| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name
 | Date | Lines | 
|---|
| 1618.1 | TFSO3: I think this is still valid | IMTDEV::BRUNO | Father Gregory | Mon Sep 30 1991 17:19 | 110 | 
|  | Jan. 9, 1991
    
    
Worldwide News                      LIVE WIRE
New phase of U.S. downsizing announced 
 
  Increasingly intense competitive pressure within the computer industry -- 
  business practices, technological advances and manufacturing efficiencies -- 
  are placing added pressures on the company's cost structure, in spite of 
  ongoing cost reduction efforts that focused on increased productivity and 
  efficiency and two voluntary downsizing programs.
  An analysis of the results of these efforts has been completed and was 
  reviewed this week by the Corporate Operations Committee and the Executive 
  Committee. This analysis shows that those cost reduction efforts, while 
  impressive, have simply not been enough, in light of the increased pressures 
  applied by economic conditions. 
  As a result, a new phase of the U.S. downsizing effort, involving involuntary
  selection methods, has been approved effective immediately. The decision to 
  move into a new phase was finalized yesterday. 
Worldwide News                      LIVE WIRE
New phase of U.S. downsizing announced
 
  Increasingly intense competitive pressure within the computer industry -- 
  business practices, technological advances and manufacturing efficiencies -- 
  are placing added pressures on the company's cost structure, in spite of 
  ongoing cost reduction efforts that focused on increased productivity and 
  efficiency and two voluntary downsizing programs.
  An analysis of the results of these efforts has been completed and was 
  reviewed this week by the Corporate Operations Committee and the Executive 
  Committee. This analysis shows that those cost reduction efforts, while 
  impressive, have simply not been enough, in light of the increased pressures 
  applied by economic conditions. 
  As a result, a new phase of the U.S. downsizing effort, involving involuntary
  selection methods, has been approved effective immediately. The decision to 
  move into a new phase was finalized yesterday. 
 
Worldwide News                      LIVE WIRE
 New phase of U.S. downsizing, cont'd
  As we move ahead into this phase, it is critical for everyone to try to 
  grasp the full impact of the intense competitive and economic forces at 
  play. Those pressures are driving fundamental changes in this company and 
  this industry. And even as business improves, we can no longer expect things 
  to "return to normal," as many of us assumed in past economic downturns. 
  This phase is different in two ways from prior phases. It will involve 
  involuntary methodology, and while a financial support package will be 
  offered, it will be somewhat less generous.  
  While we need to move ahead quickly, we also intend to proceed in a rational 
  and orderly way that will not disrupt business. This program is a U.S. 
  program. Other downsizing programs will continue to be implemented outside 
  the U.S., based upon business conditions, local laws, customs, and 
  traditions, on a country-by-country basis. 
Worldwide News                      LIVE WIRE
New phase of U.S. downsizing, cont'd
  Regarding methodology, two primary factors will determine whether an employee
  is selected: 1) his or her work has gone away; 2) he or she is selected from 
  a larger group being reduced based on performance (i.e., the last documented 
  performance rating, as indicated on the employee's most recent performance 
  evaluation).  If additional selection steps are required, they will be based 
  on additional performance criteria (those details are being further refined 
  and will be finalized shortly.)
  The elements of the financial support package include a lump sum payment 
  based on years of service to the company; maintenance of medical, dental, 
  and life insurance coverage for a period represented by the total payments, 
  not to exceed one year; formal outplacement/employment assistance; 
  and, where applicable, five-year acceleration of any restricted stock 
  options.  This latter element is subject to approval by the Compensation 
  Stock Option Committee (CSOC).  There is no open-window period as before.
Worldwide News                      LIVE WIRE
New phase of U.S. downsizing, cont'd 
  Though the manner in which the payment will be made has been structured 
  differently than in previous programs to accommodate certain legal 
  requirements, the total payments will be as follows:
      0 - 2 years of service               13 weeks of pay
      3 - 10 years of service              13 weeks of pay, plus three weeks 
                                           of pay for every year of service 
                                           between three and ten years.
     11 - 20 years of service              37 weeks of pay, plus four weeks 
                                           of pay for every year of service 
                                           between eleven and twenty years.
                                           77 weeks of pay will be the maximum 
                                           financial bridge available.
Worldwide News                      LIVE WIRE
New phase of U.S. downsizing, cont'd 
  The progress of this program will be assessed periodically, and we will 
  endeavor to communicate relevant information to managers and employees as 
  quickly as possible through the appropriate communication channels.
 | 
| 1618.2 | RUMOR | GSMOKE::GCHARBONNEAU |  | Mon Sep 30 1991 17:29 | 2 | 
|  |     The new rumor is 13 plus 2 for every year.
    I HOPE THIS IS WRONG.
 | 
| 1618.3 |  | IMTDEV::BRUNO | Father Gregory | Mon Sep 30 1991 18:15 | 31 | 
|  |      The package in .1 is indeed still valid.  The way it is paid-out is this:
     1.  Everyone chosen is paid weekly for 9 weeks, even though they are
         not coming to work.  They remain on the books as active employees
         (this means that they are also in ELF for those 9 weeks).
     2.  Then, they are paid a lump-sum according to this schedule.
Years of        Weeks of Pay
Full Time       in Lump Sum
--------        -------------
0-2                  4
3                    7      
4                   10
5                   13
6                   16
7                   19
8                   22
9                   25
10                  28
11                  32
12                  36
13                  40
14                  44
15                  48
16                  52
17                  56
18                  60
19                  64
20 or more          68
                                       
