Excerpt from IBM's Corporate Business Conduct Guidelines:

Dear Reader,

Welcome to my web site! What you will find here is a detailed summary and description of my claim against IBM for refusing to compensate me any portion of the $600,000 I earned for submitting four sets of valuable ideas to IBM under the terms of the IBM Suggestion Plan (and that IBM acknowledges it implemented and benefited from), but that IBM asserts it had no obligation to act in good faith or to follow the terms of the such Plan. But before you begin reviewing the documents and legal briefs hot-linked to this Introduction and contained within the "Briefs and Documents" section below, I ask that you take a few moments and read this Introduction, for it will tell you my story.

I was an IBM employee and manager for 10 years. I want you to know that these were great years for me: years of growth, opportunity and development. During my employment, IBM was the epitome of large business. It had an aura of unimpeachable integrity that pervaded each and every division within its structure. It was a prosperous company and it shared its prosperity with its most valuable resource--its employees. IBM was not just a company to us. It was an "institution", a "way of life" in the strongest sense that those words can convey. IBM embraced concepts such as absolute honesty and fairness to employees and every other entity with which it interfaced which are no longer routinely practiced by businesses today. When IBM "said" something, it stood behind it. Its word was its bond. When IBM said it had 100% full employment, it meant it. When IBM espoused a policy of internal employee development and promotion from within, it stood behind it and actively ensured its performance. When IBM said it had "respect for the individual", it meant it and practiced it, time and time and time again. Please take just a minute to reread the Corporate Principles Statement and statement from the IBM Chairman and CEO quoted above. These statements eloquently articulate the essential core of IBM's philosophy as I understood it. A philosophy and ideology encompassing a supreme level of integrity and honesty that IBM lived up to for decades.

I once took a class on empowerment. The class instructor took part of the class time to describe how he and many other "old timers" felt about IBM. He said "being an employee of IBM means more than just working for a company. It means being part of a special team--a team member of one of the greatest corporate entities in the world. When I was a young employee I used to feel that I could literally take my company badge, throw it into the middle of a busy highway, and it would stop traffic. I feel totally empowered by our company. It is the greatest company on earth. IBM is truly the one corporate entity that "walks its talk" each and every day."

"Walks its talk". That was something we IBM employees heard just about every day. IBM had an impressive communication network established with its employees. We constantly read about other companies not living up to their corporate policies, philosophies and ideals, but that IBM always "walked its talk". And you know what? It was absolutely, 100% TRUE as I understood it. IBM did "walk its talk". I remember working with software engineers. These are individuals so in demand that they can literally write their own ticket as far as money and benefits and choice of employer goes. But, even with lures of more money, other companies rarely enticed IBM’s engineers to pull up stakes and leave. Why? Because working for IBM meant more than just money. Employment with IBM was a plan for life. We knew without a shadow of a doubt that no other company could come close to matching what IBM had to offer. And what did it have to offer? Absolute, unequivocal, loyalty, appreciation and respect for its employees. Years of employment. And most important? You could trust IBM!! It did what it said. Every time. Year after year.

It is very important that you understand this. It may sound funny to you. Funny that employees could be so in awe of what we all know is just a company in business to make money, keep investors happy and retain good personnel. But it was true. We were PROUD to be IBMers. We were passionate about our work and our company. That’s right. OUR company. That’s how we felt. And when IBM "told" us something, we believed it. Because IBM had NEVER let us down. It "walked its talk". And you know what? It wasn’t just the employees that felt that way. Our customers felt exactly the same. An IBM product meant quality. It meant integrity. It meant total, 100% backing of a product by a company that had been around and practiced (walked its talk) its policies of quality workmanship and backing for decades. With IBM, you knew you had a good product which was backed by a company who made the concepts of quality, longevity, success, honesty and integrity goals that other companies could only dream about achieving. This is the way it was for employees and customers alike for many, many GREAT years!

Now, you know what happened. IBM’s total comfort and faith in its products and market share made it very complacent. Before we knew it, other, smaller companies were eating into our market share. Why? Because they delivered what the customer wanted more quickly and more cheaply. What they did was emulate the great example IBM had set in the computer industry, but surpassed it by actually LISTENING to what the customer wanted. IBM had stopped listening to its customers. It had spent so many years TELLING the customer what it wanted, it had forgotten to ASK what the customer wanted. And so, hard times hit IBM. Then came the layoffs.

