Slashdot Mirror


IBM to Lay Off Half of Global Services Division

Rolgar writes "Cringely says that IBM has begun massive layoffs in a quiet manner, starting with 1300 employees, but by the end of the year, the total will rise to at least 100,000 and probably closer to 150,000 employees, nearly 40% of their U.S. workforce. Some people will be temporarily retained as contractors at a fraction of their salary, and eventually, IBM will also dump many of the unprofitable customer contracts worked on by Global Services or outsource the work to Asia. If these people are looking for work, that could seriously drop wages for technical workers in the US since they will have to compete with these people for available jobs."

118 of 553 comments (clear)

  1. Thanks Cringely by winkydink · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'll wait until I hear it from a journalist. No, you're not.

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    1. Re:Thanks Cringely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yep. I'm not going to believe it until Dvorak writes an article about it.

    2. Re:Thanks Cringely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'll wait until I hear it from a journalist.

      How about from an IBM employee? As far as I can tell, it's true. They just cut nearly half our team Tuesday, wtihout even notifying the customer (Who is going apeshit). And 40% is indeed the workforce reduction I've heard bandied about.

      And I think Cringely has it right - this is largely being driven by Palmasano panicing over the stock price. It's barely moved since he's been CEO.

    3. Re:Thanks Cringely by phalse+phace · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sounds like they need to get rid of Sam Palmisano instead.

    4. Re:Thanks Cringely by jeffmeden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Since Americans started getting squeamish about hearing the term "Massive layoffs". Sure, they aren't going to announce it to the world as such. Once the layoffs pick up pace (assuming this report is true) IBM will start touting the 'revenue improvement' due to the 'cost saving measures' of their 'recent reorganization' that coincidentally involved eliminating a bulk of their labor. Then, watch as stock prices soar on news of improved profit per share.

    5. Re:Thanks Cringely by dreethal · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's true. I'm soon to be out of my job at the end of the month, as well as the rest of my team (IBMers and (Perma-Temp) Contractors. My account was slated for transfer to Brazil in January and the talks started before that. We were expected to train our replacements who have basically been warm bodies. They're not even particularly talented. The rest of IBM Global Services is going the same way. So this is a VERY real thing. I was hoping to get hired on this year to IBM from being a contractor and that's shot. I'm just concerned given the massive offshoring that's occurring and how much this WILL impact IT. The displacement of this many workers is still going to have quite an impact on IT.

      IBM has also implemented LEAN in effort to cut their IBM'er workforce in response to offshore outsourcing, which ironically is the very thing they're doing themselves. The survivors, although being survivors might mean they sorta wished they weren't. It's seriously bad. I'd suggest not touching IBM with a 10 foot pole. They're calling this the wave of the future... if they want to turn IT into something equated as fast food. That's the dream they're going for.

      Check out http://www.ibmemployee.com/ . They have more news on the matter.

      The sad part about the whole thing is that I enabled this to happen. I've spent my time there since day one migrating dying backup environments from Veritas Backup Exec and ArcServe IT to TSM and the resulting clean-up work. I am massively disappointed.

      Anyone need a Arcserve / Veritas / Tivoli Storage Administrator ?

    6. Re:Thanks Cringely by dreethal · · Score: 5, Informative

      IBM has been massively quiet on lay-offs for many years. It's just their style. It's bad for PR when it is that visible, let alone that it demoralizes the staff. IBM, through unofficial sources, has created ~70,000 jobs off seas while axeing a comparable amount (50,000) here in America. And that's before this latest round that we see today. The tracker is at http://www.techsunite.org/offshore/

    7. Re:Thanks Cringely by Red+Flayer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Since Americans started getting squeamish about hearing the term "Massive layoffs"
      And I'd say this may mark the beginning of the end of the economic free-for-all in the US over the past decade. Rising unemployment will lead to the collapse of the mortgaged house of cards that is currently our banking situation, to be followed by the collapse of the dollar.

      A huge announcement of these layoffs, followed by similar announcements by other companies in the coming months, would trigger massive sell-offs in the stock market, further exacerbating the economic situation as more capital flows offshore.

      If IBM does it quietly, it may cause their stock price to rise a bit, instead of sparking a sell-off as overyone's fears about a collapsed US economy become self-fulfilling.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    8. Re:Thanks Cringely by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Americans get squeamish about massive layoffs, but investors certainly do not.

    9. Re:Thanks Cringely by vought · · Score: 3, Interesting

      How about from an IBM employee? As far as I can tell, it's true

      This on top of the misleading jobs report released yesterday - which was still under the consensus by 20,000 jobs.

      So, will we still be subjected to news stories about the horrible shortage of tech workers in the U.S.? Of course we will - because IBM is laying off well-paid older workers and looking to fill those positions in 6-12 months with cheaper, younger workers.

      Hooray for corporate America. The only people getting paid well are the old white guys in the executive suite.

    10. Re:Thanks Cringely by Johnny5000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Americans get squeamish about massive layoffs, but investors certainly do not.

      That's because "Americans" actually have jobs and work for a living, and are concerned that their job may be next on the chopping block, and "investors" can just shuffle their money from one investment to another without that concern.

      --
      The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
    11. Re:Thanks Cringely by Ooblek · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I've worked with enterprise customers that have IBM handle all their data center stuff. Every time a change needs to be made to do something like redirect a URL from websphere, it takes 6 people to be on the phone:

      1. Person from our company telling people what to do.
      2. Person from our customer that organized the call.
      3. Person from IBM that can run a test through web sphere
      4. Person from IBM to change the URL in webshpere
      5. Person from IBM to change the firewall
      6. Person from IBM to change the VPN

      IBM has a bunch of people that know how to do one thing, and that is their job. The funny thing is, the people that know how to do their one thing aren't all that good at it. We went through this exercise 3 times. Once for dev, once for staging, and once for production. It took hours to do each time regardless of the fact that we did the exact same thing a week prior in one of the other environments.

      I'm sure IBM has some good people, but I'd have to say I'd be swinging the axe too if my company got to this point.

    12. Re:Thanks Cringely by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've worked with IBM contractors... for every one of you that was competent, there were 5 that shot the shit all day, got in late and left early. Hopefully IBM doesn't get rid of too much of the wheat while cleaning out the chaff.

    13. Re:Thanks Cringely by Cutting_Crew · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Employees face not only job loss but the indignity of training their off shore replacements."

      i know how to handle this. tell your boss or manager AND/OR IBM to shove it. tell them you WILL NOT train the very person who is going to replace your job for the sheer means of satisfying the stockholders. if they want the cheap labor that bad, then let them figure out how to train them and pay for them to be trained themselves.. and try to do that from 5,000+ miles away. then let's see how they feel about offshoring.

    14. Re:Thanks Cringely by Kadin2048 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Anyone need a Arcserve / Veritas / Tivoli Storage Administrator ?

      On the bright side, there are a lot of people out there who are of the opinion that IBM hardware and software is pretty great (although a bit pricey) but that their consulting stuff is what sucks. So the fact that you have experience with IBM systems isn't a bad resume line at all.

      Personally I've always thought that buying PwC was a bad move for IBM, and they should have just consolidated down to their core strengths -- big iron hardware, the AS/400 series, pure research, microchips and processors, and intellectual property.

      But still, I'm not sure I believe all this, because Sam Palmisano was a consulting/GS guy, not a hardware-and-systems guy. If anything, I'd expect them to be axing hardware (which is what they're really good at, but I never said I thought they were bright).

      At any rate, IBM GS still has a lot of USG contracts, and those can't be outsourced.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    15. Re:Thanks Cringely by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's true of most corporations, but most certainly true of IBM that management never get touched. They really only did a management purge once that I'm aware, back in the early 1990s, and that was just middle management. It's a general rule that the incompetent CEOs get to completely fuck over the company in every possible way before someone finally figures out that they shouldn't be left alone to manage a Dairy Queen never mind a multi-billion dollar company. Part of that fucking up is to fire a good portion of your workforce, outsource them to India, demoralize the remaining workforce, have your projects then seriously compromized, your customer satisfaction go down the tubes and then watch a stagnant or downward-pointed share price now start some sort of nasty nose dive. Finally the board and the shareholders get all pissed off, fire you (which means paying you millions to vacate your office), and you head off to some other company and start fucking them over.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    16. Re:Thanks Cringely by Score+Whore · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not to mention if you lay off over 30% of your workforce you have no choice but to announce it as the law requires an announcement.

