The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Confirms a Pattern of Age Discrimination at IBM (propublica.org) 62
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has issued a sweeping decision concluding that IBM engaged in systematic age discrimination between 2013 and 2018, when it shed thousands of older workers in the United States. ProPublica reports: The EEOC finding, contained in an Aug. 31 letter to a group of ex-employees, comes more than two years after ProPublica reported that the company regularly flouted or outflanked laws intended to protect older workers from bias in hiring and firing. The letter says a nationwide EEOC investigation "uncovered top-down messaging from (IBM's) highest ranks directing managers to engage in an aggressive approach to significantly reduce the headcount of older workers to make room for" younger ones.
Employment law experts said the agency's finding could result in IBM facing millions of dollars in settlement payments or a federal lawsuit at a time when the company is under continued competitive pressure and in the midst of a management changeover. Lawyers for some former workers said EEOC investigators have told them the agency decision may apply to more than 6,000 ex-IBM employees, a number that could grow considerably if, as experts say is likely, the agency's finding prompts new, private age discrimination lawsuits.
Employment law experts said the agency's finding could result in IBM facing millions of dollars in settlement payments or a federal lawsuit at a time when the company is under continued competitive pressure and in the midst of a management changeover. Lawyers for some former workers said EEOC investigators have told them the agency decision may apply to more than 6,000 ex-IBM employees, a number that could grow considerably if, as experts say is likely, the agency's finding prompts new, private age discrimination lawsuits.
Definitely not just IBM. (Score:5, Insightful)
And definitely not just from 2013 to 2018, either.
Re: Definitely not just IBM. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
For that you get an insightful mod, Captain Obvious? Oh well. At least it was a relevant FP.
However now I'm wondering how much worse it is for "computerists" than for various other lines of work. "Get these Python whippersnappers off my lawn."
Hmm... How DO you shoot yourself in the foot with Python?
What about hiring only Indians ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Have you looked at their workforce demographics recently ?
Re: (Score:1)
Earning your way to the soup line (Score:2)
Eventually the Chinese and Indian workers will be seen as too expensive, too demanding, etc, so their jobs will be outsourced or "H1-B"d or whatever to people in less developed countries than India and China. This is going to be a repeating cycle.
Question is, what happens when there is no longer any less developed than thou countries to exploit?
Not just IBM (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not just IBM (Score:4, Insightful)
I worked for a consulting firm that moved all the older employees (45+ old) and not consultants down to the dingy space they just acquired. I thought about bringing a can of Raid. They then. started letting each of us go...one or two per week. By not doing it a group, they were able to avoid the EEOC reporting requirements.
The separation agreement was printed in 12-point except for the one section that we would agree not to sue under the Age Discrimination Act - that was, maybe 8-point. Had we not accepted the agreement, we would lose the separation agreement. I (I was 50) was let go on a Friday. Yes, I could have taken it to a lawyer for review - but that was pointless.
In my case, I managed to meet my new employer at Starbucks on Sunday and started work the following week. The others struggled but eventually landed a new role.
After letting us go, the average age was dropped from 38 to 32.
What pissed me off was seeing their ads on TV and on LinkedIn claiming to be the best place to work ... yeah...if you were in your 30's. The owners drove their top of the line Mercedes and Jaguar and were in their mid-late 60's. Our staff was mostly US citizens and caucasian with the exception of the obligatory ethnic mix.
I vowed never to work for a consulting company as a W-2 employee vs 1099 ever again as I am sure W-2 was underpaid yet still treated like fodder when things slowed down.
Re: (Score:2)
I am sorry to hear that happened. Why don't you name the company? Also, are you sure people were let go primarily because of their age and not a technology issue? For example, maybe the older people were experts in an area that is now getting obsolete and the company needs to pivot to a newer technology or skill set.
Re:Not just IBM (Score:5, Insightful)
" Why don't you name the company? "
They can't name the company because, along with the document they signed stating their termination was not age related, they were very likely required to sign an NDA and another " I will not sue " statement in order to obtain their severence package.
It's still happening today in companies all across the US.
