Conference 7.286::digital

	This reminds me of the sales and sales support offices (or should
    I say communal cages?) that I saw on my recent visit to the midwestern
    region.  Many of the Chicago, and Milwaukee offices I saw were a sight
    to behold: referred to as the "Office of the future", these offices
    basically crammed four people into what was slightly larger than one
    single cubical.  Now, granted - a sales and sales support rep is not
    always in the office (as such, there weren't always four people inside
    them at any one time) but still, these offices were unbelieveable!

	An individual's office space within one of these offices are
    called a "stall", and for good reason: they are the same size and shape
    of a restroom stall, with the exception being that there is no door.
    There is just enough room inside one of these stalls to cram a small
    (3-foot-wide) desk and a chair.  The middle of the 4-stall office is
    then shared by all four people.  Talking on the phone in one of these
    offices (which is something that sales and sales support people have
    to do a good deal of) is a real challenge - especially when more than
    one person is trying to talk on their phone at the same time.

	Fortunately, these stalls are reportedly destined to be phased-out,
    but given the current financial situation, I wouldn't be surprized if
    it is a cold day in hell before they get replaced by anything reasonable.
    All I know is that these stalls were definitely not too inspiring looking
    of a place to work, and given the fact that our field & support personnel
    need all the added advantages they can get to make those sales (as well
    as to attract and retain talented DEC employees), it wasn't too encouraging.

				     -davo
	    (who recently turned down several job offers in the field)

    There was the time an engineering manager moved his office into the
    freight elevator in MLO5!

Interesting that nobody thinks DEC is "Cheap" for not allowing use of
elevators by the general employee population in ZK and the Mill.

In both facilities you'll only use the elevator if you're handicapped or
moving materiel, or if someone in one of those categories happens to be
going your way.

/john

re: .3:
> In both [ZK and ML] facilities you'll only use the elevator if you're
> handicapped or
> moving materiel, or if someone in one of those categories happens to be
> going your way.

There is a real live passenger elevator in building 3 now.  Also,
"able bodied" people have always used the building 4 and 5 elevators
without hassle.

Note that the mill elevators (except the new building 3) are open freight
elevators.  Their licenses may require a certified operator.

Martin.

    I remember seeing "able-bodied" smokers use the ML21 elevator to
    get to the smoking lounge on the 4th floor (shall I insert a wry
    comment?  Naaah.)  It's a do-it-yourself elevator, so nobody's
    there to enforce the "no passengers, freight only" sign.
    

    Getting back to the office sapce in the field issue - I just came off
    of a residency where I had 144 sq ft. of space with two desks and
    shelves to the ceiling (for the 17 feet of VMS manuals, etc...) - I'm
    now in sales support (I should be able to make more money for DEC that
    way right? And get rewarded (HA!)) - I started in sales support on 7/20
    and have yet to be given a phone, desk or terminal in one of the
    'stalls' that serve for offices in the field.  I currently 'share' the
    cubicle of one of the sales support folks.  Right now I'm in a computer
    room at an ACT waiting for a backup of a demo system to complete.  
    I beginning to think I should have stayed in PSS, where at least the
    customer cared about working conditions (more than DEC, obviously...).

A note on working conditions:

I wonder how many Digital sites worldwide have inadequate air conditioning?

According to research, for every 1 degree rise in temperature over 19C, 
there's a 2% decrease in productivity and a 4% rise in the accident rate.
In addition, people go home early.

I went home on Wednesday about 3pm and had to work from home because the
temperature in this building (REO2) was 86F. Today, the temperature was
over 27C in my area at 11am.

According to the above figures, this represents a 16% drop in 
productivity and a whopping 32% rise in the accident rate. There's 
about 300 people in this building.

The air conditioning in this building has been on the blink (= not 
functioning effectively all the time) for longer than the time I've
been here, and that's been three years.

Facilities, I understand, are currently investigating the problem :-)

How much is faulty/ineffective air conditioning costing this company 
worldwide in lost productivity and increased accidents? How much could
be saved by actually fixing the problem rather than trying to get too
much out of a system which just can't cope? How can we learn from these
mistakes and design air conditioning systems for new sites which _can_
cope_with_future_demand. We attempted to save money on the system here
in REO2 and now we're paying the cost. The system couldn't cope when I
moved in here and that was only 2 years after the site was opened !!

I believe that this is not a local phenomenon, which is why I'm posting 
this note here.

Maybe when we can all work from home via ISDN links we won't have the
problem of poor working conditions and the large overheads of building
management, but this seems a few years off yet.

