Conference 7.286::digital

	re .0
	
	Oh, were it only a problem of poor communication!
	
	The poor communication may be the worst transgression ---
	indeed, the dishonesty in Paragraph 45 was the most repugnant
	thing in many people's minds  ---  but it is only part of the
	story.  
	
	This recent decision to halt Plan A with one month's notice has
	levered a severe financial hardship on the innocent cross-section
	of the work force who have to travel as part of their job (and
	yes, there were other employees who were required to travel on
	duty who were not provided the tool to do so).  The numbers are
	spelled out in note 565.277.  This hardship is severe, and its
	impact on the employees is regressive, impacting hardest those
	who can least afford it.  NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE TO SHOW CONCERN
	FOR THE WELFARE AND SATISFACTION OF THESE EMPLOYEES.  This is
	despite the fact that they are some of our best performers of
	today and some of our best performers of tomorrow.  They will
	leave, not because they weren't loyal to Digital, but because
	they could not personally contribute such a huge sum to the
	company's current need.  Those who love Digital, but must leave
	out of obligation to their family, will be hardest hit.
	
	It hurts to see people who are unaffected by this, and some
	people who are affected but are able to take the hit, expecting
	one fraction of Digital to pay so dearly for everybody else.
	Think for a minute of how you would feel if you received a letter
	at home announcing that, beginning in one month, everyone whose
	last name begins with the first letter in your last name will
	take a pay cut of $6,000.  Think further then about how you would
	feel if you got to the end of the letter (paragraph 45) and
	instead of thanking you for your sacrifice, the letter boasted
	about how this would give you greater flexibility.  Then consider
	that this is basically what just happened to several thousand
	employees. 
	
	I know you care about Digital.  I care, too.  I also care about
	the people who work here - all the people.    We all understand
	that costs must be cut.  But we in the field know this is not the
	way to do it.  In the past, management would have come to us for
	ideas, and together we would solve whatever the problem was that
	needed solving.  Recently, it seems employees are perceived as
	liabilities rather than assets, and harsh decisions are being
	thrust down on them without concern.  
	
	We need to revive the team feeling.  There are already a lot of
	good ideas right in this conference for cost cutting.  Together,
	we can cut our costs better than any competitor if that is the
	priority now.  But as it is, the only cost some of us can
	consider cutting is the payroll.  A mistake has been made.  But
	everyone makes mistakes.  I know you want to be a good employee.
	But a good employee is not the one who waves the flag no matter
	what.  A good employee is one who is willing to call a mistake a
	mistake, and one who is willing to work to correct the mistake or
	at least minimize the damage done.  
	
	Please show your concern to management that something be done to
	help those who want to stay be able to stay, and that we revive
	our successful tradition of working together to solve Digital's
	critical problems.  Together, we can make Digital a company to be
	proud to work for and invest in.  
	
	harrY
	

    RE note 565:

    The following the is the text of a message to my District Manager and
    Unit Manager.  It was sent in response to our DM's request (@WHO) for
    feedback on the "Plan A Letter." Rumor has it that he received very few
    responses (~=5? - and the request was posted to every specialist in the
    district over two weeks ago).  Is that a reflection of:  Who's afraid
    of the big bad wolf; or of apathy; or are they all gone already?
    Please now, the "big bad wolf" is no reflection on the individuals at
    all, they don't like the new policy any more than the rest of us.  Is
    it possibly a negative reflection on the Open Door Policy?  My UM
    commented positively on the memo (I think), with no comment from my DM,
    as yet. 

Fred

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M

                                        Date:      1-Aug-1988 05:47am EST
                                        From:      FRED MULLER @ALO 
                                                   MULLER.FRED 
                                        Dept:      
                                        Tel No:    344-2201

TO:  Remote Addressee                     ( MIKE DELVECCHIO @WHO )

CC:  Remote Addressee                     ( MAYNARD LASSONDE @ALO )

Subject: PLAN ABC...

Dear Mike,

Damn the toolpedos, full speed ahead - because I am a member of the 
queen's na-vy!

I have a wonderful new ship, the taurus88.  I was not promised one,
nor was one required of me when I joined.  I was just a kid at the 
time and did not know the difference.

However, there is now a toolpedo out there somewhere with a 
mark-plan-a on it that is sure to sink the taurus88 sometime in the 
next four years.

When it hits, I do not expect to be in a safe port and to be able to 
replace it according to the na-vy's specification plan b.  No such 
requirement and/or specification was in my pledge of allegiance almost 
nine years ago (perhaps others were different).  Therefore, how can I 
be bound to any such conditions now?  I will replace it with a
boat of my choosing, probably one of my former vessels which the na-vy 
very generously scrapped to me.  I consider myself very fortunate to 
have commanded them under the conditions then extant.  That boat will 
be used as necessary for the na-vy at the going rate - probably not 
plan b.

It is hard to describe a toolpedo.  The na-vy did a very poor job of 
it.  My reaction may not be much better, but I surely will know the 
result when it hits.

Until one becomes the admiral, we all can somewhat understand, 
according to each's current circumstances, Tennyson:  "Someone had 
blundered:  Theirs not to make reply,  Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die." - and then conclude, during a calm in
the battle, that I still think the na-vy is the best one afloat.

Sincerely yours hyperbolically,

  \|/
  -*-
  /|\

Fred Muller,
BS, MA, PhD, USDEC na-vy

P.S.:  I know you have been getting some pretty long, long-faced 
replies and so the above was meant to give you a break.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    

    I would like to comment further about my "toolpedo" memo in 589.2. 

    My major complaint about all this new way of doing business is the "you
    must" implied in the "Plan-A-Letter" and how it is interpreted by DEC,
    the IRS and little ol' me. 

