IBM Staff Grumble Redeployment Orders Are Stealth Layoffs (theregister.com) 55
IBM CEO Arvind Krishna told employees last year that he had no plans for further layoffs. But according to current IBM employees, managers continue to face pressure to reduce headcount and are trying to do without Resource Actions -- what Big Blue calls formal layoffs. The Register: Instead, they're trying to encourage employees to leave on their own through redeployment and eliminating jobs without formally doing so. An IBM employee who asked not to be identified and has been with the company for more than two decades told The Register that multiple people in part of the Systems group (the individual and four colleagues) had been "redeployed to look for another job within IBM."
These individuals are expected to continue in their jobs for an indeterminate period while using some work time to find and apply for another internal position -- which may or may not be available, or may require relocation. No end date was specified for the job search but our source suggested that affected individuals have until the end of Q1 2023. After a redeployed employee fails to find another internal position, Redeployment Initiative may become a Resource Action -- a layoff.
These individuals are expected to continue in their jobs for an indeterminate period while using some work time to find and apply for another internal position -- which may or may not be available, or may require relocation. No end date was specified for the job search but our source suggested that affected individuals have until the end of Q1 2023. After a redeployed employee fails to find another internal position, Redeployment Initiative may become a Resource Action -- a layoff.
How is it worse? (Score:3)
I don't know any details, but it actually sounds better than an immediate formal layoff. You get more time to find another job. What am I missing?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know any details, but it actually sounds better than an immediate formal layoff. You get more time to find another job. What am I missing?
Severance pay.
Re: (Score:3)
But they trigger the formal layoff if you can't find a job, which means you get the severance pay. I suppose in cases where you can quickly find a job, you miss the severance pay. But in such cases, the severance pay isn't super important -- at least not compared to instant layoff, where someone might be jobless for an extended period.
Re:How is it worse? (Score:5, Informative)
The idea is to make it so miserable that you quit voluntarily. Since you're not laid off, no severance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How is it worse? (Score:4, Interesting)
Since "The Register" article is totally lame when it comes to telling us where these events will be taking place...
Assume, for sake of discussion, that these actions will take place in the USA.
According to the latest US Jobs Report, released on 6-Jan-2023 at 830am ET, there is something like 10 million available jobs in the US and something 6 million persons claiming to be available to work
Without knowing the nature of these open positions, and knowing from personal experience that many GOOD JOBS go unadvertised...I'd say these soon to be ex-IBMers should have a good shot at finding new work, provided they are flexible in what they are willing to consider.
So why that last bit at the end of the previous sentence?
The fussier you are about the work you are pursuing, the less likely you will find work that meets all of these criteria:
(1) located close to where you live [WFH applies here];
(2) pays you competitively for the type of work you are pursuing and the area where you live-work [Tesla mechanics in Amish communities don't make much $];
(3) has working hours you find acceptable [WFH also applies here];
(4) the work you are willing to consider is generally available [being an astronaut on the sands of Miami Beach is not reasonable].
Point (4) is very important because if you are looking for work that is not generally available, like being a manual labor street sweeper in NYC, then your chances of finding work are some place between extremely slim and nil.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You are missing nothing.
Intel did this same thing when I was a contractor there back in 2002 - they would give employees 60 days notice and let them keep their Intel issued badge and laptop to use on the VPN or whatever campus office you would normally go to in order to look at internal job postings, apply, interview, etc. And if you were hired for that position, bully for you. If your time in the redeploy pool expired, you were then formally terminated and given whatever severance you had due, exit inter
Re:How is it worse? [End of lifetime employees] (Score:3)
Only mention of "contract", though your angle mostly reminded me of how far Intel has sunk since it's glory days.
The angle I was looking for in the discussion was the transition away from long-term employees to in-and-out contract workers. The objective (never stated out loud, even when I was in HR), was to convert IBM to a small kernel of "real" employees who manage lots of contract workers who come in to solve the actual problems of the actual customers. Also a few long-term salespeople to get more contra
Re:How is it worse? (Score:5, Informative)
You are missing the psychological damage of forcing people out of the company. (Actually you're missing some other stuff, too.) In IBM's case the hypocrisy is especially stinky because the company claimed for so many years to believe in solving real problems in the real world. Now it is just another corporate cancer dedicated to fake problem of maximizing profit. Fake because there is NO level of profit that can solve the need for more profit.
When I first worked for IBM there were three principles. They weren't perfect, but they made sense. Profit was not one of them. They were summarized as "Respect for the individual", "Customer service", and "Quality". They were finally dumped around 2005, but they should remind you of HP's principles during that company's glory days. As I remember it for HP, profit wasn't the objective, but was supposed to be natural result of implementing the company's philosophy back then...
