6 ms·

IBM Bans Remote Work Company Wide – Move or Leave

51 points by pinewurst 10y ago

dukeluke 10y ago
And so the centralization of our tech industry continues...
- pinewurst 10y ago
  I don't think it's centralization - it's just another excuse to terminate people, especially older, settled employees. Current IBM could power a large city if they could harness the energy of the Watsons spinning in their graves.
  - dukeluke 10y ago
    Termination may be the goal, but centralization is the result.
- viraptor 10y ago
  Hopefully it will be offset a bit by the recent political failures in both the US and the UK. If people either don't want to move there or get new restrictions (bans, brexit), they likely won't just move to another profession. Some will hopefully create new companies outside of the usual tech centres.
- antod 10y ago
  Tech Industry? As far as I can tell these days, IBM's main offering/purpose is outsourcing the blame for your enterprise project's failure.
ikeyany 10y ago
> In a video message to her troops, seen by The Register, chief marketing officer Michelle Peluso said "there is something about a team being more powerful, more impactful, more creative, and frankly hopefully having more fun, when they are shoulder to shoulder." Sounds like a lie. If it's clearly a win for everyone, then remote employees wouldn't be working remotely to begin with...
- gumby 10y ago
  > shoulder to shoulder. Ah so it will be open plan as well? Hat trick!
- aaron695 10y ago
  How so? Who said "it's clearly a win for everyone"? Obviously people might want to work remotely at the expense of the company and fellow work mates. If bad practices allow this, then the company and in house people are effected. Remove them and current employees and the company would be better off? I don't get the logic?
  - ikeyany 10y ago
    Words like "more powerful" and "more impactful" don't describe anything. My logic is why allow remote work to begin with if they already know the benefits and drawbacks, and then why ban it? What changed? That is what the flowery wording is avoiding.
alistproducer2 10y ago
How can telling your employees "move or leave" be good for morale?
- justinclift 10y ago
  It can't be. Look past their PR speak. :)
equalunique 10y ago
This hasn't hit me nor anyone on my team yet (I'm an IBMer)
- equalunique 10y ago
  Oh. That's because I'm not in the Software division, nor the Systems division.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- rolodato 10y ago
  Do you know if the affected people that can't or won't move will be getting severance pay? Where I live, such a change in working conditions would be enough for an employee to consider himself fired, which would make him eligible for severance pay.
  - equalunique 10y ago
    I didn't see your comment before I posted mine. No, I don't know how things are in those divisions. They're separate from mine and others.
crb002 10y ago
IBM's most prolific female patent filer works from home. http://lisaseacat.com http://lisaseacat.com Facepalm.
vonklaus 10y ago
Working in the office is something I have always wanted as a frequent remote employee. I think it is great for communication and for the culture. This specifically is very heavy handed. IBM apparently had a culture that supports this, so it is probably more akin to a layoff than a policy change. It says 30 days to conform-- not nearly enough time to make such a decision nor have this properly aligned culturally. This may be good for morale among those disallowed remote work, feeling the company now provides "fairness" across all departments. I still think this looks like a layoff/ageism as they are comitted to hiring 25k more employees and married folks with children likely to be less mobile. I like on site teams. I think remote work has a place, especially for those who have absorbed a companies culture, but this doesnt seem like the way to do it.
bruceburge 10y ago
IBM has about 700+ people in two different development centers in Louisiana, with a goal of 1200 total. There has been no word here about the employees having to relocate to one of the locations listed in the article, nor has there been any mass layoffs. It was published around may of 2016, that IBM was planning to layoff roughly 14000 people, I'm willing to bet, this is more a part of that strategy than it is about people working together.
- acomjean 10y ago
  A friend who's company was bought by IBM is being laid off shortly. He supposedly will be getting an offer to relocate to Baton Rouge. In Massachusetts they moved a lot of work to way outside the city to the 495 beltway (littleton). Employees loved that. (I used to be an IBMer at Yorktown Heights)
makecheck 10y ago
Then IBM is not worth working for. It is time for workers to demand more sensible conditions from employers.
- flukus 10y ago
  If only we had some sort of collective leverage.
elcct 10y ago
IBM stuck in the 90s. What a retarded idea.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
  > retarded Hey. Hey.
GoToRO 10y ago
There are many, usually older companies, where managers have stopped doing their jobs long time ago. In these kind of companies, workers find out about what they need to do and who has the right know-how from their peers. As such, they can not work remotely. Of course top management, instead of fixing it's own problem, they are just forcing everyone to be in the "office" (more like holding enclosure). Of course, this is also a sure way to get rid of your top talent.
- PunchTornado 10y ago
  "top talent" rarely works remote. our top engineers are always at various offices helping on the most complex solutions.
  - laughfactory 10y ago
    I don't know that this is the case. A lot of top talent works remote, because they prefer to be valued by output rather than face time or butt in seat time. The too talent which does not work remote, does so often by choice, because they prefer to be "in the mix." But it probably also depends on how asynchronous their organizations are, too. GitHub is super asynchronous, as is Pluralsight. These are companies who, as part of their corporate DNA, have adopted means of working together which don't require being together in an office. Pluralsight, for example, has offices, teams, and individual contributors all over the US. We work together using Slack, BlueJeans, and GitHub. It works incredibly well.
    - PunchTornado 10y ago
      I'm so annoyed when the best guy is not in the office to help me when I need. Slack is not the same as both of us sitting together at the computer.
shakna 10y ago
IBM frequently hires graduates from my university. I was offered a place, but there was a caveat. I have MS, and stairs are my personal demon. As the building was heritage listed, they couldn't alter it. So no lifts or elevators. They offered me a remote contract. I didn't take it at the time, but others I know had similar deals. This will probably affect them. They might be made redundant, to bypass the problems of firing them.
johnward 10y ago
The way this will work out if mind boggling too. Many employees would be told to go into an office only to then collaborate remotely with their peers in other cities. As a remote IBMer I'm hoping this rumor is false. I was forced remote a few years ago because my local office ran out of room and now I enjoy it.
laughfactory 10y ago
This sounds like: we have to reduce headcount but we don't want to be seen having a "layoff." We choose, therefore, a headcount reduction strategy which we can brand as something other than a layoff. We'll make it about "coming together" which sounds much better than, hey, the wheels are coming off the bus. This is just a layoff by another name.

