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:

Alliance@IBM Rocky Mountain Action Coalition U.K IBM Members

Quick Links:

Get involved! Insider trading After IBM Lenovo Employee Discount

Previous highlights:

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

Join the Alliance!

Join your fellow employees who are fighting for your benefits—Join the Alliance!

Retirees, vendors, contractors, temps, and active employees are all eligible to become members of the Alliance@IBM

Highlights—March 16, 2013

  • Yahoo! IBM Employee Issues message board: "Alliance web article" by Lee Conrad. Full excerpt: Consider yourself a hard worker? IBM GTS Exec Bob Hoey may not think so. A letter from IBM Executive Hoey and a response from an IBM worker:

    Team,

    Good morning from Brazil, where I am helping the local ITS team with their 1Q Close and where I will be participating in the Client Experience Jam this Tuesday through Friday. If you haven't already registered for the Jam, please take a moment to do so. This is a huge moment in our company's history, where we will define the behaviors that differentiate IBM and makes us essential to our clients and the world.

    A number of people have asked me, "Why do you work so hard and such long hours?"

    I have found that many people are smart enough and sufficiently qualified to do most jobs; but, hard work is what distinguishes top performers from everyone else. In my opinion, it's a characteristic that distinguishes us as IBMers and sets us apart from our competition.

    Every significant achievement in civilization from art to science to sport is the result of people who worked a lot harder than everyone else. You don't hear many people in India, Brazil or China (to name a few countries) complain about work-life balance, even though many in these developing countries work 12-15 hour days. These people are hungry to be top performers and obtain the rewards and recognition bestowed on the top 10% of the population. This takes hard work.

    Research shows that exceptional achievers live longer and that they pretty much work until their death. The 10 most workaholic nations in the world account for most of the world's GDP.

    I understand that many people are working long hours. I also know some are not working as hard as others. Are you working hard enough to achieve your objectives for 1Q? 1H13? Full Year 2013? Our commitment to hard work in service to our clients is one of the topics I'll be discussing in the Jamand I look forward to reading your posts.

    Please consider this and take the actions you deem appropriate.

    Thank you,

    Robert J. Hoey
    General Manager
    ITS and General Business
    IBM Global Technology Services
    Route 100
    Somers, NY 10589

    Response from an IBM worker:

    Dear Mr. Hoey

    I wanted you to be aware that I find your memo to be completely offensive, and possibly in violation of federal law. You describe people who ask for work-life balance as "complaining?" This memo completely lacks empathy for people who have significant obligations outside of work. Are you implying that people who have other priorities are not eligible to be top performers, and therefore may be passed over for promotions? Will my job be in jeopardy if I am unable to work overtime, or if I have to take time off to care for a family member, or if I have a health condition that would restrict my ability to "work harder?" If so, this attitude will disproportionately affect women, minorities, and the disabled, and is in violation of the Equal Opportunity Act as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act. This company has historically been a trailblazer in equal opportunity, and I am frankly appalled that IBM would put someone with this attitude in a leadership position.

    I am curious to see this research you mentioned that links long working hours with extended life expectancy. Because in the course of my research, I am seeing that employee burnout is on the rise*. Due to corporate downsizing, layoffs, and restructuring, employees are being asked to pick up the slack of extra work, or as you call it, "working harder." Burnout is known to be related a host of serious physical and mental health issues, including but not limited to relationship problems, stress, exhaustion, heart disease, suicide, anger, depression, anxiety, malaise, withdrawal from social circles, domestic violence, obesity, chronic pain, and the list goes on. Does it sound like someone with these symptoms would be a productive employee to you, Mr. Hoey? Federal and state labor laws in the United States protect the 40 hour work week for a reason. Work-life balance is a right that is protected under the Fair Labor Standards Act. To continue to place greater demands on employees creates a sweat shop environment of overworked, exhausted people, and ultimately hurts the organization due to the lower average productivity that those people are able to churn out. I see my co-workers suffering this every day, and I see how it hurts our business.

    As a GTS employee, we are encouraged to work smarter, not harder. This means increasing efficiency, not work hours. However, if this is not an attitude that is sanctioned from the top down, employees will continue to be treated as disposable resources at the convenience of executive fat cats. Your employees will treat your business as well as you treat them. Sick people equals sick business. I would strongly encourage stockholders to question how this business is being managed.

    I am requesting that Human Resources review your statements in this memo and launch an investigation into your organization to ensure that no qualified person has been illegally passed over for promotion due to being unable to work 15 hour days, which would certainly put IBM at risk of serious litigation.

    To all IBM employees, I encourage you to stand up for yourself and your co-workers. Do not stand idly by while abuse and injustice is being sanctioned at the highest levels of this organization. Demand better working conditions, set limits with management, and take the work-life balance that you need to make your health and well-being your first priority.

    Sincerely, One Voice for All

    *Source: The slow -to-recover economy is taking a new toll on workers, USA Today, October 24, 2012 http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/23/stress-burnout-employees/16\ 51897/

  • Yahoo! IBM Employee Issues message board: "Re: Alliance web article" by Paul Sutera. Full excerpt: Indeed we lost someone from a growth-market team. It's a smaller country and he's now working for one of the big accounts he was servicing. He was in his 30s and working those "10-15 hour" days. He suffered a heart attack. On another note, this surprises me from Bob Hoey. I don't know if was the Brazilian coffee talking, but his persona in meetings when he was my up-level manager was nothing like the wrongheadedness of his jam post. Exceptional achievers and workaholics are not the same thing.
  • Yahoo! IBM Employee Issues message board: "Re: Alliance web article" by "ibmretiree2006". Full excerpt: What a load of bullpuckie! I know employees who work 60 hour weeks on a regular basis and not only have not been promoted but did not get a raise either. Perhaps he works so hard because he makes 5 times the average employee (or more) and receives bonuses/stock options PLUS a raise. But I have heard this crap for a couple of decades. Oh, look at me, I work so hard and so long, boo hoo!!! Grow up Bob!!
  • Yahoo! IBM Employee Issues message board: "Re: Alliance web article" by "Lefty Mcgee". Full excerpt: Yikes, Bob! What would possess this overpaid executive to put in writing that he literally wants his employees to work themselves to death!! If it wasn't so tragic for employees, i would be laughing myself silly.

    Oh and Bob, how much hard work does it take to sanction a round of lay offs, give out bogus 3 ratings in order to make your 'numbers'.

    Another useless executive.

  • Yahoo! IBM Employee Issues message board: "Re: Alliance web article" by "ibmworker". Full excerpt: Yes, this attitude is pervasive among all executives in IBM. They want to enslave us workers, they only care about meeting targets, and to meet them they just want us to bill the crap out of our customers. This includes these "Jams", which include mandatory weekend work, where they want us to find some extra work we can bill our clients for over the weekend.

    Of course nobody complains about this, so these weekend Jams will probably continue and be more often until eventually we will all be working 6 days a week.

    And they don't care about people's lives outside of work, if they had their way we wouldn't have lives outside of work. To me work/life balance was always lip service, they want us to work, work, work.

    There are many like me who, if we were to leave IBM, they would be completely and totally screwed, as in my area, I am the subject matter expert and the one who everyone comes to for help when nobody else knows what to do. They continue to hire in the worst 3rd world employees, who are no help at all and they are complete idiots in some cases.

    All in the name of more profit year after year, forever. Does this sound sane to anyone? How can they expect this to go on forever? At some point there has to be a limit to how much profit a company can make.

    Not everyone is suited to work overtime. At some point in the day, after a certain number of hours worked, it becomes non-productive to keep working as the mind starts wandering and it becomes hard to concentrate.

    In fact it is probably more productive if you take frequent breaks and give your mind a rest.

    Regards, Just an IBM worker who is concerned about the direction this company is going.

  • Rochester Post-Bulletin: IBM to move most manufacturing out of Rochester. By Jeff Kiger. Excerpts: Manufacture of the Power Systems, PureSystems and PureFlex Systems are being shifted out of Rochester to Guadalajara, Mexico, IBM Spokesman Scott Cook said. ...

    Cook said the change will affect both full-time IBM employees and contract workers. He declined to say how many workers would lose their jobs or how many are currently employed in Rochester. IBM has not reported employee numbers since 2008, when it said the Rochester site had 4,200 employees. ...

    When asked why the manufacturing is being moved, Cook said it is to "maximize efficiency."

  • IT Jungle's The Four Hundred: Server Manufacturing Moved Out Of Rochester, Minnesota. By Timothy Prickett Morgan. Excerpts: Many of us who follow the IBM systems business have been predicting this day might come for many years and then talking ourselves into thinking it would not happen. But the day finally came on March 5. That was when the top brass of Big Blue's Systems and Technology Group held a meeting with employees of the Rochester, Minnesota, facility that gave birth to the System/3 in 1969 and successor technologies that culminated in the Power Systems and now PureSystems lines, telling them that they would no longer be making commercial systems at the legendary facility. ...

    According to the IBM spokesperson, who I finally reached this morning (my fault, not his), IBM will be moving the manufacturing of the Power Systems, PureFlex, and PureSystems servers that are assembled in the Rochester facility for customers in the Americas region to Guadalajara, Mexico. The refurbishment of used Power Systems equipment will be transferred to IBM's Poughkeepsie, New York, facility, which is where it makes System z mainframes and high-end Power Systems boxes like the Power 770, 780, and 795 (as far as I know). ...

    As far as I know, IBM makes high-end Power Systems and System z mainframes in Singapore and entry and midrange Power Systems boxes in Shenzhen, China, for both the European and Asian markets, but Cook was unable to confirm that this was still the case. IBM opened up a Power Systems refurbishing operation in China last March and has been making entry and midrange Power Systems gear there since the fall of 2010. IBM closed down its high-end Power Systems and mainframe factory outside of Dublin, Ireland, in May 2010 and moved it to Singapore. ...

    The transition of manufacturing from Rochester to Guadalajara will take perhaps a year to accomplish, maybe a little bit more. And it is unclear what effect this change will have on "Made In America" provisions in some government contracts. I am not a lawyer, but in many cases a business partner could probably do some final configuration changes on a Power Systems box and qualify. I am all for manufacturing here in my home country, but these rules rarely work out as intended is my guess.

    I think you need to manufacture and design in the same place, and it is a wonder why Big Blue doesn't see this. This is one of the reasons, in fact, that General Electric just announced that it was moving manufacturing operations for water heaters and fancy chancy refrigerators back from China to the United States. There are a lot of reasons for this, but labor and energy costs relative to the United States are a lot higher than they were a decade ago.

    The Rochester facility, which is one half the size of the Pentagon and which sits out on Highway 52 (you didn't think that 5250 came from nowhere, did you?), had a peak of around 8,100 employees back in 1990, when this case study about the facility was published. By 1999, it had around 7,000 employees, and in 2007, that had dropped to around 4,400. That was the last time anyone had a sense of how many people worked at Rochester. ...

    Bootnote: After this story originally ran, Lee Conrad, who is in charge of the Alliance@IBM effort to unionize IBM workers in the United States, emailed me to say that sources within the Rochester plant tell him that the facility has 2,800 full-time employees. And a follow-on report at KTTC said that insiders told the TV station that 200 full-time workers and 150 part-times would lose their jobs because of the decisions to move operations from Rochester to Guadalajara and Pokie. And there will be ripple effects in Rochester because suppliers have companies and employees in the region surrounding the plant--and sometimes in it.

    IBM has not divulged how many employees it has in the United States for many years, but Conrad estimates it to be around 92,000, down from 133,789 in 2005 and from over 200,000 in the early 1990s, before Big Blue had what former CEO Sam Palmisano called its "near death experience" when it did not see the mainframe cresting and the rise of RISC and PC servers. The AS/400, of course, was one of the bright points during the trying time, with record midrange system sales despite a recession.

  • Yahoo! IBM Employee Issues message board: "Re: Server Manufacturing Moved Out Of Rochester, Minnesota Updated: March 11, 2013" by "bobsutton203". Full excerpt: IBM's financial continued success has been a story of pruning low margin product sectors and the replacement of high cost labor with the cheapest available. Both are self limiting in that you can't cut yourself to success forever (effectively liquidating the brand) and global labor is rising in cost as it trends to equalization over time.

    Having said that its amazing how well the CFOs or IBM have been able to pull this off since the big restructure under Gertsner. It shows how much fat IBM had accumulated in its apogee days of old and how long your can milk a first rate brand but as I and many have said before here you can't do it forever unless you eventually grow the brand organically and that they have failed to do so far.