    17. Re:Thanks Cringely by shofutex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Even if they do get fired for fucking up, they get millions of dollars anyways. You walk away rich whether you're good or bad--where can I sign up?

    18. Re:Thanks Cringely by Alioth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The dollar is already collapsing - it wasn't all that long ago when £1 bought only about $1.45. Now £1 will buy $2 - and there's every indication that the dollar is going to continue losing value.

      This does at least insulate us from the rising cost of oil for the time being, since oil is traded in US$, and US$ is falling almost as fast as the price of oil is rising.

    19. Re:Thanks Cringely by forgotten_my_nick · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > i know how to handle this. tell your boss or manager AND/OR IBM to shove it.

      Actually I had been in that position (well watching it happen on my old team, I moved before the mess started). Certain US team members dealt with it by using this website.

      http://www.exmsft.com/~hanss/badcode.htm

      I'm not kidding!

    20. Re:Thanks Cringely by bunco · · Score: 2, Funny

      (points) Bigot fight!

    21. Re:Thanks Cringely by RobertM1968 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's what happened at CompUSA... all the upper management we liked and respected (who seemed to care about the "grunts") all upped and left... by the time us on the front lines knew what happened and was happening, it was too late - though some of the uppers did try giving us hints...

    22. Re:Thanks Cringely by Dystopian+Rebel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Real democracy" doesn't exist.

      If it did, it would be crushed by plutocratic capitalism.

      --
      Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
    23. Re:Thanks Cringely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Kissing my wife's ass constantly, and I don't even get screwed. :(

    24. Re:Thanks Cringely by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      since oil is traded in US$, and US$ is falling almost as fast as the price of oil is rising.
      Insulates you in Great Britain; doesn't insulate the US. Furthermore, we're very close to seeing oil traded in EUR or in a 'basket' of currencies. One of the primary reasons for the current war in Iraq was that Iraq was starting to sell oil in EUR (another was the hope that US control of Iraqi oilfields could have broken the back of OPEC).

      If oil comes off the dollar, the US is even more screwed, since petrodollars will stop coming into the US, and other nations will have less reason to hold USD. Furthermore, there will be less incentive for countries like Korea, China, and Japan to buy T-Bills (which they currently do for a *negative* return once dollar depreciation is factored in) -- which results in them selling them off, which then causes the dollar to drop further.

      All in all, there are several major factors currently propping up the USD, and if any one of them were to fail, it's likely the others would follow, resulting in economic disaster for the US, with much of the world to follow.

      Note that depreciation of the dollar is a positive for USD debt servicing, which is a major reason why it's been allowed to continue. As soon as the US is forced to take it's debt in other currencies, however (which will likely be around when oil comes off the USD), then the US is in a world of pain.

      As for me, I'm contributing to the problem by investing most of my money overseas -- but I can't accept the risk to my long-term investments by having them here in the US.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    25. Re:Thanks Cringely by mandelbr0t · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm sure IBM has some good people, but I'd have to say I'd be swinging the axe too if my company got to this point. That's very possibly the main reason to do such a thing. It's been a while since I've worked with ex-IBMers, but all the ones I met were very, very good at their job. And not just at one thing. Of course, those were the consultants. Your comment about IBM using too many people is probably noteworthy too, but they've always used too many people.

      Yeah, ditching the cruft when you're worried about your reputation seems like a good business move to me. I just didn't know that IBM had earned a bad one recently.
      --
      "Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
    26. Re:Thanks Cringely by tungstencoil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I cannot speak for IBM per se, but my corporate experience (both personal, and watching those around me) is that often severance packages are tightly tied to "continuing to perform your duties as assigned", which (at that point) means: show up, play nice, and train your replacement. If you don't, not only are you out of a job (and probably earlier than you thought), you don't get your severance pay.

    27. Re:Thanks Cringely by simontek2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Email Sam at: Sam@us.ibm.com

      --
      SimonTek
    28. Re:Thanks Cringely by Danathar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sounds like a recipe for more of the violence like happened down at NASA. Out of 100,000 layoffs how many of those might be psycho/sociopaths?

    29. Re:Thanks Cringely by Tsagadai · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I feel you here. If you don't stand up to your boss they will always walk all over you. Last time I told my boss to shove it I got a promotion for being well spoken and assertive. Plus as someone who has been homeless it's bad but it's still better than living in the suburbs.

    30. Re:Thanks Cringely by umbrellasd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The most important part of what you just said is that it doesn't take long for people to realize how screwed up the mass layoff was, and then a good portion of that 40% gets reabsorbed back into the machine. So people are worrying that these people will saturate "the market" but in all likelihood, firing half your workforce does absolutely nothing to teach you how to be 40% more efficient. Which means unless some radical transformation in management occurs (and as you just pointed out that's extremely unlikely), IBM will be just as inefficient before but now making 40% less of their customers happy and earning 40% less revenue, which means they'll go, "Oh, shit!" and have a mass hiring in short order.

      As far as market saturation while they figure that out, you'd really need to take a look at the qualifications of these people and what work they are suited to as far as where they can realistically go to fill a job (where the employer agrees on their credential and pay level and so do they). Then maybe we could talk about the short-term impact of a glut of IT workers in those particular areas of IT, but again I predict it is just a transitory thing. And I suspect what some other people said is just exactly right. The perceived move to increase efficiency will drive up the stock in the short-term, some bigwigs will cash out, and then the reality of my first paragraph will set in and things will return to (normal - a couple hundred million in bigwig pockets).

      And of course, flooding a market temporarily drives average salaries down, which means you can rehire your people at a 15% discount and thus you see just how it works. 100K employees * 15% ($50K median salary at time of layoff) * 1.5 year rehire loop = 1.125 billion dollars. If upper management did their homework, the revenue lost over the period is offset by the short-term float of the stock on investor optimism about the reorganization and there you go: about a billion dollars to spread around to the high rollers as they make a graceless exit, fat wallet in tow.

      Digustingly clear isn't it?
    31. Re:Thanks Cringely by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Informative

      T-Bills have value because the US government always pays it's debts (so far). The dollar has dropped 25% but the value of US Bonds stays strong.
      The value of US Bonds is dependent on the interest rate given on them. In addition, expectations of a weakening dollar reduces the values of US Bonds. US Bonds have the highest rating becaue the US hasn't welched yet, but the rating of the bond is only one factor in its value.

      It doesn't matter what currency oil trades in, because if you have Euros, Pesos, or Yuan you're still going to use them to buy US assets.
      Not really. If oil is traded in Euros, and there is expectation of a weakening dollar, investors will want to stay away from US assets (like T-Bills).

      Say the rate right now is 1.0000. I spend 500 EUR, I get 500 USD worth of bonds. Say as those bonds get closer to maturing, they gain 1%. Now I have 505 USD worth -- but if the exchange rate is now 1.1, I've lost money, because that 505 USD is now worth only 459.09 EUR. This means that to foreign investors without dollars to burn (i.e., without petrodollars) T-Bills are a bad investment.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    32. Re:Thanks Cringely by Thangodin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course, massive layoffs never work. There are two kinds of employees--politicians and workers. The workers are too busy to see the boom come down, so they are the ones who get laid off. The politicians keep their eyes on the politics of the company, which means that they don't really have time to get much work done. They are really good at looking good--but not very good at actually getting work done.

      Each time you downsize, you cut a disproportionate quantity of productive employees. Think of it as a crash diet; you waste muscle and increase the percentage of fat. This is why crash dieting is a good predictor of future obesity. It's also why companies that go through this binge/purge cycle become less and less competitive with each cycle. Look at Ford, GM, and Chrysler. How many times have they done this? My, now there's a success story...

