Conference 7.286::digital

    
    	I have seen a memo out of CXO that seems to confirm this. However,
    be careful. Different states have different laws around who can
    be paid on other than a weekly basis and certain criteria that must
    be met. For example in Massachusetts I believe it is illegal to
    pay a person whose pay is computed on an hourly rate basis any less
    often than once a week.
    
     

    a memo was forwarded to me stating that "salaried" employees would be
    paid every two weeks, and that it was soon to be officially announced.
    
    Carol

Does this mean that we get a 50% pay cut?  THAT should save some $$.

(Just kidding ... I hope.)

:?

-steve-

As one (along with many others I suppect) who wrote to Jack Smith 
suggesting this change, I am cheering that a real cost saving idea
is being implemented.  I believe that cost cutting doesn't save in
long run; it only transfers the problems.  Only cost savings have
a real impact.

RE: .4
It may be a pay raise :-) if they implement it to be
previous week and current week.  Since there are no timesheets to
worry about, there is no real reason not to do it this way (other
than money).

Lee G. waiting_for_my_cut_from_the_savings

    There is a difference, particularly if you're investing weekly (for
    example, into an IRA or the SAVE program).
    
    If you invest $100 per week at 10% annual interest for 52 weeks, at the
    end of 52 weeks a little spreadsheet magic tells me I have $5463.37. 
    If I invest $200 every two weeks at 10% annual interest for 26 periods
    (the same principal amount) I end the year with $5457.87.  It's small
    on an annual basis, but the difference over a peariod of 10 years is
    substantial.  It does make a difference...
    
    Now, if they'd "run the payroll weekly" but only send us stubs every
    two weeks...

RE: .0

If you mean "every other week", it's "bi-weekly", not "by-weekly".  "By-weekly"
would mean "by the week", or every week, just what you didn't mean to say.

--PSW

In Germany, everyone is paid monthly. When I got to MKO a year ago, I 
suggested to my colleagues that the US could do the same and save a bundle in
processing costs. Everyone I spoke with prefered weekly pay.

Stephen

    Digital Australia pays monthly.  I tell you, you only stuff your budget
    up once!  On the other hand, you get to pay the bills in one, clean
    hit.  Weekly pay sounds like a nightmare.

    The memo I saw stated the last weekly payroll for WC 4 would be
    generated during the week of May 9.  It also stated WC2 employees would
    continue to be paid on a weekly basis.
    Mark
    

    I came from weekly pay to monthly pay. It takes little getting used to,
    but I like it better. Yes, you can pay all bills at once. You may have
    to learn to budget your living expenses. I seem to have more money
    every week with themonthly paycheck than I did, when I got paid weekly.
    I know I have to live for a month.
    Sure it could save DEC in USA a lot of money to pay bi-weekly or
    monthly.
    

    When I was at PR1ME they switched to paying us every two weeks.
    Didn't do PR1ME much good!. Kept Payroll busy sorting out the bugs though!.
                                                                  
    Eric H.

    Since the change only affects wage class 4, then there is little cost
    savings -- the data entry is the same, the payroll system is still run
    weekly, backups, etc.  
    
    Where the $ comes in, is all the interest that DEC gets instead of the
    employees and government.  DEC will obviously pay us for the prior two
    weeks, not the current week.  Consider the following implications of
    the last weekly check for May 9 --
    
    1)  under weekly pay, this May we would receive 5 weeks of pay.  Under
    this new plan we receive 2 one week checks and one 2 week check on May
    23rd -- 4 weeks pay.  This reduces the amount of $ DEC deposits to tax
    accounts in May significantly.  It also delays 1 week of pay from the
    stock plan right before the buy date.  So, I effectively buy less stock
    and thus it delays DEC's contribution.
    2) there would not be a month with 'extra' pay until August, and then
    not again until the following January -- that pushes those extra
    deposits across the year bondary into the next income tax year.
    
    I used to work in a company that paid bi-weekly. I had my finances
    arranged with that in mind.    I now enjoy weekly pay.
    I have planned my financial obligations around that structure.  I have
    payments and auto deductions staggered so that these don't hit my
    accounts with more than one in a week. I now will have to re-arrange
    alot of things to adapt to this and with DEC's date choice it does the
    most damage possible to my finances.  Because many of our bills our
    monthly, you plan your bills to fit 4 paychecks.  So, the 5th paycheck
    has some 'bonus' $ in it -- whatever is not the weekly expense money.
    This is usually allocated for vacations or special projects in our
    financial plan.  So with the delay in that bonus $, those 'specials'
    are delayed from May to August -- what a nice thought for the summer
    (or I have to take it out of savings and lose interest for those 3 
    months).  Another problem with changing from weekly to bi-weekly, is
    that many of us have 'contracts' with daycare providers, elderly care
    providers, etc that are paid weekly --  now I must float those from
    somewhere (probably savings - again a loss of interest), to cover
    the week that I don't get paid.
    
    
    I agree that I can budget and plan around whatever pay scheme is
    implemented.  But, since I have planned and carefully selected
    what banks to use (for example, I autodeposit to an interest bearing
    checking account with certain terms -- these were selected with the
    weekly deposit in mind -- so that I could maintain the minimum balance
    to receive interest, without keeping more $ in that account than is
    necessary -- in other words, I get interest on my money while the
    checks are being cleared), how to schedule load repayments, etc. , I
    have problems with switching.
    
    Since DEC is going to cause me these problems and cost me some interest
    over time (see prior reply that spells this out), I would think that
    they would try to select an implementation date that minimizes the 
    penalties to me -- i.e. after the 5 week pay month, so that I could
    have the little extra that affords me, to help buffer the cash
    shortage the changeover will cause.
    
    If DEC USA could truly implement COST savings - not having to run
    payroll weekly and it were implemented with some sensitivity to the
    impact on employees, I would not object.  But, the payback is from the
    interest earned and some 'paper money' (deferring some expenses until
    the next month, fiscal year or tax year) which might make our finances
    look better the first couple of quarters its implemented -- DEC should
    at least be up front enough to admit that and not hide behind 'cost
    savings'.  And I think there implementation is a direct statement to 
    me that they value the profits and $ more than they do the employees.
    
    Pardon my flames, but I feel a bit insulted and betrayed... DEC's
    reputation for being a great employer is sadly slipping these
    days......
    
    Peggy 

         I changed the title on the base note because it was incorrect 
         English.  In humor, I made the title of this reply BYE since 
         it looks like weekly paychecks for wage class 4 employees in 
         the U.S. is indeed going away.
         
         It makes sense to pay on an other than weekly basis. Most 
         businesses bill on a monthly basis and business   Also it 
         seems to be the trend with large employers to pay bi-weekly.  
         For example Raytheon and Computer Sciences Corp. do this.
         
         It is true that in Massachusetts hourly employees are not to 
         be paid less than once a week by law.  I used to be an hourly 
         employee with Computer Sciences Corp and they paid me 
         bi-weekly.  I never brought the issue up since I was not 
         planning on staying in their employ for very long.  But since 
         they have a very small presence in Massachusetts they 
         probably overlooked this matter.
         
         I admit I'll have a better time managing my finances with a 
         paycheck every two weeks.
         
         
         /Bryan

    Sorry, but despite being apparently out-voted, I have to agree, almost
    word for word, with the argument AGAINST as presented in .13 for almost
    the exact same reasons.
    
    I mean, "vote against" for what that's worth, because I don't think a
    ballot question will be presented to us on this issue...
    
    Jon

Oh well, lose a few, lose a few...
Why is it that every cost savings measure that this company takes feels
like a whack across the side of my head?
This ought to save thousands of dollars.... its sad but, DEC is becoming just
another place to work real quick.

I worked for a Mass. computer company when they switched from weekly paychecks
to bi-weekly.  When I first heard the change was coming, I was not pleased.
But when it was implemented, they paid us for the previous and current week,
not the 2 previous weeks.  (Hope that makes sense.)  I had no complaints after
that.

I've heard no word on which weeks the bi-weekly check would cover.

    There are lots of questions:
    		which weeks paid for
    		what happens to stand-by and call-in pay
    			stand-by goes on the usual check, so I assume it
    				is processed however the check is
    			call-in could be weekly, but since it must be tied
    				to stand-by, it would make sense that it to
    				goes with the flow
    	     	what about wage class 3's ? -- they are eligible for
    			overtime compensation, so one assumes they remain
    			weekly
    		
    
    re:.12 -- I used to program/support the payroll application for a small
    company -- changeover could be ONE MASSIVE HEADACHE -- I hope they have
    a good, flexible, already proven payroll package or this will really be
    fun.
    
    		one assumes the united way, insurance and other deductions
    			double, or if will they have to recompute those
    			amounts based on the new numbers of checks issued
    			in the year ?

re .13:

I'm no expert, but I doubt if the frequency of paychecks affects the frequency
of tax remittances to the government.  I think they're made on either a
quarterly or monthly basis.

    I also worked for a company that went from weekly to bi-weekly.  They
    paid us the previous and current (effectively getting a one time
    advance).  For all the complaining here one might want to check MA law. 
    At the time (early 70's) the law was if a company decides to do this
    they MUST NOT penalize the employee.  Now that may have changed but
    before one goes off the deep end it might be worth it to see what we
    are actually going to implement.

    It might also make for great fun trying to figure out advanced vacation
    cards, trying to figure out the real impact to auto-deductions to the
    DCU for loans, stock & SAVE plans, etc. 8^)
    
    I worked for a company that had bi-weekly pay back in the late 60's &
    early 70's.  It's back to the future (20 years) for me 8^).
    
    ps:  I prefer weekly as it helps me keep almost real-time control over
    my I/O
    
    Mark
    

    I really canot understand the moans about such a trivial change.
    
    It's no big deal, ok? It's not the end of the world.
    
    Worry about something importent, eh?
    
    	- andy

    We will muost likely have to refigure our state and federal
    taxdeductions as well.  With the check being for more money it could
    increase what the govt takes out each pay period.
    
    
    Peace,
    
    Mike

    re: .22
    
    right on...as I see it DEC is trying to cut cost and if this helps
    to accomplish it then just do it...
    
    without cost saving measures we could all end up
    without paychecks and without jobs...
    
    your choice: weekly/bi-weekly/or none at all...
    

    re .22,.24
    
    On the other hand, look how fortunate one is that one has nothing of
    *more* consequence to worry about.
    
    
    
    				h

RE:.22

I can't believe that I am saying this but I disagree with Andy.

Depending on the way this is implemented, there can be a negative
impact financially for some people.  This is important to those
folks that have no margin for error.  I would hope that the issue
of which two weeks to use has been thought out carefully.  Since
it has taken this long to implement, I will assume that it has.


On a seperate issue/rathole, not only are taxes not paid to the 
government on a weekly basis but I have heard from a very reliable
source that the law allows a company to hold on to the 401(k) money
for up to 60 days before putting it into the accounts.  FWIW.

Lee G.

Then there are those of us who actually CASH our checks instead
of "depositing" them, which means of course walking out of the
check-cashing place with twice as much cash on one's person...

(Oh well, as was mentioned it could be worse!!)

	Bob A.

I just  got the memo, and was displeased to say the least, so I came here to
see what people had to see...  I was surprised at how little dissatisfaction
there was.  I always viewed the weekly paycheck as a nice benefit of working
here.   My  cash  flow  is  geared around weekly checks, much like that of a
person in an earlier reply.  It really makes my life easier to know that I'm
going  to  get  a  certain  amount  in  my  account  every  Thursday.  It is
especially  useful  for  when  an unexpected expense comes up, since I don't
have  a  lot  of savings to cover such things.  With weekly paychecks, I can
stretch  things  out  a bit, and never pay anything more than five days late
even if the expense is significant.  With bi-weekly checks, those of us with
low  margins  for  error  may end up eating beans the last few days before a
check...

How much money will this save Digital, anyway? I did some rough estimates in
my  head  which  put the figure at around 3/4 of a million dollars per year,
(figuring  20  cents  per  employee per stub not issued).  Since the cost of
changeover  is  likely to meet or exceed that (unless the miraculous happens
and  it  goes  completely smoothly), the company may not see any net benefit
until as late as FY93.

I don't  know,  it just seems to me that $5 or $6 per employee per year is a
pretty  cheap  benefit.  I guess we need to cut costs, but I'm not too happy
about this method...

- Brad

>           <<< Note 1352.27 by CHOVAX::ALPERT "Agent of Goldstein" >>>
>                          -< more cash to carry out >-
>
>Then there are those of us who actually CASH our checks instead
>of "depositing" them, which means of course walking out of the
>check-cashing place with twice as much cash on one's person...

I suppose you'd get upset for the same reason if you got a raise?

Come on people.  Get real.

-steve-

>I suppose you'd get upset for the same reason if you got a raise?

I don't expect a 100% raise anytime soon.  "Get real." 

My own feeling is the bi-weekly checks will be a pain in the
rear, but apparently there is nothing to be done about it.
Back to work...

		Bob A.

	I can't believe some of the arguments for weekly checks.
	Those of you who have schemed your lives around the weekly check so
	neatly, don't you get TWICE the money every Thursday? So, (assuming
	that DEC pays you once week in advance in the beginning), you should
	still have the same money you expect there to be on the second Thursday,
	when you don't get paid, as you would expect with a weekly pay.

	Unless, you are saying that having more money in your account will
	make you spend it faster, and force you to live on beans the last
	few days. It's YOUR problem, not DEC's. 

	The person who cashes his checks - you are saving half your trips
	to the bank in this case. If you don't like to carry all the money
	at once, go there twice (assuming you have a bank account), and you
	will still have the same life.

	I really can't believe these arguments!

Since I've never added my paychecks into my checking account until the
last payday of the month, I'm not sure how seriously I'm going to be
affected by this.

But it is extremely obvious that for someone who is close to the wire
on cash flow, the big unanswered question is pretty serious:  Will such
employees have a week in May where they run out of money because they
won't get paid for two weeks?

This is probably the reason for the Mass law requiring employees to not
be penalized by such a change, which can only be implemented if the first
Thursday after the last one-week check is still a payday, with double the
money.

And if that is the case, noone should complain.  If you can't handle
being paid a week earlier, I just don't understand your logic.

RE  <<< Note 1352.24 by CSS::GORDON >>>
    
>    your choice: weekly/bi-weekly/or none at all...
    

    OKAY, I Choose weekly!   It may not be a big deal to those that
    get paid the big bucks, but for those of us that need to budget weekly
    this is not going to be easy.  It's a benefit that has been taken away
    and I can only imagine what's next.

    The bean counter mentality strikes again!.
    
    Instead of telling people to "Get real" I feel I should ponder and
    wonder if the action will help Digital. I am usually a person who
    writes to encourage BUT my hot button is Bean Counters. They get
    you from every aspect.
    
    Expenses, mileage, health care, stationary, cash flow. ALL in the
    interests of making digital more financially viable. But Oh what
    a price that has to be paid in terms of people pain. Each little
    nibble at persons operating comfort is usually quite acceptable,
    especially in islolation. It is The SUM that becames a huge bite
    that amputates and employees's will to be a major contributor.
    
    What are the Bean Counters doing. I ask them aand they tell me the
    are protecting digital from all those irresponsible managers and
    workers who are recklessly overspending. If I ever rule the world,
    I mean run my own company, I will have ONE accountant. All the managers
    will have a real budget and if they blow it they go!.
    
    Too simple Huh?. Hey there are many very successful, off-shore(clue),
    companies that do it that way. They are beating us today. How many
    bean counters are there. Probably enough to save us a lot more money
    if they were not here.
               
    Now let me grab my more sensible DEC hat and hastily add that I
    would use all of our finanacial people to sell to the finanacial
    comunity as opposed to chopping them. Heck! we could sell a lot of
    systems that way and get rid of many of todays issues.
    
    Dec is a great place top work!. Let's keep figuring how to keep
    it developing in that direction..
    
    I gues I should have flamed on and off or something, but when it
    flows it flows..
    
    Eric H. 
                 

Again -- quit worrying until you know whether this will be a week without
pay or a week with extra pay.

    re: .33
    
    BINGO...leave company go to company that pays weekly...

re .23:

>    We will muost likely have to refigure our state and federal
>    taxdeductions as well.  With the check being for more money it could
>    increase what the govt takes out each pay period.

Wrong.  The tables and formulas provided by the IRS and the states take
this into account.  The IRS publication has separate tables for weekly,
bi-weekly, semi-monthly, and monthly pay periods.  This is the first
job I've had where I've been paid weekly (others were bi-weekly and
semi-monthly).  Really, folks, it's not so painful.

    I guess the whole thing boils down to a question of what one is
    accustomed to. Those that have been paid non-weekly for years have
    gotten used to that and have structured their finances around that.
    I  can easily see that if an employee is accustomed to getting a check
    every week,he/she may be in a bind twice/mo. unless that person is
    disciplined enough to put the bi-weekly check in a bank account and
    "pay" him/herself on a weekly basis.
    
    Ken

    
    re: .36
    
    That is not the answer.
    
    First, we need to find out how much the change over will cost.
    
    Second, we need to find out how much this (ridiculous) move will
    save the company.
    
    /prc

>	The person who cashes his checks - you are saving half your trips
>	to the bank in this case. If you don't like to carry all the money
>	at once, go there twice (assuming you have a bank account), and you
>	will still have the same life.

As a matter of fact for a variety of reasons (and this is not the place
to go into them) I do not have a bank account.  (If you feel the need
to flame me for this please do it offline rather than wasting bandwidth
here.)

Other pains in the rear for me with the 2-week checks is that the 
place where I cash them takes one's thumbprint if the check is over 
a certain amount; the bi-weekly checks will most likelly be over this
limit.  Also it will no longer be feasible to sign some of the checks 
over to creditors as I currently do for larger bills and will have 
to go to the expense of money orders + the check cashing fees for these
instead.  (I don't know how many DECies conduct their personal business 
in this manner, perhaps I am a minority of 1.)

Still, these are minor considerations, admittedly attributable to my 
own desire to steer clear of the banking system to the extent possible.  
If the biweekly checks will save the Company considerable money that is 
of course the main consideration; if I (or anyone else) feels
this move cannot be lived with we all know where the door is.

What I am more afraid of is that at some point the Company will stop issuing 
live checks altogether and go entirely to "direct deposit" as a cost-saving 
move.  At that point I would probably need to leave the company.  (I have no 
intentions of opening up a bank account.)

		Bob A.

    Re .-1
    
    Probably none of my business but it seems strange not to have a bank
    account. I know if I didn't have a bank account it would cause me all
    sorts of extra work. I would have thought that a bi-weekly paycheck
    would only incrementally add to the extra work you are now going
    through due to your wish not to have a bank account.
    
    Dave

>    Probably none of my business but it seems strange not to have a bank
>    account. I know if I didn't have a bank account it would cause me all

Guess I hear the beat of a "different drummer." This forum is not the 
place for an in-depth discussion the pros/cons/rationale, however.
Suffice it to say that in my situation the bi-weekly checks will be
something of a pain, and will entail a little more expense, but will
still be managable. (Prior to DEC I was paid monthly and did not care for
that at all!)  If at some point the Company decides to opt for direct-deposit
only that will be more of a problem.

Is there any official word yet on just how much the Company expects to save
with this?  (I'll feel better if it's a lot! :-)

		Bob A.

    Re .40
    
    Perhaps the banking industry could work on a direct deposit system of
    Chickens, goats, pigs, .... etc  - then we could turn the clock back a
    few hundred years..... then PRESTO! - no S & L bailout!
    
    Just thinking. . .
    
    

    As with any other change, there is bound to be varying levels of
    discomfort and distress for people.  This issue will certainly raise
    levels of anxiety in us due to the perception that the change will
    impact our "purses" if you will.
    
    The trade off in my mind is will the expected savings accrued by paying
    wage class 4s fewer times per year be offset by the degradation of
    productivity while we internalize this change.  
    
    The payroll dept will still have to process time cards on a weekly
    basis, the pouches will still have to be sent to the field offices
    weekly, the payroll coordinators in each site will still have to
    distribute payroll weekly, the PSAs will still have to followup on pay
    issues weekly etc, etc...
    
    My point is that it is not clear to me that this change will be very
    effective in reducing costs, and anticipated savings may be offset by
    perceptions that this change is of greater magnitude than it really is.
    
    KO

    re the note that said it would probably take until FY93 to recover the
    costs of the change; that's one of my biggest fears, and I think FY93
    is very optimistic based on my experiences with corporate payroll.  I
    mean, as part of the employee stock purchase plan, where a specific
    percentage is supposed to be deducted each week, nobody in payroll has
    ever been able to explain to me why that amount *fluctuates* a few
    dollars every so often.  (I'm WC4 and the gross amount stays the same).
    
    Or, another instance, I just changed cost centers.  Not physical
    locations, mind you, just cost centers.  My first payroll check with
    the new cost center went to the location I was at 9 MONTHS AGO!  Why? 
    "Because you changed cost centers, sir."  Huh??
    
    Besides all the inconveniences elaborated on in previous notes (which
    are *real* inconveniences for those of us who have gotten used to
    budgeting for weekly checks for almost 10 years), I fear that it will
    be closer to FY00 by the time the cost savings even break even!
    
    Jon

    	I vote for weekly , weekly , weekly ...ETC .

    Having worked at various companies, and having lived under the four
    major paycheck timing schemes (weekly, bi-weekly, semi-monthly,
    monthly), I'd list my preferences (in descending order) as weekly,
    monthly, semi-monthly, and bi-weekly last.  As a matter of fact, if I
    were on a tight budget, I'd swap the ordering on the first two choices.
    
    Getting paid other than monthly or bi-monthly means that in most of the
    months of the year, you're not getting 1/12th of your yearly pay, even
    though your bills still come in one per month.  That means that there
    are going to be mostly lean months with two or four really fat ones. 
    Thus, the comment about tight budgeting.
    
    Having once bought a house, only to have my pay changed from monthly to
    bi-weekly, I can tell you that such a change can really wreck your
    budgeting.
    
    Unfortunately, I can't see going from weekly to bi-weekly to be much
    better if you're on a tight budget.  At least with the weekly
    paychecks, the unevenness of your pay (with respect to your monthly
    bills) gets smoothed out in three months rather than six.
    
    But, I don't have a tight budget anymore, so the preceeding is moot to
    me.  What is relevant, then?
    
    1) The POSSIBILITY of having a week's pay delayed into the next year.
    Maybe changes my taxes.
    2) The certainty of earning less interest this year, even if it's a
    very small difference.
    3) The POSSIBILITY of buying one or two less shares in the next stock
    purchase period, which in turn reduces my gains for this half.
    4) The certainty of going to my least favorite pay distribution scheme.
    
    In real terms, the net effect for me is probably little more than a
    pain in the backside, with the financial fallout amounting to no more
    than a couple gallons of gas per year (due to lost interest).
    
    What really troubles me a lot more than this is the precedent of going
    to payroll to find some cost savings.  From some previous extremely
    unpleasant experiences with a company that went looking for cost
    savings in the payroll department a lot, I can only flinch at this. 
    Without having any solid reasoning, it FEELs to me a lot like letting
    the camel's nose into the tent.
    
    Bi-weekly paychecks now, and the minor cut in pay (due to lost
    interest).  Maybe next time, they cut down on the price of postage used
    to send the paychecks to the field offices, resulting in spottier
    paycheck delivery.  Maybe cutting the staff in payroll, so the error
    rate goes up.  Maybe a long series of "mistakes" that always seem to
    work in the company's favor.
    
    All of those are gut reactions, and there's no logical reason to
    believe they're going to happen.  On the other hand, one of the things
    that brought me to Digital was that the payroll came out once per week,
    and was (in my case) unfailingly correct.  I personally see the change
    to bi-weekly as a potential first step down a road of more major
    payroll complaints.

    
    
    
    Am I back in the navy?  the last time I was ever paid on a bi-weekly
    basis was over twenty years ago.  My entire budget is based on weekly
    income and like a few others have mentioned there is a definite cash
    flow restriction. Almost any hicough in the flow of things and I wind
    up on very tight rations untill the next pay check. Could I survive for
    two weeks?????? I don't know. I gues the thing to do is start
    practicing now.......

    re: the replies that say wait and see, and 'no employee penalty' laws
    
    If we wait and see, it will be to late to effect a change.  It may be
    already.  
    
    I've never worked in MA, so I have no idea of that law, and I've not
    heard of it elsewhere.  If they indeed pay us ahead, that will
    certainly help me a great deal.  But, interpretations of laws are
    sometimes very strange (thats why we have so many lawyers, judges and
    levels of courts in our legal system).
    
    DEC has always been a good place to work for many reasons:
    	1) DEC wants to do what's right
    		right for customers
    		right for business
    		right for employees
    	  these often conflict, in this case cost savings for business vs.
    		financial impact to employees (if this impact is truly 
    		minimal and the gains to business big, then that is fine)
    
    	2) I can "push back" when an issue affects me/my job/etc. --
    		in other words I'm allowed to voice my opinions, questions,
    		concerns... (that's what I'm doing here)
    
    	3) DEC values its employees -- lately, we seem to have less value
    		-- how often has it been said in this note alone ' if you
    	       		don't like it leave ' -  DEC is all of us, not just
    			management, so the attitude we reflect in notes
    			is part of the DEC attitude
    	       -- most of the cost cuts (that I know of) are hitting the
    			employees -- it is to be remembered that employees
    			are a LARGE cost item on any spread sheet so this
    			may be justified, or it may reflect a change in
    			attitude by the strategic decision makers in DEC.
    
    

For one summer I processed all the termination papers for a large insurance
company which paid employees bi-weekly.  The checks came out on Thursday
for that week and the next week.  The number of people who left on that
Thursday (and therefore owed the company 6 days pay) was significant.
This would tend to counteract cost savings.

On a personal note, I got a promotion at my last job that meant that I
went from bi-weekly to monthly (end of the month) pay.  So I went for
5 weeks without a paycheck.  Not only did I not get a raise with the
promotion, but I took a pay cut because of increased benefit deductions.
But the promotion (and increased opportunities) was worth it.

Jean

	... that a relatively small group of employees turned the Plan A 
demise of 1988 into a renewed Plan A still in effect.  If enough complaints 
reach the top, this might also pass.

	I, for one, would like to hear the specific savings areas they think 
this will address.  If it's mailing/printing costs, I'll vote for using DCU's 
phone system weekly to check on my deposit, and let DEC send me a statement 
every quarter or longer.

    The military serivices pays monthly. Government service pays weekly.
    
    Having done both before moving to a weekly pay employer, it is SO much
    nicer than either bi-weekly or monthly. I can't explain why so maybe
    it's in the mind. I LOVE weekly pay.
    
    Some of the support for weekly could just as easily apply to a yearly
    paycheck. Just think of the drive-in teller's expression when you say
    "cash please". Seriously though, it always seems to boil down to
    "when's the next check coming" regardless of the cycle. Sooner to me
    has always been more attractive. After all, you worked for it.

    Could somebody who actually received one of these alleged memos please
    try to get permission to post it here, for the benefit of us who
    haven't seen it and are merely outraged at the suggestion?
    
    Jon

    Like /John says, why not wait and find out how its gonna be
    implemented.  If its for last week/this week, it means we are going to
    get a check in advance.  
    
    The two things that seem to bug me the most is:
    
    1. the way this is being communicated!  could this be just trail
       balloons?  Sure is a strange way to communicate this change!
    
    2. the Love Digital or leave it attitude that prevails all over Digital
       today and displayed by members of this notefile.  The current glut
       of employees seems to give free right to making empoyees preceive
       to be second class, therefore encourageing them to leave the
       company.  "valuing Differences' is only lip service.  Any change
       is sure to induce additional stress, real or preceived.  It will
       affect some.  I do hope that someone has determined that there will
       be enough savings to justify it.
    
    From my mushroom stool Digital is changing to be just like all other
    companies.  maybe we grew just too fast and asimulated too many people
    from those other companies too fast before we could give them the gift
    of the Culture of Digital which itself was the original gift of Ken.
    So now Digital may get a bi-weekly pay check and we will look more
    like those other companies.  And if you don't like it, don't gripe
    or try to hang on, leave [not my idea].
    
    I like change though, its good when there are identifiable benefits.
    Before we continue to add stress, low, infrequent pay raises, different
    medical providers/insurance, reduced operating budgets, less equipment,
    more work due to reduced headcount, building consolidations, reduced
    'entitlements', bi-weekly pay, lay-offs, etc, lets make sure its worth
    it and communicate it properly.
    ed
    

        re .53 and "please post memo" - if anyone wants to do this,
        please make sure that you either have the original author's
        permission, or that the original memo (e.g., not one of the
        forward "subject" lines) indicates it's for general
        distribution.
        
