IBM today announced it needs to fund the IBM pension $3 billion by years end!
What happened to all that surpuse IBM pension money?

IBM to fund pension plan shortfall
Address:
http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B267FDE4F%2D8EE3%2D412E%2D843D%\
2D8DB5F9EF53C2%7D&siteid=mktw

IBM today announced it needs to fund the IBM pension $3 billion by years end!
What happened to all that surpuse IBM pension money?

IBM to fund pension plan shortfall
Address:
http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B267FDE4F%2D8EE3%2D412E%2D843D%\
2D8DB5F9EF53C2%7D&siteid=mktw

Now THIS is progress!

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration will repeal a Clinton-era rule
that allows states to use unemployment insurance money to help new
parents who take a leave from work, officials said yesterday.

The executive action will effectively shut down legislative efforts
in as many as 16 states to make unemployment compensation money
available to working parents who have taken time off to care for a
newborn or adopted child.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/98391_leave04.shtml

What does taking time off for family leave have to do with
unemployment compensation? Unemployment compensation is intended to
provide a means of support for those who have lost their jobs thru
layoffs, not thru voluntary leave.

--- In ibmunion@y..., mrs_adm <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Now THIS is progress!
>
> WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration will repeal a Clinton-era rule
> that allows states to use unemployment insurance money to help new
> parents who take a leave from work, officials said yesterday.
>
> The executive action will effectively shut down legislative efforts
> in as many as 16 states to make unemployment compensation money
> available to working parents who have taken time off to care for a
> newborn or adopted child.
>
> http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/98391_leave04.shtml

I am so glad to see IBM chose contribute rather than close the plan.
As I predicted in my memorial Day TV interview on RNN television, IBM
took a charge to earnings for firing people and  they have to
contribute to the pension fund... I also said  " or close it". Given
this economy, and Joyces Hedgy statements, Bmears better brace
themselves for something very creative being announced by years end -
like a co- contrubutary Pension fund - where the bmers will put in
their own money. It will happen - they have to change it because they
are not at all interested or serious about presrving any benefits for
employees or  retireee- they just got caught with their pants down
with the till rather enpty and hollow sounding. - Can't you just hear
the swish of that IBM treasury stock hitting the till - floating as
light as a feather - just brushing the side. Not the clank of real
hard cash money. I think the government ought to demand they fill it
with cash rather than that printed  stock paper. Yep that pension
bucket might look mighty full to overflowing with all those feathers
fluffing out. I'd rather have that pot of Gold.   I don't think we
have any idea how empty it really looks - lookng foprward to 2004 IRS
5500 form - out to be a good one. Just have to wait 2 years of so

IBM DISCRIMINATES "BIG TIME"
http://www.angelfire.com/theforce/ibmdiscriminates/

MOBILE WORKERS UNITE

Posted November 22, 2002 01:01 PM  Pacific Time


I'M AFRAID the old union guys got it right: The harder
you work, the more the bosses expect from you.

A study conducted in the 1960s discovered that when
factory workers were given the opportunity to be paid
by piece work -- the more they produced, the higher
the pay -- the idea backfired. No one, it seems,
produced any more than previously. When interviewed,
the workers said they feared that producing more would
set a new standard. As I said, the old guys got it
right. I'm afraid we nonunion clerical types aren't as
smart.

I went to the launch of Microsoft's Tablet PC in San
Francisco this month. Bob McDowell, Microsoft's vice
president of business productivity, who lives on an
island off Washington, was the event's emcee.

McDowell told the audience that thanks to Microsoft and
the high-tech industry, the dream of office automation
was coming true. What was that dream, according to
McDowell? Personal productivity.

Excuse me, but I thought the dream of office automation
was a shorter work week? You know, more time for the
family? But of course, no one has ever left the office
even five minutes early since the introduction of the PC.

McDowell, it seems, rarely goes into Redmond. But he
didn't tell us how many hours a week he works at home.
Wireless mobility only makes it worse. Because the
Tablet PC doesn't require a keyboard and has IEEE
802.11b built in, it will allow us to keep working
while we're on the way to lunch, at lunch, and on the
way back. Or on the ferry to Redmond.

Microsoft is not the only one that keeps us on a
treadmill. Cisco says in one of its latest voice-over
IP announcements that "time savings is a primary
benefit of IP communications."

To me, saving time means I get more time for my hobbies
(I'll never tell what they are), family, and friends.
Time savings to Cisco, Microsoft, and other companies
means more finished goods, so to speak. And if you
don't finish the goods during the 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
time slot, why, you can continue working in your car,
at the stoplight, and at home after dinner.

Words like productivity used to be reserved for the
likes of the old Soviet Union. Worker productivity and
five-year plans were all the rage. We won the Cold War
but somehow lost our way. Sure, I believe in an honest
day's work for an honest day's pay, but we are people,
not ants.

McDowell extols the use of technology because, he says,
"[I have] less and less time to do my work."

Not true. He has the same amount of time he's always
had. He is just required to do more work. And that's
the crux of the matter. Our corporate employers have
somehow convinced us that we have less time, not more
work. As I said, the old union guys got it right.

Happy Thanksgiving. Now, what's your take on office automation?

Ephraim Schwartz is editor at large at InfoWorld.
Contact him at ephraim_schwartz@....