Now, for years, IBM refused to CALL layoffs by that name. They were "voluntary separations". As managers were instructed to say to one division’s employees: "It’s NOT a negative thing. Think of it as a opportunity for you to go out there and do something you always wanted to do."

Don’t get me wrong. I was not one of those unfortunate people who had to leave the company they thought they would work for the rest of their careers. No. My division was eventually sold to another, very successful company. However, the division was essentially IBM...same managers, same buildings, same support systems...nothing really changed. Except it wasn’t IBM. So, when another, EXTREMELY lucrative offer came my way, I took it. It was a great move for me and my earnings are significantly higher than if I had stayed where I was.

I tell you this because you also need to understand that I am not one of those ex-IBMers (and there are a lot of them out there) who have remained bitter to this day over their severance with "the greatest company on earth". I have done well. My life is good. My career is great. I work for a terrific company with good benefits and an excellent salary plan. My lawsuit with IBM has absolutely nothing to do with any feelings of bitterness or regret, nor do I harbor any need to "get back at IBM" for any wrongs they did me.

Because...IBM did nothing bad to me. I did quality work for them. They recognized my work and rewarded me with promotions, awards and salary increases. I respected, believed in and trusted my company and they respected me. I never doubted it for one minute. As I said, when IBM told you something (whether through management, policy statements or other company communications) they stood by it - each and every time - no exceptions.

One really great IBM program was its Suggestion Plan. It, like all the other plans and policies, was very well documented and widely disseminated and advocated throughout IBM (please see IBM Suggestion Plan: Presentation Guide, Manager's Manual reference, Employee Guide and Evaluator's Guide; and IBM's About Your Company Employee Handbook). Essentially, you could submit ideas for new or improved actions, which, if adopted by IBM, would save it considerable dollars and/or other resources, or provide for a better way to run the business. The suggestions could not revolve around your OWN job. It was expected that you would implement quality improvements in your own job position as a natural course of doing business. Rather, the Suggestion Plan was a program put into place that would reward an employee for saving IBM time or money or some other resource in OTHER areas of the business. In doing so, IBM was recognizing that an employee’s ideas AFFECTING BUSINESS AREAS OUTSIDE THAT EMPLOYEES INDIVIDUAL AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY were the property of that employee and, frankly, well worth paying for IF IMPLEMENTED.

As set forth in the IBM Suggestion Plan "Your Ideas Have Value" brochure, "Since the Plan was established in 1928, it has been good for both the company and the employees who submitted useful ideas. For example, from 1975 to 1984, employees’ suggestions had saved the company over $300 million – and earned nearly $60 million in awards for IBMers." Over the course of several years, IBM paid me over $90,000 for my ideas; ideas which had saved them a LOT more money than $90K (you can read the Suggestion Plan to see how suggestion awards were calculated - basically a percentage of the total savings).

So, as you can see, IBM definitely "walked its talk" with me. It was a great Plan...I submitted valuable ideas, IBM implemented those ideas and rewarded me handsomely for them. And I had absolutely no reason to think it would ever be otherwise. If I had, I certainly wouldn’t have continued to send in suggestions (my OWN ideas, my OWN property). Which is exactly what I did. I had submitted a great many suggestions and was patiently awaiting their approval (the Plan was good, but it REALLY took a long time for the system to churn through its processes) when things started to change.

Well, while IBM was having its financial troubles, it decided to drastically revise its Suggestion Plan. The most noteworthy change was that the maximum award under the new IBM Ideas Plan was reduced from $150,000 to $5,000 per implemented suggestion (please see IBM Ideas: Announcement, Program Guide, and Manager's Guide). I can only suppose that it was another method of "financial retrenchment". The Company was having problems and rapid downsizing and trimming of discretionary spending was the new policy. So, after a certain date, the Company formally announced that the "old" Plan would no longer be in effect, but that suggestions submitted PRIOR to that cut-off date would still be evaluated under the "old" Plan. Since I was in the process of submitting over 40 new suggestions, guess what I did? Good guess! I had arranged to have these 40 plus suggestions delivered via Federal Express to the Suggestion Department so their receipt date would be documented and their evaluation would be under the more lucrative "old" Plan.

Was I worried about the change in the Suggestion Plan? Was I concerned that IBM wouldn’t "make good" if they implemented my suggestions? ABSOLUTELY NOT! I can honestly say that I never had one moment of concern or worry that MY Company would not "walk its talk".

