Conference 7.286::digital

1.  I couldn't find any explicit mention of this in the online Personnel
Policies and Procedures manual.  However, I didn't look too hard and I found
nothing which prohibited it.  For all I know, it may even be covered by verbiage
which encourages the establishment of a hiring strategy.

2.  When I interviewed with Digital, I visited two groups, and received offers
from both of them.  The two hiring managers coordinated the offers, which had
the same starting salary, and which was written on a single piece of paper. I
was a new college hire, which is slightly different than a regular outside hire,
and both are different from an internal transfer, so I'm not going to claim that
this is an exact match with your situation.

3.  Obtain a signed, written commitment from each hiring manager that they will
participate in extending an offer as soon as all three groups agree upon the
terms.  Then you should be in no danger of "losing one of the choices". I have
no advice to offer on how you might prevent groups from lowering their terms to
match those of other groups.  You may not have a choice in that regard.

It might be illuminating to read commentary by others on influencing the terms
of offers, since you seem to have at least the variables of salary and
relocation to deal with.
				/AHM

A thought comes to mind... usual disclaimer if you try it...

 - Entertain some offers outside of Digital, and let all three groups
   know it.  If they really want you, they will offer as much as they
   can to get you.  Knowing that you are looking outside, as well as
   inside, will keep them in line with the industry, and will force the
   lower offers up rather than the upper offers down.

        You could, of course, ask each of the internal recruiters to
        show you the written policy that says you have to help them
        to "coordinate their offers".  I believe there are policies
        that tell them what they're allowed to offer, and I don't see
        how they can "sweeten the pie" to any significant degree. 
        The salary offered should be within the guidelines that are
        supposed to be standard throughout the corporation, and the
        relocation is also covered by standard policies.  Of course,
        if one of the positions involves a promotion (as sometimes
        does happen), then that would explain why there might be some
        differences.
        
        Tom

    The knife cuts both ways.  As a hiring manager, I've been placed
    in a position of being told that "Well, we have to wait a week to
    extend the offer because so_and_so is also interviewing in Mt. Royal
    and in Bedford and we want the offers to match."  It's only to the
    candidate's advantage to be given that accommodation. So far as
    I'm concerned...here's what I'm willing to pay and here's the job...
    if you want to keep looking, fine, that's your privilege... 
    you're not really interested in what I have to offer based on its
    own merits.
    
    Marge    

    
    I am in some what similar situation now- well I don't have competing
    offers. but I am talking to one group now. I am interested in knowing
    that when an employee is transferred, is he transferred on same
    pay or can he negotiate any increase depending on the cost of living
    etc.
    Also How does the grades between field and corporate compare. I
    am in R05 ( Sr Consultant ). What is the comparable grade in the
    corporate office ??? 
    
    I am new to DEC and I would appreciate some input.       

    There is no "cost of living differential" on transfers.
    
    Also, pay attention to "hidden costs" if you are moving... loss
    of company car, housing costs not covered by relo, the potential
    of having to pay tuition to get your kids into comparable schools.
    It is primarily your responsibility to know these things... DEC
    pays for a "househunting trip" but you need to determine whether
    the lifestyle at your target location suits you, not just whether
    the home is suitable.
    
    Marge

    p.s. According to the chart I have, an R05 is a "level 12" position.
         Practically all disciplines within DEC have a comparable position.
    

Re: < Note 579.2 by MISFIT::DEEP >
>
> - Entertain some offers outside of Digital, and let all three groups
>   know it.  If they really want you, they will offer as much as they
>   can to get you.  Knowing that you are looking outside, as well as
>   inside, will keep them in line with the industry, and will force the
>   lower offers up rather than the upper offers down.

    This of course depends on your management at the time.  I have twice
    entertained outside offers with lucrative increases.  The first
    time, it helped when my salary review came around, and the second,
    I got just a pat on the back for loyalty.  I must admit that I am
    not sorry for turning down either offer.
    
    My experience with internal transfers is, they are ALWAYS lateral, no
    increase in grade, no increase in pay, unless the job you are
    interviewing for does not have a job in the equivelent pay, and then
    you are put in the next higher available grade, and only if you fall
    below the bottom of that pay range will you get an increase. Although
    my career at Digital has been a good experience, my current position
    does not reflect my current skills and abilities due to some poor
    managers I have had in the past and some (in my opinion) questionable
    hiring priorities that have put less skilled and able new hires into
    positions above me that I could of performed.  I also have no recourse
    but to find another good position with good management or go outside,
    something I find hard to do.
    
