| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1165.1 | This group shrank TOO much | CADSYS::HECTOR::RICHARDSON | | Wed Aug 22 1990 16:15 | 7 |
| My group is five people below its authorized headcount (we got raided by an
outside company!), so there have definitely been people around here
interviewing, mostly from elsewhere inside DEC. I hope we hire a few
of them, too - it is hard to make any forward progress in some areas
because of the loss of some of the missing people!
/Charlotte
|
| 1165.2 | who's hiring these people? | CVG::THOMPSON | Aut vincere aut mori | Wed Aug 22 1990 16:25 | 6 |
| One set of figures I saw showed drops in engineering and manufacturing
but gains in the field and in marketing. I know that my group that
was ok at 7 people, was full out at 6, now has 4 people. We're all
working pretty hard these days.
Alfred
|
| 1165.3 | | COOKIE::LENNARD | | Wed Aug 22 1990 16:35 | 4 |
| The only reason I bring this up is that one of the really major
criteria by which Wall Street measures whether we are getting our act
together is how successfully we manage our excessive headcount. It
would appear we are not doing a very good job.
|
| 1165.4 | Layoffs? | PHAROS::FANTOZZI | | Wed Aug 22 1990 17:03 | 8 |
|
I heard that DEC has announced layoffs of 8,000 people worldwide
today. Anyone else hear that?
That would solve some headcount problems....
Mary
|
| 1165.5 | Check note 372.10 | VAXWRK::PIANTEDOSI | Radar-equipped, stealth Mosquitos | Wed Aug 22 1990 17:08 | 1 |
| Check note 372.10 for some info on this subject...
|
| 1165.6 | buy out 8000 more, hire 10000 | GLDOA::STAGGS | Rather be Fishing | Wed Aug 22 1990 23:32 | 8 |
| Saw in the evening paper tonight that DEC is reducing personnel by
8,000. The article indicated a new buy-out plan, but not near as
lucrative as the previous one. No further details were available,
except that the article commented on the impact to Mass. unemployment
figures.
rick
|
| 1165.7 | Different way of counting? | JGO::EVANS | | Thu Aug 23 1990 04:50 | 13 |
| re .0
There is an active project to uniformly define heads and maybe this
has led to different results :-
e.g. temps and contractors under the old system were not counted
as heads unless they were working on particular reference days.
The new method of counting was as far as I know to include everyone
but only in relation to full time. So someone working half days
would only count as half instead of as one under the old system.
j.e.
|
| 1165.8 | 2 * � now = 1 | SICML::LEVIN | My kind of town, Chicago is | Thu Aug 23 1990 16:32 | 10 |
| Yes, the company did change the way it did headcount. (I think this was all
effective July 1). If a manager hired a part-timer, that person would be counted
as filling a slot. So two 1/2-timers took two slots. The change was to go from
number of people to full time equivalents. That way a manager could fill a
single position with two 1/2-time people.
Besides giving a truer measure of "human resources" in a group, it also creates
some flixibility in hiring, such as job-sharing.
/Marvin
|
| 1165.9 | New method is for internal use only... | FRAGLE::CALHOUN | | Fri Aug 24 1990 09:45 | 7 |
| Bear in mind, however, that as of August 10th, when I attended training
in the new headcount methodology, the "true resource" concept was to
be used for internal reporting only. The external reporting will still
reflect "gross headcount", at least for FY91. So if we're going to
lose people, it will be a real decrease, not a number shuffle.
|