Conference 7.286::digital

    Why not give your pay back back as well, while your at it :-)?
           
    Winton 

    
    I think your action is noble.  Nice of you and your district to think
    beyond the 'local' level.
    
    

    re .0
    
    I commend your district's thoughtfulness.  While I think it's great to
    get awards, I personally think now is not the time for extravagance.  
    
    I also think the attitude of "take the money and run" is exactly the
    kind of behavior that has contributed to this corporations financial
    condition.
    
    My point is that moderation should be a daily practice even in the best
    of times.
    
    

    
    I'm IMPRESSED! - Why can't everyone feel this way?
    
    
    
    djm
    

re: .5                              
    
>    I'm IMPRESSED! - Why can't everyone feel this way?
    
Maybe most people do, I know that I would probably do the same thing
IF I got a monetary reward for some reason! (thats with the exception
of my paycheck of course).    

    re .0
    
    A classy move.
    
    
    -Jim-

>    After our UM gave us the good news, he said that the Corporation
>    was allowing $750.00 per employee to pay for the bulk of the allowed
>    two nights stay and banquet.  This meant that the total cost would be 
>    ~ $ 75,000.00 to the Corporation.

Wow!  In my corner of software engineering we work years to bring a product
to market and are rewarded with a 'release party' -- toward which the cost
center allocates $20 per head !  ;>) {sort of}

Rich

.5>    I'm IMPRESSED! - Why can't everyone feel this way?
    
	Are you really asking to find out why someone (me) would
    	not feel this way?  Frankly, I'd be in that 30% group that
    	did not sign the petition.  I agree with .1, if you earned
    	it, why give it back?  If you want to give back an award that
    	you've earned, why not give back your salary (or part of it)
    	as well?
    
    	Many groups have incentive programs like the one described in
    	.0 .  My group does.  When I take an extra call, when I stay
    	extra time beyond my scheduled hours, when I go the extra distance
    	for the customer, ***I have that incentive program in mind.***
    	I don't get extra salary for it.  I don't get comp time for it.
    	I simply hope that my extra contribution, combined with the other
    	specialists' extra contributions, will push us over the wall to
    	earn us that incentive.  The "wall" between us and that incentive
    	translates into additional business -- more business than the
    	incentive program will cost DEC.  By presenting us with that
    	incentive, DEC is merely sharing the wealth.  It is wealth that
    	we earned.  By devaluing the incentive program, it might make
    	future "extra efforts" just not worth it.
    
    	I work to get paid.  I can do it here at DEC, where current
    	compensation programs suit my financial needs, or I can do it
    	elsewhere if DEC's current compensation programs change enough
    	that they no longer suit my needs.
    
    	If this movement occurred in my group, I'd probably be entering
    	a similar note to the basenote except instead of writing out
    	of self righteousness, I'd be writing out of indignation.
    
    	So in short, djm, that's why everyone can't feel that way.

    I have no idea how much the company picnic costs DEC, but I would
    think foregoing it (at least for this year) could save a few jobs.

    	Now, on the question of whether the $750 is a reasonable cost
    	for the incentive, I have to wonder.  Assuming it includes
    	you and a guest for two nights, even at $150/room we have $450
    	leftover.  Are they flying you somewhere for the incentive
    	weekend?  What is DEC getting for that kind of money?
    
    	I'd rather just have the cash.  You gotta pay taxes on it either
    	way...

	I tried to persuade our district management do something
	like this last year for our yearly party.

	They were not interested.

	Spending money gets notice...not saving it.

	Keep this in mind when you ponder Congressmen, municipal
	plans for money-sucking light-rail lines, and
	Digital managers with a "pot" to spend.

	Steve H

>    I have no idea how much the company picnic costs DEC, but I would
>    think foregoing it (at least for this year) could save a few jobs.

    	DEC isn't in the business to "save jobs."  DEC should be getting
    	the most it can from the employees it needs to do its business.
    	If sending them on an annual picnic and giving them a holiday
    	turkey helps get the most from the employees, DEC should continue
    	to do so -- with just the employees it needs to conduct business.

    	What good does it do to keep additional headcount that has been
    	identified as extraneous?  Even worse, what good does it do to 
    	keep those people around at the expense (and resulting morale
    	loss) of those who should remain?

    Why not convert the money to stock?  That way, the money goes back to
    the Corporation, everybody gets a tangible reward, and the incentives
    for performing well are not undermined.
    
    Steve

    re .14
    
    	The money from stock does not go back to the corporation.

   Re: .0
   
   Are you married?
   
   I have gone to Service Excellence awards weekends for the past three
   years.  I take them and will continue to do so.  
   
   Why?  It's not for me.  It's for my wife.  I don't know how things
   work in your district, but in ours our spouses take a lot of abuse
   in:
   
   	o us working long hours
   	o us being demoralize tends not to stay at work
   	o depression, tension, anxiety they suffer over TFSO
   	o etc.
   
   I may not care if they give me a party for busting my buns and making
   the customers ultra happy with Digital, but my wife deserves every
   bit of it.  

    
    
    I like what they did and granted not everyone would agree but I think
    that .0 and his group's hearts where in the right places.
    
    Joyce

    
    
    .9>  I work to get paid.  I can do it here at DEC, where current
    compensation programs suit my financial needs, or I can do it elsewhere
    if DEC's current compensation programs change enough that they no
    longer suit my needs.
    
    
    It is obvious that you do work, AT DEC.  Most of the rest of us work,
    FOR DEC.
    
    
    Jon Aller
    452-3535

    Oh, you bet!  I put in 10 and 12 hour days, and work weekends and
    holidays to meet development schedules for that frozen turkey at the
    end of the year.  Give me a break!  Your cavalier attitude is
    unbelievable.  Those "EXTRANEOUS"  employees, as you put it didn't come
    to DEC to work in "EXTRANEOUS" jobs.  It wasn't their fault they were
    hired by a management that was building a fiefdom.  Everyone of those 
    "EXTRANEOUS" employees is a real human being, with families, and a life
    outside of DEC.  Everyone of those who will be tapped is tragic story
    waiting to happen.  Those of us who are left will be lucky, that's all,
    just lucky to happen to be in the right job at the right time.  Keep
    looking over your shoulder, you never know when that tap will fall
    upon you.

>    Those "EXTRANEOUS"  employees, as you put it didn't come
>    to DEC to work in "EXTRANEOUS" jobs.  It wasn't their fault they were
>    hired by a management that was building a fiefdom.  
    
    	Fifedom or not, it doesn't change the fact that they are extraneous
    	people in extraneous jobs.  Today's business climate and financial
    	health of the company determines that.
    
    	I am responsible for my own career.  DEC is not.  As I can be 
    	laid off so easily, so too can I leave.  This is business.  DEC
    	is a business.  DEC is not a social service providing employment.
    	If I see the writing on the wall, I will not expect DEC to watch
    	out for me.  I will be preparing to watch out for my own fanny.
    
    	Cavalier?  No.  Practical.

Re: .0
     I think what you and most in your group did is great!
     I don't remember  what I ate at award dinners, but I do like the desk
     clock, and the plaques, these mementos last.

Re: .9
     This attitude reminds me of a incident when I worked for a customer.
     We had a softball game after work and were missing a couple of our
     players. I went down to the manufacturing floor looking for the rest
     of our team. Our shortstop was still stacking a batch of PC boards into
     storage racks, so I started helping him. Another player walked by and
     we asked him to help, so we could get out to the game.
     His response was no way, he was "off the clock", and the company wasn't
     getting any more out of him. I thought unbelievable attitude...
     He probably still thinks all the blame should rest with management, when
     the company had massive layoffs, and went out of business a year later.

     -Marc
    

    
    Wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning Joe?
    
    I don't think .0 is doing this out of self righteousness, I think 
    he just trying to be helpfull. Give the guy a break, will ya?
    
    Neil
    

    Well put Neil.
    
    Joyce

    	re .21
    
    	Did you help out your buddy because DEC needed it done, or because
    	your interests were served (getting your buddy to the game on
    	time)...
    
    	If you didn't have a game that day, and even more specifically,
    	if your buddy wasn't going to be late, would you have helped out?
    	Why don't we all help out every DECcie we see doing something?
    
    	re .22  wrong side of the bed.
    
    	I'm just trying to point out the practical side of all this.
    	All the "way-to-go" replies needed some balance.

    
    
    re: .24
    
       "Why don't we all help out every DECcie we see doing something?"
    
    That's the spirit of .0 and the real practical side of business.
    
    j.b.

    .24
    
    I make a habit of asking people if they need help. If they do,
    I try to help. Many people do the same for me. I see it as doing
    something because you want to, not because you have to.
    
    -Marc

    
    
    re .20
    
    As a colleague of .0, I would like to applaud Jon on his convictions.
    As far as being practical, how can you characterize spending this
    exorbitant amount of money during the current economic duress of the
    Corporation as anything but irresponsible. 
    
    If I have to sit across the table from a fellow employee who is facing
    TFSO, I will certainly have a lot trouble looking that person in the
    eye.
    
