Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Thursday February 09 2017, @09:08AM   Printer-friendly
from the end-of-an-era dept.

Exclusive IBM is cracking down on remote workers, ordering unlucky employees to either come into one of six main offices and work "shoulder to shoulder" – or leave for good.

In a confidential video message to staff seen by The Register on Tuesday, chief marketing officer Michelle Peluso told her US marketing troops they must work at "a smaller set of locations" if they want to continue with the company. Staffers have 30 days to decide whether to stay or go.

This means affected IBMers who telecommute, work at a smaller district office, or otherwise work separately from their team, will now have just a few weeks to either quit their jobs, or commit to moving to another part of America. The company's employee badge system will be used to ensure people do come into the office rather than stealthily remain remote workers.

According to sources, the six "strategic" offices US marketing staff must work from are in: Austin, Texas; San Francisco, California; New York City, New York; Boston, Massachusetts; Atlanta, Georgia; and Raleigh, North Carolina. El Reg understands that employees will not get to choose a nearby office, but will instead be assigned a location based on where their team is predominantly situated. The first wave of workers were informed of the changes on Monday. The next wave will be instructed in early March, we're told.

Marissa Mayer has worked wonders at Yahoo and the rest of the tech industry should follow her lead?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday February 09 2017, @07:21PM

    by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday February 09 2017, @07:21PM (#465185)

    A substance with a negative temperature is not colder than absolute zero, but rather it is hotter than infinite temperature.

    Basically "below absolute zero" is due to an unsigned int wrapping around. So it's a shortcoming of the terminology rather than a temperature that is actually below absolute zero.

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday February 10 2017, @12:32AM

    by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Friday February 10 2017, @12:32AM (#465328) Homepage

    Your momma's pink unsigned int wrapping around my black long double, that is.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 10 2017, @04:27PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 10 2017, @04:27PM (#465518)

    Assuming infinity is at around INT_MAX instead of UINT_MAX.

  • (Score: 2) by AnonymousCowardNoMore on Monday February 13 2017, @04:18PM

    by AnonymousCowardNoMore (5416) on Monday February 13 2017, @04:18PM (#466636)

    I don't agree. Thermodynamic beta, i.e. coldness, is the more fundamental concept which determines how a system responds when you heat it. We can use 1/beta, or temperature, which happens to correspond in most cases quite nicely to our intuitive understanding of hotness but has the unfortunate consequence of behaving oddly at 0. The concepts are defined in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, not to appeal to what you or I regard as nice terminology.