  • The Register: IBM moves Power Systems manufacturing from Minnesota to Mexico. A return to Guadalajara, where the weather and supply chain are better. By Timothy Prickett Morgan. Excerpts: IBM stopped making memory in the early 1990s. It sold off its UltraStar disk drive business to Hitachi long after moving most of their production overseas to Singapore, Thailand, and Hungary (and having manufacturing issues it never had in Rochester). The AS/400 team created the first – and only working – 64-bit PowerPC processor after the Somerset partnership of Apple-Motorola-IBM failed from their Austin, Texas labs with the PowerPC 630. IBM moved Power processor development to Austin a long time ago, as well, but the 64-bit core and double-pumped floating point unit invented in Rochester lived on in every AS/400 and RS/6000 minicomputer and their follow-on systems based on the Power architecture, including BlueGene/Q. ...

    IBM used to make high-end Power Systems and System z mainframes as well as entry and midrange Power gear in a factory in Mulhuddart, outside of Dublin, Ireland, to serve European customers. In May 2010, IBM opened up a shiny new factory in Singapore – which cost $90m – to make high-end Power gear and mainframes to serve Asian markets, but then moved the manufacturing of all high-end gear from Ireland to Singapore. ...

    Lee Conrad – who has the most thankless job on earth trying to unionize IBM US workers at Alliance@IBM, Communications Workers of Americas Local 1701, at IBM's original headquarters of Endicott, New York – tells El Reg that the Rochester facility employs around 2,800 workers. Rumors indicate that the manufacturing moves may affect hundreds of full-time and contract workers. IBM has not talked about how many people work at the Rochester facility since 2007, when it was 4,400 people. That is well off its recent peak, which El Reg estimates was 8,100 people back in 1990 and which had fallen to around 7,000 by 2007. ...

    IBM may still be raking in $5bn a year or so in hardware for its Power-based iron, but if CEO Ginni Rometty wants to keep doing share buybacks to pump up IBM's earnings per share, then the cash money has to come from somewhere.

  • Forbes: IBM's CEO Is Plain Wrong About Technology and Change. Here's Why. By Haydn Shaughnessy. Excerpts: IBM is one of the most respected companies on the planet. For good reason. It is a behemoth, and other large companies like to hear the story of how it changes its culture and direction. How it became and remains adaptable.

    In a world where big companies increasingly distrust their advisers, because consultants don’t know what it’s like to be big, IBM is seen as a trusted peer. Still the IBM CEO is wrong about the changes that technology is bringing.

    Let’s recap those briefly.

    Data is the new raw material and will change the way decisions are made. “Many more decisions will be based on predictive elements versus gut instinct.”

    The social network will drive value: “The social network will be the new production line in a company…Your value is not what you know but what you share.

    Customer segments will individualize: “What you will see with rapid data and social sharing is the death of the average and the era of you.”

    What’s wrong with this picture and the advice it will drive into the Fortune 500?

  • eWeek: IBM's Rometty Delivers in First Public Speech as CEO. By Darryl K. Taft. Excerpts: In her March 7 appearance at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Rometty noted that IBM is one of the few companies in the world where the employees are universally known by the company name and wear the badge proudly. “They’re called IBMers,” she said. The company’s refocused values came after a 2003 “Values-Jam” initiated by then CEO Sam Palmisano, who called the IBMer the company’s greatest innovation. “"IBM has reinvented itself many times,” he said during his tenure. “But through it all, its DNA, its soul remained intact... IBM's most important innovation wasn't a technology or management system. Its revolutionary idea was to define and run a company by a set of strongly held beliefs." ...

    I was at a dinner recently where when asked what difference Rometty has brought to IBM thus far, the ranking IBMer at the table said he felt it was a stronger focus on the customer. I’m not so sure it’s any stronger, but it may be more nuanced. For instance, Rometty has made it plain that the new target for IBM is the chief marketing officer (CMO) or whatever that role is identified as in enterprises. Her first event as CEO was a symposium for CIOs and CMOs. And IBM has identified the CMO as a major target. ...

    I was a Palmisano guy. And after watching how he transformed IBM and worked magic with not only the nearly half a million employees but also with IBM customers around the world – many of whom he knew personally – I was wondering who could rightly replace him. Well, Ginni is showing that she can carry it forward. No, one public speech does not a miracle make. Yet, it’s not just the speech; it’s the fact that she came up through the ranks watching and learning the IBM way, realizing the importance of the client, the responsibility to the shareholder and the value of the employee. Of course, many will argue that point.

  • Poughkeepsie Journal: IBM gets renewed sales tax break. By Craig Wolf. Excerpt: IBM Corp. got a five-year renewal of its sales tax break from the Dutchess County Industrial Development Agency today. The board voted unanimously without discussion to approve the deal. Agency attorney Donald Cappillino reported that turnout at two public hearings held Tuesday consisted just of the East Fishkill town supervisor, John Hickman, in favor and two citizens who showed up too late to be on the formal record.
  • Glassdoor IBM reviews. Selected reviews follow:
    • Positive and flexible Schedule” Current Employee. Pros: Flexibility in schedule. 401k match is better than most. Cons: 401k match recently changed so that we get the company match at the end of the year and ONLY get it if we are employed then. We are challenged to drive and manage technical staff in a fragmented support structure in which accountability is low. Sometimes you get the impression support teams are doing you a favor in resolving a complex issue. Much time is spent teaching processes to technical teams with high turn over. Advice to Senior Management: If you want compliance to be 100%, accountability for IT controls need to rest solely on first line managers of their respective support towers instead of the account team whom do not have visibility or control over processes.
    • Actually quite good” Current IT Analyst in New York, NY . Pros: Innovative approach promoting technology use at every step. Good HR tools to create a nice working atmosphere. Cons: Still a bit too much bureaucracy...but the brass are genuinely resolved to reduce it Limited professional development options. Advice to Senior Management: Keep up cutting the red tape!
    • Advise against re-badging into IBM during IT outsourcing” Former Technical Support Engineer in Woodland Hills, CA . Pros: My company outsourced their IT to IBM, and as a staff member in the IT department, I was hired into IBM for support of the account ("re-badged"). While it wasn't a horrible experience, I would not advise anyone to follow this path. For pros - IBM is a massive company, and one can theoretically move towards an IT career with limitless growth and opportunities in every technology sector. During my time with IBM I was treated fairly and my manager was reasonable and cordial. I worked long hours but was compensated as an hourly employee.

      Cons: As a re-badged employee there was constant tension between IBM goals and the goals of previous co-workers who were now on the other side of the fence.

      I expected to be able to tap into the vast wealth of knowledge that a massive corporation like IBM might offer, but in reality each account was largely an island in terms of support, and getting assistance from resources assigned to other accounts was very burdensome where possible at all.

      I expected that a technology company would be on the forefront of that field, but in almost every regard I found that only the most basic system administrator practices were understood and employed by IBM. Battling with IBM management against cookie-cutter designs which conflicted with customer requirements, or outright didn't solve the customer's problem, was a regular and frustrating occurrence.

      Despite significantly increased responsibilities and being at the near-bottom of the pay scale, annual salary adjustment was embarrassing (<1% despite being rated as an exceptional employee). Same story on the bonus front (my bonus didn't make it into the triple digits, <$100).

      Advice to Senior Management – When taking on new IT outsourcing accounts, I'd recommend a careful evaluation of the position of the account's technology environment (degree of automation, adoption of recent tech, etc), and measure whether the IBM product line will make that account's situation better or worse.