    Dr Tom,
    
    The Orangebook is not the complete PP&P.  Other functions in Digital,
    like personnel, have their own additions to the Orangebook that
    spell out some of these policies.  My manger is trying to hire a
    local person that works for an engineering group back east.  One
    of the points of contention is that they get a "Housing Allowance"
    because they are living in a high cost of living area of the country,
    but SWS can't give this allowance, or give a raise to make up for
    it.  
    
    Larry

>My manger is trying to hire a local person that works for an engineering group
>back east.  One of the points of contention is that they get a "Housing
>Allowance" because they are living in a high cost of living area of the
>country

What "Housing Allowance"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????

/john

    Yes, "what housing allowance"?  John (579.8) and I both live in Acton,
    Massachusetts, which is near the top in housing costs.  Never heard of
    such a thing.  But then, we are now hearing lots about "hidden
    warranties" for automobiles. 

                                                                 

As a hiring manager, this is my understanding of the situation:

There are rules (like Orange book) and guidelines.  Both are generally
followed and occasionally not.

Digital DOES have a policy of not competing with itself, for both
internal and external candidates.  This means that if multiple groups
have an interest then they agree on a salary.  However, if an offer
has already been made, or a second group can't make up their mind yet,
then the second group must match the original offer.

  However, if you want a particular job, and don't want to miss it
  because they may not want to pay as much as another group, by all
  means tell them that.  Or vice versa.  Agreement between groups
  could make an offer go up or down.

Internal offers are almost always lateral.  It would be hard
for someone that hasn't worked with you yet to justify raising your
salary set by your current boss who has worked with you.  However,
your boss's plan for your salary raise goes with you.  On the title,
again, it is normally a lateral transfer unless there is no comparable
title, in which case you could go up or down.
                                                                 
QUESTIONS:                                     
                                                   
    1)IS THIS AN OFFICIAL POLICY?                  
                                                   
  I've never seen anything in writing.  But it is generally followed,
  and enforced by most personnel people.

    2)HAS ANYONE WHO IS READING THIS BEEN IN A SIMILAR SITUATION - IF
    SO HOW DID YOU HANDLE IT?                           

  When I first interviewed at DEC 8 years ago I received a joint offer
  at the same salary.

  I have since handled it from the perspective of a hiring manager.
  That includes adjusting salaries of people after they were hired
  (thru the normal process).


Just my unofficial experience,
Jean Fullerton                                                   

    >    I'm concerned...here's what I'm willing to pay and here's the job...
    >if you want to keep looking, fine, that's your privilege... 
    >you're not really interested in what I have to offer based on its
    >own merits.
     
    or the person wants to get the BEST job match for what they do.
    The only way they can do this is to check out the other job.  All
    managers want the employee to have the BEST job match and are willing
    to let the person check the other job out.  There are limits on
    how long a manager can wait for the employee to search, but if the
    manager wants the employee, then they will wait.
    
    The person being hired MUST be happy with the new job or he will
    not work effectivly for their new manager.  None of us want that
    as that is counter productive.
    
    	- mark
                                                    

    >    There is no "cost of living differential" on transfers.
     
    A little nit pick :-)
    
    If you go to Europe or various other places, they will give you
    an 'increase', to match how you lived in the USA.  When you come back
    your 'increase' is removed (excluding raises etc...).
    
    This 'increase' is to help adjust to the high living costs in various
    foreign countries.
    
    	- mark

    The problem is, this person was given an allowance to live on the
    west coast (at U.C. Berkeley) by their engineering group (UEG).
    The job will entail a less then 200 mile relocation (or maybe none)
    but we can't give the allowance, and personnel won't let us give
    a raise.
    
    Please note that my comments are second hand, as I am not the hiring
    manager, but only one of his reportees.
    
    Larry
    

    perhaps the "housing allowance" was associated with a "temporary
    domestic transfer"... rather than a standard relo.
    
    Marge
    
    p.s. Mark, points well taken.

   I don't know if this is different in europe than in the US, but ....

   when I did my relocation (a so called "permanent) last year, from DEC
in Austria (not ! Australia) to DEC Germany, my salary was adjusted to 
the living conditions here in Munich (expensive !) and there was also a
allowance, supposed to be used as a "getting started" payment.

