Conference turris::womannotes-v2

I feel like a pretty typical uninformed engineer, so if my asking questions in
a place you just wanted to vent is intrusive, please tell me!

Does all these great skills make it into your performance review? (Do
secretaries have the same sort of performance reviews?) I would think that
would help; albeit slowly and subtly.

Is there _any_ visibility for what you do, what you contribute? Frankly, if the
secretary in my group does this, I'm wondering why no one tells me, so I can
value it/make use of it!
	Mez

    
    Also, for what it's worth, there is a notesfile for secretaries
    at DEC where additional discussion occurs.....press "select" or
    KP7 to add it....
    
    -Jody

    Mez, two things, first of all secretaries are grossly underpaid,
    second, in engineering groups most secretaries do *not* know everyone's
    job.  .0 says she works in a training center and perhaps *she* does
    know everyone's job.  I support an engineering group and I am the
    first to admit that I certainly do not know how to design something
    called "thinwire" or "s-box handle" (that the *guys* in my group
    designed in the past).  However, even though I don't know their
    jobs, and even though I don't claim to deserve the same pay as a
    person with a masters from MIT, I still do claim to be ridiculously
    underpaid.
    
    However, .0, this is a can of worms.  Most radical female feminists
    with professional jobs do *not* give a *damn* that their sisters
    who are still working as secretaries are underpaid.  Their answer
    to you, my dear, will be "get a better job."
    
    Lorna
    

I'm sorry you feel that way Lorna. And, with all your experience, I bet it's
true. This female feminist with a professional job would like to know more, and
help where possible, but if the space isn't safe enough for it, I sure do
understand.
	Mez

    I for one commend the author of the base note. To often people in this
    position appear to be ranting and raving about "something". I though the
    base note was accurate and concise.

    My current role is an administrative one. I am not a secretary, rather
    a department coordinator. Most people think this is the same thing.
    But that's another issue. I totally understand what .0 is saying, I
    work one on one with my manager. When he is away from the office no
    one notices. This is not a reflection on his job but rather a reflection
    of how well I do my job. Many of my pears (at other sites) do not know
    their job and their manager's job as well as I do. But I find it absurd
    that 2 people would work so closely (in a non-technical environment) and
    not keep informed/up to date on what is going on in the group.

    Are people (not just women) complaining that they are doing more than
    what there job description requires? I don't think so. These people
    welcome the challenge, as a support person a challenge would otherwise
    be hard to find. What really irks us (me) is the dreaded attitude of
    "*Just* a secretary. Just an anything for that matter is a horrible
    attitude. I also hear the likes of just a technician, just a jr.
    programmer...you get the idea.

    What people should be more aware of is valuing people for the job they
    do. Denouncing someone's worth based on the fact that their job is of
    less value than your own. This is a perception problem. It's been
    discussed here before. We are all (would like to be) valued employees. 

    It is topics like this that might make more people aware of how they
    are treating the "underlings". 
    
    Gail

    It was I who suggested that the basenoter repost her note here.  (BTW I
    wish that Dec_secretary were more used than it is; it has been very
    valuable to me in the past).
    
    I very much appreciate Mez's request for information.
    
    I have said many times that I really *like* clear statements of
    prejudice.  I don't know why I like them so much--perhaps because it
    confirms what I know exists, but is usually hidden.
    
    Anyhow, my personal favorite was the man who said to me: "My job is 10
    times more important than your job!"
    
    His salary was certainly 10 times higher.
    
    (Actually, I scared the hell out of him.  He was a religious man, and I
    said "Your life is 10 times more important than my life, but not in the
    end!  He said he thought about what I said for 3 weeks in
    church/temple/meeting.  But that's another story.)
    
    Briana

    I am a secretary and I know how we are heavily depended on, it is part
    of the title.
    
    I don't plan on being one for the rest of my life. I have a degree in
    communications and want to become a video producer.
    
    Presently though, I am content with my job, even though it won't be my
    lifetime career, but it does pay the rent until I find my dream job.
    
    Lynne

    
    Everytime I hear the term "just a secretary" the hair on the back
    of my neck stands up.  And I get particularly upset when I hear
    women say, "I'm just a secretary."  
    
    I don't believe that ALL secretaries are underpaid.  Unfortunately,
    somewher along the line we started referring to anyone who types as
    a "secretary".  A true secretary is a whole lot more than a typist and
    worth her/his weight in gold.  (S)he can make life 199% percent easier
    for the people (s)he supports.  I personally believe that secretaries
    ARE professionals.
    
    Which brings me to my last point.  I've long thought that back in the
    60's/70's, we as women did ourselves and our sisters a disservice. 
    Instead of giving the world the message that we wanted other career
    choices in ADDITION to the traditional ones (nursing, secretarial etc)
    we somehow gave the message that we wanted choices other than those
    because they were unacceptable.  So we devalued professions which are
    needed and which are satisfying to others. It's really too bad.  I'd
    like to see us so called "professional women" take a long hard look at
    what is behind our attitudes in this area and learn to value and
    support woman who make different choices than we've made.
    
    Polly
    
    P.S.  I've seen secretaries treated badly by both men and women but
    somehow it always seems worse to me when its a woman doing it. 

    
    The following is an anonymous reply from a member of our
    community, who wishes to share experiences with secretaries.
    
    Bonnie J
    =wn= comoderator
    
    
    	I am sure there are a lot of underpaid secretaries. I haven't
	seen one for quite a few years though. I've been asking a
	series of supervisors, over the last 5 years, what our group
	secretary (the supervisors boss does her review) does.
	The only answer I've ever gotten is "I don't know."
 
	Notice when she's gone on vacation? Hah! I found out the other day
	that she took the last week in August off when I got mail saying
	that she was back. If it hadn't been for that mail I would never
	have known she was on vacation. (And I can see her office from
	mine.)
 
	So far I've figured out that she handles travel vouchers and
	petty cash. That's why it takes an extra day or two over when
	I did it myself. She has also been known to take things to the
	copy center for people but most people do it themselves if they
	want it in a timely basis. There is also something she does
	with timecards but I believe that's only a small job.
 
	Phones? Forget phones. The answering machine is always on. Usually
	one of the supervisors plays it back now and again and passes out
	messages. Where is this woman all day?
 
	Why doesn't the group manager do something? Beats me. This is the
	second secretary we've had in 5 years. The other one did less, if
	such a thing is possible. I really don't understand why small
	groups (less than 20 engineers) need a full time secretary. What
	is there to keep them busy (especially if they don't answer the
	phone)?
 
	When I was in the sales area I worked with some great secretaries.
	They did wonders (although they were always too busy to make
	copies) and were great with customers. They made travel arrangements
	and saved me a lot of time. Haven't seen too many like that in
	engineering though. 
 
	I know some good secretaries so I know they exist. I think they're
	great people and worthy as anyone else. If you've got a good secretary 
	good for you but take good care of them so you don't lose them.
	If you are a good secretary good for you. But don't expect me to
	believe that most or even all that many secretaries are worth more
	than they are being paid because my eyes and ears and experience
	tell me otherwise.

    Re: -.1
    
    I can't control myself on this one, so please forgive my intrusion in
    this note.

    Our group secretary, is missed every second that she is away,  she is
    constantly making up for all of our bureaucratic failings, she handles
    all of the adminstrative duties (training scheduling, expenses, time
    cards, etc. etc.) for us. She keeps us in line in re. all of the
    previously mentioned things, besides always knowing the fiscal details
    of our unit's business, she can be relied on for almost any aspect of
    our unit's business.  She is the exact opposite of what was described in
    the previous reply.  The interesting thing is that she is not an
    exception in our office, she is the norm (ok, alittle above the norm).

    I don't mean to say that the comments in the previous reply are,
    incorrect for that particular case, it's just that my experience in my
    8 years at Digital has been mostly the opposite.

    Bob

    It's my belief that a secretary can make or break a group.  I've seen
    both. A fine secretary can keep the gears greased and the morale high.
    I think that's why, when a manager moves in a job, so often s/he will
    take the secretary to the new job with them.
    
    The DEC secretary is required to become very skillful with application
    packages for overheads, spreadsheet budgeting, mail and mail gateways,
    graphics presentations, etc.  Also, setting priorities and managing
    time is a chore when you're supporting a large group.  The only
    advantage I can see to being a secretary is that, most nights, you can
    leave the job behind you...
    
    my .02,
    Marge 

    RE: .9
    
    I have had secretaries both good and bad.  I was always annoyed when I
    had to stop and do stuff myself that a secretary should be doing. 
    
    When one is bad, its the manager who is allowing that one to do what
    she is doing.  It is up to them to put a stop to it.  You need to work
    through the manager.  
    
    If the manager doesn't care, then you have no place to go, and you just
    learn to start doing everything yourself.  I know of one secretary that
    was so bad, they promoted her!...  I'm STILL years later trying to
    figure THAT one out.
    
    I don't have any words of wisdom for you, I just wanted to let you know
    that there are good ones around, and I've been in your shoes, and I'm
    glad I'm not there anymore.  The secretary that supports are group now
    is fantastic!... I wish she could give out lessons!

>   ........................................I know of one secretary that
    was so bad, they promoted her!...  I'm STILL years later trying to
    figure THAT one out.
    

    That one's easy to figure out.  They wanted to get rid of her!!!  What
    better way, wouldn't you say????

