Conference 7.286::digital

Sorry Didier...(actually I am sorry for me..:-)..) but a salary rewiew
is only made, at your annyversary date of entry in the company. This means
once every year, and the first time, one year after you entered.

(and , BTW, JP&R's, are not that regular... I had mine after 22 days with the
company, didn't still know what a JP was, and I took profit of the JP, to
finally know, what my job was going to be!...

Norbert

That must be checked out. In France we have Salary Reviews every six
months. I thought it was corporate policy.

Any other experiences over here, anyone?

Didier..

	Here in Maynard (at corporate headquarters) we have a job review 
and a salary review at 9 months to one year in a position. We can have 
an informal job review only if we ask for it, so if you do not ask you 
do not get it.

	As for the salary review, annually in March, the corporation of 
managers get together and does what is termed as salary planning - what is 
determined out of that salary planning is what you see at your annual 
review.

	I do not know is this practice is company wide either, I only know 
it is done here.

  Salary actions can take place anywhere from six months to eighteen months.
  It depends on what is on the salary plan for the employee.  Factors such as
  length of employment, performance level, and where on the pay scale the
  employee's salary is for the employee's job classification, are considered
  in salary planning.

  In the Greater Maynard area, at least, the average time between salary 
  actions is about twelve months.  It is not always on the anniversary of the
  start date.

  Performance reviews are supposed to be done every six months, regardless of
  whether any salary action is planned.

--Simon

			FRENCH POLICY			January 1983
			-------------
Salary review

"It takes place every six months and is done by your direct manager.
It is a concretization of your performances evaluation. It will be
commented during a personal talk with your manager."

[You and Digital, page 21]

Do these same rules previously discussed apply if one is classified as a
temporary employee and remains in the job a year or more?

Pablo,

Yes. A temporary employee IS a DEC employee and benefits of the same personal
politic.

In my organization, performance reviews are done at roughly six month
intervals, and every other performance review is a salary review.  The effect
of the salary review is seen about 2 months after it is done.  

One of the stange things that happens is an annual salary planning meeting.
It is attended by all the managers in my cost center (development managers
and superviors).  At this meeting, they evaluate everyones performance 
with respect to the rest of the group.  Then they determine what
is each employees's value by consulting industry surveys.  If there is
a big difference between your value and your salary, you can expect a
larger than average raise or promotion.  Even though this planning is
done at the same time for everyone, your salary review does make a difference.
If you perform better or worse than expected, the predetermined salary
action can be changed.

As far as I can tell, the system works well.  It rewards the people
who perform the best and helps to weed out the drift wood.

	KC

Re -1:

I, too, have been satisfied with the way that performance and salary reviews
have been handled. There are a lot of factors that need to be balanced in
awarding salaries. The care and determination with which a manager balances
those factors appears to make a great difference, perhaps the greatest of
all.

Your last point, of ridding ourselves of driftwood, is hard to see. I've
known of so very few cases of an employee being fired for non-performance
that I begin to wonder if it's possible.

kh
                                   -30-

to me, if an employee is having bad perforance for a too long time, DEC will
offer him a second chance, that is finding another job in the company to
discover his real capacities. (then a third chance, etc.. till there is no
more place for him to go. Then if the guy is not stupid, he will understand
by himself that he has better go).

What is fantastic within DEC is that everyone is supposed to be competent
in a domain, by definition. We are trusted (see that other note here).

What is awful in France, and specifically in the Administration, is that
a guy who has bad performance in one business is declared 'no good' and
fired. full stop.

(that's why we are so late in business, but in cooking and wine production,
perhaps...) :-)

Didier

The ``branding'' of an employee does happen here, too. I was talking with
a couple of folks today about another employee outside of our organization.
Apparrently, a few years back, he had had quite a bad attitude. He was not
only reprimanded, but also developed quite a reputation.

Well, he worked hard and has changed. Since I have known him, he has been
helpful, courteous, and conscientious. Nevertheless, as he has tried to look
around for other jobs, his reputation has preceeded him. He's stuck. Time,
as they say, may heal that, as more people who didn't know the old ``X''
have dealings with him and can evaluate his current performance and attitudes.

It surprises me greatly to hear tales of people fired suddenly. There have
been times when I've wished that it was not so difficult to get a person
removed from a position. One of the prices we have to pay for fairness, I
guess.

kh
                                   -30-

The following is a copy of what I could find in Videotex here in EHQ (European 
HeadQuarters).  The policy expressed herebelow matches 100% with my personal 
experience (admittedly a short one, I joined DEC just more than a year ago).

Stephane Rousset
Application Development Group
Information Services
EHQ - Geneva, Switzerland


==============================================================================

SALARY REVIEW PROCEDURE

The European Salary Review policy and procedure is set up to ensure fair 
and equitable salary treatment for all employees in all functions. The 
Salary Change Request form is one of the compensation tools which help 
managers review all salaries within the framework of the company's 
philosophy.

Your performance on the job is the most important factor in determining 
the amount of increase to be proposed. Other factors which influence the 
amount of your increase may include, but are not limited to, position in 
the range, performance and pay of other employees in similar positions, 
and your past salary increase history. A salary review does not mean that 
you automatically get an increase.

SALARY REVIEW DATE

Employees' salaries are normally reviewed on an anniversary basis, which 
means twelve months from the last increase or twelve months from the date 
of hire. 

In particular circumstances as, for example, outstanding performance, 
substantial changes in market conditions, promotion, etc., your manager 
may consider an advancement of the salary review date.

However, if your performance is unsatisfactory, your manager will delay 
any salary increase until such time as performance improves. If this 
occurs, the Salary Change Request form will still be processed, stating 
the reasons and outlining the performance improvement plan agreed between 
you and your manager. 

If an increase is granted before or after the regularly scheduled date, 
the next review is normally scheduled twelve months from the date of the 
increase.

You are entitled to see the Salary Change Request form when you receive 
the salary increase letter.

RE: NOTE 12.5

1983 WAS A LONG TIME AGO.  TODAY'S SALARY POLICY (AT LEAST IN THE
STATES) IS MOVING TO 11 - 15 MONTHS WITH ONLY 95% OF THE WORKFORCE
BEING REVIEWED FOR INCREASES IN SALARY.

DI

please use lowercase typing. Thanks.

    Does anyone know what the policy is at the present time?
    

    I have only just found this note file and would like to set
    the record straight on how salary reviews are implemented 
    in the UK.
    
    Each year the district managers meet together and plan the
    districts salaries for the coming year (usually takes place
    around March/April). They do this by comparing each employees
    performance against his JPR etc and basically argueing for
    their own people to attempt to obtain the necessary funds
    from the salary "POT" for the district.
    
    This process decides your position on the scale that comes
    into effect the next July.
    
    The actual salary change takes place on the anniversary of
    joining the company or  12 months from the last salary change.
    
    In the coiuple of months prior to your salary change your manager
    has the possibility of revising your planned salary up or down
    dependant on your "Performance".
    
    As far as I know there are no plans to modify this process as regards
    to the 12 month timescale..
    
    However as a "worker" and not a "manager" I will only find out any
    changes the hard way!!
    
    Jim 

    The 12-month rule is not always strictly adhered to, however.
    
    A salary review can be brought forward or put back, dependent upon
    performance.

    Just a minor correction....
    
>    The actual salary change takes place on the anniversary of
>    joining the company or  12 months from the last salary change.

    This is purely dependent whether your review occurs when it should,
    when the Management Team meet to pass your review and then when
    the payroll cut off date is. It can cause a delay of up to 3 months
    before your pay reflects your increase. Motto is - if things are
    running late, get your manager to sign (in blood) that the pay will
    be from the date of the review, not when payroll get around to
    processing it.
    
    Another interesting point (this may apply in the US also) is that
    personnell regularly get a copy of the latest market survey on pay
    and benefits and also carry out their own surveys to check that
    DEC pay is comparable.
    
    David
    

    No laws in DEC, only GUIDELINES.  Depending on which side you are
    on at any given moment, that can be an advantage or a disadvantage.
    
    /Dave

In the UK it is the first day of the month in which you started with the 
company.

e.g. Start Date 15-July-87, Review Date 1-July-88

This may change if you have an review before the normal date due to your
mega star status, in which case the dates may or may not be reset.

Dave.

	Re .21

>In the UK it is the first day of the month in which you started with the 
>company.

>e.g. Start Date 15-July-87, Review Date 1-July-88

    Close Dave, but not necessarily true. This is the rule, but I joined
    on 03-August (because the 1st was a Saturday), and my review date
    is September.........
    
    Peter.
    

    Then your Review Date is incorrect. I started 22nd August and my
    Review Date is 1st August.

    To address the question, I believe it is *policy*
    (but not *law*) that all employees receive a review
    at least once per year, usually near their anniversary.
    
    However, it is the responsibility of the supervisor/manager
    to perform this review, and the responsibility of the 
    employee to "remind" the manager if the review has not
    been given (and use ODP if not satisfied).
    
    My 2� worth.
    
    Bruce

It is also true that your supervisor can 
    1) initiate your review earlier than one year, if you've been
       doing a good (rewardable) job, or
    2) delay your review, if he or she feels you haven't been doing so good
       a job.  This gives you a chance to get your act together
       if you've been performing under your potential.  This is
       a benefit because....
    3) salary actions can not regularly happen more often than 6-9 months,
       so being delayed 3 months or so  and then getting a reasonable review
       is better than getting a bad review on schedule and then having to 
       wait 9 months for another shot.

Also, corporate policy during times of woe has been to move average
review intervals out as a cost cutting measure.  In this way a mild
form of wage freeze results.

- tom]

    Thanks, Tom, for clearing up what I forgot to mention:
    namely, that every employee is due a *performance* review
    at least once per year; however, there may or may not be
    any *salary* changes at that same frequency.
    
    Bruce

    Traditionally, performance reviews have been linked to salary reviews.
    When I started at DEC, you had six month performance reviews and
    annual salary reviews. Then we went into annual salary and performance
    reviews. Many folks didn't like this, because it looked like your
    salary review came from your performance review. Now we have this
    thing about a longer period between salary reviews. In my group,
    the decision was to continue with 12 month performance reviews with
    a supplement to show that performance still justified the salary
    review. Rumor has it that the group next to ours is doing their
    performance reviews along with the salary reviews. No instructions
    were given that you had to do it any specific way. It was left up
    to the CC or Group manager and, somewhat, depends on the local
    personnel group. To the best of my knowledge, supported by previous
    responses here, there is no standard in the company.
    
    Bob Mc

    I was told that the manager has the power to initiate a performance
    review WITH SALARY ACTION at ANY time they choose.  [this from an
    employee who got one while his/her boss was ticked off with his/her
    performance.]
    
    Then it toook my manager a full month to get the go ahead to do
    a review after 10 months [instead of 12].  Of course, by the time
    approval happened, the review started 11 months after that employee
    started work, and the salary action hit the check almost exactly
    12 months after the start date.
    
    Hmmph.
    
    Lee

    I am a manager and have handled many reviews and salary
    planning. DEC does link performance with salary increases,
    the policies allow MERIT increases only, elapsed time is
    not a basis for salary increase.  In theory they could be
    seperate reviews but most often are done at the same time.
    
    DEC does not have fixed guidlines for salary actions, each
    year the amount of money available for increases and the
    average salary review period is set by corporate folks. Years
    ago, it was fairly easy to make exceptions, today managers
    find it much harder to "go out of plan". Sometimes management
    holds back a little of their kitty to handle special cases
    that occur.
    
    Since policies are set each year and may vary from one
    organization to another (example - Eng vs Mfg) in any given
    year, comparisons are tough.
    
    - gerry

    [Re: .31]:  To be fair, the problem of escalating salaries for incoming
    graduates has nothing to do with Digital per se.  It's a common
    problem industry-wide.

re: -1

HA HA. Yes, I have heard that one at other companies.  "Sorry, we can't 
afford to give you employees decent raises this year because if we did
we wouldn't have enough money to attract good new people."  The message
is clear.

Years ago, I was told by my then district manager that performance appraisals
(and hence, at least in the places I have worked in the field, salary reviews),
were the responsibility of the EMPLOYEE.  This means that YOU are responsible
for prompting your manager at the proper time.  I didn't really believe this
until one year (around review time) I opened my paycheck and found an increase.
It wasn't until the next week that I got a chance to talk to my manager and
found out that he had reviewed my performace already and what I saw was my
raise.  Of course, he didn't seem to feel that it was especially important
to communicate these facts to me in a timely fashion.  Oh well, a lesson 
learned.

The rule at DEC (and I am NOT complaining!) seems to be "DEC helps those who
help themselves".    :-)

    I took a "Managing Performance" course from DIGITAL a few years
    back and at that time, at least, it was outlined as the joint
    responsibility of the supervisor and the employee to write the
    performance appraisal.  The idea being that you would each contribute
    your ideas and then come to common ground and it was that agreement
    that got written down and became the basis of an updated Job Plan.
    
