Welcome to IBM Employee News and Links

“News and links for IBM employees, retirees, ex-employees, and persons interested in pension, retirement, off-shoring and corporate governance issues”—The news you won't see on W3!

Our Friends:

Watching IBM Watching IBM Facebook

Quick Links:

Get involved! Insider trading After IBM Lenovo Employee Discount

Previous highlights:

April 2, 2016 March 26, 2016 March 12, 2016 March 5, 2016 February 27, 2016 February 20, 2016 February 13, 2016 February 6, 2016 January 30, 2016 January 16, 2016 December 26, 2015 December 19, 2015 December 12, 2015 December 5, 2015 November 28, 2015 November 21, 2015 November 14, 2015 November 7, 2015 October 31, 2015 October 24, 2015 October 17, 2015 October 10, 2015 October 3, 2015 September 26, 2015 September 19, 2015 September 12, 2015 August 29, 2015 August 22, 2015 August 15, 2015 August 8, 2015 July 25, 2015 July 25, 2015 July 18, 2015 July 4, 2015 June 27, 2015 June 20, 2015 June 13, 2015 June 6, 2015 May 30, 2015 May 23, 2015 May 16, 2015 May 9, 2015 May 2, 2015 April 25, 2015 April 18, 2015 April 11, 2015 April 4, 2015 March 28, 2015 March 21, 2015 March 14, 2015 March 7, 2015 February 28, 2015 February 21, 2015 February 14, 2015 February 7, 2015 January 31, 2015 January 24, 2015 January 17, 2015 January 10, 2015 January 3, 2015 December 27, 2014 December 20, 2014 December 13, 2014 December 6, 2014 November 29, 2014 November 22, 2014 November 15, 2014 November 8, 2014 November 1, 2014 October 25, 2014 October 18, 2014 October 11, 2014 October 4, 2014 September 27, 2014 September 13, 2014 September 6, 2014 August 30, 2014 August 23, 2014 August 16, 2014 August 9, 2014 August 2, 2014 July 26, 2014 July 19, 2014 July 12, 2014 July 5, 2014 June 28, 2014 June 21, 2014 June 14, 2014 June 7, 2014 May 31, 2014 May 24, 2014 May 17, 2014 May 10, 2014 May 3, 2014 April 26, 2014 April 19, 2014 April 12, 2014 April 5, 2014 March 29, 2014 March 22, 2014 March 15, 2014 March 8, 2014 March 1, 2014 February 22, 2014 February 15, 2014 February 8, 2014 February 1, 2014 January 25, 2014 January 18, 2014 January 11, 2014 January 4, 2014 December 28, 2013 December 21, 2013 December 14, 2013 December 7, 2013 November 30, 2013 November 23, 2013 November 16, 2013 November 9, 2013 November 2, 2013 October 26, 2013 October 19, 2013 October 12, 2013 October 5, 2013 September 28, 2013 September 21, 2013 September 14, 2013 September 7, 2013 August 31, 2013 August 24, 2013 August 17, 2013 August 10, 2013 August 3, 2013 July 27, 2013 July 20, 2013 July 13, 2013 July 6, 2013 June 29, 2013 June 22, 2013 June 15, 2013 June 8, 2013 June 1, 2013 May 25, 2013 May 18, 2013 May 11, 2013 May 4, 2013 April 27, 2013 April 20, 2013 April 13, 2013 April 6, 2013 March 30, 2013 March 23, 2013 March 16, 2013 March 9, 2013 March 2, 2013 February 23, 2013 February 16, 2013 February 9, 2013 February 2, 2013 January 26, 2013 January 19, 2013 January 12, 2013 January 5, 2013 December 29, 2012 December 22, 2012 December 15, 2012 December 8, 2012 December 1, 2012 November 24, 2012 November 17, 2012 November 10, 2012 November 3, 2012 October 27, 2012 October 20, 2012 October 13, 2012 October 6, 2012 September 29, 2012 September 22, 2012 September 15, 2012 September 8, 2012 September 1, 2012 August 25, 2012 August 18, 2012 August 11, 2012 August 4, 2012 July 28, 2012 July 21, 2012 July 14, 2012 July 7, 2012 June 30, 2012 June 23, 2012 June 16, 2012 June 9, 2012 June 2, 2012 May 26, 2012 May 19, 2012 May 12, 2012 May 5, 2012 April 28, 2012 April 21, 2012 April 14, 2012 April 7, 2012 March 31, 2012 March 24, 2012 March 17, 2012 March 10, 2012 March 3, 2012 February 25, 2012 February 18, 2012 February 11, 2012 February 4, 2012 January 28, 2012 January 21, 2012 January 14, 2012 January 7, 2012 December 31, 2011 December 24, 2011 December 17, 2011 December 10, 2011 December 3, 2011 November 26, 2011 November 19, 2011 November 12, 2011 November 5, 2011 October 29, 2011 October 22, 2011 October 15, 2011 October 8, 2011 October 1, 2011 September 24, 2011 September 17, 2011 September 10, 2011 September 3, 2011 August 27, 2011 August 20, 2011 August 13, 2011 August 6, 2011 July 30, 2011 July 23, 2011 July 16, 2011 July 9, 2011 July 2, 2011 June 25, 2011 June 18, 2011 June 11, 2011 June 4, 2011 May 28, 2011 May 21, 2011 May 14, 2011 May 7, 2011 April 30, 2011 April 23, 2011 April 16, 2011 April 9, 2011 April 2, 2011 March 26, 2011 March 19, 2011 March 12, 2011 March 5, 2011 February 26, 2011 February 19, 2011 February 12, 2011 February 5, 2011 January 29, 2011 January 22, 2011 January 15, 2011 January 8, 2011 January 1, 2011 December 25, 2010 December 18, 2010 December 11, 2010 December 4, 2010 November 27, 2010 November 20, 2010 November 13, 2010 November 6, 2010 October 30, 2010 October 23, 2010 October 16, 2010 October 9, 2010 October 2, 2010 September 25, 2010 September 18, 2010 September 11, 2010 September 4, 2010 August 28, 2010 August 21, 2010 August 14, 2010 August 7, 2010 July 31, 2010 July 24, 2010 July 17, 2010 July 10, 2010 July 3, 2010 June 26, 2010 June 19, 2010 June 12, 2010 June 5, 2010 May 29, 2010 May 22, 2010 May 15, 2010 May 8, 2010 May 1, 2010 April 24, 2010 April 17, 2010 April 10, 2010 April 3, 2010 March 27, 2010 March 20, 2010 March 13, 2010 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—September 17, 2011

Retirement Heist:

Throughout the IBM Pension heist, Ellen E. Schultz, a Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reporter with the Wall Street Journal, exposed IBM's and other companies shenanigans that have cost retirees millions and millions of dollars, while enriching corporate executives.

Ms. Schultz has just published a book that every IBMer should read: Retirement Heist: How Companies Plunder and Profit From the Nest Eggs of American Workers. Many IBMers are aware of the "cash balance heist" of 1999. However, IBM has been stealing money from the pension plan dating back to 1991, well before the Gerstner era. Read more...

  • U.S. News & World Reports: Traditional Pensions are Casualties of a Retirement Heist. Companies often say they are freezing their traditional pension plans and eliminating retiree medical benefits to remain competitive with pension-less employers overseas and cope with an aging workforce and stock market losses. But in a shocking new book, Retirement Heist: How Companies Plunder and Profit from the Nest Eggs of American Workers, Wall Street Journal reporter Ellen Schultz explains that pension cuts are actually an accounting maneuver that is being used to boost corporate earnings. The massive retirement liabilities that many companies report are actually caused by unfunded executive pensions and deferred compensation plans, not the pension obligations to ordinary employees, she found. U.S. News asked Schultz to explain why traditional pension plans are really being frozen. Excerpts:

    Why do profitable companies freeze their pension plans or close them to new workers? The retirement crisis was not an accident. The retirement crisis was caused by actions of the companies. They had incredibly overfunded plans and chose to cut benefits and ultimately freeze the plans, even though there was plenty of money in them to pay the benefits. Initially people didn’t understand that the benefits were being cut because companies hid it.

    How is pension plan accounting used to boost shareholder value? Cutting the benefits actually gives companies a boost to profits. It’s an accounting effect. If you promise to pay $100 million to retirees, that’s a debt on the books. If you cancel that debt, then you get to keep the profit. Freezing the plan not only let them keep the money in the plan, but gave them a boost to profits.

