Conference 7.286::digital

    Sigh....sounds only too familiar, though even worse than usual with the
    buyout money a part of the picture.
    
    This sort of thing used to be pretty common in software engineering,
    and really does a number on morale (as you know, of course).  Someone
    would "leave" the company and immediately come back at a lucrative
    contract, doing the same work as their co-workers but at a much higher
    pay rate.  (Of course, DEC would not be paying their benefits, but
    usually these were people whose spouses still worked at DEC, so they
    would be covered under the same dependent coverage as the rest of their
    family - no extra cost to them.)  People who did this were not
    necessarily (in fact, not even usually) the best people in the jobs,
    simply the ones most interested in $$$ and having the best connections,
    because, of course, any manager who thought about the situation for
    more than about 1 second would know what this kind of a contract
    situation does to morale and how much resentment it causes!
    
    I think this ought to fall under the category of not being able to
    return to DEC (for some period of time) after having "left" the company.
    But it doesn't, apparently.  Probably the contracting agency that set
    up this scheme is making out well by it because of this loophole.  But
    it is a sad thing to do to the loyal people who didn't "leave" for the
    money!
    
    /Charlotte

    I had a similar situation earlier this year....an employee wrote a
    proposal to do away with her own job and then to contract back with
    Digital to perform it as an outside contractor.  She would quit DEC to
    do this.  Even though the personnel P&P did not address this the
    Finance P&P did.  She would have to be out of DEC 1 year prior to being
    allowed to be a contractor.  The question is whether this applies to
    the contractor only; or to employees of the contractor.
    
    Joe

    Actually, if someone said to me, "I quit my job at DEC and got hired
    back on at n times my salary as a contractor doing the same job," I'd
    respond, "Is this a great country or what?"

    If, on the other hand, they said "Some manager offered me beaucoup bucks
    to quit so he could eliminate my job, then hired me back at n times my
    salary to do the same job he was supposed to eliminate," I'd reply,
    "Pardon me while we seek psychiatric help for that manager."

    I can't fault anyone for playing the job market for the highest salary
    they can get. Contractors take their chances for the money they make.
    But if the express purpose of the buyout is to reduce head count, then
    it seems the height of insanity to replace those heads with high priced
    contractors.

    While these are the short term results of the action, I must believe
    there is a long term rationale...otherwise how could the reqs be
    approved.  I thought that additional reqs for personnel, especially the
    hiring of outside contractors had to be approved by a vice-president.
    These people are now considered outside contractors.  Also they are now
    more easily expendable should the business warrantee it.  Perhaps this
    is a transition plan while some other group absorbs the work.
    (See next note)
    
    Hopefully yours,
    RR

    I'll have to agree with all of the replies, on that it is truly wrong
    for said manager(s) to hire back those employees who have taken the 
    Financial Support Option Program (as written in SHR's policy) and 
    being rehired as contractors.
    
    But, those of us who have been loyal to the company and have stuck with 
    the company during trying times should in return be awarded for our
    patience, loyalty, hard work and dedication.  
    
    I have been on "excess" for over a year now and presently working in a 
    group on a "loan" basis.  I hold no degree, no certificate, therefore
    an easy target for this program.  I welcome the financial support, I 
    will use the money to attend day school, rather than evening sessions
    for a few semesters. In the 2 years alloted for rehire, I would like to 
    return with a degree and hope DEC would will consider me again.
    
    I will be offered this package and I will be accepting it.  Not to
    return to DEC a week or two later, but maybe 2 years or later.  It
    is wrong for the manager to rehire after downsizing his dept. especially
    those employees who have accepted the package. 
    
    
    DB.

    I would definitely have to question the integrity of said manager(s)
    and would immediately launch a full scale investigation of their
    conduct. It would also be interesting to find out if said manager(s)
    had anything to do in specifying who or what contractor would do the
    work for DEC.If it turned to be most obvious then said manager(s) plus
    those returned employees would axed on the spot.Now that would be the
    right thing to do.If the 2 percenters could be eliminated from this
    company then the rest of us could go on and make DEC #1 in the computer
    industry.

I have to disagree with .0 in that the situation described may
not be a conflict of interest.  It is very likely that

1) The employees were offered the package
2) The employees took that package
3) Digital hires a vender to do the job of said employees
4) The employees look for another job
5) The vendor looks for employees to provide their services to DIgital
6) The employees and the vendor hook up (through and agency or ad)
7) The vendor thinks they are the perfect fit (they are).

