11 ms·
Next Week's Bloodbath At IBM Won't Fix The Real Problem
- hmate9 12y agoGuess I won't apply for an internship there for the summer....
- irremediable 12y agoFWIW, if you're looking all over the place for an internship, maybe don't rule them out[1]. Often companies lay off employees who aren't useful to them, but are still looking for employees who will be useful. In particular, someone who's good at programming[2] and junior[3] might be the kind of person they still want to hire. [1] Then again, the fact you're commenting on HN probably means you're a strong candidate who'll find an internship with ease. So follow your dreams. ;) [2] Again, just assuming this based on the fact you're an HN reader. You might be horrified to see what proportion of people in a BigCorp company can't do even basic reasoning. [3] Pay an intern pennies to do pounds worth of work! Yay!
- wernercd 12y ago"[3] Pay an intern pennies to do pounds worth of work! Yay!" And that's why they are (or could be) losing customers... charging a premium for intern work. I know what my skill was worth straight out of school... vs after putting years of practice in...
- irremediable 12y agoI don't know to what extent this is a problem at IBM, but I've seen a few places where it is a huge problem. And I agree with you. The "yay!" was sarcastic.
- trishume 12y agoOn a related note, Blackberry is now hiring hundreds of interns for this summer!
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- seanmcdirmid 12y agoI interned for IBM twice: once in '95 (Boca) and once in '00 (Hawthorne as a research intern). The second was by far much better (working with all those great researchers), but there is just something about working for IBM that is a bit depressing...it really is Big Corp. My current employer (Microsoft) has a reputation...but the reality is no where near what I felt when I was at IBM.
- colindean 12y agoYou should still apply, especially if with Watson group.
- wmf 12y agoJust be sure it's in a "cool" part of IBM that's growing, not a "dead" part.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- baltimore 12y agoHow many people work at the US Post Office? About half.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- walterbell 12y agoAnyone have stories about the logistics of the previous 60K layoffs? How does a company and the survivors deal with that many departures at once - were they distributed evenly across divisions or were entire divisions eliminated?
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- gatsby 12y agoThe cuts were made by Louis V. Gerstner, Jr., a fascinating executive who made AmEx and IBM major players in the 80s-00s. Most of the layoffs happened in the summer of 1993, but in all, Gerstner reduced IBMs workforce by about 100k in a couple years. The 1993 job cuts saved IBM about $4b/yr and IBM's market cap rose from $29b in 1993 to $168b in 2002 when Gerstner retired. If you're interested in more, I recommend the book, 'Who Says Elephants Can't Dance' - a memoir by Gerstner.
- seanmcdirmid 12y agoMany of those people were rehired as contractors or FTEs though. I was working at Boca Raton as a very young intern in '95 (just before they closed the site in favor of Austin), and one of the brilliant guys I worked with took a package in 93 but...they had to hire him back at higher pay because no one could do his job. There were also lots of vendors working at the Boca site who were laid off in 93 (though I think they where finally let go before the move to Austin).
- DigitalJack 12y agodefine many. What percentage? Think of company employees as software that has been installed, where the company is the OS. Package management has made it dramatically cleaner to install and remove software, but there isn't any such thing for companies and employees. Over time, companies accumulate cruft... employees who underperform. Same thing with governments and their programs (not software). One of the ways to clean house is to dump a massive chunk and rehire the people on an as needed basis, likely with higher pay. The company has still managed to get rid of the dead weight, and the employees who are genuinely needed get more money. Similar to doing a clean OS reinstall. That's the theory anyway. Very disruptive but it can be successful.
- fest_und_treue 12y agoWhat does the CEO's comp package look like this year?
- gatsby 12y agoIn 2013 it was $14m. Source: http://www.forbes.com/profile/virginia-rometty-1/ http://www.forbes.com/profile/virginia-rometty-1/
- yuhong 12y ago"It's becoming apparent she is not up for the job and can't pull the company out of its nose dive." I wonder who would be the right person.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- adwf 12y agoA legacy of bad management. Whilst IBM might have a reputation of top research in the past, they've been cutting R&D in a very short sighted manner for many years now. That their revenue is declining and they need to cut staffing (again) is just them reaping what they sowed.
