IBM driving mainframe systems programmers into the ground
Pinnacle
rates and salaries, check out this posting on DICE for IBM's new facility in
Dubuque, IA (watch the wrappage)
Pay rate $18-20/hour. YGBFKM.
Regards,
Tom Conley
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to list...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Bonno, Tuco
Patrick Lyon
wrote:
and maybe the "Y" (you?) and the "G" (get?) ; but what do the "B" and
the "K" and the "M" stand for ??
>
You Got To Be Kidding Me
Field, Alan C.
Nuttall, Peter , P.
:-) ...
Kind regards,
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Bonno, Tuco
Sent: 12 November 2009 17:04
To: IBM-...@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: IBM driving mainframe systems programmers into the ground
Tom Flesher
source: http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/YGBFKM
"Bonno, Tuco"
<tu...@CIO.SC.GOV>
Sent by: IBM To
Mainframe IBM-...@bama.ua.edu
Discussion List cc
<IBM-...@bama.ua
.edu> Subject
Re: IBM driving mainframe systems
programmers into the ground
11/12/2009 09:04
AM
Please respond to
IBM Mainframe
Discussion List
<IBM-...@bama.ua
.edu>
Gord Tomlin
Patrick Lyon
Economy got you down?
And then how it ends:
Steady state mainframe support position requiring on-call and weekend
coverage.
Scott
its lofty cut, because the war on drugs has made cocaine just so darned
expensive for their headhunters. And you really can't trust tweakers, so
whatareyagonnado.
If IBM were swallowed by the ground, it would be truly just. But no,
business majors will continue to fuck people over because who needs to
innovate and elevate the human condition, when you can make good margins by
bringing everyone else down.
Scott
Scott
co-founders (Dan White) is a douchy IBM outsourcing exec. So, Veritas is
just a satellite of IBM's IT Stalinization. Bring everyone down and when
they bitch, use your contract agency to kick em out and keep the legal stuff
from dirtying IBM's white-and-blue Open Source image.
Scott
Pinnacle
From: "Scott" <sc...@AITRUS.ORG>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 1:53 PM
Subject: Re: IBM driving mainframe systems programmers into the ground
>I bet IBM is paying $30-40/hr but the parasitic contract agency is taking
> its lofty cut, because the war on drugs has made cocaine just so darned
> expensive for their headhunters. And you really can't trust tweakers, so
> whatareyagonnado.
>
> If IBM were swallowed by the ground, it would be truly just. But no,
> business majors will continue to fuck people over because who needs to
> innovate and elevate the human condition, when you can make good margins
> by
> bringing everyone else down.
>
> Scott
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Patrick Lyon
> <ptl...@midamerican.com>wrote:
>
Scott,
Even if the pimp is getting $30-40/hr from IBM, it's still a ridiculous bill
rate. My first independent contract in 1993 was as a storage admin on HSM,
and it paid $55/hour. That would make these rates, what, early 80's? IBM
is deliberately driving bill rates and salaries for z/OS systems programmers
into the stone age. Good for their short-term profits, but once they've
succeeded in commoditizing what we do, the only people left doing the job
for these wages will be the ones that can't do it. IBM decries the lack of
z/OS talent, but you can't even get kids out of college to take these jobs
at these rates, let alone experienced people. The college kids can make
more money doing Java, Web development, or being a sysadmin on another
platform. Why in the world would they want to do z/OS when this is all the
value that IBM puts on the z/OS systems programmer?
Regards,
Tom Conley
Ted MacNEIL
------Original Message------
From: Bonno, Tuco
Sender: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
ReplyTo: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
Sent: Nov 12, 2009 12:04
Subject: Re: IBM driving mainframe systems programmers into the ground
the "F" I can figure out for myself; and maybe the "Y" (you?) and the "G" (get?) ; but what do the "B" and the "K" and the "M" stand for ??
Pay rate $18-20/hour. YGBFKM.
Regards,
Tom Conley
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to list...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to list...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
Chase, John
rate.
Wonder what the headhunter is billing IBM?
-jc-
> -----Original Message-----
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Patrick Lyon
> Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 12:16 PM
> To: IBM-...@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: IBM driving mainframe systems programmers into the ground
>
Glen Gasior
introduce a bill to open the H1B floodgates.
--
Glen J. Gasior
(630) 712-2104
Chicago, Illinois 60611
"Leadership that improves the process of change"
Scott
Republicans haven't been willing to go that far. Perhaps the more refined,
religulous breed that seems to be taking over will be more sympathetic.
WWJD? Of course he would, in bizarro America.
Scott
Bobbie Jo
I told them if they want to triple the salary, then we'll be getting close.
Bobbie Justice
-----Original Message-----
>From: Pinnacle <pinn...@ROCHESTER.RR.COM>
>Sent: Nov 12, 2009 11:15 AM
>To: IBM-...@bama.ua.edu
>Subject: IBM driving mainframe systems programmers into the ground
>
>For those of you who think I overstate the case of IBM driving down bill
>rates and salaries, check out this posting on DICE for IBM's new facility in
>Dubuque, IA (watch the wrappage)
>
>http://seeker.dice.com/jobsearch/servlet/JobSearch?op=302&dockey=xml/1/2/12d903249e783b221ccbc5dd10af5e18@endecaindex&source=19&FREE_TEXT=racf&rating=99
>
>Pay rate $18-20/hour. YGBFKM.
>
>Regards,
>Tom Conley
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
>send email to list...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
>Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
________________________________________
PeoplePC Online
A better way to Internet
http://www.peoplepc.com
Lizette Koehler
So if I remember what contracting companies do
IBM charges one rate. Then a company like Veritas Solutions is contracted by IBM and then they have to pay even less because they need to make a profit. Which is probably why the hourly rate is SOOOOOOO LOOOOW
So the best action is to deal directly with IBM and not its subcontractors.
Lizette
>
>It almost sounds like a strategy to produce evidence for a congressman to
>introduce a bill to open the H1B floodgates.
>
>On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Pinnacle <pinn...@rochester.rr.com>wrote:
>
>> For those of you who think I overstate the case of IBM driving down bill
>> rates and salaries, check out this posting on DICE for IBM's new facility in
>> Dubuque, IA (watch the wrappage)
>>
>>
>> http://seeker.dice.com/jobsearch/servlet/JobSearch?op=302&dockey=xml/1/2/12d903249e783b221ccbc5dd10af5e18@endecaindex&source=19&FREE_TEXT=racf&rating=99
>>
>> Pay rate $18-20/hour. YGBFKM.
>>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Fairchild
If IBM is trying to drive down the price of Sysprogs and they succeed, then they will have reduced the total cost of ownership of a mainframe system to a mainframe customer, and perhaps they will be able to sell more mainframe systems that way.
Bill Fairchild
Software Developer
Rocket Software
275 Grove Street * Newton, MA 02466-2272 * USA
Tel: +1.617.614.4503 * Mobile: +1.508.341.1715
Email: bi...@mainstar.com
Web: www.rocketsoftware.com
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Lizette Koehler
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 2:40 PM
To: IBM-...@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: IBM driving mainframe systems programmers into the ground
So if I remember what contracting companies do
IBM charges one rate. Then a company like Veritas Solutions is contracted by IBM and then they have to pay even less because they need to make a profit. Which is probably why the hourly rate is SOOOOOOO LOOOOW
So the best action is to deal directly with IBM and not its subcontractors.
Lizette
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Wells
pull prices down...JUST BECAUSE IT IS M/F there still is a
problem..Companies like MacKinney get it ... too bad there are not enough
of them out there..