    Craig

    I'd just as soon this building was NOT air-conditionned to the extent
    that it is - it is uncomfortably COLD in a lot of places, except on the
    third floor (and in the room where all the printers are - I go in
    there, which is across the hall from our office area, to get warmed
    up!).  It's quite a shock to go from 80 oF outside (this morning) to 60
    oF inside, BRRRR!  It's not so bad in the winter, since then I am
    already wearing a sweater...   I find it a lot easier to work in a warm
    environment than a cold one: I LIKE hot weather.
    
    MRO1 was worse: there is an office area there above the front door on
    the second floor where ice used to form on the inside of the windows in
    the winter (they were single-pane glass, from when RCA built that
    building).  We used to work with gloves on, and some people had space
    heaters in their cubes until the electricians made us take them out
    (fire hazard).  It wasn't so bad in the summer.   That building has
    been redone a lot since when I worked there - wonder if the heating
    problem has been fixed?  It must have cost a fortune in lost heat, and
    it was real tough to work in there in cold weather.
    
    /Charlotte                            

Watcha tryin' to do, Charlotte?

Make me glad I moved to ZK or sumpin?

	re .7, .8:

	Thanks for the correct temperatures, Craig. I make 19
	degrees about 68 Farenheit, so our offices (at 80-86 F)
	are running 12-18 degrees Farenheit too hot, with an
	expected drop in efficiency of 20% or so. That more or
	less matches my inutitive feelings.

	Of course, too cold is just as bad as too hot. You can
	improve matters somewhat by putting on more clothing or
	doing more strenuous work, but those options are not
	always open.

	Why shouldn't Facilities have a job objective to keep
	all employees in a reasonable range, between say 65-75
	degrees (or 16-23 Centigrade)? If any employee could
	show that the temperature at their work station was
	outside that range for any length of time, Facilities
	would have an obligation to fix it.

	/Tom

    I think the temperature in HLO was OK before they decided to shut off
    1/3 of the lights - you wouldn't think fluorescent lights put out all
    that much heat, but it seems to be what made the difference.  Not only
    is it too dark to work unless you have a desk lamp (can't see to read
    manuals) but my office plant is dying - I can't let THAT happen; it was
    a gift from one of the managers' wives, and I'll be in big trouble if I
    kill it!  They used to only shut off lights during real hot weather,
    apparently at the request of the New England power grid.  I wish they
    would install the high-efficiency reflectors if we have to keep this
    light level permanently.  It is real hard on the eyes to try to read in
    semi-darkness all day.
    
    I am in a sour mood today, anyhow.  I am flat broke, my car has been in
    the body shop for a month, my husband's ancient car is just barely running
    and will need carbeurator work as soon as my car gets fixed (whenever
    THAT happens), my lunch is sitting on the floor under my desk getting
    spoiled, and I am real tired of getting picked on and/or hit up for
    extra money!!!  Go pick on somone else.....the well is dry in THIS
    cube!                 
    
    /Charlotte

>or 16-23 Centigrade

16 C is 60.8 F.  A bit cold for most, I would think.

I don't trust Craig's numbers in .7.

19 C is 66.2 F.  If there's a 2% loss in productivity for every 1 degree
rise in temperature, then at 20 C (68 F) we're losing 2%, at 21 C (69.8 F)
we're losing 4%, and at 22 C (71.6 F) we're already losing 6%.

Just can't be right.

/john

<<< Note 1181.2 by CSSE32::RHINE "A dirty mind is a terrible thing to waste" >>>
    >There was the time an engineering manager moved his office into the
    >freight elevator in MLO5!
    
    At least it had a door..

    RE: .-1
    
    It didn't have a door as I remember.  It had bars (wooden)
    

A metal gate.

    One time when I was working in MRO, one of the most popular managers in
    the organization happened to be on vacation about the time when a
    "cage" upstairs (that area is now offices but used to be a production
    floor and distribution/storage area in those days) was being dismantled
    and the pieces scrapped.  So, we "appropriated" the cage's door and
    added it to Gary's cube, which happened to have 8' walls which matched
    the door's dimensions....  He got lots of mileage out of that when he
    got back from his vacation!  He used to have a sign on a string that he
    would put across the opening to the cube.
    
    /Charlotte
    
    Yeah, we returned the cage piece, and I think it went to the scrapyard
    with the rest of the cage pieces.

Back when Richie Lary was in the RT11 group on 5-5, his office door had bars
on its window.

Then there was the Start-Trek groupie who paneled her cubicle with white
fur.  Also on 5-5.