    One nit to pick.......SECRETARIES COME IN BOTH CATEGORIES (male and 
    			  female)!!  

    justme....jacqui  
    

The following entry is from a member of the community who wishes to
    be anonymous
    
    Bonnie Reinke
    =wn= comod
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------

 I have had good and bad secretaries. I talk to my (generic my) secretaries
pretty regularly. Actually, it's more like listening to a constant litany
of complaints. Some are valid- some aren't. 

 Take Val and Theresa, for instance. Val and Theresa spend at least 45 
minutes before and after lunch in the smoking room. They take lengthy
lunches. One will disappear for hours on personal business while the other
"watches the phone." Phone coverage is lousy and unpredictable.

 Val and Theresa spend alot of time complaining about how good the engineers 
have it. Val and Theresa show up about 8:30, and are always gone by 4:30.
Considering that they are on "break" or "lunch" for at least 2.5 hours, they
aren't even at their desks for more than 5.5 hours a day. Overworked? You might
think so if you heard them talking.

 During one particular month, they never made it back to work on a Friday
after lunch (after signing their time cards for a 'full day' of course).

 But they never stop complaining about how hard they have it.

 I have had much better secretaries. I know what an asset a good secretary is;
she can really save your bacon. Unfortunately, the converse of that is true.

 Most secretaries feel they are underpaid and underappreciated. Some 
secretaries really are. There are many good secretaries, talented and ambitious
women (and men) that work hard and are genuine asstes to their departments.
They seem to be vastly outnumbered by the lazy complainers.

    <--(.13)
    
    You're right, jacqui, but I think you'll agree that it's more a
    technical than a practical distinction:  the ratio is, in my
    experience, > 99:1
    
    <--(.0 & Lorna)
    
    I've been saying for years that secretaries tend to be incredibly
    undervalued and underpaid.  I've yet to be able to figure out what to
    do about that, however.  
    
    I can hire her [in my experience it's invariably a "her"] well up in
    the range, and I can give her the best annual rises in pay, but that's
    still inadequate if she's really good (and so far I've been blessed in
    the women I've hired) because even the very top of the scale is still
    too low for someone who's really good!  
    
    Instead of money I can offer her challenging tasks, I can sign off on
    as much training and education as she wants, and if she wants to move
    on and up to a different, better-compensated field I can maybe help her
    find something and can certainly see her off with my most heartfelt
    blessings.  But that's still a personal solution for one woman and does
    nothing to advance the cause of other women who may have no desire to
    go do something else but who nonetheless deserve much better
    compensation for the contribution they make to the organisation.
    
    Lately I've been approaching the view that the problem may be
    nearly intractable because of two factors:  
    
    Secretaries even at the Administrative grade are so poorly paid that
    it's virtually impossible to hire someone at a lower grade even when
    the work involved is considerably less demanding.  In consequence, the
    Administrative grade has gradually become a type of "virtual ghetto" in
    which women of widely different contribution levels are sort of jumbled
    together so that it's only too easy to make the case for "a secretary"
    not being either very skillful or very necessary in general.            
    
    Too often, a secretary is hired to meet status needs rather than
    administrative ones.  In these cases, the job really doesn't require
    someone of great skill or dedication and it's very hard to get someone
    who _is_ capable and energetic to fill it for long.  But the very need
    for status that prompts the hiring in the first place also requires
    that the person hired get the politically-correct title, which helps
    create the ghetto and to perpetuate the idea that "secretaries" aren't
    worth serious money.
    
    The general problem was recognised at a corporate seminar I attended on
    women's issues earlier this year, but I certainly don't remember anyone
    having any ideas on how to deal with it.   But if we could come up with
    some here, I bet we have quite a few members of our community who would
    see that Corporate Personnel heard about them! 
    
    						=maggie

    I've been at Digital for two years, out at a customer site for one
    year of that time, and I'm not very observant about How Things
    Work anyway.  :)  So when our group's secretary received The Right
    Stuff Award (a Software Services recognition award; includes a
    nicely engraved pen) earlier this year I was really surprised. Not
    because she doesn't deserve it (she does, and more!), but because
    it hadn't occurred to me that the award was intended for anyone
    other than us technical types. Now that I know, I know at least
    one way that, in the future, I can let a good secretary know that
    s/he is appreciated, and also let the boss know that the rest of
    us appreciate our secretary. And since the boss is the one who
    does the reviews... 

    -- Linda

Engineers talking about secretaries reminds me of men talking about women, or
parents talking about teachers.
	Mez

    I worked as a secretary for a while (not at DEC).  It reminded me
    a lot of motherhood. 
    
    Everybody talked about how important your job was and how much you
    meant to the company [family, in the case of a mother].
    
    The internal rewards were great.  They had to be -- the pay was
    lousy, and not much chance of it getting better.
    
    The work was mostly the stuff nobody else wants to do -- the stuff
    that's a waste of their time or beneath their dignity to do.
    
    Everybody thinks they can tell you how to do your job.  They think
    they know what your job duties are, how much work you have, and
    how long it should take you to do it.
    
    Since the basic requirements of a passable job were so low, it
    attracted a lot of people who weren't capable of doing much more
    than the minimum.  So people expected only the minimum of you. 
    Anything you did beyond that was nice, but you didn't get rewarded
    for it, either.  You could do a wonderful job, throw yourself into
    it, develop your abilities and talents marvelously, and in the end 
    you didn't get any more reward for knowing thirty different ways
    to format a report on the magcard Selectric than the woman in the
    next department did for filing her nails while she waited for the
    phone to ring.  You don't get rewarded for making wax-paper-and-leaf
    placemats with your kid as long as the kid gets good grades, doesn't
    get arrested or pregnant, and eventually gets into a good school.
    
    I wonder -- was secretarial work underpaid relative to other
    business jobs when it was a predominantly male field in the 19th
    century?
    
    --bonnie

�    I wonder -- was secretarial work underpaid relative to other
�    business jobs when it was a predominantly male field in the 19th
�    century?
    
    Given the evidence of the literature, Bonnie, it was at least
    prestigous.  Dunno about the pay, but it was considered a real prize
    and a position of some power (rather like "Assistant To" today, I
    think).                                            
    						=maggie

    Re .9, just because one person is not doing their job well (which
    may not be the case since you may not have all the information needed
    to make such a judgement), does not mean that the entire profession
    should be underpaid.  What you have done here in .9 is very typical.
     A couple of people point out that secretaries are underpaid and
    you come in (anonymously) to point out to us that the secretary
    for *your* group is not doing a good job.  I do not consider this
    to be sufficient reason for an entire profession to be underpaid.
    
    There are a few people, in all types and levels of work, in DEC and 
    everywhere who are not putting as much time into their jobs as they
    should be.  I have known programmers who were fired from DEC for
    not performing as they should.  I knew a Product Manager who was
    fired.  I have known technicians who were being paid anywhere from
    $12K to $20K more a year, than the secretary of the group, who have
    sat around for days on end playing games because they had no projects
    to work on, and who came in late, left early and took long lunches.
     They put 40 hrs. on their timecards and the manager signed them.
     He never noticed what they were doing.  Had it been his secretary
    he wouldn't have signed because he made sure he knew what *she*
    was doing.  Gotta keep your eye on those secretaries!  Never know
    when they might goof off.  You can trust a technician or engineer
    to be working when they're supposed to be, but not a secretary!
     Yeah!  Sure!  B.S.!  I've sat near a principal engineer who was
    lucky to have put in 8 hrs. of work a week for months at a time.
     Nobody cared, nobody in charge noticed.  You can bet he's being
    paid 3 or 4 times what that secretary .9 is complaining about is.
     I've always figured the best bet is to mind my own business, and
    worry about how I'm doing my job, and let the person in the next
    cubby hole worry about how he or she is doing theirs.  That might
    be the best bet for you, too, .9.  It's not right that that secretary
    get paid for doing nothing, true, but you can bet there are others
    in the company being paid *way more* who aren't doing a damn thing
    either.  I'm not saying it justifies it, but I am saying that you
    should leave her alone, and mind your own business.
    
    Regarding *male* secretaries, does anybody actually know one, at
    DEC?  I'm talking about a male, full-time, regular DEC employee
    whose job title is Secretary.  I've been with the company almost
    14 yrs. and I haven't run across one yet!
    
    Lorna
    

    Lorna,

    Yup, I know of several....actually a whole lot.  Even one that
    came from GTE in Westboro and landed a job at Digital in Stow!!!
    The males are all PERMANENT employees.  There are even Dept.		
    Co-ordinators too of that sex!!!  Gosh, isn't Digital open-
    minded!!!  Golly, gosh, gee whiz....and they even WORK!!!

    justme....jacqui
  

    Re .21, Well, I think that's interesting.  I'm not surprised that
    they work.  Why shouldn't they?  Most of us do.  I personally have
    not come in contact with any of them during the course of my working
    days.  Just coincidence I guess.  I bet they brought the guys on
    board at more money than many female, old-timers like myself are
    making, though.  
    
    Lorna
    

Lorna, 

I think personel regularly does studies to check for gender descrimination in
pay within a job class. I _know_ they do for engineers. If you're entertained
by the thought (I am), we could try to find out if anyone's done the study for
secretaries.
	Mez

    re: the right stuff award
    
    whoever entered the note on their secretary getting the right stuff
    award, could you give us some info??  do you know if he/she was
    nominated, and by whom??  we have a group of 30 (mostly engineers,
    4 managers and some technical communications people) with a
    superb secretary who does EVERYTHING for EVERYONE.  i would like
    to find out anything i can about this (or any other award).
    is there a specific group that handles stuff like this???
    
    thankx,
    sarah

    in re. when men dominated the secretarial/clerical field[s]
    
    Based upon my studies concerning the 1850's - 1920's, I would say that
    the pay distribution was pretty uneven.  A few, a _VERY_ few,
    well-compensated positions with decent prestige...the rest little
    better than slave wages with the prestige of a garden slug.  Also,
    their family obligation were considered 'secondary,' as women's were
    not.
    