I could say much more about the personal details at IBM, but I still have friends in the blue box, so I'll just reduce it to this: My last couple of managers had performance objectives that emphasized reducing head count, and my head would have been one of the trophies. They never managed to take it, but they did everything they could legally do to make things worse. Maybe some illegal things, too, especially as regards the fake union, but if so then I guess they were correct to rely upon my long-term disgust with lawyers.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you don't turn a profit, then what is the fucking point?
That is like asking "How can you have morals if you don't believe in God?"
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't turn a profit, then what is the fucking point?
Maybe, but I would like to see one company that actually lists profit in the objectives section of its official article of incorporation. It can be a "for profit" company, but ultimately the corporation serves the interests of the shareholders, and their primary interest and goal might not necessarily be profit --where do you think many activist shareholders come from? Try to think beyond money dude.
Re: (Score:2)
NAK
That's a layoff (Score:2, Troll)
Maybe it's some kind of mental defense mechanism because people don't think t
not benched anymore? (Score:2)
Does IBM still have the bench where you are paid but are not really deployed to an task
Re: (Score:2)
Two problems with that (Score:3)
This is labor law violations, pure & simple. But after 40+ years of gutting regulatory agencies because we're too shortsighted to remember why they're there in the 1st place odds are they'll get away with it, just like Uber did.
Re: That's a layoff (Score:4, Insightful)
What labor las do you think is belong skirted? If they proceed with an actual layoff it'll follow the usual rules.
This is plenty of notice to allow for lateral movement if desired. That's not bad.
Unemployment insurance (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It beats Florida. Here, it's $275/week (well under federal minimum wage) for 12 weeks.
Re: (Score:2)
What laws about severance and reporting layoffs? I don't think they announced this - it's being discussed by the affected.
Re:That's a layoff (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey look, an internet labor lawyer!
Guess what - the "redeployment" notice counts as a WARN Act notice - you're getting your 60 days with pay. And at the end, if you aren't hired for a different position, you are then terminated and paid whatever severance, etc.
You don't know what you're talking about. And this is much nicer than the normal "Sorry, give back your laptop and badge, and get the fuck out" that most people get.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey look, an internet labor lawyer!
Guess what - the "redeployment" notice counts as a WARN Act notice - you're getting your 60 days with pay. And at the end, if you aren't hired for a different position, you are then terminated and paid whatever severance, etc.
You don't know what you're talking about. And this is much nicer than the normal "Sorry, give back your laptop and badge, and get the fuck out" that most people get.
I agree with you, it's a relative soft landing. But for those who hang onto the words of CEOs:
"IBM CEO Arvind Krishna told employees last year that he had no plans for further layoffs. "
...it will feel like a lie to use this as a non-layoff method for layoffs. However, plans change and for some it'll still seem as though the CEO is splitting hairs. /shrug/
Re: That's a layoff (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Before you all bash Big Blue here (Score:4, Insightful)
Consider the realistic alternative is the layoffs happening right away. There is probably very little if any accountability for current job requirements if these are positions being spun down. So even if they are told spend 20% of their time on redeployment or similar they can probably spend 80% and nobody will know or care.
Easy enough to apply for jobs outside the org too from your mobile or tablet or tablet paired to your mobile (assuming you want to stay off their network) and again nobody will notice or care. Should they not find another position inside or outside IBM by the end of the period, I'll bet they still get whatever the standard severance package is for their level in the organization if they get laid-off. Meanwhile they got to draw a pay check and benefits for an additional quarter.
Don't get me wrong it ALWAYS sucks to lose your job when it wasn't part of your plan, but if you look at this objectively IBM is probably being as generous here as any large employer ever is about it.
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly. This is extremely generous of IBM, IMO. There's really no way to look at this negatively unless you're a complete sociopath.
It's particularly difficult because nobody is hiring right now, it seems, inflation is insane, and everyone's looking for work, but that's hardly IBM's fault.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is hiring right now?
We literally have the lowest unemployment in 50 years according to the jobs report released this week. 3.5% - that's as low as it's been since 1969.
Maybe large tech enterprises aren't hiring right now because they hired WAY too many people over the last 5 years, but don't act like unemployment is skyrocketing just yet, especially when we have fresh data and statistics that say otherwise.
Re: (Score:3)
We literally have the lowest unemployment in 50 years according to the jobs report released this week. 3.5% - that's as low as it's been since 1969.
Numbers can, and are, manipulated to present a desired outcome. That 3.5% umemployment is is the U3. Does not count people who've looking? They're giving you U3. They *used* to give U6. I don't know when they changed what is blared through the loudhailers these days.. but it's changed. I can't remember when it changed, but it did. Sometime in the 2010's it changed, and it was done to present a rosier picture.
Careful what you believe... always question everything.
https://www.investopedia.com/a... [investopedia.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong it ALWAYS sucks to lose your job when it wasn't part of your plan,
How many people do you know who make plans to lose their job?