    • Cares more about profit than truly engaging employees” Current Project Manager in Toronto, ON (Canada). Pros: Lots of different opportunities within IBM. Great place to start a career with so many options and opportunities to get involved in various aspects of selling or delivering new business. Cons: Huge company and easy to get lost within the bureaucracy. Often work for managers with poor people skills. IBM pays at best in the middle of the road. Don't expect annual raises nor any significant profit sharing (1-2.5% of annual salary) typically. Hardly a motivation to work extra hours to get the job done. Depending on which brand you work for, utilization targets are mid-high 80's to high 90's percentage...this includes vacation, statutory holidays and training days, so extra hours are a requirement to meet the annual utilization targets set by the company. Advice to Senior Management: IBM is run out of the US and policy comes from there to other countries. Its nice to generate profit for the shareholders, but don't ignore who generates a large portion of revenue...consultants.
    • Great company” Current Program Manager in Boulder, CO. Pros: Flexibility, vision of leadership, variety of opportunities; company's focus on improving how we collectively manage global resources. IBM encourages volunteerism and philanthropy, as well as a sincere desire to serve clients. Cons: Global competition for jobs; maintaining visibility among 430k employees. Advice to Senior Management: Honor the contribution work at home employees make (real estate, office expenses)
    • IBM is THE technology bluechip” Current Consultant in New York, NY. Pros: 1) Competent management has a clear plan to shift its product mix to highly profitable segments on an ongoing basis. 2) There are more career development resources available to you than you'd likely find at any other private corporation. 3) There is always a group of people somewhere that has similar interest / skills in your area of interest. Cons: 1) Experiences will vary widely depending on where your position is within the business. Advice to Senior Management: Our new CEO just announced a significant investment in employee skills. That is refreshing given a tumultuous time in the industry. The challenge will be in rolling this out to the field against the background of a performance driven culture. The devil is in the details of the implementation. Looking forward to hearing more about this.
    • No more working from home for software employees” Current Advisory Software Engineer in Littleton, MA. Pros: We get both chilled and heated water for free. That's it. Cons: In the summer of 2011 a decree was laid down that we all needed to be 'in the office 5 days a week'. I've been a top performer for 10 years and this came down even thought my manager and second line manager didn't agree. Morale is very low. Advice to Senior Management: You beat Yahoo! to the punch, and have been losing talent ever since.
    • A company run by cost controller” Current Advisory Software Engineer in San Jose, CA . Pros: Work-life balance, a large company which allows you to move around in position. Cons: Lowest in salary and compensation. Not much else to offer to employee. Advice to Senior Management: Raise the pay fast, else loose all the talents.
    • Technical support” Former Technical Team Lead in Research Triangle Park, NC. Pros: Internal resource access and benefit program. Cons: Salary, bonus system, and management. Advice to Senior Management: There is more to being a great place to work than managing shareholder value.
    • Good, big company” Current Software Developer in Marlborough, MA. Pros: Good life-style balance, work at home flexibility, good salary. Cons: A bit process heavy. No desktops for developers. Advice to Senior Management: Don't allow acquisitions to continue on their own for too long after acquisition. Better to learn the IBM process sooner than later.
    • IBM in Hungary - Great start if you just start working.” Current Employee in Székesfehérvár (Hungary). Pros: Easy to get in. Difficult to get fired. OK starting salary. Nice people. Great start for a career. Cons: It is a cost center. Difficult to get any meaningful raises. Bureaucracy and super tight budget (remember - cost center) makes it difficult to get to good trainings. The salary becomes pretty dull pretty quick. Not much benefits. Advice to Senior Management: Be more direct towards your employees. We know when you are giving us false or mystified information trying to "satisfy" us. People are not stupid there. Also, help the people who are way below the average salary on a given team.
    • Could be worse” Current Employee. Pros: Very flexible, good 401k benefits. Cons: They attrit employees with very, very low raises. Engineers now take their own garbage out of their offices. Yeah... really. Advice to Senior Management: Pay up.
    • a downward trend in compensation, perks, and security that long preceded the 2008 downturn” Current Employee. Pros: Work from home hasn't been repealed yet. Cons: Very little advancement; - managers get shuffled rather that promoted; few people anywhere seem to move up; contractors rarely become regs, regs rarely become managers, managers rarely become execs. We rattle around in the shell of a formerly great company. Advice to Senior Management: Invest wisely, as your job will be outsourced, too.
    • Good way to start” Current Technical Support Analyst in Montreal, QC (Canada) . Pros: Dynamic, team environment, open to new ideas, great opportunities to learn and to add new skills, very good location in the heart of downtown. Cons: No possibility to grow, temporary job. Advice to Senior Management: Hire good skilled employees
    • Good place to learn and get expertise” Current Service Delivery Manager in Sydney (Australia). Pros: Truly globally integrated company with lots of learning for people starting their careers. Cons: Too much emphasis on processes which most of the time is used as a cover for red tape. Layers and layers of management trying to manage a single resource ultimately resulting in unproductivity. Advice to Senior Management: There are lots of manager but very few leaders. Senior management thinks and acts like officers of the Roman empire.
    • Stressful” Former Staff Software Engineer in Poughkeepsie, NY. Pros: Awesome colleagues. The software engineers I worked with were absolute professionals, hardworking, helpful and most were wonderful to work with. Cons: You never know from one quarter to the next whether you'll still be employed. Your performance doesn't matter if you're in the wrong place at the wrong time. You may be given time to find other jobs within the company, but even if you find an opening within your division, the manager may not be allowed to hire you if the overall goal of the "resource action" was to reduce headcount: They have to wait until the latest batch of "surplus" employees are out the door before filling the position. Advice to Senior Management: You can't expect people to give their all if job security is non-existent.
    • Finance Manager with 15 years of IT services experience” Current Finance Manager in Research Triangle Park, NC. Pros: You have an amazing potential to do so many different types finance jobs. You truly have the ability to create a great skills set. Cons: It's very hard to get to a competitive salary even as top performer until you are on a compensation plan.
    • Slow to no salary raise” Current Systems Service Representative in Calgary, AB (Canada). Pros – Lots of freedom in the job Cons – No raises recently and when there are they are a very low percentage. Advice to Senior Management – Press to provide proper raises for your employees or you will eventually sacrifice quality and directly impact your clients.
    • Great projects, great people” Current Business Analyst in Washington, DC. Pros: The company is involved in so many things that there is an opportunity for everyone if you know what you want to do. I have had the ability to talk to a number of different people to learn about all of these opportunities within IBM. Encourage/reward you for taking on new opportunities. Great benefits. Cons: Size of company can feel overwhelming at first. Advice to Senior Management: Make on-boarding easier
    • Not at all happy” Current Employee. Pros: If we are in the right competency. Cons: Manager never allowed to relieve people, if you completed or not completed the tenurity. Even if the process you work for, is closing down, where there were opportunities to move to a better movement, the manager would not help you at all.. BEWARE such people before recruiting such low class managers. Advice to Senior Management: HR is terrible too.
    • Can't think of a better place to spend a career” Former Client Executive in Waltham, MA. Pros: IBM offers tremendous growth opportunities for employees. One can have many "mini-careers" all while working for IBM -- examples: sales, management, HR, program management, etc. They continually invest in their people and provide ongoing education. Better than average compensation, good benefits, etc. Cons: Unless you are opposed to working hard for a company who hold Business Conduct, Integrity and Customer Satisfaction to the highest standards, there really aren't any. Advice to Senior Management: In this era or remote/virtual teams, try to ensure that employees all still feel a part of the strong IBM culture that was so important to IBMers in the 70s, 80s and 90s.
    • It was the best of times, it was the worst of times” Former Project Manager in Edmonton, AB (Canada). Pros: Great opportunity to learn and expand your career choices. Great networking, great people. Cons: Less than impressive leadership, rude, uninformed, emotional, untrustworthy. Advice to Senior Management: Don't just send your leaders on courses and assume they learn and grow. Take them to task, challenge them, coach, mentor. LEAD!
    • Global Company - Not a U.S. Company” Former Sales in San Jose, CA. Pros: Leading global business model focused on services. Cons: U.S.-based management and just hanging on to their jobs. Advice to Senior Management: Innovation in the US, with government cooperation through taxes and regulations should translate into more jobs, not less.
    • Formerly a great company, has potential to be great again if they can grow revenue” Current Corporate Headquarters in Armonk, NY. Pros: Overall values and vision of the company; more highly functioning than most companies. Cutting edge technology and business ventures (e.g. Watson). Career growth opportunities within and across organizations can be vast, depending on your profession. Management at the lower levels generally is very supportive of its employees. Cons: Penny pinching ways. This includes forcing employees to use subcompact cars and travel in coach even for flights to AP, having employees use outdated laptops and applications, and scrutiny / controls on even incidental office expenses. Too many processes, approval layers, and fear of senior management. Advice to Senior Management: Restructure the many matrices to streamline the IBM face to customers. This will allow for greater line of sight to profit and revenue objectives and free up many executive and management chains to be remissioned to other opportunities.
    • Good employer but focused on expense cutting” Current Employee. Pros: Very smart people, innovative initiatives. Cons: Extreme focus on cost cutting.
    • Before you had a life. Now you're with IBM.” Former Marketing. Pros: - Women do have equal chances of success; - Flexibility of working from home; - Exponential growth in project management skills (unless you've already reached your full potential); - Unmatched opportunities to become a slides and meetings maestro. Cons: - Cheap with employees (yes, I meant cheap, not chip); - Too much busy work with awful in-house developed software and broken systems/ processes; - Not a good environment for creativity: extremely challenging to find time for experimentation of new ideas (maybe if you don't have a family and is 100% focused on your job) + all meetings taking place on the phone (not ideal to foster spontaneous creative flux)
    • IBM should get of the GDF model!” Current Team Lead in Dubuque, IA. Pros: The benefits are amazing with 4-5 weeks of vacation time, 6 weeks of full paid sick leave and endless discounts from cell phone to car companies. Cons: The amount of favoritism at Dubuque IBM is uncalled for. I see this daily as a team lead and management does not care for any employee besides themselves. All managers get a PBC rating of 1 no matter how poorly they do and get to downgrade each employee on the team to get a big bonus. I saw this the past few years and management looks the other way. It is sad to see this center has the worst turnover rate than any others. The average salary amount is $32,000. We advertise our jobs at $45,000 to $50,000 and rarely offer that rate. IBM used to be the place to work 10 years ago but with all the cuts in the past few years, I would advise not to work here. Advice to Senior Management: Listen to your employees and communicate with them because your loosing them daily!
    • An unpleasant place to work” Current IT Consultant in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil). Pros: - Good work environment; - Team co-workers are always willing to help you when something big arises. Cons: - IBM likes to use a bunch of white lies when you are under interviews (such as career plan). I was promoted after 4 years working in the company and my salary still the same (always having good/excellent PBC 2/2+ rate). The only thing which was increased was my work load and my inbox :-) - Each IBM department is a completely new world in terms of effort recognition, opportunity, etc (so you end up being in a lottery game where you never know what the result will be). - A negative work/life balance rate (team leaders bringing you work for weekend all the time). Advice to Senior Management: - Don't leave your employees doing the same bureaucratic boring stuff forever (instead, bring them new opportunities or they WILL get bored). - Don't lie when an employee asks for a salary raise.
    • Good place to work, if you can avoid Global Services” Former Business Analyst in Boulder, CO. Pros: Many great, smart people. Flexible and interesting work. Good pay. Cons: Moved to Global Services after 20 years in Development. What a difference!! Global Services is a soulless organization. The first three things in their mind are 1. utilization, 2. utilization, 3. utilization. And the fourth thing is reporting utilization on time (or even better, report it early). Only place I've ever worked where their attitude is that if you have been around long enough to earn more vacation (or happen to get sick), you need to work more overtime in order to hit your utilization target (based on total hrs, not available hrs). I understand that Global Services is a labor-based organization and utilization is a key metric. But it's an obsession with management. First time I have ever felt completely devalued as a person. Advice to Senior Management: find a balance
  • Alliance for Retired Americans: Friday Alert. This week's articles include:
    • Paul Ryan’s Latest Budget: Not New and Not Improved!
    • Two Social Security Bills Favorable for Seniors
    • Income Inequality, Tied to Lower Life Expectancy, Has Policy Implications
    • New York Times Features Wisconsin Alliance President Leon Burzynski
    • Florida Alliance (FLARA) Hosts its Legislative Conference
    • Obituary: Stephen Skvara, SOAR and Alliance Member, 1947-2013
  • New York Times: Looking for a Lesson in Google’s Perks. By James B. Stewart. Excerpts: Whatever else might be said about Yahoo’s workplace, it’s a long way from Google’s, as I discovered this week when I dropped in at Google’s East Coast headquarters, a vast former Port Authority shipping complex that occupies a full city block in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan. Yahoo set off a nationwide debate about workplace flexibility, productivity and creativity last month after a memo with the directive surfaced on the Internet. “We need to be one Yahoo, and that starts with physically being together,” read the memo from Jackie Reses, Yahoo’s director of human resources, which went viral after Kara Swisher posted it on AllThingsD. ...

    Mr. Newman, 27, who joined Google straight from Yale, and Brian Welle, a “people analytics” manager who has a Ph.D. in industrial and organizational psychology from New York University, led me on a brisk and, at times, dizzying excursion through a labyrinth of play areas; cafes, coffee bars and open kitchens; sunny outdoor terraces with chaises; gourmet cafeterias that serve free breakfast, lunch and dinner; Broadway-theme conference rooms with velvet drapes; and conversation areas designed to look like vintage subway cars. ...

    Google lets many of its hundreds of software engineers, the core of its intellectual capital, design their own desks or work stations out of what resemble oversize Tinker Toys. Some have standing desks, a few even have attached treadmills so they can walk while working. Employees express themselves by scribbling on walls. The result looks a little chaotic, like some kind of high-tech refugee camp, but Google says that’s how the engineers like it. ...

    In keeping with a company built on information, this seeming spontaneity is anything but. Everything has been researched and is backed by data. In one of the open kitchen areas, Dr. Welle pointed to an array of free food, snacks, candy and beverages. “The healthy choices are front-loaded,” he said. “We’re not trying to be mom and dad. Coercion doesn’t work. The choices are there. But we care about our employees’ health, and our research shows that if people cognitively engage with food, they make better choices.” ...

    “The philosophy is very simple,” Mr. Nevill-Manning said. “Google’s success depends on innovation and collaboration. Everything we did was geared toward making it easy to talk. Being on one floor here removed psychological barriers to interacting, and we’ve tried to preserve that.” Among innovations that sprang from seemingly chance office encounters are the Google Art Project, which is putting thousands of museum works online, and enhancements to the company’s AdSense and AdWords advertising platforms. Razor scooters make it easy to get around the huge floors (each covers five acres), which offer every conceivable gathering space, from large open spaces to tiny nooks with whimsical furniture. It was Mr. Nevill-Manning’s idea to install the ladder connecting floors, now that Google is too large to fit on one. He said he wouldn’t go so far as to say cost is no object, but software engineers “are incredibly productive on a square foot basis,” he said. “Their value is enormous. It doesn’t cost that much to make them happy.” ...

    Allison Mooney, 32, joined Google two years ago from the advertising giant Omnicom Group, and the difference is “night and day,” she said. “I came here from the New York agency model, where you work constantly, 24/7. You answer every e-mail, nights and weekends. Here, you don’t have to show you’re working, or act like you’re working. The culture here is to shut down on weekends. People have a life.”

    And the perks, she added, are “amazing.” In the course of our brief conversation, she mentioned subsidized massages (with massage rooms on nearly every floor); free once-a-week eyebrow shaping; free yoga and Pilates classes; a course she took called “Unwind: the art and science of stress management”; a course in advanced negotiation taught by a Wharton professor; a health consultation and follow-up with a personal health counselor; an author series and an appearance by the novelist Toni Morrison; a live interview of Justin Bieber by Jimmy Fallon in the Google office.

    Selected reader comments follow:

    • This article seems to be missing the broader context that, due to widespread shortages, software engineers can command huge salaries these days, and that Google can pay below-market salaries because it is such a nice place to work.

      The money that Google spends on food, furniture, and perks is most likely a pittance compared to the savings Google enjoys in lower labor costs.

      If a good software engineer earns $300,000-$400,000 on Wall Street, and maybe $180K to $200K at a large tech company, Google can most likely get away with paying $140-$160K in salary.

    • I've worked in these kinds of environments and have come to feel that it's just another way to create a company town. When you give young people -- often without great social skills -- everything they think they might want at the office, they end up spending all their time there. But at what cost to their actual lives? Now, when I see a job listing that offers free dinner, I skip it.
    • While, admittedly, Google sounds like a fun place to work for a time, these many workplace benefits strike me as largely superficial. The presence of free food and elaborate facilities does little to ensure that a worker is available to help his/her 3 year old stack blocks after dinner, or walk their aging parent to the bathroom. The workplace benefits they provide are those that benefit young workers who are unattached to life's responsibilities (though I was glad to hear that their is not a heavy work-through-the-weekend culture).

      I heard recently that Google earns $1 million in revenue for each employee, a fact that likely allows for such generous accommodations. I certainly would not want other businesses to feel the need to strive for such a high bar in order to compete.

      As a contrast, I suggest the Federal government as a place to work, where personal time is protected and health/retirement benefits are good (though not nearly as lavish as many believe). In return though, there are virtually no workplace 'perks' - we pay out of pocket for the water cooler and coffee machine in the kitchen. The peace of mind and time with my family are well worth the trade off.

    • There is an aristocracy of privileged geeks and computer nerds who are alleged to create incredible wealth for a specific category of mainly social media and software technology companies.

      The narrative goes that every single one of these oh so precious young people (ALWAYS young, never from the loser/misfit pile of over-40 maintenance programmers and others who are undeserving) creates $10,000 of wealth for every dollar they are compensated.

      On one hand you have these kept, entitled people, extremely well compensated Googlers who have paid few dues. On the other hand you have an enormous mass of displaced IT workers who have had their core skills demeaned and defined down to rubbish through the labor pool dilution of the H1B program. Plus Google has been a pioneer in using low cost outsourced labor to do things like scan books and publications for Google Books. Those folks work side by side with the kept elite.