    Russ

    .re .25 and .26
    
    Some managers interpret that kind of behaviour as an indication of
    insuffient work assigned to the helper.  It can even be used to justify
    the elimination of a job.  People think strangely about unusual
    behaviour.
    
    Dick

    	re .26
    
    	OK.  When you were done helping your shortstop stacking the
    	PC boards, did you then ask the janitor if he needed help?  Or
    	your shortstop's boss if there was anything else to be stacked?
    	Or your own boss if there was anything else that needed to be
    	done?
    
    	No, you went to the game.  You helped your shortstop because you
    	needed him for the game.  Maybe you helped him because he was
    	a friend.  You didn't do it for DEC.  I agree, though, you did 
    	it because you wanted to.
    
    	And I want to work hard at my job because when I do I get better
    	raises and I can earn incentive bonuses for my group, and I can
    	(and have) earn(ed) special awards for myself.  I do it because I 
    	want to earn these things.  Take away incentive for working harder 
    	and  I'll not want to work harder.  Nor will you want to work
    	harder.  Perhaps for you just having a job is incentive enough.
    	That is not so for me.
    
    	My point in all this (going back to my disagreement with the
    	events in the basenote) is that if an incentive is there to be
    	earned, and if it gets earned but then is withdrawn or diminished, 
    	what will that do to the value of (and trust in) future incentives?
    
    	ALL groups should have such incentive programs!  I think that
    	some people are willing to see groups hand back their incentive
    	bonuses because they don't get one themselves...
    
    	Joe Oppelt

    RE: .0
    
    Congratulations...If this is what you think is right...go for it!!!
    
    I would suggest that you take the $75,000 and do one of two things...
    
    1)  Earmark it to a particular Corporate fund so that is doesn't end up
    somewhere where it will be spent "less wisely".
    
    2)  Keep it in a local investment account to help drive more business
    in your district next year.
    
    By the way, I and much of my district will be going on a trip to
    Nantucket this weekend and part of next week.  We were the highest
    growth district in the most successful area.  No one has suggested that
    we do what .0 is doing.  Just as I commend .0 for his actions, I hope
    that people will commend my district for our contributions to the
    company this year (about 30% growth over last year) and wish us a good
    outing so we can come back and perform better next year.  The accounts
    that I did most of my work in returned over $1 million in profit to the
    corporation (this is 2 accounts) on about $5.5 million in sales.  I
    would rather incent the people involved here to repeat than to take the
    $750 the trip will cost and put that in the "fund".
    
    This is my view, others (like .0) are fine too.
    
    Regarding various replies about not laying people off...
    
    Does anyone feel that it is appropriate for Digital to have about $125k
    sales per employee when the rest of the industry is over $175k?
    
    If you feel this is appropriate, I would sure like to hear your
    justification.
    
    If you don't think its appropriate, then we have to lay people off pure
    and simple.  You can argue about how to do it but you can't argue about
    whether to do it.  
    
    You can feel bad about the facts but they are still facts.
    
    Ending Canobie lake or rewards outings only keeps the problem under the
    covers for another year.  Next year the salary freeze will come, then
    the pay cut, then the end of the corporation.  Our population is a
    cancer that needs to be taken care of or it will kill the body.
    
    Most of the people I socialize with work for DEC.  I will, no doubt,
    run into some who will get layed off (maybe my wife, myself or both of
    us will be among them).  Regardless of this, it has to happen.  The
    evidence for this is absolutely overwhelming.
    
    I know many people who have already gotten layed off.  Some are better
    off, some are worse off.  
    
    The bottom line is that Digital will achieve the correct size either by
    acting itself or by having the marketplace act for it.  It is not 
    "unpatriotic" to accept lay-offs.  It is not "unpatriotic" to take a
    trip as a pat on the back for a job well done.  It is not "unpatriotic"
    to accept a salary in exchange for services rendered.  It is not
    "unpatriotic" to work AT or FOR Digital.
    
    Ken Slattery  

    
    
    
    Most folks I know don't need an excuse to help out where it's needed
    and when they can.
    
    Many folks feel the need to create some convoluted excuses to explain
    why they will not help at all.
    
    j.b.

RE: .30

I like your points.  I have only one comment.  I can not tell if we
have too many people or not.

Why?

Because this company can not even get its budgets finalized before the
FY starts.  (Starting to sound like the government!)

As I stated in another note string, reward people who over-achieve,
fire those that don't achieve.  But without a plan to work to, how can
you figure out who did which?

So to return to the question.  When we have an idea of where we want
to go, maybe we can figure out how to tell if $x/person is good or 
bad, I will then be able to say that we have too many people or 
maybe even too few!

Lee G.

     I agree with the bulk of these notes and commend your petition.
    The need for a reward given the accomplishments is something that
    has merit too.
    
     (This will sound familiar to those living in California right now)
    how about asking for an "IOU" for your $75k?? Get a commitment from 
    management to delay the reward until DEC's next profitable quarter. 
    That's more along the lines of a profit sharing scheme but it seems 
    to me like a very responsible way of getting your just rewards.
    
    Just a thought...
    
    Glenn

    re .10 -- What company picnic????
    
    re .13 -- What holiday turkey????
    
    None of that in Minneapolis!
    
         Virgil Neiman

   Congrats to the basenoter for the award.  Your group is to be praised both
for the work you did and for your gesture as well. 

   To be honest, what came to my mind as I read your note was "Wow $75K, what
kind of equipment upgrades could we get with that kind of money", don't give
me a weekend on the town, give me a couple RZ26's and 16Mb of memory to upgrade
my workstation.  Let me get the equipment I want (without the normal paperwork,
justifications and hassle) to help me do my job better, faster, easier. 


Al

>   To be honest, what came to my mind as I read your note was "Wow $75K, what
>kind of equipment upgrades could we get with that kind of money", don't give
>me a weekend on the town, give me a couple RZ26's and 16Mb of memory to upgrade
>my workstation.  Let me get the equipment I want (without the normal paperwork,
>justifications and hassle) to help me do my job better, faster, easier. 

And I was just discussing how to do a badly needed upgrade to our performance
cluster (we use it to do performance evaluations of customer systems)...
Unfortunatly, I won't have a Circle of Excellence award to trade with this
year since individual contributors are no longer eligible for COE (but the
top 1/3 of all district managers are, whether they made their numbers or not).
Do I sound bitter? Yes, because I haven't made it home before 6pm this YEAR
and have spent many nights at work until midnight and I have almost never seen
anyone else (except for other individual contributors) in the office when I
come back from a customer at 6:30 and work for a couple of hours to prepare for
what the customer wants tomorrow. I guess i'm lucky that I'm NOT married because
if I was, I'd be going through a divorce now... My one given is that I go to
Vermont every weekend and am NEVER available to work weekends or I would be
in the looney bin by now,

Now they will tell me that I have to row harder,
Dan Buckley, CT eis

    Congrats Jon.  I agree with your basenote 100%
    
    This year was my 15-year anniversary with DEC.  Our area (Central)
    typically has a "overnight" dinner/speaker/event for those employees
    reaching employment milestones (5,10,15,20,25 years).  I'd gladly
    forego this event if it contributed in any way to the health of this
    company.  All I'd ask for is a small recognition from my management for
    reaching 15-years.  Unfortunately after 4 months, I"m still waiting;
    but that's another topic.
    
    "jackin' the house", bob
    
    

re: .9

>    	.0 .  My group does.  When I take an extra call, when I stay
>    	extra time beyond my scheduled hours, when I go the extra distance
>    	for the customer, ***I have that incentive program in mind.***

I go the extra mile, not when asked, but when it is needed.  Always have.  
It's called being a professional.

>    	I don't get extra salary for it.  I don't get comp time for it.

Ditto.

>    	I simply hope that my extra contribution, combined with the other
>    	specialists' extra contributions, will push us over the wall to
>    	earn us that incentive.  The "wall" between us and that incentive

And I hope it will push "us" (Digital) over the wall to profitability.

re: .24

>    	Did you help out your buddy because DEC needed it done, or because
>    	your interests were served (getting your buddy to the game on
>    	time)...
>    
>    	If you didn't have a game that day, and even more specifically,
>    	if your buddy wasn't going to be late, would you have helped out?
>    	Why don't we all help out every DECcie we see doing something?
    
Well, let's see.  By getting his buddy to the game on time, that helped the 
team.  He saw the value of supporting a friend/co-worker when it was needed.  
No one asked him.  Sure, he would be a part of the winning team, as would the 
rest of the team members, but only because he and other members of the team 
pitched in to help ensure their success, not because of some personal carrot 
being dangled in front of him.

Joe, I sincerely hope you never find yourself in a situation where you need to 
depend on the person next to you, like a firefight, or fighting a fire.  
Anyone that detects your mercenary attitude won't waste their time helping you 
out, unless they aspire to sainthood.

