Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Saturday September 20 2014, @01:56AM   Printer-friendly
from the remedial-remedies dept.

IBM has selected certain employees in its Global Technology Services outsourcing group to receive training in technical IT skills, running one day each week over six months. But there's a catch: "While you spend part of your workweek on learning and development activities, you will receive 90% of your current base salary", according to a letter IBM sent out to those employees. Participation is mandatory; workers were informed they were chosen for the program because (from the IBM letter) "some managers and employees have not kept pace with acquiring the skills and expertise needed to address changing client needs, technology and market requirements."

There's been some buzz on this new program at the Alliance@IBM forum, starting around 09/12/14.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Saturday September 20 2014, @02:26AM

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 20 2014, @02:26AM (#95736) Journal
    Recalling the times I functioned as a manager (now, I'm working in a medical R&D joint) and assuming the 10% cut is the only price to pay - i.e. the workload/expected results are reduced accordingly (big assumption, I know), I would gladly take the offer for as long as they run the program.
    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @02:35AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @02:35AM (#95739)

      It isn't an offer. It is a requirement.

      • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday September 20 2014, @02:59AM

        by kaszz (4211) on Saturday September 20 2014, @02:59AM (#95746) Journal

        An offer you can't resist .. ;)

        • (Score: 4, Informative) by Ezber Bozmak on Saturday September 20 2014, @03:06AM

          by Ezber Bozmak (764) on Saturday September 20 2014, @03:06AM (#95748)

          An offer you can't refuse.

          • (Score: 2) by tynin on Saturday September 20 2014, @03:23AM

            by tynin (2013) on Saturday September 20 2014, @03:23AM (#95752) Journal

            Gah! You beat me to it... :)

            • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday September 20 2014, @04:24AM

              by kaszz (4211) on Saturday September 20 2014, @04:24AM (#95759) Journal

              Doh! If you refuse IBM will beat you with a pink slip .. ;-)

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Tork on Saturday September 20 2014, @04:42AM

        by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 20 2014, @04:42AM (#95762)
        Your point is well taken. But... it is interesting that they're having you take 20% of your working time and dedicate it to stuff that, frankly, will improve the ol' resume. I've never encountered that scenario. "We're cutting your pay but we're going to invest some of your most productive time into making you more employable." Yeah, I'm not a fan of it being mandatory, but it's a fair shade better than other circumstances I'm sad to say I've witnessed.
        --
        🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @02:49PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @02:49PM (#95860)

      Lets see lets do what a real manager should for their people. Break it down and show how they are getting screwed. Instead of 'duno maybe good'.

      6 months makes that about 26 days you get less money.

      Since it is in the outsourcing group lets say they make 10 an hour.

      Normally they get 1040 hours in that time which comes out to 10400 dollars.

      Now with the new way. They get 832 normal hours and 208 reduced hours. That comes out to 8320 normal pay and 1872 reduced pay . For a total of 10192 or a 2% pay cut or a cost to the employee of 208 dollars.

      This is a pay cut in the guise of training.

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday September 21 2014, @12:45AM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 21 2014, @12:45AM (#96079) Journal

        Since it is in the outsourcing group lets say they make 10 an hour.

        Since I'm not in this group, this "offer" won't ever be made to me.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @03:21PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @03:21PM (#95870)

      You're assuming that the training is classroom with labs for 5 or more hrs/day. That may be, but it could also be a online 'course' with multiple choice quizzes to 'check your understanding'. Those things are completely worthless - you've forgotten everything by the next day, if not sooner.

      In that case this would be simply a device to give employees one day a week on half pay to find another job, saving IBM the cost of a severance package and/or unemployment benefits, which is what some on the alliance forum seem to suspect.

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by jbWolf on Saturday September 20 2014, @06:21AM

    by jbWolf (2774) <jbNO@SPAMjb-wolf.com> on Saturday September 20 2014, @06:21AM (#95774) Homepage

    I have mixed feelings but overall, I think it's a terrible idea.

    Companies have a tendency to chew people up and spit them out. They force them to work long hours and rush-rush-rush through everything for weeks / months / years on end. People have personal lives and their personal lives (or salary) should not be dedicated to the benefit of the company. I believe training should be on company time. I believe this is one of the major reasons why so many people tend to be pushed out of the IT field by age 40. We either burn out keeping our skills up to date on our own time or we no longer find ourselves on the cutting edge because we don't secretly use company time and resources to update ourselves.

    I think it is great that IBM is addressing this issues instead of just kicking an employee to the curb. However, there is this in the article:

    While employees may see the pay cut as unfair, the salary reduction is viewed by management as a form of employee "co-investment" in training, and as a better alternative to laying off and hiring employees with the latest skills. It's not that these employees lack skills, but they don't necessarily have the ones that are needed today, the source said.

