Conference 7.286::digital

    Although this is not how I feel in my heart of hearts, it is probably
    not reasonable to expect DEC to cover the costs.  If attending the
    course was part of her job, it is her responsibility to make herself
    available to attend.  That includes whatever personal details need
    attention: child care, pet boarding, mail collection.  It is not an
    expense DEC would be required to pick up for a childless person or 
    married parent.
    
    If travel creates an unworkable situation for an employee, that
    employee is not capable of doing any job which requires it.  If travel
    is to be excluded, or special arrangements are necessary, that should be
    negotiated as part of the job offer.
    
    Al
    

    If the vast majority of custodial single parents were male, would this
    still be handled the same way? 
    
    I suspect not.
    
    Having been a (male) custodial single parent (briefly), I can only
    sympathize with the plight of those who are permanently in this
    situation and have no resources or recourse. This has been discussed
    elsewhere in this file, to no conclusive end (as I recall). 
    
    My personal opinion is that the company should be willing to work with
    its employees on this issue. A child is not a pet; it is much easier
    financially, logistically, and emotionally to kennel a pet than to
    kennel a child. One can freely choose to have or to cease to have a
    pet. Once one has a child, one cannot legally, morally, or ethically
    choose to not have that child. Although this is all too frequently done
    in our society. It is more important today to have fun than to care for
    the future, or so it seems...

         I'm not the type who expects to have everything handed to him.  In
    fact, in most cases I would be on the other side of the issue. 
    However, this case seemed particularly odd.  The vast numbers of
    people it affects (a high percentage of employees who are parents)
    would appear to make it a reasonable expense to cover.
    
         I am not a parent, so it would not affect me in any way.  It just
    seems like the right thing to do.  Every employee incurs a certain
    expense when required to travel, it shouldn't be an extra burden on
    parents.
    
                                        Greg

      Playing the role of DEVIL'S ADVOCATE, let me pose a problem with this
    type of reimbursement.
    
      Suppose the case involves a two career family. Suppose the course is
    in some desirable location (i.e., San Francisco). Suppose
    the parent who is a non-DEC employee can take a week off during the
    course. Suppose child care can be arranged for the week. Is Digital
    suppose to pay for the child care?
    
      Is the litmus test a single parent household? Suppose again two
    careers and one parent is away on business. Should the other parent's
    company pick up the child care costs if the other parent is called upon
    to travel?
    
      Child care has been real work for both careers in our household.
    However, my wife and I chose to have a child and assume all of the
    associated costs. At times it has been a real strain on both careers.
    However, it is the choice we made.
    
      I can't imagine the struggle single parents go through and I believe
    the Company should be extremely sensitive to their needs. The risk ca
    be either abuse of the system by some individuals or subtle discrimination
    against single parents (i.e., little opportunity due to inability to
    travel).

    If DEC can pay for a house-sitting service to come to my neighbor's
    house twice a day to look after things and feed his cats when he is
    away on business (a job I would have happily done for him for nothing),
    the company CERTAINLY ought to pay for child care for an employee who
    is away on business.  24-hour child care is EXTREMELY expensive; a
    single-parent employee should not be saddled with a major financial
    burden like that because of a business trip, because it might easily
    preclude the employee going on the trip at all, even if from a business
    perspective (s)he is the right person to send.  Most employees simply
    cannot afford to shell out hundreds of dollars of their own money for
    DEC to send them somewhere.
    
    /Charlotte

    
    If Digital required the employee to attend the out-of-town training,
    then it seems that in doing what's ethically right that Digital should
    reimburse for the "extra" child care sitting service required while the
    single parent was out of town.
    

    re: .5
    
>    If DEC can pay for a house-sitting service to come to my neighbor's
>    house twice a day to look after things and feed his cats when he is
>    away on business
    
    Are you serious?  Digital is actually paying for this???

    
    This should not have happened. Either the reimbursment should have
    taken place, or the training should have waited until it was available
    locally.
    