      On one hand you have these kept, entitled people, extremely well compensated Googlers who have paid few dues. On the other hand you have an enormous mass of displaced IT workers who have had their core skills demeaned and defined down to rubbish through the labor pool dilution of the H1B program. Plus Google has been a pioneer in using low cost outsourced labor to do things like scan books and publications for Google Books. Those folks work side by side with the kept elite.

      Every single one of them will have real fun encountering the normal career marketplace where economic value added is the determinant of a person's job worth.

    • Its funny to watch everyone who knows nothing about Google apply their biases, and then comment on the imagined reality.

      Google doesn't want employees working out of their home ALL THE TIME. But every morning we get a flood of WFH messages (work from home). No advance permission is required, and I'm aware of no one who has abused the privilege.

      There are a lot of women at Google. I'm sure we are substantially above industry averages.

      Google pays very well compared to the industry. The crazy little benefits cost very little compared to salary, but they have a meaningful affect on employee happiness and productivity. Googlers are often willing to take less to work for Google, but most don't have to.

      The truck is real, they move it around from time to time using the gigantic elevators that once moved freight trucks when the building was used by the port authority.

      Google is a young company, but there are tons of middle age and older employees. A huge fraction of the population is at the age where they are having children. New fathers get 7 weeks of paid leave and other benefits, and are encouraged to take it. Mothers get 22 weeks of paid leave. They also have mother's rooms all over the facility for female employees to pump or feed their kids, who are welcome in the work place.

      Google is a playground, but it is a very productive playground. Who wouldn't want to work for a company that thinks it has a responsibility to do everything in its power to keep its employees happy?

    • I have a small law firm. I loved this article since I try to come up with ways to keep things happy for our clients and for us. We have toys for our clients' children, we have coffee and snacks, but clearly more can be done. It has been my experience that keeping the office as cheerful as possible is important to counteract stress and burn-out since work can be tough. Interaction is also critical, even in a small office. We do case review at different restaurants each week to get out of the office, run through all of our cases to be sure they are on track and to brainstorm. All employers should consider what works for them since time at work can be quite productive and positive or it can be a nasty, dull grind.
    • It blows my mind that a hugely successful company treats its employees so well! I live in Texas, where the minimum wage is the lowest possible, and the mantra is pay people as little as possible, or the product will cost more! Of course, if the middle class has no spendable money, most products won't sell anyway. My husband works for an airline that treats its pilots like unwanted, hated slaves. I wish the 'happy employee' culture would spread here!
    • Companies focused on quality and service simply pay better. Costco pays much more than its competitors, as does In-N-Out burgers. Employees take pride in their work and give it personal attention--one reason there are always lines of customers at those businesses.
    • What seems to be missed in many of the comments is that Google is a data-driven company. It understands that talented software engineers are expensive. Replacing people is expensive. When the learning curve is included, each replacement cost you at least 6 months salary, if not a full year. It also understands that for tech people, how they feel about the company is more important for retention than salary. Google is simply spending money where the data shows there is a good return.

      This data is now new. The discussion should be about why so many other companies are short-changing their investors by ignoring good business practices?

    • As a baby boomer who entered the workforce in the 70s, I remember office hours as 9-5 with an hour for lunch. Everyone left the office at 5:00. Work did not follow you home. Office hours were office hours. Companies today will do anything bleed their employees from the eyeballs. Free food, an open environment, cell phones that are never off, social networking sites all result in no life, no privacy. Workers who buy into the 50+ hour work week are unwittingly complicit in the way corporations do business these days. If you work, work, work, you may never lose your job, and all these corporations, therefore, see no need in hiring other workers to take the load off. So, we have higher unemployment, hiring freezes on one hand, and sleep-deprived, socially inept workers on the other. In the end the corporations win. A deal with the devil. Nefarious, indeed.
    • Disclaimer: I am a Google employee and these comments represent my personal views.

      I'd like to share a bit more about MY experience working at Google, and address what I think are some misconceptions out there:

      1. Average age of worker (29). TRUE, Google is a "young" company when compared to most companies its size, but its workforce is getting older. I am in my mid 30s and have 3 young children, and the culture is very inclusive of families.

      2. Perks come don't come at the expense of compensation, in my opinion Google compensates very well. Adding base salary, stock units, and performance bonus, I think the total compensation is REALLY good.

      3. Google doesn't require you to work long hours. Employees are managed by objectives and results. How many hours an employee works to achieve those results is up to him or herself.

      My average workday starts around 8am and on most days will be out by 4-5pm. I get home to play with my kids and have dinner, and IF I am falling behind on my deliverables I'll put another 1-2 hours before unplugging. I have yet to do any work on a weekend.

      4. In my opinion, perks make a huge difference related to how much I want to be at the office, in comparison to previous jobs, the day flies by when you have taken breaks for barista-made coffee or have done one of the many activities available on campus (dance classes, massages, gym, etc.) - In all seriousness, I've seen people hanging out at the campus on their day off.

  • Huffington Post: 9 Tips To Jumpstart Your Retirement. By Alexis Abramson, Ph.D. Excerpt: Like marriage, a new job, the birth of a child or any other major life change, a successful retirement requires -- dare I say it? -- WORK! Whether you've been eagerly awaiting retirement or have unexpectedly found yourself there due to a job loss, it's time to get to work making the most of this new phase of life. Here are some tips that will help "jumpstart" your life after retirement.
  • Retirement Town Hall: Americans concerned about retirement security: Time for a DB comeback? By Barry Marks. Excerpts: A recently published article by the National Institute of Retirement Security found that a whopping 85% of Americans surveyed are concerned about their retirement prospects. Also, 83% of Americans surveyed report favorable views of pensions (also known as defined benefit or DB plans) and 82% indicate they believe that those with DB plans are more likely to a have a secure retirement. What is also interesting is that about 59% of Americans surveyed say the availability of pensions was a factor in their decision to work for their current employer. Americans feel that our leaders in Washington do not understand families’ and individuals’ struggles to save for retirement.

    This all comes on the heels of action that plan sponsors of DB plans are taking to freeze or terminate their plans and also as many participants are realizing that their 401(k) plans will not provide adequate replacement income when they retire. As many Americans continue to be concerned about outliving their retirement savings, longevity benefits are gaining interest. DB plans have built-in longevity features that provide a stream of annuity payments for a participant’s lifetime. Given that DB plans place all the risk on the plan sponsor and that defined contribution (DC) plans, such as 401(k) plans, place all the risks on the individuals, many employees overwhelmingly support congressional action to provide all Americans with access to a new type of privately run pension plan. The proposed new plan would be portable from job to job, allow for a regular check that lasts throughout retirement, and easy for employers to administer while offering professional money management. The characteristics are similar to a possible proposal by the U.S. Senate called Universal, Secure, and Adaptable (USA) retirement funds. ...

    Finally, the survey confirmed that a majority of Americans, about 87%, believe that the increasing number of Baby Boomers retiring without pensions and adequate savings is straining families and the economy.

  • U.S. News & World Report: Roth or Regular: Which 401(k) is Best? By Scott Holsopple. Excerpts: People who are in their peak earning years just prior to retirement generally stand to benefit most from traditional contributions. In those high-earning years, traditional contributions could take you into a lower tax bracket and have a significant impact on your tax bill.

    New workers in their early-to-mid twenties fall on the other end of the spectrum. Incomes are smaller, so contributions are smaller, and tax consequences are smaller as well. During those early earning years, there’s less need to jump down to a lower tax bracket, so it generally makes sense to make Roth contributions.

    If you’re between 25 and 60, things are a lot grayer as tax and income situations vary widely. And tax laws could change drastically by the time you retire, so there isn't a perfect plan for deciding on Roth, traditional, or blended contributions.

    You can, however, diversify to mitigate tax risks. In this case, I’m not talking about your asset class allocation—I mean tax diversification. You can blend so that you’re making Roth and traditional contributions. An even split may or may not work well for you. If you’re younger or area lower income-earner, you may tend toward Roth contributions; if you’re nearing retirement or are a higher income-earner, reducing your taxable income may be beneficial. But, ultimately, much of the decision hinges on whether you feel more comfortable paying taxes now or later and whether you’re willing to risk tax uncertainty during retirement years in exchange for a beneficial tax situation now.

  • Financial Times: Silicon Valley hits at India over trade. By James Politi. Excerpts: A lobby group representing US technology companies is set to attack India for its domestic procurement policies at a congressional hearing Wednesday, in a sign of growing concern among multinationals about market access in the south Asian nation.

    Dean Garfield, president of the Information Technology Industry Council, which lobbies for large Silicon Valley groups including Apple, Google, and Hewlett-Packard, will testify that India is pressing ahead with measures that will “undermine, if not outright dismantle” its own progress as a global power in the tech sector.

    Mr Garfield’s remarks to the House ways and means subcommittee on trade – which were obtained by the Financial Times – single out India’s “preferential market access policy”, or PMA, as its main source of complaint, since it would require the sourcing of IT products made in India in both the public and private sectors.

  • Smirking Chimp: New Offshoring Prevention Act To Bring Jobs Home And Keep Them Here. By Dave Johnson. Excerpt: Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and U.S. Representative David Cicilline (D-RI) announced today the introduction of the Offshoring Prevention Act. Like last year’s Bring Jobs Home Act – filibustered by Senate Republicans – this bill eliminates a special tax break for companies that ship jobs overseas.

    The way it works now, U.S. companies that manufacture goods abroad for sale here can hold their foreign income outside of the country, untaxed. The Offshoring Prevention Act would require companies that send factories and jobs overseas to play by the same rules as companies that keep jobs and factories in the U.S. This remove an offshoring incentive and helping local businesses compete.

  • Huffington Post: I-Squared Equals I'm Screwed. By Stan Sorscher, Labor Representative, Society for Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace. Excerpts: This January, Senators Hatch and Klobuchar introduced The Immigration Innovation Act, known as "I-Squared." It will triple the number of foreign temporary workers from about 800,000 to over 2.3 million. This will distort the labor market for jobs in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM), which has only 4 million workers all told. I-Squared will seriously depress the domestic STEM labor market.

    Figure 1 shows increasing pressure that the H-1B program for temporary high-tech workers puts on the STEM labor market. H-1B workers in our labor force already dominate the annual graduation rate of 150,000 students from all U.S. engineering schools combined including about 20,000 bachelors, masters and PhD graduates in computing.

    Roughly 130-150,000 initial H-1B visas are issued each year. Tens of thousands of foreign workers use other temporary visa programs, or stay in the workforce while they pursue permanent status. ...

    Employers express frustration at not finding workers with needed skills. At the same time, they acknowledge receiving dozens or hundreds of applications for each job opening. Peter Cappelli, at the Wharton School of Business, points to a shift in hiring behavior. For many years, employers sought qualified workers who were able to do the work. Lately, employers are hiring fewer workers, and being much more selective. Now they want a perfect match of skills, knowledge and experience. That is, they want someone already doing the work, requiring no training or learning curve. Employers seek a "snowflake" applicant, uniquely qualified to fill their job opening. ...

    "Job shops" dominate the H-1B petition process, and supply high-tech workers under a labor practice that is nearly commodity-like. Ironically, domestic workers are held to a exceptionally high level of precision in the skill set they must possess.

    Employers will testify they are unable to find a domestic worker with highly specific skills, but the same employers will bring in foreign temporary workers with generic skills. Some employers file thousands of H-1B petitions, then "bench" workers until an opening is found. ...

    H-1B workers have no great advantage over the corresponding domestic workers. We see this clearly in the workplace, when domestic workers get layoff notices, then are directed to train their own H-1B replacement workers as a condition for receiving severance.

