Slashdot Mirror
Analysts Call IBM Layoff Estimates "Hogwash"
jbrodkin writes "Rumors have been floating around saying IBM will cut 150,000 U.S. jobs, but a Network World story attempts to set the record straight by quoting analysts who say this news, if true, would wipe out the company's entire U.S. operations and would make no sense since IBM is actually doing pretty well."
Our offices here in Winnipeg (Canada) are going to be decimated down to a skeleton staff of people to maintain our managed servers (for places like MTS, etc.) I've been hunting for another job for 2 weeks now, since a relative of mine high up at IBM told me about my office situation.
I believe what they're saying is there are only 350,000 people in IBM worldwide, and not much more than 150,000 in the US. Hence, wiping out 150,000 jobs in the US would effectively mean offshoring the entire company, including the headquarters division.
It's all about short-term stock price manipulation (which I call the "dark side" since it ultimately winds up being a loss but brings instant gratification).
If the CEO is retiring soon, then he has little incentive to do right by the company in the long run, and plenty of incentive to play games to increase the stock price in the short term (so he can sell off his shares after the price goes up). A massive layoff like this would be entirely consistent with that scenario. And it's not like the company's "investors" would give a damn about the long-term outlook of the company anyway. After all, it's all about the growth rate of the stock, and fast growth for a short time is still fast growth that "investors" can take advantage of. They just have to dump the stock before it crashes.
So not only is a massive layoff of this scale plausible, I think it's highly likely. It's just the ultimate manifestation of the short-term thinking that American "businessmen" are so infatuated with.
About the only thing that might prevent it is a huge backlash against IBM by "investors", which is possible but doubtful IMO.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
>If the CEO is retiring soon, then he has little incentive to do right by the company in the long
>run
The CEO in a corporation like IBM is never a dictator, never has sole authority on executive decisions, and is held accountable to a Board of Directors, all of whom also have a vested interest in the corporation (and contrary to popular belief, do generally consider performance beyond the next quarterly report.)
A company with as diverse stakeholders and as much volume as IBM has, will have quite strict controls on governance and management.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
IBM will lay off and hire people here and there always. Some times they will lay off or hire a lot of people. IBM has acquired a lot of companies the past couple of years, layoffs are inevitable. These numbers are insane though. Insane for a simple reason: IGS doesn't have 150,000 people in the US to lay off. IGS doesn't have 150,000 people in the US period. So, will IBM hire all of these people before they fire them?
Cringely needs to lay off his mothers medication before he writes his nonsense.
Neither. Shouldn't it be obvious? American Express workers are definitely the hardest workers. They are (clearly) American, and the Express in the name, well, no need to say more...
When it's all said and done, they'll layoff several thousand, and everyone will say "whew, we dodged the bullet there" since it didn't turn out to be 150K.
And IBM will look like the good guys, or at least not-so-bad guys.
The Tao that can be spoken is not the one eternal Tao