 | 
| 1618.4 |  | MCIS5::PAPPALARDO | A Pure Hunter | Tue Oct 01 1991 14:55 | 11 | 
|  |     
    RE:3
    
    So the 9 weeks are subtracted from the total?
    
    Examp::;; 14 years = 40wks...you subtract 9-40 and you get 31 weeks as
    a lump-sum????????/
    
    Also, you subtract from the lump whatever you pay per week for medical?
    
    
 | 
| 1618.5 | Give it to me ... Please! | PEACHS::ADAMS |  | Tue Oct 01 1991 14:57 | 13 | 
|  |     I WANT THE BUYOUT!!!!
    
    Any idea on how one gets their name on the "list"?!?!
    I have approached my management regarding my interest in the buyout,
    and they have (in typical Digital style) tabled it ... even though
    I have little to keep me busy.
    
    Funny ... I thought Digital was serious about down-sizing.
    Suggestions?
    
    Regards,
    
    Teresa Adams
 | 
| 1618.6 |  | ICS::CROUCH | Sugar Magnolia blossoms slowly | Tue Oct 01 1991 15:00 | 5 | 
|  |     If you really want to leave then just pack your bags, turn in
    your badge and leave. 
    
    Jim C.
    
 | 
| 1618.7 |  | IMTDEV::BRUNO | Father Gregory | Tue Oct 01 1991 15:06 | 18 | 
|  |     RE:    <<< Note 1618.4 by MCIS5::PAPPALARDO "A Pure Hunter" >>>
    
    >So the 9 weeks are subtracted from the total?
    
         No, it is paid to you on a weekly basis for the first 9 weeks.
    >Examp::;; 14 years = 40wks...you subtract 9-40 and you get 31 weeks as
    >a lump-sum????????/
    
         Right.  The 9 weeks has already been paid to you before you get
    the lump sum.
    
    >Also, you subtract from the lump whatever you pay per week for medical?
    
         I don't think so, I believe that you will be billed by the
    insurance company for your premiums.
    
                                       Greg
 | 
| 1618.8 | DEC's a great company ... Few WANT to leave! | PEACHS::ADAMS |  | Tue Oct 01 1991 15:34 | 11 | 
|  |     Re. 6
    
    Perhaps you miss the point .... leaving per say is not the issue.  
    
