IBM is going through another layoff that could last all day and into the week, according to a labor union trying to represent the company's workers.
The Alliance@IBM in New York state, where IBM is based, began receiving calls and emails from IBM workers this morning. The layoffs are scattered across various sites and affect numerous divisions, said Lee Conrad, the union organizer.
The scale of the layoffs won't be know for days, but the union reports 350 layoffs as of late afternoon, based on reports received from affected employees. The employees receive layoff notifications that reveal how many colleagues in their departments were affected and how many spared, but don't identify the other employees.
Conrad said he didn't know if anyone lost work today at IBM's Research Triangle Park site, where the company is estimated to employ about 10,000 people.
The group's web site has received more than two dozen online comments anonymously reporting the layoffs, which are called "resource action" in IBM's corporate parlance.
IBM stopped disclosing its workforce numbers several years ago, but company spokesman Douglas Shelton said "IBM is constantly rebalancing its workforce."
"That means reducing in some areas and hiring in others - based on shifts in technology and client demand," Shelton said. "This flexibility allows IBM to remain competitive and relevant in an industry that is constantly changing."
The union, a local of the Communications Workers of America, estimates on its web site that IBM's U.S. workforce has shrunk from nearly 134,000 in 2005 to les than 100,000 last year.
Shelton said the global workforce has grown every year for the past decade to 426,761 as of December 2010.
John Murawski has been a full-time newspaper reporter since 1991, with stints at Legal Times and The Chronicle of Philanthropy (both in Washington, DC), The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Palm Beach Post (in South Florida) before arriving at the N&O in December 2004. At the N&O he covers energy (nuclear, coal, renewable, efficiency), hydralic fracturing (or "fracking"), public utilities (both electric and natural gas) and health care. His beat includes Progress Energy, PSNC Energy, Piedmont Natural Gas, PowerSecure International, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Biogen Idec and others. You can reach him at 919-829-8932 or
Comments
The union won't be satisfied
Tue, 02/28/2012 - 01:15 — eddie2The union won't be satisfied until it drives all IBM employment overseas.
To me there's nothing "fair"
Mon, 02/27/2012 - 22:45 — countriboyTo me there's nothing "fair" about laying off ten percent of your employees every year based on an arbitrary system of evaluations, especially considering the difficulty of accurately measuring "performance." What metrics are used? If they are qualitative, then you've got the risk of personalities and politics influencing the evaluations; if they are quantitative, you risk losing the critical factor of quality. Say you have an employee who has the ability to bring people together, to inspire them to give their best, but who personally turns out less work than others on a day to day basis. Does he get arbitrarily relegated to the "bottom" ten percent. An annual system like you describe would inevitably work against morale by making employees compete against each other, at both the conscious and subliminal levels. How could there ever be an authentic sense of esprit de corps and teamwork in a Darwinian system like this?
"Say you have an employee
Tue, 02/28/2012 - 01:41 — eddie2"Say you have an employee who has the ability to bring people together, to inspire them to give their best, but who personally turns out less work than others on a day to day basis. Does he get arbitrarily relegated to the 'bottom' ten percent."
Not necessarily. They'd be called "managers". They'd only be in the bottom ten percent if they were in the bottom 10 percent of managers at their level. And one of the factors everyone is rated on, managers and non-managers, is "teamwork".
There really is a rating system with four categories, with employees competing against each other, corresponding to a 10-40-40-10 split: "far exceeds requirements", "exceeds requirements", "meets requirements", "needs improvement". Welcome to the real world.
I bet I been in the "real
Tue, 02/28/2012 - 08:21 — countriboyI bet I been in the "real world" at least as long as you, eddie--possibly a whole lot longer. Your 'system' is rife with possibility for error due to the influence of politics and personalities on the evaluations. (Not all people who lead and bring harmony to a group are "managers.")
Opinions
Tue, 02/28/2012 - 14:48 — TheLoneRangerWhether you like it or not "Managers" are paid for their opinions of employees and employees are not paid for their opinions of managers. They have their opinions, sometimes they may be asked about them but they aren't paid for them. The second level or next line of management is there specifically to insure equity, fairness, and objectiveness in being applied within their group of managers working under them. If it's a large corporation like IBM there is always HR that has oversight too for the same thing. That's the check and balance on your supposed influence of politics and personalities. I'm not saying politics and personalities come into play - your supposed cheerleader is one who effective and efficiency knows how to play the game and people generally like them. Then again, the cranky, opinionated, attitude problem child generally is disliked by most folks. That's the real world and oh, by the way in regarding team work. While team work is important if the employee is under performing in his or her basic job function but a good cheerleader they'd most likely be rated in the bottom 40%.
IBM emps--globally
Mon, 02/27/2012 - 16:19 — FlowerpowerNumber of employees (worldwide): 426,751
Globally
Mon, 02/27/2012 - 16:34 — TheLoneRanger1. The name International Business Machines could be a clue?
2. There is more profit in other economies today than necessarily in the US or north American economies and it is the fuidicary responsibility of upper management to make money for the stockholders.
3. All companies and government employment agencies should regulary let go of the bottom 10% annually for the good the company and/or government agency and the good of the worker. Job performance counts for both the employer and the employee. Never confuse attendance with performance or output.
Oh, it's much clearer now
Mon, 02/27/2012 - 23:07 — Laughing_CrowOh, it's much clearer now that I have had the capitalist text book read to remind me that profit means more than people. Not a clue.
Not A Clue
Tue, 02/28/2012 - 16:32 — TheLoneRangerNot a clue is right. No profits equals no employees. Less profits equal less employees. More profits equals more employees. Couldn't agree more with you.
Not A Clue
Tue, 02/28/2012 - 16:32 — TheLoneRangerNot a clue is right. No profits equals no employees. Less profits equal less employees. More profits equals more employees. Couldn't agree more with you.
The "bottom ten percent" in
Mon, 02/27/2012 - 19:22 — countriboyThe "bottom ten percent" in terms of what? In some companies the least paid employees are the hardest workers, and the most loyal. Your epic generalization about what companies should do with the "bottom ten percent" makes about as much sense as pounding sand down a rathole.
The Bottom 10% in pay grade
Mon, 02/27/2012 - 20:00 — TheLoneRangerGee, I guess you can't figure it out with what I posted let's see if you can follow along? It's performance based! IBM originally did all layoffs based upon performance and still does although some changes have taken place in jettisoning whole business units now a days if they are deemed not in the critical future for revenue generation. Group employees and that includes management too and yes management gets laid off. Groups of 100 or at least in groups of 50 based upon like job skill levels (salary bands) and rank them by performance using the annual performance. You always end up with a top 10%, a top 40%, a bottom 40% and the bottom 10% by performance. If the resource action required 16% to be laid off you let go those who numbered 86 to 100. Fairest way to do it. Senority doesn't count in salary in a merit based company for anything other than vacation accural. But then again, never confuse attendance with performance.
Least paid has nothing to do with anything I've said or posted here. Then again, the best paid employees in many merit based companies like IBM can be the one's with the least amount of time with the company in the lower levels - remember it's merit based. If you're fortunate enough to be in the top 10% at IBM you will be paid accordingly regardless of seniority. Then again, following pay is easy with a merit appraisal system. It's like the NFL, NBA, and MLB - the best make the most.
Thanks for explaining in
Mon, 02/27/2012 - 22:44 — countriboyThanks for explaining in more detail See my comment above,( meant to post it in "reply.") I have friends who work for IBM. None has ever discussed a system like you describe.
Could Be They Aren't in Management?
Tue, 02/28/2012 - 14:51 — TheLoneRangerCould be they aren't in management!