Thread regarding IBM layoffs

How about #yousux?

@1lsn That's because you have to make a comment of substance. It's fine to leave a negative review as long as you're not completely inflammatory about it and you actually explain why you're giving a low rating.

I am surprised Microsoft is not on the list considering they own LinkedIn. Maybe the amount of also advertising IBM is doing on LI helps them, however, since millennials make up the majority of the workforce they realize it is a good place to start. I believe the Summit Program sales hires receive about $70k and spend a year traveling around the country going to various sales schools. No real responsibility other than training and bonding with their sales class peers. Per earlier poster, if they stay for a year or two after they finish, get some experience and move on, pretty good deal.

IBM just sent an internal email blast celebrating the Glassdoor rating and encouraging employees to recruit their friends. Is this the real life? is this just fantasy? Caught in a landslide, no escape from reality.

@Sj2xUce-siz The thing is, people working at Facebook/Google want to leave after 2-3 years anyways to work on a startup/unicorn.

The fact is, if you are good at Development and you are a Millennial, you'll want to move after 2-3 years at ANY tech company. lol

@xnv That's the point I was making, yes. IBM has become a company that you join to get initial experience before getting out. Go ahead and point me to where I said this was sustainable. I'll wait.

@Sj2xUce-ebl You realize that every company that posts on this website believes their company to be terrible, horrible, and desperate. lol

No disrespect to @-xpw but a company can't survive with only temporary employees. You and IBM can use each other up for a couple of years and that is fine. But the company also needs experienced people to set direction and manage longterm relationships. IBM is not trying to keep experienced employees and that is reducing it to a piecework shop.

@arn As a new grad developer hitting a couple years experience, I do agree that you get some very solid technical experience. It'll be great once I finish my full two years and start applying around, that's for sure. And for what it's worth, my starting salary was in line with friends at other tech companies. But their companies actually give raises and bonuses, so it's far behind now.

What I plan on telling people my age is to only take a job at IBM if your plan is to stay 2-3 years and then move on to bigger and better things. If you want to stay longer, look elsewhere. If they somehow manage to start treating people right and paying in line with what other companies do, maybe that advice will change. But none of that looks likely right now.

So for reference, take a look at the same list by the same author for 2017 --

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/linkedin-top-companies-2017-where-us-wants-work-now-daniel-roth/

IBM is not even listed. Now all of a sudden this year, they've magically cracked the Top 20? C'mon. . .

"If you make the argument that IBM payed LinkedIn to skew the survey, any one of the other companies could've done the same, so there's no point in making conspiracy theories about this."

But IBM, being more desperate because they're so horrible, would be more likely to buy their way onto the list than other companies, who might actually not be bad to work for. IBM's MO is to buy their way into everything - EPS, financial engineering, etc. So they're more likely to buy their way up.

Just please everyone go on glassdoor.com, whether you're a former or current employee, and post a short anonymous review. Keep it professional and they'll publish it. Make sure to vote 'no' on whether you like the CEO.

The thing you have to realize is, if you work in a core business area of IBM and are a New Grad, you'll gain a lot of solid technical work experience. I don't think anyone can deny that.

The people who speak out here are those who are bitter, resentful, and angry about their current situations. If you move apart from that bias and just actually see IBM for what it is, a temporary training ground for future opportunities, then it's a good deal.

If you make the argument that IBM payed LinkedIn to skew the survey, any one of the other companies could've done the same, so there's no point in making conspiracy theories about this.