    In my opinion, of course,
    
    
    /andy/

    
     I think Dec DOES cover child care expenses that arise during
    a house hunting trip within the relocation benefits. It seems
    to me that if that's true, it should also apply for other trips
    necessary for business.
    
     Having 4 kids I can see what a problem .0 has. A lot of people
    may have the attitude a hiring manager had that I spoke to at
    COD III. I told him i didn't have a degree because I stopped
    attending night school when my first child was born, and just
    hadn't gotten back to school yet. He said when I was ready to
    "get serious" about my career, get back to school and get a
    degree. 
    
     I'm glad I'm not one of his kids.
    
    Paul Wheeler

    A classic quote often heard in the military;
    
           "if we had wanted you to have a family, we would have issued you
            one".
    
    The company employees individuals, not families.  It is not the
    companies responsibility, either socially, economically or morally, to
    be held to any  degree of accountability for family expenses.
    
    Just as this company should not be doing house sitting, it is not 
    responsible for child care.   
      

         Let's look at it from a policy point of view:
    
    *********************************************************************
    Business Expense Policy  5.11
    
    Digital reimburses employees for actual and reasonable expenses
    incurred while conducting company business.  The Company only
    reimburses expenses incurred personally by the employee or expenses
    incurred by the employee for other Digital and non-Digital individuals
    on matters directly related to Company business.  Employees are
    expected to use good judgement when incurring business expenses and for
    promptly and correctly reporting such expenses.  Authorized approvers
    are responsible for reviewing and approving business expense reports to
    assure expenses are justified and in accordance with this policy.  For
    example, authorizing business travel to areas outside of one's
    responsibility should occur only when there is a defined busnesss need.
    ************************************************************************
    
         I think that the expense does indeed fit into the "actual and 
    reasonable" criteria the policy requires.
    
                                     Greg                                 

    
    
    	I have a friend who had his antique auto put into storage along
    with all his household belongings. While he was offsite for a six
    month assignment. And DEC covered ALL his storage expenses. I guess
    it all depends upon how management views whats more important. 
    
    
    b
    
    
    

re .10

>    The company employees individuals, not families.  It is not the
>    companies responsibility, either socially, economically or morally, to
>    be held to any  degree of accountability for family expenses.

But the company will do it anyway if the company finds that it needs to do 
so in order to attract and keep competent individuals in the face of competition
with other companies, or it finds that it can improve productivity sufficiently
to offset the added costs.  Consider the health plan as an example.

/Dave
   

>                     <<< Note 1143.10 by BAGELS::CARROLL >>>
>
>    A classic quote often heard in the military;
>    
>           "if we had wanted you to have a family, we would have issued you
>            one".
>    
>    The company employees individuals, not families.  It is not the
>    companies responsibility, either socially, economically or morally, to
>    be held to any  degree of accountability for family expenses.
>    
>    Just as this company should not be doing house sitting, it is not 
>    responsible for child care.   
      
A)- this is not the military so comparisons are of limited value.  I don't
	see this one as at all appropriate.
B)- For any corporation in the USA (and I suspect other western nations too)
	to find and retain qualified employees, it must recognize changing
	demographics.  No longer will (or does) corporate America consist 
	primarily of white males, who are sole bread winners for a traditional
	family unit.  You may not like it (a different topic) but the
	changing demographics of this country have direct impact on how
	business is conducted.  There are numerous examples of successful
	companies that afford their employees increasing family support.
	Stride-Rite now provides day care for children and elder care for
	parents of employees.  I expect this kind of familial concern for
	the employees of a company to be more prevalent in the future.  I
	expect that firms that fail to recognize this will find it
	increasingly difficult to attract and retain qualified employees.
	

    re .14
    
    You are right, times are changing.  There used to be a time when people
    took responsibility for themselves and their families, whether they be
    white males or not.  
    
