81–90 of 428 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't sound like all that much for the CEO of an IBM-sized company.
$6.2M sounds like a lot for any single human being.
WHY ALL THE DOWNVOTES!!?!?!?!
I worked for IBM during the 80s at the height of IBM's power. It was the golden ticket. 400,000 employees and everyone was convinced it was going to hit $100B market cap. When I quit to form my own business, my 2nd line manager said "Why would anyone want to quit IBM?". Long time ago.
That's 2nd line manager thinking for you! If only suspenders could talk ... of course they can't since their jaws are firmly clenched into the upper hems of size 46 slacks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems to me like IBM is in perpetual layoff mode. It's not that the ship is turning around - it's that it's grinding down into irrelevance. In a sense IBM is doing it the right way - returning the capital (via dividends and buybacks) and people (unfortunately via layoffs) back to the market to work on productive things in configurations that add value. Better to do this than to waste everyone's time and money. (Bu…
IBM's strategy for some years now can be more or less summarized as "offshoring". That's one reason the layoffs are only going a little at a time in waves, because you can't offshore the whole company in one fell swoop. Instead they're trying to do a ship-of-Theseus type thing where they piece-by-piece replace all the American staff with cheaper offshore staff, hoping they can pull it off while the ownership and busi…
If you are an independent software vendor who gets roped into part of an IBM deal, the first thing you should do is get them out of the loop and make contact with the real technical staff at the customer. Beats the hell out of playing telephone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You may be right, but a good sign for whom, exactly? For the people who lost their jobs? For shareholders? For fans of IBM the company? For IBM. For shareholders. For people who are not laid off and still work there. > it's not the fault of the people who are being affected by this, as by and large they were not responsible for IBM's decision to get more and more into support and services. Is it surprising that IBM…
Oookay, so to dig into it: > They can provide severance packages, extra benefits maybe. Try to re-train some people perhaps. But can't keep everyone till retirement just to provide jobs (That is what Uncle Sam does). Right, but they cut their severance packages. So clearly they're trying to contain costs. So yes, that's also a good sign for IBM the corporation, less good for their employees. > Services was bringing a…
You are probably right about that.
> the company doesn't pay the price (reduced severance), it's the workers who do.
Well it did didn't it? You mean shareholders? The stock went down for a few years in a row.
> or had a profitable business that is no longer profitable, the ethical obligation is on them to look after those employees.
> How about this, what would you do if you ran IBM and you ended up with 50000 employees trained to do something that just doesn't bring profit anymore?
Because it was "looking after them" for a while perhaps? The age of large service consultancies maybe over. But they still have those people getting IBM salaries. Those are not Facebook salaries probably but they are not puny either. At some point it would have to start laying people off. And it was laying them off and also hiring new ones. That is why it looked flat. But now it probably hired enough new people and stopped. While is still has to lay off others.
> Treat them with dignity. Pay them a lot of money based on their time of service.
I agree with that. Hopefully they do. I don't know if they will.
> Never refer to it as a "good thing"
The "good thing" for not for the employees, it is for the companies and for those that work there, for shareholders. That is a lot of parties for which it is a benefit.
Managers shouldn't sit down with those getting laid of and say "I have good news". That is not what I trying to say.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Much lower salaries with no long-term liabilities?
Why do you think H1B employees are paid lower salaries? And what long-term liabilities are you referring to?
Here's what I don't get... If you have any options at all, why stay at a company with sub-par technology that abuses their workers? They've been stuck in low 3 Glassdoor [0] range for a while. It's layoff after layoff as they slowly dismantle the company. Why stay? Geographic limitations? Narrow skillsets? [0] https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/IBM-Reviews-E354.htm#trend...
Fear of the unknown? Atrophy of key interviewing skills? Comfort with their position? There are a lot of reasons that people stay, even when a position or company is not optimal.
What a dastardly fellow! How dare the elected officer run his company as he sees fit WHY ALL THE DOWNVOTES!!?!?!?!
Here's what I don't get... If you have any options at all, why stay at a company with sub-par technology that abuses their workers? They've been stuck in low 3 Glassdoor [0] range for a while. It's layoff after layoff as they slowly dismantle the company. Why stay? Geographic limitations? Narrow skillsets? [0] https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/IBM-Reviews-E354.htm#trend...
Fear of the unknown? Atrophy of key interviewing skills? Comfort with their position? There are a lot of reasons that people stay, even when a position or company is not optimal.
I worked for IBM during the 80s at the height of IBM's power. It was the golden ticket. 400,000 employees and everyone was convinced it was going to hit $100B market cap. When I quit to form my own business, my 2nd line manager said "Why would anyone want to quit IBM?". Long time ago.