THE LONGER you work, the bigger your pension. That's the retirement
math that workers use for sticking with one company.

But a White House policy wants to shred this promise to let
businesses save money on pension costs. It's a bad idea that should
be stopped.

A Treasury Department plan, released this week for a 90-day comment
period, would allow companies to dump conventional defined-benefit
plans that customarily pay more for longtime workers. As a
substitute, the Bush plans allows freer use of cash-balance plans,
which pay less for long-termers and a little bit more for newer
workers.

It sounds like a good bargain, especially in a job-hopping workforce.
Also, many companies, small and large, are dumping the old 30-years-
and-gold-watch pension structure for retirement packages that mix 401
(k) savings and other rewards.

But the Treasury plan isn't about new workforce habits. It's designed
to break pension promises to reward business. It's no accident that
the idea surfaces after sweeping GOP victories last month emboldened
the White House to push ahead.

Future retirees are more worried than ever about what lies ahead.
Stock market declines, higher drug costs and health-plan cutbacks are
a worrisome mix. The sunset years are anything but sunny these days.

Also, many workers are waking up to the fact that future pensions, in
many cases, are promised, not guaranteed. A company can't cut a
pension earned by a worker. But it may cancel increases, even if
these amounts were once dangled before a worker during a hiring
interview.

Washington should pause before bulling ahead with a bad plan. There
could be a reasonable compromise for a range of pension options.

Let younger workers opt out of defined-benefit plans that reward
older employees. But let these longtime workers stick with pension
benefits they counted on. It's only fair.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/12/12/ED212508.DTL

A disheartening story from Forbes for those of us that are trying to
make a living in the U.S.

http://www.forbes.com/2002/12/05/cz_qh_1205hp.html?
partner=yahoo&referrer=

Janet

The only way to fight these types of injustice is to boycott such
companies. Yesteray I got mailings from two companies, Tyco (ADT
Alarm Systems) and GE Long Term Care Insurance. Both had prepaid mail
response cards. What I always do with these if I have a problem with
the company is to simply mail it back with a note on the response
card.

   "I don't do business with crooks like Dennis Kolwaski, hope your
companiy goes down in flames, F*bT Dennis and TYCO's BoD's".

   " I don't do business with Crooks like Jack Walsh, hope GE goes
down in flames, F*nck Jack Walsh and the GE's BoD's".

I just cost these companies the price of the prepaid mailer and
the "outsourced" vendor who opens the mail. I still control how I
spend my money.

ACTION !!
WRITE THE IRS/TREASURY AND TELL THEM NO TO CASH BALANCE PLANS.

Tell them you want a pension that will NOT decrease as you get older.
Tell them you want to receive your promised pension. Tell them you
want your pension protected, not reduced. Tell them there are 80
million baby boomers out there and that you vote. Tell them your
pension is the most important thing to you and your family's
retirement. Make 5 copies.

Mail the original to :
Internal Revenue Service
POB 7604
CC:ITA:RU (REG-209500-86) Room 5226
Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044

Using your copies, send each to your two Senators and your
Representative in Congress. Send the last one to your local paper as
a letter to the editor.

Lastly, pick up the URL for this post and send it to your friends and
relatives. Ask them to do the same.

(if you have questions about Cash Balance and want to understand
better how it works and the harm it will do to the aging employee,
please visit cashpensions.org)

The American dream of decent pensions and retirements, may come to an end!
Unless Americans start fighting back, decent pension plans will be gone.

Corporations will have the ablity to end traditional pension plans and covert to
cash balance plans, no matter how much promised pension money is stolen...

Read this important message and fight back!

Yahoo! Groups : ibmpension Messages : Message 47436 of 47436
Address:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ibmpension/message/47436

--- In ibmunion@yahoogroups.com, "Janet Krueger <Janet_Krueger@c...>"
<Janet_Krueger@c...> wrote:
> A disheartening story from Forbes for those of us that are trying to
> make a living in the U.S.
>
> http://www.forbes.com/2002/12/05/cz_qh_1205hp.html?
> partner=yahoo&referrer=
>
> Janet

I am getting sick of reading how Americans companys plan to screw Americans!
Time to boycott HP and others that support cons and scams that ruin Americans
lifes! No more HP or IBM products for me!

--- In ibmunion@yahoogroups.com, "Janet Krueger <Janet_Krueger@c...>"
<Janet_Krueger@c...> wrote:
> A disheartening story from Forbes for those of us that are trying to
> make a living in the U.S.
>
> http://www.forbes.com/2002/12/05/cz_qh_1205hp.html?
> partner=yahoo&referrer=
>
> Janet

I am getting sick of reading how Americans companys plan to screw Americans!
Time to boycott HP and others that support cons and scams that ruin Americans
lifes! No more HP or IBM products for me!

Flash animation:

http://www.workingforchange.com/action_center.cfm?
itemid=14227&CFID=4124225&CFTOKEN=93919103

Excerpt:

This is a controversy that every worker should pay attention to.
Pension benefits almost always depend heavily on the passage of time,
and decisions that workers make in their youth -- or that employers
make for them when they're in mid-career -- can have an enormous
impact on retirement income.

