Slashdot Mirror


IBM Hides the Bodies, Eyes US Government Billions

theodp writes "As his company was striving to hide the bodies of its laid-off North American workers, IBM CEO Sam Palmisano stood beside President Barack Obama and waxed patriotic: 'We need to reignite growth in our country,' Palmisano said. 'We need to undertake projects that actually will create jobs.' While Sam positions IBM to get a slice of the $825 billion stimulus pie, Big Blue is quietly cutting thousands of jobs and refusing to release the numbers or locations, arguing that SEC disclosure rules don't apply since the US job cuts are immaterial in its big global picture. The layoffs included hundreds in East Fishkill, coming early in the year after NY taxpayers paid IBM $45 million not to cut additional jobs in East Fishkill in 2008. Some are questioning whether IBM incentives are worth the cost."

30 of 410 comments (clear)

  1. Nobody... by darinfp · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ever got fired for workign for IBM...

  2. Time to tighten our belts by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is far better to cut off a dying limb than to have the infection seep back into the whole body.

    If the division was in such a pathetic state that the state had to beg IBM not to cut it in good times, is it any surprise that IBM decided to cut it in the bad times?

    Business isn't charity, no matter what those enlightened European countries may believe.

    1. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Kokuyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, no it really isn't.

      But I really don't see the point of the government giving international corporations like IBM money. I'd wager a bet that with those 45 million they could have helped the laid off workers for more and longer than giving it to IBM.

      Same with GM. I have no idea how much your government spent on... 'that', but I just know that with one billion dollars you can give 20'000 people 50'000 dollars, each. I'm just asking myself whether rerouting such money directly into the pockets of those laid off wouldn't make more sense. Give them the opportunity to not worry too much for a year, get some additional education and try elsewhere.

    2. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Xiroth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Uh, wait, you're calling Italy enlightened, even in sarcasm? The country with a government so far-right nationalistic that it's flirting with a return to fascism?

      I mean, I'm not sure where you're from, exactly, but seems beyond belief that you'd lump them in with the mid-left 'enlightened' northerners. Perhaps you should consider breaking the continent down into slightly smaller slices.

    3. Re:Time to tighten our belts by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Uh, wait, you're calling Italy enlightened, even in sarcasm? The country with a government so far-right nationalistic that it's flirting with a return to fascism?".

      Italy has averaged one government per year since WW2. They flirt with everyone, they're kinda famous for it.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    4. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Samschnooks · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have no idea how much your government spent on... 'that', but I just know that with one billion dollars you can give 20'000 people 50'000 dollars, each. I'm just asking myself whether rerouting such money directly into the pockets of those laid off wouldn't make more sense.

      Because big screen TVs and beer sales would go through the roof?

    5. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Skreems · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wouldn't it be better if the government didn't to take half of people's money in the first place? Your average homeowner gets about a third of his income lopped off in withholding, then another chunk in sales taxes and property taxes take the rest. How great would it be if everyone's earnings were suddenly doubled?

      Pretty great for a while. Less great when the roads start falling apart, criminals realize the police can't afford bullets, the jails have to release all the inmates at once, the number of under-educated people around you starts increasing because the schools have shut down, and half your family dies from tainted food because the agencies that impose quality controls have disappeared.

      It's not like bailouts are the only thing we fund with taxes, you know. There are actually a hell of a lot of services that benefit you directly on a daily basis. Eliminate taxes and you'll end up either losing those services entirely, or else paying for them out of pocket anyway.

      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
    6. Re:Time to tighten our belts by powerlord · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Only an idiot would invest 24 million to get back only 1-2 million dollars worth of wage taxes.

      I think you meant:

      Only an idiot politician would invest 24 million to get back only 1-2 million dollars worth of wage taxes and enough votes to make his re-election a shoe in despite his idiot decision.

      Remember, the money the politician spent on keeping the company in the area doesn't just translate into increased taxes from wages.

      It doesn't just translate into increased taxes on materials spent, and other service and supply industries feeding into that company.

      The money spent translates into a situation the politician can point to and say "I just saved your job, vote for me!".

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    7. Re:Time to tighten our belts by chill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The average Joe *did* support it and got behind it when the Bush Administration sent everyone a $600-$1,200 "tax rebate" last year. There was a measurable spike in electronics purchases. So much so it was named as a reason there isn't going to be another such direct payment in Obama's stimulus package. All those precious electronic gadgets are made overseas, mostly in China. The money barely slowed down as it exited the country. The gov't was hoping people would purchase things like durable consumer goods made in the U.S., or put it towards a down-payment on a car, etc.

      Suckers.

      For my part I purchased a new American-made deluxe Weber grill and bought it at a local, independent shop. Both factors (local purchase, American-made) *were* important factors in my purchase. Lots of local farms in the Midwest to purchase grill supplies like ribs, steaks, burgers, bratwurst, etc. Mmmmmmm...I gotta brush the snow off later today and fire that puppy up!

