Conference 7.286::digital

    I never heard of this....  I know that Hancock now provides physical
    exams at intervals based on your age - the older you are, the more
    frequent the exams.  Younger people don't need an exam every year,
    unless they have serious health problems.
    
    What do you do that makes you a "key" employee?
    
    				Steve

	Key employees in SWS are Consultant I and above and all managers, line
and staff.  I'm sure other functions are similar. 

	The car plan thing didn't really surprise me, this does.  It is only 
$250 a year max, and doesn't cover stress or metabolism tests (treadmill). 

	This cost control thing is getting REAL petty!

    <FLAME ON>
    
    Again, the distinction between SWS/Consultant I and the rest of
    us--the "peons", so to speak.  Just recently, the distinction was
    made between the so-called "key employees" in relation to the symposia
    being run as industry training for Sales Support specialists.  Since
    DEC is in a cost-cutting mode, everyone attending these symposia
    has to share hotel rooms, with the exception of anyone at UM/Consultant
    level or above.  What makes their privacy/toiletry needs any different
    than those of non-key employees?  And, what makes their health any
    more important than mine?  Most of the UMs/Consultants here are
    about the same age as me.  Why should they have been entitled to
    more health care than the "individual contributors", another euphemism
    for the "non-key" employees.
    
    <FLAME OFF>
    
    Really, I love Digital, but this segregation based on job code is
    ridiculous, and counter-productive to say the least.  There was
    more talk and dissension among the ranks over the accommodations
    for the symposia than when we received notice of the demise of Plan
    A.  All Digital employees are HUMANS (I hope), and therefore should 
    be treated equally when it comes to issues such as privacy, health, 
    etc.  The UMs and Consultants are already receiving compensation
    for their jobs, which they chose, added responsibility and all.
                                                                   

All of the reports on the usefulness of periodic physicals for people
without symptoms have concluded that the cost is greater than the benefit.
These reports note that
	1. getting symptoms checked out is something that everyone should do
	2. changing to a better life style is something everyone should do
and these things don't need an expensive physical.

And I had a friend who avoided the physical for almost a year because he
knew that he would be told that he was at risk; he died of a heart attack
before he had a physical.  I'm convinced that nothing said at a physical
would have influenced a change in his life style in time.

    OK, you finally got to me enough to add my $.02 worth.
    
    About three years ago, my wife's boss was on vacation out in New
    Hampshire when he had a heart attack. (He did recover.)  My wife
    being surprised by this event suggested that I go have a physical
    since I was about the same age (late 30's) as her boss.  So I went.
    
    Everything during the exam was OK until the blood work came back
    from the lab.  Yes, the cholesterol level was a little high (whose
    isn't) but the triglycerides were through the roof.  I felt fine
    but in my case my body does not handle carbohydrates as well as
    it should.  Without the physical, I would not have known and would
    have been in jeopardy of a heart attack at any time.
    
    BOTTOM LINE - Physicals do help save lives and should be required
    for everyone atleast once every five years. And yes, the company
    should pay since it is cheaper than the problems of finding
    replacements.
    Lee G.
    <Flame off>

    Re: .5
    
    As I said, the company DOES pay (if you have John Hancok) for
    physicals.  If you have an HMO, that depends on the particular
    group.  This is a recent (past 6 months) addition to the medical
    benefits.
    
    				Steve

    	RE: .3
    
�        Again, the distinction between SWS/Consultant I and the rest of
�    us--the "peons", so to speak...
�    And, what makes their health any
�    more important than mine?  Most of the UMs/Consultants here are
�    about the same age as me.  Why should they have been entitled to
�    more health care than the "individual contributors", another euphemism
�    for the "non-key" employees.
    
    	It has nothing to do with age, but with the investment Digital
    has made in an individual.  A Specialist I could be 50 years old
    -- but based on salary, benefits, value to Digital, experience in
    their field, etc., they are "worth" the same to Digital as another
    Specialist I.  On the other hand, as a Consultant with almost 16 years
    at Digital, I don't believe it's unreasonable to feel that I am
    worth a bit more to Digital than that Spec I, even though I'm nowhere
    *near* 50!  Or even 40!
    
    	And I don't think that Digital has ever taken advantage of
    "levels".  I know of many, many companies who, when it is time to
    dole out "benefits" such as company cars, etc., start at the top
    and work down.  Digital has always addressed who *needs* the benefits.
    What about all those Consultants, UMs, DMs, etc. who, for the past
    years, have not been elegible for company cars, while most of the
    "peons" (your word) have?!
    