   Means, there was money provided to establish the new household etc....

   I don't know if there is a difference between the temporary relocations 
(2 to 3 years and than back to the home-country or home-location) and the
permanent one (actually means you have to resign at the DEC subsidiary back 
home and get employed at the new one, without loosing any DEC benefit) in 
terms of allowances. I would guess there is NO difference at all.

   It worked out quite well, despite I had to learn, that the living costs
are much higher then we thought before ..... 

Just my 2� worth ...
Mike

        The way we do business in Europe differs from the way do business
        in the U.S. for a number of reasons, including different laws in
        the different countries there, and the fact that we may well be a
        different company in different countries.  So it's not surprising
        that relocation policies can differ between Europe and the U.S. 
        
        Section 5.06 of the U.S. Personnel Policies & Procedures manual
        covers "Temporary Domestic Assignments".  There are provisions
        for a number of things.  That may be what applies to the person
        who was on the UEG assignment in the Silicon Valley.
        
        Tom

Since there are different salary scales in different countries, but not
different salary scales within the U.S., salary adjustments are normal
for international relocations.

I believe (but I'm not sure) that the algorithm is that you place the person
at the same relative position in the salary scale for the given position.

/john

       This situation reeks of corporate collusion and may in the long-term
    work against the best interests of the company.
        There are regional market variations and demands differences across
    job functions. One department may place a higher value on that employee
    and may indeed need the services of this person more than another. That
    should be reflected in the type of remuneration offered. The employee
    is changing the contract he has made to provide services to this
    company and skills that may not be highly valued in one position
    may be indispensible in another.
    	Managers getting together to dish up some watered down cross-
    departmental offer eventually results in an obviously valuable employee
    feeling they have been undervalued and indeed conspired against.
    The end result may well be to go to where the offers are indeed
    demand determined, the outside market.
        I've seen it quite often where people have come to feel the only
    way they can get paid what they feel they are worth by the company is
    to  leave the company, then come back in. 
    Hire in rates are often more realistic because the Digital hirer cant
    ring up the other 3 or 4 companies that an potential employee is
    dealing with and manipulate the game.
	The scenario may be constructed where the employee is left without
    a choice by these people getting together.i.e Manager A says he
    is prepared to pay $X dollars more than Call for said employee,
    C cant match that but B can. The off is pitched at somewhere near
    what B would offer, C decides that its better to hire someone
    else because A will just get him anyway (as opposed to the market
    situation where offers are made without the bidders knowing).
    Meanwhile the employee wonders why he missed out on that opportunity
    to move into a new exciting area with C (he being willing to take
    a pay cut to find/explore new interests) and opts for the cash at
    A or B. 

    Let the market decide, we have heaps of hire-in data for each manager
    to offer a package based on the prevailing situation.
    
    John.

    Let me note a few considerations from the other side of the fence
    - I've been a manager at DEC a number of years.
    
    First DEC policy is pay for performance.  The employee who is job
    hunting as supposedly been reviewed on a regular basis and is being
    paid at his/her level of competence.  Yes, I know that isn't always
    true, but as the hiring manager I can only guess.  It's just something
    I have to take into consideration.
    
    Second, I've seen bidding wars for transferring employees.  The
    losers are the employees who've been in the department doing a good
    job for some period of time.  You have to jack up the hire price
    to fill empty slots and you end up with transferred employees earning
    a lot more than their peers ....  Who then decide to transfer to
    catch up..... and on and on
    
    I see the problems on both sides. There just aren't easy answers.
    

    re: .19
    
    Please don't get me wrong, but I see a basic problem here:
    
>    Second, I've seen bidding wars for transferring employees.  The
>    losers are the employees who've been in the department doing a good
>    job for some period of time.  You have to jack up the hire price
>    to fill empty slots and you end up with transferred employees earning
>    a lot more than their peers ....  Who then decide to transfer to
>    catch up..... and on and on
    
    Do you offer employees more than they are worth?  I would think
    not.  Therefore, the *new* employee is the one being paid according
    to worth, not the current employees.
    
>    First DEC policy is pay for performance.  The employee who is job
>    hunting as supposedly been reviewed on a regular basis and is being
>    paid at his/her level of competence.  Yes, I know that isn't always
>    true, but as the hiring manager I can only guess.  It's just something
>    I have to take into consideration.
    