Digital does piss away a lot of money on consultants.  So do a lot of
other companies.  You'd be surprised in how many companies the
situation in .0 occurs.  The scenario I described would come as a result
of everyone looking out for their own interests.  If you look at it from
each of the three points of view it does not seem strange.  Only when
you look at the global picture does it look queer. (Who looks at the
global picture).

The scam described in .1 where the wife works for DEC and gets the
benefits and the husband works as a consultant to DEC and rakes in the
dough seems failrly common.  I think it is one thing to do what is done
in the field:  subcontract with consultants to perform short term tasks
and another to do what seems common in corporate: to have consultants
(who are often just Bull S'ers) and who are continuously employed with
Digital.

John

        Not long ago, I was talking with a contact in IBM (australia) and
        he pointed out that IBM had also done some "voluntary
        retirements." The difference was that they worked on the
        assumption that salary ends up being about 1/3 of what it costs to
        keep an employee. IN their case, it was closer to 1/5. SO, if you
        have an employee earing $50,000 then the cost to the corp is form
        $150K to $250K, and you give that person a nice farewell present
        (cash!), and then hire them back as a consultant at $100K then a)
        the company spends less, b) the (ex) employee is making more, and
        all are happy.
        
        q
        

    I can believe that over time we might save some money with a
    contractor in some jobs. I wonder what the payback time works
    out to be by including the buyout money? 
    
    Still the ethical problem for me is that if a job needs to be
    done and a person on the payroll is currently doing than they
    should not be a buyout candidate.  Let's empty the slots we don't
    need filled before we just play phoney money games with slots we
    do need filled.
    
    		Alfred

    
    I'm not sure that Digital saves any money on contractors, their hourly
    wage is much higher, they still use facility space, computer terminal,
    they still get a paycheck that is issued by Digital, the administrators
    are different but Digital overhead is still used.  Then on top of that
    their agency gets a fee (often the agency is a one person operation).
    
    I know a contractor that quit Digital ten years ago and has been
    employed as a consultant almost continually ever since.  Of course,
    "consultants" know more than Digital employees because they cost more
    and must be worth it.  Much the same as we in New England hire folks 
    from California at the same time that Californian Companies hire folks
    from New England, because local talent is never as good as it is from
    far away.

    Another possibility is that the jobs will be eliminated completely
    over some period of time, but during a transition period Digital must
    still provide some level of service.  In that case, it makes sense to
    cut the permanent staff down to your ultimate goal and use contractors
    to fill in the gaps.
    
    /Dave

Companies all over the country, this one included, are moving to contract
services for support organizations.  How many DEC sites have contract
custodians and security personnel, for example?
This would seem to be an example of DEC moving towards that goal for
printing and distribution services as well.
It is true that for an individual contractor, the cost in overhead and 
management is probably the same as for an individual employee.
If an entire operating group can be contracted, however, then supervision,
scheduling, personnel matters, and such become the responsibility
of the contract group, relieving DEC of some fair amount of overhead.
In this case, DEC is freer to contract only for the services required.
The outside group absorbs the variations (a euphemistic way of referring to
externalizing layoffs and reduced hours).

I see no mention in .0 of the ex-DECcies coming back "at big bucks."
These people took their buyouts, and their chances.  Perhaps they were
enticed by the contractor by the promise of a bigger hourly rate, but they
will almost surely be losing some level of other benefits.  And what will 
they do when the contracting outfit takes a contract at Wang or Raytheon or 
Public Service of New Hampshire, or when another contractor bids for the
Northboro job and beats out the first outfit?

As described in .0, the situation is potentially ugly, but presumably the NR
folks knew they were being replaced by contractors, or the ones who took
the leap just took a lucky guess.

I see no management malfeasance here, only bad judgement and poor 
communication if the situation came as a surprise to the rest of the people 
at the plant.

- tom]

Sure someone could have found a new job over the weekend. Some of 
the larger contracting firms have weekend hours (I've found contracting
jobs that way a couple of times).

M

    I don't know if you any of you have ever work for a contracting agency
    before, but I have.  According to .0, these folks are working in the
    Mail Room.  I'm quite sure that Mail Room Personnel wages can not be
    compared to Consultant wages.  If you work for a contractor you are
    paid 2/3's of the fee that the company pays to the agency.  You have
    *no* benefits, (medical, paid holidays, etc.).  Unless these folk were
    making *big* bucks to begin with and had been with Digital for alot of
    years the FSO package probably did not give them the *major* $$$ that
    you think that they received.  The Manager in charge has gotten these
    people off of his headcount and is still getting the work done.  I'm
    sure that in the next few years all or most of our service groups will
    be contract workers, they've already begun the practice here in
    Colorado.  
    
