In Reply to: Weekly highlights from the U.S. posted by www.ibmemployee.com on 05 August 2003 at 06:13:16:
.......... and isn't Randy Macdonald's letter to all employees a real corker! He is indignant that the judges ruling :
"is an affront to this company and every employee. IBM has a longstanding record of providing industry-leading benefits for employees and has continued to do so in the face of sweeping changes in this company, this industry and this country. "
Well, Macdonald. You lot promised me that in return for my efforts and my pension contribution I'd receive a pension that was amongst the best in the industry. You had my work. You had my contribution, and when you'd had it - you cheated me. You then added what you cheated me out of and redistributed to the directors and shareholders. I don't recall you ever telling the shareholders you were going to steal our funds and give it to them. So you're affronted are you?!
GG
FULL TEXT OF LETTER TO EMPLOYEES
Dear IBMer:
In late 1999, a lawsuit was filed which alleged that IBM violated age discrimination laws when it changed its U.S. pension plan in 1995 and 1999. IBM has been defending this lawsuit to preserve our pension plan. Despite our efforts, earlier this afternoon, the U.S. Federal District Court in Illinois ruled that IBM's current pension formulas violate the age discrimination provisions of federal pension law. We strongly disagree with this ruling. IBM will appeal, and we believe we will prevail.
Let me reassure you that IBM's pension plan does not discriminate on the basis of age -- or any other factor. Indeed, to suggest that our pension plan is age discriminatory is an affront to this company and every employee. IBM has a longstanding record of providing industry-leading benefits for employees and has continued to do so in the face of sweeping changes in this company, this industry and this country.
This ruling threatens not only IBM's pension plan, but also the plans of hundreds of other companies who have adopted similar formulas. Indeed, the court's reasoning would go farther and invalidate scores of other pension plans, some of which have been in existence since the 1930s. The ruling is also contrary to other district court decisions.
We are continuing to analyze the ruling to fully understand all its ramifications. I ask for your patience and understanding as we work through these complex and technical issues. In the meantime, we will provide regular updates on w3.
Like many of you, I hope for a successful conclusion to this case. We are confident that the underlying illogic of this ruling will be acknowledged as we move through the appeal process.
Sincerely,
Randy MacDonald
Senior Vice President, Human Resources