        Thanks,
        
        Jim Stratton
        

	I believe that this can only be a rumor (but I could be wrong).
    Three months is an awfully short time frame for this kind of thing to be
    phased in.  If it was a year and three months it would be much more 
    believable.  I'd also have expected it to come out of the HQ area instead 
    of CXO.  Further, this kind of change is usually synchronized with the
    beginning of a fiscal year or at least a fiscal quarter.  Doing it in the
    middle of May just doesn't make sense.  (But then not everything makes
    sense, so you guys have me worried.)

	I too would like to see the cost savings. I went to direct
	deposit which is supposed to save the corporation money. I
	would be willing to get a bi-weekly or monthly pay stub for
	my direct deposit, but I still want weekly pay. 

	How much will this cost in re-programming? Or is payroll 
	outsourced? Why not develop some on-line application for WC2
	timecards? How much money do we spend on data entry and Federal
	Express for these cards? Purchasing went to a totally paperless
	environment, why not payroll?

	

        Let's not panic folks, the Payroll Department is NOT going to fail
        us is this is indeed a policy that will be implemented.  You can
        count on it.
    
        Why can I be so positive.  Well for one thing, when have you EVER
        not had your paycheck issued on Thursday?
    
        For another thing, at least once a year, the payroll system must be
        updated with all the new tax law requirements.  Again, when was the 
        last time you didn't get your check on time after these changes
        went into effect.
    
        Give the group some credit folks.  Do you really think they would turn
        something on for production as critical as this before it was ready?
    
        Finally, I have personal knowledge of several major payroll system
        activities (e.g. the Burroughs to PDP-10 re-write.  Getting your check
        during the blizzard of 1978).  All were transparently smooth to the
        recipients.  This doesn't mean that there weren't lots of midnight oil
        and sweat expended by the Payroll Department; just that we, the
        paycheck receivers, were shielded from it.
    

    re-1
    
    Hi Ken...
    
    I have direct depost, don't have a fat bank balance, and usually need
    the money when it's deposited.  There have been a couple of times in the 
    past few years when I checked on Thursday evening at my bank, & the
    Digital pay deposti had not yet been received.  Given I have been with
    the same bank for 35 years, they always are willing to cover my checks
    because they 1).  know me, and 2). know Digital is good for the money &
    will get the deposit.  I agree that DEC has an outstanding record for
    on time (also ahead of time) direct deposits, but the record is not 100%
    perfect.
    
    Mark
    

>
>    2) The certainty of earning less interest this year, even if it's a
>    very small difference.
>

	I don't think this is a certainty at all.  Has anyone seen any
	real information on how this will be implemented?  My guess would
	be that they would pay for previous week plus current week.  This
	would avoid the one week "missed" pay at the changeover that
	would be a real problem for some folks.  If they do indeed do
	it this way, we'll see a small interest gain.

	In fact, the interest thing isn't much of an issue.  The small
	dollar difference just won't amount to much one way or the other.

    
    There is one important thing being overlooked here by those who wonder
    what the fuss is about.  For sure, it is not a big change in the grand
    scheme of things, and if it is implemented everyone will adjust even if
    painfully for some.  Right now things are very uncertain, many don't
    know if they'll have jobs in two months, additional rumors  of bigger
    layoffs in FY92 are floating around, we're all being asked/told that we
    are going to have to change, AND right now, in the middle of all this
    comes a rumor (at least for now it's a rumor) that the company is going
    to mess with the thing most likely to threaten any fragile feelings of
    stability left.
    
    I think the most important thing to read in the concerns is the feeling
    of betrayal that is coming out loud and clear to me at least.  It's
    not an issue of whether doing this makes sense or not, but is this the
    right time?  I can't imagine a bigger blunder than to implement this
    right now.  A 750K savings right now is not worth the additional blow
    to morale.  It can always be done a year or so down the road after
    things settle down.
    
    Steve
    
    

    Re .-1
    
    I don't understand your attitude. Now is the time the company has to
    put plans in place to help the business. There are two ways to do
    this:
    
    	1) Increase revenues
    	2) Cut costs
    
    Each part of the company should look at ways to do both. The Payroll
    department would have a hard job doing 1) so I assume it is doing its
    bit by coming up with a mechanism to cut costs. Why all the fuss?
    especially since it is highly likely that you'll get your 2 week cheque
    for the current week and the previous week so you'll be getting a one
    shot of a week's pay a week ahead of usual. Who can moan at that.
    
    It's paralysis of decision that could kill this company, not groups
    implementing well thought out plans. I have no reason to believe that
    an ill thought out plan would be put into effect.
    
    Dave

    > Checked on Thursday at bank...pay deposit not received....
    
    There is at least one other possible reason. Maybe the bank had your
    deposit and hadn't processed it yet.
    
    Edd

I know the concept of a bi-weekly paycheck has been under evaluation for a
number of years here at Digital. I believe that savings to the corporation can 
be substantial.

I've had my ups and downs at Digital like most of you, but overall the company 
has been good to me. I still have faith in the management of the company, many 
of whom were responsible for bringing us this far. I think we all need to do 
our part to help get us get the corporation's expenses under control. If that 
means bi-weekly pay or even a pay cut, so be it. I'm willing to make those 
sacrifices.

The thing that really troubles me is the inflexibility and unwillingness of 
many employees to adapt to changes like this. Okay, your budget is based on a 
weekly paycheck and now its biweekly. Is it really that difficult to change 
your budget? Sure, it will take some getting used to, but it doesn't take a 
rocket scientist to figure it out.

With all that is happening (talks of layoffs, cost-cutting, etc.) in Digital,
I find it hard to believe the attitudes that still prevail. Digital needs
people willing to not only to accept change, but to actually make change
happen. The time for whining is over.

Jim

p.s.: And as far as a grass roots effort to overturn this decision (if it has 
      been officially approved)... IT IS THE EMPLOYEES OF THIS COMPANY WHO 
      HAVE BEEN SUGGESTING THIS CHANGE AND WORKING TO MAKE IT HAPPEN!

Re .45

>    ...as part of the employee stock purchase plan, where a specific
>    percentage is supposed to be deducted each week, nobody in payroll has
>    ever been able to explain to me why that amount *fluctuates* a few
>    dollars every so often.  (I'm WC4 and the gross amount stays the same).
    
Don't know why payroll doesn't have at least one theory:

Check your pay stub, and see if, second line from the bottom,
"Stock Supplemental Option" has a Y next to it.  If it does,
for 20 weeks out of each stock purchase period a small extra 
amount is added to your ESPP flat-percentage deduction.  See your
ESPP prospectus, "How do the supplementary contributions work?"
section, for further details.  The supplemental contribution for
the current period went into effect as of last Thursday's paycheck.

				Andrew

I saw the initial mail message that went around that purported to describe
the decision as done, and then got another one a day or so later from
someone saying that the earlier memo was not accurate; that such a move
was being considered, but no specific implementation had been set up.  So
it looks as if some of the debate is premature.

Still, I'm not really worried about this.  It does mean that DEC gets an
extra week's float on my salary instead of me, so in essence it is a pay
cut.  (I can't imagine them going to paying a week in advance, but I also
can't see having to skip a week without pay.  It will be interesting to
see the details when they finally emerge.)

There has been LOTS of discussion of this issue here in this conference,
and it seemed most everyone was in favor of it then.  I guess people don't
like change when it happens to THEM.

				Steve

RE: .64

I am a IC.  I was one of many (per the response I got) to make the suggestion
to go to a longer pay cycle.  There is a cost savings.  Go to an outside
payroll vendor and ask for a quote based on pay interval.  I think that you
would find that the savings are fairly large like 50% higher for weekly over
bi-weekly.  Why?  Because there is less data, there is less paper, and
finally there is less checking up to make sure everything is correct every
week.

Lee G.

FWIW: There is a much larger savings to the company to do direct deposit.
      Paper checks have to be handled just like the checks you write for
      your own bank account (you do balance your checkbook, don't you?)
      AND they have to be stored once they are returned.  A single computer
      tape is much easier to store than a pallet of paper.

    Re .61   . . .  Some spin in the other direction on this topic!
    
    I understand your concerns because if this payroll change is
    truly fact - not rumor, then myself and many others will also be
    impacted.  Please don't feel your being singled out.
    
    I personally support the "rumored change" 100% for the following
    reasons:
    
    	1) I believe there will be true cost savings both short term and
    	   over the long haul.  (Reduced payroll processing time, reduced
    	   volume of direct deposit transactions, reduced check-stub
           printing, sorting, distribution, delivery, etc)
    
    	2) This is a high profile change - but a very basic payroll change! 
     	   If it is so difficult for some to accept even this level of
           operational change (we've always had weekly payroll; it's to
           sudden/drastic - give us a years notice, etc...) how do you
           expect this company to make the really serious
   	   structual/organizational changes required to compete in this
  	   World!
    
    	3) If it saves digital money - DO IT NOW!
    
    When I started my career after college I went to work for a company
    that paid most salary employees on the 15th and 30th of each month.  
    After a couple of years and promotions (still in engineering - no big
    bucks) I received 45 day notice that salary would be paid only monthy.
    No problem.  Guess if I really wanted to I could have refused the
    promptions.
    
    The point is if your given reasonable notice (45-60 days), you accept
    the change and get on with more important matters.
       
    p.s. Other than digital, the last time I was paid weekly was when I had
    a paper route - 25+ years ago.
    
    Just my $.02
    
    

    
    
    Getting paid twice a month would not hinder me in the least. I welcome
    the concept in support of cutting costs in DEC.
    
    Don't forget, By paying twice a month, DEC will actualy be generating
    revenue by having millions in float longer thus getting paid by the
    bank with interest as well as what has been mentioned in other replies.
    
    I would like to see from Corporate a list of items that we have cut or
    reduced and see the before (we spent) and after (we saved).
    
     

    
    
    First, I think the responses to my .61 is an example of my point.
    
    You've simply restated the "logical" reasons why this is a good
    idea and restated wondering what the "moaning" is about.  The fuss
    is because people are having an emotional response to this not a
    logical one.  Arguing "good business" with someone who is feeling
    threatened, fearful, etc. in an environment where there are other
    factors contributing to those feelings is missing the point.
    
    You can blow it off if you like, but messing with people's pay
    no matter how innocuous it might seem logically is bound to generate
    lots of uncomfortable feelings right now.  I just question whether the
    savings will be worth the additional threat to morale right now.  There
    are probably lots of other things they can do and let this one rest for
    a year or so.
    
    Personally it doesn't matter to me one way or the other, BUT it does
    matter to some whether some of you think it should or not.
    
    fwiw,
    Steve
    

    Hello everybody,
    
    I have not read all the entries (too many) and I do not live in the
    States, so I am not familiar with this issue. However I can say that in
    Europe the majority of the people are paid on a monthly basis and get
    along with it. I cannot see what difference it makes to plan a budget
    for one week or for one month. Just a couple of days to get used to it!
    Being paid weekly, b-weekly or monthly does not change anything in the
    total amount of moeny that you receive, say, every 30 days.
    I must add, too, that we are not given any cheques, the salaries being
    automatically deposited on our bank accounts.
    
    On the other hand if DEC has to calculate salaries every week, issue
    cheques every week and maybe also issue salary slips every week, it
    certainly must represent extra expenses which could be avoided.
    
    Michel
    (PS: it was considered as an improvement in France and many other
    European countries to have employees move from a weekly to a monthly
    basis, many years ago...!)
    

When I look at bi-weekly pay, I think: "If making this change will save
$750K (?) and in the big picture perhaps some jobs, can I live with the change?"

Sure, I'd like the extra dollars a year interest and paychecks that match
the timing of my bills, but I wouldn't feel good about turning to someone in my
group who has a spouse, kids, mortgage/car/college payments to make and saying
"This change will affect me enough that I'm willing to risk you losing your job
with the extra money spent by not implementing it."

						Trace

re: .70 Thanks Steve, I think you hit the proverbial nail on the head.
If bi-weekly becomes reality I will be able to handle it. But, I dopnt
want it because I had a real bad experience the last time I worked for
a company that paid bi-weekly. It went belly up with me holding a 2 week
paycheck that wasnt worth the paper it was printed on. I said then that
I would not ever work for a company that paid that way again.

Before everyone responds that I should leave, I'm not, I've reconsidered
since then. However I do feel that this is just one more blow.

re: .71 Fine, you get paid monthly, your used to it, etc, etc. Great,
I'm going to suggest the starting soon Europeans get paid bi-monthly,
think of the savings...

- George

re Note 1352.64 by BRULE::MICKOL:

> I think we all need to do 
> our part to help get us get the corporation's expenses under control. If that 
> means bi-weekly pay or even a pay cut, so be it. I'm willing to make those 
> sacrifices.
  
        The problem is that neither of the above, bi-weekly pay or
        even a pay cut, brings expenses that are "out of control"
        under control.  They do reduce expenses, but the level of
        control remains the same (all other things being equal). 
        There may be times when even well-controlled and very
        traditional expenses such as these must be cut, but the
        impact on the organization and individuals must be very
        carefully weighed.

        Bob

    About the reply to my reply about the certainty of lost interest:
    
    Ok, so our two week system is for the previous and next weeks.  Even
    still, the subsequent paychecks come every other week.  To maximize
    interest, you want to put as much money in the bank as soon as you can. 
    Does the effect of getting the first week in ahead of schedule cancel
    the losses from going from weekly deposits to bi-weekly deposits? 
    Don't know.  Have to check my HP for that, I guess.
    
    Even still, it does mean putting money in the bank every two weeks.  If
    Digital is seeing all sorts of savings (as noted in many previous
    replies) by getting an extra week's float (= interest) out of that
    money, that's interest that I'm not getting anymore.  It didn't just
    materialize from the ether:  I used to get the benefit from weekly
    transfers from Digital to me.  Later Digital gets the benefit from
    cutting that to bi-weekly.  If they get the benefit, it's because I
    paid my share for it.
    
    In real terms, how much does this mean to me, personally?  Well,
    probably not a heck of a lot.  I could probably work out how much
    difference it'll make to the balance in my IRA over the course of a few
    years, and it might look like a big number until you factored out
    inflation and spread it across the annuity that it'd turn into.  Yes,
    it's probably no big deal, and if it mattered, I could still go on and
    make manual weekly contributions to my IRA - or even better yet,
    deposit the whole $2000 right on the first of the year.
    
    Still, if Digital sees a savings due to hanging onto that money for one
    extra week during each pay period, someone's paying the difference, and
    that someone is still us, period.
    
    Everyone who's said that this probably won't represent a big change to
    our budgeting and lifestyles is probably correct.  It won't really
    change things that much.  As a matter of fact, even though it'd make a
    big difference in terms of interest earned, if the suggestion was to go
    to monthly pay, I probably wouldn't have squalked at all.  It's just
    that I really, REALLY dislike getting paid bi-weekly, simply because
    it's the one way that's farthest out of skew with my bills and
    budgeting. 
    
    It is NOT, as people have said, getting paid twice a month.  Getting
    paid on the 1st and 16th is getting paid twice a month.  It is getting
    paid every other week, which has even less bearing on month to month
    boundaries than getting paid weekly does.  The reason I can live with
    weekly pay is that it's a lot easier to put a bill off for a week than
    two weeks.
    
    To me, the issues still boil down to two points:
    
    First, and probably larger, is just how much I dislike getting paid
    bi-weekly.  I don't get the satisfaction of tearing into a paycheck
    every week, nor do I get the satisfaction of having my pay periods
    match my billing periods.  That's a personal preference, and I can't
    expect anyone to agree with me on this, but  I still reserve the right to
    grumble about it.  It ain't the end of the world, but it's one small
    thing that makes the company very slightly less attractive to me.  (I
    know - based on this gripe, I should just leave.)
    
    Second is how uncomfortable I get when the company turns to the payroll
    department for cost savings.  To me, payroll is sacred.  This may sound
    selfish, but that weekly "atta-girl" really is one of the major
    benefits of my job.  When they've gone to this well once and lived to
    tell about it, I see nothing to stop them from going back to the
    payroll process for even more tweaks.  I guarantee you that the next one
    will be a whole lot more intrusive, whatever it is.
    
    In favor of the whole idea, though, is that the idea came from the
    employees, and not the bean counters.  That really does go a long way
    towards dispelling the fears stated in the previous paragraph, and it's
    almost enough to generate my support for the change.  At least this
    way, I can talk myself out of the fear that the next step will be to
    pay us Friday afternoon after all the banks have closed, or to
    conveniently lose the auto-deposit tapes for a couple of days, or to
    accidentally mail the field checks to the wrong offices, or ...
    
    All of the above HAVE happened at companies that I've worked for.  I
    probably should mention this by way of explaining my paranoia:  You
    don't know distrust of an employer until you've been a salaried
    employee that receives a different amount of money on each paycheck,
    and at intervals best described as random.  Try budgeting around that.

    re .73:
    
>re: .71 Fine, you get paid monthly, your used to it, etc, etc. Great,
>I'm going to suggest the starting soon Europeans get paid bi-monthly,
>think of the savings...
    
    Fine with me... if they pay the other month in advance when changing
    over.
    
    Strictly speaking, paying less frequently than the major bills are due
    (rent or mortgage etc.) might really be painful to some people. But am
    I correct in assuming that mortgages, rents, utilities etc. are paid
    monthly in US?
    
    Actually, part of our salary over here in Germany is paid on an annual
    basis. We get the so-called "13th month's" salary at the end of
    November - the annual salary is divided by 13 and double monthly salary
    paid in November.
    
    DEC is supposed to pay us by the last day of each month - I usually
    find the money in my account around 25th (depending on weekends and
    other holidays could be even around 20th). No, paychecks don't exists -
    no way to get paid without a bank account.

re: .67

  <<	FWIW: ...  Paper checks ... have to be stored once they are returned.  A single computer
  <<	tape is much easier to store than a pallet of paper.

Hmmm,  I have a paperless checking account.  I don't get my checks back, just
a monthly statement (although the bank provides copies off their microfiche if
necessary).  Wonder if Digital really gets their checks back.

More to the point, I still have enough faith in Digital that I'll presume, 
until I hear otherwise, that if we go bi-weekly we're most likely to follow the
week-in-advance route that results in an extra hit at the start instead of a
week without funds.

An inconvenience in the way I plan my cash-flow -- yes, of course

A major gut-wrenching fear -- no, I recognize that change always has a potential
for stress and I'll manage.  I'm sorry if there are some people who see this as
a tremendous threat (re: .61, etc), but if it makes good business sense to make
this change, then this **IS** the right time.

Just my 4� worth (2� per week)
	/Marvin

P.S.  Despite the generally overall good record for the payroll system, I do
also recall the time a new system resulted in every employee whose badge number
was greater than 12345 (or some number in that vicinity) suddenly finding they
had a big check -- because a programming error caused all voluntary deductions
to cease during the weekly payroll run. Payroll attempted to correct the problem
(lost insurance payments, etc) by doing double deductions for those folks the
next week.  It seemed like a reasonable solution, until someone realized that
for some employees, the voluntary deduction part was the majority of the check.
(For example, some people put almost all the money into the DCU instead of
their direct deposit account.)  It took several weeks to get caught up, but in
the end all was correctly resolved.  The humor of the situation was a memo
that apologized for the problem, explaining it as "the result of a computer
error." 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

	WAIT UNTIL YOU FIND OUT WHAT THE PLAN IS!

I sincerely doubt that DEC is going to cause its employees to do without
pay for a week.

Steve Lionel doesn't think they'll pay us in advance, but it isn't really
very far in advance -- it would only be one day in advance!

We are currently paid on Thursday for the previous week -- the one that's
long since over.  With a bi-weekly plan, unless this company has really
decided that it can screw employees who are on a tight budget, we would
have to be paid for the current and the previous week.  That is something
that NOONE (except the guy with no bank account) can possibly have any
reasonable complaint about.  It's actually a pay increase if you have an
interest bearing checking account.

Let's wait for some official word on this before we add another hundred
replies to this topic.  I tried to find out something from payroll, but
they wouldn't say anything.

/john

Re: The idea came from the employees...

Which employees?  The  ones to whom the change doesn't matter, obviously.  I
mean,  it's  unlikely  that  someone who really likes weekly pay is going to
send  in  a  letter to IDEAS saying "gee, I think we should keep payroll the
way  it  is..."  The  people  who  object to the change are not going to say
anything until the the change has been widely announced.

Re: People saying wait to see how it will effect you...

The objection  isn't to the actual changeover but to how cash flow will work
after  the changeover.  I plan to try to take the "current week" pay we will
presumably  get  and pretend it is the next week's paycheck.  Assuming I can
keep  that  money isolated, I shouldn't notice much of a difference.  I just
know  that  relatively  small  sums like one week's pay tend to slowly merge
with  other  expenses  when  you  have  very little slack in your budget, so
eventually,  unless  raises or unexpected reductions in expenses come along,
the  benefit of that extra week's pay will be gone.  I just hope I will have
been able to restructure my cash flow by then...

- Brad

	Someone back a few notes said that when this topic first came
	up here there weren't many objections. Just for peoples interest
	CAPNET::DELTA_IDEAS topic 101 has conciderable discussion on the
	subject. There were a number of people who suggested this idea to
	DELTA. There are quite a few replies in that conference with
	objections.

				Alfred

    I've beeb paid all my life by monthly basis and there has never been
    any problems in financial situations. I think almost everyone can plan
    his payings sho that there is enough money also after fortnight.
    
    The paying timetable here in Finland is on the 20th of each month so it
    is about three weeks after and one week before. Also here the only
    chance to get salary is to have bank account.

    The following model shows the effect to Digital of changing 10,000
    $500 per week employees from weekly to bi-weekly paychecks. It only
    concerns "float", not admin costs.
    
    I've assumed a 6.5% APR, compounded weekly.
    
    Edd
                  10,000
                 $500.00
               5,000,000
                      6.5
    
                 Weekly                       Bi-weekly
    
                 325,000  <-  Annual Interest->    487,703

           0      5000000                   5000000
           1      5000000         6250     10006250         6250
           2      5000000         6250      5000000        12508
           3      5000000         6250     10006250         6250
           4      5000000         6250      5000000        12508
           5      5000000         6250     10006250         6250
           6      5000000         6250      5000000        12508
           7      5000000         6250     10006250         6250
           8      5000000         6250      5000000        12508
           9      5000000         6250     10006250         6250
          10      5000000         6250      5000000        12508
          11      5000000         6250     10006250         6250
          12      5000000         6250      5000000        12508
          13      5000000         6250     10006250         6250
          14      5000000         6250      5000000        12508
          15      5000000         6250     10006250         6250
          16      5000000         6250      5000000        12508
          17      5000000         6250     10006250         6250
          18      5000000         6250      5000000        12508
          19      5000000         6250     10006250         6250
          20      5000000         6250      5000000        12508
          21      5000000         6250     10006250         6250
          22      5000000         6250      5000000        12508
          23      5000000         6250     10006250         6250
          24      5000000         6250      5000000        12508
          25      5000000         6250     10006250         6250
          26      5000000         6250      5000000        12508
          27      5000000         6250     10006250         6250
          28      5000000         6250      5000000        12508
          29      5000000         6250     10006250         6250
          30      5000000         6250      5000000        12508
          31      5000000         6250     10006250         6250
          32      5000000         6250      5000000        12508
          33      5000000         6250     10006250         6250
          34      5000000         6250      5000000        12508
          35      5000000         6250     10006250         6250
          36      5000000         6250      5000000        12508
          37      5000000         6250     10006250         6250
          38      5000000         6250      5000000        12508
          39      5000000         6250     10006250         6250
          40      5000000         6250      5000000        12508
          41      5000000         6250     10006250         6250
          42      5000000         6250      5000000        12508
          43      5000000         6250     10006250         6250
          44      5000000         6250      5000000        12508
          45      5000000         6250     10006250         6250
          46      5000000         6250      5000000        12508
          47      5000000         6250     10006250         6250
          48      5000000         6250      5000000        12508
          49      5000000         6250     10006250         6250
          50      5000000         6250      5000000        12508
          51      5000000         6250     10006250         6250
          52      5000000         6250      5000000        12508

But you've also assumed that the pay will be delayed, which is not what
a reasonable company would do.

I don't think our company is going to screw us; I certainly hope we're
going to see a week's pay arriving seven days earlier, on Thursday of
the current week rather than a week after we've completed the work.

The savings will be in the printing and bank service charges, which will
outweight DEC's loss of a week's float.  Employees also get a slight
raise, by the amount of the float.

/john

>But you've also assumed that the pay will be delayed, which is not what
>a reasonable company would do.

    Then the company would be paying you for work that you haven't
    completed and I don't think too many companies do this.

>I don't think our company is going to screw us; I certainly hope we're
>going to see a week's pay arriving seven days earlier, on Thursday of
>the current week rather than a week after we've completed the work.

    I think a side affect will be screwing us, but they are just trying to 
    reduce costs.  I read in the memo that I got about this that the last
    weekly pay check for WC4 will be May 9th and the Biweekly checks will
    start on the 23rd.

>The savings will be in the printing and bank service charges, which will
>outweight DEC's loss of a week's float.  Employees also get a slight
>raise, by the amount of the float.

    They will both save money and reduce costs through interest made on
    holding one weeks pay for 26 weeks over the year and the not having 
    to process as many checks.

    The amount made in interest should be over 1 million $'s/year:

    Interest made by holding all WC4 salaries for 1 week:

       (# WC4 employees * (Weekly salary * interest rate) / 52)
       ( 60000          * (  $700        *    0.65      ) / 52) = 52500

    Interest made by holding all WC4 salaries every other week:

       (above * 26)
       (52500 * 26) = $1,365,000


    Then add to this the savings of only having to process WC4 check every
    other week:

       (employees * 20� * 26 weeks)
       (60000     * .2  * 26) = 312,000


    Total possible savings to Digital = $1,677,000.  

    ***  note:
    ***  I have no idea how many WC4 employees we have, the average WC4
    ***  salaries or the price to process a pay check.  All the above 
    ***  numbers are just guesses.
    
    	-Bruce
    

    >Then the company would be paying you for work that you haven't
    >completed and I don't think too many companies do this.
    
    	Digital Equipment Company does.   The UK subsidiary pays
    	monthly and in advance.
    
    
    

    What happens when you leave the company and owe them 1-4 weeks pay?
    
    -Bruce

    In the UK, you usually have three months notice period. when you leave,
    it's without getting a final payday.
    
    	- andy

	In the UK, if you are a "salaried" employee, you are paid monthly.
	This is not just in Digital, but all companies.
	(I believe all Digital employees are salaried in the UK).

	Also, by law, our notice period is the same as our payment period.
	If you're paid weekly, you're on 1 weeks notice, if you're paid monthly,
	you're on 1-months notice.
	(Although we sign a contract with Digital to be on 3 months notice, the
	only party that it legally applies to is Digital. It does not leagally 
	apply to us, although most people stick to it, or negotiate).

	Most companies pay by BACS - the money is automatically transfered to
	your bank account.

	If you ask for a cheque, your company may, or may not, oblige. By law,
	they don't have to.

	I have been paid weekly before (these laws came into effect about 15
	years ago if I remember correctly), and all these "arguements" were 
	brought up then.

	None of them were sustained.

	Maybe you should take the same step, go to monthly payments (on the 
	6th of the month) and be paid directly into your account. No cheque, 
	just a monthly slip of the details?

	It would save an enourmous amount.

	Heather

This is a memo I recieved from a friend that works in personnel ..
******************************************************************************

Hello

The messages floating around about the "bi-weekly paychecks
for WC 4 employees to begin on May 9" are BOGUS!!  Word from 
Len Haug at Corp Payroll is that it is a "preliiminary
proposal" for which details HAVE NOT been worked, including
an implementation date.

The bogus message apparently originated at CXO, very erroneously!

If/when it becomes official it will be communicated through
appropriate Payroll and Personnel Admin channels.

Please let your employees know.

Thanks and regards,

>This is a memo I recieved from a friend that works in personnel ..
******************************************************************************

>Hello
>
>The messages floating around about the "bi-weekly paychecks
>for WC 4 employees to begin on May 9" are BOGUS!!  Word from 
>Len Haug at Corp Payroll is that it is a "preliiminary
>proposal" for which details HAVE NOT been worked, including
>an implementation date.
>
>The bogus message apparently originated at CXO, very erroneously!
>
>If/when it becomes official it will be communicated through
>appropriate Payroll and Personnel Admin channels.
>
>Please let your employees know.
>
>Thanks and regards,

Nancy, this is in itself just a rumor sense it was originated from a friend 
in personal.  Maybe Mr. Haug would enter a reply here stating such.
Otherwise its just rumor dispeling rumor.

