[HN Gopher] IBM is quietly axing jobs, source says
___________________________________________________________________
IBM is quietly axing jobs, source says
Author : LinuxBender
Score : 61 points
Date : 2024-09-18 19:11 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theregister.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theregister.com)
| rowanG077 wrote:
| Why would you sign an NDA when beeing fired? So you het some
| severance pay?
| kabdib wrote:
| Yup. Cash for silence
| onemoresoop wrote:
| Can the NDA be invalidated after the cash has been delivered?
| organsnyder wrote:
| If you signed a contract, they could pursue legal action.
| Whether they would or not is a different question, but the
| possibility of legal action from someone with such deep
| pockets would give most people pause.
| jimbokun wrote:
| Depends on the laws of the state in which you were hired.
| paxys wrote:
| On what basis?
| darth_avocado wrote:
| Unless it's substantial, never sign an NDA or arbitration
| agreement for severance. You're better off keeping your
| options open if it's something like one or two month's
| salary.
| coliveira wrote:
| No NDA, no severance payment...
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| I thought this was outlawed at least in the states:
| https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/22/success/severance-
| agreements-...
| zeptian wrote:
| why is this news ? they do it twice a year.
|
| they have way too many employees, and it will take them a decade
| of such cuts to "rightsize"
| myth_drannon wrote:
| And they say we don't have ageism in the industry... :
|
| "As with prior layoffs, or "resource actions" to use IBM's
| euphemism, we're told those affected are substantially in the
| 50-55 age bracket with 20-24 years of seniority.
|
| "It seems exclusively people in L7 and L8 and L9 bands, at the
| top of the band in payment structure," the insider said.""
| kolbe wrote:
| Disparate outcomes do not imply disparate treatment
| BadHumans wrote:
| > As with prior layoffs
|
| When all of your outcomes result in same treatment of the
| same group of individuals, there just might be a little fire
| to that smoke.
| manuelmoreale wrote:
| If the goal is to save money, isn't it reasonable to axe the
| most senior people which are probably also paid more than
| junior ones? And I'm not saying it's a smart strategy, it's
| probably idiotic. Just saying it's not really ageist.
| whatshisface wrote:
| The cost/productivity balance is supposed to have been
| considered for hiring and promotion; when a layoff
| predominately targets a specific division or pay level it
| means the strategy leading up to that point had been wrong.
| manuelmoreale wrote:
| Oh I'm not arguing against that. And as I said, I don't
| think it's a smart way of running things. I'm just saying
| that it may not be an age thing but simply a money thing.
| That's all.
| groby_b wrote:
| Yeah, it is, unless you can make the case that IBM doesn't
| _need_ all those leaders any more.
|
| What will happen is that they rehire, and rehire young.
| bankcust08385 wrote:
| That's how Google Cloud did it.
| droptablemain wrote:
| Perhaps not in principal, but in practical terms it ends up
| being "ageist."
| brailsafe wrote:
| > resource actions
|
| I've always thought the term "resource" was dehumanizing, but
| at least on its own it could be interpreted positively, but
| "resource actions" is just upsetting
| acheron wrote:
| "Livestock culling"
| doubled112 wrote:
| I'm sure they'll find more meat to grind.
| 7qW24A wrote:
| RA'ing people at the top of their band means that they've
| topped out skill-wise. These aren't senior people; it's people
| who will never get promoted past 7 or 8 (which are quite
| junior) but have been accruing comp adjustments for a long
| time. Most teams will lay off a 7 that is getting paid more
| than a 9 by virtue of being at the company for 20 years.
| osnium123 wrote:
| Do you think it's a good idea for employees to voluntarily
| ask for pay cuts so that they are on the low end of the pay
| scale for a job grade?
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Better to look for another job where you think you might
| not be as disposable, even if at lower pay.
| jhallenworld wrote:
| Maybe this is true skill-wise, but there is also productivity
| to consider. I knew a band 9, who was definitely not going to
| be promoted STSM (band 10), but was extremely productive. I'm
| sure he was paid well, better than most band 10s.
|
| Band 10 and above include good soft-skills, people who can
| persuade the industry and organization, give TED talks, etc.
| xyst wrote:
| With the fed rate cuts, IBM will probably be hiring back those
| same folks
| myth_drannon wrote:
| As per article, they are firing in US and still hiring in India
| bankcust08385 wrote:
| Saving a buck, being a traitor, and sacrificing quality all
| at the same time. Workers should both unionize and boycott
| any company that behaves that way.