    The compensations _was_ better than in production jobs.  The rise of
    the trade unions brought better pay to production, but the clerical/
    secretarial fields did not unionise and were outstripped in terms of
    comp & benefits.
    
    The influx of women into the secretarial fields has been credited in
    some studies as the reason that unionism never took hold. i.e. that
    women are/were socialised to be more amenable to authority and the
    unions were a bit counter-establishment hence, women were less likely to
    join.
    
    When women began 'flooding' the workforce, many did not have 'useful'
    educations if they _had_ post-secondary educations.  Obviously there
    are a great many cultural/socioeconomic reasons that women were not
    prepared to compete fairly.
    
    However, the trends in office automation and women eduational paths are
    forcing a new look.  All one need do is look at the overwhelming number
    of internal openings in this area to see that competent help will not
    be available at the price offered.
    
       Ann

    re male secretaries
    
    We have 2 of them, they replaced secretaries but magicaly their titles
    became department coordinators (wonder how that happened). A rose is a
    rose. While not all dept. coordinators do secretarial work (I for one),
    these two men are secretaries.  One works for a female, one for a male.
    
    Gail 

    re: men in women-dominated jobs; whether secretaries are doing
    their jobs
    
    I wouldn't bet that the men with the title of secretary are making
    more money than women with the same title -- sexism cuts both
    ways.  I'm not familiar with male secretaries, but a good friend
    of mine from college is a nurse, and he's had a terrible time
    because of his sex.  
    
    Patients refuse to let him perform even such routine tasks as
    taking blood pressure, let alone intimate ones like backrubs --
    the men are afraid of appearing gay and the women are afraid of
    being sexually molested.  I suppose it doesn't help that this guy
    is 6'2" and built like a linebacker . . . but he's the gentlest,
    kindest person you'd ever want to meet, and a superb nurse if you
    give him a chance.  He wanted to be an obstetrical nurse but gave
    up on that years ago and went into post-op instead.
    
    He's been denied promotions because he "can't get along with
    patients."  Women nurses frequently refuse to work on the same
    shift with him.  He's not invited to staff lunches because "he
    wouldn't enjoy all that girl talk anyway."  Last time I talked to
    him, he was the second lowest paid person on the staff; two of
    three newly hired nurses made more than he did, but he'd been
    there for four years.  He makes about 60% of what the female
    nurses with comparable training and experience make.  (Gee, that
    number sounds familiar.)
    
    It's been about four years since I talked to him, so maybe things
    have improved recently, but somehow I doubt it . . .
    
    As for the issue of whether the secretary is doing her/his job: 
    I'll emphatically second Lorna's point that most of us don't know
    what kind of job the secretary is doing.   Our secretary doesn't
    do anything for us, either, but that's because she's not the
    _group_ secretary, she's the group _manager's_ secretary.  That
    means instead of filling out forms and making trips to petty cash,
    she spends most of her time typing confidential reports, working
    out budgets, and other tasks I can only guess at.  If I were to
    judge from what I see, I'd say she was overpaid, but the people
    she actually works for and with know she's an excellent secretary.  
    
    I wish we had a group secretary.  I think our group should trade a
    manager for a good secretary and, if there's any money left over,
    a few VAXstations.  But then I'm not in charge of the budget . . .
    
    --bonnie

WHO MAKES MORE $$$, THE SECRETARY OR EPARTMENT COORDINATOR?
    
    KATE
    

    An Admin secretary and a department coordinator III are the same level
    position. Secretary and Sr. Secretary are the same level as coor I, II
    respectively. 
    
    Gail

    REF:.28
    
    SALARY RANGE IS THE SAME FOR ADMIN. SEC & DEPT COORD III.  
    

>    What you have done here in .9 is very typical.
>     A couple of people point out that secretaries are underpaid and
>    you come in (anonymously) to point out to us that the secretary
>    for *your* group is not doing a good job.  I do not consider this
>    to be sufficient reason for an entire profession to be underpaid.
 
    I don't think .9 was attempting to justify why "an entire profession"
    should be underpaid. The point I got was that not all secretaries
    _deserve_ more than they get. Some don't even deserve what they get.
    Unfortunately, this gets translated into some not getting what they
    deserve.
    
>     I've always figured the best bet is to mind my own business, and
>    worry about how I'm doing my job, and let the person in the next
>    cubby hole worry about how he or she is doing theirs.
    
    Unfortunately, as employees of this company, we are all directly
    affected by Digital's ability to compete in the marketplace. When our
    peers fail to do their job, it impacts us in that Digital is less
    efficient. Less efficient means less profit means lower raises for all
    of us. So the next time you see someone screwing off, think to
    yourself, that person is costing ME money.
    
    The Doctah

    Mark, I think .9 _was_ attempting to justify inadequate compensation
    for secretaries, though perhaps not consciously.  The only other
    explanation I can see for providing that data point is that the author
    thought we didn't know that some people don't earn their keep!  
    
    It would be a bit like someone arguing that engineers are overpaid in
    general because they know an engineer who doesn't contribute much.  The
    two things really aren't related.
    
    						=maggie

>    SALARY RANGE IS THE SAME FOR ADMIN. SEC & DEPT COORD III.  
    
	The salary range may be the same but the "career" path is
	different - so it isn't just the present job title and
	salary but where one can go from there that is important.

	I was able to go from a Dept. Coord III to Computer Operator
	because I worked with machines and because I wasn't classified
	as a secretary.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			The trip from wage class 2 
			to wage class 4 is varied and
			rocky to say the least.

Actually, .9 is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether secretaries as
a class are underpaid, because it shows no interest in what they *are* paid.
It argues (from a very limited sample) that some secretaries are *underworked*,
and then concludes 	

	If you are a good secretary good for you. But don't expect me to
	believe that most or even all that many secretaries are worth more
	than they are being paid because my eyes and ears and experience
	tell me otherwise.

I suppose that the author of this tidbit might have some knowledge, not 
revealed in the note, about how much secretaries (and comparable workers) 
earn; but the note itself is simply a classic of misdirection and fallacious
reasoning.

	-Neil

    Re .33:
    
    That's a good point, Peggy, and one I've never heard made before.  
    
    I've read the reqs. for Dept. Coordinators, and I've often been
    unable to tell what it is the person is expected to do that is
    different from an Admin. Sec.
    
    It sounds like a possible way to move out of the secretarial role
    might be to move to (some) dept. coordinator roles.
    
    Briana

    re .33 and .34
    
    Oops! I goofed. I was referring to the anon reply in .14 and NOT the
    reply in .9. Sorry, my mistake. Can I make a retroactive substitution
    to my previous reply? :-)
    
    I guess that invalidates most of my reactions to Lorna's note, too. :-)
    
    The Doctah

    <--(.36)
    
    Sorry, Mark; .14 has the same problem, tho with 2 data points rather
    than one.  The thesis is the same:  most secretaries are "lazy
    complainers" and therefore (by implication) undeserving of adequate
    compensation. 
    
    And as Neil pointed out about .9, neither .9 nor .14 actually address
    the question of compensation at all except in a very oblique way:  .9
    says that one secretary is underworked; .14 says that 2 secretaries are
    underworked and vocal about believing that they're overworked.  Both
    replies imply that this underworked state is somehow the fault of the
    secretaries concerned rather than that of their respective supervisors.
    
    						=maggie

    When I was hired last year, after working as a temp. for 1.5 years
    in DEC, I found a group that gave me the opportunities that I was
    looking for.  During the interview process, I told the hiring manager
    that, even though I could type 95 wpm, I didn't want to remain a
    secretary.
    
    We worked together on projects which could demonstrate my abilities,
    and build my skills.  I documented each quantifiable project and
    listed the courses I took.  When he felt that it was appropriate,
    and I was qualified for the position, my manager went to bat for
    me, and the end result is that now I am a project specialist.  No,
    it's not wage class 4, but it isn't wage class 2 either.
    
    It *is* difficult to get out of wage class 2, but not impossible.
    As with anything worth pursuing, it's not going to be handed to
    you.  I worked *with* my manager, and provided him the information
    he needed to go through the necessary channels.
    
    As for the overworked/underworked support people...why aren't there
    managers managing?  I've seen people who are more than capable of
    doing the work at hand, but got no direction or encouragement from
    the manager.  Each group is different, and unless both sides work
    together, one is going to end up unhappy.
    
    	* How is the communication between the group and support person?
    	* What opportunities are available for the support person to
    	  learn basic skills and enhance skills?
    	* Does the group *really* need a secretary, or is it a matter
    	  of status?
    	* If the support person doesn't appear busy, have you ever asked
    	  if s/he would help you with a project?
    	* Has the support person's role been clearly defined?  (Who
    	  has priority when there are several rush jobs, etc.)
    	* If s/he is taking extraordinary breaks, has the supervisor
    	  had any discussions with him/her?
    	* How do *you* treat the support person?  As a go-fer? As a
    	  valuable resource? As an inconvenience?
    
    Thank you for broaching this discussion!
    
    Judi
    

re: .9, .14

	Perhaps they're intended to reflect "equal pay for equal work".

