Slashdot Mirror
IBM Stops Disclosing US Headcount Data
theodp writes "ComputerWorld reports that IBM has stopped providing breakouts on US employees, closing a door to data that provided insights into the bellwether company's employment shift. In its latest Annual Report, Big Blue only provides its global headcount, and an IBM spokesman confirmed that disclosure of US headcount is a thing of the past. The Rochester Institute of Technology's Ron Hira called the US workforce data critical for policymakers trying to understand the dynamics of offshoring. 'By hiding its offshoring, IBM is doing a disservice to America — through omission the company is providing misleading labor market signals and information to policy makers,' Hira said. Ironically, CEO Sam Palmisano's Letter to Shareholders, which accompanied the Annual Report, touts how IBM's Analytics and 'Smarter Planet' efforts are empowering US government decision-makers. Nondisclosure domestically and abroad seems to be the new rule of thumb for Big Tech, sparking calls for government intervention." IBM laid off about 10,000 US workers last year, and 2,900 so far this year, according to the Alliance@IBM, a labor union.
Trivial? I'm not sure that's the right word to describe it. Sure, it may be trivial to remove them from the list... but far less trivial to disengage IBM from current projects and bring in new contractors. How much would that cost?
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Your loss is OUR gain. 10,000 less American workers will probably translate into 100,000 Indian workers who will now be lifted out of poverty. Why is it that Americans (especially on Slashdot) proclaim they love the free market and libertarianism, but then get all fucking communist when it affects THEIR jobs?
I'm not saying you're wrong but when it comes to US Citizens losing their jobs, yes, the government has a problem with that.
I won't care to elaborate on why that is, but the fact that you seem surprised is a little confusing. It shouldn't be surprising that a government has more of an interest in the health of the job market for its citizens over the job[less] rate of another countries population.
I think ceasing to disclose U.S. employment sends a very clear labor market signal: The off-shoring will continue, probably at a rate much higher than you were thinking or are comfortable with. What more does a policy maker really need to know than "IBM is shipping jobs over seas so fast they don't want to talk about it"?
The enemies of Democracy are
it's an indian company
its' time for the usa, and especially new york state, to stop granting ibm special favors. all ibm has done for new york is slowly kill the hudson valley technology employment sector, including entire cities. ibm has betrayed its birthplace
fuck ibm, treat it like a foreign entity with questionable and dubious agendas. because ibm most certainly treats the usa like that, while the usa still coddles and mollifies it, like a deluded lover. ibm's betrayal of the usa and especially the hudson valley is longstanding and obvious, and now it is just passive aggressive, like a cheating spouse who has gotten away with countless crimes and is now embarrassed at how thoroughly he has duped their spouse
its a charade. fuck ibm, ibm only deserves scorn and hostility, unless you're in bangalore
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The govt should pass a new law that forces companies of all sizes to provide a breakdown of where they do business and where they hire. They should punish companies that do not hire where they make and sell things.
Every business should be forced to hire in the locality where they make money. This should be done not only countrywide, but statewide, citywide and blockwide.
Forget about stupid things like 'comparative advantage' - we will follow Mao's great leap forward. That will create a lot of wealth.
For the truly stupid, I'm being sarcastic.
Trivial? I'm not sure that's the right word to describe it. Sure, it may be trivial to remove them from the list... but far less trivial to disengage IBM from current projects and bring in new contractors. How much would that cost?
Not much. I've seen any number of projects where the company hired in all the service provider's employees, and fired the service provider. It's happened to IBM and every other outsourcer in the book, many, many times already. Essentially all that changes is the name that signs the paychecks.
American Third Position
Finally, a real choice!
You forgot to mention the 40hr work week and a minimum wage. Unions have their downside, but at least one generation has been significantly better off for their existence.
They're not hiding anything, they're just not telling people information for free anymore.
Last I knew companies weren't legal or socially obligated to disclose this kind of info.
All companies, especially publicly held ones, should be forced to report their labor figures every quarter along with their financial information. Just like we should track capital flowing in and out of our country, we should be able to track jobs as well. Remember, the more you know...
and hardware? sorry but IBM is the source for big iron.. and they aren't going to be able to walk away from that easily
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
rts
True globalization would include the free flow of people as well as business. Of course all countries who claim to be supporters of globalization have tariff and subsidies as well, so it's a bit of a joke.