    Monica Robinette
    CXO
    
    

>Companies all over the country are replacing service organizations with
>contractors.

Yes.  Kodak recently contracted with an outside contractor for the operation
of its telecommunications services (PBXs and voice and data networks).  The
outside contractor will hire most of the employees at Kodak currently performing
the function, and place them on-site, often in their old offices.

The contractor?


Digital Equipment Corporation.

    The current 'in term' is:
    
    	OUT-SOURCING
    
    That is what the Kodak deal was and many other companies are
    considering the same thing in these times of 'financial pressure'.
    
    Many years ago, US Steel in Birmingham, Alabama was faced with intense
    overseas competitive pressure and, because of the unions, would have
    had a hard time closing the mills.  To prepare, in case, and to cut
    expenses, they 'out-sourced' (hired contractors) for all functions
    except there core business - making steel.  All other functions, from
    cutting the lawns to running computers was to be contracted out WITH 30
    day termination clauses in the contracts.  If I remember, they survived
    (as USX).
    
    The number of our customers discussing these opportunities with us
    today is quite interesting.
    
    Government facilities have done similar things for a while - GOCOS.
    When a contractor got replaced, it ws real interesting to see the same
    people with badges from their 'new' employer.  The only difference was
    who your paycheck was issued by.
    
    IMHO - this is a major trend in industry today.  You may argue the
    morality, etc., but it is happening.  We are a 'provider' on the high
    tech side (ala Kodak) but we will probably be a 'consumer' on the
    low-tech side.
    
    	-Barry-
    

re:                      <<< Note 1068.14 by COMET::SIGNS >>>
>               -< what ever gets the job done for the least $$ >-
>
>    *no* benefits, (medical, paid holidays, etc.).  Unless these folk were
>    making *big* bucks to begin with and had been with Digital for alot of
>    years the FSO package probably did not give them the *major* $$$ that
>    you think that they received.  The Manager in charge has gotten these

I don't think it's a question of absolute, but rather, relative benefit, as
far as how people made out financially with the buyout. The minimum was
40 weeks pay for someone with 2 years with the company, plus 3 weeks pay for
every year between 2 and 10 and 4 weeks pay for every year between 10 and
20. It's not hard to believe that the average benefit to employees taking
the plan was in excess of one year's pay. That's major bucks to anybody
who's supporting themselves on their digital income! (Who could afford 
to go _without_ it, afterall?)

Putting yourselves a little closer to the situation, how would you personally
feel if you walked in on a Monday morning to see an old workmate who took
the buyout last week doing his/her same old job right next to you? Forget, for
a minute, about what's good for the company. How would you _feel_?

-Jack

re:<<< Note 1068.17 by 16BITS::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dog face)" >>>

>I don't think it's a question of absolute, but rather, relative benefit, as
>far as how people made out financially with the buyout. 
    			.
    			.
    			.
>Forget, for a minute, about what's good for the company. How would you _feel_?
    
    What business is it of yours?  If an employee were to immediately take 
    a job elsewhere, that, presumably, would be OK with you even though that
    person would "make out" (ha!) just as well financially?
    
    It is nothing but goodness if there is a legitimate business need served 
    by temporarily hiring back former employees as contractors through a third 
    party.  If nothing else, it buys the severed employees some time
    to look for more permanent employment while DEC completes it's
    transition.
    
    When it's "right" for the company and it's "right" for the severed
    employee, how it makes others _feel_ is, in my humble opinion, of no
    consequence.  If the feelings are a matter of jealousy, that is (to put 
    it bluntly) TFB.
    
    Al
    

    re .18, jealousy ..is too bad
    
    While it's true that the resentment and jealousy is illogical and
    a personal emotion, it's not true that this is not a business problem:
    when there are unhappy employees, there is a business problem.  When
    many employees feel cheated and believe that their management has
    done something stupid (i.e. been fooled), there is a problem.
    
    So the problem remains--how to structure the buyout so that employees
    who did not get offered severence don't feel cheated if a severed
    employee shows up the day after leaving a DEC job, now working as a
    contract employee.
    				-John Bishop

re:                      <<< Note 1068.19 by MINAR::BISHOP >>>
>                     -< Morale problems are real problems >-

Exactly my point, John. Thankyou for stating it so succinctly.

