Welcome to IBM Employee News and Links

New on the Alliance@IBM Site

• To Alliance@IBM supporters: The Alliance is the only organization that advocates and supports IBM employees and ex-employees. In fact, there are few like it in the Information Technology field. It is always difficult to keep an organization like this alive, but as a supporter you know how important it is that we exist. We are calling on you today to help keep us alive another year by joining as a member or associate member. See our online forms below. As our membership has dropped, it is imperative that we gain new members or this organization and web site will cease to exist. Help us keep our organizing and advocacy work alive!
• General Visitor Comments: Due to a lack of membership growth the comment sections will be closed until we see sufficient growth in full membership, associate membership or donations. Many of you that visit our site have not yet joined, but seem to value its existence. The only comment section that will remain open will be Job Cuts Reports. If you have information that you want the Alliance to know about please send to ibmunionalliance@gmail.com. Information of importance will be put on the front page of this web site. To join go here: Join The Alliance! or here: Join The Alliance!
• Job Cut Reports
  • Comment 7/27/10: People are walking away, as I did last month after 10 years of BS. With all due respect to the Alliance, many of us have given up on changing Big Blue, because they have clearly given up on us. There's a time to cut your losses and leave, and for a lot of us that time is now. -So Long-
  • Comment 7/28/10: With regards to the IBM/State of Texas (SOT) contract -- I worked that contract for 1 year. I worked an average of 58 hours per week and that was not enough. I was told unless I was working at least 60 hours per week, I could not complain. The equipment the State has is ancient (11 year old tape libraries, 9 year old backup servers, etc), the equipment often is not under maintenance contract (SOT says IBM is responsible, IBM says SOT). Shortly before I left, the work was being transferred to Boulder without the state's knowledge. The state caught on and demanded IBM stop - IBM didn't. They started RA'ing the Texas people and replacing with Boulder ppl. The FTE sizing for the team I worked with was over 120 people, there were less than 40 when I joined the team. That account was living hell and I was told that was the "new IBM." I was offered another position by my 2nd line manager, with the understanding that I could not move to Boulder. I was told the new position was not transferring. I was RA'ed in 6 months after leaving SOT because my new job was -- you guessed it -- being transferred to Boulder and I couldn't/wouldn't move. -Former SOT'er-
  • Comment 7/28/10: soter Same thing happened to me on the Texas contract. I did not move to Boulder and I too was RAed -ana-
  • Comment 7/29/10: Regarding State of Texas, I know of at least 4 project managers who worked on the contract for years 1, 2 who were removed from contract without notice to Texas and then RA'd. I heard IBM has been pulling off resources like crazy last six months leaving no account experienced managers to provide communications, oversight or direction. They do not even acknowledge STOT's complaints on all of the above. They sky has fallen! Similar to JP Morgan Chase debacle (and that leader is being primed to be new CEO-hah!). IBM screws its biggest customers! WOW! -ohcrap-
  • Comment 7/29/10: In Response to -Former SOT'er- SOT and all others account are experience the same situation. IBM new method is moving all job to "GDF" location for Global Delivery Framework without the knowledge or will not tell the customer/client they are moving. GDF site has been identify such as Boulder, Fishkill, and Dubuque Iowa where people are willing to work for less and have no experience what so ever in the field. They can hired anyone off the street and work on the customer/client account. SOT probably find out about the job moving and cannot stop IBM and only time until all IBM customer/client find out all the support are moving to GDF site offer less technical support on their product or environment. I have been RA and my job are being move to Dubuque Iowa and the so called replacement are new to the field and support the customer/client without the customer knowledge of where the support coming from. -Ben-

News and Opinion Concerning Health Savings Accounts, Medical Costs and Health Care Reform

News and Opinion Concerning the U.S. Financial Crisis

"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.

• New York Times opinion: Wall Street Still Doesn’t Have a Sheriff. By Richard C. Sauer. Excerpt: The question of how best to discipline what Chief Justice John Marshall in 1819 called “an artificial being, invisible, intangible and existing only in contemplation of law” is indeed vexing. A corporation can’t be put in jail, its fines are ultimately paid by investors not responsible for the misconduct, and a court order forbidding future violations merely shelves the issue until the next occurrence.
• New York Times editorial: Bankers’ Pay. Excerpt: In 2009, there was a lot of talk about reasonable limits on bankers’ compensation, after some breathtakingly risky lending almost crippled the financial system. A czar was appointed. Politicians said the bankers had better not use their bailouts for bonuses. Well, they did.

  Financial institutions got most of their bailouts in late 2008 and early 2009. A report issued Friday by the White House pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg, showed that by Feb. 17, 2009, when Congress established tighter pay standards, 17 banks — including Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America — had paid out $1.6 billion in bonuses, golden parachutes, retention awards and the like. One handed out bonuses equivalent to one-quarter of its bailout.

