Conference 7.286::digital

	I notice that the VTX jobs database gives the mail address
	GRIMLY::JOBSBOOK for comments, questions and other feedback.
	Did you send your thoughts there? What if anything was the
	reply?

					Alfred

    RE: .1
    
    	After reading  your reply I took the suggestion and mailed
    a copy of my note to GRIMLY::JOBSBOOK.    I also passed the
    memo up through my manager, and have complained about this
    situation directly to personnel.    So far all I know is that
    the policy is as I stated in .0.   If I find out anything more
    I'll post it here.   Thanks for the suggestion.
    
    						Alan.

    Tell Personnel that you are in the process of transferring to Field
    Service, and should therefore be permitted to apply for the jobs.
    
    I agree that jobs should be available to anyone; "saving" jobs for one
    group smacks of favoritism.  Maybe they aren't really being saved; have
    you considered that the person who told you this may have been
    misinformed?
        John Sauter

    re: .0  Welcome to the Club!!!!!  You're not alone.
    
    In one of those lucky instance where I got to talk to a recruiter,
    I was told the job had to be filled by someone in Order Admin. 
    I asked what organization that was under and was told OA.  I said,
    no, that's not what I meant.  I understood that mfg. would only
    fill from mfg., eng, would only fill from eng, finance from finance,
    etc., so...where does this group fall under.  Again the reply was
    OA.  I looked up on th corporate org. chart and found it was under
    Field Service.  Told recruiter that I was in Field Service and should
    be considered a candidate.  She was surpised and did not sound to
    thrilled but asked me to send a resume.  To this date, I can't get
    a response back either from the phone messages I leave or enet messages
    I send.
    
    In another case, I couldn;t get ahold of the recruiter at all. (the
    person did return my calls twice but that was the extent of it)
    I had the qualifictions for this position and asked to talk with
    the hiring manager.  I kept calling and leaving messages and outside
    of the 2 times the person tried reaching me I never heard another
    word.  Finally after calling and writing, I sent a message stating
    I wanted the name of the hiring manager and I would talk to them
    myself.  Within an hour I received a reply that basically said,
    Sorry, the position has just been filled.
    
    Oh, by the way, everytime I called this person, I was told they
    were in a staff meeting.  Seemed awful funny that a recruiter spent
    most of their time in meetings rather than recruiting!
    
    I also mentioned to several people that I didn't think it was right
    to put a jobs in the jobsbook without noting there is a restriction.
     I was told that was an oversight because there is a place for it
    when it is entered.
    
    Well, enough of my stories.  Just wanted to let .0 know it hasn't
    happened to just them.
    
    Don
    /\/\

    RE: .3
    
    	I have been told this situation is as I reported in .0 by
    several people now, both in my own facility and in the facility
    I was hoping to transfer to.     Personally, I am not going to
    play political games to get a job, and if I am told over and over
    that none is available I will simply have to look outside the
    corporation.    I can't see how this corporation can survive 
    what appears to me to be a severe and increasing internal paralysis.
    
    						Alan.

    re .0:
    
    I do know of some job postings in the Colorado Springs Customer Support
    Center which were being reserved for in-Field Service transfers only,
    but they have recently been extended to all internal Digits.  You
    should probably check back to see if those positions are the ones which
    piqued your interest.
    
    Marge

    .0
    
    I also ran into the same problem, looking for a job in the Atlanta
    area.  I was informed that there were many openings, but none were
    available to people who were not part of the Field.  This requirement
    was not posted in either VTX notes or the JOBS book.  I didn't find
    out until several weeks into my job search...   I agree that there
    should be some sort of coherent policy on this issue.
    
    The main problem seems to be a lack of knowledge of where the company
    as a whole is going.   We often seem to be aware only of what is
    happening in our department or branch of the company.   I know that
    this notes file is MY avenue for finding out what is going on, but
    what happens to those (few/many?) who don't know about it?
    

    Rick Beldin

    	RE:  .0
    
    	Alan, I haven't seen the actual postings for the dozens of
    	open reqs that have been listed in CXO3, but I'm in the hardware
    	group (spread across two districts) that is getting the dozens
    	of internal hires from Field Service, so I think I can provide
    	some information that will help explain the situation to you.
    
    	First off, we (and most of the rest of CXO3) are *part* of the
    	Field Service Organization.  Our cost centers here begin with
    	a '7' (if you're familiar with how cost center coding works.)
    	The Customer Support Center (at CXO3) is Field Service, and
    	Field Service is us, so to speak.
    