There was the irritating, but inevitable, bureaucratic mistakes that always seem to accompany the established procedures of any large corporate program. With respect to the Suggestion Plan, my suggestions were logged in, forwarded to the wrong evaluators, rejected and returned to me. This had happened so many times in the past, I had come to think of this quick "in and out" cycle through the Suggestion Department as an integral part of the standard operating procedure in evaluating suggestions. I did what I had done so frequently in the past – I called the Suggestion Department manager, informed him that the suggestions had been evaluated by the wrong group of evaluators and received the now familiar instructions to resubmit. Which I did. So far, everything was proceeding as it had so many times in the past.

But then I started getting an uneasy feeling about how IBM was handling "my" property. I learned that my resubmitted suggestions had never been officially time-stamped upon receipt. In fact, I learned that they were sitting in a box under the Suggestion Manager’s desk! I know this because, as the weeks stretched into months without any word or response, I called this manager several times. At first, he told me that the suggestions had all been time-stamped and logged in. When I informed him that his own department administrator had told me there was no record of my suggestions, he became irritable and defensive. He finally admitted the suggestions had NOT been logged in and were under his desk because "there were so many of them that he was only going to evaluate a few at a time" (G. Allis e-mail). Once those few had gone through the process, he would drag out a few more from under his desk, log them in and forward for processing. However, since there were so many of them, it would take quite some time, as he and his staff were so very busy. He was also irritated with me because – as he said – I had submitted "too many ideas". I told him I didn’t quite understand how a company could feel they had received too many ideas on how to save a lot of money. After some further huffing and puffing on his part, he said the reevaluations would proceed according to his own "plan".

Although you may find this difficult to believe I wasn’t overly concerned with the amount of time it was taking to process my ideas—this was very commonplace in the IBM Suggestion Plan administration. The wheels turned VERY, VERY SLOWLY. However, I WAS concerned about the fact that my ideas had never been time-stamped and logged into the official Suggestion Plan database. This was required procedure and clearly stated in the Plan’s internal guidelines. An idea was not "official" until it had been logged in. Even more importantly, I wasn’t happy that my ideas (property) were being handled LITERALLY "under the table" and voiced my concerns to the manager. His attitude was essentially "take it or leave it".

I could go on for pages about the numerous phonecalls I made and the letters I sent to the Suggestion Department and suggestion evaluators. About how the boxes containing my ideas (property) had temporarily "disappeared" during some of the massive layoffs IBM was implementing and that my suggestions had been implemented (Personnel pubs simplification, Procurement conference disk and softcopy "access string"). How my ideas (property) had NEVER been logged into the official Suggestion Plan database (even though the manager had said this was "taken care of") (G. Allis e-mail).

As months stretched into YEARS (during which I left IBM and began an excellent career with another large corporation), I began to feel very impatient and manipulated. I began to feel that my ideas, my property, had been enticed from me with false promises and lies. I began to feel as if some trick had been played upon me. I kept pursuing the matter because my ideas were GOOD. They had the potential to save IBM millions of dollars and provide me with a sizable award. I just couldn’t understand why a company would ignore the opportunity to save such an impressive amount of money year after year – especially with all the financial difficulties IBM was experiencing at the time.

But I can tell you—this is NOTHING compared to how I felt when I learned that, in 1994, IBM HAD ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTED SOME OF MY IDEAS!!! Implemented them WITHOUT my knowledge and WITHOUT proper compensation to me (per the guidelines clearly stated in the Suggestion Plan ). My phone calls and letters to IBM now included my informing them that I was aware they had implemented some of my ideas and I asked to know why I had not been compensated.

At first, IBM denied that my ideas had ever been implemented. However, as I still had many friends working for IBM, I had absolutely no difficulty in providing IBM management with all the documentation necessary to prove my assertions. At this point, I began to correspond with Senior Suggestion Department management. I expressed my concern that IBM had "misappropriated" my ideas (property) without any indication of proper remuneration. The course of events that transpired was always the same. The Senior Suggestion Department Manager would tell me that he would "look into the matter". He would stretch his "investigations" into months. THEN, I would call or write, only to find out that the Senior Manager with whom I had been dealing had done nothing but direct my concerns back to the manager who botched the evaluations up to begin with. My dialogue with various Senior Suggestion Department managers continued for about two years before they finally wrote me an extremely loquacious, but illogical and unsubstantiated "fluff" letter. It basically stated that yes, some of my ideas had been implemented but that the ideas had been "conceived" by IBM either prior to or without reviewing my suggestions, or were ineligible.

