Reference the following link - it describes a lawsuit against 16
chemical manufacturers and distributors.  The allegations allege that
his exposure to more than 40 toxins at the plant from 1957 to 1979
destined him to a battle with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, an often-fatal
form of cancer.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/home/article/0,1299,DRMN_1_11734
69,00.html

Note that IBM is not a party to the suit - I find that somewhat
curious, but I suppose this is because these are retirees and they
signed that agreement not to sue.

BTW, the IBM spokesman makes a statement that IBM has not
manufactured computer components at Rochester since 2000 - that was
when Celestica bought the card manufacturing line from IBM.  For the
record, there are numerous monitoring wells around the IBM-Rochester
campus which are used to monitor for hazardous chemicals leaching
into the ground water.  There is also a large, unused underground
storage facility (bunker) formerly used to store toxic materials.

There is also a landfill north of Rochester which has leached toxic
chemical wastes into the water table impacting wells near the
landfill.  I believe a news story some years ago reported that IBM
had contracted with a vendor to safely dispose of toxic waste,
however some of the barrels of that waste were found to not be
properly disposed.  I cannot remember if the disposal irregularities
occured at this same landfill.

Perhaps the toxic solvents access issue may someday rival the
asbestos issue.

I remember a poster that had serious cancer problems due to exposure
to such chemicals - I believe his handle was OXXBOY.  I posted this
for his benefit and others who may have been similarly effected.

This quote from the article is intriguing - "A worker can sue his
employer for worker's compensation benefits but can only sue for
broad damages if he proves the company intentionally harmed him. IBM
faces 54 suits on behalf of children with birth defects who do not
face such legal restraints, according to court documents."  The
implication here is that IBM is hiding behind the protection of
worker's comp laws, but non-employees (their children) aren't
inhibited by those worker's comp laws.

Another quote - "The workers were often told, 'These clean rooms are
safer than hospital operating rooms,' " Sieben said. "Well, they
weren't cleaner, because they were awash in chemical vapors and fumes.

"We're now a generation into this experience, and the clusters of
cancers and birth defects are just coming to the fore. There are
going to be, across this nation, probably thousands of kids born with
awful defects and even a greater number of adults with avoidable
cancers."

--- In ibmpension@y..., xblue94 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Bad news for employees in Texas. Let's hope the idea doesn't catch on
> in other states.
>
> www.austin360.com/aas/metro/053102/0531employ.html

================
   xblue, it depends (as the article pointed out) on the composition
and nature of the 'binding arbitration' contract.  In truth, it is a
contract, which spells out the rights and responsibilities of the
employer and the employee, in the arbitration process.  If it should
become popular, then employees should look to their individual
situations, in order to see whether the process is fair.

    IMO, IBM hasn't initiated arbitration, because it would lose under
such a plan.  At this time, it has enough finances and staying power,
that it can use the court processes to its advantage, while its
executives cash out their options.

    Most likely, one of the first items a union would negotiate would
be such a process.

    So, I wouldn't knock it, unless it has been proven to be bad.
We'll just have to see how the Brown and Root employee fares under the
arbitration agreement.

Mike.

Survivor, the Workman's Compensation Act replaced the right of an
employee to sue for employer negligence, with, in essence, an
insurance program.  In many states, the payments under that act are
adequate.  In many others, those payments don't begin to cover the
employee's actual losses.  So, when an employee (or retiree) goes for
compensation, his lawyer has to determine which is the better route.

    It appears that in this case, the comp payments are very low, and
the employee has chosen to go after the manufacturers of the
chemicals, under a theory that they knew, - or should have known,-
that, as applied, they were destructive to health .of employees and
their dependents.  If he wins, he collects both comp payments and
awards for negligence.

    The retiree agreement not to sue doesn't apply here, as it
specifically addresses the issue of age discrimination.

    Also, the cases where dependents are named plaintiffs are aimed at
damage awards outside workman's compensation suits.