- jeffreyrogers 12y agoThey've still done good research lately. This is just the nature of business I think. Eventually others catch up to where you are, and it is difficult to constantly remain competitive. A further problem in IBM's case, which maybe isn't as pronounced in other industries, is how quickly the computing landscape is changing.
- adwf 12y agoYeah I wasn't trying to insinuate that they don't still have a great research department. But you can only see so many cuts happening over the years without thinking that it'll impact their bottom line eventually. Whilst I'm sure these ~100,000 are from services and sales - I'm equally sure that if they had something unique to sell in the first place, they'd be doing a heck of a lot better.
- bhouston 12y agoWhat is the ratio of cuts in India vs North America/Europe? IBM for a while has been laying off non-Indians in favor of hiring Indians. Has this contributed to the nosedive?
- adventured 12y agoIBM's nosedive has nothing to do with Indians. IBM has three problems that are coming home to roost. 1) They abandoned a large portion of their technology business, and became a consulting & services business. There is very little special about them now, they are almost a commodity business with a famous name. 2) They invested a very large sum of their earnings, not into innovation, R&D, science - but into financial deception and gimmickry. Basically they've attempted to deceive investors by projecting earnings per share growth through share buybacks, while the underlying business was rotting. 3) The consulting & services business they've chosen to focus on, rises and falls with the global economy. The global economy hasn't been great the last six years, and most of the governments of the world are struggling when it comes to spending and budgets. With global economic weakness, even big corporations have been restrained on spending for IT the last six years, there have only been a few bright spots.
- agumonkey 12y agoLet's hope they still have a strong enough core of smart people to bounce back. IBM is old and have seen this industry nascent and changing many times, they're still massive, thus having the resources to adapt (IMHO). Microsoft managed to bounce too. Kodak didn't. I'm still very curious about the partitioning of these claimed layoffs. ps: 4 times 'still' in one comment.
- keeperofdakeys 12y agoIt could be related to Lenovo buying IBM's x86 server business http://news.lenovo.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=1755 http://news.lenovo.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=1755
- IBM 12y agoDoes that business employ that many people?
- keeperofdakeys 12y agoI'm not sure, the two pieces of news are just quite close together.
- wmf 12y agoThat closed a while back and has already been accounted for.
- fat0wl 12y agothis may be true. I use a lot of IBM server/development techs & pretty much all of them are missing the magic they claim, boiling down to "confusing forced development paradigm that bleeds millions from your company in infrastructure and niche developer costs" (Web Experience Factory, Coremetrics, Portal etc.). None of the out-of-the-box-everything-integrates-seamlessly aspect is there, despite that being the whole basis for these monstrous sales prices. In short, many of their products have laughably little value and even non-technical corporate management is realizing this. (You can tell a lot of the software is sold with IBM thinking "We'll tell them its their fault for a couple of years unless they hire a few of our consultants, then if they realize the product actually sucks hopefully we will have an upgrade ready by then.") However, whenever I see articles from that Cringely dude (the one referenced repeatedly in this summary) I have to think "eh, maybe.... I'll believe it when I see it". He is pretty much an anti-IBM conspiracy theorist from what I can tell, though of course they are a strange enough organization that a lot of what he says turns out to be true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_X._Cringely http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_X._Cringely http://www.cringely.com/ http://www.cringely.com/
- aragot 12y agoI've worked with IBM ClearQuest and IBM FileNet and I concurr, those products are retarded bloats of off-market junk. The free golf courses in Orlando are nice, though, so I've renewed the purchase for two more years.
- stuff4ben 12y agoYup. Message Broker wasn't all that bad, but the all-expenses paid trip to Vegas for a week was better.
- fat0wl 12y agohah i am jealous of you both... i don't get the kickbacks, i just get one more team of consultants that i have to work with on every project who relish the tiny bit of authority they have now been granted (Message Broker team thinks they're hot shit cuz they are a bottleneck on every project & we can't revise our service interfaces without their permission). Funny thing is, all the consultants who specialize in these products are awful pseudo-programmers & I end up bypassing their techs (WMB, BPM, etc.) with pure Java solutions whenever possible since the overhead of speaking to them creates like a 10x productivity loss. If the nosy busybodies (awful below average pseudo-programmers within our own group) didn't tattle to mgmt to help them reign us back in, the whole company would be none-the-wiser & we'd get work done at breakneck speed... ALL MOST OF US NEED IS A GODDAMN SPRING OR EE CONTAINER + THE JVM, hah.
