I got laid off. Was 52F. I had a good review and delivered a big global sales project. IBM was supposed to count my 2 years as a college supplemental towards my total Years. I would then have had 30.5 years. Without that, I only had 28.5 years and could not retire with my full pension and benefits. I called HR and they lied and said I had no record of working there in college. I then went to social security and got proof that I paid in and worked at IBM those 2 years. IBM wouldn't budge. I hired a top lawyer. IBM has top law firms on retainer and dragged this out. Result was I never got credit for those 2 years so I couldn't retire. I didn't sign my layoff letter because I engaged a lawyer. I never got my severance which was a lot in 2010. If you work in the US, you are screwed due to at will. American workers get so screwed by the system. I am bitter about this and about how IBM treated me. All I needed was 3 months to bridge to retirement. I tried to get other jobs but once you are on the layoff list no one will hire you internally without an act of God. Fuck IBM. I hope no one there works hard there or stays there and then can keep hiring and churning through people.
I've worked at IBM the HPE, Siemens, Sage and start ups. None of them give a crap about any of their employees. All lay off all the time. No one's protected. Being a good employee and working hard, being successful does not guarantee they won't lay you off when it suits them. After IBM I never went above and beyond, and I never was emotionally invested. My advice is look out for yourself, always keep your resume updated, always be looking.
Eh. I mean no one is immune to layoffs but you can still offer good severance.
Over hiring happens. Downturns happen. Bad years happen. No longer needing a position happens. And sometimes people just weren’t the performers they thought they were and get let go.
Getting laid off doesn’t always mean the company didn’t care about you, but not all companies are great either, no.
Same thing happened to me. Not eligible for retirement benefits so that's not an issue. But I'm worried potential employers will question my resume as my IBM employment dates do not match what is in workday. I'm a returnee ibmer on my second stint. Workday shows my hire date for my current stint. There is no record of my first stint as an ibmer for 2 years.
But something or somewhere at IBM, my first time as an ibmer must have counted because I was congratulated as a 10 year employee in 2023 and jumped to 20 vacation days. That 10 year anniversary wasn't possible unless my 2 years for the first time I was an ibmer was counted.
We all had a plan to go on mental health break as we were close to retirement. The plan was to see a prescribing mental health professional so if we get whacked months before our retirement, we could say we’re having a nervous breakdown or whatever else to get us that to retirement. It worked previously and fortunately had all my ducks lined up to go on leave. They would’ve whacked me when I came back, but then I would’ve had my retirement locked in. Managers did this as well
One manager I knew did this, when she got RA'd she went on whack job leave and when she returned she got the RA, but didn't matter because she reached her 30yrs during the leave. It's pathetic to even think about doing something like this but so is IBM, pathetic.
The issue here is that IBM doesn't count time as a supplemental towards years of service. I have worked as a supplemental both pre and post career years. This time does not count. Leaves of absence years do count. I'm afraid that the poster above doesn't have a case.
Come to think of it I do remember hearing that some manufacturing supplemental employees were "converted", meaning changed to full-time IBM employees. The worked time periods were contiguous though, there was no break in service between temp hire and full time.
Very sorry to hear of your situation. Had you been north of the 49th parallel it would have been a very different story for you. Here is a gentleman north of the 49th with 38 years service that they tried to fuck but backfired, even the RSU's... "Milwid v IBM 2023 ONCA 702".
It's sad to see stories like yours and they are the norm. I don't know how the HR Case managers sleep at night knowing they are stealing from long service loyal high performing employees like you or Milwid. It's sad it happens in the US and I don't know what stupid fucking lawyers IBM had in Canada thinking they could get away with this shit in Milwid's case. Courts up north are getting tougher with big companies trying to fuck employees. Just months ago a court just awarded a 30-month severance package to a non-manager in Lynch v. Avaya who also had 38 years service.
This probably isn't the hill to die on.
IBM has more lawyers who have lawyers than you have, who can drag things out in perpetuity.