Mike.
============================================

--- In ibmpension@y..., survivor_too <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Reference the following link - it describes a lawsuit against 16
> chemical manufacturers and distributors.  The allegations allege that
> his exposure to more than 40 toxins at the plant from 1957 to 1979
> destined him to a battle with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, an often-fatal
> form of cancer.
>
> http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/home/article/0,1299,DRMN_1_11734
> 69,00.html
>
> Note that IBM is not a party to the suit - I find that somewhat
> curious, but I suppose this is because these are retirees and they
> signed that agreement not to sue.
>
> BTW, the IBM spokesman makes a statement that IBM has not
> manufactured computer components at Rochester since 2000 - that was
> when Celestica bought the card manufacturing line from IBM.  For the
> record, there are numerous monitoring wells around the IBM-Rochester
> campus which are used to monitor for hazardous chemicals leaching
> into the ground water.  There is also a large, unused underground
> storage facility (bunker) formerly used to store toxic materials.
>
> There is also a landfill north of Rochester which has leached toxic
> chemical wastes into the water table impacting wells near the
> landfill.  I believe a news story some years ago reported that IBM
> had contracted with a vendor to safely dispose of toxic waste,
> however some of the barrels of that waste were found to not be
> properly disposed.  I cannot remember if the disposal irregularities
> occured at this same landfill.
>
> Perhaps the toxic solvents access issue may someday rival the
> asbestos issue.
>
> I remember a poster that had serious cancer problems due to exposure
> to such chemicals - I believe his handle was OXXBOY.  I posted this
> for his benefit and others who may have been similarly effected.
>
> This quote from the article is intriguing - "A worker can sue his
> employer for worker's compensation benefits but can only sue for
> broad damages if he proves the company intentionally harmed him. IBM
> faces 54 suits on behalf of children with birth defects who do not
> face such legal restraints, according to court documents."  The
> implication here is that IBM is hiding behind the protection of
> worker's comp laws, but non-employees (their children) aren't
> inhibited by those worker's comp laws.
>
> Another quote - "The workers were often told, 'These clean rooms are
> safer than hospital operating rooms,' " Sieben said. "Well, they
> weren't cleaner, because they were awash in chemical vapors and fumes.
>
> "We're now a generation into this experience, and the clusters of
> cancers and birth defects are just coming to the fore. There are
> going to be, across this nation, probably thousands of kids born with
> awful defects and even a greater number of adults with avoidable
> cancers."

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/business/1434855

Last Wednesday ITS US began notifiying employees they were part of a
resource action based on the following criteria: 1) work elimination
(employees performing work that has been eliminated) 2) Staff
reduction and restructuring: total assessment of an employee's
relevant skills and performance within a job group, with senority used
asa tie-breaker.

I counted 65 affected employees in the package I received, and have
not had a chance to run the numbers. I for one, have less than 2 years
to reach full retirement benefits. I have almost the same amount of
months before turning 55 and or hitting my 30 yr. mark.

I live in Texas, so does anyone know a good labor relations attorney?

My manager has been very abusive for over a year and is well known
for having employee pets. I did an open door when he lowered my
performance rating this year, and he was counciled on being
insensitive. That, however, did not prevent him from continuing his
behavior.

"igsitsgone" wrote:
> I for one, have less than 2 years
> to reach full retirement benefits. I have almost the same amount of
> months before turning 55 and or hitting my 30 yr. mark.
>
> I live in Texas, so does anyone know a good labor relations
attorney?
>

I am in the same boat.  Think there is a pattern there?

Please see my post 45609 for some suggestions.

I'm 52...will be 53 on July 5.  I have 24+ years with IBM.  Talk
about being a prime candidate for participating in the "workforce
reduction"!!  My questions is...can I begin receiving retirement $$'s
now or do I have to wait until I'm 55.  HR person told me I could,
but I've read the documentation they sent and the written words sound
like I have to wait until I'm 55.

I'm 52...will be 53 on July 5.  I have 24+ years with IBM.  Talk
about being a prime candidate for participating in the "workforce
reduction"!!  My questions is...can I begin receiving retirement $$'s
now or do I have to wait until I'm 55.  HR person told me I could,
but I've read the documentation they sent and the written words sound
like I have to wait until I'm 55.

--- In ibmpension@y..., tamu_fan <no_reply@y...> wrote:

> I'm 52...will be 53 on July 5.  I have 24+ years with IBM.  Talk
> about being a prime candidate for participating in the "workforce
> reduction"!!  My questions is...can I begin receiving retirement
$$'s
> now or do I have to wait until I'm 55.  HR person told me I could,
> but I've read the documentation they sent and the written words
sound
> like I have to wait until I'm 55.

Yes, you can take the immediate annuity if you desire.  Otherwise,
your choices are ages 55 or 65 to start the payments.  Did you ever
run MoneyWorks..?  It should calculate the amounts of the three
options.

Good luck.

>does anyone know a good labor relations attorney?