    	You mentioned that you understood why the corporation feels
    	it needs to "save" our reqs for Field Service engineers (since
    	so many F.S. people will need relocation.)
    
    	The Field Service organization is shifting much of the emphasis
    	in the hardware service business from the Field to Colorado,
    	so (as part of this shift,) many Field Service positions are
    	going away at the same time that we are hiring Field Service
    	people here, so in a sense, some reqs have been merely "shifted"
    	from the Field to here (although I'm not sure what the net gain
    	or loss will be for Field Service as a whole, when the shift
    	in emphasis has finished.)  What I've heard is that there will
    	still be many Field Service personnel who will be moving to
    	other parts of the corporation.
    
    	Meanwhile, we will get several dozen Field Engineers here, and
    	we need (and want) their Field Service expertise, because 
    	it's going to get very busy around here when the hardware service
    	business starts the actual shift to Colorado.

    	This is essentially a case of shifting people around within
    	an organization, but because Field Service is so spread out
    	(and because we aren't taking any group's entire staff, but
    	are gathering folks from a wide area,) they evidently posted
    	the reqs without explaining the situation in much detail.
    
    	Technically, we've been under a "hiring freeze" (the kind that
    	says we can only hire from within our own organization, which
    	happens to be Field Service.)  I'm surprised that no one that
    	you spoke with in CXO3 used this term to describe our situation.
    
    	I'm not sure where we stand now, but my impression is that we
    	found *more* than enough qualified Field Service engineers that
    	were interested in coming here, so it's all in the negotiation
    	stage.  Evidently, our managers went around the country on massive
    	interviewing trips, etc.
    
    	Perhaps the reqs could have been worded a bit better -- like
    	I mentioned, I haven't actually seen them (I've only heard the
    	numbers involved.)

    	One other thing is that there are *Software* specialist reqs
    	that have been opened up to the rest of Digital (even though
    	the CSC Software support groups are part of Field Service, too.)
    	
    	Unlike the hardware groups, the software groups have been unable
    	to find people to fill their reqs from within Field Service
    	(since so much of F.S. is hardware.)  So, as I understand it, 
    	they have changed their reqs to be open to Software Specialists 
    	and Engineers in other organizations within Digital.
    
    	The Software openings are not part of any shift in emphasis
    	(like the hardware reqs are.)  These openings are just part
    	of their normal business needs, evidently.

    	Sorry for all the confusion.  I've never worked in a group within
    	Digital that opened dozens of reqs simultaneously before, so
    	I don't know how such things are usually handled (or if this
    	is perhaps a "first" of some kind.)
    
    	The CSC hardware groups always seem to be growing, so you might
    	want to check us out down the road (after we get all the Field
    	Service transfers safely moved out here.)  We normally hire senior
    	engineers strictly from the Field (which is where I worked myself
    	before transferring here,) and I don't know what your skills
    	are or anything, but you might want to talk to someone at CSC
    	about the possibilities after we get through our current situation.

    	RE: .9   (NEXUS::CONLON)
    
    	Thanks for the extensive answer.   I really do understand that
    these jobs are being saved for internal transfer within Field
    Service, for good reasons.
    
    	However, I still believe that these CXO3 jobs should not be posted
    on the wall in CXO1 as if they were available to us, in manufacturing,
    when they are really not.   It's like false advertising.

	Even so, I appreciate the encouragement, and perhaps I will
    try again today, to see what is available.

    						Alan.

    	RE: .10
    
    	Best of luck, Alan, and remember to keep checking with us if
    	you don't see an available opening that looks good to you right
    	now.  (Things happen fast over here!)
    

     The U.S. JOBS BOOK is currently undergoing modifications for
JEC.  In addition, we have added several enhancements, based on 
suggestions mailed to the GRIMLY::JOBSBOOK account.  The new JEC
version of the JOBS BOOK will be released in July, after all of the
data in the Employment system has been converted to the JEC Job
Code structure.

     The new version of the JOBS BOOK needs to be tested to ensure
the new functionality will work, as well as make sure that employees
will view it as a tool that is both useful and easy to use.  The best way
to achieve this is to involve employees in the testing process.

     A testing schedule follows.  Each testing session will be
two hours with a maximum of six people per session.  A brief overview
of the changes made will be given and a testing script will be distributed 
as well.  Participants will have the opportunity to "play" with the new 
JOBS BOOK -- this is intended to be a fun experience.  We are looking
for CONSTRUCTIVE FEEDBACK.  Testing will take place at CFO2-2 (Concord, MA).


