Conference 7.286::digital

    I'm surprised that this 3rd round has a package associated with it. 
    That is more than I expected we'd see.  I imagine this is some of KO's
    doing -- it sounds like it.  Nice to see Digital taking measures to
    ease the blow.

    I agree, Steve.  I think Digital is still a people company in that we
    could have gotten a gracious "thank you" as we left and nothing more.
    
    mdh

    Yes, it is nice that there is a package, but don't forget that giving
    people a "package" has a benefit to Digital as well. Right now our
    unemployment insurance is quite low. As soon as we really lay one
    person off in Massachusetts, our unemployment insurance will jump, and
    we will pay higher rates for a minimum of 7 years.
    
    If we provide a "package" the person who is separated from the company
    can not apply for unemployment benefits. Thus, technically, this person
    was not "laid off". If we do NOT provide a package, anyone separated
    from the company DOES qualify for unemployment benefits, and we have
    a lay off. 
    
    My guess is that, financially, Digital is ahead of the game to provide
    a package, or that the difference is marginal enough that senior
    management decided to go with the decision that "has a heart."
    
    /se
    

    
    Some of us are slow. Here's some questions.
    
    If I should get a lay-off, you all are saying, I will get at least
    37 weeks pay in a lump sum (being here 14 years)?
    
    I will not just get a pink-slip and good-bye?
    
    Will I still have the option to pay my portion and keep medical for
    1 year ?
    
    

>    If I should get a lay-off, you all are saying, I will get at least
>    37 weeks pay in a lump sum (being here 14 years)?
 
	Having been here for 14 years I believe you'll get more like 53
	weeks pay in a lump sum. 37 weeks for the first 10 years and 4 weeks
	for each additional year. Something like that. I may be off 4 weeks.
   
>    I will not just get a pink-slip and good-bye?
 
	Pink slip, good bye and a good sized check. Plus medical for how
	ever many weeks they're paying you for up to a year. Plus formal
	outplacement/employement assistance (ie. They'll try and help you
	find an other job elsewhere.)
   
>    Will I still have the option to pay my portion and keep medical for
>    1 year?

	I assume you'll have to pay your portion for dependent coverage
	but according to the memo in LIVEWIRE you'll be covered by Digital
	for n weeks where n is the number of weeks pay you're getting. Again
	up to a year. After that I believe you are on your own.

			Alfred

    re: .4  I think you are somewhat mistaken.  Since this package isn't
    voluntary, it IS considered a lay-off.  However, one could not begin to
    collect unemployment from the state until the severance period has
    expired (assuming the state still has money left to pay out
    unemployment).

    
    
    RE:7
    
    Thanks for taking the time!  If a lay-off comes my way...It will be
    much easier to cope than just saying good-bye.
    
    This is just another reason why I've given DEC 110% for 14 years.
    
    

    re: .4 and .8
    
    Unemployment insurance is available to employees of firms who are laid
    off for economic reasons, versus being fired for performance.  The
    amount of UI you collect per week is a function of your insured salary
    and number of children.  The max is around $275/ week for 26 weeks,
    plus $50/week/child. Since the severance check is paid in a lump
    sum, the waiting period is moot.  To keep collecting you must show
    evidence of being involved in a job search, such as providing names of firms
    contacted, etc., to the Employment Security agency.
    
    The involuntary nature of the new severance package is the key to
    getting UI, not whether you got checks for vacation untaken, severance
    payments, etc.      

    
    Re .4:
    
    If it were financially beneficial for DEC to provide a severance
    package to avoid insurance increases, it should be financially
    beneficial for all companies to do the same. And yet, experience shows
    us that a severance package is by far the exception rather than the
    rule. So the company coffer cannot be the overriding concern, and we
    are left with the irrefutable fact that DEC really does gove a damn.
    

The fact the most of us feel that DEC gives a damn in this period of
aversity is why there isn't a mad rush to the life boats IMHO.

    RE:               <<< Note 1339.10 by NATASH::TROY >>>
        
    >The amount of UI you collect per week is a function of your insured salary
    >and number of children.  The max is around $275/ week for 26 weeks,
    >plus $50/week/child. 
    