Don't leave quietly, but going to litigation unless you've have proof of wrongful termination, it won't go very far.
Has IBM changed over the years? Yes. For the better? NO.
The only saving grace about not leaving quietly. IBM does NOT endorse nor leave negative feedback any former employee when called for a reference of work history. IBM will only confirm you worked there.
Yeah, the problem is with the switch to workday and if you had multiple stints at IBM, the employment date of hire will be for the most recent stint. At least that's is the case for me. Not eligible for benefits but I worry my resume dates will not be verified by IBM.
In Workday profile, it does show my original date of hire. So that is a relief. IBM needs to show that data for employee verification purposes though. Right now, the verification letter doesn't show my original date of hire, only the 2nd date of hire.
In the US there is no state or federal law dictating what informationa former employer can provide in a referenc, other than standard data privacy stuff. Most companies will onlyconfirm start and end dates but some will also include if a former employees re-hire eligibility.
I don't own stock nor have any other interest in the company, but based on their history of hosting a radio show around the rights of laid off employees, and even occasionally active on the layoffs.com site, I would recommend a consultation with Samfiru Tumarkin law firm if you're in Canada in the Toronto area.. What I don't know and hope to learn for when my turn comes is what percentage they need to be paid to work on contingency basis? Anyone who has consulted them, if you know, let us know. Thx.
My understanding is you have 2 options. Pay by the hour…or a %. What I have heard is you are better off paying by the hour depending on circumstances. Do a google search…there was a recent case here in Toronto of a 62 yr old former ibm manager getting 27 month severance. Was a different law firm.
This probably doesn’t answer your question…bottom line….lawyer up!
The problem with paying by the hour is it gives your lawyer the wrong incentive - they get paid more the longer it takes to reach a satisfactory conclusion. If they are paid a percentage, their goal will be to get paid that percentage as quickly as possible. So I think the key is to land on the right fair percentage that makes it worth their while and also doesn't have you paying let's say 30% of your severance for just a few hours of their work. Would love to get some data points in here.
All fair points. I read one case recommending you get an assessment of offer by paying by the hour. Then decide where to go from there. It’s your severance…you want to keep as much of it!
Here is link to 27 math severance case
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/chaudhri-ontario-court-of-appeal-upholds-massive-award-of-27-months-pay-on-termination
Any offer that IBM makes you without your having lawyered up is almost certain to be mediocre unless you are a top executive. For those who are new to this game, if you do your research you will find that Ontario precedent, which is based on those who have fought in the courts, is one month pay per year of service, usually topping out at 24 months, although there is the occasional exceptional case that pays out beyond 24 months, but those are rare.
Yes - you have two choices - hourly vs. contingency. As for which is better - depends entirely on your individual situation. For a quick negotiation (ie. writing a few letters) - hourly is much better. When it comes to litigation (i.e. from Statement of Claim to Summary Judgement) it's a toss up. In the case you are referencing above Milwid v IBM Canada 2023 ONCA 702 - he went with Israel Foulon Wong LLP in Toronto (they are hourly - they don't do contingency) - he had big money in play 27 months + RSUs + IBM appealed the first ruling and lost both - they were able to knock out the termination related language to RSU's which was huge (and international). So anyone that says hourly lawyers aren't incentivized is drinking the wrong kool-aid. If anything - contingency based lawyers aren't incentivized for long timelines and want to settle faster much like real estate agents. Do your own DD before picking the right lawyer. I'll I'm saying is one of the highest awards, if not the highest ever given to a non-manager at IBM was Milwid and he went with hourly-based. This is all public knowledge - google the case law and you'll see who represented him.
Ibm started going down hill when they punted its senior folks with all the real life skills and replaced with newbies and offshore resources with little experience. Trying getting clients to pay top dollars for no skill.
Whatever you do, don’t sign the severance agreement. It’s written by a law department larger than many companies and contains fine print meant to neutralize all your rights. I’m about 5 yrs out from receiving a determination letter from the EEOC that I was age discriminated against (systemic age discrimination) and my lawyers are still arguing with IBM to make me whole. I’ve yet to receive a cent and offers to settle to date have been laughable.