There is some advice on how to find an attorney on the Alliance web
site, go to http://www.allianceibm.org and click on the "Answers to
your questions" link.

I'm in the mood to rant and rave so here goes.  PEOPLE WAKE UP!  It
is perfectly legal for IBM to fire anyone, for any reason or no
reason at all.  This is called being an "at will" employee.  Unless
you have been discriminated against for certain legally protected
reasons (race, gender, etc. see http://www.eeoc.gov), you are toast.
Your situation may be completely unfair or unethical, but the law
doesn't cover those.

It is also legal for employers to replace you with a temporary worker
or contractor.

It is also legal for employers to move your job overseas, and require
you to train your replacement(s).  Yes, you can quit and not train
them, but the employer is not legally required to pay your severance.

There are NO LAWS to protect your medical benefits, either while
employed or retirement medical.  IBM can fire you the day before you
qualify for retirement and you can lose the entire FHA and that is
LEGAL!

I cannot believe how many people contact the Alliance and are shocked
that there aren't more laws to protect their jobs and benefits.  GET
REAL PEOPLE!

Even those folks with reservations about unions (and I know there are
pros and cons) better start thinking about it, because without
massive changes in the laws in this country, there is nothing legally
you can do to protect your job and benefits EXCEPT by having a union
contract.





--- In ibmpension@y..., "igsitsgone" <L_hale1@s...> wrote:
> Last Wednesday ITS US began notifiying employees they were part of
a
> resource action based on the following criteria: 1) work
elimination
> (employees performing work that has been eliminated) 2) Staff
> reduction and restructuring: total assessment of an employee's
> relevant skills and performance within a job group, with senority
used
> asa tie-breaker.
>
> I counted 65 affected employees in the package I received, and have
> not had a chance to run the numbers. I for one, have less than 2
years
> to reach full retirement benefits. I have almost the same amount of
> months before turning 55 and or hitting my 30 yr. mark.
>
> I live in Texas, so does anyone know a good labor relations
attorney?
>
> My manager has been very abusive for over a year and is well known
> for having employee pets. I did an open door when he lowered my
> performance rating this year, and he was counciled on being
> insensitive. That, however, did not prevent him from continuing his
> behavior.

--- In ibmpension@y..., tamu_fan <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> I'm 52...will be 53 on July 5.  I have 24+ years with IBM.  Talk
> about being a prime candidate for participating in the "workforce
> reduction"!!  My questions is...can I begin receiving retirement
$$'s
> now or do I have to wait until I'm 55.  HR person told me I could,
> but I've read the documentation they sent and the written words
sound
> like I have to wait until I'm 55.

If you are vested, you can begin collecting your retirement annuity
immediately.  Run Money@Work and you can compare the annuity that
would be paid out immediately to the larger annuity that would be paid
out at age 55. In most cases, the immediate annuity is a better deal
because it has a higher present value. That is, if you where to
purchase the annuity from an insurance company, the immediate annuity
would cost more than the annuity that is delayed until age 55.

I recommend that you run the numbers yourself.

>> I'm 52...will be 53 on July 5.  I have 24+ years with IBM.  Talk about being
a prime candidate for participating in the "workforce reduction"!!  My questions
is...can I begin receiving retirement $$'s now or do I have to wait until I'm
55.  HR person told me I could, but I've read the documentation they sent and
the written words sound like I have to wait until I'm 55.

Anyone who is vested in the 1995 pension plan can begin collecting an immediate
annuity when they leave IBM -- it may take several months for IBM to begin
payments, but the first payment will include enough months to make up for what
you missed.

Janet

Contractors just got the order to start distributing the personal
belongings boxes at the end of first shift today, 7:00pm.  There
were 5000 boxes ordered for the 1180 employees that will be notified.

"manwithtwokids" wrote:
>
>    Contractors just got the order to start distributing the
personal
> belongings boxes at the end of first shift today, 7:00pm.  There
> were 5000 boxes ordered for the 1180 employees that will be
notified.

Can you identify the site and division involved?

>> does anyone know a good labor relations attorney?

> I'm in the mood to rant and rave so here goes.  PEOPLE WAKE UP!  It is
perfectly legal for IBM to fire anyone, for any reason or no reason at all.
This is called being an "at will" employee.

As long as we're ranting, let me add my 2 cents...  Good labor attorneys are
expensive. While what IBM did in your individual case may have been illegal, it
takes thousands of hours to prepare and win a case against IBM -- unless your
circumstances are exceptional, most attorneys will not be able to justify that
investment for just one worker unless they charge up front, and few IBMers,
other than the executives, could possibly finance such a case themselves.