51 points by pinewurst 10y ago

dukeluke 10y ago

And so the centralization of our tech industry continues...

pinewurst 10y ago
I don't think it's centralization - it's just another excuse to terminate people, especially older, settled employees. Current IBM could power a large city if they could harness the energy of the Watsons spinning in their graves.
- dukeluke 10y ago
  Termination may be the goal, but centralization is the result.
viraptor 10y ago
Hopefully it will be offset a bit by the recent political failures in both the US and the UK. If people either don't want to move there or get new restrictions (bans, brexit), they likely won't just move to another profession. Some will hopefully create new companies outside of the usual tech centres.
antod 10y ago
Tech Industry? As far as I can tell these days, IBM's main offering/purpose is outsourcing the blame for your enterprise project's failure.

ikeyany 10y ago

> In a video message to her troops, seen by The Register, chief marketing officer Michelle Peluso said "there is something about a team being more powerful, more impactful, more creative, and frankly hopefully having more fun, when they are shoulder to shoulder." Sounds like a lie. If it's clearly a win for everyone, then remote employees wouldn't be working remotely to begin with...

gumby 10y ago
> shoulder to shoulder. Ah so it will be open plan as well? Hat trick!
aaron695 10y ago
How so? Who said "it's clearly a win for everyone"? Obviously people might want to work remotely at the expense of the company and fellow work mates. If bad practices allow this, then the company and in house people are effected. Remove them and current employees and the company would be better off? I don't get the logic?
- ikeyany 10y ago
  Words like "more powerful" and "more impactful" don't describe anything. My logic is why allow remote work to begin with if they already know the benefits and drawbacks, and then why ban it? What changed? That is what the flowery wording is avoiding.

alistproducer2 10y ago

How can telling your employees "move or leave" be good for morale?