    Times are changing.  This country and the companies within it are going
    down the tubes.  One cause of this is the "take care of me syndome".
    People are getting lazy, they want the government, or employer, to
    give more and more.  What are the people giving back? More requests
    for more.
    
    The time will soon come in this country when we will be happy just to
    have a job, let alone benefits. 

    Also, what if the situation is not a 'non-recurring' event
    (like the training mentioned in .0)?
    
    What if employee 'X' takes on a new job or the current job changes to
    the point that they must, at irregular intervals, attend internal
    meetings or make customer visits? This is indeed job-required, so
    does DEC pick up the tab for these as well?
    
    Lee

    I find I agree with .14.  It seems as though there are very many
    very successful companies which offer extremely good benefits.
    The example of heath plans is particularly fitting.  I once
    worked for a company with no dental plan; when I began looking
    for greener pastures, lack of things like a dental plan and
    other benefits were often sufficient reason to end my
    consideration of a potential employer.  I don't think it's part
    of a "gimme" mindset to want more for yourself or your family,
    provided your willing to work for it.  It appears to me that
    benefits such as the type of child care reimbursement we are
    discussing and the like come under the heading of generic
    compensation, no different than salary, the health plan, the
    dental plan, vacation time, sick leave, the exercise rooms some
    sites enjoy, etc...  It also seems to me that maybe, just maybe,
    these benefits could actually increase productivity past the
    break even point so they actually increase profitability.

    d

    re .0
    
    Was the manager aware before the course that your friend would have
    to incur these expenses? I can imagine there is greater difficulty
    in finding a solution after the event (i.e. the money has been spent)
    than before the event (e.g. an alternative solution)
    
    j.e.

 Re .15;

   I think the point .0 was expressing was not "take care of me syndrome"
 or lazyness. .0 brought up a problem that I have run into many times
in my own career, trying to juggle career and family. I can (but won't)
list plenty of examples where having to care for my kids caused a problem
with my career. But I accepted the setbacks as they occured. 

 I think the key word in .0 is "assigned" to attend. This person apparently
did not request this training directly. Although the arguement can be made
that by accepting a position you accept needed training, etc.

 In my opinion, any company that wants to call itself a responsible
member of the community, or some similar concept, has no choice than to
understand that the future goes beyond the next annual statement. THAT,
not lazy, greedy employees, is what is taking this country down. In my
opinion, of course.

 Paul W.

.0   
  <<       I was very surprised to hear that DIGITAL did not have a policy
  <<  allowing this cost to be reimbursed.  It was necessary, and it was
  <<  an expense she would not have incurred had she not been performing
  <<  DIGITAL business.
    
Digital in fact has a policy explicitly disallowing such expense. As note .11 
pointed out, the Personnel Policies and Procedures (VTX ORANGEBOOK) 
Section 5.11, Business Expense Policy, says,
	Digital reimburses employees for actual and reasonable expenses
	incurred while conducting company business."

But later in the same section it also says,
	"Personal expenses incurred at home as a result of being
	 away on a company business trip are not reimbursed.
         Examples include lawn care, snow removal, babysitter fees,
         boarding for pets. etc."

HOWEVER -- at this is a big however -- the section ends

	"All exceptions to the Business Expense Policy will require:

         1.  The signature normally required for an expenditure of
             that dollar value for that cost center.

         2.  Plus, a higher level of expenditure authorization for that
             cost center based on the Corporate Signatory
             Authorization File.


         NOTE: One signature of individuals on the Corporate
               Organization Chart (Personnel Policy and Procedures
               Manual, Section 1.00), or unlimited signers (999999)
               on the Signatory Authorization File, meet all
               exception requirements."

So the bottom line, it would seem to me, is that although it's against current
standard policy, Greg's friend had the option of working this through her 
manager. (Of course, there's always the possibilty she DID try. We don't know.)