Collective action may sound like an icky alternative compared to just suing IBM
whenever something bad happens, but as far as I can tell, the only way good
attorneys become affordable is through collective action...  THINK about it!

Janet Krueger

P.S. No, I'm not working for the Alliance.  If they are so inclined, the IBMers
who are left will have to organize themselves -- it is not something outsiders
can do for them or to them.  I wish them luck!

It looks like there will be no pension reform until/unless we install a
different bunch in Congress, hopefully without so much big business money behind
them...  Isn't it sad that despite holding hundreds of hours of hearings after
the Enron fiasco, and introducing dozens of reform bills, *NOTHING* is being
done???

Janet Krueger

http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/col/20020602edann02p2.asp

The entire article is worth reading, but below are some choice excerpts:

WASHINGTON - If you're feeling mellow and don't want to get outraged, stop
reading. Now. This column is about how our retirement savings are disappearing
and how the federal government -- and Congress and the White House -- are doing
nothing about it.

After the collapse of Texas-based Enron when millions lost money on its stock
and thousands of its own employees lost their 401(k) savings, politicians raced
to open microphones to denounce the financial evildoers and vow action. Hearings
were held. Americans were promised: "Never again." Legislative reform, we were
assured, was just around the corner.

The corner has faded into the distant horizon...

It turns out that business doesn't really want to change its way of doing
business. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposes the reform bills. So does the
powerful behind-the-scenes Business Roundtable. So do many other business
organizations.

They use the same old shibboleths -- fear of more government bureaucracy, fear
of lost jobs, fear of new brakes on the economy. Of course, the Enron disaster
such legislation might have prevented was no boon to the economy -- or to
thousands of families wondering how they'll survive after 65...

On the other hand, those business groups still are able through the November
elections to give politicians campaign donations before the new campaign finance
rules kick in. And with control of the House and the Senate up for grabs, those
donations matter mightily...

We're like Charlie Brown and his gullibility when Lucy holds the football for
him to kick -- she always pulls it back at the last minute.

Will we be wondering when we're poor and aged 75 or 85 or 90 why business as
usual means that means many of us get, well, taken advantage of?

tamu_fan wrote:
> My questions is...can I begin receiving retirement $$'s
> now or do I have to wait until I'm 55.

First, I am assuming you are talking about the IBM Pension Plan.

I received my Vested Rights Package about 1 month after I was laid
off last year.  There are three annuity options, immediate, age 55,
and age 65.  I had to choose within 45 days either immediate or
deferred.  At age 55 I can choose to start the annuity or defer again
to age 65.

There is also a lump sum option of the Cash Balance value at the end
of 1999.  This can be rolled over into an IRA, if you wish.  You can
choose to take the lump sum value out in any one of four increments:
25%, 50%, 75%, or 100%.  The remaider, including the increased value
after the end of 1999, will be paid in an annuity.  The lump sum can
be taken out at anytime, not just the options for the annuity.  This
is a nice feature if you have an emergency need for cash, although it
probably would take them a couple of months to process and will have
a heave tax and penalty load.  It also may be beneficial if you find
out you have a terminal disease.

A "for fee" financial advisor maybe a good investment.  I would avoid
most commissioned advisors since they normally recommend the
immediate lump sum since that gives them the biggest commission.  In
most cases, the lump sum is not the best choice, but everyone's
situation is different.

Janet_Krueger wrote:
>
> Good labor attorneys are
> expensive. While what IBM did in your individual case may have been
illegal, it
> takes thousands of hours to prepare and win a case against IBM --
unless your
> circumstances are exceptional, most attorneys will not be able to
justify that
> investment for just one worker unless they charge up front, and few
IBMers,
> other than the executives, could possibly finance such a case
themselves.
>

That is certainly true.  There is one inexpensive option you have
pointed out that should not be overlooked.  That is, if you have been
discriminated against, file a charge with the EEOC.  You do not need
a lawyer and there is no fee to file a charge.  See www.eeoc.gov for
more information.

If they determine your case has merit, EEOC lawyers will take up the
case.  The process is slow and can take years.

IBM knows all of this.  They probably have decided to take a
calculated risk and push the envelope on layoffs.  They know most
laid off employees cannot afford to take them on.

