In a Symbolic Shift, IBM's India Workforce Likely Exceeds That In US 491
dcblogs writes "IBM has 112,000 employees in India, up from 6,000 in 2002, with an average wage of about $17,000, according to an internal company document. That wage level may seem shockingly low to U.S. IT workers, but it is in alignment with IT wages in India.The Everest Group said the annual wages generally in India for a software engineer range from $8,000 to $10,000; for a senior software engineer, $12,000 to $15,000, and between $18,000 and $20,000 for a team lead. A project manager may make as much as $31,000. IBM employs about 430,000 globally. According to the Alliance at IBM, the U.S. staff is at about 92,000. It was at 121,000 at the end of 2007, and more in previous years. It has been widely expected over the past year or two that IBM's India workforce was on track to exceed its U.S. workforce, if it hadn't exceeded it already."
Re:The USA exports labor because of unnecessary co (Score:1, Interesting)
As someone who works with ibm's india support on a daily basis... They are worse than terrible...
Re:What happems (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, we've seen some of that at my job - in India we either get job attrition or requesting raises. This has caused a lot of jobs to be outsourced again, to China, where we get 4-5 workers for each US worker instead of 3-4. And the best part about it is the US was paying us to do it when US employees get replaced. Not sure about the current situation, as my company is now owned by Germans (we probably don't get as much US help to outsource anymore).
they don't sell computers (Score:4, Interesting)
IBM sells mostly services/software to corporations...which have a ton of money to spend, regardless of employee salaries.
Re:What happems (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not so much the rags to riches stories, it's that unions are far from perfect.
1. Unions like all power structures start acting in their own interests and not the people they really represent, just like corporations or governments. That may mean generous benefits for the union leaders, making life miserable for non-union workers and in the worst cases it's a possibility for bribes and corruption.
2. Collective agreements typically means those who contribute less than average get more than they deserve and those who contribute more get less. While the company can't pressure wages down by pressuring employees one by one the employees that excel can't pressure back either. They may even leave for a different company where they get individual deals, depleting the union company of good workers.
3. Occasionally companies become completely captive to their unions, who refuse to adapt to a changing market to the point where the company will fail and even possibly go bankrupt instead of adapt. Unions rely on the collective trust of the members and won't sacrifice a part to save the rest even when that is what is necessary.
I think overall that unions typically do more good than harm, but depending what you get hung up on I can understand that other people feel differently.