Source: IBM disguised Watson Health layoffs as a 'redeployment initiative' After announcing in January it was selling its Watson Health group to investment firm Francisco Partners, IBM assured staff left behind from the sale that they would be redeployed within Big Blue. IBM even had a term for this transition, calling it a Redeployment Initiative (RI) to distinguish the situation from a Resource …
That appears to be a fundamental part of IBM's DNA. I recall being told that way back when IBM was the behemoth vs the BUNCH (Burroughs, Unisys, NCR, CDC, Honeywell), and no-one was ever fired or made redundant, that when IBM wanted to get rid of someone they would post them around the country ("I've Been Moved") until they got the hint and resigned of their own accord.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
That is probably why IBM tried to slip one by everyone with a "redeployment." A lot of people were driven out of IBM during the redeployment because they couldn't play chicken with IBM to see what was going to happen. One employee ended up taking a job outside of IBM where he wouldn't have insurance for 2 months and couldn't afford COBRA insurance. All because he didn't know if there was going to be a severance offer with insurance, which, in the end, there was. One person reported to me recently "Arvind said there will no RAs in 2022 (except for Watson Health) so everything is a redeployment now." Of course, if Watson Health is proof of the reality, all these redeployments will end in RAs and mostly impact older employees.
This post has been deleted by its author
I’m currently helping a Fortune 50 organization and as always, am careful about how I “stick it to IBM” whenever an opportunity arises.
I’m finding the Watson Health sell off is very well known and hear a tremendous amount of sniping at IBM from the customers’ middle level executives (all over 40.)
It is smelling like IBM are being pushed out, leaving not a single product or human resource behind. More to come, but the final decision is coming down very soon. It will take a lot of restraint not to sing and dance when the news is delivered.
Having worked at IBM and having also been part of a resource action (RA) -- make no mistake. A resource action IS A LAYOFF. So is a redeployment. Even though I was told I could transfer to another division and had the skills and experience needed, my application was blocked. Other IBM divisions were instructed not to hire people on RA lists. IBM uses layoffs to make its quarterly earnings statements. Any division that is not making huge sales and profits will have layoffs. It is that simple. Different words. Same intent. Sorry.
I was going to say, every RA I was involved in where people were told they could re-deploy, open seats mysteriously disappeared. Every attempt made to move was met with silence. I heard from one associate that he was told that moves were actively blocked (never saw the evidence but I know the sources and I trust them).
I am so glad I am not working for them anymore.
Blocking of moves for people subject to a RA is common across the American corporate culture, even when you are based overseas.
Saw it happen in a Big 4 firm, saw it happen in a bank with US head office, people just get stuck into a filing cabinet when they apply for posts.
This was floated in the UK, big blue wanted 'centres of excellence' and to get staff into offices, until it was pointed out that might constitute constructive dismissal over here and the idea was quietly dropped. We did get relocations though, I was 'benched' twice during my time, first time I managed to get rehired into a different role on the same contract, second time the role came with expenses so my commute was covered, then luckily IBM started shedding locations to save money so we all went to WFH. You got 90 days on the bench, and if you hadn't found a role internally in that time it was severance.
"Constructive dismissal" is *exactly* how I'd have described the "Resource Initiative" scam in the article- an obvious description for what's very blatantly being done.
I'm surprised you're the only other person on this forum mentioned it at all (and even then not with reference to the original incident). Can only assume that this is so easily got away with in the US that it's not so much of an (actionable) thing there and it didn't occur to most of El Reg's increasingly US-centric readership to point to the obvious.
Of course, I suspect IBM's way of doing it has less to do with hiding it than with making it harder- to the point of not being worthwhile- to prove it in court, particularly in a country which allows its legal system to be used as a weapon of attrition by those with much deeper pockets and with much weaker employee protections in the first place.
The article makes it sound like constructive dismissal, but only because it neglects to mention the part where availability for relocation was a pre-requisite for employment in the first place. While it's true that they don't usually move you if they want you, it's not constructive dismissal to tell you to move when you've been employed with that as an express condition.
I really don't have a lot of time for people who are willing to accept all the perks of a job, but then complain about the downsides that were the reason the perks were part of the package. IBM jobs are very much of that nature, in that they pay extra up front for the shit that may come down one day in the future.
There's a huge difference between requiring someone to move for legitimate business reasons and quite deliberately exploiting that requirement in a malicious manner with the sole intent of forcing them to resign.
That pretty much *is* the definition of "constructive dismissal"! The only question is whether it's possible and- more importantly- practical to get a US court to recognise it as such (or whatever their legal term for it would be).
You could do pretty much the same thing with numerous other aspects of an agreed employment contract, i.e. forcing someone who agreed to variable hours to come in at deliberately inconvenient and inconsistent times, changing the number of hours worked randomly, hoping they'll resign.
It'd be all but impossible to write up a contract with the required amount of flexibility that avoided all such possibilities of abuse (and you can bet that businesses would be the first to complain about "red tape").
That's why there are laws against such blatant abuse of power like that, at least in the UK.