From:
Bill Fairchild <Bi...@MAINSTAR.COM>
To:
IBM-...@bama.ua.edu
Date:
11/12/2009 03:47 PM
Subject:
Re: IBM driving mainframe systems programmers into the ground
Sent by:
IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-...@bama.ua.edu>
Bill Fairchild
Lizette
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email Disclaimer
This E-mail contains confidential information belonging to the sender, which may be legally privileged information. This information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity addressed above. If you are not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of the E-mail or attached files is strictly prohibited.
Howard Rifkind
The vendor must be getting $50-$60 an hour out of this.
--- On Thu, 11/12/09, Pinnacle <pinn...@ROCHESTER.RR.COM> wrote:
Howard Rifkind
--- On Thu, 11/12/09, Bill Fairchild <Bi...@MAINSTAR.COM> wrote:
> From: Bill Fairchild <Bi...@MAINSTAR.COM>
> Subject: Re: IBM driving mainframe systems programmers into the ground
Scott
mainframe ownership. Less cost = less profit. IBM is simply tackling the
Mainframe market's low hanging fruit--the grunts who keep things
moving--because no other areas for dramatic profit expansion really exist.
IBM sells this to clients as reducing the cost, but that reduction is either
non-existent or negligible. Rather, the purpose is to get even better
margins. Assume the average pay rate is $60-80/hr for one of these
sysprogs. The contract agency takes $40, which gives half to the grunt.
Huzzah, IBM has snatched half of your pay check, with a quarter headed to
the agency and you get 25%. If you're not happy then they'll fire you and
you can't go after IBM because you never actually worked for them.
I'm not sure if this is Capitalism or Canibalism, but I wouldn't doubt IBM's
pursuit of the later if it helped with the former.
Scott
Ed Gould
From: Scott <sc...@AITRUS.ORG>
Subject: Re: IBM driving mainframe systems programmers into the ground
To: IBM-...@bama.ua.edu
Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009, 4:28 PM
No, that's entirely wrong.� IBM is not trying to reduce the cost of
mainframe ownership.� Less cost = less profit.� IBM is simply tackling the
Mainframe market's low hanging fruit--the grunts who keep things
moving--because no other areas for dramatic profit expansion really exist.
IBM sells this to clients as reducing the cost, but that reduction is either
non-existent or negligible.� Rather, the purpose is to get even better
margins.� Assume the average pay rate is $60-80/hr for one of these
sysprogs.� The contract agency takes $40, which gives half to the grunt.
Huzzah, IBM has snatched half of your pay check, with a quarter headed to
the agency and you get 25%.� If you're not happy then they'll fire you and
you can't go after IBM because you never actually worked for them.
I'm not sure if this is Capitalism or Canibalism, but I wouldn't doubt IBM's
pursuit of the later if it helped with the former.
Scott
----------------SNIP--------------------------
Scott:
I agree with you and other posters but I think I have some evidence that indicates IBM is essentially attempting to get rid of a lot of sysprogs. IIRC the year was 1995 (6? it was early in the SERVPAC years). I was attending an IBM class for SERVPAC's in the IBM Chicago education center. One of the 2-3 instructors was talking and giving the outline of how SERVPAC's work. After his talk he made a statement that SERVPAC was the attempt of IBM to either eliminate or minimize the systems programmer. I was surprised but it dawned on me that a *LOT* (perhaps 20 percent of the class) consisted of application type programmers(!!).As the class dragged on it was clear that the people that were asking the questions did not have a clue as what SYS1.LINKLIB (and other types of system data sets were). The class was getting hopeless bogged down as 20 percent of the class kept asking less that typical questions to the point of almost not knowing what MVS was and how it
function. Heck some of them had a hard time understanding ISPF and other common type "system" utilities. After class I asked one of the less than lets say informed people what had brought them to the class and one said because IBM told their boss that he did not a systems person to install and maintain MVS as the SERVPAC negated their use. Another person said essentially the same thing.
I am not sure about now but then IBM was handling companies with call 1-800 xxxxxxx to order entire systems and everything else. What IBM did was hand these calls to another vendor to do the ordering �and other tasks involved in installation (hardware wise & planning). We got one that at best amateurish companies and I pointed out to my boss how things should be done not how these people were doing it. One big point that surprised the hell out of me was their recommendation for the size of memory the number they came up with was just too small. I ran some quick RMF reports that showed we needed a lot more memory. I showed them to my boss(another story which I do not want to get into here) and he looked at them and agreed they needed more memory on the new machine. I was told to sit it out and let them do their job. I shook my head and said its your head not mine as I told you about it. That hit home and he meekly suggested that they increase the memory
on the system. They asked on what basis he thought that there was more memory needed and he brought out some RMF reports that I had given him. They said these numbers were new to them. I nudged my boss and he gave me the go ahead and I asked how they got their numbers. They said it was a standard machine configuration (what ever that was) so they were just doing what IBM suggested.�
The point of the above I think is to show that IBM either wants to reduce or eliminate systems programmers. I am sure others have their own versions.
Ed��
Ed Gould
From: Ron Wells <RWe...@AGFINANCE.COM>
Subject: Re: IBM driving mainframe systems programmers into the ground
To: IBM-...@bama.ua.edu
Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009, 4:03 PM
problem...until companies...vendors like SAS / CA� / Sterling and the like
pull prices down...JUST BECAUSE IT IS M/F there still is a
problem..Companies like MacKinney get it ... too bad there are not enough
of them out there..
------------------SNIP-----------------------
Ron: I guess I agree to a point but not with the last sentence.. Mackinney is both good and bad. The good is they are cheap *BUT* �at what cost?
Its been a while but I vaguely remember my boss coming to me and asked me if this utility would be nice to have (its been ages and I do not remember costs etc).
I looked at it and called Mackinney and was told that they send you a COBOL source module and that was it anything changed(or it didn't work) it was not their problem, it was yours.�
I went back to the boss and told him while the utility was OK there was no support.
He went "oh", "well you can support it no?" I said and when would I find the time?At that point I was working 100 hour work weeks. He said well its chump change I told him not to come to me when it broke. Sure enough 6 months later we put on a lot of maintenance on and the thing S0C4'd. He came to me and demanded that I fix it right away its holding production up. I looked at him straight in the eye and said "NO" I do not have the time. He called the vendor and realized that it came with zero support and a few hours later he came up and put it on my desk and said when I had time please look at it. About that time I was planning a week at SHARE followed by a week of vacation. I put it at the bottom of the heap of "to do's" and went about my business. I got back from vacation and cleaned up the last of the issues that happened while I was gone. I finally got to the point where it was on top of the to do list. I looked at the source and figured out where
the problem was it wasn't difficult just time consuming. I figured out that the program "thought" that a IBM report would never change (and it did of course). I fixed the program and tested it out and it reasonably worked. I marched into the boss's office and I told him if he ever bought any more of the cheap software he better keep it away from my responsibility list as this was it.
He took the hint and we never had to put up with cheap non supported software again.