    If an organization has several under utilized employees in senior
    positions due to lack of business, it would behoove Digital and its
    stockholders to let any interested party take advantage of a buy out.
    
    It makes sense ... its the right thing to do for the company ... but 
    for political reasons it probably won't happen.
     
 | 
| 1618.9 | What happens to OPT OUT? | DECWET::MONTOYA |  | Wed Oct 02 1991 17:38 | 5 | 
|  | RE: .7
What happens if you are in the "OPT OUT" option for health insurance?
Do you get a lump sum payment on the "OPT OUT" option equal to the 
number of weeks of your separation package?
 | 
| 1618.10 |  | IMTDEV::BRUNO | Father Gregory | Thu Oct 03 1991 00:12 | 13 | 
|  |     RE:              <<< Note 1618.9 by DECWET::MONTOYA >>>
>What happens if you are in the "OPT OUT" option for health insurance?
>Do you get a lump sum payment on the "OPT OUT" option equal to the 
>number of weeks of your separation package?
    
         According to the TFSO-3 pamphlet, you will be paid the Opt Out
    payment weekly, for the 9 Week period, but the Opt Out amount will
    NOT be included in your lump sum.  You will, however, have the
    opportunity to change to any of the other Digital-offerered health
    plans, at the end of the 9 Week period.
    
                                       Greg
 | 
| 1618.11 | Can you double dip? | KARHU::TURNER |  | Thu Oct 03 1991 09:50 | 4 | 
|  |     How does the buyout affect your legibility for unemployment? Are you
    inelgible until whatever number of weeks? Or?
    
    john
 | 
| 1618.12 | Yes | SAURUS::AICHER |  | Thu Oct 03 1991 09:58 | 4 | 
|  |     This is considered an INVOLUNTARY separation.  Therefore you 
    should be eligible after the nine weekly checks. 
    
    Mark
 | 
| 1618.13 | What are the facts? | SA1794::MOULTONB |  | Thu Oct 03 1991 11:50 | 9 | 
|  |       Theres alot of rumors and mis-information regarding unemployment
    benefits so I went directly to the unemployment office to ask them
    directly about this. I was told that regardless of the type of termination
    ie; plant closing, individual layoff, firing, in general, if you were
    paid a severance package or buyout, you ARE NOT entitled to unemployment
    benefits. But I hear different versions of this from different people.
    But anyways, that the official word directly from the unemployment agency.
    I'd appreciate more input on this subject.
    
 | 
| 1618.14 |  | BAGELS::REED |  | Thu Oct 03 1991 12:02 | 11 | 
|  |     
    
    	Re: .13  
    
    	That is how it was explained to a friend of mine that was also
    	"rewarded" by Digital for 10+ years of labor with never a rating 
    	less than a 2!  He can apply when his "x" weeks run out.  (He was
    	given his 10 year Certificate of Achiivement along with his
    	"package" documentation.)
    
    
 | 
| 1618.15 |  | IMTDEV::BRUNO | Father Gregory | Thu Oct 03 1991 12:30 | 11 | 
|  |          The official position in Colorado is different.  As long as it was
    involuntary, you are eligible for unemployment compensation AFTER the
    X-number-of-weeks have expired.  If you got a lump-sum equivalent to
    37 weeks of pay, then you are eligible after 37 weeks.
    
         The only thing I'm not sure of is whether or not the agreement one
    must sign in order to get the severance package specifically waives
    their ability to get compensation.  That is the only complication I 
    can think of right now.
    
                                         Greg
 | 
| 1618.16 | Be extremely careful! | BTOVT::GREGORYJ | Welcome to the Grand Illusion... | Thu Oct 03 1991 12:42 | 12 | 
|  |     re .13
    
    It was explained the same way to a friend who "volunteered" for the 
    involuntary, but evidently a key point was left out. According to my
    friend, the people in charge of the package at the particular DEC site
    in which he worked, left out the fact that he would be deemed ineligible 
    for unemployment for up to 2 years (so he says)! 
    