    Also, the suggested timing was 3 months prior to and 3 months after
    the (then yearly) salary review.
    
    P.A.s are very time-consuming and if you have quite a few employees,
    twice yearly means you're always writing someone's p.a. so it rarely
    works that way in "real life".  More often, the Performance Appraisal
    and Salary Review are tied together.  
    
    Regarding who's responsibility it is to notify the manager that
    the time has come for a p.a., it's common that some sort of tickler 
    system is worked out between the secretary and the manager. However,
    it is clearly the manager's responsibility to see that it happens
    and the employee's responsibility to participate in the process. 

    Marge
    

    [.32]:  ... the problem of escalating salaries for incoming
    graduates... (is) common industry-wide.
    
    [.34] ... Sorry -.2, but I SORELY disagree, that is NOT true in the 
    least.
    
    Well, .34 is easy to refute.  It WAS true at Honeywell.

    re .32, .34, .36;

    If you think our industry is bad, how about the guys watching new
    MBA's coming in at $70,000/yr?

    .32, etc... 
    
    I thought that I had seen figures like this somewhere, but I looked
    once and couldn't find them.  Does anyone know what is the situation
    for someone who goes back to school, gets an MS in something like,
    oh, I don't know, Elec. Engineering, while they stay employed? Are
    they suddenly worth more when they graduate?  I wonder if they wouldn't
    be better off being treated as "fresh out of school" by some other
    employer than they would by their own, especially when their current
    employer has "guidelines" which restrict the yearly percentage of
    growth.                                     
    
    Patrick

    I agree.
    I don't think that earning a degree (or another degree) while you
    are employed in the same sort of job at DEC makes any difference
    in your salary unless you change jobs, even though it would if you
    were hired into the job from outside.  At most, it might appear
    in your performance review to prove that you had showed initiative,
    which might cause you to get a better review, and thus might lead
    to a better raise.

    What I _SEEM_ to be gathering is that changing jobs will do little
    to change that either; as in the "guidelines" for "reasonable" increases.
    
    For example:  
    
    I'm currently making $X as a software specialist, I try to get a
    job which is in engineering and the mininum range is $X+25%.  From
    the things I've read in this conference, I can't even get the job
    because of guidelines, "it would be too much of a jump".  
    
    I'm currently going back to school to get an MSEE, but I wonder
    if even changing jobs when I'm through will make a difference. 
    Will I be able to make more by leaving DEC?  I don't know.
    I hope not, because I don't want to.

    This industry still seems to favor job-hopping as the primary method
    of increasing your salary, although the hops tend to be farther apart.
    Advanced studies and degrees are often used to "justify" the change
    to the personnel managers who are chartered to watch out for chronic
    job-hoppers.  The computer-related job market has a long way to go
    before it will become saturated.
    
    I went to a personnel briefing on corporate compensation policy
    that said in effect that Digital tries to maintain competitive with
    salaries offered by the other large computer vendors, but that we
    do not try to "outbid" them.  In other words, "We don't want the
    best, we want the most."

    There are two different areas here. One is working in a non-exempt
    position while pursuing a Bachelor's degree in your chosen field.
    An EE Tech that gets a BSEE is not *obligated* to seek a position
    as an EE, but would be darn silly not to. If a position is not
    available in their current group, they can seek another position
    in the company. In either case, they *are* considered a *new* college
    hire.
    
    Obtaining an advanced degree in your chosen field while working
    in it, may do nothing for you except quicken your advancement in
    your field. I have seen job descriptions for positions whose titles
    are normally associated with a BS+experience or MS & less experience,
    written for a PhD with no experience. In other words, a BS grad
    gets hired as an Eng I, a straight MS grad gets hired as an Eng
    II or as Eng I to be promoted in 6-12 Mos. Or more directly, a PhD
    straight out of school, with no job experience, is going to get
    hired as an Sr. Eng and not a Pr. Eng.
    
    Bob Mc
    
    
    or
    

    Re: .-2
    
    If an engineer values his/her work only in dollars (or francs,
    or pounds, etc.), and feels that he/she could get more of those
    elsewhere, then let them leave - that's the free market, right?
    The flip-side of this is that Digital shows its appreciation
    for its employees in more ways than currency; as a result, DEC
    tends to attract those people who define their worth
    in terms other than dollars (etc.).

    Bruce

    RE: .44 Starting the list.
    
    o Hardware at home (means a lot to me)
    o Hardware at the office (a lot more CPU/Disk per person then you'll
    				find even at most other vendors)
    o Flexable work hours (I worked extra yesterday and stayed home
p   			today. Other times I've worked nights to have
    			free days. Work hours are *very* flexable for
    			most engineers.)
    o Flexable work conditions (I've taken advantage of my hardware
    				at home to work at home for a variety
    				of reasons.)
    o Helicopter rides (Any DECcie with a reason can take a 'copter
    			between plants. Most other place and only the
    			top managers ever get to fly company 'copters)
    o Good benefits (Ours compare favorably with anyones. Sure some
    			people have some that we don't but in almost
    			every case we have some that they don't)
    o Use of the worlds largest private network (Any idea what you'd
    			pay for the equivalent of Notes conferences
    			through The Source?)
    o Employee Purchase plan
    o Stock purchase plan (sure other companies have them but how many
    			of them let you buy DEC stock? :-))
    o No layoff policy
    
    			Alfred

>    o No layoff policy

Ken, when asked, has always said that we have no such policy; that we have been
fortunate enough with our planning that we've never needed to have a layoff.

But, in practice, DEC usually gives people who have become redundant (as I just
have) plenty of time to find something new to do.  I don't know how much time
I'll have, but I'm not going to worry about it too seriously until after I get
back from a five week vacation.

/john

re .45:

>    o Hardware at home (means a lot to me)

Only available to engineers.

>    o Hardware at the office (a lot more CPU/Disk per person then you'll
>    				find even at most other vendors)

Why is this an employee benefit?

>    o Flexable work hours (I worked extra yesterday and stayed home
>    			today. Other times I've worked nights to have
>    			free days. Work hours are *very* flexable for
>    			most engineers.)

Flexible hours are an exception here.

>    o Flexable work conditions (I've taken advantage of my hardware
>    				at home to work at home for a variety
>    				of reasons.)

No home h/w, what others are there?

>    o Helicopter rides (Any DECcie with a reason can take a 'copter
>    			between plants. Most other place and only the
>    			top managers ever get to fly company 'copters)

Don't have them here.

>    o Good benefits (Ours compare favorably with anyones. Sure some
>    			people have some that we don't but in almost
>    			every case we have some that they don't)

A fair package but not the best on offer by a long shot.

>    o Use of the worlds largest private network (Any idea what you'd
>    			pay for the equivalent of Notes conferences
>    			through The Source?)

Agreed.

>    o Employee Purchase plan

I've heard of it - that's all.

>    o Stock purchase plan (sure other companies have them but how many
>    			of them let you buy DEC stock? :-))


That's a goodie, if you have the spare cash.

>    o No layoff policy
    
So far so good...


My reason for being here:

	Digital gives me space.

Dave.

    Many technical workers find the resources provided to them atleast
    as important as the compensation.
    
    Re: stock plan, it's like printing money.  If you don't have the
    spare cash, take out a loan.  You get a minimum of 68% return, even
    if the stock drops during the period.  Barring loan sharks, you
    will not be able to find a loan at more than about 23%.

                                                                 

    re: back a few
    
    Most employers (I don't know about DIGITAL) have contradictory
    attitudes about their employees getting advanced degrees.  On
    the one hand, virtually every major corporation has some sort
    of tuition reimbursement plan.  On the other hand, an employee
    who actually goes through with it causes a lot of problems,
    including 1) the employee's expectation of more salary and/or
    a better position; 2) fear that the employee will depart for
    greener pastures; 3) friction caused by resentment from the
    employee's peers.
    
    I am not saying that these problems are necessarily inevitable,
    but managers tend to perceive them that way, and often the
    result is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
    
    At my previous employer (a large aircraft manufacturer), I took
    advantage of their tuition reimbursement plan to get a M.S.
    in Computer Science.  Now going to school & working full-time
    would not be pleasent even under the best of circumstances,
    but my employer made things far worse than they could have been.
    
    The first thing I found out was that the plan was not a "benefit"
    automatically conferred.  I had to go up through 3 levels of
    management to get the necessary approvals, and at each level
    I was greeted with indifference or outright hostility.  The
    typical question was "aren't you happy with your job?".  Once
    approved, I spent the next 3 years conning and wheedling my
    managers into letting me juggle my schedule (the program I
    was in didn't have night classes).  On several occasions I
    had to take vacation and even time off without pay to meet
    my schedule.  When I finally graduated, I received neither
    a salary increase (which was fine: I didn't expect one),
    nor increased responsibilities (which was considerably less
    fine); nor the opportunity to transfer to a new position
    (which was not fine at all).
    
    I have since talked to people who have had similar experiences
    at other companies, suggesting that my experience was not
    an isolated occurrance.  Note that I am not at all bitter
    about this either: after all, it led directly to my employment
    at DIGITAL!  I think the moral is, don't go back to school
    with the expectation that your boss is going to shower you
    with money and promotions.  If you are doing it because of
    your insatiable thirst for knowledge, expect that to be the
    main reward.  If you are doing it for the big bucks and a
    more exciting job, be prepared to "vote with your feet".

    re:re: back a few  8+)
    
    That's one of the things about DEC, I've gotten support for going
    back to school.  I originally started on this odyssey (sic?) to
    get out of the standard Software Services catch-22.  I want to do
    more interesting work, I don't have the experience or training,
    we need to find a customer who needs this done in order to do OJT,
    the customer won't pay, you don't have the skills, etc..  
    My goal is now to get into engineering.  
    
    I've heard engineers make more money, especially when they first
    come out of school, so that prompted my investigation of the money
    aspect.  I don't expect to do the same work and get more money.
    What I've been asking is when changing jobs within DEC, is it realistic
    to be able to negotiate based on a different level.  I've seen salary
    ranges for e and j codes and they are very close to r codes.  So,
    I thought that, hum... maybe not. 
    
    I'm very happy to be working for DEC, although I've never ridden
    in a copter and I have far more computer resources available at
    EVERY customer site that I have been at than I have on internal 
    machines, more privileges
    too. My management is excellent, and I have nothing to complain
    about from the salary point of view.  For those who have said that
    if salary is your main consideration, you had better leave, I feel
    that is extreme, but I agree that there is a lot of truth in those
    remarks. I do believe that Salary is one of the top priorities and
    cannot be ignored.  I don't feed my family with benefits, the grocery
    store doesn't care about my stock purchase plan. The other things
    make my work experience more pleasant, and meaningful, and DEC is
    an exciting place to work for, but salary is a major concern.  I
    wouldn't leave DEC for 30% more, probably not even 50% more, but
    we're starting to get in the range in which I would. It's hard to
    swallow the job satisfaction angle coupled with the 2-5% raise pitch
    that has been going around when we're reporting phenomenal profits
    every quarter.  Fundamental law of what makes a capitalistic economy
    work: MONEY MOTIVATES.  Look at some of our more strategic employees,
    exec VP's and such.  They aren't making 50k, folks, they aren't here
    for just the job satisfaction.  I am not complaining about that,
    I believe in capitalism; I just believe that when a company is doing
    exceptionally well, it should share that wealth, in a financial
    way.  I'm willing to tighten my belt when we're hurting, so the
    reverse ought  to be true, in my opinion.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                                              
    

    .50 part II
    
    In support of the "money isn't everything" point of view, I've worked
    with more than a few customers who I wouldn't go to for twice what
    I'm making now.  
    
    Also,  
    the atmosphere here, at least where I'm at, tends to encourage me
    to excel.  That, in my opinion, is a function of the people who
    work here. They tend to be striving to do well. That makes for a
    pretty competitive environment, which I personally find stimulating.
    My current customer site is not like that, there are people who
    are really trying to get ahead, do 110%, volunteer for tough projects,
    etc... but they are the exception, the rest are just sitting around
    waiting to get promoted, and bitching when things aren't handed
    to them on a silver platter.  I wouldn't go to work there for 3
    times what I make (did I say that!!!), because I would be miserable.
    
    ok, ok, money isn't everything.
    
    

    re: participation in the company's good fortunes while getting 2-5%
    raises, just keep in mind that DEC does not and has not ever paid
    dividends on its stock.  This means those earnings are getting plowed
    back into the company as part if its "self" financing.  We still
    are a high growth company, and it takes cash to get bigger, to
    take bigger market share, to accellerate new product development.
    I don't know about you, but it appears to me that the general standard
    of "living" in the company is steadily (if unevenly) improving all
    the time for both you and me as we gain on I*M.
    
    jack
    
    (BTW, we got non-engineers here in Charlotte with terminals at home.
    Don't know what it has to be only engineers that get them.)

