IBM Added 70,000 People To Its Ranks In 2015, And Lost That Many, Too (businessinsider.com)

walterbyrd writes: IBM is very particular in hiring for the hot new skills where IBM is expanding like machine learning, big data, mobile, and security. However, even with adding 70,000 people to their payroll in 2015, IBM actually ended the year with a slightly lower headcount than when it started, according to a SEC filing. IBM is always very careful when talking about its global headcount, which has been going through major shifts for years. It won't say how many people it lays off each year, or how old they are or in what areas they work. It only talks only about "resource actions" or "workforce rebalancing" in terms of the total amount of money it spends on them. It spent $587 million on such things in 2015 (and nearly $1.5 billion in 2014), it said.

Comments

"resource actions" or "workforce rebalancing"

[zenlessyank]

Or in other words, "we don't pay retirement packages and we don't believe in careers at IBM". Remember folks capitalism has no bounds, no emotions, no respect. The perfection of corporate slavery is complete.

Re:"resource actions" or "workforce rebalancing"

[JoeMerchant]

The classical pension was too easy for management to abuse - fired on the 29th year, etc. 401(k) is the way of today, and only works if you choose to participate.

Re:"resource actions" or "workforce rebalancing"

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically what they did was can the old farts and replace them with younger folks and H1-bs.

I was one of the younger folk back in '94. We were told the older folks "didn't have the skills" and "didn't want to learn new skills" so they had to go.

Then over night, I woke up and found out that I "didn't have the skills" and was replaced by folks who did "have the skills" - doing exactly the same work.

Technical skills are age and wage dependent in this profession. At 20, C++ is a great skills. At 50, C++ is out of date.

Corporate DoubleSpeak

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Let's not be coy...we all know what this Corporate DoubleSpeak means.

"resource actions" = "firing people"

"workforce rebalancing" = "firing people"

"rightsizing" = "firing people"

"personnel adjustment" = "firing people"

Bu bye Americans, hello H1-Bs

[Snotnose]

My understanding is IBM is rapidly shrinking it's American workforce and replacing those folks with H1-Bs from India. They are not only losing years of knowledge, they are replacing it with people who barely speak english. What sucks for them is that not only do customers realize they're getting shafted, but the quarterly income, which management uses to base their rediculous end of year bonus, both suck ass.

The big lie of the pols

[Okian Warrior]

The politicians tell us is that giving perks to big companies will create jobs.

This is a lie.

Jobs are created when people *start* companies, or when small companies grow. Big companies generally have all the workforce they need, and don't hire more people just because they get more money.

Indeed - it's the big companies who look to cut costs by shaving quality or outsourcing or moving to Ireland. You don't generally see the small, lean, hungry startups looking to outsource from India or move to Ireland.

I cringe when I see the federal government giving [ice cream maker] Ben and Jerry's a grant of $200,000 to increase their competitiveness, because that money spent on sales training could fund 4 small startups, employing 5-7 people each.

Next time you hear a politician, check to see if their speech doesn't end with "and this means more jobs" or similar. It's their way of selling their influence and making it palatable to the voters.

Re:The big lie of the pols

[Sibko]

Jobs are only created when entire new industries open up.

Let's simplify things down a bit to make this easier to grasp:
In order to compete in an established market, you need to produce a better/cheaper product than your competitors.
Every 'cost' in the entire chain of production fundamentally boils down to human labor
Reducing human labor reduces costs
Reducing costs improves efficiency
Improving efficiency allows better competition in the marketplace

There are no new jobs being created; only jobs being lost as we create new practices, techniques, and technology to reduce the amount of human labor needed for production of goods. Walmart replaced all the local grocers because walmart was more efficient than they were. Walmart "created" jobs only insomuch that nobody bothered comparing walmarts' "job creation" to their "job destruction" from undercutting local competition.

Yesterday we needed a team of 1000 to create a widget. Today we need a team of 100. Tomorrow it'll be a team of 10.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not trying to say this is a bad thing. It just is.

So remember, the next time a politician or CEO talks about how many jobs he's creating; what he really means is that he's moving a bunch of jobs into a certain location from another, and almost certainly the end result will be a decline in total jobs in the world, not an increase.

Re:Hiring There, Not Here, or Laying Off Here

[turbidostato]

"Until the rest of world catches up to the US in wages, the pressure to off-shore will not change"

You see... it works both ways. Pray it doesn't end up being "until US catches down to the outsourced countries' wages, the pressure to off-shore will not change". There's only one US of A, but there's a lot of third world countries waiting to be the next India or Malaysia once their wages significantly grow over the starvation level.

Re:IBM has been dying for years...

[Dr. Evil]

I disagree about the innovation. They're making great strides in "global resourcing", learning systems like Watson and still have amazing private physics research. As a physicist, it might be one of the better non-military places to work.

Otherwise, you're spot-on. I worked there longer than I should have. I know almost nobody working there anymore. They were all fired... I mean layed off. Their jobs went to Brazil.

The corporate bloat always made me wonder why anyone would chose to do business with them.... but having worked for similar giant companies, it seems they expect a similar management style in their vendors. Having a second-line manager to complain to when your sales rep's backup failed you and their boss can't help, seems to be some kind of expectatoin. You won't get that in a mom-and-pop shop.

The company varies by division. 2 years and leave is reasonable for most areas, but if you're in physics, or you're in big data and learning systems, or managing global resourcing projects, you might not find a more interesting place to work.

Re:lower wages

[fluffernutter]

Relocate to where? India???