    Do companies need to cut retirement benefits to stay competitive? When companies began cutting benefits it wasn’t to remain competitive because the plans had a huge surplus and there was no cost to the company. What they were doing is taking the plan and finding a way to convert some of the assets into a benefit for the company and also to boost their profits. It’s not accurate for them to say they had to do this to remain competitive.

    How are pension plans for ordinary workers and executive compensation related? People have to realize that when companies say their costs are spiraling, maybe it’s the executive’s costs that are spiraling. In many cases the additional pension costs and boost in liability are just because of the executive pensions. The plans for regular workers are tax advantaged and subsidized by taxpayers. If you offer a pension plan, it is supposed to be for everyone more or less. Plans for executives don’t get special tax breaks, but companies have found ways of trying to get the same tax breaks as the plan for regular employees and have found strategies to get money from the regular plan to pay executives. They have been cutting the benefits for the rank and file employees and boosting the pay for the executives.

    If your company has promised you a pension and retiree health benefits, should you count on getting them in retirement? If you do have a pension, companies can cut it going forward, but they cannot take away something you have already earned. Under law that is protected. You also have to be able to recognize that your pension is being cut because it’s easy to present the information in a way that looks as if nothing has changed. You cannot count on a pension being retained going forward. If you’ve been promised retiree medical, in most cases the promises are not enforceable unless you are in a union. A lot of companies will say they will let you continue your health coverage until you are eligible for Medicare, but then later say they can’t afford that and are going to need to charge you a whole lot more than they did. The people who are better protected are those who are in a union and are in a collectively bargained agreement. You really have to be self-reliant. If your company has a pension or retiree medical, you really cannot bet the farm on that. These are things that are under assault and companies are trying to take them away.

  • National Public Radio (NPR)'s Diane Rehm Show: Ellen Schultz: "Retirement Heist" Excerpt: An investigative reporter for The Wall Street Journal reveals how large employers and the retirement industry have boosted corporate profits and executive pay at the expense of retirees' pensions and health benefits.
  • Yahoo! IBM Pension and Retirement Issues message board: "Ellen Schultz - Retirement Heist: How Companies Plunder & Profit" by Kathi Cooper (of Cooper v. IBM). Full excerpt: It was just published. I ordered 2 books. As everyone might remember, Ellen Schultz of the Wall Street Journal was KEY in giving us the publicity we needed to expose and sue IBM for the Pension Heist. Her research exposed the truth, greed, and raping of our pensions behind the IBM curtain.

    And it's not over! Ellen agrees! I suggest you pick up this book and give it a good read, come back here, and we can chew on it together. I bought mine from Amazon. (not an endorsement, just a fact) Thank you Ellen!!!

    Reviews from Amazon:

    • "Ellen Schultz documents the biggest heist in history, all the more horrifying because it is legal. Accounting tricks, perverse tax incentives, and bonus-hungry executives have taken the retirement money American workers have saved over decades. Meticulously researched and as gripping as a crime novel, this is essential reading for anyone who has, had, or hopes to have a job." -Nell Minow, co-founder of The Corporate Library and author of Watching the Watchers: Corporate Governance for the 21st Century
    • "Americans have long been burdened by the overwhelming challenge of saving for retirement, as tax deductions for retirement savings favor the highest income earners and pension coverage erodes. But as an economist investigating the retirement crises I was shocked at Ellen Schultz's exposure of outright lies, manipulations, and pure greed of the employers trusted with our retirement funds. Retirement Heist will help ordinary workers pressure Congress's to enact serious pension reform." -Teresa Ghilarducci, Director of the Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis and author of When I'm Sixty-Four: The Plot Against Pensions and the Plan to Save Them
    • "Retirement Heist takes a provocative look at the unseen corporate forces that have weakened our nation's employer provided retirement benefits. Ellen E. Schultz documents an emerging corporate culture - spurred on by benefit consultants - that places shareholder value and executive compensation above employee retirement security. Retirement Heist shows how the growing retirement insecurity of today is a direct outgrowth of the hidden manipulation of plan benefits for other corporate purposes." -David Certner, Legislative Policy Director for AARP
    • "Retirement Heist uncovers one of the most significant threats to the American worker of our time. Ellen Schultz's reporting is expansive, smart, and will have you shouting for someone to be held accountable. Anybody who works and is worried about their future should read this book." -Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute and author of Can They Do That? Retaking Our Fundamental Rights in the Workplace
    • "The retirement security of millions of Americans hasn't been lost to the recession or the demographics of an aging workforce, it's been stolen-by corporate executives and their consultants, lobbyists, accountants, and lawyers. Retirement Heist is an important book for workers and policymakers that documents how corporate profits and executives' salaries have been inflated at the expense of the middle class." -Jay Feinman, Distinguished Professor, Rutgers University School of Law, Camden and author of Delay, Deny, Defend: Why Insurance Companies Don't Pay Claims and What You Can Do About It.
    • "'As far as I can determine there is only one solution [to the CEO's demand to save more money]', the HR representative wrote to her superiors. 'That would be the death of all existing retirees.'"

      It's no secret that hundreds of companies have been slashing pensions and health coverage earned by millions of retirees. Employers blame an aging workforce, stock market losses, and spiraling costs- what they call "a perfect storm" of external forces that has forced them to take drastic measures.

      But this so-called retirement crisis is no accident. Ellen E. Schultz, award-winning investigative reporter for the Wall Street Journal, reveals how large companies and the retirement industry-benefits consultants, insurance companies, and banks-have all played a huge and hidden role in the death spiral of American pensions and benefits.

      A little over a decade ago, most companies had more than enough set aside to pay the benefits earned by two generations of workers, no matter how long they lived. But by exploiting loopholes, ambiguous regulations, and new accounting rules, companies essentially turned their pension plans into piggy banks, tax shelters, and profit centers.

      Drawing on original analysis of company data, government filings, internal corporate documents, and confidential memos, Schultz uncovers decades of widespread deception during which employers have exaggerated their retiree burdens while lobbying for government handouts, secretly cutting pensions, tricking employees, and misleading shareholders. She reveals how companies:

      • Siphon billions of dollars from their pension plans to finance downsizings and sell the assets in merger deals
      • Overstate the burden of rank-and-file retiree obligations to justify benefits cuts while simultaneously using the savings to inflate executive pay and pensions
      • Hide their growing executive pension liabilities, which at some companies now exceed the liabilities for the regular pension plans
      • Purchase billions of dollars of life insurance on workers and use the policies as informal executive pension funds. When the insured workers and retirees die, the company collects tax-free death benefits
      • Preemptively sue retirees after cutting retiree health benefits and use other legal strategies to erode their legal protections.

      Though the focus is on large companies-which drive the legislative agenda-the same games are being played at smaller companies, non-profits, public pensions plans and retirement systems overseas. Nor is this a partisan issue: employees of all political persuasions and income levels-from managers to miners, pro- football players to pilots-have been slammed.

      Retirement Heist is a scathing and urgent expose of one of the most critical and least understood crises of our time.

  • Yahoo! IBM Employee Issues message board: "How Would Seniors Fare?" by Kathi Cooper. Full excerpt: How Would Seniors Fare – by Age, Gender, Race and Ethnicity, and Income – Under the Bowles-Simpson Social Security Proposals by 2070? Summary: Micro-simulation of future benefits shows how recommendations by Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, co-chairs of the deficit commission appointed by President Obama, would lower Social Security benefits for almost all (92 percent) of seniors entitled to benefits in 2070. The cuts would affect all age and income groups: 88 percent of young elders (ages 62-69) and 97 percent of the oldest (ages 90 and older) are projected to receive lower benefits, as are 81 percent of seniors in the lowest household income quintile, 93 percent of the middle quintile, and 97 percent of the top quintile. Major benefit reductions – of 20 percent or more below the benefits scheduled in current law – are projected to befall about one in three women and one in two men. Slightly more than one in four black and Hispanic elders would experience cuts of 20 percent or more, as would half of all white elders and nearly half (45 percent) of middle income elders. The simulations show how Social Security proposals that rely mainly on benefit cuts to achieve long-term solvency would weaken retirement income security for the children and grandchildren of today's retirees across age, gender, income, and racial and ethnic groups.
  • Yahoo! IBM Employee Issues message board: "Legal minimum time employees must be given to consider a pension buy" by "thekanck". Full excerpt: I hate to bring the topic of an IBM buyout again, but there was an article in the last issue of Kiplingers mag. suggesting that major corporations were "gearing up" to make such offers as a result of the legislation that has been affecting lump sum payout calculations - see http://www.kiplinger.com/magazine/archives/pensions-take-a-lump-sum-or-not.html

    If IBM were to offer such a thing ... is there a minimum amount of time from a legal perspective that employees must be given to consider the offer? I've heard 60 days tossed around ... meaning an announce by Nov. 1st, but no hard facts.

