Conference 7.286::digital

>    Note:   I  am  not necessarilly considering the case where it is only
>    poor performers that  are  laid off, I am considering the "potential"
>    next round where the  cuts  might  get  deeper.   Also, even the poor
>    performers might have become so because of boredome and being foisted
>    out this way could get them  looking  for  something  new to do where
>    they could again become a 1/2.

        PLEASE try to give  more  _thought_  to statements like this!  As
        with those that have already  been  touched  by  the "Transition"
        process, the criteria for being "laid  off"  will vary from group
        to group --- often the selection will  have  NOTHING  to  do with
        performance! 
        
        Regarding your vision of  why  people  are  "poor  performers", I
        think  that there are a  variety  of  reasons,  some  beyond  the
        control of the individual.  Every  person  is  different, and the
        proper  course of action to remedy the  situation  is  different.
        Personally,  I  feel that using "transition" or "lay  off"  as  a
        means of eliminating a _poor_performer_ from Digital's payroll is
        pretty _lame_ ---  supervisors  and  managers  should have worked
        with  the affected employee  long  before,  taking  advantage  of
        Digital's many applicable programs.   Digital's policies are very
        clear on this.  

    I think the point is that, for whatever reason, if you're a 5...maybe
    even a 4...then you should go before a 3, 2 or 1.  Let's face it, these
    individuals are (for the most part) along for the ride (assuming they
    were fairly rated by their supervisors).  To get through these times, we
    need a core of individuals who EXCEED job expectations...even in times
    when those expectations are increasing.  We can't be making excuses for
    poor performance in times like these and we don't have the luxury of
    trying to reform individuals who have consistantly stagnated since that
    would take much longer than we have available to solve this company's
    dilemma.  I see a lot of top performers in this company who have to
    work a lot harder than they should because they're carrying the weight
    for someone else who can't or won't carry it themselves.  To a large
    extent, that's what has caused the problem we are now faced with
    solving.

    Part of the first buyout was the statement that you could not be
    rehired in Digital for 2 years and that there would be a "flag" by your
    name meaning you had taken the package and not to rehire.  I believe I
    was asked to sign a statement to that fact....

    .3 nor can you "contract" to or through Digital for 2 years.
    
    Also, policy has been for quite a few years now that it requires two
    levels of management approval ABOVE the hiring level to re-hire.  This
    means that a "DISTRICT" (old AREA or REGION) DM or VP must approve an
    entry level job these days!
    
    Let's focus on what we CAN do - get people into those slots who are on
    their way, but not yet, out.  That reduces non-revenue headcount at the
    same time it fills a current business need.
    
    We MUST get our cost of sales down AND increase or revenue AND
    re-capture market share - or none of us will be around.
                                                           

re Note 1340.4 by ITASCA::BRISCOE:

>     Also, policy has been for quite a few years now that it requires two
>     levels of management approval ABOVE the hiring level to re-hire.  This
>     means that a "DISTRICT" (old AREA or REGION) DM or VP must approve an
>     entry level job these days!
  
        Of course, this is an INVOLUNTARY program -- it may (and
        should) have different rules concerning re-hires.

        Bob

I guess what I was thinking was that these people do/will have a lot of
DIGITAL culture and understanding and experience available.  Should things turn
in the nearer term, (6-9 months) it would seem a pity to not allow those
transitioned out to come back in if there is a job fit and a corporate need.

What .3 seems to be saying is "if DIGITAL needs to fill a job you are qualified
for, you cann't have it, we'll hire someone totally new, because you haven't
waited for two years.

I am not even saying that you'd get your old salary or position or even job
type.

What made me think of this is when other companies have laid off people
(for instance steel mills) those people get called back when there is a need
to staff back up if they are available to fill the need.

Remember the phase three transition is involuntary.  You don't get to try to
find an inside job before you are out the door.  I assume this is even if there
is an inside job which you'd fit and the need is immediate, but possibly
elswhere geographically.

    About re-hiring after taking the package: You can bet that if a
    critical need arises and a candidate for the job is a former employee
    who has done that job or a similar one,then that person will be hired no
    matter what the time frame. To do anything else would just be bad
    business and DEC does not do such dumb things. As far as pay
    goes,well,that's another story. I personally think that a person who is
    re-hired would probably receive some minimum salary (maybe $1/wk) until
    the severance period is up. Does this make sense to anyone?
    
    Ken

    RE:     <<< Note 1340.7 by CSC32::K_BOUCHARD "Ken Bouchard CXO3-2" >>>

    >I personally think that a person who is re-hired would probably 
    >receive some minimum salary (maybe $1/wk) until the severance 
    >period is up. Does this make sense to anyone?
    
         That might be appropriate, but it would be illegal.  DIGITAL would
    not violate Federal Minimum Wage laws to save such a relatively small
    amount of money.
    
    RE:               <<< Note 1340.2 by AV8OR::RMARTEL >>>

    >I think the point is that, for whatever reason, if you're a 5...maybe
    >even a 4...then you should go before a 3, 2 or 1.  Let's face it, these
    >individuals are (for the most part) along for the ride (assuming they
    >were fairly rated by their supervisors).
    
         In phases 1 and 2 of transition, my understanding is that 4's and
    5's were not eligible because it was considered foolish to pay someone
    to leave the company when they were already headed out-the-door for
    free.  Apparently, that decision was reversed for phase 3 and they are
    now prime candidates for selection.
    