    *** The crux of the matter is in the definition of expenses for travel
    to one's principle place of business. *** 

    Up until a year ago (I've had Plan A for almost nine years as a PSS
    type specialist), I always put down travel from home to the customer's
    site as business miles with no push back from anyone.  After all, they
    told me to go there and it could not be argued that it was not in the
    company's interest to have me go directly to the customer.  Around
    here, if I had to go to the office first, then to the customer, do a
    "days work", then back to the office at the end of the the day before
    the final trip home, it would not be very hard to argue it would cost
    DEC an average of an hour a day per PSS specialist. I'll make a side
    comment here:  Ten years ago, when I was a DEC customer myself, it
    seemed like it was SOP for the (non-resident) specialist to arrive in
    the morning at a time that indicated a first stop at the office. 

    About three years ago I began hearing that it was a no-no to put down
    home-customer miles as business and I finally succumbed about a half
    year ago - unhappily - by direct order. Unhappily, because I had made
    it no secret for a long time among my colleagues that I thought it
    would lead to the demise of company cars (at least for PSS types - that
    Sales also got included was a shock).  After all, why should we be
    supplied with company cars if we do not use them for that purpose?  No
    Tickee - No Washee! 

    I had tried to impress upon all specialists with whom I had contact how
    important it was to do as I was doing with mileage accounting, but no
    one was interested.  I was not really interested in what the IRS's
    opinion was, that seemed to be the company's business, I was proving
    how productively I was using the company car.  Seems like we've had a
    fundamental change by the looks of note #565. 

    When I joined DEC, I did not know about company cars - can you believe
    that?  I went on site immediately.  After six months, when the
    residency was up for renewal, I was told they could not give me a raise
    (promotion?) so soon; but, that I could order a new company car.  Oh
    boy, was I overjoyed!  I naively did not read much into it at the time,
    life was so wonderful.  This site had been a problem customer before my
    time and I was the key to what wound up to be over two years of big
    bucks revenue. 

    Now I need to switch gears for some speculation. 

    I was hired and knew specifically where I would be working. I accepted
    the job under those conditions and did not complain that I had to get
    there myself.  DEC and I were happy as long as I stayed there.  But,
    what happened next was I was asked to go somewhere else - new places -
    totally unknown (unexpected?) at hire time.  There were more than a
    dozen times when it was more than 200 miles away, sometimes for
    months/residencies at a time, and I was not a spring chicken either -
    family, three kids, etc.  Of course I was expected to drive on
    Sunday/Monday and do a 180 on Friday/Saturday. 

    Let's compare a PSS person to the guy, who works for, say XYZ
    Cigarettes, and sells and stocks shelves in all the markets for a wide
    area.  We've all seen the cars on the road (they used to write it all
    over them but I see less of them now). The specific reason they have
    those company cars is so they can cover a wider territory if they leave
    from home.  I just cannot believe that they go through the nonsense of
    computing business miles according to the location of their XYZ Company
    office.  Someone please tell me if the IRS makes them do it! Pure and
    simple, the car is not for the employee's benefit, it is for the
    company's benefit. 

    Are we DECies any different?  The company expects us to do their
    bidding and go anywhere at the drop of a bit.  We are, for the most
    part, happy to do it.  I like DEC but I am hurt (financially yes, but
    maybe even more psychologically, mentally, offendedly, etc.) by the new
    policy. 

    Oh, one other soap box.  We've been hearing a lot lately in our
    district about how hard it is getting to sell PSS people because of the
    competition.  I used to think, just like all my managers, that those
    other guys came from "body shops." Good guys, just like the rest of us,
    but "vanilla" programmers.  A language - sure, program up a storm - but
    system services, system management, VMS tuning, DEC company resources
    behind them?  Now, either those folks are catching up or we are
    becoming more like them.  We are even hiring some of them as
    independent contractors - in front of the customer at his site.  It is
    not a bad game if we can effectively continue to add our own value
    without the customer deciding he can cut out the middle man. 

    What is supposed to be the new distinquisher? - Why, Projects of
    course.  I heard that story for the first time in 1981.  Really now, no
    sour grapes, it is an excellent proposal and I went to training for it
    back then.  Problem is, there have to be projects around and sales
    people who can sell them.  Haven't seen many around here yet - and what
    I mean by that is true "fixed price" projects that make good margins.
    And by the way, everybody cannot be a Project Manager, or even wants to
    be. 

    My crystal ball worked pretty good on Plan A!  Now hear this. 

    Since I first heard of "software support" going over to Field Service
    three or so years ago, there's been a cloudy picture in that crystal
    ball that seems to see PSS as part of Field Service.  I see the "one
    customer contact" as an excellent idea - and I see PSS->FS as a natural
    silver lining.  Sales support goes to sales, company organization is
    much simplified; only two field units to manage.  And, I cannot think
    of a clearer way of thinking about how we do business nowadays.  Most
    people I talk to think I am just smoking funny stuff again! 

    Actually, the picture started out much fuzzier; along the lines of:
    Well, I'm an old timer now, so who cares about learning VMS anymore? 

    You know - how it works: VMS parameters, abc type processes, etc.  All
    those good things that used to distinquish us from the "body shops."
    How did I and most of the old timers get to know a lot of that VMS
    stuff?  By the stimulation that occurred naturally as a part of
    "software support" which we moved into and out of "between
    residencies." 

    But how about the new-DECies?  Oh sure, send them to a few weeks of
    training when they are not generating revenue; or, no problem
    justifying training if it is directly needed for the project at hand.
    The problem is that, as the old timers drift off for various good
    reasons, who replaces them?  Not the guys presently in field service
    who are wrestling with the support issues now.  They are great folks
    but not too many I know are tickled with the extra work (although I am
    sure they recognize the job security) - they're just not software
    inclined. 