    	An employee's health should be important to any company; and
    I think we're seeing a changing trend in the last few months, as
    the health care benefits are modified.  However, *until* they were
    changed -- that is, as long as our standard carrier, John Hancock,
    did *not* support well-care -- I believe that Digital was well within
    their rights to identify "key employees" whose value to the company
    warranted periodic physicals.  It just so happened that the criteria
    they used was job level; they could have used time with the company,
    badge number, or eye color, if they thought that any of those could
    clearly define "value to the company".  Personally, I think they
    chose the criteria that was easiest to equate to value, even though
    I'm sure they knew it wasn't 100% fool-proof.

    
    To .7:
    
    ...point well taken.  Didn't see your comments re: the "need" for
    Consultants and above to have hotel rooms to themselves while the
    rest have to live barracks style?
    
    I've been at DEC for 8 1/2 years, started at this company at 10K
    a year, have always had good P.A.'s, spent two years of the eight
    criss-crossing the USA flying thousands of miles supporting districts
    and such, and have passed up numerous opportunities to leave the
    company for more $$/and higher levels of responsibility, and... happen
    to be a SW Specialist III.  I'm personally proud of this company,
    my experience and the choices I've made that to remain here, and
    am not trying to complain.
    
    On the other side: I know of a now-manager that spent a few years
    with Digital at levels that equate with where I was at that
    time, left the company for two years and was hired-back in as a
    manager recently.  Another example: A person starts out as a SW Specialist
    I and spends close to 10 loyal years in this company extending his 
    career to SW Specialist IV.  Another person who has similar or less
    experience at another company (hypothetical SUN or IBM)is hired into 
    DEC as a Consultant I or higher (got to grab these people while
    we can!).  
    
    The point is:         
    
    One gets the single hotel room -- the other does not.  I'm not 
    arguing your basic premise, ie: Levels=Value to the company.  However,
    it is not as "clean" as you make it look.  As above, things can
    get very blurry.   
    
    This is not a complaint.  It's just when managers make willy-nilly
    decisions like this (and happen to be the primary beneficiaries
    of the policy), it sends a big message to the organization regarding
    how people are valued.  Notice: I am speaking specifically to the
    rewarding of hotel rooms per the earlier note.
    
    I just got the US Field News at my home the other day and it mentioned
    Bill Ferry's new push in the organization regarding "Valueing
    Differences"--a point was made to conclude that this not only meant
    in relation to race, gender, etc., but to the way individuals were
    seen within the organization--as respected, valued, empowered corporate
    citizens from the top down.  To me, this kind of "I get the hotel
    room you don't" stuff flys in the face of these assertions from
    our illustrious VP.  Why don't we stop with the rhetoric and walk
    the talk.  
    
    Bob.. who didn't go to training and feels bad that we put up these
    types of barriers.  What ever happened to the "being in this together"
    attitude that started back in the Mill in the late 50's...
    
    I wonder whether those "organizational consultants" we brought in
    and funded w/ big bucks at the Country Managers meeting just recently
    to give us insights into making the SWS organization more dynamic were 
    really listened to...or was the "hotel room" decision made before
    we became enlightened?   
    
    I'm waiting for a reply regarding this decision that is consistent
    with what I read in the US Field News regarding our organization's
    new attitude.  Do you think I'll get one?!
    
    Not mad...just dissapointed.
    
                     
    
    

    
    I agree that this doubleing up stuff is for the birds. Any time an
    employee stays away from home he/she is giving digital a great deal of
    their personal time. I think digital owes to that employee to make
    his/her stay as enjoyable as possible. I don't agree that just because
    a UM or a Cons get's a single is reason to condem DEC for life. I'm
    sorry - rank hath it's privs! I spent 9 years in SWS, going from a Spec
    I (didn't have numbers then!) to Cons I. Each time a excellance award
    weekend was held (back when they were fun) and all the managers and
    cons went I gripped but I also said "wait until I'm one!". Of course,
    they changed the rules about 2 months before I became one! 
    
    There are always levels. That's what promotions are all about. As
    you're given more responsiblities and authority you get more
    compensation. And just like everyone, UMs and Cons in digital think
    they're underpaid. I don't know about you but I'd NEVER take a UM's
    job without some MAJOR perks. Just far too much hassle and not enough
    authority to change it one bit!
    
    

    
    .9: All well taken.  I feel you make an important point and that
    there is a case for what you said.  I don't mean to give the 
    impression that I'm ranking on DEC as a whole, or even Software
    Services.  There are many exceptionally positive things we can
    speak of when talking about the Company.
    
