in the late 90's the management team started to become a younger group because some of the older managers were having problems in having to fire seasoned vets. The best bet is to learn to manage your 1st and 2nd level mgr if you want to stay in the game. Some call it ass kissin so name your poison. Life's a bitch and then you retire.
• Yahoo! IBM Employee Issues message board: "Re: Smart Play - Barron's article" by Michael Nalasco. Full excerpt: I agree, ibm still has a large older work force that is trying to hang on until they can retire. That is why ibm still uses the outdated and totally unfair PBC program and the RA system. Think of ibm as a sniper in a tree weeding out the older (i.e. higher paid) employees who are like sheep in a field. Each sheep tries to hide and thinks they will not be picked off, until it happens. It is a shame that the sheep don't turn into Lions and unionize. There will be a time, in the no so far future, where the older, Watson style era employees will retire, and the newer, less dedicated employees will see that, PBC's, RA's and other unfair ibm practices are draconian, and simply leave big crappy blue.

  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.

• Yahoo! IBM Employee Issues message board: "Re: Smart Play - Barron's article" by Michael Nalasco. Full excerpt: I was a guest in a unit meeting in February of 09 and the manager actually put up a chart with the bell curve for PBC ratings. 10% ONES, 70% TWO and TWO PLUS and 15% THREE. Can't make it clearer than that. So, if your unit was absolutely superior you would still have a number of THREES.
• Yahoo! IBM Employee Issues message board: "Re: Smart Play - Barron's article" by "blueserv". Full excerpt: There's nothing inherently wrong with the PBC model that IBM has chosen. The politics of any Performance Management/Review system are always going to play favorites; it's just human nature. The trouble is that IBM misuses the process as a weapon to threaten/beat employees with, instead of as a tool for improvement/motivation.

  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.

• Yahoo! IBM Employee Issues message board: "Re: Smart Play - Barron's article" by "zimowski". Full excerpt: Can't say that my performance ratings changed very much following the introduction of the PBC system - they were just as subjective as ever, but what infuriated me was the fact that it became my responsibility to write the summary of my accomplishments for the year. To me this always seemed like a huge delegation of responsibility and work from management to non-managerial employees, with little benefit to the employees. I'm sure that I attributed too much value to this task, but it helped me understand that the ratings I received were, to a large degree, predetermined. Never did quite understand what my manager(s) did with all the time they saved.
• Yahoo! IBM Employee Issues message board: "Re: Smart Play - Barron's article" by "nyjints5". Full excerpt: I thought it was ridiculous that I had to write a summary of my accomplishments for the year in my PBC. Especially since my manager usually ignored what I had written, and wrote his/her own evaluation of my performance instead. Nothing I wrote about with regard to what I had done was ever used in determining my rating. Also, I agree, everybody's rating had been pre-determined anyway, long before a final PBC was submitted. Would someone please explain to me how any of the above is fair and equitable treatment of IBM's employees?
• Yahoo! IBM Employee Issues message board: "Re: Smart Play - Barron's article" by "nyjints5". Full excerpt: IBM used to say they only hired the best from a very large pool of candidates. That was one of the reasons that the attrition rate was very low. I can only surmise that IBM's hiring practices have gone down the tubes if they have to fire so many people each and every year.

  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 Register (United Kingdom): IBM software: big, blue and boring in the 2010s. By Austin Modine. Excerpts: IBM's vision for software ain't what it used to be. Biggie Blue's venerable software biz will doubtlessly roll right along into the new decade - make no mistake - but where's the drive and risk taking that made the company actually cool back 10 years ago? One can't help but feel IBM software is settling back into the legendary dullness that became its hallmark when reading this interview with the man at the helm of IBM software - senior vice president Steve Mills, speaking about how IBM is looking at the technology landscape in 2010 and beyond. Here's the highlight reel: IBM software will keep on trucking with it's Smarter Planet software, follow right along with the industry in cloud computing, and fill in the gaps where necessary.
• eWeek: Tech Worker Shortage, H-1B System Challenged. By Don E. Sears. Excerpts: The report, entitled "Gaming the System: Guest Worker Visa Programs and Professional and Technical Workers in the U.S.," pokes holes in guest worker programs and sheds light on the core issue of wage reduction for technical professionals in the United States and expansion of guest workers into newer fields such as health care and education. The report touches on the oft-cited abuse and mistreatment of guest workers from foreign countries, as well as closely examining near-stagnant wages for U.S. workers and H-1B visa holders.

  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."

• ChannelWeb: Five Notable Tech Layoffs Of 2009. By Jennifer Bosavage. Excerpt: #1. IBM. In 2009, IBM lost approximately 10,000 workers, according to various published reports. That number included roughly 4,500 people at IBM's Global Business Services unit and an additional 1,600 positions in its applications services business. Some of those positions were outsourced, while others were lost due to restructuring. The company did announce it was hiring 500 customer service call center workers in Boulder, Colo. -- over the next five years. In addition, those annual job salaries will range from $23,000 to $38,000 -- considered low for the tony Colorado region.
• Yahoo! IBM Employee Issues message board: "Re: Ibm Triples Us, Canadian and Uk Layoffs in 2010" by "beentherehavetheshirt". Full excerpt: Hate to burst the common sense bubble here, but the numbers you see are probably closer than you want to consider. The numbers for first quarter are coming out now, pretty much in keeping with tripling last years. Remember, IBM does not have to report the contractor employees they layoff. Given that IBM has been forcing the hiring of contractors for many years now they could virtually strip the rest of their employee force in CA, US, and the UK while giving the appearance of making a much lesser gouge.

  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.

