| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 2109.1 | Still a Digital employee for 9 weeks | SCAACT::AINSLEY | Less than 150 kts is TOO slow | Wed Sep 16 1992 15:59 | 8 |
| I suspect what it means is that you are still an 'employee' for the
nine weeks that you receive your pay, before getting into any of the
longevity bonus. As such, during those nine weeks working for another
employer would be a direct violation of your employee agreement where
you agree not to moonlight in such a manner as to be competing with
Digital.
Bob
|
| 2109.2 | | SWAM2::MCCARTHY_LA | They gave me the Digital salute! | Wed Sep 16 1992 16:09 | 16 |
| re: .1
Dunno. I recall a note in one of the many, long TFSO-related strings
wherein the noter checked it out with HR, and HR said you can take a
job during the 9-week period without jeopordizing your "package."
re: .0
Digital's standard Ts&Cs for placing consultants at a customer site say
that the customer must pay Digital hefty penalties (3 months of the
rate? 6 months of the rate? where rate=$100-$200/hour) if they hire or
contract with their Digital consultant. In 11 years, I've never seen
this enforced. But, that doesn't mean it can't be.
Maybe that's the source of this. Or, perhaps more likely, the TFSO
agreement says you can't do this.
|
| 2109.3 | The right to work is protected by law | CGOOA::DTHOMPSON | Don, of Don's ACT | Wed Sep 16 1992 16:56 | 30 |
| To reply to the base question, what are the rights of the ex-Digit,
Digital is bound by the laws of the areas in which it does business and
neither makes nor enforces those laws.
An ex-Digit is an EX Digit and has whatever personal and human rights
his country allows, so...
1) Digital may put limitations on the payment of any portion of a
severance package which is beyond the local legal requirements.
2) Digital would not likely attempt to enforce any no-hire clause
possibly applicable to ex-Digits as the cost of interference with
an individual's right to work would probably grossly exceed the
amounts recoverable from any contractual penalty clause between
Digital and its customer(s).
3) Enforcment of the 'negatives' in contracts is typically (with
respect to North American business in general and not specifically
with respect to Digital) done only in the cases of extreme abuse
as it doesn't do a lot for the customer-supplier relationship.
(The above quasi-legal opinions are worth what I charged for them.)
Personally I'd take the first good job that comes along, hoping it
comes before and exceeds the next mortgage payment.
Don
|
| 2109.4 | we were told NO PROBLEM at one point by HR | SKNNER::SKINNER | I'm doing my EARS | Wed Sep 16 1992 22:15 | 22 |
| During my discussion with HR on Monday, the statement was made that "you (the
TSFO'ed) can accept a job right this very minute and start work, WITHOUT
jeopordizing your 'package' (lump sum)".
People in the room that heard that message believed the HR rep. There were
no BUTs to the statement.
However, I must point out that the context of the statement was NOT about
working for one of our customers, but was just generally about taking a new
job. How you could make such a statement and then tack on a big BUT to say
"BUT not with someone you've ever worked with as a Digital employee" doesn't
make sense.
When I asked later about doing some consulting with one of Digital's customers
the word was "that could be a conflict of interest".
It is all kind of confusing, but as one of the previous replies said, if the
money gain to you isn't so great maybe Digital won't come after you. I would
recommend to avoid "conflict" during the 9 + 1 (notification) week period.
You CAN be fired during that period and receive no package.
/Marty
|
| 2109.5 | BE CAREFUL | WEACDU::MANNON | | Fri Sep 18 1992 00:59 | 24 |
| As my last reply in a Digital notesfile, I can shed some light on this
subject (I'm TSFOed as of Friday).
In the TSFO package, there is an announcement that "... APS/DCS is
transitioning to has an increasingly variable workforce." Digital has
an arrangement with The Computer Merchant (Norwell, MA) that grants
them a "... limited exception to the purchasing rule which prohibits
such employment on Digital contracts for a one year period. The
exception is limited to contracts with *THIS* vendor for a *LIMITED* number
of contracts."
I was told by the Customer Services Program Manager that the particular
customer I have been working for is on the approved contracts list. If
I go back to work on this project as a Computer Merchant employee, my
package is not jeopardized. However, if I was to work at this customer
site as an employee of another consulting firm -- I could loose the
package.
I am getting my situation clarified in writing so this verbal contract
won't get "misplaced."
Best regards to all of you, and best wishes for Digital's future.
--Bruce Mannon
|
| 2109.7 | Where's the Alpha co-designer now? | MIMS::PARISE_M | Southern, but no comfort | Sun Sep 20 1992 20:36 | 14 |
|
I don't think the average employee has anything to be concerned about
regarding the Employee Agreement. The intent of the piece of paper
seems primarily to protect the competitive edge of the corporation
from unauthorized use of confidential information or developments.
Some over-zealous corporate attorney may choose to keep tabs on a
former design engineer or vice president, but you or me ...hardly.
If in doubt, consult a labor relations lawyer.
If not in doubt, happy hunting. (And don't worry who you bag.)
Digital should be happy for you.
�'�Isn't
|