    Folks, the problem could be fixed quite easily by the new picture in
    the crystal ball.  Too big a change?  Oh, yeah... 

    Ah well, 

    Fred Another_weekend_shot_to_pieces_for_the_good(?)_of_the_company


    P.S.
    
    Good way to get the company car back again too.  Field Service did not
    loose it.  And how about a MicroVAX 2000 at home for every specialist
    for training, etc. (or wherever he/she would want to use it - the
    important thing is for DEC to trust them to use it wisely as they see
    fit).  Seems like that might be a good replacement tool.  But at >$100K
    per year per specialist it sure seems like we might be worth both. 
    
    By the sound of some of these notes it is too bad that some of you
    [sic] will not be around to see whatever picture develops - and I
    sincerely mean that in a positive (nowadays a "pro-active") way. Hang
    in there folks! 
    

    A short story...
    
    Once, during an evening out, a young lady apologized for ending the
    occasion early because she had to feed her pet.  When I asked why
    the pet took precedence over the time with me, she explained that
    she could explain the reasons to me, but not to her pet.
    
    My point is that when higher management is forced to take actions
    that are likely not to be well received by the employees, and either
    doesn't explain the actions or attempts to "explain away" the actions
    with demeaning fabrications, it hurts, because its like being punished
    for no good reason.
    
    The simple act of explaining what is being done and why, doesn't
    in any way reduce the hardship, but it takes away some of the sting,
    helps make the actions make sense, and keeps us feeling like we
    are a team and working toward common goals.
    
    A move to make the company stronger profits us all.  Mindless
    cost-cutting (which is how the recent actions seem to be perceived)
    can only erode morale.
    
    We are not "dumb animals".  We are thinking, feeling human beings.
    Treating us as such, with respect and diginity will go a long way
    to soften the blow of economic cutbacks.
    
    Jim
    

    
    Re .3:
    
       A few quotes from IRS Publication 917, "Business Use of a Car",
    dated November 1987:  (N.B. - This stuff is in upper-case to
    distinguish it from my own comments -- I'm not shouting.)
    
    	"CAR EXPENSES THAT ARE DEDUCTIBLE INCLUDE ONLY THOSE EXPENSES
       NECESSARY TO DRIVE AND MAINTAIN A CAR THAT YOU USE TO GO FROM ONE
       WORKPLACE TO ANOTHER. THEY DO NOT INCLUDE THE COST OF DRIVING
       FROM YOUR HOME TO YOUR REGULAR WORKPLACE."
    
       Under a section titled "Commuting expenses", we find:
    
    	"YOU MAY NOT DEDUCT THE COSTS OF DRIVING A CAR BETWEEN YOUR
       HOME AND YOUR MAIN OR REGULAR PLACE OF WORK. THESE COSTS ARE
       NONDEDUCTIBLE PERSONAL EXPENSES. YOU MAY NOT DEDUCT COMMUTING
       EXPENSES NO MATTER WHAT THE DISTANCE IS BETWEEN YOUR HOME AND
       YOUR REGULAR PLACE OF WORK OR IF YOU ARE EMPLOYED AT DIFFERENT
       LOCATIONS ON DIFFERENT DAYS WITHIN THE SAME CITY OR GENERAL AREA."
    
       However, within that same section there is a paragraph titled
    "Temporary or minor assignment" which reads:
    
    	"IF YOU HAVE A TEMPORARY OR MINOR ASSIGNMENT BEYOND THE GENERAL
       AREA OF YOUR REGULAR PLACE OF WORK, AND RETURN HOME EACH EVENING,
       YOU CAN DEDUCT THE EXPENSES OF THE DAILY ROUND-TRIP TRANSPORTATION."
    
       For clarification we go to IRS Publication 17, "Your Federal
    Income Tax, For Individuals", also dated November 1987. In Chapter
    20, "Car Expenses and Other Employee Business Expenses", during
    a description of "Tax Home" is the following:
    
	"GENERALLY, IF YOUR ASSIGNMENT ... IS TEMPORARY, THAT IS, IF
       ITS END CAN BE FORESEEN WITHIN A FIXED AND REASONABLY SHORT TIME
       OF USUALLY LESS THAN ONE YEAR..."
    

       Sounds like a residency to me...
    

    
    Frank

    Frank, 

    Thanks for the homework.  Would it be too pedantic to repeat and
    concatenate the following two IRS paragraphs you quote:

>      	"IF YOU HAVE A TEMPORARY OR MINOR ASSIGNMENT BEYOND THE GENERAL
>       AREA OF YOUR REGULAR PLACE OF WORK, AND RETURN HOME EACH EVENING,
>       YOU CAN DEDUCT THE EXPENSES OF THE DAILY ROUND-TRIP TRANSPORTATION."
>    
>	"GENERALLY, IF YOUR ASSIGNMENT ... IS TEMPORARY, THAT IS, IF
>       ITS END CAN BE FORESEEN WITHIN A FIXED AND REASONABLY SHORT TIME
>       OF USUALLY LESS THAN ONE YEAR..."

    I thought I was right!  Those paragraphs describe all the residencies
    I've been on, and can document.  As a matter of fact, DEC will not
    write one for anyone for more than a year (expecting lost revenue due
    to price changes) and most customers will not commit for more than six
    months. Also, we sell a skill - not a person - and now tell me another
    nursery tale. 

    Could I now impute that much of the $9/$18/$24 and soon to be $30 per
    week contribution to the company over the last eight or nine years was
    an overpayment on my part - and that I could get back that portion that
    qualifies as above?  I've got every single EEV and CLAR stashed away in
    three ring binders at home! 

    Oh boy oh boy oh boy - oh boy,
    
    Fred, Who_still_enjoys_Sesame_Street

re .6

Don't forget the other part of the requirement -- the residency must be outside
your general area.  Thus if you live in Albany and work on a residency anywhere
within reasonable commuting distance (defined by "typical" Albany residents and
their work places) the IRS does not consider your commute to be business
mileage, even if it is further than the distance to the DEC office.