    
    
    	Gain on IBM?
    
    	Show me the figures.  IBM continues to spend
    	4 times our total profits on their advertising 
    	budget alone.
    
    

    Re: Terminals at home.
    
    Let me add my testimony to that of Jack Bouknight in .52; writers (as
    well as engineers) at our facility also get home equipment if they want
    it.  I live 40 miles from the computer I dial into and Digital picks up
    the telephone charges. How's that for generous benefits?
    
    BTW: I also have a VT240 plus a VAXstation II/RC in my office. Several
    writers around me are getting brand new VAXstation 2000s and get to
    keep their VT200-series terminals too. I think that's pretty generous
    on the part of the company to give writers all that computing power! 

    DEC is my third (and probably last) employer; all in
    software development.  Of the three, this is the first
    where every engineer had their own *terminal*, let alone
    computing resources under their desks, as the people I
    supervise have.
    
    As for "sharing the wealth", where is it written in stone
    that employees will *ever* get a salary increase?  How
    about comparing your increase to the 6% *cut* that Wang
    employees took at the beginning of the year (since restored,
    BTW, but only to the original levels; not increased).
    
    Another benefit I cherish is the opportunity to choose my
    career path. (Granted, I'm in Engineering. I can't speak for
    the field.)  And then, the opportunity to try different
    things when opportunities arise.
    
    Bruce

    
    
    Who said anything about not liking it here!!!???
    
    I was asking for input on salaries, and speaking my piece on what
    I think should be done.  It must be awful damn nice to not have
    to be concerned about money.  
    
    BTW. who are you to tell anybody to leave?
    
    

    re: .54
    
    I have to disagree with you Neil about equipment being a benefit.
    
    In the context of this discussion the provision of the tools for
    carrying out your job do not in my opinion constitute a benefit!
    
    Also in the light of the current trend to become more profitable
    I feel that allowing the writers to keep their VT200-series terminals
    is a waste of company resources. They should be deployed to other
    departments who need those resources.
    
    Jim

    
    If you think that the answer to anyones problems in Diugital is
    "if you don't like it, leave" than may I suggest that you re-examine
    your attitudes? You have a serious problem, in my opinion.
    
    If someone doesn't like their environment they should fight to change
    it, as I did for 3 years in Customer Support. Digital is a catholic
    organisation: all human life is here, I have found happiness in
    CSSE.
    
    There is no call to tell people to leave Digital.

    re: ~the laste 10
    
    I'm about (hopefully) to start on my Master's degree this fall.
    I filled out the paperwork for reimbursement and my manager signed
    them.  SO FAR (note the qualifier) its been trivial -- no problems
    at all.  Personnel and management APPEAR to be very cooperative.
    But, I'm also not expecting anything out of them for getting the
    degree.
    
    As far as benefits...  I don't think the terminals fall into
    the category of philanthropy -- they get used for WORK from home.
    Whether its reading notes, writing software, sending mail, whatever --
    its something that either wouldn't get done or would get done during
    work hours. 

    As far as salary... tools and toys and computers and interesting
    co-workers are important.  SO IS SALARY.  Its amazaing just how little
    your family cares about your "interesting co-workers" when they want a
    new dining room set!  The same people that take it in the shorts
    when times are bad should receive the benefits when your company
    is making more than the GNP of most small countries.
    
    D

Re: H/w as a benefit.

Having just queued for 20 minutes to get onto the LAT for the fifth day in 
a row my view of available h/w for the job is not the same as engineers in 
the U.S. who have more than they can use. Additionally the project I am 
working on, which is a major part of Europe's move off Order Admin Systems 
from PDP to VAX, uses a 11/750 for testing and a borrowed 11/70. We do have 
another VAX 11/750 and a 11/23 for supporting the rest of Europe's CAS systems
plus our office needs but it is not enough.

From my point of view the luxury of home h/w is a *long* way off.

Dave.

> �    it, as I did for 3 years in Customer Support. Digital is a catholic
> �    organisation...
>
>		    	Eh?

  Note the lower-case.  I believe the reference is to the original
  sense of the word, that is, "Universal", or "Comprehensive".
  In Andy's specific usage, "All Inclusive" probably is also a 
  good synonym.

                                   Atlant

    Please, no offense, or narrow-mindedness was intended.
    
    When I made the "or leave" suggestion, it was in response
    to several previous notes which can be summarized as:
    "I don't like the way things are.  I tried to change them,
    and got nowhere.  I don't understand why things are so unfair."
    
    When an environment and a person in that environment disagree, there
    are three possible outcomes: 
    
    1. Environment is changed.
    2. Person is changed (attitudes, acceptance, goals, whatever).
    3. Person must leave the environment.
    
    Digital is inherently unfair.  It is, and has always been, an
    Engineering-based company; it has been very successful that way. My
    previous employer was a privately-held company, whose owner did not
    understand what Engineering did, and was intimidated by this ignorance.
    We in engineering had to beg for any equipment/money/attention
    whatsoever, even that which was vital to producing the products which
    the salespeople needed. After realizing that it was not possible to
    change the environment (namely, the attitudes of the company owner),
    and I was not willing to change my own goals, I left. 

    Now, I realize that I am sitting in the best position, namely:
    - I work in Maynard, MA  USA
    - I work in Engineering
    - I came to DEC with all the degrees I'm going to earn
    
    I'm sorry if I inadvertantly offended anyone who works outside the
    MA/NH area, or outside the country, or outside engineering, or is
    currently working to better themselves by continuing their education,
    or anyone else.  I was merely trying to change the environment of
    this notesfile in the direction of facts and constructive change,
    and away from b!tches and moans.
    
    Bruce

    As far as the situation of "person with X years within DEC
    earns less than person with X years who joins DEC", I am learning,
    as a supervisor, that such inequities *can* be corrected with time.
    Note that this does not imply _at the next review_, but rather,
    over longer periods.  In the long run, _all things being equal_,
    the better performer will earn more money.
    
    I have been hearing these complaints since 1978.  Of course, that
    doesn't make it right, nor does it make anyone in that situation
    fell any better.
    
    FWIW, when I was hired here, my salary was just about the level
    of others who spent the equivalent amount of time at DEC exclusively,
    doing the same job.
    
    Bruce

    .64 On the nail, Atlant.
    
    .65 Thanks for your efforts to change the environment of this
    notesfile. As you are so keen, would you like to be a Moderator?
    Mail me if so.
    
    Re .whatever Dave Kerrell's situation doesn't reflect that of Corporate
    Engineering in Reading. We have a fair amount of kit.... certainly
    more than a 750 and 11/70!

    Here's my .02 cents..
    
    After waiting 18 months for my salary review I was given an "above
    average" performance review, the district manager said the "average"
    salary increase was x%, and I was given a below average (approx -1.5%)
    salary increase. The reason given was the branch had to correct
    some of the salary discrepancies. 
    
    Having started with Digital in 1973, left once, came back .... I
    still would not leave. I bought my own terminal/Rainbow  and modem
    for home. I still think the company is a lot better than what I
    saw when I left. Digital is not the top paying company,  the goal
    is to be mid-range. Currently we are told we are above mid-range
    by 5% or so. 
    
    I stay because I have already left and saw what was out there. I
    stay where I am (Field Service at the Branch level) because I already
    flew a desk at the Corporate Support level and didn't get the job
    satisfaction I can here.  I'm working in engineering in Colorado
    Springs (where I want to live) and working in the R & D computer
    room on things that will hit the field/world in 6 months to 2 years.
    
    The bottom line.... I stay because I want to, it's not perfect but
    a lot better than a LOT of other places. I stick my 2 cents in from
    time to time to try and change what I can, and try and stick out
    what I can't change (I've outlasted many a manager). 
    
    	When you smell the roses, watch out for the thorns!
     

re .68:
    
>    Re .whatever Dave Kerrell's situation doesn't reflect that of Corporate
>    Engineering in Reading. We have a fair amount of kit.... certainly
>    more than a 750 and 11/70!

My point Andy is that the luxury of a good quantity of the latest h/w is 
not something enjoyed by all employees and therefore not a benefit. This is 
in addition to the argument that it's only there for you to do your job 
anyway.

Dave.

    It is as much a benefit to ENgineers as Company Cars are to Salesmen.

    re .68
    
    	My thanks to John Covert for pointing out that I meant to refer
    to .66 not .65.

    Mr. Epstein,
    
    (I don't remember what reply number).  Since I was one of the ones
    who took offense to your remark about leaving, I accept your apology.
    
    I have found to be true your statement about salaries eventually
    being brought in to line.  However, I would like to submit that those sorts
    of things don't happen unless people put pressure on the powers-
    that-be by making their grievances known. 
    
    Patrick 

    I'm sorry that not all managers/supervisors in DEC make the effort to
    pay as much attention to their *people* as they do to their
    {product|district|budget|etc}.  My manager and I spent a great deal
    of time and effort during the past salary planning cycle to try
    to identify inequities and plan for correcting these inequities
    - all within the overall guidelines we were given.  It's not an
    easy task (and I realize that there are many who would just as soon
    avoid it), but I am glad we spent the time.  Of course, he and I
    also give 6 month performance reviews, salary reviews on schedule,
    and provide regular feedback to our people.
    
    Have you tried holding a conversation with your management to explain
    your concerns, and possible (and realistic) solutions?  After all,
    you don't like being nagged either, do you?
    
    Bruce (who got what he deserved several notes back)

    P.S. (Aside to Andy)  As with other situations at DEC, one need
    not have the direct authority (i.e. moderator privileges) to act
    where it seems to be needed.  However, if you are serious, and don't
    mind the impact of a relative newcomer to DEC (I don't have a low
    badge number like the rest of the moderators), then I would accept
    the responsibility.

    re .67
    
>        As far as the situation of "person with X years within DEC
>    earns less than person with X years who joins DEC", I am learning,
>    as a supervisor, that such inequities *can* be corrected with time.

    This brings up a couple questions... 
    
    Is it true -- can an unknown walk off the street and get more
    than a veteran employee of equal experience?
    
    If so, why?  Why would any manager choose an unknown, untried
    new hire over a person of known capabilities and proven track record?
    Is it just "the grass is greener" syndrome?  
    
    And once you have new, expensive people with little
    understanding of the way Digital does business and the tools we
    use, what do you do with the n-year veterans who weren't promoted
    and are now trying to "unoficially" hold together efforts run by
    new people?  What did these employees lack that they weren't put
    in the position filled by the more expensive new hires?  
    
    Dave P
        

    re .75
    
    AAAAAAAAAmen
    
    Bob Mc

    Compensation to attract new employees is determined by the external
    supply and demand for people with the skills which Digital needs.
    
    Compensation to retain current employees is determined by the internal
    policies of Digital Equipment Corporation.
    
    Draw your own conclusions.

    Given the choice, we have almost always sought internal people
    for openings.  However, many times the skills/experience we need
    are unavailable from within DEC.  In those cases, we are forced
    to hire someone from outside (I'm glad, since I was one).  When
    we hire from outside DEC, we need to offer an attractive salary,
    which may or may not be more than others with similar skills and
    experience are already making.  
    
    It's like buying a house - if I pay $100K for my house, and you
    want to buy the house next door, but that one is $120K (for an
    identical house), and it's the only one for sale in town, what do 
    you do?
    
    Bruce

    Luckily I no longer have to do salary planning... having returned
    to the ranks of "individual contributor".  
    
    The reality is that when you hire from within, sometimes you get
    "stuck" with a situation which does take time to correct... either
    the employee was paid low in the range and continues to skirt the
    bottom of the range as it moves up... or an employee who makes a
    dramatic improvement and needs to be compensated for it. Sometimes
    it becomes immediately apparent that the employee is overdue for
    promotion (and is in the lower quadrant of the old range!) 
    
    The "pot" of money with which you have to aportion salary increases
    is subject to guidelines... individuals ranked equally in the same
    job code for the same length of time should be paid equally...
    Personnel runs the numbers and comes back to you if you've goofed!
    And, as they say in the contest fine print, 'other restrictions
    apply'.
    
    It's fair but also restrictive if you're trying to "catch someone
    up" elsewhere in the cost center.
    
    So now you have the opportunity to hire from the outside... and
    occasionally "new blood" in the organization helps... are you going
    to further burden the salary pot by starting this individual at
    a low salary?  Heck no!  You're going to place them where they should
    be... which, percentage-wise increases the "pot" the next Spring
    which can be aportioned over the cost center (or whatever the unit
    of rollup is for your planning purposes) to make the necessary
    corrections to the rest of the folks.
    
    The best possible situation for a manager, a group of superstars,
    is the worst possible situation in salary planning... it is truly
    a rob_Peter_to_pay_Paul method...
    
