10 ms·

A theory among some employees is that IBM is using co-location as a downsizing effort. I hope it's not an accurate theory. Downsizing this way means your most

A theory among some employees is that IBM is using co-location as a downsizing effort. I hope it's not an accurate theory. Downsizing this way means your most self-motivated, productive employees are likely to leave long before those who drive to the office because they feel they have no other choice. Like Best Buy and Yahoo at the points at which they decided to co-locate, IBM is a business that needs to do something new. Our businesses are shrinking, so let's try something new: make our employees less productive. Despite the positive spin the writer puts on the plan, to me it seems like the death throes of past-their-prime companies. And based on what others have said in these comments, the change is mostly affecting marketing employees. I'd say co-location is a pet tactic of the writer, without any real evidence that remote work is anything but progress. If a job can be done remotely, it should be done remotely.

wcummings 10y ago
> Downsizing this way means your most self-motivated, productive employees are likely to leave long before those who drive to the office because they feel they have no other choice. Downsizing this way means people with kids or other obligations that make controlling your own schedule convenient are likely to leave long before those who drive to the office because they feel they have no other choice. FTFY.
- geodel 10y ago
  You haven't really fixed much. I personally know quite a few people where work from home is basically another word for coasting or taking care of personal stuff while logged into company's system. And since many of them are hardly motivated for technical work it is not going to be easy to get another job with similar compensation along with WFH facility.
  - throw2016 10y ago
    I am sure many of us know or have known people who browse facebook, twitter and youtube at work all day. Anecdotal evidence or the actions of of a tiny minority is hardly helpful to any meaningful discussion and can be used to 'close down' any initiative.
    - ythn 10y ago
      So we know for certain people like that are in a "tiny minority"? I would guess they are more than a minority. Being super productive in a potentially distracting or accountability-free environment requires a lot of discipline and self-motivation, which is something I would have guessed is the minority attribute.
    - geodel 10y ago
      It might be anecdotal which I doubt but then how do we know this is action of tiny minority. I should add I do work from home certain times but I take it as privilege rather than a right to work whenever it is convenient to me.
      - halbritt 10y ago
        Your employer is making more money off of your work output than they're paying you. I think you may be confused about who may be the privileged one in the relationship.
        geodel 10y ago
        I also need to evaluate the alternatives to see how viable they are. Once legal, financial etc constraints are added I just do not see upper hand in bargaining. Just to add I am in somewhat IBM like situation described here. A lot of us here are in similar predicament to move or to leave.
      - dkersten 10y ago
        It might be anecdotal which I doubt Is it "a short account of a particular incident or event, especially of an interesting or amusing nature"? Its an account of "in my experience" or "the people I know do this" -- its not hard facts obtained through the scientific method (ie controlling for other factors and for biases). That makes it, by definition, anecdotal.
        geodel 10y ago
        You are right. Re-reading my comment I find it a little meaningless.
- ctrl-j 10y ago
  > FTFY. Ehh, I don't have kids or have a need to control my own schedule. I still work remote as much as possible. If my job said "no more working remote", I'd be hunting for another place of employment. From my own anecdotal experience, it's pretty prevalent that the high-performers in the software industry also have some sort of flex schedule that includes remote work.
GoToRO 10y ago
I am not sure it is all bad. So the best leave which is bad, but you don't have to pay their wages anymore which is good (and if you don't make enough money it's the only option). The not-that-good stay, but you force them to be in the office, which is bad. But being in the office will turn these not-that-good into gets-the-job-done (I've seen 4-5 developers hunch over a trivial problem but, in the end, they solved it) and since you already have the product built and maybe you just adapt it, that is all you need.
- jdbernard 10y ago
  Yeah, but one of the reasons that the article puts forward to justify the move is to increase "innovation." Surely the hit to innovation from losing your best easily out-sizes any gain from co-locating.
spcelzrd 10y ago
It's the best way to get a large amount of your workforce to leave voluntarily. No workforce reduction paperwork. No severance packages. Yahoo did it. Nokia did it. In fact, the companies who pull this trick are almost all shrinking and past their prime. But don't worry, IBM has tens of thousands of strap hangers who've been surviving layoffs for decades. The bottom line will get brighter. The future of the company will get darker. It's the Jack Welch school of management.
- tomaskafka 10y ago
  > It's the best way to get a large amount of your workforce to leave voluntarily. Damn. I finally get it. Thanks!
- markbnj 10y ago
  Did you read the article though? They are offering 90 days to make the decision, and a month's severance (miserly, imo, but they're offering it). As mentioned in the piece this wouldn't be a very manageable or predictable way to reduce headcount. It's much more likely the motives are exactly what the company said the motives are: they feel like they will be more effective working together. I would likely be one of the employees who said goodbye rather than move, and I don't think this is ultimately a good decision, but neither do I think it's necessary to dig for hidden motives and agendas.
  - organsnyder 10y ago
    A month's severance is a lot cheaper than paying for unemployment benefits.
    - jrs235 10y ago
      From my understanding, and this will vary from state to state since unemployment insurance is managed and dealt with by states, not the federal government, employees would still possibly be able to collect unemployment after that month of severance runs out if they are unable to get a new job (and are actively looking) and the unemployment claims will still ding IBM. That month of severance offsets their unemployment insurance rate increase(s). IBM is hoping folks can find a job in the next four months so they don't have to pay any out. Additionally, I would assume, part of accepting the severance might require the employee signing papers which state that the end of employment is voluntary and agreed upon possibly invalidating the employees claim to unemployment and thus hurting IBM's insurance rates. Whether that applies or works will depend on numerous factors, particularly the state the employment occurred in.
mcguire 10y ago
"'A theory among some employees is that IBM is using co-location as a downsizing effort.' "I hope it's not an accurate theory. Downsizing this way means your most self-motivated, productive employees are likely to leave long before those who drive to the office because they feel they have no other choice." That's the way downsizing always works. The most productive employees will have an easier time finding new jobs, and will move on as soon as the company admits it is in trouble.
cracell 10y ago
Yeah pretty telling that they are following in the footsteps of Best Buy and Yahoo. Two companies that no one considers leaders in the innovation space right now.
zeveb 10y ago
Driving off the most productive, most motivated employees is what IBM has spent the last decade and more doing. It doesn't want people who can get jobs elsewhere: it wants people who are too scared to leave.