| datavirtue wrote:
| Are these the jobs axed by AI? Would seem to make sense, since
| the CEO said they were going to replace 5800 jobs with AI.
| tbyehl wrote:
| Please. Back in April they gutted my team of people working on
| Ansible automations.
| minkles wrote:
| IBM and execs are full of shit and say that because they want
| other company execs to buy their AI products. They will lay
| people off because they cost money. No other reason.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| That's the same thing. AI is cheaper, hence you lay people
| off because they cost more.
| farceSpherule wrote:
| NDA's don't matter. There are ways to leak the information
| anonymously.
| minkles wrote:
| And the fact that it's under NDA makes IBM look even more
| shitty.
| javiramos wrote:
| I always thought that IBM was a declining giant. I just looked up
| their share price and it has done strikingly well over the past 2
| years. Their revenue has also been growing, albeit slowly. Maybe
| capitalizing on the AI buzz?
|
| https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/IBM/
| KK7NIL wrote:
| IBM has largely retreated from consumer facing ventures but
| it's still a behemoth.
|
| From the start of its Wikipedia page:
|
| > IBM is the largest industrial research organization in the
| world, with 19 research facilities across a dozen countries,
| having held the record for most annual U.S. patents generated
| by a business for 29 consecutive years from 1993 to 2021.
|
| I know that in semiconductors they're still doing bleeding edge
| R&D which they then try to license to foundries. Their
| mainframe business is still doing quite well too.
|
| And I'm sure they're active in many other niches that I know
| little about.
| marcus0x62 wrote:
| They have an absolutely massive consulting/services business
| (~ $20B/year run rate.)
| rmbyrro wrote:
| Nobody has (still) ever been fired for hiring IBM.
|
| They have a very strong brand in traditional corporate
| industries, which have an endless demand for IBM services.
| yellowapple wrote:
| > Nobody has (still) never been fired for hiring IBM.
|
| I'm pretty sure I came pretty damn close the one and only
| time I opted for IBM Cloud (which was called "Bluemix" back
| then). In fairness, running a PostgreSQL DB in a container
| wasn't the brightest idea on my part, and it was also my
| fault for not having backups in place, but when Bluemix ate
| our entire prod DB, and the multiple-weeks-long back-and-
| forth with IBM's support only yielded something along the
| lines of "whoops, that sucks, good luck building a new DB
| instance from scratch", we rather quickly jumped ship to AWS
| and never looked back.
|
| I'm sure IBM Cloud is better these days, though it was a bit
| telling that during my brief time working for IBM my primary
| job was to build customers' stuff on AWS instead of IBM
| Cloud. Go figure.
| rmbyrro wrote:
| And yet, you haven't been fired
| 486sx33 wrote:
| Whomever hired IBM to build this mess should have been fired
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_pay_system
| fsckboy wrote:
| share price matters to a shareholder in the short term, but
| doesn't come close to telling the whole story. IBM is not
| performing well.
|
| In 1990, IBM's market cap was $27B and Microsoft's was $5B.
|
| In 1999, IBM's was just under $100B and Microsoft's was just
| under $400B.
|
| For the last decade+, IBM has hovered (rather wildly) around
| $160B, while Microsoft has grown from $250B (post dot com
| crash) to $2,500B.
|
| so yes, IBM really has been a declining giant relative to their
| market share in the strong technology sector
|
| IBM selling off more and more businesses might be "the right
| move" for shareholders and props up the share prices, but it
| shrinks the overall business and in terms of value creation
| (where wealth comes from) indicates a shortage at IBM
| holografix wrote:
| They've been doing it for so long I'm surprised they have any
| jobs left to axe.
|
| Sam Palmisano skinned IBM then too a knife to its belly and
| gutted it. All in the name of his "Roadmap 2010" which was a plan
| to double the share price by 2015.
|
| So basically the pharaoh said "fuck it, we need a new pyramid.
| Get the whips out and all worker carcasses are to be dump on the
| left please".
|
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2014/05/30/why-ibm...
|
| Edit: roadmap 2010 not 2015
| alphazard wrote:
| > As with prior layoffs, or "resource actions" to use IBM's
| euphemism, we're told those affected are substantially in the
| 50-55 age bracket with 20-24 years of seniority.
|
| > Despite numerous past and ongoing age discrimination lawsuits,
| IBM maintains it does not systematically discriminate on the
| basis of age.
|
| Lawsuits of this sort are a little ridiculous. If you work at a
| company that pays people more just for being older, then you
| shouldn't be surprised when the "more experienced" people are the
| first to get laid off.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-09-18 23:01 UTC)