/john

    Now we go down a rat hole.
    
    I live in Saratoga Springs, 30 miles north of Albany.  A couple of
    other guys in the office do the same. Right now it is not a residency,
    but a six months "fixed price" contract in the center of the city of
    Albany and the commute is 35 miles.  Distance to the DEC office is 23
    miles, which is on the outskirts of Albany in another direction. 
    
    I still think (hope) the IRS's "TEMPORARY" applies to all the "hither
    and yons" the company chooses to send us.  They are quite involuntary
    and it is not unusual to have to go 50 or more miles from the DEC
    office. Same for sales and sales support. 
     
    Fred

I think the IRS rules are pretty clear:
    
>      YOU MAY NOT DEDUCT COMMUTING EXPENSES NO MATTER WHAT THE DISTANCE IS
>      BETWEEN YOUR HOME AND YOUR REGULAR PLACE OF WORK OR IF YOU ARE EMPLOYED
>      AT DIFFERENT LOCATIONS ON DIFFERENT DAYS WITHIN THE SAME CITY OR GENERAL
>      AREA.
    
>      IF YOU HAVE A TEMPORARY OR MINOR ASSIGNMENT BEYOND THE GENERAL
>      AREA OF YOUR REGULAR PLACE OF WORK, AND RETURN HOME EACH EVENING,
>      YOU CAN DEDUCT THE EXPENSES OF THE DAILY ROUND-TRIP TRANSPORTATION."

The key phrases are "NO MATTER WHAT THE DISTANCE IS" and "BEYOND THE GENERAL
AREA."

Commuting is never deductible.

Out of town travel is deductible, but only if it is a temporary or minor
assignment.

/john

        In what way is this topic different from topic 565?  Why should
        this discussion not be taking place in that topic?
        
        Please keep all further discussions of the demise of "Plan A" and
        the tax consequences thereof in topic 565. 
        
        The topic note (.0) introduced this as a topic about where we (as
        a company) go from here, and did not focus specifically on the
        demise of "Plan A".  Further discussion of the stated topic is
        welcome.  Further discussion of "Plan A" will result in this
        topic being write-locked.
        
        Thank you for your cooperation.
        
        Tom
        co-moderator

    Thanks .10 - it was my intent here to look beyond any single example
    and begin understanding what is common among them all.
    
    I guess my style is a little drol - I certainly am not "waving
    the company flag" nor am I insensitive to the "pain" and "mistake"
    that WE have made.
    
    I'm probable making a mistake by admitting it - but,
    
    I am a MANAGER!!!!!
    
    
    Heaven forbid! Does this mean that once I was knocked on the head
    with the manager's wand that I lost all sense of reason, bortherly
    love and concern for civil rights?
    
    No - it means that I know longer am sure that I understand anything
    at face value and that I often need to set aside my emotional response
    to examples of inefficiency, ineffectiveness, self-serving actions
    and generally poor performance.
    
    I see all those things in my own performance in those I work with
    and with the company at large.
    
    What I do need to do is come up with specific tactics to overcome
    the problems I face and to "sell" those ideas to the management
    above me.
    
    We WILL solve our problem with wall street - we will also correct
    the "office of the future" and "p3" - but it will only be done by
    showing the powers who initiate these things what the actual cost
    (in their language) of these tactics vs the cost of continuing with
    the original problem.
                       
    I personally have been involved in discussions and communications
    up through the Area level to Country concerning the three last examples
    of "cost containment".  We are trying to reverse these programs
    because they are obviously contra-productive in our business and
    certainly are not accomplishing their original intent.  But - we
    will only be effective in doing so when we can come up with alternative
    which meet the stated objective - we MUST reduce our cost of sales
    and we MUST accomplish a better image to wall street.
    
    let's work together to correct the problem - and stop shooting arrows
    at imperfect people trying to do what they know how to do to move the
    company forward.
    
    Thanks,
    Tim B.

Re .0:
    
>    For quite a while now Digital has not been as well received on Wall
>    Street as we would like.  We have experienced "boom" times as our
>    technology leadership facinated the public, but by and large a number
>    of or financial figures have limited our appear to our stock holders
>    (largely institutional buyers).
    
>    Recently, our cost of sales has been a very sensitive point.  While
>    we grew last year in revenues at our traditional rate, our cost
>    of sales grew disproportionally faster. I know - we INTENTIONALLY
>    invested in our field personell which caused that majority of this
>    skew - but Wall Street doesn't look beyond the number itself.

	I interpret the markets activity quite differently.  First, we have been
    a technology company for a long time.  It is only recently that we have
    marketing our technology effectively.  It makes more sense to attribute our
    recent success to recent activities, rather than to something we have been
    doing all along.  The big run ups in DIGITAL stock prices followed marketing
    events like DECworld and the announcements of new systems.  The market saw
    where we were putting our money and approved.

	When the mess occurred last October, practically everybody misread the
    signs.  Everybody was expecting a REAL HARD TIME.  Well, it has been clear
    for some months now, that the REAL HARD TIME is not going to be anywhere
    near as bad as expected, nor is it going to happen as quickly as expected.
    DIGITAL got hit hard in October; A little harder than most of the others,
    but we had done a little bit better than the others just before things
    broke.  The October crash had nothing to do with what we were doing right
    or wrong. 

	Now we are on a cost cutting spree, and the area we are attacking most
    vigorously is our field operations.  The expectation for future growth have
    fallen off as a result and our stock prices reflect the change in
    expectation.  We need to restore market confidence in us, and short sighted
    economy measures will not do that.

