Conference 7.286::digital

    Part of salary planning is promotion planning.  If the manager hasn't
    planned for the promotion it's probably (but not always) poor planning.
    In any case, I'm not sure whether the pot for performance increases is
    separate from promotion increase pot.  Anyone know?
    
    /Ed

    
    
    I'm going through exactly what .0 described. I was told that you must
    be brought to at least minimum of your job pay scale. It was stated 
    that this is different than the pay for performance increase. 
    
    
    brian

	Personnel Policy 3.03 says that "A complete salary plan includes money
	to fund a reasonable number of unplanned salary actions." So if your
	boss did a "complete salary plan" there should be some slack.

	The orange book also points to the Salary Management manual, Section 5
	for more information on promotional increases. I don't have a copy of
	that but your boss or personnel should.

				Alfred

    I have heard of situations in which an engineering group wanted to
    bring in a Digital employee who had completed night school and
    qualified for an entry-level position, but "The Rules" prohibited the
    transfer because the salary (and level) jump was too great.  So much
    for Pay for Performance.
    
    If this is true, given that the company is desperately trying to move
    people around, it seems to me some bureaucratic organization is 
    mindlessly blocking progress to our mutual peril.  I wonder whose rules
    these could be?

    Don't shoot me if I get this a bit askew, as it still makes very little
    sense to me...
    
    I heard an explanation of the difference between the KO/Jack Smith 
    statement on the Quarterly Review DVN of "12 months salary planning is 
    _the_ policy", and my understanding that "15 months * 80% of the 
    population" is the policy being used _here_. The person doing the
    explaining, a manager who had just (a) had salary planning training,
    (b) had just finished salary planning, and (c) rarely if ever lies, 
    said the following:
    
    While it is true that the Corporate Salary planning policy is 100% of
    the people at 12 month reviews, the money designated for salary _and_ 
    promotion rate adjusment is in fact the same money. In order to make
    the promotion rate adjustments for those people promoted during the
    freeze, who _MUST_ have their adjustments within 3 months after the end
    of the freeze (read, March), the Country management had to cut back on
    salary adjusments. 
    
    Thus, my co-worker who recieved a promotion from Secretary to fill a
    vitally needed Administrator position will get the money needed to
    bring her/him up to the Admin pay range, starting about March.
    
    Meanwhile, my last raise came in April, 1989. My next raise will (I hope) 
    come in February, 1991. 
    
    There is some vague hope that the FY91 corporate average percentage 
    increase will be greater than this years' (?) 5.2%. 
    
    There is also some vague hope that the tooth fairy will take care of 
    our dental benefits from now on...but let's not be cynical, eh? ;-}

    As far as I know it is not necessary that the correction has
    to occur in one year either.  You can be brought to the current
    correct level over a period of time too i.e., if there isn't
    enough money.  If there is enough money then it is a matter of
    justifying it too higher levels then usual that is usually goes 
    to VP level.

    RE: .4
        
    Sorry to disagree with you BUT the Secretary->Programmer HAPPENS!
    "The Rules" you are referring to have (or at least HAD) nothing
    to do with salary, what they did have to do with was the statement
    somewhere in the P&P or one of those "Other Offical Documents" that
    the corporation goes by that said an entry level programmer must
    have completed the Digital Programmer Training Program (PTP), a
    14 week intensive Internal Training Course and another 14 weeks
    of On The Job Training (OJT).
    
    In January of 1988, I was a Secretary.  I was fortunate enough to
    be able to go to PTP-17 the summer of 1988.  (At that time we were told
    it was the last time the class would be given, that's why I said
    the rules HAD nothing to do with salary.)  When my training was
    over I was IMMEDIATELY raised to the beginning salary for an Associate
    Programmer/Analyst, and believe me it was quite a jump in pay. 
    There were 2 of my classmates who were going through the class because
    of the above mentioned "requirement" because both of them already
    had an Associated Degree in Computer Science but neither were "allowed"
    to be promoted to the entry level programming position until they
    completed this course!  (DUMB, I agree but it's not the only dumb
    thing DEC does!)
    
    Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that SECRETARTY->PROGRAMMER
    is possible and HAS HAPPENED.  BTW - there were at least 5 other
    members of my class that were secretaries before entering PTP.
    
    FWIW!
    
    Connie 
    Programmer/Analyst (JEC job title change to -
                        Information Systems Specialist)  

    The explanation of the K.O./Jack Smith comments is very simple:
    
    Salary planning is done every 12 months.   The salary package (i.e.
    money) is "delivered" every 12 months.
    
    This year's salary plan/package provides for an average spend number
    of x.x% with an average "term" of 18 months, and a participation
    rate of 80%.
    
    So, they're all correct:   The comment about salary planning done
    in 12 month intervals is still true, while actual salary increases
    will average out into the 18-21 month range.

    
    Re:
    
>    This year's salary plan/package provides for an average spend number
>    of x.x% with an average "term" of 18 months, and a participation
>    rate of 80%.
    
    This is incorrect, it should read:
    
    This year's salary plan/package provides for an average spend number
    of x.x% with an average "term" of 21 months, and a participation
    rate of 80%.
    