• Yahoo! IBM Employee Issues message board: "Re: Ibm Triples Us, Canadian and Uk Layoffs in 2010" by Lee Conrad, President of the Alliance@IBM. Full excerpt: OK, let's break this down a bit. There are about 18,000 employees in Canada, about 20,000 in the UK and 105,000 in the US. Given an equal split then Canada and the UK would lose half their employees this year. The US would see cuts similar to 2009, which is probable.

  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.

• Yahoo! IBM Pension and Retirement Issues message board: "Up In the Air" by Kathi Cooper. Full excerpt: OK class, your assignment for this week is to go see Up In the Air starring George Clooney. In lieu of a book report, we can discuss the social ramifications after you get home from the movies. Kathi
• Yahoo! IBM Pension and Retirement Issues message board: "Re: Up In the Air" by "ignatz713". Full excerpt: Kathi, I haven't seen this movie yet, but do you remember the movie Falling Down with Michael Douglas? He played a man whose life was ruined by the company for which he worked and he got even, in his own way. It was made in 1993, interestingly the TFL years. In this movie, Michael Douglas met a man on the Staten Island ferry, and this man shared with Douglas's character that he had just been 'sodomized' (aka FIRED) by IBM.

  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.

• Yahoo! IBM Pension and Retirement Issues message board: "Re: Up In the Air" by Kathi Cooper. Full excerpt: Did you catch the line (something like) "If IBM can fire people over a T1 line, so can we, and save money too!" The researchers on this script deserve an Oscar of their own. Kathi
• Yahoo! IBM Pension and Retirement Issues message board: "Re: Up In the Air" by "north99manverm". Full excerpt: It is nothing like "falling down". In "up in the air" the fired people are really part of the scenery or set. The focus of the movie is on george clooney, the guy who does the firing and basically has no emotional attachment to anything or anyone other than his road warrior life style and his miles. It is notable that he has no problem dealing with the boredom of solo travel. He flies in, does his thing, flies out. The shots of the fired people are just there to show that their pain affects him not at all.
• Yahoo! IBM Pension and Retirement Issues message board: "Re: Up In the Air" by Bill Lederer. Full excerpt: I saw the movie last week. It brought back a lot of memories of my travels on IBM's dime. As a Buyer for the East Fishkill plant, I did quite a lot of traveling. It was rather nice always flying Business Class, (for more than two time zones). Remember the travel to Japan? You got to spend two days in Hawaii, to make up the "jet lag". All the first class hotels and steak dinners. Then I worked for two years, (1990-1992), teaching for the IBM Quality Institute, out of Thornwood. I spent almost all my time on the road, traveling almost 80,000 miles in a two year period. I traveled exclusively on American Airlines. I collected a pile of Frequent flyer miles and they gave me a bunch of First Class upgrades. Then there was all the Marriott rewards. I took my wife on a lot of nice trips.

  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.

• Yahoo! IBM Pension and Retirement Issues message board: "Re: Up In the Air" by Jim Askew. Full excerpt: Um, as someone who is "always on the road for big blue" I can assure you that traveling for the company today is *nothing* like what you encountered in the 80's and early 90's. For example, economy class travel is now required for *any* flight, even 16 hour flights to Asia. And, although you'll sometimes get into a Marriott, IBM's preferred chains are Holiday Inn Express and Hampton Inn. Rental cars are now "B" class...think Ford Focus or smaller. Requiring employees to rent "B" class cars instead of "C" class (typically a Toyota Corolla) saves the company one big fat dollar a day. That shows you how much the company values its current employees! We're not worth a dollar a day to drive a safe car.
• Los Angeles Times opinion: Giving corporations an outsized voice in elections. Voters stand to lose out if the Supreme Court treats political spending by businesses and other big-money players as protected speech. By Monica Youn. Excerpts: Corporations are pitching a bizarre product -- a radical vision of the 1st Amendment. It would give corporations rather than voters a central role in our electoral process by treating corporate political spending as protected speech. If this vision becomes reality, businesses and other big-money players will spend billions either hyping their preferred candidates or running attack ads against elected officials who don't support their preferred agenda. Voters will be forced into a couch-potato role, mere viewers of the electoral spectacle bought and paid for by wealthy companies.

  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.

• Associated Press, courtesy of Forbes: Hewlett-Packard CEO got $24M pay package for 2009. By Jordan Robinson. Excerpts: Hewlett-Packard Co. CEO Mark Hurd got a pay package in latest fiscal year the company valued at $24.2 million, according to an analysis of a company filing Tuesday. The package represents a 29 percent drop from the year before, partly because Hurd got a much smaller bonus as HP battled a tough year in which technology budgets were devastated, and the company's revenue and profit fell. ...

  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.

• Wall Street Journal: IBM Chief Cites Limits of Resources. By Paul Glader. Excerpts: The world economy "has stabilized somewhat" but resource constraints will linger, International Business Machines Corp. Chief Executive Samuel Palmisano said in a London speech to business and government leaders. "Stimulus programs are making an impact, but they cannot and should not last forever," said Mr. Palmisano, according to a copy of the speech provided to The Wall Street Journal. "In fact, for the foreseeable future, we will be faced with addressing many pressing global issues with less, rather than more, resources."

  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.

• BusinessWeek: IBM May Not Be the Patent King After All. IBM wins more U.S. patents than any other company, but Microsoft's are worth much more money, says a study conducted for Bloomberg BusinessWeek. By Steve LeVine. Excerpts: No one beats IBM on patents. For 17 years running, Big Blue has been granted more U.S. patents than any other applicant, raking in an ­unprecedented 4,914 in 2009. That tally is more than the number of patents granted last year to Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, Oracle, Apple, Accenture, and Google combined. IBM's worldwide portfolio now covers more than 40,000 inventions for everything from microprocessors for video games to the ­erasable read-write CD.

  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.