    33. Re:Thanks Cringely by twilightzero · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I work at IBM and I've seen the results of this. It doesn't matter that they've created 70,000 jobs over there while getting rid of 50,000 jobs over here. The actual functional code/fix writing rate of Indian/Mexican/Chinese programmers is less than 1/4 the rate of their US counterparts. Why? It's not because they're dumb or uneducated. It's because those areas treat their employees like commodity replaceable units. They shuffle their people around month to month so they NEVER get any skill continuity or real expertise on a specific project. They view anyone with 5 years C++ experience, doesn't matter that you have have written embedded systems for 5 years and now they want you to write high availability communications software.

      So they really need to hire 4-6 times the amount of programmers/engineers, at least for a few years, to keep up their current pace. And once the pace falls behind, the support goes to crap, and a few other things, the customers will leave in stampedes for better places...

      --

      "Christ what a design! I could eat a handful of iron filings and PUKE a better emergency pump than that!"
    34. Re:Thanks Cringely by terjeber · · Score: 5, Informative

      'll wait until I hear it from a journalist.
      How about from an IBM employee? As far as I can tell, it's true.

      I just wish people would do an absolute minimum amount of fact checking before they spread this kind of, quite frankly, garbage.

      Firstly - I have no doubt IBM is laying off a lot of people, there is probably a need to in some areas. Layoffs are part of running any business. Some times a lot of layoffs will happen too. Trying just a little bit of basic maths first would be appropriate however. The numbers in this article are absurd.

      As far as I know IBM has around 320 000 employees world wide and some 120 or so in the US. The layoffs this article are talking about are in the US, and they are only within the IGS part of IBM. IGS doesn't account for more than half of IBMs employees in the US, at an absolute maximum. That means that if you lay off the entire IGS division, you'd lay off some 50-60 thousand people. Where Bob gets the other 100 000 from is anyones guess. Perhaps they are laying off people in India and outsourcing those to China, and they are laying off people in China to outsource them to Poland.

      Sadly sensationalism is more important than basic fact checking. The state of our current journalists is really, really sad. Cringely is at the very bottom of the heaping pile of dung that they call journalists today. Cringely is useful for little else than pirana food. Sadly I think that feeding Cringely to pirana would be cruel and unusual punishment, for the pirana.

    35. Re:Thanks Cringely by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I do not know how to do just one thing, I am not an older worker. I am young (32 years old), but have spent 10 years with the company.

      I have news for you: thirty-two qualifies as an "older worker" in the modern world (not that I'm saying 32 is old!) However, ten years experience? You're no newbie: that's a substantial work history, my friend. It's worthy of a decent salary, much more than they would have to pay for an outsourced worker or a recent graduate. It's much more than the cheap bastards that run today's companies want to pay for. If I was still running my old consulting business and you were working for me, I would expect to pay you what you were worth, and I would expect you to make that money back for me and then some. That's how the game is supposed to be played.

      The problem is that experience is simply not valued by American corporations anymore. It just isn't, and that really is the crux of the matter. If you do value the accumulated knowledge and wisdom of your employees, you come to the realization that paying them what they're worth is, in fact, worth every penny. That's because they are that which makes your company valuable. It's not the buildings, the furniture, the physical plant: it's the people. But you have to have a degree of foresight to understand that, and maybe an awareness of history, and both are in short supply nowadays.

      Take me ... I've been a software developer for twenty-seven years (started my own consulting business when I was twenty), doing software for the manufacturing sector, with a minor sideline in video games. So now, after all that time, all that experience in product design, management and implementation, I find that my country doesn't see me (and those like me) as anything but a cheap commodity. Too many Palmisano's and Fiorina's have devalued thousands upon thousands of talented engineers and technical people of all kinds, the very people that we need to maintain our industrial base and the high standard of living that came along with it.

      At some point I guess I'll have to become a manager, or go back into business for myself. Personally, I find the latter option more appealing: even middle management isn't safe from layoffs anymore, and frankly I'd rather be bossing computers around than telling people what to do. But that's just me. Maybe when I get old enough and lose my edge I'll try management, but for now I like coding too much.

      Oh well, I will take my severance and run and get the hell away from this sinking ship as fast as I can.

      ... do that, and don't look back. And good luck, whatever happens.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  2. Where's your god now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    heavily indebted McMansion owners?

  3. Mismanaged... by packetmon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I worked for IBM as a contractor and I'm sure for anyone else who has worked there whether as a full time employee or as a contractor, I am not kidding when I say they are highly mismanaged. I worked as a security engineer responsible for managed firewall services they were doing and I was extremely frustrated at the methods upper management handled things. We'd often spend an hour to two hours over the phone talking about nonsense and waiting for others to join in on the calls. Mind you I worked from home so IBM wasn't spending on me what they did for their normal employees. Whenever I had to head to Southington CT, I would see nothing but waste. I won't be crying for any one of those workers, that's the name of the game, making money. I only wonder why it took so long since this was inevitable anyway.

    1. Re:Mismanaged... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, kidding. I had a one-day contract where a group of techs were supposed removed the Token Ring cable, plug in the Ethernet cable from the wall to the motherboard port, and run a network config script. I had to clean up after them because they couldn't read the instruction sheet as they plug the ethernet cable into the Token Ring card and forgot to run the script. More overtime pay for me to pay off my certifications.

    2. Re:Mismanaged... by GameMaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You may, or may not, feel the need to cry for the IBM employees who are losing their jobs but better people to cry for might be the competent employees in the rest of the IT sector who now have to deal with a flooded job market. As long as they weren't fired for cause, their resumes look just as good as a competent employee's would. Even employed IT workers should be, at least, a little worried as the average pay rate stands to plummet and their higher pay rates become a liability to job security.

      -GameMaster

      --

      Rules of Conduct:
      #1 - The DM is always right.
      #2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
    3. Re:Mismanaged... by Usquebaugh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is that the managers remain. So it happens again and again.

      I wonder is the services arm seen as the place you put the duffers in IBM? Keep the skilled workers in other areas but move the dead wood to services?

  4. What the hell *is* IBM Global Services? by c0d3h4x0r · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So what (in a nutshell) is IBM Global Services? What do they do?

    --
    Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
    1. Re:What the hell *is* IBM Global Services? by rob1980 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Global stuff. You know. Like... increasing productivity through outside-the-box thinking and a fundamental paradigm shift.

    2. Re:What the hell *is* IBM Global Services? by AslanTheMentat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So what (in a nutshell) is IBM Global Services? What do they do?

      They make really cryptic, bad commercials involving guys in Kubrickesque spacesuits wandering around data-centers.

      *rolls eyes*
    3. Re:What the hell *is* IBM Global Services? by Kadin2048 · · Score: 5, Informative

      So what (in a nutshell) is IBM Global Services? What do they do?

      It's IBM's consulting division.

      In a nutshell, it's all of IBM except the parts with which you're probably familiar from the Good Old Days; it's all the business consulting, management consulting, logistics, etc.

      What it's not is the remaining parts of IBM hardware; the AS/400 division, the mainframe division, software division (Lotus) etc.

      I think Cringlely is dead wrong on all this -- in the past few years it's been Global Services and software that are really hauling everything else along. I think Hardware would probably survive on its own, as long as they could keep the IBM marque, but the money is in the service crap.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    4. Re:What the hell *is* IBM Global Services? by lastchance_000 · · Score: 2, Informative

      When I was with them in the mid 90's, other companies outsourced to us. I assume that is basically still the case.

    5. Re:What the hell *is* IBM Global Services? by beef+curtains · · Score: 5, Informative

      They do IT consulting, and make up one of the "Big Four", along with Accenture, BearingPoint (formerly KPMG Consulting) and Deloitte Consulting.

      IBM Global Services is essentially the artist formerly known as PwC Consulting (which IBM purchased). PwC Consulting was formerly the consulting arm of PriceWaterhouse Coopers, and was spun off in 2002 in response to the Enron/WorldCom/Arthur Andersen messes & the introduction of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (requiring auditor independence, separation of audit & consulting, yadda yadda).

      Before IBM bought PwC Consulting, you may recall that it was on the verge of being renamed Monday.