         That depends on where you live.  For instance, this is not true in
    Colorado.
    
    >Since the severance check is paid in a lump sum, the waiting period is 
    >moot. 
    
         That, also, is not true in Colorado.  If they pay you a lump sum
    which is equivalent to 13 weeks of pay, you wait 13 weeks before you
    begin your unemployment period (plus any additional weeks of vacation
    time for which you were paid).
    
    >The involuntary nature of the new severance package is the key to
    >getting UI, not whether you got checks for vacation untaken, severance
    >payments, etc.      

         As long as the package is not conditional upon signing a release,
    then Unemployment compensation should be available.  Does anyone know
    for sure that laid-off employees are not required to sign such a
    release?
    
                                        Greg

re: .12

>    If it were financially beneficial for DEC to provide a severance
>    package to avoid insurance increases, it should be financially
>    beneficial for all companies to do the same.

Not necessarily. For a company like DEC which hasn't had a layoff in over
33 years of it's history (and which may not be planning to make a habit of it)
the savings in UI premiums not needed to be paid can be substantial. For
other companies, particularly unionized ones which layoff at the drop of
a hat (like some I've worked for), it's by far cheaper to pay the UI premiums
and let you go with a handshake or less, no questions asked, no remorse
assumed.

I must admit I was favorably impressed to see a package accompanying the
involuntary plan. For me at least, it did make the difference between
thinking of DEC as someplace special or just another Wang or DG type outfit.

-Jack

.12>    If it were financially beneficial for DEC to provide a severance
.12>    package to avoid insurance increases, it should be financially
.12>    beneficial for all companies to do the same.
    
    Another factor is how they view the tradeoffs, short vs. long term etc. 
    A severance package is cash paid out now, in a lump sum.  Results in a
    hefty charge against current earnings and/or the cash balances.  On the
    other hand, higher unemployment insurance payments over the next 7
    years is a continuing cost charged against the earnings over those 7
    years, without a hit on the current balance sheet.  Some companies
    might even prefer to realize the benefits of a severance package but be
    unable to finance the immediate cost of the package.

.5>    I, too, agree that Digital remains a special place to work.  
    
    less so than it once was, unfortunately.  This is both cause and effect
    of the current layoff need.
    
.5>    ...that people who
.5>    were offered the earlier options did not take them.  To me, it should
.5>    have been clear that their positions were not considered critical and
.5>    that ultimately they might be gone anyway.  By refusing the buyout they
.5>    not only hurt themselves financially but they forces the company to
.5>    take the action they have.
    
    Key wording is "might be gone anyway."  There is a whole aspect of
    games studies dealing with people's behavior in such situations.  If
    enough of those offered it took the voluntary package to avoid an
    involuntary program, those who did not take the voluntary one had the
    possibility of keeping their job and not being gone anyway later on. 
    An somewhat analogous situation is the decision to take the relatively
    smaller risk of vaccination to avoid the larger risk of a smallpox
    epidemic, if you don't but everyone else does you get the best of all
    possible worlds but if everyone else decides the same as you do then
    you are all at risk.
    
    My resentment is more at the organization and management failures that
    I perceive as having led to this situation.  I'll refrain from further
    comment, except to say that I see it as a team effort!
    

 re: .14

    <<	  Does anyone know for sure that laid-off employees are 
    <<	  not required to sign such a release?
    
 
SET MODE TONGUE-IN-CHEEK

	Hmm, so if they **are** required to sign before being laid off,
	I can just refuse to sign and they won't lay me off.

SET MODE SERIOUS

	I know it's absolutely none of my business to sit in judgement of
	the NOTEing community here, but I must admit that when I saw the
	base note, my first thought was "Oh boy, here we go again with a 
	long tirade of replies griping about how "they" are out to get us.

	I'm encouraged that this didn't happen. I will hit 20 years in May.
	I've been through thick and thin with Digital -- and they with me.
	Overall, I can't imagine life NOT working for Digital. I think it's
	a great place to be, adversity and all.

