5 ms·
IBM’s reorg-from-Hell launches next week
- forgottenpass 12y agoIBM has been reorg-ing itself to death for 15 years (that I'm aware of, probably more). The IBMers I know used to think they were just trying to downplay the perception of downsizing by doing it in rounds and under other organizational shifts. It's become clear that the company has no direction. The only thing management knows how to do is rearrange the deckchairs on the titanic, so they'll just continue doing that until they sink. No where is this more clear than in the withered husks of plants still online because somewhere in shutting them down someone realized "oh yeah, this shit makes us money." And keeping the plant operational is contacted out at exorbitant rates, sometimes to the exact same people laid off from that position at that location over a decade ago.
- twelve40 12y agoA brief glance at the Wikipedia numbers shows that their overall trend was actually not downsizing [1]: 431,212 (2013) 426,751 (2010) 398,455 (2009) 316000 employees 2000 But yeah, it looks like they are in a bit of trouble. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM oldid=485226501 oldid=298515890 oldid=356148220
- sounds 12y agoI used to hold shares in a similar "too big to fail" company. I sold them. A few years later I shorted the company (note: this company is not IBM). Perhaps it's time to consider shorting IBM.
- PhantomGremlin 12y agoThe article has an absolutely astonishing clam if it's true. IBM will eliminate 26% of its employees? That's almost unprecedented for a company of that size. There are 35 comments under the article, many from insiders. The start of the first comment perhaps sums up why there are so few comments here on HN: Why is IBM even relevant enough to discuss any more?