Generally, people do not arrive at conclusions through logical means. Certainty is a feeling, not the end result of logic. People start with the conclusions they want to arrive at, then work backwards to create a chain of rationalizations leading there.
But we did not elect our politicians to further India's interests. We did not elect them to further IBM's. We elected them to further our interests. That being said, it would be hypocritical to proclaim a love of free markets and libertarianism, while supporting protectionist policies and government intervention. Hypocritical in the extreme. However, this would not make them communists, it is much more accurate to call them hypocritical protectionists.
What would NOT be hypocritical would be to call for a citizen lead and enforced boycott of IBM. One can be a libertarian and love the free market, but still not want to do business with companies that screw over your friends and neighbors. However, I think you will find that most libertarians want license to do whatever they please, rather than desiring true freedom, which takes work, and principles.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Are you surprised with real unemployment approaching 20% that citizens of the U.S. might be just a little bit upset over a company shipping jobs overseas but then claiming to be a US company when bidding for U.S. government jobs and tax breaks?
What level of unemployment should we reach in the united states before the government can act to protect its citizens?
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
If one hand in our hopelessly inefficient government knew what the other hand was doing, they wouldn't even have to ask IBM for these numbers, they could just use tax information from the IRS.
This is a non-story.
There is a war going on for your mind.
Unions also protect employees from the ravages of Corporate America.
You forget how badly employees were treated back before Unions. Alot of the places that 'treat their employees just fine without unions.' Started doing so, and continue to do so.. in order to keep the unions out, not because of some altruistic feelings for their employees.
make the basis for tax deductions on the number of
reported US workers, no reports, no breaks.
problem fixes itself.
jr
There are only money corporations. Those who run multinational organizations care nothing about whether their money comes from China, India, the USA or Mars. They have no loyalty to the USA or its people, and as the government and people of India and China will soon discover, they have no loyalty to them either. The wealthy can live anywhere. It's all one world to them. Only the sets and the local operating environments change.
The poor of the world have no enemy but the wealthy. Loyalty to "country" or political affiliation is just a con for the rubes.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
What level of unemployment should we reach in the united states before the government can act to protect its citizens?
So, I take it you are in favor of fully recreating the Great Depression by enacting protectionist laws?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
" as for new york politicians, they're so fucking retarded and dysfunctional, hate has no use"
No, they're just well-paid (by IBM) and don't dare bite the hand that feeds them.
we here in turkey are surprised that noone can use any seeds but monsanto's, an american company's today. even the seeds farmers had been keeping for generations have been banned, through bought out laws. and how it takes filthy underhanded measures to kill competition through any means possible, to the extent of going the way of modifying its own seeds to kill out any plant from the same species not genetically modified by monsanto.
http://www.impactlab.com/2009/12/14/a-global-horror-story-how-monsanto-owns-and-manipulates-the-worlds-food-supply/
http://www.google.com/search?q=monsanto+horror&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a
in a sidenote, some states in usa also have banned monsanto seeds, because they found out what monsanto was doing.
all because you americans have adopted a stupid, beyond logic approach to 'unregulated' business, and ended up not only being a bitch of your own corporations yourselves, but also making them a major problem plaguing the entire world.
well excuse me, but, you people in u.s. have no right to complain over ANYthing. in the end, this was the political ideology you adopted (hands off businesses so they can screw everyone, everything), and those were the people you voted for.
in your terms 'you get what you pay for'. enjoy.
Read radical news here
A lot of posters are saying "IBM should be able to hire whoever" and "IBM should not have to give any information that IBM is not legally required to give."
Okay fine. But, if IBM wants to enjoy all the lavish benefits of being a US company, such as: stimulus money, tax breaks, and preferential treatment in obtaining government contracts; then shouldn't IBM actually be a US company?
IBM is saying "the US government should be especially kind to us, because we provide all these jobs for US citizens" and "helping IBM is a good value for US taxpayers because those tax dollars come back to help the US."
But, are those assertions true? Should the US taxpayers be forced to give IBM special treatment if those assertions are not true? And how do we really know what is, or is not, true; if IBM refuses to tell us?
Seems to me that if IBM wants special treatment from the US taxpayers, then IBM needs to tell the taxpayers what is really going on.
Except our massive public debt makes either significant inflation or significant taxation a real possibility here too. But good points on our schizophrenic mix of free-market and (disproportionate) protectionism.
