Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IBM Accused of Violating Federal Anti-Age Discrimination Law (propublica.org)

Posted by msmash on from the tussle-continues dept.

A group of ex-employees filed a lawsuit that accuses the tech giant of failing to comply with a law requiring companies to disclose the ages of people over 40 who have been laid off. The suit also alleges that the company has improperly prevented workers from combining to challenge their ousters. From a report: It is the second broad legal action against IBM since a 2018 ProPublica story that documented widespread age discrimination by the company in its global restructuring. The former employees are asking the court to invalidate a written agreement that IBM requires its employees to sign to receive severance pay. Under the document's provisions, workers agree to give up any right to challenge their dismissal in court. Until now, most age-related legal actions contesting an IBM layoff have been brought by the rare ex-worker who refused to sign the agreement and left without severance.

If the district court were to agree that IBM's separation agreement is invalid, it could open the company up to lawsuits by tens of thousands of older workers IBM has laid off in recent years. Today's lawsuit and the string of other cases filed in the wake of ProPublica's story face steep odds as a result of decisions by the Supreme Court and federal appeals courts that curtailed workers' ability to challenge employers' staffing decisions. The rationale is to limit what federal judges view as cumbersome, costly cases that hamstring both employers and the courts.

20 of 127 comments (clear)

  1. I got news for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It ain't just IBM. Shall we take a look at the average employee age at Facebook? Google? People over 50 don't get interviews, don't get hired, and are the first out the door when the layoffs come. I thank god every day that I went into stodgy defense work, where young people generally don't want to work and being over 50 is not seen as a deal breaker (my PhD probably doesn't hurt either), and I've had 25 years of steady employment.

    1. Re:I got news for them... by tippen · · Score: 2

      At my startup in Austin, we have only 2-3 people in Engineering under 40 years old. No way we could have gotten the product launched with a bunch of developers barely out of school.

    2. Re:I got news for them... by Y2K+is+bogus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As people age, their salary expectations increase, but often their skills don't.

      If they were really as valuable as they think they are, then some enterprising company should be able to hire them all and out-compete the companies staffed by younglings. Obviously, that isn't happening.

      Most people don't get old and wise. They just get old.

      Said the guy who's under 40. What you don't realize is that with age comes perspective. What you think is some great hot idea, an experienced guy can tell you why it's a bad idea and poke holes in the concept.

      I didn't even get in on Slashdot when it was fresh, yet my user ID should tell you how old I am.

    3. Re:I got news for them... by Luthair · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is not supported by evidence. Nearly all successful tech companies skew young. If oldsters were really so valuable, then where are the successful companies cashing in on that value by scooping up the seniors?

      Because they want slaves not employees. Its also worth noting that tagging along with the latest fad writing throw away apps isn't exactly technically demanding.

      You'll also notice that successful startups often end up re-writing their entire codebase to fix the poor decisions of their early employees.

    4. Re:I got news for them... by larryjoe · · Score: 2

      As people age, their salary expectations increase, but often their skills don't.

      If they were really as valuable as they think they are, then some enterprising company should be able to hire them all and out-compete the companies staffed by younglings. Obviously, that isn't happening.

      Most people don't get old and wise. They just get old.

      Competition in the business environment isn't solely based on competence but also impacts on business, such as operating costs. It could very well be that hiring minimally competent, cheap workers is more competitive for a company than hiring more expensive, more competent workers. This is especially true when decisions are made by executives motivated by short-term stock incentives, which is often the case. For such companies, the sweet spot is hiring minimally competent workers at the lowest price. In fact, if the short-term incentive is sufficiently compensating, the minimally competent part is not necessary.

    5. Re:I got news for them... by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 2

      Many of your aging employees are skilled and / or subject matter experts in older technology that is still in use, but no one wants to work on because it's not the " New Hotness " thing of the Month.

      While you state the older crowd's skills don't improve with age, I would wager the younger crowds skills with older tech are even more lacking.

      Let's use where I work as an example. ( Massive company: ~$170 B Annual Revenue for 2018 )

      No new hire wants to work on, learn or even hear about X.25 Protocol or any tech that was the " New Hotness " in the 80's.
      It's quite old and is actively being replaced* but it still exists and is carrying traffic without issues.

