Thoughts?
22 replies (most recent on top)
"I have my own reasons that I still work for IBM, and if they decide to reduce my compensation for any reason, then I will look elsewhere for employment. "
This is basically where I'm at - "my own reasons" outside this scope - (ok, mostly specialty family health hard to switch) but it wouldn't take much to look elsewhere. I keep all leads fresh.
A sucky thing also is IBM is quite poor at supporting remote workers - before and during Covid. My boss said "WFH typically supply their own monitors" and all I got for years was just the laptop and a single power adapter. Really? for all you're saving? All my friends at other companies got 1K to set up remote during Covid. IBM now will let you buy a monitor - but if you get 2 - one is expected to be at each location. Really?
So sh---y support ITO or WFH or split.
Been on the fence a bit - for my circumstances - but not much to humpty dumpty over.
I've been WFH for 20+ years at various companies. It's always been a requirement of mine (one day in is OK for sync ups). So for me I'd require a pay raise to go in all the time - which realistically means I'd switch jobs.
That did come up at IBM as a few years ago they cancelled WFH for basically everybody. So when my boss needed and office # for me I gave him a CR. That satisfied the corp "seated" scanner.
I was recently assigned a real "agile" (read 5' no privacy desk in a cluster) - indeed adjacent to a VP - whom I made clear "you'll see me one or two days a week max."
But for my bit-twiddling skills that's probably OK and I have high confidence from the weekly or so qualified job solicitations - for remote work. Just me. But no cut and a substantial raise would be required for full time back in with commute.
Why would I ever do that. Give back to a company that all it ever does (and has done) is take at any opportunity it's ever had.
I value my time and if they were to tell me that I will never ever have to visit the office again and negitiate a bit of a pay decrease. I'd have to calculate the value making some assumptions but I'd give them that. I'd say it's somewhere between five and ten percent, but this is just my gut feeling.
I would absolutely NOT take a pay cut under any circumstances.
IBMs pay is not particularly competitive, and I don't work for free.
I have my own reasons that I still work for IBM, and if they decide to reduce my compensation for any reason, then I will look elsewhere for employment.
Realistically I would probably take a 20% cut if it meant I could move out of the city, away from any of the strategic locations. That’s just my opinion since I would prefer to live in a smaller town or more rural area.
I would take a 10 percent pay cut provided IBM reduces it’s management heads by at least 30 percent. If that were to happen a good chunk of the lower band employees would be able to enjoy benefits such as a GDP, RSUs, better bonuses etc. Problem solved people.
I'd take a 10% pay cut
Yeah.. this is IBM trying to double-dip (save on office space and a pay cut)
Since COVID, and working only from home, I am earning over 50% more than when at IBM.
Why? I am competing successfully with Silicon Valley folks, and now my pay reflects my abilities- now that I am competing on a country-wide market.
THINK Folks. Here is the solution: in the USA, corporations are people, so therefore, people are corporations. Corporations can have residency by having an address and a nominal (shared by hundreds of corporations) office in a tax jurisdiction that best benefits them.
So can we!
I predict a new form of "virtual communal living" - imagine the tiniest space in the highest cost-of-living area (to maximize your salary), cohabited (on paper only) by tens of thousands of people, who actually live elsewhere with a lower cost of living.
Solved. You're welcome.
I would take a pay cut, if IBM in turn paid for my facilities, so cover 24% (40hr/168hr) of my mortgage/rent, electricity, internet, water, since they are expense reimbursements they would not be taxable.
What all of you are missing (or forgetting) is that most companies adjust pay based on where you are located and will PAY A COST OF LIVING PREMIUM if you are in a high cost of living area (like NYC or Silicon Valley) than lower cost of living areas for the same JOB. GOOGLE, FACEBOOK, and other companies have already stated that their employees can go 100% remote BUT with a PAY CUT of 10-30% if they move from a high cost of living area to a lower cost area. IBM (which has 3-4 levels of pay based on cost-of-living premiums in the USA) is just following suit with the rest of the industry....the typical "race to the bottom" like it did with health/dental/etc benefits over the last few decades.
Articles:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/heidilynnekurter/2021/08/26/google-plans-to-cut-remote-workers-salaries-by-25-heres-the-impact/?sh=2ad543f94fb2
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/05/how-silicon-valley-facebook-salary-cuts-are-shaping-remote-worker-pay.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2021/11/11/workplace-survey-remote-pay-cut-covid/6367601001/
Thoughts? I'm thinking wow HR really does troll this site!!! Go get a real job you POS.
No. Are you performing the same services in both locations? If you accept a pay-cut, IBM is making more profit off of you. Are you good with that? I would guarantee the managers and those above are not accepting pay cuts.
why would I take a pay cut?
Many years ago when my wife was working I put her on my IBM medical insurance because her company gave her $1500 a year if she was not on their medical. We did that for many years as we made out better. Then at some point as the IBM plans went up it became better for us to move to her plan. IBM gave me less than $100 a year for not being on one of their plans. (I believe it was more like $30 a year I was given, but don't remember)
Reason I mention it is I was reminded of it when the comment was made "WFH probably reduces company overhead (less office space, etc.)'
IBM likes to double dip if they can.. save on people working from home while also trying to reduce their pay because they are working from home.....
IBM needs to clean out HR and start over..
A decade ago when IBM first began pushing (yes, pushing) employees to work remotely, there was an internal financial analysis done to show that for every headcount that the company makes "remote/telework", the company saves $10K a year on rent and utilities. I don't understand why then, the employee has to take a pay cut to give the company financial benefits.
Paltry raises under the inflation rate are effectively a pay cut so we already get one every year.
WFH probably reduces company overhead (less office space, etc.). It would be great to see some of that passed onto the employees that reduce that overhead in the first place.
Nice try HR. Why would I accept a pay cut to keep doing what I've been doing very effectively for the past 2 years?
Never accept a pay cut, it de-value your expertise and experiences. Regardless if you work remotely or not, that shouldn’t be a factor of salary.
Wouldn't take a pay cut. When I worked from home I got more done then in the office. Conference calls can be done from anywhere