% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

International Business Machines Corporation Message Board

  • SomeWhiteKid SomeWhiteKid Apr 4, 2000 4:06 PM Flag

    Vote Against Resolution #5

    screw the ancients who couldn't keep up.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Not originally, dipstick. Originally, only those
      that were within 5 years of retirement had a choice.
      Because people like puppy_play spoke out, management
      changed to the current version. The problem is that there
      are still those (a vast majority) that will end up
      getting the shaft (as opposed to the gold mine that LVG
      is getting.
      Wake up before it is too late.

    • I agree with you and I hope that IBM management will listen to the stockholders.


    • I don't know what book you're looking at, but it
      doesn't sound like it came from IBM.

      IBM split
      their employees into 3 groups:

      Those who were
      within 5 years of retirement on July 1st, 1999 got a
      choice of pension plans and kept full retirement medical

      Those who were 40 years of age OR had 10 years of
      service in on July 1st, 1999 got a choice of pension
      plans but lost their retirement medical

      Those who were under 40 years of age or had less then
      10 years of service in on July 1st, 1999 got totally
      screwed. I know of several people who have over 20 years
      of service who weren't 40 yet.

      And, there was
      actually a fourth group; those of us who quit in disgust
      between July 1 and September 18, who would have been 2nd
      choicers, but who instead have had to fight tooth and nail
      to even find out what our vested rights

      Oh, and by the way, when we talk about being on an
      even keel with competitors, how many of IBM's
      competitors got to claim 658 million dollars of vapor profits
      that they can't even touch on their bottom

      Vote for restoring employee trust; vote FOR resolution

    • have 20 years , it doesn't matter what their ages, they should qualify for the new or the old plan.
      Read the book. 15 years in the business or 40 years old by June 1st, 1999.

    • to noone. Have been with IBM 22+ years. Was one
      of the lucky ones with the initial choice. However I
      am also one who knows what's fair and am willing to
      stick my neck out for those of my co-workers that are
      getting screwed. Have you done any comparisons of the 3
      retirement plans...? I suspect not.

      Here's the
      rub....I know quite a few of my co-workers with 20 years
      but because they aren't 40 yet, their retirement
      benefit is basically cut by a minimum of 1/3. Some by as
      much as 2/3. Is that fair? Gee you say...why don't
      they just go to work elsewhere? Some have...but still
      feel that IBM broke their promises about what was
      being put aside for them. For those that stay....are
      they stupid or just naiive?

      Supposedly pension
      was an integral part of what you had to consider when
      you were originally establishing a career with any
      company. It was considered a piece of your TOTAL
      compensation package, but was nonetheless considered a
      promised entitlement. Now many are being told....the new
      plan offers more flexibility. What if you were nearing
      retirement? What if you were PLANNING on this for the past 20
      years as a basis for your income? What if part of YOUR
      PLAN was taken away from YOU?

      You're right when
      you state that this is not a specific problem with
      IBM only.....Cash balance plans are nothing more than
      a scam for big business to raid the funds
      supposedly set aside for retirees. IBMers just happen to be
      well educated enough to not sit back and take it.
      Puppy play actually lobbied the US senate. Did YOU? If
      you've done nothing then sit back and keep your mouth

      All I can say is I hope when you near
      retirement that corporate execs don't look at the cash
      balance plans and say....well gee that money we set aside
      for you, we were only kidding we have a new plan that
      is MUCH better but you'll have to work until you're
      70 to be able to use it. You say they can't do me unless congress enacts legislation, HR is
      going to find any way they can to get their grubby
      hands on funds (supposedly) set aside for retirees. The
      back of the booklet says IBM reserves the right to
      change their retirement plan at any time. (SECURITY???)

      The subject of whether workers are slugs or not is
      irrelevant to this issue. If they aren't doing there job
      then management needs to address that separately. But
      when IBM exec's that get a millions of dollars a year
      in salary, plus commissions, plus bonuses, plus the
      use of corporate jets, plus stock options, plus,
      plus, plus, and keep taking the lion's share of the
      company assets, the greedy bastards need to be exposed
      for what they are.

      Just call me a pissed

    • been bouncing a bowlingball on your head a few times too many ... UNIONIZE ... disgusting.


    • Thanks for your support. In the long run, IBM
      will be much better for it. Current management will
      listen to the stockholders.

      I note that many
      large funds are also supporting this important message
      to IBM and its board of directors.

    • I voted my 615 shares FOR #5 employees should be given the choice of plans. Best of luck

    • The false statements I see come from ininformed
      individuals like g_burg, along with misleading statements
      from IBM Executives who are responsible for the
      rip-off and are on record as opposing Res #5. For
      example, g_burg states the pension fund is invested in
      T-bills, which is completely untrue. My report of the
      pension fund, which I get as a retiree or employee, lists
      hundreds of different companies stocks in the fund, and
      shows nearly all of the fund invested in NON government
      securities, including even some IBM stock.

      explanation of the "SIGNIFICANT cost to IBM" seems to be that
      they can't get their hands on this surplus without
      canceling the old pension plan (true), so their "cost" is
      the amount of surplus they can't steal from the
      empoyee's pension fund.

      So I guess that's the basic
      question here. Do the stockholders agree with IBM
      management that its good to renege on long term promises of
      retirement security to loyal employees (even high performing
      proven producers like puppy-play, who resigned from IBM
      because of this action) in order to make the current
      profit appear to be a little better?

      OR do the
      stockholders believe that IBM should live up to their long
      standing commitments to employees, and treat all employees
      equally, without discrimination based on age or related

      I'm voting FOR Res #5.

    • country you are in, but I am sure you
      wrong big time. If you did not perform upto
      potentials and your customers unhappy
      you could not
      cruise control all the way to
      the retirement at IBM
      in the Northeast corner.
      I call myself class of

      This is the truth. I was not a manager.

    • View More Messages
149.63-1.89(-1.25%)Oct 21 4:01 PMEDT