    It would seem that this premise is actually incorrect.  If a person
    is being paid according to competence and value on the job, you
    wouldn't be able to justify giving a new, "less-experienced" person
    more than the established folk.  The fact is that if the company
    is willing to pay more $$$ for some new person, the old person is
    not being paid according to the "current" job value.
    
    I once worked for a company that was "concerned" with hiring people
    at higher prices than current employees.  Their solution: find people
    who will work cheaply.  Result:  If you told someone that you had
    been there for 5 years, they looked at you like your head was on
    backwards -- term of employment for the average employee was about 2.5
    years.  By then, they realized that some companies *will* pay what
    your worth.
    
>    I see the problems on both sides. There just aren't easy answers.
    
    I couldn't agree more.
    
    -- Russ

    re: .20
    
    You said what I wanted to say.  I just wanted to add that "pay for
    performance" really isn't tested until an internal employee considers a
    job external to the company or until an external employee (ie an
    external hire) considers a job a Digital. 
    
    Also "pay for performance" should take into account that the set of
    skills used in one's current job may or may not map one-for-one into
    the new job.  Certainly, one considered for the new job should have the
    requisite skills, however these may be latent in the current role the
    person has in the company. 
                                             

As another hiring manager ......

re rehiring of former DEC employees: This is, I think, becoming less and 
less frequent. A person who used to work for another manager in my group 
wanted to return to DEC. He was offered the salary he would have had had 
he not left DEC. He decided to continue his career at another company.

re pay for performance and paying higher salaries to new hires: Yes, new 
hires often are offered salaries higher than current employees. This is 
necessary to induce people to change jobs and join DEC. However, should 
I hire an outside person at a higher salary than other people in my 
group, I would give that person quite small annual salary increases
until their salary was comparable to the other people in my group. 
Besides, there are some disadvantages to changing companies -- loss of 
vacation time (I have four weeks now and going back to two weeks would 
be like a 4% pay cut) and loss of pension vesting (I am fully vested at 
DEC) -- that somewhat offset a higher salary. 

re looking outside and using a higher salary offer to influence your 
salary at DEC: There is a risk here. Some managers (I among them) would 
consider this polite blackmail. My response to such a tactic would be to 
wish the person good luck in their new career and have my secretary type 
up a job requisition form. 

Alan Berens

    re: .22
    
>re pay for performance and paying higher salaries to new hires: Yes, new 
>hires often are offered salaries higher than current employees. This is 
>necessary to induce people to change jobs and join DEC. However, should 
>I hire an outside person at a higher salary than other people in my 
>group, I would give that person quite small annual salary increases
>until their salary was comparable to the other people in my group.
    
    Interesting.  You "induced" the new hire to join Digital by offering
    a competitive bid based on his/her current worth in the marketplace.
    Then you "pay for performance" by holding down their pay increases
    (regardless of performance) until they are down to the level of
    current employees?
    
    Somehow, this doesn't smack of "pay for performance" to me.  Have
    I misunderstood your remarks?  Do you mean to say that you offer
    *above* the market level of the applicant?
    
    -- Russ

    AS another hiring manager I want to offer my viewpoint.  Digital's
    compensation policy is to get people where they belong in the salary
    range and give them modest increases to keep them where they belong
    in that range.  
    
    If you hire some one from outside and put them where they belong
    in the salary range  you usually do not have to give them large
    increases.

    I don't offer higher salaries to induce people to join Dec, but
    just putting where they belong in the range puts them above the
    Dec employees that are lower on the range than they should be.
    
     

    re: .24
    
    Thank you for the explanation.  It's quite helpful.
    
    But that raises the question (in my mind, at least):  If Digital
    pays for performance, then why are there people below "where they
    belong in the salary range"?  Now, I can see a few being there (human
    error, hired at too low a salary, or what have you), but the
    implication I got from that earlier manager (in .22 was it?) was
    that there are a sizable number of these folk (I believe the
    implication was that they had to "catch up" with the new hire).
    
    Again, I may be misunderstanding the situation, but it would seem
    that "pay for performance" would imply that you would tend to have
    relatively few people who would be "too low in the range".  Is this
    the case?

