Conference 7.286::digital

    Sounds reasonable to me.... especially given Digital's longstanding
    commitment to community and charity. Perhaps it could be positioned as
    a short-term paid sabbatical (don't we already have those, or are they
    all unpaid?).
    
    Have you submitted this through DELTA or up through Corporate
    Benefits/Compensation or whomever in Personnel??
    

    I can't believe how many people in this company constantly ask
    Digital to pay for everything.  DEC is a business, not a benefactor 
    for each employee's charitable interests.  Why do people ask DEC to
    fund these types of things when we are losing money?  Wouldn't
    these people rather keep their jobs?  Almost no other company would
    entertain these types of requests when millions of $ are being lost. 
    
    Wake up.  DEC is trying to survive.   

    Regarding (.2):
    
    Digital is more than a company seeking the $;
    it is also a community, a caring and concerned community, 
    caring and concerned for people, even for those disgruntled
    about "perceived" benefits.

re: .2

DIGITAL IMHO may appear to be just another company out for the
bucks. But, they aint there yet, thank goodness. 
If what you say is true then why does DEC still have the matching
contributions program?

    RE:  .3
    
    I don't think so.  DEC's purpose is to make a profit and return value
    to its stockholders.  Plain and simple.  Unfortunately, too many
    here agree with the nonsense in the previous reply.  It isn't
    DEC's function to dole out money to any charity its employees feel is
    politically correct this particular week.  This company is full of
    spoiled cry babies who have no idea why we are in business.  After 12 
    years, I'm sick of it.
                                                            

    I've always thought of the matching gift program as a way for Digital
    to get needed publicity.  For example, matching gifts are made by
    Digital to the Symphony Pro Musica.  In return, Digital is frequently
    mentioned in programs and flyers put out by this organization.  It's
    good and probably cost-effective PR.
    
    On the other hand, I give about 10% of my income to my favorite
    charity, my church.  But, I don't expect Digital to do any
    fund-matching.  It would be inappropriate and would likely not result
    in any form of PR or recognition for Digital.
    
    As far as Paul's idea goes, I could see this turning into a good PR
    opportunity for Digital.  And, that could end up becoming
    cost-effective if it influences our customers and employees. There
    could even be free publicity since the type of work that Paul is
    talking about doing is of interest to the public.
    
    Steve

    I believe that IBM has something like this already.
    
    		Alfred

    re .3
    
    The point must be underlined.  We cannot be a community if we don't
    have profit making work for all of its members.  There can be no
    community with free-loaders.  We _must_ make enough money to support
    the "nice to have's"!
    
    It seems to be an insult to many people's sense of priority to have
    someone looking for Digital to increase its expenses when we are, for
    the first time ever, LOSING MONEY!
    
    Dick

Do those who think this is a bad idea also think that the Matching Gift Program
is a bad idea?  If not, why not?

    re .8
    
    If your solution to the company woes is to eliminate the goodness that
    exists within the company, what have you gained?  You may have gained
    the continuation of jobs, but jobs within a hollow company.  So you
    will have put a bandaid on the cuts and bruises in people's lives but
    not have left people with a company that is worth anything of more
    important values than $.
    
    There is something immeasureable in maintaining or improving the
    quality of life for people within a company which yields rewards
    greater than the shaving of money.  People who work for a company which
    cares for the wellbeing of its employees and others are people on a
    mission which can only have the final effect of improving the total
    value of the company.

    re .9
    
    It's not a bad idea, just bad timing.
    
    Dick

    RE: .10
    
    Wouldn't you rather have a job in a "hollow" company than no job
    in a politically correct bankrupt company?
    
    I am still totally amased by the many, many people like
    you in this company.  You all won't understand until you're standing
    in the unemployment line.
                    

    Re .9:
    
    An answer could depend on the average value of the "matched gifts".
    
    Assuming someone makes, oh, $600/week (just a random figure pulled
    out of the air, not necessarily a corporate average), 2 weeks at
    half pay (or one week paid of two weeks taken) could conceivably
    be substantially more than your average "matched gift".
    
    Personally, I've never submitted a matching gift request for more
    than, oh, $100; if that is close to the average value the proposal
    could be quite expensive.  In that case, now is NOT the time for
    Digital to be digging deeper into its pockets.  Call me selfish,
    but I'd rather the money was used in retaining employees in these
    hard economic times.