    And this is where I disagree. If a company has an employee that performs well, it should be budgeted into the company's time and money for employee upgrades. Who here would drive their car without any oil changes or filling up with gas? Regular maintenance and upgrades are needed on everything. I've talked about the over 40 crowd being pushed out, but how many people under 40 really understand the ins and outs of simple file storage, word processing or spreadsheets? I've seen a lot of wasted effort in the work place because people didn't know about functionality or know how to use the functionality in all of these programs. Cutting into an employee's salary is wrong and should only be used if they are refusing to learn or cannot learn. Salary cuts should be used as a wake up call -- not something that is just "the way business is done".

    --
    www.jb-wolf.com [jb-wolf.com]
    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by anubi on Saturday September 20 2014, @08:41AM

      by anubi (2828) on Saturday September 20 2014, @08:41AM (#95791) Journal

      It may cost the company more money to upgrade existing employees skills than it takes to ask Congress to OK more H1-B.

      Its not like anyone in Congress considers how many former high-tech higher paid workers will no longer be paying US Income Taxes, or worse, now start prematurely retiring or going on unemployment/welfare. Once people stop earning money, they stop spending money, trickle-down theories dry up, and the banking system drops interest rates to zero trying to force the only monetization system still working ( loans ) onto a populace no longer capable of paying them back.

      It is my strong belief that the H1-B program be coupled with tax rates so that the people benefiting from cheaper imported labor also pay the social costs of doing so.

      Bring it up when your Congressman is on another one of those handshaking tours for garnering public interest and votes.

      --
      "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
    • (Score: 1) by chris.alex.thomas on Saturday September 20 2014, @09:49AM

      by chris.alex.thomas (2331) on Saturday September 20 2014, @09:49AM (#95800)

      your analogy doesn't work, with the car, I own it, it's my bitch, if I want, I can slash it's tyres, I can set it on fire, I can smash it into a wall, etc, etc, you can't do that with an employee (or CAN you?? CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!!), so whilst it might be superficially similar, underneath it's not, the employee is gaining new skills and it can take them and your investment in that employee right out of the door when it resigns and you have no say in the matter.

      so it would be like your car was a transformer, took those oil changes and upgrades and walked away....

      • (Score: 1) by jbWolf on Sunday September 21 2014, @04:28AM

        by jbWolf (2774) <jbNO@SPAMjb-wolf.com> on Sunday September 21 2014, @04:28AM (#96152) Homepage

        the employee is gaining new skills and it can take them and your investment in that employee right out of the door when it resigns and you have no say in the matter.

        I've bolded two words in your quote. Thank you for making my point.

        --
        www.jb-wolf.com [jb-wolf.com]
        • (Score: 1) by chris.alex.thomas on Sunday September 21 2014, @10:21AM

          by chris.alex.thomas (2331) on Sunday September 21 2014, @10:21AM (#96229)

          no you didn't, are you suggesting that because I called an employee "it" your point suddenly becomes valid? because thats not how _it_ works (you see, I can do it too!). It was just a turn of phrase, not a positive affirmation of your initial point.

          stop being so dammed pedantic, you knew exactly what I meant

    • (Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Saturday September 20 2014, @12:33PM

      by Sir Garlon (1264) on Saturday September 20 2014, @12:33PM (#95822)

      I think you are right when you say

      If a company has an employee that performs well, it should be budgeted into the company's time and money for employee upgrades.

      This is a long-term way to sustain an excellent staff.

      Unfortunately, most tech companies take the opposite approach -- hiring new people who've already trained themselves at their own expense, and laying off the ones who need refresher training. To reinvest in the experienced staff is, in the short term, probably more expensive. Who should absorb that cost?

      Both the company and the employees share the benefits. The company gets to keep experienced people and utilize them effectively. The employee not only gets to keep her job, but also becomes more competitive in the labor market if she does choose to leave. Training is portable. So it seems to me fair that the employer and employee share the costs.

      Just from reading the summary (too lazy to RTFA) it looks like employees are taking one day of training a week -- 20% of their time -- and giving up 10% of their salary. The employee gives up half of that 20% productivity loss, and the company eats the other half. IBM is paying the tuition for the training, but that seems only fair because they, not the employees, get to choose the curriculum. IBM also gets the benefit of whatever productivity gains they realize as a result of the training. So the employer is probably getting the slightly better end of the deal, but I wouldn't call it unfair.

      If my employer offered me this deal tomorrow, I would jump at it. The fact that it's mandatory is a little disappointing, but making the training mandatory is more forthright than the alternative: making it optional and sooner or later laying off the people who don't take advantage of it.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @03:57PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @03:57PM (#95881)

        and the company eats the other half. IBM is paying the tuition for the training, but that seems only fair because they, not the employees, get to choose the curriculum.

        Not too long ago working for a big company like IBM meant you could get your entire tuition reimbursed as long as it was for a program broadly in line with your job - master's degree in CS if you were a programmer, etc. Sometimes you could even take a year or two off and they would still cover the tuition. They paid for your degree and you got a salary bump at the end too.