   /Marvin

    I'm with you Marvin, even though I've only been around 5 years.
    
    Sometimes I think we have to *make* our working situations good places to
    be.  Lots of my colleagues have moved on to other jobs, but I love
    what I do and where I do it.  Best of all, I love the opportunity to
    keep learning new things (I write software courses).
    
    Energy, enthusiasm, commitment to innovation, willingness to give 150%
    even when it doesn't always show in the check...those are the things
    that make it feel like what I've heard the "old DEC" to be.
    
    My management is very sensitive to and supportive of high energy,
    enthusiasm, and good ideas.
    
    Because the tone of this file tends to be quite cynical, I feel
    somewhat nervous even writing this - I suspect I'll be dismissed by
    most of you as Pollyanna-type who has some kind of unique situation.
    
    
    Holly
    
    

    RE:   <<< Note 1339.18 by CACT44::LEVIN "My kind of town, Chicago is" >>>
    
>	Hmm, so if they **are** required to sign before being laid off,
>	I can just refuse to sign and they won't lay me off.
    
         No.  Then you are laid-off without a package, but you are then 
    eligible for unemployment.
    
                                       Greg

    i believe DEC offered the same package to this group as the last few
    because if they didn't they would have had to deal with a lot of
    lawsuits.  And since they might have been at risk for even more money
    than offering the package it made sense.  It also makes sense since
    they already took the write off for the money in Q4 last year.

    The only difference between this time and the last few is that before
    jobs got cut.  This time people will be cut.  And what you did or
    didn't do in the past may not mean anything.

    and having had my job cut the last time I can tell you it isn't great
    but now I can imagine what it would be like to get myself cut.  

    oh, and BTW, the outplacement service isn't.  I'd put it on par with
    marketing hype.

    and what i want to know is how DEC is going to fill the open reqs that
    are in the system today?  I see a good 60 new ones every day now.  Is
    that just going to be normal float in the system?  And what happens
    when the field starts to enter it's reqs back in that they pulled out
    during the last cut?  Or is the field expansion over for now?  Got us
    in enough trouble before and maybe someone figured it out.

>     And what happens
>    when the field starts to enter it's reqs back in that they pulled out
>    during the last cut?  Or is the field expansion over for now?  Got us
>    in enough trouble before and maybe someone figured it out.

The Field (customer services) had its cust in the last package. The minneapolis 
distrist had 4 people take the package in december.

    re: .21
    
    Any sort of speculation regarding who will sue or not sue Digital is
    not appropriate for VAX Notes Conferences unless perhaps commenting on
    some _external_ news.
    
    Pat Sweeney
    not one of the current moderators of DIGITAL.

    > i believe DEC offered the same package to this group as the last few
    > because if they didn't they would have had to deal with a lot of
    > lawsuits.  And since they might have been at risk for even more money
    > than offering the package it made sense.  It also makes sense sicne
    > they already took the write off for the money in Q4 last year.
    
    I'm confused why you thing Digital might not offer money.  The original 
    plan was to give severance to 6000 workers.  They put $550M aside for
    this.  They only got 2500 to leave the company and now are not given
    the choice to the other 3500 they feel have to go. I'm sure I'm over
    simplifying what the $550M was for, but they did plan to give money to
    about 6K people.
    
    Also you can file a lawsuit for just about any reason, but I don't see 
    how one would expect to win in this case.  You don't sign a contract when 
    you get hired that says digital owes you anything.  
    
    -Bruce

I, too, have heard lots of mumbling about "having a good case" if one were
to be let go with the Phase III package if one hadn't been eligible for the
Phase I or II packages. This sounds patently silly to me. What could
possibly lead anyone to expect they had any legal grounds against anyone in
such a case? As has been stated before, DEC "OWES" you nothing other than
pay for work performed. You have no contract stating otherwise. There's
nothing legally unfair about being offered a package other than someone else
under different circumstances. 

-Jack

It's not the same package as phase 2.  The medical insurance isn't as good.

    
    That's logical -- neither is ours.
    