- George

>>But you've also assumed that the pay will be delayed, which is not what
>>a reasonable company would do.
>
>    Then the company would be paying you for work that you haven't
>    completed and I don't think too many companies do this.

But only for the current day and the following Friday.  And only for salaried
employees, who are entitled to the money even if they were to call in sick for
the whole week and then quit on the following Monday.

I've been repeatedly telling people to wait and see what the actual plan is.
Now payroll seems to be saying the same thing.

/john

        Here is a memo I received this morning, forwarded through
        several people who work for Personnel.  I called Carol Martin
        and she gave me permission to post the memo.

        					B.J.

From:	NAME: CAROL MARTIN                  
	FUNC: PERSONNEL OPERATIONS            
	TEL: 223-7261                         <MARTIN.CAROL AT A1 AT ICS AT PKO>
Date:	25-Jan-1991
Posted-date: 25-Jan-1991
Precedence: 1
Subject: Paying W4 Employees
To:	See Below



A memo is circulating describing a new process of paying W4 on a bi-weekly 
basis.  This memo originated in Colorado and according to Len Haug has been sent 
out inappropriately BEFORE a final decision has been made on changing to a new 
process.  We should ignore this memo until a finalized procedure is put in place 
and approvals have been made to implement.  

Regards,
Carol


To Distribution List:
[REMOVED.  B.J.]

    Several people have asked how CXO could have originated the memo
    (rumor) concerning bi-weekly paychecks. CXO is the expertise center for
    labor (not payroll) processing. Currently the standard labor system in
    use in all 5 FMC's will only accept 40 REGULAR working hours per employee 
    per pay period from the payroll feed. In order to process bi-weekly 
    paychecks the labor system would have to be modified to allow 80 REGULAR 
    working hours per pay period. This would have to be completed and tested 
    before any bi-weekly pay scheme could be put into operation.
    
    I'd believe Colorado.
    
    Linda
    
    

As I see it, its not whether or not Colorado's memo was incorrect or not, it is
correct. Its just that they let the cat out of the bag before corporate was 
ready, thats all.


- George

    
    Re: Advance pay in Europe
    
       So let me get this straight. Digital (and all companies) pay on the
    6th of the month for work TO BE performed from that day through to the
    5th of the next month.
    
       Does this mean that if I get hired and I start working on the 6th of
    the month that I will walk into my office on my first day and find a
    paycheck waiting for me on my desk? (Or if I start working on any other
    day of the month do I find a prorated paycheck for work from my start
    date to the next 6th of the month?)
    
       Pretty neat concept, actually.
    
       FWIW, I'm one of those folks who lives on a tight budget. Switching
    to bi-monthly now *may* cause a problem, depending on the time between
    the last weekly check and the first bi-weekly check.
    
       Because I do follow a budget plan, and therefore know where my
    weekly check goes [except for the discretionary part :-) ], I don't
    foresee a problem switching over. Of course, I'd rather not have to go
    through the hassle of this in the first place.
    
    
    Frank
    

Re: .98

>    Re: Advance pay in Europe
>    
>       So let me get this straight. Digital (and all companies) pay on the
>    6th of the month for work TO BE performed from that day through to the
>    5th of the next month.

Not quite; Digital does this in the UK, but is fairly unique. Most companies
pay you 1 month in arrears, whereas digital pays 3 weeks in advance.

>       Does this mean that if I get hired and I start working on the 6th of
>    the month that I will walk into my office on my first day and find a
>    paycheck waiting for me on my desk? (Or if I start working on any other
>    day of the month do I find a prorated paycheck for work from my start
>    date to the next 6th of the month?)

You sure do; it's great:-) Mind you, when you leave you get to go 2 months
between pay checks, which is less great.

I kind of like the weekly pay, since although my bank balance never goes
amazingly high, it also doesn't plummet quite as low either; on average it's
the same, but banks tend to care about point overdrafts as well as average
balances.

Simon

>================================================================================
>Note 1352.91                   Bi-Weekly Paychecks                      91 of 96
>CSSE32::M_DAVIS "Marge Davis Hallyburton"            10 lines  28-JAN-1991 12:19
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    due to upcoming ISPs.  The Corporation doesn't want to settle on
>
>    mdh
Marge, What's an ISP?  Instruction Set Processor? :-) :-)
And you pick on me for not explaining a decronym before I use it! :-) :-)

BobW

    You did not get a pay check the first week you worked here.  Assuming
    you started on a Monday, you got your first pay check, for one week's
    pay, on Thursday the second week. In other words, 6 days in arrears.

    Prior to working here I worked for a company that paid bi-weekly on
    Thursday for the prior week and current week; 6 days in arrears for the
    prior week, one day in advance for the current week.
    
    Steve

    RE:             <<< Note 1352.99 by ATPS::BLOTCKY >>>
    >                    -< Remember when you started? >-

    >You did not get a pay check the first week you worked here.  Assuming
    >you started on a Monday, you got your first pay check, for one week's
    >pay, on Thursday the second week. In other words, 6 days in arrears.
    
         They're talking about DIGITAL in Europe.  Are you talking about
    the same thing, or pay practices in the USA?
    
                                     Greg

    Just a nit - there's no such thing as Digital [in] Europe, when looking
    at the pay practices. Every subsidiary in Europe is subject to local
    laws and (usually) respects local customs; but as already seen in
    previous notes, the system varies quite a lot within Europe (compare
    e.g. UK and Germany). Nevertheless, I think most, if not all, DEC
    subsidiaries in Europe pay monthly (I'm not so sure about the
    manufacturing facilities, though).
    

    re: last 100 or so, particularly stock-related

    Prior to DEC, I was paid monthly, in the middle of the month, for the
    whole month. At DEC, it's weekly, almost a full week after the week that
    you've worked. The way the days worked out, I actually "lost" a full
    month's pay coming to DEC. I don't mean to be rude (and perhaps my own
    personal finances would improve by my managing them more stringently),
    but I think there's something wrong when people spend their good time
    calculating a potential unconfirmed $20 "loss" on a yearly stock plan
    contribution and expanding that to a significant loss at retirement
    time and then complaining about it.

    There are more important things for us to worry about. Like whether
    there will be a healthy Digital for us to retire from. If you're worried
    about your stock plan contributions, worry about turning around
    perceptions and doubling the street price of our/your stock.

    I have options to buy DEC stock at 130+, even doubling the stock price
    would just make the option price.

    Let's cure the problem (poor market perception causing low stock
    prices), not the symptom (some cost cutting measure may negatively
    impact you financially at a yearly cost of $20). We can spend our energy
    individually building walls to protect what we have, or we can work
    together and build something positive we will all benefit from. We
    can't do both.

    /Peters

    Just to clear this up: for DIGITAL salaried employees in the UK, the
    situation is that we get paid on the 6th of each month, one week in
    arrears, three weeks in advance. So, after a week of joining, if
    Personel etc have done their job, you get a months paycheck.
    
    	- andy

    re:.104 
    Sorry Andy, "DIGITAL salaried employees in the UK" is unclear.
    All employees of Digital Equipment Scotland Ltd  (i.e. manufacturing),
    are paid weekly.
    
    Joe

re: >Note 1352.103                  Bi-Weekly Paychecks                    103 of 104
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                      -< Let's put the calculators away >-
>
>    re: last 100 or so, particularly stock-related
>
>    Prior to DEC, I was paid monthly, in the middle of the month, for the
>    whole month. At DEC, it's weekly, almost a full week after the week that

>    calculating a potential unconfirmed $20 "loss" on a yearly stock plan

I get my notes from an automatic extractor, but I've been following this
thread more/less since its inception.

I feel annoyed, not by your opinion, but by 'cost cutting' measures which
affect me personally.

Most of us are aware of the banking scam involving 'tax excrows, and most of
us have been jhit by the rising cost of healthcare, within Digital.

There is a significant number of people who are familiar with what is called
the 'Salami game', which was first used (within my frame of political
reference) about Stalin. It has been said that 'Stalin' would invade and 
take over small sections of 'other peoples territories'. Not enough to 
fight over, but as the process is repeated (like stealing one slice of salamai
at time), he would eventually wind up with the whole thing.

This $20 mentioned, is like (part and  parcel) like the 'small increase'
in Healthcare, and the slight decrease in Health Benefits; it is like
the small increase in Gas tax, and the slight Decrease on Government Services
and so forth. Eventually the enloyees take it in the check, at a time
when Corporate needs to 'increase its salary package' to key Corporate
Officers to attract and retain well qualified people.

My annoyance is not with what you say, for your point is quite valid. But I
sincerely hope that we all can accept the point made by the person who made
that calculation, that we are again having our incomes 'delimited' by
clever bookeeping.

Next time you buy milk, as the clerk if you can pay for the milk
on a bi-weekly basis, and not pay any interest on the outstanding debt
in the meanwhile. ;^)

-BobE

>Next time you buy milk, as the clerk if you can pay for the milk
>on a bi-weekly basis, and not pay any interest on the outstanding debt
>in the meanwhile. ;^)
    
    	Many people in the UK do just that.  I certainly did, the
    	last time I lived in England.   
    
    	Having to *go* somewhere to buy milk?  Ugh, how awful.
    

re .106:

Comparing the powers-that-be in DEC to Stalin?  Isn't that going a bit far?

There's a general malaise in the economy, medical system, etc. that's
effecting the way DEC does business.  Medical insurance costs went up,
so we have to pay more.  There's a recession going on, so we have to
make some sacrifices.  The company has certainly made some bad business
decisions (didn't Ken say that layoffs could only be the result of bad
management?), but I don't think those decisions are the sole cause of
all that's wrong in the world.

    
    RE: Memos from personnel
    
    Bunk. simply more DECspeak. The memo I saw from Payroll said the
    decision to implement bi-weekly payroll has been made by the powers
    that be. It's the date of implementation that is up in the air.
    
    
    

re .106:

>Comparing the powers-that-be in DEC to Stalin?  Isn't that going a bit far?

	He didn't compare *them* he compared what they did/are going to do.
	Pretty accurate comparison. If DEC gets to make money on the float
	for another week, that's a week that I can't. So my funds available
	decrease, but since my salary hasn't, I still have to pay taxes on
	the same amount. 

	I can deal with the fact that times are hard. I understand that
	costs have to be cut. Be honest with me. Tell me times are tough
	and we're going to reduce the money we are giving you, instead of 
	telling me a bunch of bureaucratic gobbledy-gook. Telling me that 
	crap says DEC doesn't respect me. I can deal with them paying me less,
	they are going to do that like it or not, if business dictates it.
	It's harder to deal with them not respecting me.

					Tom_K

    .108:
    
�                        There's a recession going on, so we have to
�  make some sacrifices.  
    
    This is true;  but the tenor of the discussion to date suggests that
    it's not hard to find a fear that the screws being tightened have a
    ratchet built-in.
    
    I think too that there is a difference in opinion about how this will
    affect people:  while some don't seem to care, other people seem to
    take "screwing around with my paycheck" almost as viscerally as finding
    their house broken into.  Ignoring these people will not precisely
    improve their morale.
    
    Dick

    I *read* the same thing in the memo that was posted with the
    approval of someone in payroll.....i.e.....it IS going to happen,
    they just haven't figured out all the details.  Typical....make
    a decision, figure out how to implement it later :-(
    
    At the risk of really stirring the pot......this policy of bi-
    weekly paychecks might make sense as far as cutting down on
    paperwork, admin work etc.....if the ENTIRE U.S. work force was
    going to be affected.....including the WC2's.....
    
    Please don't misunderstand, I'm a WC3....so I'm making the assump-
    tion I'll be affected......I was a WC2 for many more years
    that I've been a WC3.....so I *know* it would be extremely 
    difficult for the WC2's; but if this entire exercise is to cut
    through the paperwork, admin expenses that results from issuing
    weekly paychecks.....then the only TRUE way for it to save DEC
    money would be to implement it for all wage classes.
    
    Since the Atlanta and Colorado CSC's are 24/7 operations (I'm not
    sure about Mass); many of us work the second and third shift, thus we
    must submit shift differential forms.......most groups do not have
    people on the later shifts permanently....people are rotated through
    them.....so there will still be a good deal of paperwork having
    to flow each week to indicate exactly what shift the person has
    worked.  People on beepers get call-in pay....again paperwork.....
    
    If someone could indicate to me that DEC does in fact have more
    exempt employees than hourly....then I might be able to accept the
    premise that less paperwork alone would save us money.....  Does
    anyone know the ratio of hourly employees vs. exempt?
    
    For what it's worth, I've had several copies of THE memo forwarded
    to me......the way things are going I tend to believe it will
    happen (that's why I filed for my tax refund electronically this
    year.....I'll need it to float Karen through the month of May
    and June).  The memo sounded official enough to make a believer
    out of me.....i.e. let your employees know as far in advance of
    May 9th as possible....to allow them to plan for the cutover.
    
    K
    
    
    

    RE: .101 and .99
    
    >You did not get a pay check the first week you worked here.  Assuming
    >you started on a Monday, you got your first pay check, for one week's
    >pay, on Thursday the second week. In other words, 6 days in arrears.
    
    That is the practice in the US.  I mentioned it because the proposed
    bi-weekly paycheck is also a US proposal.  IF it is implemented to
    provide a check every other week that covers the prior week and the
    current week (i.e. 6 days in arrears for the prior week, one day in
    advance for the current week) then compared to the current policy, it
    will like getting every other pay check A WEEK EARLY.
    
    But as pointed out before, there are no details yet concerning what
    they will or when.
    
    Steve

    
    RE: .122 bi-weekly checks for WC2
    
    Under current Massachusetts law all employees who are paid on an
    hourly basis must be paid at least weekly. I'm not even sure that
    we can pay WC3 people on a bi-weekly basis since they are allowed
    overtime at an hourly rate.
    
    

    RE: .124
    
    Mike, WC4 people who carry beepers during offshift hours are
    also paid overtime at an hourly rate.

    *NOT* in this field office !  What's in your check every week is *it* -
    there ain't no such thing as overtime for a WC4 here !  You work to get
    the job done - if that's 50, 60, 70, 80 hours - so be it.

RE .114

While it may have been just a phrase, I am curious.  What does the law
"protect" the hourly workers from?  If I go to work for an employer who
might goes out of business, has layoffs, or is unsafe, I better know the
risks beforehand.  I look at the company just as hard as they look at me
before I take a job.  And yes, I understand that some people must take
any job they can get and can't be as choosy as me but that is a different
issue.

Why did I go down this rathole?  Because the idea of the "LAW" protecting
you, the worker, is a myth.  The best that the law can do is to impose
penalties after the fact.  In this case, you may only lose one week of
wages but you still lose with or without this law.  If you are willing to
work for a company where you might lose two weeks, why should the
government care?  Why is losing one week acceptable and two weeks is not?
In a free market, you get to decide the degree of risk you are willing to
take.  (As you can tell, I do not believe we have a true free market.)

Lee G.

    There is pay for standby and callouts for WC4 people in the field. I am
    one of those people. We get 1hr pay for each 8hr period of standby and
    we get paid extra for each time we are called in to work while on 
    standby.
    
    Regards
    AL ROOT
    

    I suspect there are ways for DEC to accomplish whatever it is they want
    to accomplish, regardless of "laws".  
    
    While I am not in payroll, I know people who are, and I have been told
    that in our payroll "system" there is a 51st "state" called something
    like MASHAMPSHIRE or some-such... and that the 51st state is required
    to accomodate the pay/tax requirements for folks living in one state
    and working in another, and the taxation requirements being affected by
    this relationship. 
    
    If DEC can create a 51st "state" to accomodate taxation/pay issues,
    surely it can figure out how to pay WC2/3/4 people on whatever schedule
    it wants.
    
    tony
    (who is being only moderately facetious here)

Re .116 and .118

I think you are talking about different things.  We do have people in the field,
( many seem to be in Customer Service) who are paid for being available and 
for leaving the house to work with customers.  Many of us, however, get many 
calls from sales people and customers at home without extra pay.  It is simply 
part of the job.  Naturally this extends the normal 50 hour work week, but 
that too is expected.  I do not have to be home when the sales person or 
customer calls, and so I don't get paid for answering the phone when they do 
call.

    I think the very fact that there are so many variations could
    spell *nightmare* for payroll and the admin people having to keep
    track of all this locally.
    
    Again, at the CSC's....WC3 & 4 folks work second and third shifts;
    most are not assigned permanently.....usually it is rotated on a
    weekly basis....thus that old differential form would still have
    to filled and processed weekly.  Don't know how this would impact
    payroll, but that still means our admin people would have to
    get the time cards filled out, signed off and entered into the
    system.  All CRR's in the CSC's are WC2.....and there is a fair
    amount of those folks.
    
    Certain SW specialists are on the beeper also.....standby....as
    someone else mentioned....they get paid a certain amount just for
    being on standby, but say they get a call at 2AM in the morning
    and must return to the CSC because they don't have all their ref
    manuals at home.....once they leave home to come into the CSC to
    complete the all.....they get call-out pay.
    
    Not *all* WC4's work strictly off the premise that they will
    always get paid for 40 hours (no matter what they are forced to do)
    just to get their jobs done....
    
    .114 answered a lot for me......state law prohibits the change
    being made for WC2.  In Georgia, as a secretary for another 
    company, we got paid twice a month.....
    
    The point I was trying to make is that if we can't do this
    across the board.....across the entire U.S., then it is forcing
    local admin people to keep doing tasks on a weekly basis; corp
    payroll will still have to function on a weekly basis....it's
    like having 2 sets of books......long run....where do we cut
    costs and how much do we REALLY wind up saving?
    
    I'd still like to know the ration of hourly employees to exempt.
    Not everyone working for DEC is exempt!!
    
    Karen
    
    
    Karen  

FLAME ON!!!

Get real, folks.  Do you REALLY believe that the people who run our payroll
systems are complete idiots? and liars to boot! (Yes, apparently some of you 
do!)

They have a job to do, and it's not easy.  But if they've analyzed the situation
in response to suggestions and determined that going bi-weekly will save the
company money, then let them get on with it.  I'm not hiding my head in the
sand or playing pollyanna, but I'm willing to believe that

	- reduced processing will save money - even if the law doesn't let
	us put the entire workforce on biweekly. It doesn;t have to be an
	all or nothing choice

	- gain by "cheating" employees out of float is NOT a key goal of this
	plan

	- it's possible to have made a general decision to go biweekly and
	still not have a detailed plan.  So I'm willing to believe Len Haug's
	message that no firm decisions have been made on exactly how to
	implement this

	- Digital is not about to deliberately break the law. The need to
	have what I'll call "ghost" states (MASSAHAMPSHIRE?) to handle 
	special pay situations does not constitute fabrication and lies!

I realize this is a gut, emotional issue for a lot of us, but if you really 
believe the management and administration of this company is as low and sneaky
as some messages have implied, then may it would be appropriate to leave
voluntarily. [I never thought I'd join the LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT crowd, but the
tone of some of the replies are just unbelievable!!!!)

<FLAME OFF>

Let's all keep calm and not make accusations based on rumor and hearsay.

	/Marvin

    Wouldn't it really simplify things to eliminate hourly pay altogether?
    
    For Manufacturing, where most of the hourly workers live, labor has
    long been considered a fixed, not a variable cost because local
    management really could not adjust the headcount up or down to match
    the volume of product.  In fact, direct labor has become only about 5%
    of our product cost, so the way me measure manfuacturing cost has got
    to change anyway.
    
    Think about the implications of a multinational business like ours
    which has the same personnel procedures for everyone (subject to local
    variations to meet legal standards).  I believe that the reduction in
    overhead costs could be significant, but I can't quantify it.
    
    Regards,
    
    Dick {AGOUTL::BELDIN}
    
    

    In a former job I was an installer of batch processing accounting
    systems. About 95% of my payroll customers had more than one pay 
    frequency, and requirements that make DEC look like a piece of cake 
    (payment of so-much per hour or a percentage of revenue generated, 
    whichever was higher, for some mechanics, just to give you an example.
    Keep that in mind next time you are told you need something done to
    your car. Gross checks that don't cover the taxes on declared tips
    for waitpersons are not unusual.). All the things that most of you think 
    are terribly difficult are done as a matter of course elsewhere. IT 
    ISN'T THAT HARD!!! DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT!!! 
    
    I'm starting to get really irritated. Payroll systems are designed to 
    be able to do all the things DEC needs. People can be paid for more 
    than one shift IN THE SAME WEEK! People can be taxed under MORE 
    THAN ONE STATE depending upon how many hours they work in each state for 
    each pay period (something which should be done more here)! Bi-weekly
    pay will be done, it will be tested first, it will be correct. It's 
    no big deal.
    
    
    Linda
    A resident of MassHampshire (Live in MA, work in NH) 
    
    

OK, so the MH on my pay stub means MassHampshire (live in MA, work in NH).
What do folks who live in NH and work in MA have?  NewSachusetts?  What
about NY-NJ?  NewJork and NewYersey?  NY-CT?  NewEcticut (pronounced New
Etiquette)?  Hmm, maybe I should take this to JOYOFLEX.

    RE: Mass Law
    
    One can safely assume that Mass Laws in this arena were lobbied
    for and passed by those indebted to the Unions.
    
    

"You gotta be paid at least once a week" is a good law in the 
same sort of circumstances where a minimum wage law is a good 
law.  That it, it protects people who don't have much economic 
clout from being abused by unscrupulous employers.


So if that's the sort of law that "the Unions" insist on,
I guess that's fine by me.   It doesn't have a whole lot
of relevance to MY job, and on the whole it seems rather
silly, but that doesn't mean that it's A Bad Thing.

        I've waded through all the replies here and not once have I seen
        a real estimated cost savings.
        
        There have been "guesses" as to what the savings entail, but no
        real data.  In fact those that work their money have more real
        information as to the impact then anyone else (I salute you, I
        work on a best guess, feeling basis...don't ask).
        
        But no one has made the obvious suggestions that really would
        save money.  It's not bi-weekly payroll, or any other period
        adjustment (money float may be the exception), it is simply to
        not print and ship the pay stubs.
        
        For those receiving direct deposit, what would be wrong with
        receiving an Email message containing your pay stub?  If you want
        to print it out, that's your option.
        
        Security is not an issue as per corporate guidelines - everyone
        has their own accounts.
        
        We are a computer company - you do remember, hardware and
        software, solutions to Enterprise problems...
        
        The same goes with entering time cards - do electronically.  Get
        rid of the bogus only 40 hours can be entered.  Put in the real
        time, and if one does not receive standby or call-out pay, just
        pay for the 40 hours and really find out what a project takes to
        complete.
        
        BTW - When are Jack and the boys going to take a pay cut to atone
              for the decisions they have made?
        
        Bob

    RE:     <<< Note 1352.128 by UPWARD::SANDERSB "I install with ease" >>>

    >    I've waded through all the replies here and not once have I seen
    >    a real estimated cost savings.
 
         There is the possibility that no one here has all of the
    information required to make a "real estimated" statement.
           
    >    But no one has made the obvious suggestions that really would
    >    save money.  It's not bi-weekly payroll, or any other period
    >    adjustment (money float may be the exception), it is simply to
    >    not print and ship the pay stubs.
    
         That assumes that stub-printing and stub-shipping costs are the 
    highest cost item in the payroll process.  With labor costs, float,
    etc., I would say that this is fallacious.
    
    >    For those receiving direct deposit, what would be wrong with
    >    receiving an Email message containing your pay stub?  If you want
    >    to print it out, that's your option.
    
         Security and verification of receipt.  Too many people change
    E-mail addresses too often.  Too many people have no accounts.  Too
    many people have privileges to read other people's files.  One
    possibility might be to have a VTX-type remote database, located at
    Corp. payroll, where an employee could call up certain week's pay
    stubs.  However, even protected by passwords, SSN's, etcetera, it would
    have certain security weaknesses.  They might be worked-out, though.
        
    >    Security is not an issue as per corporate guidelines - everyone
    >    has their own accounts.
    
         I hope you don't really believe this.  It is not true.
    
    >   The same goes with entering time cards - do electronically.  Get
    
        That is probably a goal for all computer-oriented companies, and it
    would be nice if it could be done.  Consider, however, that a time card
    is a legal document.  There are certain vulnerabilities (possibility of
    tampering/alteration for example) inherent in electronic documentation
    which make their legality extremely questionable.  This is probably one
    of the main reasons why time cards and pay stubs are still hard copy.
    
         A lot of companies are working on "hard" documents for computers,
    but I don't know if they have reached an acceptable level of
    development yet.
         
                                      Greg

RE:         <<< Note 1352.128 by UPWARD::SANDERSB "I install with ease" >>>
                          -< Can you say - computer >-


    As .129 says, security of the data send to mail accounts is a joke.  BUT my
    question would be why does the data need to be secure?  The biggest benefit
    of pay being secret is to keep people from complaining that others are
    overpaid.  In fact, there are LOTS of people whose pay is known by their
    peers, union members, government workers, and, maybe most importantly, self
    managed groups!  Anyways, EVERYONE in the management structure above you
    has access to your pay information because they have to do the budgeting to
    pay you.  So if you believe that your pay is a secret, you are dead wrong.

    Having said the above, I too would like to see the pay stubs sent
    electronically.  I do not believe that I will see that happen in my
    lifetime.  Because people do not like change especailly in this area (see
    the past 100+ replies for a clear example), they will not be comfortable
    with getting it this new way.

    Then there are the laws, both state and federal, that also get into this
    process.  Would the electronically passed versions be legal?  I see ways to
    work around this.  If someone needed an offical version, they could request
    it.  Once a year, the company could print a summary (can you say W-2) that
    would be for the employee's records.  Bankruptcies and business that fold
    up also would need to be addressed.  Again, because of the current mindset
    of the people, I don't see this type of change happening.

    Lee G.

    RE:     <<< Note 1352.130 by BASVAX::GREENLAW "Your ASSETS at work" >>>
             -< Now there is a cost savings that will not happen >-

>    As .129 says, security of the data send to mail accounts is a joke.  BUT my
>    question would be why does the data need to be secure?
    
         Salary information is required by law to be restricted to those
    with a need to know.  Even creditors must have your permission to gain 
    that information from Personnel.  
    
>      The biggest benefit of pay being secret is to keep people from 
>    complaining that others are overpaid.  In fact, there are LOTS of people 
>    whose pay is known by their peers, union members, government workers, and, 
>    maybe most importantly, self managed groups!  
    
         In the case of many unions, pay is on a set schedule.  You do X
    job for Y years and you get paid Z dollars per year for it.  Everyone
    knows everyone else's salary.  DIGITAL is not a union shop, as far as
    I know.  In the other instances, it is either a case of need-to-know
    or the individual's decision to reveal his own salary info. 
    
>   Anyways, EVERYONE in the management structure above you has access to 
>   your pay information because they have to do the budgeting to pay you.
    
         That actually amounts to 2 or possibly 3 people.  Management above
    that level probably doesn't have the time or need to see any specific
    individual's salary.  Tack on two or three Personnel workers, who you
    may have to deal with, and it is still a pretty small group.  With account 
    privileges and E-mail pay stubs, you could easily increase the number of 
    people with access by 100+ times.
    
>   So if you believe that your pay is a secret, you are dead wrong.
    
         True, but DIGITAL is legally bound to make an effort to keep it
    confidential.
    
                                       Greg
                          

    would you mind quoting the law?  I handled the payroll for my wife in
    NH and never heard or saw such a law.

    Now it is a strong social norm in the US, and it is a policy in a lot
    of companies, but I doubt if its the law.  Even with regard to someone
    calling in to get a reference or proof of employment it is policy and
    that is it.

    RE: .132
    
         You are referring to my comment on DIGITAL being legally bound to
    keep salary information confidential, correct?  I can't quote the law
    because I have never actually seen it.  Like most people, I don't have
    a legal library in my cubicle.
    
         My reason for believing it is a law of some sort is the number of
    large electronic companies which have policies or rules which make that 
    claim.  I've worked at three where I recall similar claims.  Weak?  Perhaps,
    but if a rule does not cause an inconvenience for me, I may opt to
    accept the claim as true if it seems likely to me.  This seems highly
    likely to me. 
    
                                       Greg
  

    There may be such a law in the US, although I doubt it. There isn't
    such a law in the UK. However, Personnel-type data is covered by the
    Data Protection Act, in common with several European countries such as
    Germany and Sweden. This governs who has the access to the data.
    
    My observation has been that folks in the US are far more worried about
    their salary being known to their colleagues than in other countries.
    
    	- andy

If there is such a law (which I doubt) it doesn't apply equally.

Anyone can go to the State library in Georgia and look up not only what my
salary was during the three years when Georgia Tech was my employer but also
the expense report I filed when I went to DECUS in 1973.

