Hacker News Reader

Comment by smackfu | Hacker News Reader

Reminder that Cringeley's original claim from Jan 22nd was:

To fix its business problems and speed up its “transformation,” next week about 26 percent of IBM’s employees will be getting phone calls from their managers. A few hours later a package will appear on their doorsteps with all the paperwork. Project Chrome will hit many of the worldwide services operations. The USA will be hit hard, but so will other locations. IBM’s contractors can expect regular furloughs in 2015. One in four IBMers reading this column will probably start looking for a new job next week. Those employees will all be gone by the end of February.

Now he's trying to spin that he never said "layoffs". Not sure why the IEEE is still trusting him.

View on HN

Wait. I'm confused: was cringeley right or wrong?

Well, here's what we know:

Cringely claims 100k people

IBM claims low thousands (at a cost of $0.6B, which seems quite high) [1]

ieee says Alliance@IBM, an ibm union, claims they know of 5k jobs eliminated; they further say they're seeing a flood of backdoor layoffs, ie sudden bad reviews

My guess is in 6 months, Cringely was more right than wrong. Or at least we see an employment reduction of tens of thousands.

[1] http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0KZ1WF20150126?irpc...

Based on what the article states, the sudden bad reviews are particularly evil for many older employees. In order to bypass previous layoffs, many agreed to a specific retirement date and reduced pay/hours until that date.

The catch was they had to maintain a yearly review rating that was better than 3. Once they get that bad review it appears all that goes out the window, no job, no severance, no retirement benefits.

If this is all true, and is consistent for thousands of people, then IBM may have a class action lawsuit against them for wrongful termination.

>IBM claims low thousands (at a cost of $0.6B, which seems quite high)

If you pay 6 months severance, it adds up quickly. A million dollars covers only 20 $100k employees.

What is the reason companies pay a severance? Most jobs are hire or fire anytime right?

Is the reason only lawsuits and good will?

I put this same question to my brother, an executive in a small business recently. His answer was lawsuits. Some people take dismissals hard even when they are done for the best of reasons. It just makes sense to offer a modest severance package that settles the matter up front rather than risking the time and expense of vindictive legal action.

It's a good time for the company to attach various nondisclosure, noncompete, non disparagement clause(s) and they mark the severance pay as consideration. These agreements typically only hold up if there is commensurate consideration attached to them. This of course varies by state and local laws if they hold up at all.

IBM has been repeatedly sued, sometimes successfully, for age discrimination, so you can bet that severance package requires agreeing not to sue for age discrimination.

see, eg, http://www.cookbrown.com/docuserfiles/file/Spring%20Newslett...

Some American companies apparently have yet to figure out you can fuck over your employees even more by not paying severance. IBM's clearly behind the curve on this trend.

Very unfortunately not the case. I didn't know the following could happen until the story was related to me this week by someone I know.

Apparently a tactic used by companies acquiring other companies is to re-negotiate severance policies with employees. As in zero out time in the old company. This is difficult for average employees to detect in the dense legalese, and it is an extremely convenient way to rid the new owners of employees that fall on the wrong side of the most desired age bracket.

The person this happened to was with the original company for a little over 20 years, the new merged company for three, and only got credit for two years (one year "probationary" period before severance starts counting) when the axe fell last month (not IBM).

Jesus. When the company I worked for (here in Australia) was subsumed by another, all the contracts were renegotiated specifically to include our years spent at the old company. Going in the opposite direction is pretty awful.

IBM US has unionized employees. In much of the rest of the Western world you don't get to just sack people on a whim.

Is that actually true? I've never heard of a IBM union for tech employees. Is Alliance for programmers? Are they officially unionized? It seems ambiguous from their about statement [1]:

> Alliance@IBM/CWA Local 1701 is an IBM employee organization that is dedicated to preserving and improving our rights and benefits at IBM. We also strive towards restoring management's respect for the individual and the value we bring to the company as employees. Our mission is to make our voice heard with IBM management, shareholders, government and the media. While our ultimate goal is collective bargaining rights with IBM, we will build our union now and challenge IBM on the many issues facing employees from off-shoring and job security to working conditions and company policy.

There is WARN to consider, which is why they can't just do mass layoffs without lots of notice.

[1] http://endicottalliance.org/aboutmembership.htm

That's also ignoring insurance and various other costs..

So far he hasn't been way off the mark from what I can see, although that isn't stopping people from aiming their pitchforks at him. I guess they don't want him to be right or something?

People love to hate the messenger.

As far as anyone can tell, dead wrong, but then there are still headlines about "massive worldwide layoffs." Not that 5000 is a small number, but IBM is a large company.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com