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.

13 of 377 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Wow. Offshoring... by rotide · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  2. Misleading signals? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  3. ibm isn't an american company anymore by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  4. I've never joined a union but .. by ClosedSource · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  5. Should be law... by Thinine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

  6. It really isn't by ClosedSource · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  7. Desired conclusions come first by spun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  8. Re:Wow. Offshoring... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  9. Re:Unions by sabs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:Wow. Offshoring... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    make the basis for tax deductions on the number of
    reported US workers, no reports, no breaks.
    problem fixes itself.

    jr

  11. There are no American corporations. by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  12. Re:Speaking as an IBMer... by Lord+Ender · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  13. The only cognitive dissonance is your own by spun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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