                                       Greg

    
    Perhaps the severance amount could be based on their ratings?...
    

RE: .7

It has always been the case (and continues to be the case) with the "no
re-hiring" policy that exceptions to the policy can be made where there is
a critical need.  Within my own organization (TNSG), it requires our VP's
(David Stone's) approval.  These days, it might even require review by Jack
Smith.  However, it is possible where there is a REAL need.

--PSW

re .9:
    
>    Perhaps the severance amount could be based on their ratings?...
    
I don't know whether or not that would be legal, but it would certainly
open up a Pandora's box of lawsuits.

    In the UK, our version of the package specifically allows you to be
    rehired on normal pay wither as a permanent employee or contractor,
    instantly.
    
    	- andy

.7>    To do anything else would just be bad business 
.7>    and DEC does not do such dumb things. 
    
    Then why are we in this mess at all?
    
.7>    As far as pay
.7>    goes,well,that's another story. I personally think that a person who is
.7>    re-hired would probably receive some minimum salary (maybe $1/wk) until
.7>    the severance period is up. Does this make sense to anyone?
    
    If such a case were to arise, I would expect that it would (and should)
    be handled as a recall of a laid-off worker.  This would be subject to
    some legal requirements of which I am unsure.  One of them may be a
    requirement around salary, again I'm unsure.  There might be some
    others, like relocation benefits, which would be issues which might be
    sufficient to make such a case undesirable and unlikely.  I believe
    treating it as a recall would make sense because it also benefits by
    reducing the cost of severance, as well as possibly addressing some of
    the legalities around rehiring after a layoff.
    
    Some other points, about performance ratings.  As .1 pointed out, there
    are many factors involved in assigning performance ratings.  For one
    thing, the assumption stated in .2 that ratings are fair is quite
    possibly unfounded.  For another, they are at least somewhat subjective
    even if fair.  These factors make it highly risky to base severance
    exclusively on performance (although performance can certainly be a
    consideration), and probably illegal to modify severance terms based on
    performance ratings.  One reason to consider job performance might be
    that it takes a long and careful process to terminate for poor
    performance, while a layoff could be a useful simplification.  The
    reason for care in the process is to ensure fairness, and even a layoff
    must observe some of the legal niceties in this area.
    
    In my twelve years with the company I have had one or two experiences
    where my job did not change and I do not believe my performance
    changed, but because my supervisor changed my performance ratings did
    also.  Not seriously enough to be a problem (at least not after I took
    steps to address it!), but enough to make me very leery of anything
    that over-emphasizes performance ratings as objective truth.  So I
    would hope that any layoff process includes other factors as measures
    of productivity and worth to the company.
    

    you can expect that if someone gets laid off it will be more than a
    few years before they will ever be back.  I can picture a scenario were
    even if that person was a 1 performer and the company decided to
    restate the same job that person would be the last one to have it.  
    I've never personally seen a case where when it came to managing personnel
    resources DEC has ever done it well.

Re: steelworkers being rehired: That kind of layoff is called a "furlough".
I don't think a furlough program would work for DEC because we won't recover
quickly enough.
  I'm waiting to hear if the 2-year rule will apply to people who are laid off.

    re:.14
    
    You make it sound like DEC would be doing that "1" performer a favor by
    giving him/her the old job back. I think DEC is more business oriented
    than *that*. Anyone hired as a top manager would have to be aware that
    it costs far more to train someone  for a job than to hire someone
    already trained. If you know of a personnel policy which states
    otherwise,then I would say that said policy has to be one of the
    absolute worst of all time.
    
    Ken

    > Anyone hired as a top manager would have to be aware that it
    > costs far more to train someone for a job than to hire someone
    > already trained.
    
    In the short-term perhaps.  In the long-term, retraining is by far the
    better policy.  It is bad business and nothing short of absurd to
    acquire new staff when talented, trainable staff is already on the
    payroll.
    
    When the new-hire's work is done, is he then to be let go in favor of
    another new-hire is "already trained"?  And then the same again.  It
    does not require much to imagine what such a practice would do an
    organization in terms of stability, loyality, morale, dedication, etc.
    
    Bernie

    Just to put things in perspective, 
    
    In Puerto Rico, Digital's manufacturing facilities have long been
    nicknamed "La escuelita" (little school) because so many of our
    competition in the electronic manufacturing industry hired Digital
    veterans as their professional, technical, and managerial staff.
    
    We have more often been on the giving (up trained employees) than the
    receiving end of the kind of behaviour described here.  
    
    I think that very few Digital managers I have known would hire an
    outsider in preference to an insider that *they believe can grow into
    the job.*
    
    The first problem is perceptions, if you are perceived as a slow learner,
    there is little likelihood you will be asked to grow.  
    
    The other problem is the density of our overhead atmosphere.  How does
    a manager who wants to hire from inside get a list of 'qualified
    growable' people?  Self promotion is required, but also somewhat
    suspect.  If you have a padrino, its much easier.
    
    The one exception to this argument is when time is so precious that you
    need to buy the talent *now*!  Hopefully, we can step back long enough
    to avoid panic mode.

    re: .19
    
    What is a padrino?  If they're cheap, let's all get one!
        John Sauter

    padrino means "Godfather"