Reality, Joe, is we all have to pull together.  If you don't see the value of 
working to help the company we all work for, why don't you pick up the phone 
while reading the employment section this weekend?  Please!

re: .14

Yes, stock options wouldn't cost us anything now, but would provide incentive 
and have a definite future value, provided we are successful.  If not, you've 
lost nothing, but it sounds like a great idea.

re: .9

>    	.0 .  My group does.  When I take an extra call, when I stay
>    	extra time beyond my scheduled hours, when I go the extra distance
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I missed this on my first reading.  Must be nice, _AND_ you have incentives?

    I also applaud .0, and have been practicing this myself for a few
    years.
    
    The awards banquets are not unappreciated, but as I've explained to
    those managers who've questioned my non-attendance, I'm watching 
    my friends have their lives torn apart due to the overabundance of
    red ink, and it just doesn't sit right with me. I look at $75K two
    ways; It looks like 1 or 2 field engineers' salaries, or it looks like
    a small step towards profitability.
    
    re: helping stock boards
    
    I don't care much whether the help was offered for personal or
    corporate gain. The point that jumps out at me is that help *wasn't
    refused* due to being "off the clock". 
    
    Edd

Once again the "too many people" theory has raised its ugly head.  Yes, our
profits  and revenue per employee are substandard.  Yes, that MIGHT be due to 
featherbedding (i.e, more employees than are required to do the job).  

It's just  as likely a result of outmoded systems, cumbersome procedures 
and excessive bureaucratic manure that hurt our ability to develop, sell 
and deliver our products asnd services.  If that's the case, reducing the 
number of employees won't have ANY effect on the revenue/employee.  We'll 
just have less revenue at the same LOUSY ratio.

Poor revenue/employee isn't the disease; it's a symptom!

\dave

Joe is fundamentally right, and I applaud him for his courage
to make his stand publicly.  As his title for the entry stated, 
Somebody has to say it.

Self interest is the fundamental motivator in western capitalism,
and is the underlying motivator in more socialistic economic schemes
as well.  Why do the altruists applaud the efforts to contribute
to the greater good?  In part, it's because they want to continue
to benefit from their share of this greater good.
Wanting to benefit directly and assuredly from one's own contribution 
to the greater good is only fair.  That's why we accept salaries,
and that's why they are (nominally) a competitive feature, subject to 
market pressure.

Renegotiation of the award for .0's group is appropriate, either 
for a stock-or-profit plan, or just a deferral.  But some immediate,
significant reward for current work currently rewarded is necessary
to keep up morale and serve as incentive to get people to go the extra mile.

- tom]

    If you really want to help, then here are some things you can do:
    
    1) Keep your eyes open.  If you do, you will see that everywhere in
    this "computer company", there are administrative procedures that were
    designed by people with 1960's level of knowledge of computers or none
    at all.  This conference (and many others) has many examples of
    complaints about cumbersome, disconnected systems.
    
    2) Focus on the procedures you use frequently.  Do you have to enter
    the same data over and over?  Are there protections against typing
    errors?  How many people are "in the loop" without making any
    contribution to the final result?
    
    3) Are all the terms defined uniformly in all the systems?  We have,
    for example, three order processing systems which disagree on the
    detailed meaning of the term "lead time".  This means that instead of
    sharing data, we have to "convert" one file to another at immense cost.
    
    4) What happens if the procedure is not used?  Can someone get "an
    edge" by circumventing the procedure?  Does the procedure make
    something easier rather than harder?
    
    Our administrative ineffectiveness and inefficiency are legendary.  If
    you really want to help, don't let anyone tell you that the systems
    can't be improved.  They can, its a question of time and money.  
    
    fwiw,
    
    Dick

RE: .41

>Once again the "too many people" theory has raised its ugly head.  Yes, our
>profits  and revenue per employee are substandard.  Yes, that MIGHT be due to 
>featherbedding (i.e, more employees than are required to do the job).  

I don't care what it is due too (I actually do but for the purposes of this
discussion it is irrelavent).  We have identified the problem (or at least
a symptom of a "deeper" problem).  The next step is to fix it.  This is a step
in the right direction.

>It's just  as likely a result of outmoded systems, cumbersome procedures 
>and excessive bureaucratic manure that hurt our ability to develop, sell 
>and deliver our products asnd services.  If that's the case, reducing the 
>number of employees won't have ANY effect on the revenue/employee.  We'll 
>just have less revenue at the same LOUSY ratio.

I agree that much of our population is the result of the above.

HP doesn't seem have this problem
IBM doesn't seem have this problem
XXX doesnt' seem have this problem

I would actually take you "diagnosis" one step further...

The fact that we have outmoded, cumbersome systems is a symptom of a worse
disease.  This disease is that we throw people at problems instead of solving
the actual problem.

Many hold to the theory that if you don't have people to throw at the problem, 
you will fix it the right way.  This is what Jack Welsh has done at GE.

I think that both of us would arrive at the same endpoint.  We only disagree on
what to do next.

I say that the best way to plow through the problems is to reduce headcount 
(I would start at the featherbedding level but would end up at all levels 
eventually).  After this it will become obvious what areas to fix.

You say that the best way is to fix the systems.  Once the systems are fixed you
will be faced with the same number of lay-offs if you believe that people are
doing work that computers can do.  So, you want to keep people around until the 
problems are fixed.

I say that that will fail.  These problems have been around for years and have
not been addressed.  What makes anyone think they will be addressed now?  In many
cases, the people who create the problems don't recognize that they exist because
someone else deals with the problems.

Ken Slattery

	This disease ( spending on lavish outings while the
	company spins in ) is still embedded in the corporation.

	They are even now planning the "summer picnic" here
	at the support center.  It is reputed to cost around
	$60,000.

	Spending this kind of money while DEC is looking at
	$ 1.5 billion loss ( Wall Street Journal estimate, July 21 )
	this quarter is utterly insane.  For the purposes of
	this discussion, we'll call insanity failure to deal
	with reality in a manner that insures self-preservation.

	Add the Colorado CSC's $ 60K to the Canobie Lake thing back East, 
	and all the other, smaller outings, and what do we have ?  
	$ 150K ?  $ 200 K ?

	Can you say Nero, fiddling while Rome burns ?

	Steve H

    This topic is all about attitude. Attitudes are formed by experiences,
    beliefs and our surrounding environment( aka culture ).
    
    I envy the base noter. It's obvious to me that his environment and 
    experiences have been positive and therefore result in a desire to
    help out and pull together as a team. However, not everyone's 
    environments and experiences are as positive. 
    
    Imagine (.0) for a moment that your environment changed just a little.
    Suppose you inherited a boss who lived lavishly, overspent his budget
    and appointed all his buddies to the high paying jobs. Would you still
    want to forfeit your reward to management to do 
    "the right thing" with it, knowing that the right thing to that boss
    may be to reward his overpaid buddies. You'll have to answer this for
    yourself. I know what my answer would be.
    
    So, it all depends on each persons particular situation. We don't
    know what it's like for Joe and his environment, but I'm sure he
    must be doing what he feels is "the right thing".
    
    The key to having a thriving, successful company is to develop an
    attitude where the majority of the people feel like the base noter. But 
    our company is not there, it used to be, but not anymore.
    
    The change must start at the top, this has already begun. All those
    individuals who are causing people to have bad attitudes must be
    eliminated and replaced with people who know how to generate a positive
    team spirit. I'm not talking about lip service here, I mean managers,
    VP's, line workers, engineers, secretaries, everybody must demonstrate
    a commitment to pull together, get there hands dirty and make things
    happen. Then we'll be back on track, again.
    
    Dick
    
    

    
    
    The intent of the base note was to relate to others, the actions taken
    by a few individuals in one office.  
    
    I made two errors in what I did.
    
    1. I mistakenly heard my boss say we would make Service Excellence. 
    What he actually said was, we were in a good position to make Service
    Excellence based on our scores at the end of the cut-off period.  The
    official results haven't actually been tabulated and released yet.
    
    2. I may have offended some with my notes, that was certainly not my
    intention and I apologize.
    
    It is not the intention of myself or the rest of the people who signed
    the petition, to cancel all awards for everybody.
    
    You can agree or disagree with what we are doing, and that is the way
    it should be.  
    
    Jon Aller
    452-3535
    

    	Steve --
    
    	The picnics are all part of the compensation package we get.
    	Just because you personally don't see value in it doesn't
    	mean that it isn't valuable to alot of employees.  You probably
    	don't use EAP (maybe you do) but that is part of our compensation"
    	as well.  So is the stock plan, but not everybody participates.
    	Or the weight room downstairs.  OR the SAVE program.
    
    	Not everybody values all of the bennies available to DECcies.
    	Throwing away the ones *YOU* find useless might seem good to
    	you, but it will adversely affect others.  We work for
    	compensation.  The picnics are just one part of many forms
    	of compensation, and the picnic may have great value to someone.
    	I know it is valuable to my family, and they see it as 
    	compensation for the times daddy is away from home.
    
    	Why don't you just give back part of your salary?  Asking me to
    	give up the picnic is not much different from me asking you to
    	give up an equivalent part of your salary.

.38>I go the extra mile, not when asked, but when it is needed.  Always have.  
.38>It's called being a professional.