This reply is being entered for a member of the noting community who wishes
to remain anonymous.  If you wish to send mail to the author, send it to me
and I will forward it on.  Unless you specify otherwise, your mail header will
remain attached to your message.

Bob - Co-moderator DIGITAL


First, the question of why/whether we make charitable 
contributions even through hard economic times.

There are many good reasons that Digital should continue its 
contributions programs.  Making investments in the various 
communities where we have large employee populations or 
facilities are just that, investments.  Being viewed as a good 
corporate citizen can have tremendous impact on getting favorable 
rulings in the areas of zoning, taxes, water/wetlands uses, road 
construction and more.  Digital also has a vested interested in 
the quality of education, social services and health issues.  We 
can gain influence on these issues by associating ourselves with 
a local, state and national initiatives.

In addition, equipment grants also serve as a means to leverage 
sales of equipment, software and services.  An example is a 
hospital who receives a $500,000 grant to upgrade their office 
systems.  They then turnaround and made a $3,000,000 purchase!

Now for the Volunteer proposal.  This is not a new idea but it is 
a good one.  

Over a year and one-half ago, an employee volunteer program was 
pitched to the Corporate Contributions Committee.  What they 
received as an extremely watered down version of the original 
proposal.  The original proposal included an information system, 
a policy statement, recognition aspects and more.  The plan was 
modeled after a flagship program in place at Levi's.  The 
original idea also included establishing an office on 
volunteerism.  It was judged to be too much so the CCC only heard 
about a small portion of the original plan.

After review the CCC supported the idea of having establishing a 
limited version of the information system.  It is called 
VolunteerNET and is accessible on LIVE WIRE within U.S. NEWS.

They rejected establishing a policy statement on volunteerism as 
well as rejecting ANY financial expenditures.  REASONING: Can't 
spend money on that stuff while people are leaving the company.

If the company wanted to set up a volunteerism program all they'd 
need to do is say the word and it would take off.  I believe that 
now is the time when we should be doing more not less.  Many 
creative ideas for supplementing cash and equipment grants with 
low or even NO COST programs have been crushed.  

Some Digital managers who are in the position to do something 
about these type of programs do little more that pay lip service 
to the notion.  The company has reaped huge PR benefit from the 
volunteer work of individual employees and groups of employees.  
The managers grab glory and get all puffy but they refuse to 
ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING.

In order for your proposal to fly it will be necessary for you to 
move outside the "usual" channels.  Those who should see the 
benefits of such a program are so cynical and stuck in their ways 
that they will fight you at every turn.

I'd be glad to discuss this off line with you or anyone else.  
I've probably said too much as it is.

Best of luck

.-*: Thanks for the feedback

I also was concerned about the company spending more money when people are
being laid off. I think it's a worthwhile idea that perhaps can be pursued
more fully when things get better. I'm glad to know others have had ideas
along the same lines.

As noted previously, some supporting of high-visibility volunteer work might
be to the company's advantage and so making the decision about whether to
support an effort could be made on a case-by-case basis. We *do* spend lots
of money on advertising. Why not take some of the advertising budget and
spend it in a creative and supportive manner sometimes?

Re: the anonymous reply...

I share your view of some of the management here (as my opinion has been
well documented earlier). I think things are improving a bit, but we could
save lots of money if we were to aggressively pursue solutions to management
problems. If upper management were to *really* go after turning the company
around, I'd be more impressed. Since we are more or less continuing with
politics as usual, I don't feel too bad about bringing up the suggestion
at this time.

    
    	There are some "charitable" organizations that DEC would certainly
    	not want to be associated with, nor *should* they be associated
    	with, as association might be construed as support for the ideas
    	they espouse. This might cause DEC some embarassment and do the 
    	opposite of what we're trying to do (support our communities and
    	employees, gain positive PR).
    
    	We could screen the potential "charities" but that would also raise
    	questions of what is an "acceptable" charity.
    
    	I think the idea has merit. It needs to be well thought-out. As for
    	pay, well..that's a tough one. Part of me thinks it would be nice
    	to be paid while doing charitable work, part of me says that if I
    	were really committed to the charity, I'd be willing to do it for
    	free (as many of us do anyway). I agree that now is bad timing to
    	ask for pay for charity work while layoffs are still going on.
    