WELL, I had always thought of IBM as an amazing company, but I had never before known it to have the ability to manifest such incredible feats of clairvoyance! It also seemed that their amazing psychic abilities were exceeded only by their audacity. I learned that, during these two years of cycling through the various evasive maneuvers initiated by Senior Suggestion Department management, IBM CONTINUED TO IMPLEMENT EVEN MORE OF THE IDEAS INCLUDED IN MY ORIGINAL BATCH OF SUBMISSIONS!!!

At this point, I was totally dumbfounded, but not entirely speechless. I immediately escalated my complaint to IBM's Corporate Legal Department whereby I informed them of my complete lack of success in resolving my issues logically and in a straightforward manner (D. Evangalista letter). Once again, I sent ANOTHER letter, restating all of my concerns and issues; not the least of which was the CONTINUED, documented appropriation of my ideas for IBM’s financial gain (D. Lynch-1). Two months and many follow-up calls later, I received another letter with lots of words and very little content, which completely failed to address any of the issues and facts (D. Lynch-2). After months of trying to follow-up with this attorney, I was advised that he had gone on disability and my complaint was being assigned to one of his staff attorneys. After an extensive call with this attorney, she acknowledged that she understood the basis of my complaint and why I was so concerned. She said her initial impression was that many of my points were valid and that she would immediately begin another investigation into the matter. Well, this sounded more like the IBM I know. I actually began to feel more optimistic about how things were proceeding. Unfortunately, my sense of optimism was woefully premature, as you will read below.

What followed was an interesting 7-month period when I seemed to spend most of my time talking with some IBM secretary, who was carefully screening all of my calls to the attorney. I accepted this as a fairly traditional avoidance technique commonly used by "higher-level" individuals privileged enough to employ "lower-level" personnel to hide behind. What made the situation truly ludicrous was that this secretary actually began RETURNING phone calls I had placed to the attorney; relaying the attorney’s responses to my requests for updates, etc.. It was an odd experience to say the least – rather like Dorothy trying to have a conversation with the great and powerful Oz (who, as we know, turned out to have a great deal to hide) (P. Freiberg1, P. Freiberg2 and P. Freiberg3).

Anyway, after this rather surreal 7-month period, I finally received a written response from this ephemeral attorney (P. Freiberg4). A truly "Twilight Zone" response. This letter was an almost EXACT REPETITION OF THE FLUFFY LETTER RECEIVED BY ME 7 MONTHS PREVIOUSLY!!! This letter did not just fail to ADEQUATELY respond to my issues, questions and statements of fact. NO – this letter failed to respond AT ALL to my issues, questions and statements of fact which the attorney and I had discussed AT LENGTH and IN DETAIL. It was as if the entire 7-month period following the original "blow-off" letter HAD NEVER HAPPENED. What had happened with this "investigation" the attorney was conducting? What were the results? Where was all the documentation that IBM claimed to have to prove that all of my assertions were unfounded?

One could speculate as to what happened and come up with a number of interesting theories. One theory could be that the attorney DID begin a legitimate investigation and found facts and actions not exactly complimentary to IBM’s noble reputation. In which case, she was instructed to cease any further inquiries. OR, another theory could be that she never investigated anything at all; preferring to exercise her brain by playing hide-and-seek with me with her secretary frantically running interference for her.

I suppose that a third theory (one more complimentary to IBM) could be that the attorney did indeed investigate my claims and, after diligent research and analysis, found indisputable proof that my claims and assertions were totally unfounded and that IBM had indeed implemented these significant cost-saving procedures completely independently of my suggestions. The only problem with this theory is obvious. If IBM had indeed found any such documentation backing up their position, it seems that they would have immediately sent a written response to me, outlining their series of independent cost-saving actions and including copies of their documents.