    	Why do you do it?  Why are you a professional?  You do it
    	for yourself.  It is part of our capitalistic mentality.
    	If DEC did not pay you, you would not act professionally
    	for DEC.  You want to be the best you can be so that you
    	get the best promotions, salary, awards, etc., you can for
    	yourself.

.38>Joe, I sincerely hope you never find yourself in a situation where you need to 
.38>depend on the person next to you, like a firefight, or fighting a fire.  
.38>Anyone that detects your mercenary attitude won't waste their time helping you 
.38>out, unless they aspire to sainthood.

    	You have only read what you wanted into what I wrote.  You have
    	formed the impression that I do as little as I can, and that I
    	do not care to help out.  My whole position here is that people
    	do things in the business world for the sake of bettering
    	themselves.  Capitalism in action.  I am a top performer on my
    	team because I know I get fairly compensated for doing what I 
    	do.  Look at what socialism has done for the cause of individual 
    	initiative.  It has chopped it off and smothered it.  We live and 
    	work in a capitalistic world.  Back to the basenote, if compensation 
    	earmarked for certain performance is degraded after that performance 
    	has been achieved, future efforts towards earning the same promised
    	compensation will be diminished.

.38>Reality, Joe, is we all have to pull together.  If you don't see the value of 
.38>working to help the company we all work for, why don't you pick up the phone 
.38>while reading the employment section this weekend?  Please!

    	Pretty judgmental on your part, I'd say.  Suggesting I get a 
    	job elsewhere because I do not share your philosophy (or because
    	you fail to understand mine) is pretty extreme.

    	Again, you have entirely missed what I have been saying.  I have
    	already stated that I think all groups should have incentive
    	awards.  The awards are achieved at certain levels of
    	profitability, so even if everyone in the company earned such
    	awards at the same time, the money would be there to pay it
    	because of the increased profits for the company by all those	
    	groups increasing profitablilty.
    
    	I don't say that we should not help the company, but rather that
    	in helping ourselves, we help the company.  That is my reality.

    	If I were a pro sports team owner, I would offer my players low
    	base salaries, but tremendously high incentive clauses.  It's
    	likely that all of my players would earn more through incentives 
    	than they would have had they negotiated a high base salary
    	without incentives.  And if they all made their bonuses I would
    	willingly pay them, because the level of performance for the
    	whole team would be higher due to higher individual efforts.
    	
    	Cutting incentives and benefits to "save" a few jobs is
    	demoralizing to those whose benefits are cut.  How would the
    	above sports team react to my reduction of incentive pay just
    	so that we could give some more players slots on the team 
    	eventhough those players are not needed and would merely sit 
    	the bench?
    
    	Joe Oppelt

    re .30

    >Does anyone feel that it is appropriate for Digital to have about $125k
    >sales per employee when the rest of the industry is over $175k?
    >If you don't think its appropriate, then we have to lay people off pure
    >and simple.  You can argue about how to do it but you can't argue about
    >whether to do it.  
    
    Besides being an oversimplification of DEC's "problems", the proposed
    solution is overly simplistic, and ignores the fact that there are
    always many solutions to a given problem.  At least one alternative to
    solving the "problem" of poor "sales per employee" ratio would be to
    find ways to make the existing employees more efficient.

    I believe the management rationale for layoffs is that if we get the
    headcount down to a level commensurate with our profitability and
    revenues, then our problem will be fixed.  This idea assumes that the
    same amount of work will be done and the same amount of product will be
    produced and sold, despite the reduced headcount.

    When the decision is made to use layoffs to "fix" the "sales per
    employee" problem, the following assumptions must be made: 

    	(a) 20% (or whatever) of our work force *LITERALLY* does *NOTHING* 
    	and no impact will be felt by their leaving, and 

    	(b) Of the 20% being laid off, 100% of those will be the
    	ones that do nothing, as opposed to those that work hard, but are
    	disliked by their managers, have been in difficult situations, etc.

    If you do not believe that 20% of our workforce is COMPLETELY idle and
    contributes NOTHING to our bottom line, then you are faced with the
    problem of how those left will be able to absorb the additional
    workload left by those transitioned.

    People do not become more efficient by magic.  Stressing employees by
    threats of layoffs, reducing headcount so that already stressed
    employees have additional workload and pressure, and placing the
    responsibility for achieving higher and higher levels of efficiency and
    productivity squarely on their shoulders with little or no assistance
    and with an attitude of "sink or swim" does not make sense.

    There is no reason to believe that people will suddenly become more
    productive because they now have more work to do.  Therefore, as
    someone mentioned previously, you will end up with the same poor "sales
    per employee" ratio, but fewer employees, and therefore even lower
    revenue.  If you continue to solve the problem the same way, then there
    will be MORE layoffs, lower revenue, etc. until no one is left.

    What is sorely needed is a corporate-wide mandate for excellence.  TQM,
    Six Sigma, Deming's methods, it doesn't matter what you call the
    program, or which programs are used, as long as productivity and "sales
    per employee" ratio is increased.  
    
    Cutting expenses only starts a downward spiral.  There are costs to do
    business that cannot be avoided.  Lasting, progressinve change can only
    be accomplished by a commitment to make all of our existing employees
    more efficient (As efficient as HP - why set our sights so low?).  
    
    Just think how successful we would be if our 120,000 people (or
    whatever we're down to now) were as efficient as HP's 80,000???

    Jim
    

    re: .48
    
    You just don't get it, do you.  Give back part of your compensation is
    exactly what is being discussed.  That's where we are now and if the
    give-backs can come in the form of no picnics, no trips, no awards,
    etc. then do it.  I worked for a software house before coming to DEC
    where we did give back our salaries, 10 percent to be exact, which
    lasted about a year.  That along with layoffs that came one after
    another throughout a very long summer.  And give-backs happen all the
    time, in many other industries, so it can happen here.  The incentive
    now is the salary continuation program.

    RE: .50
    
    >Besides being an oversimplification of DEC's "problems", the proposed
    >solution is overly simplistic, and ignores the fact that there are
    >always many solutions to a given problem.  At least one alternative to
    >solving the "problem" of poor "sales per employee" ratio would be to
    >find ways to make the existing employees more efficient.
    
    Of course it's an over simplification...  If I layed out an entire plan
    (which I don't have) it would be volumes long.
    
    As this note implies and others have stated you can work the revenue
    side of the equation...  This is absolutely true... 
    
    Question:
    
    How do the people that want to do this propose that we increase
    revenues by 50% in the near term?  That is what would be needed!
    Also, how do we grow revenues by this amount and not add additional
    people in "revenue producing" position?
    
    
    Another approach is to move people to other "revenue producing" jobs. 
    This was done about 2 years ago or so.  To my knowledge, nothing
    substantial came of this.
    
    Another approach is to make the people here more efficient.  I would
    love to see this.  This doesn't solve the headcount problem though. 
    After this occurred you would have to lay off the same number of people
    unless you figured out how to grow revenues.
    
    RE: all the comments about taking people away how does their work get
    done...
    
    I don't know how.  All I know is that our competitors get it done. 
    Maybe we should re-examine what work needs to be done.  Isn't this what
    the benchmarking part of Six Sigma is all about?
    
    >What is sorely needed is a corporate-wide mandate for excellence.  TQM,
    >Six Sigma, Deming's methods, it doesn't matter what you call the
    >program, or which programs are used, as long as productivity and "sales
    >per employee" ratio is increased.  
    
    Agreed, I don't see what this has to do with headcount though.  We
    should do this all the time.  This exercise would help us identify the
    non-productive tasks.
    
    As I've stated before in this stream or some other.  This only delays
    the day of lay-offs.  I believe this for the following reasons.
    
    1)  Unless we can "hold-out" until something increases our revenues by
    50% (5 - 10 years at our current growth rate), our headcount will still
    be wrong.  As stated earlier we would have to do this without hiring
    anyone else.
    
    2)  The needs that will emerge after any exercise will require a
    substantially different work force.  This work force will be far
    flatter (many managers would have to re learn their old jobs and take a
    pay cut).  This work force will have far fewer admin people.  Do we
    retrain these people in systems integration?
    
    3) The resulting work force will be more geographically dispersed.  Do
    we want to move thousands of people aronnd?  Do thousands of people
    want to move?
    
    Ken Slattery

>    You just don't get it, do you.  Give back part of your compensation is
>    exactly what is being discussed.  That's where we are now ...
>    ... The incentive
>    now is the salary continuation program.
    
    	No, that is not where we are.  At least we don't have to be.
    
    	Right now the company is at a point where it is supporting a
    	large amount of extraneous employees for the business it is doing.
    	You seem to want us all to give back compensation so that we can
    	allow those extraneous employees to remain on the payroll.
    
    	But that is not what the company is doing.  It is currently 
    	pursuing a program to eliminate the extraneous jobs (aka layoff) 
    	and then the remaining personnel can keep their current level of
    	compensation.
    
    	I thought I explained my position rather clearly in 2002.49.
    
    	Joe Oppelt

.46>                       -< It's all a matter of attitude >-
.46>    This topic is all about attitude. Attitudes are formed by experiences,
.46>    beliefs and our surrounding environment( aka culture ).
    