-Jack

    If there are truly so many employees who care little enough about their
    career that they would give it up for 10 pieces of silver, let them 
    all submit plans for the elimination of their job to SOCIAL::INVOLVEMENT 
    and God speed them on their way.
    
    I suspect, however, that most people really want their jobs and would
    prefer not to be faced with the choice those soon to designated for
    "transition" will make.  There is nothing about the "structure" of the
    buyout plan that should be changed for the benefit of the unaffected.
    The interests of Digital and the "transition" (is anyone else as
    offended by this euphemism as I am?) employees should be the paramount
    concerns.
    
    There is no question that morale needs consideration. Perhaps DEC 
    management could do a better job of communicating their plans for the 
    elimination of work.  Then again, I didn't think this note was about
    morale, I thought it was Yet Another Manager Bashing Note; a disgusting
    and increasingly popular topic in this conference.
    
    Al
    

    RE:  .21
    
    Just a minor quibble, but people accepting the buyout are not giving
    up their careers for "10 pieces of silver".  They are giving up a 
    job and pursuing their careers elsewhere.
    
    Don't take this as a knock against Digital.  It is not intended as
    such.  But there are career paths outside of this company also.
    
    Claude
    

    re: .21  Pieces of Eight exchanged for career......
    
    Al,
    
    I don't see it as people exchanging careers for silver.   Make a
    clean distinction between job and career.   A different picture 
    emerges.   For many many people, their careers went away long ago.
    To be sure they are left with jobs, but not a career.
    
    In my own case, I have been through six reorganizations in three years
    at this 'job'.   This involves three completely different kinds of
    work.   None of these changes were by my choice nor were they conducive
    to career development.    I don't have a clue as to what to invest my
    learning energies in anymore.   As soon as I get out of a course, the 
    rules change.   I'm in my fourth site.   I put 42,000 miles on my
    car in the last twelve months (mine, not a DEC wreck).   My wife
    (also a Digit) has had four transfers in three years with the same
    two managers (can you say ping pong).  She has been located in three
    sites.  By the way she also had three promotions and got a total of 
    9 cents in promotion dollars in the same three years.
    
    Do these sound like careers?   Sounds more like involuntary
    contracting  assignments to me.
    
    Don't get me wrong, I think DEC is a great company.  But, it isn't
    offering careers anymore for most folks.   It makes great sense to
    view the buyout as a financial buffer that enables one to go
    consulting/contracting.   At least one gets choice back in the equation
    and yes, even relative stability.
    
    I'd be willing to bet that not even one person taking the buyout is
    leaving a career.
    

    Let me shed some light on the NRO situation, as I see it.
    
    Northboro's management blunder was not leaking the buyout proposal to
    that facility before the announcement.  When the announcement came, it
    was such a shock that at least 2 people had to be taken by ambulance to
    the hospital.  The message, as the employees percieved it, was "take
    the buyout or get layed off".  They did not understand that it was
    voluntary.  
    
    The company was using the Salem buy-out as a ruler in that about 1 in 5
    would be taking the package.  Because of the way it was presented,
    around 4 in 5 took the package in NRO.
    
    Now Digital has 3 in 5 employees leaving that they didn't plan on,
    and now they are forced to contract.
    
    A word about contract workers.  They generally make more money, but I
    wouldn't want their job.  When there is a slow down, the contracts are
    the first to go.  If you're sick, no pay; vacation time, again no pay. 
    And I don't think DEC has a say who the temp organization sends to you. 
    I know someone who was fired for stealing (false mileage vouchers) so
    he went to a temporary angency and got an assignment.  Well you've
    probably already guessed.  He was working at another DEC facility.
    
    I think if temps are the head of a household, most would rather have a
    "real" job for "less" money.
    
    Pete

    re: .22, .23
    
    Actually, I should have phrased that not as "career" but as "career
    (such as it is) at Digital".
    
    Just to make it clear, I'm not knocking those who have accepted a
    buyout package offered to them.  I'm glad that they at least had a
    choice and I hope that things work out for them.  What I do take issue
    with is the alleged resentment by those who did NOT receive a severance
    offer.  I don't know, I guess that I have a real problem with people
    whose loyalty to their job at DEC is inversely proportional to the size
    of the severance check given to someone else. I would think, as one of 
    you stated, that most people genuinely wish to remain with DEC, or at
    least have a "steady job".
    
    re: .24
    
    Is this true?  If so, I would imagine that the contractors will be gone
    as soon as replacement req's can be cut and filled by internal
    transfers, right?  Assuming, of course, that the work is to continue to
    remain at NRO and it makes good business sense...
    