    The NetBenefits pension calculator DOES show a reduction in lump sum value of ~4.5% comparing the values of the lump leaving 12/1/11 vs. 1/1/12.

  • Yahoo! IBM Employee Issues message board: "Re: Legal minimum time employees must be given to consider a pension buy-out?" by "Paul S". Full excerpt: I don't know if there's anyone around from 1999 who actually left rather than get cash-balanced. My discussion with a pension expert led me to believe that there was such a time-interval between announcement of changes, and their implementation. Also the cash balance actually took a jump because of lower-interest rates, so this change brings things back to where they would have been for lump-sum pensions had interest rates (and benchmarks such as corporate bond rates) not gone so low. The pension expert also said they were counseling corporations to not offer lump-sum pensions as they could exhaust pension funds when they are underfunded already.

    Still IBM benefits if they can get many people to take the lump-sum or partial lump sum, because there is less of a future liability, and it's easier to close the plan and sell it to an insurance company or equivalent to administer. It's pointless to worry at any rate... but if you are fully eligible and have not taken your enhanced annuity pension, and especially if you are 60+, I would (if I were over-60 and eligible) start my pension distribution now.

  • Yahoo! IBM Employee Issues message board: "Re: Legal minimum time employees must be given to consider a pension buy-out?" by "thekanck". Full excerpt: Paul: Thanks... I think that legally IBM can not withdraw the lump sum option. Long time back I think I remember reading that a pension "option" once offered can not be retracted. The lump was offered (as I recall) as a result of the 1999 heist, and now must remain too bad for the execs ;-)

    I do understand and agree that if a significant percentage of new retirees elected to take the lump sum it could impair the funds ability to provide for the annuitants.

    This year may be the best time to "run away" as market interest rates are low, and the last salvo in the lump reduction has not yet hit. By 2013 I would expect that "market" interest rates will have to rise...reducing the lump sum.

    I'm wondering if IBM might be planning an early Xmas present.... they sure seem to be interested in cutting salary expense... the contractors are getting beat up badly from what I understand.

  • Yahoo! IBM Employee Issues message board: "Re: Legal minimum time employees must be given to consider a pension buy-out?" by "madinpok". Full excerpt: Here is one document I found that explains the requirements at a high level. Excerpt:
    Several IRS and PBGC filing requirements as well as participant notices much each be timely filed and sent. Primary requirements:
    • PBGC Notice of Intent To Terminate (NOIT) - This informs participants of plan sponsor's intent to terminate plan. It is issued to all affected participants (employees, retirees beneficiaries and labor organizations) at least 60, but not more than 90, days in advance of proposed termination date.
    • IRS Notice to Interested Parties - This informs participants of plan sponsor's intent to file termination with IRS. It is issued to all affected participants (employees, retirees beneficiaries and labor organizations) at least 7, but not more than 21, days prior to filing IRS form 5310.

    http://www.mesirowfinancial.com/compensationstrategies/insights/pension_plan_ter\ mination.pdf

  • Yahoo! IBM Employee Issues message board: "Re: Legal minimum time employees must be given to consider a pension buy-out?" by "thekanck". Full excerpt: If IBM were to do something as is alluded to in the article this would actually be a sweetener ... "leave now we'll toss in a few extra sheckels"

    I'm trying to remember how it went the last time IBM had a retirement "incentive" folks that had retired just before the incentive was announced were understandably upset.... anyone remember how that worked? I'm thinking that sending a written request to the pension administrator asking if there are any pending changes forces them to disclose anything that is planned to happen in next 60 days?

  • Yahoo! IBM Employee Issues message board: "Re: Legal minimum time employees must be given to consider a pension buy-out?" by "Paul S". Full excerpt: Yes there is a "notification period" according to a pension expert I contacted a few weeks ago. Relative to working, the pension for many of us - especially the victims of the pension freeze - is a relatively cheap proposition for IBM compared to keeping us on the payroll. Others have written to the pension administrator in the past and gotten no response. They are not required to tip their hand and pre-announce anything although some court cases have challenged that with some very narrowly worded decisions.

    In IBM UK, IBMers were given a chance - actually quite a bit of time - to take their retirements before their was a change in the plan. Even so, they were publicly rebuked in an official session of the UK Parliament. That would never happen in the US Corporate-Congress, IMHO.

    The pension expert I spoke to was from the Pension Guaranty Corporation, I believe. Barring a major change to the laws, you will get your annuity. One thing that is not guaranteed is the early-retirement incentive of 3% a year for those who retire before age 60. Normally each year you retire before 60 would reduce your pension by 6%, but that is lowered by 3% per year as an incentive to retire early. That has been in place for almost 20 years. Even there you would be given a chance to retire during the notification window. As with anything, these things can change over time.

  • Yahoo! IBM Employee Issues message board: "Re: Legal minimum time employees must be given to consider a pension buy-out?" by "madinpok". Full excerpt: The incentives varied over time. I recall one that was offered around 1990 (maybe just in Tucson) where they threw in 2 years salary if you would leave. In others, they would add 5 years to your age and 5 years to your years of service. These days, I wouldn't expect IBM to offer any sweetener.
  • Glassdoor IBM reviews. Selected reviews follow:
    • IBM Program Manager: (Past Employee - 2011) “Great company, but no longer a great place to work.” Pros: Flexibly work schedules. Competitive salary and benefits. Lots of good people. Cons: Strategic Outsource business is not growing. Only idea management has to make their numbers is to continuously restructure with job cuts and to offshore jobs to lower cost workers. Advice to Senior Management: Need to develop better strategies to grow the business and not take it out on the employees via continuous job cuts. Hardware and Software groups are making money through innovation, but also using job cuts to make the numbers. Stock price and EPS at record levels and jobs keep getting cut.
    • IBM Senior IT Specialist: (Current Employee) “Most unprofessionally managed company.” Pros: Huge market & community presence. Good in creating standards in lot of areas. Cons: Cuts in American workforce due to high offshoring. No funding for continuing education to American professional. Advice to Senior Management: Stop offshoring.
    • IBM Engineer: (Current Employee) “negative” Pros: technology leadership, broad experience, professional environment. Cons: disrespect to average employees, strong emphasis on "star" employees, it's an engine not firing on all cylinders. Advice to Senior Management: value all your employees, emphasize respect to all individuals not just "stars", reward people if company had good year
    • IBM Inside Software Sales in Smyrna, GA: (Current Employee) “Good place to start but that's it.” Pros: - Never ending training available as long as you seek it. - No matter what, IBM has a great reputation with large companies and some SMB. - Great benefit package (medical, vacation, personal days, flexibility) Cons: - Company is huge therefore the visibility of your business unit is limited to the ivory tower in NY. - If you are talented and make your numbers, your manager will most likely not let you move however if you do not perform the same scenario applies. It's very hard to move. - IBM lacks a CRM software and the entire business runs on an Excel sheet. - The administrative tasks take up too much of your time. - Highly layered management. Sometimes makes you wonder what certain roles are for. Advice to Senior Management: Trim management to remove layers. Listen to your employees when it comes to the obstacles an inefficiencies of certain processes. Eliminate the bottom 1/3rd (including managers) to allow for a fresh inflow of talent.
    • IBM Software Developer: (Past Employee - 2009) “Good.” Pros: Good place to get basic skills if you are still starting out and it looks really good on a resume. Most of the people you will work with are pretty sharp. You will get a lot of good training. Cons: Project work can vary and the level and quality of leadership is really hard to predict. You could chart a great path at IBM and then suddenly have a profitable unit shut down leaving you in a mushroom farm with no way out.
    • IBM Architect in Charlotte, NC: (Past Employee - 2011) “A challenging and wide range of job opportunities to grow my expertise as a software developer and architect.” Pros: Good company vision, wide range of jobs and great employee policies. Cons: Not the same IBM as when I started. I hate hearing that employee's are the most valued resource and they lay off good employee, which could be move to targeted jobs. Advice to Senior Management: Just be open about market needs and balancing. Your employees are not stupid and will handle the truth better than you think. My best managers were the honest and open ones. I would bend over backwards for them.
    • IBM Senior Technical Resource: (Current Employee) “Sad.” Pros: Some opportunity to move around and gain experience in other areas, Good training opportunities. Some good people to work with.