    Actually, it's all a matter of assumptions.  They too are shaped by
    many factors.
    
.30>    Does anyone feel that it is appropriate for Digital to have about $125k
.30>    sales per employee when the rest of the industry is over $175k?
.30>    {...}
.30>    If you don't think its appropriate, then we have to lay people off pure
.30>    and simple.  You can argue about how to do it but you can't argue about
.30>    whether to do it.  
    
    I can, and will, argue about whether to do it.
    
    The assumption that such action is inarguable is itself arguable if a
    different set of assumptions is posited.
    
    For example, the argument that layoffs are indicated is based on the
    assumption that revenues and headcount are independent variables. 
    
    Making the alternative assumption that revenues depend on headcount
    would find that layoffs will reduce revenue and revenue per employee
    will remain unchanged.
    
    Sure, they are both assumptions, and either one could be valid.  Is
    that sufficient foundation to go hosing ten thousand individuals and
    their families?  Or is there an obligation to those of us who bought
    into Digital's corporate culture over the years, to be even more
    aggressive in attacking the problems that constrain and limit
    productivity?
    
.44>  You say that the best way is to fix the systems.  Once the systems are 
.44>  fixed you will be faced with the same number of lay-offs if you believe 
.44>  that people are doing work that computers can do.  
    
    Ah, but if I *DON'T* share the assumption that people are doing work
    computers could do, that need to face layoffs may not be inevitable.
    
    What if I believe that our employees are actually doing $250k worth of
    effort on the average per employee, and $125K of that work is wasted
    because it has to be expended overcoming bureaucratic, organizational
    and technical inefficiencies?  If those efficiencies are removed,
    productivity soars and no layoffs are necessary.
    
    BTW, I *KNOW* from firsthand experience that there are at least some
    areas of the corporation where my model seems appropriate...
    
.53>    How do the people that want to do this propose that we increase
.53>    revenues by 50% in the near term?  That is what would be needed!
    
    Truth is, that revenue number is pure smoke.  The real concern is the
    bottom line, a/k/a profitability.  Revenue per headcount became
    important because the Street noticed that although gross was up, net
    wasn't.  If we held the exact same sales and headcount figures and
    moved more of the sales to the bottom line, the pressure for immediate
    action would ease.  If we showed even slight revenue per headcount
    improvement along with improved margins, the pressure for action would
    ease.  We need to show we've got a handle on the problem, and the
    investment community can start growing more confident in our financial
    future.
    
    Remember, right now we are saddling our financial future with literally
    billions of dollars wasted on dumping people.  We're emptying the
    piggybank to buy down headcount, with no assurance that the result will
    be an improvement that will refill it in the future.
    
    It's still an arguable assumption whether or not that is the right
    thing to do.  I still think I'd like to get bought out, but I don't
    think it's the right thing for the company to be doing.
    
    --bruce

.49>    Why do you do it?  Why are you a professional?  You do it
.49>	for yourself.  It is part of our capitalistic mentality.

Yes, I do it for myself, to be able to walk with my head held high knowing 
that I did my best, regardless of the circumstances.  I was attracted to 
Digital by the product set.  After I got here, I learned about the philosophy 
and culture of the company.  I've never heard anyone say, "Do the incentive 
thing.", but I have heard, "Do the right thing."

.49>	If DEC did not pay you, you would not act professionally
.49>	for DEC.  You want to be the best you can be so that you
.49>	get the best promotions, salary, awards, etc., you can for
.49>	yourself.

I'll assume that you are using an editorial "you", and not making assumptions 
about me personally.  That being the case, there are many "you's" who do not 
fit this description.  Volunteer firefighters and paramedics, Scout leaders, 
Big Brothers and Big Sisters....  They do these things for a sense of 
personal satisfaction and accomplishment.  They do it to help others, because 
that can feel good and is its own reward.

.49>   	You have only read what you wanted into what I wrote.  You have
.49>	formed the impression that I do as little as I can, and that I

I know I never made any statements to that effect.  I think my statements 
implied that perhaps a "What's in it for me" attitude might run contrary to 
the corporate culture.

.49>	do.  Look at what socialism has done for the cause of individual 
.49>	initiative.  It has chopped it off and smothered it.  We live and 

And how do you feel when your group receives an award, and you look at someone 
in the group that didn't pull their own weight?

.49>	Pretty judgmental on your part, I'd say.  Suggesting I get a 
.49>	job elsewhere because I do not share your philosophy (or because
.49>	you fail to understand mine) is pretty extreme.

From .9:

	I work to get paid.  I can do it here at DEC, where current
	compensation programs suit my financial needs, or I can do it
	elsewhere if DEC's current compensation programs change enough

I guess I fail to see a lack of commitment to Digital in that statement.  
Sure, we can all jump jobs every few years, get those salary bumps, etc.  I 
have been monitoring the local job market lately, so that I know what is going 
on.  Maybe that information will be of use to me, maybe to someone I know.  
Even though we are down, I refuse to think we are out.  I'm not jumping ship, 
but you are right, my well being is my responsibility.  If I get tapped, I 
will at least have a feel for what is available and where to find it.
    
.49>	Again, you have entirely missed what I have been saying.  I have
.49>	already stated that I think all groups should have incentive

I see salary increases as my rewards and incentives.  I believe that is the 
most fair and equitable way of rewarding those who did the most.  If one 
accepts the argument that there are extraneous people on the payroll 
(certainly no argument from me on that point), then why should I bust my butt 
so that _ALL_ those people receive $250 for making U.S. country numbers?
    
.49>	I don't say that we should not help the company, but rather that
.49>	in helping ourselves, we help the company.  That is my reality.

YES, EXACTLY.  In helping each other, everyone benefits.  There may still be 
hope for you, Joe.  You may even be asked to join a softball team. ;-)

.49>	Cutting incentives and benefits to "save" a few jobs is
.49>	demoralizing to those whose benefits are cut.  How would the

Sometimes, these actions are taken to save the jobs of all concerned.  When I 
worked for Ford Aerospace (now Loral Systems) in the early '80's, we had John
Hancock high option health insurance.  By the mid '80's, that had been greatly
reduced in order to remain competitive.  Digital is finally catching up with 
the move to HMO's, the new STD/LTD/sick policy, etc.  My brother works for 
S.W.I.F.T.  Father's Day weekend, he and his SO went on a Potomac River 
cruise, then spent the night at the J.W. Marriott Hotel in D.C.  A few weeks 
later, he was complaining that they were cancelling the company picnic, and 
perhaps the Christmas party.  Sound like anything we are discussing here?
    
In closing, I don't think anyone would argue that there are people here that 
are not contributing to the bottom line, or not to the extent we would like.  
I think the big issue is, "Are the cuts being made appropriately?"  But 
turning back awards whose value is marginal is just a part of the formula for 
success.  I am amazed at the tolerance for incompetence here.  Why not start 
(and continue) to cut anyone receiving a rating of less than 3?  I know that 
can be very subjective, but I feel the Career Development Program is an 
attempt to resolve that issue.  I think there should be some peer input to the
reductions, with peer meaning a Digital employee without regard to level or
position. 

Steve

    
    
    	Re .0
    
    	I don't have the time to read through all 57 replies, so if this is 
    	repiticious (sp), please forgive.
    
    	For many years, the "field" has been rewarded for doing thier jobs 
    	well.  Cruises to the Caribbean/Europe, Hong Kong gatherings, a week
    	end at "the Cape", with spouses/posslqs included, have become routine.
    
    	Meanwhile, back at the plant,... While [ALSO!] doing our jobs well, 
    	we were told not to renew magazine subscriptions, to cut down on 
    	business trips, stationary/supplies, order no new business cards, 
    	etc, etc.  One day "woods meetings"?  Donuts maybe?   Out of the
    	question!
    	
      	You seem to be seeking a pat on the back for getting off the gravy 
    	train at long last.  Back here...   we've been off it for a long
    	time.
    
    	(Just my opinion.)

    
.58>For many years, the "field" has been rewarded for doing thier jobs 
.58>well.  Cruises to the Caribbean/Europe, Hong Kong gatherings, a week
.58>end at "the Cape", with spouses/posslqs included, have become routine.

I've been in the "field" for nearly 16 years... none of my peers have been so
fortunate. If you are associated with Sales or Software then the above may be
possible but very unlikely for Field Service front-line troops. If you are
management then the chances are higher.

Lee

    Nice to see blackmail alive and well in the US of A -
    
    Stockholder: - Give me half of your salary or I'll get you fired.
    Wimpy DECCIE: - Gee, thanks StockHolder, Do you want my health as well ?
                                                                   
    :-(
    
    Winton

re: basenote


Congratulations. Although I have not had time to read through all the
replies, and in order to save you the trouble of making a big decision,
please pop the cheque in the post and send it to Stuart Panes @HHL.

I thank you,

Stuart

    RE .57
    
    >> I am amazed at the tolerance for incompetence here.
    
    Yeah, me too.  In some parts of the company it's been institutionalized
    to the point where people get penalized if they try to say or do 
    something about it.  
    