Ed
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
ps2...@YAHOO.COM (Ed Gould) writes:
> Scott:
> I agree with you and other posters but I think I have some evidence
> that indicates IBM is essentially attempting to get rid of a lot of
> sysprogs. IIRC the year was 1995 (6? it was early in the SERVPAC
> years). I was attending an IBM class for SERVPAC's in the IBM Chicago
> education center. One of the 2-3 instructors was talking and giving
> the outline of how SERVPAC's work. After his talk he made a statement
> that SERVPAC was the attempt of IBM to either eliminate or minimize
> the systems programmer. I was surprised but it dawned on me that a
> *LOT* (perhaps 20 percent of the class) consisted of application type
> programmers(!!).As the class dragged on it was clear that the people
> that were asking the questions did not have a clue as what
> SYS1.LINKLIB (and other types of system data sets were). The class was
> getting hopeless bogged down as 20 percent of the class kept asking
> less that typical questions to the point of almost not knowing what
> MVS was and how it
early 80s saw a big explosion in mid-range market ... huge numbers of
vm/43xx and huge numbers of vax/vms. there was some SHARE study that
while vm/43xx had edge in price/performance and other issues ... vax/vms
supposedly had significant advantage in staff hrs & skill level
.... that skill level & amount of effort for vm/370 (still significantly
less than mvs) was market inhibitor (& competitive issue vis-a-vis
vax/vms).
there had actually been a proposal for the 43xx percusor (138/148) to
effectively make vm370 appear as part of the hardware (somewhat
analogous to current day LPAR support) ... but it was vetoed by
corporate hdqtrs ... since corporate was going thru one of those phases
to kill off vm370 completely. of course this was just following the
future system project being canceled and their was mad rush to
repopulate 370 product pipeline ... XA & MVS/XA was going to take yrs
yrs starting from scratch ... in fact MVS/XA had succesfully made the
argument to corporate that it was necessary to shutdown the vm370
development group and move all the people to POK in order to be able to
make MVS/XA first-customer-ship schedule.
Endicott eventually managed to save the vm370 product mission ... but
they effectively had to recreate the vm370 product group from scratch.
In any case, starting in the mid-80s ... hardware and operating systems
were starting to become commodities ... and apps & data were starting to
leak off the mainframe ... and MVS ... which had viewed the enormous
staff & skill level for support ... as a positive attribute ... was
starting to view it as a non-competitive cost-of-ownership issue.
at the time, i bucked quite a bit of the conventional corporate wisdom
... by pointing out that hardware and operating systems was becoming
commoditized (and what happens to profit margins as that happens).
--
40+yrs virtualization experience (since Jan68), online at home since Mar1970
Russell Witt
under-educated in-experienced SYSPROG's maintaining their most critical DP
operating system. I have heard calls that the L1 people have to take from
them, it involves explaining how to submit JCL; how to use SMP; and how to
use standard IBM utilities such as IEBGENER. How a "senior systems
programmer" can NOT know how to use IEBGENER speaks volumes about how they
define a "Senior Systems Programmer".
Seriously, if some of these companies saw the incident reports opened by
these Systems Programmers that are running their systems they would (should)
be very scared.
But this is strictly my own opinion.
Russell
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-...@bama.ua.edu]On
Behalf Of Scott
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 4:28 PM
To: IBM-...@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: IBM driving mainframe systems programmers into the ground
Scott
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Liberatore
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Gould <ps2...@YAHOO.COM>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:08:11
To: <IBM-...@bama.ua.edu>
Subject: Re: IBM driving mainframe systems programmers into the ground
--- On Thu, 11/12/09, Scott <sc...@AITRUS.ORG> wrote:
From: Scott <sc...@AITRUS.ORG>
Subject: Re: IBM driving mainframe systems programmers into the ground
To: IBM-...@bama.ua.edu
Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009, 4:28 PM
No, that's entirely wrong.� IBM is not trying to reduce the cost of
mainframe ownership.� Less cost = less profit.� IBM is simply tackling the
Mainframe market's low hanging fruit--the grunts who keep things
moving--because no other areas for dramatic profit expansion really exist.
IBM sells this to clients as reducing the cost, but that reduction is either
non-existent or negligible.� Rather, the purpose is to get even better
margins.� Assume the average pay rate is $60-80/hr for one of these
sysprogs.� The contract agency takes $40, which gives half to the grunt.
Huzzah, IBM has snatched half of your pay check, with a quarter headed to
the agency and you get 25%.� If you're not happy then they'll fire you and
you can't go after IBM because you never actually worked for them.
I'm not sure if this is Capitalism or Canibalism, but I wouldn't doubt IBM's
pursuit of the later if it helped with the former.
Scott
----------------SNIP--------------------------
Scott:
I agree with you and other posters but I think I have some evidence that indicates IBM is essentially attempting to get rid of a lot of sysprogs. IIRC the year was 1995 (6? it was early in the SERVPAC years). I was attending an IBM class for SERVPAC's in the IBM Chicago education center. One of the 2-3 instructors was talking and giving the outline of how SERVPAC's work. After his talk he made a statement that SERVPAC was the attempt of IBM to either eliminate or minimize the systems programmer. I was surprised but it dawned on me that a *LOT* (perhaps 20 percent of the class) consisted of application type programmers(!!).As the class dragged on it was clear that the people that were asking the questions did not have a clue as what SYS1.LINKLIB (and other types of system data sets were). The class was getting hopeless bogged down as 20 percent of the class kept asking less that typical questions to the point of almost not knowing what MVS was and how it
function. Heck some of them had a hard time understanding ISPF and other common type "system" utilities. After class I asked one of the less than lets say informed people what had brought them to the class and one said because IBM told their boss that he did not a systems person to install and maintain MVS as the SERVPAC negated their use. Another person said essentially the same thing.
I am not sure about now but then IBM was handling companies with call 1-800 xxxxxxx to order entire systems and everything else. What IBM did was hand these calls to another vendor to do the ordering �and other tasks involved in installation (hardware wise & planning). We got one that at best amateurish companies and I pointed out to my boss how things should be done not how these people were doing it. One big point that surprised the hell out of me was their recommendation for the size of memory the number they came up with was just too small. I ran some quick RMF reports that showed we needed a lot more memory. I showed them to my boss(another story which I do not want to get into here) and he looked at them and agreed they needed more memory on the new machine. I was told to sit it out and let them do their job. I shook my head and said its your head not mine as I told you about it. That hit home and he meekly suggested that they increase the memory
on the system. They asked on what basis he thought that there was more memory needed and he brought out some RMF reports that I had given him. They said these numbers were new to them. I nudged my boss and he gave me the go ahead and I asked how they got their numbers. They said it was a standard machine configuration (what ever that was) so they were just doing what IBM suggested.�
The point of the above I think is to show that IBM either wants to reduce or eliminate systems programmers. I am sure others have their own versions.
Ed��
McKown, John
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
From this, what IBM wants is for the z to be administered like an i. There really aren't any sysprogs on an i. There is very little to configure. No exits in system code. The OS is really in the equivalent of the millicode, much like LPAR.
--
John McKown
Systems Engineer IV
IT
Administrative Services Group
HealthMarkets�
9151 Boulevard 26 . N. Richland Hills . TX 76010
(817) 255-3225 phone . (817)-961-6183 cell
john....@healthmarkets.com . www.HealthMarkets.com
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. HealthMarkets� is the brand name for products underwritten and issued by the insurance subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. -The Chesapeake Life Insurance Company�, Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM
Dana Mitchell
<John....@HEALTHMARKETS.COM> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>
>From this, what IBM wants is for the z to be administered like an i. There
really aren't any sysprogs on an i. There is very little to configure. No exits in
system code. The OS is really in the equivalent of the millicode, much like LPAR.
>
>--
>John McKown
>Systems Engineer IV
>IT
>
Have a look at the announcement for z/OS Management Facility. That's IBM's
plan for the future.
Dana
Mark Zelden
>
>Seriously, if some of these companies saw the incident reports opened by
>these Systems Programmers that are running their systems they would (should)
>be very scared.
>
Or see some of the posts on IBM-MAIN and other lists / help sites.