      Cons: Where do I begin, I have 10 reports, in the last 4 years each has had one wage rise of less than 1 percent, some more junior staff are struggling financially. Staff ratings are frankly inequitable and driven by quotas, and microscopic budgets. While IBM has great diversity & equality guidelines, in practice they are utterly ignored and people spend considerable effort finding creative ways to bypass them.

      People who work to bypass IBM's gargantuan, unwieldy bureaucracy, to aid the client are p15sed on. We had some guys that reduced the time to completion for projects from 6 months to 2 weeks. The customer was deliriously happy. The guys that did this, put in 100 hours a week for 6 months, were rewarded with a cinema ticket. No wage rise and a poor PBC rating (personnel rating).

      People who are good at their jobs are surreptitiously blocked from moving accounts. There is a list of staff that are considered essential to the account. No-one will admit to the existence of this list. If someone from this list attempts to move from the account, the manager trying to get the resource , is told, you don't want them, he, she is a trouble maker. This extends to people who apply for work with a customer. This is the tip of the iceberg in terms of sleaze.

      Up until an account is signed nothing is too good for the customer, however once they are on board, resources are bled from the account till its barely operational, this continues until the customer complains, or its time to renew the account, when the circus begins again.

      There is zero budget for tools. Any automation is cobbled together by a variety of scripts, that are unsupportable. Collaboration tools are a spreadsheet and a mail folder. Hideous.

      Advice to Senior Management: If I ever met an IBM manager that cared for their staff, I would say "great, keep up the good work." 95% of managers at IBM manage up, & this is at all levels. I guess my advice would be losing your humanity is not something to be proud of. Please try to find some.

      • Comment by Former IBM Manager: Well said. I left IBM due to many of the reasons you cite above. The PBC cycle as a manager is a sick joke. You waste endless days arguing over who your PBC 3s are. The PBC quota is just the tool used to force good, hard-working people to leave the company without redundancy pay. It's immoral. If I were you, I'd go and work for a company that cares about its people. IBM isn't that company.
    • IBM Project Manager in Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo (Brazil): (Current Employee) “You work too hard but it is less recognized by executives.” Pros: Mobility is permitted. Very good salary benefits. Very good place to learn about IT market and trends. Cons: Too much work and no recognition. Low salaries. Extreme high-pressure from executives and no-support to resolve internal issues. Too much processes slows the company. Too much organizational structures makes use only of escalations to get things done in the proper time. Advice to Senior Management: It should resolve internal issues first to help the employees to get things done more fast
    • IBM Senior Consultant: (Current Employee) “Good Salaries, no personal life” Pros: Good salary. Opportunity to grow your network. Cons: Just one drop in the 400K strong organization. Advice to Senior Management: Connect with employees
    • IBM Senior Consultant in Washington, DC: (Current Employee) “Positive Experience” Pros: IBM has a great network, strong reputation, ample opportunities to expand skill set, and a strong infrastructure to support employees. Cons: There are too many managers, one on your project, a career manager that assesses your compensation, and resource managers that ensures you are staffed on projects. It is easy to get lost if you are not pro-active and no one will have true desire to match your skills with what you want to do. A lot of the times you have no real interaction with the manager who will determine your compensation and the feedback he/she receives to make these decisions are from paper documentation from your local project.
    • IBM Anonymous in Chicago, IL: (Past Employee - 2009) “Good and bad...overall neutral as compared to peer group.” Pros: Brand recognition in the marketplace. Telecommuting is fully adopted and encouraged. Cons: Skills, duties and job titles don't translate well to other companies. Advice to Senior Management: Focus more on client needs / what the marketplace is indicating - less on the internal bureaucracy and special interests.
    • IBM Senior Product Manager: (Current Employee) “A mediocre UK employer although brilliant Internationally.” Pros:

      IBM Corporate HQ and Senior Exec's in the US are brilliant at setting out an executing effective business strategy and driving results. The US is the place to be if you are ambitious. There is plenty of opportunity to contribute which creates a feeling that you are part of driving world wide opportunity.

      There is freedom to manage you own schedule and negotiate priorities - although management expectations are high and you can expect this "flexibility" to eat into your weekends and vacations.

      There is a clear sense of Corporate purpose in IBM. Progress is steady and continuous.

      Cons: Compared to the US Exec's local UK management are an irrelevant laughing stock. They voice the same expectations and pressure for performance without any consideration for employee rewards. The result is that in the UK confusion is common place, compensation and benefits are well below the average, morale is very low and there is a lot of employee churn. Its a top heavy organization.

      There is little investment in employee development.

      Control of costs/expenses is unreasonably strict - there is an expectation that the employee pays for business necessities such as cell phones and local travel.

      Advice to Senior Management: Recognize the value of your employees knowledge, skills and commitment to the business objectives - reward them and objectives will be achieved: continue to starve them and you'll face a further continued decline.

    • IBM Senior Project Manager: (Current Employee) “Not what it was.” Pros: Opportunity to work with great people. Company has a strong vision and is focused on implementing it. Cons: Becoming increasingly difficult to get things done due to cost constraints. Global resourcing is a great idea but inconsistent implementation and a lack of off-shore experience has created internal tensions. Pay increases are small and job security is not very high. Although the talk is of One IBM employees are treated differently depending on their business unit. Unsure how long we can sustain the business. Advice to Senior Management: Start worrying more about efficiency and less about cost cutting.
    • IBM IT Architect in Baltimore, MD: (Past Employee - 2009) “US employees are disappearing.” Pros: Great coworkers for the most part, exposure to new technologies, 401K. Cons: Overall benefits are not that great and they keep taking benefits away. Management doesn't share the wealth with employees. Layoffs are constant and morale is slipping. Advice to Senior Management: Decide if you want to be a technology leader or just high-margin services. Develop in-house skills. Re-establish training programs and reward mentoring. Quit taking huge bonuses when you withhold bonuses from the rank-and-file.
    • IBM Anonymous in Delhi (India): (Current Employee) “pathetic” Pros: good work life balance in some cases, specially for females. In telecom service provider it is not so good though. good company to work for, but only if you want to stay till retirement. Cons: bad or no salary hike. no growth is there even after working for multiple years . incompetent management at the top( whose only achievement is -staying in the same company for 10-15 years and thus reaping the benefits of organisation expansion)
    • IBM Sales Specialist in Baltimore, MD: (Past Employee - 2009) “A great career” Pros: There are many different jobs available within one company. Lots of training and education is provided to prepare for the position. Cons: Hard to team with others do to working at home and individual sales quotas. The workload is uneven, sometimes light sometimes too much. Advice to Senior Management: Long time employees salaries should keep up with those that bounce from Company to Company. It seemed newcomers were begin paid more than those with 20+ years of service.
    • IBM Project Manager in Tucson, AZ: (Past Employee - 2011) “PMs not respected in software development.” Pros: Benefits were good. My team members were generally good to work with. Lots of flexibility for working at home and taking time off when needed. Cons: Lots of overtime (without extra pay of course). PMs were not respected by the software development group I was in. Management team was not supportive of PMs and did not listen to their advice. Advice to Senior Management: Listen to the PMs when they tell you a project cannot be done in the timeframe or with the resources allocated to the project.
    • IBM Senior Software Engineer in Pune (India): (Current Employee) “Less salary, no promotions, not good for Java people.” Pros: Only brand name, nothing else. Cons: a) Good salary in offer letter, while take home is very less. As it goes in Variable. Which is hardly paid. For example my CTC is 9 LPA. My take home is 53K (after all tax declaration done). b) Minimum 90 days notice period is mandatory. Notice period can be extended after 90 days without taking any of your concerns. (Mail pasted below). Now a days it is very general that they are extending notice period beyond 90 days. So that you can loose the good offer. c) Generally Architects in the Java are those people who was Project Manager in previous company. So you can understand how tech expert they would be. d) If you are in Java then projects are very crappy. Your life will become hell. e) Band 7A people also need to do coding work. f) Need to work on IBM tool only. Most of them are Java based (which consumes lots of RAM) like Lotus Notes, Sametime etc. So systems are very slow. g) Only 1GB laptop they use to provide. Which is extend able until 2GB. h) As posted on other reviews. Getting promotions are very tough. i) Management does not follow ethics at all. j) Generally assign Band 6B. Where your peers would be freshers or 1 year experienced. Advice to Senior Management: Please correct above all the points. Do not make life of Java people as Hell.
    • IBM Anonymous in Sydney (Australia): (Past Employee - 2009) “Great to start your career.” Pros: Great graduate training and exposure to large complex projects and clients. Great place to learn new technologies and learn proper processes and documentation. Cons: Get lost in the sea of people and often get stuck on a large project, unable to get out of it if you are billable. The red tape you must go through to be considered for a promotion is also outrageous.
  • Employee Benefit News: Employers penalize workers for using work-life program. Excerpts: According to WaW’s survey, conducted annually through its Alliance for Work-Life Progress, although 80% of employers around the globe say they support family-friendly workplaces, employee respondents report that when they took advantage of work-life programs, they:
    • Have been overtly or subtly discouraged from using the programs.
    • Received unfavorable job assignments.
    • Received negative performance reviews.
    • Received negative comments from a supervisor.
    • Have been denied a promotion.
  • Strengthen Social Security: Gov. Rick Perry and Mitt Romney Compared on Social Security.
  • Time: How to Know If You’re On Track for Retirement. Most folks have never run a retirement-income projection. How can they make a realistic plan? Here's a start. By Dan Kadlec. Excerpts: f you don’t know, then you’re not. That is one of the chief conclusions of a new retirement preparedness study, which asked employees of all ages if they are on track to retire with the recommended 70% to 80% of pre-retirement income.