My 2�:

	I've seen good and bad - secretaries, engineers, managers, contractors,
tech writers, presidents of companies... you name it.  I support paying the 
folks who do the  work, and telling the others to take a hike.  I do my best
to influence the people in power when I can, both good and bad.  And I try to
do my job well.  I accept the responsibility when the problem is mine, and
make sure the correct people know when I'm held up by someone else's problem.

	Some people refuse to see a problem.  They are the one's you need to
reach.

								--D

    Okay.  I can't even finish reading the last of these replies [I
    got up to 15] before I add mine.
    
    This one is from an Admin. Sec., 3 years at DEC, who was hired from
    the outside [no previous temping].  If you pardon me for saying
    so, I'm good, and I'm very qualified.  I supported the president
    of a Boston firm prior to joining that, and before that had an
    administrative function in a nuclear engineering marketing division.
    
    And like the manager who has "had secretaries both good and bad,"
    so too have I had managers... both good and bad.  And like the gentle-
    man who feels that his secretaries spend too much time doing other
    things [smoking/goofing off/etc.], I have seen many, many managers
    doing the same ["offsite meetings" at the golf course, leaving the
    work environment if/when it suits them, and several other BAD habits].
    The point is, there are all types... in all job classifications.
    
    For what we do, we are grossly underpaid.  I do so much in my boss'
    name, "in the shadows," you'd never believe it.  This is what is
    expected of me.  And don't get me wrong, I do enjoy it.  But we
    ARE underpaid.  
    
    There are many issues I would like to be able to bring out here...
    but then, I'd be keying for days.  Let me just say for now that
    I believe the hiring process for secretaries needs to be reviewed.
    Who are we hiring as secretaries?  Career secretaries?  Or somebody
    who wants to get into DEC and will "Settle for being *J*U*S*T* a
    secretary?"  How are we qualifying/classifying secretaries?  I have
    over 10 years of experience, take shorthand, have been to college,
    type 120 WPM, have fairly good technical skills, excellent English
    and grammar skills, etc., etc...  And yet, when compared to some
    of the candidates that Personnel sends me/us when we are interviewing
    for another Admin. Sec...  well, I can't believe we're in the same
    classification.
    
    Recently, we transferred in a rather high level gentlemen into a
    position which normally had a private Exec. Sec.  Hiring conditions
    being what they are, they decided not to hire [they couldn't] a
    new sec.  The job was given to me, then, in addition to my already
    existing responsibilities.  I am hesitant to mention this here, but
    facing the fact that I cannot look forward to any increases this
    year, I am inclined to consider updating my resume.
    
    Oh, the tangents I could go off on.  

>If you pardon me for saying
>    so, I'm good, and I'm very qualified. 
    
    Then you are certainly an invaluable member of your organization and
    should be rewarded (financially as well as with recognition) as such.
    
>    For what we do, we are grossly underpaid. 
    
    YOU are. The other hardworking secretaries like you are. Perhaps if the
    salary scales were enlarged, it would give incentive to the lazy
    secretaries to work harder; that being a secretary is NOT a dead-end
    job (like it is now).
    
>    Who are we hiring as secretaries? 
    
    This is a valid question. So often the secretaries are do-nothing types
    that just want a regular source of income. Maybe if there were room for
    advancement, we'd be able to attract more talented people.
    
>    The point is, there are all types... in all job classifications.
    
    Absolutely. And relative to other generic categories, secretaries do
    seem to be getting the short end of the pay scale. I agree- something
    needs to be done. I don't think giving all secretaries a raise would
    improve the quality of work in and of itself. I do think giving
    managers more latitude in secretarial compensation would help. And
    another thing, some sort of additional titles (and pay scales) would
    help alot too. I notice alot of people really hung up on titles. If it
    makes a worker feel better to be Administrative Facilitator (or
    whatever), give them the title- maybe by feeling better about
    themselves they'll work better.
    
    Another help (besides the financial aspects and title for advancing
    secretaries) would be to eliminate the "stigma" (for lack of a better
    word) of being "just a secretary." I had a secretary in my first job
    that was the true hub of our department. She was such a great source of
    information, it was amazing that they didn't pay her better. Ellie did
    _everything._ I guess it's time to get upper management to rethink
    secretarial compensation.
    
    The Doctah

The Doctah says:

>    I notice alot of people really hung up on titles. If it
>    makes a worker feel better to be Administrative Facilitator (or
>    whatever), give them the title- maybe by feeling better about
>    themselves they'll work better.
    
I agree.  I think I would get a lot more done with a better title....
something like "consulting engineer".  yeah, that's got a nice ring to
it!  

Ahem.  Sorry, couldn't resist.

D! (who was insulted to be hired on out of college at "only" SWE I.  ;-) )

 
.33>	The salary range may be the same but the "career" path is
	different - so it isn't just the present job title and
	salary but where one can go from there that is important.

    I don't agree with this, at all.

    If your career path as a Dept. Coor. differs from that of a secretary
    in your group it is the doing of your manager and yourself. Every
    brochure for training refers to secretary/dept coor interchangeably. 
    Non-secretaries refer to coordinator as secretaries with regularity.
     
    It is up to you to make a difference, Digital does not. There are a few
    Coordinator jobs that truly have few secretarial responsibilities, but
    they all have some otherwise they would have to be classified as
    something other than coordinator. 

    If you think one title or another is going to make a difference in your
    "career path" you're fooling yourself. It is hard work, and a internal
    drive to stick out from the others that has lead/will lead to success.

    Gail

    

    It just doesn't make sense to pay people according to the
    worst performing individuals in that classification.  Thank god
    engineers don't get paid that way.  I don't know any (other) profession
    that does.
    
    People should be paid according to their job description.  If they are 
    doing more than their job description, they should get big increases and 
    promotions.  If they are doing less than their job description, they
    should get no increases, demotions, or fired.
    
    Part of the prooblem is that the average engineer probably has little
    or no idea of what a secretary's job is.  I know I don't.  Our
    perceptions of their performance are probably very subjective.
    	Linda

re: Sarah Johnston (?)

    Anyone in Software Services or Sales can nominate anyone in
    Software Services for the Right Stuff award.  All you have to
    do is send a memo (probably through all-in-1) to the unit
    manager of the person you are nominating, giving your
    justification for why you think the person deserves the
    award.  Our UM typically reads these when she presents the
    award (she was the one who nominated our secretary, btw),
    although you could probably have the nomination be anonymous
    if you asked it to be done that way.  My opinion is that the
    justification would probably be stronger if it names a couple
    of specific things done well, (such as assistance in getting
    a proposal out in a timely fashion, or whatever), in addition
    to generalities.  The nomination can be made at any time of
    the year, although I don't know how long it might take -- I
    think the UM has to present the nomination and justification
    to the district for approval.

    I assume other departments have similar recognition awards.

    Seems to me that a secretary who's deserving of recognition
    is going to find such an award more meaningful, and more
    helpful at review time, than a card or gift on Secretary's
    Day.

    -- Linda

    Regarding the questions in .22 and .23 about how the pay of male
    secretaries compares to the pay for female secretaries in DEC, here
    are some statistics from the Corporate Compensation folks:
    
    Department Coordinator III:
    Females make up 94.1% of the total population and males 5.9%.  The
    average salary for the males is 99.4% of the average salary for
    the females.
    
    Administrative Secretary:
    Females make up 99.5% of the total population and males 0.5%, which
    is not considered statistically significant and, therefore, casts
    doubt on the salary comparisons.  The average salary for the males
    is 104.5% of the average salary for the females.
    
    This information is regularly updated and reviewed for trends and
    potential problem areas.
    
    Karen
                                                               

    What is a secretary's job?  Phew... That could go on forever.  This
    reply won't begin to touch on everything.
    
    First, please consider the individual to whom the secretary reports.
    
    The responsibilities include:  reading/responding mail.  Acting
    independently to answer questions, coordinate meetings, refer callers.
    Take as much workload off the manager as you are able to.  
    
    Coordinate, fully, the manager's calendar.  Know all his meetings,
    contacts, and projects in process.  Be able to prioritize.  Know
    when to say no, and how to say no.  Anticipate your manager's travel
    requirements that goes along with his calendar.  Make sure he has
    appropriate travel time, has all his required materials with him,
    and make sure he has directions to the hotel.  Make sure that he
    has been briefed.  When he returns from his trip, process his travel
    expenses for him.  If he forgets to prepare them, remind him.
    
    Coordinate staff meetings and speakers.
    
    Screen/Train/Assist the secretary who supports the manager's direct
    reports.  She's usually a TAG, and she's usually replaced several
    times a year, so be sure that this is an ongoing effort.  Cover
    those tasks which she cannot do, or teach her.
    
    When he's gone... well, that's another story.  You're doing even
    more in your manager's name.
    
    When the telephone is answered, [whether the manager is in or not]
    the caller is generally looking for some assistance, information, 
    direction.  Know how to screen that call, and to respond.  If the 
    information isn't available to respond, investigate and then return
    the call with the appropriate information.  
    
    When you prepare a presentation, know that it will be the customer's
    view of Digital, and/or the VP's view of your department.  Don't
    make any mistakes.  Look at your work and know that it will make
    a reflection on your boss/company if there are typos.  Be sure that
    you catch HIS errors, and your's.  His EMAILS will have the same
    effect.
    