We don't have any data protection laws, like many European countries.  Things
like the Lotus database (now scrapped due to public protest) wouldn't be legal
in much of Europe.

On the other hand, in Germany, which has one of the strongest data protection
laws, you can't get an unlisted phone number without a valid justification.
I don't know what the rules are, but I suspect that only "public figures"
can justify unlisted numbers.

/john

    re .135:
�On the other hand, in Germany, which has one of the strongest data protection
�laws, you can't get an unlisted phone number without a valid justification.
    
    To get an unlisted number, you must have *one* listed number - but
    nobody can actually force you to plug in a phone on that line.
    

>but nobody can actually force you to plug in a phone on that line.

I thought the Bundespost had a requirement that at least one phone be
hard-wired (no jack) or that there be a hardwired ringer.

Yeah, you still don't have to answer it.

    Quite frankly, I prefer getting a hard copy of my pay statement, with
    the "secrecy" component attendant in full!
    
    (I'd be mortified if I thought just anybody could find out what a low
    salary I am willing to work for!)  
    
    ;^}
    
    tony

    The really   important   part   of   security  for  pay  stubs  is
    "integrity",  not  secrecy. I want to keep my salary secret, but I
    really want to make sure that I get paid the correct amount. Since
    files  can  be modified fairly easily, the paper pay stubs provide
    some protection (as well as legal evidence.)

    One example of why this is done was a guy who worked programming a
    payroll system for his company. He had a few cents of withheld tax
    from  each  person listed as withheld from his salary. That way he
    got  a  big  tax  refund at the end of the year, and everyone else
    paid an extra $.20 or so. He was caught because one employee added
    up  the  tax  on  his  paystubs and found that it didn't match the
    amount on his end of year statement.  

    You really do want paystubs to be tamperproof.

--David

    That bit about J. Smith and the "boys" who got us in this mess taking a
    pay cut sounds great!!
    
    Oh, for the record, I'd prefer a monthly check.  Much less hassle.
    People ought'a be able to select their desired pay period....but then
    that would require them new-fangled computers, plus learning how to
    use them.
    
    When I worked for IBM in the 60's, talking about your pay was grounds
    for immediate dismissal.  When I taught at a junior college a few years
    later my salary was published in the local newspaper every year.

    Having working in a personnel organization for a Massachusetts based
    satellite of a major insurance company years ago, I am aware of a law
    which prohibits giving out pay information without an employee's signed
    consent [e.g., mortgage applications, inquiries from credit companies,
    etc.].  To further protect ourselves, we would not, under any
    circumstances, give out salary information on the phone.  If the
    employee came to us with a signed form, we would provide the
    information in writing back to the requestor.
    
    I do agree that this law is poorly enforced, especially amongst smaller
    companies.  There are many aspects of the "law" which were designed to
    protect our privacy, which are poorly enforced.  
    
    The larger companies have more exposure to liability suits and very
    often have government contracts.  The govt. is very good about
    requiring that companies they do business with are following the law.
    
    Please don't ask me if this was a Federal or State law which protected
    the privacy of your salary information, for I really don't know
    definitely.  
    
    Perhaps someone in this conference from personnel can verify...
    
    Rgds,
    marcia

From:	ASDG::FOSTER "Lauren ('ren) Foster: ASD SEM/EDX Engineer 225-5660 or 225-4080(Lab)  08-Feb-1991 1151"  8-FEB-1991 12:01:53.41
To:	@NEWS
CC:	
Subj:	PAYROLL UPDATE: Official "2 week pay period" memo from Dick Farrahar.

From:	TPS::HABIB "Fran, TP Systems Performance/Application Sizing  08-Feb-1991 1142"  8-FEB-1991 11:51:12.46
To:	@ALLJ,@SUEJ
CC:	JUDYR,ORION::EPPES
Subj:	FWD: Bi-Weekly Pay to start in Q4

From:	TPS::MCKENZIE "Jim McKenzie - TAY1 - 227-4420  08-Feb-1991 1122"    
8-FEB-1991 11:26:04.25
To:	@SPC
CC:	
Subj:	Bi-Weekly Pay to start in Q4

From:	NAME: DONNA WELLS                   
	FUNC: Corporate Employee Relations    
	TEL: 251-1419                         <WELLS.DONNA AT A1 AT ICS AT PKO>
Date:	08-Feb-1991
Posted-date: 08-Feb-1991
Precedence: 1
Subject: BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL COMMUNICATION
To Distribution List:

(deleted)



Author:	RON GLOVER                    
Date:	07-Feb-1991
Posted-date: 08-Feb-1991
Precedence: 1


        **************************************************************** 
                          THIS MEMO IS FROM DICK FARRAHAR
        ****************************************************************
    
                        Conversion to Biweekly Payroll 
                                       
    
    
    In the mid to late Q4, the company will implement a payroll change that 
    will shift U.S. exempt employees (wage class 4) to a biweekly pay cycle 
    (i.e., every other week). Non-exempt employees will continue to be paid 
    weekly, since state pay frequency statutes generally distinguish 
    between non-exempt and exempt employees. 
    
    This decision will affect some 45 thousand employees and managers.  
    When the biweekly cycle takes effect, exempt employees' pay will be 
    deferred one week. The following week they will be paid for two weeks. 
    This decision has the full support of the Executive Committee, and it 
    needs to be communicated clearly, and consistently to employees. 
    
    Employees can't be expected to respond positively to every tough 
    decision the company must make in the face of intense competitive and 
    business pressures. However, they generally will support decisions 
    which are communicated clearly and which they believe are necessary and 
    in the company's best long-term interests. 
    
    The Personnel organization probably will be called on to answer 
    questions from managers as well as employees. Therefore, it is 
    important for member of the Personnel organization to understand the 
    decision and be able to explain it to their business partners or the 
    employees they support in the proper business context.
    
    Attached is a list of twenty-four questions and answers which is being 
    provided to Personnel before the formal announcement to employees on 
    LIVE WIRE, which is scheduled for Tuesday, February 12, 1991.

    Q1:	 Will the Exempt Biweekly Payroll apply to me? I know my wage 
         class, but I don't know if I'm an "exempt" employee or not.  

    A:	 The Exempt Biweekly Payroll will apply to Wage class 4 
         employees only. Wage class 4 employees are "exempt" 
         employees.  Wage class 2 and 3 employees are "non-exempt" and 
         will not be affected by this change.

    Q2:	 Why are non-exempt employees being excluded from the change?

    A:	 State laws control the frequency by which employers may pay 
         their employees. State laws vary but are usually more 
         restrictive regarding the payment of non-exempt wages. For 
         this reason, Digital has decided to continue to pay all 
         non-exempt employees on a weekly basis, even though some 
         states permit non-exempt employees to be paid on a less 
         frequent basis.

    Q3:	 When will the Company implement the Exempt Biweekly Payroll?

    A:	 The Company will introduce the Exempt Biweekly Payroll during 
         mid to late Q4. An exact implementation date will be 
         communicated in mid Q3.

    Q4:	 When the exempt biweekly pay cycle is implemented will I lose 
         a week's pay?

    A:	 No, but your pay will be delayed one week when the program is 
         implemented. In today's environment you are paid one week in 
         arrears.  In the future, you will be paid two weeks in 
         arrears, as the following chart explains:

        Week             Weekly Pay Cycle      Biweekly Pay Cycle
    	 		 (Non-exempt)          (Exempt)
        _______________   ___________________  ______________________

        1                                    	(Last weekly paycheck, 
         					 for prior week)
        2                 Payment for Week 1            -
        3                 Payment for Week 2    Payment for Week 1 & 2
        4                 Payment for Week 3            -
        5                 Payment for Week 4    Payment for Week 3 & 4
        Etc.

       
    Q5:	 As an employee what do I need to do to prepare for the 
         implementation of the exempt biweekly pay cycle?

    A:	 Digital is providing advance notification so that employees 
         may have an opportunity to budget for the time when the 
         company begins the biweekly pay cycle and, wage class 4 
         employees have their pay delayed by one week.

    Q6:	 How will the Company save money by implementing the exempt 
         biweekly pay cycle?

    A:	 By deferring one week's exempt wages every other week the 
         Company will be able to realize a financial savings on which 
         it will be able to earn interest. In addition, some savings 
         will be realized in the form of reduced operational labor and 
         materials.

    Q7:	 How much will the Company save as a result of this change?

    A:	 Based on current weekly gross exempt wages paid, Digital will 
         earn about two million dollars per annum in the form of 
         interest earnings.


    Q8:	 How do other large companies pay their employees?

    A:	 The standard pay frequency practice for other large U.S. 
         companies is to pay their non-exempt employees weekly and 
         exempt employees on a less frequent basis, usually biweekly, 
         semimonthly, or monthly. Digital has chosen to pay its exempt 
         employees biweekly because it represents the most balanced 
         business, legal, and employee relations-sensitive solution.

    Q9:	 Why doesn't the Company give employees an advance to offset 
         the week in which all exempt employees will skip a payroll, 
         or pay them one week in arrears and one week in advance?

    A:	 While considered, either action would eliminate the financial 
         benefit derived from the plan which is being implemented. 

    Q10: Is the Company changing its work week or designated pay day 
         when the exempt biweekly payroll is introduced?

    A:	 No, the Company will continue to maintain its standard work 
         week which begins on Sunday and ends on Saturday.  Pay day 
         will continue to be Thursday. Exempt employees, however, will 
         only receive payments every other Thursday.  Each pay period 
         for exempt employees will normally include two work weeks.

    Q11: Will I still receive an equivalent 52 weeks of pay each 
         calendar year when I am paid on a biweekly basis?

    A:	 Not always. The number of payments per calendar year will 
         vary between 25, 26 and 27 for wage class 4 employees once 
         the biweekly payroll is implemented based upon changes in the 
         calendar and the date of payment. Total earnings per year 
         will be based, as they are today, on the issue date of the 
         last payment of the calendar year. 

    Q12: Will the change to an "exempt" biweekly pay cycle result in 
         more taxes being withheld?

    A:	 No, an IRS biweekly tax table will be used in place of the 
         current weekly tax table. It will simply take your gross pay, 
         annualize it to determine your tax liability, and divide that 
         amount by the number of pay periods expected in the year to 
         determine your biweekly taxes. 


    Q13: When will changes in my tax status take effect? 

    A:	 Your most current tax status information will continue to be 
         used, as it is today, to calculate proper withholding. 
         Changes in state taxing jurisdiction, marital status and 
         number of exemptions in effect at the time payment is issued 
         will be applied to the entire two week pay period. If you 
         have an additional amount withheld for taxes (tax constant), 
         then the most current amount will be multiplied by 2 for the 
         two week pay period.

    Q14: Will all payments issued by Payroll to exempt employees be 
         issued on a biweekly basis?  Are there other kinds of 
         payments that will be made on a more frequent than biweekly 
         basis?

    A:	 While all standard wage payments will be made on a biweekly 
         basis, some types of supplementary payments will continue to 
         be processed in the week they are authorized:

       - Benefit payments (example: adoption payments)
       - Fleet car payments 
       - Prizes and award payments
       - Relocation payments
       - Other miscellaneous supplementary payments

         Also, termination payments will be issued in the next weekly 
         pay cycle following authorization, or sooner if required by 
         law.  Pay corrections and adjustments will also continue to 
         be issued as required.

    Q15: When will salary increases be effective?

    A:	 Increases for exempt employees will be synchronized with the 
         Payroll biweekly schedule. 

    Q16: What happens if there are changes in my employment status 
         (the number of standard hours worked per week) or I change 
         shifts, or go on Short Term Disability, Workers' 
         Compensation, or Leave of Absence during a biweekly pay 
         period? 

    A:	 The changes will continue to be reported to Personnel and 
         updated to the Employee Master File as they are today. Pay 
         will be calculated to reflect these changes in your status. 
         Payment will be issued to you as part of your next biweekly 
         pay statement. 


    Q17: If I change my name, address, pay site, or cost center, when 
         will these changes take effect? 

    A:	 These changes should continue to be submitted to Personnel as 
         identified. Payroll will use the data in effect at the time 
         payment is calculated. Example: In the case of a cost center 
         change, Payroll will charge payment for the entire period to 
         the employee's cost center of record when the payment is 
         calculated. 
    
    Q18: How will my deductions for the various voluntary programs in 
         which I participate be calculated? 

    A:	 Payroll will continue to receive deduction information weekly 
         from the following businesses, and Payroll will combine these 
         amounts and deduct the sum total of each from your biweekly 
         pay:

       - Dependent Care Reimbursement Account deductions
       - Digital Employees' Federal Credit Union (DCU) savings
         deductions
       - Health Care Reimbursement Account deductions
       - Investor Services Save loan deductions
       - Medical,dental and life insurance deductions, and opt out 
         payments
       - Metpay home and auto insurance deductions
       - U.S. saving bond deductions
       - United Way contribution deductions
    
    	 In the case of ESPP (stock) and SAVE, Payroll will utilize 
         the most recently authorized percentage to determine 
         deductions.
       
    Q19: Will the exempt biweekly pay cycle affect enrollment dates 
         for the above voluntary deduction programs?

    A:	 In the future, some programs may have to be synchronized with 
         the payroll biweekly schedule. Enrollment and effective dates 
         will be communicated by the responsible organization as new 
         enrollment periods approach.
       
    Q20: Will the current pay statement form change?  

    A:	 No, the same form will continue to be used for all employees 
         regardless of whether they are paid weekly or biweekly.


    Q21: How will I report vacation and stand-by hours taken, on a 
         weekly or biweekly basis?

    A:	 Vacation and stand-by hours should continue to be submitted 
         on a weekly basis as they are today. A single timecard cannot 
         be used to report more than a single week's vacation. 
         Example: An employee who takes a two week vacation would 
         submit two timecards of forty hours each. A timecard 
         reporting more than forty hours cannot be processed.

    Q22: I will get fewer timecard forms (about 26 versus 52) per 
         year.  What if I need more timecards?

    A:	 Exempt employees should save preprinted timecards as received 
         for future use. If employees deplete their supply, they may 
         obtain blank stock from Personnel. Note: Exempt timecards, 
         distributed with the pay statement, will no longer be 
         preprinted with week ending dates to facilitate future use. 

    Q23: Will there be any change to the vacation accrual process?

    A:	 No, vacation accrual is based on length of service with the 
         Company and employment status. It will continue to be 
         calculated on a weekly basis. 

    Q24: Will I be able to receive advance vacation pay when I am paid 
         on a biweekly basis?

    A:	 Yes, advance vacation will continue to be paid on a weekly 
         basis as authorized vacation time cards are received and as 
         hours are available. 

I just  got  a copy of the official memo from Dick Farrahar.  Apparently the
"savings"  is  in fact the interest that will be earned by deferring our pay
for  an  extra  week.   At some unspecified time in Q4, we will get our last
weekly paychecks (for the preceding week).  We will then get no paycheck the
next  week,  and  our first bi-weekly paycheck the week after that.  Digital
expects to earn $2 million per year in interest on what would otherwise have
been our money.

I had  just started to get used to the idea of managing things with an extra
paycheck  in my pocket.  Now I'm going to be stuck dealing with my cash flow
getting offset by a week.

I'm peeved.

- Brad

	A lot of people who suggested this idea or who said that it was
	a good one also said that Digital probably would not pay two weeks
	in arrears. Well, it now appears that that is just what their going
	to do. I was starting to believe that "do the right thing" was still
	you rule. You all had me going there.

			Alfred

    I know this will bring the ire of some, but I really have difficulty
    understanding the level of emotion being donated to this topic when
    folks are being laid-off.  I have been with DEC for 15 years and can
    not understand why we would be unwilling to go to getting paid every
    other week in order to save some jobs by the amount of money DEC can
    save.
    
    It would be nice to see this energy spent on our jobs so that we might
    be able to save a few more jobs.  COME ON - let's get real and put our
    priorities straight.  I will gladly accept my pay weekly, bi-weekly or
    monthy as long as I continue to get paid for my contribution to DEC.
           

    
    I really don't mind the change. I don't like it, but will accept it.
    What ticks me off is I have to stretch one paycheck for two weeks!
    
    /prc

If this weren't so funny, it would be sad (or something like that)...

I've been watching this note since the begining.  Relax we were told, it's
just an idea/rumor/not true.  And even if Digital did start bi-weekly
pay, we'd get a week pre-paid, BECAUSE that would be the right thing.

How many times do we need to be reminded that this is not the Digital of old...

Now, Digital is in business to make money, just read this conf.  I'm not
sure, but I thought Digital was in business to provide the best products/
service, and as a result made money.  Goofy me, that was the OLD Digital,
the Digital with the LONG term view, now, all we need to do is make money.

I wonder how many managers will be made VP's as a result of this great money
saving/taking idea.

Mark

I don't mind helping the company, I just wish the company would be a little
more up-front with me sometimes.

Health care costs	up
salary			freeze
salary increase		18 month average
salary increase		less then inflation
office supplies		buy my own
credit cards		billed to me
bi-weekly pay		pay cut

(I know there are other examples, but you get the idea)

Is it all small potatoes, you bet it is.  But I feel ignored.  I work for,
and plan to continue to work for, Digital.  I hope that Digital can be/
might be/could be/SHOULD BE more people orientated, again.

Sorry 'Digital', but you worry me sometimes!

    Maybe I'm a little slow, but I'm confused a bit.

    	weekly pay (arrears 1 week)       |
    	weekly pay (arrears 1 week)       | weeks
    	weekly pay (arrears 1 week)       V
    	weekly pay (arrears 1 week)
    1)    weekly pay skipped
        two-week pay (weekly arrears 1 week + weekly arrears 2 weeks)
    2)    weekly pay skipped
        two-week pay (weekly arrears 1 week + weekly arrears 2 weeks)
    3)    weekly pay skipped
        two-week pay (weekly arrears 1 week + weekly arrears 2 weeks)
    4)    weekly pay skipped
                ...      

    Now, at point 1), DEC holds on to our pay for an extra week before
    paying it out, thereby earning interest. This is a *one time* gain.

    At point 2), point 3), and so on, the same occurs, this is a repeating
    gain. If we modified the scheduled to be:

    	weekly pay (arrears 1 week)       |
    	weekly pay (arrears 1 week)       | weeks
    	weekly pay (arrears 1 week)       V
    	weekly pay (arrears 1 week)
    *)  two-week pay (weekly arrears 1 week + weekly ahead 1 week)
    2)    weekly pay skipped
        two-week pay (weekly arrears 1 week + weekly ahead 1 week)
    3)    weekly pay skipped
        two-week pay (weekly arrears 1 week + weekly ahead 1 week)
    4)    weekly pay skipped
                ...      

    At *), Digital *pays* interest to be able to pay out a week in advance.
    But at 2), Digital gets to hold on to our pay to earn interest, effectively
    offsetting the interest payment at *). [Certainly more than offset by 3).]
    At point 3), point 4), and so on, we have a repeating gain, the same as
    above.

    Am I just dense, or would have paying 1 week arrears + 1 week ahead
    have delayed the benefit of this program to Digital by a month? (And
    in the meantime given every exempt employee an immediate benefit?)

    Please, someone tell me I am dumb.

    /Peters

    Re .148
    
    No it is not the same. Look at it from DEC's point of view.
    With the plan as documented DEC gets to keep 1 week of payroll for
    EVER. Thus it will earn interest on this week of payroll for ever.
    Plus increase the balance sheet cash amount by this week of payroll.
    
    Now with either plan (1, the documented one. 2, The pay a week in
    advance a week in arrears) DEC gets interest on an ADDITIONAL week's
    payroll for ever over and above paying weekly.
    
    So doing it this way DEC gets a continual hit of interest on 2 week's
    worth of payroll plus the positive hit on the balance sheet. Doing it the
    other way would only give them interest on 1 week of payroll  for ever.
    
    I think I've got this right,
    
    Dave
    

    Yes, I feel pretty petty about complaining about this.  This pettiness
    is only slightly offset by how petty Digital sounds for doing it to me.
    
    Q: DEC says they're going to save $2M/year from interest in this. 
    Where does that interest come from?
    
    A: By salami-ing their employees.
    
    Not enough money from each employee to get really excited about, but it
    still comes from the employees just the same.  That's a pay cut, even
    if it's an insignificantly small one.
    
    FWIW: Aside from some minor griping about its timing (of course, there
    is never a good time for it), I really had no problems with the 6-month
    pay freeze.  Why?  Because it happened to everyone uniformly (more or
    less), and because it was a finite measure, with beginning and end. 
    True, my pay raises will always be 6 months behind "what they could
    have been", but it's still a finite thing to deal with.
    
    The reason this pay cut sticks in my craw is not its magnitude, but
    rather that we're going to be stuck with this salami for as long as we
    work for DEC.  This isn't a temporary belt tightening measure to get us
    over these hard times.  This is a case of going after the payroll
    department for savings - of the permanent variety.
    
    When they froze our raises, I knew (or had least strongly suspected)
    that we'd get raises again someday, and could then go back to griping
    about their size.  With this, I've just lost one benefit for good.
    
    This is not a belt-tightening measure.  It's just another benny down
    the tubes.

    Let's see... $2M/45K affected employees = $44.44/employee/year.
    For me, that's at least two weeks of lunch in the ZKO cafeteria.

I'm glad that this will help the company, but let's not mince words.
This IS an across the board paycut (for W4) ... a small one, but
definately a paycut.  It's also a unilateral chanage in the implicit
contract between employer and employee: so-much-per-hour payable
according to such-and-such schedule.  The schedule was just changed
from "net 7 days" to "net 14 days".

I figure a ballpark of about $40/year per median-salaried employee.

I don't mind giving to the cause; I do mind not being asked.

- greg

I wonder, what would the BOD have to say if those effected employees that didnt 
exactly care for this decided that they would not show up for work the first 
week of each bi-weekly period. Then during the second week gave two weeks worth
of effort.

- George

        If Digital is going to save $2,000,000 dollars by implementing
        this plan for 45,000 employees, then Digital will get about $44
        in interest for each of the employees.  This is, on average,
        about 2 cents for each hour of pay.

        Since Digital pay stubs in the U.S. list the hourly rate to the
        nearest cent, it would be a simpler change to just reduce the
        pay rate for each individual by 2 cents per hour.  This would
        even allow non-exempt employees the privilege of participating!

        Digital could have phased in this program by making pay raises
        fractionally less.  The lack of regular pay raises for all
        employees would have meant it would take a while for it to apply
        to every employee, but there would be no visible major change to
        annoy employees.

        					B.J.

I forgot the smiley face for my last reply....



                            00        00
                            00        00
                                 ||
                                 ||
                          \              /
                           \            /
                            .__________.          .
                              

... mainly because I was one of those making the suggestion.  I feel
that the savings that should have been looked at were the paper 
shuffling savings not the interest.  As others have said, it could have
been a WIN-WIN situation if it were handled as last week plus this week.
AND THAT IS NOT PAYING AHEAD!  OK, it is paying for one day ahead for 
the nitpickers but it is not a week ahead because you have already worked
for four of those days.

Those in charge have truly missed the meaning of "Do the right thing".  As
an earlier note said, just one more little thing that causes each of us
pennies but it does remind me of the line "the straw that broke the
camel's back".

Lee G. Who_has_lost_some_faith_in_the_company

    
    And all this for $2M a fraction of 1% of our yearly revenue!
    Hell, a nit like the bottled water was a $1M item!  Now the
    company is risking p****** off some number of its 45K U.S.
    employees for that!  Like the last reply said.  It's not the
    idea that they did it.  It's the idea that they did and
    said "If you don't like it, too bad" and all for a lousy
    $2M!  Hell, I'd have given them back the $44 for me if they
    had asked me for it.
    
    Steve
    
    
    

    
    Re: .154
    
    Now that is a sensible suggestion.  And if they had first made
    it voluntary asking us to contribute by having our pay reduced,
    hell, at $.02 an hour that's only $.80 a week.  If they had ASKED I'd
    have said take a buck a week and I believe most of our employees
    would have done something similar.  It would have a been a big
    step toward reconfirming the commitment to employees and it would
    have given them a chance to have us all feeling that we were ALL
    pulling together on this.  Instead they leave at least some feeling
    screwed.  Just WHO is advising the company about this stuff.  Doesn't
    sound like anyone who knows much about people.
    
    Steve
    

    I did a quick cash flow to check the available principal between
    weekly periods. I'm too tired to work it out, but I can see where
    the deferral winds up compounding interest not only sooner (which
    was obvious to me) but at an increased rate (which was not as
    obvious) as the result of an initial positive interest hit as opposed
    to negative interest hit.

    I don't think DEC earns double the interest by deferring as opposed to
    paying one-behind/one-ahead -- after holding on to the principal for a
    week, they have to pay it out. But I think they get a permanently higher
    effective rate because of the difference in seed principal (the result
    of the initial interest penalty in paying one-behind/one-ahead). This
    is above and beyond the time advantage in starting to earn interest.

    And they _do_ get a one-time (sort of) hit on the books. Let's say the
    average exempt salary is $40,000: 45,000 * 40,000 / 52 = 34,600,000, the
    lump of extra money Digital will always have in the bank -- every other
    week. So they'll have to time this right for when we hit the end of the
    fiscal year, otherwise they'll only show the interest earned.

    Oh well, right or wrong (more likely), I'm done on this one. There are
    more important issues to deal with.

    /Peters

re Note 1352.146 by VCSESU::MOSHER::COOK:

>     What ticks me off is I have to stretch one paycheck for two weeks!
  
        That's 45 THOUSAND employees who, at the same time, have to
        stretch one paycheck for two weeks!

        I think that this was actually done as a morale booster -- it
        takes most of our minds off of the layoffs.

        Bob

From Massachusetts G.L.C. 149 � 148:

Wages may be paid weekly, bi-weekly, or semi-monthly to a salaried employee,
but in no event shall wages remain unpaid by an employer for more than six
days from the termination of the work week in which such wages were earned
by the employee.

What are you saying, John?  Is DEC doing something illegal (in MA, anyway)?

-Andy

I have two questions:

1. Who is Dick Farrahar?  Us folks outside GMA don't know all of the high
muckity-mucks that inhabit corporate.  Wouldn't it be nice if people 
would put titles next to names?

2.  Answer to Q11 says that there can be 25 to 27 paychecks depending
on the calender.  I do not believe that there can ever be less that 26
since there are always 52 weeks plus x days in a year.  I may not be a
rocket scientist but this seems too simple to mess up.


Lee G.  The_more_I_read_the_less_impressed_I_am

>What are you saying, John?  Is DEC doing something illegal (in MA, anyway)?

I am not a lawyer, and would not want to say that DEC is doing something
illegal.  I am merely quoting a portion of the laws of the Commonwealth.

/john

Well, as one of the "let's wait and see" crowd, I guess I'm seeing what I didn't
expect to see. Hard to acknowledge, but this ISN'T the "same old Digital" any
more, though in some respects I recognize that some changes have been forced 
upon us, and I certainly believe SOMETHING HAS TO CHANGE TO MAKE THE COMPANY
SURVIVE.

re: .163
  <  1. Who is Dick Farrahar?  Us folks outside GMA don't know all of the high
  <  muckity-mucks that inhabit corporate.  Wouldn't it be nice if people 
  <  would put titles next to names?

According to a list of "Key Contacts/ Senior Management" which circulated
recently (I think it even made this conference), Dick Farrahar is VP Personnel.
Note that the memo posted here was an internal memo to personnel reps PRIOR to
announcement of the plan ("scheduled for Feb.12"), not an official announcement.
So it wouldn't need all the NAME/TITLE stuff you describe.

  <  2.  Answer to Q11 says that there can be 25 to 27 paychecks depending
  <  on the calender.  I do not believe that there can ever be less that 26
  <  since there are always 52 weeks plus x days in a year.  

Yeah, but that extra day (or 2 on leap year) can get ya.  It can result in 53
Thursdays in a given year, which could indeed result in 27 paychecks.



All feelings aside, here's my version of analyzing the monetary effect for 
the company:

	Assume there's a "salary" account, which starts with a balance of X
	and get filled in at a steady rate (based on some incremental portion
	of overall corporate revenues) of S dollars/week, where S is the total
	amount needed to meet a weeks worth of paychecks
.
	During any given week, revenue is accrued (and earns interest). On
	Thurday, a big chuck is paid out for salary and the salary account goes
	back to X. This cycle keeps repeating.

	Today we have:
		start with X dollars
		week 1 - account grows to (X+S) dollars
		  Thursday, S is paid and balance goes to X
		week 2 - account grows to (X+S) dollars
		  Thursday, S is paid and balance goes to X
		etc.

	Going biweekly as stated in the memo yields
		week 1 - account grows to (X+S) dollars
		week 2 - account grows to (X+2S) dollars
		  Thursday, 2S is paid and balance goes to 0
		week 3 - account grows to (X+S) dollars
		week 4 - account grows to (X+2S) dollars
		  Thursday, 2S is paid and balance goes to 0
		etc.

