I know it can seem enticing, but chances are you're only being hired to be used as fodder for the next round of layoffs. IBM is known for getting rid of its older employees, and the only way to avoid age discrimination suits is to pad the numbers by laying off a bunch of young folks as well. Most of those affected are usually with IBM for a year or even less. Do what you want with this info, but know you have been warned.
4 replies (most recent on top)
There are instances where there is a change in business direction, and new hires can be impacted along with the older, more experienced ones, but that is unusual. There is a probationary one year period on a lot of jobs, so IBM does take a look at you during that time, if you are not cutting it, they may transfer or get rid of you, but that is normal in most places. But otherwise, during layoffs, the new or recent hires are protected, there is a realization that a lot of jobs have a training time, it would be unfair to compare people before they are up to speed. Hiring people is expensive, for a technical job it can cost upwards of $100k, recruiting costs, training costs (particularly if it sucks up more experienced people's time), initial lost or unrealized productivity, etc. Initial turnover is also almost always higher, even without a layoff cycle, as people tend to jump or leave a lot early in their career, better pay or opportunity, or maybe they don't like the job or people, or climate, or miss home, or whatever. But hiring people to just age balance on a impending layoff? Just does not happen normally, too expensive.
This is like innovation!
Before i heard that they convinced old guys to move over to "new initiative", "high impact" group and once the enclosure has been filled with required number of heads, HR just shuts it down in one swell swoop.
The problem is that the top managers only care about ja--ing the stock valuation. Employees, customers and even the environment are disposable assets.
No concern for quality.
Just buybacks and ruthless cost cutting.
IBM used to “pay for performance,” and it paid for this performance regardless of age. It no longer pays for performance but compliance, and its two-decade long drop in sales and profit productivity is the undeniable, long-term, proof point that it has cut loose its older, more productive employees.
Discriminatory and stupid, eh?
IBM executives believe that people are interchangeable commodities where a high quantity of low-experience employees can easily replace a low quantity of highly experienced, highly-productive workers. Such thinking is best seen in Ginny Rometty’s concept of “collar” jobs that has resulted in “as many as one third of IBM’s employees having less than a four-year college degree.”
These new employees need to be careful that their collar job doesn’t become a “choke” collar which the corporation is considering for the next quarter’s resource action.
IBM has become a "cat's paw" organization: Managers are paid to be compliant.
https://www.discerningreaders.com/ibm-age-discrimination.html