There may not be much that workers can do if their employer decides
to convert. The Treasury has deemed such shifts legal, if employers
follow the new rules. But some companies do listen to worker
protests, and they may sweeten the pot if there's an outcry. Plus,
understanding your benefits, or lack of them, will help in weighing
other firms' job offers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53481-2002Dec14.html

Excerpt:

It will still be very difficult for employees to figure out whether
their company's plan clears the bar. Some of the most important
elements of a pension conversion also pose the most vexing accounting
issues.

A good example is the "opening account balance" that a company may
assign to each older employee during the conversion, to credit him
for the traditional pension benefits he has built up under the old
plan. (Some plans, however, may not assign opening balances.) To
calculate the opening balance, companies transform a stream of future
monthly payments into a single lump-sum present value. Students of
finance know that all the future monthly payments cannot just be
totaled; they must be telescoped forward in time, using an interest
rate.

But which rate? The company, or its consultant, decides. And a
company eager to save money will want to choose a higher rate,
because doing so will make each employee's opening account balance
smaller. (In pension accounting, as in other financial transactions,
the higher the interest rate, the lower the present value.)

The proposed regulations offer considerable latitude in selecting an
interest rate. "For the purpose of determining your initial cash
balance, these regulations just say to use `a reasonable rate,' "
said Norman Stein, a pension expert and visiting professor at the
University of Maine Law School. "There's going to be a lot of
discussion of what's `reasonable,' I can guarantee you."

Mr. Stein noted that the Internal Revenue Code previously imposed a
stricter standard, requiring companies to use the 30-year Treasury
bond rate in calculations that compare lump sums with streams of
payments over time. Unless Treasury officials are persuaded in the
coming 90-day comment period to amend this aspect of the regulations,
he said, "employees are going to have to be vigilant in looking at
their opening account balance and how it was determined."

Unless you are a bond trader or an actuary, you probably cannot do
this on your own. Employees who have already traveled this road say
it may be worth consulting an actuary or specialized accountant

"We've had employees who have had to purchase time from an actuary,
which is about $500 an hour," said Kathi Cooper, 52, an I.B.M.
accountant and the lead plaintiff in a pending suit against that
company's pension conversion. She calculated that I.B.M.'s pension
changes would cost her $400,000.

From:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/15/business/yourmoney/15PENS.html?
ex=1040533200&en=36485c589201a89e&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
With a picture of Kathi Cooper, lead plaintiff in the pension lawsuit
against IBM.

Excerpt:

For many years, Harold Morch, a manager at North Shore University
hospital in Manhasset, nursed a dream of retiring at age 62 to a
quiet farm in northern Pennsylvania. But in 1999, the hospital and
most others in the North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System
shifted from a traditional pension plan to a controversial new type
of plan that tends to reduce the monthly benefits that older workers
had expected.

Now Morch is 62, and still working. He says he can't afford to leave
because the new "cash balance" plan would provide him with nearly 29
percent less than the traditional pension plan, or $947.26 a month
compared with $1,330.89 under the old plan. If he waits until 65 to
retire, Morch, who began working at the hospital in 1977, will
receive nearly 14 percent less than he would have under the earlier
plan at the same age, according to documents Morch says he obtained
from North Shore's benefits office.

What can you do to protect your promised retirement nest egg if your
employer is thinking of converting your traditional pension to a cash
balance plan, and you are one of the older workers who stands to lose
money? Morch has turned to the courts. He and some co-workers have
seen a lawyer, and plan to file a class-action suit charging North
Shore with age discrimination.

http://www.newsday.com/business/printedition/ny-
bzpens3045420dec15,0,5977773.story?coll=ny-business-print

Proposed pension rules raise red flags: Older workers could see major
loss of benefits

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/134595924_ret
iremain15.html

  Sunday, December 15, 2002 - 12:00 a.m. Pacific

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Weekly interest and loan rates |  Consumer affairs  |  Northwest
stock contest

PR Newswire |  The Microsoft Trial  |  Home values  |  More special
projects




Proposed pension rules raise red flags: Older workers could see major
loss of benefits

By Susan Harrigan
Newsday

   E-mail this article

  Print this article

  Search web archive


Related stories

Q & A: Cash-balance plans promise set benefit





The Bush administration proposed rules last week that would make it
easier for companies to offer a pension plan attacked by labor
advocates and in class-action suits as unfair to older employees.

Spokesmen for employers said that cash-balance plans are better
suited to a more mobile work force while preserving the old system in
which employers instead of employees pay for retirement. The
traditional plans have been disappearing because they are too costly,
but cash-balance plans can save a company hundreds of thousands of
dollars a year.

Filing comments


Submit comments on the cash-balance rules by March 13 to the IRS's
Internet site at
www.irs.gov/regs, or by sending them to CC:ITA:RU (REG-209500-86),
Room 5226, Internal Revenue Service, POB 7604, Ben Franklin Station,
Washington, DC 20044



"These are very good, legitimate plans," said James Klein, president
of the American Benefits Council, a lobbying group for Fortune 500
companies. He said that the alternative to cash-balance plans
is "getting rid of (traditional pension) plans altogether," and
companies that have already adopted them "should be saluted, not
criticized."

But labor advocates said the proposed rules would help corporations
save money at the expense of workers in their 40s, 50s and 60s, who
can lose up to 50 percent of their expected benefits when traditional
plans are converted.

The proposed regulations issued for comment by the Treasury
Department Tuesday "give a green light to a tremendously unfair
practice that robs older employees of benefits they had counted on
getting," said Karen Ferguson of the Pension Rights Center, a worker-
advocacy group in Washington, D.C.