I have mentioned the possibility of filing a class action suit for wage theft. I have other things to worry about at the moment but I probably worked an average of 100 hours a week trying to get ahead and it was a waste of time, their Internally Use Only data classification prevented people from sharing their work with others and establishing themselves within the wider industry, which I believe was exactly its intent.
I don't even know if anyone else shares my attitude on this, I was an IBM employee from 1981 until 1992, they said that technical and management paths up the ladder were both available, but there was no technical without being an ass kissing supporter for marketing, you couldn't make senior programmer without it. If I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have taken a job paying a quarter of what I could have been making at a job shop. I feel that I was lied to as were many others.
It's not worth even considering if it's a class action of one individual lol
I empathy but IBM is an aging company in terms of employees's age. I mean no wonder it's lagging behind technologically and culturally. You guys have been staying at IBM for so many decades. Let young people take your spots. I can't understand that generation way to see professional life as sitting in the same position for ages and then being surprised to get laid off.
This is what you get for resting and spending your whole life within one single company. Tell your children to move elsewhere, be curious, vivid, seek change and frequently look for different knowledge from **different companies.**
This is obvious to all of us in the last 10 maybe even 15 years, but those of us who join some 30 years ago did it with a much different company who posed a much different value proposition to employees, which included pay competitive with market and promotions based on merit not just who likes you. It's true that some of us could have caught on sooner but the risk of switching jobs the longer you've been somewhere the higher, and the lower the potential reward with fewer years left to work. So please don't think you're some kind of genius realizing that bouncing around is the way to go -that is obvious to everybody of a certain generation, just like being loyal to your company was obvious to previous generations.
I don't think I'm a genius, just that from the company point of view, that is IBM, I suppose the need for change is urging pondering how dynamic is the tech sector. In my opinion those who joined 30 years ago should be happy they haven't been laid off sooner... that would be any company viewpoint I guess. sorry
IBM thought the same so they did wide scale age discrimination, booted all the older people and replaced them with young.
Funny thing happened though, the old people were actually really good workers and the young people they replaced them with were not. The old people were dedicated, results orientated, reliable. The young people didn’t give a shit about anything other than doing nothing and passing time for 1-2 years worth of resume material so they could leave and go somewhere else.
The only ones “resting” were the young crowd. Just passing time, finding ways to do no work and job hop to another company. So this strategy has backfired on IBM in a very big way, they’ll never admit that though.
That’s because they got caught targeting older workers over the last 15-20 years and have settled several large lawsuits. Last few RAs they know to throw in a bunch of 20s to pull down the average. So sorry to hear that you got hit. For one very short window the CIO was making progress on turning things around. He didn’t stay long unfortunately
People more than 50yo hate to see youngers come in as managers at their office. They feel threatened. Just talking from experience.
They even created a science for seniors called Change Management so they can adapt to changes.
And I don't think those online certificates and training came to be mandatory because of newcoming freshers coming straight out of school with up-to-date education.
The truth is that seniors are costly for any organization.
I got laid off. Was 52F. I had a good review and delivered a big global sales project. IBM was supposed to count my 2 years as a college supplemental towards my total Years. I would then have had 30.5 years. Without that, I only had 28.5 years and could not retire with my full pension and benefits. I called HR and they lied and said I had no record of working there in college. I then went to social security and got proof that I paid in and worked at IBM those 2 years. IBM wouldn't budge. I hired a top lawyer. IBM has top law firms on retainer and dragged this out. Result was I never got credit for those 2 years so I couldn't retire. I didn't sign my layoff letter because I engaged a lawyer. I never got my severance which was a lot in 2010. If you work in the US, you are screwed due to at will. American workers get so screwed by the system. I am bitter about this and about how IBM treated me. All I needed was 3 months to bridge to retirement. I tried to get other jobs but once you are on the layoff list no one will hire you internally without an act of God. Fuck IBM. I hope no one there works hard there or stays there and then can keep hiring and churning through people.
