Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    
    I think people, regardless of sex, should be promoted into higher
    individual contributor jobs based on skill, and into management
    strictly on leadership skills.  To ensure this, Digital could change
    the rules to where there are peer reviews plus direct report reviews on
    a give group's manager with a say in who leads, via a regular vote of
    referendum, with the group having the ability to vote in a new group
    leader if a new one is necessary.  Under such new rules, the good ol'
    boy political system would fall aside to one based on virtual teams
    being self-managed -- the direct reports in most groups know who
    deserves the promotions to better jobs and manager positions.
    
    A more detailed dialogue on this was posted in DIGITAL, in a REPLY note
    to topic 1108  -- I think it was 1108.9 or .11
    

    "How do 'we' get past it"?
    
    By not implimenting another form, and calling it 'equal'.

    REF:   <<< Note 154.4 by HEYYOU::ZARLENGA >>
    
    	>><<Self-managed by whom?  If the good ol' boy network is truly in
    place, who do you think will be on those teams?>>
    
    In my proposed scenario change of Digital rules, self-managed by all
    the employees within the group, who ultimately determine who will best
    lead them to higher levels of accomplishment.
    
    Now, if in a given group, there are mostly males, who decide to
    discriminate based on sex, then just as there are current rules against
    this, a female employee just files a grievance with personnel and the
    entire group will then have to justify the selection of a male as the
    group leader.
    
    If there was an additional check and balance, such as equal profit
    sharing bucks at stake, then I believe there would be less politics in
    leader selection since the group members would be a bit more motivated
    to ensure a REAL leader was in place, and people with REAL skills and
    motivation were promoted to higher individual contributor jobs, because
    of the need to ensure change, productivity and profitability were
    necessary in order for all to ensure the profit goals were reached in
    order to get the profit sharing money.  Under this scenario, the
    probability of a high number of stupid people in a given group giving
    the manager's job and higher level jobs based on patronage and/or
    prejudice, putting at risk profit sharing, would be minimal.
    
    Under the current system, how many argue that politics and not
    competence determines one's rise in either management or higher level
    individual contributor jobs, freely allowing for discrimination and
    prejudice to exist on any level, if ever so subtle, and if for no other 
    jsutification than, "But I LIKE him better than her (or vice versa).
    

    re .1 and .6
    David, you have done an excellent job of describing the "high
    performance teams" that we have discussed in our district in the past. 
    So far it's just discussion, but I think as more and more people hear
    and understand the concept, there's bound to be some movement toward
    it.  Thanks.  (Also, it's GREAT to hear from a man in Southern Area!)
    
    Empowerment really does work.

    Something else that might help put power back into the hands (arms)
    of the people, and which is unthought of at DEC but which, perhaps,
    should be is the big "U" word: Unions.
    
    Particularly for WC2 people, although lower-to-middle level WC4
    employees would also benefit, a Union might greatly help to keep
    some of the Policies/Procedures/Vagaries of Interpretation and
    Decisions made by some of the Upper Level Old Boys and Girls in check. 
    
    For example, a Union might ask: 
    
        - Why do WC2 people get only 10 (or 12) sick days a year, while WC4 
          folks have "unlimited" sick days, so long as they're discreet about 
          it?
        
        - Why, when WC4 people go on STD (Short Term Disability), do they
          get Full Pay for up to six months, while WC2 employees get only 
          80 Percent? 
        
        - Why can WC4 folks take a few hours off to get their cars fixed,
          go "to an appointment", have a long lunch, etc., and be presumed
          to be mature enough to know what work has to be done and that 
          they'll do it, without having to lose a few hours pay or making
          up the time to the last minute?
    
        - Why even have WC2 and WC4 designations?
    
        - Why does DEC have a formal plan that managers must follow,
          if he/she suspects that Union-forming activity is occuring within
          his/her Organization?
    
    Now, before anyone wonders, I'm WC4, so I have no vested interest in
    asking these questions.
    
    But, the Company *is* in serious trouble, precisely because of some of
    the decisions made by inept people in power, male and female, who continue
    to stay there.
    
    David Carnell has entered some excellent notes in the DIGITAL
    Conference. I recommend them highly.
    
      Alan
                                                 

    
    	Alan, Let's turn some of your questions around a little.
    
    	-> Why do WC2 folks get paid for hours worked in excess of 40?
    	   WC4 folks only get their 40 hour pay even if they have to
    	   work 80 that week.
    
    	-> Why do WC2 folks get time and one half pay for those hours
    	   over 8 in a day and 40 in a week? WC4 folks get paid the same
    	   regardless if they work 18 hours in a day or 80 hours in a week.
    
    	-> Why is it that alot of folks going on WC4 suddenly have the
    	   amount of hours worked increased without extra pay for the
    	   extra hours? WC2 folks that get a promotion don't have their
    	   hours increased due to the promotion, yet I've taken WC4
    	   positions four times and each time was expected to be here
    	   an extra hour a day on every Saturday morning.
    