    Marge
    
    

	Marge,

	Your description of what *actually* goes on is correct to a 'T' !!!
	It is also WRONG WRONG WRONG for DEC to do this !  What happens is
	you get a motivated new employee for 1 year and then reality hits 
	him/her with the next review and that person is right where the rest
	of us are (unmotivated employees knowing that a superstar performance
	does not equal $$$ .... usually more responsibility but not $$$).

	I guess what gets my goard the most is the party-line of DEC pays 
	for performance ...... BULLSH!T   DEC pays for performance IF you
	are in the bottom percentile of your pay scale AND IF there are not
	any other great performers with a lower salary than you AND IF your
	group got enough money to even give out any raises at all AND IF the
	moon was blue AND IF it was leap year AND ANY OTHER NUMBER OF THINGS !
	I wish they would state this instead of the false hope dangled in front
	of our noses that DEC PAYS FOR PERFORMANCE.

	Chuck whos_last_review_was_his_best_in_nine_years_but_equalled_his_
		least_dollar_gain_in_nine_years.    
    

    You have to be brought to minimum of the range by a certain time.
    I wont give a time because I'm not sure... I believe the adjustments
    to minimum went through in June of this year...not sure.
    
    Where you are in range should be a factor of performance and "time
    in grade"... there are guidelines but no hard and fast rules...
    
    Marge

    Recently I got promoted. Amongst the congratulatory mail lay a
    paragraph that I wished to reproduce here. As I haven't got the
    authors permission, I won't give authorship details.
    
    "Just goes to show that DEC does still have a good set of values and
    round pegs will find a thousand ways to fit into square holes provided
    they are allowed their creativity.  It is what put DEC where it is
    today.  The problem comes when the powers that be only see wrongly
    shaped pegs and believe that they can/should/must reshape the pegs."
    
    Which put it all very nicely for me. Yes, there are problems, but if
    you have the right management - and I certainly believe I have in CSSE
    - you'll get what you deserve! 

    Well, alongside promotion I did get a raise that I considered fair.

    I still haven't heard any suitable answers as to why raises are
    only in the 5% (+/-) this year when DEC is doing better than ever.
    
    Could it be that the powers that be are afraid our good fortune
    will change anytime now? Or will next year's raises be more closely
    related to the company's earnings, etc.?
    
    							Warren
    

    "You can buy a man's time; you can buy his physical presence at
    a given place; you even buy a measured number of his skilled muscular
    motions per hour.  But you can not buy enthusiasm...you can not
    buy loyalty...you can not buy the devotion of hearts, minds, or
    souls.  You must earn these." - Clarence Francis
    

    RE: Note 12.78 by REGENT::EPSTEIN 

>    Given the choice, we have almost always sought internal people
>    for openings.  However, many times the skills/experience we need
>    are unavailable from within DEC.  In those cases, we are forced
>    to hire someone from outside...

    
    This is not entirely true or should I say the reality of the situation.
    I know lots of people who interviewed for jobs that they had the
    skills and experince for BUT they were not at the proper level for
    a lateral move!!! Or the candidate's current manager will not allow
    the person to leave to go to a level higher than the one they are
    at currently. However, there are some hiring managers who will "play the 
    game" or "get around the system" by hiring the person and from 6-12 
    months later promote to the level they have been working at for the past 
    year or so. This is a win only for the system or company...the person
    has been working at a 'discount' for the past 6-12 months. (We're
    assuming the person performed at the level he was expected to AND
    that the manager kept his part of the bargain and promoted as
    promised...both very big assumptions!!)  
    
    SO the real reason we are forced to go to the outside is because
    we have some managers that won't 'play the game'...so to speak.
    In all my 6 years at DEC I have not seen anyone promoted from outside
    a cost center or group. SO much for the policy of promoting from
    within the compnay...from where I sit there is no such thing as
    promoting within the COMPANY.
    
    Rachelle

    Rachelle, managers I know take a very dim view of another manager
    hiring one of their folks with a promotion at the same time.  
    Practices like that end up in "bidding wars".
    
    Generally speaking, if an employee chooses to change departments,
    it is on the basis that they leave and arrive on equal footing,
    at an equal level.  Then, if a promotion is warranted in their new
    position, and if the business reasons are there to support the higher
    level, it is awarded at that time.
    
    Job hopping internally is probably not a good way to make progress
    vertically... I think you stand a better chance of being promoted
    if you stick with a job for a while and do well at it.
    
    fwiw,
    Marge
    
    

    <--(.90)
    
    Marge, you should perhaps make it clear that there is no policy
    against such a promotional move, and that it is *entirely* at the
    discretion of the hiring organisation. 
    
    I personally know 2 men who made such moves (1 made a 2-grade jump,
    and the other got a promotion that had been denied him on completely
    bogus grounds (and that denial was the reason he then switched
    jobs!)).  I also know of a woman who made a promotional move (she
    went from a level 7 to a 10 because she switched paths), and two
    more who went from wage-class 2 to wage- class 4 which is construed
    as promotion even though they got little or no money in the deal. 
                                          
    						=maggie

    re -1:
    
    You are correct, Maggie... there is no policy which prevents
    non-lateral moves, practice rather than policy.
    
    Marge

    Silly "practice" !  Why move unless you improve. I'd bet a lot
    of people stay where they are comfortable and established rather
    than move with a "chance" at a promotion a year down the road.
    The people who do move are probably going nowhere in their
    current position.  The hiring manager has thus obtained the
    services of a disgruntled person.
    
    Consider what would be the effect of a policy where job transfers
    could *only* happen with promotion. 

    I cannot speak for other areas of the company, only my own, but
    we *do not* increase a person's level at hire into the group, whether
    that person came from inside or outside Digital.
    
    Please note that "playing the game" by Digital's guidelines is part of
    a manager's job!  If a manager is circumventing the rules *for no good
    reason*, then that person is not performing his/her job; think about
    what happens when you do _your_ job incorrectly.  If you know of such a
    situation, try ODP until you find someone who cares!  It's in Digital's
    best interest (and any good manager's best interest) to ensure that
    employees feel that they are being treated fairly.
    
    As for salary increases, inflation last year in the US was 3.6%.
    The average increase for hourly workers covered by union contracts
    was less than 2.5% (from an item on the news the other night). 
    Now, look at your last raise.  Not "the average".  Does what you
    got reflect your performance?  (Yes, I know we'd all like to be making
    twice as much as we do.)  One last thing - pay increases do not
    impact last year's numbers; they have a direct impact on *next year's*
    bottom line.
    
    Bruce

    <--(.95)
    
    I'm confused, Bruce.  Which guidelines are you talking about?
    Which managers circumventing what rules? 
    
    						=maggie

    [Re: .57]:
    
    >> Also in the light of the current trend to become more profitable
    >> I feel that allowing the writers to keep their VT200-series terminals
    >> is a waste of company resources. They should be deployed to other
    >> departments who need those resources.
    
    Are you saying that other groups do more important work?  Or that
    writers should get the tools they need (say, VAXstations for
    computer-aided publishing software) for optimal performance?
    
    I'll assume you mean the latter, as the former interpretation is
    clearly parochial.

Why is 12.97 set HIDDEN???

    Re: .96
    
    I am refering to .89.
    
    Re: .-1:
    
    .97 is set hidden due to some controversial flaming.  The moderators
    are trying to decide what to do with it.

               <<< HUMAN::WRKD$:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< The DEC way of working >-
================================================================================
Note 12.97                        Salary Review                         97 of 97
CSSE32::APRIL "Snowmobilers .... UNITE !"            40 lines   4-AUG-1987 10:49
                              -< One more time ! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	Pardon me but we are not talking about an AVERAGE hourly worker,
	we're talking about a company staffed for the most part by 
	PROFESSIONALS  (I think the figure is 82% of current workers are 
	Salaried) .... we are not talking about a company that is making
	AVERAGE profits (we're talking about a company that is that hottest
	computer company in the industry with the greatest profits) ...
	we're talking about raises that reflect how well THIS company is doing
	NOT what company A B or W is doing (we don't work for them !) ....
	we're upset about a salary structure that allows DEC to bring in 
	people from the outside who did not help this company achieve it's
	current status or PROFITS, at a significantly HIGHER salary than the
	people who have been putting out for the last umptee-ump years here at
	DEC .... 

	I just read a DTW (Digital this Week) article that stated DEC's profits
	at 24% for fiscal 1987 .... I don't expect a 24% increase in salary
	but I would like something more for my efforts in reaching that 24%
	figure than a measley 2.5-5.0%  How's about a decent 10% increase ?

	<FLAME ON .... WHITE HOT !>

	I have a problem with managers/VP's etc. who expect no excuses ! They're
	intersted in THE BOTTOM LINE .... did our dept. meet our numbers this
	quarter ?  .... did this dept/cc overspend it's budget ?  etc..

	BUT

	When we as employees look up and say .... How about a little GREEN stuff
	to go along with all those 'verbal bouquets' ?  In other words ...
	we'ld like some dollars added to OUR bottom line !  We're assailed as
	money-grubbing insincere employees who would rather have a few extra
	dollars than getting the PRIVILIDGE to get a VT300 terminal rather than
	a ratty old VT100 ! 

	<FLAME OFF>

	Chuck

    When a note is set hidden it is typically done so that the author
    and moderator can come to a meeting of the minds ... the author
    of .97 graciously edited the reply and I have resubmitted it in
    the previous reply.
    
    Marge

This process by which people being hired in from the outside, because of
market forces, are able to command larger salaries than people who have
been here a while (even though the people who have been here a while
are -- as has been argued so cogently and so vociferously in this note
-- in general, more useful to the company precisely because they
have been here a while) is called 'compression'.

It has happened before.

On at least one occasion DEC has dealt with this by giving the aggrieved
classes a special one-time raise.  (That is, you only got this raise if
you fell into one of several specific categories.  I am ignorant as to
whether simply falling into such a category was enough, or if your 
supervisor also had to feel that you were worth it.)

I have heard rumors that the powers that be are aware of the current
salary compression problems.  I would expect that some plan for dealing
with them will come out before the next salary year (for reasons I have 
never been able to ascertain, the salary year runs from April to March;
in contrast to the fiscal year that runs from July to June; to be 
differentiated from the calendar year that runs from January to December;
which is distinguished from the school year that runs from September to 
August).  

This assumes that DIGITAL will continue to be what it has been in the past,
a company that does the right thing by its employees.  It is possible
(though I think unlikely) that DIGITAL has changed, in which case a
correction of the salary compression problem will not take place -- at
least until enough people have shown their unhappiness with their
feet.  (Mind you, I'm not saying that paying people no more than you
have to is unreasonable.  If you found a contractor who was willing
to re-do your kitchen for significantly less than the going rate, would
you insist on that person upping their fee?)

So, if you are affected by compression, I would suggest that you more
or less officially let your supervisor and personnel representative
(be nice now) that you are concerned.  Presumably they will let their
supervisors know, and hopefully this will add impetus to the process
that will correct this problem.

Should the problem not be corrected -- or at least not corrected to your
satisfaction -- well, whoever said that being an adult was easy.

    {Re: .98 which is RE: .57}
    
    Steve ,
    
    Sorry for the mis-understanding! What I was trying to say was that
    if the VS2000's were to replace the VT2xx's then why keep the vt2xx's
    when there are other groups/departments who are crying out for the
    necessary resources to carry out their jobs.
    
    This assumed that the VT2xx's were redundant and may be an incorrect
    assumption. I certainly do not look on any group as more important
    than another , and I think that every employee deserves the best
    tools and facilities for optimal performance.
    
    Jim
    {�^�}

    re: .103
    
    As of the current salary planning period, the salary planning year
    has been realigned with the fiscal year.  It became skewed due to
    the "freeze" several years back, and the attempts made to undo the
    effects of the freeze (please, no flames; I know that it didn't
    quite work out).

    re:  the "compression" adjustment
    
    Various rumors abound about how the company is going to take a step
    back and deal with some of the problems caused by our furious growth
    over the past two years.  But I find it difficult to believe that
    the overall handling of compensation in Digital will change.
    
    Somewhere over the last three or four years, the holders of the
    corporate purse strings seem to have had a shift in perspective.
    Once the employees of the company were seen as it's single largest
    resource and it's best long-term investment; now we are viewed as
    simply the single largest expense on the profit and loss statement. 
    
    The Personnel brochures are all oriented towards the "resource" point
    of view, with the pay-for-performance and investment-in-the-future
    themes being predominant.  But the rhetoric oriented toward the
    financial analysts in Wall Street send a different message, extolling
    Digital's success at beating down the rising expenses that eroded the
    profitability of the company. 
    
    Every statement I've seen about our gains in revenue and earnings in
    the past three years have always had some little cautionary parable at
    the end warning about working harder and not becoming complacent with
    our success.  In other words, "just because we're doing good now, don't
    get greedy ..."

    Why is it that everyone feels that they must get a rasie every year?