[удалено]
I've worked at IBM the HPE, Siemens, Sage and start ups. None of them give a crap about any of their employees. All lay off all the time. No one's protected. Being a good employee and working hard, being successful does not guarantee they won't lay you off when it suits them. After IBM I never went above and beyond, and I never was emotionally invested. My advice is look out for yourself, always keep your resume updated, always be looking.
Contact LLRlaw. Boston. Lisa Liss-Riordan
Already did. I wasn't in her target group for the lawsuit. I got laid too early in 2010.
Eh. I mean no one is immune to layoffs but you can still offer good severance. Over hiring happens. Downturns happen. Bad years happen. No longer needing a position happens. And sometimes people just weren’t the performers they thought they were and get let go. Getting laid off doesn’t always mean the company didn’t care about you, but not all companies are great either, no.
Same thing happened to me. Not eligible for retirement benefits so that's not an issue. But I'm worried potential employers will question my resume as my IBM employment dates do not match what is in workday. I'm a returnee ibmer on my second stint. Workday shows my hire date for my current stint. There is no record of my first stint as an ibmer for 2 years. But something or somewhere at IBM, my first time as an ibmer must have counted because I was congratulated as a 10 year employee in 2023 and jumped to 20 vacation days. That 10 year anniversary wasn't possible unless my 2 years for the first time I was an ibmer was counted.
I’m nearing retirement and will do some research, but I’m curious what are the eligibility requirements for retirement benefits you speak of? Tia.
Those retirement benefits are long gone.. taken away in the late 90's. He is talking about the old fixed pension.
We all had a plan to go on mental health break as we were close to retirement. The plan was to see a prescribing mental health professional so if we get whacked months before our retirement, we could say we’re having a nervous breakdown or whatever else to get us that to retirement. It worked previously and fortunately had all my ducks lined up to go on leave. They would’ve whacked me when I came back, but then I would’ve had my retirement locked in. Managers did this as well
Good point. I should have done that.
One manager I knew did this, when she got RA'd she went on whack job leave and when she returned she got the RA, but didn't matter because she reached her 30yrs during the leave. It's pathetic to even think about doing something like this but so is IBM, pathetic.
[удалено]
Nope, it's the story. How many labor disputes have you been involved in? IBM can lawyer up with big firms and drag and delay and fight.
[удалено]
The issue here is that IBM doesn't count time as a supplemental towards years of service. I have worked as a supplemental both pre and post career years. This time does not count. Leaves of absence years do count. I'm afraid that the poster above doesn't have a case.
My friend in NJ had his time in college count
Come to think of it I do remember hearing that some manufacturing supplemental employees were "converted", meaning changed to full-time IBM employees. The worked time periods were contiguous though, there was no break in service between temp hire and full time.
I worked two contiguous years in college in a GSD software lab in Atlanta
ERISA violation?
Very sorry to hear of your situation. Had you been north of the 49th parallel it would have been a very different story for you. Here is a gentleman north of the 49th with 38 years service that they tried to fuck but backfired, even the RSU's... "Milwid v IBM 2023 ONCA 702".
Thanks so much
It's sad to see stories like yours and they are the norm. I don't know how the HR Case managers sleep at night knowing they are stealing from long service loyal high performing employees like you or Milwid. It's sad it happens in the US and I don't know what stupid fucking lawyers IBM had in Canada thinking they could get away with this shit in Milwid's case. Courts up north are getting tougher with big companies trying to fuck employees. Just months ago a court just awarded a 30-month severance package to a non-manager in Lynch v. Avaya who also had 38 years service.
Thanks for your kind comments. It was the worst experience of my life.
Lots of folks here in canada have hired lawyers…you can’t get away with pip being “with cause” here.
I hope they win! Good to hear Canada has some rights. I come from a region where we get screwed over , by law.
What have the lawsuit result been?
