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."

17 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 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?

    3. 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.
  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. 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...

  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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.
  11. 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....)

  12. 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
  13. 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