	Going weekly without the pay gap would be like this
		week 1 - account grows to (X+S) dollars
		  Thursday, 2S is paid and balance goes to (X-S)
		week 2 - account grows to X dollars
		week 3 - account grows to (X+S) dollars
		  Thursday, 2S is paid and balance goes to (X-S)
		week 4 - account grows to X dollars
		etc.

In a table, this money in that salary account (earning interest) looks like


			weeks 1,3,5,...		weeks 2,4,6,...
			---------------		---------------
	weekly	   |	X  to  X+S		X  to  X+S
		   |
	biweekly   |	X  to  X+S		X+S to X+2S	(Note 1)
		   |
	biweekly   |	X  to  X+S		X-S to X	(Note 2)
	(no GAP)

Note 1 - the planned change means there's S dollars extra earning additional 
	interest every other week.

Note 2 - going biweekly without skipping a paycheck means there's S dollars LESS
	every other week, with a corresponding loss of interest.

If indeed the interest means a savings of $2M, then doing this all the "old 
Digital" way would mean a loss of $2M annually, which would perhaps slowly be
made up by process savings.

So, you say, "What's the point???"  Well, I guess for the company's
bottom line, 
	1 - going biweekly as planned saves money
	2 - staying weekly yields no change
	3 - going biweekly with no pay gap loses money.

I suspect anybody who wants to fight this all try to convince the company to
stay with option 2 rather than persuading anyone to go with option 3.

Oops, I just reread the reply I just posted and realized that .163 said there
could never be LESS THAN 26 paychecks. I agreee. Apologies for misreading that!

	/M

    
    Is it possible to send netmail to Ken? Or at least in his general
    vicinity?
    

I don't know if Ken has a VAXMAIL node to send to, but his ALL-IN-1 address is
	KEN OLSEN @MLO

From VAXmail, that would translate into
	MTS$::"MLO::Ken Olsen"

This assumes your system is set up properly and has MTS$ defined as a logical
pointing to the nearest message router gateway node.  I believe ELMO:: is one
such node in SpitBrook, the exact node varies by location.

Rumor has it that Ken never reads his own mail online.  But it gets in the 
vicinity, as you said.

	/Marvin

re: Mass. law

So, could changing payday from Thursday to Tuesday satisfy that?

								paul

    I've already expressed my opinion on this: the "big savings" were not
    true operational cost controls, but a transfer of wealth from employees
    to the corporate treasury in the form of interest that the employee
    would otherwise obtain.
    
    For those of you with a financial bent, the calculation is
    the difference between the future value of an annuity:
    SALARY/52 at some rate for 52 periods (in arrears) and 
    SALARY/26 at some rate for 26 periods (in arrears)
    
    At today's lower prime rate of 9%, it comes to 94 cents per $1000
    of salary, or $47.15 for an employee making $50,000.
    
    A _progressive_ pay cut would make more sense, but that too will probably
    come in time.

    There was talk recently of Digital declaring a dividend.  If the money
    from this "cost saving" were applied to that purpose how much would
    each shareholder get?
    

    as of Nov. according to my Value-Line sheet there were about 125
    million shares outstading.
    
    $4-5 hundred million might help. :)

>So, could changing payday from Thursday to Tuesday satisfy that?

I count six days from Friday to Thursday.  The current Thursday payday
is a direct result of the same Massachusetts law; it is the latest day
on which a company can legally pay its workers.

/john

    I asked my cost center manager to confirm the validity of the
    memo, and she did so, stating that (as has been noted before) that
    the memo was not intended for general distribution.  But as we all
    know, there's little hope in holding back news like this.
    
    The problem is, I don't know what to do now.  The real difference to
    me is minimal (the previous calculations of $40 or so per year assume
    gross wages deposited and left earning interest, which isn't what
    really happens.)  I'd estimate the actual cost to me to be closer to
    $10, if that much.  I can manage to dig into my savings for
    a week, though in times past I would not have been able to do so,
    but I imagine there are many others who have been living "paycheck to
    paycheck" who will have to defer paying some bills a week.
    
    If you look at the whole thing pragmatically, it's just a temporary
    annoyance.  But what really upsets me is the continuing trend of
    "screw the employee" that inflicts far more emotional damage than
    monetary.  I used to be really "up" on working for Digital, but now,
    despite my best efforts, I'm beginning to feel as if the "people
    company" of the past has disappeared entirely.  
    
    To say "It's worse elsewhere" isn't much help.
    
    			Steve

re Note 1352.174 by QUARK::LIONEL "Free advice is worth every cent"

>The problem is, I don't know what to do now.

Maybe those of us who work in New Hampshire and aren't protected by the
Massachusetts Law can just hope than when the company learns that it can't
implement the program in Massachusetts that it would not be appropriate
to implement it elsewhere either.

So I'm still in the "wait and see" camp.

/john

re: .173

>I count six days from Friday to Thursday.  The current Thursday payday
>is a direct result of the same Massachusetts law; it is the latest day
>on which a company can legally pay its workers.

Hmmm...i had that totally screwed up, as i was counting WORKdays from the
end of the twice-previous week, which should've got me a Monday...%-}

If it's six nondistinguished(work/nonwork) days from the last day of the
work week (which is Sunday to Saturday for Digital, right?), shouldn't
Friday be the latest day?  So that says they could pay us on a Friday for
the previous and current week?  Or am i still lost in space here?

								paul

The plan, as outlined in the description posted in this topic, has some
interesting personal consequences for 1991...

Sitting down with a pencil and calendar, it constitutes a

		1.9% paycut

for wage class four employess IN 1991.  That is to say, in 1992 when a
WC4 employee fills out their taxes, their pay will be 1.9% less than they
thought it was going to be (+/- depending on when/if raises happen.)

Worse than that, if it is arranged that WC4 don't get a paycheck on
December 26th, it becomes a 3.8% paycut *for the year*.  In this later 
scenario, the employee also contributes 1 less paycheck deduction toward stock
purchase on June 3rd (I think that's the date).  Statistically, there's an even
chance of that happening.

So, in addition to layoffs, we are seeing paycuts for exempt employees.  Yet,
in true Digital fashion, we are calling layoffs "Involuntary Separation 
Packages" and pay cuts become "Salary Deferral Program[mes]".

Yes, I know that this is US-Only, but I suspect that our neighbors to the
north, south, and across the ponds to the east and west may be subjected to
some of the same.

If the company had said, "Bob, we need you to take a 4% paycut along with
every other US employee so that we can ensure that we have a company,"
I'd have agreed.  To say, "We're going to hold on to your pay for an extra
week so that we can earn the interest instead of you," offends me.  I just
fired an insurance agent for that kind of prank.  I expect honesty from 
my employer just as they do from me.

I know that the extra week will show up when I eventually stop working for 
Digital (not DEC, any longer.)  I even know that I can sock away a few dollars
every week between now and when this hits so I can pretend I have the missing
paycheck.  I'm just intrinsically offended that I need to worry about
this because the company's doing this to me.

I feel like I've been chewing on an over-ripe lemon.  Disgusted.

BobW

    If I went to my employer and said "Look, I'm really strapped.  Could
    you advance me a week's salary and I'll pay you back when I leave the
    company?" they'd think I'd lost my marbles.  Yet they're hitting us up
    for a loan without even asking if we'd mind.
    

re still floundering

The Mass. law states that employees who work five days a week shall be
paid within six days from the end of their work week.

That's Thursday.  The notes also cite a court decision that Sunday counts
as one of the six days.  Payday is Thursday because the law requires it
be no later.

Yesterday, while out for a walk in our beautiful weather, I stopped by
the Town Library to read the whole law; what I had posted before was an
excerpt I had gotten a librarian to read to me over the phone.  Since I
work in N.H. and thus don't benefit from the law (unless I get an indirect
benefit if DEC decides to apply what is required in Massachusetts to
employees in other states) I didn't make a copy of it; it is three pages
long with several pages of notes.

The law is EXTREMELY clear that Massachusetts employers, when paying
biweekly or semi-monthly, may do so only by paying part of the salary
before it would be due if paid weekly, and that no part of the salary
may be delayed longer than the law allows.  Penalties for violating the
law were recently increased.  The law states exactly which officers of
the company will be charged if the law is violated.

/john

    I guess someone should go photocopy this law and send a copy to Dick
    Farraher.
    
    When I read that message from Dick Farraher I felt really annoyed.
    If this change were being made due to process savings then I think that
    is fine. I'd probably even be happy to have my pay delayed by a week
    even if the company does get a free loan. But when the justification
    for the change is effectively stated as:
    
    "We're making this change solely to transfer $x million from our
     employees to the company coffers"
    
    it makes my blood boil. The company seems to be trying to find ways to
    cut expennses and in the long run simply run itself into the ground.
    I wish the BOD would clean house. Isn't that the function of the BOD
    when a companies officers have lost touch?
    
    Dave

    New Hampshire Revised Statues Annotated, Chapter 275 (Labor), Section
    43 (Weekly):

         I.  Every employer shall pay all wages due to his employees
         within 8 days, including Sunday, after expiration of the week
         in which the work is performed, on regular paydays designated
         in advance by the employer, in lawful money of the United
         States, by deposit though electronic fund transfer or
         otherwise with written authorization of the employee to banks
         of the employee's choice or with checks on banks convenient
         to the place of employment where suitable arrangements are
         made for the cashing of such checks by employees for the full
         amount of the wages due; provided, however, that all wages in
         the nature of health and welfare fund or pension fund
         contributions required pursuant to a health and welfare fund
         trust agreement, pension fund trust agreement, collective
         bargaining agreement, or other agreement, adopted for the
         benefit of his employees and agreed to by him shall be paid
         by every such employer within 30 days of the date of demand
         for such payment, the payment to be made to the administrator
         or other designated official of the applicable health and
         welfare or pension trust fund.

         II.  The commissioner may, upon written petition showing good
         and sufficient reason, permit payment of wages less
         frequently than that required by paragraph I, except that it
         shall be at least once each calendar month.  In all
         instances, payment shall be made regularly on a predesignated
         date.  The commissioner may prescribe the terms and
         conditions of such permission, and limit the duration
         thereof.

         III.  Vacation pay, severance pay, personal days, holiday
         pay, sick pay and payment of employee expenses, when such
         benefits are a matter of employment practice or policy, or
         both, shall be considered wages pursuant to RSA 275:42, III,
         when due.

    Definitions applying to the above are listed in Section 42
    (Definitions):

         Whenever used in this subdivision:

         I.  The term "employer" includes any individual, partnership,
         association, joint stock company, trust, corporation,
         administrator or executor of the estate of a deceased
         individual, or the receiver, trustee, or successor of any of
         the same, employing any person, except employers of domestic
         labor in the home of the employer, or farm labor where less
         than 5 persons are employed.

         II.  The term "employee" includes any person suffered or
         permitted to work by an employer.  For the purpose of claims
         for wages under RSA 275:51, any person in the service of
         another shall be conclusively presumed to be an employee, not
         an independent contractor, if it shall have been determined
         to be more likely than not that the relationship can be
         terminated summarily, with a right to no more than
         compensation already earned.

         III.  The term "wages" means compensation, including hourly
         health and welfare, and pension fund contributions required
         pursuant to a health and welfare trust agreement, pension
         fund trust agreement, collective bargaining agreement, or
         other agreement adopted for the benefit of an employee and
         agreed to by his employer, for labor or services rendered by
         an employee, whether the amount is determined on a time,
         task, piece, commission, or other basis of calculation.

         IV.  The term "commissioner" means the labor commissioner.

         V.  For the purposes of this subdivision the officers of a
         corporation and any agents having the management of such
         corporation who knowingly permit the corporation to violate
         the provisions of RSA 275:43, 44 shall be deemed to be the
         employers of the employees of the corporation.

                                  
    				-- edp

A few random ramblings:

1) It sounds like this "paycheck within 6 days of the end of the work period"
   law in Mass. would only come into play once- the week that WC4's would
   be transitioning into the new scheme. It could well be that the company may
   apply for some kind of waiver for that one-time event.

2) I hope they tell us WC4's long enough in advance of the date this will occur
   so we can attempt to save 1/n th of each weakly check (n=number of weeks
   until implementation) to help us through 'the gap'.

Lee

re .182

The Mass. law doesn't say "end of work period", it says "end of work week."

It specifically says that to do bi-weekly or semi-monthly, you have to
pay part in advance.

--------------------

I find it frightening that senior management in this company has gone this
far towards a decision of this magnitude without first finding out whether
it would be legal or not in the two states with the most DEC employees.

/john

    If, in fact, biweekly pay on the proposed schedule is not legal in MA
    or NH, then perhaps that is enough to kill the decision.  A great many,
    if not a majority, of Digital employees live in these states, reducing the
    benefits of the proposed schedule.

    On the other hand, people should complain if they object to this
    proposal.

    The "lost interest" analysis of how this impacts employees represents
    a best case.  In the worse case, a pair of employee spouses would end
    up having to borrow (and pay interest on) a week of their combined take
    home pay to make up the gap.  Times ARE tough, and many families are
    already stretching their payments to the limit; they can't delay any
    payments.  

    The argument that people can save a week's pay in weeks before the
    proposed change is also represents a best case.  Assuming there is 13
    weeks notice, employees would have to save 7.7% of their take home pay
    over those weeks.  Again, that is not possible for many.

    I suppose I would not feel that the proposal was so bad if Digital was
    in a cash crush and needed a change to save the company.  But Digital
    has lots of cash in the bank.  I have not seen any other proposals to
    delay operating expenses so the money to pay for them can get more
    interest. Delays till business conditions improve, yes, but delays to
    get more interest on money in the bank, no. 
    
    What, I wonder, would be the reaction if Digital announced that it
    would pay all its supplier's a week later?

    Steve

> I find it frightening that senior management in this company has gone this
> far towards a decision of this magnitude without first finding out whether
> it would be legal or not in the two states with the most DEC employees.

    The limitation on local mileage went further (it was actually
    announced) before it was revoked.

    Steve

re: 1352.179             >
>The law is EXTREMELY clear that Massachusetts employers, when paying
>biweekly or semi-monthly, may do so only by paying part of the salary
>before it would be due if paid weekly, and that no part of the salary
>may be delayed longer than the law allows.  Penalties for violating the

John
The man I carpool with used to get paid bi-weekly from a leading healthcare
products company, and that is exzactly what they did. The employees were
paid "in advance" of the pay period.

It seems intuitively obvious that in a company such as Digital, this option
would be the more desirable one. In this arrangement, the employees get 
a slight break (1 weeks pay in advance * 7% = .... (avg 6.29/person).

The Corporation gets a reduction in cost of making its 2 week payroll. 

(Note: Figures based a wild guess for  statistical and argument purposes
	only.)

-Bobe

re .186

If DEC pays in advance, as the memo from Dick Farraher states, instead of
earning an extra two million in interest, DEC loses the same two million
in interest.

Under Mass. Law, paying biweekly thus only saves the company money if the
savings in processing costs amount to more than two million.

I don't have any idea what those costs are, and the memo from Dick Farraher
leads one to believe that they aren't large in comparison with the interest.

/john

    
    
    Re: .177
    
    >If the company had said, "Bob, we need you to take a 4% paycut
    >along with every other US employee so that we can ensure that we
    >have a company," I'd have agreed.  To say, "We're going to hold
    >on to your pay for an extra week so that we can earn the interest
    >instead of you," offends me.
    
    I think this is the real crux of the matter.  Sure we could analyze
    the whole thing, but it this feeling of being screwed that I think
    is what is galling people.
    
    Re: they didn't ask.
    
    It's worse than that actually.  If you read the second paragraph
    of the memo, they're actually saying that if you don't like it,
    tough so they were well aware they didn't ask.
    
    Re: the MA and NH law.
    
    My father has lots of experience in MA with being in charge of
    a payroll.  They can pay less frequently than once a week in MA
    as long as NO part of the pay is more than six days in arrears.
    To satisfy the law they can pay bi-weekly by paying one week
    in arrears, as we have currently, and one week current which 
    constitutes one day's pay in advance for the Friday.  If they do
    that, they'll have no hassle with the law.
    
    Steve
    

    According to the New Hampshire Department of Labor, Digital Equipment
    Corporation was granted permission in December 1990 to pay non-weekly.
    I don't have any more details right now; perhaps I should ask for what
    the "sufficient reason" is, what specifically has been permitted, et
    cetera.
    
    
    				-- edp

    re .189

    You would think that DEC had arranged to go to bi-weekly pay in the
    whole U.S., being that "Oops, this doesn't apply to Massachusetts and
    the people who are making this decision" would cause even more ire.

    /Peters

    I haven't been following this note, so my response may be totally off
    the wall, but...don't we currently get paid 3 days after the fact?  For
    example, I thought that the check I get this week (on 2/14) covers the
    time I worked last week (from 2/2 to 2/9).  In which case, if they
    start paying me alternate weeks, with 1 day advance pay, my check on
    2/14 would cover from 2/2 to 2/16.  Sounds good to me!
    
    Mary

	RE: .192 Yes you're missing something. The way you describe it
	would be fine and few would have a problem with it. But that is
	*not* the way they want to do it. It they currently did it they
	way they want to your 2/14 check would not cover 2/2 to 2/16
	rather it would cover 1/26 to 2/8. So there would not be a day
	in advance.

			Alfred

Well, if this bi-weekly pay is such a boost to DEC's bottom line why not
make it monthly? If WC4 employees can be asked to 'make do' for a week
(in order to get the bi-weekly scheme rolling) then certainly we could
do it for a month... right? After all, DEC is at stake here, not just
any j-random computer company. Let's give the shareholders their due!

Lee

    I don't see how DEC's implimentationi can be against Mass. law.  That
    exurpt(sp) may be out of context or pertain to some other specific
    event.  My father gets paid monthly.  There are many places in Mass.
    that pay biweekly or monthly.  I really doubt there is a law to prevent
    it.
    
    The best way to "ready" for that 1st week is to start planning for it
    now.  Figure out your take home pay, divide it by the number of weeks
    (approximate) to the 1st week of implimentation, then put that much
    away each week until then.  Sure, it takes away from your weekly money,
    but what's better, going each week for "x" weeks a few bucks short, or
    going a whole week with absolutely no money at all.  Start planning!!!
    
    Chris D.

Believe me, it's against Mass. Law.

The Mass. Dept. of Labor and Industries has confirmed that it is.

    RE: .195, .196
    
    The problem is not the frequency of payment, but how many weeks in
    arrears is.  If the company opted to continue paying weekly, but 2
    weeks late rather than the 1 it does now (i.e. it just skipped a week)
    the effect would be the same.
    
    Savings means that you need to save over 7% of your take home pay over
    the next quarter.  Some don't have that much slop in their budgets.
    
    Getting overdraft protection is just like getting a loan; the extra
    interest just makes matters worse over the long run.  And this also
    assumes that the employee has good enough credit to get the loan.  Als,
    some people simply don't belive in doing anything on credit.
    
    Sure, there are a lot of things that one can do, including selling
    enough DEC stock to cover a week's pay if one owns that much. (I wonder
    how many employees might  do that?)  But any of these hurts employees
    and their families in a regressive mannor; those less well off are hurt
    the most.
    
    Steve

    Steve, what I am really trying to emphasize(sp) is to start planning
    NOW.  You and I both know that when the time comes there will be a lot
    of people out there who did nothing to prepair and will be screaming
    like mad, yet, they had months to prepair.  Don't plan on it NOT
    happening.
    
    Chris D.

The following reply was contributed by a member of the community who wishes
to remain anonymous.




Steve hit the nail right on the head.  My monthly bank balance
fluctuates.  Sometimes it's >0 and I get 5% interest on it.  Other times
it's <0 and kicks into "overdraft protection" mode at 18% interest paid.
Not surprisingly, it's the monthly mortgage which causes these perturbations.

Delaying my paycheck will increase the portion of the month during which
I am borrowing money from the bank to balance my checking account.

So the biweekly payroll will cost me several dollars a month 
beyond the interest "savings" DEC will realize.
The rest of the money goes to my bank's profit.

As several others expressed, if they forthrightly asked for an 80 cent 
per week giveback until they were profitable again, I'd have agreed.
This way I am several dollars worth of p*ssed off for 80 cents worth of 
benefit to DEC.

Re .177:

	You need to check your arithmatic.  I get significantly different
    (lower) percentages than you do.

Re Wait and see:

	Please don't just wait and see.  Let your manager know that you have
    problems with this policy, even if the problems are only psychological.  
    If you can document your fiscal dificulty, that would help even more.  If 
    they don't hear from people, they have every reason to believe that the 
    change is of no consequence to the majority of us.

Opinion:

	This is frankly a rip-off of WC4 employees.  They are 'borrowing' a
    weeks pay from us so they can earn intrest on it.  We will either loose
    interest on that weeks pay, if we have that much cusion, or pay intrest
    on it if we don't.  I'm not very liberal, and think that business should
    be given quite a bit of lattitude, but this boarders on theivery.

	IF there had been substantial process savings, this change would be
    reasonable.  Since it is basically a one time savings at the expense of
    the employees, the change is NOT a reasonable one.  (The two million a
    year in intrest assumes that the money stays around to earn intrest.  I
    expect that it will not.  If you had an extra $500-$1000 in your checking
    account, it would be very tempting to spend it on something, and once 
    spent it would be very unlikely that it would be replaced.  I'd not put
    it past the present upper management to juggle things around so the whole
    chunk of money looks like an expense reduction just to make the price of 
    the stock go up for a quarter.)

    
     Well this hurts, so much so, that in order to make ends meet, I'll 
    probably have to take a week's vacation that month and ask for a vacation
    advance to cover that week. Thanks. 
    
    clay 

Before I decide wether the paycheck issue is a big deal, I'll wait for the
official announcement. Now I know that memo makes for some inteeresting
theories ....

set mode/sarcasm

Maybe the people who are having trouble budgeting their income have trouble
budgeting the company's money ...

set mode/nosarcasm

Re: .201

>Re .177:
>
>        You need to check your arithmatic.  I get significantly different
>    (lower) percentages than you do.

My arithmatic is based on the fact that (in most years) there are 52 paychecks
a year.   You take one away from me, and my yearly pay is reduced by 1/52nd.
My calculator say that 1/52nd is 0.0192307, or approximately, 1.9%.  If we 
miss the pay period on the 26th, then that's 2 paychecks, or 3.8%.  My 
assumption is that there are no raises in the year, which would alter the
actual amount not paid, percentage-wise yeilding a  more complex
calculation.

Could you explain your calculation and derived pay witheld?

BobW

    There is another place where this change will have a major effect on
    your "real" pay.  If you have noticed, when you reach the maximum
    allowed accumulation of vacation time, the "system" no longer
    increments the total.  It also attempts to increment the total before
    subtracting any vacation time applicable to that time period, thus now
    instead of trying to add approximately 3,4,or 5 hours to you maxed out
    vacation accrual, it will attempt to add 6,8, or 10 hours, truncate
    then attempt to subract any time you took during the pay period.  This
    of course assumes no change in the algorithm as it is currently
    applied.

    So now you can donate twice as much vacation back to to company
    involuntarily.
    

    RE: .203
    
>Maybe the people who are having trouble budgeting their income have trouble
>budgeting the company's money ...

    What percentage did your income go up last year? What percentage
    did Digital's go up? I dare say that most of us would be having
    a lot less trouble with our budgets if our incomes had gone up
    as much in the last year as Digital's did. 

    			Alfred

    
    Re: .203
    
    That was a cheap shot.  It really has no place in this
    discussion.  You have no way of knowing what kind of financial
    burdens some people might have.  Any idea what being financially
    responsible for a chronically ill child or parent might set you
    back?  Lighten up.
    
    Steve
    

    
    And then again, maybe the people who are having trouble budgeting
    their income have an unemployed spouse or some other "silly reason".
    Times are tight. Even those of us who budget well and carefully
    may have trouble with the initial skipped week of pay. 
    
    I resent any implication that this means I (or anyone else
    facing bugeting problems) might be wasting Digital's resources in any form. 

>>    instead of trying to add approximately 3,4,or 5 hours to you maxed out
>>    vacation accrual, it will attempt to add 6,8, or 10 hours, truncate
    
      From what I've read, your accrual doesn't change.  Everything is
    accrued the same, you just get paid differently.
    
    I got a message that this should be on LIVEWIRE this week (tommorow, I
    think).
    
    Chris D.

    So does anybody know how DEC got around the MASS law that John Covert
    has been quoting? Or come to that the reason NH gave for allowing DEC
    to circumvent section 1 of the NH statute that EDP posted? Inquiring
    minds want to know!
    
    Dave

A guy in my group received an "Official Looking" memo on how this two
week pay scheme will work.  I would not start raising a storm on this
yet.  This is probably a case of someone without authority firing off.
I am almost certain the plan that was described is illegal in several
states.  

I worked for three companies before Digital.  All three used the same pay
scheme.  You got paid every other Thursday.  The pay you received was
for the previous week worked and the current week.  You got one Friday's
pay a day in advance.  

One of these companies tried to do the same thing but, unlike Digital,
they did not announce it until all the kinks were worked out.  In the
process of going through all the legal stuff we discovered that several
localities had law prohibiting payment more than two weeks after the
work is completed.  The plan was scrapped and no one was the wiser about
what we had done.

    
    The hidden cost in this plan is not that people will lose interest in
    their bank accounts, but that they will lose interest in Digital.
    

    .206, .207
    
    Sorry you don't like my sarcasm. I certainly do not trivialize
    anyone's difficulties. My salary is frozen. My wife's is
    under siege too. I do consider myself fortunate,  so far.
    I apologize to anyone I may have offended.
    
    As to the suggestion I "lighten up". Sorry. After reading
    the last 30 or so notes there are *alot* more people I feel
    should lighten up.
    
    Its my opinion, I didn't ask you to like it, or approve of it. Just
    my opinion. 
    
    dave
    

    Reading all this as a dispassionate observer (who is paid monthly!), it
    makes you realise why Unions were invented. :-)
    
    Mike

	I used to work for a large Mass. company (starts with "r", been in 
	the news a lot lately).  We got paid monthly, on the 25th if each
	month - or thereabouts - for the current month.  That's more or
	less three weeks in arrears, one in advance.  That also seems to
	violate the quoted Mass. law, but they've been doing it for years.

	There were rumors that it was technically illegal but that they had
	worked out a special deal with the state, or paid some ongoing
	penalty, or something.  I have no idea if any of this was true, but
	if R******* can work it out, I'm sure that Digital can.

	I don't think this is going to have much of a real impact on me, but 
	I think it sucks that DEC is taking this money directly from the WC4
	employees pockets to marginally improve the bottom line.

	chris

	... TOTALLY dependent on cost-plus Federal contracts, and
therefore subject to very strict cost accounting laws dealing with
work ALREADY performed, they probably could justify an exception
based on cash-flow. The Feds DON'T pay contracts in advance!

    I used to work for a New Hampshire company that was a spinoff from the
    "R" company that I think .215 and .216 are referring to.  When I
    started we were paid monthly, just as described in .215.  After a few
    years we were changed to weekly, at some expense to the company.
    
    I don't know why the change was made.  Could it perhaps have been in
    response to a change in New Hampshire law?  Is the "R" company now
    paying weekly in response to a change in Massachusetts law?
        John Sauter

    My husband works in Massachusetts for one of the large electric
    utilities. He has been paid on the 25th of the month through the 
    31st (or whatever) for the past 23 years. There is not even a rumor
    of changing. Everything they do is under constant scrutiny by the
    Mass DPU, so if they were in violation of any regulation they would
    hear about it loud and clear.
    
    Linda

    .180 says, "I wish the BOD would clean house." It's important to
    remember the function of a Board of Directors. They are legally charged
    with overseeing the operation of the company in the stockholders'
    interest. Usually that boils down to appointing the CEO (in this
    company, KO) and letting that person select his staff. Now, in DEC, KO
    started the company; nobody appointed him. Nevertheless, when he
    decided to go public with the stock, he agreed to serve at the Board's
    pleasure. So, when you ask the BOD to clean house, you're basically
    asking it to fire KO. (It's conceivable that a board of directors might
    pressure a CEO to get rid of a particular subordinate executive. This
    seems unlikely to me, though. If management-director relations ever got
    that bad, I think the CEO would probably be in the doghouse as well.)
    
    Not to mention the fact that most American boards of directors are not
    true shareholder watchdogs, but are instead buddies of the CEO.
    
    re: .205
    Digital is the first company I've worked for which accrued employees'
    vacation time week-by-week. I think most companies use the "step
    function," whereby you get your two weeks (or three, or whatever) on
    Jan 1. It amazed me when I learned, and still amazes me, that anyone
    allows his account to "max out." Make no mistake, when you do that,
    you're making a charitable contribution to the company.