- Aqwis 12y agoCould IBM turn itself into a generic tech consultancy? Accenture & co. seem to be doing fine.
- jeffreyrogers 12y agoAccenture's market cap is 1/3 of IBMs currently however, so management probably isn't too interested in that route.
- tg3 12y agoA large portion of their business already is. I wouldn't be surprised if this layoff was in part shedding the non-consultancy parts of their business.
- cbd1984 12y ago> Could IBM turn itself into a generic tech consultancy? Not that anyone necessarily cares, per se, but if they do this, what happens to the companies invested in platforms like System z that only IBM can really support? Does "generic tech consultancy" include developing and supporting proprietary hardware and software?
- hueving 12y agoThey would probably stop developing it in that case and just support remaining customers.
- kyllo 12y agoEnter the multitude of companies whose entire business model is selling products that emulate IBM platforms on top of commodity UNIX hardware and RDBMS.
- cbd1984 12y ago> Enter the multitude of companies whose entire business model is selling products that emulate IBM platforms on top of commodity UNIX hardware and RDBMS. As I understand it, the big selling point of Big Iron has always been the idea that it's more stable at the hardware level than other kinds of computer. Is that actually true? If it is, can a company get similar uptime with non-Big Iron hardware? Because it seems like that would be a hard prerequisite for replacing those systems.
- mbloom1915 12y agoThe past 5 to 10 years at IBM have shown their aggressive strategy to buy software companies but fail to integrate them into their many different IBM suites properly. Institutional knowledge and strong business relations previously held with purchased companies dies out quickly and ultimately results in low profit.
- acveilleux 12y agoEvery IT behemoth that grows by acquisition is an idea graveyard. Just look at CA.
- greglindahl 12y agoOr Cisco. Wait, Cisco is incredibly successful thanks to acquisitions.
- pesenti 12y agoNot sure where you get your info. IBM acquired my 150 people company 3 years ago. They haven't lost a customer and have increased revenue 4x in that timeframe. In their quarterly report they also highlight performance of all their acquisitions and they have a good track record of 80% or so above business case.
- sputknick 12y ago"...pie-in-the-sky ideas like commercializing Watson..." I'm not knowledgeable about the product, but it seems to me commercializing Watson is the smartest thing you could do. I feel like Watson could allow IBM to become dominant in almost every field and produce trillions in value for their customers. Am I off base? Has Watson development stalled over the past few years?
- wernercd 12y agoColor me ignorant... What is the difference between Watson, Cortona, Siri and Now? What does Watson have that those services don't?
- sputknick 12y agoI'm as ignorant as you, but here's a stab with something I found "This may seem similar to technology such as Apple's Siri or Google Now, but a cognitive computer becomes smarter over time as it learns from each interaction, a function far beyond typical computers. And let's face it … Siri is stupid.". As I understand it, Watson continues to learn with the goal of being a domain expert.
- Tloewald 12y agoHow many queries do you think google or Siri have had to learn from?
- Keyframe 12y agoWhat does Watson have that those services don't? IBM sales force - on a non-tech level that is.
- trishume 12y agoBe careful not to assume too much of Watson. IBM's marketing makes it seem like a do-everything general purpose AI, but that likely isn't the case. The program that won Jeopardy was more of a specialized search engine with really good query parsing. Many of the other things they have announced as "Watson" look like entirely separate programs that they are marketing under one brand name. While looks like one amazing AI is just a mish-mash of domain-specific algorithms with some well-built glue.
- rondon2 12y agoI left IBM in 2012 because I saw that the division I was working for was never going to be competitive. It is surprising that it took almost 3 years for what was obvious at the bottom to reach the top and be implemented.
- quacker 12y agoWow. 111,800 people is a huge number. That's a whole city looking for work, and over $1 billion saved (in the long run) for each $10000 of employee salary. > The question I have to ask is why isn't Rometty one of the 110k. IBM has seen 11 straight quarters of declining revenue and it's hemorrhaging customers, according to both my source and Cringely. Yep. So what should IBM do here? For one, IBM needs a complete makeover. Why should I pick SoftLayer over AWS, Google, Microsoft, etc? They need a new image, something that will draw customers and something other than being the canonical story of corporate bloat and mismanagement.