	/Marvin

    I'm GLAD the demographics are changing.  If just one employee says that
    (s)he cannot go on some business trip because the kennel/child
    care/house sitting/elder care cost would bankrupt her/him, that's a
    career-limiting move in the extreme.  But if a large percentage of the
    employees it might make sense to try to send on the business trip say
    the same thing, then the company involved knows it can increase
    productivity by doing something about this situation.  Years ago when I
    first came to DEC, there were mainly two types of engineers in the
    company: young new college graduates like me who had few responsibilities
    outside of work and tended to live in low-maintenance apartments, and
    older male managers who mostly had at-home wives who could take care of
    the other responsibilities - both groups were normally able to travel.
    Now most of us are in our mid-thirties, and have other responsibilities
    outside of our cubes.  People who didn't fit the earlier mold, like a
    single-parent friend of mine, had a real tough time.
    
    I used to work for a company that took several months to reimburse
    expenses, and almost never managed to get you an advance before they
    sent you off.  It got so bad that MOST of the employees in the office I
    worked in refused to travel on business without an advance, since to do
    otherwise tied up their personal credit cards (they actually couldn't
    send me on a trip a couple of times because my personal credit card
    limits weren't enough to cover the airfare).  Management eventually,
    and rather grudgingly, did something about this, but only because they
    couldn't get >ANYONE< to travel anymore - that wasn't a very
    employee-oriented outfit.
    
    /Charlotte

re: .15 

>    You are right, times are changing.  There used to be a time when people
>    took responsibility for themselves and their families, whether they be
>    white males or not.  
If I were I single parent, my first responsibility would be to my child(ren).
If I had to choose between offspring and a particular job, I'd put my kids 
first.  My employer risks losing my expertise and experience by putting me in
the position of having to make a choice.  So long as I am a marketable 
commodity, I have the choice.  Enlightened employers recognize that, in a world
in which increasing numbers of single heads of households are a reality, 
and in which qualified and experienced employees are harder to attract and 
retain, it is a business necessity to provide the means by which employees can
remain focussed on their jobs.  If this means companies will have to learn to
provide 24 hour child/elder care on occasion, it will happen.  But, sadly, not
out of moral or ethical consideration -- but out of economic necessity.

>    
>    Times are changing.  This country and the companies within it are going
>    down the tubes.  One cause of this is the "take care of me syndome".
>    People are getting lazy, they want the government, or employer, to
>    give more and more.  What are the people giving back? More requests
>    for more.
I'll agree that there are problems in the USA just now.  The causes are far
more complex than the one you cite -- and I disagree that the syndrome you refer
to is wide spread.  Relating your remarks to the base note, I think that single
parents work harder as a sub-population than just about any other group.  I
don't envy their lot, and I don't think that it is unreasonable for a single
parent to be upset at having to incur personal expense for the company; 
especially for situations where travel is not a part of a job description.

>    
>    The time will soon come in this country when we will be happy just to
>    have a job, let alone benefits. 

A bleak and dark view of the future.  I hope you're wrong.

    There is a distinct attitude being expressed that is far different from
    those more dynamic, growing world leader that was once the USA.  In
    those days, no one asked what your family situation was, or your
    personal problems or whatever.  You were asked if you could do the job!
    As a prospective employee, you asked about the job and you took care of
    everything else yourself.  Even asking the question in the base note
    displays a significant change in attitude.
    
    Think what a company could pour into their growth, products, etc. if
    they were not saddled with needing to meet each employees' personal
    needs.  Let's concentrate on the corporate business and let the 
    individuals worry about their personal lives.  I'm old enough to
    remember some of that attitude and it was wonderful.

    re .23:
    
    Yeah, if this keeps up, we might sink to the level of (gasp!) West
    Germany!  Maybe even (double gasp!) Japan!  Both, countries where the
    employers are bound by considerably more stringent expectations than
    the rather loose conventions in the U.S.
    
    One great thing about the old days is that they ain't around anymore.
    Times change.  Otherwise I'd still be programming be whacking my wood
    club against the front panel of a rock.  (Performance would probably be
    about the same, though...)
    