Well I will go down this one because I think I know the answer.

I believe that vacation accruing started happening at most companies for
two reasons.  First computers made the payroll functions easier to do.
Second, ERISA was passed by Congress.  Since the effect of part of the 
law was to say that you are to get all the benefits that you are entitled
to, companies had to start figuring the amount of vacation they owed the
employee or the employee owed them when an employee left.  It was easier to
do accruing than to do surprise the employee.  The other added benefit for 
the companies was that everyone wasn't taking vacation at the cutoff date
before losing the vacation.

FWIW,
Lee G.

re Raytheon paying on the 25th of the month

Little known fact:  This is only legal because Raytheon has unions, and
this is part of the collective bargaining agreement.  As part of this
agreement, in order to comply with Mass. law, Raytheon workers can go to
payroll any time after the pay is due under the law and draw advances
against their unpaid-but-due salary.

Or so says the Mass. Dept. of Labor and Industries.

/john

Re .202 or .203:

	If we wait till its official, they will have commited themselves to 
    doing it, will loose psychologicaly when they have to back down and will
    be much less likely to back down as a result.  If you let them know that
    you don't like the situation before the official anouncement, they can 
    reconsider the decision and change it without the same loss of face.  
    Further, by raising the objections you have before the decision is 
    announced, you are not put in a position of being insubordinate.  

Re .204:

	The loss of one week is 1.9+% of a years pay, but it should only happen
    once, not every year.  That's the amount they are 'borrowing' from each of
    us.  Assuming the intrest DEC earns on the money borrowed is equivilent to
    the amount each of us will lose in earned or payed intrest each year, the
    change is quite a bit smaller, but permanent.  In practice the amount we
    will loose will be larger than DECs gain, but probably not by much.  From
    the memo, your scare figure of almost 4% is not even being considered.

    Recieved an official notice from my supervisor today that bi-weekly
    pay will go in effect during the middle of Q4... This message should be
    in livewire today sometime.... From reading the message, the bottom
    line is:
    
    	Exempt employees will be paid every other Thursday. Each byweekly
    	paycheck will be from the prior 2 weeks worked and does not include
    	the week in which you recieved the check.... IN other words, you
    	work for DEC for 2 full weeks and the Thursday of the third week
    	you will be paid for the first 2......Carl
    
    	

OK, so you're in Massachusetts.  (I'm not.)

Why don't you ask your supervisor to explain how this complies with
Massachusetts law.

/john

    	Um, all this stuff about being paid one week late until you
    	retire is an exaggeration and emotionally-charged falsehood.

    	This week I will be paid on 2/14 for work performed 2/4-2/8.
    	Next week I will be paid on 2/21 for work performed 2/11-2/15.

    	Under the proposed plan I would have been paid on 2/21 for work
    	performed 2/4-2/15.  Every other week the new plan catches up
    	to the old plan.  If we are going to discuss lost interest, it
    	only applies to the pay for the first week of each two-week
    	period.  Therefore, the $40-per-employee is really only $20.
    	Likewise, the 1.9% pay cut because of the lost week is also
    	unfounded.  We do not lose any weeks.  Every other week the
    	new plan will catch up.

    	As for a 1.9% pay cut because we MIGHT not get one week's pay
    	in 1991 (or any given year), again, the plan will catch up
    	the following week -- giving us a 1.9% pay RAISE the first week
    	in January.  If anything, such an occurrence helps us out at
    	tax time.  Now if such a tax-time argument sounds trivial or
    	even absurd, trying to complain about giving back vacation
    	time or missing out on one week's contribution to the stock
    	plan is equally meaningless.

    	After saying all that I want to go on the record as saying that
    	I don't think this pay change is all that good of an idea.  By
    	looking at the hysteria and malcontent it is causing, one has to
    	question whether the financial savings is really worth it.
    
    	In addition it is interesting to see how DEC is going to handle
    	the supposed Mass regulation that appears to say such a plan
    	is illegal.
    
    	Joe Oppelt

re: .204[?] et.al.

Despite all the hysteria, this is NOT a pay cut. Yes, there's a small loss of 
interest on alternate week's, and a significant change in a lot of personal
budgets, but if I would have been paid
	(1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + .... + 1 + 1 = 52)
and it changes to
	(1 + 1 + 0 + 2 + .... + 0 + 2 = 52)
I'm still getting the same total pay.

Even if the year ends (... + 2 + 0 = 51) and the annual figure is 1/52 lower
than it would have been [less taxes to pay!], that all evens out the next 

Paid weekly, "annual salary" is calculated as 2080 * hourly rate (there
are 2080 hour in 52 work weeks), but actual amount paid varies whenever there's
a year with 53 Thursdays. Going biweekly increases the likelihood of variation,
but that isn't the same as a pay cut.

I'm not happily embracing this change, but let us all not go off the deep end
either.
	/Marvin

>> days from the termination of the work week in which such wages were earned
    
      Maybe the next step is to see how the state defines a work week. 
    Maybe a work week is the length of time covered by each pay check.
    Maybe the employer defines it.
    
    Just some thoughts.
    Chris D.  

Gosh! After just wading through all 228 replies I was surprised to see only
two references (.72 and .145) to the tie in between this action and the layoff.

I propose we should add question #25 to Mr. Farrahar's list in .142:

Q25: Would you please tell us how many people will _NOT_ need to be layed
     off as a result of this $2M savings to DEC?

A:   (Dead silence)

     [Don't hold your breath for the answer, folks. Dick's probably off with
      Mr. Smith listening to a parable about virtual offices. For what it's
      worth, it's almost 16:00 and the "announcement" appears still not to be
      in LIVEWIRE.]

  :^)

-Jack

re: .228

Well, you have heard of the "virtual office" now we have the "virtual work week"
  

                                    (-:

- George

>Maybe the next step is to see how the state defines a work week.

That has been done.  A week is never more than seven days.

The Mass. Dept. of Labor and Industries has been contacted by an anonymous
caller, who has been told that this plan violates Massachusetts law.

If you don't believe me, you can call, too.  You might not want to identify
yourself as being from Digital.

BTW, the next section of the G.L.C.s provides for penalties for employers
who take any action against an employee who seeks to preserve his rights
under the law.

/john

    O.K.  Here's another thought.  Is a salaried employee paid be the week,
    or by the year.  Could there be a loophole that we are paid yearly,
    with payments divided into 52 equal payments, at the employer's
    discretion?
    
    Chris D.
    
    p.s. I can't believe a company the size of DEC could overlook something
    like this.  It must have been concidered and resolved.....although...
    it's not really official yet either.  Last I looked in LIVEWIRE, it
    wasn't there. 

re .232

Chris, the plan DEC proposes has been explained to the Mass. Dept of Labor
and Industry.  They have said that it is illegal.

No matter how a salaried employee's salary is computed, the amount which
represents one weeks work is due within six days of the end of the work
week.  The law even provides for commissions being paid regularly.

Management has goofed.  They didn't check out the law well enough.

The anonymous caller I mentioned has written to Dick Farraher and told
him that he made the anonymous call, and asked for an explanation of how
DEC intends to implement this in Massachusetts, given the law.

/john

  Well, it's 17:12 and no LIVEWIRE word so far...

                                   Atlant

Re .226 and .227:

	Yep, you get paid the same amount over the year, every year except
    this year.  DEC is not 'taking' the money, they are 'borrowing' it so 
    they can put it in the bank and earn interest on it.  Now, why shouldn't
    you be allowed to put it in the bank and earn interest on it yourself?
    It's your money, you earned it.

	Look, the process savings are ignorable acording to what has been 
    shown so far.  The only 'savings' is intrest on the extra money stashed
    in an interest bearing account.  If they are going to extract the money
    from us, at least they can do it in a fashion that causes the least 
    problems by going to a semi-monthly schedule.  They'll even get an extra
    day or two's intrest in the process, but we'll get a pay schedule that
    matches the way our bills come in.  As it stands we get nothing but 
    s*****d.

    It has been brought to my attention, and properly so, that the posting
    of the memo in this conference violated policy 6.54 in that the memo's
    author did not (as far as I know) give permission to have his memo
    posted in a notes conference. If we had caught it early enough, we
    should have hidden or deleted the memo.  However, it seems pointless to
    do so now.  The memo was not intended for general distribution, though
    it seems to me that the bulk of it was eventually intended to be passed
    on to employees.
    
    Nevertheless, we goofed, and will try harder not to let such things
    happen again.
    
    					Steve - co-moderator

Re: a few back - drawing an advance on "earned but not-yet-paid" wages

Is there anything in the Mass. law about this? Could all of the WC4 employees
put in for an 'advance' of wages already earned for the week that begins
the bi-weakly scheme thus getting only half of their two-weak sized check
the following week?

Lea Roth

re .237

It doesn't matter.  DEC cannot, under Massachusetts law, implement the program
as described by the memo in .142.

Raytheon pays when they do because of a collective bargaining agreement -- as
the law requires, the employees of Raytheon _agreed_ (through the collective
bargaining agreement) to the payday arrangement.  At any time, individual
employees who are familiar with the law can request payment on the schedule
required by the law.

For DEC to implement the plan, they would have to get explicit agreement from
each Massachusetts employee.  And any employee in Massachusetts can rescind
that agreement at any time.

The next section of the chapter forbids an employer from taking any action
against an employee seeking his or her rights under the preceding section.

/john

    On the New Hampshire front, the labor commission is sending me a copy
    of Digital's petition to pay bi-weekly.  They refused to send it until
    I said "Right-to-Know law".  I also contacted the labor commissioner's
    office and asked for an explanation of why "the company wants to save
    money" is "good and sufficient reason".  If that were good and
    sufficient reason, wouldn't every employer be given permission to pay
    bi-weekly and the law never have been passed?  I wonder how one goes
    about challenging the decision of the labor commission.  I also asked
    the commissioner's office to tell me if permission had ever been
    denied.                           
    
    
    				-- edp

I just noticed that .218 talks about a "large electric utility".

The Mass. law specifically allows the DPU to modify the provisions of the
law for utility companies.

/john

re: .237

>the bi-weakly scheme thus getting only half of their two-weak sized check

that's "too weak" not "two weak", lea	;-) ;-)

re: .240

does the law apply differently to state and county workers also, john?

							paul

Yep, there are special provisions for government employees as well as
for public utilities.

It seems that if you can save the taxpayers or the utility ratepayers
money by deferring pay it is legal, but it is not legal to defer pay
to benefit a company's owners.

/john

    One place I've worked they paid 2 weeks in advance so
    if they wanted to lay someone off, or fire them, they
    could without see your face again. 
    
    
     buzz

>        As for a 1.9% pay cut because we MIGHT not get one week's pay
>        in 1991 (or any given year), again, the plan will catch up
>        the following week -- giving us a 1.9% pay RAISE the first week
>        in January.  If anything, such an occurrence helps us out at

No, Joe, my pay returns to the pre-1.9% cut rate in January, itis not
a 1.9% raise.  That is unless you also believe that the -1.9% rate is what 
your salary *should* be.

    	Wrong, Bob.
    
    	The mechanism that creates the POTENTIAL for having a pay week
    	deferred to the following year (your mythological 1.9% pay cut)
    	also creates the same potential for having that week "made up"
    	the following (or some subsequent) year.  
    
    	The last Thursday of 1991 is 12/26.  Now are you saying that
    	if the 26th is the payday that gets skipped (and therefore we
    	are paid for 2 weeks on 1/2/92) that that constitutes a 1.9%
    	pay cut?  Well, for that tax year, perhaps.  But then in 1992
    	because of the leap year, 12/31 also falls on a Thursday (I
    	think) thereby giving us one extra pay period for that tax year.
    	If we got a cut in 1991, then we can consider it a raise in 1992.	
    
    	Joe Oppelt

I think this 1.9% pay cut is becoming a rat-hole. The way I see it, my yearly
salary for year x may be (salary - 1/52 * salary) but either year x-1 or year 
x+1 would/will be (salary + 1/52 * salary).

Simply put, Digital is using money that I have earned to make money on and as 
a result, I am unable to use it.

For example, my rent is due between the 1st and the 5th. Today, if I am 
short, I can in all likelihood use the first check of the month towards my rent.

Now, lets assume it's the 31 of the month, and I get a flat tire, or 
someother unexpected expense.  In all likelihood my first bi-weekly check of 
the month will be after the 5th so I would have to borrow from a bank rather 
then from the pay I have already earned but not received.

Digital Equipment Corp. is in business, and so it should expect to incur certain
costs, including the cost of paying it's employees.  If Digital feels that it
can not afford the cost of payroll, then it should say so.  If anybody is 
listening:

I would prefer,

	leave the payroll the way it is
	or, I will pay the .80 per week (.02 * 40 hours) and receive 
		weekly pay
	or, give me semi-monthly pay (it's predictable in timing)

I am sorry if I offend anyone when I complain about 'Digital' genericly, but
I see Digital as a culture.  That is, when I speak to my customers, I speak
on behalf of Digital, and so try to do what is best for the customer and
Digital.  I expect when personnel (I assume payroll is part of personnel) 
speaks, they are speaking for Digital and not themselves, and so have an 
obligation to the 'Digital' culture and doing the 'Right' thing for me 
(their customer) and Digital.

Mark

As an aside, any ideas why state governments would distinguish between hourly
and salary employee pay frequency.

    I don't understand where the $.80 comes into play.  Why would I want to
    give the company $.80 when they can pay me every other week and it
    won't cost me a cent?  Is it interest??  My money doesn't sit around
    long enough to make any interest.
    
    Chris D.
    
    

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 149 � 148 : Payment of wages; commissions;
	exemption by contract; persons deemed employers; provision for cashing
	check or draft; violation of statute

Every person having employees in his service shall pay weekly each such
employee the wages earned by him to within six days of the date of said
payment if employed for five or six days in the week, or to within seven
days of the date of said payment if employed seven days in the week, or, in
the case of an employee who has worked for a period of less than five days,
hereinafter called a casual employee, shall, within seven days after the
termination of such period, pay the wages earned by such casual employee
during such period; but any employee leaving his employment shall be paid
in full on the following regular pay day, and, in the absence of a regular
pay day, on the following Saturday; and any employee discharged from such
employment shall be paid in full on the day of his discharge, or in Boston
as soon as the laws requiring pay rolls, bills and accounts to be certified
shall have been complied with; and the commonwealth, its departments,
officers, boards and commissions shall so pay every mechanic, workman and
laborer employed by it or them, and every person employed in any other
capacity by it or them in any penal or charitable institution, and every
county and city shall so pay every employee engaged in its business the
wages or salary earned by him, unless such mechanic, workman, laborer or
employee requests in writing to be paid in a different manner; and every
town shall so pay each employee engaged in its business if so required by
him; but an employee absent from his regular place of labor at a time fixed
for payment shall be paid thereafter on demand; provided, hoever, that the
department of public utilities, after hearing, may authorize a railroad
corporation or a parlor or sleeping car corporation to pay the wages of any
of its employees less frequently than weekly, if such employees prefer less
frequent payments, and if their interests and the interests of the public
will not suffer thereby; and provided, further, that employees engaged in a
bona fide exeutive, administrative or professional capacity as determined
by the commissioner and employees whose salaries are regularly paid on a
weekly basis or at a weekly rate for a work week of substantially the same
number of hours from week to week may be paid bi-weekly or semi-monthly
unless such employee elects at his own option to be paid monthly; and
provided, further, that employees engaged in agricultural work may be paid
their wages monthly; in either case, however, failure by a railroad
corporation or a parlor or sleeping car corporation to pay its employees
their wages as authorized by the said department, or by an employer of
employees engaged in agricultural work to pay monthly the wages of his or
her employees, shall be deemed a violation of this section; and provided,
further, that an employer may make payment of wages prior to the time that
they are required to be paid under the provisions of this section, and such
wages together with any wages already earned and due under this section, if
any, may be paid weekly, bi-weekly, or semi-monthly to a salaried employee,
but in no event shall wages remain unpaid by an employer for more than six
days from the termination of the work week in which such wages were earned
by the employee.  For the purposes of this section the words salaried
employee shall mean any employee whose remuneration is on a weekly,
bi-weekly, semi-monthly, monthly or annual basis, even though deductions or
increases may be made in a particular pay period. The word "wages" shall
include any holiday or vacation payments due an employee under an oral or
written agreement.

Every railroad corporation shall furnish each employee with a statement
accompanying each payment of wages listing current accrued total earnings
and taxes and shall also furnish said employee with each such payment a
listing of his daily wages and the method used to compute such wages.

This section shall apply, so far as apt, to the payment of commissions when
the amount of such commisions, less allowable or authorized deductions, has
been definitely determined and has become due and payable to such employee,
and commissions so determined and due such employees shall be subject to
the provisions of section one hundred and fifty.

This section shall not apply to an employee of a hospital which is
supported in part by contributions from the commonwealth or from any city
or twon, nor to an employee of an incorporated hospital which provides
treatment to patients free of charge, or which is conducted as a public
charity, unless such employee requests such hospital to pay him weekly. 
This section shall not apply to an employee of a co-operative association
if he is a shareholder therein, unless he requests such association to pay
him weekly, nor to casual employees as hereinbefore defined employed by the
commonwealth or by any county, city, or town.

No person shall by a special contract with an employee or by any other
means exempt himself from this section or from section one hundred and
fifty.  The president and treasurer of a corporation and any officers or
agents having the management of such corporation shall be deemed to be the
employers of the employees of the corporation within the meaning of this
section.  Every public officer whose duty it is to pay money, approve,
audit or verify pay rolls, or perform any other official act relative to
payment of any public employees, shall be deemed to be an employer of such
employees, and shall be responsibile under this section for any failure to
perform his official duty relative to the payment of their wages or
salaries, unless he is prevented from performing the same through no fault
on his part.

Any employer paying wages to an employee by check or draft shall provide
for such employee such facilities for the cashing of such check or draft at
a bank or elsewhere, without charge by deduction from the face amount
thereof or otherwise, as shall be deemed by the commissioner of labor and
industries to be reasonable.  The state treasurer may in his discretion in
writing exempt himself and any other public officer from the provisions of
this paragraph.

Whoever violates this section shall be punished by a fine of not less than
five hundred nor more than three thousand dollars or by imprisonment in a
house of correction for not more than two months, or both.

    >and provided, further, that [...]
    >employees whose salaries are regularly paid on a
    >weekly basis or at a weekly rate for a work week of substantially the same
    >number of hours from week to week may be paid bi-weekly or semi-monthly
    >unless such employee elects at his own option to be paid monthly;
    
    Ummm, doesn't this rather explicitly describe the situation at
    Digital??
    
    Al
    

re: .249, .250
    
>    Doesn't this mean Exempt employees CAN be paid bi-weekly?

I think it does, but the operative statement is further down, where
it says that wages may not be delayed beyond one week.

Martin.
    

    rep .249,.250
    
    The critical phrase in the law comes later:
    
> and provided,
>further, that an employer may make payment of wages prior to the time that
>they are required to be paid under the provisions of this section, and such
>wages together with any wages already earned and due under this section, if
>any, may be paid weekly, bi-weekly, or semi-monthly to a salaried employee,
>but in no event shall wages remain unpaid by an employer for more than six
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>days from the termination of the work week in which such wages were earned
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >by the employee.  
    
    
    So biweekly pay is OK if not more that 6 days in arrears.  In the
    stated proposal, the payment for the first week in the period would
    come 13 days from the termination of that work week.
    
    Steve

I am not a lawyer, but, the way I read/interpret the law,

"employees engaged in a bona fide exeutive, administrative or professional 
capacity as determined by the commissioner", CAN ask to be paid monthly.  
However, since the law clearly states that no pay can remain UNPAID for more
then 6 days (stated not once but twice), it sounds to me like some salaried 
employees from Mass. might be able to get paid in advance up to 2 weeks 
(or so).  That is, monthly, and not after the 13th (7 days of work, plus the 
6 day delay).

Mark


The $.80 I refered to was the weekly average used  per employee to account
for the $2M savings.  So if the corp. needs to save the $2M, I's rather
contribute the $.80 per week, and be paid weekly.

Also, if your money doesn't stay in the bank long enough to earn interest,
then you need the money as soon as you can get it, and not 2 weeks late..?

    .249, .250:
    
    The problem is not that biweekly paychecks are prohibited by law.
    
    The problem is that, according to previous notes, the plan is to pay
    employees TWO weeks in arrears.  Approximately 50 lines down into the
    first (execrably written) paragraph, and eight lines from its end,
    the legislation reads:
    
� but in no event shall wages remain unpaid by an employer for more than six
� days from the termination of the work week in which such wages were earned
� by the employee.  For the purposes of this section the words salaried
    
    The difference is small, but subtle.  It would be legal to implement
    simply by making the FIRST week of the bi-weekly pay schedule be a two-
    week paycheck, instead of the second;  this would establish a pay
    schedule that would pay the first week in arrears by 6 days, and the
    second week in the week the work was done.
    
    The advantages would be that it would be legal, and that it would have
    considerably less impact on employees who don't have tidy bank
    accounts.  The cost savings that result from printing fewer checks on
    expensive forms and reduced work for payroll one would expect to be
    approximately the same.
    
    I don't know whether the corporation would bring in any additional
    interest at all, much less $2 million.
    
    Dick

    I see it as two seperate provisions.  One provision was quoted by Al,
    the other quoted by Steve.  Either one of these conditions "qualifies"
    DEC to pay bi-weekly.
    
    Chris D.

    Given the number of employees that are opposed to bi-weekly paychecks,
    can I assume that these same employees would NOT have hired on with
    Digital if the pay periods had been bi-weekly all along?
    
    -Colleen

    I received the following two letters today from the Department of
    Labor; I presume they are part of the public record.


    				-- edp
    
    The State of New Hampshire, Department of Labor
    Richard M. Flynn, Labor Commissioner
    David M. Wihby, Deputy Labor Commissioner
    19 Pillsbury Street, Concord, NH  03301
    603/271-3176, TTY/TDD 1-800-992-3312, 225-4033

                               December 4, 1990

    Mr. Leonard A. Haug
    Corporate Payroll Manager
    Digital Equipment Corporation
    129 Parker Street
    Maynard, MA  01754

    Dear Mr. Haug:

    In reply to your letter dated November 29, 1990, permission is hereby
    granted, under the provisions of RSA 275:43-II, to pay your salaried
    employees on a bi-weekly basis with the pay period ending on Saturday
    and the payday the following Thursday.  This is being granted for a
    five year period of time providing no complaints are received at this
    office from the employees involved relative to the method of payment,
    then same would have to be reviewed.

    You will have to reapply in five years to continue paying on a
    bi-weekly basis.

                                      Very truly yours,
    				      (signed)
    				      Cynthia A. Paveglio
    				      Wage-Hour Administrator

    CAP:tvp
    
    November 29, 1990

    EXPRESS MAIL

    New Hampshire Department of Labor
    19 Pillsbury Street
    Concord, New Hampshire 03301

    Attn: W/H Administrator

    Dear Sir or Madam:

    Digital Equipment Corporation, a Massachusetts corporation, hereby
    requests approval to modify its current wage frequency cycle for its
    salaried New Hampshire employees effective for pay periods beginning in
    April, 1991.

    Digital presently pays its U.S. employees on a weekly basis, and
    proposes to pay its salaried U.S. employees on a biweekly basis in
    arrears.  As illustration, Digital currently pays both its salaried
    and non-salaried employees each Thursday for the week ending the prior
    Saturday.  Under the new program, Digital would pay its salaried
    employees every other Thursday for the two weeks ending the prior
    Saturday, and would continue its current practice of weekly payment for
    non-salaried employees.

    Digital is one of the world's largest suppliers of networked computer
    systems, software and services and employs approximately 124,000
    employees worldwide with executive offices in Maynard, Massachusetts. 
    All domestic employees (approximately 68,000) are paid out of Digital's
    executive offices.  Digital currently employs 6,232 employees in New
    Hampshire.  Of this number, 1,657 are hourly employees and 4,575 are
    salaried employees.  Annual wages for salaried employees in New
    Hampshire currently range between $32,223.00 and $263,846.96 per
    employee and total $227,712,009.50.

    Implementation of a biweekly pay cycle for salaried employees would
    provide Digital with labor-related productivity and operational cost
    savings.  In addition, this change would bring Digital into conformance
    with practices of other large U.S. corporations, which currently pay
    their salaried employees on a biweekly or less frequent basis.  The
    efficiency afforded by a standard pay cycle for all U.S. salaried
    employees would be greatly impeded if Digital were unable to implement
    this standard for its salaried New Hampshire employees.

    Digital has a quality pay program.  For close to forty years, Digital
    has been delivering a highly accurate and timely payroll to its valued
    employees on a consistent basis.  In the end, we feel that a transition
    to the biweekly payroll for salaried employees will help position
    Digital for continued success in the future.

    We seek your approval of this request, which is critical to a standard
    pay frequency program for all salaried Digital U.S. employees.

    Please confirm receipt of this letter by date-stamping the enclosed
    copy of this letter and returning it to the undersigned in the postage
    paid [There's a void in my copy; it says "post    paid".  -- edp]
    envelope provided.

    Very truly yours,
    (signed)
    Leonard A. Haug
    Corporate Payroll Manager
    Digital Equipment Corporation
    129 Parker Street
    Maynard, Massachusetts 01754

    508-493-1854

    [The letter is stamped received November 30, 1990, with a New Hampshire
    Labor Department stamp.]

        Re: .257

>    Given the number of employees that are opposed to bi-weekly paychecks,
>    can I assume that these same employees would NOT have hired on with
>    Digital if the pay periods had been bi-weekly all along?

        Probably not--most of them would have join Digital, but their
        budgets would be designed for receiving pay checks every two
        weeks.  Because they have been paid once a week, many people
        have come to depend on being paid once a week.  Some people have
        complained about the concept of bi-weekly pay, but most of the
        complaints have been about the one-week pay gap created by
        Digital's planned implementation of bi-weekly pay.

        A person should expect to have an income stream glitch when
        changing jobs, but a salaried employee doesn't expect a glitch
        in income unless the company goes out of business.  (People on
        commission or paid by the hour for irregular work, on the other
        hand, would expect a large variation in pay.)

        					B.J.

    Colleen,
    
    	I am not certain we can infer how many employees are opposed to
    	bi-weekly paychecks based solely on the discussion in this Note.
    
    	I doubt even if we could infer how many people are opposed to
    	bi-weekly paychecks that that would have nay relevance to the
        number of people who would not have joined DEC if the pay
    	periods had been bi-weekly all along!
    
    	What I hear is severe criticism of the objectives of this specific
    	implementation of bi-weekly pay.  Which seem to be to transfer to
    	Digital $2 million dollars in annual income by withholding payments
    	due to its employees.
    
    	Our business ethics would be violated if we arbitrarily delayed
    	paying our vendors an extra week.  We complain bitterly that our
    	customers have been stretching our their payments and denying DEC
    	income it is rightfully due.  Should DEC treat its employees any
    	less curteously?
    
    	The fact that all wage class 4 US employees will be asked to go
    	without a paycheck for some week in Q4 (albeit get a larger check
    	the following week) will undoubtly create serious havoc for at
    	least some employees.  All of this at a time that DEC has large
    	sums of cash on hand, smacks of a failure to do the right thing.
    
    	Finally if DEC had paid bi-weekly all along, we would have known
    	and budgeted all along for the effects this has on personal in-
    	come.  Coming as it does in mid-stream, there will be some people
    	(fortunately not me) who can not save enough from each check to
    	weather this change.  Those people will be forced to borrow funds,
    	if they can, at far greater interest rates than Digital will earn
    	on its withheld funds.
    
    	For myself it is a mere opportunity loss, I won't earn the $40.00
    	or so interest that I would have otherwise earned.  For the less
    	fortunate who have to borrow a week's salary or change their life
    	style to live on less until they can accommodate their loan to DEC,
    	its not so inexpensive.  They will adjust and they are probably
    	better off than those who no longer will have a job with Digital,
    	but do not ask them to be happy about giving away more of their
    	income on top of the increased cost of benefits etc...
    
    	The gain to Digital from this change is obvious.  Unfortunately,
    	the loss to productivity, moral, etc... has not been accounted
    	for and may well prove to be more than $2 million dollars.
    

    It's curious that the measure is quoted as an operational and processing
    cost saving (not cost "benefit") to NH, but to us it's quoted (some notes
    back in the Q&A) as primarily interest, with not much cost savings.

    "Besides, other people do it."

    And it's curious how we used the same language as is used by people who
    deny substance abuse and behavioral problems.