New on the Alliance@IBM Site
  • Job Cut Reports
    • Comment 03/11/13: Dow and NASDAQ at or almost record high. IBM stock almost record high and IBM is so &%$#ing cheap they will not match my promised retirement earnings in their 401k PLUS (where is the PLUS???? they don't match anything until 12/14/2013? You lose all stock market highs and gains until 12/14/2013.) I'm no fool. I've joined the Alliance. And IBM is not going to play me as a fool. Not anymore. Not nevermore. I'm fed up. If you're not, what's your problem? -wake_up_beamers-
    • Comment 03/11/13: There isn't any 'official' RA scheduled for 1Q13 @ IBM. The RA actually began with 2011 ratings, two consecutive ratings of a "3" and you're gone. Regardless of actual achievement of personal and business goals. Some were given a 12-month bridge to 'retirement' in 2012. In most instances, the last days for both would end of February 2013. With the performance rating, they can give you a REDUCED severance package. There may be an 'official' RA later this year; however, IBM is trying to stay below the numbers necessary to report any job cuts to the department of labor. Analysis shows, there will be perpetual 'rolling' layoffs between now and December 2015, some here, some there, but never all at once - so no reporting necessary. Leave on your own, if at all possible. The severance is greatly reduced and may be going by the wayside. The 100th anniversary stock options are worthless, as only 20% of the US workforce will remain by the exercise date - December 2015.... -Never Bled Blue-
    • Comment 03/12/13: Ginny, Are you so clueless? Have you spent so much time with customers you think that's all that matters? Have you taken a look at the "Client Jam" - Do you see anywhere, where employees that DO NOT have customer facing functions can voice what is wrong, what to fix, how to fix? Do you even care? How about shutting up all those young, new hire Blue Kool Aid drinking suck ups that clutter the landscape there with their exhortations and rah rah. Wake up! P.S. Get rid of that idiotic Monday cartoon on W3. Scott Adams has IBM pegged more with Dilbert.-Anon-
    • Comment 03/12/13: "Can't wait for my $1K stock option in 2015." Then might as well for the RAs before 2015. You'll lose the $1K stock, maybe lose all your FHA, and get reduced, if any, severance. But at least your 401(k)- plan (no match). Unite now IBMers! Organize! -UniteNow-
    • Comment 03/12/13: "Her pay doubles and I get 2% GDP?" Well, ya broke even since this pays for the Social Security (FICA) tax break expiring. And if me or you get promoted we get a PBC 3 to start in all likelihood. Ginni gets a promotion and doubles her salary with tons of stock options and hasn't even been on the job as IBM CEO and President for a year yet. She'll be at Augusta for the golf Masters too. All paid for by IBM. No customers or execs. Can't page her when she is watching either. I'll get woken up at wee hours by customers or management to put out another IBM fire..for no OT pay or paid time off. You haven't been RAed yet. Consider that your reward for your labors. Where is the justice? Don't expect any in this IBM. -anonymous2-
    • Comment 03/12/13: WHAT?!?!? anonymous2: You received a 2% GDP? I received 1%. (yes -I'm serious!) -dun-4-
    • Comment 03/13/13: Yes Bob, I'm a good little beemer, participating in ClientJam... but nobody seems to want to talk about the elephant in the room... this is supposed to be about how to give clients the best experience, but the #1 thing is going to be employee buy-in. Not going to get that with the way employees are being treated, and you've just exposed your attitude to the world. Maybe now the employees will WAKE UP and see that NOBODY AT THE EXECUTIVE LEVEL cares two cents about the company's number one asset... its employees. -anonymous-
    • Comment 03/13/13: @2 percent. Your GDP is based on revenue. Exec bonuses are based on profit. IBM's revenue has been declining, while profit has been going up due to the internal cuts. Make an impact, send the senators letter to your senators -Anon-
    • Comment 03/13/13: Wonder if Bob Hoey is going to work till he dies? Yeah, right. He is not a grunt like us; he is elite and entitled: He has got the SERP and other retirement perks to enjoy. Also doesn't have to worry about a PBC 3 or an RA either. What a two faced bigoted full of himself jerk for an IBM executive. -anonymous-
    • Comment 03/14/13: So Bob, "Good morning from Brazil, where I am helping the local ITS team with their 1Q Close" - Are things there that bad? A Critical Situation? Yet another outsourcing fiasco? That a General Manager has to come? Your presence says a lot. -Anon-
    • Comment 03/14/13: The 401(k) no match till Winter 2013 is only one thing. I heard a rumor from manager friend that IBM is trying to get rid of as many FHA eligible employees it can before 2014. Since the Affordable Care Act is going to cost IBM more money they need to do FHA pruning to remain competitive and drive profits to fulfill Roadmap 2015. So you can bet on more RAs accelerating on the USA this year. Those that are not FHA eligible cost IBM less but many will be gone before 2015 is out so they don't get the $1K stock. If the Dow and stock price corrects heavily or crashes IBM will get it's USA workforce (sans management) down even more than they presently project. -seeing_blue-
    • Comment 03/14/13: The 401K change is very unfair. But the real slap in the face to IBMers is to see their CEO's pay double in tandem to this 401K benefits reduction. I'm not feeling the respect for the individual - not at all. -Anonymous-
    • Comment 03/14/13: In regards to the Hoey letter, isn't this Bob Hoey guy just typical of IBM executives who fly around the world, attend meetings, attend "jam" sessions, which are nothing more than social media chit-chat, and then go on about how hard they work? Do they even know what hard work is? I think they've lost track of it after so many years of wallowing in their self-importance. I am an American, and I don't aspire to live in either China or India, where there are very few human rights laws, and people are so desperate, they're willing to be exploited by any foreign company that shows up at their door. But by all means, Bob Hoey, please move there and join them. We won't miss you. -Anonymous-
    • Comment 03/14/13: For years IBM pushed 'work/life balance', then at an all hands yearly meeting, about 4 years ago, it became 'work/life INTEGRATION'. During the Q&A session management was asked to explain the change and their response was that employees were expected to be available even when off shift in order to meet client needs. In other words, 24x7. Now are they back to calling it 'balance' to make it look better? As for the claim that employees in other countries are happy to work more hours, I agree with Annie N., before I left IBM my off shore team would even leave conf. calls with clients, the minute they hit their 8 hours. And as a US employee I never worked under 12 hours/day and most weekends as demanded by my mgmt due to workload. -Ex-IBMer-
    • Comment 03/14/13: Article, VW after having record profits shares 1.1 billion in profit sharing to workers, http://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/8426009/VW-shares-1-1b-in-profits-with-workers IBM on the other hand, artificially raises the bar on PBC ratings, lowing ratings to reduce payout, all in an effort to scrape every penny out of workers with talk like " we reward our highest performers" when in actuality expects more, pays less, does not give raises all for the execs, there are now two types of workers at IBM, those that are holding out waiting for the severance, and those that are drinking the kool aid. So glad I was "invited to leave" -Anonymous-
    • Comment 03/15/13: And IBM's response to the Vermont Senators regarding 401k bi weekly matches is "mind your own business. What we do is good for all your constituents". Do you begin to see why I repeatedly say to IBMers that only WE can change this arrogant corrupt company from within. By organizing. The Government really cannot mandate the aspects of your personal compensation as well as a collective bargaining contract can. No one else can end this madness. Only you can. In solidarity. -Exodus2007-
    • Comment 03/15/13: A must read book "Who stole the American Dream" by Hedrick Smith. Section on IBM with quotes from Tom Midgley and Lee Conrad of the Alliance. -member-
    • Comment 03/16/13: Well, even though Mr. Hoey and other IBM Executives provide almost no real value-add to the business, there’s certainly one skill at which they are highly proficient .... Collecting an exorbitant and undeserved paycheck! -Grand Nagus Palmisano-
News and Opinion Concerning Health Savings Accounts, Medical Costs and Health Care Reform
Minimize
  • Politico: To contain health care costs, pay doctors differently. By Bill Frist and Steven Shroeder. Excerpts: Lawmakers have spent decades dancing around how to stop health care costs from eating up greater and greater portions of our overall budget. Even now, the proposals on the table look at cuts in services, asking seniors covered under Medicare to pick up a higher proportion of out-of-pocket costs or assessing whether to eliminate the sustainable growth rate formula aimed at controlling Medicare spending on physicians. These proposals, at best, address the problem of health spending at the margins.

    The real culprit here is fee-for-service payment to doctors.

    We cannot control runaway medical spending without changing how physicians in this country are paid — currently the single most significant driver of health care costs. We pay physicians according to the number of services they provide. The skewed financial incentives inherent in a fee-for-service model promote fragmented care and encourage doctors to provide more — and more costly — care, regardless as to whether those services improve the health of patients. ...

    The current system places an emphasis on high-technology care and interventions, such as imaging and surgery. Services provided by surgeons, radiologists and other procedural specialists are reimbursed at a much higher rate than critical wellness visits with a primary care physician or office visits to discuss diabetes care. This reimbursement model discourages doctors from spending time with patients, particularly those with complex chronic illness, and has fueled the widening pay gap between specialties and the nation’s primary care shortage. ...

    his same pay structure is influencing the number and type of services that physicians recommend and even where those services are done. Under Medicare, medical services performed in outpatient facilities are reimbursed at a lower rate than the same services provided in hospitals. For example, Medicare pays $450 for an echocardiogram done in a hospital and $180 for the same procedure in a physician’s office. That makes no sense. ...

    Bill Frist, a physician, is a former Republican senator from Tennessee and Senate majority leader, and Steven Schroeder is a professor of health and health care in the department of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. The two men co-chair the National Commission on Physician Payment Reform, which has issued a report providing recommendations aimed at controlling health spending by changing the way doctors are paid.

  • Washington Post: An average ER visit costs more than an average month’s rent. Posted by Sarah Kliff. Excerpts: Steve Brill’s recent Time cover story, for me, drove home one key point: Prices in our health-care system are absurd. They range dramatically depending on where you seek treatment and what type of health insurance coverage you have.

    Brill examined seven medical bills in his story to make this point. A new, NIH-funded study takes the idea even further: A team of four researchers looked at medical expenditure bills that represented more than 8,303 emergency room visits.

    They found, essentially, two things. First, huge variation in prices: Bills sent out for sprained ankles ranged from $4 to $24,110. Second, overall, really high prices: The average emergency room visit now costs 40 percent more than a month’s rent. ...

    A headache could cost $15 — or $17,797. There was a difference of more than $70,000 between the most and least costly treatments for a urinary tract infection.

  • Forbes: Health Costs Slow To Lowest Rate In 15 Years As Employer Commitment To Benefits Wanes. By Bruce Japsen. Excerpts: Employer health care costs slowed this year to a five percent increase, the slowest growth in 15 years, but just one in four companies say they are “very confident” they will offer medical benefits 10 years from now even as more costs are shifted to their workers, a new analysis shows. ...

    The slowing of the rate of health care cost increases comes amid a sluggish economy and a period of high unemployment that has made it easier for companies to reduce benefits of their workers. And like other surveys, the Towers Watson report shows employers are continuing to shift the cost of the total premium onto their workers with the employee share of the costs rising to 37 percent this year from 34 percent in 2011. ...

    In the meantime, employers will continue to deal with health care costs by raising the share of total costs on workers. More than 80 percent of the survey’s respondents said they will continue to increase the share of company-paid premiums onto their workers.

  • GoodRx: Compare drug prices at over 70,000 pharmacies, and discover free coupons and savings tips. Even if you have insurance or Medicare, GoodRx can often find you a better price!
  • Consumer Reports: Can a phone app help you find cheaper drugs? We compared four and found only one that worked well.
  • New York Times: Workers’ Share of Health Costs Is Likely to Continue Rising. By Ann Carrns. Excerpts: Workers are paying a greater share of their health care costs, and that trend is likely to continue over the next several years, a new report on employer-based health plans finds.

    Employers still bear most of the cost of workplace health plans. But employees contribute 42 percent more for heath plan coverage than they did five years ago, as against a 32 percent increase for employers, according to the study from the benefits consultant Towers Watson and the National Business Group on Health, a nonprofit industry group whose members are large employers concerned rising about health care costs. (This change is shown in the graphic above.)

    Meanwhile, though, the share of the total cost of health care borne by employees, including both premiums and costs paid out-of-pocket, climbed to 37 percent in 2013, from 34 percent in 2011, the report found.

    Annual salary increases, meanwhile, have averaged less than 2 percent percent over the last three years, so workers are losing ground. “From a total rewards perspective, ” the report concludes, “rising health care contributions are taking their toll on employee take-home pay.” ...

    Employees paid, on average, about 23 percent of total premium costs last year, and are expected to pay nearly a quarter in 2013, as companies take steps to control their costs. In terms of paycheck deductions, this translates into an average employee contribution of $2,658 to premiums in 2012. That is expected to rise to $2,888 in 2013 — an increase of nearly 9 percent in one year.

  • Smirking Chimp: Paul Ryan’s Medicare Voucher Plan Is Back! By Thom Hartmann. Excerpts: House Republicans won’t give up on their efforts to voucherize Medicare. In fact, Representative Paul Ryan now wants to make it happen even sooner. As the House GOP is currently preparing their new budget, which will include Ryan’s Medicare voucher program, and they think it should now apply a year earlier than planned. In the past, Ryan and fellow Republicans have said any changes to Medicare wouldn’t effect people 55 and older, but now they want to make the cut off to age 56.

    Republicans say they would give people the option of enrolling in traditional Medicare, or accepting a voucher towards the cost of a private plan, but that so-called choice is a sly attempt to destroy senior’s guaranteed health coverage. The only people who would opt for a voucher are seniors with few health concerns, and who don’t cost much to insure. Seniors who can’t afford to pay the difference in premiums, and those with greater health concerns, wouldn’t have the option of selecting a private insurance company.

    This means Medicare would be responsible for seniors who need the most expensive care, and couldn’t off-set those costs with a pool of healthier individuals. With less money coming in, and the burden of covering those who require the most care, eventually the program would default. And that’s exactly what Paul Ryan and House Republicans want.