justinclift 10y ago
It can't be. Look past their PR speak. :)

equalunique 10y ago

This hasn't hit me nor anyone on my team yet (I'm an IBMer)

equalunique 10y ago
Oh. That's because I'm not in the Software division, nor the Systems division.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
rolodato 10y ago
Do you know if the affected people that can't or won't move will be getting severance pay? Where I live, such a change in working conditions would be enough for an employee to consider himself fired, which would make him eligible for severance pay.
- equalunique 10y ago
  I didn't see your comment before I posted mine. No, I don't know how things are in those divisions. They're separate from mine and others.

crb002 10y ago

IBM's most prolific female patent filer works from home. http://lisaseacat.com http://lisaseacat.com Facepalm.

vonklaus 10y ago

Working in the office is something I have always wanted as a frequent remote employee. I think it is great for communication and for the culture. This specifically is very heavy handed. IBM apparently had a culture that supports this, so it is probably more akin to a layoff than a policy change. It says 30 days to conform-- not nearly enough time to make such a decision nor have this properly aligned culturally. This may be good for morale among those disallowed remote work, feeling the company now provides "fairness" across all departments. I still think this looks like a layoff/ageism as they are comitted to hiring 25k more employees and married folks with children likely to be less mobile. I like on site teams. I think remote work has a place, especially for those who have absorbed a companies culture, but this doesnt seem like the way to do it.

bruceburge 10y ago

IBM has about 700+ people in two different development centers in Louisiana, with a goal of 1200 total. There has been no word here about the employees having to relocate to one of the locations listed in the article, nor has there been any mass layoffs. It was published around may of 2016, that IBM was planning to layoff roughly 14000 people, I'm willing to bet, this is more a part of that strategy than it is about people working together.

acomjean 10y ago
A friend who's company was bought by IBM is being laid off shortly. He supposedly will be getting an offer to relocate to Baton Rouge. In Massachusetts they moved a lot of work to way outside the city to the 495 beltway (littleton). Employees loved that. (I used to be an IBMer at Yorktown Heights)

makecheck 10y ago

Then IBM is not worth working for. It is time for workers to demand more sensible conditions from employers.

flukus 10y ago
If only we had some sort of collective leverage.

elcct 10y ago

IBM stuck in the 90s. What a retarded idea.

GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
> retarded Hey. Hey.

GoToRO 10y ago

There are many, usually older companies, where managers have stopped doing their jobs long time ago. In these kind of companies, workers find out about what they need to do and who has the right know-how from their peers. As such, they can not work remotely. Of course top management, instead of fixing it's own problem, they are just forcing everyone to be in the "office" (more like holding enclosure). Of course, this is also a sure way to get rid of your top talent.

PunchTornado 10y ago
"top talent" rarely works remote. our top engineers are always at various offices helping on the most complex solutions.
- laughfactory 10y ago
  I don't know that this is the case. A lot of top talent works remote, because they prefer to be valued by output rather than face time or butt in seat time. The too talent which does not work remote, does so often by choice, because they prefer to be "in the mix." But it probably also depends on how asynchronous their organizations are, too. GitHub is super asynchronous, as is Pluralsight. These are companies who, as part of their corporate DNA, have adopted means of working together which don't require being together in an office. Pluralsight, for example, has offices, teams, and individual contributors all over the US. We work together using Slack, BlueJeans, and GitHub. It works incredibly well.
  - PunchTornado 10y ago
    I'm so annoyed when the best guy is not in the office to help me when I need. Slack is not the same as both of us sitting together at the computer.

shakna 10y ago

IBM frequently hires graduates from my university. I was offered a place, but there was a caveat. I have MS, and stairs are my personal demon. As the building was heritage listed, they couldn't alter it. So no lifts or elevators. They offered me a remote contract. I didn't take it at the time, but others I know had similar deals. This will probably affect them. They might be made redundant, to bypass the problems of firing them.

johnward 10y ago

The way this will work out if mind boggling too. Many employees would be told to go into an office only to then collaborate remotely with their peers in other cities. As a remote IBMer I'm hoping this rumor is false. I was forced remote a few years ago because my local office ran out of room and now I enjoy it.

laughfactory 10y ago

This sounds like: we have to reduce headcount but we don't want to be seen having a "layoff." We choose, therefore, a headcount reduction strategy which we can brand as something other than a layoff. We'll make it about "coming together" which sounds much better than, hey, the wheels are coming off the bus. This is just a layoff by another name.