5 ms·

Going throwaway since usual username is my full name... Honestly I’m glad this lawsuit is happening. I used to work at IBM and left a few years later. During t

Going throwaway since usual username is my full name... Honestly I’m glad this lawsuit is happening. I used to work at IBM and left a few years later. During that time, they killed the pension program, modified separation packages that significantly affected tenured employees, and we almost exclusively hired college grads. Our budget for experienced hires was so low that it made it impossible to get any takers. I witness very well qualified folks be let go for no reason. I’ve witnessed college grads getting paid much much more than senior employee. There were jokes of calling certain employees “dinasaurs” since they were put on terrible jobs in hopes to make them quit, but they would stay strong doing something they hate to get their pension. I’m talking about full time support positions on software that has had no development in 10+ years. I think a lot of this has to do with cost. Old people cost more money. Young people are gullible and willing to take a 60k entry level with no bonus. I think age discrimination is a result of shady budgets. They need a spanking by the government and I’m glad this person of such seniority cane forward. I 10000% believe the statement.

tehlike 8y ago
You mention colllege grads being cheap, then also say: "I’ve witnessed college grads getting paid much much more than senior employee.".
- andrewl 8y ago
  They can still be cheaper if their pension and other benefits are not at the level of what the older employees are getting.
- lucidone 8y ago
  They have no pensions and I assume worse benefits.
  - tehlike 8y ago
    Forgot about the pension. Thank you.
- Spooky23 8y ago
  Colleagues who were old school “bleed blue” types had low copay PPO plans, pensions and other fringe benefits. Benefits were probably 30-35% of salary.
  - malandrew 8y ago
    Companies of this size also self-insure with the insurance company providing management. This means that having an older workforce means the company's insurance costs are much higher. Corporate self-insurance is the reason many companies invest in wellness plans, as they offset the costs of insuring less healthy employees.
- throwitawayibm 8y ago
  Its all about economics over time. Those starting IBM straight out of school then sticking around for 10 years vs. people coming into IBM with 10 years of experience are two separate worlds. For example: if you started IBM 10 years ago with an undergrad, you might have been offered $55k where I live. Then over time, you might get 2 promotions and economical raises from software engineer -> staff software engineer -> advisory software engineer. You might work yourself up to $100k. However, they would motivate new grads with ivy league degrees with 100k offers. It made me physically ill at one point working in hiring and watching coworkers get turned down for minor requests for raises to amounts lower than what these fresh faces are getting before negotiations start. If you want to hire someone with 10 years of outside experience, those people would command at least $150 - $175k, but IBM could get 3 college grades for the price of 2 experienced hires. Thats what I mean about college grads getting paid more than more senior employees, while college grads are cheaper than experienced hires. Those who worked at IBM for 20 years have less motivation to keep up with current trends and tend to focus on proprietary offerings they work on. As a result, college grads are better economical value since they come 'pretrained' with the new stuff. This is my theory why older people are first to go, especially in the short product cycles IBM tend to have. A previous co-worker who still works at IBM has been there about 20 years and he pulls $140k... I have 6 years out of college so far and pull $150k + $15k bonus + 10% yearly RSUs at a listed public business down the road. Thats not an abnormal salary)
  - jxfreeman 8y ago
    Pensions and other benefits run about 36% of base salary nationally (meaning it could be higher or lower for IBM). College grads aren't usually vested in their pensions, so they may be paid higher salaries and net a lower expense to the company. What's aggravating (especially from the younger posters) is the assumption that older people aren't/won't stay current. Currency is a dubious argument, if you're wedded to an older product, the new stuff doesn't benefit you directly on the job. After that comes quality/rates of errors. Younger employees tend to make hard-learned mistakes long after the older engineers have learned the same lessons. So cost/value isn't the same when comparing older and younger engineers. In the "real" engineering fields, younger engineers are universally required to work directly under licensed (read: older) for precisely this reason. It prevents preventable mistakes.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
40acres 8y ago
If you're a large company and want to execute mass layoffs it's almost impossible to due so without affecting a disproportionate amount of older workers. This is not to say that ageism does not exist, but the main goal of a layoff is to cost costs and restructure the company to execute on a new strategy. Older workers cost more than younger workers, that's a fact: so most layoffs are going to be designed in such a way to reduce the amount of highly paid workers. The company I work for executed a 10% reduction a few years ago and the most widely used criteria was to cut people was performance relative to pay grade. If you were grade 20 for example and had a standard performance review you were more likely to be cut than a grade 10 who had a similar review.
- whatshisface 8y ago
  >Older workers cost more than younger workers, that's a fact: so most layoffs are going to be designed in such a way to reduce the amount of highly paid workers. That is not something that makes sense to me. Shouldn't the higher pay be tied to higher performance expectations, so that right off the bat a medium performance review should be more in absolute terms at a high pay grade than a lower one? Are these companies paying older workers more for no reason? If so, there's the problem right there.
  - 40acres 8y ago
    I get what you're saying, it seems that the opposite approach was used. Because of the higher expectations and compensation (higher pay grades got extra stock compensation per year) workers who underperformed at this high level were more vulnerable than those with lower grades.
    - whatshisface 8y ago
      But the thing is, if you are paying everyone the right amount, a low-performer at 200k/year (who might be delivering only 220k in value to the company) still implies a lot more performance than a low-performer at 50k/year (who is delivering 55k in value). If a layoff predominantly targets highly paid employees, then either 1. you are assigning raises incorrectly, 2. the performance reviews have a systemic error, or 3. your layoff program is irrational. I guess this boils down to a critique of constant yearly raises, if it's true that everyone's pay always creeps above their performance with time.
this2shallPass 8y ago
I wonder if any of those young people were excited, desperate or naive, and not just gullible.

