This author has his head up his behind- IBM only employs 330,000 people worldwide, in all divisions! 150,000 equals nearly half of the whole company!!!!!, not just global services! Tell this jackass to get his figures straight before he goes shooting his mouth off!!!
signed, Rich
and IBM employee
Latest convergence headlines from Network World:
Data center spending stays strong, AFCOM says
Ellison hypes Oracle's data warehouse appliance
CA set to roll out data center automation package
|
Does Verizon's Voyager stack up to the iPhone? |
|
|
5 IT skills that won't boost your salary 
[1,407]
Women 4 times more likely than men to cough up personal info [589]
Japan's 10 funniest tech-related commercials [Videos] [407]
Throwing away a promo CD is "unauthorized distribution"? [1,265]
Adults too quick to dismiss educational video games [682]
Attack of the iPhone clones [Slideshow] [578]
10 things IT needs to know about AJAX [1,258]
This Year's 25 Geekiest 25th Anniversaries [Slideshow] [409]
|
|
150k is probably too high a number
...but 15 to 15,000 from the US is probably right in line with plans. add another 10-15k from Europe.
Expect to see technical jobs move to Brazil, India, Israel and Vietnam while the 'business transformation' consultants in the US and Eruope continue to stay busy.
This will lower expenses and improve the 'signings' numbers for the third or fourth year in a row while doing nothing to improve revenue. Quality of delivered services will continue to decline but Wall Street will be happy.
I think I'm going to be
I think I'm going to be sick.
Did you actually read the article?
The net result is not that IBM will end up with a net loss of 150k employees but a shift of 150k US employees to offshore/outsource locations. You may end up with the same number of employees, just a lot less in the US....Why is that so hard to comprehend?
I read both the articles, and Cringley is on nasty drugs
Cringleys statement is that IBM is going to lay off half its IGS division in the US. After crunching numbers that Cringley must have gotten from an insane drug-induced trip he comes up with the number 150,000. That is an insane number.
1 - He states it is from IGS, and from IGS in NA
2 - He says it is about half of IGS
A couple of numbers for the people who are as uninformed as Cringley.
1 - IBM has 320K 330K employees TOTAL in the world
2 - IBM has about half of its employees in the US
3 - All of IBM is NOT IGS, IGS is only one division within IBM
Just for the fun of it, let's forget the 150K number for a while and let's assume half of IBM in the US is IGS (I don't think that is the case, I think IGS in the US is far less than half of IBM, but still).
So, IBM WW has 330K employees, that leaves 165K employees in the US TOTAL. I think the number is closer to 130K, but that's OK. If half of IBM in the US is IGS, that means that IGS has 80K (round numbers) employees in the US, TOTAL. If IGS in the US lays off half of its people, they will lay off some 40K people with these numbers, and trust me, I have erred on the high side.
So, if Cringley or some other "genius" could please explain to me how IGS, by laying off half its staff in the US is going to get to 150K, how are they going to do that? Does IBM tend to staff IGS up from 80K to 300K employees before letting half of them go? All of it in 2007? Where are they going to get the 220,000 people they currently don't have?
OK, perhaps they are not going to staff up to 300,000 first, maybe they are just going to staff up to a number where laying off 150K workers will bring them down to half the number they have today. That would mean that IGS would have to go from 80K or so people to 190K people so that when they lay off 150K they will be down to 40K. How do Cringley and the other geniuses who have been using this number expect IBM will still have to find 110,000 qualified people, hire them, and then lay them off together with an additional 40,000 people, all in 2007?
The number is absurd in the extreme. Cringley should stop doing so much drugs before he writes his nonsense.
Correction
"1 - IBM has 320K 330K employees TOTAL in the world"
But IBM's annual report to the Securities and Exchange Commission noted that at the end of 2006 it employed 355,766 people, up from 329,373 one year earlier.
Take into account the number
Take into account the number of contractors & supplementals being laid off & you will have your number Math Guy. Your obviously the one who is full of hogwash or cant count. You'll NEVER know the true number of contractors who were fired. You must be a shill from corporate!
Yep you're right. I think
Yep you're right. I think about 1000 contractors just bought it. My group lost 4 contractors alone over the last 2 rounds.
the numbers may be exaggerated but...
IGS is still a HUGE joke. lol.
I work for a large IGS customer and our service/support has gone down the tubes in the last year.
Thats because the IGS team that used to support us has gone from 19 to 6 people in the past year.
We will NEVER hire IBM for any services support again.
The word is getting out. You'd better be worried.
Yep customer service will go
Yep customer service will go WAY down. But I say too bad. To all that supported this crap. You made your bed, now sleep in it!
Parts sound right, parts
Parts sound right, parts wrong. An arrogant response from corporate communications sure doesn't calm anyone down. I would love to hear a clear and reasoned repsonse from someone accountable. Cringely also owes his readers something more than vague annonymous sources and innuendo.