    Or at least that is how it is in Bill Johnson's Distributed Systems
    Engineering Organization.
    
    Dave

    .8 is right. All of the statements are true. Having just been through
    the latest round of salary planning (a manager's worst job, believe
    me), here are some true statements (I hope):
    
    Salary planning is now done on a calendar year basis, and every
    employee must have a salary plan every 12 months. That's a plan,
    not a raise.
    
    Every employee should have a written evaluation of their performance
    at least once every twelve months.
    
    The average time between increases in now 15 months. Add the 6 month
    freeze, and this time around you get 21 months. 
    
    In a calendar year, 80% of the people in a group can get an increase.
    That doesn't mean that only 80% of the people in the company EVER
    get an increase. It means that from Jan- Jan. 80% get an increase,
    the other 20% are presumably in the next year.
    
    Some random observations:
    
    Given the state of the industry, we're lucky to get raises instead
    of layoff notices. Still, 5.2% stinks. As anyone knows, it's way
    below your most recent increases in taxes, food, insurance, daycare,
    fuel oil, health care, etc. That's life in the late '80s.
    
    Given that the salary ranges move about 5% per year, and there are
    fewer job codes and ranges, it could take you several hundred years
    to move through your range at 5.2%/year. JEC combined with the new
    pay scales makes it almost impossible to promote someone who is
    not already near the mid-point of their range.
    
    There are strange things going on. For instance, marketing and marcom
    codes are odd-numbered SRIs. Public relations are even. The work
    is often very similar. But to promote a marketing person from SRI
    35 to SRI 37 requires a huge jump in pay to get to the bottom of
    37. They can't go to SRI36, which pays more than 35 but less than
    37. So, JEC will slow down and perhaps nearly stop promotions for
    high-performing people who are low in their range. You have to give
    someone 20-30% to make a promotion like that. That usually means
    all the money you have for the entire group. I don't think this
    was inadvertant.
    
    Industry slowdown, demographics, and JEC combine to mean a major
    change in the way we think about salary, promotion, career progress,
    etc.

    
    It is difficult to see a direct connection between pay and making
    contributions to building a more successful Digital.
    
    It is even more difficult to see, given the business school entrenched
    bureaucratic approach to compensation and motivation, to see a direct
    connection to promotion with a well-earned large raise due to taking a
    position with more responsibilities that require more skills that
    impact greater amounts of Digital dollars.
    
    The current system nurtures and encourages job-hopping of those who go
    beyond their boxes to contribute the most.
    

    re .7:
    
    There is a separate pot of money held at the corporate level (not cost
    center) to enable wage class 2 to wage class 4 reassignments.
    
    .0, if this is your situation, you might want to apprise the incoming
    manager of this.  Not everyone seems to know.
    
    regards,
    Marge

 This was sent to me by someone who was not only in a position to
   know, but had nothing to gain by telling me this were it not true.
   This person requested anonimity and has been given it. This, combined
   with .12, may shed some light on part of the problem.



    The major (and very real) roadblock is the necessity of raising you
    from your present salary level to at least the minimum of your
    prospective salary range.  For more WC2 -> WC4 moves, this is a
    considerable jump percentage wise, though perhaps not dollar wise.
    Those dollars have to come from the hiring manager's salary planning
    pot (except as noted later in this reply).  If the hiring manager has
    to use a significant portion of his/her group's salary increases to
    bring in a WC2 applicant, you can understand their reluctance to
    fight the good fight.

    A further complication (which never has made any sense to me, but
    which everyone, from Corp. Personnel down through the
    group's Personnel Rep and Cost Center Manager, support as if their
    careers depend on it) is that in DEC, an employee's salary plan
    goes with him/her, regardless of transfer, promotion, or moves of
    any other sort.  In other words, if the company's planned increase
    for CY90 is supposed to average 5% (made up figure; I don't know for
    sure what the percentage is), and moving you from a WC2 to the minimum
    of your range as a WC4 would mean an increase of 15% (for example),
    you're well out of the "norm" for the company, and apparently that
    isn't good in Digital.  Not impossible.  But also not good.

    There is one other piece of information that you should know.  At some
    level in each organization there is a pot of money held aside for just
    these kind of contingencies.  Also any monies not used during the
    execution of the salary plan ("you didn't do as well as I expected"
    or raises pushed beyond the planning calendar because of STD) should
    be put into this contingency as well.
    
    As a manager I have always fought for WC2's who should be WC4, have
    documented it up the kazoo, and have usually won.  I have also used
    some of my WC4 allottment for WC2 because there are usally so few of
    them in the organization that they would get the % with no "pay for
    performance" if I didn't.
    
    I have been at DEC quite a while.  I find it very disheartening to 
    see the values of this company degenerate to the level where we all
    behave like automatons when someone puts a "guideline" in front of
    us instead of doing the "right thing" and being willing to fight for
    it.

    I think it's ashame that you have "document out the kazoo" to give
    someone a raise that they deserve.. I wonder how many managers would
    make that effort.  see note 1008  "how to get ahead at DEC"
    
    
    Jeff