wcummings 10y ago

> Downsizing this way means your most self-motivated, productive employees are likely to leave long before those who drive to the office because they feel they have no other choice. Downsizing this way means people with kids or other obligations that make controlling your own schedule convenient are likely to leave long before those who drive to the office because they feel they have no other choice. FTFY.

geodel 10y ago
You haven't really fixed much. I personally know quite a few people where work from home is basically another word for coasting or taking care of personal stuff while logged into company's system. And since many of them are hardly motivated for technical work it is not going to be easy to get another job with similar compensation along with WFH facility.
- throw2016 10y ago
  I am sure many of us know or have known people who browse facebook, twitter and youtube at work all day. Anecdotal evidence or the actions of of a tiny minority is hardly helpful to any meaningful discussion and can be used to 'close down' any initiative.
  - ythn 10y ago
    So we know for certain people like that are in a "tiny minority"? I would guess they are more than a minority. Being super productive in a potentially distracting or accountability-free environment requires a lot of discipline and self-motivation, which is something I would have guessed is the minority attribute.
  - geodel 10y ago
    It might be anecdotal which I doubt but then how do we know this is action of tiny minority. I should add I do work from home certain times but I take it as privilege rather than a right to work whenever it is convenient to me.
    - halbritt 10y ago
      Your employer is making more money off of your work output than they're paying you. I think you may be confused about who may be the privileged one in the relationship.
      - geodel 10y ago
        I also need to evaluate the alternatives to see how viable they are. Once legal, financial etc constraints are added I just do not see upper hand in bargaining. Just to add I am in somewhat IBM like situation described here. A lot of us here are in similar predicament to move or to leave.
    - dkersten 10y ago
      It might be anecdotal which I doubt Is it "a short account of a particular incident or event, especially of an interesting or amusing nature"? Its an account of "in my experience" or "the people I know do this" -- its not hard facts obtained through the scientific method (ie controlling for other factors and for biases). That makes it, by definition, anecdotal.
      - geodel 10y ago
        You are right. Re-reading my comment I find it a little meaningless.
ctrl-j 10y ago
> FTFY. Ehh, I don't have kids or have a need to control my own schedule. I still work remote as much as possible. If my job said "no more working remote", I'd be hunting for another place of employment. From my own anecdotal experience, it's pretty prevalent that the high-performers in the software industry also have some sort of flex schedule that includes remote work.