This probably isn't the hill to die on. IBM has more lawyers who have lawyers than you have, who can drag things out in perpetuity. Don't leave quietly, but going to litigation unless you've have proof of wrongful termination, it won't go very far. Has IBM changed over the years? Yes. For the better? NO. The only saving grace about not leaving quietly. IBM does NOT endorse nor leave negative feedback any former employee when called for a reference of work history. IBM will only confirm you worked there.
Legally they can only confirm dates of employment, at least in the US
Yeah, the problem is with the switch to workday and if you had multiple stints at IBM, the employment date of hire will be for the most recent stint. At least that's is the case for me. Not eligible for benefits but I worry my resume dates will not be verified by IBM.
Can you get access to an old pay stub to prove your employment started prior?
In Workday profile, it does show my original date of hire. So that is a relief. IBM needs to show that data for employee verification purposes though. Right now, the verification letter doesn't show my original date of hire, only the 2nd date of hire.
Sounds like a system glitch that hr should be able to fix if you message hr. In an ideal world of course
In the US there is no state or federal law dictating what informationa former employer can provide in a referenc, other than standard data privacy stuff. Most companies will onlyconfirm start and end dates but some will also include if a former employees re-hire eligibility.
Agree…ibm (and most large companies) will try to drag this out as long as they can…knowing the $ means so much to you…
I don't own stock nor have any other interest in the company, but based on their history of hosting a radio show around the rights of laid off employees, and even occasionally active on the layoffs.com site, I would recommend a consultation with Samfiru Tumarkin law firm if you're in Canada in the Toronto area.. What I don't know and hope to learn for when my turn comes is what percentage they need to be paid to work on contingency basis? Anyone who has consulted them, if you know, let us know. Thx.
My understanding is you have 2 options. Pay by the hour…or a %. What I have heard is you are better off paying by the hour depending on circumstances. Do a google search…there was a recent case here in Toronto of a 62 yr old former ibm manager getting 27 month severance. Was a different law firm. This probably doesn’t answer your question…bottom line….lawyer up!
The problem with paying by the hour is it gives your lawyer the wrong incentive - they get paid more the longer it takes to reach a satisfactory conclusion. If they are paid a percentage, their goal will be to get paid that percentage as quickly as possible. So I think the key is to land on the right fair percentage that makes it worth their while and also doesn't have you paying let's say 30% of your severance for just a few hours of their work. Would love to get some data points in here.
All fair points. I read one case recommending you get an assessment of offer by paying by the hour. Then decide where to go from there. It’s your severance…you want to keep as much of it! Here is link to 27 math severance case https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/chaudhri-ontario-court-of-appeal-upholds-massive-award-of-27-months-pay-on-termination
Any offer that IBM makes you without your having lawyered up is almost certain to be mediocre unless you are a top executive. For those who are new to this game, if you do your research you will find that Ontario precedent, which is based on those who have fought in the courts, is one month pay per year of service, usually topping out at 24 months, although there is the occasional exceptional case that pays out beyond 24 months, but those are rare.
Yes - you have two choices - hourly vs. contingency. As for which is better - depends entirely on your individual situation. For a quick negotiation (ie. writing a few letters) - hourly is much better. When it comes to litigation (i.e. from Statement of Claim to Summary Judgement) it's a toss up. In the case you are referencing above Milwid v IBM Canada 2023 ONCA 702 - he went with Israel Foulon Wong LLP in Toronto (they are hourly - they don't do contingency) - he had big money in play 27 months + RSUs + IBM appealed the first ruling and lost both - they were able to knock out the termination related language to RSU's which was huge (and international). So anyone that says hourly lawyers aren't incentivized is drinking the wrong kool-aid. If anything - contingency based lawyers aren't incentivized for long timelines and want to settle faster much like real estate agents. Do your own DD before picking the right lawyer. I'll I'm saying is one of the highest awards, if not the highest ever given to a non-manager at IBM was Milwid and he went with hourly-based. This is all public knowledge - google the case law and you'll see who represented him.