    Everyone here was hired to do a job, which came (pretty much) with
    a rather complete description of what you do.  Unless you do 
    more work, take on additional responsibilities, or change jobs (thus
    voiding the 'contract') why is it that you 'deserve' more?
    
    
    Digital does not OWE you a job, the only thint they owe you is a
    paycheck at the end of every week.    
    
    Re: corporate purse strings.
    
    One of the reasons that the company HAS become more profitable is
    becuase it has controlled its spending.  If spending had continued
    as it was, we (DEC) would not be in nearly as good of shape as it
    is now. 
    
    
    
    -bill

    re: .107
    
    "Why is it that everyone feels that they must get a raise every year?"
    is a loaded question.  No one I know feels that way.
    
    "Why is it that when Digital is in a slump, employees are told that
    funds are limited for raises to lower expenses and maintain shareholder
    value...
    
    and when the Digital is a roaring success and the industry is not in a
    slump, employees are told that funds are limited by an average which
    includes some of the most poorly managed high-tech companies in the
    world?" 
    
    This is called "heads I win, tales you lose".
    
    Digital's financial success can't be attributed to keeping the wages
    down for experienced engineers or customers services people.  In
    fact, the replacement costs (fees, training, etc.) make raises look
    like the best corporate bargain in town.
    
    Actually, I don't think the pool of raises needs to bigger, I think
    we're due for another one-time-only sweep through the salary levels
    to match insiders to what the market says they're worth.
    
    If there's any money left over, it ought to be spent on getting the
    vice presidents to visit and (attempt to) work in field sales offices.
    That would give them insight that would be priceless and might go
    a long way to correcting the staff/equipment/space/productivity
    problems that make life miserable. 

    RE: .108
    
    Lots of people I know feel this way.  (not necessarily at DEC, I
    don't talk about money a whole lot around here)  
    
    
    I would say that I saw alot of this attitude when I worked in a
    steel mill under union conditions.  There, that attitude is VERY
    prevalent.  There are very few people in that environment that don't
    believe that it's their god-given right to have a job and to get
    a raise every year.  That's BULLSHIT.
    
    As I said, DEC doesn't owe you a job, you have to earn it and keep
    earning it.  Although there are lots of people in this company who
    DO deserve more, there are also those who don't.  A company this
    size has to have lots of dead wood floating around (we've all seen
    it)
    

    -bill

    re the last few:
    
    Pat Sweeney rightly points out the Corporate doubletalk that keeps
    us from solid raises even when DEC is doing great, and Bill Jackson
    says, 'DEC doesn't owe you a job, and there's lots of dead wood'.
    
    It seems to me Pat was describing a CORPORATE-WIDE money policy, and
    let's not confuse it with INDIVIDUAL performance/nonperformance,
    which is between each individual and his/her manager.

    k moeller

    re last few:
    
    This whole raise business is interesting.  Where does "raise" end
    and "cost-of-living adjustment" begin?   Although the inflation
    rate has eased over the past few years, it's still there.
    
    Now, no company is _obligated_ to give raises or make adjustments;
    however, if those doing comparable work elsewhere are receiving
    better remuneration, then one of two situations is likely to occur:
    either employees will migrate to other comopanies because of financial
    pressure/incentive, or employees who don't migrate will have lowered
    morale (this seems to be reflected in some of the responses above).
    
    Now, agreed: nobody is entitled to a raise, annually or otherwise,
    as a right.  It has to be earned.  And if it isn't earned, it shouldn't
    be given.
    
    But the policy Pat describes, if accurate, might not be the best
    strategic policy for personnel.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

	Regarding a few back ... 

	paraphrasing here - DEC doesn't owe you a job or a raise every year.

	Maybe not, but as I said before in my last review I was ranked a '1'
	performer yet received the worst monetary raise in my career.  I don't
	feel like I was 'deadwood' during that timeperiod but I can tell you
	that I would not go 'beyond the call of duty' anymore to receive the
	kind of raise I got last time around.  It's just not worth the effort.
	
	Bill J.  ---  your attitude reeks of 'DEC love it or leave it !'
	I would rather try to change it and lobby for those things that would
	make it a better place to work and for those things that bring me
	satisfaction and just compensation.  Inflation might not be 8 or 9 
	percent but for those of us here in N.H. the housing costs for the 
	last 3 years has just about doubled and the energy costs have done
	just about the same.  My raises and my financial situation has 
	actually worsened in those three years ( I bought a bigger house 
	because my family has grown and we needed more space ).  I worked
	hard for those three years culminating with very good reviews but
	I have not received the monetary end of the bargain .... however,
	I have observed people being hired that are either at my level of
	competence or *inferior* because of experience ( college hires ) that
	are making MORE money than I am.  It is frustrating and it seems the
	only way to get more money is to 'jump' ship to another company.
	I've invested 9 years here at DEC.  I am only asking to be paid 
	fairly in the 'real' world.

	Cha

    I have wanted to stay out of this for a while and just read what
    others in the company thought, I would like to add 1 thing and hope
    you think about it a little. 
    
    Having just recently graduated from college, a yr ago, and know
    peers who have company hopped alot I see a misunderstanding in what
    we perceive as "what the real world pays". If you go to any other
    company you will see the same internal pay structure it's only
    when you company hop that you get BIG bucks.
    
    I'll take my stock plan a definate bonus and job security 
    
    mike

    At the risk of being repetitive I feel the injustice that is occurring
    under the current salary plan is the promotion policy.  
    
    A person's salary plan is determined at the beginning of the period.
    It has been easier for managers to hire from inside than to promote
    qualified candidates in their group.
    
    The Wage Class 2 community has suffered a great deal.  A group that
    I use to work with found overqualified accounting clerks an asset
    to their staff.  The people learned quickly, worked hard and were
    promoted at the end of the year.  This is not happening and many
    qualified, promotable people are leaving the company disillusioned.
    Other companies are reaping the benefits of DEC training and expertise.
    These people are getting substantial increases.
    
    As a supervisor one of the best motivating attitudes was that of
    a sincere interest in the career development of the people that
    worked with me.  
    
    It seems so logical.
    
         Hire from the outside and pa25,000 for an entry level
         position.
    
       Spend six months to acclimate the employee to DEC, the 
         job and its systems.
    
    Or
    
         Promote a Wage Class 2, give them a 15 to 20% raise.
    
         Train that person in DEC management.
                               
    
    The transistion is relatively painless.
    
    

    It is _very_ possible to get a 1 rating and not receive any salary
    increase at all.  The usual case in Software Engineering is a Principal
    Engineer.  Since the jump from J09 to J05 (consulting engineer)
    requires cannonization (and most J09s are a miracle or two short),
    it is typical to have an engineer who is doing extremely well at
    the J09 level and still not be in a position for a promotion.
    
    The problem is that the engineer can reach the top of the salary
    range, and then there is no place to go.  At best the salary can
    increase the same amount as the increase in the top of the range.
    Typically, the raise is extended from 12 months to 18 months (sometimes
    twice in a row) to make the actual percentage look better.
    
    Believe me, there is nothing harder than having to sit down for
    a long talk with an engineer and try to explain why there will be
    no letter for a while.  However, it is a fact of life.
    
    I've been through a few salary planning cycles, and I'm not sure
    how the method for promotion is unfair.  True, you need to plan
    for the promotions at the begining of the cycle, but if the manager
    is at least one level above incompenent they have had the employee
    on some sort of career development plan, so they know who is likely
    to get a promotion, and then plan accordingly.  I have had no problems
    planning and then giving promotions.
    
    john

    There is another tool that can be used: stock options.

    Stock options ? For the (shudder) peons ? Damn radical !

    re: .115
    
    I can identify with John's observations concerning the gap between
    Principle and Consulting Software Engineer.  I was promoted to
    Principle in 1978, and got a nice stock option at about the same
    time (re .116-.117).  A few years ago I started to wonder what it
    would take to get another promotion, since I had reached the top
    of the scale, even though I hadn't (and don't) get all 1 ratings
    on my performance reviews.
    
    I learned, as John says, that it requires "cannonization".  As best
    I can cell, the promotion decision is not made by one's manager
    but by some other group.  It is pointless to apply for such a promotion
    without first making sure that the other Consulting Engineers in
    the company are favorable to having you join their ranks.
    
    The problem with this promotion plan is that it is hard to learn
    who the Consulting Software Engineers are!  Job titles isn't the
    sort of information routinely exchanged between engineers working
    together on a project.  Also, you can't judge an engineer's title
    accurately by his competence--I'm sure that some very competent
    engineers who should be Consulting aren't, and it wouldn't surprise
    me if some less competent ones are, because that was the only way
    they could get the salary necessary to bring them into the company.
    
    The easy way out of the dilemma is to just remain a Principle Software
    Engineer.  After all, the title isn't important; it's the degree
    of respect from your peers.  This attitude makes management happy,
    since if you are at the top of your scale already they have a good
    reason not to plan for much of a salary increase, no matter how
    well you do.  A promotion, on the other hand, puts you in a new
    scale, where good reviews should lead to larger raises.
    
    Maybe that's what I should do--just remain a Principle Software
    Engineer, thus making my management happy.  Any comments or advice?
        John Sauter

   RE: .118
    
 	Well John, I'm in the same boat as you, and there are probably
    a lot more like us.  The only options I have is stay put, or change
    careers.  But this belongs in another topic.
    
    	Regarding salary reviews, they have always been a mystery to
    me.  For a few years I get great reviews, and great rewards.  Then
    suddenly I get great reviews, less frequently, and minor rewards.
    My managers always stumble over their tongues, trying to explain
    the situation, or trying to explain the changes to the process...
    I don't think it will ever change.
    
    	Regarding stock options, I got some too, about the same time
    also.  Problem has been, no spare cash to buy them until I get the
    vehicles paid off( very soon now ).
    
    	But OPTIONS and BONUSES could be means to help the salary problem,
    and should be used more often.  Too bad the company and/or personnel
    can't fold this type of reward into the salary planning.  It would
    certainly help people like us out.
    
    Vaughn

    P.S.  Thanks, John B.( .115 ), for that explanation about salary
    planning for the top-ended employee.  It helps to explain some things 
    for me.
        

    I couldn't resist to add my 2 centimes worth to this one:
  >>>  Why is it that everyone feels that they must get a rasie every year?
     1) cost of living
     2) added value for Dec
    
  >>> Everyone here was hired to do a job, which came (pretty much) with
  >>> a rather complete description of what you do.  Unless you do 
  >>> more work, take on additional responsibilities, or change jobs (thus
  >>> voiding the 'contract') why is it that you 'deserve' more?
     I suppose that a "normal" DECie, having startet doing a job in
     year 1, does his job better in year 2, better in year 3........
     even though he/she has not been promoted nor shifted jobs. This
     is not necessarily reflected in the job-description (if there is any)
     Are job descriptions revised every year ?
     Isn't this part of DEC culture contributing to it's success ?
     So what's wrong with rewarding it.
     Bill, this seems so natural to me that I suspect your reply
     purpousely "provocative" to stimulate replies. I guess you 
     suceeded there!
    
     Fred_who's_seen_ups_and_downs_but_who'd_rather_fight_than_switch.
    

Re .121: Actually you can have Investor Services buy and sell your options.
	 They will take out the cost of the options and some tax and then
	 send you a check. You don't need any money to exercise them that way.

I've been at DEC for over 9 years and have been a Supervisor or Manager for
most of that time. It once was that no one (except 4/5 performers) got less
than a 10% raise. This was when DEC was doing well, but not as well as today.
Then the hard times came and the salary review delays occurred. This was a few 
years ago. Since that time, the allocations for salary increases have 
diminished.

One of the key jobs of being a manager is to pass on information about what's
happening; to set expectations and explain how an individual's increase (or
lack thereof) was determined. If a manager is truly concerned about his people,
is willing to fight for a piece of the salary increase pie, and spends that
time to explain the process to his/her employees, I have found that employees
realize its not them being singled out, and they come to accept it.

I think the underlying problem is an communication issue. If managers
pass the messages from above down to their employees, and really spend the time
to make sure they understand, I don't think we would have all of the feelings
I've seen in this note and elsewhere. Managers get salary increase, too. There 
aren't any double standards. Their salary increases go by the same rules as 
everyone else.

Yes, there are situations where people are not treated fairly or equitably. And 
since you only have a finite amount of money for salary increases, there are 
some tough decisions to be made...But I have to hope that most managers, like 
myself, out there do care about their people and want to do their best to pay
them what they are worth.

Jim

    RE: .122
    
    You said exactly what I did.  If you do a better job, you deserve
    a better pay.  My statement was about the people who believe that
    even  by not doing anything extra/better they 'deserve' a increase
    every year.
    
    
    -bill

    .123  I can't speak for others, but my problem has NEVER been with
    my management doing a good job of slicing the pie.  My problem is
    with the slice of the pie they are given to divy out.  That comes
    from upper management.  Look at your own statement. 
    >It once was that no one (except 4/5 performer) got less than a
    >10% raise.  This was when DEC was doing well, but not as well 
    >as today.  
    