      ( *Replacement is dependent upon how much money and employees with the necessary skills you have on hand to make it happen. )

      Want to take a guess on the ratios of Old Farts vs New Hires that have expertise in these particular areas ? Guess what happens when you lay off all of your old farts ? ( Tip: Replacement of said tech grinds to a halt. )

      I guess the point is: There is a LOT of older technology still in use out there that your typical College Grad doesn't want anything to do with and you have to keep someone around to work on it until you can replace it.

    6. Re:I got news for them... by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If oldsters were really so valuable

      Remember these words. 20 years go by faster than you think. Read them again in 20 years and let me know how smart you think you were when you wrote them.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    7. Re:I got news for them... by shanen · · Score: 2

      Hear, hear.

      As far as the lawsuit goes, where do I sign up?

      They actually started pushing me towards the exit around 55. My theory is that their problem was that I had too many friends in higher places, as in it had always amused me to help other people get promoted even though I was basically irreplaceable and therefore unpromotable. (Not to say that no one else could have done my work. It was just (office) politically impossible to hire anyone else.) My final managers still went rather far out of their way to make my last few years hellish. Unfortunately (as they saw it), I just classified it as endurance training and rather enjoyed it.

      (Many rotating managers in that period. My theory is that part of the reason one of them was transferred down was as punishment for not getting rid of me, and another one was transferred laterally because he was basically a nice guy and wasn't interested in playing their head games. My last manager actually confessed to me that she was just desperately waiting for the date when she could retire. I think she was sincere, but maybe she was just a good actor and it was another game.)

      Still, I doubt I care enough to join in the lawsuit, or even provide corroborating testimony. The part that gets my goat is how they (mostly higher management) prattle about wanting innovations while constantly rejecting all of mine. I'm pretty sure I can point at half a dozen examples where other companies have PROFITABLY seized the leads in areas where I was encouraging IBM to move... And I'm pretty sure some of my friends (both in and out) feel the same way.

      These years I'm just another frustrated wannabe customer, but NOT for IBM. Just submitted some wild new product ideas to a couple of companies that might deliver the goods. Didn't even consider IBM as a candidate.

      Guess that's just what happens when you're hung up on respect for the individual, customer service, and quality. Stupid old ideas, eh?

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    8. Re:I got news for them... by shanen · · Score: 2

      I suspect you're arguing with a troll. Either that or he's never heard of the google. I find it especially interesting that when the oldsters went out, the evil started coming in. At least that's how it looks.

      However mostly I wanted to chant "Hear, hear" on the reference to (wage) slaves. The employers' idea is to keep the employees divided and conquered. There are a few exceptional superstars (and the company needs such leaders to seed any dominant position), but mostly they prefer the cheapest round peg that will fit in the right hole and get the job done at minimum cost.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    9. Re:I got news for them... by goose-incarnated · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They problem is that they pan everything. Most tech products fail, so if you say "that will never work" to everything, you will be right 90% of the time, but you will also miss the 10% that make up for the failures a hundred times over.

      If the failure kills you then you aren't around to reap the 1-in-10 success - plenty of startups that never made the news went all-in on autonomous cars and are out of money before anyone actually solves the problem.

      The problem is survivor bias - you're looking at the survivors all having the same characteristic (risk taking, for example) and concluding that **that** is the reason for their success, while the reality is that all the failures had the exact same characteristic too.

      You're making this argument:
      "All the people who survived $DISEASE took $MEDS".
      "So? All the ones who didn't also took $MEDS".

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    10. Re:I got news for them... by pnutjam · · Score: 2

      They may be laying off chaff (probably), but legally they are required to lay off old and young chaff equally. This lawsuit contends they picked older chaff in favor of younger chaff, which is not legal.

      --
      Cheap storage VM.
    11. Re:I got news for them... by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      The problem with youth is you don't know how ignorant you are. But that's ok. Age isn't a choice. It will happen. The only other alternative is that you will die young. Enjoy the ride.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    12. Re:I got news for them... by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      They can afford to do 14 hour days at the office as no-one is going to miss them at home.

      If you need to pull 14 hour days at the office then either you or your boss has no fucking clue of what they are doing. You cannot make up quality with quantity. So besides an occasional emergency if this is happening you are in the wrong job, or your company is clueless. Either one is an indication to make sure your CV is up to date and look for something else.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  2. Ok it's better to say we did not follow H1B laws a by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    Ok it's better to say we did not follow H1B laws and layed off USC's just to replace them with H1B's

    Also level 1 help desk is master's degree preferred (and the pay is no where near any thing to cover the loans for that)

  3. IF we only had an UNION!!!! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If we only had an UNION!!!!

  4. Re:Nothing is stopping you from organizing one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Unions are only found in free countries, they're collective bargaining and collective rights enforcement by citizen laborers. Union DUES are somewhat controversial (to some retards like yourself) but the union itself is not.