--- In ibmpension@y..., i_be_mad_as_heck <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> "manwithtwokids" wrote:
> >
> >    Contractors just got the order to start distributing the
> personal
> > belongings boxes at the end of first shift today, 7:00pm.  There
> > were 5000 boxes ordered for the 1180 employees that will be
> notified.
>
> Can you identify the site and division involved?

This is the Microelectronics division, Burlington, VT

The cuts will also take place at other MD locations as well. All IBM
Micro managers in Endicott just left a meeting, and of course the
rumors are flying.  Where there is smoke there is usually fire.
-
-- In ibmpension@y..., "manwithtwokids" <manwithtwokids@y...> wrote:
> --- In ibmpension@y..., i_be_mad_as_heck <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > "manwithtwokids" wrote:
> > >
> > >    Contractors just got the order to start distributing the
> > personal
> > > belongings boxes at the end of first shift today, 7:00pm.  There
> > > were 5000 boxes ordered for the 1180 employees that will be
> > notified.
> >
> > Can you identify the site and division involved?
>
> This is the Microelectronics division, Burlington, VT

Wake you IBMers! Without "contracts "you have very little protections!

See the latest examples of how IBM is canning career employees! Guess what,
mentoring programmers from India and then canning YOU is legal! No USA law
protects you from this. The best protection the USA have to employees is a
contract. Join the Alliance @ IBM / CWA local 1701 and help win contracts!

Alliance@IBM/CWA IBM Layoff/Firings
Address:http://www.allianceibm.org/stories.htm


   Here at IBM Erondicott the IMD manufacturing areas got hit very hard in Nov.
Managers and line support engineering was just nicked in comparison. Meanwhile
packageing workload is going up fast!

  Management here even went as far as to suggest hiring back some laid/fired-off
operators from Nov to meet increasing production schedules. They were shot down
by upper management! The Erondicott plant manager, Chuck Ebel makes it no
secret, he wants those canned in the last firings, replaced with Manpower temps!

Workers from other areas and divisions at IBM have been filling in some areas
and working OT. But it is not enough. Rumor is IBM Enrondicott will begin hiring
Manpower temps this July. A good sign.

Join Alliance @ IBM online here. Contracts protect employees!
http://www.allianceibm.org

--- In ibmpension@y..., i_be_mad_as_heck <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> tamu_fan wrote:
> > My questions is...can I begin receiving retirement $$'s
> > now or do I have to wait until I'm 55.
>

If you have 15 years or more of service, you can choose to defer your
pension until age 55 or 65(62)?

If you have less than 15 years of service, you must start taking your
pension now.

--- In ibmpension@y..., bboru11 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> The cuts will also take place at other MD locations as well. All
IBM
> Micro managers in Endicott just left a meeting, and of course the
> rumors are flying.  Where there is smoke there is usually fire.
> -
> -- In ibmpension@y..., "manwithtwokids" <manwithtwokids@y...>
wrote:
> > --- In ibmpension@y..., i_be_mad_as_heck <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > > "manwithtwokids" wrote:
> > > >
> > > >    Contractors just got the order to start distributing the
> > > personal
> > > > belongings boxes at the end of first shift today, 7:00pm.
There
> > > > were 5000 boxes ordered for the 1180 employees that will be
> > > notified.
> > >
> > > Can you identify the site and division involved?
> >
> > This is the Microelectronics division, Burlington, VT

      Managers were notified/laid off today TODAY.

--- In ibmpension@y..., fhawontcutit <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/business/1434855

and here's the cartoon that goes along with the story.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/viewbydate.asp?id=646

over20ibmer

Hitachi Agrees to Pay $2.05 Billion
For IBM's Disk-Drive Operations

By WILLIAM M. BULKELEY
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Hitachi Ltd. agreed to pay $2.05 billion for the bulk of
International Business Machines Corp.'s hard-disk-drive business. The
Tokyo electronics company will buy the rest within three years.

The two companies had announced preliminary discussions of the plan
in April, but the final price is higher than analysts had expected.

Under the plan, the two companies will transfer their hard-disk-drive
operations to a new joint-venture 70% owned by Hitachi and 30% owned
by IBM, Armonk, N.Y. Hitachi will pay IBM because IBM's disk-drive
operations are much larger than Hitachi's.

The deal provides an exit for IBM from its money-losing disk-drive
business. IBM created the disk-drive business decades ago, but it has
been struggling recently in the highly competitive low-margin
business.

Merrill Lynch analyst Steven Milunovich estimates that IBM had losses
of $250 million in its hard-disk-drive business last year on sales of
$3.2 billion.