• Huffington Post: Why Congress Must End Bush Tax Breaks for the Rich. By Robert Creamer. Excerpts: President Obama has proposed to eliminate the massive deficit-busting Bush tax breaks for the top 2 percent of Americans -- while maintaining tax cuts for 95 percent of Americans. He is spot on. The Bush tax breaks are set to expire at year's end, so there is real pressure on Congress to act. Congress should maintain the cuts for individuals earning $200,000 or less, and families earning $250,000 or less. And it should restore the Clinton-era tax rates to the very rich.

  It is the right thing to do economically, politically and morally.

  First the economics. When it comes to creating jobs, the last people who need more money in their hands are the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans.

  The Republicans charge that eliminating these tax breaks on the rich -- and returning them to Clinton-era levels -- would be a "job-killing tax hike in the midst of a recession." Let's recall that while the Clinton-era tax rates applied to the rich in the 1990's, the economy created more than 22.5 million jobs in less than eight years -- the most jobs ever created under a single administration. Moreover, the Federal deficit had turned into a surplus for as long as the eye could see. The number of private sector jobs created during the Bush years: zero. The Republican position amounts to nothing more than baseless pandering to the greed of their many wealthy donors. ...

  For three decades -- from Ronald Reagan through George W. Bush -- the American right wing peddled the notion that by transferring more money to the wealthiest among us, we would entice them to invest more and that the economy would grow. That was the fundamental premise of "supply side economics." In fact, of course, "supply side economics" was really a rationale for why rich people should be richer still.

  The "supply side experiment" turned out to be a colossal failure. For eight years, George W. Bush applied the theory in its purest form: increase tax breaks to the rich, eliminate regulations on Big Oil, insurance companies and Wall Street.

  The results are there for everyone to see.

  The New York Times reported last year that, "For the first time since the Depression, the American economy has added virtually no jobs in the private sector over a 10-year period. The total number of jobs has grown a bit, but that is only because of government hiring." In fact, since George Bush and the Republicans in Congress passed two massive tax cuts, we have seen a massive, secular decline in the creation of private sector jobs. ...

  Turns out that when they were given all of those tax cuts, the top two percent of the population used them to speculate in exotic derivatives, to drive up the prices of high-end real estate, pay exorbitant prices to the designers of $4,000 blouses and $2,000 shoes. There is absolutely no evidence that they made any more investments in new manufacturing plants, or started up any more businesses than they would have had they paid the same tax rates that they did when Ronald Reagan took office and private sector job growth was 3% per year.

• Huffington Post: Fear Factor: What's Keeping the President From Picking the Best Person to Protect Consumers? By Arianna Huffington. Excerpts: On Monday, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs lauded Elizabeth Warren as "a terrific candidate" to lead the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: "I don't think any criticism in any way by anybody would disqualify her." So why isn't the White House rushing to nominate her for the position? In a word: fear. The same fear-based approach that caused the administration to throw Shirley Sherrod under the bus before her name had even been uttered on Fox News is once again rearing its head in the decision-making process over Warren.

  This time, it's not the ire of Glenn Beck that has Team Obama's backbone turning to mush -- it's the fear of angering the bankers by appointing a consumer advocate who might actually advocate for consumers (the same consumers who, in their role as taxpayers, have spent hundreds of billions bailing the bankers out). According to the National Journal, the banking industry "privately grumbles that Warren would be their least favorite candidate to head the agency." Or, as Floyd Norris put it in the New York Times, "whether or not she is named to run the bureau may depend on how willing the president is to anger the banks."

• Washington Post op-ed: The job machine grinds to a halt. By Harold Meyerson. Excerpts: Ain't no hiring. And ain't likely to be any for a good long time. The problem isn't merely the greatest downturn since the Great Depression. It's also that big business has found a way to make big money without restoring the jobs it cut the past two years, or increasing its investments or even its sales, at least domestically.

  In the mildly halcyon days before the 2008 crash, the one economic outlier was wages. Profit, revenue and GDP all increased; only ordinary Americans' incomes lagged behind. Today, wages are still down, employment remains low and sales revenue isn't up much, either. But profits are the outlier. They're positively soaring. Among the 175 companies in the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index that have released their second-quarter reports, the New York Times reported Sunday, revenue rose by a tidy 6.9 percent, but profits soared by a stunning 42.3 percent. Profits, that is, are increasing seven times faster than revenue. The mind, as it should, boggles. ...