    In the "good old days" the "growing dynamic leader that was once the
    USA" was the only industrial economy around.  Life is easy when there's
    no competition.  Now, almost any moderately advanced country in the
    world can beat us in "replaceable unit workers".  Advances coming
    simply from squeezing people and throwing machines in to compensate can
    be duplicated by quite a few others.  The successful countries (and
    companies) are finding out that you have to become more productive by
    being smarter.  That means keeping the good people and (I'm going to be
    deliberately offensive here) getting RID of the serfs - they're O.K.
    if you're storming castles, but a real liability in modern times, if
    you get my drift.
    
    Future competition will be on the quality and motivation of the work
    force.  How well can you educate, motivate, AND KEEP people.  And "Shut
    up and do your work!" is not going to make it.  But a lot of U.S.
    businesses will ride the old style...right into the ground!
    
    /Dave

         I've heard some good responses here, and I'm sure that some of the
    sentiments will be mentioned to the local management who are mulling
    this one over (even the comments from the noters who believe in the 
    Morton Downey, Jr. school of business thought).
    
         Considering what response they have already received, there's at
    least a fighting chance.
    
                                        Greg

 Re. .23;

  Ah yes the good old days; the days that the next 30 or 40 generations
will have to clean up after, the poisons in the water land and air, the
damage done by prejudicial attitudes, etc. Corporations didn't have alot
of the expenses that they have now.

  Those days are gone. Women CAN'T stay home and take care of the
kids anymore. Economically it's usually impossible for a family to
get by on one paycheck. So something has to be done to help an employee
manage the care of their children when possible. Wake up to current
reality. Some articles say that the US is sorely behind almost all of
the "industrialized nations of the world" in assisting employees with
family problems that keep them from being better employees. Most likely
we're behind the ones who recognise child care as an investment in the
future.        

Paul W.

    	Ah yes, the good old days!  Let's see, the days when management
    and labor got along so well that riot police were a common feature
    of everyday work, or even older and "gooder" days when the New England
    poor were either bought and sold like slaves, or left to rot in the
    streets.  In those days, the only children who weren't working were
    the children of wealthy manufacturers who could afford not to have to
    be sold into child labor camps.  There was no such thing as child care
    to worry about, since children were expected to work.  Business trips
    were never a problem since children without caretakers (or jobs) were
    simply placed in an orphanage (or work house).  Families were separated
    at the drop of a hat, and people would sometimes be forced to trade
    their own children for a cow or a pig in order to survive.

    	Yes, the good old days - what memories...

    IT is NOT a problem for single parents only.  I am a member of a two
    paycheck family.  Ther have been times that I have had travel
    arrangements modified or have refused to go on trips because of family
    responsibilities.
    
    In the "good old days" at Digital, when I was working on an especially
    hot project, DEC had offered to pay childcare for me to work evenings
    when my wife was also working evenings and to pay for a plumber or what
    ever, to fix and clean up a broken water line to the washing machine so
    that I could spend the extra time programming.
    
    Remeber policy is policy, not holy writ.  If I were a single parent who
    was being SENT on a weeklong trip, I would certainly consider asking
    for an exception to policy
    
    /s/ Jim Williams

    I see an atitude throughout this note that some people think they are
    indispensible to this company.  It shows a very spoiled and self
    centered atitude ("the ME syndrome").
    
                        No one is indispensible.
    
                        We all can be replaced.

>   We all can be replaced.

	Only if your manager can get a Req OK'd. :-) 

			Alfred

    Re. .29 
    
    Yes we all can be replaced but then who will run the  business
    while all these new employees are getting trained. Wait, who will know
    enough to train them. Hold it,  why bother to train anybody since we don't
    have anybody experienced enough to make a product that we can train on.
    
    Hey that solves the problem. .0 no longer needs training since we have
    no instructors and we have nothing to learn anyway.
    
    Wait a minute, who's going to mail out my paycheck. I hope they didn't
    replace payroll too.
    