    I kinda feel sorry for him, he should of checked out everything with the
    unemployment people. Then again hindsight is 20-20!
    
    					Jim.
 | 
| 1618.17 |  | SMOOT::ROTH | Do not hold in hand. Light fuse and run!! | Thu Oct 03 1991 13:19 | 8 | 
|  | I think it all depends on what DEC tells your state unemployment
folkes your status is.
One fellow here a while back 'took the package' and had to do battle with
DEC & the state board... he finally was able to get himself classified
as a laid-off worker instead of a I-left-voluntarily worker.
Lee
 | 
| 1618.18 |  | NEURON::VIOLA | it ain't paradise, but it used to be | Thu Oct 03 1991 13:19 | 15 | 
|  |     Re: DECwrecks
    
    According to a friend who got the 'package', if you have a Plan A
    car, you can keep the car for one month for $30.00/week or tell DEC
    to come and pick it up.
    
    At the end of the month, you either buy the car, or have DEC come and
    pick it up.
    
    Re: Unemployment
    
    This varies from state-to-state. In Georgia you are eleigable immediatly,
    others after 9 weeks, others after x weeks payout....
    
    -Marc
 | 
| 1618.19 | Please clarify your requests and answers | A1VAX::BARTH | sometimes the dragon wins. | Fri Oct 04 1991 10:02 | 10 | 
|  |     RE: unemployment
    
    Would all further discussions in this stream relating to unemployment
    benefits in the U.S. please list the STATE for which information is
    desired/relevant?
    
    Thanks.  It's much easier to tell what's already been discussed that
    way.
    
    Karl B.
 | 
| 1618.20 |  | WKRP::LENNIG | Dave (N8JCX), MIG, Cincinnati | Fri Oct 04 1991 13:28 | 10 | 
|  |     I'm just curious if Digital has shown any flexability in the timing of
    the payouts...
    
    What with the impending next round, when you take the 9 weeks and look
    at where that puts you in the calender year, I suspect many people would
    get to keep a lot more of the lump sum payment if it was paid after Jan
    1, rather than being added on top of CY91 income. Can people request
    the lump-sum be deferred?
    
    Dave
 | 
| 1618.21 | no choice on payout timing | POBOX::KAPLOW | Set the WAYBACK machine for 1982 | Sat Oct 05 1991 11:54 | 3 | 
|  |         I've asked this question of personnel and was told that this was
        NOT an option :-(
        
 | 
| 1618.22 | Able to collect in Mass. | CIMNET::WOJDAK | Rich Wojdak DTN:291-7787 | Mon Oct 07 1991 12:13 | 5 | 
|  |     A guy here got the package and after his package ran out (in his case
    it was only 13 weeks) he was able to collect unemployment.This is in
    Mass.
    
                                    
 | 
| 1618.23 | How is vacation pay figured into the package formula? | MAATJE::JANSEN |  | Tue Oct 15 1991 15:54 | 8 | 
|  | A rumor I heard is that accumulated vacation is not paid out, but just taken
as part of the nine weeks during which a person is still on Digital's payroll.
Can anyone confirm/correct this?
Thanks,
Frank
 | 
| 1618.24 |  | BAGELS::REED |  | Tue Oct 15 1991 15:58 | 6 | 
|  |     
    
    	.23  
    
    		That'd be tacky!  Hope that's wrong.
    
 | 
| 1618.25 |  | SMEGIT::ARNOLD | Some assembly required | Tue Oct 15 1991 20:37 | 4 | 
|  |     re .24, since when did "tacky" become an attribute to be avoided in
    this whole process?   :-(
    
    Jon
 | 
| 1618.26 | full vacation pay is at end of 9 week period | POBOX::KAPLOW | Have package, will travel | Tue Oct 15 1991 21:14 | 4 | 
|  |         You are paid for outstanding vacation on the last week of the 9
        week period. You continue to accumulate vacation time during those
        9 weeks. I do not know what happens if you are at or near your
        vacation limit at termination.
 | 
| 1618.27 | Why isn't TFSO in VTX somewhere? | POBOX::KAPLOW | Have package, will travel | Tue Oct 15 1991 21:16 | 5 | 
|  |         Actually, I don't know why they just don't put the TFSO
        information in the orange book or VTX somewhere, so that everyone
        in the company has access to it. It would eliminate many
        questions, and properly make the information to ALL employees.
        