I don't know if it applies to a company as large as IBM but in the USA companies more directly pay for unemployment if they fire staff. So it's in a company's interest to argue that you quit or were fired for cause and get you denied unemployment
One employee, impacted by the Watson Health RI/RA, was told by their manager they would not receive a severance or unemployment. At that stage it was still being called a Redeployment. Managers lied, intimidated, and retaliated against employees; no doubt. The only question is was it top down messaging or managers making these unethical and unlawful decisions on their own. This is why the article also mentions a National Labor Relations Board charge.
There's a difference between a job where flexibility is required from the start, but they don't actually ask you to be flexible, and eventually start taking advantage of their right to demand it, and constructive dismissal - even if they do want you to quit.
You know what the difference is? It's that it's what you signed up for and got paid extra for the whole time.
It's just like being a contractor, really: you've given them the right to end your employment at will.
However it is that they discriminate against older workers, it remains discrimination regardless of anything in the hiring documents.
Age discrimination is still illegal in the US, which is why companies go to such lengths to pretend what they're doing isn't "really" age discrimination even when it is (see IBM, various EEOC cases, etc.)
The law firm of Litchten and Liss-Riordan has really led the fight against IBM on age discrimination cases here in the US. Shannon Liss-Riordan has made a name for herself on the basis of class action suits against IBM and other big corporations. However, she is running neck-and-neck in the primary race for MA Attorney General. If she wins the primary, she is almost guaranteed to win in the general, given how MA historically selects a Democrat. That could be a game changer for many of these cases, as she would begin an entirely new chapter away from her current firm, presumably.
"However it is that they discriminate against older workers, it remains discrimination regardless of anything in the hiring documents."
Except there is no age discrimination, in fact, because those alleging it don't have to prove a mechanism, they only have to prove effects. If the group who were fired is on average older than those who weren't, there might be a case to answer - but there isn't, because it isn't.
This post has been deleted by its author
I'm glad we both agree there *is* still a distinction between the former- which would be covered by the "legitimate business reasons" I already acknowledged- and constructive dismissal.
As I already said, if it's being done with the intention of forcing the person to resign, and for those legitimate reasons, it *is* constructive dismissal.
Which the circumstances and evidence surrounding this case make quite clear applies here.
> It's just like being a contractor, really: you've given them the right to end your employment at will.
No, you haven't given them that "right" at all. It's not like being a contractor; if it were, and *that* was what you agreed to, you'd have had a contract noting those conditions *explicitly* in the first place (and you'd most likely be deemed a contractor rather than employee).
Rather than having the employer exploiting terms intended to provide flexibility in location/hours/etc to do so by the back door.
They might get away with that in the US- since the country is run and controlled by those who stand to benefit from such nonsense- but there's a good reason they probably wouldn't in the UK (at least, not yet).
You are inventing a story that doesn't exist. Your scenarios are wildly speculative, and in fact wrong - you're basically arguing that because the cow enjoys the "benefits" of being on the cow farm, it shouldn't complain about the consequences.
I met a bloke whilst waiting for a delayed flight in the USA who commuted weekly by plane. His large company had offered him a new job in in a different state across the country, if he wished to remain with them. He said he suspected that it was a way of getting him to quit without needing to pay severance. They were apparently very surprised when he said yes on the spot. His suspicions were confirmed a few days later when he was told that he would still need to do one day a week in his current office. He still said yes because company policy meant they would pay for his flights and accommodation. He did 4 days a week on the West Coast, one on the East Coast and the weekend with his family. Said he was building up the frequent flyer miles and well on his way to lifetime vip status with the airline. As soon as he had that status he was going to switch jobs.
A company I worked for made most of the people redundant in my department after a the firm merged with another. They didn’t want to get rid of me and my skills they said and I was moved to another department. That lasted a year, the company was bought and I was out. A mate said his company tried downsizing by removing a layer of management. They said they didn’t want to lose those affected but people believed this was a sham. They were only advertising jobs during this period lower paid non management jobs which in effect meant staying on was a demotion. They screwed up though as most of these people took the demotions which didn’t give them the wanted and expected headcount drop.
This sort of thing is no doubt going to keep happening unless and until the IBM shareholders send some Board members packing and install some people who will do more than show up for a couple meetings, eat some donuts, and collect a paycheck. Get some people in who will actually exercise a bit of oversight and root out all the managers responsible for this behavior and the lawsuits will stop.
Why this is exactly in shareholders interest.
IBM is transitioning to support of legacy installations and government jobs where they are the only approved supplier.
Eventually they will just be a patent troll.
To do this they need a few cheap salespersons in the customer country and a bunch of report generators in a cheap country.
The board achieving this at the cost of a few small fines rather than $$$ in redundancy is money in the shareholders pockets.
The mainframe is dead, as business move to the Cloud.
Their Professional Services are irrelevant.
Watson is a product looking for a problem that doesn't exist.
My advice is let the HR and Execs have their way - zero staff for infinite profit - then watch the whole shitshow burn itself down to ash.