    RE: .22 
    
    If DEC managers are free to establish a new hire's salary level
    and they offer more than anyone in their group is making and they
    intend after that person is hired to gradually drop the pay of that
    new employee...couldn't that be interpreted as fraud?  Intentionally
    misleading new people to believe that we are paying competitively
    seems like a bad idea to me.  Are we hiring idiots?  Don't you think
    they will ever find out and be mad?  Does anybody care what that
    employee will resent being hoodwinked?

      Re .25
    
>    If Digital pays for performance, then why are there people below
>    "where they belong in the salary range"?

    I think there are a number of reasons for this.  
    
    1.  Some managers think it is the "right thing to do" in hiring
    people at the lowest possible salary that is acceptable to them.
    This starts them off in the hole and sows the seeds of disgruntlement.
    
    2.  Many people have been given large promotions, especially from
    WC2 to  WC4 and the hiring manager did not have the money available
    to put them where they belong in the range.
    
    3.  In the past managers have used subjective measurements to rate
    employees and have done a poor job, not all managers but enough.
    When DEC was growing by leaps and bounds many were promoted to
    managerial positions without proper training.  It has only been
    in the past three years that a formal training program has been
    developed for managers.
    
    4.  Even though we have some very good guidelines, like "pay for
    performance" and "use the entire salary range" we don't get enough
    money to truly put people where they belong and keep them there.
    
    
    RE .26
    
    The idea is not to entice people with high salaries and then pay
    them squat.  The idea is that if you bring some one into the company
    at the proper place in the salary range you are being competitive
    with the rest of the industry and you only need to give them modest
    increases in the future to keep them where they belong.  In doing
    so you are still paying them what they are earning and being
    competitive with the industry.  
    
    If paying a new hire according to where they belong in the range
    gives them a much higher salary than their peers then that group
    has a major problem that has nothing to do with the new hire.  It
    should be addressed.  

    Digitals' "Pay for Performance" policy is nothing more than a
    managerial metaphor used to manipulate an employee's salary range
    anyway he/she sees fit - bottomline!
    
    In the past 9-1/2 years I have been in this company I have seen
    the employee's entrepreneurial spirit being slowly whittled away
    due to archaic managerial/personnel policies.
    
    When an employee is being hired internally does the hiring manager
    base his/her offer solely on the employees merits and current job
    responsibilities??, Hardly, they base your offer on where you stand
    in a particular job salary range.
    
    When your review comes up and its time to be compensated for your
    contributions to the company, does your manager offer you an increase
    based solely on your "performance", No Way - He/She bases your increase
    according to where you stand on your salary range for your particular
    position.
    
    The two latter examples are fully enforced by personnel to restrict
    so-called "extravagant spending" for an employee who just might
    be worth the money.

    re. 28
    
    I agree totally with what you said.  I was/am doing work three levels
    above my job, but when it was time for my review, my super told
    me that there we other people that weren't as far into their range
    as I was.  This was due to the fact that I had some experience and
    when I got my offer, it was in the lowest sceond fifth ( if that
    makes any sense, please explain it to me).  But I was being compared
    to people in other jobs !!!  It was then explained to me that it
    takes about 2, maybe even 3 years to " get you where you belong
    in the pay range" !!!  This system does not make sense and it ends
    up demoralizing people and gives them no insentive to work.  As
    we say here in BTO, if I don't do anything, I will get 4% as opposed
    to busting my butt and getting 4.2% !!!
    
    Jim
    

re: .28, .29

Working over your head is a good way to get points, but a bad way to advance
swiftly up the curve.  This is because it's a bad bet for a manager to
increase your salary to reflect a work level he doesn't think you can
maintain.  It may have been a fluke that the project you worked on for
the previous six months was right up your alley.

THAT'S why we need a system of SUBSTANTIAL bonuses for unusually good work
above the employee's normal range.  I'm talking $2,000 to $10,000 above
a normal raise for a three to twelve month period of exemplary work.
This benefits the employee and the group.  It limits the payment the
group makes to reflect the work done, and it doesn't saddle the employee 
with a non-portable salary.  (Try to transfer internally or get an outside
position when your salary is 20% above your expected level.)

- tom]

    In the listing I have of job codes and levels, which is three years
    old there is no F51 code, there is however, a FS1 code, Distributor
    Acct. Mgr A which is a level 12.  Is this what you're asking for?
    