The new rules, which will be out for comment for 90 days before
becoming final, are expected to end a moratorium begun three years
ago on Internal Revenue Service approval of cash-balance plans. The
proposed rules say that if employers contribute the same percentage
of pay to the new plans for older workers as they do for younger
workers, they will not be considered discriminatory.

The new rules come after more than 800 discrimination complaints and
several class-action suits by older workers against some of the
nation's biggest firms, including AT&T.

Cash-balance plans were first approved by the IRS in 1985, and
hundreds of companies converted before the IRS moratorium was
imposed. They are cheaper to administer than traditional plans:
Recently, Delta Air Lines said it would save $500 million over five
years by switching.

In traditional pension plans, a very large share of a person's
benefit is earned in the final years before retirement. Older workers
complain they lose out on those lucrative years when a company
converts to a cash-balance plan, which doesn't make up for the
difference.

By contrast, workers build equity in cash-balance plans earlier than
they would in traditional plans. The totals at the end of a career
are far less than the old plan, but fewer people actually spend their
entire career at one company. Thus the new plans are thought to be
attractive to younger people.

But even some younger workers are finding the new deal unpalatable.
Jeffrey Zitz is 38-year-old senior engineer at IBM's East Fishkill,
N.Y., facility who specializes in computer modeling. So when IBM
announced plans in 1999 to convert to a cash-balance plan — and said
the average employee would lose 20 percent of their pension benefit —
Zitz made his own computer model. "I was sure they were taking money
off the table, but I didn't know how much," he says.

To Zitz's horror, he learned his loss would be closer to 65 percent.
Using IBM's own numbers, he figured his monthly pension at age 65
would drop from $14,465 to just $4,542, and more recent changes have
driven the figure even lower.

IBM has since allowed workers as young as 40 to stick with the old
plan, but that doesn't help Zitz. "Honestly, there's not much I can
do about getting that money back," says Zitz, who says he would have
to sock away $20,000 a year in after-tax income to make up the
shortfall.

Zitz says he's more skeptical about pension promises. "None of this
is guaranteed," he says.

Lynda French, a former IBM employee who runs Cashbenefits.com, an
advocacy Web site for employees affected by the switch, said she
retired at age 55 two years ago, before IBM relented and lowered the
age limit, because she would have lost "about half" of her nest egg.
Such conversions are "taking away money that people already earned,"
French said. "You can't go back and replan your financial status."

"It's unfair to say to people who have been at a firm a long time,
and have made their retirement plans based on what they will
accumulate under the existing plan, 'We're taking away the old
plan,' " said Alicia Munnell, director of the Center for Retirement
Research at Boston College. "That doesn't mean that cash-balance
plans per se our bad — they just have to be introduced in a way that
will treat older workers fairly."

We the undersigned feel that the pension reform announced in December
2002  is a terrible affront to the working people of America. We feel
that Ari Flieshers comment that when individuals can lose hundreds of
thousands of dollars and this is a `not valid' complaint is
an outright and despicable lie to help wealthy financial contributors
  of his party like Ken Lay of Enron and Lou Gerstner of IBM perpetrate
further bankruptcies of hundreds of thousands or millions of
working Americans.  A billion dollar investor "CALPERS" called IBM's
cash balance plan "morally reprehensible". A US Senator referred to
cash balance conversions as a "dark practice", yet this recent
legislation seeks to make this morally reprehensible dark practice
legal. This is simply outrageous. Corporation lobbyist who pushed for
this legislation admit that billions will be saved. This is a clearly
also a blatant  lie, billions will instead be stolen from millions of
American's pensions  and funneled to the likes of Enron and similar
ilk at IBM and corporations run by those like them. This legislation,
though obviously heavily back by multi million  and billion dollar
corporations who do the bidding of their rich corporate Enron-like
executives will send millions of formerly self supporting Americans
into a retired lifetime of government welfare and poverty.
  We need pension protection, not pension theft legislation.
    There are numerous lawsuits over this issue that judges have seen
the merits of and have allow the continued development of. This new
pension theft legislation is simply an attempt by the guilty to keep
stolen money via high priced lobbying. No person that is anything
short of a traitor to American ideals of justice could allow this
outrage to pass into law. The statistics are clear. Those who retire
in poverty live shorter lives than those who are self sufficient. To
assent to the legalizing cash balance pension conversions is to assent
to shortening the lives millions of Americans. Corporations can not be
trusted to do the right thing as has been made obvious by
Enron, World Com, IBM and so many other greedy self serving companies.
Our government must represent the people and not wealthy corporate
lobbyist. End this disgusting legalization of  corporate thievery, do
not allow cash balance pension conversions to be legalized.

(feel free to post on other boards...)

There are two problems with your letter.  The issue is NOT
about pension reform or legislation; it's about the
Treasury Dept.'s proposed regulations regarding
conversions of traditional defined benefit plans to
cash balance plans.  The proposed regulations would legalize
"wear-away" in plan conversions which would be detrimental
to older, long-term employees.

If you write a letter of protest, make sure that you
understand the issue.  Otherwise you will give credence
to the corporate lobbyists' claims that workers oppose cash
balance plans because they don't understand them.