- hristov 12y agoIt would be better if we linked to the original Cringely article. This is basically a retelling of the same. http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertcringely/2015/01/22/next-weeks-bloodbath-at-ibm-wont-fix-the-real-problem/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertcringely/2015/01/22/next-w...
- dang 12y agoOk, we changed the url from http://www.itworld.com/article/2875112/ibm-is-about-to-get-hit-with-a-massive-reorg-and-layoffs.html http://www.itworld.com/article/2875112/ibm-is-about-to-get-h.... Thanks.
- bkeroack 12y agoIn many ways I'm a hardware guy. I enjoy building infrastructure in datacenters from bare metal. Yet I can't think of a single use I would have for these IBM mainframes, nor even what they run (DB2?). IBM's product line just seems completely irrelevant to modern tech companies.
- towndrunk 12y agoModern tech companies sure... but old enterprise companies still use this stuff and it's a tough sell to move them to more modern systems.
- cones688 12y agoI think you are underestimating the scale of what a Z system can run... You might not have a use but every fortune 500 and banking institution in the world does - and they need it to work, 5 9's isn't good enough. > IBM Hursley laboratory director Rob Lamb says: “There are 6,900 tweets, 30,000 Facebook likes and 60,000 Google searches per second." The mainframe CICS runs 1.1m transactions per second, which equates to 10bn per day [0] [0] http://www.computerweekly.com/feature/Can-the-mainframe-remain-relevant-the-cloud-and-mobile-era http://www.computerweekly.com/feature/Can-the-mainframe-rema...
- bane 12y agoI have practically zero experience with mainframes, but I've always heard about their insane throughput figures. I've never really seen much on their architecture. Any insight in how they work and do so much?
- filereaper 12y agoHere's an old 2012 article about zEC12 (previous) generation of the mainframe. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/05/ibm_z12_mainframe_engine/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/05/ibm_z12_mainframe_en... zEC13 was just released this year. The mainframes have their own CISC type architecture and typically have massive amounts of cache and a high clock speed (5Ghz and above) Their instructions sets are also different in that its not strictly of the von-Neumann variety. Mainframes can do things like memory copies directly in memory without requiring copying via registers. This kind-of attacks the von-Neumann bottleneck directly and is good for batch and high volume transaction processing. The software for mainframes is also typically fused into their kernels, things like CICS and DB2 are not "user" programs, they're part of the OS so I/O is handled much better and things don't "block" as much.
- pesenti 12y agoIBM employee here. I have no idea if the cuts are true or not but keep in mind that Cringely has made dooms day predictions in the past that were widely innacurate, see for example: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070504_002027.html http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070504_0020... or http://www.cringely.com/2012/04/18/not-your-fathers-ibm/ http://www.cringely.com/2012/04/18/not-your-fathers-ibm/ I am part of Watson and we have been hiring a lot (as well as providing great internships).
- thesumofall 12y agoI would be very surprised if this report holds true. He writes he heard about it before Christmas. I simply can't believe such information didn't leak deliberately or unintentionally during the month since.
- simonebrunozzi 12y agoI do not work at IBM, but from the outside, it seems that the Watson team is doing very well - and working on extremely interesting problems. I wish you the best.
- yeison 12y agoWatson is probably one of the most valuable projects that IBM is currently working on. Cutting people from the Watson team would be an extremely bad decision. I have no doubt that you guys are in good shape in that department. Also, all the publicity that IBM has been working on with Watson has been very wise and well executed.
- nowarninglabel 12y agoIt's amazing how if someone said blatantly false things over and over again about Google or Yahoo laying off employees then it would get flagged out of existence, yet somehow Cringely makes the same false "prediction" over and over again about IBM and people vote it right up. Check your source people, you are actively spreading disinformation by a known doomsday prophet, and like most doomsday prophets he has been wrong every time.
- 12y ago
- prodigal_erik 12y agoJeez. That's more than a Google (55,030 in 2014Q3 earnings) plus six Facebooks (8,348 in 2014Q3 earnings). And I have no idea what they may have been doing.