 | 
| 1618.28 |  | JUMBLY::DAY | No Good Deed Goes Unpunished | Wed Oct 16 1991 19:06 | 5 | 
|  |     ... or even in that pretty little folder you (used to ?) get on
    joining Digital ..
    
    m
    
 | 
| 1618.29 | the warm fuzzies | CSC32::K_BOUCHARD | Ken Bouchard CXO3-2 | Fri Oct 25 1991 14:49 | 4 | 
|  |     Hmmmm...imagine getting information about TFSO when you start work at
    DEC. Really gives one that secure feeling!
    
    Ken
 | 
| 1618.30 | ending and beginning... | WLDWST::EVANS |  | Tue Oct 29 1991 12:07 | 6 | 
|  |     
    
    When exactly does TFSO 3 end .....and TFSO start??. I'm real curious !
     thanks,
      j
    
 | 
| 1618.31 | ?? | PCOJCT::REIS | God is my refuge | Tue Oct 29 1991 13:56 | 9 | 
|  |     I have a question that maybe someone out there can answer.
    
    Isn't it against the law for a company to offer a package that starts
    out as one thing and as time passes becomes less? I'm talking about how
    it started as 13 weeks pay plus a lump sum and it's now 9 weeks plus
    the lump sum? Is this allowed? Or grounds for a class action suit?
    
    Just curious,
    Trudy
 | 
| 1618.32 | not a lawyer but ... | CVG::THOMPSON | Radical Centralist | Tue Oct 29 1991 14:12 | 16 | 
|  | >    Isn't it against the law for a company to offer a package that starts
>    out as one thing and as time passes becomes less? I'm talking about how
>    it started as 13 weeks pay plus a lump sum and it's now 9 weeks plus
>    the lump sum? Is this allowed? Or grounds for a class action suit?
    It's not very likely that our offerings are against the law. After all
    there are a lot of people who have gotten these packages and a lot of
    lawyers out there. I have heard talk that making the package *better*
    can cause some legal problems. That was the reason I was told the
    packages would only get less generous. I also believe that the legal
    people have been very involved in the design of all these packages.
    In the US one can sue for almost anything. Winning is a separate issue
    though.
    		Alfred
 | 
| 1618.33 |  | IMTDEV::BRUNO | Father Gregory | Tue Oct 29 1991 14:39 | 15 | 
|  |     RE:      <<< Note 1618.31 by PCOJCT::REIS "God is my refuge" >>>
        
    >I'm talking about how it started as 13 weeks pay plus a lump sum and 
    >it's now 9 weeks plus the lump sum? 
    
         You have a misconception.  It is not less money, it is merely
    being distributed differently.   The real drop in money took place
    between TFSO 1 and TFSO 2 (from 40 weeks + down to 13 weeks +).  The
    difference between TFSO 2 and TFSO 3 (where we are now) is the benefit
    changes.
    
         The actual amount being paid out is listed in 1618.1, but the way it
    is paid-out is listed in 1618.3.
    
                                      Greg
 | 
| 1618.34 | Unreasonable expectation | CORREO::BELDIN_R | Pull us together, not apart | Wed Oct 30 1991 06:20 | 14 | 
|  |     re .31
    
    It is unreasonable to expect a law to control how a company runs a
    program that, for the company, is purely voluntary!  In most companies,
    you are told that two weeks from now you will have no job.  Period.  No
    package, no chance to look for another job, no nothing!  
    
    In contrast, there is a story going 'round that IBM improved its
    package and was sued by those who had taken the earlier one.
    
    
    Of course, as Alfred commented, you can sue for anything.
    