    I've seen the we can all be replaced quote just too often and have
    enough experience to have see many instances where it was not true.
    
    Of course I have added some realism to the constraint of time.
    
    Production lines are attributed to Henry Ford, and were a major
    factor in the american ramp up in WW II.  Maybe Henry could be replaced
    but before the war was lost ?
    
    Relative to production engineering, major account management,
    organizational motivation, innovative new efforts (or all types)
    I've seen that the sucess in this company and in others is often
    attributed two a few select individuals.  And the success of these
    programs made this company #2 and not DG or Wang (but some days
    it seems that we are still trying to get down there).
    
    There are a number of engineering, marketing, management and sales
    types working in this company that I can safely say were and are
    indespensible. 
    
    When it comes to activities of a lesser scope than a major new
    processor line, there are people who tend to be indespensible for
    their given jobs.  Add them up and they too have an enormous effect.
    
    Of course given the fullness of time replacements with the right level
    of motiviation, skill, intelligence and drive can be found and trained
    and nurtured.  But how much will we have lost before we prove that
    "no one is indespensible?"
    
    I'm getting very sick of the tendency to treat each employee as
    a statistically predictable unit with known manageable production
    metrics.   
    
    -Kevin
    #96577
    

    for those of you who feel you  are indispensible, I feel very sorry for
    you.   people who feel they are unreplaceable are a detriment to the 
    long term health of the company.  Maybe, in the short term, it would
    hurt the company if certain individuals left but thinking the short
    term is one of the problems in corporate america.
    
    As Lee Iacocca said "We load up on oat bran in the morning so we'll
    live forever, and then act all day long like there is no tomorrow".

    RE:    <<< Note 1143.34 by ODIXIE::GEORGE >>>

    >Yet, as we continue to provide those opportunities to the handicapped,
    >black, single parents, female, etc., is Digital spending a
    >disproportionate amount of resources on "minorities" at the expense of
    >"majority" peers who do not benefit from such attention?  
    
         Even with your disclaimer, this still appears to be a political
    statement.  I don't believe there is an extra cost to having Black or
    Female employees at Digital.  Each employee utilizes a different subset
    of the benefits offered here, and it is very unlikely that all of them
    are decided along racial or gender lines.  
    
         Returning to the topic, child care benefits in such a situation 
    might very easily apply to married parents as well as unmarried ones.
    Not all cases will allow for spousal backup.  While it would take more
    statistics than I have, you may be surprised at the size of the
    'minority' group who would benefit from this.
    
                                       Greg 

    Digital has a responsibility to it's employees to provide an
    opportunity to work and be rewarded for that work; the key word is
    opportunity, which does not equate with right.  
    
    You are hired to do a specific job; if that job requires travel than it
    is part of the job and it is your responsibility to perform in the
    manner perscribed.  If travel is not something you can do, mainly
    because of family commitments, than you are not available to perform
    consistant with the requirements of the position.  Digital has no
    obligation, either morally or financially, to reimburse you for
    expenses not directly associtated with the work being performed.  It
    may be career limiting, but if you cannot fulfill the requirements of
    the job, than you should not be in the position in the first place.  
    
    No one is asking you to choose between your family and your job; only
    asking that if you have accepted a job meet the requirements of the
    job.  It's your obligation to provide for your family; not Digital's.
    
    The fact that someone had a "house sitter" or stored their "antique" at
    Digital expense is as wrong as expecting Digital to provide 24-hour
    child care.  The other "wrongs" don't make this one "right". 
    
    Jay

re Note 1143.23 by LABC::MCCLUSKY:

>     Think what a company could pour into their growth, products, etc. if
>     they were not saddled with needing to meet each employees' personal
>     needs.  Let's concentrate on the corporate business and let the 
>     individuals worry about their personal lives.  