This was when Digital was booming; maybe we need to bring back the grey
cubicles made of Grossman's Lumber reject doors and slop some lanolin
on the floors.

to .17 ==
martin, you are showing your age and so am i. Do you know that was 15 years ago,
1975 to be exact, when we had birds flying over our heads, bird *&*# on our
desks in the morning, and insects walking down the hallways with us!  We ALSO
had the attitude to be creative, inventive, and productive even when our
working conditions were 'unique'.  So why dont all you people stop complaining
and starting digging in your heels?  I know that certain situations warrant
improvement, and that a nice office can make you more productive, but I think
alot of people think Digital OWES them all these creature comforts.  Nothing
can be perfect, each job has something that can be improved, but lets stop
centering on that and start concentrating on doing the jobs we are paid to do.

Sorry to rant on like this, and no offense  but IMHO

    I think the "creature comforts" thing is partially a demographics
    issue.  Fifteen years ago, most DEC eingineers were fresh out of
    college, or hired before graduation.  We were young, strong,
    idealistic, and all that sort of good "youth" stuff, right?  Most of us
    still work here, but now we're fifteen years older.  We have tendonitis
    in our wrists, failing eyesight, bad backs, family responsibilities at
    home, etc.  If I didn't have a decent office chair, for example, one I
    could attach a lumbar support roll to, I would get a lot less work done
    because I would be spending a lot more time at the back therapist.  On
    the other hand, we are now a real experienced workforce instead of a
    bunch of wet-behind-the-ears college kids.  Let's hope that's a good
    trade-off.
    
    /Charlotte

    re: .19
    
    Speak for yourself, Charlotte!  :-)
    
    When I joined DEC 15 years ago (next month) I wasn't fresh out of
    college, or hired before graduation.  On the contrary, I had been
    working for several years for DEC customers, and had established a
    reputation among DEC engineers by writing SPRs and attending DECUS.
    
    Like you, I'm now 15 years older.  However, I don't have tendonitis in
    my wrists, my eyesight isn't much worse than it was, my back is OK,
    my family is older but only slightly larger (my youngest is 14) and
    I'm not using a lumbar support.  I have gained weight, and I can't
    pull an all-nighter without being tired the next day.
    
    However, we're still hiring a lot of "kids" out of college.  I'm not
    sure if the average experience has increased in the last 15 years or
    not.
        John Sauter

:    However, we're still hiring a lot of "kids" out of college.  I'm not
:    sure if the average experience has increased in the last 15 years or
:    not.
:        John Sauter
    
    
    	John,  I don't know how much "average experience" has changed, but
    the average age of a Digital employee is now considerably older than it
    was in 1970.   I remember seeing a demographic report, and I'll try to
    find it, but in the meantime, I'll guess that it said that the average 
    age of a DEC employee in 1970 was something like 26, while the average
    age of today's Digital employee is something like 37 or some such.
    
    What this means is up to your own interpretation.
    
    -DM-

fyi ....

 ------- Forwarded mail received on 7-Sep-1992 at 10:04:39 -------

From:	CASEE::VNS "The VOGON News Service  07-Sep-1992 1008" 
To:	VNS-Distribution
Subj:	VNS #2656  Mon  7-Sep-1992

<><><><><><><><>  T h e   V O G O N   N e w s   S e r v i c e  <><><><><><><><>

 Edition : 2656               Monday  7-Sep-1992            Circulation :  7790 

        VNS MAIN NEWS .....................................   61 Lines

VNS TECHNOLOGY WATCH:                           [Mike Taylor, VNS Correspondent]
=====================                           [Littleton, MA, USA            ]

                       Workers of the World, Unwind
                       by Juliet B. Schor
                       {Technology Review November/December 1991}

    In the last 20 years, the amount of time Americans spend at their
    jobs has risen steadily. Each year, the change has been small,
    amounting to about nine hours, or slightly more than one day of
    work. But the accumulated increase over two decades is substantial.
    today's work year of 1,949 hours is 163 hours, almost a month,
    longer than in 1969.

    Not surprising, as work rises, leisure falls. people report
    nationwide that their leisure time has declined by as much as a
    third since the early 1970s. According to one survey, Americans
    have only 16� hours of leisure a week after taking care of the
    obligations of job and household.