    Dick
 | 
| 1618.35 |  | PCOJCT::REIS | God is my refuge | Wed Oct 30 1991 11:40 | 6 | 
|  |     I wasn't looking to sue anybody. Just trying to find out if they could
    legally reduce the package. The reason I asked was out of curiosity
    because it had been mentioned to me that it was illegal!! My questions
    have been answered, thanks to all who replied.
    
    Trudy
 | 
| 1618.36 | Better or Worse? | EN::LAMBARTH | Dave Lambarth | Wed Oct 30 1991 14:40 | 20 | 
|  |     re .34
    
    The reason that IBM was being sued by those who had taken an earlier
    package that was not as generous as a later one was that they had been
    told that the one they took was the best that they would get.  That
    was not true.  Undue pressure was also brought to bear to have them
    take the earlier package.  Also, the difference between the packages
    was quite large.
    
    In order to avoid this problem, Digital has stated that subsequent
    packages will be less generous that previous ones, as well as to
    very clearly state when each phase of transition begins and ends.
    Thus, they state that each phase will be based on the business
    conditions that exist at the time the proposed phase was decided
    upon.
    
    Bottom line:  I'd bet quite a lot that the packages won't get
                  better, but may be different.
    
    
 | 
| 1618.37 | Once out, can you come back? | INFACT::HILGENBERG |  | Thu Nov 07 1991 13:42 | 5 | 
|  | Are there any rules about re-hiring a person who has been given the package, 
either directly or as a third-party contractor?  Can they be re-hired... ever?  
Is there an amount of time in which they cannot be re-hired?
Kyra
 | 
| 1618.38 | About being re-hired... | WMOIS::BALSAMO_A | The Rock that is higher than I | Thu Nov 07 1991 14:30 | 14 | 
|  |    RE: 1618.37 <INFACT::HILGENBERG>
   >Are there any rules about re-hiring a person who has been given the
   >package, either directly or as a third-party contractor?  Can they be
   >re-hired... ever?   Is there an amount of time in which they cannot be
   >re-hired?
       I just attended an information meeting to answer concerns about the
   TFSO Phase III package.  One of the questions asked and answered was can
   you be re-hired after being laid off if things got better in the company
   and they started hiring again.  The answer was that there is a 1 year
   waiting period required before you can be re-hired.
   Tony
 | 
| 1618.39 |  | WKRP::LENNIG | Dave (N8JCX), MIG, Cincinnati | Thu Nov 07 1991 18:28 | 5 | 
|  |     re: Back as a contractor...
    
    I know of two people in my field office that were back almost 
    immediately as contractors. Of course, how long they'll be around 
    is another question...
 | 
| 1618.40 |  | ASICS::LESLIE | Andy Leslie | Fri Nov 08 1991 02:24 | 5 | 
|  |     .37 The package differs the world over - in the UK people are rumoured
    to have been back in the office as a contracto the week after they
    left, clutching a fat brown envelope...
    
    	- andy
 | 
| 1618.41 | practices and policies | CORREO::BELDIN_R | Pull us together, not apart | Fri Nov 08 1991 06:52 | 8 | 
|  |     Regardless of how or why one leaves, there is a waiting period before
    you can be rehired as a regular employee. There is also a waiting
    period before Digital may do any business directly with you.  As a
    contractor, represented by another company, these limitations don't
    apply.  Digital has been known to request that contracting companies
    not bring in previous employees.
    
