Conference 7.286::digital

    I believe it refers to the efforts underway to start counting people in
    terms of full vs part-time -- makes a difference if you have 2
    part-time folks, since previously they would count as 2 separate
    bodies of headcount.
    

    At the present time Digital counts part-time people as one person
    in the headcount. Starting in July part-time people will count as
    1/2 a person or whatever % of time they work. The rule hurt groups
    that hired part-time people. With Digital pushing part-time employement
    to help decrease the population (see below) this rule had to be
    changed.
    
    Digital is starting to count contractors/temps/etc (depending on
    the job definitions/descriptions) in our headcount. 
    
    During the last hiring freeze approx. 7000 people were hired. 
    (btw: The last hiring freeze I went through the same thing happened). 
    Digital is now trying to control headcount. At our last quarterly
    the VP of our group mentioned that Digital will eliminate 7000
    jobs. This will be done through attrition, retraining, firing 
    non-performers ( isn't that unheard of in Digital). 
                  
    Finance was suppose to cut 25% of their jobs by 1992-3 however, the
    VP mentioned that there is a task force looking at cutting some
    jobs by this June.
    
    Stay tuned it should be an interesting 6 months. FWIW: Just heard
    some investment firm just bought/increased it share of Digital stock
    to over 5%
    
    
    

	... we have to look like a bargain!

	I just popped up my quote window an see we are above 74 now.  The buying
must be having an effect.

RE: .0

	Gee, isn't this a rather archaic way of counting people? And
	doesn't Personnel get paid to do stuff like this?

							mike

    Well, it's about time that we did headcount based on %time relative to
    full-time.

    Now, if personnel measured its productivity by content instead of
    word-count, that could have been a one sentence memo.


    /Peters

I believe the reference Joe was looking for in .0 was the "head count
equivalency" statement in the February 1990 Management Memo.

From what I've read, this change in the way "headcount" is figured is
designed to facilitate job sharing -- that is, two people doing one job 
(such as one coming in Mon-Wed-Fri and the other Tues=Thurs; or one 
coming in mornings and the other afternoons).

This would be a boon to many people who want or need to spend more
time outside of work, but who also want or need to continue working
(for the income, for the personal fulfillment, etc.). People who might
find this option appealing include parents of young children, those
taking care of elderly parents, and many others with special needs.

Now, if some of the "mental" barriers against job sharing can be broken 
down, the headcount-computation change could lead to new options 
and greater job satisfaction for a lot of people. (And it could even make 
Wall Street happy by allowing some reluctant full-timers to go part-time, 
thus reducing overall corporate expenses.)  [P.S. I'm fully aware that
there any many positions where job sharing isn't practical or desirable;
but where it can be done, DEC should encourage those who want to take
advantage of it.]

I was responsible for the initial Headcount Equivalency proposal within 
SSMI, and am a member of the Cross-Company Implementation taskforce.  As 
such, I receive information, comments, and suggestions concerning Headcount 
Equivalency and try to serve as a focal point for responding.

Headcount Equivalency is being positively received by employees and 
managers in general.  However, there are some concerns since it will be a 
new way of managing.

Headcount Equivalency will be based upon the number of scheduled work hours 
in a week, NOT the number of hours actually worked.  We are using the 
coding within the Employee Master File (EMF) to calculate this.
For example, an employee who is coded in the EMF as R40 (scheduled to work
40 hrs/wk) will be counted as 1.0 Equivalent resources.  An employee who
is coded as R20 (scheduled to work 20 hrs/wk) will be reported as .5 
Equivalent Resources.  We have a calculation for every R code (01 through
40) in the EMF, as well as systems in place to report Equivalency.

Headcount Equivalency is not being implemented as a way to reduce our 
employee population.  In all probability, reporting Headcount Equivalency 
may increase our total employee population in actual "Gross" headcount.  
Then why implement a reporting system and methodology which may increase 
"Gross" headcount?  Especially in tough times?

There are several important reasons.  Measuring managers on "Gross" 
headcount limits their ability to staff organizations in a flexible manner.
With the approval of Headcount Equivalency measurement and reporting, 
Managers now have the opportunity to utilize a variety of alternative work
schedules to get the work done.  They can now meet the needs of the 
business, as well as the needs of individual employees who require reduced 
work weeks.  Also, by measuring Headcount Equivalency we shift from 
managing "Gross" headcount to managing and measuring expenses.

Bottomline is that a manager will have a set salary and labor expense 
budget, and they will be free to staff their organization with as many 
employees required to get the work done as needed - as long as the salary 
and labor expense budget is not exceeded.  They will be allowed to bring
in 2 20 hr/wk employees to do a job that was previously done by a 40 hr
employee provided costs do not go up.