    Pierce

    Re: .31
    
    That idea of bonuses sounds like a logical approach that would meet
    the needs of all involved.
                                         
    When I was at Texas Instruments ('82-'85) they had a program like that and
    I once received a $750 bonus.  Not much but it certainly felt very
    good to know that you were appreciated!  They also had a program
    of "non-periodic" raises.  These were additional raises inbetween
    the yearly raises for exemplary work.
    
    JO'R     

    re .30
    
    According to the job code list dated 5/4/88, F51 = Marketing Consultant
    and is level 12.
    
    Jon

        The code is "F5I", not "F51" -- that might explain why you were
        having trouble finding it.  It is, in fact, a level 12 job code.
        There's also an "F4I", which I believe is called "Principal
        Marketing Specialist" (level 10), as well as "F6I" (Marketing
        Executive, level 14) and "F7I" (something even more esoteric).
        
        It's unfortunate that the electronic "jobs" infobase doesn't
        give the "levels" along with the codes, as in some job classes,
        there is more than one code that is at the same level and has
        similar responsibilities.
        
        Tom

    I don't understand why Digital has a country-wide salary scale.  We 
    must realize that U.S. has many regions with very different standards
    of living.  I am working in New York City which probably has the
    highest SOL in the world, but we use the same pay scale as the one 
    they use in...I don't know...New Mexico.  That's probably why nobody 
    inside Digital wants to transfer here (except for a fool like myself).
    I think it is about time for Digital to have Standard-of-living 
    allowance.

    Thomas

    re .36
    
    I think what you should have said is that NYC has the highest Cost
    Of Living, rather than Standard Of Living, since if the latter were
    true, you wouldn't need any supplements would you ? ;-)
    
    Actually, I'm surprised (am I really I ask myself ?) that NYC doesn't
    have some sort of allowance. Field people in London offices in England
    do get a fairly substantial allowance which usually only just covers
    the commuting costs and maybe some incremental meal costs (lunches like
    sandwiches etc are wicked expensive in Central London). I can't
    remember exactly how much it (the allowance) is but I'm sure one of the
    noters from back home will let us know. People who work in the
    outer-London (within 25 miles of Central London) offices get a smaller
    allowance. 
    
    Central London field people (sales, SWS, FS etc) are usually eligable
    for a company car but because having a company car in London is about
    as much use as a rubber crutch, mostly they take the option of a cash
    sum instead. 
    
    The interesting thing is that living in Reading (40 miles from London)
    where the UK HQ and Engineering Centre is, is just about as expensive
    as London itself and no-one there gets an allowance.

    No-one every said life was fair !
    
    Jon

    re: .37 
    
>   Actually, I'm surprised (am I really I ask myself ?) that NYC doesn't
>   have some sort of allowance. 

    There is indeed an allowance for those of us working here in New York, but
    the cost of living, especially in the city itself, is still outrageous.
    There is both a state and city income tax (up to 9% state tax and city tax
    of 0.45% for commuters, 4% for residents.) as well as an 8.25% sales tax.
    Rents are insane, condo prices worse, and the cost of transporting things
    like groceries, clothing, household items, etc. into the city add a good 5
    to 10% their cost compared to the 'burbs.

    - Andy

    re:.38
    
    
    I was on a ski trip to Vermont this winter and  as we passed by
    High Point, New Jersey there were new condos being built.  I said
    to myself "who is going to buy condos way out here?"  As we got
    closer there was a sign that had a number of sales features of the
    place including "easy commute to the city".  My God!!!  It has to
    be 100 miles from the city!  Yes the prices are insane here but
    that must be ridiculous!

    As a Cost Center Manager I have to administer a Salary Plan for 130
    employees. This is probably the most disagreeable job I have to do because
    I feel my hands are tied by the system. I currently have two senior
    supervisors making less than every supervisor working for them! They were
    internal promotions who were brought the the minimum for their job code.
    The ranges overlap such that recent hires they made are now making more
    than they are. I have no choice but to hold the new hires increases back
    in an effort to bring them up to where they should be. 
    
    We're in the semiconductor industry but DO NOT pay competitive
    semiconductor wages. When I hire externally I HAVE to pay industry wages
    (albeit on the low side, thank God for our no lay-off policy) which skews
    things pretty badly here. I have significant differences between people
    doing essentially the same job simply because some were home-grown and
    some were external hires. I have little hope this will be changed. We're
    such a small percentage of DEC's workforce, Corporate will not adjust our
    salary ranges up from what they pay in other DEC manufacturing facilities.
    The result is that we cannot attract the best and brightest from outside,
    especially when they get a look at the cost of living here in Mass!
    