********************************************************************************

                          SCHEDULE


Monday, 15 May 1989

     Session 1:  1 PM to 3 PM
     Session 2:  3 PM to 5 PM


Tuesday, 16 May 1989

     Session 3:   8 AM to 10 AM
     Session 4:  10 AM to 12 PM
     Session 5:   1 PM to  3 PM
     Session 6:   3 PM to  5 PM


Wednesday, 17 May 1989

     Session  7:   8 AM to 10 AM
     Session  8:  10 AM to 12 PM
     Session  9:   1 PM to  3 PM
     Session 10:   3 PM to  5 PM

********************************************************************************

     For those interested in testing the new JOBS BOOK, please send mail
to GRIMLY::JOBSBOOK stating which testing session above you would like
to attend (please DO NOT reply to this note).  

     This note has also been posted in the JOBS notesfile (OASS::JOBS).
    
     Thanks in advance for your participation.


Regards,

Nancy Rayna
Corporate Employment
Employment Systems Support


    

        I encourage everyone who's interested in getting a better JOBS
        infobase (VTX JOBS) to help out.  I encouraged Nancy to post this
        invitation here, and hope that you WILL help out by volunteering
        to go to Concord and test (play with) the system.  Nancy's good
        folks, and this system is for your use. 
        
        Tom

	... haven't we got a network?  :>)

    RE: .9
    
    If they went around the country recruiting for people for these
    jobs, how come they missed Denver (a mere 60 miles up the road)
    Or is it just that nobody in Denver Field Service bothered to let
    any of the Field Servants aware that they were coming??
    
    

    	RE: .15
    
    	> If they went around the country recruiting for people for
    	> these jobs, how come they missed Denver (a mere 60 miles
    	> up the road)...??
    
    	Well, they didn't exactly go around "recruiting."  As I under-
    	stand it, they went to target areas where Field Service jobs were
    	going away and set up opportunities for people from those areas
    	to interview for our open positions.
    
    	From what I've heard, the interviews were held at centralized 
    	locations and people traveled from nearby cities or states for 
    	initial interviews.
    
    	With Denver being so close, any interviewing of people from
    	your office would have had to take place down here.  As to why
    	you weren't notified, I'm not sure what the mechanism was to
    	do that, beyond the normal posting (but it would be logical to 
    	assume that the only managers that would be inclined to encourage 
    	many/most of their engineers to interview with CSC/CS would be
    	from those groups that expected to have Field Service engineer 
    	jobs go away.)

    	If your group is understaffed, or can't afford to lose anyone
    	at the moment or in the near future, that could account for
    	why your office apparently wasn't part of this program, perhaps.
    
    	If you're interested in working down here, keep watching for new 
    	openings.  Like I mentioned earlier, things happen fast down here.

                             
    
    The CSCs did come here (New York City) to recruit FS people about 2 months 
    ago.  They had an 'open house' for a day, and anyone interested was 
    encouraged to stop by.  Many people did so, and we are losing quite a few
    of our best people to the support centers.  Management is not happy,
    because they have taken many T4s and T5s, leaving us with T2s and
    T3s to get our jobs done.  I heard (i.e., this is a rumor) that we were
    the first area to be visited, and that the other areas, hearing how
    we lost many good people, don't want the CSCs coming to their areas to 
    recruit 'excess' people.  
    
    
    jc
    
    ps.  They also hired some of our managers.
        
                             

	RE: .17 It would appear to me that losing a lot of your best people
	indicates that you are not taking good enough care of them. I would
	think that a good manager would take that as a sign to fix things.

			Alfred

    RE: .16
    
    So how do we know whats open down there in CXO?? They don't really
    post the jobs here in Denver, and I don't see a whole lot of them
    in the VTX listings. I have asked a few people about jobs at CXO,
    but if they move fast down there, by the time I find out about them
    they're history.
    

    	RE: .19
    
    	> ...but if they [jobs] move fast down there, by the time I
    	> find out about them they're history.
    
    	Sorry.  What I meant was that our *growth* (as well as our
    	involvement in exciting, innovative programs) has consistently
    	been fast here, so there will likely be additional opportunities
    	in the future for interested Field Service engineers after this 
    	current hiring session is finished.