Mark
--
Mark Zelden
Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead
Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group - ZFUS G-ITO
mailto:mark....@zurichna.com
z/OS Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/
Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html
Thompson, Steve
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of McKown, John
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 7:25 AM
To: IBM-...@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: IBM driving mainframe systems programmers into the ground
<SNIPPAGE>
From this, what IBM wants is for the z to be administered like an i.
There really aren't any sysprogs on an i. There is very little to
configure. No exits in system code. The OS is really in the equivalent
of the millicode, much like LPAR.
<SNIPPAGE>
Absolutely. The writing for this has been on the wall for a long time
now.
Regards,
Steve Thompson
-- Opinions expressed by this poster may not reflect those of poster's
employer --
Don Leahy
> Ron: I guess I agree to a point but not with the last sentence.. Mackinney is both good and bad. The good is they are cheap *BUT* �at what cost?
Maybe it depends on the product. We use Mackinney's SimpList and the
support has been excellent. Turnaround time is usually less than 24
hrs.
Edward Jaffe
> Maybe it depends on the product. We use Mackinney's SimpList and the
> support has been excellent. Turnaround time is usually less than 24
> hrs.
>
Simplist is supported by Dave Salt. He doesn't work for MacKinney.
Rather, they are an exclusive reseller of his product.
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90045
310-338-0400 x318
edj...@phoenixsoftware.com
http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/
Ed Finnell
In a message dated 11/13/2009 6:58:46 A.M. Central Standard Time,
vze2...@VERIZON.NET writes:
U got to love greed or is it capitialism
>>
Seems to me a serious lack of education. One of our systems folks went to
work for IBM Services a few years back. First job was to a large Midwestern
state who had bought a 'package' for numerous services and paid to have it
installed. After they fired it up, response times were horrible and lots
of complaints. Where have we heard his story before? Anyway, they decided to
stick it out but bring in Help in the form of IBM services.
It was supposed to be for six months extended to three years, just got
renewed for another three years with CPU and DASD upgrades. Works a lot better
when it's tuned. So does management!
Scott Rowe
>>> Mark Zelden <mark....@ZURICHNA.COM> 11/13/2009 9:32 AM >>>
CONFIDENTIALITY/EMAIL NOTICE: The material in this transmission contains confidential and privileged information intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you have received this material in error and that any forwarding, copying, printing, distribution, use or disclosure of the material is strictly prohibited. If you have received this material in error, please (i) do not read it, (ii) reply to the sender that you received the message in error, and (iii) erase or destroy the material. Emails are not secure and can be intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by email. Thank you.
Bill Fairchild
Freedom and free competition are two-edged swords. If I want my employer to have the freedom to sell a software product that induces its purchasers to eliminate huge numbers of salaried employees and I make my living from such software, then I ought not complain if other businesses also have the freedom to compete in such a way that I lose my job, assuming no coercion or fraud is ever involved (which, of course, makes my argument irrelevant in the human realm).
I am not happy that IBM will someday do something to end my software development career prematurely if they possibly can, if that makes them more profit. IBM will beat anyone or anything into the ground that its top management feels is necessary for IBM to continue its highly profitable existence. They have done so in the past with large competitive businesses (NCR, RCA, Amdahl, e.g.), and so now they are doing it with sysprogs. To paraphrase the Hyman Roth character from Godfather part deux: "It's not personal. It's business. This is the business that we chose."
I still maintain that if IBM makes its mainframes installable and maintainable by a partially trained chimpanzee, then it will cost a customer a lot less money to hire one full-time chimpanzee than a human, thus making the total cost of ownership to the customer lower, thus allowing more customers to obtain such mainframes from IBM, which can still make its profit by not lowering their charges to their customers.
No one needs a telephone operator any more to make a local phone call. Even a chimpanzee can do it. And now anyone can afford to own his own phone.
Bill Fairchild
Software Developer
Rocket Software
275 Grove Street * Newton, MA 02466-2272 * USA
Tel: +1.617.614.4503 * Mobile: +1.508.341.1715
Email: bi...@mainstar.com
Web: www.rocketsoftware.com
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Mike Liberatore
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 6:57 AM
To: IBM-...@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: IBM driving mainframe systems programmers into the ground
U got to love greed or is it capitialism
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Finnell
In a message dated 11/13/2009 10:25:49 A.M. Central Standard Time,
Scott...@JOANN.COM writes:
AMEN, brotha!
>>
Yeah, runs a lot slower when you take off TYPERUN=SCAN...and yes
we replace mug holders on PC's. Yep we'll run your jobs ASAP, as soon as
we get 'lectricity from the power company!
Lafever-Brown, Joni
stopped and really read it. I have to agree although I don't want to.
My husband has worked for IBM for 30.5 years now and we wonder every day
if he will have a job next month or next year. I worked for IBM for
10.5 years but got out two years ago when we saw the writing on the
wall. IBM is looking to reduce costs by lowering the pay scale, plain
and simple. We hate that IBM is sending more and more work offshore
when so many people in the USA are out of work. We really hate that
people we know (many of them highly skilled) have been affected by IBM's
infamous "resource actions" these last two years. However, as Bill
said, "it's not personal, it's business".
Bill hit the nail on the head.
Joni Lafever-Brown
Edward Jaffe
> No one needs a telephone operator any more to make a local phone call. Even a chimpanzee can do it. And now anyone can afford to own his own phone.
>
True. And, if you can't afford a mobile phone in the U.S., a government
supported program will give you both phone and airtime for free.
https://www.safelinkwireless.com/EnrollmentPublic/home.aspx
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90045
310-338-0400 x318
edj...@phoenixsoftware.com
http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Lyon
>I agree with you and other posters but I think I have some evidence that
indicates IBM is essentially attempting to get rid of a lot of sysprogs.
Ed, while I see your point in your post I guess I have to ask, why are there 2
of us managing our mainframe and 10+ (estimate) working in the Windoze and
Unix groups?
I guess my point is there will always be a need for sysprogs, just like people
who install and maintain software on the toy boxes.
Strictly my own views, of course.
Chase, John
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Lafever-Brown, Joni
>
> My first reaction to Bill's note was to cough <bullsh1t> but then I
> stopped and really read it. I have to agree although I don't want to.
> My husband has worked for IBM for 30.5 years now and we wonder every
day
> if he will have a job next month or next year. I worked for IBM for
> 10.5 years but got out two years ago when we saw the writing on the
> wall. IBM is looking to reduce costs by lowering the pay scale, plain
> and simple. We hate that IBM is sending more and more work offshore
> when so many people in the USA are out of work. We really hate that
> people we know (many of them highly skilled) have been affected by
IBM's
> infamous "resource actions" these last two years. However, as Bill
> said, "it's not personal, it's business".
>
> Bill hit the nail on the head.
It's not (only) IBM "pushing down the pay scales".
Like it or not, we live in a global economy, and "our" segment of that
global economy is such that anybody can do any of the work we do from
anywhere on the planet. As the initiators of the technological "wave",
we in the US have been riding the crest of that "wave" for a generation
or longer. Now that "wave" is beginning to "normalize" around the
globe, such that those in the "trough" are now rising and those on the
"crest" (us) are falling. Expect that trend to continue until the
"crest" and "trough" have leveled out.
-jc-
Scott
the US, nor the fiduciary duties of companies to their shareholders. I
mostly agree with your assessment, but it's worth pointing out that the
"fiduciary duties" are not the zealous commitment that everyone says.
Besides the point, for sure.
I think what I disagree with, however, is your assessment that the "total
cost of ownership" will be reduced, or that more customers will obtain a
[z/OS] Mainframe, are points that I highly disagree with.