    Someone else already mentioned the problem of bringing people in too low
    to start off. I couldn't agree more but in EVERY internal promotion I've
    seen, this is the case. Another problem is that planned promotions have to
    be paid for right off the top of the salary plan, leaving that much less
    for the rest of the group. If this is the case why not go external rather
    than promote? Planning salaries isn't much fun and it always leaves me
    more than a little frustrated.
    
    Steve

I too am dismayed. My current position doesn't require much business travel
but one I am looking at does- more or less a residency with other side trips
to other sites and occasional trips to the Area office (4 hrs. away). Very
big  need for a company car! Since my current salary fits into the salary
scale of the new position I'm not elegible for an increase (could get
increase to bottom of new scale if I was below the range though).

I talked to a manager friend and he indicated I would have no success in
trying to get a pay increase to cover the anticipated car expenses (ala the
'Plan A bye-bye note'). Then he said 'But if you were coming from outside
the company then DEC could pay lots more $$$ if they felt they had to in
order to hire someone with your skills'. (My current skill set is a perfect
match for a new position happening soon- I can 'hit the ground running'
so-to-speak. I am currently an internal customer person; the new position
will be one serving external customers.)

I was dismayed to discover (while digging through some of my old files) a
report from one of those consulting firms that examine compensation for
various jobs across many firms. I was shocked to discover that my *current*
salary at DEC was the average salary for jobs similar to mine... in 1984!

At this point I feel compelled to examine opportunities outside of DEC. It
would appear on the surface that if I were to land a comparable job outside
of DEC today, and I received 'industry average' pay [hey... isn't that what
DEC says the pay their workers?], I could (maybe) net about a 20%-25%
increase in pay (my guess at cumulative effect of inflation over the past
4.5 years)... and the irony of it all is that DEC would probably pay that
amount to hire me off of the street!!!

This sort of ties into the note that I started about what will happen if
DEC's long-term and experince laden people increase their rate of departure.
Can DEC afford to hire new faces off of the street with similar talent?

DEC surely must be counting on employee loyalty as a significant factor in
its assumtions of what steps it can take to reduce costs and still maintain
employees that are satisfied. And satisfied employees are crucial to the
success of DEC- they are what got DEC to where they are today.

Lee

    Well now that I have slogged through all these notes...
    
    It's interesting to read what people percieve to be a 'policy' or
    'the way it is in Digital'.
    
    All job changes are lateral?  Baloney.  I'm living proof of an upward
    move to a new position.  A friend of mine recently went up four
    levels in one job change!  If you have the skill set to perform the 
    job, then you should be paid to do it.  
    *IF* you are paid to do it probably depends upon your negotiation skills.
    
    As to personnel reps who want to know who else you're talking to
    so that they can 'coordinate' their efforts?  
    Bull Hockey.  Don't show your cards until you accept a job. 
    They only know as much as you divulge.  

    RE:>.40
    
    NOW I  can accept it!  Your explanation makes this all understandable
    to me and now I can be sympathetic to your position.  
    
    Thanks for the sensitive reply,
    b

    re: .37

    Thanks for the correction!  You were right, if the "standard" of living
    is higher here in NYC, I would've hired two maids already...pretty 
    ones ;-)))

    The allowance of NYC, as Andy pointed out, won't even cover the 
    additional taxes, forget about commuting cost and *cost* of living
    adjustment.  That's why people here always complain about the money
    they make is less than the "industry" average in NYC.  That's probably
    why most people in the NY Financial District work in DEC for less than
    two years!  And now, they are talking about taking away our 
    allowance?!?

    Are there any jobs in India?

    Thomas

    
             
    For your information regarding my original note 579.0:
                  
    I have accepted a job.  Towards the end of the "negotiating period"
    I did allow the personnel reps to talk to one another.  Luckily
    it all worked out for the best.  If anything, the parameters of the
    job offers increased not decreased - however that was part luck.
                                                 
    The advice presented here was for the most part good and I would
    have taken it but most of the process had taken place when I input
    the note.  
    
    Thanks, take care and success to all of you.....
    
    JO'R