    
    
    Re: .25
    
    >I, too, have heard lots of mumbling about "having a good case" if one
    >were to be let go with the Phase III package if one hadn't been eligible
    >for the Phase I or II packages. This sounds patently silly to me.  What
    >could possibly lead anyone to expect they had any legal grounds against
    >anyone in such a case? 
    
    I don't think that legal grounds have anything to do with it.  There
    are lots of lawyers out there scrambling to convince people that
    they have been wronged and can get compensation.  All the lawyer has
    to do is convince a jury.  What the law says is irrelevant.  Too
    bad that such goes on but it does.
    
    Steve
    

     I would hope that a judge would not even hear the case after
a review.  DEC's severance plan IS generous!  Most companies give just
1-2 weeks pay. Anything more is BETTER than average.  Before I finished
school, I got the ax while working as a shipper/receiver in Burlington 
MA. I only got 1 weeks serverance for 3 years of service. Those who where 
professionals/salaried, got 2 weeks pay, for the same # of years.

   BUt of course that wouldn't stop a lawyer from trying.

Jack

    Our separation payments are generous, but not as good as some.  IBM's
    packages were much better, and how about Generous Motors giving 95%
    of salary to thousands of laid-off auto workers for THREE YEARS. 
    There are many other examples.
    
    When IBM/ROLM split here in Colorado Springs, the Rolm'ees got really
    nice packages...many are still chuckling.

    	re .30
    
    	So would it make you feel better if all the people leaving the
    	company would laugh at us for three years too?
    
    	Joe Oppelt

    No, but it's useful to know about data points other than Digital.

    It's supposed to be some sort of axiom that unless you're X number of
    years from normal retirement,(five?) NO early retirement plan is as
    good monetarily as staying in your job. (of course,assuming you *can*
    stay) 
    Having said *that*,I would think that most of the people that are
    supposedly chuckling about their great severance package are now
    "chuckling" on the other side of their faces. (provided they haven't
    found other jobs)
    
    Ken

    I believe that Mass State Law mandates 60 or 65 working days pay for a
    worker who is laid off. This is relatively new legislation, and I have
    only heard about it - not read it myself. Does anyone know the actual
    reading of the law? It came about when Wang and others started dumping
    large numbers of people into the unemployment lines I think a couple
    years back. I'm sorry I don't have the facts exact on this. If no one
    else does, I'll look it up in the libary law books over the weekend.
       Ted
    

    
    Re: .30
    
    You're comparing apples and oranges in part.  "Generous Motors",
    as you put it, did their part of providing 95% of salary as part
    of their then current contract with the UAW.  That was not voluntary
    on their part.
    
    Steve
    

    Re -1 and others.  Of course...I'm not defending GM or any others.  I
    was just reacting to the statement that most companies only give a
    week or two of compensation.  That simply isn't so.  Mom and Pop
    operations, sure.  But the majority of corporations try to do the
    right thing.

    
    Re: .36
    
    > But the majority of corporations try to do the right thing.
    
    Perhaps.  I think, however, that comparing the terms of what one
    company does vs. another and then using that to decide who is doing the
    right thing can be very misleading.  Just because Rolm or General
    Motors or IBM offered packages that were 'better' than what Digital is
    offering does not mean they did better by their employees.  You also
    have to factor in their ability to offer such packages relative to the
    number or persons being offered them.  The data around that is not
    readily available you can be sure.
    
    Steve
    

    
    Re: .38
    
    I wasn't saying that providing 95% of salary is not good.
    I was just pointing out that using that statistic to say
    that one company is treating its employees better than another
    is not valid.  One company may be able to afford that much
    and another not.
    
    Steve
    

    I just heard that people in Phoenix were the first to be layed off
    (laid? off)...and that the plant was being closed.  Anyone else hear
    anything?
    
    Carol

    Look elsewhere in here for a more accurate description of what is
    happening in Phoenix - the plant is closing as of March 29th and
    employees have recently been informed of such.
    

>    Look elsewhere in here ...

	Note 1278 to be exact.		--Mike