Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
IBM Businesses The Almighty Buck

IBM Begins Layoffs, Questions Arise About Pact With New York 182

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the fire-ten-hire-three dept.
dcblogs writes with news that the rumored IBM layoffs have begun. "IBM is laying off U.S. employees this week as part of a $1B restructuring, and is apparently trying keep the exact number of cuts secret. The Alliance@IBM, the main source of layoff information at IBM, says the company has stopped including in its resource action documents, given to cut employees, the number of employees selected for a job cut. The union calls it a 'disturbing development.' Meanwhile, two days prior to the layoffs, NY Governor Cuomo announced that it reached a new minimum staffing level agreement with IBM to 'maintain 3,100 high-tech jobs in the Hudson Valley and surrounding areas.' The governor's office did not say how many IBM jobs are now there, but others put estimate it at around 7,000. Lee Conrad, a national coordinator for the Alliance, said the governor's announcement raises some questions for workers and the region. 'Yes, you're trying to protect 3,100 jobs but what about the other 3,900 jobs?' The Alliance estimates that anywhere from 4,000 to 6,000 U.S. workers could be impacted by the latest round of layoffs. IBM says it has more than 3,000 open positions in the U.S., and says the cuts are part of a 'rebalancing' as it shifts investments into new areas of technology, such as cognitive computing." Alliance@IBM has a page collecting reports from people terminated today.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IBM Begins Layoffs, Questions Arise About Pact With New York

Comments Filter:
  • by roman_mir (125474) on Thursday February 27, 2014 @07:15PM (#46363517) Homepage Journal

    This entire idea that any jobs should be protected is idiotic. If a job doesn't make economic sense it should be eliminated, that's the entire point of progress - eliminating inefficient jobs so that production can become more economical, as in cheaper, thus providing lower prices.

    If IBM employees cannot provide enough economic value to the market for the market to pay the company enough to offset their cost and provide for profits on top of it, then those jobs have no business existing and any government agreements and controls are no better than any other form of welfare, it reduces the market efficiency, reduces economic activity, mis-allocates resources, forces up prices that would otherwise come down, prevents the work force from being restructured thus preventing other businesses and by extension the market (buying customers) from the dividend of having a company restructured, preventing prices from falling.

    This entire idea that government must protect jobs is both immoral and economically ignorant and stupid. Unions don't exist to protect the rights of everybody, they exist to protect the entitlements of the union members, destroying the competition from low skilled workers that can work for lower wages, this also means higher prices for no reason except government corruption whatsoever.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27, 2014 @09:25PM (#46364475)

    While I agree that's how it should work, in the real world it doesn't. Companies lay people off, expecting the remaining staff to essentially produce at the same level. And while one would think that would reduce prices (lower opex should translate into lower priced product) that's rarely the case. Instead it usually goes into company profits, so the company can look better to shareholders and its stock price increases.
    Don't be fooled into thinking IBM needs to layoff all these people to remain competitive it had a $6 billion profit in 2013.

  • by roman_mir (125474) on Thursday February 27, 2014 @09:41PM (#46364587) Homepage Journal

    So you know better than IBM what it needs? You think are can make financial decisions for the company? You think 6,000,000,000 in profits should not be allocated to the investors in the company (that's their salary), you think that IBM is making a bad decision there, yes? So if IBM is making a bad financial and business decision, then it will come back to bite IBM in the ass and a better competitor will eat their cake, so where is the government's role in any of it?

    AFAIC IBM could fire 99.999% of their people if they could still satisfy their customer demand and they would be absolutely right to do it, if they could achieve that. Who are you to tell a business or anybody how they should run their company unless you are also an investor? You are a nobody, you want the government to assert power over private companies and over people, you are a dickless dictator, because you won't do your bidding with your own hands, you are going to send in the goons to do it.

  • by khchung (462899) on Thursday February 27, 2014 @09:47PM (#46364627) Journal

    If IBM employees cannot provide enough economic value to the market for the market to pay the company enough to offset their cost and provide for profits on top of it, then those jobs have no business existing

    If companies stop at that, I think most people would be fine with it.

    But with the endless chase for ever MORE PROFIT, it is not enough for an employee to generate enough value to offset their own cost + profit, they have to generate more value than their hypothetical offshore counterpart.

    So if you cost $100 and generate $120 value, but the other guy in India cost $20 and generated only $25, well, the company can hire 5 India guy to generate $125 for the same cost of $100, so bye bye to your job.

    YOU would think that the guy in India is crap, producing only $25 value, less than a quarter of yours, but you are in fact competing with 5 of them, which combined to give more value to the company than you could!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 28, 2014 @12:31AM (#46365289)

    You are truly clueless, and I laugh at your naivety. Put down your copy of Atlas Shrugged and open your eyes.

    The robber barons appreciate you and every idiot like you consistently going to bat for them despite it going directly against your own interests. (And ours) You're the real problem with the world these days: a sheep thinking he's a wolf, doing nothing but baaaaaing uselessly as the wolves complete their conquest unopposed.

  • by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Friday February 28, 2014 @03:32AM (#46365721)

    a 100% halt on all imported labor. ALL OF IT. stop fucking around, america! if you don't protect your own people, you won't have local people who can AFFORD to buy the shit your company makes.

    forget about taxing to stop outsourcing. just get rid of h1b entirely and the other work visas. there are so many people living here, already, who can't find jobs and who need them badly.

    why not take care of your own? I got news for you, every other country takes care of their own. why are we so 'open' to the point of killing our own people via slow starvation?

    protection of local work force is NOT a sin and it needs to be done now! if we don't, say goodbye to the US being a first world nation. the nation is built on the middle class and if you let the middle class disappear, this will not end well for the US, as a whole.

"I have more information in one place than anybody in the world." -- Jerry Pournelle, an absurd notion, apparently about the BIX BBS

Working...