      --
      Just once I'd like someone to call me 'Sir' without adding 'You're making a scene.'
    6. Re:What the hell *is* IBM Global Services? by bynary · · Score: 4, Funny

      Moving forward, they leverage their intellectual capital in conjunction with the synergistic core competencies of a highly mobile workforce of motivated resources to manage global diversification, decentralize initiatives, and reduce inventory turnover in an increasingly risk averse marketplace. They operate on the principles of a paradigm shift away from participative management towards actionable strategic alliances. Quite intuitive, really...

      --
      http://www.bynarystudio.com
    7. Re:What the hell *is* IBM Global Services? by FooAtWFU · · Score: 3, Interesting
      The money may be in Services, but from what I understand a fair chunk of the profit is in the Software. One of the reasons Services exists is to pipe money to the hardware and software divisions...

      It sounds like they're just dumping their Unprofitable parts of Services. If that's the case, they might be able to clean up. The Old Contracts and such are still likely to send money to IBM Software, and many of the people who are getting laid off, if they continue to do things in the industry, may continue to do things the way they learned, the IBM way, and keep sending money there as well. (You get to say "I can work with WebSphere!" It's a selling point for yourself that you're not going to just throw away. So your next client runs on WebSphere.)

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    8. Re:What the hell *is* IBM Global Services? by recharged95 · · Score: 2, Informative

      There is the large Global Services dept that does basic IT support (like those IBM folks at our company). It's not the consulting people, but pure IT admins. It's a pretty large chunk of G.S. and though I wouldn't see it being 100K people (more like 30K), it makes sense for IBM to move away from that type of work in view that IT outsourcing is still moving at a rapid pace to Asia as well as firms like Accenure, Deloitte, and the rest of the Big 4 (are getting in the game big time).

    9. Re:What the hell *is* IBM Global Services? by belrick · · Score: 4, Informative

      IBM Global Services isn't just essentially PwC. Before they bought PwC there was IBM Global Services which was formerly ISM (Information Systems Management?). Back then it was mostly IT outsourcing. With the purchase of PwC it grew to be business consulting too.

    10. Re:What the hell *is* IBM Global Services? by bynary · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, I didn't copy/paste that. I've worked for both HP and Micron. I don't think I have to explain any further...

      --
      http://www.bynarystudio.com
  5. Ouch. by daeg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let's just hope IBM layoffs are a blip on the map and not a sign of things to come.

    Then again, any IT person not in a critical role should always be planning (financially, professionally, and personally) for layoffs or reduced compensation. IT is not, and never will be, a constant line of supply/demand. If you want job predictability, be a farmer.

    It's also interesting they are dropping unprofitable contracts. Imagine if someone like Dell did that. More than 5 calls over the same user issue? "Sorry, sir, please repackage your computer and return it to Dell for a prorated refund. We are no longer interested in maintaining this support relationship or maintaining you as a customer."

    1. Re:Ouch. by mabhatter654 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      IBM's customers are large companies... places that buy a dozen mainframes or thousands of cash registers. That's where IBM is loosing money. They won't "cut them loose" but rather rebid the contract with a nice margin of profit (to make up what they lost)... which the customer will readily refuse and go elsewhere. Motto: if you're in an industry against IBM... figure out how to make money from these guys IBM turns lose!!!! Many of these contracts are in the million dollar + range.. that can keep a small shop or consultant fed for years. HP, SUN, linux start recruiting the ex-IBMers for your service/sales departments. Much of what Global Services does is customer facing or back end support. The stuff that SHOULDN'T be outsourced... talking to customers and solving problems!!

    2. Re: Ouch. by itsownreward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I work for a not-for-profit healthcare organization. This has a few advantages:

      1) Our IT department is sort of a black box. We maintain a lot of very esoteric software and systems that are purchased from vendors all over and are interfaced in-house.
      2) Our management isn't always technically savvy; in fact, a lot of folks in our IT department isn't technically savvy (because they are often clinicians who moved over to IT to support an application or service here). To that end, they need the more technical people that we have hired. Thus, they lean on us.
      3) Priorities change here constantly, so the odds of outsourcing us is small because we can react quickly. I write a lot of software at the last minute to fill a need that requires knowledge of our systems and configurations. Get that from an outsourced team in Bangalore.
      4) People will always get sick, so it's not like our customer base will drop off.

      What's sad is that it's used against us: we have the velvet handcuffs around here. We get four weeks of vacation (after the 90-day initial trial period of employment), pension and 401k/403b, decent benefits, and if you're really valued you get paid enough that it's hard to leave immediately and find another full-time position that pays as much.

    3. Re:Ouch. by daigu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you want job predictability, be a farmer.


      Never been a farmer have you? Let's just say your boss is more fickle than any in IT.

  6. Go with GCI, Ta-Ta, Sy People, etc by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    IBM is basically off-shoring their staff, and keeping their managers and execs. The problem is that is where all the waste is at.

    OTH, the Indian companies are hiring American, but at lower pay. They treat the employees like cattle (presumably like they do in India) and have little to no benefits. But at least the management does not suck. The companies are able to make profits. IOW, it may be time to outsource the American managers who are terrible at doing their jobs.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Go with GCI, Ta-Ta, Sy People, etc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      >They treat the employees like cattle (presumably like they do in India) and have little to no benefits.

      At least it is a country that worship cows...

      It would be bad if they treat employees like cattles in Texas.

    2. Re:Go with GCI, Ta-Ta, Sy People, etc by paeanblack · · Score: 4, Insightful

      OTH, the Indian companies are hiring American, but at lower pay. They treat the employees like cattle (presumably like they do in India)

      I doubt you could have chosen a worse way to phrase your uninformed prattle. You are aware of how Indians treat cattle, aren't you?

    3. Re:Go with GCI, Ta-Ta, Sy People, etc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      What, like my Indian ex-co-worker who bit into a piece of prime rib and said "mmmm.... god"?

  7. Whatever happened to verifying sources? by technomom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Being an IBMer I was quite alarmed by this headline. But if you read the linked story, you'll see that Cringely is quoting his "many friends" at IBM.

    That's not what news people would term a reliable source.

    It's not to say that this might not be true but I'd like to hear it from something a little more reliable than Cringely's watercooler.

    1. Re:Whatever happened to verifying sources? by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But if you read the linked story, you'll see that Cringely is quoting his "many friends" at IBM.

      That's not what news people would term a reliable source.

      Cringely himself isn't what people would term a reliable source. He mostly writes speculative columns.

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  8. A fraction of the salary by optilude · · Score: 4, Insightful

    9.8/10 is also a fraction. And please stop the alarmist protectionist crap.

    --
    Author of `Professional Plone Development`, available from Packt Publishing.
    1. Re:A fraction of the salary by Richard+McBeef · · Score: 3, Interesting

      When I switched from a salaried employee to a contractor, I also got a fraction of my salary. The fraction was 3/2.

    2. Re:A fraction of the salary by hunterx11 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      An allowance to buy salt is also a salary, but I have as much salt as I want and not as much money. Please stop the semantics crap.

      --
      English is easier said than done.
  9. Why First Post when I can.... by josteos · · Score: 5, Funny

    Last Post!

    (from inside my IBM cubefarm)

    --
    Save the Music; Save the World at http://www.TuneTriever.com (Our latest Android game)
  10. But, but, but. . . by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    if these people get laid off, won't that mean they can fill some of those supposed jobs that Microsoft et al keep saying they can't fill because there aren't enough qualified workers in the U.S.?

    Won't that in turn mean that Microsoft et al won't need as many H-1B visas since some of the positions will be filled?

    If Microsoft et al don't attempt to fill their supposed empty positions with some of these people, does that mean they are lying when they say they have all these open positions and no one to fill them and must look overseas for qualified people?

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    1. Re:But, but, but. . . by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 2, Interesting

      if these people get laid off, won't that mean they can fill some of those supposed jobs that Microsoft et al keep saying they can't fill because there aren't enough qualified workers in the U.S.?

      When I worked at IBM GS, my coworkers included a former kindegarten teacher and a former air traffic controller. Hint - they didn't get more schooling afterward that I know of. It's a good bet that lots of people getting laid off don't count as qualified workers.