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    8. Re:Time to tighten our belts by plasmacutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We doesn't the government just not take the money from joe six-pack in the first place? It's not like he would save the extra 10-15%.

      Because you have no paychecks to cut taxes on when you've been laid off or have graduated into a recession and can't find a living wage.

      Tax cuts are just like health savings accounts: they're designed to quell the concerns of those who don't actually need the help while screwing everyone who actually does.

      tax cuts do nothing to restore quality of life to those truly disenfranchised by this economic disaster.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    9. Re:Time to tighten our belts by blitzkrieg3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why was it so important to give Wall Street $700B, even after it fucked up so badly?

      Oh that's right, because they're refusing to loan out money even to reputable companies like GM and Chrysler.

  3. sharks circling by timmarhy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    this is why using tax payers money to solve private businesses problems is never right. at most issue low interest short term loans to ease cash flow issues. never just wholesale billion dollar give aways because it'll slide right into the CEO's and exec's pockets.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  4. Sam steps up... by Goffee71 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...to the pork barrel highboard, his company has been making billons for decades, but thinks it can screw some more in 'this time of need'.

    He steps over the bodies of the fallen, leaps into the air and does a perfect belly flop into the barrel, with a belly laugh for effect - he'll get good style marks for that.

    Sixes from five of the judges,only a 5.7 from China and billions for a wealthy corporation! Sam's gotta be pleased with that result.

    --
    If he's the Walrus then can I be a penguin please?
  5. IBM has never been good at hiding the bodies by damburger · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Last time they left bodies in their wake, the Allies found most of them...

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
  6. Some background on the parent comment by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Informative
  7. No, they're not *really* questioning it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Some are questioning whether IBM incentives are worth the cost."

    Even in the linked article, they're only questioning how much to pay IBM -- not whether to pay them. It amazes me that local officials do this so often, when there's no real proof these sorts of incentives are a net gain. Localities pay hundreds of millions of dollar for sports team's stadiums and get no direct profit sharing, cities offer multi-million dollar packages - or in Seattle's case, even build an egregious trolley line - for businesses and don't even pretend to have a measure of the monetary benefit to the community for the given initial outlay. I always wonder how much these pointless incentives come from honest incompetence versus corruption of the government officials.

    1. Re:No, they're not *really* questioning it by calmofthestorm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Are you honestly suggesting that duly-elected officials in this fine Christian nation would even consider putting corporate interests over the welfare of those they represent, should the two come into conflict?

      --
      93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
    2. Re:No, they're not *really* questioning it by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Some are questioning whether IBM incentives are worth the cost."

      Even in the linked article, they're only questioning how much to pay IBM -- not whether to pay them. It amazes me that local officials do this so often, when there's no real proof these sorts of incentives are a net gain. Localities pay hundreds of millions of dollar for sports team's stadiums and get no direct profit sharing, cities offer multi-million dollar packages - or in Seattle's case, even build an egregious trolley line - for businesses and don't even pretend to have a measure of the monetary benefit to the community for the given initial outlay. I always wonder how much these pointless incentives come from honest incompetence versus corruption of the government officials.

      The fundamental issue is that these payments don't 'create jobs" but just decide *where* a company will locate. As a result, they are a net loss since most companies would locate somewhere and create the jobs; just not in *your* backyard.

      If localities would all stop paying them I'd bet that many companies would locate in the same areas as they do with payments. Why? Companies still want low taxes, people who can do the jobs, access to transportation routes, etc. The cash is just a sweetener.

      I've seen some economic "studies" done to support such payments and I wish I could sell whatever it is the localities are smoking cause they numbers have no relationship to reality.

      So why do they do it? Politicians like to tout how many *jobs* they created. Especially near elections. Cities want sports teams, even if they are a net loss and will probably bail when a better deal come along. So we continue to transfer wealth from taxpayers to private corporations and ell good about it because "we're creating jobs."

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  8. Hold on... by CrackedButter · · Score: 4, Funny

    So is IBM the bad guy now I just need to know before I comment.

  9. As an IBMer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...they're so disorganized and flat-out dishonest with their employees that I say screw giving them any incentives, stimulus, or any other kind of special help. They need none.

    All IBM has done since Gerstner is coast, layoff, reorg, and outsource. No significant new technology, major divestitures (heck, we sold off our entire networking arm to AT&T). The first thing Palmissano did in his video address after taking over as CEO is tell sales "don't let the engineers tell you no". Great idea - it led to vaprous announcements, selling technology we couldn't produce, and atrophied all of our internal systems, investment, and talent. Growth targets are consistently at bubble levels to ensure no one gets reasonable bonuses, and in the lead up to the firings in Fishkill managers were told to downrate employees on their PBC's to limit severance payments.

    And no, I wasn't one of the ones laid off. If I had a better nest egg I might welcome it, freeing me from that blasted place. In the meantime, I have a family to support...