	Poor communications and execution are not the fundamental problems,
    although they contribute.  DIGITAL is getting away from its fundamental
    principles.  We are focusing on this quarters earnings rather than on next
    year and the years after that.  It is no longer fashionable to 'do the right
    thing' and this has got to change if we are to continue to survive and grow.

	The people in the stock market are a lot smarter than we give them
    credit for.  They have seen that we do not have the will power to carry
    through on our plans.  The market crash came at a critical time in the
    growth of our marketing plans.  We had to respond by cutting expenses, but
    we singled out the newest projects, especially the improvements in field
    operations for the most drastic action.  This is understandable, but
    unfortunate.  The people who were not comfortable with the new marketing
    aspects of DIGITAL did what came naturally.  The people who should have
    stopped them were in a state of shock, having just had a large part of their
    personal fortunes wiped out.  It is time for the top level people in this
    company to wake up and re-assert their leadership. 

    
    Hey Briscoe (.11 and prior), what is this owning up to being a manager?
    
    I am also a manager (10 + years in FS and SWS) who is concerned (at 
    least about no plan A - see my reply in that topic).
    
    When I start in with my concerns I always keep in mind that I was
    (and am) and employee first and a manager by choice. That helps
    me keep things in perspective. 
    
    I know for sure it isn't anywhere near as much fun as it used to be!
    I'd like to get it (the fun) back ... but ... it still beats most
    of the other things I've done or been offered!
    
    

    

    What is/was "Office of the future" and "p3?

    If all of these, or even some of these, hard-to-stomach-cost-conserving
    maneuvers are designed to streamline our company in the wake of
    the stock market crash in October, then how long do you suppose
    they will last?  How many times must we loyal DECies tighten that
    belt?  The crash of '36 was followed by a succession of ups and
    downs for three years before the "Great Depression" of '39.  As
    much as I hate it, I think the costs are going to be cut for another
    3 to 5 years.  This is going to have the most effect on those people
    whose lifestyle and personal obligations leave them in a financial
    bind.  I worry because I am one of those people.  I made a sound
    decision 2 years ago which has been followed by successions of
    financial setbacks, some of which are DEC induced.  More of this
    stuff may be good for the company but I have nothing left to cut
    back on.

    Tom, RE .10,

    Sorry the topic I started in .2  & .3 spun off into an IRS discussion
    but the original two replies were presented in the context of the
    title of 589; ie, encouragement to the troops to hang in there
    (no matter the current and future aberrations of company policy?)
    I've accumulated a few shares of stock over the past nine years
    and I want all you good folks to stick it out with me.
    
    Fred

    
    There was an interesting article in the Washington Post last Sunday.
    It dealt with all the changes in the IRS rules regarding benefits
    and other "business" issues. The thrust of the article was that
    things are getting so bad for most employers that even basic benefits
    are getting tough to provide. No tax breaks for just about anything
    anymore and so on.
    
    I wish I had saved it...
    
    -Ray
    

    Personally, I'd rather see cost saving measures than people cutting
    measures.  At least we all have our jobs -- the same can't be said
    of many other companies undergoing the same 'hardships' that Digital
    may be experiencing.  My husband has been laid-off from Raytheon
    since February.  He and I can both feel secure that my job will
    be here tomorrow.  I'd rather "tighten my belt" than hit the streets.
    
    

    Re: the reply introducing the "crash" of October.
    
    My comments did not allude to that event, nor do I think that anything
    we have seen in the past 12 months was done because of that market
    adjustment.
    
    The "office of the future" [multiple people two one small desk]
    has been under consideration and deployment for at least two years
    now.
    
    The "P3" sales program to reduce our cost of sales by maintaining
    our current sales support to sales ratio of 1:3 rather than continuing
    to reduce it to our original goal of 1:2 and to re-emphasize customer
    funding of consulting that adds value to the customer (vs. sales
    funded to win the business in hardware certs) is also not a response
    to transient market events.
    
    Digital's cost of sales has been consistently high for the last
    5 years in comparison to similar companies.
    
    I certainly am proud of our long and exceptional record as a
    technologically advanced company both in terms of the products we
    market and the way we run our own company.  However, Wall Street
    does not place the same value on those characteristics as we do
    inside of the company.
    
    We need to see the company as those on the outside do:
    
    1) a fortune 50 corporation - comparing us to others in that class.
    2) manufacturer of high technology products and services - in terms
       of market volatility
    3) middle management heavy - not streamlined to control costs
    4) no dividends (a growth only investment)
    5) high growth in the past - THEY don't believe we can maintain
       that growth rate
    6) engineering oriented vs market oriented - the exception in companies
       of our size
    
    ETC.
    
    Once we see that we need to put some emphasis on those factors which
    our stock holders find as indicators of strength - then we will
    be free to continue to grow in our own unique manner.
    
    Thanks,
    Tim B.
    
    PS: - I was not appologizing too much for being a manager, I have
    been doing this kind of job in commercial financial consulting
    for many years prior to joining DIGITAL, its just that I get a LOT
    of "them" oriented arrows lately.                               

    
    I'm concerned about the cost-cutting because it's done in such
    a knee-jerk fashion.  One year, the company hires 10,000 employees,
    then the next year, says "Hiring freeze / wage freeze."
    
    Somehow, a bit more measured hiring policy makes more sense.  I
    was in the field (Field Service) until last November, and saw
    the budgets and the tools cut back again and again.  The fat is
    NOT in the field !
    
    The office I worked out of (when I left) supported two 8600 CPUs
    without ANY spares....for two years!  The customer, paying DECservice
    contract rates (2-hour response time) was under the impression he'd
    get his computer fixed quickly if it broke.... Last I heard, the
    office STILL had no spares.
    