  What won't work as an economic solution -- indeed, it amounts to cruel and unusual punishment -- is blaming the unemployed for their failure to find jobs. There are now roughly five unemployed Americans for every open job, according to the Economic Policy Institute's most recent calculations, and that ratio isn't likely to decline much if we leave it to the corporate sector to resume hiring. Corporations have figured out a way to make money without resuming hiring. Their model is premised on not resuming hiring. If the public sector doesn't fill the gap, the era of American prosperity is history.

• Huffington Post: Reality Check. By Robert L. Borosage. Excerpts: More than half of all workers have experienced a spell of unemployment, taken a cut in pay or hours or been forced to go part-time. The typical unemployed worker has been jobless for nearly six months. Collapsing share and house prices have destroyed a fifth of the wealth of the average household. Nearly six in ten Americans have cancelled or cut back on holidays. About a fifth say their mortgages are underwater. One in four of those between 18 and 29 have moved back in with their parents. Fewer than half of all adults expect their children to have a higher standard of living than theirs, and more than a quarter say it will be lower.. for many Americans the great recession has been the sharpest trauma since the second world war, wiping out jobs, wealth and hope itself.

  Stop and consider the implications. Then add the fact that continuing high levels of unemployment are now the consensus forecast. Long term unemployment will remain at record levels. In the US, where we provide only temporary support for the unemployed, this is a social catastrophe. Families break apart; drugs and despair increases; community institutions decline; domestic violence, racial and anti-immigrant hostility soar. The young graduating into this economy are likely to fare worse throughout their work lives.

  In this context, the Washington debate seems particularly puerile. The business and financial elites are rolling out an attack on Obama as anti-business, accusing him of demonizing corporations. Given Obama's preternatural equanimity, the charge is risible. And utterly dishonest. (See for example, Paul Krugman's takedown of the latest screed by real estate mogul Mort Zuckerman, who Breitbarted an Obama quote, utterly distorting it to make his point.)

  Republicans have returned to their supply side fantasies, arguing that top end tax cuts won't add to deficits, while filibustering against unemployment insurance and any jobs program. But we tried it their way in the Bush years. Deficit spending driven by top end tax cuts and wars produced a bubble economy, scarred by no jobs growth, stagnant wages, growing inequality, growing debt, and borrowing of $2 billion a day from abroad, largely from Chinese central bankers. And that was before the bubble burst. Surely, they have to offer something different.

• Jim Hightower: Wall Street's "Mom & Pop" Bankers. Full excerpt: Don't cry for Jamie Dimon, America. As CEO of JPMorgan Chase, this ruling mogul of Wall Street must now cope with the recently-enacted financial reform bill, which imposes a host of new regulations meant to rein in the rip-offs, frauds, and other excesses of Wall Street bankers.

  Republican lawmakers, however, are crying that the Democrats' reform bill puts a crushing burden on the poor financial giants. While these Wall Street apologists wail and keen, though, slick operators like Dimon are wasting no time on tears. Instead, they're devising ways to slip out of the new regulatory reins. For example, the law limits the outrageous overdraft fees that banks have been sneaking onto our debit card accounts. No problem – the giants are quietly imposing new "maintenance fees" for basic checking accounts. Forget receiving a free toaster for opening an account, banks now hit you with up to $15 a month just for the privilege of putting your money in their bank.

  Dimon insists that this is necessary: "If you're a restaurant and you can't charge for the soda, you're going to charge more for the burger," he lectures.

  Come on, Jamie, drop the mom & pop pose. You're not a little restaurant struggling to make ends meet – you head a monopolistic financial behemoth that helped ruin the economy for America's moms & pops, then took billions in taxpayer bailouts, used the crisis to increase its monopoly power, continues to get federally-subsidized money, just announced a 78-percent hike in profits, and recently paid you a salary and bonus of $18 million.

  The Dimons of Wall Street keep picking our pockets because they believe they're entitled to excessive profits and paychecks. To help bring these greedheads down to Earth, visit Americans for Financial Reform: www.ourfinancialsecurity.org.

• Jim Hightower: Goldman's Golden Deal. Full excerpt: That'll teach 'em, won't it? The SEC, Wall Street's top regulator, has whacked the mighty Goldman Sachs with one of the largest penalties in financial history. The high-strutting banking conglomerate will pay more than half-a-billion bucks for selling a complex investment scheme that was designed to fail. "This settlement is a stark lesson to Wall Street firms," a stern SEC official stated. They will pay "a heavy price," he warned, if they violate "the fundamental principles of honest treatment and fair dealing."

  Atta boy – go get those self-serving, narcissistic banksters!

  But, wait – on the day that SEC officials imposed this supposed "humbling" penalty, Goldman's stock price went up by five percent. Far from being deterred by the penalty, high-rolling speculators saw it as a vindication of Wall Street's casino ethic. "It looks like a big win for Goldman," gloated one financial analyst, adding that SEC's $550 million assessment "seems like a paltry sum."