  10. More proof that executives don't do shit. by blind+biker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Did you ever think that these huge corporations would perform just as well, or even better, if top executives didn't exist, or just never did anything? So, if the company has good products and the economy is good, it prospers. And if the economy is bad, or the products are bad, the company suffers. That's what a company without top brass with golden parachutes, would do. The absurdly overpaid executives should be the ones who can turn a company around, whose leadership actually makes a difference.

    But, as we could see with the big 3 car manufacturers and basically every big publicly traded company (in private companies you can bet your sweet ass that there's an owner that will keep an eye on the managers), executives don't do a lick of a difference. When times are tough, these companies tank - and ask for bailouts.

    It's a bailout for incompetence, and Obama's administration would be foolish to support them. But it's too late - from the way the big 3 car manufacturers have been bailed out, I see more incompetence being rewarded.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    1. Re:More proof that executives don't do shit. by ROBOKATZ · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I can't find an online reference for this, but supposedly Warren Buffet once started out an earnings call with, "We would have done much better this year if I had never come in to work."

    2. Re:More proof that executives don't do shit. by powerlord · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's a bailout for incompetence, and Obama's administration would be foolish to support them. But it's too late - from the way the big 3 car manufacturers have been bailed out, I see more incompetence being rewarded.

      One thing to remember, is that the car manufacturers, as opposed to ALL the other bailouts, asked for short term low interest loans to keep going, because the credit market had frozen, and they couldn't get the loans they needed.

      Every other bailout was a free handout to the company (including AIG TWICE!). While I'm not saying I supported the money paid to the car manufacturers, there is a world of difference between what they were asking for and got, and what other companies got almost without asking for it.

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    3. Re:More proof that executives don't do shit. by blind+biker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Buffet is about the only executive who actually has a clue about management, business and economics. I respect Warren Buffet a lot, and would not be surprised if that quote was true.

      He was livid at the groundless bonuses and golden parachutes handed out left and right in the US corporate world, and articulated his anger very clearly. He's one of the good guys.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  11. More Corporate Welfare by Wansu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The incentives don't appear to work as several states have already found out. Invariably, companies receiving these incentives do not hold up their end of the bargain. And yet this practice continues. This is a kind of socialism too. Where's the outrage?

    --
    Wansu, th' chinese sailor
  12. Unrestricted Welfare by DaMattster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is the problem when government does not place restrictions on a bailout package. Our government wrote a blank check on us to bailout the results of extreme corporate greed and stupidity. It was incredibly assinine to think that trading mortgages like securities was a good idea. And, now, Uncle Sam turns around like the patient older parent and says, "Oh it's okay .... we forgive you .... here is an 820b allowance." This money should *not* have gone to corporations but should go towards keeping people in their homes. This is the key to beginning recovery. I must say that I am severely disappointed in Obama not seeing this fundamental fact. We should have let these greedy corporations fold under their own weight. We have set a dangerous precedence now for future troubled economic times wherein corporations can say, "Hey, you helped us before!", as an argument for more welfare.

    1. Re:Unrestricted Welfare by Bj�rn · · Score: 5, Informative

      You can find historic examples of how to handle a financial like this one. In the early 90-ies Sweden experience a housing bubble similar to what has happened in the US. The state bailed out the banks, but unlike the US the state also took control over the banks. Here is NYT article about it. As a result the Swedish economy bounced back and most, if not all, of the money used to rescue the banks have been returned to the taxpayers. This was done by a right-wing government. This is in contrast to Japan where the Japanese government did nearly nothing in similar situation a few years before. Japans is still suffering the consequences of the resulting recession.

      --
      Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think. --Niels Bohr
  13. Why would anyone want to work for IBM? by LordNimon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I just don't understand why any American wants to work for IBM. Granted, these days, any job is godsend. But in a year or so, this recession will be over and IBM will probably start growing again, like other tech companies. I have little respect for any American who accepts a job at IBM, given a choice. Years ago I used to work there, and I never got the sense that IBM appreciated its American workers.

    --
    And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
    To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    1. Re:Why would anyone want to work for IBM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, it's gotta beat the security guard job I ended up with after being laid off from HP. Not much of a market in tech for us over-50 geezers these days. If IBM offered me a job remotely resembling what I was doing before this, I'd take it in a shot.

      This relentless pursuit of ever-fatter profits at the expense of the employees who helped get companies where they are is ruining our economy and our country. Sure, they may be helping their short-term bottom line and making the stockholders happy, but when every company is laying off massive chunks of their workforce, they're depriving each other of prospective customers. Somebody's gotta buy the stuff they sell for them to keep making money, but they're taking away people's ability to do that.

      (Posting anonymously, just in case someone where I work sees this and recognizes my user name. I may be bitter, but I'm not stupid....)

  14. Re:What a scoop! by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Man, the way they keep printing that money, I'm not really sure if I want to work for it any more. I mean, what's it going to be worth in 5 years? Why bother?

    I'm going to make a still and go back to bartering. This money stuff is a total rip off.

    --
    -1 Uncomfortable Truth