Now, any of you who have worked in any large, bureaucratic organization know that it is almost impossible for such an entity to conceive, discuss, draft and implement significant changes in procedure without producing an amazing amount of paperwork. First, the idea has to be conceived. Then the idea has to be brought to the attention of someone in authority – there’s one memorandum right there. THEN, a task force has to be put together – which means LOTS of memoranda going back and forth to put the team together, when to meet, etc.. THEN, there are all the documents that the task force generates…meeting minutes, individual research assignments, more meetings, draft proposals, rework on the drafts and then FINALLY, a formal proposal submitted IN WRITING to those with authority to implement said procedures. THEN, the formal proposal is "tweaked" (this is a favorite corporate word) and sent BACK to the task force to REWRITE and then RESUBMIT to management for eventual implementation. Once a cost-saving process is implemented, what follows is an extensive period of analysis to determine total savings versus total expense. In other words, did the new procedure really save any money and/or resource and how much?

The paper trail for significant procedural implementations is impressive. Even if a few pieces of documentation are lost, it is virtually impossible to "lose" everything. Not only are there the hardcopy documents, there are electronic documents available as well.

In other words, if IBM had independently conceived, initiated and implemented these many cost-saving ideas, then there would be – figuratively speaking – a MOUNTAIN of paperwork to back it up. And, if there existed such a mountain of documentation, you would think that IBM would have been more than happy to provide me with copies, thereby relieving themselves of the need for further communications with me. I mean, why pay a high-priced attorney to "investigate" something that doesn’t need investigating? Why keep a high-priced attorney working on resolving issues when no issues exist? Just get a low level clerk to photocopy some documents, send them to me and I walk away disappointed, but at least finally given a concrete answer to my very concrete questions and concerns.

You may feel differently, but theory three just doesn’t seem to hold up under close scrutiny.

So, here I was, with yet another fluffy, ambiguous and evasive letter from IBM to add to my growing collection (P. Freiberg4). I decided to write to the IBM Corporate Personnel Manager (J. Kanin-Lovers). At least she didn’t pretend to address anything – no – she immediately referred me back to the very same attorney with whom I had been dealing for the past 12 months (J. Kanin-Lovers and (P. Freiberg5).

So, in December, 1995, unable to face another round of discussions with the corporate attorney and her secretary (acting in HER capacity as a pseudo Henry Kissinger), I finally decided to get legal representation for myself. Since the bulk of the suggestions were submitted in early 1993 (with one submitted as far back as 1989), I felt that IBM had had adequate time to respond to my questions. My attorney proposed a very fair and reasonable settlement to IBM, an offer that IBM refused. At this point, I felt that I had no choice but to file suit against the IBM Corporation—and the rest is a matter of public record (please see Complaint, Amended Complaint, Opposition Memo-1, Opposition Memo-2, Appellate Brief and Appellate Brief (in "plain" English)). This decision was not easy for me. I knew that the personal financial burden involved with initiating and following through with a lawsuit would be a heavy one. I knew that I was only one person matched up against a very large, powerful company with a battery of able attorneys. However, I strongly felt that I could not just walk away -- not take a stand -- not at least try to recover what had always belonged to me…and which had been taken from me.

One note—you will find it interesting that, once the suit was initiated, IBM did not continue to hold to its claims that it had independently conceived, initiated and implemented all of the ideas contained within my suggestions. Interestingly enough, those claims never DID become part of IBM’s legal position. Instead, in yet another surrealistic move, IBM claimed that while, yes all of the ideas WERE mine, they NEVER INTENDED TO COMPENSATE ME FOR MY IDEAS AT ALL!!

• IBM had no present intention to follow the terms of the IBM Suggestion Plan with respect to the evaluation and award of Gibby’s suggestions.
• IBM was not obligated to act in good faith to compensate Gibby for his suggestions it implemented and from which it benefited.
• The plain language of the Suggestion Plan brochure warned Gibby that IBM was not agreeing to pay anything, even for suggestions that it adopted.
• The Suggestion Plan brochure offered employees only the possibility that IBM would decide to pay an award.
• IBM had no duty of care to compensate Gibby reasonably or fairly per the Suggestion Plan’s published award methodology.
• IBM’s payment to Gibby for 14 previous suggestions for over $90,000.00 did not establish a reasonable expectation of future payments for implemented suggestions.
• No one reading the Suggestion Plan could interpret it as giving rise to a promise or at least creating a legitimate expectation that IBM would pay for all suggestions that IBM used or appeared to use.
• In the Suggestion Plan, IBM reserved the right not to make awards for any particular implemented suggestions. These terms also define how awards are to be calculated, not how to reach a decision to make an award.
• The IBM Suggestion Plan specifically prescribes and limits the procedures for evaluating suggestions, but does not prescribe which ones merit awards.
• The Suggestion Plan brochure, read as a whole, supplies no legitimate basis for expecting payment, and certainly not one that would put IBM on notice, even if the suggestion is implemented.

