In a move after surplusing 4,000 employees in the U.S. and Canada, IBM has created a program called “Project Match”, offering them jobs in various Third world countries. This program was discussed in Informationweek this Monday.
___On the positive side these workers are already surplused, so for IBM to offer them any position anywhere is positive. IBM will help in some relocation and immigration support. While the salaries will be a fraction of their North American wage, these workers can have a great international experience and live a life of luxury, with drivers, maids and gardeners at their beck and call.
___One must dig deeper to fully understand the implications of this radical move. These workers are being asked to unexpectedly uproot their lives and move to a country they may not fully understand. There are longer term nuances they must consider. There will be no support structures such as family, friends, government assistance and a society they understand. They may have to learn a new language, and certainly a new culture and business practices. Will this worker be as effective when others are speaking a different language? English is not as universal as you might think. This move is not for the faint of heart.
___Many workers will be Baby Boomers or Gen Xers in their prime earnings years, saving for retirement or trying to raise a family. While these workers may have a much grander lifestyle than in North America, if they wish to return to North America, earnings gained abroad will, once converted back to US or Canadian dollars, be worth a fraction of their purchasing power abroad. For the worker, not unlike new immigrants to North America, funds earned abroad once converted to US and Canadian dollars, buys you much, much less.
___Once overseas and working in a foreign position, IBM North America’s responsibility is over. Living in a foreign country is stressful for both the worker, but also their spouse and children. These workers would not have any additional support or help with assimilating to their newly adopted land. Again, not unlike a new immigrant to North America, there will be enormous stresses on the family but few resources to turn. Who will help the family look for a school for their children, as well as bear the additional cost of an international elementary or secondary school, which can be very expensive. Or is it expected that their children attend the local school? Having an unhappy and stressed out family can wreak havoc on the worker’s morale and psyche. Certainly IBM would not help after their resettlement. Migrating to another country is risky at best. One should also ask what happens if the worker is unhappy about the move and wishes to return? Who will be there to help, or is the worker on their own?
___If the worker was an Gen Y, single and looking for a new life experience, this program may offer a great opportunity that comes with the offer of a job. The benefit for the worker would be the new experience of working in a foreign country. With fewer ties to North America, fewer financial and and familial responsibilities, a year or two in an exotic locale can be a significant, life changing event. Just don’t expect to come back rich in cash.
___Environmental concerns of most of these countries should be an issue. China, India, Mexico and a slew of other countries are environmental disasters, with polluted air and water that are rated at double or more on the North American scale. Think back to the Beijing Olympics and the everpresent smog. Look up the increasing incidences of asthma and breathing ailments in thee countries. They are called Third World countries for a reason. While you can do your internet research thoroughly, there is nothing like the shock of breathing foul, polluted air to make you think twice about staying long term. Your long term health should be a concern.
___Living in a Third World country includes added risks and uncertainty in one’s life. A worker thinking about a move from a First World country to a Third World country should therefore be adequately rewarded for this increased risk. What is adequately rewarded will be determined by the worker.
___Many Third World governments have long lamented that First World countries are luring their best and brightest away. These complaints are commonly targeted at the US, Canada and Australia. They are stuck with the cost of education but cannot reap the benefits of their investment. IBM’s Project Match seems to be a role reversal of this trend. IBM can transfer precious North American expertise to their Third World office without much added expense. IBM world-wide certainly gains, but at the expense of their former employees and North America in general. North America has invested in their education to make our countries more competitive. When these workers leave for other lands we lose talent and therefore competitiveness. One could say that this program is an attempt at evening out the worldwide talent pool, if just a little.
___No matter what happens, no one is coercing these workers to move. It will be and should be their decision. If we live in a global economy and they have the skills needed, they should be competitive anywhere in the world, including here in North America. If a worker wishes to try living in a foreign country, perhaps looking at companies outside IBM would be more appropriate. If the worker possesses skills that are far above those skills in a Third World country, then a company should have no issues with paying a premium for these skills.
___No one likes to lose their job, particularly if you’ve been with a company for a long time. It’s similar to losing a family member. There’s the phases of shock, denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and finally acceptance. This road is not easily trod. It might be time for these surplussed workers to admit the end, to finally say adieu to Big Blue, turn and walk away.
Early in my years at IBM, I remember managers clarifying that “full employment is a practice, not a policy”. The company recognizes that not everyone fits into IBM, and when you’ve got someone that fits, losing his or her experience creates a large loss of social capital.
I’ve noticed that almost all of the web comments on the Project Match headlines are negative, and often bitter. (I’ve only found one dissenting voice). Perhaps Americans would prefer possibility of moving to Dubuque, Iowa, which should produce less culture shock than the current comfortable urban environments in which many of the laid-off people may have become accustomed. Clean air, open spaces and traffic-free commutes are side benefits that many haven’t considered.
I too have read all the bitter and negative comments about IBM’s Project Match, and have read the one approving post. Maybe these workers still believe in the social contract that the big corporation will take care of them as long as the worker continues to do their job. When this supposed break in the social contract occurs, they are enraged. This may occur for Baby Boomers, but certainly not for Gen Xers or Gen Ys. Make no mistake that there is no such social contract.
Do large corporations have a moral or legal duty to assist workers surplussed, and how far does this go? Apart from the minimal legal requirements such as severance, a worker’s options are slim to none. I do believe that IBM did not expect such a backlash from this program, though I hope that someone internal did raise the red flag. Still, IBM has no obligation to even attempt such a program.
I also wonder if the anger also comes from some North American xenophobia. Why would a North American stoop so low as to take a job in another country? There needs to be an appreciation that other countries have beauty to be experienced, culture to be learned, and personal growth to be had. Would such an outrage have occurred in Europe? Maybe we should ask some Europeans.