tehlike 8y ago

You mention colllege grads being cheap, then also say: "I’ve witnessed college grads getting paid much much more than senior employee.".

andrewl 8y ago
They can still be cheaper if their pension and other benefits are not at the level of what the older employees are getting.
lucidone 8y ago
They have no pensions and I assume worse benefits.
- tehlike 8y ago
  Forgot about the pension. Thank you.
Spooky23 8y ago
Colleagues who were old school “bleed blue” types had low copay PPO plans, pensions and other fringe benefits. Benefits were probably 30-35% of salary.
- malandrew 8y ago
  Companies of this size also self-insure with the insurance company providing management. This means that having an older workforce means the company's insurance costs are much higher. Corporate self-insurance is the reason many companies invest in wellness plans, as they offset the costs of insuring less healthy employees.
throwitawayibm 8y ago
Its all about economics over time. Those starting IBM straight out of school then sticking around for 10 years vs. people coming into IBM with 10 years of experience are two separate worlds. For example: if you started IBM 10 years ago with an undergrad, you might have been offered $55k where I live. Then over time, you might get 2 promotions and economical raises from software engineer -> staff software engineer -> advisory software engineer. You might work yourself up to $100k. However, they would motivate new grads with ivy league degrees with 100k offers. It made me physically ill at one point working in hiring and watching coworkers get turned down for minor requests for raises to amounts lower than what these fresh faces are getting before negotiations start. If you want to hire someone with 10 years of outside experience, those people would command at least $150 - $175k, but IBM could get 3 college grades for the price of 2 experienced hires. Thats what I mean about college grads getting paid more than more senior employees, while college grads are cheaper than experienced hires. Those who worked at IBM for 20 years have less motivation to keep up with current trends and tend to focus on proprietary offerings they work on. As a result, college grads are better economical value since they come 'pretrained' with the new stuff. This is my theory why older people are first to go, especially in the short product cycles IBM tend to have. A previous co-worker who still works at IBM has been there about 20 years and he pulls $140k... I have 6 years out of college so far and pull $150k + $15k bonus + 10% yearly RSUs at a listed public business down the road. Thats not an abnormal salary)
- jxfreeman 8y ago
  Pensions and other benefits run about 36% of base salary nationally (meaning it could be higher or lower for IBM). College grads aren't usually vested in their pensions, so they may be paid higher salaries and net a lower expense to the company. What's aggravating (especially from the younger posters) is the assumption that older people aren't/won't stay current. Currency is a dubious argument, if you're wedded to an older product, the new stuff doesn't benefit you directly on the job. After that comes quality/rates of errors. Younger employees tend to make hard-learned mistakes long after the older engineers have learned the same lessons. So cost/value isn't the same when comparing older and younger engineers. In the "real" engineering fields, younger engineers are universally required to work directly under licensed (read: older) for precisely this reason. It prevents preventable mistakes.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

40acres 8y ago

If you're a large company and want to execute mass layoffs it's almost impossible to due so without affecting a disproportionate amount of older workers. This is not to say that ageism does not exist, but the main goal of a layoff is to cost costs and restructure the company to execute on a new strategy. Older workers cost more than younger workers, that's a fact: so most layoffs are going to be designed in such a way to reduce the amount of highly paid workers. The company I work for executed a 10% reduction a few years ago and the most widely used criteria was to cut people was performance relative to pay grade. If you were grade 20 for example and had a standard performance review you were more likely to be cut than a grade 10 who had a similar review.

whatshisface 8y ago
>Older workers cost more than younger workers, that's a fact: so most layoffs are going to be designed in such a way to reduce the amount of highly paid workers. That is not something that makes sense to me. Shouldn't the higher pay be tied to higher performance expectations, so that right off the bat a medium performance review should be more in absolute terms at a high pay grade than a lower one? Are these companies paying older workers more for no reason? If so, there's the problem right there.
- 40acres 8y ago
  I get what you're saying, it seems that the opposite approach was used. Because of the higher expectations and compensation (higher pay grades got extra stock compensation per year) workers who underperformed at this high level were more vulnerable than those with lower grades.
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    But the thing is, if you are paying everyone the right amount, a low-performer at 200k/year (who might be delivering only 220k in value to the company) still implies a lot more performance than a low-performer at 50k/year (who is delivering 55k in value). If a layoff predominantly targets highly paid employees, then either 1. you are assigning raises incorrectly, 2. the performance reviews have a systemic error, or 3. your layoff program is irrational. I guess this boils down to a critique of constant yearly raises, if it's true that everyone's pay always creeps above their performance with time.

this2shallPass 8y ago

I wonder if any of those young people were excited, desperate or naive, and not just gullible.