This is a significant management change, and communication will occur over 
the next several months.  Previously, managers have viewed jobs in 40 hour 
time blocks.  Now within the parameters of their cost centers, managers can 
look at jobs in less than 40 hour time blocks, hire the right amount of 
resources, and manage the workload more flexibly.  For example, a Manager 
has a current "Gross" headcount of 10 people.  That is also their "cap".
In Headcount Equivalent terms the cap is 10.0.  Let's assume an employee 
transfers out of the cost center.  The manager now has 9 "Gross" employees.
The manager may decide to hire two 20 hr/wk employees to replace the one 
employee who left.  In "Gross" terms the cost center has 11 employees but
10.0 (9 @ 40 hrs = 9.0 + 2 @ 20 hrs = 1.0) in Equivalent resources.

What Headcount Equivalency does is drive the right metrics on budget and 
expenses.  It enables managers to meet the needs of employees, while 
meeting the business needs.

Another significant change impacted by Headcount Equivalency concerns the
counting of Contract workers.  Currently managers do have headcount caps
on Contract workers.  Also, the current definitions on Contract workers 
state that they are only counted on the last day of the month.  The 
loophole is that Managers can "terminate" Contractors on the last day, 
reinstate them on the first day of the new fiscal month - and never have 
these Contractors reported as part of the headcount.  Keep in mind that
while we may not be "counting" contractors in these instances, we are 
incurring expenses for them.  This distorts the expense-per-employee
(or worker) ratio.  The new definitions state that Contractor workers will 
be counted on an "Equivalent basis".  Therefore if a contractor works only
one week (5 days) in a month, the Contractor is counted as .25.  It doesn't 
matter which day or days are worked anymore.  All Contractors are counted.

It is imperative that the correct messages are relayed to managers and 
employees.  This is an important positive change, and Headcount Equivalency 
is going to enable more management flexibility as well as provide 
opportunities for reduced work schedules for employees who have difficult 
dependent (child and elder) care schedules.

    Lets not forget the other side of the coin. When you work less then R40
    full time hours your pension benifites, overtime hours, regular
    employee benifites all change (lower). Your not covered by the same
    federal laws that govern R40 employees. All this allows Digital to cut
    expenses by cutting benifites both current and in the long run
    (pension).  Things are different when your not a full time employee.
    Why do you think so many companies out side DEC hire more people to do
    the job but never let them work 40 hours a week. These companies cover
    the gamit from fast food chains to nurses in hospitals and fortune 500
    companies. This way they pay lower wages, little or no benifites or
    make employees pay for the benifites completly out of their own
    pocket. The bottom line now days is to cut cost and this is just
    another way to accomplish that goal without substantual loss of man
    power or productivity.
    
    A rose by any other name is still a rose.
    
    Regards
    AL ROOT

    
    Re .9:
    
    Would a company that is fighting tooth and nail to avoid layoffs, and
    is willing to fork over up to 2 years of salary plus a year of medical
    expenses to induce employees to leave of their own volition, institute
    headcount equivalency just to force people to work part time for fewer
    benefits?
    
    Nahhh!
    
    Methinks you suffer from acute opticrectumitis.
    

>    Re .9:
>    
>    Would a company that is fighting tooth and nail to avoid layoffs, and
>    is willing to fork over up to 2 years of salary plus a year of medical
>    expenses to induce employees to leave of their own volition, institute
>    headcount equivalency just to force people to work part time for fewer
>    benefits?
>    
>    Nahhh!
>    
>    Methinks you suffer from acute opticrectumitis.
    

   Benefits ain't cheap - I thought the figure that I heard was that your
paid salary is only about 1/2 to 1/3 of the cost of your employment to the
corporation.

   If you consider this, yes, it does make sense to pay some up front cash
and then cut benefits costs in the future.

   Or perhaps you were being sarcastic?  It's hard to tell in notes, and
I have no clue about what "opticrectumitis" is, if it's something 'real'.


					-mjg

	... my last Benefits statement showed my "bennies" to be a little less
than 1/4 my annual salary.

	What you may have heard, especially if you are part of the field, is
that in measuring the field's margin return to the company, the overhead costs
tacked on to annual salaries is 2x the salary.  To return acceptable margins, AS
MEASURED AT THE FIELD, a revenue generator needs to return 3x their annual
salary in billings.

	Now, with our accounting system, these numbers are not gospel, but I've
been hearing them for many years.  FWIW!

RE: .12

	You also have to include the costs related to providing the tools
	needed to do your job. (office, terminals,etc...)

							mike

	That is included in the 2x annual salary, at least in our models.

	BTW, I didn't say the part about 2x annual salary exactly right in 
.12.  I meant to say 2x annual salary is the "cost" applied to measure field 
margin return, not "tacked on" to annual salary.

re: .13
>	You also have to include the costs related to providing the tools
>	needed to do your job. (office, terminals,etc...)

...And don't forget YOUR share of the salaries of all the people that
implemented JEC.  Not to mention your part of the cost to make JEC
video tapes, JEC manuals, and JOQ [JOKE] forms.

John

RE: .15

	No kidding.. Beware of yuppies who smile alot in meetings.. 
	(typical Personnel/JEC type IMHO)

							mike

    
    	Re: JEC
    
    	Don't knock it down completely. I'm one case that was incorrectly
    	classified and JEC helped fix that.
    
    							Warren
    

    Re: -.1
    
    I think the point being made is that there were cheaper
    ways of doing it.