    Dick
 | 
| 1618.42 | 6 months or TFSO length | POBOX::KAPLOW | Free the DCU 88,000 11/12/91! | Fri Nov 08 1991 13:04 | 3 | 
|  |         The TFSO material I got says that I cannot work for Digital,
        either as an employee or a contractor, for a period of 6 months,
        or the length of your TFSO package, whichever is greater.
 | 
| 1618.43 |  | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::Sherman DTN 223-3326 | Fri Nov 08 1991 13:12 | 6 | 
|  |     Isn't it ironic?  "Layoff" was a term used instead of "fired" because it 
    meant that you were not employed but that your employer would hire you 
    back once things got better.  Now, it means that anyone BUT your employer 
    can hire you back once things get better!	;^)
    
    Steve
 | 
| 1618.44 | I don't believe it foor a second... | CSC32::K_BOUCHARD | Ken Bouchard CXO3-2 | Fri Nov 08 1991 17:07 | 5 | 
|  | 
If you get layed off and there is a business need for your services,you can be re-hired
one day later. Don't forget who made the rules...
Ken
 | 
| 1618.45 |  | BSS::P_KABBE |  | Mon Nov 11 1991 16:12 | 10 | 
|  |     
      My husband took the package and personnel said 2 years, that is
    either as a contract or regular employee, I didn't believe local
    personnel so I called corp and got the same story. Yet I know people
    who've been hired back into teh same job as a temp. 
    
    
    PKB
    
    
 | 
| 1618.46 | loophole...naturally | DENVER::DAVISGB | Jag Mechanic | Mon Nov 11 1991 17:19 | 6 | 
|  |     Can't be an employee?
    
    Can't be a contractor?
    
    That's OK, become the EMPLOYEE of a CONTRACTOR, and you can be hired.
    
 | 
| 1618.47 | is 9 weeks > 60 days??? | KOLFAX::WHITMAN | Acid Rain Burns my Bass | Fri Dec 06 1991 12:47 | 12 | 
|  | Please excuse me if this has been covered before:
   I believe a federal law was recently passed (at least it was proposed) which 
requires companies to notify employees at least 60 days in advance of any 
"layoff".  I wonder if the 9 weeks (63 days) pay continuation, as opposed to an
immediate lump-sum, isn't DEC's way of getting an ex-employee off the job right
away, yet still meeting the 60 day notification requirement?
   Any thoughts???
Al
 | 
| 1618.48 |  | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Dec 06 1991 12:54 | 2 | 
|  | I believe the proposal was about plant closings, not all layoffs.  And I don't
believe it became law.
 | 
| 1618.49 | It fits with the toughest sate law | DENVER::SHAWS |  | Mon Dec 09 1991 18:21 | 3 | 
|  |     Nine weeks is about 3 days longer than the longest requirement under
    state laws. Probably not by accident.
    
 | 
| 1618.50 | differences? | CSC32::K_BOUCHARD | Ken Bouchard CXO3-2 | Thu Dec 12 1991 13:59 | 4 | 
|  |     Could someone maybe post the differences between all the packages
    offered so far?
    
    Ken
 | 
| 1618.51 |  | SSDEVO::EGGERS | Anybody can fly with an engine. | Fri Jun 12 1992 16:05 | 2 | 
|  |     The fake notice posted in 1618.1 is still making the rounds.
    I got another copy today.
 | 
| 1618.52 |  | HELIX::KALLIS | Pumpkins ... Nature's greatest gift. | Fri Jun 12 1992 16:14 | 5 | 
|  | Re .51 (Tom):
When there's no solid information, rumor rushes in to fill the vacuum.
Steve Kallis, Jr.
 | 
| 1618.53 | Anyway, it's 1 1/2 years old | HOTAIR::INGRAM | That was then, This isn't happening. | Fri Jun 12 1992 18:25 | 9 | 
|  | 
>    The fake notice posted in 1618.1 is still making the rounds.
>    I got another copy today.
	I read every reply since .1. There was not one mention of the post
	being fake. Did I miss something? 
Larry
 | 
| 1618.54 | there is no news, is what | SIMON::SZETO | Simon Szeto, International Sys. Eng. | Fri Jun 12 1992 22:42 | 7 | 
|  | >	I read every reply since .1. There was not one mention of the post
>	being fake. Did I miss something? 
    
    To answer your question, let me use your topic title:
>                       -< Anyway, it's 1 1/2 years old >-
    
    I understand that it is being circulated now as current news!
 |