        Wait a minute -- I thought that, in basic economic theory,
        the only reason people work is to meet "personal needs".  An
        employer whose position is that "we have no intention of
        helping you meet your personal needs" will have a difficult
        time recruiting and retaining employees.  (One could argue
        that a company such as Digital could help me meet personal
        needs simply by providing me with a higher salary, rather
        than through "benefit" programs;  but I see no likelihood of
        Digital raising pay to the point where each employee could
        provide equivalent benefits themselves.)

        I would just offer the observation that there is no free
        lunch.  The cost of meeting the "employees' personal needs"
        will be met by SOME part of society (or else some part of
        society will have to meet the cost of NOT meeting those
        needs).

        (Of course, you might be willing to hope that by making the
        consequences of these personal choices painful, you will
        discourage such choices.  Or you can take a social
        darwinist's position and hope that you will reduce the
        numbers of the people who make such decisions. Or perhaps
        such people will just go to work for some other company.)

        Bob

The corporation already has sufficient means at hand to meet the employee's 
"personal needs" -- it's called THE PAYCHECK.

-dave

    re: .36
    
    If travel was a condition of the job when the person was hired then I
    agree, the person shouldn't have been hired to do it.
    
    If travel was not a condition of the job when the person was hired and
    then they decided to make the person travel, then I believe the company
    should do something about it because it then becomes an unexpected
    expense.
    
    John

    Back to the minority issue, let's not forget the softball team
    tee-shirts or bowling team prize fund money or ....  I think a previous
    reply only touched on the large minorities benefitting from Digital's
    sponorship of various activities and programs.  This issue extends far
    beyond the obvious groups mentioned earlier, so who in the company does
    not in some way benefit from a program that not everyone else may?
    
    Re:  Choosing a family, responsibility, "take care of me"
    
    What if an employee chose to have a family, then became a single parent
    through death or divorce?  What if the original job did not require
    travel but subsequent to becoming a single parent, travel was required
    either due to changing job requirements, career advancement, or
    customer requirements?  "I'm sorry Digital and customer, I can't travel
    because I have a _responsibility_ to my family, and although I realize it
    may be in the best interest of Digital and the customer for me to
    travel, I need to 'take care of me'."  Or would it be better to say,
    "Well, I would be willing to tolerate placing my child(ren) in the care
    of a stranger for the next N days (weeks) and the separation from
    him/her/them in the interest of best serving Digital and the customer. 
    Is it possible for Digital to provide some expense relief out of the
    $150/hour it charges the customer?"  Would a break even situation just
    to maintain good customer satisfaction be worth the effort and expense? 
    I think so.

    re: paycheck is only benefit
    
    Actually, you'd have to have a considerably higher pay to afford
    unsubsidized family health insurance, particularly if you or any
    member of your family had any serious or chronic health conditions.
    
    So, shall I, without children or serious health problems (at the
    moment) resent the fact that others in DEC get more benefit from
    health insurance than I do?  Or other programs?  Find another red
    herring, if you please.
    
    The ONLY consideration that should matter to DEC in considering a
    benefit to an employee or a group of employees is whether that benefit
    meets with the corporate goals, which have never been to simply and
    blindly make a profit.  From the profitability standpoint, any benefit
    that increases the ability to retain experienced people or improve
    their productivity such that the company benefits by more than the
    expenses involved is immediately good.  A manager whose reaction is to
    not consider the benefit because "it hasn't been done before" is an
    incompetent who is letting emotions interfere with good judgement. 
    
    From the other goal of being a "good corporate  citizen" any benefit or
    charitable expenditure that significantly improves the overall quality
    of the community should be judged on whether the expense is reasonable
    in light of the companies other goals.  After all, both we and the
    upper management of the company (and our stockholders) have to live in
    the community after we finish work.  And, to take a more cynical view,
    good communities breed good (and more) business than bad ones - so it
    can be well worth the investment if you take the long term view.
    