    >> Why not start (and continue) to cut anyone receiving a rating of less
    >> than 3?  
    
    Isn't that basically what they're doing?  I can give you one example of
    "why not" ... because it's entirely too easy for someone to receive a
    bad rating on their review for reasons that have nothing to do with job
    performance.
    
    >> I know that can be very subjective, 
    
    You might be amazed to learn just how subjective they can be.
    
    >> but I feel the Career Development Program is an 
    >> attempt to resolve that issue.  
    
    So what's the "Career Development Program" ?  I wonder just how many
    employees in this company have ever heard of such a thing.  Is this
    another of those programs who's implementation is subject to your
    manager's "interpretation" ??
    
    ... Bob
    

RE: .58

>   	For many years, the "field" has been rewarded for doing thier jobs 
>    	well.  Cruises to the Caribbean/Europe, Hong Kong gatherings, a week
>    	end at "the Cape", with spouses/posslqs included, have become routine.
    
>	Meanwhile, back at the plant,... While [ALSO!] doing our jobs well, 
>    	we were told not to renew magazine subscriptions, to cut down on 
>    	business trips, stationary/supplies, order no new business cards, 
>    	etc, etc.  One day "woods meetings"?  Donuts maybe?   Out of the
>    	question!

If you find the compensation package in the field more attractive than the
package "inside", apply for a job in the field.  I often consider taking
a job inside.  One of the things that keeps me from doing that (there are
many but this is one) is that I would lose part of my compensation
(a car).

My compensation is competitive with what other companies offer to people
in my position.  If it wasn't, I might leave.  If your compensation
is not comensurate with what you could get elsewhere, and that upsets you
you should leave.  If you want my compensation, come and do my job.

Hey, V.P.s make more money than I do.  Should they be cut to my level of
pay even though our jobs have nothing to do with each other?

This seems a little harsh but this socialistic/communistic thread gets
my capitalistic blood boiling.

Ken Slattery

RE: .55

>    Actually, it's all a matter of assumptions.  They too are shaped by
>    many factors.

I haven't made assumptions...  I have made assertions that I have backed up
with fact.  You can dispute my facts with counter facts but you can't attack
my assertions with assumptions.

For example...

I assert that the grass is green.

My evidence is that for my entire life I look outside and I see green grass.
Further evidence comes from reading and talking to others.

You can assume the the grass is purple, but I think that you are wrong.

Your note raises some points that I either haven't address or may have not 
been clear on.  I will address these now.

>    Making the alternative assumption that revenues depend on headcount
>    would find that layoffs will reduce revenue and revenue per employee
>    will remain unchanged.

My assertion that reducing headcount in the neighborhood of 20 - 30 k will not
adversely impact revenues is based on the following facts.

1)  Our competitors do it with this number
2)  Last year we reduced headcount by 10- 15k and revenues were flat

What is the evidence that backs up your assumption?

>    Ah, but if I *DON'T* share the assumption that people are doing work
>    computers could do, that need to face layoffs may not be inevitable.
    
>    What if I believe that our employees are actually doing $250k worth of
>    effort on the average per employee, and $125K of that work is wasted
>    because it has to be expended overcoming bureaucratic, organizational
>    and technical inefficiencies?  If those efficiencies are removed,
>    productivity soars and no layoffs are necessary.

What kind of work do you assume people are doing if we have thousands more
than our competitors?  I can point to many examples (and have in the past)
of people doing jobs that computers can do.  Others have as well.  What is
your evidence that this is not true.  You can assume it isn't, but the grass
is still green.

What is the cause of bureaucracy?  Do we have a Bureauracracy computer hidden
in the mill that is to blame for this?  NO!  People create bureaucracy.  If
you eliminate bureaucracy you are by defintion doing one of the following:

1)  Eliminating people
2)  Redirecting those people to productive activities (this one gets at my
question of how will we raise revenues by 50% to utilyze these people.)

>   Truth is, that revenue number is pure smoke.  The real concern is the
>    bottom line, a/k/a profitability.  

True.  We are in business to make a profit not create revenue.  However, since
profit is so volatile, it is difficult to use for these types of comparisons.
On the other hand, if you use profit it would support my case even more.  This
is an assertion on my part.

I want to point out one example from your note that indicates the danger of
using assumptions rather that assertions based on fact...

You assume that getting layed off is equivalent to "being hosed".

>  Sure, they are both assumptions, and either one could be valid.  Is
>    that sufficient foundation to go hosing ten thousand individuals and
>    their families?  

Then you state that you want to get layed off.

> I still think I'd like to get bought out, but I don't
>    think it's the right thing for the company to be doing.

I can draw one of two conclusion from this...

1)  When your assumptions are brought out to reality, they don't stand up.

or

2)  You enjoy being hosed.

Ken Slattery

re: .57

>I'll assume that you are using an editorial "you", and not making assumptions 
>about me personally.  That being the case, there are many "you's" who do not 
>fit this description.  Volunteer firefighters and paramedics, Scout leaders, 
>Big Brothers and Big Sisters....  They do these things for a sense of 
>personal satisfaction and accomplishment.  They do it to help others, because 
>that can feel good and is its own reward.

Are you saying you would just keep working at DEC with no pay, just for the 
"personal satisfaction and accomplishment"?


> I think my statements 
>implied that perhaps a "What's in it for me" attitude might run contrary to 
>the corporate culture.

Contrary to the corporate culture? Believe it or not, DEC does not exist
so that we can all work happily together and all get rich. 


>why should I bust my butt 
>so that _ALL_ those people receive $250 for making U.S. country numbers?

If you perceive a gain (financial or otherwise) from busting your butt, 
then you will bust your butt. If I feel it's worth the effort to work for
some particular incentive, then I'll work for the incentive.


> My brother works for 
>S.W.I.F.T.  Father's Day weekend, he and his SO went on a Potomac River 
>cruise, then spent the night at the J.W. Marriott Hotel in D.C.  A few weeks 
>later, he was complaining that they were cancelling the company picnic, and 
>perhaps the Christmas party.  Sound like anything we are discussing here?

Uh, I guess I really don't see the connection. Could you explain more please?


Dave

>Yes, I do it for myself, to be able to walk with my head held high knowing 

    	Now we,re getting somewhere.

>I'll assume that you are using an editorial "you", and not making assumptions 
>about me personally.  That being the case, there are many "you's" who do not 
>fit this description.  Volunteer firefighters and paramedics, Scout leaders, 
>Big Brothers and Big Sisters....  They do these things for a sense of 
>personal satisfaction and accomplishment.  They do it to help others, because 
>that can feel good and is its own reward.

    	Volunteer work and employment cannot be mixed.  You can't feed
    	your family with volunteer work.

>I know I never made any statements to that effect.  I think my statements 
>implied that perhaps a "What's in it for me" attitude might run contrary to 
>the corporate culture.

    	"The Corporate Culture" -- in the USA, or at DEC?  "The Corporate
    	Culture" in the USA is pure capitalism -- therefore "what's in
    	it for me."  The DEC corporate culture is a myth.  Or at least
    	it's dead according to other notes in this conference.

>And how do you feel when your group receives an award, and you look at someone 
>in the group that didn't pull their own weight?

    	Cheated.  We have peer input on our PA's in this group.  People
    	not pulling their weight cannot hide.

>I guess I fail to see a lack of commitment to Digital in that statement.  
>Sure, we can all jump jobs every few years, get those salary bumps, etc.  

    	I've been with DEC for 8 years.  We have a good mutually beneficial
    	relationship.  I give DEC great service, and DEC compensates me at
    	a satisfactory level.

>I see salary increases as my rewards and incentives. 

    	I also see the incentives that I can earn as a valuable benefit.
    	I see the company picnics as a valuable benefit (as does my
    	family.)  I see the holiday turkey as a benefit.  And the stock
    	plan.  And EAP.  And the health program.  And SAVE.  And others.
    	Taking away any of these from me would be like taking away some 
    	salary from you.

>turning back awards whose value is marginal is just a part of the formula

    	Marginal to whom?  Certain awards are not marginal to me.  A $750
    	weekend with my spouse at a nice place is not "marginal value"
    	to either me or my spouse.

    Hey, I have a great idea!  Let's get *everyone* to turn in their
    incentive packages.  Stays at swanky resorts, Circle of Excellence
    awards, overtime, whatever -- no one gets any special treatment.  Your
    recompense will be the warm feeling you get inside from being part of a
    team, an integral cog, a unit in a single mass of people all thinking
    and acting in unison toward a common goal.  Next, we'll get everyone to
    turn their salaries in.  We can have company housing, little "communes"
    (if you will) where we can all live in peace and harmony.  I'm sure BP
    will give us whatever it is we need to get by on.  And, heck, we won't
    need much -- 'cause we'll have that revolutionary spirit, and that's
    more important than material goods anyway.  It will only work, though,
    if we get everyone else to do the same thing too.  I'm sure the nice
    people at HP, and IBM, and GM, and Grumman, and the federal government,
    and Major League Baseball, would be *more* than willing to join us in
    our idealism.  And if they're not, well then, I guess we'll just have
    to put in a little overtime and educate (or do I mean "re-educate"?)
    them a little.  I'm sure they'll be more than thankful.  Of course,
    none of us will need to worry about money.  That bus driver will be
    *happy* to drive you to work, just as that farmer will be happy to grow
    you some food, and that grocer will be happy go get it from the farmer
    and give it you.  Just like you'll be happy to write code all day long. 
    (But, then again, I'm not sure how important writing code will be to
    the revolution -- maybe we'll have to get you out into the fields --
    you know, doing something *really* productive).  Heck, who knows, maybe
    we can just govern ourselves, abolish the police, the army, and live in
    peace with our brothers and sisters of every race and color throughout
    the whole world.  Yeah, I like it, I like it ...