Honestly, I have mixed feelings about this. IBM is a huge tech giant, similar to Oracle or maybe even HP. They produce rock-stable, less-than-exciting products that run the back end of most businesses. Microsott is even heading this direction. The problem is, when you get that huge and have shareholders/executives constantly demanding lower costs, eventually the offshoring lever gets pulled. It's awful that these large companies are contributing to unemployment in the process, but do you really think they can be stopped?
I'd call myself left of center, and would support measures to at least discourage companies from moving jobs offshore. This wouldn't be appropriate in most cases, but when you have 300 million people competing against a huge labor pool that costs 90% less, the stabilizers need to be kicked on. However, I know it's not realistic. Why? Most IT people I know are incredibly conservative/Libertarian/Ayn Rand followers. Mention a union, professional organization, or other stabilizer to these people, and most go off into a Fox News-style tirade about socialism or how unions are evil and corrupt.
If our own profession doesn't stand up for itself, we can't expect anyone else to. (My opinion: People need to get out of this "rugged individualism/entrepreneurial" fantasy that they seem to have. You're not a superstar, you're not going to start a business and become an overnight billionaire, and you're never going to be one of the outsized celebrities or business tycoons that you celebrate. It just isn't a realistic dream to base your life around. But that's my opinion.)
Another problem is this - the computing and IT workforce has still not decided on a direction. Do we want to be a profession? If so, then we need to start standardizing education of new members, and do a better job at defining fundamentals of development, systems engineering, etc. Do we want to be a skilled trade? If so, then we need to set up an apprenticeship-style training system that gives new recruits a decent broad background, consider a union ^Ubargaining unit ^U^Upolitical influence committee and think about a real career ladder that doesn't end at age 40. Or, do we want to be a branch of traditional engineering? That's almost like a profession - and I'm all for the idea of people being responsible for their work like PEs are.
I would definintely go for the traditional-engineering or profession route, but there's another problem. Skill sets in IT vary wildly. I've worked with absolute geniuses and...umm...less-than-geniuses. It drives me nuts when less-than-geniuses get hired as contractors for triple my salary and I wind up having to tell them how to solve something. Since there's no set way to validate skills, people can fake their way through interviews and wind up on staff causing havoc while they learn. Same goes in reverse...someone who's really smart but bad at selling themselves can wind up not getting a job, or a much lower salary than they're entitled to.
Anyway, back to the offshoring problem. Everyone's still in love with cheap goods and cheap labor, and hasn't learned much from the recent economic downturn. People are still spending way too much, even though the contraction in the credit markets has helped a lot. So we have a choice - either cut back the spending so we don't have to demand raises of our already-high salaries, or find some way to differentiate ourselves. That's never going to happen - too many IT problems get buried by lower-level managers before the decision makers ever see them.
No, what you're seeing is a successful campaign to ruin unions. I haven't seen anyone hurt by a union. In fact, most of the civil benefits of working in the U.S. is due to union efforts. Little things like 40-hour work week. Paid vacation. Healthcare. Overtime. These are all things unions got at great cost. The boom of the 1950s and 60s is all due to the gains unions got for workers.
Assuming you're in I.T., think about the benefit of a union when you're working those nights and weekends without overtime.
Indians with any talent get the hell out of India. You will never get good employees by outsourcing to India, because good employees won't accept a lifestyle of disease, pollution, and waist-high piles of garbage everywhere while earning $5/hour.
Want to hire talented Indians? Look for them in Europe or North America.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
It's funny how all these companies that are laying of U.S. workers talk about globalization. As a shareholder in many companies, I wonder why they don't outsource the Executive jobs? I mean why should I pay some U.S. CEO a billion dollars, when I can pay a similarly talented, if not more talented individual, from anywhere else in the world a million dollars to do the same job. People want globalization and capitalism for others, and they want protectionism and socialism for themselves. When they start outsourcing executive jobs and quit giving corporate America bailouts, I'll believe that everybody wants globalization and capitalism. Furthermore as a U.S. taxpayer, I have no problem with IBM offshoring every single last one of their jobs, just don't come to my government asking for business when you do. In fact feel free to move to these other countries that are so great for business, good riddance!
good for india. but how is that not a betrayal of the usa in your mind?