    My management has done a very respectable job of setting my
    expectations.  It's what I'm hearing, passed from above that 
    troubles me.  And no, I'm not talking about doing nothing extra
    and expecting a raise like some union steel workers , (as was mentioned
    in a previous reply); I've certainly never picked that up from any
    of the previous replies to this note.  The context that I've seen
    to this notes is for the achievers and over-achiever who LOVE (or
    at least really like DEC) delivering 110% and then hearing about
    2-5% raises company-wide, or hitting the top of their salary-range
    like SAUTER::SAUTER.  
    
    I got particularly peeved when I read the "interpretation" of the
    latest INTERACT survey.  Overall satisfaction was in the mid-or
    high 90's, but individual rankings were far less, as low as 50 in
    some categories.  Salary was an area that was particularly low,
    but was considered to be improved, because *IT WAS HIGHER THAN LAST
    YEAR*.  In my opinion, they missed the point.  If that was a customer
    satisfaction survey, it would have gotten a low grade.
    

    Pat_who_has_been_treated_fairly_but_feels_that_the_corporate_direction_is_
    unfair_but_will_not_leave_if_someone_says_too
    
    

    one point to recognize:  yes, there was a time when almost everyone
    could expect at least a 10% raise.  But wasn't that more a reflection
    on the double digit inflation of the times rather than how well
    DEC was doing?                           
    
    Salaries are a reflection of the market for a job.  Why are doctors
    paid more than college professors?  Because there are fewer of them
    relative to the demand for them.

    .126 Double digit inflation was not the norm at all when I first
    came to DEC. (4 years ago)  I started hearing about 2-5% raises about
    a year and a half ago. Perhaps it was a holdover from earlier days.
    
    The market trend argument is a good one; coupled with the "philosophy"
    of DEC being a people company, doing what is right, people being
    our most valuable resource and investment, etc... it starts to lose
    wind.  After all, what is being brought into line is not the salaries,
    but the percent of increase (in relation to the market).  Many folks,
    (I know this is true with VMS programmers) could make more elsewhere.
    *But, they don't want to.*  They want to stay here. Many would say
    that is because of what it's like to work at DEC.  The bennies, the 
    environment, etc.  Good point. Look at the INTERACT survey.  Overall
    score was great.  Most of the individual items were a disgrace,
    yet there is still a great deal of loyalty.  I said in previous
    reply that I would not leave for 1.5 time what I'm making. I happen
    to love DEC.  But that doesn't excuse the fact that the people make
    the company what it is, and the people *IN MY OPINION* are being
    treated unfairly.  Again, I'm not talking about my personal situation,
    something that I need to take up with my management, I'm reacting
    to what I've heard as a corporate philosophy toward salaries.  
    
    
    
    
    
    
      

    Well here's my 2 pennorth worth.
    
    I think, to put it bluntly, that  DEC's (sorry Digital's) current salary
    policy stinks.
    
    No I'm not shouting sour grapes. Over the last couple of years I
    have got good reviews and good salary raises as far as the policy
    allows. What really riles (sp?) me is that the money is still there,
    it's just that you have to become a Wall Street tycoon to get some
    of it. I was fortunate in that at the beginning of the year I realized
    that DEC's stock was at bargain basement prices and I bought loads
    of shares (over 600 including my ESPP stuff). Not once but twice and
    maybe more I saw the value of my investment increase more in one day
    than my salary raise for the whole year. And remember what I got was
    was termed a good raise.
    
    For myself I'm not complaining. If I add my DEC stock gains to my
    salary raise I'm doing better than when DEC had more a more sensible
    idea of salary raises. What galls me is that this shouldn't be the
    case. Basically DEC is telling its employees to go find their salary
    raises in the stock market. In that way DEC can carry on being
    the darlings of Wall Street. I wonder what'll happen when all the
    good people who can't afford the RISK of playing the stock market
    get up and leave for a company with a sensible salary compensation
    plan. I hope I sell my stock in time! I think the company is making
    a big mistake in treating its most important asset (its employees)
    in this cavalier fashion.
    
    Dave

    RE: ALL
    	I am curious, does everyone think other companies give
    better internal salary raises???? I think if you moved to another
    company you would see an initial large salary increase but after
    6months -yr it would be the same as here. What do the people who
    know, have been in other companies think
    
    mike

    re: .129
    
    That's not the point.  Most other companies, at least in the computer
    industry, are not making record profits as we have been.

     Speaking  from past experience in non-computer  companies,  some  of
     which    worked    in    the    military-industrial   area  (General
     Dynamics/Electric  Boat  Div.,  Raytheon  Co., Stone & Webster,  and
     Yankee Atomic Electric Co.), I might be able to  shed  some light on
     what  other  companies DID (Disclaimer:  having been at DEC  for  7+
     years, things may have changed at these companies).
     
     Most  of  the  afore-mentioned  companies treated you very well when
     they hired  you  (20-30%  increases over previous job were typical),
     BUT after that...    [Raytheon  was the exception, they paid 5% OVER
     your  previous salary, PERIOD!]  8%  increases  when  inflation  was
     running 12+% were typical at each company.  Raytheon was so bad that
     I had a meeting with the  head  of  Personnel  for  the facility, my
     manager, and his manager;  they were  paying  new college hires more
     than I was making and I had 4  years post-college experience (+2-1/2
     years relevant co-op experience) at the time.  Another  engineer  in
     our group (Raytheon) had ~20 years experience and our salaries  were
     within $2K of each other!!  At Raytheon I was also  told that it was
     that organization's policy  that  Sr.   QC Engineers weren't needed,
     thus there was NO  chance of a promotion (the only Sr.  QC Engineers
     in the group had transfered  from  other  organizations,  but  I was
     assured  that  they  were making basically  the  same  money  as  we
     were!!!).
     
     That's how it was in the '70's!!
     
     I    am    extremely    unhappy    with  DEC's  latest    lack    of
     recognition/promotion/money with job moves, but I intend to  stay at
     DEC until I retire.  It may be less  than  ideal, but it is one Hell
     of a lot better than most other companies.  [FYI:    Raytheon lost a
     big  contract  and  another  one  got  delayed,  I  was one of  1100
     Engineers  laid  off.    Stone  & Webster lost a contract due to  CA
     legislation to  prevent building Sun Desert Nuclear Plant, I was one
     of 1400 (out  of a total of 5000 employees!) to be laid off.  Yankee
     Atomic was such a  pressure  cooker,  post Three Mile Island, that I
     finally quit before getting  an  ulcer.    Yes, DEC is a MUCH better
     environment!!]
     
     I plan on sticking around  DEC  and try to help change some of those
     policies that are hurting us, and  causing  DEC  to  lose  some good
     talent.  How about you?  [A  few,  CAREFULLY thought out and worded,
     POLITE  memos  to  John Sims, giving some examples  of  how  DEC  is
     hurting  itself  and CONSTRUCTIVE (NO flaming!) suggestions for sane
     changes,  might  help  change  some things.] We lost 2 good  Product
     Safety  Engineers  to competitors, they each got 30+% increases, and
     NO college  teaches  product  safety  (so  college  hires have to be
     totally  trained)!!   We  lost  a  few  good  EMC/FCC  Engineers  to
     competitors for 30-100% increases  in  pay!!  Some of these examples
     with justification of how it  hurt  DEC, might go a long way towards
     changing current policy.
     
     5  years  ago,  I  took  a  position  which was a promotion  into  a
     management  role.    At  that  time  the policy said that the hiring
     manager "could"  postpone  the  promotion  and  raise until the next
     review.  I  was  able  to negotiate a raise, promotion, and an early
     salary review for the  following  review,  prior  to  accepting  the
     management position.  That's the  way  it  should  be!!  There was a
     great deal more responsibility to this  new  role,  and  the  reward
     should equate with the risks/difficulty.  If  group B is just trying
     to steal people from group A and the work is the same, there is good
     reason  to prevent unjustified promotions/raises which only serve to
     "body snatch" from each group.  But, if it is  truly  an increase in
     magnitude of responsibility, an instant raise/promotion is in order.
     [Let's face it:    If  someone  from DEC approached an employee from
     another company and said  "I'll tell you what I'll do, I'll hire you
     at the same salary/position you  are in now at company x, and if you
     work out in 6 months to  a  year,  I'll  give  you the promotion and
     salary to match the responsibilities you have  taken  on?", how many
     people do you know that would take this  kind of "deal"??  I'd laugh
     in his face and tell him to get lost.    Well,  that's the deal that
     DEC is giving current Employees, and it is unfair.]
     

    Re: Other companies...
    
    McDonald Douglas gave their engineers an average increase of 2%
    last year.  From what I've heard, our engineers did one HECK of
    a lot better here.
    
    From the For What Its Worth Department...

    The policy is really very simple:
    
    Digital pays "competitive salaries".
    
    Right now,  our competition is doing poorly.  The salary raises
    at Wang, DG, Raytheon, Prime, etc. are poor to nonexistent (and
    never mind the layoffs!).  Toss in IBM,  and the salary raises that
    Digital has to compete with are somewhere around 2-4%, and they
    come after about 14-18 months on the average.  Now throw in the
    inflation rate of about 2% annually,  and compare the average Digital
    raise of 4-6% every 14 months, and you realize that Digital is
    still paying "competitive salaries".
    
    Think about it:  The average Digital employee gets a 4-6% raise
    in a time of 2% inflation.  The overachievers get more, and the
    underachievers get less.  But the *average* employee, doing *average*
    work, comes out ahead at the end of the year.  I agree with Bill
    Jackson:  Why should an *average* employee expect any raise at all?
    (other than cost-of-living, which is a fair expectation)  Anyone
    doing better than average work should get a higher raise, and in
    my (limited) experience (3� years at DEC), that's exactly what I've
    seen:  fair salary planning,  competitive with similar companies
    in the same geographic area.  I have no complaints.
    
    One point:  Digital stock has absolutely nothing to do with salary
    planning.  The Digital Employee Stock Plan is *extremely* generous,
    and if people can make more money through it, that's fine.  
    (The converse is not true:  Salary planning does affect stock prices.
    The company exists for one reason and one reason only: to make a
    profit for its owners - the stockholders.  No profit, no company.
    By reining in salary increases, and managing the money better, Digital
    has become more profitable.  I, for one, am glad to have the security
    of working for a profitable, successful company that actually gives
    me more money just for doing what's expected of me every year!)
    
    -monty-
   

    re: .-1 (and others) "a very simple policy"
    
    Read my .108.  The policy is self-serving to Digital's short-term
    interests and destructive in the long-term.
    
    When Digital is doing poorly and the industry is doing well (CY
    1983/1984) Digital conveniently abandons "the industry average" and
    pleads poverty (even though the company has never lost a dime). 
                   
    When Digital is doing well and the industry is doing poorly (CY
    1986/1987) Digital embraces "the industry average".
    
    Remember I live with the policy and I can understand it.  But it's
    _not_ simple, _not_ fair, and that's life.  This is the low-pass filter
    compensation policy (reader, if this doesn't make sense find an
    engineer, she'll explain it to you)
    
    The lesson is to jump when the company is in trouble, and then return
    to obtain a competitve salary.  Is compensation tied to the foutunes
    of the company? 
    
    .-1 makes a whole basketful of incorrect statements:
    
    The Employee Stock Purchase Plan is generous, not extremely generous
    to the individuals that participate.  Existence of the benefit has
    no tangible value to the employee, it can't be assigned, for example.
    Employees who don't participate in the ESPP get nothing out of it.
    And you guessed it, it's employees at the lower end of the wage
    scale who don't participate.  I could get into a complicated
    discussion of where the increase in wealth comes from in the ESPP,
    but suffice it to say that money doesn't grow on trees.
    
    All corporations exist for one reason: to serve customers.  The
    stockholders are an accounting artifact. There are plenty of companies
    with stockholders that have gone bankrupt because they didn't have
    customers and none that have gone bankrupt with customers and sales
    because of a shortage of stockholders.

    [Re: .133]:  The stock plan seems identical to the Honeywell plan,
    and probably to others, too.  The price of Digital stock is actually
    a disincentive, if you can't get up the scratch.  Only the stock's
    excellent performance makes it look "very generous."  That is likely
    to continue, but stock performance is not guaranteed.
    
    Another factor in hiring outsiders as that unemployment in
    Massachusetts has fallen to 2.5% (the national average is 6%). 
    In addition, this area of the country is almost saturated with
    high-tech firms.  The sheer competition for relatively scarce personnel
    resources ought to be driving the starting salaries up.  And arguments
    of how wonderful it is in Digital, whether right or wrong, probably
    wouldn't sway a candidate who's never experienced it.
    
    	"I could join Company X or Digital.  What do you think?"
    
    	"Company X pays $2,500 more.  What do you think?"
    
    	"But at Digital I can have a MicroVAX!"
    