    Just my $0.02,

    	-- Karl Marx

    re: .68 [reference only :]
    
    ... turning in incentive packages...
    
    OK, I'll turn in my COE incentive for this year.  I'll put in those
    extra hours to help meet goals of other organizations and IBU's.  Wait,
    I work for Digital Services.  Never mind turning in the COE incentive,
    *they* did it for me.
    
    For me and others, these incentives do make a difference.
    
    --- Gavin
    

    
    
    I will help a fellow worker (whatever their position)
    any time I can. I believe it is called "being human
    being". I feel I learn more than the person I help.
    even if I have to repeat it several times. Hell,
    that is the way I got through college. As to reward,
    a simple thanks will do. Now, if it saves the company
    some money fine. If it saves the company a ton of money
    can I really expect or demand a monetary reward ? I
    would leave that up to the company. If times are good
    they shoould ne able to affort it. If times are bad
    then forget it. Simply remember the efford next time
    you do my review.
    
    Would I give up my pay check. Simple, NO !
    If it was just me and I did not have a family, sure.
    I would try it once.
    
    Instead of worrying about helping someone and having that
    person choosen to stay and you are ask to leave to the 
    biggest worry of most. I say the HELL WITH IT. Help anyway.
    You might actually be the one responsible for rising the
    level of morale in your group. If we stick together, all
    of us, we can ALL help in pulling DEC out of this hole.
    
    Rick A

Re: .70

>If it saves the company a ton of money
>    can I really expect or demand a monetary reward ? I
>    would leave that up to the company.

You have no choice. The company will decide whether it is in it's
own best interest to give you a reward. That lack of choice in
these kinds of matters is inherent in being an employee.


Dave

    	I thought of posting this a week or so ago, but due to my skill at
    	procrastination, did not get to do so.  However, note 2002.0
    	easily serves as a catalyst.
    
    	For those of us who work in New England, the fall brings an annual
    	event, Canobie Lake days.  I have 2 young children, ages 9 and 5,
    	who, along with Mom & Dad, thoroughly enjoy this benefit.
    
    	However, I can't in good conscience support spending all that $,
    	on a discretionary event, as much as a tradition as it has become.
    
    	At least for 1993, I ferverently hope we "do the right thing".

"Doing the right thing" means different things to different people in each 
situation.

Just because you don't agree with a part of Digital's compensation package, 
i.e. salary, health benefits, outings, performance incentives, etc., doesn't 
mean that it is the "right thing" to do away with it.

Just because I don't take advantage or see "value" in the Canobie Lake 
Outing, I will leave it up to the corporation to decide whether they will 
continue to offer this compensation to it's employees.  Don't worry, the 
corporation has a bottom line to think about and leaders of corporations know 
how much they have to "give" in order to "get" from their employees, so if it 
isn't necessary compensation, it will be eliminated. 

I don't have a problem with that, because Digital does not "owe" me a job.  I 
work, they pay me, I rent my time and experience for a price.  An American 
corporation should not be viewed as a socialist's institution or safe-haven.

Granted there are "real" people involved in layoffs, but each individual 
employee is responsible for their own destiny, and people need to start 
realizing that so that they do take a more proactive approach to their 
success and survival and not think that by just "doing the right thing" that 
they should be guaranteed a job, hoping Digital will do what they perceive is 
the "right thing" by keeping them around when the company is losing $$$$!
  
There may be other factors involved in why the company is losing money, but 
layoffs are definitely part of what Digital perceives as "the right thing" to 
do.

BTW - well said Joe Oppelt!

Dawn

    To put it very boldly, I see two kinds of writers in this note: the
    "evangelists" and the "mercenaries". I feel nothing wrong about
    this except that the first category seems to feel entitled to frown upon
    the second. This is probably because I'm allergic to even the slightest
    smell of religious integrism.
    
    Digital makes computers we expect to sell to the broadest possible
    spectrum of users, and we have to take their various idiosyncracies
    into account when designing our products if we want to be successful:
    intelligent or stupid, technicians or managers, engineers or clericals,
    all must be happy with our products, whatever their individual profile.
    
    Similarly, Digital must be organized to usefully accomodate any
    kind of individual and to be tolerant to variations in faith, way of
    thinking, motivation, etc., yes, even to turn this into an asset.
    As far as I know, organizations that have written off individualism or
    made arbitrary assumptions about their human stock have consistently
    failed.

RE: .-1

	Since my dictionary doesn't know what you are talking about, why
don't you give us the definition of religious integrism?

    RE: .9
    
    YOU WORK FOR PAY - AT DEC OR AT SOMEWHERE ELSE...
    
    Yeah, maybe you could have said that a couple of years ago.  Not
    anymore.  The other jobs are few and far between now.  We can't be to
    choosy in these times.  

    .-1: 
    ...something that happens in countries like Iran or Algeria.
    Basically, the belief that if your ethics are better that those of your
    neighbour (even if you are the only one to think they are), this
    entitles you to criticize (and ultimately to dictate) his behavior.
    
    Sorry if this is still unclear. English is not my native language.
    
    Helmut

    I believe .0's idea is laudable.  But it brought to mind something I
    overheard a week or so ago.  As some may or may not know, DEC is
    closing or selling the two plants where I've worked so I've been
    looking for other employment within the company.  I had an interview a
    couple of weeks ago at a site up-North that was hiring.  While eating
    lunch at the hotel there were four DECies sitting at a table not too
    far from mine.  Their conversation got around to wine and one of their
    colleague's taste for expensive wine.  They laughed about a dinner they
    had in Germany where this guy kept ordering $400/bottle wine with the
    meal.  After the tab got to a couple of grand they had to think of a
    creative way to make out the expense voucher, so they came up with a
    "business" dinner with Siemens or some other company, with names and
    everything.  That sufficient to get the voucher approved.  Everyone at
    the table had a good laugh about how you could get the system to work
    for you.
    
    I wish we had more people like .0

    I heard of another incident where this three DECcies had meals together
    while travelling. They split the bill and each brought back a photocopy
    of the receipt. Apparently all three tried to expense the entire meal
    (each of them pay 1/3) to themselves (so they make the other 2/3). For
    some reason they were found out, and all three were terminated. And
    they were managers too.

    re: .77
    
    I don't know, your English is pretty good.  To your point, Mark Twain
    said, "Nothin' needs reformin' so much as other peoples' morals."
    
    Sort of what you meant?
    
    Dave

>    So what's the "Career Development Program" ?  I wonder just how many

CDP is a program that defines specific job foci.  Each focus consists of 7
(presently) subject areas which are meant to encompass broad categories which
involve transferable skills: software platforms, hardware platforms,
distributed platforms, networks, layered products/applications, diagnostics,
and professional.  Each subject area consists of statements describing skills
required for certain job proficiency levels.  Then there are topics/examples
of how or on what platform/device/product these skills may be demonstrated. 
There is a matrix that defines the skill levels which _must_ be demonstrated
for certain job codes.  Finally, there is a table of electives, where a
certain job certification level will require that you demonstrate higher
levels of proficiency.  You pick the areas of concentration. 

This system was implement 1.5-2 years ago for customer service as a means of 
replacing the technical certification boards.  It has been well received by
customer service.  I believe Joe Oppelt was referring to this in a recent note
(20??.33?) when he talked about their PA process.  I am part of a group of 14
consisting of Spec 4's, Cons. I's, Cons. II's, and UM's.  We are now in the
process of refining the definitions, skill levels, etc., for application to
the former EIS organization.  I understand that engineering is also looking at
either joining this or implementing something similar. 

When one wishes to pursue a higher job rating (doesn't guarantee a promotion), 
they obtain a mentor and write a development plan with the mentor and manager. 
When the mentor feels the aspiring individual is ready, an interview with a 
disinterested (i.e., outside your district and perhaps geography) employee 
with a similar job focus is arranged.  The interviewer talks to the mentor to 
find out the exact focus of the preparations (job focus may be more general 
than your interest).  Then s/he conducts an interview.  The mentor and 
interviewer then confer and when both feel the individual is ready, they 
provide feedback to the manager who then may recommend certification.

Mentors and managers (and interviewers?) must take CDP training so they 
understand the goals, rules, etc.  We are supposed to have this ready by Q2.  
It has to be reviewed by the Skills Review and Assessment Committee, so I 
suspect it will be implemented for former EIS types around Q3.