The downside is the Exec bastards who caused this will simply move on and burn somewhere else down for self profit.
I was given a sales pitch on Watson at IBM's Hursley facility maybe 5-10 years ago. The idea was that Watson had been given a guidebook about the property, and you could ask it questions; such as 'how old is the building?', or 'who built the property?'
Considering this was a sales pitch and it didn't manage to do that; who exactly was that supposed to appeal to?
On the same sales pitch they even tried selling me a method that I already had running in my own systems. , and within my own control! Why on earth would I choose move it there...?
Bad products lead to bad sales and eventually layoffs. It's miserable, there are good and capable people in the organisation. But it's hampered by leadership that have forgotten what they are there for.
It appears that IBM is no longer a cohesive company, but instead has become some sort of strange "Used IT" marketplace. For the life of me I have looked for something to point to that says "This is what IBM does", but nothing jumps out.
I expect that the future of IBM is to milk the mainframe + software renewal market for as long as it can while chasing the whatever the current fad is (AI, blockchain, quantum computing, etc) in an effort to look like they remain relevant. Along the way various pieces of the company will be sold off to make the quarterly numbers. Unlike the true IBM'ers that lived and breathed Big Blue with the expectation of being there for a 40+ year career, most of the current leadership were brought in from elsewhere. They are at IBM not to build or in this case restore a once great company, but to supervise it's demise.
The mainframe areas are one of the few defining characteristics of "IBM-ness". Much of the rest of it is generic IT consultancy; not really anything to stand out about them. It is definitely hit-or-miss who and what you get from those areas.
I've had good experiences with some business units, and dreadful ones with others.
What many of us at Watson Health did as a group was to organize outside of IBM communications. That allowed us to share information about our situations without concern over backlash. We shared our ages, documentation, emails, what mangers were saying, what HR reps were saying. Some employees were even recording calls. In some US states it is a felony to record calls without the consent of others involved in the discussion (two-party-consent), but in one-party-consent states it is fair game. I am in a one-party-consent state, so when HR reps and mangers want to take discussions off line, so there is no record that can provide proof of the discussion or be subpoenaed in the future, bring it. You have to take the fight to them internally. Do not be intimidated by them. They leverage fear and hope. The fear of losing your job and the hope of finding a new job. I was publicly open over my concerns of age discrimination. You can imagine that didn't' go over very well, but I was not doing anything wrong, and was operating within the law. They let their guards down during live discussions and recordings provide proof of a lot.
Having had a few people I’ve worked with accept the relocation gambit, I can’t report any were kept very long.
This is another tactic to buy time.
Most importantly when dealing with a sales organization is the first rule: never sign anything they want you to sign without getting a very good labor lawyer looking it over. Second is never let them pressure you in any way.
They want you to sign away your rights. Screw them.
Yep, my manager called me on my final day to say "You have to sign the separation agreement by the end of the day, you know that is $25,000" Yes, I know how to divide by 4.....no thanks, I'm not signing off saying there is no age discrimination here. I looked at the numbers myself. The numbers being reported in the article. Placement rates for the 40+ were dismal. One 40+ year old employee, who had reported to his manager he was thinking about retiring and didn't apply for any jobs, did get a call and get placed, without any effort. IBM's thinking was probably he will retire soon, lets try to make it look like we do place 40+ yo employees. Not even close to enough to change the data. By all academic grading standards, the percent of 40+ year olds to find internal jobs was "a failure" as the article states.
Not certain on details on employment severance but if there is illegal practices going on with IBM's 'relocations', bad news for IBM. Signing a piece of paper saying you won't sue them for dismissing you while doing it illegally isn't cover for them. A NDA/Non-Competition/Severance signed under bad-faith to hide illegal activity isn't worth the paper it is on in the US court; no judge is going to say IBM was illegally dismissing employees but also you lose your severance. However, if you go to court you better go for the kill.
Now, for individuals it's all very sad and depressing to get laid off, but I'm starting to shrug my shoulders when it comes to this sort of thing, especially when it is in the USA. If you as a population believe big business has the best interests of workers at heart, then you deserve everything that's coming to you.
Unionize! Fight for better conditions NOW so that you get to benefit from those in the future.
I survived the transition to Merative but learned yesterday that Merative is following in IBM's footsteps and is cutting 150 people effective Feb 24th, so I'll be unemployed after 15 years. Before IBM, the company survived several rounds of ownership changes and was widely recognized as one of the leaders (if not THE leader) in healthcare analytics. IBM said Watson Health was never profitable - what did they expect? They brought all their acquistions in and increased salaries to match IBM standards but the existing contracts which went on for multiple years had no corresponding increase in revenue...so contracts that were formerly profitable became unprofitable, leading to cuts in staffing resources that led to failure to provide value to the clients. It doesn't take an economist or MBA to figure that out, but here we are. Now Merative is doing the same thing and will likely kill what's left of the old Medstat/Truven business unless someone gets a major wake-up call...if it's not too late.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