    2. Re:But, but, but. . . by dedazo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      IBM fires 150,000 people and someone on Slashdot manages to find a "Microsoft sux" angle. Props all around.

      --
      Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
  11. Don't Worry Guys... by FrankDrebin · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...SCO will hire y'all with the cash they win from your former employer.

    --
    Anybody want a peanut?
  12. Re:Fuck you IBM by MontyApollo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    These are mainly services people, performing services for somebody. These somebodies are still going to need services even if it is not with IBM anymore. It is not like they are closing down a manufacturing plant; they are dumping customers, but these customers will just find someone else to do the work. Whoever picks up these contracts will probably need more employees. There will probably be net increase in unemployed people, but a portion much smaller than 100,000.

  13. Cringely might be ignoring the long-term... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Lopping off half the technical staff, as Global Services is apparently about to do, will eliminate much of the company's traditional wisdom and corporate memory in an act that some people might label as age discrimination.
    And others might label as cost-cutting, since the benefit of experience in a lot of positions is outweighed by the price of that experience.

    Really, this is not surprising at all -- what is surprising is how many US companies are not doing the same thing. If the US were slated to remain the largest market for tech services, then it would make sense to make sure the workforce was largely American.

    Now, I'm sure to be modded into oblivion, but I think it's important for tech workers especially to understand that they are likely replacable at a fraction of their cost -- and the more experience under their belt, the more this holds true.

    Another thing not mentioned by Cringely is that IBM is also diversifying its employment base. Given the ticking time-bomb that is the US over-leveraged economy, this makes good sense for the long-term security of a company. I'd be shocked if other big international companies aren't thinking along the same lines.

    Now, as for Cringely's opinion that this move is just to boost stock price, thereby enriching the current executive group, I think that's only part of the equation. It's easy to blame management greed for decisions that are unpopular amongst the rank-and-file. It's not so easy to understand that the stock market rewards moves like this precisely because they ARE good for the company. Sometimes it's a case of management simply making the best of a very sticky situation, when pain is unavoidable.

    All that said, neither I nor Cringely know the full details, and so I'd take what either one of us has to say with a rather large grain of salt (and since I'm an unkown, two rather large grains of salt for me).
    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    1. Re:Cringely might be ignoring the long-term... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If we are able to replace US workers for a fraction of the cost, then why aren't consumers able to shop from non-US corporations at a fraction of the cost?
      You can. It's called Wal-mart.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  14. Strange how management is never outsourced by Viol8 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ok , maybe a few low level ones are , but if these execs were *really* worried about their companies balance sheet, the first thing they'd do it outsource their own oversized salaried roles (unless they think the indians et al are too stupid to do it - unlikely). Funny thing is though , this never happens. As usual hypocracy floats to the top along with the bullshit and they'll fire the people who do the real work while taking home their own 6 figure salaries and heading off down the golf course. These people should be ashamed of themselves and what they're doing. Even for the self centred spineless leeches running a large company such as IBM there should be *some* sort of moral responsibility to your country, no matter what the bleating shareholders and accountants might say.

    1. Re:Strange how management is never outsourced by MMC+Monster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Considering the situation in the U.S., I'd rather increase my moral responsibility to the rest of the world. If we improve the standard of living in the rest of the world, maybe they will not depend on the U.S. in the future and maybe they will be more productive?

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
  15. The days of monolithic apps are over by esconsult1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is just a sign that the days of the white shirtsleeves are fast coming to an end. Several years ago, I interviewed for a programming position at a major wall street firm in New York. This IT department was filled with guys and gals in formal wear (coats, ties, long sleeve shirts etc). They were mostly banging out Perl and the pre-cursors to .net.

    Yeah, the waste was incredible, and in I was glad I didn't get the job (regex skills weren't worth a damn those days -- who was I fooling?). I started working in a smaller shop dot-bomb shop and my regex skills improved overnight... this is all besides the point though :-)

    Many of you here have worked on one project or another and you know that they frequently overrun both in terms of time and costs, and customer requirements that change even if no change was mandated in the contract. Can you imagine a few thousand projects like that in the IBM Global group? I can, and its a nightmare. Even though they charge the customers a mint, they must still be dramatically decreasing the size of their profits hand over foot.

    But that pales in comparison, because we're into the era where you can now advertise on one of the popular tech blogs or Craigs List for your own people to come in, ramp up, do your project (you make the mistakes), ramp down and go into maintenance mode. Your contractors can also SSH in and make changes and tweaks from anywhere in the world, or in Pittsburg Pennsylvania (if you prefer to hire nationwide).

    IBM Global is a holdover from pre-internet days when you contracted with a company to make a monolithic application that ran only on the Windows desktop or on your mainframe. Many corporate apps now run on an intranet in the browser and mostly consist of small apps that connect to the old monolithic applications. Heck, a friend of mine spent time hacking drivers that would connect through green screen terminal connections and get the data he wanted to spit out in html. Dare to make an app that only works in IE? Look to be embarassed in slashdot the next day.

    Much time is spent talking about the latest version of thunderbird, or outlook, but the writing is on the wall. We're inexorably heading to the point where those kind of apps are moving to the way of the dodo bird. The future is gmail-like/google-like-apps for the majority of us. They just could not keep up.

  16. Evidence? by pooh666 · · Score: 2, Informative

    The only other story I can find like this is at CNN.. http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newst ex/AFX-0013-16392735.htm But nothing else and certainly not with the whole of IBM's plan for the next year. They last layed off way more workers than this in 2002, so is this really that big of a deal in fact?

  17. Yes but... by Junta · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That's the publicly announced ~1500 or so, it does not confirm a 40% US workforce layoff. 40% would be a ludicrously desperate move for a company that at worst is described as stagnant, not exactly in trouble. When you aren't announcing any losses, just less-than-awesome gains, it doesn't make sense to just cut out that much in as short a period as a year. IBM is topheavy and I definitely agree that the management is the bulk of the problem (not only *way* too many of them, but they are also more highly paid than the technical people who do real work), and so I wouldn't be surprised if a couple thousand more get screwed over the year, but 40% would be the dumbest thing and I think even shareholders would see it as a detrimental, stupid move.

    One problem they do seem to have is startup envy. They see a company come out of nowhere and achieve great fame and a sizable market cap, and wonder why they can't achieve the same percentage growth. The obvious answer (that IBM's market cap is overwhelmingly huge already, nowhere to really go) doesn't seem to occur to them.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  18. IBM = I've Been Mumbai-ed by Dr_Art · · Score: 2, Funny

    IBM = I've Been Mumbai-ed (i.e., my job was sent to Mumbai)

    IBM-GS = I've Been Mumbai-ed, Gujarati Software

    No offense intended to our fine quality Indian software developer brothers, it's just that in Western countries the term "going out for some South Indian" used to mean where you were going for lunch, not where your job is headed...

  19. Re:Fuck you IBM by Teckla · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't understand why people get pissed when this crap happens. The company doesn't owe you a fucking favor. They hire, they fire, they do well, they do poorly. That's life. If you think it's "unfair", tough shit.

    America has given many companies the fertile soil needed to create hugely successful businesses. Now these same companies have decided to take a big, stinky shit on that very same America, by offshoring everyone so that a tiny minority of people can go from super-ultra-rich to super-ultra-deluxe-rich.

    If you don't see the problem with that, you're a moron.

  20. Let Me Tell You How it Actually Works by Greyfox · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Lets say you've got small project A. Small project A has 5 or 6 guys working on it. They've been working on it for years, wrote a good bit of the underlying system, know everything about it and can generally tell you exactly where the problem is if you call them with a problem.

    Now you fire all those guys and hire a bunch of guys from Brazil at 1/4 the original team's salary. Even if the original team hangs around to train the new guys the new guys have to ramp up from scratch. Even if they're excellent programmers it's going to take them 6 months to a year to even get comfortable with the code, even with documentation in place. During that time the overall application design will get slightly worse as they try to implement new features in ways that don't fit in with the original application design.

    In the mean time you've got 150 other tech companies realizing that people in Brazil will work for peanuts and they'll all move in to the country. Now your programmers are realizing that they can get more peanuts if they do the same sort of job hopping that we did in the 90s to get more peanuts. So over the course of the next year your team is replaced by new people who you have to pay a lot more money to and who are completely unfamiliar with your code base again. So now you're paying your Brazilians as much as you were paying your original programming team and they have no experience with your code base. Good job!

