Thread regarding IBM layoffs

Why hasn't IBM tried salary reductions instead of layoffs? You can keep your job but get paid 10% less, so every 10 people means they save one job.

It Seems to me . The reason for the layoffs focusing on older folks is $$,(skills and experience cost more) they tend to cost IBM more money. And since the company has to " financially manage" the expense to revenue ratio in order to keep the executives on target for there bonuses, while making it appear IBM is still making profit, Currently best way to manage down expense (since they have sold off most components of there businesse) is cutting expensive people. The new model is cutting more expensive people and replacing them with a constant churn of lower cost, new people.

This by no way makes it acceptable to focus on the older folks. They were IBM, the knowledge base -before they thought putting everything into a database & front end it with AI, the value to a customer -being able to have an experienced seasoned IT guru come in to straighten out your shop.

JUST MY TAKE .

On the sales team it is blatant, but, hard to prove. They simply slash your territory, increase your quota and put you on a plan if you miss two consecutive six month periods.

Both the president and the current majority party in the House and Senate are decidedly anti-labor, so I wouldn't hold my breath on this going anywhere.

All are encouraged to ignore the stupid hashtag and not artificially drive traffic to a personal page by riding the coattails of the best news in years. Seriously, give it a rest.

All former IBMers are invited and encouraged to support the Propublica organization by participating in a request for information. Either here: facebook.com/ibmsux/ or

here: propublica.forms.fm/how-did-ibm-classify-your-departure/forms/4962

ymp and byc, I don't know about the government at large but EEOC gets into litigation quite a bit.

Just last year, they took Texas Roadhouse to court for discriminating against 40+ and won a settlement of $12 million. https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/3-31-17.cfm

Also last year, they filed against Ruby Tuesday when it age discriminated against just a single worker and made Ruby Tuesday pay $45,000 https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/10-26-17.cfm

This year, they won a settlement of $2.85 million against Seasons 52 who was denying jobs to applicants over age 39. Seasons 52 had to pay up $2.85 Million. https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-3-18a.cfm

Granted such wins are far and few between and mostly against companies who acted stupidly while lacking a safety net of lawyers and deep pockets. A company like IBM will probably not meet the same fate despite being equally guilty.

@pjg Two reasons come to mind. "Occupy Wall Street" which did not go places. And the revolving door between corporate and government.

Litigation is messy and deep pockets win in the end.

Maybe that is what @byc meant by repeated experience. Age will inevitably catch up and it will all make sense.

Maybe the government should manufacture work for older workers instead of spending tax dollars in court.

@TdrHDJf-byc Governments are always in litigation and almost everything they do supports business in some shape or form, without the obvious tax cuts, bailouts and contracts that they give to companies.

Governments only work the levers of interest rates and taxes. They don't create enterprise and from repeated experience they don't get into messy litigation. They are reactive when it wins them votes. This initiative smells of pretense to look interested.

But If they are sincere they can hire older workers and free up the younger workers to do better things like work at IBM.

Well the metoo movement is a joke built on lies, so hopefully this will fair much better.

#MeTooOld