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by jbWolf on Sunday September 21 2014, @05:25AM

        by jbWolf (2774) <jbNO@SPAMjb-wolf.com> on Sunday September 21 2014, @05:25AM (#96168) Homepage

        So the employer is probably getting the slightly better end of the deal, but I wouldn't call it unfair.

        When does it become unfair? When an employer forces an employee to give up 20%? Or 30% Or 80%? For 1 year? 2 Years? 5 Years?

        If my employer offered me this deal tomorrow, I would jump at it. The fact that it's mandatory is a little disappointing, but making the training mandatory is more forthright than the alternative: making it optional and sooner or later laying off the people who don't take advantage of it.

        This is why I say in my original post, "I think it is great that IBM is addressing these issues instead of just kicking an employee to the curb." However, when I make an argument for something, I only believe in arguing for a scenario where all parties involved win -- not just me, but the employer and customer too. With this suggestion by IBM, it does not fit my definition. Would I jump at the chance? Probably. It's better than current alternatives. Is it fair? No, not by a long shot.

        A little bit of a personal story. I was in a company that used mostly Java. Our manager wanted to start using more Microsoft technologies for various reasons. Should the manager have fired all employees who were unfamiliar with C#? Or should he require that the employee pay out of his own pocket for retraining? Should the employee retrain at home on his own time for the benefit of the company? No, but (from what I'm inferring in the article and my own personal experiences), that is what IBM is asking employees to do. It is the company's responsibility to make sure the employee is kept in the loop of what is expected 1, 2, or 5 years down the road. But companies can't even figure out what they're doing tomorrow and it leads to immoral decisions. (Side note: I had a good manager who made the right decisions.)

        Many years ago, I went through a phone interview and two face-to-face interviews over the course of a month. The manager almost made an offer to me, but just before they did, some managers above them cut back the funding for the position. They could have saved not only me the trouble, but the trouble that several managers went through over two to three months to fill that position. I understand they interviewed a lot of candidates.

        There are invisible company decisions that happen all the time that affect me as an employee. How do I find out about them as I do my job that the company assigned me to do?

        What IBM proposes is a step forward, but it still penalizes the employee for something it should freely give.

        --
        www.jb-wolf.com [jb-wolf.com]
    • (Score: 3, Funny) by isostatic on Saturday September 20 2014, @03:56PM

      by isostatic (365) on Saturday September 20 2014, @03:56PM (#95880) Journal

      But invisible hand!

  • (Score: 2) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Saturday September 20 2014, @04:22PM

    by PizzaRollPlinkett (4512) on Saturday September 20 2014, @04:22PM (#95888)

    I hear this talk of a "shortage" of software developers, and skilled workers in general, but see no evidence of it.

    I see that consolidation, especially in the past decade, has resulted in a glut of workers. More supply than demand is pushing wages lower. With vertical market packages replacing in-house software development in most sectors, datacenters replacing in-house servers in most sectors, and outsourcing in general lowering wages, the result is more work done by fewer people in the technology sector. This is causing a glut of skilled people on the market. Outsourcers, consulting companies, and others have no incentive to pay anything. The technology field in general has gone from an upper middle class to lower middle class job in the past decade or so. (Yes, with the exception of high cost of living areas like Silicon Valley, but you have to look at the buying power of a six-figure salary in places like that.)

    With a glut of workers, there is zero incentive to train or develop them. For any job, you can get all the trained workers you need. (Yes, with the exception of new or highly specialized technologies, but people with those skills have always been and will always be scarce.)

    Not a good time to be a software developer. The idea of having a career is basically over and done with. Your only hope to make a living is a series of sideways moves, making less money each time.

    At some point, the situation will reverse itself, as decades of not training workers will come back to affect the corporations which didn't train them, but it probably won't be in the next decade or two.

    Hey, there's always the app economy! Well, it boomed and imploded in five years or so. The only people making money off of apps are big corporations which can publish games.

    I think the real issue is that software has matured much faster than anyone expected. By now, all the software packages in any market that anyone needs already exist. There's not much software at the margins left to write. Name any industry at all, and there are probably several vertical market packages for it. These require relatively few developers to achieve an economy of scale. I guess some companies will always need new CRUD apps for the web, but that's $30k/year work. Even mainframes are being outsourced, resulting in a glut of unemployed systems programmers, since fewer people are needed to run mainframes these days (both because of outsourcing and improvements IBM has made over the last decade). The only problems that haven't been solved with software are really, really hard ones.

    Who do you not want to be? You do not want to be a SQL Server DBA. Right now, a lot of vertical market packages use SQL Server, because it's cheaper than Oracle. So you still see steady jobs posted for DBAs. But the "cloud" thing is going to eventually allow you to host your vertical market package on a "cloud" server with a pre-tuned SQL Server database. So the next bloodbath in the technology field is probably going to be outsourcing SQL-Server-as-a-Service (SSAAS - remember I coined this abbrev when you see it in 3-5 years) , and firing DBAs. Datacenters will hire a few DBAs to create and tune database instances for vertical markets, but the economy of scale will kick in.

    --
    (E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)