    You can only save money that way if you buy into the fallacy that people are pluggable resources and experience counts for nothing. If you believe that then you can get as much done with a summer intern as you can with someone with 20 years of programming experience. Give it a shot sometime. And you can find a company that doesn't have that philosophy. I wouldn't want to work for a company that thinks I'm just a body taking up space anyway.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Let Me Tell You How it Actually Works by Greyfox · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I don't care how bright you are or how well documented the code base is, for any application more complex than "Hello World" there's inevitably a significant ramp up time for a new person coming into the code. Sure you might be able to sit down and eventually figure out what's happening in the code and even fix it, but someone with experience with that source tree is going to be able to do it much faster than you'd be able to. You're not even going to be completely comfortable with the business logic for several months.

      If the project is well documented and well designed you might be looking at 6 months before you really start to notice that you're remembering where a significant number of classes are defined and how they all fit together. If the project is poorly designed and documented then you could be looking at upwards of two years to be entirely comfortable making any changes in it. That doesn't mean you will be completely incapable of doing so in the mean time, it's just that the programmer who's more experienced with that code base, the business logic and the design will do so in a fraction of the time it'll take you. He's also much less likely to introduce bugs that break the business logic or introduce unexpected side effects.

      Of course, I don't have any scientific data to back this up. It's just something I've noticed after years in the industry. I used to think you could sit down cold at any project and be instantly productive. And you can, to a degree. But you will never be as productive as the guy who's worked on it for 5 years. And you'll always have that uncomfortable feeling that you don't really know what's going on in the code base for anywhere from a few months to a few years depending on how hideous the code is.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  21. Presumably one would need those heads somewhere by gelfling · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Let me first say I work in IBM outsourcing; SO actually. I work with this stuff. Let me also say that whenever wherever we can send a unit of work outside of the US we do that. But, one presumes there are those people 'over there' to do that. One can eliminate 150,000 jobs from IBM but at least some fraction of that, probably a large fraction of it, would have to be employed over in those other places to do that work, one estimates at a fraction of the US cost. And we are not seeing that level of growth over there. Maybe I'm too far removed from it or maybe I'm whistling past the graveyard but I'm not seeing that level of growth overseas.

    1. Re:Presumably one would need those heads somewhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My current (Fortune 500) company has 150 software engineers in Bangalore. We have over 50 vacancies we've been trying to fill for 6 months. There just are not any qualified people.

      One of my guys just got back from Bangalore on Monday. They had a job fair last weekend, big event, free food, etc. 6 people showed up in 8 hours. None of them passed even a rudimentary technical screening.

      There is NO ONE in Bangalore available. Where does IBM think they'll get 150,000 engineers? It ain't gonna happen in Bangalore!

    2. Re:Presumably one would need those heads somewhere by SixFactor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Definitely interesting that you work for IBM oustourcing, and please, I'm not attacking you, or meaning to be a smart-ass, but what did you just say?

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but here's what I *think* you said:

      1. If you can farm out a work unit (presumably a task of some sort) to a cheaper (off-shore) resource, you do.

      2. But you only do (1) if there is an available off-shore resource.

      3. In your view, you're not seeing adequate off-shore available resources that can absorb the workload of 150k U.S. employees to be laid off.

      What I can conclude from above is that IBM GS is shedding its U.S. workforce... because IBM GS does not have enough work to occupy its whole (U.S. + off-shore) workforce ? I'm lost.

      --
      Science never settles, never rests.
    3. Re:Presumably one would need those heads somewhere by twilightzero · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yup you're exactly right :) I also work for IBM as a contractor perma-temp and we've been seeing the writing on the wall for a LONG time. The sales force simply pushes products out the door, promising ANYTHING at all, even features that aren't possible, and selling the machines at a loss just to make the sales numbers. The support behind that, Global Services, is left holding the bag. And they too are forced to lowball contract bids to get the work fixing everything. I've been hearing whispers that many of the contracts are going to be dumped because they're not cost-effective - they were bid too low just to get the contract and they'll be dropped at renewal time. So yes, when you cut out a large portion of the contracts, you don't have a large portion of the work any more either. So you lay off workers and/or farm them out where the labor's cheaper.

      --

      "Christ what a design! I could eat a handful of iron filings and PUKE a better emergency pump than that!"
  22. Cringely can't do math... by sirwired · · Score: 4, Informative

    150,000 would more-or-less be IBM's entire U.S. workforce, not 40% of it. If Cringely can't even get that right, I'd treat the rest of the article as extremely suspect.

    SirWired

  23. Total FT Staffing YE2006 was 356,000 by gelfling · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That's from CNN. Also ALL H1B quotas through 2008 have in the US have ALREADY been filled. It would take an act of Congress to change that so clearly any company wishing to drag in more foreign labor can't. They have to send the jobs to them over there.

  24. IBM has succeeded! by jskline · · Score: 3, Informative

    IBM has succeeded in pimping and prostituting the IT services fields, to the point now that they are soon to be going the way of the TV and Stereo repair shops. They could no longer get people to come in and work for damned near free and give all the money to the conglomerate IBM, so they will take it on the road overseas and use and abuse the various Europeans.

    I saw the light early on with them and got out. I hope most of my friends still employed there are also seeing the light and finding the door before its too late.

    Of course from what I know and what I am hearing, IBM didn't do that nifty of a job with their clients either. They bring in contractors and temps to do the services contracts and with such a high turnover of temps and contractors, how on earth can you seriously to expect that you'd ever meet SLA, much less keep your customer??!!!!

    How can you expect IBM who only *hires* managers and team leads, and then brings on "temps" and contractors to do the actual work and *dirtywork* on the client site, to actually succeed?? The one customer I was at was sorely pissed at IBM many times over for many things. Some justified, some not. Almost all the justified reasons were because the only people to provide the legitimate valued service to the client were done by people who were good, skilled, and knowledgeable;... and quickly left the temp gig with IBM and their clients for a real full-time permanent day job elsewhere with benefits and all that comes with it. That usually left the the client rather lacking and pissed. I watched it many times and finally a door opened for me and I left. This is only going to get worse people.

    Wake up and smell the economic sh** they are shoveling your way.

    --
    All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
  25. Yeah, Monday. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Monday

    Yup. They spent some huge sum of money to an advertising/PR firm, in order to come up with a name for this new, hot (well, they wanted it to be hot), consulting company. That's what they came up with. "Monday." Like, everybody's least-favorite day. The day you wish was always some other day.

    And that's how they got called "IBM Global Services," which doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, but then again, nobody ever says, "sounds like a case of the IBM Global Services."

    (Well, actually they might, but that's a different topic.)

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  26. 100-150k layoffs? No way. by FatSean · · Score: 4, Informative

    There are only 150k total IBM employees in the US. Cringely is talking out of his ass with that number.

    I see you're a contractor systems administrator. I'm sorry you won't be able to come on as a full-timer, but your post seems to be a serious case of sour grapes. I mean...part of being a contractor is that your job is not guaranteed.

    --
    Blar.
  27. Let's be by Daishiman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Let's be honest here. I work in Global Services in South America. A lot of the accounts were way overstaffed and the people there were not exactly the best and brightest yet still getting 80K+ a year. I'm not a senior sysadmin by any stretch of imagination, but it can be seen from all 5000 miles away that my American counterparts are in no way superior to many of the seniors that I work with who have 10+ years of experience managing servers in environments where there's less money and you have to be more inventive to solve problems, and who've had to face even more difficult economic situations

    Many accounts are overspecialized and action is held back by massive bureaucracy. Despite everything, my pet theory is that IBM simply can't support its massive managerial structure divided by a million differente criteria -accounts, competencies, etc.- , eventually it had to give way.

    1. Re:Let's be by Daishiman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Whoa, looks like someone's nervous about his job security.