    Whenever productivity grow, we are presented with the possibility of
    receiving either more free time or more money. Since 1948, the
    productivity of the US worker has more than doubled. In other words,
    we could now produce our 1948 standard of living (measured in
    marketed good services) in less than half the time it took in that
    year. We could have chosen a four-hour day. Or a working year of
    six months. Or each worker in the US could now be taking every other
    year off from work, with pay. Some economists in the 1950s even
    predicted that today's standard retirement age would be 38. But
    between 1948 and the present, none of the "productivity dividend"
    went to reducing fours. Although productivity grew rapidly, at about
    3 percent a year, in the first two decades after 1948, work hours
    have held steady. since 1969, productivity growth has been slower,
    averaging just over 1 percent. Yet hours have risen markedly.

    Why has leisure been a casualty of prosperity? Much of the answer
    lies in the "work-and-spend" cycle. The cycle operates like this:
    Employers ask for long hours from employees. They do so in part
    because long-hour jobs pay more and thus are more desirable to
    workers, who will labor more productively to keep them. Also, the
    fewer workers a firm needs to hire, the less it has to spend on
    fringe benefits. The high pay, in turn, creates a high level of
    consumption. people buy houses and go into debt; luxuries become
    necessities; Smiths keep up with the Jones, and workers accept, or
    even ask for, longer hours so they can go on spending.

    Not everyone accepts the need for more leisure. Employers have been
    sounding the alarm of foreign competition for at least a century and
    a half. In 1830, New York employers opposed the 10 hour day on
    grounds that it would allow foreigners to undersell them. In fact,
    the vast majority of America's competitors work far less than we do.
    There is evidence that under certain conditions a shorter work day
    will not necessarily reduce output, and can even raise it. Historically,
    the working day has been "too long" in the sense that fatigue has
    impaired effectiveness. Each time the work day was reduced, first to
    ten hours in the mid-nineteenth century and then to eight after
    World War I, productivity rose. When the Kellogg Co. made it
    historic switch to a six hour day in 1930, it was searching for a
    strategy to cope with the unemployment of the depression. To their
    surprise, managers found that workers were 3 to 4 percent more
    productive. The workers were pleased, preferring the quicker pace,
    but shorter hours. And management was pleased as well. According to
    W.K. Kellogg, "The efficiency and morale of our employees is so
    increased, the accident and insurance rates are so improved, and the
    unit cost of production is so lowered that we can afford to pay as
    much for six hours as we formerly paid for eight."

                Rising Hours For Fully Employed US Workers

                           Hours Worked per year
                        1969       1987   Increase
          All workers   1,786      1,949    163
          Men           2,054      2,152     98
          Women         1,406      1,711    305

                      Hours Worked Per week
                        1969       1987   Increase
          All workers   39.8       40.7     0.9
          Men           43.0       43.8     0.8
          Women         35.2       37.0     1.8

                           Weeks worked per year
                        1969       1987   Increase
          All workers   43.9       47.1     3.2
          Men           47.1       43.8     1.4
          Women         39.3       45.4     6.2

    The figures are the author's estimates based on the Bureau of Labor
    Statistics Current Population Survey. They exclude unemployed and
    underemployed workers.

                 Hours Worked Per Year In Manufacturing
                           1970    1979    1989
          Belgium         1,870   1,638   1,572
          Canada          1,918   1,859   1,887�
          Denmark         1,829   1,639   1,595
          France          1,872   1,712   1,610
          Germany (West)  1,889   1,717   1,603
          Italy           1,905   1,738   1,858
          Japan           2,269   2,159   2,155
          Netherlands     1,893   1,669   1,592
          Norway          1,794   1,572   1,614
          Sweden          1,744   1,513   1,539
          U.K.            1,939   1,886   1,856
          U.S.            1,913   1,907   1,952

            Paid Vacation In European countries
          Country      By law         By contract
          Austria      5 weeks        Same
          Belgium      4 weeks        5 weeks
          Denmark        -            5 weeks
          Finland      5 weeks        5 to 6 weeks
          France       5 weeks        5 to 6 weeks
          Germany      3 weeks        5� to 6 weeks
          Greece       4 weeks        Same
          Iceland      4 wk,4 days    Same
          Ireland      3 weeks        Approx. 4 weeks
          Italy        -              4 to 6 weeks
          Luxembourg   5 weeks        25 to 30 days
          Malta        4 weeks        Same
          Netherlands  4 weeks        4 to 5 weeks
          Norway       4 wks, 1 day   Same
          Portugal     30 civil days  4� to 5 weeks
          Spain        30 civil days  4� to 5 weeks
          Sweden       5 weeks        5 to 8 weeks
          Switzerland  4 weeks        4 to 5 weeks
          U.K          -              4 to 6 weeks

        {Technology Review November/December 1991}

<><><><><><><><>   VNS Edition : 2656      Monday  7-Sep-1992   <><><><><><><><>