    	John

    
    Does Digital "loan" executives to the United Way?  
    
    If so, isn't this proposal just an expanded version of the same thing?  
    
    Mike 

re .16:

There's already a mechanism in place for screening charities.  It's called
the Matching Gifts Program.

    
    re .18
    
    I knew that there was..does anyone know what the criteria is? It may
    be that it's not directly applicable to the proposal...

Re: .16

I agree - charitable time should generally be donated, but there are times
where the nature of the work requires that it be done full-time for a
significant amount of block-time. Financial obligations would prohibit
otherwise qualified and motivated people from helping due to the time
constraint. This proposal was not for a day here and there - it was for
a block of time for which many of us would not survive well without some
sort of financial aid.

I wonder if it'd be legal for DEC to contribute $ to the charity thereby
making it tax deductable for DEC, and then the charity would pay the
person "donating" the time to make up a portion of what the person would
have earned had he been working full time.

    
    re .20
    
    I understand what was being proposed and I realize that it many
    people would not be able to donate a week or so without some type
    of financial assistance. I would just find it difficult to face my
    neighbor who was laid off from DEC if I were being paid while taking
    significant time off for charitable work. As a previous noter said,
    the idea is good, the timing is not.
    
    There's always vacation time... ;)

    This can work and does elsewhere as mentioned by someone earlier.
    It does depend on ones job I guess. I know a couple who both have
    full time jobs and volunteer for the Red Cross. If an emergency
    happens and they are needed, off they go, no questions asked. They
    each spent a couple of weeks helping hurricane victims in South
    Carolina a couple of years back as an example.
    
    Jim C.

    If you take a look at the matching gift form (which if I had right now,
    I would quote, but I don't, so I won't ;-), I believe it indicates that the
    organization must have filed the appropriate IRS forms as a non-profit. 
    Therefore, the "qualification critieria" is the same as the IRS, which
    takes DEC out of the position of judging "worthiness".  

    One other thing you have all missed....
    
    Not only is it improper at this time to expect Digital to match
    compensation dollars for your charity, but who and how does your job
    get accomplished while you are gone?
    
    First you want compensation to help someone/thing else and how are you
    helping Digital.... by leaving your job for someone else to pick up and
    squeeze into their work load or your job not being done at all or
    Digital needing to hire temps.  Is this logical thinking for a company
    in trouble?
    
    Gail

re .-1

What may not be right for all people may be right for some.  People do
get between projects from time to time; thats necessary for some people
to stay in good mental health.  Also, people can plan for the future when
they may have some planned free time.

It occurs to me that many people who are against doing for others when
the so called "good" (not my belief) of the company is at stake are
binary oriented people.  For them it is either stop or go; with color
or without color; right or wrong; all the way or noway.

Life is not so simple nor should it be.  Life is not so legalistic.  Life
and this world are beyond our capabilities to grasp it all and its not
meant to be selfishly grabbed completely for our own private sake.

Lighten up.  Give somebody else a break!  Give whatever it takes until
you feel good about it.  You'll like the results.

    re .27
    
    Because someone is oppossed to the idea has nothing to do with how much
    they give.  I think the timing of this idea is terrible, but my
    personal giving is unchanged.  When I have had to limit my time,
    because DEC is taking more of my time, I have increased my financial
    assistance to the charities of my choice.  I agree that I could not
    face a friend that had been tsfo'd while my job was picked up by
    someone else or DEC hired a consultant to do it...  For now I'll just
    increase my financial assistance and give my increased time to DEC!

    re: -2
    
    	I agree, we are paid to do some job for DEC, not to go off on 
    this or that wild goose chase that so many people in this company
    seem to want to do these days.  Do it on your own time or use 
    vacation time if it is really important that it get done.  Fat city
    days are gone forever in this company (and the country for that
    matter).  If DEC can do without your services for some period of
    time, what's to prevent your separation from becoming permanent??
    
    Think about it.
    
    Brad.