Without specific numbers to quote, I would still readily argue that
instances of new z/OS adoption are stagnant. Mainframes that sell, do so
because of Linux and that OS does not suffer the challenges of the
monolithic design of z/OS. Where you see new licenses for z/OS on a new
Mainframe being sold are because companies are buying two. Or where
business processes are being shifted/inherited that already exist on z/OS.
Blah blah blah.
It's because of this, I argue that IBM lacks room from which to expand its
profits. You can't really make the Mainframe more expensive, without giving
customers the incentive to cost-shift some of their processes away to
different platforms.
I'd also argue that because of this, it's not in IBM's best interest to make
a reduced cost-of-ownership a goal. If cost of ownership goes down, so does
the ceiling from which they have to draw bigger profits. Clients are used
to pay $X every year for "The Mainframe" which is
hardware+software+personnel+support. It's much safer to turn that equation
into hardware+software+IBM and once you get people in a multi-year contract,
you can maximize your billable items are nudge $X to $X+Y.
I call that Accenture-nomics.
If you were really cynical (and I am) then the alternate purpose, I'd argue,
is to brain drain a company of its Mainframe know-how so it's that much more
impossible to "kill the Mainframe." IBM is already doing what they can to
create the Perfect Hostage Situation, which has been their goal for the last
20 years.
Scott
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
> It's not (only) IBM "pushing down the pay scales".
>
> Like it or not, we live in a global economy, and "our" segment of that
> global economy is such that anybody can do any of the work we do from
> anywhere on the planet. As the initiators of the technological "wave",
> we in the US have been riding the crest of that "wave" for a generation
> or longer. Now that "wave" is beginning to "normalize" around the
> globe, such that those in the "trough" are now rising and those on the
> "crest" (us) are falling. Expect that trend to continue until the
> "crest" and "trough" have leveled out.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009p.html#80 IBM driving mainframe systems programmers into the ground
also, the corollary to "telecommuting" ... is "distance insensitive"
i've been blamed for online computer conferencing on the internal
network in the late 70s and early 80s. misc. past posts mentioning
internal network (larger arpanet/internet from just about the beginning
until possible late '85 or early '86)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#internalnet
John Kim
(Alberta, Canada) past couple of years.
Although Economic down-turn they still get a reasonable pay rate. Is this
position available in Zimbabwe? Otherwise no way to be Ri�di..cu.l.u.s�.
McKown, John
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:IBM-...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Patrick Lyon
> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 10:53 AM
> To: IBM-...@bama.ua.edu
>
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:08:11 -0800, Ed Gould <ps2...@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
>
> >I agree with you and other posters but I think I have some
> evidence that
> indicates IBM is essentially attempting to get rid of a lot
> of sysprogs.
>
> Ed, while I see your point in your post I guess I have to
> ask, why are there 2
> of us managing our mainframe and 10+ (estimate) working in
> the Windoze and
> Unix groups?
>
> I guess my point is there will always be a need for sysprogs,
> just like people
> who install and maintain software on the toy boxes.
>
> Strictly my own views, of course.
But how many of them are as relatively knowledgable in their platform as we older sysprogs on ours? Believe it or not, I once had an AIX admin (sysprog) ask me how to do some things in BASH scripting! He knew how to use SMITTY (however it is spelled) to do AIX admin, but was blank on doing things which were not pre-packaged.
--
John McKown
Systems Engineer IV
IT
Administrative Services Group
HealthMarkets(r)
9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010
(817) 255-3225 phone * (817)-961-6183 cell
john....@healthmarkets.com * www.HealthMarkets.com
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. HealthMarkets(r) is the brand name for products underwritten and issued by the insurance subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. -The Chesapeake Life Insurance Company(r), Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM
Patrick Lyon
<John....@HEALTHMARKETS.COM> wrote:
>
>But how many of them are as relatively knowledgable in their platform as we
older sysprogs on ours? Believe it or not, I once had an AIX admin (sysprog)
ask me how to do some things in BASH scripting! He knew how to use SMITTY
(however it is spelled) to do AIX admin, but was blank on doing things which
were not pre-packaged.
>
>--
>John McKown
>Systems Engineer IV
>IT
John - please speak english :)
Bob Shannon
Welcome to the future of systems programming :-(
Bob Shannon
Rocket Software
McKown, John
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:IBM-...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Bob Shannon
> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 2:46 PM
> To: IBM-...@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: IBM driving mainframe systems programmers into the ground
>
>
> Welcome to the future of systems programming :-(
>
> Bob Shannon
> Rocket Software
That's why God created consultants! Or was it Satan???
--
John McKown
Systems Engineer IV
IT
Administrative Services Group
HealthMarkets(r)
9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010
(817) 255-3225 phone * (817)-961-6183 cell
john....@healthmarkets.com * www.HealthMarkets.com
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. HealthMarkets(r) is the brand name for products underwritten and issued by the insurance subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. -The Chesapeake Life Insurance Company(r), Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott
I'm surrounded by people who's skillsets would be on-par with the guys who
empty my trash can, if it weren't for CLISTs. And they have jobs because I
wrote all kinds of automation to catch their mistakes.
Most people in sysadmin roles are thoroughly incompetent. Which is good,
because people like us can keep our options open :)
Scott
McKown, John
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:IBM-...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Scott
> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 3:01 PM
> To: IBM-...@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: IBM driving mainframe systems programmers into the ground
>
>
> I'm surrounded by people who's skillsets would be on-par with
> the guys who
> empty my trash can, if it weren't for CLISTs. And they have
> jobs because I
> wrote all kinds of automation to catch their mistakes.
>
> Most people in sysadmin roles are thoroughly incompetent.
> Which is good,
> because people like us can keep our options open :)
>
> Scott
Maybe. But, then, management hires the less qualified and perhaps one qualified person. The less qualified do the easy stuff and the qualified are then pressured to take less money (like the less qualified) and to work more hours in order to either do what the less qualified cannot do at all, or try to do and mess up.
Howard Rifkind
Ten releases from now (z/OS 20.x) and chimps will be able to do out jobs because IBM will have altered things to the point where highly trained sysprogs really aren't needed.
In fact I believe there really is a very good chance to see the need for sysprogs disappear completely. Log into an IBM web site and download all the updates, fixes, new operating systems etc.
Why not? Shortly it will be done with MS/Wondows and Linux.
But who cares, we will all be eating strawberries and cream in waist deep water in the middle of Florida.
--- On Fri, 11/13/09, Patrick Lyon <ptl...@MIDAMERICAN.COM> wrote:
> From: Patrick Lyon <ptl...@MIDAMERICAN.COM>
> Subject: Re: IBM driving mainframe systems programmers into the ground
Scott
pay a set $$ amount for any given position. So, the agencies goal is to
find the least qualified "Hireable" so they can negotiate the person down as
hard and insultingly as possible, thereby nabbing 50-60% of the pay rate.
Scott
Paul Gilmartin
>
>In fact I believe there really is a very good chance to see the need for sysprogs disappear completely. Log into an IBM web site and download all the updates, fixes, new operating systems etc.
>
because ... what?
-- gil
David Booher
Dave Booher
*My opinions strictly my own
________________________________________
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin [PaulGB...@AIM.COM]
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 4:51 PM
To: IBM-...@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: IBM driving mainframe systems programmers into the ground
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:15:57 -0800, Howard Rifkind wrote:
Ivan Warren
Let me tell you *I* personally think this is bad !