- sumnandp 12y agoSoaking up paycheques and pretending to be busy.
- brown9-2 12y agoCutting storage is also foolish, as we are in the era of Big Data and Data Lakes and storage is vital to these concepts. Whether or not the layoff rumor is true, this doesn't feel like the most insightful of articles.
- anonbanker 12y agoThis would certainly explain all the publicity over Watson. Perhaps IBM is looking for someone to buy them, and are trying to put as much makeup as needed to seem valuable? Anyone who read IBM & The Holocaust[1] is probably celebrating right now. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
- carsongross 12y agoYet another manifestation of the tech worker shortage we keep hearing about...
- sumnandp 12y agoThere IS a tech worker shortage ... of those willing to work for third world salaries.
- FrankenPC 12y agoASSUMING this is true... The information industry in in an exponential power curve right now. Participants are either in the stage of disruption or already evolving democratization. The classic monolithic mega-company just isn't engineered to twist and turn like that. I'm amazed they've lasted this long. One way to survive is to admit failure and do an emergency fracture. Break off all divisions with any profit potential into their own manageable chunks which don't suffer from upper management overload. Wow that would be an expensive proposition. And IBM stock would burn.
- adventured 12y agoIBM made their bed in switching from being a technology company to a consulting & services company. At best they will grow and shrink with the global economy now. When the global economy hits a wall, as a consulting & services company you can't innovate your way out of it, you depend on eg growth in government spending and big corp spending, both of which are shaky around the world right now.
- dreamfactory2 12y agoI think this is where IBM is trying to go - http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/43523.wss http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/43523.wss
- ninkendo 12y agoMostly unrelated: I've always wondered how anyone in the tech industry would go to IBM as a business consultant, when they can't even figure out how to have a website that doesn't require things like "www-03.ibm.com" to be the hostname. And it's not even like they're just maintaining legacy URI's for search engine purposes, either: Go to ibm.com and click on "Services" > "Cloud Services". For me I got sent to http://www-935.ibm.com http://www-935.ibm.com. Do they know how load balancers work? Do they just not want a global namespace in the HTTP paths, and everything has to be namespaced by the hundreds of different servers it runs on?
- JohnHammersley 12y ago"Nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM"[1] ...except as an employer! I'll get my coat... [1] http://www.quora.com/What-does-the-phrase-Nobody-ever-got-fired-for-choosing-IBM-mean http://www.quora.com/What-does-the-phrase-Nobody-ever-got-fi...
- j2kun 12y agoI'm really interested to see if they follow suit with Microsoft and close one of their top research labs.
- joshvm 12y agoA rule of thumb I've heard from various companies is that employees should be worth at least three times their salary to the company. That is your turnover should be more than sum(3*salary_i) for i employees. A nice Fermi problem: IBM's revenue (2014) is around $90bn, from this rule of thumb this could support around 300,000 developers at a mean salary of $100k. From the model above, IBM's 400k employes should be producing a turnover of $120bn. The shortfall of $30bn equates rather nicely to the 100k employees they're laying off.
- pjg 12y agoThis seems oversimplified. IBM is big internationally. They have as many perhaps even more employees in India than in the US. Using a "mean" salary of $100K seems oversimplification, not just India and US but most other countries have different payscales, though its interesting that you've made the numbers work
- Cookingboy 12y agoI highly doubt all IBM's employees are developers, in fact I highly doubt it's even over 30%.
- joshvm 12y agoOf course not, this is a gross oversimplification. I was just surprised at how well the numbers worked. I would argue though, that it is a good rule of thumb, i.e. their revenue is not sustainable given the number of employees that they have. IBM like any company will employ support staff, admin/HR, cleaners, managers and so on. Plenty of those people earn over $100k and plenty of people earn a lot less. Ultimately we don't know the mean salary of the people they're (maybe) laying off. But hey, it's a Fermi problem, order of magnitude. I would guess it's not too far off.
- anonibmer111 12y agoFor some insight/rumors/thoughts from IBMers you can check out this board: http://www.endicottalliance.org/jobcutsreports.php http://www.endicottalliance.org/jobcutsreports.php At the moment it seems to be down, probably from being overrun with traffic now that this story is trending a bit.