    	You could call down and check with Personnel or CSC management from
    	time to time, or drop by for a visit (since you're only an hour's
	drive from us.)
    
    	If the CSC was set up to contact you first, your management probably
	wouldn't care for it, so all I can suggest is that you keep checking.

    	Best luck!  (And *do* come down to see what we've got going on
    	down here, because it's getting more interesting all the time!!!)

    
    RE: previous replys
    
    FWIW -- I just accepted a job at the CSC.  The way I got an interview
    was to send lots of resumes out to the managers in the CSC.  I got
    their names by looking through the Colorado jobs book.  I was told
    by CO that they could only hire people with a FS code due to 
    restrictions.  As with all restrictions, the reprieve came along
    and they called me out for an interview. If you want something bad
    enough you just have to push for it.  Sending your resume and keeping
    in contact at regular intervals goes a long way.
    
    It worked for me!
    
    Donna Who_can't_wait_to_start_her_new_job!
    

    Using Personnel (the JOBS book) was a waste of time last summer.
                              
    Skip forward to March '89...
    Like Donna, I got the names of the hiring managers, figured out
    their VAXmail nodes, and then just sent a letter to personnel
    with my resume attached... and cc'd copies to each of the groups
    I was interested in... with a formal cc list.
    
    I had 2 messages on my machine at home within hours.
    
    jeff_who_can't_wait_either
                                

Being one of the people who attended the recuiting session in NYC and who is
now hard at work at my new job in the CSC, I have to disagree that the CSC's 
have taken all the good people.  There are more people staying on in their 
jobs than have transferred.  Personally there was nothing left for me to do 
in Field Service as an Account Rep.  I wouldn't work in a Support unit and 
I have no desires to become a part of management.  I wanted to expand my
software abilities and with my FS experience I couldn't get the kind of job 
I wanted in a field Software unit.  The CSC was a logical move for me.  My 
manager was sad to see me leave because it would affect his buisness but we 
had discussed my career goals and we both agreed this was the best course 
for me personally.  He was extremelly helpful and encouraging and did his 
best to releave me of any guilty feelings about leaving the unit.

I know all the people from our district that have interviewed with the CSC 
and I am the only one who has actually transferred.  There are 2 others who 
have been made offers and 3 others who are waiting to hear from the CSC.  
All told this comes out to 2 day shift T5's, 1 night shift T5, 1 night 
shift T4, and 2 day shift T4's.  This is less than 25% of the senior 
engineer's in the district.

My view is that the CSC road shows have given those people, who like me have 
been think about moving to a new job, the opportunity to make a quick and 
smooth transition to a new job.  I would recommend that the company do this 
more often for the groups that desperately need people.

Jilly

    
    re .-1 and others
    
    I just reread what I wrote in .17, and I realized that it is probably
    mis-representing my own personal views.  I believe strongly in the
    policy which allows employees to transfer from one position to another,
    having used this policy myself a couple of years ago to escape from
    PSS.  I also know that there are a number of people in management who
    would probably be more productive in some other role (how's that for 
    tact :-}?).    
    
    In .17, I repeated what our management had said to me about
    losing their best people, etc., because I didn't see this view being
    represented in the discussion, and I thought it had a place here.
    
    jc
     

    For what its worth I work in the Washington D.C. area. We had a
    day with the CSC people in early April. At that time New York and
    D.C. were target areas. The "Big Picture" as expalined to us was
    that Atlanta and Colorado are in need of people. The LCG environment
    as we know it is rapidly dissapearing and so are Remote Support
    Personnel. They came here with 1 opening in Colorado and a test
    plan to have 3 Engineers in D.C. remotely support LCG, VAX etc...
    from D.C.. Thus 4 T5fs have expressed and interest and are currently
    in OJT at Colorado and D.C.. From the meeting they would have hired
    all of them and relocated them to Colorado but only 1 expressed
    an interest to relocate.
    
    	The corporation realizing that the "Field" now is changing faster
    ie less calls, longer MTBF, faster fixes, SDD etc etc... is having
    a verybig impact on DLH.  The field is OVERSTAFFED. This may not
    be the case in every Region or District but it certainly is the
    case in this area. I can't speak for N.Y. Thus the restrictions
    set forth to personnel on F-S getting priority on these jobs. I
    suppose who better to remotely support F-S than former F-S engineers.
    
    	for the record I'm Stayin' However it was tempting to pack up
    and go on the road again......
    
    Mike Turro