    /Dave

I haven't read this article, but, for your information, I have attached this
abstract from INSIDE INFORMATION, distributed by Digital Library at the Mill

"Work and family: how managers can make a difference"
Ray Collins and Rene� Magid
PERSONNEL  July 90  p. 14-19

As the demographic and financial realities of HR management change, HR
professionals are learning that family-responsive programs are not
only compatible with sound financial and strategic planning, but in
fact that they are an essential element of such planning.  Major
shifts in the nature of the labor force and the state of the economy
have made family-responsive programs a virtual necessity.  The tight
labor market has important consequences for HR managers: they need to
work harder to attract and retain valuable employees.  With the
emerging pattern now becoming a non-traditional one, with two working
parents or a single parent who works, companies need to change
accordingly, and the company that provides the best family-responsive
options will be the most successful in attaining this goal.  Flexibility
is the keyword for most managers in dealing with working parents, plus
communication -- without losing sight of workplace realities.
[HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, WORKING PARENTS, WORKING CAREGIVERS, FAMILY
ISSUES]  900717
   

Sensitivity on the work-and-family front is one of the areas Business Week
used to identify best companies for women (6-AUG-1990).  Other areas included
women in key exec positions and on the board of directors.  Digital made the
third (last) group listed.  "Aside from two corporate vice-presidents, women
haven't hit the top ranks in significant numbers yet."  IBM  and Honeywell
were both in the second group.  12.6% upper-management, 3 officers, 1 board
for IBM.  5.4% top management slots for Honeywell.  The top group included
U.S. West (women 21% of top 1% making $68,000+), Kelly (30% top mgmt),
Gannett (27% top jobs, 4 directors).
Lead in to cover story.  "Enlightened CEOs are finding that it makes bottom-
line sense to promote talented women to management ranks.  But it takes more
than benefits such as flextime and maternity leave to retain these executives.
The trick is creating a gender-blind corporate culture where women have an 
equal shot at landing top jobs."

    We're never going to have a concrete policy that works for everybody.
    A company that orients too many benefits towards one group at the
    expense of another will gradually experience a change in personnel
    so that the employees extract the maximum in benefits from the company.
    This is not illegal or immoral, it's analagous to changing your
    finances so as to maximize your deductions at tax time.
    
    Digital, like other companies, is struggling to determine what set of
    benefits results in the least-cost best-talent working for the company.
    It's a difficult balancing act where simplistic proclamations based on
    unique situations often miss the point:  Digital must react to the
    demands of the marketplace -- both the customer marketplace and the
    employee "marketplace".  As customer requirements change Digital must
    change to meet them; as the employee market changes Digital must change
    employee benefits so as to meet new employee requirements.  Just as we
    can't instantly supply everything the customers want, neither can we
    instantly supply all the compensation and benefits the employees want.
    So customers buy what meets their needs, and go elsewhere for products
    we are unable to offer.  Similarly, employees work here as long as the
    company meets their needs and those unable to find fulfillment here have
    just got to change jobs.
    
    Both markets (customer and employee) are moving targets, constantly
    shifting with the times.  And it is a sad fact that the only way to
    know you have the WRONG product is by lack of market acceptance.
    This means that there will always be cases where people get screwed
    by the system, for that is the only way that weaknesses can be found.
    
    Management is supposed to recognize faults and prevent their reoccurence
    where such faults are detrimental to the interests of the company.
    
      John

    Take a step backwards.  There's two ideas which some companies have
    elevated to the status of philosophies or goals:
    
    Pay for performance:  All compensation to an employee is reflected in
    pay.  Certain other benefits are mandated by law or tradition. 
    These non-salary benefits are not tied to performance.  Salary is
    ability-based, at least in theory.
    
    Leveling the playing field:  Non-performance-tied benefits increase the
    supply of people willing to work for Digital.  The company gets some
    good public relations in articles that survey which companies are
    on the vanguard of offering such creative compensation.  Employees who
    are the beneficiaries of such programs typically cannot afford the
    marketplace rates for the equivalent.  They are need-based.