RE:      <<< Note 1352.258 by JARETH::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>

>                                            This is being granted for a
>    five year period of time providing no complaints are received at this
>    office from the employees involved relative to the method of payment,
>    then same would have to be reviewed.

    Q: Why did the state of NH allow the variance to their law so
    painlessly?
    
    A: Probably because DEC is one of their biggest revenue sources, and NH
    isn't in any mood to be p*ssing off their revenue sources.
    
    Q: Would I have refused to come to work for DEC if it'd been bi-weekly
    pay at the time I signed on?
    
    A: Probably not (meaning that I'd still have taken the job), but it'd
    certainly have been a negative.  Yes, I care about it that much,
    particularly having come from 1.5 years of trying to balance an
    extremely tight budget around a bi-weekly pay period, coupled with the
    pay CUT Digital gave me (to keep in line with industry norms) as my
    starting salary.  Weekly paychecks were a definite plus.
    
    More importantly, Digital has just changed the terms of my employment
    in a very noticable, if not monentarily significant fashion, and hasn't
    even shown any remorse for having done so.  I doubt that I'd be offered
    the same lattitude that they're demanding from me.

Have any of the rest of you in areas other than GMA looked into the legalities
etc. of what's being proposed? If so, what have you found locally?

-Jack

    After watching "48 Hours" tonight and seeing people with much higher
    educational achievements than I, with many years more experience than
    I, who have been unemployed for over a year (in Massachusetts), I am
    thankful that I have a job and a paycheck. They can pay me every other
    month if they want! Just continue to pay me!
    
    
    /se
    
    
    

    re: 264
    
    Maryland books state that employess must be paid atleast twice
    per month, EXCEPT professionals, who can be paid less frequently.
    
    The above is not a quote, and I found it interesting that 'less
    frequently' was not defined/deliniated.

Since I've always dealt with all four or five checks at the end of the month,
this thing wouldn't make a big dent in my lifestyle.

The question is, why did DEC do this without talking to the Dept of Labor
and Industries.

Or did they, and get a different answer from a different gummint employee.

Maybe it should be a per-employee option.  They could offer all sorts of
plans, and split the interest with the employee.  Make this a win-win
outcome.

/john

    At MBA class this evening I spoke to a Raytheon employee about how they
    are paid.
    
    He told me that they are paid monthly three weeks in arrears. According
    to him each month Raytheon pays a fine to the State of Mass. Apparently
    this is cheaper than advancing the pay schedule.
    
    I was talking about this after class with this guy and the instructor
    (the class was a "Business Law" class and the instructor is a
    practising lawyer). The instructor was really surprised that Raytheon
    could elect to break the law and pay a fine instead.
    
    Note this is what I was told. I do not have any direct input from
    Raytheon management that the above is true. But the person I was
    talking to was pretty sure about it.
    
    Has anyone got a reply yet from personnel or payroll on the legality of
    this in Mass? How many of you NH employees are now going to write to
    the Department of Labor?
    
    Before anybody accuses me of not being loyal to the company. I'd just
    like to say I have no problem with bi-weekly paychecks. I do have a big
    problem with DEC using this mechanism to get an interest free loan from
    its employees. I saw one mail message going around (a copy of the memo
    posted earlier) with a very appropriate subject header:
    
    	HEADLINE: DEC employees makle a gift of $2M to the company
    
    Dave

    A couple of questions come to mind.

    One would normally assume that such things were studied thoroughly
    and well in advance. If that assumption is correct then why is it
    that a number of people who have asked for explanations of this
    policy WRT Mass law have not received an answer? Didn't someone
    think this question would be asked?

    Secondly, if the answer is so unclear for that state where we
    employee the most people, just how thoroughly are the legalities
    understood in the 49 other states (plus DC) where we employee
    people?

    Why is the reason for this change given to the state of NH different
    from the reasons given to employees?

    This issue has been discussed here for a number of days. High
    ranking people in Personnel are aware of this. They have also
    received complained and questions through other means. If this
    new policy is "the right thing" why are we not hearing any
    explanations?

    I've adjusted to the idea of getting paid bi-weekly. I adjusted
    to the 6 month raise freeze (both times that DEC has done it to me).
    What I'm having trouble adjusting to is the apparent attitude
    that employee opinions don't count and that we somehow don't need
    an explanation.  My immediate management is very good about
    explaining their reasoning for decisions. It's helped build a
    close knit and effective team. Isn't that a corporate goal as well?

    			Alfred

    
    
    May I ask two simple, straightforward questions? Thanks.
    
    Has ANYONE phoned/contacted Dick Farrahar and asked him what the
    situation vis-a-vis Mass law is?
    
    Wouldn't that be better than bitching here?
    
    	- andy

re: 1352.270 
    
>    Wouldn't that be better than bitching here?

Gee, then the DIGITAL conference wouldn't be "needed"!

I haven't read all of the replies here, but isn't the issue simply the 
following.

1. How much does DEC save in processing costs?

2. How much does DEC save in interest?

3. How much of the above savings will be "appropriately" allocated to 
   expenditures in DEC, e.g. higher salaraies, better benefits, more R&D, a new
   fishing hat for KO?

4. How much does it really cost the employees to receive a pay check every 2 
   weeks instead of weekly?

If we had the figures, then no need to bitch, the decision should be 
straightforward.

I've had jobs where I've been paid once per month and others every 2 weeks. It's
no big deal to me.

>Has anyone phoned/contacted Dick Farraher

Yes.  Mail was sent to him before noon on Monday by a very senior employee.

In the mail, he was told that the Mass. Dept. of Labor and Industries had
said that the plan did not comply with Mass. Law.

As of Wednesday afternoon, he had not replied at all.

/john

RE:272

Isn't there another note in here that talks about the problem of people
who don't return phone calls and mail messages?

One of the most important things that management provides is leadership.
Even managers that are not leaders provide this because they send a
message just by their (non)actions.  

The fact that John states in .272, no response for two days, says one
of three things to me.  
1. That the manager doesn't want to respond.
2. That the question has caused a scramble to find out about the law.
3. That the manager is on vacation and no one is reading his mail.

I am afraid that none of the above says anything very positive :-(

Lee G.

    I choose to believe that Digital would not make this kind of
    decision without legal council.  We armchair lawyers can sit here
    debating until the cows come home.
    
    If we look at the other issues raised here they are all very personal
    ones and revolve around the fact that Digital is using this to
    "make" money at the employees expense or that changing the way one
    does their budgetting is a painful exercise. On the other hand you
    have people who are amibivalent and on the third hand (:o)) you have
    people who want to be employed regardless of how often they are paid.
    
    Since every function in the company has been asked to cut costs/save $
    how would suggest that issues like this be handled?  If every issue
    in Digital is debated by the employees, and some employees are
    going to complain no matter what the issue, then how do we ever
    get decisions made?  Should every decision in this company be made by
    voice vote? 2/3 majority? Should debate occur on every subject? 
    Does Digital have to be a democracy in order to be fair to everyone?
    
    Inquiring minds want to know!
    
    
    

In the application which EDP posted in .258, it says:

 >.  Under the new program, Digital would pay its salaried
 >   employees every other Thursday for the two weeks ending the prior
 >   Saturday, and would continue its current practice of weekly payment for
 >   non-salaried employees.

This reads to me as different from the "official" proposal, in that the
delay between the end of the work period and the pay is only five days,
as it is today.  How do others read this?  Or are we all misunderstanding
the "official" proposal?  (Or is it poorly worded?)

				Steve

.275

Steve, the letter to NH and the DF memo both say exactly the same thing.

With the DEC-proposed bi-weekly pay program, one paycheck out of every
two will be delayed an extra week over the current delay.

/john

    RE: <<< Note 1352.275 by QUARK::LIONEL "Free advice is worth every cent" >>>

>How do others read this?  Or are we all misunderstanding
>the "official" proposal?  (Or is it poorly worded?)
    
         I think he has it right.  We are currently being paid on the
    Thursday following the week of work.  The delay is supposed to be one
    week.  Since the paycheck following the delay is to be for two weeks,
    the time from the last workday of the pay period to the actual payday
    will remain at 5 days.
    
                                        Greg  

Every person having employees in his service shall pay weekly each such
employee the wages earned by him to within six days of the date of said
payment if employed for five or six days in the week, or to within seven
days of the date of said payment if employed seven days in the week, or, in
the case of an employee who has worked for a period of less than five days,
hereinafter called a casual employee, shall, within seven days after the
termination of such period, pay the wages earned by such casual employee
during such period;...
                   ...;and provided, further, that employees engaged in a
bona fide exeutive, administrative or professional capacity as determined
by the commissioner and employees whose salaries are regularly paid on a
weekly basis or at a weekly rate for a work week of substantially the same
number of hours from week to week may be paid bi-weekly or semi-monthly
unless such employee elects at his own option to be paid monthly;...
                                                          ...;and provided,
further, that an employer may make payment of wages prior to the time that
they are required to be paid under the provisions of this section, and such
wages together with any wages already earned and due under this section, if
any, may be paid weekly, bi-weekly, or semi-monthly to a salaried employee,
but in no event shall wages remain unpaid by an employer for more than six
days from the termination of the work week in which such wages were earned
by the employee.  For the purposes of this section the words salaried
employee shall mean any employee whose remuneration is on a weekly,
bi-weekly, semi-monthly, monthly or annual basis, even though deductions or
increases may be made in a particular pay period. The word "wages" shall
include any holiday or vacation payments due an employee under an oral or
written agreement.
...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The essence of this law is in its first clause:

 Every person having employees in his service shall pay weekly each such
 employee the wages earned by him to within six days of the date of said
 payment if employed for five or six days in the week...

The FREQUENCY of payment is qualified by a subsequent clause, as above.

The PERIOD OF TIME included by the payment is described by yet another
clause, as above.

In reading ONLY the first two clauses above, one could conclude that
bi-weekly in-arrears pay would be legal.  HOWEVER, the third clause requires
that non-weekly pay not be payment in-arrears.

There are no other clauses in this law that alter this logic.

>>  RE: 1352.274
>>
>>    Since every function in the company has been asked to cut costs/save $
>>    how would suggest that issues like this be handled?  If every issue
>>    in Digital is debated by the employees, and some employees are
>>    going to complain no matter what the issue, then how do we ever
>>    get decisions made?  Should every decision in this company be made by
>>    voice vote? 2/3 majority? Should debate occur on every subject? 
>>    Does Digital have to be a democracy in order to be fair to everyone?
>>    
>>    Inquiring minds want to know!

Why could these situations be handled BY MANAGMENT like this:

	"Well Fred, I have this great idea for saving money.  What we do is
	X, Y, and Z."

	"That's sounds good Zaphod, but how much do we save doing those things?"

	"That's the good part Fred.  We don't actual SAVE money, but rather
	transfer funds from the employees to US!  They'll complain for a while
	in that crazy notesfile they have, ..."

	"Hold on Zaphod.  If there are no real savings for this program and 
	our MOST VALUABLE ASSETS, the employees, are going to be less happy,
	I say that it's NOT a good idea.  Let's figure out how to REALLY make
	this company work, and get the employees feeling good about working 
	here again!"

	"Sorry Fred, you're right.  What could I have been thinking of?"

Oh well, we can dream can't we? 8^{)>

The problem that I see here is that Digital is implementing it's cost savings 
at MY EXPENSE.  I have earned the money from the 1st week of pay.  I currently 
have direct deposit and start earning interest on this money as soon as it is 
in my account.  I have automatic fund transfer into a money market account.  
This change will COST ME interest on 26 weeks of pay across the year.

As mentioned in a previous note the weekly pay was used as an INCENTIVE to join 
DEC during my interviewing process.  It was not the main determining factor 
but I have just lost another benefit.

I think the company should spend more effort on creating marketable products 
and services and competitive prices, and selling these to the customer.  I 
believe in valid reduction of company business expenses and maximizing ROI.
I don't beleive in supporting the company by mandating employee out of pocket 
contributions, unless the company can find no other way to stay in business.  
It still beats no paycheck at all.
    

>> The fact that John states in .272, no response for two days, says one
>> of three things to me.  
>> 1. That the manager doesn't want to respond.
>> 2. That the question has caused a scramble to find out about the law.
>> 3. That the manager is on vacation and no one is reading his mail.

        Oh come one now, I find it highly possible that a person at Dick's
    level gets an extreme amount of mail every day.  I think a responce
    within 2 days is asking for a little much.
    
    re:?  Here you are telling people to send letters here and there, and
    it hasn't even been officialy announced that this will be implemented.
    The fact that it was supposed to be on LIVEWIRE a few days ago and
    hasn't shown up yet should tell you that something changed.  
    
    Chris D.

Re: .276 
  <<	1) if you live/work in NH send a complaint letter to the commission
  <<	that granted the exemption and quote the memo that stated
  <<  	the reason for the change which differs from the reasons
  <<	in the letter Digital sent to them
    
Whoa!!! "Quote the memo"????  What memo?  The only "memo" thus far is an
internal personnel department guideline on how to answer expected employee 
questions. Internal or not (ref. reply .281), we have NOT been officially 
notified of any of this yet. 

re: .275

  <<	This reads to me as different from the "official" proposal, in that the
  <<	delay between the end of the work period and the pay is only five days,
  <<	as it is today.  How do others read this?  

I think the key is "work week" vs. "work period". Yes, it's still a delay of
only five days from the end of the period, but that includes a delay of 12 days
from the end of the first week -- which is what all the legal second guessing
has been about.

	/Marvin

    .258:
    
    The letter to the state gummint says, in effect, that Digital is "close
    to" 40 years old.
    
    Digital was founded in 1957 -- 34 years ago.  I feel sure that one of
    my sisters would object if I stated that she was close to 40!
    
    This rather imprecise statement, and the statement about bringing
    Digital into conformance with "the practices of other large U.S.
    corporations" (like Unisys, perhaps? or maybe Wang or DG?) don't
    inspire any additional confidence.
    
    Dick

    From the letter to the New Hampshire Commissioner
    
    > Digital presently pays its U.S. employees on a weekly basis, and
    > proposes to pay its salaried U.S. employees on a biweekly basis in
    > arrears.  As illustration, Digital currently pays both its salaried
    > and non-salaried employees each Thursday for the week ending the prior
    > Saturday.  Under the new program, Digital would pay its salaried
    > employees every other Thursday for the two weeks ending the prior
    > Saturday, and would continue its current practice of weekly payment for
    > non-salaried employees.
    
    	There was no ambiguiety.  DEC intends to pay two weeks in arrears.
    	They did not site the fact that they would make $2 million in in-
    	terest by doing so, but then they did not have to state that fact.
    	The commissioner is not a fool, if you delay a weeks pay you have
    	one tidy sum on which to earn interest.  It would be no different
    	if we could get our customers to pay us a week earlier or if we
    	delayed paying our suppliers a week longer.
    
    	This is a loan from the employees to DEC so that DEC can have even
    	larger sums in the bank earning interest.  In my personal circum-
    	stance it will have minimal effects, but for some people it will
    	be the straw that breaks the camel's back.  The only worst that
    	could happen to those folks is to lose their income entirely.
    
    	Hopefully, enough rucous is being made to disuade further raids
    	on employee funds even if this transfer proceeds unchanged.
    
    

RE: .283

Chris,

I did not say which one of the three I believed.  I am willing to give
the powers-that-be some altitude but I would have expected that they
would have worked out a response already.  On an issue like this, I
would also have expected that damage control would also kick in very
quickly.  A delay does not breed confidence.  I, along with many others,
gave input to Jack Smith on the Virtual Office concept and it was
reversed in less than two days!  This issue is even larger in that it
effect all WC-4's in the US.

I had submitted another idea that was turned down because it was 
believed that it would have caused a morale problem if implemented.
Whether it would have is subject to opinion but does anyone doubt that
this has caused a morale problem??

As my earlier note said, (non)actions speak louder that words

Lee G.

The uncertain status of the Farrahar announcement has caused some confusion
in this discussion  (.236, apologizing for its posting here;  .281, urging
caution with respect to quoting;  .284 saying "what memo"?).

For what it's worth, the following reply will be another copy of the Farrahar
memo.  It has no security marking, "Digital Internal" or otherwise; on the
contrary, it's forwarded from Personnel with a note encouraging distribution
to all employees.  That should make it legal to be posted here.

It probably also makes it legal to quote, since all employees are now
addressees.

From:	NAME: LYNDA GIANOPOULOS @DDD        
	FUNC: PERSONNEL                       
	TEL: 264-9174                         <GIANOPOULOS.LYNDA AT A1 AT CGVAX2 AT MKO>
Date:	12-Feb-1991
Posted-date: 12-Feb-1991
Precedence: 1
Subject: BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL
To:	See Below
CC:	See Below


********************************************************************************
               PLEASE DISTRIBUTE THIS MESSAGE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
********************************************************************************

                  I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M

                                        Date:     08-Feb-1991 09:09 EST
                                        From:     DONNA WELLS
                                                  WELLS.DONNA AT A1 at ICS at PKO
                                        Dept:     Corporate Employee Relations
                                        Tel No:   251-1419

TO: DISTRIBUTION
  ENTER SH (Show message Status) to see distribution list

Subject: BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL COMMUNICATION

        **************************************************************** 
                          THIS MEMO IS FROM DICK FARRAHAR
        ****************************************************************
    
                        Conversion to Biweekly Payroll 
                                       
    In the mid to late Q4, the company will implement a payroll change that 
    will shift U.S. exempt employees (wage class 4) to a biweekly pay cycle 
    (i.e., every other week). Non-exempt employees will continue to be paid 
    weekly, since state pay frequency statutes generally distinguish 
    between non-exempt and exempt employees. 
    
    This decision will affect some 45 thousand employees and managers.  
    When the biweekly cycle takes effect, exempt employees' pay will be 
    deferred one week. The following week they will be paid for two weeks. 
    This decision has the full support of the Executive Committee, and it 
    needs to be communicated clearly, and consistently to employees. 
    
    Employees can't be expected to respond positively to every tough 
    decision the company must make in the face of intense competitive and 
    business pressures. However, they generally will support decisions 
    which are communicated clearly and which they believe are necessary and 
    in the company's best long-term interests. 
    
    The Personnel organization probably will be called on to answer 
    questions from managers as well as employees. Therefore, it is 
    important for member of the Personnel organization to understand the 
    decision and be able to explain it to their business partners or the 
    employees they support in the proper business context.
    
    Attached is a list of twenty-four questions and answers which is being 
    provided to Personnel before the formal announcement to employees on 
    LIVE WIRE, which is scheduled for Tuesday, February 12, 1991.

    Q1:	 Will the Exempt Biweekly Payroll apply to me? I know my wage 
         class, but I don't know if I'm an "exempt" employee or not.  

    A:	 The Exempt Biweekly Payroll will apply to Wage class 4 
         employees only. Wage class 4 employees are "exempt" 
         employees.  Wage class 2 and 3 employees are "non-exempt" and 
         will not be affected by this change.

    Q2:	 Why are non-exempt employees being excluded from the change?

    A:	 State laws control the frequency by which employers may pay 
         their employees. State laws vary but are usually more 
         restrictive regarding the payment of non-exempt wages. For 
         this reason, Digital has decided to continue to pay all 
         non-exempt employees on a weekly basis, even though some 
         states permit non-exempt employees to be paid on a less 
         frequent basis.

    Q3:	 When will the Company implement the Exempt Biweekly Payroll?

    A:	 The Company will introduce the Exempt Biweekly Payroll during 
         mid to late Q4. An exact implementation date will be 
         communicated in mid Q3.

    Q4:	 When the exempt biweekly pay cycle is implemented will I lose 
         a week's pay?

    A:	 No, but your pay will be delayed one week when the program is 
         implemented. In today's environment you are paid one week in 
         arrears.  In the future, you will be paid two weeks in 
         arrears, as the following chart explains:

        Week             Weekly Pay Cycle      Biweekly Pay Cycle
    	 		 (Non-exempt)          (Exempt)
        _______________   ___________________  ______________________

        1                                    	(Last weekly paycheck, 
         					 for prior week)
        2                 Payment for Week 1            -
        3                 Payment for Week 2    Payment for Week 1 & 2
        4                 Payment for Week 3            -
        5                 Payment for Week 4    Payment for Week 3 & 4
        Etc.

       
    Q5:	 As an employee what do I need to do to prepare for the 
         implementation of the exempt biweekly pay cycle?

    A:	 Digital is providing advance notification so that employees 
         may have an opportunity to budget for the time when the 
         company begins the biweekly pay cycle and, wage class 4 
         employees have their pay delayed by one week.

    Q6:	 How will the Company save money by implementing the exempt 
         biweekly pay cycle?

    A:	 By deferring one week's exempt wages every other week the 
         Company will be able to realize a financial savings on which 
         it will be able to earn interest. In addition, some savings 
         will be realized in the form of reduced operational labor and 
         materials.

    Q7:	 How much will the Company save as a result of this change?

    A:	 Based on current weekly gross exempt wages paid, Digital will 
         earn about two million dollars per annum in the form of 
         interest earnings.

    Q8:	 How do other large companies pay their employees?

    A:	 The standard pay frequency practice for other large U.S. 
         companies is to pay their non-exempt employees weekly and 
         exempt employees on a less frequent basis, usually biweekly, 
         semimonthly, or monthly. Digital has chosen to pay its exempt 
         employees biweekly because it represents the most balanced 
         business, legal, and employee relations-sensitive solution.

    Q9:	 Why doesn't the Company give employees an advance to offset 
         the week in which all exempt employees will skip a payroll, 
         or pay them one week in arrears and one week in advance?

    A:	 While considered, either action would eliminate the financial 
         benefit derived from the plan which is being implemented. 

    Q10: Is the Company changing its work week or designated pay day 
         when the exempt biweekly payroll is introduced?

    A:	 No, the Company will continue to maintain its standard work 
         week which begins on Sunday and ends on Saturday.  Pay day 
         will continue to be Thursday. Exempt employees, however, will 
         only receive payments every other Thursday.  Each pay period 
         for exempt employees will normally include two work weeks.

    Q11: Will I still receive an equivalent 52 weeks of pay each 
         calendar year when I am paid on a biweekly basis?

    A:	 Not always. The number of payments per calendar year will 
         vary between 25, 26 and 27 for wage class 4 employees once 
         the biweekly payroll is implemented based upon changes in the 
         calendar and the date of payment. Total earnings per year 
         will be based, as they are today, on the issue date of the 
         last payment of the calendar year. 

    Q12: Will the change to an "exempt" biweekly pay cycle result in 
         more taxes being withheld?

    A:	 No, an IRS biweekly tax table will be used in place of the 
         current weekly tax table. It will simply take your gross pay, 
         annualize it to determine your tax liability, and divide that 
         amount by the number of pay periods expected in the year to 
         determine your biweekly taxes. 

    Q13: When will changes in my tax status take effect? 

    A:	 Your most current tax status information will continue to be 
         used, as it is today, to calculate proper withholding. 
         Changes in state taxing jurisdiction, marital status and 
         number of exemptions in effect at the time payment is issued 
         will be applied to the entire two week pay period. If you 
         have an additional amount withheld for taxes (tax constant), 
         then the most current amount will be multiplied by 2 for the 
         two week pay period.

    Q14: Will all payments issued by Payroll to exempt employees be 
         issued on a biweekly basis?  Are there other kinds of 
         payments that will be made on a more frequent than biweekly 
         basis?

    A:	 While all standard wage payments will be made on a biweekly 
         basis, some types of supplementary payments will continue to 
         be processed in the week they are authorized:

       - Benefit payments (example: adoption payments)
       - Fleet car payments 
       - Prizes and award payments
       - Relocation payments
       - Other miscellaneous supplementary payments

         Also, termination payments will be issued in the next weekly 
         pay cycle following authorization, or sooner if required by 
         law.  Pay corrections and adjustments will also continue to 
         be issued as required.

    Q15: When will salary increases be effective?

    A:	 Increases for exempt employees will be synchronized with the 
         Payroll biweekly schedule. 

    Q16: What happens if there are changes in my employment status 
         (the number of standard hours worked per week) or I change 
         shifts, or go on Short Term Disability, Workers' 
         Compensation, or Leave of Absence during a biweekly pay 
         period? 

    A:	 The changes will continue to be reported to Personnel and 
         updated to the Employee Master File as they are today. Pay 
         will be calculated to reflect these changes in your status. 
         Payment will be issued to you as part of your next biweekly 
         pay statement. 

    Q17: If I change my name, address, pay site, or cost center, when 
         will these changes take effect? 

    A:	 These changes should continue to be submitted to Personnel as 
         identified. Payroll will use the data in effect at the time 
         payment is calculated. Example: In the case of a cost center 
         change, Payroll will charge payment for the entire period to 
         the employee's cost center of record when the payment is 
         calculated. 
    
    Q18: How will my deductions for the various voluntary programs in 
         which I participate be calculated? 

    A:	 Payroll will continue to receive deduction information weekly 
         from the following businesses, and Payroll will combine these 
         amounts and deduct the sum total of each from your biweekly 
         pay:

       - Dependent Care Reimbursement Account deductions
       - Digital Employees' Federal Credit Union (DCU) savings
         deductions
       - Health Care Reimbursement Account deductions
       - Investor Services Save loan deductions
       - Medical,dental and life insurance deductions, and opt out 
         payments
       - Metpay home and auto insurance deductions
       - U.S. saving bond deductions
       - United Way contribution deductions
    
    	 In the case of ESPP (stock) and SAVE, Payroll will utilize 
         the most recently authorized percentage to determine 
         deductions.
       
    Q19: Will the exempt biweekly pay cycle affect enrollment dates 
         for the above voluntary deduction programs?

    A:	 In the future, some programs may have to be synchronized with 
         the payroll biweekly schedule. Enrollment and effective dates 
         will be communicated by the responsible organization as new 
         enrollment periods approach.
       
    Q20: Will the current pay statement form change?  

    A:	 No, the same form will continue to be used for all employees 
         regardless of whether they are paid weekly or biweekly.

    Q21: How will I report vacation and stand-by hours taken, on a 
         weekly or biweekly basis?

    A:	 Vacation and stand-by hours should continue to be submitted 
         on a weekly basis as they are today. A single timecard cannot 
         be used to report more than a single week's vacation. 
         Example: An employee who takes a two week vacation would 
         submit two timecards of forty hours each. A timecard 
         reporting more than forty hours cannot be processed.

    Q22: I will get fewer timecard forms (about 26 versus 52) per 
         year.  What if I need more timecards?

    A:	 Exempt employees should save preprinted timecards as received 
         for future use. If employees deplete their supply, they may 
         obtain blank stock from Personnel. Note: Exempt timecards, 
         distributed with the pay statement, will no longer be 
         preprinted with week ending dates to facilitate future use. 

    Q23: Will there be any change to the vacation accrual process?

    A:	 No, vacation accrual is based on length of service with the 
         Company and employment status. It will continue to be 
         calculated on a weekly basis. 

    Q24: Will I be able to receive advance vacation pay when I am paid 
         on a biweekly basis?

    A:	 Yes, advance vacation will continue to be paid on a weekly 
         basis as authorized vacation time cards are received and as 
         hours are available. 

    I have contacted the Labor Standards and Wages Complaint Hotline in New
    York State and learned that salaried workers have no legal protection
    from wages held in arrears.
    
    Hourly workers (actually she said "manual laborers") must be be paid
    within one week of the week where the wages are earned.

	... me to believe someone HAS determined our legal sit-
uation, since it  states that " ... since state pay statues gen-
erally distinguish between exempt and non-exempt employees." Now,
just WHO did the determining is in question! :>)

	RE: The person from Raytheon who said Raytheon pays a
	    regular fine to MA for delayed pay.

	I would sure like to see Raytheon's ledger entry in the 
accounting books they show to Uncle's auditors for THAT one!  And
if it isn't part of the cost basis, I wonder if the stockholders
know about it?

    I can honestly say it isn't the money (if they asked nicely and with
    some respect, I'd write 'em a check for the $40--although I might post
    date it to teach them a lesson :-)), it isn't even going to bi-weekly
    It is the implication that the shape we are in is because I have been
    coddled. And the way to get out of this situation is to nick and pick
    at me.
    
    I've grown acccustomed to weekly pay. Can I change? Yeah, probably.
    Will it kill me? No, not likely. Will I be inconvenienced? For a little
    bit. In another year will I have forgotten all about it?
    
    No.
    
    Because from where I sit, most all of the belt tightening, the cost
    containments, the restrictions implemented to pull us out of our hole
    or nosedive or glitch seem to stress one common theme: Digital is in
    trouble because it has been too good, too kind, too lenient to the
    spoiled people who take advantage shamelessly of the company's
    largesse. 
    