Anyone (and I mean - really pretty much *anyone*) can do the basics on
any modern system : Install the system, maintain it up to date, upgrade
to the next release, etc.. That's true for Windows, Linux, AIX and to a
lesser extent today for IBM i, z/OS or z/VM.. For the 'distributed' OSes
(the 1st category), anyone can acquire the skill set to do that in
probably a couple of weeks of training (and IMHO, AIX is the easiest !).
For the 2nd category, this may take a little while longer, but it's
still accessible (maybe a couple month or so..).
But being a "Systems Programmer", "Systems Administrator" or however you
call it is not *just* that ! That's really the tip of the proverbial
iceberg.
There are, to me, 2 more essential functions that are provided by this
category of personnel :
1st, you have the task to adjust the system environment to the actual
business need of the company. This will pretty much depend on several
factors, such as the type/brand/make of business software installed, the
requirements (and each being utterly different) of these applications.
Efforts are definitely being done in that field through stuff like ITIL
and ISO 20000 - Standards and recommendations that are making an effort
to standardize systems requirements in regard to the actual business
requirements.
2nd, you have the task to answer to whatever demand is made by the
company's Executive management staff. Ah! That one is really not so
clear cut. Here you have, with a mismatched assembly of people, some
with different goals and tactics - And remember - the actual CIO is
usually part of that team ! And in most cases, this management position
entails 2 contradictory requirements : lower costs while at the same
time ensure that both the 1st item is met while also ensuring business
continuity and diminishing the risk factor.
And *THAT* very second item is where an experimented "sysprog" comes
into play. Until someone develops an AI process that is capable of
reconciliating all the contradictory requirements of item #2, the
qualified, competend and experienced in-house (with understanding of a
company's philosophy) sysprogs are still the cheapest and most efficient
way for an IT department to manage a company's information technology
system.
--Ivan
Mike Liberatore
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf
Of Ivan Warren
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 12:41 PM
To: IBM-...@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: IBM driving mainframe systems programmers into the ground
Pinnacle
From: "Bill Fairchild" <Bi...@MAINSTAR.COM>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 11:27 AM
Subject: Re: IBM driving mainframe systems programmers into the ground
Ah, the unbridled capitalism �ber alles, laissez-faire, let-them-eat-cake,
Marie Antoinette post. Thank you Bill, for focusing the discussion.
First off, I'm all for capitalism, supply-and-demand, and so forth. We've
all seen bill rates rise and fall over the years as the economy ebbs and
flows. I have no problem with that at all. The main problem I have here is
that IBM is using its purchasing power to subvert the supply/demand curve.
They have lowered rates and salaries to unheard of levels. $20/hour for an
experienced system programmer is an absolutely unprecedented bill rate. On
the other hand, IBM is claiming that they face a shortage of experienced
z/OS system programmers, so they re-started the previously failed academic
initiative and SHARE started zNextGen. So if IBM is telling the truth, and
there is a shortage of experienced z/OS system programmers, then bill rates
should be going up, not down. At the very least they should be static.
But clearly IBM isn't telling the truth. There is no shortage of system
programmers for z/OS. I have 2 friends, good solid sysprogs, that had to
take these IBM jobs, and watched as IBM ratcheted them down from 40, to
37.50 to 35/hr, then a 32-hour work week, and then fired them. $35/hr and
you're making too much. Think about what that means. IBM is saying $70K/yr
is too much for a z/OS sysprog. Who is going to do this job for less when
other jobs pay more? The best sysprogs will do something else, and the only
ones left will be the ones who can't do the job. I still maintain that no
college kid in their right mind would go into z/OS at these rates and
salaries. At some point, there will be a shortage of z/OS mainframe talent,
and then the shoe will be on the other foot.
I've seen some people tout z/OSMF as the end of the sysprog. z/OSMF is at
least a decade away from making any significant dent in the sysprog
workload. Right now all it can do is send dumps to IBM. CA is currently in
the lead with its MSM product, but even that is only an install tool that
doesn't address deployment. It still doesn't indirectly catalog targets,
which is something the sysprog has to do on their own. I've been asking
vendors for this feature for the last 20 years, and only IBM supports it in
ServerPac. Speaking of ServerPac, how many sysprogs has it put out of
business? You still need to know the system and how you want to install it.
I submit that z/OS will NEVER be installed and maintained by a chimp
(present company excluded). While the install may be simplified,
maintaining the system will always require a skilled hand who knows the
intricacies and the subtleties of z/OS.
So IBM is looking to increase profits by cutting people costs, and
supposably lowering TCO for z/OS. It's an easy sell, because those costs
are hard dollars. What about the soft dollars due to lost productivity and
increased downtime? Those costs are often not quantified, so while it looks
good on paper, the savings often don't materialize.
Case in point. I was working a contract a while back where the client
decided to bring in a bunch of low-cost consultants ($60/hr at the time) to
do a lot of z/OS hardware config and parallel sysplex installation. These
guys were real cowboys, going in to weekend windows without an
implementation or backout plan. After a number of failed windows, they
succeeded in getting the client to freeze all work, which nearly caused the
client to terminate the entire project. On my first weekend window before
the freeze, I presented my 70-step implementation plan, complete with
backout. The client's sysprog thanked me for providing the first
implementation/backout plan they'd seen. My jaw hit the floor, as I wasn't
aware of what the other lowball guys were doing until then. Suddenly all
the problems we had became crystal clear. There's a reason all those guys
came so cheap. As far as the cost savings, those evaporated when the
freezes pushed the schedule out 6-9 months, and increased people costs
across the entire project. My own hours for the project were doubled from
the original due to the delays caused by the low-priced consultants'
screw-ups. Bottom line, you get what you pay for.
Regards,
Tom Conley
McKown, John
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:IBM-...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of David Booher
> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 5:28 PM
> To: IBM-...@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: IBM driving mainframe systems programmers into the ground
>
>
> Dave Booher
>
> *My opinions strictly my own
The vendor. The super techies will just need to be vendor employees. Somebody must write the new OS level code. Or perhaps computers will somehow morph into self programming systems (yeah, right?). Application programmers will still need to understand the language(s) and application subject matter, but not necessarily the underpinnings. Unless the "desktop" evolves in such a way that the end users can actually write their own application system level code. (not likely?). One way that this is evolving now is in "mashups". The users don't really program, but can cross connect web enabled data streams in ways that they need. But I don't know how they would do something like insurance claims processing type applications. Perhaps the really heavy techies will go embedded. That is a very difficult level due to the restrictions on the hardware and response time needs.
--
John McKown
Systems Engineer IV
IT
Administrative Services Group
HealthMarkets(r)
9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010
(817) 255-3225 phone * (817)-961-6183 cell
john....@healthmarkets.com * www.HealthMarkets.com
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. HealthMarkets(r) is the brand name for products underwritten and issued by the insurance subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. -The Chesapeake Life Insurance Company(r), Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CKH - too bad about mainframes.
This isn't about IBM, this is about reality assessment skills.
Here's my story.
My last mainframe contract petered out in 2003 after shrinking for several
years. I last worked on DFSMShsm on a Z900. In spite of everything I did,
I could not find another contract or expand the work. I lost money in 2001
and 2002.
This is a shrinking market. Growth is over. Recognize and accept that.
This has nothing to do with IBM or IBM's business philosophy.
Each of us has to find our own way. We can hope for a mainframe renaissance
or we can apply our skills to other endeavors.
After the Tech-wreck in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, my mainframe consulting
business faded away. I took whatever work I could find, which turned out to
be doing websites as a Junior Web-head. That's was a step down from z/.