    Those who are on track, and know it, scored an average 7.2 (out of 10) on a financial wellness index created by research and education firm Financial Finesse. Those who had no clue if they were on track scored about the same (4.7) as those who knew they were not (4.2).

New on the Alliance@IBM Site
  • IBM: It is time to call it "India Business Machines". Full excerpt: As everyone knows, IBM has continued its advance against American workers- it is not well loved abroad either, witness the strikes in Chile. Before anyone complains about how bad IBM is, I need to point something out. IBM is not the ethereal "they", IBM is us, the employees. The only reason IBM is able to do what it does, continue laying off Americans and contribution to our shared economic disaster, is if we the employees, allow it.. we are after all.. IBM.

    There is not a week that goes by that one of us does not read about the "resource action" that is taking place. Each time it happens we all worry it will be us next time, but.. we don't join the union, we do nothing, we get what we deserve. Working for IBM and allowing and participating in its activities makes us all complicit. Without our help, the company could not do what it does today. Are we any different than the good little Germans, who did not speak up, who worried about their own jobs and well being as the Holocaust occurred around them?

    I recently worked on a project, the result of which was to offshore the workforce of the client company to IBM Global Resources in India. The new word for India resources is "GR".. they are euphemistically called "Global Resources". My work, my labor, took the jobs of American workers, and put it in the hands of people in India- I DID THAT...not IBM.

    Do not let anyone tell you about the Great Global Economy and how these newly enriched countries are going to give back all the money we lose from the destruction of American Labor in trade. India just gave their largest (10B$) military contract to, well, not us!

    The country that profits the most from US financial aid and a free license to undercut American Workers.. did not give us their business.. Remember.. government spending turns into paychecks for workers- that money goes into bank accounts and funds something called M1- M1 is multiplied and becomes the money supply.. We pay taxes, the government spends money and that money circulates and helps drives the economy. We are leaking M1- the money leaves us.. goes to workers in India and drives their economy- we don't get the trade in return, it is flatly a lie.

    The time is now.. before its to late.. to take the risks.. to come out.. to do the hard thing.. Write to your congressman, grow a spine, stop the tax benefits to IBM and others who offshore and eliminate American Jobs.. Band together, join a union, do something! If you don't.. then be quiet, be a good little IBMer and each week.. as the layoff happens.. be glad its not you.. but.. eventually. it will be. -Anonymous-

  • Job Cut Reports
    • Comment 9/08/11: By now we've all heard about the no overtime nonsense for those of us that are in IGS / GBS etc. after getting the delightful 15% base pay cut & the demise of shift premium pay. For some of us, this worked out to an effective 27% cut in total! Delightful just delightful! Now, there are some folks around that are just as hourly as the rest of us. Yet the management team believes they have the right to tell these hourly people to work well in excess of the 40 hour/week management mandated limit and only enter 40 hours in the appropriate hourly tools we all use.

      It's interesting we all sign agreements every year to accurately and truthfully report the time (that's the actual work hours in duration as well as start and stop times) and we are even reminded failure to comply is sufficient grounds for 'discipline' and that it's illegal at both the federal and state levels. Yet, some of these heroic individuals do exactly what is illegal while the management teams are completely aware and encourage the practice while there are others who have been terminated because of expense reporting violations (embezzlement?)

      It would be nice if the respective states; county; city and federal governments would do a complete audit of time records reported versus the data recorded from the badge entry systems to see exactly how things align then realize how much revenue the government entities are not receiving because of misreporting by the employees. I suspect from a tax law prospective this could be construed to be "Tax Evasion".

      The other big misnomer these "heroes" put forward is how many people aren't required to perform the necessary work. Some of these "heroes" are working well in excess of 60 hours a week on a regular basis which in reality is reducing the necessity to either acquire another FTE or contractor which harms us all during this period of economic devastation. I can't advise anyone to "go forward and report" the illegal activities to anyone as we all know the "whistle blower" laws don't seem to adequately protect the anonymity of the person doing the reporting. Meanwhile, none of us get raises (including the "heroes") we all get financially behind every single day and these "heroes" have had their spines removed likely because they are frequently threatened with termination if they don't succumb to the management mandates regarding the illegal hourly reporting practices.

      So my question is this: What does the Alliance think they could do to stop this kind of abuse. I simply suspect what would happen would be people get fired. --Financially Strapped --

      Alliance Reply: If you and all your co-workers were able to get together, join the Alliance, and publicly reveal how IBM is abusing their employees; you could turn the tide against IBM's abuses. No one person can walk into an IBM location, and declare a union to be representing the employees. It's the employees, the workers who must organize and form committees to expose IBM's abuses and underhanded tactics, publicly, through the Press. This takes courage and perseverance; all of which you have, but are not using it, yet. Nothing is easy. We've never said so, either. The hard work is ahead; but joining the Alliance and forming groups of workers that get the word out about how IBM is really operating under the radar, is what needs to be done. Grow the numbers of your co-workers that can do this as a group. It's the only answer.

    • Comment 9/09/11: --Financially Strapped -- I hear what you say. But thousands of those that got "remixed" didn't band together and fight it. I bet most embraced it figuring that the OT gravy train would perhaps more than make up for the 15% PAY CUT. IBM does want a reform of the FLSA. You can bet they are actively working on it NOW. Randy Mac wants all of us to work for less than minimum wage i.e. the wage he would propose as best for "competitive" reasons to our "do nothing but screw us" US gov't or the prevailing wage of the GRs (BRICs). Tsk..Tsk..for all those that take IBM management, HR, RandyMac on their word. And shame on all those that are affected similar to you that have not done anything like joining the Alliance. Yes, it's not nice in the race to the bottom of the economic ladder. -anonymous-
    • Comment 9/11/11: I worked for IBM H/R and for Randy McDonald. He has no advanced Degree in H/R and has no certification( PHR or SPHR). He only got his job because of politics. If he was not such a political player he to would be in NYS unemployment lines. He is no director of H/R. He wants to destroy IBM USA. Join the Union -ANA-
    • Comment 9/12/11: Sammy will continue to cut American jobs until we have backing from an organized labor force. Remember Sammy works for the stock holders and he is focused on one thing - the stock price. This will line Sammy's pockets too with mega wealth due to his stock options and bonuses. So it is a Win-Win for Sammy. Meanwhile IBMers will continue to lose their jobs in America. Sammy thinks Americans are fat, overpaid, lazy, and not productive. This has become the perception of the American workforce. -da facts-
    • Comment 9/13/11: Sammy does this. Randy does that. He isn't qualified for his job. Wah wah wah. The power to stop this crap is in YOUR hands. It is in every Americans hands. Join a union. Make it a strong union by supporting it both financially and through your actions. American Corporations actually need less regulation by Government and More regulation by their own workforce to be able to compete worldwide. The employees of a company know inherently what is right and wrong about what a company is doing. Because they are the ones doing it. By them not stepping up, organizing and leading the way they allow bean counters to run companies . We can see how bad things get in our own company when the bean counters take over. It does no good to get mad at a bean counter. Counting beans is what they do. Limit their effective power through organization. Take back your lives. Take back your company. Take back your country in the process. -Exodus2007-
    • Comment 9/15/11: -Exodus2007-: I agree, but rats like Sammy have to be exposed for what they really are and rooted out. I'm tired of reading about jobless claims continuing to rise in America. CEO rats like Sammy are to blame for the mess America is in right now. Sammy has offshored thousands of American jobs putting thousands of loyal IBMers on the unemployment line. Let's get back to an American where we are proud to work for IBM and have a job. I'm sick of working for a greedy slimeball rat like Sammy who is only interested in himself and his bank account. -Alliance Supporter-

      Alliance reply: IBM's CEO has been "exposed" already; by his own actions and his underlings actions, many times over. IBMers need to concentrate on organizing their way toward a contract and a strong force to be reckoned with. Spending time chasing Sam Palmisano's misadventures is wasting time. Spread the word that IBM employees have an organization that can and will represent them; if they want to be part of it. Get them to join Alliance@IBM.