--- In ibmunion@yahoogroups.com, democratizeibm <no_reply@y...>
wrote:
>  We the undersigned feel that the pension reform announced in
December
> 2002  is a terrible affront to the working people of America. We
feel
> that Ari Flieshers comment that when individuals can lose hundreds
of
> thousands of dollars and this is a `not valid' complaint is
> an outright and despicable lie to help wealthy financial
contributors
>  of his party like Ken Lay of Enron and Lou Gerstner of IBM
perpetrate
> further bankruptcies of hundreds of thousands or millions of
> working Americans.  A billion dollar investor "CALPERS" called
IBM's
> cash balance plan "morally reprehensible". A US Senator referred
to
> cash balance conversions as a "dark practice", yet this recent
> legislation seeks to make this morally reprehensible dark practice
> legal. This is simply outrageous. Corporation lobbyist who pushed
for
> this legislation admit that billions will be saved. This is a
clearly
> also a blatant  lie, billions will instead be stolen from millions
of
> American's pensions  and funneled to the likes of Enron and
similar
> ilk at IBM and corporations run by those like them. This
legislation,
> though obviously heavily back by multi million  and billion dollar
> corporations who do the bidding of their rich corporate Enron-like
> executives will send millions of formerly self supporting
Americans
> into a retired lifetime of government welfare and poverty.
>  We need pension protection, not pension theft legislation.
>    There are numerous lawsuits over this issue that judges have
seen
> the merits of and have allow the continued development of. This
new
> pension theft legislation is simply an attempt by the guilty to
keep
> stolen money via high priced lobbying. No person that is anything
> short of a traitor to American ideals of justice could allow this
> outrage to pass into law. The statistics are clear. Those who
retire
> in poverty live shorter lives than those who are self sufficient.
To
> assent to the legalizing cash balance pension conversions is to
assent
> to shortening the lives millions of Americans. Corporations can
not be
> trusted to do the right thing as has been made obvious by
> Enron, World Com, IBM and so many other greedy self serving
companies.
> Our government must represent the people and not wealthy corporate
> lobbyist. End this disgusting legalization of  corporate thievery,
do
> not allow cash balance pension conversions to be legalized.
>
> (feel free to post on other boards...)

IBM-IGS is beginning to give out appraisals to all employees.  My
entire group of 22 folks have received their appraisals, and we have
all been rated 3-s.  Word from the grapevine is that an edict has
come down from upper/upper management stating that employee ratings
must be lowered this year to save on next years raises and variable
pay bonuses.  At this point, I would have so much more respect for
IBM if they just came clean and told the employees the company isn't
doing well, and bonuses/raises are going to be next to nil this
upcoming year.  This cr*p about lowering appraisals and putting the
onus back on the workers to make them feel they aren't working hard
enough is just one more low blow from IBM.

--- In ibmunion@yahoogroups.com, "sandy12533 <bhelper@a...>"
<bhelper@a...> wrote:
> IBM-IGS is beginning to give out appraisals to all employees.  My
> entire group of 22 folks have received their appraisals, and we
have
> all been rated 3-s.  Word from the grapevine is that an edict has
> come down from upper/upper management stating that employee
ratings
> must be lowered this year to save on next years raises and
variable
> pay bonuses.  At this point, I would have so much more respect for
> IBM if they just came clean and told the employees the company
isn't
> doing well, and bonuses/raises are going to be next to nil this
> upcoming year.  This cr*p about lowering appraisals and putting
the
> onus back on the workers to make them feel they aren't working
hard
> enough is just one more low blow from IBM.

Word I have is that the execs were jerking the numbers around until
the last minute and they just got set.  1-s last year were between
10 and 15%.  This year, I was told there weren't any to be had.

I've also heard of 1's last year that got no raise.

Let the beatings continue until the morale improves!

Just when you think is safe to back in the water............
Got a letter from Raleigh yesterday, sent presorted first class mail
with no post marking and the intro letter has no date on it.

The intro:

"The attached 2001 Summary Annual Report summaries annual financial
reports that IBM is required to file each year  with the U.S.
Department of Labor. These reports reflect financial activity in the
prior year -- 2001 in this case -- relating to certain
company-sponsored benefit plans. They do not reflect current status.

If you have any questions regarding this report, please call the plan
administrator at the IBM Employee Services Center in Raleigh, North
Carolina at 919-301-6685. (TTY 1-800-426-6537).

Sincerely,
Kenneth J. Morrissey
Offic of the Plan Administrator"

Now, I remember having to go through HELL to get info back in 1999,
2000 and 2001 about the "plan"........now all of a sudden we "have
the
right" to obtain copies????????????  I smell BIG RATS!

Dubya has really stuck this one where the sun ain't gonna shine no
more!

Excellent points: pass number two, comments please...
We the undersigned feel that the proposed regulation announced in
December 2002  is a terrible affront to the working people of America.
We feel that any  regulation that would legalize
`wear away' and allow companies like IBM to avoid the due process of
law is an outrage and outright  political cave in to wealthy corporate
lobbyist who care about short term profits for executives ahead of
what is best for American workers and America itself.  If this is
allowed companies like  IBM will perpetrate further bankruptcies of
hundreds of thousands or even millions of working Americans after
their retirement.  A billion dollar investor, "CALPERS" was quoted
nation wide referring to  IBM's cash balance conversion fiasco as
"morally reprehensible". A US Senator referred to cash balance
conversions as a "dark practice", and dozens of congressmen and
senators signed a letter to halt this process yet this recent
legislation seeks to make this morally reprehensible  practice legal.
This is simply outrageous! Corporation lobbyist who pushed for this
legislation admit that billions will be saved. This is a clearly  a
blatant  lie, billions will instead be stolen from millions of
American's pensions  and funneled to the likes of those running Enron,
IBM and corporations run by those like them. This legislation, though
obviously heavily back by multi million  and billion dollar
corporations who do the bidding of their rich corporate Enron-like
executives, will send millions of formerly self supporting Americans
into a retired lifetime of government welfare and poverty.  We need
pension protection, not pension theft legislation.