You -COULD- forgo your severence and lawyer up. But then, you're effectively a lone palm tree on a beach somewhere trying to stand against the tidal wave of lawyers and unlimited funds your company has at its disposal. Even if you could win, they'll banktrupt you long before you see the outcome in court.
Welcome to the working world of the United States as it exists today.
Re: Not just IBM (Score:4, Interesting)
Exactly. Thank you for standing up.
I canâ(TM)t divulge the company even though it was 7 years ago.
And, yes, we were all current. We worked with the latest Microsoft technologies. My specialty at the time was mobile development which included iOS, Android, and Windows Mobile. Additionally, I was competent with Xamarin and Phonegap/Cordova.
My fellow employees were also current and proficient.
No, tech qualifications were not the issue even if you think dinosaurs over 40 could never be competively skilled. Our failing was being over 45.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's how office shootings happen.
Re: (Score:1)
And that's how office shootings happen.
No. Office shooting is what happens when there is a long pattern of abusing the employee. I've read cases where this happened. Things were miserable. The employer didn't even try to help them. Then they lose their job too? Boom.
Knowing the signs I've worked at places where conditions were ripe for that. Nothing happened.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed; this is the new "normal"
This is across most industries; I wonder why IBM got into their crosshairs.
Re: (Score:1)
When working in the computer field, it is up to you to keep up your computer skills with the latest software and tech, else you end up a salesman and that was true since cobol days. Many a hot shot cobol programmer ended up a salesman selling software and hardware they could not use because they did not keep their training up. Corporations should provide 1 day per week paid to keep training up and to keep experienced known employees.
Re: Not just IBM (Score:2)
Did you not read what he said, they were all up to date with the latest technology, probably more than their replacements. The common factor is age and pay here, not skill level.
Why would you think a mature programmer was not up to date? They have the most experience and can build one technology on top of another, not just be semi proficient in the programming language du jour.
If I was contracting out a job, I know who I would want to see the consult meeting, a grumpy grey guy who will be able to think in h
Re:Not just IBM (Score:5, Informative)
That clause is unenforceable, source [eeoc.gov], quote: an employer cannot lawfully limit your right to testify, assist, or participate in an investigation, hearing, or proceeding conducted by the EEOC or prevent you from filing a charge of discrimination with the agency.
That contract clause was just there to intimidate you to silence. And apparently it worked, despite having no teeth.
I am not a lawyer, this is just what I found online. If you want legal advice, talk to an actual lawyer.
Re: (Score:1)
That clause is unenforceable, source [eeoc.gov], quote: an employer cannot lawfully limit your right to testify, assist, or participate in an investigation, hearing, or proceeding conducted by the EEOC or prevent you from filing a charge of discrimination with the agency.
That contract clause was just there to intimidate you to silence. And apparently it worked, despite having no teeth.
I am not a lawyer, this is just what I found online. If you want legal advice, talk to an actual lawyer.
2 Things .. "conducted by the EEOC" at the time there was no EEOC investigation and even if you tried you would still have to go to court and wait 10 years for the case to play out.
The whole idea is that the corporation has unlimited time and funds to use in an effort to avoid paying you the severance money. Conversely, you have extremely limited funds and time to succeed.
The IBM case turns into a class action suit, expect IBM to drag it all the way to the SCOTUS while taking as long as the law will a
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not exactly young myself, so I can empathize. At the same time, I noticed you said:
> that made my name rise to the top of some salary spreadsheet
If a person is one of the most *expensive* workers on the payroll and the company needs to cut costs, in my view that's not age discrimination - that's choosing not to pay for the most expensive option when a less expensive option will do. I do that nearly every time I shop.
Knowing that my experience makes me expensive, I put a lot of time into building sk
Solutions and real world observations (Score:2)
Wow! (Score:2)
You mean doing things like telling everybody in the United States that they had to move to one of four metropolitan areas that were not exactly known for being family friendly could have impacted their average worker age? Who could have ever predicted that? Itâ(TM)s almost as if they carefully planned out how to get rid of older and more expensive employees and replace them with cheaper and younger ones.