    We also supported  several tape drives for over two years without
    ANY spares for them (TU/TA81).  There was not a policy to keep a
    spare RA81 HDA (head-disk assembly) in our stockroom despite the 
    majority of the VAX customers in our area using 
    them for system disks.  Catastrophic disk failure for them 
    meant: "We'll get that HDA for you as soon as we can find one..."
    I saw lead times for acquiring this part of three days, at times.
    
    The field service logistics organization "re-organized" several
    times during my stay in the field, and each time, our inventory
    of parts on-hand was pared down.  This despite the customer
    satisfaction survey scores that ALWAYS showed availability of
    spare parts to be the lowest scoring item.
    
    In general, I don't know where the fat is that causes Digital to
    have one of the highest cost of sales.  But I believe that
    continuing to slash at the field organization is going to generate
    a serious morale problem, and eventually manifest itself in
    diminished sales and customer loyalty.   Customers can detect
    the difference between an automaton and an enthusiastic, motivated
    software, sales, or technical rep....
    
    Here's hoping we adopt a more measured approach...
    
    
    

RE: .-1
    
  > The fat is NOT in the field ! 

    Not at the individual contributor level certainly.  But count the
    number of staff positions in the field now and subtract from that
    the number of staff positions that existed in the field 5 years
    ago.  Multiply that number by the average salary of those staffers,
    add in their benefits, etc. and you will have at least part of your
    answer.
    
    							Pat

    SET FLAME /ETC
    
    If .21 is meant to imply that there are too many people in the field
    for the work we have to do, then YOU come on out here and try it.
    
    I have read a statistic that the field organization is the SMALLEST
    arm of Digital, as opposed to engineering and manufacturing.
    
    But forget statistics.  We don't have enough people for the business
    that is begging to be had.  We turn DOWN customers because we don't
    have the manpower to deliver.  And EVERY cent of our income is profit,
    as opposed to money that goes into developing hardware and software
    that may or may not sell.
    
    The field organization is THE leanest organization in Digital, and
    I contest ANYONE to prove otherwise.  So all you people with
    VAXstations on your desks, gigantic facilities with extravagetn
    things like conference rooms, desks and telephones, you know what
    you can do with it!
    
    SET FLAME/BURNED_OUT
    
    Jim
    

    
    RE: -.1
    
    Regarding staff, the office I just left moved into a new building,
    the design of which requires a receptionist.  They didn't hire one,
    so the office is fronted by an ever-changing stream of temporaries.
    
    They don't know Digital, they occasionally don't show up, and they don't
    have any stake in getting names right on phone calls, etc.
    
    Again, I believe the fat is not in the field.  The places with the
    staff padding are higher up the line in the corporate offices,
    area offices, etc.  
    
    The resources taper severely at the field level, to the point where
    it's not recognizable as the same Digital.   The office I left
    also removed the single field-engineer VMS account (for 6-8
    field service types to use) on a system in the area office -- to
    save money.  Keep in mind, this was the only connection with 
    engineering databases and the E-net for these engineers. Anything
    else had to 'trickle down' from management.
    
    The field's an easy target, as the mangement involved there is
    typically junior management, and has less clout.  So they get
    cut, and tighten things up until they squeak....

RE: .-2
    
    I am in the field, and have spent my entire 10 years + with Digital
    in field positions.  So I have "come on out here and tried it."
    
RE: .-1
    
  > The places with the staff padding are higher up the line in the
  > corporate offices, area offices, etc. 

    
    Area offices by and large ARE the field.  And that's what I meant when
    I talked about an excess of staff jobs.  Receptionists aren't the
    problem.  We have far more people paid to count numbers than we have
    paid to generate them.
    
    I stand by my original statement that there IS fat in the field,
    but it is certainly NOT at the individual contributor level.
    
    							Pat

    re: .24
    
    Hi,
    
    	I guess we were agreeing all along.  I suppose I didn't
    really consider the area offices 'field', though they are by
    definition.
    
    	They are generally well-buffered from the customer and the
    realities of working under budget constraints like the 'real'
    field reps do.
    
    

RE: fat in the field

As an Area sales support person, I am inclined to agree with Pat. There
are a lot of staff managers at Area HQ who manage "programs" or other
managers or nothing-much-at-all. They may have a useful sounding title
and/or job description, but I think they could disappear tomorrow with
a minimum of disruption to what individual contributors are doing.

The P3 program is going to CUT sales support (through attrition) but
not management. [Probably some manager got HIRED to run P3!] I don't
think the USFMT has a particularly good finger on the pulse of their
organizations. By the way, I work in SWS. It was made VERY clear to
me at the P3 presentation that P3 is a SALES program. Ie, the presenter
(my grandboss) was pointing the finger and saying "Don't blame me."

I'm not sure, but I bet the other field org's are probably just as plump
at Area HQ as SWS. And you better believe that Area HQ's are the field.
We do plenty of the dirty work...

K.

	It makes a lot of sense that when major changes happen, such as
	the three major changes mentioned in this topic, that we really
	need to step back and take a look at the larger picture.  We can
	not just look at the impact on people, although we _should_ be
	looking at that.  We need to also look at the impact on Digital.
	It is when I first realized this need and assessed the impact on
	Digital that I became as depressed as I am today about the
	current state of the company.  
	