    Al
    

    Oh, sure...
    
    And in a couple of years, hire these people back as new DEC employees
    to do the same job they've been doing under the "contract" badge,
    and they vest a whole 'nother pension benefit.
    
    What a country!
    

    I think that when the company offers the package to employees, they
    have to offer it to a whole group, not specific individuals.  So when
    the package was offered to NRO, some took it and some sis not.  The
    scenario of the temp worker working along side the full time worker and
    making bigger bucks is misleading.  The perm worker was also offered
    the package and chose not to take it.  
    
    Peter
    

    Anyone, who thinks a group of people with morale problems, that have to
    function as a team, to win/succeed/survive is *NOT* a problem, has in
    my humble opinion, a lot to learn. 
    
    Anyway you slice it, I believe this scenario of the buyout is not good
    for Digital.
    
    Dan

    I have to agree with the author of the basenote. Having worked for DEC
    for 13 yrs Ive seen alot of waste. ANd this really takes the cake. What
    kind of crap is going on here. 
    
    Any one whom disagrees with me or the author please don't blow sunshine
    up our #@$ it really insults our intelligence and others that see
    something wrong and want to make it right.
    
    
    Mike Turro
    Knee deep in %^^^(*))

    As I understand it, one of the functions of management concerns the
    moral of their employees.  It appears in this case, that someone in
    Northboro screwed up in a very big way.
    
    You can say, "well these employees had the same opportunity", but 
    that won't change their feelings or work attitude.
    
    					Steve

    	Some thoughts;  some questions:
    
    	How many employees actually came back as contractors?  One?  Ten?
    	One hundred?  My guess is that it is on the lower end of the scale.
    	Is this making a mountain out of a molehill?
    
    	There is nothing wrong with an ex-employee being hired (legally)
    	as a temp to fill his "eliminated" position.
    
    	But certainly there is something wrong in all this if we are 
    	"eliminating" essential jobs...
    
    	If we want to talk about feelings, think about those one or two
    	employees about whom all this is being written!  Talk about keeping
    	your head low!  I'm sure that this topic must make them VERY 
    	uncomfortable.  And they are only acting in their best interest
    	WITHIN THE LEGAL AND ETHICAL BOUNDS OF THIS SITUATION.  If there
    	is any fault to be assessed, it must lie with the management.
    
    	If this was really an issue of more than the predicted number of
    	employees accepting the buyout, then let's learn a lesson from it.
    	Groups should set a limit on the number of employees accepting the
    	buyout, (where warranted) and handle it first-come-first-served.  
    	There are employees who were offered the buyout that intend to take 
    	the full 13 weeks to give notice.  Some have stated such right here
    	in this conference.  This gives them an additional 13 weeks of 
    	guaranteed income and adds to their number of buyout years.  It does 
    	nothing for the company.  Still, I cannot fault them for taking 
    	advantage of every break offerd.  If all accept on the last day,
    	management will find itself in a bind again.
    
    	Joe Oppelt

    Two employees came back as contractors.  I am in transition, if
    I take the buy out or not does not measure me as a loyal or disloyal
    employee.  I have been with the company for 15 years, it is not
    a nice feeling to be in transition, I think those of you who are
    not aught to put a button on it, you don't know what it feels like.
    In case you can't tell I resent the .0 comments about the loyal
    employees who choose not to take the buy out, this seems to say the
    people who took it were not loyal.                      

     
      I have been employed by digital for two years. All of which has
     been spent here in Northboro. I have chosen to stay with digital
     in transisition, in fear that my job was gone. Thats what most
     people here felt. It seemed to be the correct choice at the time.
     Now we are not so sure. Some of the people that left were in fear
     of loosing there jobs at digital all together. So thay took the
     money and ran. We, the transisionites have been on a job search
     eight hours a day, sitting in the "rubber room" getting nowhere
     fast. Now were looking at Chelmsford in two weeks. This is a 
     very unpleasent situation. My personal fealings on all this is
     that this program needs some serious attention. There were no
     answers for our questions. At least not sufficient enough to 
     base a decision that will reflect the rest of our lives. Now that
     the dust is setteling. We have ALL been replaced with contract
     workers. I think loyalty has nothing to do with leaving. The
     general fealing is that we were scared out of our jobs with the
     phrase "we are going to vend,vend,". 
    
     

    Posted with permission of the author; forwarding trail deleted.
    
