Resolution on Pension and Retirement Medical

Submitted to IBM by James Marc Leas for the year 2002 annual meeting

Resolved: shareholders request that the Board adopt the following policy:

Age discrimination in retirement policies will be ended by allowing all employees, regardless of age, to receive the same long-promised retirement medical insurance and pension choice as employees who were within five years of retirement in 1999.

In 1999 IBM announced new cash balance pension and retirement medical insurance plans. These plans effectively revoked long-promised plans for many employees.

IBM divided employees into three permanent groups based on their age on June 30, 1999. Employees older than 50 with 15 years of service kept the old medical and could choose between the old and new pension plans. Employees older than 40 with ten years of service could also chose between pension plans but were forced into the new retirement medical. Employees younger than 40 and older employees who did not have at least 10 years of service were forced into both the new medical and the new cash balance pension. IBM thus broke its highly touted and unqualified promise not to discriminate based on age.

According to BNA’s March 7, 2001 Employment Discrimination Report, "the Internal Revenue Service has put a hold on the agency's approval of new cash balance plans pending an examination of the age discrimination implications of such arrangements. Since 1999, EEOC has joined with the Treasury Department and the Labor Department in a coordinated review to decide whether cash balance plans can be squared with federal age discrimination laws." Whatever the outcomes, IBM’s age discrimination will have serious consequences for effected employees.

IBM openly acknowledged that the average employee would lose 20% of retirement pay under the cash balance plan. The Wall Street Journal estimated losses as high as 50%.

IBM also acknowledged to some employees that their new individual medical insurance accounts would probably run out of money as they approach old age. Revoking lifetime medical insurance is especially a problem for lower-paid workers.

IBM management argues that the cash balance plan is better to attract younger workers. If so, why are younger workers the only age group not offered a choice of pension plans?

Conversion to cash balance pension plan failed to benefit the company. IBM declared that the $200 million "saved" would fund stock options for executives and other targeted employees. However, the "savings" actually accumulate as a surplus in the separate pension trust fund. Money cannot be transferred to IBM from this fund. Moreover IBM has paid nothing for pensions for the last six years because the $70 billion pension trust fund has a large surplus and earns more in interest than it pays out to retirees.

In short, the cash balance plan conversion brought no money into the company, saved no money, had no apparent advantages for stockholders, opened the company to investigation and possible suits for age discrimination, generated negative publicity, and may well have had material adverse effects on the morale of company employees. Therefore, IBM should end age discrimination in retirement policies.