    When your manager's direct reports turn in their cost center paperwork
    [expense vouchers, etc.], be sure that you have checked each one,
    for anything that might be out of order, for all receipts, etc...
    as your boss will approve or disapprove on your recommendation.
    
    Monitor all Cost Center reports for transactions made to the cost
    center, and investigate any discrepancies, take corrective action
    where required, and report to the manager WHEN necessary.
    
    Coordinate meetings-- large and small [from staff meetings with
    a dozen or so people, to large, three day meetings with upwards
    of 100 people].
    
    Have as much technical knowledge as possible of the hardware and
    software used by the group... because when there's a problem, you
    are the one who is called upon to offer a solution.
    
    After three years in a job, learning as much as possible, answering
    when possible, and investigating when necessary... you become more
    and more competent.  The problem with that is that people start
    to realize that they can look for information from you.  You enjoy
    being able to respond to requests, but you must also continue to
    be the administrative secretary, and perform the daily tasks associated
    with that role.
    
    Be willing to meet deadlines, regardless of the window... work into
    the evening when necessary to meet a deadline.  Be sure that there
    will be some pretty unrealistic deadlines thrown in your direction.
    
    Consider the group.  Consider the secretary.  I used to be able
    to offer support to my manager's direct reports.  Now, I must ask
    them to rely on their own secretary.  
    
    Too often folks don't realize what a group secretary does.  It amazes
    me to think that they will drop a small document on his/her desk
    for photocopying, instead of taking 20 extra steps to the machine
    to make the copies him/herself.
    
    There's so, so much more, and every secretary's job differs according
    to her environment.  But I don't spend my day making copies at
    a xerox machine, I don't answer the phone and quickly take cryptic
    messages, I don't spend my days taking smoke breaks [though I've
    been known to crave cigarettes during high stress days].  However,
    I have been known to COMPLAIN.  I do believe that the secretary
    at Digital is undervalued, and underpaid.
    
    What does a secretary do?  A hell of a lot.  

    Well said... now *that's* a secretary!!!
    
    Grins
    
    p.s. just too bad that your manager is "he" and secretary is "she"
    instead of "she/he" or "he/she"... but I suppose that's reality...

    I took the liberty of moving this from SECRETARY... using nifty
    DECwindows CUT & PASTE... Hope this works, the process is a new 
    one for me!
    

    ================================================================================
    Note 157.5               Job Hunters Guide for the 90's        
              5 of 5
    FEISTY::QUAYLE "i.e. Ann"                            67 lines
    15-SEP-1989 14:29

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            -< Secretaries also in Demand? >-
        
        From NEWSWEEK, September 18, 1989:
    
        BUSINESS
        "Anybody Take Shorthand?"
        Firms up pay and perks to lure secretaries
    
        When Sandy Alten went job hunting she held out for a high salary
        and good benefits.  She had no trouble getting them.  Cadence
        Design
        Systems, Inc. of San Jose, Calif., agreed to her hefty demands
        and she ended up with a $40,000 salary and a stock-option package.
        Was Alten looking to be a top executive?  Not at all.  She's
        an executive secretary.  The increasing shortage of secretarial
        candidates allowed Alten to write her own ticket.  Says
        Alten, "I made them convince me that I should take the job -
    	and stock options certainly sweetened the pot."
    
        Experienced secretaries like Alten are in hot demand these days
        - and companies are paying the price.  Many are forced to offer
        secretaries perquisites and benefits usually reserved for top
        executives.  They include company cars, relocation expenses,
        flexible hours and top salaries.  "We have a teaching crisis, a
        nursing crisis and now we have a secretarial crisis," says Carol
        Moseley Hennebach, president of Hennebach Management Resources
        in Chicago.
    
        Demographics and a bad image have kept the secretarial pool
        small.
        
    	The number of people between 20 and 30 years old - the most
        common age for office workers - is shrinking, says Shirley Englund
        of Professional Secretaries International.  "We just don't have
        enough people around to enter the field," says Englund.  Many others
        don't have a taste for the job, viewing it as a career dead end with
        little prestige.  Yet the need for office workers will increase
        significantly in upcoming years.  Every year for the next decade
        533,000 secretarial positions are expected to open up, according to the Bureau of
        Labor Statistics.
    
        The shortage has caused loads of headaches for companies.  Heidi
        Slate-Levin, a personnel specialist at Executive Life Insurance
        Co., said even entry-level secretarials positions that were
        once snapped up within a few days can now take up to four weeks to
        fill.
        "So many companies are going after [secretaries] they can sit
        back and wait," she says.  As a consequence, many companies are 
    	turning to recruiters specializing in finding secretaries.
    
        When companies have good secretaries, they often go to great
        lengths to keep them.  GTE Corp. recently paid the expenses to 
    	transfer an executive secretary from Indiana to a new Irving, Texas,
        facility rather than hire a local.  "It used to be that when companies
        moved, only managers went along," says a consultant.
    
        Not all companies are throwing money at secretaries, and some
        say they have no choice but to lower their standards and hire people
        they'd rather not.  Carnation Co.'s Jim Heerwagen, director
        of human  resources, says, "If they at least have typing skills we
    	will forgo  some of the other requirements, like taking dictation."
    
        Consultants note that the secretarial shortage comes at a time
        when offices are becoming more technologically advanced.  Secretaries
        are assuming positions with greater control over vast information
        networks.  And that only underscores the need to find a way
        to close the secretary gap.
    
        MARCUS MABRY with
        RITA PYRILLIS in Los Angeles
    
    
     End of note
                  
    

    I was watching some kind of network news program which mentioned
    equal pay for secretaries and the like.  It mentioned they had a
    point system in Colorado Springs (the city) for its workers involving
    responsibility, acountability, etc....and that the secretaries noticed
    they were being paid several hundred dollars less amonth than
    operations/repair people and draftspeople.  So they brought it up.
     The city didn't run away scared, or say the market caused the problem,
    they simply agreed to bring the secretaries' salaries up to those
    whose points their jobs equaled - almost - they promised to close
    the gap 80%.  Why 80%?  Because they needed to account for the fact
    that women left jobs, married, had kids, and moved to follow their
    husbands' careers....
    
    Know what happened when the gap closed by 80%?  They couldn't find
    that more secretaries/women were leaving than men anymore.  So they
    chose to close the gap entirely!
    
    More power to 'em.....
    
    -Jody
    

What does taking dictation entail?
	Mez

    re. 0.51 (Mez) -- "What does taking dictation entail?"
    
    In practice, the ability to write as fast as someone can talk.
    
    In theory, the ability to use shorthand.
    
    I can do the former, not the latter.
    
    Could I qualify for an "elite" secretary's position?  Probably not.
                                             
    Karen

    A "good" secretary can write anyway from 100-120 Words Per Minute
    [and better] in shorthand, and then be able to accurately TRANSCRIBE
    exactly what was said.
    
    In this day and age, with the computer generation here, I do
    transcription one of three ways:
    
    [1]  A document is dictated to me face to face.  I listen, take
         notes in shorthand, and later, transcribe those notes.  My
         notes are a unique meld of shorthand, longhand notes, and
         my own blends... and the method works.  :-}
    
    [2]  A document is dictated to me either face to face, or over 
         the phone [the latter is usually the case].  I type the 
         document as I hear it.  The method is faster and more effi-
         cient; a good typing speed is required.
    
    [3]  A document is dictated on tape.  The tape is transcribed.
         Rather impersonal, but it works.  This is the least stress-
         ful method [you always reply a tape!]. 
    
    ...from this secretary's point of view.

    I'm not sure what the pay scale for executive secretaries is here
    at DEC, but the last I heard the very top of the pay scale for admin.
    secretaries at DEC was $27K, and it starts at around $17K I think.
     Most secretaries do not earn $27K because, naturally, most people
    in a pay scale do not receive the very top dollar possible in their
    scale.  Most admin. secretaries at DEC do not become executive
    secretaries because only top managers like VP's are even allowed
    to have executive secretaries, and, I think, a small percentage
    of top managers other than VP's.  My impression is that skill is
    not all that is required in an executive secretary.  They are looking,
    also, for a certain personality type, and even an certain appearance.
     (Mez, I know you're smart and educated, and I'm sure you're a great
    engineer, but you would never get hired as an executive secretary.
     You just don't look or dress the part.  You know what I mean????
     Please don't take that as an insult, either.  Rather as a compliment.
    :-)!  )  I was recently told that I don't  really give enough of
    an impression of "maturity" to be considered for an executive sec.
    position.  (Well, I'll be 40 in 2 weeks so I wonder when I would
    be "mature" enough?  Maybe when I'm 60?) :-)  Actually, I understand
    I don't have the style they want for secretaries who work with VP's
    etc.  Anyway, there's only a certain type of person who gets considered
    for executive secretarial positions at DEC.  So, exec. wages really
    have nothing to do with most DEC secretaries who will be admins.
    until they find a different job, retire or die.  I would bet that
    the majority of DEC secretaries are making between $20K-$25K a year
    regardless of how long they've been with the company, how skilled
    they are or anything else.
    
    As far as dictation goes, after I finished the one year secretarial
    course I took in 1970, I took shorthand at 120 wpm, no errors. 
    Guess what?  I've worked at DEC since 1975 and so far, *nobody*
    has ever asked me to take dictation!  ENgineering managers don't
    dictate letters!  They send vaxmail.  I'd sure have to brush up
    on that stupid shorthand in order to take it now, too.  It's been
    almost 20 yrs. and I'm not sure if it's like riding a bike.
    