News and Opinion Concerning Health Savings Accounts, Medical Costs and Health Care Reform
  • Washington Post: Premiums will drop for private Medicare plans, Obama administration says. By Phil Galewitz. Excerpts: The nearly 12 million senior citizens enrolled in private Medicare health plans will see their monthly premiums drop by an average of 4 percent while benefits remain stable next year, the Obama administration officials announced Thursday. In addition, they said, premiums fell by an average of 7 percent this year, much higher than the 1 percent the government projected a year ago. The plans, called Medicare Advantage, are offered by health insurance companies as an alternative to traditional, government fee-for-service Medicare. ...

    Many critics of the federal health law raised fears that Medicare Advantage benefits would shrink and premiums would rise because the overhaul reduced federal payments to the plans by $136 billion for the next decade. “Instead, we are seeing just the opposite,” Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said. “Medicare plans are stronger than ever and beneficiaries continue to have access to affordable options.”

  • New York Times editorial: No Job, No Insurance, No Health Care. Excerpts: Workers who lose their jobs in the economic downturn typically suffer a double whammy: they lose not only their incomes but their employer-based health insurance as well. Millions are forced to forgo the medical care that they cannot pay for.

    The depressing facts are laid out in the Commonwealth Fund’s latest biennial health insurance survey. An analysis of the data found that nine million working-age adults who lost their jobs between 2008 and 2010 became uninsured. Most of those could not find affordable coverage from insurance companies, and some were turned down when they applied. ...

    Nearly three-quarters had problems paying medical bills when they did visit a doctor or a hospital. They used up their savings, struggled to pay medical debts over time, took out loans when they could, declared bankruptcy or ended up unable to pay for other basic necessities like food or housing.

    Substantial help will not arrive until 2014, when the major provisions of the national health care reforms kick in. The reforms will provide subsidies to help millions of Americans buy insurance on new exchanges and will greatly expand Medicaid coverage for the poor.

  • New York Times op-ed: Free to Die. By Paul Krugman. Excerpts: Back in 1980, just as America was making its political turn to the right, Milton Friedman lent his voice to the change with the famous TV series “Free to Choose.” In episode after episode, the genial economist identified laissez-faire economics with personal choice and empowerment, an upbeat vision that would be echoed and amplified by Ronald Reagan.

    But that was then. Today, “free to choose” has become “free to die.”

    I’m referring, as you might guess, to what happened during Monday’s G.O.P. presidential debate. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Representative Ron Paul what we should do if a 30-year-old man who chose not to purchase health insurance suddenly found himself in need of six months of intensive care. Mr. Paul replied, “That’s what freedom is all about — taking your own risks.” Mr. Blitzer pressed him again, asking whether “society should just let him die.”

    And the crowd erupted with cheers and shouts of “Yeah!”

    The incident highlighted something that I don’t think most political commentators have fully absorbed: at this point, American politics is fundamentally about different moral visions.

    Now, there are two things you should know about the Blitzer-Paul exchange. The first is that after the crowd weighed in, Mr. Paul basically tried to evade the question, asserting that warm-hearted doctors and charitable individuals would always make sure that people received the care they needed — or at least they would if they hadn’t been corrupted by the welfare state. Sorry, but that’s a fantasy. People who can’t afford essential medical care often fail to get it, and always have — and sometimes they die as a result.

    The second is that very few of those who die from lack of medical care look like Mr. Blitzer’s hypothetical individual who could and should have bought insurance. In reality, most uninsured Americans either have low incomes and cannot afford insurance, or are rejected by insurers because they have chronic conditions. ...

    In the past, conservatives accepted the need for a government-provided safety net on humanitarian grounds. Don’t take it from me, take it from Friedrich Hayek, the conservative intellectual hero, who specifically declared in “The Road to Serfdom” his support for “a comprehensive system of social insurance” to protect citizens against “the common hazards of life,” and singled out health in particular.

    Given the agreed-upon desirability of protecting citizens against the worst, the question then became one of costs and benefits — and health care was one of those areas where even conservatives used to be willing to accept government intervention in the name of compassion, given the clear evidence that covering the uninsured would not, in fact, cost very much money. As many observers have pointed out, the Obama health care plan was largely based on past Republican plans, and is virtually identical to Mitt Romney’s health reform in Massachusetts.

    Now, however, compassion is out of fashion — indeed, lack of compassion has become a matter of principle, at least among the G.O.P.’s base.

  • AlterNet: Ron Paul Wasn't Joking About Letting Uninsured People Die -- His Uninsured Staffer Died of Pneumonia. This is an unbelievably sad story, and it proves that Ron Paul was serious when he said (to audience applause) at Monday's CNN-Tea Party debate that society should allow uninsured people to die.
    Ron Paul’s Campaign Manager Died of Pneumonia, Penniless and Uninsured ...As it turns out, Paul was not speaking purely in hypotheticals. Back in 2008, Kent Snyder — Paul's former campaign chairman — died of complications from pneumonia. Like the man in Blitzer's example, the 49-year-old Snyder...was relatively young and seemingly healthy when the illness struck. He was also uninsured. [The Kansas City Star quoted his sister at the time as saying that a "a pre-existing condition made the premiums too expensive."] When he died on June 26, 2008, two weeks after Paul withdrew his first bid for the presidency, his hospital costs amounted to $400,000. The bill was handed to Snyder's surviving mother (pictured, left), who was incapable of paying. Friends launched a website to solicit donations.

    Somehow, Paul managed to turn Snyder's death into an opportunity to spout off about "freedom" -- you know, the freedom we have to die and leave our families with massive piles of debt.

    After Snyder's death, Paul posted a message to the website for his Campaign for Liberty — a pre-Tea Party organization which served Paul as both presidential marketing tool and platform to promote his non-interventionist, free market ideals.

    He wrote:

    "Like so many in our movement, Kent sacrificed much for the cause of liberty. Kent poured every ounce of his being into our fight for freedom. He will always hold a place in my heart and in the hearts of my family."
  • truthOut: The Great Health Care Takeaway. By Shamus Cooke. Excerpts: The health care crisis in the United States is getting worse with no visible end. The popular anger over unattainable or unaffordable health care has been diverted away from corporations by crafty politicians, always seeking to exploit a social disaster for their benefactors. Instead of making health care more affordable for the average person, politicians have successfully switched the messaging. Now, the purpose behind "reform" is to make health care less costly for governments and employers, at the expense of patients and workers.

    This was the essence behind Obama's health care reform.

    And although Republicans exploited the "individual mandate" in Obamacare to gain populist credentials, they wholeheartedly agree with the deeper philosophy of the plan, which aspires to control health care costs - for corporations and governments - by providing less health care services to those who need it. This agreement to "ration" health care aligns the two parties over the coming cuts to Medicare in Obama's bipartisan "Super Congress," while also binding the two parties' approach to health care on a state and business level.

    Most workers now understand that there is a difference between apparently having health care and actually having health care: if you are technically "insured," but cannot afford doctor visits due to high deductibles and co-pays, you really aren't insured. ...

    The above health care policies are the natural result of a health care system based on the principles of private profit. Corporate profits demand that companies provide the least amount of health care services at a minimal cost. From this vantage point, health care is a commodity that is bought by those who can afford it, instead of it being the human right of every person, as the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts. Europe has already proved that a nationwide, single-payer system is vastly superior when it comes to quality, cost, availability and results.