    There are numerous lawsuits over this issue that judges have seen
the merits of and have allow the continued development of. This new
pension theft legislation is simply an attempt by the
guilty to keep stolen money via high priced lobbying. No person that
is anything short of a traitor to American ideals of justice could
allow this outrage to pass into law. The statistics
are clear. Those who retire in poverty live shorter lives than those
who are self sufficient. To assent to the legalizing cash balance
pension conversions is to assent to shortening the lives millions of
Americans. Corporations can not be trusted to do the right thing as
has been made obvious by Enron, World Com, IBM and so many other
greedy self serving companies. Our government must
represent the people and not wealthy corporate lobbyist. End this
disgusting legalization of corporate thievery against older workers!
Do not allow cash balance pension conversions to be legalized as it
has been well demonstrated, executives profit, investors lose,
workers lose, and America loses. If any conversion of older plans is
done, every worker should get a choice!  Don't sell out
America's workers and don't sell out America!


--- In ibmunion@yahoogroups.com, "ibm_slave <ibmslave@n...>"
<ibmslave@n...> wrote:
> There are two problems with your letter.  The issue is NOT
> about pension reform or legislation; it's about the
> Treasury Dept.'s proposed regulations regarding
> conversions of traditional defined benefit plans to
> cash balance plans.  The proposed regulations would legalize
> "wear-away" in plan conversions which would be detrimental
> to older, long-term employees.
>
> If you write a letter of protest, make sure that you
> understand the issue.  Otherwise you will give credence
> to the corporate lobbyists' claims that workers oppose cash
> balance plans because they don't understand them.
>
>
>
> --- In ibmunion@yahoogroups.com, democratizeibm <no_reply@y...>
> wrote:
> >  We the undersigned feel that the pension reform announced in
> December
> > 2002  is a terrible affront to the working people of America. We
> feel
> > that Ari Flieshers comment that when individuals can lose hundreds
> of
> > thousands of dollars and this is a `not valid' complaint is
> > an outright and despicable lie to help wealthy financial
> contributors
> >  of his party like Ken Lay of Enron and Lou Gerstner of IBM
> perpetrate
> > further bankruptcies of hundreds of thousands or millions of
> > working Americans.  A billion dollar investor "CALPERS" called
> IBM's
> > cash balance plan "morally reprehensible". A US Senator referred
> to
> > cash balance conversions as a "dark practice", yet this recent
> > legislation seeks to make this morally reprehensible dark practice
> > legal. This is simply outrageous. Corporation lobbyist who pushed
> for
> > this legislation admit that billions will be saved. This is a
> clearly
> > also a blatant  lie, billions will instead be stolen from millions
> of
> > American's pensions  and funneled to the likes of Enron and
> similar
> > ilk at IBM and corporations run by those like them. This
> legislation,
> > though obviously heavily back by multi million  and billion dollar
> > corporations who do the bidding of their rich corporate Enron-like
> > executives will send millions of formerly self supporting
> Americans
> > into a retired lifetime of government welfare and poverty.
> >  We need pension protection, not pension theft legislation.
> >    There are numerous lawsuits over this issue that judges have
> seen
> > the merits of and have allow the continued development of. This
> new
> > pension theft legislation is simply an attempt by the guilty to
> keep
> > stolen money via high priced lobbying. No person that is anything
> > short of a traitor to American ideals of justice could allow this
> > outrage to pass into law. The statistics are clear. Those who
> retire
> > in poverty live shorter lives than those who are self sufficient.
> To
> > assent to the legalizing cash balance pension conversions is to
> assent
> > to shortening the lives millions of Americans. Corporations can
> not be
> > trusted to do the right thing as has been made obvious by
> > Enron, World Com, IBM and so many other greedy self serving
> companies.
> > Our government must represent the people and not wealthy corporate
> > lobbyist. End this disgusting legalization of  corporate thievery,
> do
> > not allow cash balance pension conversions to be legalized.
> >
> > (feel free to post on other boards...)

I agree.  I think the wrong battle is being fought, again.  There is
nothing wrong with a cash balance plan.  What's wrong is that the
conversion formulas are bad (ie:suck bigtime).  That's where the focus
needs to be.  In fact, I'd rather have the cash balance plan, IF the
conversion plan fairly converted it to be more equal to the defined
benefit plan.