    Union labor is why America still has a middle class that Republican trolls have allowed to be choked nearly to death. You just don't even realize you're a traitor for multi-national corporatist globalists to use as their tool.

    You're oblivious to it, and it's clear you don't have a job either. Today's a work day, comrade. You're an unemployed coal-tard toady, not a productive citizen.

  5. Who does layoffs well? by mykepredko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Back in the '90s, when I worked at IBM, I was appalled at the people they let go. Age was clearly a factor, followed by the number of letters behind a person's name. Up to that point in time, the company had been incredibly successful and never had to consider layoffs before, so the primary decision point was literally who had a full retirement followed by degrees, type and where are they from. Guess how many mainframe system admins were over 50 with only high school? The damage done to the company was incredible and measurable.

    Now, being older and wiser, I have seen many, many layoffs from different companies with no clear criteria or thought to what would happen after the layoffs were complete - they're generally done to bring quarterly costs into line with investor's expectations with little lip service being put to only keeping the most productive employees.

    So, while I can see the reason for tracking the demographics of who a company fires is important, I'm not aware of any cases where layoffs improved the long term health of the company or that any demographic study would show that the layoffs were done in a strategic and effective manner.

    --
    Mimetics Inc. Twitter
    1. Re:Who does layoffs well? by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Now, being older and wiser, I have seen many, many layoffs from different companies with no clear criteria or thought to what would happen after the layoffs were complete - they're generally done to bring quarterly costs into line with investor's expectations with little lip service being put to only keeping the most productive employees.

      So, while I can see the reason for tracking the demographics of who a company fires is important, I'm not aware of any cases where layoffs improved the long term health of the company or that any demographic study would show that the layoffs were done in a strategic and effective manner.

      This is AT&T right now.

      The most recent round of layoffs were determined by a single metric. Your physical office location.

      If you work outside of company declared " Collaboration Zones " your continued employment is questionable at best.
      Your skillset or value you bring to the company is irrelevant.
      Years of experience and / or wisdom in technology X or subject matter ( still in use by the Telco ) also irrelevant.

      Entire Teams were wiped out and the work they were doing is now sitting idle piling up because no one is left to deal with it.

      The company doesn't fully understand the damage they have done yet but, make no mistake about it, it will come back to bite them.
      The company hasn't disclosed neither how many nor who they have let go. We find out when we try to call a colleague about day to day
      business and learn they were let go.

      Personally, I kick around the idea that the Collaboration Zones are merely a smokescreen for the true nature of the layoffs. That being the
      reduction of older / high seniority employees whose benefit packages are grandfathered in vs a new hire. ( Translation: They cost more )

      The scary part ?

      This is only the first round of layoffs this year. More are coming.

  6. They probably didn't cover their bases by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When Cisco laid me off at age 56, they did cover their bases. The layoff came with a stack of paper an inch thick with statistics of the ages of those laid off, showing they were fully prepared to defend themselves against any claim of age discrimination.

    They also included a very generous severance package.

    And, if you signed an agreement to not sue them for age discrimination, that very generous severance package became very *VERY* generous.

    See point 1 above, they were fully prepared to defend themselves against any claim of age discrimination.

    Hey, when I got home from getting laid off, right there in my Gmail inbox was an email from a recruiter at the place I'm currently working. The layoff turned out to be a rather substantial windfall.

  7. IBM Has Been Firing Older Workers for Years by Only+Time+Will+Tell · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This doesn't strike me with surprise at all. My dad was an IBMer who was lucky enough to get downsized in December right before Christmas (around 10 years ago). He was in his mid-50s at the time and had so much DB/2 and other database knowledge IBM based their certification programs off of his skills. He always received impeccable performance reviews and worked hard for the company. I have no doubt some shithead in IBM HR did a SELECT employ_ID WHERE emp_age >50 and went on a "cost savings" massacre. These RIFs are baldfaced attacks on older employees whose only crime is they couldn't stop the aging process. They have all built decades of specialized and technical skills making them invaluable resources. IBM doesn't give a shit about how it treats its employees and it shows in their years of declining revenues. They're on a slow death-march into the sea with this current strategy, which is unfortunate to see a once great company fall apart.