- abalone 12y agoSo yeah, the move to the cloud is hurting IBM's traditional core business. But as to the criticism of the current CEO for "doing nothing", the partnership she just inked with Apple seems like a step in the right direction. It's exactly the thing they should be doing to adapt themselves to the cloud era. Look at this stuff. It's fucking beautiful: https://www.apple.com/business/mobile-enterprise-apps/ https://www.apple.com/business/mobile-enterprise-apps/ Enterprises don't need as much help setting up and running their disappearing data centers. But they do still need help building better software for their business. And more than ever before there's a focus on the ROI of better designed software. Definitely most enterprises don't have that kind of software expertise in house. I think it would be mistake to advise IBM to try to just focus on competing with Amazon. The margin in enterprise services has moved up the stack and that's where it looks like IBM is moving. Definitely some pain along the way though.
- ams6110 12y agoNot that beauty is a bad thing, per se, but it's never been high on the list of requirements for enterprise software. Functionality and configurability tend to be more important.
- rodgerd 12y agoThings are changing; people see no reason to put up with shitty design and hard to use applications in-house, especially if their employer has nice customer-facing applications. It's analogous to the PC revolution, when people started using their own copy of VisiCalc or Lotus.
- ekianjo 12y ago> Things are changing; people see no reason to put up with shitty design and hard to use applications in-house, especially if their employer has nice customer-facing applications. It's analogous to the PC revolution, when people started using their own copy of VisiCalc or Lotus. Except that "people", i.e. employees, are not the decision makers when it comes to what software/hardware they get.
- curiouscat321 12y agoRegardless of their corporate mismanagement and lack of a sound business plan, this is incredibly unfortunate. 111,800 people are going to be losing their jobs and many of them may have difficulty finding new ones. To everyone at IBM, good luck and I hope this all works out well for you!
- sumnandp 12y agoUnica.
- anonibmer111 12y agoWhat about Unica?
- kev009 12y agoI'm always kind of shocked that people are so meek and enamored with the idea of stability that they just shoot themselves in the foot. The tech industry is the wild west and most people in it aren't very good because they either lack drive, talent or the backbone to rise above those who lack drive and talent. A better outlook is to make IBM (or any other company) work for _you_. Work there for a couple years. Be bold. Challenge inept management and others that are only looking for stability and a paycheck regardless of outcomes. When you get tired of being stonewalled, bail to a smaller business and poach the people you identified as top talent. Nobody's looking out for you but you. It's silly to expect an impersonal thing like a corporation to always try and take care of you. Making the company work for you doesn't have any factor in leading an ethical and fulfilling career. You can still deliver real value for a while despite a bloated middle management culture that is scared of the idea of bottom up leadership.
- PakG1 12y agoIt is truly not fun being that guy: http://randsinrepose.com/archives/a-toxic-paradox/ http://randsinrepose.com/archives/a-toxic-paradox/ This is especially true if you're in an organization as large and bureaucratic as IBM and not in a senior position. I think you overestimate how much influence you can really have on upper management. True story when I worked there as a GDF lead, talking to a senior manager. Me: "Hey, I think I found an error in the formula we use to calculate one of the GDF metrics. This is creating garbage data." SM: "Oh wow, you're right." Later. SM: "Actually, we made the formula that way on purpose. It's OK." Me: "What? How? Why?" SM: "It's OK, don't worry about it." What am I supposed to do then? Escalate to a VP? On a regular basis? I did. A senior manager got in touch with my manager and delivered the message that I need to get in line. I quote: "No more complaining." Depending on the environment where you're working, it's not easy to be the devil's advocate. It's usually not easy in the first place. In certain environments, it's almost impossible, you might as well have not even joined. edit clarification: GDF was IBM's attempt to create its own version of the Six Sigma program.
- winslow 12y agoThanks for linking to that. I currently feel like I'm the toxic asset currently working at a big medical company. I just wanted to actually make progress and get stuff out the door instead of (not exaggerating) redoing the same work 4 times now...
- zak_mc_kracken 12y agoNow is a good time to send a resume to IBM...
- known 12y agoImpose Tax On Corporate Revenues, Not Profits And See The Result;
- mathattack 12y agoProject Chrome? It's hard to fathom that a tech company would name their layoff program after a competitor's technology. That just strains credulity. If that part is true, it's a sign of bad things in the company.