  • HealthPocket: Almost No Existing Health Plans Meet New ACA Essential Health Benefit Standards. Maternity & Pediatric Care Especially Lacking from Existing Plans. Excerpts: Our research took the Affordable Care Act’s Essential Health Benefits as our starting point. The Essential Health Benefits are the minimum categories of health insurance coverage that every qualified health plan must have starting January 1, 2014. HealthPocket then examined 11,100 individual health plans across the United States to see how many plans had coverage in each of the Essential Health Benefit categories. ...

    Dental and vision care for children was the least likely of the Essential Health Benefits to be provided in base benefits for a health insurance plan. Only one out of four plans nationally had these benefits within their base coverage. Looking at these benefits at a more granular level revealed that only 8% of plans provided coverage for dental check-up services. Maternity coverage was nearly as infrequent as pediatric dental and vision coverage. Two thirds of health plans did not offer their beneficiaries prenatal, delivery, and postnatal healthcare coverage. Substance Use Disorder Coverage was frequently absent in health insurance coverage as well. Only half of plans covered inpatient and outpatient services for substance use issues (e.g. alcohol or drug addiction). Mental health coverage was slightly better with six out of ten plans covering inpatient and outpatient treatment.

    • Physicians for a National Health Program: Comment by Don McCanne, M.D. Full excerpt: One of the problems that needed to be addressed by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was the fact that health plans in the individual market have very skimpy benefits - benefit packages that were designed by private insurers who were attempting to keep their premiums competitive. This study confirms the extent of the inadequacies of these plans.

      In response, ACA included a mechanism to require a minimum basic level of essential health benefits (EHB). The expansion of the benefits to be covered, along with guaranteed issue to those with preexisting disorders, and placing a maximum on out-of-pocket costs, will all result in significantly higher premiums for plans offered in the individual market. That is in spite of the fact that many will still find the benefits to be deficient, and will still face large out-of-pocket costs because of the low actuarial values of the plans that most people will select.

      Even with subsidies, these plans will be expensive. And for those who do not qualify for subsidies? Maybe those potential purchasers would finally see the wisdom of establishing an equitable public system of financing health care through progressive taxes - a single payer national health program. They certainly aren't going to like what they are going to get under ACA.

  • Reuters: Most large employers to keep health insurance benefit: survey. By Caroline Humer. Excerpts: Most large employers don't expect to send their full-time employees to government health exchanges for insurance during the next five years, but some retirees and part-time workers will end up there, a new survey has found. ...

    About one-half of the people in the United States who have health insurance receive it from their employers. Most of the rest are enrolled in individual plans or government Medicare and Medicaid programs.

  • Politico: States wrestle with new Obamacare exchanges. By Jason Millman. Excerpts: Wanted: States to work on Obamacare health insurance exchanges. OK to keep it sort of hush-hush.

    More than half the states have declared they want nothing to do with setting up or running those health insurance marketplaces opening in their states later this year. But a closer look shows that at least a few of these states, like Ohio and Virginia, may have a larger role than they’re letting on.

    When potentially millions of new customers start to enroll in exchanges come October, just 17 states and Washington, D.C., are currently slated to run their own. Elsewhere, the feds will play a big role in running the insurance markets, where people can shop and compare plans, often with federal subsidies.

    That includes seven states that have signed up for “partnerships.” That means the Department of Health and Human Services, at least for the first year or two, will handle the technical side of things — like building the complex IT systems and helping people to sign up for coverage. And the state partners will maintain their traditional control over their health insurance markets. Partnership states can either run consumer assistance programs, oversee health plans in the exchange or both. But even as a number of Republican governors sign up for the law’s massive Medicaid expansion, many remain wary of being associated with the exchanges. So entering into a “partnership” with the feds doesn’t do them any political favors. ...

    Most states are taking a hands-off approach to the exchanges, even after the Supreme Court ruling and the November election made it clear the GOP opponents of Obamacare weren’t going to stop the law in its tracks. So HHS has been carving out a quiet role for states to play even in these federally run exchanges. As an enticement, they’re even offering states grants.

    And that role looks an awful lot like a partnership exchange, even if neither the states nor HHS wants to come out and say so.

    “I can’t discern any meaningful difference between a partnership where a state controls plan management and this [federal-run exchange] plan management option,” said Avalere Health Vice President Caroline Pearson, who has been tracking exchange development across the country.

  • Washington Post: How much does an MRI cost? In D.C., anywhere from $400 to $1,861. By Sarah Kliff. Excerpts: If you want to get an ankle MRI at one doctor’s office in downtown Washington, the procedure will run you $400.

    Head about two miles Northwest to another’s doctor office, and the price more than quadruples to $1,861. Head out to the Virginia suburbs and the price jumps another $300. ...

    The clearest takeaway from the Cast light data is that there is huge, huge variation in what doctors charge. The map of Washington above, which shows the prices for ankle MRIs, is pretty much par for the course. Across the country, a number of cities see four-fold variation in how much providers charge for the same procedure.

  • Physicians for a National Health Program: Excerpts: PNHP members react to Time's ‘Bitter Pill’ PNHP note: In addition to longer commentaries by Dr. James Kahn and Dr. Don McCanne on Steven Brill’s special report in Time magazine titled “Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills are Killing Us,” many members and supporters of Physicians for a National Health Program sent in letters to the editor of the magazine. We reprint here a selection of those letters, none of which have been among the 21 letters published to date.

    Accurate data, flawed conclusions

    In “Bitter Pill,” a well-researched and in many ways thoughtful essay, Steven Brill gets all the data right, but then draws conclusions that are surprisingly off the mark

    After providing nearly 20 pages of damning evidence -- against both the excesses and inefficiencies of the private health insurance industry, and the runaway profiteering of hospitals, pharmaceutical and device manufacturers -- he arrives, or appears to arrive, at the obvious point: that is, “the best way both to lower the deficit and to help save money for people” is “the single payer approach favored by liberals and used by most developed nations.” Here he is right on the mark. But then abruptly, having just provided an argument that clearly supports it, he dismisses this conclusion. He provides two reasons for backing away from single payer: first, “no doctor could hope for anything approaching the income he or she deserves (and that will encourage future doctors to want to practice).” Second, “this kind of systemic overhaul ... seems unrealistic” given the extraordinary political power and influence of the health care industry.

    The first assertion is factually incorrect. In fact, most doctors would earn the same under a single-payer system as they do now. The main difference in the professional life of myself and of tens of thousands of physicians like me would be freedom from the unimaginably exhausting and time-consuming demands of private insurance company rules and regulations. For those doctors whose high incomes ($1 million or more annually) result from billing for individual procedures like cardiac catheterization and joint replacements, incomes would likely suffer somewhat, but would certainly remain in the mid- to high-six figures. It’s hard to believe that as a nation, we would reject such urgently needed reforms simply to protect these multimillion-dollar salaries.

    The second assertion -- that it “seems unrealistic” for Medicare to be improved and expanded to include comprehensive coverage for all Americans -- is logically flawed. Brill himself admits that the halfway measures he goes on to propose are similarly “unlikely to happen” given the current political power structure. Beyond this, if our society had followed his logic in 1917 or 1954, today we’d be living in a country where women were forbidden to vote and where schools were separated by race.

    The injustice of our current health care system is a civil rights issue as urgent as women’s suffrage and desegregation. Now the oppressed are not only women or minorities, but all of us who find ourselves outside the 1 percent of wealth and influence. An improved and expanded Medicare for All would change this. Virtually all other developed countries know this. When will we wake up to this?

    Jim Recht, M.D. Cambridge, Mass. The writer, a psychiatrist, is cochair of Massachusetts PNHP.

    Brill missed the elephant in the room

    Mr. Brill focuses on eight hospital billing statements yet dismisses the American private insurance industry as “ho-hum.” He missed the biggest elephant in the room. The largest single expense in American medicine is the administrative costs of private insurance that would be recovered with a single payer financing plan – that’s $350 billion annually and rising. That $350 billion represents 40 percent of our premium dollars. Half are insurance industry administrative costs; the other half are physician and hospital costs to collect from insurance companies. Remember this industry denies 30 percent of all first claims, requiring physicians to spend $82,000 each to pay clerks to persist in second and third claims.

    That $350 billion is more than the combined income of all American physicians; more than the nation spends on all medications; more than we spend on obesity and tobacco-related diseases – combined; and more than we need to expand care to provide complete coverage of everyone in the country.

    Every other industrialized nation provides better care to more people for less money than we do, and none use a private insurance industry like ours. Replacing it with a national single payer financing agency, even with no change in hospital billing, will provide everyone in the U.S. with health care for less than spend now. Mr. Brill found the bitter pill but missed the elephant.

    Samuel Metz, M.D. Portland, Ore. The writer, an anesthesiologist, is a member of the Oregon chapter of Physicians for a National Health Program.

  • Financial Advisor: Refusal To Expand Medicaid May Cost Employers $1 Billion. Excerpts: Governors who refuse to expand their Medicaid programs for the poor may cost employers in their states as much as $1.3 billion in federal fines, a study found.

    A clause in the 2010 health-care overhaul penalizes some employers when their workers aren’t able to obtain affordable medical coverage through the company. Employers can avoid those fees if their workers qualify for Medicaid as part of an expansion that as many as 22 states have rejected, according to a report today by Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc.

    Without Medicaid, a “shared responsibility” payment of as much as $3,000 may be triggered for each employee who can’t get insurance through their company. In Texas, the largest state to refuse to increase Medicaid, employers may be liable for as much as $448 million in fines, the study found. In Florida, where the legislature has refused an expansion supported by Governor Rick Scott, employers may pay as much as $219 million.

    “A lot of businesses have taken the position that they oppose a Medicaid expansion because it would increase their taxes,” Brian Haile, senior vice president for health policy at Jackson Hewitt in Parsippany, New Jersey, said in an interview. “The irony of this, or the paradox, is that the opposite may be true, at least for some businesses in some states.”

  • Bangor Daily News, courtesy of Physicians for a National Health Program: Selling Expensive Health Care Lemons. By Philip Caper, M.D. Excerpts: In 1970, a University of California economist named George Akerlof wrote a paper titled “Selling Lemons.” In it he explained that a market characterized by a large asymmetry of information between seller and buyer would also soon become characterized by a decrease in the quality of goods and dominated by crooked sellers and gullible buyers. In 2001 he won the Nobel Prize for his work.

    Sad to say, I can think of no market that better fits these criteria than health care. In a March 4 Time Magazine cover story titled “The Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us,” reporter Steven Brill dissects a number of hospital bills and traces the detailed charges back to their origins. He concludes, “everyone along the supply chain – from hospital administrators (who enjoy multimillion-dollar salaries) to the salesmen, executives and shareholders of drug and equipment makers – was reaping a bonanza. The only exceptions, I found, were those actually treating the patients – the nurses and doctors.”

    When you need medical care there is absolutely no way you can accurately determine ahead of time what that care will cost you. Don’t hope to get anything approaching a rational explanation for what you are charged after the fact either. The best you can hope for is that whatever insurance you have will cover most of the costs. If not, you are at the mercy of the hospital and, if you can’t pay, its collection agency. ...

    As the number of doctors who have become employees of profit or non-profit corporations has increased (now about 80 percent of Maine doctors and rising), they have come under pressure to increase the number of “units of service” they provide – visits, tests, procedures and prescriptions – in order to maximize the revenues and profits of the institutions that employ them. ...

    I still believe that most health care workers want to do the right thing by our patients. But our corporatized and business-oriented health care system is making it increasingly difficult. ...

    Businesses try to optimize prices and sales in order to maximize revenues. When “consumers” (patients) have little or no information about what they’re buying, Akerlof’s prediction that maximization of profits rather than value will dominate decision-making comes true. In other words, the asymmetry of information between patients (who possess little) and health care providers and administrators (who possess a lot) makes anything like a rational market in health care services impossible. ...

    In his Time article, Brill documents that Medicare is much more efficient and does a much better job of controlling costs than private insurance. It seems to me that he makes a compelling case for expanding Medicare to everybody. But, in the end, he backs off of actually recommending it because, as he explained in an interview, he fears the power of a health care industry that generates huge profits and spends four times as much on lobbying as does the defense industry.

  • Los Angeles Times: GOP's effort to roll back healthcare reforms is bad policy. Obamacare isn't perfect, but it's the first meaningful change in the medical system in decades. But Republicans want to reverse its advances and slash Medicaid. By David Lazarus. Excerpts: Bernie Morse, 65, of Century City retired last year from the aerospace industry and joined the ranks of Medicare beneficiaries. The nearly $8,000 he used to spend annually on drugs for a liver condition now will be cut almost in half.