GoToRO 10y ago

I am not sure it is all bad. So the best leave which is bad, but you don't have to pay their wages anymore which is good (and if you don't make enough money it's the only option). The not-that-good stay, but you force them to be in the office, which is bad. But being in the office will turn these not-that-good into gets-the-job-done (I've seen 4-5 developers hunch over a trivial problem but, in the end, they solved it) and since you already have the product built and maybe you just adapt it, that is all you need.

jdbernard 10y ago
Yeah, but one of the reasons that the article puts forward to justify the move is to increase "innovation." Surely the hit to innovation from losing your best easily out-sizes any gain from co-locating.

spcelzrd 10y ago

It's the best way to get a large amount of your workforce to leave voluntarily. No workforce reduction paperwork. No severance packages. Yahoo did it. Nokia did it. In fact, the companies who pull this trick are almost all shrinking and past their prime. But don't worry, IBM has tens of thousands of strap hangers who've been surviving layoffs for decades. The bottom line will get brighter. The future of the company will get darker. It's the Jack Welch school of management.

tomaskafka 10y ago
> It's the best way to get a large amount of your workforce to leave voluntarily. Damn. I finally get it. Thanks!
markbnj 10y ago
Did you read the article though? They are offering 90 days to make the decision, and a month's severance (miserly, imo, but they're offering it). As mentioned in the piece this wouldn't be a very manageable or predictable way to reduce headcount. It's much more likely the motives are exactly what the company said the motives are: they feel like they will be more effective working together. I would likely be one of the employees who said goodbye rather than move, and I don't think this is ultimately a good decision, but neither do I think it's necessary to dig for hidden motives and agendas.
- organsnyder 10y ago
  A month's severance is a lot cheaper than paying for unemployment benefits.
  - jrs235 10y ago
    From my understanding, and this will vary from state to state since unemployment insurance is managed and dealt with by states, not the federal government, employees would still possibly be able to collect unemployment after that month of severance runs out if they are unable to get a new job (and are actively looking) and the unemployment claims will still ding IBM. That month of severance offsets their unemployment insurance rate increase(s). IBM is hoping folks can find a job in the next four months so they don't have to pay any out. Additionally, I would assume, part of accepting the severance might require the employee signing papers which state that the end of employment is voluntary and agreed upon possibly invalidating the employees claim to unemployment and thus hurting IBM's insurance rates. Whether that applies or works will depend on numerous factors, particularly the state the employment occurred in.

mcguire 10y ago

"'A theory among some employees is that IBM is using co-location as a downsizing effort.' "I hope it's not an accurate theory. Downsizing this way means your most self-motivated, productive employees are likely to leave long before those who drive to the office because they feel they have no other choice." That's the way downsizing always works. The most productive employees will have an easier time finding new jobs, and will move on as soon as the company admits it is in trouble.

cracell 10y ago

Yeah pretty telling that they are following in the footsteps of Best Buy and Yahoo. Two companies that no one considers leaders in the innovation space right now.

zeveb 10y ago

Driving off the most productive, most motivated employees is what IBM has spent the last decade and more doing. It doesn't want people who can get jobs elsewhere: it wants people who are too scared to leave.