  • New York Times editorial: Bleak News on Health Insurance. Excerpts: The Census Bureau reported this week that the number of uninsured people rose to 49.9 million last year, up from 49 million the previous year. This is particularly troubling during an economic downturn in which more people have been pushed into poverty and median family income has plummeted, leaving the uninsured with even fewer resources to pay for health care.

    The percentage of Americans covered by private health insurance continued its decade-long decline, and the percentage covered by employment-based policies, the bedrock of the insurance system for working people, dropped to 55 percent. Job-related coverage has been eroding because employers have shifted costs to workers, making insurance less affordable, and because workers have lost their jobs.

    The only consolation was that government insurance programs were able to mitigate some of the damage. The percentage of people covered by these programs increased for the fourth consecutive year. Medicaid and a related children’s health insurance program have actually enrolled more children in recent years than were dropped from employer coverage.

News and Opinion Concerning the "War on the Middle Class"
Minimize "It is a restatement of laissez-faire-let things take their natural course without government interference. If people manage to become prosperous, good. If they starve, or have no place to live, or no money to pay medical bills, they have only themselves to blame; it is not the responsibility of society. We mustn't make people dependent on government- it is bad for them, the argument goes. Better hunger than dependency, better sickness than dependency."

"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.

  • Washington Post with Bloomberg: Capital gains tax rates benefiting wealthy feed growing gap between rich and poor. By Steven Mufson and Jia Lynn Yang. Excerpts: The K Street office of Mark Bloomfield, president of the American Council for Capital Formation, is full of knickknacks collected in three decades of lobbying for cutting the capital gains tax. The coffee table has campaign buttons that read “Capital Gains = Better Jobs.” One wall displays a blown-up cartoon retracing the steps that led President Jimmy Carter to reluctantly sign a cut in the capital gains tax rate. On a shelf sits a framed, handwritten note from President George W. Bush in December 2003 that says: “Dear Mark, I got your treatise on taxes — many thanks. I will look it over with keen interest. Merry Christmas.”

    For the very richest Americans, low tax rates on capital gains are better than any Christmas gift. As a result of a pair of rate cuts, first under President Bill Clinton and then under Bush, most of the richest Americans pay lower overall tax rates than middle-class Americans do. And this is one reason the gap between the wealthy and the rest of the country is widening dramatically.

    The rates on capital gains — which include profits from the sale of stocks, bonds and real estate — should be a key point in negotiations over how to shrink the budget deficit, some lawmakers say.

    “This is something that should be on the table,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), one of 12 members on the congressional “supercommittee” tasked with reducing the deficit. “There’s no strong economic rationale for the huge gap that exists now between the rate for wages and the rate for capital gains.” ...

    Most Americans depend on wages and salaries for their income, which is subject to a graduated tax so the big earners pay higher percentages. The capital gains tax turns that idea on its head, capping the rate at 15 percent for long-term investments. As a result, anyone making more than $34,500 a year in wages and salary is taxed at a higher rate than a billionaire is taxed on untold millions in capital gains.

    While it’s true that many middle-class Americans own stocks or bonds, they tend to stash them in tax-sheltered retirement accounts, where the capital gains rate does not apply. By contrast, the richest Americans reap huge benefits. Over the past 20 years, more than 80 percent of the capital gains income realized in the United States has gone to 5 percent of the people; about half of all the capital gains have gone to the wealthiest 0.1 percent.

    “The way you get rich in this world is not by working hard,” said Marty Sullivan, an economist and a contributing editor to Tax Analysts. “It’s by owning large amounts of assets and having those things appreciate in value.” ...

    Billionaire Warren Buffett has become one of the loudest and most frequently cited proponents of the wealthy paying more in taxes. “The truth is, I have never had it so good in terms of taxes,” Buffett said in an interview with Charlie Rose. “I am paying the lowest tax rate that I’ve ever paid in my life. Now that’s crazy, you know. And if you look at Forbes 400, they are paying a lower rate, counting payroll taxes, than their secretary or whomever around their office, on average.” ...

    “Now I agree with Steve Moore and Alan Greenspan that the correct rate is zero if you want maximum economic growth,” House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said at the Cato Institute on July 16, 1998. “If you really wanted the most wealth created over the next 20 years, you would have a zero rate for the capital gains tax, which is a tax on job creation.” Other GOP lawmakers formed the Zero Capital Gains Caucus, with 92 House members and 15 senators. The group’s chairman, Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), said on his Web site: “Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has said we should reduce it. So what are we waiting for?” ...

    These changes drove down the overall tax rate paid by the wealthy. In 1996, before the capital gains cut under Clinton, millionaires paid an effective rate of 30.8 percent. By 2007, it was 22.1 percent. ...

    Many tax experts contest the benefits of a low capital gains rate. Jane Gravelle, a tax expert at the Congressional Research Service, says a rate cut could generate more government revenue for a year or two as investors take advantage of lower rates or a rising stock market, but she says that initial bump in tax revenue would fade. And the government, over time, would collect more overall if it kept the rate higher. ...

    “Lower capital gains [taxes] are a mixed bag even if you’re just looking at efficiency,” said Leonard Burman, a professor at Syracuse University and former head of tax analysis at the Treasury Department. “It might encourage more risk-taking, but it also creates huge opportunities for tax shelters aimed at converting ordinary income to capital gains. People would make investments only because of the tax benefits.” Moreover, he notes, given the recent financial crisis, it’s not clear that an absence of risk-taking is what’s ailing the economy. ...

    This summer, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) bashed Republicans for defending “the most generous tax rates wealthy Americans have enjoyed in 60 years.” Yet last year she joined three other Senate Democrats — Mark R. Warner (Va.), Robert P. Casey (Pa.) and Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.) — and GOP Sen. Scott Brown (Mass.) in fighting to exempt venture capital firms from any capital gains tax increase, saying in a joint letter that it would hurt “job creation and innovation.” The bill, which would have spent the added revenue in part to extend unemployment benefits, later failed. ...

    Leading Democrats have also repeatedly defended a class of investment managers who get special benefits from the tax rate on investment profits because their income, known as “carried interest,” is counted not as wages but as capital gains. Instead of paying a 35 percent rate, these executives pay 15 percent. Private-equity managers from firms such as Apollo, Blackstone and the Carlyle Group save billions of dollars every year in this way — and lobby fiercely to keep it that way. Some GOP lawmakers have been even more aggressive. In 2007, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) formed the Coalition for the Freedom of American Investors and Retirees to block legislation that would raised taxes on private-equity profits. Dozens of lobbyists rushed to join up. ...

    “Leader Cantor believes in lower taxes across the board for workers, small-business people and job creators,” said Cantor’s spokeswoman, Laena Fallon. Last year, his two fundraising committees hauled in nearly $2 million from securities and investment firms and real estate companies. Cantor has also received substantial campaign contributions from private equity firms. KKR was his fifth-largest contributor in the last election cycle, giving $52,600. ...

    “Wall Street loves the preferential capital gains rate. All of America’s 20- or 30 million wealthy small investors love capital gains rates,” Sullivan said. “It’s just a tremendously popular item with political contributors. It’s something that directly impacts every wealthy household in America.” ...

    The 400 richest taxpayers in 2008 counted 60 percent of their income in the form of capital gains and 8 percent from salary and wages. The rest of the country reported 5 percent in capital gains and 72 percent in salary. The result, Hacker says, is that the lobbying winds up being lopsided, too. “The amount of lobbying that takes place on tax policy from the deep-pocketed interests that have the most at stake is enormous,” Hacker said. “There’s very little representation on the other side.” “Don’t forget,” he added, “that members of Congress themselves, particularly senators, are well off and they’re more likely to be sympathetic to the argument for low capital gains.”

  • AlterNet: The Rich Get Tax Breaks for Destroying Jobs? How the Capital Gains Tax Helps the Wealthy and Hurts the Rest of Us Why are "capital gains" taxes so much lower than taxes on other income? By Dave Johnson. Excerpts: Why are "capital gains" taxes so much lower than taxes on other income? The reason capital gains taxes are lower is because most of the income of the rich is from capital gains. And the reason most of the income of the rich is from capital gains is because capital gains taxes are lower. ...

    In our system the income gained from these investments by these wealthy few is therefore taxed at a special very, very low rate, because they have the wisdom and intelligence to have large sums of money available to invest, and the rest of us do not. This low rate is considered an "incentive" to those who have these large accumulations of money, to try to persuade them to make these huge profits. They require these "incentives" to make huge profits, because otherwise they might not be interested in making the huge profits that can result from owning most of the property and stock and race horses (and yachts and private jets and multiple homes and million-dollar cars.) So that is why they must be given the incentive of these very special low tax rates - to persuade them to make investments that reap huge profits that they otherwise would not want to make.