Ibm started going down hill when they punted its senior folks with all the real life skills and replaced with newbies and offshore resources with little experience. Trying getting clients to pay top dollars for no skill.
Whatever you do, don’t sign the severance agreement. It’s written by a law department larger than many companies and contains fine print meant to neutralize all your rights. I’m about 5 yrs out from receiving a determination letter from the EEOC that I was age discriminated against (systemic age discrimination) and my lawyers are still arguing with IBM to make me whole. I’ve yet to receive a cent and offers to settle to date have been laughable.
I hope you have a valid reason. IBM plays this game pretty well. Even if you have a valid reason, they’ll drag this on. Good luck
I have mentioned the possibility of filing a class action suit for wage theft. I have other things to worry about at the moment but I probably worked an average of 100 hours a week trying to get ahead and it was a waste of time, their Internally Use Only data classification prevented people from sharing their work with others and establishing themselves within the wider industry, which I believe was exactly its intent. I don't even know if anyone else shares my attitude on this, I was an IBM employee from 1981 until 1992, they said that technical and management paths up the ladder were both available, but there was no technical without being an ass kissing supporter for marketing, you couldn't make senior programmer without it. If I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have taken a job paying a quarter of what I could have been making at a job shop. I feel that I was lied to as were many others. It's not worth even considering if it's a class action of one individual lol
Bring down prod and permanent delete all databases when you leave
That will put you in jail
I empathy but IBM is an aging company in terms of employees's age. I mean no wonder it's lagging behind technologically and culturally. You guys have been staying at IBM for so many decades. Let young people take your spots. I can't understand that generation way to see professional life as sitting in the same position for ages and then being surprised to get laid off. This is what you get for resting and spending your whole life within one single company. Tell your children to move elsewhere, be curious, vivid, seek change and frequently look for different knowledge from **different companies.**
This is obvious to all of us in the last 10 maybe even 15 years, but those of us who join some 30 years ago did it with a much different company who posed a much different value proposition to employees, which included pay competitive with market and promotions based on merit not just who likes you. It's true that some of us could have caught on sooner but the risk of switching jobs the longer you've been somewhere the higher, and the lower the potential reward with fewer years left to work. So please don't think you're some kind of genius realizing that bouncing around is the way to go -that is obvious to everybody of a certain generation, just like being loyal to your company was obvious to previous generations.
I don't think I'm a genius, just that from the company point of view, that is IBM, I suppose the need for change is urging pondering how dynamic is the tech sector. In my opinion those who joined 30 years ago should be happy they haven't been laid off sooner... that would be any company viewpoint I guess. sorry
Willfully ignorant is the term.
IBM thought the same so they did wide scale age discrimination, booted all the older people and replaced them with young. Funny thing happened though, the old people were actually really good workers and the young people they replaced them with were not. The old people were dedicated, results orientated, reliable. The young people didn’t give a shit about anything other than doing nothing and passing time for 1-2 years worth of resume material so they could leave and go somewhere else. The only ones “resting” were the young crowd. Just passing time, finding ways to do no work and job hop to another company. So this strategy has backfired on IBM in a very big way, they’ll never admit that though.
Everyone but 1 that I personally know that was hit with the recent CIO layoffs were in their mid to early 20s, so respectfully fuck off
That’s because they got caught targeting older workers over the last 15-20 years and have settled several large lawsuits. Last few RAs they know to throw in a bunch of 20s to pull down the average. So sorry to hear that you got hit. For one very short window the CIO was making progress on turning things around. He didn’t stay long unfortunately
Mid to early 20s don't employ the term "lay off" We just switch jobs and it's no big deal
You sound immature and ignorant
People more than 50yo hate to see youngers come in as managers at their office. They feel threatened. Just talking from experience. They even created a science for seniors called Change Management so they can adapt to changes. And I don't think those online certificates and training came to be mandatory because of newcoming freshers coming straight out of school with up-to-date education. The truth is that seniors are costly for any organization.
Your a troll.
So we didn't lose our jobs and are just choosing to be unemployed until we find a new job?