      10 p595s with 64 processors and a terabyte of RAM with the latest HMCs and Sharks are nothing to scoff at. We have dev servers running 200 Oracle instances per LPAR and we curiously happen to manage them with a far lower overhead than the guys we replaced. And that's just the start, technologically speaking. Other accounts have Linux clusters with hundreds of nodes, dozens of zSeries, you name it. Our location has one of the largest datacenters in South America. I've been there. The big iron there is impressive by anyone's standards.

      You think that simply because we live in some third world country that we somehow lack the technology level first world countries have. It's true that it's much less widespread, but major cities still have dozens of banks, telecoms, and multinationals, and those guys have been using Mainframes and AS/400s since their inception. Hell you can still get excellent jobs here programming in COBOL for banks that keep their legacy code chuggin along as well as the latest J2EE frameworks.

      Yes, we sure as hell know that IBM as a corporation is getting much more out of this than we are. Then again, the average salary for an experienced sysadmin has shot up by 25% (mainframe system programmers are getting paid better than most first-line managers nowadays) and we're still very much competitive. Eventually things will balance out, but when they stop improving we'll certainly be in a much better position than we used to be.

  28. The New American Corporate CxO mindset... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You can only save money that way if you buy into the fallacy that people are pluggable resources and experience counts for nothing. If you believe that then you can get as much done with a summer intern as you can with someone with 20 years of programming experience. Give it a shot sometime.

    But the CxO's of the big American corporations aren't stupid. They know *exactly* just what a house of cards they're building... It's that they just don't care anymore. All they have to do is prop up their company's stock price long enough to fool the shareholders for a short while long enough for their golden parachutes to fill up because they know their days are numbered quite short, and first and foremost on their minds is how to pillage the most from the company for themselves before they're done with it. They are not afraid of Sarbanes-Oxley any more either. Scandals like Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, Arthur Anderson, Global Crossing, and a dozen others in the past half decade have taught the sharks mostly only how not to get caught or how to not get punished if they do get caught.

  29. Re:Holy Outsourcing, Batman! by Rakishi · · Score: 2, Informative

    China has a lower population growth rate and birth rate than the US.

  30. Re:Holy Outsourcing, Batman! by joshsnow · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Meanwhile, the Developed Country's worker(s) should be not resting on their laurels but working to improve their value so that they cannot be replaced easily by outsourcing

    Talking about Economics, where did the idea of infinitely improvable value come from? In a global (job/skills) market where a man from the USA and a man from India are equally skilled, anything the USian does to "improve his value" the Indian can and will do too - maybe becoming more valuable than the USian.

    Jobs aren't being offshored to India and China because Indians and Chinese are more valuable, but simply because they cost less to employ. That situation will continue until the (inevitable) cycle of upward inflationary pressure in their economies (and maybe deflationary pressures in the US and Europe) increases the Indian/Chinese cost of living until those workers cost the same to employ as USians and Europeans.
    Then the work will move on. We've seen it all before. One day, they'll be offshoring work to Africa, you wait.

  31. That's a thought by geekoid · · Score: 4, Funny

    or train them wrong.
    I spent rwo weeks training my replacment how to write USB firmware...it's a shame we didn't do that.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  32. Dvorak could say anything... by Dystopian+Rebel · · Score: 4, Funny

    But there is a 60% probability that in his article Dvorak will recommend that Apple be bought or do the buying.

    Unless he has already written that article this month. In which case, the probability drops to 40%.

    --
    Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
  33. Not all shareholders are super-ultra-rich by mangu · · Score: 4, Insightful
    offshoring everyone so that a tiny minority of people can go from super-ultra-rich to super-ultra-deluxe-rich


    If you think most managers don't deserve the salaries and bonuses they get, fine, I agree with you wholeheartedly. But the article says "The point of this has nothing to do with the work itself and everything to do with the price of IBM shares".


    One usually thinks of shareholders as a mixture of Bill Gates, Darl McBride, and Steve Ballmer. Well, think again. I'm a shareholder of many companies and you are one too, if you have a pension fund, life insurance, or almost any form of investment. The point is that when you go to the bank and talk to your manager, your main preoccupation is how much you will get from your investment.


    If you worry first about the social impact of the companies that make your pension fund and second about the financial results, well, kudos to you, but most people aren't like that. Maximizing a company's profits doesn't mean just making someone "super-ultra-deluxe-rich", it also means providing a decent retirement to people who have worked their whole lives to get it.

  34. It's a material event. Suqeamish doesn't matter by winkydink · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If IBM, a publicly traded-company, is planning on laying off 1/2 of it's Global Services division, you can bet your bottom dollar that that's considered a material event and they have to publicly disclose it.

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

  35. IBM fired me, killed my manager and kicked my dog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Same here. Not only did they lay half my department off, they also executed the team leader by beheading him and then Sam Palmisano himself came to my house and kicked my dog! I thought it was illegal to kill people, but apparently IBM also owns the US government so they are allowed to do this.

    Isn't anonymous posting awesome!

  36. No surprise there by Wulfseven · · Score: 2, Funny

    The sun is already setting on IBM, ever since Microsoft came into the scene by licensing DOS with every IBM PC. Adding to IBM's woes are PC-Clone (thank god for that) that allowed competitors like HP and Dell to flourish, OS/2 that flopped and then later IBM relinquished all of their PC/Notebook products to concentrate on their consultancy services. IBM is just too big and slow to adapt to new trends or needs by clients/consumers, which Apple, Microsoft and others have capitalized on. If IBM ever want to survive, they must change.

    1. Re:No surprise there by HomelessInLaJolla · · Score: 2, Informative

      OS/2 that flopped OS/2 didn't flop. It was set up to flop. Microsoft correctly gambled that the lawsuits for releasing a defective product in the computer industry would be easily nullified since there was no real physical damage (as opposed to producing cars with a faulty braking system). With the support of politicians and investment bankers Microsoft was able to turn the general public into a host of free beta testers while IBM stuck to proper engineering principles and attempted to produce a refined product before unleashing it on the public.

      In short--the public got chumped, and thirteen years later, we're still being chumped because the idiots at the tops of politics, investment, and banking won't admit that they royally f*cked up.

      The bump in the middle of the rug must be pretty f*cking large by now... but everyone's been so carefully trained to keep their eyes focused on the corners.
      --
      the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
  37. Agreed. But Instead, they have $100k lunches: by tubbtubb · · Score: 3, Informative

    Agreed. But Instead, they have $100k lunches: fiddling while Armonk burns
    (scroll down, or search for IBM)
    I guess they could be buying it with their own money, but still, that's just bad PR in the middle of layoffs. a$$holes.

  38. Re: Bad PR by tubbtubb · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yet, they don't seem to have a problem with the bad PR that something like THIS might generate.
    (near the bottom of the story)

  39. Of course it's "Americans" that vote. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Americans get squeamish about massive layoffs, but investors certainly do not.

    Yet it's Americans that vote.

    It's the start of presidential primary season. The hottest issue among the bloggers in the Republican primary is illegal immigration - mainly its effects on blue-collar unemployment levels and pay scales.

    Now we have this - and the issues of outsourcing, H1B legal "guest workers", and their effect on white-collar unemployment levels and pay scales.

    How nice that this came up NOW, when it can affect the earliest stages of the election. B-)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  40. Can you do any better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
    We went through this exercise 3 times. Once for dev, once for staging, and once for production. It took hours to do each time regardless of the fact that we did the exact same thing a week prior in one of the other environments.


    If you do not understand why this is necessary then you do not have responsibility for supporting a critical production system with 365x24x7 availability. You can call IBM employees stupid all you want, but I guarantee when you see what the business requirements for a high availability application server are, you will shit your pants.


    When production system downtime is measured in tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars per minute, you can bet your ass that moving code through test, staging and production is going to be very slow and very organized. If you know of a better way to ensure 99.999% uptime, then you should patent it and sell it because it will make you a fuckload of money. If not, then perhaps you should just let the adults do the real work and get back to your javascript code monkey job.

  41. Re:It's been said before but... by SeaFox · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The guys who came up with outsourcing? I hope their jobs were outsourced.

