I watched his livestream today hoping he would answer some of our MANY questions regarding the recent RA, but all he did is say "we are a business" and go on and on talking about stakeholders till I zoned out. I don't even want to look for internal jobs anymore after that heartless non-response. It seems on Slack that everyone thought it was lousy as well. But I'm looking to hear more from others who were RA'd.
10 replies (most recent on top)
I only watched to see if he mentioned the failed re-deployments now also part of RA.
As expected he didn't.
I suppose us "re-deployed" in Nov/early Dec were the "lucky ones" as we didn't have just 30 days to look internally and externally and also weren't dumped into a now particularly sparse GOM pool (filled by the luckier re-deployed earlier)
So we had time to assimilate and then "have your 30 minute aaaah and get on with it" (as my father used to say). And have somewhat better pickings outside IBM (Market still good outside for Senior Systems - even with FAANG et al).
Why look for "answers"? Situation is what it is.
The time wasted watching the office hours would have been better spent on training or looking for external job opps.
IBM as a whole is somewhat profitable, but that doesn't mean that individual lines of business are making money. For example, they just spun off Kyndryl because GTS was on the verge of being a huge money loser.
Aside from mainframe hardware, software and services, it's hard to see where IBM is making money.
I felt bad seeing so many folks from the Austin support group in slack looking for answers. They did everything the company asked of them and made the mistake of believing the corporate bs about how much ibm cares for them, and then they were axed en masse with no warnings. "But I just won an award, why am I being RA'd?". That hurts. This company and it's ceo are exceptionally sh---y sometimes.
as for the people who keep saying ibm has to do it because they're 'not making money'.....pardon? ibm is profitable and apparently makes enough money to keep paying out the massive dividend. we're not exactly bed bath & beyond here.
20 million for my retirement sounds okay....and all I need to do is grow the company by 0.1% after six years of employment
PIPs are indeed applicable to no use execs.
Example: Tom Rosamilia... loses SVP Software job but gets Senior Advisor title to cash in a little more than 3 months salary I'm guessing
No, you only keep on the obscenely paid executives whose bad decisions repeatedly ensure that the business continues to not make money.
Then, when the Board sacks them, they float gently to Earth and live happily and affluenty ever after.
Do you keep a myriad of Execs, VPs, AVPs etc... on staff forever when they can't implement a strategy to make money? What % of Execs were RA'ed
Do you keep people on staff forever if you're not making money?