Slashdot Mirror
IBM Offers Retirement With Job Guarantee Through 2013
dcblogs writes "IBM is offering employees who are nearing retirement — and may be worried about a layoff — a one-time voluntary program that would ensure their employment through Dec. 31, 2013. The program, described in a letter addressed to IBM managers, 'offers participants 70% of their pay for working 60% of their schedule.' Participating employees would receive 'the same benefits they do today, most at a full-time level, including health benefits and 401(k) Plus Plan automatic company contributions.' In 2006, IBM employed about 127,000 in U.S. The Alliance@IBM, a CWA local, now estimates the U.S. workforce at around 95,000. How far IBM will go in cutting is up for debate, including one radical estimate."
This happened to a good friend of my father's back in the '90s. He was a loyal employee of 27 years and they canned him right before retirement. Seems to be (or was) business as usual up there.
You have your facts wrong; IBM has a cash balance plan ("hybrid plan"). They didn't lose the lawsuit, and the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal after IBM won.
Specifically, July 1, 1999; I was an IBM employee at the time they converted.
In a cash balance pension plan, like a defined benefit plan, there is no favoritism in contribution for tenure, so getting rid of the older workers doesn't benefit IBM, so long as the older workers are productive.
You should read up on cash balance plans: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_balance_plan
You should also realize that ranknfile-ue.org and endicottalliance.org (alliance@ibm) are propaganda arms of the CWA (Communications Workers of America) union, and that the CWA has been trying to get their camel's nose into the IBM tent for forever, ever since they saw the handwriting on the wall about the Internet becoming a big deal. They have their origins in the telephone industry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Workers_of_America#History
When I was at IBM, we never gave them the time of day.
* First of all, very few IBM employees are technically communications workers; all of the CWAs historical strikes to date have been against telephone companies.
* Second, we were very well paid with very good benefits, and there was no reason to hold IBM's butt to the fire in exchange for the CWA getting a percentage of our paychecks to line their pockets.
You really need to RTFA and look at who sourced it.
-- Terry
But that is expensive. A company could go out and buy the exact same benefits for their employees via a life insurance company – but at much higher cost.
Life Insurance companies (effectively) have to discount their liabilities at government bond rates – which are guaranteed. I mean, if you are going to guaranty a rate, and returns are linked to risk, that implies a low risk, and thus a low return.
I think you are a bit off on Social Security. Currently benefits are tied to Average Wage Index, not inflation. (And yes, Congress will sometimes step in a goose the figures up a bit when inflation goes up faster then the Average Wage Index, but that is the exception, not the rule.)
But back to pensions – and those are expensive. A company could go out and buy the exact same benefits for their employees via a life insurance company – but at much higher cost.
Life Insurance companies (effectively) have to discount their liabilities at government bond rates – which are guaranteed. I mean, if you are going to guaranty a rate, and returns are linked to risk, that implies a low risk, and thus a low return.
Private companies can use a much higher rate, usually a blend of stock market rates and corporate bonds – and thus are much freer to take risk.
It’s not that I am against pensions – it’s just that I am against the bad actuarial assumptions that most company plans make.
I will point you to a contra example. When AIG blew up, and the government had to bail out corporate, you might have noticed that they did not have to bail out the fixed annuity arm. That’s because 1. the life insurance was segregated out with their own accounts, 2. the pension obligations were conservatively modeled – by state regulators who are not interested in bailing out life insurance companies.