    Of course, the wealthy usually complain when government gets involved in creating "incentives" and "picking winners and losers" in ways that help We, the People, saying government interference distorts decision-making. But when the "incentive" is special low tax rates to persuade the wealthy to invest and make huge profits, that's different. Because it is, that's why. Shut up. Hey, look over there!

    This reaping of huge profits from "efficiencies" like downsizing, laying people off and making the remaining workers do 2 jobs each in the same amount of time, outsourcing, buying companies and firing everyone and then selling off the pieces, offshoring, force reductions, firing people and then bringing them back as "contractors" at half the pay, relocating factories out of the country where people don't have the protections of democracy, replacing workers with machines, etc. is called "creating jobs."

    In 2001 these special low tax rates for the very rich "job creators" were made even lower. This was done in order to provide even more incentive for them to make even more profits from their large accumulations of property, houses, cars, yachts, private jets and race horses, so that these "producers" - the "job creators" - would produce even more and create even more jobs. (Click here for more on who and what really creates jobs.) The result of these 2001 tax cuts was spectacular: eight years of the lowest economic growth and lowest job-creation rate since WWII, followed by the collapse of the entire financial system and mass layoffs of millions of us.

  • Christian Science Monitor: South bears the brunt of America's rising poverty rate. By Schuyler Velasco. Excerpts: Already tagged with the highest poverty rate in the nation, the South was the only region last year to record statistically significant increases in both the number of poor people (from 17.6 million in 2009 to 19.1 million people in 2010) and poverty rates (15.7 percent to 16.9 percent), according to data released Tuesday by the US Census Bureau. The US poverty rate was 15.1 percent, up from 14.3 percent in 2009.

    That means that the gap between its poverty rate and the national average now stands at its highest level since 2001. This marks a sharp reversal for the South after four decades of progress in closing the poverty gap with the rest of the US.

  • truthOut: Let's Get Real on Jobs. By Jim Hightower. Excerpts: You know what's wrong with the American economy, Bucko? You, that's what. Yeah, yeah, it's true that the reckless global gambling schemes of Wall Street bankers are what wrecked our economy -- and, yes, Congress and the Federal Reserve have used trillions of our public dollars to bail out miscreant bankers, while ignoring the plight of people like you whose jobs, businesses, homes and middle-class incomes have been devastated by banker greed. And, sure, it's also true that corporations are hoarding $2 trillion in cash and getting billions of dollars a year in subsidies from taxpayers like you, yet refusing to hire Americans or to make job-creating investments in our country.

    But blah-blah-blah, Bucko, this does not excuse your refusal to do your duty as an American consumer. CEOs say that they won't start hiring until you consumer slugs get out there and spend, spend, spend.

    And don't use the whiney excuse that you're out of work or mired in debt -- Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke says that he has looked at macro economic statistics and concluded that you're just being irrationally negative about the health of our economy. "Households seem exceptionally cautious," declared the perplexed Fed chairman recently, suggesting that your lack of confidence in the economy is a psychosis that's fueling a larger depression. Yes, chimed in another Federal Reserve banker, "it's hard to have a robust recovery when Americans are so dispirited."

    So, hey -- perk up, America! Stop waiting on Wall Street, Washington and corporate chieftains to do something. Forget economic reality -- just pull out your credit cards, put on a smile, and march to the mall. ...

    The president's pep talk came the day after he made his "bold" jobs proposal to Congress. But Obama's plan is more Walter Mittyish than Rooseveltian. While it does include some useful provisions to help stem the loss of still more jobs (especially those teachers, firefighters and other public employees being offed by Republican governors), it essentially consists of more corporate tax breaks -- a form of bribery to induce enormously rich corporations to hire American workers. This is the same old same old that Washington keeps throwing at the problem and -- hello, Washington -- it's not working. Sure enough, corporate chieftains say they'll gladly take the latest handout, but we should not expect them to go on a big hiring spree. Mostly, they'll use the money to cover the few people they were going to hire anyway -- and pocket the rest.

  • Huffington Post: One Betrayal Too Many. By Robert Scheer. Excerpts: It's getting too late to give President Barack Obama a pass on the economy. Sure, he inherited an enormous mess from George W., who whistled "Dixie" while the banking system imploded. But it's time for Democrats to admit that their guy bears considerable responsibility for not turning things around. He blindly followed President Bush's would-be remedy of throwing money at the banks and getting nothing in return for beleaguered homeowners. Sadly, Obama has proved to be nothing more than a Bill Clinton clone triangulating with the Wall Street lobbyists at the expense of ordinary folks.

    That fatal arc of betrayal was captured by a headline in Tuesday's New York Times: "Soaring Poverty Casts Spotlight on 'Lost Decade.'" The Census Bureau reported that there are now 46.2 million Americans living below the official poverty line -- the highest number in the 52 years since that statistic was first measured -- and median household income has fallen back to the 1996 level. As Harvard economist Lawrence Katz summarized this dreary news: "This is truly a lost decade. We think of America as a place where every generation is doing better, but we're looking at a period when the median family is in worse shape than it was in the late 1990s."

    The late 1990s, it should be noted, is when President Clinton, working with Phil Gramm, the Republican head of the Senate Banking Committee, pushed through two critical pieces of legislation ending effective regulation of the banks. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act smashed the wall between high-flying Wall Street investment firms and the once staid commercial banks entrusted with the deposits and mortgages of America's innocent souls. The next year Clinton signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, banning any effective regulation of the rapidly expanded trade in the collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps that have since haunted the world's economy.

  • Wall Street Journal: Spain to Impose New Wealth Tax. By Jonathan House. Excerpts: The Spanish government said Thursday it will temporarily reinstate a tax on its wealthiest citizens, putting an end to weeks of debate over a controversial measure designed to help close one of Europe's largest budget gaps while easing widespread voter discontent with spending cuts. Finance Minister Elena Salgado told journalists Thursday that the tax "will reinforce budgetary stability" and will be applied to people with net assets of more than €700,000 ($962,780) in 2011 and 2012. ...

    As they struggle with the worst economic crisis in decades, governments of developed countries are casting around for new sources of revenue that won't crimp growth or impose undue hardships on their populations. Taxes targeted at the most wealthy are easier to sell to general voting public, and some civic-minded tycoons including Warren Buffett of the U.S. and France's Liliane Bettencourt have indicated their willingness to pay more. France has already announced a new, temporary tax on its wealthiest citizens. ...

    In an effort to shield middle-class savers from the measure, the new tax's minimum threshold of €700,000 is much higher than the €120,000 threshold it had previously.

  • New York Times editorial: Bipartisanship of the Wrong Kind. Excerpts: As soon as he proposed to pay for his $447 billion jobs plan with tax increases, President Obama knew he was going to do battle with Republicans. But he is also being challenged by Democrats because they cannot face another big pre-election fight or are thinking more about campaign contributors than the country’s best interests.

    It is time for Mr. Obama to think about what Lyndon Johnson would do. Mr. Johnson did not flinch from confronting his caucus when he needed to, and neither should Mr. Obama.

    The president has started appealing for public support for his jobs plan, and denouncing Republicans who are opposing it. John Boehner, the House speaker, gave a speech on Thursday in which he promised to consider the plan, and then all but rejected it by saying that regulation, taxes and federal spending caused the lack of jobs. In other words, government should do less, not more. He also said the deficit should be cut only by reducing spending, without any tax increases.

    Republican opposition is bad enough, but The Times’s Jennifer Steinhauer reported that many Congressional Democrats are hanging back, saying they could support one or another of the components of the jobs plan, but not the whole package. Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana wants to protect the oil companies to which she is beholden from losing outdated and overly generous tax breaks. Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, seemed to be preparing to bury the jobs program in Senate rigmarole. Senator Bob Casey and others threatened to slice and dice the program to death.

If you hire good people and treat them well, they will try to do a good job. They will stimulate one another by their vigor and example. They will set a fast pace for themselves. Then if they are well led and occasionally inspired, if they understand what the company is trying to do and know they will share in its sucess, they will contribute in a major way. The customer will get the superior service he is looking for. The result is profit to customers, employees, and to stcckholders. —Thomas J. Watson, Jr., from A Business and Its Beliefs: The Ideas That Helped Build IBM.

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.