    I just see this happening all too frequently. My note isn't going
    to stop it from happening or cause the decision-makers to rethink
    their strategies.  But if we are going to talk about truly valuing
    people one way you're not going to do it, in my opinion, is by saying 
    SW Specialists to the left, Managers and Consultants to the right
    when it comes to handing out hotel rooms at training.  It doesn't
    leave a very good impression.  And I think it probably doesn't
    create as much "creative competition" to become a UM/Cons. as
    it does demoralize individuals in the organization.  I could be
    wrong, but this is the way I feel.
    
    We say this type of behavior is ok, we justify it to ourselves,
    we legitimize it, and before long where are we?  How far do we
    go from there?  What will we see next?  I'm being hypothetical
    but lets simply ask if its the "right thing to do?" Or--would
    this be something Ken Olsen would stand up for?  Maybe this is
    being simplistic, of course Ken doesn't/can't really reach down and
    affect each and every corporate manuever.  But isn't there a
    point to be made here.  It focuses on the "haves/have-nots" rather
    than speaking to a true sense of unity and mutual respect.
    I guess the idealist in me simply won't give up.  I hope when I'm
    a consultant or manager I can roll up my sleaves, at least from
    time to time given so-called major responsibilities, and show the
    people that look to me for leadership that I'm right in there with
    'em and wouldn't ask them/require them/inflict on them anything
    I wouldn't or couldn't do myself.  There is something to say here.
    Yeh, its unrealistic to expect this can be done at every opportunity
    --but we should be sensitive about the impression that we leave.
    Its an attitude...
    
    My software district manager remarked in a unit meeting recently
    that she felt proud and good to work for a company where the CEO
    drives a Ford to work everyday...that it had something to say
    about the kind of company we are.  I couldn't agree with her more.
    But these types of actions, in one man's opinion, don't set the
    tone for a company that respects all its employees equally, nor
    does it complement the spirit which I took this DM's remarks
    to mean.  
    
    Someone mentioned that compensation and "tools to do the job the
    right way" were the appropriate ways to recognize contributions
    at different levels.  I agree.  Listen, my comments in the last
    message where not intended to be perceived as my feeling underpaid.
    I like everyone else can feel otherwise at times, however for the
    most part I feel that I am properly compensated for my level of
    responsibility.  My point: This is where eccentuating differences
    should be concentrated, not in my opinion, on distributing perks
    in the fashion that we hear of ie. hotel rooms at training. Trying
    to segment and highlight class distrinctions isn't proper in my
    book. Compensation ($$), tools to do the job (hw, medical care,
    education, limos, large offices, etc.) that can be justified
    reasonably are appropriate in my opionion.  Relegating some individuals
    to shared hotel rooms and others to privacy doesn't seem to meet
    the acid test.  All should be valued equally on things like this.
    
    If software management was so concerned about saving money they
    should have shared rooms just like the rest of their "valued"
    organization.
    
    Nothing wrong with trying to make a good company better...
    
    /ba
    
                                                              
    
    Hope this helps clarify.  I respect what you say--I agree that
    you've worked hard and deserve whatever you have coming to you.
    That's the way I'd feel if I was in your shoes also.  But from an
    organizational standpoint I feel it simply looks bad, feels bad,
    and unfortunately is an accurate reflection of the times we live
    in.
    
    Best regards,
    

    re:  .10  "Rank Discrimination"  (I couldn't resist :-)

    Digital had a very egalitarian tradition when I came on board six
    years ago.  Employees at all levels (at least in our office) pretty
    much enjoyed the same perks and privileges.  About the only difference
    between ranks was that management got offices, everyone else lived
    in "cubes".  Car plan was same, Facility amenities were used equally
    by everyone, etc.
    
    This is *not* the same at many other companies:  "Executive" perks
    frequently include more luxurious cars, separate dining facilities,
    country club memberships, season's tickets, and so forth.  Your
    boss's office decor could easily be worth your entire year's salary.
    People fight and scratch to get into the ranks of the "Executives",
    and lord it over their less fortunate former peers.  I used to work
    for just such an illustrious institution ...
    
    I wonder if Digital is being afflicted with this attitude as we
    hire more and more middle and upper managers from outside companies.
    We used to train and promote managers almost always from within
    our own ranks; people who were thoroughly in tune with DEC customs
    and traditions.  In my experience, we never really had a problem
    with management and labor being viewed as two different classes.
    This kept the dreaded "u-word" organizers out of our hair.
    