	Consider what has happened in one or more of the three situations:
	
	-  Digital has jumped to extreme cost cutting measures (it is
	reasonable to call a 20% cut extreme), the type one would expect
	in the most dire circumstances
	
	-  These measures were forced on people in some cases with little
	notice
	
	-  A letter proclaimed one of the changes as an improvement in
	flexibility when in actuality the change severely curtailed
	existing flexibility
	
	-  Despite the extreme resentment to the previous item, no
	apology or correction has yet been issued
	
	-  The changes affect the work force very disproportionately
	
	-  One of the changes has imposed such a severe hardship on some
	of the employees impacted, that they may have to leave Digital
	against their will in order to survive financially
	
	-  Employees forced to leave will include highly loyal and
	talented employees, employees who would otherwise make
	significant contributions to Digital in the marketplace
	
	-  To the employees who are hit the hardest financially, no
	concern whatsoever has been shown, not even a "thank you"
	
	-  A disturbing new trend is developing where the decision makers
	are acting in an "us-them" mode, seeing the field employees as
	the enemy to be conquered, and consequently making major decisions
	without input or even feedback from the rank and file 
	
	-  This new trend seems to have killed an old cherished style 
	of management and employees working together as a team to solve
	problems and make Digital successful
	
	-  Instead of consulting the employees, Digital seems to be
	relying on outside parties, such as Runzheimer, who so far have
	demonstrated little comprehension of what we call the "Digital
	Way of Working" or its significance in this company 
	
	-  The net effect of all of the above is an all-time low in
	employee morale.  Never before have so many notes been posted by
	employees who feel cheated or hurt.  Never before have so many
	employees spoken ill of Digital in private conversations.  Never
	before has there been so much talk of an OLD DEC and a NEW DEC.
	Never before have there been so many employees who could no
	longer support a major Digital action.
	
	
	How will this new way of operating affect investors?  True, in
	the very short run, they will see that a cost has been cut, and
	respond favorably.  But what about when the full impact of the
	items listed here really hits?  This is what really scares me as
	a stockholder.  The deterioration of employee morale will
	devastate performance.  The feeling of no longer being part of
	the decision making process will discourage the creative thinking
	and problem solving of abused employees.  The loss of top
	employees who leave due to hardship or insult will cut the supply
	of future products, services, strategies, solutions, ideas, and
	so forth that these talented people would otherwise contribute.
	
	In summary, the bottom line of this style of operating is to
	reduce the quality of Digital products and services. This is a
	matter of grave concern.  The damage here will more than offset
	any gain by saving a few dollars on cost of sale.  Furthermore,
	investors will eventually see that Digital is no longer the one
	big happy family it used to be, will see the inevitable
	consequences, and sell, sell, sell.  
	
	For this reason, I believe it is crucial for those among us who
	know the value of employees to the company's success speak up
	against these changes and, more importantly, this new trend.
	This is no time for flag waving.  This is a time when field
	employees  and the field managers who lead them to speak up and
	say, "hey, we've seen the changes, we've seen the impact, and we
	have valuable knowledge that a mistake is in progress here.  Out
	of concern for Digital, we are sharing our knowledge, in the
	hopes of enabling a correction that will lead to a brighter
	future for the company, the customers, the employees, and the
	stockholders."   This is the only responsible thing to do.  I
	believe that management still cares and would appreciate such a
	professional response.  -- harrY
	

    re .24
    
    Sorry - I did misread, and you are right.
    
    Area has been trying to phase out the cars in NEA for sometime now,
    but the outcry was too great and they couldn't pull it off - till
    now.
    
    re .27
    
    I agree that the only responsible thing to do is to try to keep
    upper management from making a mistake.
    
    Unfortunately, what they are doing is not responsible, and I am
    just to beat-up and heartsick to care any more.  (Not to mention
    there is no small fear that standing up to higher management is
    career-limiting).

    Its kinda sad to think that DEC Culture should succumb to the quest
    for the almighty dollar, but I guess everything else does, so why
    not?
    
    Jim
    

    Through th e course of the years I have seen a lot of propaganda
    circulated in this company.  I am not the most capable technician
    but I have one ability that separates me from others...I read between
    the lines.  When you discover that the written communications are
    less-than -direct you start looking for the meanings that aren't
    quite stated.  Sometimes you make a wrong guess.  This company car
    thing...the letter that was distributed to us...it was not completely
    true.  You couldn't read it word for word and believe it.
    
    My sole reason for this response is to state my observations of
    what the corporation thinks the field is.  We get The U.S. Field
    News delivered to our homes.  Not quite thick enough to start the
    fireplace but good for a couple of barbecues.  If you "read between
    the lines" you may get the same impression I have, that the field
    is an entity that you could completely contain by putting a chain-link
    fence around Stow, Ma..  If you cut a couple of corners in Stow
    it only effects people in Stow, right?  Now I live in the boonies
    of Pa..  I know what is happening to me.  I wonder how badly things
    are affecting people who really have to drive.  There's a lot of
    pro DEC sentiment in my area.  I wonder how these measures affect
    Sales people in tougher markets...say...Armonk, NY?  If I have a
    problem and can't cut it I am only one of 25 people in the office.
    Less than a 5% impact in my office.  What if the entire office in
    Plentywood, Montana closed?  Would that be reflected in the numbers
    reported in Stow?
    

    Salesman's Lament 
    
    I'm not the one who runs the train
    The whistle I can't blow
    I'm not the one who designates
    Which way the train should go
    I'm not allowed to shift the gears
    Or even ring the bell
    But let the damn train jump the track
    And see who catches HELL
    
    (Seen on an office wall many years ago)

    
    Re: .18
    
    Ruth,
    
    I wouldn't feel so secure if I were you.  May be I have become
    sinacle (sp?), but let me relate a personal experience...
    
    6 years ago I took a job in the Research Center of a $16 billion
    oil company.  Over 2000 people worked at this research center.
    
    It certainly seemed like a good business to be in!!  Working there
    was good.  Life was good.  I figured that I had found a permanent
    home.  3 years later that company no longer existed!
    
    Remember Gulf Oil?  Remember Boone Pickens?  Well in a little less
    than a year Gulf was bought by Chevron to "save them from a hostil
    take-over".  The company was dismantled, and the people scattered.
    The research center is now part of a local university.  All that
    is left of Gulf is it's logo.
    