    	"Great!  How much can we sell it for?"

    
    One clarification:
    
    When I said (.133) that the ESPP was extremely generous,  I don't
    mean that the profits are generous, or that the money that can be
    made by participants is generous.   I mean that the mere existence
    of a plan which *guarantees* you a higher return on your investment
    than you could get almost anywhere else is a generous plan for Digital
    to provide for its employees.
    
    Obviously,  the company benefits too, so on the face of it, it isn't
    so generous (both sides benefit).  But as employees of the company,
    we do better when the company does better (in the broad sense),
    so we (employees) come out ahead due to the generosity of the company
    (which didn't have to create this plan for us).

    Those who choose not to participate in the ESPP obviously get nothing
    out of it.  Those who do are guaranteed to get a pretty healthy
    profit out of it.  I can't imagine why someone would choose not
    to take the free money being offered to them every 6 months.
    (but then again,  I can't imagine why anyone would choose to eat
    broccoli either...)
    
    I stand by my other statement:  All corporations exist for one reason:
    To make a profit.
    That's the end for which "serving customers" is merely a means.
    The only goal true goal of a corporation is a profit.  
    (I will take out all references to stockholders,  but the meaning
    is the same - Companies/businesses/corporations exist only to
    [ultimately] make a profit.  [The "ultimately" was a concession
    to the fact that some companies exist to *lose* money for tax purposes,
    but ultimately to make money in the end.])

	-monty-

    .137 Maybe we read a different prospectus, but where does it guarantee
    *anything* related to profits?
    
    Stocks sometimes do nasty things like drop.  Then you lose money.
    DEC stock has dropped before.  It could do it again.
    
    

    
    buy:  market price X .85
    
    sell: market price
    
   	market price > market price X .85	=	profit
    
    Q.E.D.

re: < Note 12.138 by DIEHRD::MAHLER "Michael" >
>    
>    �    profit out of it.  I can't imagine why someone would choose not
>�    to take the free money being offered to them every 6 months.
>�    (but then again,  I can't imagine why anyone would choose to eat
>�    broccoli either...)
>
>    Maybe it's because to participate requires that you devote
>    2-10% of your pay each week to a non-interest accumulating
>    account.  Some people can't afford even that 2% because of
>    studen loan payments, rent payments/downpayments, etc...
>
    
    Take out a loan.
    
    Borrow 10% of your gross pay for the 6-month period, make your student
    loan payments, rent payments/downpayments, etc... with that,  have
    10% deducted from your pay for ESPP, receive your shares of stock
    on June 1, sell them on June 1,  take your 15% profit, pay off your
    loan entirely, and enjoy the heck out of the money you just made.
    
    I'm sure the cost of the loan would be *way* below 30% annually.
    
    I still don't see why EVERYone doesn't get into it.
    
    -monty-with-mortgage,-car,-student loan,-and-LOTS-of-other-payments-
    but-still-sinking-10%-in-and-loving-the-free-money-

    RE: .141
    
    Must be nice to have 10% of your salary left over after mortgage,
    car loans, and LOTS of other bills and payments to put towards getting
    more free money!  Also "profit - taxes - loan interest - stock decline
    = LESS profit", where "LESS profit" could be less than the amount of
    the loan!!
    
    RE: the last few replys
    
    Really folks, can this discussion get back to the salary review
    discussion, that is, how reviews are done, how often, how salaries
    are determined, etc.  There are lots of rumors flying around about
    all of this changing, and for some of us, this medium is more
    informative than normal channels.  Please start another topic for
    the stock purchase plan.
    
    Thanks,
    -Vaughn
    

Picking a number totally at random, suppose you make $40K/yr.

For a given 6 month period:

You put aside 10% of your salary ($2000).  At the end of the period,
you buy and immediately sell the stock.  You make .15*2000 = $300.
Subtract out the commission (.40/share?) and you get $296. Subtract
out the interest you would have earned on the money in a 6% bank
account (.06*.5*300*.5 =$30), and your net return is $266. After taxes
(35% federal) you take home $173.  (If you live in MA, state taxes
take another $27, leaving you $146). 

Now, if you have to borrow the money for this, say @10%.  The cost of 
borrowing (pretax) is $100.  So, your aftertax (federal) take home 
drops to $108.  Mass. state tax drops you to $91.

Of course, this assumes you can sell at exactly 117.6% of the employee 
purchase price.  Since your sale will happen at a different time (and 
in fact be the aggregate price of sales for the day after you receive 
the shares) your mileage may vary.  [Alternately, you could use your 
own broker, but then deduct another $30 ($20 after-tax) or so for his
commission]. 

On the other hand, if that person buys (at current price/share) 11
shares at the current cost per share and holds it thru a 10% rise on
the stock price, he makes $200, taxable @ 28% = the same $144.  And
DEC has seen a lot of 10% rises lately. 

My point is, to keep anyone from being accidently led astray, that the 
real 'quick bucks' benefit of the 15% differential in the stock plan
is minimal, its an excellent plan if you want to invest in stock, but
the amount of 'quick bucks' to be made is small (which is probably by
intent). 

Actual annualized interest is >70%!

	.15/.85 = 17.64%

	Average time of investment is 3 months

	12/3 = 4

	4 * 17.64 = 70.5%

Or to put it another way, you would have to find a bank that paid 70% to beat 
the deal!  So borrow at 16.5% from DCU and show a 54% profit each year.

    Re several.
    
    I guess I was the first to mention stock. In .128 I wasn't really
    talking about the ESPP. My basic point is:
    
    DEC is giving low raises compared to the money that can be made
    in the stockmarket by dealing in DEC stock. I am talkiing about
    stock you buy nothing to do with the ESPP. One of the reasons the
    stock is doing so well is that DEC have stopped giving people decent
    raises hence cutting expenses. This is unfair because people who
    can't or don't want to take the risk in the stock market get shafted.
    Ultimately this means that DEC will lose one of its best assets,
    its people. I think DEC is taking a too short term view with this
    approach.
    
    I'm interesed in hearing why people think the current policy is
    the right thing. Digital has so much cash it doesn't know what to
    do with it. It has retired most of its debt and there is talk about
    stock buybacks. How about distributing some cash to the employees
    and taking on more debt just like everybody else.
    
    Dave

    on garanteed profits from the stock plan being generous...
    
    Consider that you "get" 15% on the 10% of your salary you put in,
    which comes out to 1.5% of your salary as the comapny's contribution.
    
    That means that for you to tie up 010% of your income, you "get" a
    total of 101.5% of your salary assuming you sell immediately.  (I
    will admit that since DEC's stock TENDS to rise, you actully do
    better than that, but you ought to look at DEC's direct contribution)
    
    BobW

    I don't know about back there in the real world where you have tons
    of engineers, but out here in never-never land...
    
    Our software specialists are getting a lot of pressure from customers
    that are offering a lot of money.  It isn't unusual for people to
    get 30% TO 50% increases in offers.  No matter how you slice it,
    it would take a LONG, LONG time for DEC to catch up with a "GOOD"
    10% raise as opposed to someone elses 5% raise on 50% more money!
    BTW:  They'll give you a microVAX too!
    
    Then we get personnel... They tell us that "DEC raises are driven
    by inflation, not company profits".  And, our salary survey only
    LOOKS AT VENDORS OUR SIZE... NOT AT THE CUSTOMERS THAT ARE TRYING
    TO HIRE.
    
    The pressure is starting to tell. We're starting to lose people
    out here.  The money isn't "THE" motivating factor, but to do the
    same job, put up with the same problems, etc., for more money...
    
    Two thirds (or more) of the delivery unit is out playing resident at
    customer sites, the customers are offering bucks, and the headhunters
    are circling like vultures.  Gonna get real interesting if this
    keeps up!
    
    D

    re 148
    A lot of the good people will leave, most of the dead wood will
    stay, because they do not have anywhere to go, some of the good
    people will also stay and try to change the bad things that are
    going on. The company will hire more new people, they will have
    to train a lot of these people to get them up to speed. This cost
    the corporation a lot of money. I have been here almost 15 years,
    and sometimes I do not understand what this company is doing. I
    sometimes wonder how we manage to keep making more money and staying
    in business, doing some of the dumb things that we are doing. I
    plan on staying on at DEC and trying to get this company to get
    back to doing things the right way, the first time. But as time
    passes, I do not know if I will have the same attitude in 3-5 years
    down the road. Sometimes it gets very frustrating knowing and seeing
    what some management in this company does, and gets away with. It
    would be nice if Ken Olsen got around the company more. Maybe some
    of the people that work here would think before they did something.
    
    Enough of my 2 cents
    

	Lets leave broccoli and get back to planet Earth.

1.	Body snatching.

	It's a great expression, implied negative message frees the user
	from any discussion. Would anybody marry a body snatcher ?

	The truth is that people are resources and in competitive world you
	compete for resources with money. If group A values better talent
	of Mr.X and wants to pay him better then his current salary, 
	there is nothing wrong with it. If Mr.X comes from the outside 
	competition, manager of A feels he did a great job.
	But internally, there is a "gentleman agreement" ( sorry for
	eufeminism) , and it's NO, NO.
	Some internal jobs are even advertised without a job code,
	just in case ....

	Ken Olsson has some interesting thoughts about fear of internal
	competition and duplication of effort, read his last MIT address.

2.	"Paid for performance."

	This message came out very strongly some time ago, but, did line
	managers get bigger budgets for salary increases ? Did they
	get more flexibility ? How can a manager encourage his group
	if everybody does very good job ? It's average increase or somebody
	gets hurt.
	I suspect that the real audience for this message were the line 
	managers, it was " don't give average increases as you did before,
	you can be flexible ,system already permits it". Period.

	I'm unaware of any change in how money get's distributed to the groups.
	Is there really any internal program to accommodate extra demands or a
	surplus of money due to change in the way we are supposed to get paid ?

	Our current system looks a lot as a typical European state agency
	scheme. Unless you do something stupid or wrong, it's pure number
	of years in the company that counts, with one addition, there are
	some provisions to correct gross errors.
	
	I'm reasonably happy with it, just can't stand being treated as a
	fool with all these "performance" talk.
	
	Not even promotion works. Look, I've just got promoted, roughly
	2 years too late ( my fault, didn't want to pass en engineering
	review board on product I stopped dealing with) and... I got
	already 50% in the current range and 30% into next one.
	My reviews were always good and raises as well ( average or average +
	few points, just like anybody else). During this time my 
	responsibilities increased exponentially.
	So, the bottom line is, it's years, salary goes like a train, 
	and with/without promotion.

	Key to promotion blues are ranges, they love to overlap each other,
	and their mutual attraction force doesn't fade with time, on the
	contrary. 
	If you have any statistical material, have a look.

	Ranges develope with infalation, our current average raises are
	slightly higher. So , a performer and a non performer, will
	still be in the same range after 10 years, maybe 20% in the
	range ( not money ) apart.	

3.	DEC's exceptional success.

	I'm unsure if modification of all salaries just because we do VERY
	well right now is wise. There are different dynamics going upwards and
	downwards. But, there are so many different other ways, if , yes IF...
	there is a will.

	BTW, do we tell stock holders the same story as we hear it internally :
	" We are doing well for the MOMENT, thanks, but future is an unknown
	menace" ?


    					Enough of my 2 francs.

    re .145 See BMT::INVESTING notes file for analysis of the stock
    program.  
    
    The minimum you'll get on the stock plan is a little over 60%.
    The reasoning goes like this:  You start the period with $0 end
    with $100 to use round numbers.  Thus the average investment over
    the period is $50.  DEC's "contribution" is $15.  A $15 return on
    a $50 investment is 30%.  A 30% return in six months is a 60% annual
    return.  Not bad.
    
    Bob
    

    re: 151, since you have to put in an additional $100 during the
    next six months, you get $30 from the company on an average of $100
    over the year, which works out to 30%, not 60%.
    
    jack

>    re: 151, since you have to put in an additional $100 during the
>    next six months, you get $30 from the company on an average of $100
>    over the year, which works out to 30%, not 60%.

Wrong.  You would be right if you had to put the whole $100 in at the
beginning of the period, but you don't, you pay it in weekly, so 60% is
correct.

/john

     re .151:
     
     > The minimum you'll get on the stock plan is a little over 60%.
     
     I don't believe that's always true, particularly for those people who
     contribute relatively small amounts to the plan. To be honest, though,
     I haven't seen the discussion in BMT::INVESTING. 

     But, suppose someone earning $13,000/year contributes the minimum 2%
     [hmmm... hope I'm not confusing this with SAVE].  After 6 months, that
     person will have contributed $130.00 to the stock plan.  If the
     beginning stock price is $160 and the ending stock price is $180, then
     shares will sell for $136 each -- in this case, the employee will have
     invested $130, bought 0 shares, and realized a return of exactly 0%.
     