Re: (Score:1)
Why can't a company do that? When you hire someone you have to keep them for life? Why can't a company try to find the person who needs the job the most (aka the person who will work for the least pay)? It's more ethical to hire the person who needs the job so badly that they would work for less money. If someone wants a high pay, that ought to mean they can do something valuable and therefore work somewhere else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because the company is betting on the younger candidate not understanding that they'll simply get tossed aside like garbage once they become too expensive or old as well.
Hence the reason for the NDAs and whatnot.
Re: Wow! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yip, it's one of the common tricks:
* Tell them they have to move to an unpopular city
* Assign them clerical and grunt work
* Assign them projects sure to fail or customers with attitudes
* Exaggerate or broadcast their mistakes widely
* Deny or postpone their access to tools and servers to slow their work
* Give them dingy furniture and cubicles
* Give younger workers extra info behind closed doors or at the water-cooler that gives them an edge
Re: (Score:3)
My own company came up with some bullshit about moving everyone into " Collaboration Zones " so we could all work as a TEAM ! -waves pompoms-
So, what they did was pick out whatever regions they wanted to use and declared them Collaboration Zones.
They then went down the list of everyone not working in said zones ( this is all management mind you ) and just laid them off. Thousands and thousands of folks.
Not given the choice to relocate.
No consideration was given as to what value, service or expertise they
Re: (Score:2)
Companies need to be held accountable. If the net effect of your policies results in a certain outcome than the net effect of your policy is that they are *****ist. This logic actually has a fair bit of precedent behind it that it has been used against organizations to "prove" sexism and racism.
Think of places like Silicon Valley. The average age of a worker there is somewhere in the 20's and it has been that way for decades. What happened to the workers who were working there when I started my career? Wher
Re: (Score:2)
This sounds generated from a phrase-pattern bot.
Re: (Score:1)
> Not sure what's wrong with it.
Mostly unsubstantiated claims.
> It implies that Americans are inherently evil.
Where, how?
> We are constantly told that 'virtually all people contribute to ageism'
Where? How you are measuring "constantly"? I don't see it.
> or that we are required to say that companies 'benefit from ageism.
Same issue. Unbacked claim. Article says nothing about change in IBM profits from the practice.
Re: (Score:1)
I've been trolled.
Health insurance is stupid expensive (Score:5, Insightful)
now get them for H1B abuse! (Score:4, Insightful)
now get them for H1B abuse!
Psychopaths (Score:3, Interesting)
IBM has lost at least two high profile cases for illegal layoffs in Japan over the past few years. It's very expensive for them because they get to pay damages, legal expenses and they have to reinstate the employees. And they get to treat those employees really nicely, otherwise a lawsuit for retaliation is waiting in the wings.
You'd think they would have learned after the first lawsuit. Apparently they don't care about the money, but do it for fun.
Re: WOOHOO - Entitled Victim Badge! (Score:2)
"but you won't see Indians pushing out other indians in favor of other races, like white people do."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Good one! They sure will if the money's right.
Your very thinly disguised "Whitey bad!" post holds no water.
Strange (Score:3)
Since it's usually only old people ordering IBM stuff.
Why not lower the retirement age? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why can't they just lower the retirement age and then make this kind of "discrimination" basically a bargain that their older workers would be willing to accept? In many ways I have no problem with young people being advanced. Let them do the work.
Let's say you drop the retirement age to 55 -- you can qualify for Medicare, you can take distributions from 401k or other retirement plans, including social security? They could ramp up employer contributions for social security so that it front-loaded social security to enable those people to collect without an actuarial nightmare?
I'm 53 and can't *wait* to not work anymore. I don't need much money to live on now that I've been established for so many years.. If I wasn't driving for the job, my car would probably last me well into my 60s. I wish I had been a better investor so I could just fund all this myself, but even with my pretty basic savings plan I feel pretty good about it all.
I have a neighbor who is 62 and works for Delta airlines. He got such an astonishing offer from them that he would have lost money if he kept working until 65. The airline industry is in such a shit condition I'm sure they could have justified laying him off or at least not had it contested because of the company's economic position. But he's basically being paid not to work for 3 years, plus he has 2 unlimited non-revenue domestic airline passes as well as *8* first-class, positive-space global passes for him and his wife.