    	G_B

    re .8, Alan, I think you've made some excellent points, or asked
    some excellent questions.  I definitely think that we (WC2's) need
    unions.  I think the points you made are unfair.

    As a secretary, I see the printouts that come through that list
    how many vacation hours everyone in the group has.  It's interesting
    to note that the WC4 employees always have a tremendous amount of
    vacation saved up because they haven't had to use it up when they
    had to go to the doctor, dentist, registry, court, etc.  The WC2's
    on the other hand usually have very little vacation time saved up
    in comparison, no matter how long they've been with the company,
    because they've had to use up their vacation time in order to get
    paid for these things.  It's a real class system.
    
    re .9, George, I was under the impression that all overtime had
    been severely cut back at Digital for some time now.  I can't even
    remember the last time I worked in a group that had authorization
    to pay anyone to work overtime, but I think it was about 6 yrs.
    ago or so.
    
    Lorna
        
    

    Lorna, if we (WC2's) get unions, we may get a bit more money.
    We'll also get the timeclocks back, 'us vs. them' attitudes,
    ZERO chance of 'escaping' into WC4 jobs, and general chicken-sh*t
    from the managers. (Imagine being held to *strict* ten-minute
    breaks, and having your trips to the bathroom monitored.)
    And you can bet that the 'no layoff tradition' will go down
    the toilet.
    
    No thanks.

    
    	Lorna,
    
    	Yeah, our OT was also cut way back. We still get some off
    	and on when they need us to comlete a project on short
    	notice. The point I was making was even with the cut
    	backs in OT for WC2, there hasn't been one for the WC4
    	folks here. They are still expected to be here for those
    	after hours meetings and on Saturday mornings. I've been
    	both WC2 and WC4 and to give you an idea of which I like
    	better, I'll just say I'm WC2 now and plan to stay that
    	way. ;^)
    
    	G_B

    
    	I've been a WC4 for 1.5 years now. I get paid for what I know, and
    	for performing my job as requested. While I can go to the dentist
    	for a couple of hours and not take any vac time, I was required to 
    	work (from home) 4 hours per weekend without any extra pay for
    	about 6 months. This was considered part of my job.
    
    	My productivity is measured by if I get my projects completed on
    	time, so I make up for the long lunches by working at home.
    
    	Fortunatly, I work for an IS group and all members of the group
    	are encouraged to become more technical to provide a path away from
    	clerical work, if they desire.
    
    	For me, being a WC4 isn't better, just different.
    
    	Guy
     

>                       <<< Note 154.8 by FDCV01::ROSS >>>
>
    >        - Why even have WC2 and WC4 designations?
    
    This is required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.  There are some
    extremely interesting cases involving whether employees should have
    been classified as WC2 or WC4.
    
>        - Why does DEC have a formal plan that managers must follow,
>          if he/she suspects that Union-forming activity is occuring within
>          his/her Organization?
    
    I'm not familiar with the specific policy, but part of the reason could
    be to ensure compliance with the National Labor Relations Act, which
    specifies duties of both employers and employees during union forming
    and dissolving activities.
    
    Now, before anyone wonders, I'm WC4, so I have no vested interest in
    asking these questions.
    
    But, the Company *is* in serious trouble, precisely because of some of
    the decisions made by inept people in power, male and female, who continue
    to stay there.
    
    David Carnell has entered some excellent notes in the DIGITAL
    Conference. I recommend them highly.
    
      Alan
                                                 

    

David Carnell's ideas (.1) bring to mind a lot of articles I've seen
lately describing a general trend in the business world toward smaller
companies.  The large, competitive, hierarchical business structure
doesn't seem to be working as well these days as it used to.  The times
they are a-changing.

Looking at the situation in today's terms can be truly depressing (I think 
so anyway).  We have only to look around us to see many corporations
down-sizing and cutting back.  This means there will not only be fewer
opportunities for promotion (and probably less money for salary increases),
but just fewer jobs available in these companies.  And here are a huge
number of baby-boomers, just looking for promotion and more money as they
scramble up the ladder of success.

Crash.  The radical view is that this will cause us to rethink and
change--change careers and/or jobs often, change our values and expectations,
change our definition of success.  More self-employment.  More small
companies.  And maybe, as David suggests, more small, autonomous groups
within larger corporations.

Well, since there seems to be a recent trend in Boston Globe articles ...
I'll mention the recent article that dealt with women and competition.
The article suggested that we feel most comfortable with a work style
that parallels the play style we used as children.  [Warning:  gender-based
generalities follow.]  Boys, therefore, are more used to large groups and
highly competitive and hierarchical games.  Girls are more used to playing
in smaller groups or one-on-one situations and generally avoid direct
competition, preferring games which promote individual excellence.

Perhaps this trend toward smaller groups, more flexible work structures,
more emphasis on human resources than the bottom line (in short, a work
style that many women should feel comfortable with and do well at),
represents an opportunity for women.  Unfortunately, I haven't figured
out how.

nla