Conference 7.286::digital

    Phew!  Seems to me there's a lot of difference between what Jack's
    quoted on in this article and the attitude implemented in the trenches. 
    Could it be that a lot is being lost in the translation down through
    the ranks?  Or is this just lip service at the top?  Or is it that we
    really can't whistle AND walk at the same time?  I don't know.

	I work in Burlington's Information Systems group and no one in 
	the group was offered, much less took, the package.  I have no
	idea who he's talking about.

	I thought that the package was not offered to information systems
	people in general, although  I do know of exceptions.

	Bill

    re: .1, .2
    
      Ditto.  I'm in the trenches and simply put, we're now being plowed
    under by a bunch of three-piece-suit types driving bulldozers.

    Interesting that there is no mention of large numbers of managers
    getting the package.  Guess the powers that be are gonna ignore some
    really good feedback.
    
    Also, I still believe that although thousands are leaving...we are
    also hiring thousands.  I heard that we ended up with a net +150
    employees when the 3,000 left.  Can anyone comment/verify??

>    Also, I still believe that although thousands are leaving...we are
>    also hiring thousands.  I heard that we ended up with a net +150
>    employees when the 3,000 left.  Can anyone comment/verify??


     About 4 weeks ago two contract secretaries were hired as full 
     time employees at MRO4.  I understand that it was all done very
     quickly & quietly, and that the job req's were not posted (which
     made some people very unhappy as they were choice jobs that they
     would like to have had the chance to bid on, and at least one of 
     those people was without a job as her department had been 
     disolved!)

     BTW, for those of you that are going to say its just another 
     rumor, cost center #s can be provided to those that have a valid 
     need to know.  

    I find the material posted in the base note to be incredible. Somewhere
    there's a complete break in transmission. Jack's three points that
    are quoted are laudable, and certainly are the right things to do
    in this situation. I'd like to know the name of the company that's
    doing them. Does anyone reading this file feel that they know, from
    upper management, "when the bad times will end"?
    
    Unless Jack is being very literal, in which case his statement about
    bad times is true. He has stated that the next round of package
    offerings ends December 1. So yes, in that sense upper management
    has been specific.
    
    But as your standard flunkey down here below decks stoking the
    furnaces, (and there aren't as many stokers as there used to be,
    despite the fact that the people on the bridge keep calling for
    more steam) I just don't feel that the guys in the bridge are taking
    their own advice.

Well, as KO says, "Don't believe what you read in the press."

    RE: .6    1990 Annual Report indicates 1990 # of employees at year end
              of 124,000 v. 1989 at 125,800 or a net reduction of 1800.
              Looks like a reconstitution of the labor force to an increase
              in Sales/Service and an offsetting decrease in Manufacturing.
    
    Bob Clark 

    re:  base note
    
    
    How disappointing and embittering.
    
    (Patrick, you didn't mean to type in "Oct. 22," did you?)
    

RE: .0

>    o "If people see deadwood walking around - or out the door with a big
>    package - watch out."  In other words, if you play favorites, you'll
>    lose employees' trust when you need it most.

What, then, is the explanation for the golden parachute given to Jack Shields?

--PSW

    Thanks .9 for the data....but don't forget that we have been dealing
    with significant "1st quarter creep" as well.  Betcha we're pretty
    close to where we started.

RE:                       <<< Note 1227.9 by CSSE::BCLARK >>>

>    RE: .6    1990 Annual Report indicates 1990 # of employees at year end
>              of 124,000 v. 1989 at 125,800 or a net reduction of 1800.
    

     We also change the way we count people!  Part-timers used to be 
     counted as a whole employee even if that worked 20 hours a week.  
     Now they are counted as 0.5 or whatever fraction they work of 40
     hours.  

     (At the presentation by personnel, I asked our PS consultant if 
     we regularly worked 48 hours a week were we counted as 1.2? )

    The cover date is used as an indication to the newsstand that this is
    the date after which the next issue goes on sale.

    Typical of the method for counting employees is the restatement of the
    old numbers using the new method.  I don't think this is a big deal.

    "trim and retain" should be "trim and retrain" in .0.

    I've not yet given my opinion on the article.  I think that Smith's
    comments on the "ideal" are good, but the observations about how these 
    have actually been put into practice are either plainly wrong or
    confusing.

    I have no idea where this "bottom up" reference comes from.  Certainly,
    my managers have indicated that while input is always welcome.  An idea
    that merely puts the interests of the whole company ahead of a managers
    career is just not worth wasting anyone's time on.

    On the whole, I'm amazed at how much more direct and specific Smith is
    in FORTUNE in contrast to what's been reported on here.

    Regarding "Make sure workers know what the new organization will look
    like, what part they will play in it, and why it will be healthy." That
    way they can track gain not pain...

    When has anyone been told that their "organization" will be stable
    enough in terms of headcount, charter, and metrics for them to plan,
    implement, and review something meaningful in a meaningful timeframe?

    Uncertainty (or "chaos" to use Tom Peters' term) is supposed to be
    imposed on a company by customers, competitors, and technology. We're
    experts at creating our own chaos without the other three forces
    assisting.

    I especially like the part about getting it over with quickly and not
    stretching it out.  Seems to me that the reorganization headcutting
    scythe has been swinging over our heads for a good 2 years.  He calls
    that quick? 

    RE: .14
>    When has anyone been told that their "organization" will be stable
>    enough in terms of headcount, charter, and metrics for them to plan,
>    implement, and review something meaningful in a meaningful timeframe?

    	Last week. But then CVG is not a typical organization. I don't
    believe things are very stable above us though.

    In general I agree with the people who've said that there is still too
    much uncertainty at Digital.

    		Alfred

    Re:  .15 and "quick"
    
    "Quick" to come and "quick" to go -- quick to evaporate into a
    meaningless exercise in moving lines and names around pieces of paper.

    re: .16
    
    What's CVG besides the FAA identifier for Greater Cincinnati
    International Airport?
    
    Bob

    RE: .18 Thought is it was obvious from context that CVG was the
    little group I was part of. For what it's worth CVG stands for
    Cluster Validation Group and we're part of ISB. We test clusters,
    a product which seems to have some future in the company. Digital
    can't afford not to find the problems before shipment that CVG
    finds.
    
    			Alfred