Posted by Barry Froggatt on 03 December 2000 at 22:06:15:

I've been sitting on the sidelines so far but I can't help wondering if this 'playing the gentleman' attitude that is being advocated is not doing our cause a disservice. Personally I feel very aggrieved that the Company who I trusted in the past to 'do the right thing' by me in return for many years of loyal service should now be causing us all this uncertainty. I cannot see that it would do any harm to our case to leak the situation to the media, the longer that things are kept under wraps the longer IBM have to prepare their case. In my opinion things stopped being gentlemanly as soon as IBM took actions on our pension fund without the agreement of the members.

Posted by e.m.ployee on 04 December 2000 at 22:29:48:

In Reply to: Who is playing the gentleman? posted by Barry Froggatt on 03 December 2000 at 22:06:15:

I could not agree more! It is naive and shows an out of date view of IBMto think that a 'gentlemanly' approach will work. Also agree with those who counsel that less material should be publicly visible to the company on this site.

Posted by Mike M. on 05 December 2000 at 13:10:50:

In Reply to: Re: Who is playing the gentleman? posted by e.m.ployee on 04 December 2000 at 22:29:48:

If things have changed as you say then I can well see that
extending decency and consideration to IBM will be a complete
waste of time. However I am puzzled as to how things could
have changed without some inkling of this getting out a long
time ago. A Company itself does not change on its own. It is
the people that change and for a company the size of IBM to
chnage then those ungentlemanly attitudes must have percolated
considerably down the chain of command.

Can you tell us how things have changed? I know that T's and C's
have changed but I'm thinking more about the principles that used
to govern IBM. Have these been lost? What's it like to be an
employee now?

Posted by Tally_ho_us on 06 December 2000 at 20:21:42:

In Reply to: Thank you posted by Mike M. on 05 December 2000 at 13:10:50:

Respect for the individual has been given away to a museum to be put on
display for historical reasons. Basically the company is run by
a committee of a few at the top and it rolls downward. The tone of
any company is set at the top. This company has changed BIG TIME in
respect to the employee. If you want to understand Lou's leanings
find information on RJR - he also did it there. People like Lou
do not change because they believe that what they do and how they
do it has made them successful. There is no listening to ideas
any more and Lou has gone back to the times when the messenger got
shot for delivering the message. He has done several 3 and 4th lines in
for going forward and tell him about problems. He believes this
is reengineering but it isn't. He really doesn't care about you or
basically the company that we have all work so hard for. He cares
about his wallet only. You will find this out over time and as you
get into this more. Just watch your back. We have several lawsuits
going through the courts. We are still fighting - like you - the
legal way. Bush and Lou I think are buds so we may have a harder
time in the long run. I hope not but we will see. Bush tends to
favor corporations not employees. IBM is fighting us tooth and nail
with lobbiest in Washington. Trust me you are in for a fight just
keep at it no matter what. It is wrong for American workers, wrong
for South African workers and wrong for UK workers. It is just
plain wrong and understand - this change did not effect his retirement
nor medical plan after retirement AT ALL (he has been here 7 years
working on his 8th. He came April 1st 1993 - what a wonderful day
- April fools IBMERS. Don't get me started.

Posted by Robin Bignall on 08 December 2000 at 19:53:34:

In Reply to: Thank you posted by Mike M. on 05 December 2000 at 13:10:50:

I think that the principles started going out of the window about 10 years ago. Very few, if any, of the people whom I knew who took various offers in the 1992/93 timeframe were actually given an option of staying until normal retirement age. I appeared to be one of the few who did want to stay, and I was devastated when, on returning after my 1992 Christmas vacation, my new first-liner whom I had never met before told me that my job had been eliminated. My second meeting with him three months later was a 'take the offer or else' ultimatum. My previous second-liner had been shunted into a none-job. He had been with IBM much longer than my 25 years. I got the impression in the meetings that 'prepared' us for civilian life that most people were glad to be leaving. I got upset because I had worked for a long time outside IBM UK, in a place where the principles still seemed to apply. How naive I was!

Posted by Darth Vader on 27 November 2000 at 09:57:31:

It occurs to me that all those who are contributing to this site are to "nice".Can I suggest to courses of action.1 Inform current IBM Greenock employees of this robbery that has taken place.2. Target a Trustee or Trustees who will be voted off the board next time around.3. Propose or own C Plan trustee, preferably someone with union tendancies.

Posted by A C Planner on 29 November 2000 at 23:05:01:

In Reply to: Get Mad posted by Darth Vader on 27 November 2000 at 09:57:31:

No, we must "get even", not "get mad". Who are the employee directors of the pension trust; they should be taking the pensioners (present and future) interests in mind and not be company stooges.

Posted by Brian Marks on 05 December 2000 at 16:14:06:

In Reply to: Re: Get Mad posted by A C Planner on 29 November 2000 at 23:05:01:

"Don't get mad, get even" can be poor advice when there is disparity
between the protaganists. It would be extreme to suggest to a
small country that considered itself subjugated by multinational
corporations that its government "get even". What should it do -
start a nuclear missile project? Nationalize without compensation?

On the pension front, Maxwell was case where there could be no
getting even - he was dead and his companies in chaos. But enough
people got mad to produce better pension laws.

So the better slogan might be "If you can't get even get angry".