4 ms·

When IBM did their layoff action in 2013, people in Australia received 2 weeks pay for every year they had worked at IBM. I was there, saw those people leave,

by PakG1 13y ago

When IBM did their layoff action in 2013, people in Australia received 2 weeks pay for every year they had worked at IBM. I was there, saw those people leave, saw what they got offered. Was really sad about it because one guy in particular was possibly the best project manager for our department in all of the Asia Pacific region. They gave the most critical projects to this guy. He worked hellish hours to get a severely important project done, as well as managing the network program (project portfolio). Email was sent out that he'd go on a well-deserved extended vacation, and when he came back, he'd be reassigned to another critical role now that everything in Network and other stuff are under control. When he came back, he got his 2 weeks pay per year worked. That really pissed me off. If you're going to fire people, fire the worst guy, not the best guy. He was capable of doing the work of 3 project managers.

a3n 13y ago
> They gave the most critical projects to this guy. He worked hellish hours to get a severely important project done, ... When he came back, he got his 2 weeks pay per year worked. And thus was the lesson learned by one more person. We are all, each and every one of us, hardware to be virtualized and eliminated as soon as possible. We are all, each and every one of us, an expense to be minimized. You may get along great with your boss and co-workers, mutual admiration all around, and the people may be loyal to each other, and really mean it. But when the animal that is the corporation decides it needs to eject you, you're ejected. It may even fall to those mutually loyal people that you worked with to eject you. And they'll feel bad. But it's not them making the decision, it's the corporate animal. So do a good job, but go home at night and play with your kids, or dog, or S.O. Don't waste your life at work, because work doesn't care about you.
- crusso 13y ago
  ... because an anecdote about someone good being let go is data showing that that's the way it normally happens. ... because the person who was let go and who worked very hard didn't learn anything, didn't improve his ability, couldn't take the tremendous experience he had gained and apply it in a new job or gasp start his own enterprise. No, this isn't an anecdote that should serve as a red flag signalling IBM's continued move downward. Far from it. This is an object lesson on why we shouldn't even try.
  - Mvandenbergh 13y ago
    No, but it is an object lesson in being strategic in where and when you try. Go ahead and work long hours on projects that build your skills, that will make you look good to the organisation or to future employers (or clients), but don't do it out of loyalty.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
      - a3n 13y ago
        Actually I believe object lesson is correct. Abject means severe, humble, or weak. Most commonly seen as "abject poverty." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abject?show=0&t=1392229934 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abject?show=0&t=13... http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abject%20lesson http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abject%20lesson http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/object%20lesson http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/object%20lesson
  - a3n 13y ago
    Sorry, I'm confused. Are you plainly asserting that "this isn't an anecdote," and pairing that with a sarcastic statement that "this is an object lesson", meaning that it's not an object lesson, to reinforce your assertion that it isn't an anecdote? Or are you plainly asserting that "this is an object lesson," and pairing that with a sarcastic statement that "this isn't an anecdote," meaning that is is an anecdote, to reinforce your assertion that this is an object lesson? Or something else?
cygwin98 13y ago
Big corps like IBM share surprisingly similar traits as an military army. The general in charge of the army commonly only deals with the grand strategies and communicates with a few of his high-rank colonels. He has no idea who is the most skilled soldier or lieutenant, or captain. To him, they are only a number, a faceless expendable resource. Throughout the long history of wars, a lot of times low level heroic soldiers managed to win some battles but the army still lost the war simply due to the stupidity of the general.

by PakG1 13y ago

a3n 13y ago

> They gave the most critical projects to this guy. He worked hellish hours to get a severely important project done, ... When he came back, he got his 2 weeks pay per year worked. And thus was the lesson learned by one more person. We are all, each and every one of us, hardware to be virtualized and eliminated as soon as possible. We are all, each and every one of us, an expense to be minimized. You may get along great with your boss and co-workers, mutual admiration all around, and the people may be loyal to each other, and really mean it. But when the animal that is the corporation decides it needs to eject you, you're ejected. It may even fall to those mutually loyal people that you worked with to eject you. And they'll feel bad. But it's not them making the decision, it's the corporate animal. So do a good job, but go home at night and play with your kids, or dog, or S.O. Don't waste your life at work, because work doesn't care about you.

crusso 13y ago
... because an anecdote about someone good being let go is data showing that that's the way it normally happens. ... because the person who was let go and who worked very hard didn't learn anything, didn't improve his ability, couldn't take the tremendous experience he had gained and apply it in a new job or gasp start his own enterprise. No, this isn't an anecdote that should serve as a red flag signalling IBM's continued move downward. Far from it. This is an object lesson on why we shouldn't even try.
- Mvandenbergh 13y ago
  No, but it is an object lesson in being strategic in where and when you try. Go ahead and work long hours on projects that build your skills, that will make you look good to the organisation or to future employers (or clients), but don't do it out of loyalty.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
    - a3n 13y ago
      Actually I believe object lesson is correct. Abject means severe, humble, or weak. Most commonly seen as "abject poverty." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abject?show=0&t=1392229934 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abject?show=0&t=13... http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abject%20lesson http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abject%20lesson http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/object%20lesson http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/object%20lesson
- a3n 13y ago
  Sorry, I'm confused. Are you plainly asserting that "this isn't an anecdote," and pairing that with a sarcastic statement that "this is an object lesson", meaning that it's not an object lesson, to reinforce your assertion that it isn't an anecdote? Or are you plainly asserting that "this is an object lesson," and pairing that with a sarcastic statement that "this isn't an anecdote," meaning that is is an anecdote, to reinforce your assertion that this is an object lesson? Or something else?

cygwin98 13y ago

Big corps like IBM share surprisingly similar traits as an military army. The general in charge of the army commonly only deals with the grand strategies and communicates with a few of his high-rank colonels. He has no idea who is the most skilled soldier or lieutenant, or captain. To him, they are only a number, a faceless expendable resource. Throughout the long history of wars, a lot of times low level heroic soldiers managed to win some battles but the army still lost the war simply due to the stupidity of the general.