    +---------------------------+ TM
    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |                INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
    | d | i | g | i | t | a | l |
    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
    +---------------------------+

    TO:       ALL TOPS EMPLOYEES                 DATE:  April 9, 1990       
                                                 FROM:  Rene' Kahlau
                                                 DEPT:  Storage & Information
                                                        Management Group
                                                 DTN:   291-9514
    cc:       Peter van Roekens                  M/S:   NKS5-2/J5
                                                 ENET:  ELWOOD::KAHLAU

    SUBJECT:  COMMUNICATION/RUMOR
              ___________________

    Recently, a Notes File memo was distributed detailing what had
    transpired in the Northboro Facility regarding Transition. The Notes
    File stated that several DEC employees who had left the company (taking
    advantage of the Transition Financial Support Package), had returned
    the following week as employees of a vendor providing contract services
    to DEC.

    Peter van Roekens asked me to follow up with the Northboro facility to 
    determine what had in fact occurred, and to clarify and share this 
    information with our employees.

    What actually occurred, was that a few more employees volunteered to 
    terminate their employement with DEC than was expected by management.
    When this happened, management had to quickly contract with an outside 
    vendor to provide essential services to the facility.

    DEC management had directed the Vendor Manager not to assign any ex-DEC 
    employees to this, or other DEC facilities. Unfortunately, the vendor
    did not pass on this requirement to the Vendor Operations Manager prior
    to the manager going on vacation. 

    When DEC management discovered that three ex-employees had returned to
    the facility, they immediately contacted the vendor to ask that the
    requirement of the contract be met. It took a day or two to contact the
    vacationing manager, but once that communication occurred, the ex-DEC
    employees left Northboro and were reassigned to a non-DEC company.

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

    In the future, should similiar Notes File information, memos concerning
    situations like this, or rumors come across your desk, feel free to
    contact me rather than forwarding what may or may not be correct. I'd
    be glad to look into any of those situations and share the correct
    information with you and the rest of our organization.

    Regards,
    Rene' 

    Finally:  Reasonable, factual, accurate and to the point.  Can't argue
    with that.

re:    <<< Note 1068.35 by ULTRA::PRIBORSKY>>>
>
>    Finally:  Reasonable, factual, accurate and to the point.  Can't argue
>    with that.

I certainly hope so, and, as the basenote author, I must agree with Tony that
it's good to see the truth finally come out, if this be it. I'll be happy to
assume that to be the case. Please note, however, that my .0 did not
misrepresent the facts as they were at the date of my posting (IMHO).

(With two exceptions I've been abstaining from commenting on replies herein,
 so please bear with me for a bit now, if you will.)

 Please note that in my basenote I was not "bashing management", Al K. I
 identified myself as a manager who was distressed over what appeared to be
 (IMHO) a case of management blunder. Sometimes (often?) we (managers) make
 mistakes - just like anyone else. I don't believe in sweeping those under the
 rug, and if they appear to be critical errors, I believe they require
 exposition. As I said in the base note, let's call a grave injustice just
 that, or reason why there may have been some justification. As a manager,
 I feel good about the exchange that's gone on regarding this topic. It's
 certainly not something that I'd want to see sequestered.

 And for those of you faced with this alternative (the buyout), I had no
 intention to imply that by accepting it you were disloyal. My mention of
 those not accepting it at NRO as "loyal" DECcies, was purely in sympathy
 with them as current corporate employees who probably deserved more
 management consideration than employees of vendors, regardless of their
 former employment status with DEC. I understand and respect the needs and
 rationale which accompany a decision to accept the buyout. But when the
 people accepting it leave DEC, as a DEC manager I have to concern myself
 largely with the needs of those remaining in the company's employ first
 and foremost. Oddly enough, I still hang onto a belief that I have been
 hearing from Ken ever since before I joined DEC in 1977 - "People are
 our most valuable resource". I believe that. I believe that I'll best
 serve DEC by keeping that foremost in my mind, as it makes business
 sense. And I don't see how business can be well served by poor morale.
 The situation as of the Monday prior to my posting of the basenote was
 contributing sorely to poor morale.

 -Jack

re.34:

I feel sorry for the employees who, worried about their future at Digital 
took the buyout, came back as contractors and were then thrown out, they 
must feel really bad about Digital right now. Maybe what ex-employees think 
of Digital does not matter?

Dave.

    re. .34 
    
     	sounds like dec I mean mis-managed to me.
    