    From that time on I believe that no job is "secure", and that "security"
    would be only one small part of my evaluation of a job position.
    
    							Jack.
    

    Re: .29
    
>   What if the entire office in Plentywood, Montana closed? 
    
    This is your correspondent reporting live from Montana. Just for
    the record, there is no DEC office in Plentywood. We do have a 12
    man office here in Billings and six other employees scattered in
    more remote Montana locations. Imagine being a remote of a remote
    of a remote...

    re: .27
    
>							Furthermore,
>	investors will eventually see that Digital is no longer the one
>	big happy family it used to be, will see the inevitable
>	consequences, and sell, sell, sell.  
    
    I don't know, harrY; if all investors sold off shares of companies
    that weren't "big happy families", we'd have a stock market crash
    unlike any other in history!
    
    True, this isn't (what used to be) "the Digital way" of running
    things; but sadly, many investors would probably feel *better* seeing
    a top-down hierarchy in the Corporation, because that's what they
    know best in large companies.  Many investors could care less about
    *Excellence*, they just want *Profit*.  And the fact that the profit
    is short-term isn't frightening -- they are planning to "cash in"
    well before things get ugly!
    
    I know of at least one *very large* media organization which would
    fall off the edge of the world if the investors cared *squat* about
    quality *or* employee morale.  They are profitable, though, so the
    investment bucks keep flowing!
    
    No wonder why America's assets steadily flow into the hands of foreign
    corporations who see the need for things other than short-term bucks!

>27  
    DEC seems to be hireing it new management off  the street and makes
    it almost impossible to get promoted with in.  We have asked for
    a program for getting into management for 4 years and just keep
    getting told one is just around the bend. One hell of a bend.
    
    For changes look at the new car policy for the field.  Get your
    own car as long as it follows management guide lines and it must
    be on a approved list or pay $30 a week to uses DEC.  
    
    I know that the F-IRS is behind a lot of it but just try and talk
    to management about it.  It comes down to, if you don't like it
    go find a different job or keep your mouth shut [some open door
    policy].  Upper management doesn't even want to discuss it.
    
    Reorganization seem to be the thing all the time but don't try to
    discuss it with management.  Their ideas should work and if they
    don't it is usually the fault of the people under them. [ideas are
    usually not welcomed.]
    
    This seems to be the trend of management over the last 10 years.
    
    The fild is all the time under the pressure of CUSTOMER SURVEY'S.
    They went out 6 months ago and the results have been given to
    management. How each customer has filled theirs' out has yet gotten
    back to the offices.  The new surveys are being worked up and we
    still don't know how we did as individuals.  We have to do better
    even thourgh we don't know how we have done.
                                           

    re:.32
    there is NO office in Plentywood, Montana.  See!!!! It's happening
    already!!
    

Let me give you a perspective from a non-field employee, someone who is and 
has been an overhead Admin contributor. Although I have my griefs with corp
policies, I am now on my 8th year and finally have a very supportive 
manager. I perform a corp function which is very important to both the Corp 
and to the Field (sales and service). I have been understaffed for two 
years, I have listened to promises of more headcount only to be let down, I 
have had to work 60 plus hours weekly not because management insisted but 
because it was right thing to do for the Corp. I am a wage class 4 
individual contributor, I have not received overtime pay, a vehicle to 
attend numerous meetings or an awards weekend because I met customer 
satisfaction requirements. 

Every organization in the corporation has its plus's and minus's. Every 
organization has its performers who do what is right and its non-performers
who do a minimal effort and walk away. I believe virtually every 
organization in the corporation has gone through reorganizations either to 
improve operating efficiencies or because a product project has been 
cancelled. Such reorganizations have meant some employees have had to seek 
out new positions - I have encountered this personally 4 times and each 
time it has meant finding a new position. I have seen seemingly perpetual 
hiring freezes and wage constraints that have resulted in my having to work
very high hours for the company with no direct financial rewards. Working 
in this manner does seem to have helped my growth as each reorganization 
and new position has resulted in a promotion.

I agree that some of the things going on now in the Corp seem to be without 
logical reason and in fact in some cases may have been communicated in a 
poor fashion. Bad news is always hard to communicate and even harder to be 
on the receptive end. Bad news is always controversial and bound to hurt 
someone. 

The positive is that the corporation is continuing to find ways to make 
sure that our expense to operate is in the correct proportion to our 
revenues. Maybe the corporation should look at ways to clear out some of 
the deadwood in all the organizations with layoffs - however my experience
has been that the doers eventually get and the circle always comes around
for those who don't perform.

Look at it from the positive - it can only get better!

    I just started my stopwatch and I am holding my breath...
    

    Let me summarize from my wise uncle: 
    
    1. Sheratsky's First Corollary to Myerson's Law:
       MONEY DOESN'T CARE WHO IT GOES TO.
    
    2. Sheratsky's Second Law of Inverse Vocational Dynamics:
       THERE ARE FAR MORE QUALIFIED PEOPLE THAN THERE ARE MEANINGFUL
       JOBS IN WHICH TO APPLY THEIR TALENTS. (also see "entrepreneurial
       drive" and "U.S. educational establishment")
    
    3. Sheratsky's Third Law of Inverse Vocational Dynamics:
       SOONER OR LATER EVERY JOB TURNS TO SOLID ANIMAL WASTE.
    
    
    
    kbs                                  
    

    re .38
    If there are more qualified people than there are jobs, how come my
    supervisor can't fill our principal engineer req. after all these
    months, even with permission to hire from outside DEC??

	re .39

	... maybe because of location, job content, opportunities for
	intellectual growth, criteria used for recognizing achievement,
	respect afforded capable people, pay rate, kinds of people already
	in the group, working tools available, and balance of authority and
	responsibility.

	There are plenty of qualified people, but most jobs don't need
	them.

	Regards, Robert.