    As far as transcribing letters from a dictaphone, that is one of
    the most obnoxious pieces of office equipment ever invented!  The
    person sits with earphones on listening to somebody dictating a
    letter while you simultaneously try to type it.  I did that 8 hrs.
    a day for two years once, and I'd rather take my chances in a soup
    line than ever have to do it again!  It is the most boring thing
    imaginable!  The voices drone on, many times in an incomprehensible
    mumble, as you try to make a sensible letter out of it.  Sometimes
    the people are on airplanes, sometimes they have foreign accents.
     I became very good at it, but I hated it, shut off from the world
    listening to their droning voices, without even a telephone to answer
    to break up the dreary monotony.  I might consider doing for a job
    again for $20. an hour - no less! :-)
    
    After 19 yrs. of it, I think office work is hell.  If I had it all
    to do over again I would either make sure I went to college or learned
    out to clean toilets or *something.*
    
    Lorna
    
    

       <<< Note 783.54 by APEHUB::STHILAIRE "Food, Shelter & Diamonds" >>>

>    As far as transcribing letters from a dictaphone, that is one of
>    the most obnoxious pieces of office equipment ever invented!  The
>    person sits with earphones on listening to somebody dictating a
>    letter while you simultaneously try to type it.  I did that 8 hrs.
>    a day for two years once, and I'd rather take my chances in a soup
>    line than ever have to do it again!  

Uh-huh!  I spent the summer once, doing 8-hour-a-day dictaphone transcription.
Of a leccture, to, not something the speaker *intended* to ever make it on
to paper - every *really* listened to someone talking in a coversation and
tried to make good written english out of it?  :-P  That summer, while it
increased my typing speed from 42wpm to (rough estimate) 70 wpm, did teach
me that I was just *not* cut out for that!  (toward the end of the day I
have find myself replaying sections three or four or five times, because I
would get so bored I couldn't pay enough attention to type along with the
voice.)

>    After 19 yrs. of it, I think office work is hell.  If I had it all
>    to do over again I would either make sure I went to college or learned
>    out to clean toilets or *something.*
 
If you dislike it so much - is it really too late to change your career?
My mother changed careers radically (preschool education to technical writer)
at 40, and doubled her salary (almost) in the 6 years since.  It seems like
it would be very difficult, but if you truly hate your job, worth it?

(I realize you were probably being facetious, but still, sounds like you have
a lot of resentment toward what you do.)

D!     

(The 3 summers and one year part time I spent as a secretary taught me that
was *definitely* not the line of work for me.  But I did learn a lot about
what it is really like.  Hey, some of my best friends are secretaries!  ;-)

    It is never too late to change a career.
    
    My mom with a masters in math was making a piddly 14k a year after 10
    years of teaching.  At age 42 she totally changed careers - to real
    estate.  After 4 years she is now one of the most successful realtors
    in her area and is making 8 times the salary she made as a teacher -
    even in a slow market :-).  
    
    My best friends mom never had an college education or a highschool
    diploma.  At age 39 she went back to school and got her undergraduate
    degree in psychology. She is currently working in a hospital for
    mentally handicapped & troublesome teens.  This is something she has
    always wanted to do.  She is also currently studying for her masters in
    her field.  
    
    My mother-in-law at age 45 just received her masters last May in
    genetics counseling.  It took her 3 years part time - now she is doing
    exactly what she wants as a pediatric nurse practioner.  In her words
    "I get paid to play with babies all day!"  and she loves it.
    
    I'm so proud of all three of these women.  They worked damn hard to get
    where they are now - and they are great role models.  All three of them
    have proven that  it is never too late, all of them making major career
    moves after the age of 39.  I'm sure it must be scary.  We all get
    comfortable in what we do and a change may be hard to start.  But from
    what I can tell the rewards and benefits are well worth it.
    
    Suzanne
                                                               

re .55:
    
>Hey, some of my best friends are secretaries!  ;-)
    
    Reminds me of what an experienced female engineer told me a while
    ago.  The secretaries that made the best friends for her were the ones
    that hated the job, wanted to go on to other things, and were training
    to do so.  The secretaries that made the best secretaries are the ones
    who truly enjoyed being secretaries.  Our group has two secretaries
    who enjoy being secretaries, and they are *good*!
    

    Re .57, imagine, not only am I a good secretary, but some of my
    best friends are actually engineers!!!  :-)   (and to top it all
    off, even tho I'm a good secretary, IMO, I still hate being a
    secretary)
    
    I didn't realize I was so complex before! :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    I would love to be a secretary.  When I graduated from high school and
    started working as a secretary I used an Underwood typewriter and
    carbon papers for duplicate copies.  We use to wear plastic cuffs to
    prevent soiling our long sleeves.
    
    The technology has improved tremendously and a secretary can be near
    perfect with the software that has been developed.
    
    The problem is that we are allowing people in the upper levels to do
    their own paperwork.  It just doesn't make sense to have a person that
    makes over 50K a year produce overheads.  Or to do graphs, or to write
    memos.  
    
    It is my feeling as we reduce the workforce and attempt to look at
    productivity issues managers will be forced to delegate some of their
    responsibilities to secretaries and clerical staff.  In a recent memo
    from KO he stated that the sales force has to get out from under their
    paperwork and the way to do this was by having available and utilizing
    secretaries.
    
    It will not happen overnight, but I envision a secretarial position to
    be an interesting and rewarding career in the future.  It is one of
    those jobs that suffered with the new technology.  Initially software
    was difficult to understand and not to user friendly.  Things have
    changed.
    
    I am in class waiting for the instructor to teach us Focus...a user
    friendly tool managing information.  Maybe I will be able to change
    careers and be a secretary managing the production of reports, memos
    and information for a large department.
    

    >The problem is that we are allowing people in the upper levels to do
    >their own paperwork.  It just doesn't make sense to have a person that

    This is an interesting point. I think the reasons that this is
    happening, in some cases, have already been touched upon. Many mangers
    have hired inept support personnel. Not that they want to do this but
    with conditions being as they are, they often feel pressured to get a
    "warm body" in to at least answer the phone. Well, with that perceived
    level of competency it's no wonder managers don't want to relinquish
    "paper work".

    Is this a management problem? Yes it is. Unfortunately it is also a
    Catch-22. Is there competent administrative help out there? Yes and No.
    If they are that competent they are often looking to move into a more
    challenging role. Ergo competency is fleeting. Ineptness will linger
    on. 

    What could possible be done to change this? Redefine the role of an
    administrative support person (I don't like the word secretary, I think
    it is antiquated and inadequate). I think we need (at least) the following
    categories of work defined:  Secretary: "Traditional" secretarial work,
    phones, calendars, mail, memos, typing. Administrative assistant: Less
    of the above plus presentation preparation skills, budget analysis,
    report preparation and the like. And then a newly defined project
    specialist: An admin person working for a manger or group of managers
    taking project work on.  
    
    To say the least there are alot of changes to be made. Is anyone ready
    to initiate them? In a matrix management structure? I won't be holding
    my breath.
    
    Gail

>    The problem is that we are allowing people in the upper levels to do
>    their own paperwork.  It just doesn't make sense to have a person that
>    makes over 50K a year produce overheads.  Or to do graphs, or to write
>    memos.

I don't buy this, given today's tools. Take the "write memos" part as a start.
If the "upper level" person needs a memo to appear, but doesn't write it, how
does the memo get communicated to the person who does write it? Write it out
longhand and have it typed in? Typing it in directly is faster than this, and
the tools we have (DOCUMENT, DECwrite, etc.) produce publication-quality output
from a first draft.

Now, the point may be well taken if the person producing the memo doesn't use
the tools at hand, can't spell to save his (or her, or is spelling one of those
sex-linked characteristics?) life, etc., then the dictation/review cycle makes
some sense.

But for an exec who can type, and either spell or know how to use a spell 
checker, it probably costs the company MORE to have two people involved in
generating that memo than just the one.

To a somewhat lesser degree, the same holds for overheads and graphs. I'll 
concede that these require a somewhat steeper learning curve, and the cost to
train the exec may exceed the benefit. But if an exec knows how the tools work,
I suspect it's still more efficient to produce them him/herself rather than
trying to communicate to somebody else what should go in them, and then go 
through a review pass.

I find it offensive when other people denigrate others skill sets. Reminds me
of the hunting/gathering notes, where Mark was kind enough to actually
enumerate the details of the skills involved.
	Mez

I don't know if .62 was directed at my .61, but I don't believe I denigrated 
anybody's skill sets (aside from the ability to spell, which from what I can 
tell is totally absent throughout DEC). My note was directed at the fact that
today's software tools make it possible for a wider range of people to do things
like produce decent-looking memos without going through dictation/review phases
than was previously the case.

    Re .61:
    
    I, for one, *feel* denigrated.  The underlying message seems to be:
    
    	Give me 5 minutes instruction and I'll WPS+ a memo as good as any
    	secretary can do.
    
    	Give me 10 minutes in Font Management and *wow* what presentation
    	I'll show you.
    
    	Give me 30 minutes (a "somewhat steeper" learning curve) and I'll
        DOCUMENT your proposal.
    
    *Anyone* could do it, right?
    
    Briana

 I don't think that Mr. Beck was trying to make anyone feel denigrated or less
than useful. He simply pointed out that there are a number of software tools
that allow _anyone_ to produce documents, memos and slides of professional
quality. He also postulated that it might be less time consuming in a 
significant number of cases to have the originator do the work herself
rather than have the originator do thew work, communicate it to the secretary,
and have the secretary put the finishing touches on it. I personally think
that it is a theory regarding work efficiency, and not the usefulness of 
secretaries.