--- In ibmunion@yahoogroups.com, "ibm_slave <ibmslave@n...>"
<ibmslave@n...> wrote:
> There are two problems with your letter.  The issue is NOT
> about pension reform or legislation; it's about the
> Treasury Dept.'s proposed regulations regarding
> conversions of traditional defined benefit plans to
> cash balance plans.  The proposed regulations would legalize
> "wear-away" in plan conversions which would be detrimental
> to older, long-term employees.
>
> If you write a letter of protest, make sure that you
> understand the issue.  Otherwise you will give credence
> to the corporate lobbyists' claims that workers oppose cash
> balance plans because they don't understand them.
>
>
>
> --- In ibmunion@yahoogroups.com, democratizeibm <no_reply@y...>
> wrote:
> >  We the undersigned feel that the pension reform announced in
> December
> > 2002  is a terrible affront to the working people of America. We
> feel
> > that Ari Flieshers comment that when individuals can lose hundreds
> of
> > thousands of dollars and this is a `not valid' complaint is
> > an outright and despicable lie to help wealthy financial
> contributors
> >  of his party like Ken Lay of Enron and Lou Gerstner of IBM
> perpetrate
> > further bankruptcies of hundreds of thousands or millions of
> > working Americans.  A billion dollar investor "CALPERS" called
> IBM's
> > cash balance plan "morally reprehensible". A US Senator referred
> to
> > cash balance conversions as a "dark practice", yet this recent
> > legislation seeks to make this morally reprehensible dark practice
> > legal. This is simply outrageous. Corporation lobbyist who pushed
> for
> > this legislation admit that billions will be saved. This is a
> clearly
> > also a blatant  lie, billions will instead be stolen from millions
> of
> > American's pensions  and funneled to the likes of Enron and
> similar
> > ilk at IBM and corporations run by those like them. This
> legislation,
> > though obviously heavily back by multi million  and billion dollar
> > corporations who do the bidding of their rich corporate Enron-like
> > executives will send millions of formerly self supporting
> Americans
> > into a retired lifetime of government welfare and poverty.
> >  We need pension protection, not pension theft legislation.
> >    There are numerous lawsuits over this issue that judges have
> seen
> > the merits of and have allow the continued development of. This
> new
> > pension theft legislation is simply an attempt by the guilty to
> keep
> > stolen money via high priced lobbying. No person that is anything
> > short of a traitor to American ideals of justice could allow this
> > outrage to pass into law. The statistics are clear. Those who
> retire
> > in poverty live shorter lives than those who are self sufficient.
> To
> > assent to the legalizing cash balance pension conversions is to
> assent
> > to shortening the lives millions of Americans. Corporations can
> not be
> > trusted to do the right thing as has been made obvious by
> > Enron, World Com, IBM and so many other greedy self serving
> companies.
> > Our government must represent the people and not wealthy corporate
> > lobbyist. End this disgusting legalization of  corporate thievery,
> do
> > not allow cash balance pension conversions to be legalized.
> >
> > (feel free to post on other boards...)

--- In ibmunion@yahoogroups.com, "ibmman2003 <ibmman2003@y...>"
<ibmman2003@y...> wrote:

> I agree.  I think the wrong battle is being fought, again.  There
is nothing wrong with a cash balance plan.  What's wrong is that the
conversion formulas are bad (ie:suck bigtime).  That's where the
focus needs to be.  In fact, I'd rather have the cash balance plan,
IF the conversion plan fairly converted it to be more equal to the
defined benefit plan.


And I don't agree.

Why do you want a pension plan that eliminates your early retirement
subsidies (earned and future).  Poof, gone, not part of the formula.

Why do you want a pension plan that eliminates COLA's?  Poof, gone,
none ever again, not part of the formula.

Why do you want a pension plan that is designed to reduce your total
benefit, as compared to any and all past IBM plans?

BTW, you need to know that you did receive a fair conversion. The
hundreds of thousands you lost is by plan design.  The conversion
didn't do that to you.

I'd like to know how you got the impression that the conversion
was 'the problem'.

A 'better' conversion would not correct what the plan is designed to
do to you.  It is designed to eliminate early retirement subsidies,
COLA's and places ONLY older workers in wearaway for a period of
years.  It is desined that way.  It is designed to strip you of these
things.  It wasn't the conversion.  These things are gone, forever.

Our cash calance plan IS a defined benefits plan. All of IBM's
pension plans ARE defined benefits plans and always have been defined
benefits plans so that ALL of them are judged by the exact same
pension rules.  You can't get any more equal than that.

Where did you get the idea that our Cash Balance plan is something
other than a defined benefits plan?

What is it that makes you think our conversions 'sucks, bigtime'?

> I'd rather have the cash balance plan,
> IF the conversion plan fairly converted it to be more equal to the
> defined benefit plan.
>

Cash balance plans *ARE* defined benefit, albeit illegally and
poorly defined.  Before claiming it is what you really want, THINK
about it some more...

-- A cash balance plan, because it is a defined benefit plan and not
a defined contribution plan, is not registered in your name.  It is
simply an amount defined by a formula that can be changed at the
company's whim at any time...  What happens if the company decides
next year, that it would rather only credit your account with 4% of
your salary each year instead of 5%? Under the proposed regulations,
that would be just fine -- you'd just get less for all your years of
service, and there wouldn't be a thing you could do about it.

-- A cash balance plan, because it is a defined benefit plan and not
a defined contribution plan, has no investment options. You are
stuck with whatever interest credits the company chooses to give
you, changed at the company's will. Anything extra that comes from
the investment goes back to the company, not to you.