     --Don

    It's been asked before, but let's try again.  Could we get off of
    this discussion of whether it's 30% or 60% of $100?  This note is
    about salary reviews.  
    
    Please?
    
    
    

re Note 12.127 by AUNTB::SOEHL:

>     .126 Double digit inflation was not the norm at all when I first
>     came to DEC. (4 years ago)  I started hearing about 2-5% raises about
>     a year and a half ago. Perhaps it was a holdover from earlier days.
    
The explanation given to me was that about 5 years ago personnel made a survey
of competitors' salary ranges and found that DEC was behind.  So a temporary
policy of giving higher than industry average raises was put into place --
until we caught up.  Well, we've caught up, so raises are now just
"competitive".

Bob

(I don't like that use of the word "competitive" at all.  In the product
marketplace, you compete best when you are clearly better than the rest, not
when you are "at or slightly above average".  Come to think of it, that kind of
double-think probably infects our product planning from time to time....)

    What's all this baloney about 2-5% raises. Based on a sample of
    five people, whose salaries are known, it simply is not true. I submit
    the following as evidence:
    
    Employee                1986 Salary         1987 Salary    % Increase
                                                                         
    Kenneth H. Olsen          755,003             905,706        20.0
    
    John J. Shields           405,002             512,233        26.5
    
    John F. Smith             405,002             511,114        26.2
    
    Winston R. Hindle, Jr.    405,002             460,627        13.7
    
    James M. Osterhoff        305,019             359,062        17.7
    
    All 44 executive          8,921,552           10,771,548     20.7
    officers as a group
    
    
    	As you can see the average is 20.7 %. Please stop publishing
    false information in these notes about raises. It's bad for morale.
                                                                       

    Mike, I don't think the numbers you're quoting are salaries, so much as
    total compensation received from Digital.  Now, what's the difference,
    you might ask?  Well, I don't think that Ken Olsen's salary is 775k. A
    lot of that money is honorariums for attending board meetings, etc. His
    actual "salary" increase may or may not be limited to something a lot
    less than 20 per cent, but I don't think we can tell simply from the
    numbers quoted. 

     Of the 44 "executive officers" Ken is the only one on the Board
    of Directors. His compensation for that is $20k per year plus $1k
    per board meeting, hardly significant. The dollars for the other
    43 must be just salary unless there is some kind of secret bonus
    plan. Anyway, who cares? It all goes back into the economy. Compared
    to Lee Iacocca, the Sultan of Brunei, Malcom Forbes, etc. they are
     all grossly underpaid.

    Corporate officers generally have incentive bonuses and stock options.
    Presumably, the VPs get paid (a lot) more when the company does
    well.  Why do you think they're characterized as "driven"?

    The stock options are not included in these figures. They are accounted
    for separately. These numbers are basically "salary". 

    Also, note that these figures are for 'compensation', which is
    generally calculated including benefits.  So, if the cost of
    insurance has gone up, so has 'compensation'.

    	I'm sorry Bruce but "bennies" are not considered "cash"
    compensation. This discussion is getting out of hand. Let's drop
    the subject, OK?

    OK, I accept my public flogging.
    
    I would like to propose, however, that this topic remain open for 
    discussion of Digital's salary review *process*, but not a discussion
    of "why don't I get paid more".
    
    Bruce (the views expressed are my own, as an individual noter only)

    	Bruce, 
    
    	You take your floggings well. I really didn't intend to flog
    you. Sorry. I just thought that we were going down a rathole on
    the Ken Olsen's options, bennies, etc. stuff. All the details are
    in the Notice of Annual Meeting sent to all stockholders. I support
    your suggestion. 
    
    -Mike

    I've read thru the replies in this note and I have a question that
    I don't think was answered.  Situation as follows:  employee was
    scheduled for an "X.X"% salary increase last year.  During that year,
    the employee chaged jobs within Digital, and in the process, he
    went from a job level of "N" to a level of "N+1".  Assuming that
    that employee gets a "1", "2", or "3" on his performance review
    for that same period of time (his performance review and salary
    review are coincidentally due at the same time), questions are:

    1.  Should the employee still get only the "X.X"% raise, even though
        he's now at the next higher level?  (This question is based on
        an answer that I got from Personnel awhile back; ie, that
        regardless of your job code (Dxx, Rxx, Jxx, etc), each job code
        is associated with a "level", and the salary low/mid/high points
        for each LEVEL is the same).  Just talking WC4 here.

    2.  Take the midpoint of level "N" (which the employee was at last
        year) compared to the midpoint of level "N+1" (which the employee
        is at now).  Call the percentage of increase from level "N" to
        level "N+1", "Y.Y%".  Assuming a good performanace review rating,
        is it fair (conceivable?) that the scheduled raise ("X.X%") be 
        LOWER than "Y.Y%"?

    3.  Unless the employee is off base in his thinking in questions
        1 & 2, what options does he have besides quitting the company,
        which he really doesn't want to do?

    Thanks
    Jon

    Salary planning takes place once a year, DEC employees take their
    salary plan with them as they move from one job to another in that
    year.  Organizations do not keep money aside to give to employees
    that might transfer into their group.   Now the person in question
    was at midpoint in his/her salary range before the transfer which
    means that he/she did not need to be adjusted to get to the minimum
    point of the new level.  If the person's new manager felt he/she
    deserved more money then it would have to be taken out of someone
    else's plan.
    
    Now the question is if this is such a problem now, did the employee
    bring the subject of salary up during the interview process?  Also
    if I have a person who is at midrange at their present level and
    I promote them, I do not feel they should be a mid point in their
    new level.  That doesn't make sense.  

    Sounds like the employee in questin was making some assumptions
    that should have been shared with the hiring manager.
    
    Was the emnployee promised a certain amount of money as part of
    the job offer?

    If I've got the story straight:
    
    The guidelines on percentage increases are just that, guidelines. There
    may be very good reasons for some person to get either a higher or
    lower percentage. You then have to write a justification.
    
    A person's salary is supposed to reflect his contribution to the
    company. Occasionally a whole department has to have its salary
    structure re-examined and when that happens, many people in that
    department may get increases that don't fit the guidelines.
    
    What you may want to do is examine this person's contribution relative
    to the other people in the department and then adjust his salary
    accordingly. You then must be very careful to explain to the person
    exactly what happened so as to not set false expectations of, for
    example, a similar raise next year. 

    >Occasionally a whole department has to have its salary
    >structure re-examined and when that happens, many people in that
    >department may get increases that don't fit the guidelines.
    
     I haven't seen this happen, Tom... but you've been around a 
    good while longer than I... have you seen it?  I suspect that
    if indeed a whole department were to receive an average increase
    above the norm, then the "rollup" point has simply been raised
    to a higher level, that the pain has been distributed elsewhere.
    
    Comments?
    Marge

    re .169:  I have seen an entire department get an increase..

    Increases that don't fit the guidelines may be either above the norm or
    below it. A low contributer, relative to his salary, could get a few
    years' of low increases until his salary was in line with his
    contribution.
    
    The department's total salary budget might not rise. I don't know what
    happened to the total in the three department-wide cases I've seen.
    It's obviously a lot easier if the total is allowed to rise.

    Another scenario that I'd like input on....
    
    Person transferred into a new group, got a promotion to the next
    level (WC2 to WC2); brought to the minimum of that new range.  It
    was in the former job's salary plan to eventually promote this person
    to the next level during the next couple of years anyway.  Got salary
    review 9 months into the new job and was rated a "2" performer.
    When the salary increase comes through, the raise that came through
    boosted the person's salary to the "new" minimum of the range that
    the person had moved into the previous fiscal year.  It doesn't
    look like a raise at all, since the group would have to bring that
    person up to that new minimum of the range within 3 months of the
    new salary range becoming effective.  For a "2" performer, that
    doesn't seem like a very fair increase, since it was going to be
    increased to that anyway.  In my eyes, it looks like the person
    got cheated out of a raise, while "3" performers got real nice
    increases in their salary during the same time period.  
    
    Am I missing something?  I really feel for this person - I've been
    handed this type of thing (baloney) and this person doesn't deserve
    to "stay" at the minimum of the range in salary.... especially if
    the person is rated a "2".  Anyone care to comment?  Is this person
    getting screwed?

        Money in your pocket is money in your pocket.  Bracket creep is a
        fact of life.  Salary planning often isn't fair.  Getting screwed
        is when you change jobs and the outgoing manager plans a zero
        increase in the current plan year, and schedules you for a 15 or
        18 month review (in spite of good reviews).  Or when your group
        gets dissolved and the interrim manager does the salary plan
        without any real understanding of the people in the group and
        their contributions. 
        
        If the person you're talking about feels he or she should have
        gotten a larger increase (it's not relevant what you or I think),
        then the situation should be discussed NON-CONFRONTATIONALLY with
        the manager who's doing the salary planning.  There may be other
        factors that entered in.  It's possible that the salary increase
        that happened 9 months into the new job came with the person, and
        the new manager is planning a larger increase for next year
        (something he or she should not disclose, but sometimes you get a
        sense of the situation without getting details). 
        
        Tom

    The wages a person receives should reflect his contribution relative to
    the other people in the group. If the person is contributing more but
    getting paid less (or vice versa), there is a problem and a salary plan
    should be developed (outside of the normal guidelines if necesssary) to
    bring the salary into line with the contribution.
    
    One of the problems the salary guidelines have is that they are often
    regarded as absolute rules. The guidelines are necessary, and they
    should be followed most of the time, but when the result is unfair or
    unreasonable, then an exception to the guidelines should be made.

    I've been informed that my salary review will not occur on my
    anniversary this year, but will instead be at a 21 month interval.
    
    All I've been able to dig up from the orangebook tells me that salary
    reviews usually occur every 12 months, or on the anniversary date.
    
    So is this a non-standard review schedule?  If so, what recourse
    do I have?
    
    Thanks
    
    Ashley

    You might be confusing a 'performance review' with 'salary review'.
    You should get a performance at least every year. You may or may
    not get a raise in salary at that time.
    
    The amount of time between salary increases depends on your performance
    and your position in the salary range for your job level. (eg. if
    you are performing at a 2 or 1 level and are low in the salary range
    you will (generally) get more frequent raises.)
    
    You should ask either your supervisor (or personnel rep) to explain
    how salary planning and review happens at Digital.
    
    Joe

	You need to review this with your personnel rep. Salary planning is 
done such that you can receive a raise anywhere from 9-24 months from when
you last received a raise. Your management has planned that your next raise 
will be 21 months from your last raise.

	This can be due to many things. You may be at or above your midpoint 
and others in your group of similar calibar may be below the midpoint. 
Another reason may be performance related. You are not "entitled" to a raise 
every 12 months.

	I know this because our personnel rep, who is now district manager, 
went through a simulated salary planning process with us at a unit meeting. 
Boy, did it open my eyes! You might want to sit down with your rep or 
manager to understand the process. It might be unfair, but understanding and 
the open door policy will help you understand it or at least raise it as an 
issue.

        < Note 12.178 by KYOA::KOCH "Any relation?..." >
>	I know this because our personnel rep, who is now district manager, 
>went through a simulated salary planning process with us at a unit meeting. 
>Boy, did it open my eyes! You might want to sit down with your rep or 
>manager to understand the process. It might be unfair, but understanding and 
>the open door policy will help you understand it or at least raise it as an 
>issue.

        You say "it might be unfair".  Actually, if the process is working
        as it should, it's probably being done fairly, but like many other
        things, there is a certain amount of discretion on the part of
        people in the process, so unfairness can creep in.  You need to
        understand the process to be able to decide whether it's being
        handled fairly.  I'm surprised that your manager even told you
        when your next salary adjustment is scheduled.  However, there may
        be valid reasons (two examples are listed in the relevant policy) 
        for such an extended review cycle.

        Every manager who supervises people and participates in salary
        planning and management should have received a copy of the
        "Salary Management Manual", and received training regarding
        salary planning and administration.  If your manager doesn't
        have a copy of the manual, it can be ordered from Northboro;
        the part number is EZ-J4022-24.  
        
        From the introduction to the manual:
        
        Philosophy
        
        Digital's philosophy is to pay employees competitively, equitably,
        and based on performance.  Digital translates its pay philosophy
        into action.  The company rewards performance so that the profess-
        ional satisfaction of employees contributes toward the achievement
        of broad business goals.
        
        Digital's commitment to this philosophy has helped attract and
        retain the outstanding work force that has played a key role in
        the company's success. 
        
        [Sections on Competitive Pay, Equitable Pay, Pay for Performance,
        and Legal Compliance follow.]
        
        Communication
        
        Digital communicates its pay philosophy, objectives, and programs
        to its employees through supervisors and managers and through the
        distribution of written materials.  Supervisors are responsible
        for giving employees information as to how employee pay is
        determined.  This includes sharing policies, procedures, and
        other pay information with employees.
        
                         ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        
        So, communicate with your supervisor.
        
        Tom