Can you believe it? After all these years of claiming that it had come up with all of these ideas all by itself, IBM was actually saying, IN WRITING, that it had taken my ideas, implemented and significantly benefited from them and that THIS WAS OK, BECAUSE IBM HAD THE DISCRETION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD COMPENSATE AN EMPLOYEE FOR "APPROPRIATING" HIS IDEAS and, therefore, the Suggestion Plan brochures and other company communications were meaningless!

I can only assume that, on the day they evaluated my suggestions they just didn’t "FEEL" LIKE PAYING FOR THEM. Don’t you wish that we ALL could take such liberties? That we could simply go out to some store, buy something, decide to keep and use it, and then decide later on that we just didn’t "feel" like paying for it? I don’t know about you, but I wish I could get away with something like that. I would certainly be a lot more financially secure than I am today.

Unfortunately for us poor working slobs, we would NEVER be able to get away with this type of action. We would be called MISAPPROPRIATORS or DEFAULTERS and we would be REQUIRED to make restitution or face the consequences.

Well, the rest of the story is contained in the relevant documents and legal briefs hot-linked to this web site and within the "Briefs and Documents" section below. You will read the rest of the story and it will certainly be an eye-opener for you. I hope that it will serve as a warning to those of you who have something valuable that belongs just to you – be it property or ideas…whatever. Don’t be trusting with your property. Keep what is yours safe and make sure that no one "borrows" or "appropriates" it from you without proper, HONEST compensation.

A SIDENOTE:

I recently had lunch with several former IBM colleagues. One individual had retired from IBM several years ago after 30 years of service. The other had retired several years ago with 15 years of service. I was giving them an update on my lawsuit and summarized IBM’s position (which was basically that IBM never really PROMISED they would pay employees for their ideas, the Suggestion Plan could be changed at any time and no employee ever REALLY thought IBM meant all the stuff it said in its Manager’s Manual, policy statements and Plan brochures about the Suggestion Plan).

My colleagues looked at me incredulously—and then burst into loud laughter. Once they had caught their breath, they gave me a wide-eyed look and said: "Wait a minute! Look, we ALL knew that the whole POINT of the suggestion program was for us (the employees) to get some money. That’s the whole reason we participated! Because we could personally benefit from it! And now IBM is telling you that they never really MEANT any of those things they said in all of those brochures and on all of those forms and in all of those company bulletins? They’re saying you’re the only person who took them "seriously"? That’s crazy! We (the employees) ALL saw it as an Award Program. We ALL believed we would be paid for any ideas IBM implemented under the Suggestion Plan. Otherwise, what would be the point of participating at all? Because we just LOVED our company so much we just felt like giving them our ideas for FREE?"

Well, at least my old colleagues got a good laugh out of it all. And maybe it IS funny in a sick kind of way. Funny that people would "trust" a corporation to the extent that so many of us did. Funny that a person would entrust valuable property to the total discretion of a business entity and then, after that trust had been abused, wait YEARS before finally resorting to any kind of legal action. All I ever wanted was to be compensated fairly for my implemented suggestions per IBM’s own Suggestion Plan.

I suppose I must seem very naďve to many of you. I can only restate the essential core of how we IBMers perceived the IBM Corporation: IBM represented itself as the greatest company on earth…and we all believed it. Believed it 100%.

I am reminded of a very famous quote by P.T. Barnum, the owner of Barnum and Bailey’s Circus, The Greatest Show on Earth. He said, "there’s a sucker born every minute".

Well, I’m afraid that, when I look back on my dispute with the IBM Corporation, that’s EXACTLY how I feel. I lived the IBM experience for many years, I read all the literature, bulletins and other Company communications and I believed all of it. I never thought IBM would turn out to be anything other than what it represented itself to be. All I ever wanted was to be compensated fairly for my implemented suggestions per IBM’s own Suggestion Plan. That belief turned out to be a very costly mistake for me.

So when I read:

I believed it. My IBM colleagues believed it. I think you would have believed it too.

Defend Free Speech Online!