    Geoff Unland
    

    re: .10--Your unit manager should keep in mind that our CEO is on
    the board of Ford Motor Company.  He probably doesn't get to choose
    who sells the car he drives to work each morning.
        John Sauter

RE: .10 & 12


	Isn't KO's Ford an old Pinto or Fiesta(?)?  I'm not sure Ford would 
prefer he drive THAT to work!

	I think KO's car decision was made before he joined Ford's BOD.

    

.7>     "benefits" such as company cars, etc.
                                             
    
    Dammit,you peons,how many times do I have to say this? "The company
    car is *not* a benefit,but a tool"

re: .13

	The rumor I heard was that when KO was to receive his Ford
	for being on the board at FMC, the Lincoln Salesman came to 
	see what type of car KO had in mind. Uncle Ken sent him 
	home, and a Ford Salesman returned.... 

/ted

        And the rumor I heard was that he knocked back a limo, and
        got a bronco instead. Aren't these rumors fun...
        
        
        q
        

    It's really no great secret what car KO drives.  Just look at the
    car in his parking space; if it's not a Ford product and not new
    then he is on vacation and someone else is parking there.  If there
    is a new Ford product there then it is his.  He gets a new one to
    drive just like other executives on the board do for a limited time
    (I think it's either 3 or 6 months).  I have seen several different
    models over the past few years and not since before he was on the
    board of directors of Ford Motor Company did he drive that nice
    Pinto that he liked so much.
    
    	/s/	Roger
    

    Hold on a second there, we have a myth that Digital does not have
    assigned parking spots.  Why would you like to shatter our nice
    feelings?
    
    - Vikas

    It's not assigned (or never used to be).
    Ken gets to work earlier than anybody else
    so he gets his pick of parking places.
    The myth wasn't a myth when I worked in
    the mill up until 1970 or so.
    
    I suppose it's possible that the place is
    now assigned to him. I hope it's not true.

                As I understand it, the space is not assigned to him,
        but if you park there (first you have to find it!) you will be
        politely asked to move your car. There is also a group of spaces
        nearby that are marked "Blue Pass Parking". These are "reserved"
        for the VP's and the other workers that are in that office area.
        Occasionally, even most of what used to be the three deep area
        is also cordoned off for large "corporate" meetings.
                
                Officially, there are no reserved spaces (except for
        certain handicapped people who have a space assigned and marked
        for them). Unofficially, it is obvious that there are a certain
        amount of "reserved" spaces; at least around the mill. However,
        they only occupy about 60 spaces which are mostly filled (less
        than 25% empty at any one time) and often fully filled. Also
        realize that at the mill, if you worked in K.O.'s office and had
        to park in a normal lot at anytime other than before 7:30 or
        after 3:30, you would be at least 10 minutes of walking from
        your car to his office by any reasonable route. That is assuming
        that you could find a space at all. I think that these people
        who guide the company (even though we don't always agree on
        their direction) deserve at least a little consideration. If I
        have any complaint, it is that it is hidden (unless you have
        some brains, that is) from the employees.
                
                /s/     Bob

    I wonder if Ken knows that anybody who parks in "his spot" will be
    politely asked to move. Could this be a case of people lower on the
    totem pole being more concerned than the person at the top. Possibly
    security is doing it, and keeping it low key, simply because security
    knows (suspects?) Ken might not approve. 
    
    Here's a way to do a test. Park in the spot. When asked to move, move
    right away. Then send a note to whoever asks you to move (and to Ken!)
    saying that you are sorry you parked in his spot, but you didn't know
    it was his spot. Suggest that the spot be marked to prevent further
    inconvenience. If the spot gets marked, you have an answer. Otherwise
    wait 30 days. Then have someone else park in the spot. See if they are
    asked to move. If not, then Ken stopped the practise. If they are asked
    to move, then you still don't know.
    
    Alternatively, call his secretary and ask. Suggest to her that the spot
    be marked and see what she says. 
    
    Post the results here. 

If so, do you really think KO thinks its a coincidence that his slot
is available every morning for the last N years?

I thought the spot was marked "Company Vehicle."

    re:.23
    
    You are quite correct John.  It is clearly labeled.  There are also
    other spots marked the same way.  I have also seen cars other than
    his parked there.  The spaces are well utilized by those that need
    them.  My REAL gripe if I really have one is with the "BLUE PASS
    VISITOR PARKING" which really is reserved parking for V.P.'s and
    their assistants or that is at least what I am told.
    
    	/s/	Roger
    

    Does it *really* matter that some key employees have reserved parking
    spaces, either formally or informally implemented?
    
    /Al
    

RE: .25

Yes. Reserved parking places, like selective room sharing requirements,
represent "thinly disguised contempt"* for the employees who aren't
accorded these perks. 