I did websites using Dreamweaver and hand coding for a few years. Then I
built and maintained applications on Lotus Notes Domino.
About 2005 or 2006, I heard that my last mainframe client de-installed their
Z900. At one point in the 1980's, they had multiple 3084's which were
replaced by 3090's, two 9021's, then the Z900. They gave up on IBM and
mainframes and ported their applications off.
I have a couple advantages in this brutal market.
I was always an "Interface" person in that I have a sense for design and
minimizing clicks, mouse strokes, visual contrast.
For example, in the 2741/3270 days, I realized that the keyboard-unlock
event should have sounded an audible alarm. The 2741 actually did produce a
quiet mechanical click but 3270's required the user to press a key to hear
the "keyboard-is-locked" beep. Bass-ackwards, dumb, but then, no one asked
me how 3270's should work.
Someday, I'll add faint vertical lines to a screen editor so that you can
"see" the columns.
This sense for the "Interface" let me do good work on websites.
Another advantage that I have is unlike most "System Programmers", I did not
come out of operations. I started my career as an applications programmer
on MVT. I can program. Most system programmers are smart operators who
know SMP, MVS facilities, and MVS dumps. I see them typing with two fingers,
D C, K
K E, D
K D, F
I can crank code. As a result I wrote tools and utilities, post-processed
SMF using custom code rather than SPSS, wrote my own performance monitoring
utilities. If I needed something, I wrote it.
My other advantage is that in the early 1990's I picked up an MS/CSci from
GWU's school of Engineering and Applied Sciences. Not to be arrogant but
there is something to Computer Science at the graduate level at an
engineering school. If you don't have that, you face this business at a
disadvantage.
So. Programmer, interface aware, academics. Not your average web-head or
Notes Domino mechanic.
Gradually, gradually, I built my Web-head and Domino skills and expanded the
scope of my work.
Twice, once on the website job and more recently on my current Notes Domino
contract, I've written large, sophisticated Rexx programs. Rexx is my
secret weapon.
While other consultants are cutting and pasting into Excel (not many can
program, remember) or struggling with Visual Basic and Access, I use Regina,
stems, and know state engines, associative memory, set theoretic operations,
I can write programs to manipulate the data, fast, easily, in ways that they
cannot.
Step back from the job problem. If you can't find a job doing MVS or z/OS,
apply your skills, which are substantive, to other venues.
These are hard times but each of us has valuable experiences and expertise.
Stop thinking of yourself as a JES2 or CICS expert. No one cares. There are
no jobs. The problem isn't IBM, it's your own mind-trap.
Find something else to do, do it well, then expand the scope of your work.
If Dubuque is paying $20/hour for experienced MVS systems programmers, then
find something else in that salary range and build on that.
Amp up your skills. Try something, anything. Rather than move across the
country for $20/hour, you're smart, find something else.
If you are working on a 'frame, even if the money is OK and the job seems
secure, build a backstop, a Plan-B doing something else.
Then when they tell you, "Surprise! You're laid off!" You can tell them,
"Does this mean I get to work full time on my side business and I can earn
twice as much as you've been paying me?"
-ckh
Ed Gould
From: Pinnacle <pinn...@ROCHESTER.RR.COM>
Subject: Re: IBM driving mainframe systems programmers into the ground
To: IBM-...@bama.ua.edu
Date: Saturday, November 14, 2009, 4:02 PM
-------------SNIP----------------------------------------------------------
Ah, the unbridled capitalism �ber alles, laissez-faire, let-them-eat-cake, Marie Antoinette post.� Thank you Bill, for focusing the discussion.
First off, I'm all for capitalism, supply-and-demand, and so forth.� We've all seen bill rates rise and fall over the years as the economy ebbs and flows.� I have no problem with that at all.� The main problem I have here is that IBM is using its purchasing power to subvert the supply/demand curve. They have lowered rates and salaries to unheard of levels.� $20/hour for an experienced system programmer is an absolutely unprecedented bill rate.� On the other hand, IBM is claiming that they face a shortage of experienced z/OS system programmers, so they re-started the previously failed academic initiative and SHARE started zNextGen.� So if IBM is telling the truth, and there is a shortage of experienced z/OS system programmers, then bill rates should be going up, not down.� At the very least they should be static.
------SNIP------------------------------------------------
Some very good points and some weak ones.�I have seen the "cheap" people come into a place play havoc with the installation (and maintenance). They "do their job" but in the long run they will cost the company a lot of money as they always bring in their "tricks of their trade" tools and when they leave they either take the tools with them or they break with some OS code change. Then you have to hire them back to get them to fix the "tool".We had one programmer (not systems) do this very thing. When it broke they had to hire the guy at over $100 an hour to fix it. I have seen similar tricks by sysprogs. That is why I do not allow any "tools" that are brought in given to any outside department. I have my own tape of goodies but I keep it an a library that is under my control and it doesn't go out to anyone else as I do not want to be accused �of doing this very thing. Where I am different is that I never let anyone know what utilities I have or where I
got them. So even if they were able to run them the utilities are essentially unusable except for me. I also demand source code from any person that wants to give anything to anyone outside the department and I look through the listing to make sure that there isn't some nasty hidden code breakers in it.�
IBM IMO doesn't like being stood up to by GUIDE (and/or then SHARE). IBM doesn't like people who will not take no for an answer. Most good sysprogs I know will standup to IBM (at the appropriate time) and get the duty manager involved if needed. Although I suspect now days Duty Managers are a pale white of what they used to be, so I am not sure they can do what needs to be done within IBM. �I would suspect that their duties have been cut back to the point of pushing paper, and not looking out for the customer.
This is just one more step in IBM to eliminate the enemy.
Ed
Shmuel Metz , Seymour J.
on 11/13/2009
at 11:24 AM, Bill Fairchild <Bi...@MAINSTAR.COM> said:
>IBM, as a profit-making corporation owned by stockholders and presumably
>incorporated somewhere within the USA, has a legally required fiduciary
>duty to its stockholders to maximize the value of their stock.
No, they're legally required to maximize profits without violating the
law. Lying about prevailing wages in order to get H1-B visa's is not part
of their fiduciary duty.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
Chase, John
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Howard Rifkind
>
> [ snip ]
>
> In fact I believe there really is a very good chance to see the need
for sysprogs disappear
> completely. Log into an IBM web site and download all the updates,
fixes, new operating systems etc.
ShopzSeries? SMP/E RECEIVE ORDER?
-jc-
P S
shmuel+...@patriot.net <shmuel%2Bibm...@patriot.net>> wrote:
> No, they're legally required to maximize profits without violating the
> law. Lying about prevailing wages in order to get H1-B visa's is not part
> of their fiduciary duty.
>
That's assuming that this "lying" violates the law...not necessarily the
case (though one can hope).
Bob Shannon
>Most system programmers are smart operators who know SMP, MVS facilities, >and MVS dumps.
It depends on the shop. I've worked places where most systems programmers came from operations, and others where none of the systems programmers came from operations.
>I see them typing with two fingers
Guilty, although I came from application development.
Bob Shannon
Rocket Software
CKH - too bad about mainframes.
Your homework assignments -This will help get your head on straight.
www.pbs.org, Frontline, you can watch it online. Worked well on 700K DSL.
"Close to Home"
WSJ on the Fun-employed.
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125780714976639687.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_ne\%20ws#>
If you have HBO, check out a current special on the Garment industry and how
it cratered out. It's a little long but you will see the connection to
mainframes.
==
Now then, those of you who are still working, have "skills", are IBM
internal, don't get too comfortable. You might be OK or you might not.