Re: (Score:3)
"How many people do you know who make plans to lose their job?"
People who quit?
Re: (Score:2)
I have known people who planned on leaving anyway, knew layoffs were coming and arranged (or simply allowed) for themselves to be among the lower performers and therefore the first in line for layoffs. At least one of them was planning to take a year off to travel. She did not have a specific day she had to leave so basically she was just working to save up enough to go on this adventure for a year or so and not lose her house as a result. She reasoned she might as well 'quiet quit' (before that was term) f
Re: (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong it ALWAYS sucks to lose your job when it wasn't part of your plan,
How many people do you know who make plans to lose their job?
I'd guess about 100% of us who don't consider it a requirement that my employer keep me employed. That is to say, I save a portion for a rainy day and am grateful I get to do what I do.
Re: (Score:1)
This isn't anything new (Score:5, Informative)
Back when I worked at IBM, they used to tell you that you can apply for another position within the company if you got selected for a resource action and that you could keep your seniority and benefits if you found a new department within something like 3 to 6 months.
What they didn't tell you is that most of the other departments were specifically told that they weren't allowed to hire an internal employee who was selected for a resource action. This made the internal job search process a giant waste of time, and you really should be spending those 3 to 6 months finding a job elsewhere.
Re:This isn't anything new (Score:5, Informative)
Agree, doesn't seem new. Decades ago my cousin worked there. She always said IBM stood for "I'll Be Moving" because every few years she got transferred to a new location.
Re: (Score:2)
What they didn't tell you is that most of the other departments were specifically told that they weren't allowed to hire an internal employee who was selected for a resource action. This made the internal job search process a giant waste of time, and you really should be spending those 3 to 6 months finding a job elsewhere.
This was the exact same way when I was at HP; once you were "selected" there was a scarlet letter on your forehead and no other department would touch you with a 10' pole. It allows them to look benevolent in press releases, but that's about it.
Re: This isn't anything new (Score:2)
Didn't IBM did this decades ago? (Score:4, Insightful)
No layoffs for seven decades [marketplace.org] was an impressive run which is why people probably ask if IBM had a no fire policy [quora.com]. An old co-worker mentioned that "technically" you weren't fired but they would make your job so miserable that you would quit out of boredom.
This is not the first time IBM has had tried to get rid of people. i.e. age discrimination [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
This is not the first time IBM has had tried to get rid of people. i.e. age discrimination
Saved me the trouble of posting this. IBM is shit, in the way they treat their workers. 20+ years ago IBM woudl've interested me.. but not after finding out how they treat their workers, especially the older ones.
IBM is one of the companies in the "shit list" i have of businesses I encourage my decision-makers not to do business with.. along with anything UCS, and anything Datrium (now thankfully deader than disco)
Re: (Score:1)
I have worked at IBM a few times. They love promising C2H, because they know that if you are a contractor, they can easily fire you by disabling your badge.
There is no reason I'd ever want anything to do with IBM these days. IMHO, they are trying to be another Indian body shop like Tata, Wipro, Accenture, and so on, instead of actually using what they were good at.
Salvaging a reputation that's long gone ? (Score:2)
uh, same ole IBM (Score:3)
Sounds better than a layoff (Score:3)
These individuals are expected to continue in their jobs for an indeterminate period while using some work time to find and apply for another internal position -- which may or may not be available, or may require relocation. No end date was specified for the job search but our source suggested that affected individuals have until the end of Q1 2023. After a redeployed employee fails to find another internal position, Redeployment Initiative may become a Resource Action -- a layoff.
So, you're basically told that you might be laid off if you can't find another position within the company. You're given paid work time to find, apply for, and interview for that job. If you don't find one, then you get laid off.
That's a considerate layoff method.
Re: (Score:1)
An outright layoff would typically pay severance based on years of employment. In this method, they tell you to find another job in the company and then make sure you can't get one. The hope is that you will find a job elsewhere and quit. I expect they are in fact targeting older workers in the USA.
To me it looks like an excellent opportunity to work a second job 100% remotely while retaining the IBM position.
Re: (Score:1)
After 60 more working days then they get formally laid off if they haven't found an internal position. Then they can look f
Thanks for the heads-up, I guess (Score:2)
Brush up the resume and bail to greener pastures, why do they think people treated like that would want to stay with a company like that?
Not 'stealth' and actually a positive thing ... (Score:2)
So someone is complaining that their job is being eliminated and instead of just being kicked out the door the company is giving them the option of finding employment elsewhere in the company. Not just that but rather than being directed in to a position they may not want, they can choose positions to apply for. Presumably, there is also the option to quit.
Really sounds like someone just wants their current job to last forever (unrealistic) or for someone else to decide their next position for them (lazy)
IBM Needs Products--Not Just IP (Score:2)