 The Doctah

Right. When I first started at DEC, I wrote out memos longhand, and the group 
secretary typed them up, and I'd review them, etc. Now, I wouldn't dream of 
asking our secretary to type in the memos, proposals, and other documents I need
to produce. She has far more important things to do than that, and I would have
trouble finding time for the extra review cycle. 

Different groups may be structured in different ways, of course. My comments
don't run down the skill set of secretaries at DEC any more than the comments
in .64 run down the skill set of people like myself (who are able to write
memos for themselves). I think the whole definition of a secretarial r�le
has and is evolving along with the tools we have around us.

And, no, not everybody can learn to write great memos in no time flat. From some
notes I read, some people seem to need help signing their names. Plus, if I had
to use WPS+ I'd probably have my secretary write my memos. (Though I've only 
ever tried WPS+ on a PRO-350, so the comparison with DOCUMENT or Runoff or
(recently) DECwrite may not be apt.) 

I never suggested that it's inappropriate for a manager or engineer to ask 
his or her secretary to prepare a memo or other document. I merely reacted 
to the suggestion in an earlier reply that it's inappropriate for these 
people *not* to do so. 

Big difference!

	Paul

  There's another reason why I'd rather do it myself.  Subsequent
  changes are much less traumatic.  If I'm doing the work myself,
  and I feel the need to change something, I can make the change.
  I don't need to:

    o Understand how difficult it would be to implement the change.
      I created the document/slide/etc., so I know the "underlying"
      structure of its revisable form as well as the obvious struc-
      ture of its final form.

    o Convince a second party to do the change.  This becomes a problem
      any time the change is too big for the second party to do easily
      or too small to be worth their time.

    o (assuming I can't "convince" them to make the change,) Feel guilty
      about demanding via some privilege of rank or some other horse-bleep
      that they make the change.

                                   Atlant

    re. last several:
    
    Am I detecting some subtle secretary-bashing here?  A good secretary
    should be able to transcribe a hand-written document into an accurate
    and presentable typed document of whatever description without
    requiring re-work to correct grammar, typos, spelling  or format
    errors.  Now, granted, there still remains the possibility of 
    communication errors caused by the manager's not knowing exactly 
    what it is s/he was trying to say in the first place and/or having 
    such poor handwriting as to make the secretary guess at the content.  
    Those are managerial problems.
    
    But once the communication problem is solved (which requires a learning
    curve, no matter how good each of the partners is), if the secretary 
    isn't sufficiently qualified or motivated to do the work accurately, 
    it's time to train and/or motivate and/or replace, depending on the 
    severity of the problem.
    
    I'm proud to say that my manager and I have achieved first-pass
    accuracy (sometimes even when he hasn't written exactly what he 
    means, because I know his projects well enough to recognize when
    he's misstated something) about 99.44% of the time.  And I correct
    his grammar and spelling at times, too, rather than compounding
    the problem "because that's what he said." 
    
    As for the "trauma" of changes, it sounds like there may be other
    problems going on here.  Are your turn-around expectations reasonable?
    Are you accounting for the fact that "your" secretary has others
    s/he supports as well?  Is s/he thoroughly trained on the equipment
    and software so that s/he is can take full advantage of its power?
    In my experience, those who have snatched their work back from me
    rather than listen to my explanation about why it can't be done
    ***in the time they require*** haven't planned far enough ahead to
    allow for production time.  Sorry, managers, that's also the manager's
    problem, not the secretary's. 
                                                                
    IMHO as a secretary, of course.
    Karen
                                  

>      <<< Note 783.68 by JAIMES::GODIN "This is the only world we have" >>>
>             -< Have you been entirely fair in your expectations? >-

> Now, granted, there still remains the possibility of communication
> errors caused by the manager's not knowing exactly what it is s/he
> was trying to say in the first place...

  On this charge, I plead absolutely guilty.  I write big things.
  And I revise these things.  Lots.  This exasperates some folks.
  It especially exasperates those folks who think this is going
  to be a "one-off" exercise so neatness and organization in the
  revisable form of the document doesn't count.

  I'm sure you're good at what you do.  So's my SO.  But she and I
  practically become violent when we try to word-process something
  collaboratively.  We just have different styles and expectations.

  (In more areas than just secretarial,) My bottom line remains:

    If I'll save no effort, even in the long run, by delegating,
    then I might as well do it myself.

                                   Atlant

>    Am I detecting some subtle secretary-bashing here? 

Not on my part! I don't see how you'd read that into my comments.

I'm not (BTW) a manager, though my job these days involves considerably more
writing than coding. As I mentioned in an earlier reply (of which I've made
too many already), different styles will apply to different groups, as well as
to different individuals. For my part, by the time I could produce a "good,
hand-written document", I could produce the finished document. I type faster than
I write longhand, anyway, and compose text much more easily at a keyboard than
on paper. If I'm typing it in anyway, why not type it into DECwrite? Our
secretary's time is too valuable to waste retyping what I've already typed.
If my official title were "manager" (which would probably involve less writing
than I presently do), it wouldn't change the situation any.

It's not secretary-bashing to suggest that it's not a requirement for a
secretary to be involved in every bit of writing which gets done. It's simply
a question of deploying resources (which we all are - from Ken on down) in
whatever manner is most efficient for the group in question.

      <<< Note 783.68 by JAIMES::GODIN "This is the only world we have" >>>
    
>    As for the "trauma" of changes, it sounds like there may be other
>    problems going on here.  Are your turn-around expectations reasonable?
>    Are you accounting for the fact that "your" secretary has others
>    s/he supports as well? Is s/he thoroughly trained on the equipment
>    and software so that s/he is can take full advantage of its power?
>    In my experience, those who have snatched their work back from me
>    rather than listen to my explanation about why it can't be done
>    ***in the time they require*** haven't planned far enough ahead to
>    allow for production time.  Sorry, managers, that's also the manager's
>    problem, not the secretary's. 

I read those messages, didn't see any one say it was the "fault" of the 
secretary that she didn't do things as fast as they needed, or that it was
anyone's "problem".  just that there is the reality (as you yourself point
out) that he or she may be sharing the secretary with other people in the
office, or whatever, so that it may be more *efficient* for the manager to
do it for him/herself.  Why are you upset if I "snatch back work from you"
because you can't get it done as fast as I need it?  I may not blame you
at all, but I want it now, and I have the time and you don't - why shouldn't
I do it myself? Why should yuo be upset if I don't "listen to your
explanation"?  If I am not blaming you, then explanation isn't necessary, and
we are both in a hurry... 

D!

                                  

>< Note 783.63 by STAR::BECK "The question is - 2B or D4?" >
>              (aside from the ability to spell, which from what I can 
>tell is totally absent throughout DEC). 


					KB

Re .- me   ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)

>Now, granted, there still remains the possibility of 
>    communication errors caused by the manager's not knowing exactly 
>    what it is s/he was trying to say in the first place and/or having 
>    such poor handwriting as to make the secretary guess at the content.  
>    Those are managerial problems.

 Nonetheless, it remains a problem which needs to be addressed. It shouldn't
be seen as a negative reflection on the secretary that a problem exists.

>    As for the "trauma" of changes, it sounds like there may be other
>    problems going on here.  Are your turn-around expectations reasonable?

 Sometimes turnaround expectations ARE unreasonable. That is precisely it is
occasionally helpful for people to write their own memos, etc.

>    In my experience, those who have snatched their work back from me
>    rather than listen to my explanation about why it can't be done
>    ***in the time they require*** haven't planned far enough ahead to
>    allow for production time.

 The issue, from a work perspective, is not whether the secretary has enough
time to do it or not. The issue is that it must be done (usually come hell,
high water or Hugo). Having work snatched back from you is not (necessarily)
a reflection on your ability, rather it may very well be the realization that
the work originator must do it herself to get it done on time (even if she makes
$10 an hour more than you).

 The Doctah

To clarify the point I was trying to make in -.68 before this string 
turns into a finger-pointing match:  

When I asked the question, "Am I detecting some subtle 
secretary-bashing here?" it was because the last several notes had put 
me on the defensive as a secretary.  I mentally echoed Briana's 
response in .61 that "I, for one, *feel* denigrated."  Then I came 
across "I don't need to understand how difficult it would be to 
implement the change....Convince a second party to do the 
change....Feel guilty about demanding...they make the change."  And 
that made me even more defensive.  But I realized that any direct 
response to these comments could rapidly disintegrate into 
manager-bashing, and that's not what I intend.  I asked a question.  
If your (generic you -- EVERYONE reading this string) honest, 
soul-searched answer is no, then fine.  There isn't any secretary 
bashing going on.  But in searching my own soul I know that I have, in 
the past, been guilty of secretary bashing, of down-playing intellects 
and abilities and capabilities, just because of the individual's title 
and position.  I've lived to regret my own responses, and perhaps it's 
poetic justice that I'm now a secretary myself.

My sole intent in -.68 was to raise my hand and ask for understanding.
The fact that it resulted in two somewhat defensive answers (and a 
third, Atlant Schmidt's, with which I agree entirely) makes me wonder 
if I didn't touch on a deep-seated, perhaps unconscious, sore point.