    Were a private insurer to take over his Medicare coverage, Morse believes, his drug bill would once again skyrocket — only he wouldn't have his aerospace income to pay the tab.

    "I'd be really scared about what could happen," he said. And he has reason to be afraid.

    Republican lawmakers, in their budget proposal released this week, showed they're determined to roll back President Obama's healthcare reforms, deny coverage to millions, limit treatment of the poor and essentially hand Medicare over to private insurers.

    This isn't just bad public policy. It's the perpetuation of a Darwinian struggle between those who have access to affordable healthcare and those who do not.

    "There are goods and services that the private market does a very good job of providing," said Mindy Marks, an associate professor of economics at UC Riverside. "Healthcare isn't one of them."

  • Washington Post: Why an MRI costs $1,080 in America and $280 in France. By Ezra Klein. Excerpts: There is a simple reason health care in the United States costs more than it does anywhere else: The prices are higher.

    That may sound obvious. But it is, in fact, key to understanding one of the most pressing problems facing our economy. In 2009, Americans spent $7,960 per person on health care. Our neighbors in Canada spent $4,808. The Germans spent $4,218. The French, $3,978. If we had the per-person costs of any of those countries, America’s deficits would vanish. Workers would have much more money in their pockets. Our economy would grow more quickly, as our exports would be more competitive.

    There are many possible explanations for why Americans pay so much more. It could be that we’re sicker. Or that we go to the doctor more frequently. But health researchers have largely discarded these theories. As Gerard Anderson, Uwe Reinhardt, Peter Hussey and Varduhi Petrosyan put it in the title of their influential 2003 study on international health-care costs, “it’s the prices, stupid.”

    As it’s difficult to get good data on prices, that paper blamed prices largely by eliminating the other possible culprits. They authors considered, for instance, the idea that Americans were simply using more health-care services, but on close inspection, found that Americans don’t see the doctor more often or stay longer in the hospital than residents of other countries. Quite the opposite, actually. We spend less time in the hospital than Germans and see the doctor less often than the Canadians.

    “The United States spends more on health care than any of the other OECD countries spend, without providing more services than the other countries do,” they concluded. “This suggests that the difference in spending is mostly attributable to higher prices of goods and services.”

    On Friday, the International Federation of Health Plans — a global insurance trade association that includes more than 100 insurers in 25 countries — released more direct evidence. It surveyed its members on the prices paid for 23 medical services and products in different countries, asking after everything from a routine doctor’s visit to a dose of Lipitor to coronary bypass surgery. And in 22 of 23 cases, Americans are paying higher prices than residents of other developed countries. Usually, we’re paying quite a bit more. The exception is cataract surgery, which appears to be costlier in Switzerland, though cheaper everywhere else.

  • The Healthcare Blog: The Republican Case For Waste In Health Care. By Phillip Longman. Excerpts: Conservatives love to apply “cost-benefit analysis” to government programs—except in health care. In fact, working with drug companies and warning of “death panels,” they slipped language into Obamacare banning cost-effectiveness research. Here’s how that happened, and why it can’t stand. ...

    Yet here is a curious fact about humans, in the United States, at least. Though we spend more per person on health care than any other people on earth, and with results that are no better and often worse than all other advanced nations, we have allowed conservatives and corporate interests to bind us with laws that explicitly forbid the use of formal cost-benefit analysis to determine how health care dollars are spent. Until we get our heads around this contradiction, we are in big trouble.

    The stunning inefficiency of the U.S. health care system as a whole is now beyond dispute. To see the magnitude of aggregate waste, one only has to look at the gross disparities in how medicine is practiced in different parts of the country and with what results.

    The best-known work in this area comes from the Dartmouth Atlas Project. For more than a decade, researchers there have systematically reviewed the medical records of deceased Medicare patients nationwide, including those who suffered from specific chronic conditions during their last two years of life. And by doing so, the researchers have uncovered striking anomalies that point to vast inefficiencies.

    In Miami, for example, the Dartmouth researchers have discovered that the average number of doctor visits for a Medicare patient during the last two years of his or her life is 106. But in Minneapolis, among Medicare patients suffering from the same chronic conditions, the average number of doctor visits during the last two years of life is only twenty-six. Yet in both cities, all of these patients are equally dead at the end of two years.

    The implication is unavoidable. The much higher volume and intensity of medicine as it is practiced in Miami as compared to Minneapolis may benefit some patients in some ways. But all the extra exams, as well as the extra tests, drugs, and operations that doctors in Miami regularly order for their patients, bring no aggregate gain in life expectancy.

    By extrapolating from such disparities in medical practice around the country, Dartmouth researchers have developed the widely accepted estimate that roughly a third of all health care spending in the United States is pure waste or worse, mostly in the form of unnecessary and often harmful care—amounting to some $700 billion a year. Using a similar approach of comparing best and worst practices, a recent study by the Institute of Medicine concludes that over treatment and other forms of waste in the system consume $750 billion annually. That’s roughly the cost of the entire Iraq War.

    This finding is in line with that of another recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (the house organ of America’s doctor lobby!). It calculates that on its current course the U.S. will spend nearly $11 trillion between 2011 and 2019 on health care that has no benefit to patients and that is often harmful to their health. Cutting that waste by just 4 percent a year, the study concludes, would be enough to keep health care spending in line with the growth of the economy, which in turn would be enough to evaporate the federal government’s long-term deficits. And it would mean that wasteful health care would no longer crowd out care that actually improves and prolongs the lives of patients.

    Yet while we know the system as a whole is grossly inefficient, it remains easy for those responsible for the waste to escape detection, let alone accountability. The biggest single reason is that, due to the insistence of conservatives allied with drug manufacturers and medical device makers, the federal government is not allowed to consider the cost-effectiveness of different treatments in deciding how to invest health care dollars. ...

    The story of how this happened and what it means is full of perverse ironies. Leading up to the Obama years, mainstream health care policy experts and many politicians in both parties generally agreed on the need for the federal government to fund cost-effectiveness studies. As far back as 1996, a panel convened by the U.S. Public Health Service called for evaluating specific drugs and treatments based on how many years of healthy life they produced per dollar. When President George W. Bush signed the Medicare Modernization Act into law, he authorized $50 million to study the clinical effectiveness and appropriateness of health care services, including prescription drugs, while Bush’s Medicare program administrator, Mark McClellan, pushed for using such research in Medicare coverage decisions. ...

    As late as 2008, Republican presidential nominee John McCain issued a position paper, entitled “Straight Talk on Health System Reform,” that reflected the bipartisan consensus on the need for government research into the actual value of different drugs and treatments. Based on the thinking of one of his health care advisers, Gail R. Wilensky, who had long championed the cause, the position paper stated, “We must make public more information on treatment options and doctor records, and require transparency regarding medical outcomes, quality of care, costs and prices. We must also facilitate the development of national standards for measuring and recording treatments and outcomes.” ..

    President Obama came to office strongly sharing this conviction and committed to putting it into practice. But as it happened, even the administration’s most tentative moves in this direction were met by a firestorm of opposition from the drug and medical device lobbies. This opposition would have far-ranging consequences, including, in the end, an effective ban on government even sponsoring cost-effectiveness research in health care, let alone using it as a guide for setting health care policy. ...

    “You have to be very careful,” warned W. J. “Billy” Tauzin, then president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, in explaining why he mobilized his industry’s legions of lobbyists in fierce opposition to the administration’s proposal. “An arrogant staffer writing a report was about to dramatically change the direction of health care in America,” Tauzin told the Los Angeles Times, adding ominously, “I hope it is a clear warning. There are a lot of beehives out there. You don’t just go around punching them.”

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.

  • Viral Video Shows the Shocking Reality of Wealth Inequality in the United States. A web video that demonstrates the extent of wealth inequality in the United States went viral this week, as sequester cuts began to take effect. The video, uploaded by an anonymous YouTube member last December, has been viewed nearly four million times. The narrator presents a series of charts that illustrate wealth inequality. Viewers learn that the top 1% of Americans control 40% of the country’s wealth, while the bottom 80% has only 7% of the wealth. The narrator explains that when Americans are surveyed, they believe that the wealth distribution is far more equal than it actually is, but 92% still want an even more equal distribution. Go to http://tinyurl.com/cpn2oe3 to see the video. The Mother Jones article the video was based on is at http://tinyurl.com/c5z46cd.
  • Washington Post opinion: Paul Ryan’s cruelly radical vision. By E.J. Dionne Jr. Excerpts: Paul Ryan’s budget could prove to be a perversely useful document.

    Thanks to this plan, nobody can take the House Budget Committee chairman seriously anymore as a policy wonk or a true deficit hawk. His budget is the work of an ideologue. It’s a bargaining ploy that even Ryan concedes is merely “a vision.”

    It is full of holes and magic asterisks, the biggest being his refusal to detail any of the middle-class tax deductions he would have to scrap to get to his 25 percent income tax rate. This would represent an astonishingly large cut from the current 39.6 percent rate for incomes of over $450,000 a year.

    It’s a cruel budget. To finance his largess to the very well-off, Ryan would — through steep Medicaid cuts and the repeal of Obamacare — leave an additional 40 million to 50 million poor or moderate-income Americans without health insurance, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. ...

    True, the 2012 elections ought to have settled these issues. The Ryan budget was on the ballot last November not only because Ryan was on the ticket with Mitt Romney but also because Romney offered a similar approach. It takes nerve to dismiss the results of an election that Ryan himself called a “referendum.”

    The question is: Will House Republicans be held accountable for ignoring that verdict while putting forward something this radical and unrealistic?

    But there is bad news. House Republicans seem to believe they can offer a budget closer to Ayn Rand’s worldview than Ronald Reagan’s without paying much of a price. Some Senate Republicans inclined toward a reasonable deal will feel pressure to move right, given where Ryan has defined the boundaries of the debate inside the GOP.

    This is, finally, a test of those who consider themselves moderate and are seeking a sensible settlement. Will they call out Ryan and the House Republicans for how extreme their ideas are? Or will they instead adjust their own postures and timidly let Ryan dictate the terms of the debate?

  • Smirking Chimp: A President Who'll Cut Social Security - And Liberals Who Love Him Too Much. By Richard Eskow. Excerpts: This week the President hosted a dinner for Republicans leaders where he worked to sell his budget proposal, including his harmful plan to cut benefits through the "chained CPI." National Security was the main course and Social Security was the dessert. And guess who wasn't coming to dinner: The elderly, the disabled, or any policy experts who understand the disastrous implications of the chained CPI.

    Here are the facts:

    1. Research suggests that Social Security cost-of-living increases are already inadequate. (See studies on "CPI-E" for more details on the best ways to increase them.)
    2. Obama's proposed chained-CPI cut would typically reduce benefits for 3 percent, and by as much as 6 percent for some recipients.
    3. The White House's decision to label this cut the "superlative CPI" is grotesque. It suggests that elderly women who receive an average of $950 or so per month are receiving "superlative" benefit increases each year.
    4. The Administration's insistence on speaking of "entitlement reform," mixing Medicare (which has a real cost problem because of our for-profit health system) with Social Security, is a cheap trick first devised by Republican consultants.
  • Washington Post: Democrats slow to back Obama on Medicare and Social Security cuts. By Lori Montgomery. Excerpts: On one side of the Capitol, President Obama sought to convince House Republicans on Wednesday that he is serious about reining in the rising cost of federal health and retirement programs.

    But on the other side of the Capitol, Senate Democrats rolled out a 10-year spending plan that sent a different message: Not so fast.

    While Democratic leaders are offering quiet support for Obama’s renewed campaign to strike a grand bargain with Republicans that would include cuts to Social Security and Medicare, a significant number of Democratic lawmakers are digging in their heels and vowing to protest any reduction in promised benefits. ...

    Meanwhile, a growing number of Democrats have declared their opposition to a proposal that has emerged as Obama’s biggest selling point to Republicans: his offer to apply a less-generous measure of inflation to Social Security, resulting in slightly smaller annual cost-of-living increases.

    “I don’t want to break the bad news to you, but the president is not the only elected official in the United States,” said Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.), a member of the Budget Committee, who pressed Murray to avoid any cuts to social programs in her spending plan. “Some of us believe very strongly that it would be absolutely wrong to cut Social Security benefits.” ...

    But Sen. Tom Coburn (Okla.), one of a dozen GOP senators who dined with Obama at a downtown hotel last week, said Republicans oppose Obama’s biggest money-saver, a plan to reduce federal payments to drug companies by $140 billion over the next decade. And other dinner guests said they want to see more structural changes to reduce Medicare benefits.

  • In These Times: Progressive Democrats Propose a Defiant Anti-Austerity Budget. By Ian Becker. Excerpts: At noon today, members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), led by co-chairs Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), introduced the newly minted Back to Work Budget. The caucus's annual budget serves as an alternative to various White House and congressional budgets.