    You know the ones: we who have decorated our homes with yellow sticky
    pads; we who subscribe to all our newspapers and magazines at work so
    we can bill the company for them; we who carry water for cooking home
    from the cooler at work; we who drive aimlessly around New England for
    the sole purpose of living on our mileage money and banking our all-too
    large direct deposits delivered all-too frequently; we who spend most
    free time probing and poking ourselves and our children in hopes of
    finding some imaginary malady that will require yet another unnecessary
    but expensive trip to a doctor. 
    
    Quite simply, I'm tired of having my hand slapped, of being scolded, of
    being blamed when I'm not doing anything but my best to do a good job
    in difficult times in a wildly confusing and demoralizing environment.
    
    Why I won't get over this in a little while is because I expect pretty
    soon "they" will be back and dipping in at this trough yet again. They
    have started seeing my pay as a source of revenue, not cost cutting,
    revenue.  Maybe next time I'll be paid in DECbucks redeemable in US
    currency (directly deposited) in the lobby of my building for a 5% fee.
    Legal? Nah, but what the heck. It will be another in, as Jefferson
    said, a long train of abuses and usurpations evincing always the same
    design.
    
    Whatever it is, it will be something little, and lots of people will
    ask me why I'm griping and how grateful I should be to have a job (and,
    by the way, I am). But, hey, **Digital** should be grateful to have someone
    like me working for them. I used to think they were, but gosh they are
    wearing me down.
    
    John H.

                              IT'S SCRAPPED!!
                              
     I have it on very good authority that the plan to pay WC4's biweekly
     has been scrapped. Some sort of announcement should be forthcoming.
     
     .280 should consider a secondary career of reading tea leaves. ;-)
     

    Can I frame that?

	Has anyone seen any information on how much the company will save
is processing costs? I can imagine that is will take a year before actual
savings in processing are realized. 
	Going to an every-other-week pay schedule is a minor inconvience
for me, but if it has to be...then let it be. It seems to me, though,
that $2,000,000 plus interest seems to be a rather small sum for a company
with a budget of $10,000,000,000 and for the amount of ill will that this 
change is causing. One last thought is that it was nice to here the real
reason for the bi-weekly pay. Rather than getting some sugar-coated bull.

tac

	I too have heard that the bi-weekly pay plan is not going to happen
	after all. Apparently some high ranking person whose approval was
	needed realized that this was not the kind of thing, making money
	by taking it from employees, that DEC really wanted to do. People
	at the top do, it seems, think the company should treat its people
	fairly. Saving money on processing is one thing, saving it at the
	expense of employees is something different.

	I feel better about Digital today.

				Alfred 

If the rescinsion is true I think that's great! Not only that, but think of
the savings when thousands of us don't need to contact the MA and NH
Labor departments to express our concerns. Probably save a lot of corporate
embarassment as well.

Good show, DEC! Maybe "the old DEC" still's got some wind in it's sails?
I had been getting the feeling that one more facet of the new DEC was
going to be a shoot-first-ask-questions-later kinda attitude.

re: .292
  I second the feelings of .294. That was a superbly worded response. I
don't recall seeing much of you in here before. You should come here more
often! :^) (If you've been around and I've been overlooking you it's
my loss/mistake!)


Well, back to 1362, I guess . . . 
-Jack

    Never Mind....
    
    John H.

               [...]

From:	NAME: JIM JOHNSON                   
	FUNC: Corporate Employee Communication
	TEL: DTN: 251-1405                    <JOHNSON.JIM AT A1 at ICS at PKO>
To:	See Below
CC:	See Below



	********************************************************
	*	THIS IS A MEMO FROM DICK FARRAHAR	       *
	*						       *
	********************************************************

On Thursday, February 7, I sent you a message announcing Digital's 
plan to shift U.S. exempt employees to a biweekly pay cycle during the 
mid to late Q4 timeframe.

After further discussion we have decided not to implement this 
program.



To Distribution List:

DELETED.

    
    I applaude everyone in this notesfile, you have all made excellent
    points in your replies.  I am so glad that the "human" factor is still 
    alive in "our" company (Most of us do own shares).  Good job Digital!
    
    
    
    
    
    

    re .299
    
    "Ready, Fire, Aim!"
    

    	What is it with all these cost-control memos that start out with a
    	header:
    
    	*************************************************************
    	*							    *
    	*	This is a memo from <mucky-muck of the day>	    *
    	*							    *
    	*************************************************************
    
    	Is this the new official DEC standard header?
    
    	Joe Oppelt

>    	*************************************************************
>    	*							    *
>    	*	This is a memo from <mucky-muck of the day>	    *
>    	*							    *
>    	*************************************************************

        I think this type of header is caused by the mail protocols used
        inside of Digital.  The mail protocols used on Internet allow a
        message to have a `from' field which identifies the logical
        source of the message and a `sender' field that identifies the
        physical source (the account the message came from).  This isn't
        handled by VMS MAIL (and if MTS handles it, the information
        would be lost in the transition from MTS to VMS MAIL).

        The messages from `<mucky-muck of the day>' are normally sent by
        someone else--those boxes clearly identify the logical sender.

        				B.J. [author and typist]

    What about those memos "dictated but not read"?
    
    (You either know who these come from or you don't - I only know of one
    source)
    
    	- andy

    Re .-1
    
    I think it means what it says. The author, let's call him LP for short,
    dictates a memo to his secretary and says that he doesn't need to proof
    read it (presumably because he has more important things to do). This
    also allows the author to later put out another clarifying memo if need
    be.
    
    Back to the subject of this note. Did anybody get any information as to
    the OFFICIAL reason why this decision was reversed. My presumption is
    because it was found to be illegal.
    
    Is anybody else as concerned as I am that lately the company has
    formally announced, in the case of the 'NO MORE MILEAGE REIMBUREMENT',
    and planned to announce, in the case of 'WE PLAN TO BORROW A WEEK'S
    PAYCHECK UNTIL YOU LEAVE THE COMPANY', things that turn out to be
    illegal. Does this imply that major issues like this aren't being
    thought through very well? If so why and what impact could this have on
    the company?
    
    Dave

re: .-1 (thinking through)

Was the subject of payment-in-arrears and its legality ever brought up
in the DELTA conference discussions of this bi-weekly scheme?  (I know
i could look it up, and i probably will eventually, but i just wondered
if anyone knew off the top of their head...)  If that's supposed to be
our "official" way to provide feedback on these ideas, it would behoove
us all to participate much more actively in that conference!  I have
entered several DELTA ideas that have shown up in the NOTES file and
gotten no feedback.  I'd hate to see them get adopted by management if
they had serious flaws that did not get revealed due to lack of employee
discussion beforehand, in spite of my "parental" view of the proposals.

Does anyone else think that there may be a subtle but possibly profound
negative effect of Electronic Mail on the management decision making of
this company?  I now regularly hear managers say they spend half their
time in meetings and the other half trying to catch up on the hundreds
of Unread EM messages in their Mail folders, something that was pretty
much unheard of for most line managers prior to 1984 or thereabouts.  I
think EM has a number of serious flaws as a means for interactively
promoting communications that are supposed to lead up to a decision, and
it's certainly less efficient than (ugh!) VTX for communicating the final
decision widely once that decision has been made.  The signal-to-noise
ratio in EM, especially the DECmail/ALL-IN-1 Mail variants is unacceptably
low, and the participation is based on very suspect distribution lists.

We've heard that some unnamed managers seem to have it in for NOTES, but
wouldn't "Personal NOTES" conferences (with restricted membership but
possibly advertised membership lists) be a better solution for management
to use as a sounding board for developing decisions prior to announcement?
If i knew who in my organization was a member of a "Dick Farrahar Pay
Issues" NOTES conference, i could certainly (if i felt strongly about the
issues) feed them my concerns and questions via EM and have them raise
those issues among the management peer group making the decisions.  That
would afford the managers some degree of privacy to do their brainstorming
but also identify to the average employee who they could communicate with
to influence the decision-making process.  I think EM may be cluttering up
the decision-making process and hindering management while giving them a
false sense of security the way its currently used.

Moderator(s), feel free to move this to another topic if you see fit.

							paul

    RE: .305 Officially I believe the idea wasn't so much reversed as
    never getting all the approvals it neededAs to why it was not
    approved at the top there is no official reason being given. This
    is not surprising as an official reason might leave someone hanging
    in a bad light and doing that is not a good idea unless someone is
    being punished.
    
    		Alfred

    reg. 305 & 306...
    
    I'm concerned as well, by this whole ordeal, and the possible
    ramifacations that could result.  Throught-out the past several weeks,
    I've been concerned that this bi-weekly pay issue might/did degrade
    into an 'us ver. them' situation.
    
    I am happy to see that bi-weekly pay will not take effect anytime soon,
    I too now have more faith in Digital and 'the right thing'.  However,
    I'm concerned that if this is seen as an 'us ver. them', and that 
    'someone' won, that the rules may change in the future regarding the
    way decisions are made/announced.
    
    Question is, was this decision denied/reversed because:
    
    	it did not stand on it's own merits
    	or because several employees went ballistic
    
    and finally, do we (the Digital population) have a role in the decision
    making process?  I worry that situations like this might kill NOTES
    files like this one, because the free flow of information that allows me
    to do my job, also sometimes causes other decission to be reversed,
    and reversed publicly.  In my view, the right decision was made, and
    further, I don't feel that I won, but that Digital won.
    
    Mark

Well my prediction of a few notes came true.  Howver, I personally think
that the company should switch to a two week (or longer) pay cycle for
exempt employees.  I have got to believe that that such a system would
save Digital money because of the reduced processing costs.

This could easily be done without inconvience to the employees IF IF IF
IF the goal of such a change were to reduce processing costs.  However,
the memo posted here makes it clear that saving processing costs was not
the main goal of this new program.  Instead this was attempt to give the
employees the fickle finger.

Since Digital knows well in advance what it is going to have to pay
exempt employees there is not administrative need to delay exempt pay in
contrast to other wage classes where tie reporting is required.  That
means that Digital could easily pay at the end of a two week period for
the previous two weeks.

There are also other possible pay mechanisms that are probably legal
such as paying monthly so that at the end of a two week period for the
two prior weeks plus two weeks in advance.

Of course in order to implement either of the two systems Digital has to
make up in processing what it loses in interest.

    re .309
    
>�                                                                  That
m> eans that Digital could easily pay at the end of a two week period for
t> he previous two weeks.
    
    Not without some form of exemption (in Mass.) to the Massachussetts
    law cited earlier.
    
    re earlier comment about (I think) Raytheon paying a fine
    
    Without some form of legal exception, this is rather risky, considering
    the "RICO" and "Civil RICO" laws currently on the books.  Evidence of
    continuous violation of even trivial laws is evidence that might be
    used to brand a company a "Racketeer Influenced of Corrupt
    Organization", triggering some extremely nasty penalties, from my
    limited understanding of the laws (based on reading business mags,
    which were rather hot under the collar about the laws a couple of years
    back).
    
    /Dave

    
    Re .309:
    
    Any substantial process savings surely would have shown up in the
    first Farrahar memo. Based on the evidence at hand, there were no
    process savings worth mentioning. An idea that looked good at first
    blush turned out to be unsound for legal and/or moral and/or morale
    reasons, and was finally rejected. The right thing happened. Let's
    put it to bed.
    

    
    
    
      Wonder if the yearly Health insurance changes undergo the
    same "rigorous" planning that this did...  

    I hate to sound like a pessimist, but are you *sure* that this decision
    has been reversed, as several of the previous replies indicate?  If so,
    have all the "relevant" organizations been informed of that reversal? 
    Reason for asking is that I just got a memo last Friday from several
    levels up sent to a gazillion people in our organization (and that memo
    eventually originated in the Personnel organization of the higher-ups)
    stating that this will occur, and passing on the "official" word, which
    was a verbatim copy of the "official" memo (complete with the Q&A
    section) that was posted earlier in this note?
    
    Jon

re .313

My boss just wandered in saying he'd gotten the 'official' word that it was
cancelled.

/Dave

    
    re .313:
    
    The original "official" memo came from Dick Farrahar. The terse
    retraction memo came from Dick Farraher.
    
    Either the bi-weekly pay program is "officially" cancelled, or this
    company is in such deep doo-doo that the question is academic.
    

    re: .315
    
    Another possibility is that the retraction was a forgery.
        John Sauter

    
    I consider that possibility covered under my "deep doo-doo" option...
    

    
    Jon, it looks like you finally got a copy of a memo that's been
    floating around for quite some time.  Don't worry about it.
    
    Chris D.

    .304 asked an interesting question (ok - interesting to *me*).  For
    years I've been adding:
    
    XXX:mml
    [dictated/not read]
    
    ...to the bottom of a memo which was dictated, transcribed and sent.  
    
    Technically, the sender/author of a memo owns and takes responsibility
    for the contents of a document.  In this environment of electronic
    mail, (more often-than-not) the individual who dictates a memo to
    her/his secretary does not have an opportunity to review it before the
    Send button is pushed.
    
    Personally, I feel that the notation, "Dictated/Not Read" basically
    denotes that the shorthand notes were transcribed and sent.  
    
    In the case of letters, more often than not I will sign for my boss and
    initial the document.  I do not put the above notation on letters.
    
    If we ever get our conference DEC_SECRETARY back on line, you are more
    than welcome to browse, where you will further discussion on this topic
    (and many others).
    
    Regards,
    
    
    mml
    [not dictated/but definitely read!]

re: .306,

> We've heard that some unnamed managers seem to have it in for NOTES, but
> wouldn't "Personal NOTES" conferences (with restricted membership but
> possibly advertised membership lists) be a better solution for management
> to use as a sounding board for developing decisions prior to announcement?

	I submitted an idea very similar to this to DELTA almost a 
    year ago to which I recieved a brief "your memo will be forwarded
    to the appropriate <circular file>" response.

> ..If i knew who in my organization was a member of a "Dick Farrahar Pay
> Issues" NOTES conference, i could certainly (if i felt strongly about the
> issues) feed them my concerns and questions via EM and have them raise
> those issues among the management peer group making the decisions.  That
> would afford the managers some degree of privacy to do their brainstorming
> but also identify to the average employee who they could communicate with
> to influence the decision-making process...

	This seems like a reasonable amount of organization to expect
    from higher level management, but it assumes that higher level
    management is willing to buck the trends and partake in the sort
    of menial labor that is involved in utilizing these cantankerous
    electronic typewriters we sell in the first place (you know, the
    things we mere mortals refer to as computer terminals, PC's,
    and workstations).

> ...I think EM may be cluttering up
> the decision-making process and hindering management while giving them a
> false sense of security the way its currently used.

	I think it is amazing enough that some of these folks at the upper
    echelons have lowered themselves enough over the years to actually use
    Electronic Mail (EM), much less having to learn to use yet another
    one of those new-fangled software inventions (VAXnotes).

	I constantly run into this sort of lingering attitude with my
    father towards anything even remotely resembling a keyboard.  You
    should first understand that my father is anything but what I would
    call a fuddie-duddie in most respects: a liberated, college professor
    in his upper 50's who still comes in first or second in the Senior's
    division of most any marathon race.  But my father is also of the 
    opinion that such things as computers and typewriters are the sacred
    domain of secretaries and students (he writes his journals in pen)
    and he would never risk threatening the domain of his labor force
    and/or students by using such a gadget (besides, after all of these
    years, he's probably afraid to admit that he can't type ;^).

				  -davo

p.s.	I'm sure there is a better place for this discussion, but I
	don't have time to look for it right now (I know - poor excuse).

I wonder whether a post-mortem on the bi-weekly paycheck extravaganza
will show upper-management caught in a classic Catch-22.  Consider
the following scenario (totally fictitious):

Monday:		Proposal that we pay employees bi-weekly.
Tuesday:	Circulated to a few people, sounds like a good idea.
Wednesday:	Sent to legal department for advice.
Thursday:	Tuesday person leaks memo to a few friends.
Friday:		10,000 copies circulating around the company.
Weekend:	"We ought to be open about this, just like they suggest
		in Digital.Note."
Monday:		Official announcement of bi-weekly pay.
Tuesday:	Legal department discovers problems in Massachusetts.
Wednesday:	10,000 copies of "it's illegal" circulate.
Thursday:	Official un-announcement.

Now, if the proposal had been kept secret; or managment stonewalled
the rumors, the un-announcement would not have had to happen.

We have to choose between openness and accuracy -- sometimes these are
conflicting choices. (Remember the law of development: "Cheap, fast,
good: choose two.")  I hope those of us who are now deriding management
for backing off on bi-weekly pay have broken glass coverage in our
home-owners policies.

Martin.

    
    Re .321:
    
    Yours is a perfectly plausible scenario. But there's still a major
    mistake in it that has nothing to do with leaks and damage control: the
    second Monday "official announcement" was hypothetically made without
    all the facts, indeed without the hypothetically pivotal fact -- whether
    it was legal.
    
    It would have been far less damaging to upper management if the
    "official announcement" said "it has been proposed, and it looks good,
    but all the facts aren't in yet," followed by "after reviewing all the
    facts, we're decided against it;" rather than "it's done deal," followed
    by "never mind."
    

RE: .321

The thing that is so funny is that this sort of scenario is all too
common within Digital (remember virtual office and companies car).  Even
worse are some of the shoot from the hip announcements made to customers
(remember the software licencing announcment at DECUS a few years ago).

The reason for this is fairly obvious:  No one in this company has any
authority to make big decisions.

I bet that the person who sent out the original memo thought that he had
the proverbial "consensus" on this subject only later to find out he did
not have the authority.

re:  .323

>The reason for this is fairly obvious:  No one in this company has any
>authority to make big decisions.

While I agree that the shoot-first-ask-questions-later attitude seems to be
becoming more common as I noted earlier, I don't altogether condemn it. I don't
question that Jack Smith had the authority to make the virtual office decision
by virtue of his position (setting aside for the moment the fact that it wasn't
quite legal). He most certainly did have the authority to make the bottled
water and WSJ decisions that had come out just prior to that. As a matter of
fact, I respect Jack for making some of these decisions (including the Virtual
Office) even if they _WERE_ wrong decisions that required reversal, because
I was getting sick and tired of people whining about the fact that nobody
was doing anything - at least Jack tried to make a difference. Chance alone
says that if you make decisions regularly, some portion of them are bound
to be correct, and perhaps better than doing nothing. The trick is to understand
which ones can be made to stick, up front. That's what was wrong with the
bi-weekly pay decision, notably not Jack's, as far as I know.

-Jack

   I think there are two key factor in the difficulty we are facing in our
   recovery. 1. Digits have this amazing propensity for taking directives
   literally. I guess seeing such little formally stated direction from on
   high, people tend to take whatever comes in the same fashion as the
   commandments down from the Mount.  2. The senior managemente of the
   Corporation while it has been passing down "directives" has only been
   offering "negative directives" i.e. "Don't do this", "Cut that", "Don't
   spend on the other". When will we see a statement from KO or JS saying here
   is a plan to get us out of the slump, and this is why it will succeed... We
   are not the only Corporation suffering, but we do have a better propensity
   for surviving (due to our mass) than most others. Now is the time to
   agressively target acquiring market share from some of our *Smaller*
   Competitors.
   
   
   Peter Q.
   

    Doesn't Grace Hopper advocate:
    
    	"It is easier to apologize than to ask permission"
    
    Isn't Dr. Hopper on the BOD (or some other equally impressive
    stature)?
    
    Then it's no wonder many DECCIES go off half-cocked...
    
    Jim
    

Grace is not on the BOD, nor has she ever been in any important management
position within Digital.

She was hired to do what she does best: talk.

She no longer appears in ELF.

    I believe she passed away several years ago.
    
    Linda

She's listed in the current phone book.

	... and someone from DC said Grace was on LTD or STD at
that time.

    Grace Hopper was Elvis in another life.

re: .326 (a minor rathole)

>    Doesn't Grace Hopper advocate:
>    
>    	"It is easier to apologize than to ask permission"

I believe the more-often quoted version of this statement is:

  "It's easier to ask forgiveness than permission."

BUT NOTE that nowhere in this brief aphorism is there any indication
that you will GET either permission or forgiveness should you ask!

- tom]

There is another statement, attributed to Davy Crockett that goes along here:

"Be sure you're right, then go ahead"

IF you are sure you are right, both Grace and Davey apply.  Because if you
did not ask permission and could not get "forgivness" after the fact, perhaps
there are better places to use your talents.  You're probably fooling yourself
into complacency if you cann't apply your talents to the fullest and be
recognized for it.

    >"Be sure you're right, then go ahead"
    
    The axioms here imply that the employee knows and does what is right
    for the customer, even if it might cause conflict with management.
    Eventually, the management conflict will be resolved, but of primary
    importance is the customer issue. 
    
    Reminds me of the Federal Express (known for customer service) employee
    who was trying to "absolutely, positively" deliver a package to some remote,
    snow bound location, inaccessible by road. Presumably, this employee
    chartered a helicopter to deliver the package. 
    
    Another example is the pilot (during the Panama invasion?) who charged
    on his AMEX card the cost of refueling his aircraft at a municipal
    airport, after repeated phone calls to the Pentagon trying to get a
    P.O. number. 
    
    Both of these are cases where forgiveness may or may not have been
    granted. And there are some cases where employees should definitely
    NOT feel empowered...
    
    The Desert Storm helicopter officer relieved of duty after the incident
    in which he ordered a ground vehicle fired upon -- friendly forces and
    two marines were killed -- when it was proper procedure NOT to
    initiate action without explicit orders. Why didn't he feel it was "OK"
    to just phone in to ask permission?

re Note 1352.305 by SMAUG::GARROD:

>     Is anybody else as concerned as I am that lately the company has
>     formally announced, in the case of the 'NO MORE MILEAGE REIMBUREMENT',
>     and planned to announce, in the case of 'WE PLAN TO BORROW A WEEK'S
>     PAYCHECK UNTIL YOU LEAVE THE COMPANY', things that turn out to be
>     illegal. Does this imply that major issues like this aren't being
>     thought through very well? If so why and what impact could this have on
>     the company?
  
        It kind of makes you wonder about the layoffs, doesn't it?
        (I'm not questioning their legality, but whether it was
        "thought through very well.")

        Unfortunately, the layoffs have a much greater impact on
        those affected.

        Bob
        who has lost two friends and colleagues so far, and would
        have traded them for a week's delay in pay

    
    
      Incidently,  there's a new Livewire announcement today to the
    effect that DEC (john hancock) will only pay DMP medical insurance
    claims once per month now.
    
    
    							-al
    

re .336:

I really like this part of the announcement:

Ultimately, the new process, which is routine business practice in the
industry, will reduce the administrative burden of doctors and hospitals
who will now only need to process one check instead of several each
month.

    It would be more honest to say, we're implementing the oldest rule of
    business:
    
    Collect fast.
    Pay slow.
    
    We want the float.

    Re:337
    
    I think that is a direct quote from the announcement they made when
    they went to paying twice per month. 
    
    Linda

>       Reminder: Effective January 1, 1993, because we receive payroll
                                       ^^^^                     
                                       ????

    Interesting note on November's DCU statement:

       Reminder: Effective January 1, 1994, because we receive payroll
       funds from Digital Equipment Corporation every Thursday, your
       payroll deductions and net pay will be deposited every Wednesday
       evening instead of every Tuesday evening.
    
    I guess Digital is going to use the extra day of float.

    Don't understand how we are "floating" money for DEC.  When I was
    hired about 15 years ago I was told paydays would be Thursday.
                                                         ^^^^^^^^
    Like a lot of folks with direct deposit, I eventually figured out
    that the money was getting deposited early.  I was amazed when I
    figured out the money was getting there on Tuesdays most of the
    time. <----  This was a gift folks; the company is not obligated to do
    this for us and if it can save DEC some money by adhering to a 
    different schedule, so be it.
    
    

    
    		Sort-of the way I see it too. Seems to me that the DCU
    	was the one "floating" the money for me, not me floating them
    	a 24-hour advance. Computers are wonderful sometimes.....I 
    	don't have to worry about "it" sending my check to St.Louis
    	instead of Albuquerque, delaying my usual payday breakfast to
    	a payday dinner. (This happened last week to checks & stubs;
    	though it only amounted to recieving checks a few hours late
    	thanks to those good folks in Payroll.)
    
    		The change to Thursday Direct Deposit just means I 
    	use rubber checks to buy and spend on Wednesday night instead of
    	Tuesday night........
    
    				Pablo
    

    

    >time. <----  This was a gift folks; the company is not obligated to do
    >this for us and if it can save DEC some money by adhering to a 
    >different schedule, so be it.
    

 	The week ending date for labor is Saturday.  The pay date is 5 days 
	later.  I consider that floating the company money.   Try getting
	a haircut and walking out without paying on the spot.
    
    	Gary

    And you float the telephone company money since you use the phone and
    don't pay the bill for some 30 days later.  The same with the oil
    company, electricity...  Society wouldn't function too well if
    everything had to be paid for up front.
    
                                    August

No where did I critize Digital fro taking back the extra day.  I merely posted
it as information for those who take advantage of it.

    I still don't see the complaint.  I was told UP FRONT when hired
    that I would be paid each Thursday for the previous week's work.
    (I accepted the job under those conditions, silly me I've been
    thinking all these years that I should plan my budget accordingly).
    
    I would imagine that unless and until *everyone* is on direct deposit
    we're not going to be able to mount an effective argument that the
    company has a responsibility (legal or otherwise) to see that we have
    our money in hand/account by some arbitrary date.  Last time I got
    paid real-time was when I worked for a Mom/Pop company.  They cut
    the checks Friday mornings and handed them to us as we went to lunch;
    'course $45/wk went a heckuva lot further in those days :-)
    
    It was nice while it lasted; I plan to adjust.
    
    Karen
    

    re: 343
    
    	Under the newest banking laws that came into effect around 1989
    any company that issues a paycheck on day n must insure that the funds
    are deposited and available at least 24hrs. prior to issuing the
    check...we've just been lucky that they put the tapes up on tues.
    nights...now their simple going to adhere to the law...
    
    the moneys there on wedsday to adhere to the law, but now the tapes
    won't go on till weds. evening....thus they don't really gain anything
    
    this was my interpertation of the law as enacted, of course it could
    have changed since then...BTW this was a federal banking law I'm
    refering to...

    	When I first joined DEC UK they paid for the month at the end of
    the month. The company I had worked for before had done the same, so I
    expected it.
    
    	Then there was a government imposed pay freeze, and during it DEC
    UK switched to paying at the beginning of the month (i.e. in advance)
    for the month. This was a legal way of giving everyone an 8% pay rise
    by squeezing an extra month's pay into the year.
    
    	Then I moved to Valbonne where (no French government imposed pay
    freeze) they were paying at the end of the month again, so on the
    transfer I had 2 months between being paid.
    
    	Your pay here normally reaches your bank account by about the 26th.
    of the month, but holiday seasons can affect that by a number of days
    either way. You learn to adapt.

    Further to .350 and several others
    
    In the UK being paid weekly is one of the signs of blue-collar
    employment.  Weekly pay is always 1 week in arrears for basic pay, and
    usually two weeks in arrears for overtime and piece-rate bonuses.
    
    Knowledge workers and managers (who may be classified as knowledge
    workers) normally get paid monthly in arrears, though there are
    instances of being paid every two weeks.  Some companies (Digital for
    instance) pay one week in arrears, three in hand as they pay on the
    6th.  At one time more senior levels of management in ICI were paid
    quarterly, I think in the middle of the quarter.
    
    In the UK knowledge workers are often not paid overtime, and managers
    are most unlikely to be paid overtime.

>>> In the UK being paid weekly is one of the signs of blue-collar
>>> employment.  Weekly pay is always 1 week in arrears for basic pay, and
>>> usually two weeks in arrears for overtime and piece-rate bonuses.
    
    I think that it used to be that way here as well.  Maybe it 
    still is.  When I was a university researcher and professor, 
    I was paid monthly by one university and bi-weekly by another.  
    I was very pleasantly surprised when I learned that Digital 
    pays us on a weekly basis.  It's a lot easier for me that 
    way.  Usually, I'm only one week behind my spending instead 
    of three.

>>> In the UK knowledge workers are often not paid overtime, and managers
>>> are most unlikely to be paid overtime.

    I don't know of any Wage Class 4 (theoretically knowledge 
    workers) people who receive overtime or official compensatory 
    time.  You get the job done however long it takes you to do 
    it.  As a systems manager, I don't bill my hours directly so 
    I don't keep track of them, but I'll bet that it usually 
    exceeds 40 hours per week.  I know that I feel like I'm "on 
    call" all of the time.  I'm not complaining.  I enjoy my job. 
    I just wanted to clarify this point.

Terry