Re: .26

   That's (Those  are?)  a very appropriate question.  First to address the
   general question: concerning matching $ for a charity, Digital does that
   now  for  the  thousands of folks donating money.  I'd be willing to bet
   that  program  costs  the  company lots more than if the company were to
   help  out a couple of folks donating their specialty.  Furthermore, thru
   the  United  Way, the company strongly encourages people to donate money
   that  the  company  then  has  to  match.   Perhaps  we should eliminate
   matching  funds  for  a  few  years.   I'm  a  stong  believer  in being
   consistent.   I've  also  seen  too  much  waste thru inept or dishonest
   management  that  has  not  really been addressed.  I've done my part to
   address  management waste too, and it's obviously not enough, but that's
   another subject.

   To address the specific question about my situation: I've spent the last
   18  months *very* intensely working on one of the Alpha platforms with a
   good  bit of unpaid overtime to stay off the critical path.  The project
   is  beginning  to  wind down in preparation for the next one.  The break
   (believe  me,  I  need a break before the next one) would come at a time
   between  the  two  projects  and so nobody would need to fill in for me.
   Yes,  that's what vacation time is for and perhaps that's what I will do
   if the opportunity really happens.  But I thought since the company does
   like  to sponsor good things, maybe they'd be willing to look at helping
   out since what I'm interested in is a public service.

    A slight side tangent to think about - items and money donated to a
    charity are tax deductible, while a person's time is not.
    
    I honestly think of this idea more in line with a sabbatical, allowed
    at some percentage of pay, rather than Digital supplementing an
    employee's choice of vacation activities.
    

Re: .31

   That's a  good  idea;  another  way  of  looking at it.  The cost to the
   company  would  come  out the same as what I was proposing, assuming the
   sabbatical was funded at 50% of normal.

>    A slight side tangent to think about - items and money donated to a
>    charity are tax deductible, while a person's time is not.

But if DEC "donates a person's time," it's really donating his salary, no?
So it's a tax deduction for DEC, right?

    re .33
    That's a good question.... the point is that, as an individual, you
    cannot assign a dollar value to your time and then donate it to a
    charity. Why a corporation would be allowed to, is beyond me. 
    

re: 34

The difference is that the corporation has actually spent the money paying for
your time.

Suppose you worked for 1/2 the year (for pay), and donated your time the other
half of the year. This doesn't leave you with a 0 income.

        Re: .6

>    I've always thought of the matching gift program as a way for Digital
>    to get needed publicity.  For example, matching gifts are made by
>    Digital to the Symphony Pro Musica.  In return, Digital is frequently
>    mentioned in programs and flyers put out by this organization.  It's
>    good and probably cost-effective PR.

        Publicity is not a criteria for matching gifts.  The criteria is
        listed in .25.  Some organizations do publish lists of companies
        that matched donations to the organization, but Digital doesn't
        require any publicity.

>    On the other hand, I give about 10% of my income to my favorite
>    charity, my church.  But, I don't expect Digital to do any
>    fund-matching.  It would be inappropriate and would likely not result
>    in any form of PR or recognition for Digital.

        Whether it is appropriate or not is an opinion, but the Digital
        policy is to not contribute to religious organizations.  I'm
        sure a large number of churches would be willing to include
        Digital in their contributor lists in exchange for matched
        donations.

        					B.J.

Organizations that receive matching gifts sometimes publicize the fact to get 
potential donors to send in the matching gifts form with their donation.

    Deming says that first duty of a corporation is to stay in business,
    the second to provide jobs. From this point of view DEC has been a
    failure in the last year. Afterall to stay in business you must be
    profitable. If no jobs are provided no one can participate in the
    economy.(the worse case would be having the computers do "all" the work
    humans would be disenfranchised unless they owned the output of the
    computers.)
    	 From the standpoint of the corporation "buying out" people
    to remain competitative makes sense. From the standpoint of society as
    a whole, keeping them on the payroll, but allowing them to do volunteer
    work would benefit the economy more. They would be more likely to make
    a contribution. Why not offer it as an alternative
    to the buyout? Keep them on the payroll for the full length of their
    package. YOu could allow them to take a few days a month for job
    searches yet spend most of their time doing volunteer work. This would
    have two advantages; its always easier to find work if you are still
    employed and the employees would be easier to get back if things turn
    around for DEC.
    
    
    john