5 ms·

Disclaimer: I am a (US) IBM employee, but my opinions are 100% my own Shipping jobs overseas sucks. I live in the Midwest where most cities were hit by manufac

Disclaimer: I am a (US) IBM employee, but my opinions are 100% my own Shipping jobs overseas sucks. I live in the Midwest where most cities were hit by manufacturing going overseas, and my own family was impacted hard by it, like most people's were. I work in IT, so of course I know how much offshoring sucks. And I know what I'm about to say is going to be controversial. I'm not saying it to be glib or to downplay the pain that losing your job inflicts upon the whole family. What I'm saying is a warning. Because this kind of stuff isn't new. It's not like this is the first time anyone has ever heard of sending jobs to other countries. And in terms of layoffs in general, IBM has 500,000 employees and is constantly restructuring itself to stay competitive in the ever-changing tech market. When mainframe and storage had a big layoff last year, my response as an IBMer was "we still have mainframe and storage people?" We spun off (or spun down) those parts of the business a long time ago, you had to have realized that your days were numbered. I work for a hot part of IBM. A part of IBM that makes the company a lot of money. My job is fairly secure. But I know it won't be like that forever. Hell, it won't be like that for more than a handful of years. Because things change constantly. Right now I'm working on a project that will automate quite a bit of my work. And I'm hoping to take the skills from I've learned from that and using them to launch into the next hot thing. Yes, when it's my turn to be laid off I will complain so loudly that they will hear me in whatever offshore country happens to take my job. But to be honest, by then I will be working somewhere else, doing something else. Because this isn't a new thing. Everyone knows that companies offshore and outsource and lay off employees they don't need anymore. And if you read the article, it seems like these people knew it was coming, but stayed until the end anyway. Layoffs suck. Offshoring sucks. But have you seen IBM stock lately? I've never gotten a bonus and I've never gotten a raise, because those two things only happen when we're making money. There is no way in any universe that you could look at your job at IBM and think "yeah, this will hold me until retirement". That's not a reality in today's job market. My grandpa worked at the same factory his whole life from the day he graduated high school to the day the factory moved to Mexico. Between that and the five more years he worked until he retired, he had five different jobs. That's the reality of today's job market. It sucks, but you have to just accept it. Two years, maybe three. If you're still at the same job after that, you're probably cheating yourself.

borvo 11y ago
Yeah. This is the way it works, and I'll complain too - but we all know how it works.
nemo44x 11y ago
I don't think you can put a static time on how long you should be at a company. If you're at a company that is still growing, increasing revenues and/or profits, increasing head count which leads to relatively fast promotions and bonuses and "going the right way", it's very likely worth staying at. Why introduce unnecessary risk? The trick is knowing when to abandon ship and to get out before it's a depressing place to be. It doesn't mean you shouldn't be willing to talk to other companies. But I'd not always recommend the grass is always greener.
- freehunter 11y ago
  Yeah I should have clarified that "two, maybe three years" was not for leaving a company, but rather how long I think you should remain in one job. Moving from junior to associate programmer, going from analyst to engineer, even moving from helpdesk to development, it's a step up. In IBM terms, if you're a band 7 for three years, it might be time to look at other options. If I am Associate Middleware Software Engineer at Company X for four years, IMO, that's a little too long.
johnward 11y ago
Fellow ibmer here. I'm in a growth area too. I feel safe for the next few years but have the same outlook as you. I meet people who have been with the company for 30+ years. I can't fathom how I could be with any company for that long given the current conditions. So I will probably end up putting in a few more years and moving on to something else before I get caught in a "resource action".
hackuser 11y ago
> It sucks, but you have to just accept it. It's interesting that we all, or so many of us, think 'you just have to accept it', as if it's a law of nature. Today, I had a revelation: Trying to grasp the revolt of working class Americans against both the Democratic and Republican parties, it suddenly struck me: Why should that group 'just accept' globalization? (Or immigration or deregulation or the free market pricing of everything from health care to college ...) So far all the benefits have been accrued by a very narrow subset of society, while working class life has become harder and well-paying jobs and social mobility more scarce. Probably not coincidentally, the people benefitting are those who had a seat at the table when the rules were written. Everyone else, per both parties, would see the benefits magically 'trickle down' - but of course they haven't, and it's been decades. So why should working class voters take that deal?

borvo 11y ago

Yeah. This is the way it works, and I'll complain too - but we all know how it works.

nemo44x 11y ago

I don't think you can put a static time on how long you should be at a company. If you're at a company that is still growing, increasing revenues and/or profits, increasing head count which leads to relatively fast promotions and bonuses and "going the right way", it's very likely worth staying at. Why introduce unnecessary risk? The trick is knowing when to abandon ship and to get out before it's a depressing place to be. It doesn't mean you shouldn't be willing to talk to other companies. But I'd not always recommend the grass is always greener.

freehunter 11y ago
Yeah I should have clarified that "two, maybe three years" was not for leaving a company, but rather how long I think you should remain in one job. Moving from junior to associate programmer, going from analyst to engineer, even moving from helpdesk to development, it's a step up. In IBM terms, if you're a band 7 for three years, it might be time to look at other options. If I am Associate Middleware Software Engineer at Company X for four years, IMO, that's a little too long.

johnward 11y ago

Fellow ibmer here. I'm in a growth area too. I feel safe for the next few years but have the same outlook as you. I meet people who have been with the company for 30+ years. I can't fathom how I could be with any company for that long given the current conditions. So I will probably end up putting in a few more years and moving on to something else before I get caught in a "resource action".

hackuser 11y ago

> It sucks, but you have to just accept it. It's interesting that we all, or so many of us, think 'you just have to accept it', as if it's a law of nature. Today, I had a revelation: Trying to grasp the revolt of working class Americans against both the Democratic and Republican parties, it suddenly struck me: Why should that group 'just accept' globalization? (Or immigration or deregulation or the free market pricing of everything from health care to college ...) So far all the benefits have been accrued by a very narrow subset of society, while working class life has become harder and well-paying jobs and social mobility more scarce. Probably not coincidentally, the people benefitting are those who had a seat at the table when the rules were written. Everyone else, per both parties, would see the benefits magically 'trickle down' - but of course they haven't, and it's been decades. So why should working class voters take that deal?