Disk drives are small metal platters used to store information in
computers.

After the deal is completed, expected by the end of the year, some
18,000 IBM employees and 6,000 Hitachi workers will be transferred to
the new company.

The new company will have its headquarters in San Jose, Calif. Jun
Naruse, a Hitachi executive, will be chief executive officer and
Douglas Grose, general manager of IBM's storage technology division
in San Jose, will be chief operating officer.

The agreement, subject to regulatory approvals, was announced after
trading in U.S. markets had closed.

In New York Stock Exchange composite trading Monday, IBM fell $2.34
to $78.11 in a tough day for technology stocks.

Hitachi said it estimates the combined company will have sales of $5
billion in 2003 and could grow to $7 billion by 2006.

Analyst said it is likely to rank second or third world-wide in
disk-drive sales, well behind closely held Seagate Technology LLC,
Scotts Valley, Calif.

Write to William M. Bulkeley at william.bulkeley@...

Updated June 4, 2002

> I had to choose within 45 days either immediate or deferred.
> At age 55 I can choose to start the annuity or defer
> again to age 65.

This isn't quite correct, but you're not to blame since most
people you talk to in HR will give you the WRONG answer.  It
took some careful reading of the text of the retirement plan
and many calls to HR to finally get the right answer, which
is as follows.

If you are less than 55 years old, you have to option to take
an immediate annuity.  If you wish to do this, you must decide
within a short time (45 days) of your termination from IBM.
If you decide NOT to take the immediate annuity, then you can
start at any time once you are 55.  Note that once you decide
to NOT take the immediate annuity, you can not change your mind
later on and start before age 55.

If you decide to defer your pension until age 55, you do not
have to decide now when you want it to start.  Once you are age
55, you can get in touch with IBM at any time and tell them
when to start.  You can call them up at anytime, ask them to
give you an estimate of what your annuity will be, then decide
whether you want to start taking it, or defer to a later time.
Note that once you decide to start the annuity, it may take a
couple of months for the checks to start coming.

If you decide to take the lump sum option under the old pension
plan, you will receive that now.  You will also be entitled to a
residual annuity, which you have the same immediate or deferred
options with. I.e. you can take the lump sum, and tell them you
want the residulal annuity to start now, or at age 55 or any
time after that.

Given all this, it should be noted once again that the immediate
annuity is the most valuable choice because of early retirement
subsidies, which make the equivalent lump sum higher than the
equivalent lumps sums for starting at an older age.

Despite soft economy, a call for foreign tech workers
from the Christian Science Monitor

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0603/p21s02-wmwo.html

IBM just pulled off a slick business move that takes 18,000 IBM employees of the
books in one stroke of the pen!

   18,000 IBMers now are working for Hitachi in joint HDD venture. Hitachi is the
majority owner. In 3 years Hitachi should be sole owner of the new company.

Yahoo - Hitachi and IBM Reach Definitive Agreement On Hard Disk Drive Operations
Address:
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/020603/32626_1.html

Warrier, IBM ALSO just sold off 6% of its gross revenue for $2+
billion.  Received over a period of 3 years, it's 38 cents each year
for three years, - and then, - - nothing.  The numbers look fishy.
See my numbers on the BulletinBoard.

Mike.
-------------------------------------------------------


--- In ibmpension@y..., ibm_warrior <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> IBM just pulled off a slick business move that takes 18,000 IBM
employees of the books in one stroke of the pen!
>
>   18,000 IBMers now are working for Hitachi in joint HDD venture.
Hitachi is the majority owner. In 3 years Hitachi should be sole owner
of the new company.
>
> Yahoo - Hitachi and IBM Reach Definitive Agreement On Hard Disk
Drive Operations
> Address:
> http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/020603/32626_1.html

Forwarded on behalf of someone who sent a post to the owner, instead of the
board...
======================================================
When IBM changed to the PPA in 1999 they offered us old fogies
who left the option to collect an (a)annuity or (b)lump sum + annuity.

After the 4 layoffs in the last 2 weeks in RTP, I decided to see
where I stood on the pension plan by running a money@work calculation
and discovered that there is a cap on the amount of the lump sum now.

Has anyone delved into the math on how this new(limited) lump sum is
calculated?  Does anyone know when this 'cap' was instituted?  Given
the pension plan history I suspect its probably not in our best
interest to take it(the lump sum, that is).

Thanks.
Bill