  Now, I could never put "$550 million" and "paltry" in the same sentence, but if you do the Wall Street math, you can see his logic. Goldman hauls in half-a-billion dollars in profit every 15 days. In fact, that one-day five-percent boost that Goldman got in its stock price added far more than $550 million to its market value – so the giant actually made money off the deal!

  What we have here is not punishment, but blatant political favoritism for the most politically-connected bank in our country. Goldman Sachs is not merely a huge bank, but a longtime inside-Washington player that literally helps bend the regulator rules for its personal gain. To help push structural reforms that really can restore "fair dealing" to our financial system, contact Americans for Financial Reform: www.ourfinancialsecurity.org.

• Jim Hightower: Why Are Wall Street Bankers Grinning? Full excerpt: Banker greed is like ugly on a toad – it can't simply be rinsed off, no matter how much regulatory soap you use.

  Congress has now enacted new rules to govern America's huge banks, thus completing Washington's response to the unbridled Wall Street greed that crashed the financial system and crushed our economy. The regulatory reforms were hailed by Democrats as possessing powerful cleansing power, while Republicans wailed that the new rules were overly caustic, imposing such a heavy-handed governmental scrub that the delicate layers of Wall Street innovation and profitability will be rubbed away.

  Meanwhile, big bankers are grinning from ear to ear, for the bill requires no restructuring and decentralizing of the monopolistic grip that these giants have on America's credit system. Thus, they still retain the power to rip off consumers, gamble with depositors' money, haul in exorbitant profits, and pay themselves ungodly bonuses – all while remaining "too big to fail."

  Yes, the banking barons now have to adjust to stricter regulations, many of which are good and long overdue. But these guys are experts at slipping out of governmental leashes. JPMorgan Chase, for example, had 90 "project teams" plotting end runs around the regulations even before they were passed. Take electronic derivative trades, the casino game that caused the Wall Street implosion. Rather than outright banning them as an intolerable threat to our economy, Congress' bill attaches a bunch of strings to the game, hoping to tie it down. But JPMorgan alone has long had more than 100 of its derivative traders and other casino technicians scheming to untie the strings – so you can bet they'll keep their game going.

  They won't stop gaming the system until we fundamentally restructure Wall Street. The way you'll know that real reform has come is that the bankers will have those grins wiped off their faces.

• Washington Post op-ed: In American politics, stupidity is the name of the game. By E.J. Dionne Jr. Excerpts: Can a nation remain a superpower if its internal politics are incorrigibly stupid? Start with taxes. In every other serious democracy, conservative political parties feel at least some obligation to match their tax policies with their spending plans. David Cameron, the new Conservative prime minister in Britain, is a leading example.

  He recently offered a rather brutal budget that includes severe cutbacks. I have doubts about some of them, but at least Cameron cared enough about reducing his country's deficit that alongside the cuts he also proposed an increase in the value-added tax, from 17.5 percent to 20 percent. Imagine: a fiscal conservative who really is a fiscal conservative.

  That could never happen here because the fairy tale of supply-side economics insists that taxes are always too high, especially on the rich.

  This is why Democrats will be fools if they don't try to turn the Republicans' refusal to raise taxes on families earning more than $250,000 a year into an election issue. If Democrats go into a headlong retreat on this, they will have no standing to govern. The simple truth is that the wealthy in the United States -- the people who have made almost all the income gains in recent years -- are undertaxed compared with everyone else. ...

  The other, from February, used Internal Revenue Service data to show that the effective federal income tax rate for the 400 taxpayers with the very highest incomes declined by nearly half in just over a decade, even as their pre-tax incomes have grown five times larger.

  The study found that the top 400 households "paid 16.6 percent of their income in federal individual income taxes in 2007, down from 30 percent in 1995." We are talking here about truly rich people. Using 2007 dollars, it took an adjusted gross income of at least $35 million to make the top 400 in 1992, and $139 million in 2007.

  The notion that when we are fighting two wars, we're not supposed to consider raising taxes on such Americans is one sign of a country that's no longer serious. Why do so few foreign policy hawks acknowledge that if they lack the gumption to ask taxpayers to finance the projection of American military power, we won't be able to project it in the long run? And if we are unwilling to have a full-scale debate over whether nation-building abroad is getting in the way of nation-building at home, we will accomplish neither. ...

  I'm a chronic optimist about America. But we are letting stupid politics, irrational ideas on fiscal policy and an antiquated political structure undermine our power. We need a new conservatism in our country that is worthy of the name. We need liberals willing to speak out on the threat our daft politics poses to our influence in the world. We need moderates who do more than stick their fingers in the wind to calculate the halfway point between two political poles. And, yes, we need to reform a Senate that has become an embarrassment to our democratic claims.