-- A cash balance plan, because it is a defined benefit plan and not
a defined contribution plan, only requires the company to contribute
to it if it is underfunded... Because they can address underfunding
by either contributing or readjusting the calculation formula
downward, you'll tend to see more readjustments than contributions.

-- A cash balance plan, because it is a defined benefit plan and not
a defined contribution plan, doesn't have to vest any earlier than
other pensions -- in IBM's case, this means employees who leave
without a full 5 years of service still get nothing. If IBM really
wanted to better support a mobile workforce, with an HR policy that
says less than half the workforce should be moved on before hitting
that 5 year mark, wouldn't they fix the vesting numbers???

-- A cash balance plan, even though it is a defined benefit plan and
not a defined contribution plan, encourages people to leave with a
lump sum rather than an annuity. This increases the likelihood that
they will outlive their money, and completely eliminates any
possibilities of COLAs.

If you truly think cash balance plans are enticing, wouldn't you be
better off lobbying for defined conversions from defined benefit
plans to defined contribution plans???

Seems like you would have a much better option, if the following
deficiencies in defined contribution plans were addressed:
  - Add a minimum contribution level, so that everyone has something
being put a way.
  - Create some sort of federal insurance program to back it up.
(Another question that hasn't been adequately addressed with cash
balance plans is what amount is insured -- insurance now is based on
the age 65 annuity...)

Of course, you'd still have to work through the question of what
would constitute a 'fair' conversion -- something the proposed
treasury regulations failed at miserably...

Janet

P.S. One last question that really bugs me is this: If cash balance
plans are being legalized because the government thinks they would
motivate more companies to start pension plans, then why has EVERY
instance to date of a cash balance plan been a conversion and not a
new plan???

The conversions could be adjusted to more fairly calculate the
begining balance.  I'm a 2nd choicer and I selected the old plan.  Had
the conversion formula been a little more positive, I would have
selected the CB plan.  Had the conversion reached the point of
providing an annuity at the 30 year mark that was even close to the
old plan, it would have been a no brainer for me to have selected the
CB plan.

If we were to accrue our pension at an equal pace over our career, it
would eliminate the incentive to layoff employees before they reach
the end of their career when the majority of the accrual takes place.

As far as a CB plan being designed to eliminate COLA, perhaps you can
outline all of the COLA increases IBM retirees have seen recently
under the old plan.

--- In ibmunion@yahoogroups.com, justa_bean_counter <no_reply@y...>
wrote:
> --- In ibmunion@yahoogroups.com, "ibmman2003 <ibmman2003@y...>"
> <ibmman2003@y...> wrote:
>
> > I agree.  I think the wrong battle is being fought, again.  There
> is nothing wrong with a cash balance plan.  What's wrong is that the
> conversion formulas are bad (ie:suck bigtime).  That's where the
> focus needs to be.  In fact, I'd rather have the cash balance plan,
> IF the conversion plan fairly converted it to be more equal to the
> defined benefit plan.
>
>
> And I don't agree.
>
> Why do you want a pension plan that eliminates your early retirement
> subsidies (earned and future).  Poof, gone, not part of the formula.
>
> Why do you want a pension plan that eliminates COLA's?  Poof, gone,
> none ever again, not part of the formula.
>
> Why do you want a pension plan that is designed to reduce your total
> benefit, as compared to any and all past IBM plans?
>
> BTW, you need to know that you did receive a fair conversion. The
> hundreds of thousands you lost is by plan design.  The conversion
> didn't do that to you.
>
> I'd like to know how you got the impression that the conversion
> was 'the problem'.
>
> A 'better' conversion would not correct what the plan is designed to
> do to you.  It is designed to eliminate early retirement subsidies,
> COLA's and places ONLY older workers in wearaway for a period of
> years.  It is desined that way.  It is designed to strip you of
these
> things.  It wasn't the conversion.  These things are gone, forever.
>
> Our cash calance plan IS a defined benefits plan. All of IBM's
> pension plans ARE defined benefits plans and always have been
defined
> benefits plans so that ALL of them are judged by the exact same
> pension rules.  You can't get any more equal than that.
>
> Where did you get the idea that our Cash Balance plan is something
> other than a defined benefits plan?
>
> What is it that makes you think our conversions 'sucks, bigtime'?

"sandy12533" wrote:
> IBM-IGS is beginning to give out appraisals to all employees.  My
> entire group of 22 folks have received their appraisals, and we
have
> all been rated 3-s.  Word from the grapevine is that an edict has
> come down from upper/upper management stating that employee ratings
> must be lowered this year to save on next years raises and variable
> pay bonuses.  At this point, I would have so much more respect for
> IBM if they just came clean and told the employees the company
isn't
> doing well, and bonuses/raises are going to be next to nil this
> upcoming year.  This cr*p about lowering appraisals and putting the
> onus back on the workers to make them feel they aren't working hard
> enough is just one more low blow from IBM.

This may go a lot deeper than you think.  It may be precursor to
another layoff.

If a laid off employee challenges a termination, a "3" rating can be
used to help justify the termination on the basis of "substandard
performance".

Force them to document commitments that were missed if you are not
given a "2" rating.  You have a right to know what commitments you
missed so you can do better next time.  If they won't comply with
your request, document it in the comments section before you sign the
assessment.

I am not just making this up.  I have first hand knowledge on how
this works.  If you don't protect yourself now, it may be too late
when you are on the outside looking in.