    
    
    David Buswell
    buz

    re: .37
    
    The ex-employees/ex-contractors shouldn't feel bad about DEC:
    
     - They didn't need to take the buy-out (according to .34) and
     - Their current management screwed up (by placing ex-DECies in DEC).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the replies about the Northboro 
incident miss the real point:


Positions were identified for deletion that were, in fact, needed for
the daily operation of the business.  The fact that these positions 
needed filling by contractors as soon as they became vacant suggests
to me that they were not unnecessary to begin with, no?  What was
accomplished by golden-parachuting these people?


A corollary:  I have noticed that Digital is far more tolerant
of screwups by its vendors than our customers are of Digital's
occasional mistakes.  (This is just meant as a footnote.)

And I agree that the prompt, official response in this file is refreshing.

\Gary

    Re: .40 by LCDR::REITER:
    
    Ummm... I think the message stated that people responded to the plan
    more enthusiastically than expected.  For the sake of arguement, let's
    say that the required RIF was 60 people, but that 80 people held that
    position. Equitably, the plan had to be extended to all 80. Now if all
    80 accepted volunteer termination, the company would have to contract
    for the services of 20 people.  Does that make any sense?

    Maybe we gave packages to people in jobs that are still needed.
    
    But now that there are mailroom positions available in Northboro,
    perhaps the openings there can be filled by other people in DEC
    that choose NOT to take the package and are instead still looking
    for a job.
    						/Skip

    I may be way off base here, (and am willing to be told so) but is it
    really proper to deny an ex-DEC employee employment by a contractor
    just because they are an ex employee?  We have plenty of ex-Deccies
    who come back as contract employees; this time we say they can't work
    because of the buyout program?  Sounds like a double standard to me.
    
    Mark
    
    

    re: .41

>    ...required RIF was 60 people, but that 80 people held that position.
>    Equitably, the plan had to be extended to all 80. Now...

    EQUITABLY?  HAD TO?!?!

    The fact that DEC isn't simply laying off people whose jobs are no
    longer necessary is a very generous and nice thing, but so many people
    are acting as though this *business* is some kind of Socialist welfare
    agency, it's starting to skew my sense of fairness.

    I don't see any moral or ethical obligation for a company to offer a
    buyout to people whose positions are *still needed*.

    Remember people, the pot is not of infinite size.  Those of us who will
    be here for a while doing necessary work to make money for the company
    are going to be directly affected by DEC's largess in this thing.

    -joe tomkowitz

    "equitably" and "had to" are a poor choice of words.
    
    I made the point several replies ago that IF the personal financial
    incentives for people whose positions are no longer needed have the
    appearance or reality of being better than the personal financial
    incentives for people whose positions are needed, THEN the company is
    creating an unintentional significant morale problem in trying to do
    the right thing for the people whose positions are no longer needed.
                                                 
    I don't know if the premise is true or not.  But I do know that the
    conclusion is an unspoken conviction of many.
                                                 

Tell me, does this make TOO MUCH sense?

1) There are excess positions.

2) The severance plan is offered. It is clearly stated to employees that 
they can volunteer and BASED ON NEED they may or may not be offered the buyout.
(The employees are given a definite date of severance offering so they do 
not put their lives in limbo for very long. They are also told that the earlier
they sign up, the better the chances of of being offered the plan.)

3) Employees volunteer for the plan. The date and time of their willingness
to volunteer is officially noted.

4) A determination of the exact number of positions is made.

5) X number of positions need to be eliminated. The first X number employees
who volunteered for the severance plan ARE THEN OFFERED the plan.

If this method of notification and acceptance were used it would have eliminated
all of the confusion and frustration in the first place. Maybe they can try to 
use a little more foresight in planning in the future.

                                       

    In the 4/13 Wall Street Journal, under the article called "FIRMS OUST
    'NO LAYOFF' TRADITION", Digital is mentioned a few times.  Just a few
    noted lines are:
    
    "At Digital, people who once wore suits and ties were put to work in
    recent months painting hallways at aplant in Salem NH.  At a factory
    in Phoenix, Ariz., Digitalin the past loaned unneeded employees to the
    city, sprucing up parks, painting signs, and other civic work, a former
    executive recalls.  "It didn't take people long to decide it was time
    to go."
    
    "Its a form of double-think," says Marc Schulman, an analyst with UBS
    Securities. "They're trying to disguise what's really going on.  He was
    especially critical of Digital for failing to disclose the full extent
    of planned cuts-which insiders assert could total 5,000 to 8,000 this
    year-that the company began making in a piecemeal fashion last month.
    "Their salami-style approach is hard on employees, who never really
    know when it will end," Mr. Schulman says.
    