    I've often thought how nice it would be if there were laws passed saying that to be registered as a company in the U.S., you have to have X% of your workforce in the country. Or that executives had to be based in the same country as the majority of their workforce. See how interested companies are in outsourcing when it means they have to move to India.
  42. I hope they can find enough Indian customers by Whuffo · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I wonder if they've thought about the size of the Indian market for their services? Each time they send jobs overseas they're also sending the paychecks overseas. Do enough of this and the Americans won't be able to afford their services.

    Does anyone at these corporations ever consider that by putting Americans out of work they're shrinking the size of their market? A little temporary boost in profits will be followed by a long term loss...

  43. It's not outsourcing, it's incompetence. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's not outsourcing, it's incompetence. My opinion: If you read the links carefully, you will get the impression that IBM is an incompetent company run by someone with no technical knowledge. Death is normal for an incompetent corporation.

    Links: General information: IBM Employee.com.

    Cringley: "... the executive ranks from CEO Sam Palmisano on down were losing touch with reality, bidding contracts too low to make a profit then mismanaging them in an attempt to make a profit anyway..."

    IBM employee: "They just cut nearly half our team Tuesday, wtihout even notifying the customer (Who is going apeshit). And 40% is indeed the workforce reduction I've heard bandied about." That comment is anonymous, of course. However, that fits with my experience, which is that IBM is an amazingly incompetent company. The incompetence has been there for a LONG time. Remember, IBM lost more than $2 Billion on OS/2, which in the beginning was fundamentally better than the competition from Microsoft.

    IBM is run by a technically ignorant CEO: Samuel J. Palmisano is a technically ignorant CEO: "He holds a Bachelor's degree in history..." Note that his official IBM biography carefully avoids mentioning anything that would give a true picture of his incompetence.

    I don't think the IBM layoffs are about outsourcing. They seem to be only about incompetence. Only technically ignorant managers contract with IBM, a company run by someone as ignorant as they are.

    Also, I don't think outsourcing is working. U.S. companies get an EXTREMELY bad reputation when calls are answered by an under-trained person who can't speak English. Outsourcing is more an abuse of people outside the U.S. by U.S. managers than it is a way to get things done, apparently. Outsourcing call centers is a very effective way to sell customers on the competition, if the competition has competent employees.

    Look at the web sites of any online bank. They are stupid, stupid, and purposely stupid. After people in India learn how to write good banking software, magically some company owned by an Indian will have the best banking software.

    There is only one reason for outsourcing. Non-technical managers want the technical responsibility as far away from themselves as possible. It is dishonesty only.

    Walk down any street in India and ask yourself: Why are people in India so poor? They are poor because their culture is extremely self-defeating. No matter how well an Indian who is first- or second-generation educated is trained technically, he is still guided mostly by his culture.

    The claimed cost savings are not there. They simply are not there. The "cost savings" come from situations like this:

    1) It is cheaper to hire Indians for a sloppy, poorly defined project than it is to hire people in the U.S. for a sloppy, poorly defined project, and the result is the same.

    2) Many top managers today are like kings. They have complete control, can be as destructive as they want to their company and to other people, and are very ignorant. So when it comes time for a technical improvement that will be a lot of work, and require a lot of responsibility and decision-making, moving the entire project 10,000 miles away seems attractive. The distance offers lots of excuses, and it just doesn't matter to the king how much money is wasted. The "cost savings" are what the king says they are.

    We are going through a time in which most managers of technically-oriented companies know nothing about technical issues, and don't want to know anything.

  44. Sun did the same trick a few years ago by Anthony · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Laid off a large bunch of their Professional Services staff here without informing their customers. The customers pulled out the signed contracts asking who was going to fulfill them. By the time the dust settled, Sun had either lost a lot of people to other companies or had to hire the sacked staff back on at higher contract rates to fulfill the obligations.

    --
    Slashdot: Where nerds gather to pool their ignorance
  45. Re:Holy Outsourcing, Batman! by sgt_doom · · Score: 2, Funny
    Actually outsourcing is economics at work.

    Actually, treason is traitors at work. If a fellow countryman offshores your job - that individual is a stinking traitor. If a fellow countryman lays you off and replaces you with a legal, quasi-legal or illegal foreign replacement worker, that individual is a stinking traitor.

    Traitors should be dealt with in the most severest manner possible.....

  46. Re:IBM and oppressive governments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/138 8.wss

    IBM claims that Hollerith (the IBM germany subsidiary that supplied and serviced the equipment) was taken over by the German government when the war started. If you have proof showing otherwise, please provide it.

    And of course, if you have proof showing that employees of IBM today were involved, please provide that too. If not, then please STFU already about it, because if you live in the USA then you too have profited from a genocide in the past.

  47. The 'make someone else pay' Theory Of Econ. by cmholm · · Score: 3, Informative

    Does anyone at these corporations ever consider that by putting Americans out of work they're shrinking the size of their market? A little temporary boost in profits will be followed by a long term loss...

    No, they aren't considering it. This behavior is straight outta a Marxist critique of market economics, where company A works to minimize their own labor costs, and counts on every other company to pay out enough to finance a market for A's goods... except that just about every firm is company A.

    A classical Adam Smith economist will respond that the capital freed by (for arguments sake) IBM ditching thousands of employees can be more profitably deployed elsewhere by the Company and stockholders. Ex-employees, too.

    A fly in that ointment is that nowadays, most of that capital is being redeployed out of the US, and it takes a while for the domestic economy to take up the slack with increased added value to crank the domestic incomes back up. Most US-based multinationals (if the Economist, Forbes, the WSJ, Biz Week, and my various stockholders reports are any indication) see their future growth in sales and headcount overseas. According to his latest financial disclosure statement, so does Dick Cheney. So, exactly how or when that increased domestic value is going to be created is an open question.

    For the moment, the effect of the tide of money leaving the US is hidden by the Chinese and Japanese buying Treasury Notes to hold down the value of the yuan and yen. When that tails off, interesting things will occur. It's unlikely to be a meltdown, but it won't be pretty.

    --
    Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
  48. India by falconwolf · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Walk down any street in India and ask yourself: Why are people in India so poor? They are poor because their culture is extremely self-defeating.

    Tell that to all of the farmers in India committing suicide because they can't compeat with all of the heavily subsidized produce from the US and EU. The same thing happens in South Korea and Mexico. People wonder why so many Mexicans come to the US as "illegal aliens". The reason why is US subsidized agriculture products and NAFTA. Because of the subsidies US agribusinesses can export to Mexico and sale it for less than Mexican farmers can grow the food for. This drives Mexican farmers off their farms and they go north to try to cross the border or they go into Mexican cities and those already in the cities are driven north.

    Remember, Time-Warner bought AOL and immediately lost 88 Billion dollars.

    WRONG!!! AOL bought Time Warner!

    Falcon
  49. Re:Offshoring is a new fact of life... by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But in the brave new world of the neocons, the American middle class has no standing. We're expendable.

    It's not just the neocons but the neoliberals as well. Neoliberals have pushed for global trade as much as if not more than neocons.

    Falcon
  50. What has the management been doing? by teh+moges · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, whenever I hear about massive layoffs, the same question pops into my mind:

    Why are the employees being punished when this is so obviously a management issue?

    If the managers were doing their job correctly, then one of two things would of happened:
    1) Either the projects would generate enough revenue to keep the current workforce, or
    2) the workforce wouldn't of got "so large" that they need to cull it.

    Call it cost saving if you will, but if I were working for IBM and got to keep my job, I wouldn't be turning up Monday. Or any other day for that. If these stories turn out to be true, I'll never buy something from IBM again. If IBM isn't being managed properly, get new managers, not cheaper staff.

    I always thought IBM had built its empire on quality and innovation rather then being the cheapest.

  51. I saw this from the backhand side... by Doctor+Memory · · Score: 2, Insightful

    IBM is already profitable, but this is all about boosting share prices short term. I worked for a company that was profitable, but my division wasn't growing as fast as they thought it should be (we were doing 8-12%, they wanted 20%+). So they laid off a bunch of us, waited a quarter for these amazing profits to come in, then sold the division. Any bets IBM Global Services will become the new American arm of TCS, InfoSys or Wipro?
    --
    Just junk food for thought...