“Lay people off (i.e., reduce cost) when we know the economy is tanking to ensure stability on earnings or revenue?”"As a result, I feel a massive personal responsibility to take my own career in my own personal hands.”

Wow, corporate speak. Excellent, Adam. Never mind the ‘additional compensation’ lies told to employees for decades and decades.

Remind me, what was Sammo’s bonus in 2008? What was IBM’s profit in 2008? But as you say, as long as the shareholders are happy and the execs get their bonii, that’s what it’s all about.

Employed at will — yup, that’s what the Alliance is trying to get through the heads of the sheeple in IBM. Unionize now, or IBM will gladly fire you tomorrow — I find it interesting that you use the management lie ‘layoff’ — for no reason whatsoever.

No matter the spin, IBM won in 1999. The employees and retirees are screwed.

On IBM… oh, I’m fully aware of the Alliance, the website, the practices and the management. I sit neatly in the middle of it all. I’m neither an IBM exec nor ignorant on it all. But I see both sides. I can understand why people don’t agree with corporate practices. I get that. I also see through the self interests of the Alliance and it’s amazingly unsavory tactics.

Here’s my personal, non IBM-endorsed take on it all. What would you rather have? Lay people off (i.e., reduce cost) when we know the economy is tanking to ensure stability on earnings or revenue? Or hold off, then have to lay off more after missing earnings or something and have to take much more dramatic measures to satisfy shareholders? Sorry, I’ll take the former. I don’t want to minimize how much it sucks to lose a job. Many after dedicating a quarter of a century of work. But we all signed up to work for a public company and know that’s an inherent part of it. We are all employed at will. And on the flip side, IBM is my employer at will – I can leave at any time I want or need. As a result, I feel a massive personal responsibility to take my own career in my own personal hands. If I’m laid off tomorrow (always a reality) I want to make sure I’ve got a reserve and a back up plan. I don’t get a pension – I never have. And I never assumed I would. I get some 401K match, which goes with me when I leave. That’s all the security I assume I’ll ever have from an employer.

My two cents on it.

Anyhow, let’s keep the food comments to the food posts and the work comments to the work posts…

On food, though, I’m sure you are aware that chowhound AND Yelp have censored and censured me, being the modern version of Nazi Germany and having wanker moderators. Therefore, I can’t offer my cynical, truthful, valuable insights on restaurants in Westchester. One that hit me square between the eyes, and I had to go re-read what you said about it, is Inca Y Gaucho, in Portchester, and I had to come here to tell you about it.

Hubby and I went there last week, after he poo-poo’ed Tortilleria Los Gemelos on sight, much to my dismay. It was a bad experience right from the start, but I’ll go to the food first. My spinach empanada was good, the mussels were only okay, hubby’s steak was only okay, and the Neri rolls were fine with the very interesting sauces put on the table.

But the DRINK? Holy cow, it was DIS-GUST-ING. They note, in a warning to one and all, that their margarita is made with a DIS-GUST-ING concoction made from grapes. GRAPES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????? IF THEY HAVE A BAR, why can’t they buy tequila????? If they have NO liquor license, why not SAY SO? But they serve wine, so they have to have a liquor license.

On top of it all, I took one sip of the DIS-GUST-ING margarita and wanted it replaced with a glass of wine, and the server wouldn’t leave the DIS-GUST-ING margarita on the house for hubby to consume (yes, he drank his anyway). He told me if he left it he would have to charge me. I thought that was cheap and stupid.

So, I won’t be going back to Inca Y Gaucho.

Oh, and I’m still bereft that Sunset Grille never reopened. What a crime.

Well, anyway, thanks for reading and have fun at IBM and chowhound, Adam.