I think it will finally provide an objective basis for certification.  On the 
downside, there may be people at a certain level who may not have the required 
skills for that job level.  They will not be decertified, but they will have
to do more work to attain the next certification level.  Once you are 
certified, then you will have to build the business justification for that 
promotion.  Some may say, "Oh great, more work just to get promoted."  I think 
it says, "You have control over your professional growth, you make it happen 
if you want it."

	I need some advice.  There's a real possibility that I might
	be getting the package in the next go-round.  What should I do?
	I can't decide whether I should keep it or turn it back in.
	What do you think?  Thanks,

		-- Cliff

    For a moment I thought you were serious, then I saw your personal name!
    
    In case you werre serious, consider this.  A news program the other
    night said somelike to the effect that people on unemployment are now 
    unable to find jobs for an average of something like 33 months.

RE: .-1

	Bad news is being propogated to ridiculous levels.  I seriously question
the accuracy of the 33 month figure.

    -1
    
    Then you seriously don't know how severe the situation is out there.
    Granted I have some friends who founds "jobs" (to use the word loosely)
    in about 6 months.  Most are into the 2+ yr range looking for the job
    that would make them somewhat comprable to where they were.  Oh, they
    get by because as in another note there is always BK- but this
    recession is far from over and this economy really sucks.  America, the
    new third world.
    
    Reg.
    
    (it's friday and I'm just very bitter and glum today)

re .72

>       For those of us who work in New England, the fall brings an annual
>       event, Canobie Lake days.  

  Just a nit, but for those that don't know, Vermont (BTO) is also in New
  England and we along with Maine (ASO) don't get invited to Canobie Lake.
  For anyone from ASO, please correct me if I'm wrong!  BTO used to have
  an outing locally, but the plant voted to just have an appreciation day
  which helps reduce cost.  It's been a few years since our last outing
  (if memory serves me correctly, it was 1987 or 1988).

>       However, I can't in good conscience support spending all that $,
>       on a discretionary event, as much as a tradition as it has become.

  It's certainly good to review this practice.  We need to keep an eye on
  the bottom line.

>       At least for 1993, I ferverently hope we "do the right thing".

  Me too!

  Don

    
    A news report on WBZ the other day, focusing on the 2-3000 people
    who applied for 200 jobs at a new store somewhere in Mass., mentioned
    that the average time between jobs in this state is now 29 weeks.
                                                               -----
    
    Right magnitude, wrong unit...
    

    Weeks is possibly what I heard.  If so, I probably got it mixed up because
    I've seen so many other reports on people being out of work for 2+
    years.  I personally know of one person who, as of mid-May, had been
    unemployed for 22 months.
    
    Mary

    .57:
    
� From .9:
�
�	I work to get paid.  I can do it here at DEC, where current
�	compensation programs suit my financial needs, or I can do it
�	elsewhere if DEC's current compensation programs change enough
�
� I guess I fail to see a lack of commitment to Digital in that statement.  
    
    The paperwork I signed didn't include a blood test and a check payable
    to the town clerk.
    
    Dick

.57> From .9:
.57> 
.57> 	I work to get paid.  I can do it here at DEC, where current
.57> 	compensation programs suit my financial needs, or I can do it
.57> 	elsewhere if DEC's current compensation programs change enough
.57> 
.57> I guess I fail to see a lack of commitment to Digital in that statement.  
    
    Seems to me that it expresses the same level of commitment that is
    shown when Digital tells employees to work and get paid elsewhere
    because current financial conditions (corporate revenues, analogous to
    employee compensation) have changed.
    
    Face it, teamwork and subordination of individual interests for the
    good of the corporation are nice ideas, but when push comes to shove
    the bottom line is the only consideration that matters.
    
    There was a time when Digital seemed to have an unwritten commitment to
    providing an environment in which values other than purely financial
    were paramount, but times have changed.  When I hired into the
    corporation almost thirteen years ago I was willing to make a
    commitment that reflected my perception of the environment at that
    time.  Now the rules seem to have changed, I didn't change them but I
    need to adapt to the new rules if I want to stay in the game.  So my
    evaluation of the value of continued employment at Digital has to be
    just as objective and impersonal as the corporation's evaluation of the
    value of my retention.  
    
    That evaluation (both ways) must include costs such as LTD and STD
    programs, rewards programs and corporate outings, etc. 
    
    My evaluation of the change in value caused by sacrificing any of those
    factors, in exchange for the possibility that the sacrifice may change
    the parameters driving the evaluation of retention and separation
    decisions by the corporation, will be a purely personal decision.  It
    must be that for everyone in this discussion, and nothing said here is
    likely to change anyone's feelings about it.
    
    Myself, I work in an area where incentives and rewards programs are not
    a part of the routine, so I don't care.  I'd say eliminate them all,
    except where there is a clear justification in demonstrable ROI.  I do
    like the Canoby outing, but I'd sacrifice that, and the turkeys too,
    for better health care coverage (or even less reduction in the quality
    of coverage).  I'd also consider cutting some of the non-essential "values"
    programs that consume corporate resources celebrating MLK Day, women's
    and men's and other interest groups, etc. that are not contributors to
    our core business activities?  Personally I value things like valuing
    differences programs, but I have to wonder whether they are justified
    at a time when the corporation is trying to cut overhead to the bone
    and beyond?  Sometimes it seems individuals are being asked to
    sacrifice, but the organization isn't willing to bite the bullet as
    readily.
    

    Re: Canobie Lake outing
    
    Maybe someone can confirm or deny this, but it's my understanding that
    DEC has a contract with the owners of Canobie Lake Park that calls for
    us to pay for the use of the park for the next 'X' year(s), regardless
    of whether or not we cancel the outings. Cancellation was being
    suggested a few years back (remember the salary freeze?), but was never
    pursued further, supposedly due to the long-term contract.
    
    I doubt the 1993 outing can/will be cancelled, but maybe there's some
    wiggle room for future years.
    
    

    The Canobie Lake Outing is on.
    
    Hmmm; For the outing the company allows an employee to bring their
          dependents and their spouse or their dependents and 1 guest.
          
    re-.72 > For those of us who work in New England, the fall brings an
           > annual event, Canobie Lake Days. I have two young children
           > ages 9 and 5, who, along with Mom and Dad, thoroughly enjoy
           > this benefit.
    
            Are mom and dad retirees of Digital? If not there is something 
            wrong with this picture.
            BTW - I'm not real sure about this, but I am almost sure
                  Digital is charged by the amount of people who enter the
                  gate (before someone notes that the company rents the
                  park for the whole day and it doesn't matter if "others"
                  attend).
    
    Therefore, I ferverently hope we "do the right thing" this year.  
                        

.92>    re-.72 > For those of us who work in New England, the fall brings an
.92>           > annual event, Canobie Lake Days. I have two young children
.92>           > ages 9 and 5, who, along with Mom and Dad, thoroughly enjoy
.92>           > this benefit.
.92>    
.92>            Are mom and dad retirees of Digital? If not there is something 
.92>            wrong with this picture.
    
    I think the problem is a misunderstanding of algebra.
    
    I read .72 to describe four attendees:  
    		Mom and Dad (at least one of whom is employed by Digital)
    		their two kids, aged 9 & 5.
    The kids enjoy Canoby Lake along with their Mom and Dad.
    
    So, what's wrong with that picture?
    
    I guess it's the interpretation, do you interpret the description to
    find things wrong, or right?

                     <<< Note 2002.92 by USPMLO::JSANTOS >>>

>            Are mom and dad retirees of Digital? If not there is something 
>            wrong with this picture.

I read that to mean mom and dad were Jim and his wife, mom and dad of their 
two kids, and the whole family enjoyed the outing.  I think you were trying to 
read something into that John.

>    Therefore, I ferverently hope we "do the right thing" this year.  
                        
Like trust the employees to do the right thing?

>           > annual event, Canobie Lake Days. I have two young children
>           > ages 9 and 5, who, along with Mom and Dad, thoroughly enjoy
>           > this benefit.
    
>            Are mom and dad retirees of Digital? If not there is something 
>            wrong with this picture.

    Relax. I read "Mom and Dad" as being the children's mom and dad, one of
    whom was the author.  

Wow!  A three-way notes collision!

    I've never been one who is against saying I made a mistake. One this
    one its obvious I made a mistake. 
    Speaking from the point of view of a person with no children when I say
    something like "along with Mom and Dad" I mean my mom and dad. With all
    the valuing differences training i've had I expect more from myself.
    Thanks for pointing it out folks. TGIF

    Holy cow, I meant to write "on this one I made a mistake". I feel like 
    a player on the Red Sox - multiple errors on one play (note).
     As I said TGIF.

    
    Of course if I wrote the memo....
    
    
    It would have been okay....seeing as my kids enjoy it as well as
    MY mother and father.
    
    
    And yes my parents both retired from Digital.....:-)
    
    Lou

    
>    what difference does it make . It has been canceled!!
    
	Check the date next time. The last reply was entered before the
	cancellation.

Larry