    The CPC says the budget would create millions of new jobs through investments in critical areas such as infrastructure and education:

    In the first year alone, we create nearly 7 million American jobs and increase GDP by 5.7%. We reduce unemployment to near 5% in three years with a jobs plan that includes repairing our nation’s roads and bridges, and putting the teachers, cops and firefighters who have borne the brunt of our economic downturn back to work. We reduce the deficit by $4.4 trillion by closing tax loopholes and asking the wealthy to pay a fair share. We repeal the arbitrary sequester and the Budget Control Act that are damaging the economy, and strengthen Medicare and Medicaid, which provide high quality, low-cost medical coverage to millions of Americans when they need it most. This is what the country voted for in November. It’s time we side with America’s middle class and invest in their future. ...

    The plan also proposes to end “corporate welfare” by closing loopholes that reward companies for sending production and profits overseas, as well as ending the billions of dollars in tax credits for oil companies and other major corporations that have shown record profits in recent years.

    The plan intends to reduce defense spending to 2006 levels and enact a tax on financial transactions. Currently stock trading and other transactions between financial institutions are untaxed. Attaching a fee to securities transactions, currency transactions and other inter-bank exchanges would not only raise revenue, but hopefully reduce the kind of rampant, unchecked speculation that contributed to the 2008 financial crash.

    In addition, the progressive budget hopes to lower health costs by instituting a public option for health insurance, negotiating drug prices and reducing fraud. ...

    With corporate profits already back up to record highs, the budget's strategy of public investing and corporate belt-tightening--for instance, modernizing 35,000 public schools rather than providing a $25 billion stock option loophole for Wall Street--don't seem bold, so much as commonsensical.

  • Washington Post: Ryan budget’s tax cuts would benefit the very wealthy, nonpartisan group says. By Lori Montgomery. Excerpts: The tax plan embedded in the House Republican budget would cut taxes by $5.7 trillion over the next decade, with the benefits flowing disproportionately to very wealthy households, according to a new analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

    Taxpayers earning more than $1 million a year would benefit the most from the GOP tax plan, the analysis shows, reaping an average $400,000 tax break that would send their after-tax income soaring by nearly 20 percent.

    Meanwhile, taxpayers earning between $40,000 and $50,000 a year — closer to the national average — would see their taxes cut by about $666 on average, increasing their after-tax income by less than 2 percent.

  • Huffington Post: Worsening Income Inequality. By Al Gore. Excerpts: In my new book, The Future: Six Drivers of Global Change, I highlight the problem of increasing income inequality that is plaguing the societies of almost every industrialized country in the world. Despite being the richest country in the world, the United States also suffers from one of the highest levels of income inequality in the world.

    In order to make the U.S. system of capitalism truly sustainable, we must tackle this unhealthy concentration of wealth. The wealthiest one percent of Americans now have more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. The gap continues to widen as the top one percent receives almost 25 percent of annual U.S. income, up from 12 percent just 25 years ago.

    While some inequality is inevitable and even desirable, the levels of income inequality have reached dangerous levels in the United States. Too much wealth concentrated in the hands of too few disrupts societal stability and corrupts the wealth-creating incentives of our capitalist system. Anger over income inequality has already sparked popular backlash in the form of Occupy Wall Street and other similar demonstrations. Indeed, the level of inequality in the U.S. is already worse than in Egypt or Tunisia, two nations rocked in recent years by popular uprisings that overthrew national governments during the Arab Spring. While the two situations are clearly different, addressing income hyper-inequality in the United States is crucial to making our system of capitalism more sustainable.

  • New York Times: In the South and West, a Tax on Being Poor. By . Excerpts: Debates over the fairness of the tax code are as old as the federal income tax itself. A cornerstone of the tax — established a century ago, by the 16th Amendment — has been the principle that those who make more should pay more, while lower tax rates help the poor to support their families and depend less on government benefits. ...

    While the federal government has largely stuck by the principle of progressive taxation, the states have gone their own ways: tax policy is particularly regressive in the South and West, and more progressive in the Northeast and Midwest. When it comes to state and local taxation, we are not one nation under God. In 2008, the difference between a working mother in Mississippi and one in Vermont — each with two dependent children, poverty-level wages and identical spending patterns — was $2,300.

    These regional disparities go back to Reconstruction, when Southern Republicans increased property taxes on defeated white landowners and former slaveholders to pay for the first public services — education, hospitals, roads — ever provided to black citizens. After Reconstruction ended in 1877, conservative Democrats — popularly labeled “the Redeemers” — rolled taxes back to their prewar levels and inserted supermajority clauses into state constitutions to ensure it could never happen again. Property taxes were frozen; income taxes were held down; corporate taxes were almost nonexistent.

    Practically the only tax that could rise was the one that hurt the poor the most: the sales tax. And rise it did, throughout the Deep South in the late 19th century, then spreading into the Carolinas, Georgia, Florida and the rest of the region in the 1960s and 1970s. Even liberal politicians weren’t able to buck the tide — just ask Bill Clinton, who as governor of Arkansas urgently sought new revenue to improve his state’s ailing schools and found the sales tax was the only politically viable option.

    If this were just a history lesson, we could set it aside. It isn’t. In the last 30 years, these trends have only gotten worse. Southern states have steadily increased the tax burden on their poorest citizens by shifting the support of the public sector to sales taxes and fees for public services. After California voters passed Proposition 13, which capped property-tax increases, in 1978, Western states began to move in a similar direction. Sales taxes on clothing and school supplies and fees for bus fare and car registration take up, of course, a far bigger slice of a poor household’s budget than they do from the rich. ...

    For a book published in 2011, my colleague Rourke L. O’Brien and I analyzed the combined burden of sales tax, state and local income taxes on poor households in 49 states, based on consumer expenditures, from 1982 to 2008. (We omitted Alaska because it offers oil-revenue-related rebates to every household). We looked at the relationship between the total tax burden on a poor family of three and state-level figures for mortality, morbidity, teenage childbearing, dropping out of high school, property crime and violent crime.

    It turns out that after factoring out all other explanations — like racial composition, poverty rates, the amount spent on education or health care, the size of the state’s economy, existing inequality levels, and differences in the cost of living — the relationship between taxing the poor and negative outcomes like premature death persisted. For every $100 increase on taxes at the poverty line, we saw an additional 7 deaths and 78 property crimes per 100,000 people, and a quarter of a percentage point decrease in high school completion.

    Southern states have far higher rates of strokes, heart disease and infant mortality than the rest of the country. Students drop out of high school in larger numbers. These outcomes are not just a consequence of a love of fried food or higher poverty levels. Holding all those conditions constant, the poor of the South — and increasingly the West — do worse because their states tax them more heavily. They have less money to buy medication, so their health problems get worse. High sales taxes make meals more expensive, so they shift to cheaper, unhealthy food. If people can’t make ends meet, they may turn to the underground economy or to crime. ...

    The fact is, the more the poor are taxed, the worse off they are, whether they are working or not. We all pay a huge price for this shortsightedness. Medicaid payments, food stamps, disability benefits — all of these federal programs swoop in to try to patch up a frayed safety net. Consequently, the Southern states reap more dollars in federal benefits than they pay in taxes (like Mississippi, which saw a net gain of $240 billion between 1990 and 2009), while the wealthier states — which do more to take care of their own — lose out for every dollar they pay (like New Jersey, which handed over a net of $706 billion over that same period). As noble as the federal effort to rescue the poor in the “mean states” may be, it is not enough to reverse the impact of regressive taxation.

    There is a better way: increasing taxes on luxury goods; exempting necessities like food, medicine and children’s clothing from sales taxes; and perhaps most important, issuing tax rebates and preserving refundable earned-income tax credits, which put more money in the hands of low-income households. Since poor families tend to spend all of what they take in, these protections would stimulate the economy and preserve, or even expand, the job base.

  • New York Times opinion: The Worst of the Ryan Budgets. Excerpts: The budget, which will surely fly through the House, was quickly praised as “serious” and job-creating by the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, though it is neither. By cutting $4.6 trillion from spending over the next decade, it would reverse the country’s nascent economic growth, kill millions of real and potential jobs, and deprive those suffering the most of social assistance.

    All the tired ideas from 2011 and 2012 are back: eliminating Medicare’s guarantee to retirees by turning it into a voucher plan; dispensing with Medicaid and food stamps by turning them into block grants for states to cut freely; repealing most of the reforms to health care and Wall Street; shrinking beyond recognition the federal role in education, job training, transportation and scientific and medical research. The public opinion of these callous proposals was made clear in the fall election, but Mr. Ryan is too ideologically fervid to have learned that lesson.

    The 2014 budget is even worse than that of the previous two years because it attempts to balance the budget in 10 years instead of the previous 20 or more. That would take nondefense discretionary spending down to nearly 2 percent of the economy, the lowest in modern history. And in its laziest section, it sets a goal of slashing the top tax rate for the rich to 25 percent from 39.6 percent, though naturally Mr. Ryan doesn’t explain how this could happen without raising taxes on middle- and lower-income people. (Sound familiar?)

  • AlterNet: Elizabeth Warren Confronts the Atrocity of Drug Money Laundering by Big Banks. Americans have been waiting for a politician like Warren for nearly a century. By Lynn Stuart Parramore. Excerpts: Heavens to Betsy. Sen. Elizabeth Warren leapt from the gate of her first term pummeling Ben Bernanke on too-big-to-fail financial institutions. Then she demanded to know why American banks were never brought to trial. Finally, last Thursday, looking for all the world like a school principal called to sort out teenage hooligans, she queried regulators as to why HSBC bankers who launder money for drug lords and terrorists should go free. Quoth the senator:
    "If you're caught with an ounce of cocaine, the chances are good you're going to jail. If it happens repeatedly, you may go to jail for the rest of your life. But evidently, if you launder nearly a billion dollars for drug cartels and violate our international sanctions, your company pays a fine and you go home and sleep in your own bed at night.”

    Game on! Naturally, the left is swooning. Elizabeth Warren says what we all wish we could say to the besuited jerks who defend a crooked industry. Except, instead of snatching them by the lapels and screaming obscenities as we might do, Warren sits calmly and repeats her inimitably direct questions like a blond Terminator. The big banks and their lackeys can’t stand her, and it looks as if the feeling is mutual.

    Americans love her because we have serious unfinished business with the banking industry. We remember how the White House chose to protect the bankers from the pitchforks in the wake of the financial crisis. We’ve gritted our teeth as bankers have charted a course to record-breaking profits as the rest of us slogged through a shitty economy.

  • New York Times: Unemployment at 4-Year Low as U.S. Hiring Gains Steam. By Nelson D. Schwartz and Binyamin Appelbaum. Excerpts: The economy picked up speed in February, creating jobs at a pace that would substantially lower the unemployment rate. But Washington could put a stop to that.

    Even as analysts hailed a better-than-expected jobs report on Friday that pointed to an acceleration in growth, they warned that stronger employment gains are being put at risk by sequestration, the automatic spending cuts being imposed by the federal government.

    “They’re doing their best to get in the way,” Nigel Gault, chief United States economist at IHS Global Insight, said of lawmakers and other officials. “But the good news is that the economy is carrying plenty of momentum going into sequestration.” ...

    But many experts said if it were not for political gridlock in Washington, which led to the automatic spending reductions on March 1, the performance of the job market and the broader economy would be even more robust in the months ahead. ...

    Public sector employment continued a long decline, with the number of state and local government workers falling by 10,000 in February. Over all, there are now 366,000 fewer government workers in the United States than there were two years ago.

  • AlterNet: New Research: Deficit Hawks Reflect the Views of the Wealthy, Not the Majority. Survey by social scientists shows why Washington focuses on deficits instead of desperately needed jobs. By Benjamin I. Page. Excerpts: Why are so many Washington officials obsessed with budget deficits? And why are they so willing to entertain big cuts to social programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and education, while being reluctant or outright unwilling to increase taxes on the highest income earners? The answer cannot be that most Americans want these choices. Survey after survey shows that large majorities support asking the wealthiest to pay more in taxes and want to maintain or increase spending on Social Security and federal health and education programs.

    A possible answer to where budget hawks get energy and inspiration comes from the first systematic survey social scientists have managed to do of the political attitudes of wealthiest one percent of Americans. Working with a team of scholars from several disciplines, I have conducted a study called the “Survey of Economically Successful Americans and the Common Good.” Most national surveys include only a tiny number of very wealthy citizens, but we used additional data sources to identify a larger sample of wealthy individuals living in the greater Chicago metropolitan area. Further research would be needed to explore attitudes among the very wealthy living everywhere in the United States. But our findings are highly suggestive of what would be found in a nationwide study. For the first time, we are able to pinpoint issues on which the very wealthiest agree or disagree with other Americans.

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.