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
Wake up before it is too late.
I don't know what book you're looking at, but it
doesn't sound like it came from IBM.
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
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.
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?
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
that...trust 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
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.
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.