    "Add a Burlington-area employment agent, who didn't want to be
    identified; "Morale is down at both plants (IBM & DEC).  And out at
    Digital, I'm not so sure people really have a choice about leaving the
    company." SO even with a generous severance payment "that sounds like
    a layoff to me."
    
    Mark
    

    I remember reading/hearing when all this buyout stuff started, that DEC 
    spent more money then it was taking in.. 50% of the spending was
    salaries...CHeez....Just last week we named ANOTHER V.P. in charge of
    BANKING!...What's the total of VP's up to now...85+...I'll bet THEY
    make better than 200K each...How about cutting some of their jobs...Or
    maybe making them take a 10-20% cut in pay make the board did at Wang..
    That would really show us all in DEC that upper management was REALLY 
    trying to cut costs without stressing people out by "buying out"
    thousands of 20-40K jobs... 
    
    Why the heck do we NEED so many VP's... I would guess that must
    deserved the promo...but come on.....
    
    
    					No name/because of open door policy.

>                     <<< Note 1068.49 by ROYALT::SYSTEM >>>
>                           -< 85+ VP's @ 200K WOW! >-

>    Why the heck do we NEED so many VP's... I would guess that must
>    deserved the promo...but come on.....

I've never been able to understand why US companies seem to need so many
VP's to get the job done. I don't think any Euro company of comparable 
size has anything like the same number of VP's, yet they still manage
to do business effectively (and probably with lower costs).

It seems in the US, VP's are a dime a dozen to come by. Unfortunately,
they seem to cost 200K+ a year to have. What does being a VP really
mean ???

	Craig

The explanation that I heard during the first wave of promotions back in the 
mid 80's was that VPs want to deal with VPs. A VP at XXX Bank wants to get 
anssers from a VP (an officer of the Company) at Digital; a Senior Group 
Engingeering Manager just didn't have enough clout in the title. 

I don't know which company started the inflation, but now we have it.

    A few years back a friend of mine left Digital to work for an American
    Bank in London. When I saw his business card it said:-
    
    ...Associate Vice President of ....
    
    At first I thought he was joking, but it seems that to qualify for
    a company car the word "President" had to appear in the job title.
    
    Most staff in their London office had cars. Most were some sort of VP!
    
    Jc

In the MIS organization at a lot of New York banks, an Associate (or Assistant)
Vice President is a individual contributor or, at best, a project leader.

-dave

Yep, VPs in banks are a joke.  My first job was with a NY bank.  If I'd stayed
for four of five years, I would have been some kind of VP.

    
    The DEC 1990 Annual Report lists 34 VPs and 2 senior VPs.
    
    It also lists 15 corporate consulting engineers.
    
    There's a message in there somewhere.
    

I can understand why banks have so many VP's - they make
the CUSTOMERS feel important. ("I'm so important, I deal
with a vice president!")

I could understand having many vice presidents if they
helped our customers feel important. That would lead to greater sales.
But I don't get the impression that our VPs deal much with customer
VPs, except, maybe at events like DECworld.

As .51 says, this may have caused the inflation; but it does not
seem to have solved the problem.

    I have been told that to commit a corporation to a contract
    (like a mortgage loan), the signer must be an officer of the
    corporation, and thus at least a Vice President.
    
    That accounts for the number of VPs in banks.
    
    Thus it may be a matter of US corporate law, not ego-massaging
    for clients.
    			-John Bishop

One reason we have so many VPs is that all area-level Sales and EIS managers
were promoted (?) to VP a bit over a year ago.  This was specifically aimed
at senior customer management.

-dave

re .56:

When I worked for a bank, there were far more VPs in the EDP department than
in the branches.  Most branch managers were Assistant Treasurers at best.
Since the EDP departments customers were mostly internal, the "impress the
customer" argument doesn't work.

$12+ billion in sales divided by 85 VPs is about $150 million in sales
for each.  This is a sizable business in almost any context.
This makes the "officer of the corporation" argument, that is, that one 
needs to be a VP to commit the corporation to contracts and the like, quite
reasonable, given the potential business each officer oversees.

Yes, customer management is also a valid argument.

As to the matter that there are 85 VPs to only 15 Corporate Consulting
Engineers, I think that says a lot for those 15!  It's a lot harder to get
to CCE than VP, and there are some people (e.g. Bill Strecker) who
have become both.

- tom]

    We need those VPs to approve our international travel, remember? :)