The HBO series pointed out that in the 1980s, 95% of clothing was produced
in the U.S. It's 5% today.
My last client had multiple 3084's in the 1980's and about 2005 or so,
de-installed their last 'frame. They were one of the largest IBM shops in
the area and now, nothing.
Large mainframe shops can convert onto other platforms. Do not kid yourself.
I don't take any joy in this. I miss the machine room and the power of MVS.
Some of you lost money in the equities markets, some have significantly
lower home/real estate valuations. That's done. Assess it and move on.
I found work off the mainframe and use the fundamental skills that served me
on the mainframe, both on z/OS TSO and VM/CMS.
Back in the 1980's, I learned Rexx on CMS and built systems that replaced
people. In the 1990's and early 2000's, I used Rexx to power my batch TSO
file movers. Same deal. Rexx gave me the ability to build systems fast.
This is the end of 2009. No one knows what happens next. A couple things
are certain though.
It will be a long time before the system programmer job market expands.
Even if there are new jobs, I know too many talented people who are out of
work. They will take whatever comes along.
This recession or whatever this is, will not resolve in the near term.
Companies will not be expanding their mainframe capacity.
So. With that cheery perspective, consider expanding your skills to other areas.
If you have a choice between Dubuque at $20/hour and something else
technical where you are, at $15/hour, I'd take the something else,
especially if it is different and there is some promise.
I might not jump at pulling cables and rolling around carts of new PC's but
even there, it might be a foot in the door at a company. Take it or
relocate to Dubuque.
Linux server work, Cisco, Apache, MySQL, J2EE, XSSL, Eclipse, anything that
pays at least $20/hour trumps Dubuque because you don't have to move and it
expands your skills in another direction.
If, say, the JES3 market suddenly triples, you have the option of walking
away from being a Junior J2EE codehead and going back on the 'frame.
If it doesn't, in two or three years, you will be a seriously skilled J2EE
codehead and probably earning $80+K. Might take a job change or going
'contract.
Your decades on the 'frame give you a powerful advantage over the nubies and
clickers, go with your strengths.
Use the Force.
I understand how hard it is to shake loose of 20, 30, 40 years of being a
master of the universe. I see that in the comments here. Some cannot
believe that their jobs are gone or that companies aren't paying market rates.
During the 1970s, I never felt the recession. My salary kept increasing.
Ditto the 1980's recession. Today is different.
We are more like the clothing designers in the HBO special, auto engineers,
or commercial jet pilots. Jobs are vanishing and salaries are falling.
Grab onto a critical production application system. As much as I like new
development, as the recession deepens, new development may stop and
companies on life support will pay for maintenance for production.
Cut your expenses ruthlessly. Do it now before a job loss forces you to cut
expenses. Save every cent you can.
Squirrel your savings away somewhere safe and optimize your returns. These
are conflicting goals.
My solution is a secure, insured savings account at a well regarded,
conservative bank. It pays 1.0% interest.
This is counter balanced by a trading account which is in shaky, risky
companies, AMD (doubled recently), SLM (also doubled).
-ckh GLTA
Scott
excuse for evil is really fucking stupid. It is not a slippery slope where
the CEO will be thrown in jail, if he doesn't sponsor the overthrow of some
government, because his company will sell more table napkins.
Reducing the human condition in the name of capitalism means that our
implementation of capitalism is fundamentally broken. As always, I tend to
attribute the modern day's gross immorality and cynicism to bible thumping
baby boomers. Grrr.
Scott
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 7:54 PM, P S <zos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) <
> shmuel+...@patriot.net <shmuel%2Bibm...@patriot.net> <
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
zos...@GMAIL.COM (P S) writes:
> That's assuming that this "lying" violates the law...not necessarily the
> case (though one can hope).
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009p.html#80 IBM driving mainframe systems programmers into the ground
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009p.html#81 IBM driving mainframe systems programmers into the ground
post from today .. CSPAN broadcast of David Walker's (recent fed.
comptroller general) congressional testimony ... post mentions some
possible parallels with the "robber baron" period from 100yrs ago (I've
vague recollections doing book report on book by that title in junior
high, 50 some yrs ago ... just checked search engine, written in 1934):
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009p.html#86
and recent posts about being (repeatedly) reminded that "business
ethics" is an "oxymoron" (some from linkedin "greater ibm" discussions):
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009.html#53 CROOKS and NANNIES: what would Boyd do?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009e.html#37 How do you see ethics playing a role in your organizations current or past?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009o.html#36 U.S. students behind in math, science, analysis says
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009o.html#37 Young Developers Get Old Mainframers' Jobs
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009o.html#52 Revisiting CHARACTER and BUSINESS ETHICS
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009o.html#57 U.S. begins inquiry of IBM in mainframe market
Bobbie Jo
It should be called cannibalism, instead of capitalism.
What we need is a president that comes in and says, NO MORE LAYOFFS, NO MORE OUTSOURCING, NO MORE OFFSHORING, NO MORE H1B VISAs, and any company that has sent jobs overseas for the last 30 years has exactly 5 minutes to bring those jobs back to america, or the ceo will be thrown in jail for the rest of their lives.
and the FIRST people to lose their jobs when a company is experiencing financial difficulty should be the CEO, CIO, CFO, COO and the head hr person. (also quit calling it human resources, I am A HUMAN BEING, NOT A RESOURCE)
pms mode off
Bobbie Justice
-----Original Message-----
>From: Scott <sc...@AITRUS.ORG>
>Sent: Nov 15, 2009 2:19 PM
>To: IBM-...@bama.ua.edu
>Subject: Re: IBM driving mainframe systems programmers into the ground
>
>No, this cynical, evolving mindset of the "fiduciary duty" as a catch-all
>excuse for evil is really f***ing stupid. It is not a slippery slope where
>the CEO will be thrown in jail, if he doesn't sponsor the overthrow of some
>government, because his company will sell more table napkins.
>
>Reducing the human condition in the name of capitalism means that our
>implementation of capitalism is fundamentally broken. As always, I tend to
>attribute the modern day's gross immorality and cynicism to bible thumping
>baby boomers. Grrr.
>
>Scott
>
________________________________________
PeoplePC Online
A better way to Internet
http://www.peoplepc.com
Clark Morris
>pms mode on.
>
>It should be called cannibalism, instead of capitalism.
>
>What we need is a president that comes in and says, NO MORE LAYOFFS, NO MORE OUTSOURCING, NO MORE OFFSHORING, NO MORE H1B VISAs, and any company that has sent jobs overseas for the last 30 years has exactly 5 minutes to bring those jobs back to america, or the ceo will be thrown in jail for the rest of their lives.
And when IBM wants to bring a specialist from the US into India to
work on a problem, India will not respond in the same way. While I
may not like a lot of the direction IBM is taking, I remember that
India is a major market for IBM so India will want a commensurate
amount of employment in India. There are probably more people in
India's middle class than the population of the United States.
>
>and the FIRST people to lose their jobs when a company is experiencing financial difficulty should be the CEO, CIO, CFO, COO and the head hr person. (also quit calling it human resources, I am A HUMAN BEING, NOT A RESOURCE)
Unfortunately, while we are people the services we provide are
resources and I don't see the need for systems programming services
expanding soon. Indeed given what I see as IBM policies, I don't see
a long term future for the IBM mainframe.
Shmuel Metz , Seymour J.
at 06:41 PM, Ivan Warren <iv...@VMFACILITY.FR> said:
>Anyone (and I mean - really pretty much *anyone*) can do the basics on
>any modern system :
And then you can hire someone to clean up after "anyone".
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------