Can't you also see it as the USA betraying IBM? Government is so entrenched in our economy that companies are forced to play the political game. Don't lobby congressmen? You'll be taxed out of existence. Your competitors will get subsidies instead of you, and you'll go out of business. Our patent office is worse, and the "arms race" of spurious patents made necessary by our IP laws has been well documented/ranted about here.
Government controls what you can import and what you can export. Who you can hire. What you can pay them. What you can charge for your product. Where you can sell your product. Who you have to pay for the privilege of doing so. How many clicks you can use to sell. Which states can extort you.
Your entire existence is at the whim and mercy of a capricious government. If you are successful, your "windfall profits" will be subject to special taxes. If you are unsuccessful, you better hope you and not your competitors are "too big to fail."
Now, have patience with my anarcho-Libertarian rant. Even I know that cheap foreign labor is a big draw, not just Evil Big Bad Government. But, nobody - no one in this country, in government, in this forum - has any love for IBM, or any of our enterprises. Our large corporations and their executives are reviled, justly or not, and then driven away.
And we wonder why. You don't really want to make the Ayn Rand's intellectual masturbation come true, do you? I'd hate to have to listen to a 100-page speech by John Galt in meatspace because we have an paranoid anti-corporatism fetish.
Instead of branding IBM a "traitor," we should recognize the business realities we have created. For all the benefits of regulation and high wages, this is an inevitable consequence.
We should instead be welcoming those who are doing business in this country - for example Toyota, despite being a "Japanese" company, is building plants in America while GM has been steadily moving to Mexico.
We should also recognize that in the "race to the bottom," the bottom is rising up. China is now too expensive to outsource some industries to - Malaysia, Thailand, and other countries are taking a lot of their manufacturing business. And then their standards of living will rise, making offshoring to them unattractive.
Now, if I end my rant with the incantation "I know I'll get modded down, but..", I'll get favorable moderation instead, right? I guess my point is that getting out the tar and feathers for the simple realities of business is like castigating an apple for falling from the tree.
DATABASE WOW WOW
Your response was modded down for no valid reason, I repeat it here:
"Totally true. We had a UK manager go to India and deliberately give them an impossible task to do. For 2 weeks he kept asking on progress and was told everything was going fine. On delivery day they said it was all going great. Nothing turned up. The day after he asked where it was 'nearly there'. Eventually he confronted them and asked if they had made any progress at all. They said yes. Even after he told them it was impossible they said they had got something. That particular cultural quirk is very hard to work with and requires very careful questioning in a way that allows them to tell the truth but make it sound positive. It very rarely (IME) gets spoken of as a problem though in outsourcing circles though."
If a market is free, anyone can decide not to do business with anyone else, for any reason. Why should anyone give a rat's ass about 'market efficiency' if said efficiency benefits someone else? It is simply amazing to me that you will so vocally defend companies acting in out of self interest, from individuals acting out of their own self interest. Why do you value the self interest of certain groups of people (corporations) over other groups (boycotters)?
You may hate it, but people will always band together into groups to protect their interests, with or without a government. In a true lasseiz faire capitalist society, people will create their own social structures to protect their interests, there will be countless advocacy and interest groups that will use all the tools at their disposal, including boycotts, public pressure, and educational campaigns, to punish companies that do not perform as the members wish.
You've provided a sterling example of why I dislike most libertarians. You don't want freedom, you want license to do whatever you please, for yourself, and everyone else should shut the fuck up and do what they are told. It is absolutely hypocrisy of the worst sort. It is also elitist, supports tyranny and encourages heirarchy.
In short, you are a statist. You just think corporations should BE the state.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
How would moving a company's global headquarters to another country be "betrayal"? Some sense of loyalty? Like most large international corporations, IBM's operational decisions appear to be driven by little more than shareholder value and legal requirements.
Consider that IBM is already primarily a global company. More than two thirds of the IBM workforce is outside the US, according to IBM's 2008 annual report.
To call IBM a "US company" right now would be very misleading. Even if the headquarters and senior management were moved to India, the large majority of the company would continue to be international. It is extremely likely that a large number of employees would continue to be needed in the US, regardless of where it is headquartered.
However, even if IBM did entirely abandon the US, this would not amount to a betrayal of the US. The effect would likely be that IBM's competitors and partners, including, Dell, HP, EMC, Oracle, Cisco, etc. would gain much of the marketshare and many employees that IBM would lose as result of such a move.
(Interesting side note: The US was the only country specifically broken out with employment numbers in IBM's 2008 annual report.)