Maybe it wouldn't be so bad for our blue pass parking friends to hike
it from Outer Mongolia when they come to visit. Is there some reason
they shouldn't? 

K.

* Peters & Waterman, "In Search of Excellence"

    It would have saved a whole lot of notes if somebody had posted earlier
    that Ken's spot is labeled "company vehicle".
    
    I don't mind if he has a reserved spot. The practice is sufficiently
    limited that it doesn't cause me any heartache, even if I would
    prefer the myth to be true.
    
    I would object if the spot was reserved in fact but carefully not
    labeled so as to preserve the myth. 

    	RE: .several
    
    	A number of comments have been made regarding "differences"
    in benefits, particularly the "rooming" conventions sometimes used
    at meetings.  Since I didn't address that in my earlier reply (and
    was asked about it in at later reply!), I just wanted to comment
    that arrangements such as those mentioned are not made according
    to any particular company policy; they're made by whoever is scheduling
    accomodations for that meeting.
    
    	Recently, our entire group had a meeting at Myrtle Beach (a
    local beach, for those not familiar with South Carolina).  *Everyone*
    doubled up.  I'm a Consultant; I roomed with a Unit Manager.  *Neither*
    of us got individual rooms.  And there were no problems from anyone!
    
    	I only bring this up to point out that certain other "policies"
    (e.g., the previously-mentioned "key employee physical") are, indeed,
    company policies; others, however, are simply a matter of the
    discretion of the local office.
    
    	Frank

    Excuse yourself from the trip. I think a private room is the absolute
    minimum for personal privacy and relaxation. If no one agrees to go on the
    trip for this reason maybe they'll re-think the accommodations. I'd rather
    rot in my cubicle than share a room while away from home on Company
    business. Not meant to sound like a 'better-than-thou' attitude, simply
    the way I feel. This Company certainly makes enough money to spring for
    separate rooms at a Holiday Inn.
    
    Steve

    
    re .30
    
    I fully agree with you that a private room is the absolute minimum
    for personnel privacy and relaxation. Last August (1987), I was asked to
    share a room with another person even though as per the company
    policy I am eligible for a private room at my job level. This person
    was a smoker and I am not. He came from a far east country and had a
    difficulty of adjusting to jet lag. He ended up smoking me out
    all night for one week. It is really crude to ask us share room with
    some one we do not know, particularly considering the fact we live in
    the era of all sorts of communicable diseases etc.. 
    
    Just because comapany can save few extra bucks, why should I take
    the risk of getting some disease and stay with some one who may
    have some disease such as AIDS ? In my view I would rather stay
    in a cheaper hotel  rather than doubling up in  a Hyatt or
    Marroit or Sheraton and risk getting some disease for rest of my life. If
    not I should atleast have the option of paying the difference from
    my pocket and choose the single room.
                      

    RE: .30
    
    Come on now. I fully agree about the smoking and that we should
    not have to double up. But lets not bring something like AIDS into
    this. Unless you intend to jump that person's bones or expect them
    to bleed all over any open wounds you might have I think it is safe
    to say that AIDS in this situation is not a problem. Let's not add
    further qualms to the AIDS stigma!
    
    -Glenn-

    I would much prefer to have a room to myself, but I wouldn't really
    mind sharing one too much unless the roomee either smoked or snored.
    Then I would have very strenuous objections, would get another room,
    and argue strongly that DEC pay for it. Your sensitivities may differ. 
    
    I would not worry about catching a disease. I don't think there is
    significantly more chance of catching something from sharing a room
    than from sitting next to somebody at a business lunch.
    
    
     

  I think the subject of room sharing deserves a new topic, and I have started
one at 595. 

re: < Note 583.30 by GLDOA::SRINIVASAN >
    
Note -- you can't get AIDS from sharing a room.

	MKV

    Room sharing doesn't take into consideration that some employees
    may have personal needs that they prefer to keep private from
    co-workers.
    
    If I had false teeth, or wore one of the bags that some people wear
    after surgery (colostomy bags?), or wore a prosthesis of some kind,
    it might be awkward for me to share a room.  And going to health
    services and having them call your management to explain that you
    have special needs and require a private room is likely to raise
    some awkward questions in the minds of your management.
    
    Employees should be given a choice, no questions asked, or at least
    be given the option of paying a small additional fee for privacy.
    

>... or wore one of the bags that some people wear after surgery (colostomy bag)

Hey, didja hear about the "fashion conscious" woman who refused to have the
life-saving colostomy?



She *absolutely* couldn't find *any* shoes to match the bag!