Re: (Score:2)
I think one issue is that companies are flatter now. Having a huge hierarchical org chart worked great way back in the day when you had entire departments whose job was to manually write reports on the progress of other departments under them, tons of paper-shuffling jobs, and massive amounts of middle managers. It provided a lot of promotional opportunity that didn't involve a huge increase in responsibility each jump you made. The first breakdown of this was in the early 90s wave of "rightsizing" where th
Re: (Score:2)
> But if you're a normal worker, just save a lot early on, keep saving at a decent pace, and cash out early if you can.
Not everyone can. Two groups of 'best laid plains' derailing people quickly come to mind:
Many of my co-workers, and myself included, got divorced in their 40s and set back financially 10 to 20 years. It doesn't matter than in the vast majority of cases I personally witnessed their spouses were unfaithful, wanted to try for someone new, or were just tired of being a parent and wanted '
Re: (Score:2)
It would have to be a broadly accepted concept and with the necessary funding/structure in place.
You might not even get corporate support for it, because it *probably* wouldn't result in a net financial gain for corporations. They want to shitcan older people because young people get paid less, even if they don't work more hours (which they do).
If most of the "excess" payments still get made to support earlier retirement ages (increased employer SS contributions, etc) then they're not really gaining so muc
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't this a problem with the SS trust fund (borrowing, accounting games tied to politics, etc) and not that the SS trust fund is a Ponzi scheme?
I always thought that the idea was that SS payments were more or less funded by SS contributions made by workers that got payouts, not funded by working age Americans. I mean it may be that now, but it's not because the system was designed to be a Ponzi scheme requiring more and more contributions to pay off retirees.
Re: Why not lower the retirement age? (Score:2)
We're barely able to cover costs of people retiring at 67. That's right, 67. The retirement age is no longer 65. We had to increase it to make it more affordable. There's no way we can afford to have people retiring at 55 without major overhauls to our tax system. Maybe place an excise tax of $20k a head for every young worker not matched with an older worker.
Never thought I'd see that headline (Score:2)
It's been well known forever that IBM has been trying to get rid of older workers and hire in more cloud mobile social whatever new graduates. It's also well known that basically every tech company discriminates against older people. They want more money, have lives outside of work, and have been around the block a few times...so it's harder to find older people that will fit with the employment model. IBM's been trying to shed its stodgy reputation for years and basically bought a cloud transplant by buyin
Re: Never thought I'd see that headline (Score:2)
Sounds like IBM is about ready to go the way of Standard Oil.
Or maybe we will start seeing it's brand on cheap Chinese made electric toothbrushes that explode in your hand. Just look what happened to Bell & Howell who never made anything of the sort, and countless
other old companies that exist now in name only.
Mine doing the same (Score:2)
My company has been systematically getting rid of the 45+ age group. They quietly just "disappear" you seem them in the morning then they are gone in the afternoon. They try to publicly look like such a great company but they are openly engaging in gender discrimination, race discrimination and discrimination based on veteran status. They make you agree to company policies that are outright illegal. Your NOT allowed to post "bad" reviews on places like Glassdoor or Indeed or they will punish or terminate yo
The Valley companies avoid this... (Score:2)
The folks like Google Facebook and Twitter and most of the Valley avoid this by just not hiring older programmers. EQUALLY illegal. The EEOC should broaden their efforts to the tech industry and its obsession and youth and inexperience ( people they can manipulate and exploit) versus age and experience (people who now recognize the manipulation and are harder to exploit).
What about California (Score:2)
Discrimination is now legal there...so long as it's in the right political wheelhouse.
Use 'em up, throw 'em away (Score:2)
The tech industry wants fresh, young blood who is hopefully naive enough and still easily impressionable to be molded into a cog that will do their bidding. Seniority is viewed as a liability, as those people are generally wise and unable to be bullshitted so easily.
I'm 43, and in regards to the tech biz I am an ancient fossil.
This is an extention of our throwaway culture to humans.