Yet within these answers lies an opportunity for both managers and for 
secretaries to learn a bit more about the expectations and 
frustrations of the other.  (By the way, I use the term "manager" to 
refer to anyone who brings work to a secretary to do, because even if 
you're not a "manager" by title or assignment, you're "managing" the 
secretary while s/he completes your project) 

For instance, Atlant says, "I write big things.  And I revise these 
thing.  Lots.  This exasperates some folks.  It especially exasperates 
those folks who think this is going to be a 'one-off' exercise so 
neatness and organization in the revisable form of the document 
doesn't count."  My comment, as a secretary, to anyone in this 
position (not to Atlant only): __IF__ you bring such work to me, let 
me know up front that neatness and organization don't count.  Tell me 
that you're looking for a draft copy of the material.  Define your 
needs, including your deadline.  But if you've told me to type it as a 
rough draft, don't come back to me upset because I don't have the 
spacing just right and the page breaks at the most advantageous 
points.  (This has happened to me!)

For their part, secretaries know that revisions happen.  We don't 
necessarily like them, but they're part of the job.  Any secretary who 
fusses too much about making revisions either misunderstood the 
project to begin with or is new enough at the job to need some 
training about real-life in a secretarial position.  Communication 
will help in both instances.

Another for instance:  Beck writes, "...it's not a requirement for a 
secretary to be involved in every bit of writing which gets done.  
It's simply a question of deploying resources...in whatever manner is 
most efficient...."  No argument there, but I believe this portion of 
the discussion started when someone commented that after a certain 
level of pay, a resource's time is probably better spent in other ways 
than <>.  Where the line for <> falls depends on the group and the 
abilities of the person performing <>.  Now I've worked with an 
engineer or two who were so fascinated by the way a particular 
software package worked that they ignored their real job while 
pretending it was their most important goal for the week to produce a 
perfectly centered, colorfully highlighted, multi-font slide to 
support next week's presentation.  The results were works of art, in a 
sense, but no way justified the effort required at the level 
performed.  And engineers who like to play with the software aren't 
the only offenders.  I know (and you know, too) people who are 
convinced that they, and only they, can do the job right and refuse to 
delegate even the smallest detail.  (Don't get me wrong; I don't 
__WANT__ to do the typing for these people.  They're royal pains in 
the b*tt and generally impossible to please!)  But poor use of company 
resources?  You bet!

Finally (yes, she's almost finished), D! asks, "Why are you upset if I 
'snatch back work from you' because you can't get it done as fast as I 
need it? ...I want it now, and I have the time and you don't - why 
shouldn't I do it myself?"  The operative word here from my 
original note is "snatch," which means to seize or grab.  I have no 
objection at all to people retrieving their work from me or asking me 
for it back because they've found other means of getting it done on 
time.  I do have objections when anyone snatches anything from me 
(unless it's a hot pan that's burning my hands - 8-}).  The act is 
rude and aggressive.  I'm treating you professionally by letting you 
know I can't do the work in your required timeframe.  I expect -- and 
deserve -- to be treated equally professionally in the re-deployment 
of that project.  My suggestion for avoiding such a situation to begin 
with is to keep your secretarial support informed about projects and 
deadlines.  If you have something coming up that will land on the 
secretary's desk, let him/her know when to expect it and when it will 
need to be completed.  If there are delays or changes in the schedule 
along the way, communicate them to the secretary.  Most of us will 
bend over backwards to help you meet a deadline we've been prepared 
for.  And as much as possible we'll organize our other work to 
accommodate your needs.  BUT FIRST WE HAVE TO KNOW WHAT THOSE NEEDS 
ARE.

This has been a long reply, but if it has helped at all to encourage 
everyone to communicate their expectations more clearly, it's worth 
it.

Karen

re: .75

 Thank you.

    There is another perspective to consider [.61 and .66].
    
    My manager has the option to ask me to send a memo to "so and so,"
    saying "such and such."  No dictation.  No writing.  Just, "I want
    it to say this."
    
    I compose it, I print it, I sign it, and I send it.  We have that much
    of a comfort level that we can work that way.  This allows him to
    give me direction in person, over the phone, etc., and involves
    very little/no supervision.  That is effective, efficient use of
    a secretary.  That is also what a personal secretary can do.  I've
    also been a group secretary... and believe me, there isn't TIME
    to offer that kind of support to a group, or even to one or two members
    of a group!  So, please don't feel "left out" if you can't get that
    type of support.  Rank has its privileges, I suppose.  
    
    The function of an administrative support person [in my viewpoint],
    is to take as much of the workload off the manager as possible,
    to allow him/her to dedicate his/her time to other issues.
    
    Often this means composing/sending memos, reading and answering mail,
    responding to telephone calls, etc. 
    
    Another thing to consider:  the difference in speed and comfort
    level with the various software packages available to write memos.
    In most cases [I know, engineers are the exception], ahhhem, in
    MOST cases, the secretary is faster and more proficient.  I'm
    generalizing here, I know.  Forgive me if I offend anybody.

>    Another thing to consider:  the difference in speed and comfort
>    level with the various software packages available to write memos.
>    In most cases [I know, engineers are the exception], ahhhem, in
>    MOST cases, the secretary is faster and more proficient. 

 Absolutely. I am a terrible typist. Plain and simple. Hunt and peck. Delete.
Retype. If I could only get my secretary to write this Chip specification...
:-)

>    The function of an administrative support person [in my viewpoint],
>    is to take as much of the workload off the manager as possible,
>    to allow him/her to dedicate his/her time to other issues.

 There is a very real difference between a personal secretary and a group
secretary. Your example is prime. There's no way I could go to _any_ secretary
and say "Write the chip spec for the CBS..." Sheesh! That's what my boss said
to me. :-) Interpersonal communications are much more reasonable to be handled
by a secretary- "Write a memo to Joe Blow announcing the dates of the CBS
chip review..."

 Perhaps my view of secretaries is distorted because I only see group
secretaries (and I don't interface with them all that much). It sounds like
a personal secretary requires a much larger skill set (and should be compensated
accordingly IMO).

 The Doctah

re .75,

Magnificent.  Sore points identified and soothed, darkness illuminated.
A note about communication, it is itself a masterpiece of communication.

	-Neil

I've been asked to explain why I thought .61 denigrated the skill sets of
secretaries. I _really_ don't want to de-rail the nice way the conversation is
going, and I _sure_ don't want to hurt Paul. His subsequent replies of "What I
meant was, what does it take to write a memo?" and the replies explaining it,
have been great.

It turned out rather long. I apoligize.

I think the title really got my knees twitching:
>                -< What's so specialized about writing a memo? >-

Through my Mez-filters I heard "What's so hot about that skill?". It reads like
a challenge to prove that a skill somebody already _defined_ as a skill in
_their_ job is worthwhile. 

>Write it out
>longhand and have it typed in? Typing it in directly is faster than this, and
>the tools we have (DOCUMENT, DECwrite, etc.) produce publication-quality output
>from a first draft.

This seems like a set-up. I'm hearing someone say "I've said I don't believe
what you do (writing a memo) is so hot, and now I'll prove it by _me_ telling
_you_ what you do." Of course the re-telling makes it sound like a trivial task.
And I bet that for some people, this is just how it works. But it seems a lot
like generalizing from a specific situation (and a created one, at that).

>But for an exec who can type, and either spell or know how to use a spell 
>checker, it probably costs the company MORE to have two people involved in
>generating that memo than just the one.

But here's the summation. All it takes to write a memo is the ability to type
and use a spell checker. Wow. Sure does sound simple when you put it that way.
Yet, someone was proud enough of their ability to do that to put it in a note.
Why's that?

>To a somewhat lesser degree, the same holds for overheads and graphs. I'll 
>concede that these require a somewhat steeper learning curve, and the cost to
>train the exec may exceed the benefit. But if an exec knows how the tools work,
>I suspect it's still more efficient to produce them him/herself rather than
>trying to communicate to somebody else what should go in them, and then go 
>through a review pass.

This crystalizes it. The skill set = the ability to use the tools. Nothing
about content, quality, style. The ability to pick up the hammer and bring it
down on the nail. The skill is reduced; reducing what someone does trivializes
it.

	Mez

    Just a final (tumultuous applause) comment on my choice of words in
    the reply title that set Mez's knees off, viz -

>                -< What's so specialized about writing a memo? >-

    There are many kinds of written communications. In my experience,
    around DEC, a memorandum is among the more informal of these. As the
    formality of a piece of writing increases, the stakes get higher, and
    details of style become more important. It's definitely the case that
    some of the Ken-o-grams which have seen wider-than-intended
    distribution would have benefited from some judicious editing.

    So, you [generic] and I may have different ideas about the kind of
    communication I was implying when I specified a "memo" in my topic.
    Writing an article for a technical journal, for example, is a different
    animal, and *requires* multiple review and editing passes. (I know;
    check out the DEC Technical Journal issue #3 from September 1986 if you
    want to see a bad picture of me.)

    So - in my view, at least, the degree of specialization *required* in
    producing a written document can be related to the formality of the
    document - and its audience. That's why I specified "writing a memo"
    (which I don't view as *usually* being a high-stakes operation, and
    hence not a high-skill operation), as opposed to composing a legal
    document, or an article for a technical journal, or a customer
    proposal. To suggest that writing a memo does not require a specialized
    set of skills should not be extrapolated into a suggestion that this
    applies to *all* forms of written communications.

    If you [generic] view that a "memo" includes documents with complex
    formatting, tables, and the like, then we're talking apples and
    oranges.

    RE .some_other_note - engineers playing with software tools ...

	Thwip ... whizzzzz ... thwap ... BULLSEYE... (thud)