Conference 7.286::digital

Where do you look in VTX for such information?

    Hi
    re:1
    at your prompt type vtx livewire, and select 2 
    regards,
    ali awkal
    

    See note 1948.705 in this notesfile.  The text of the VTX message is in
    there.
    

           <<< HUMANE::DISK$DIGITAL:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< The DEC way of working >-
================================================================================
Note 2171.4     New Transition Package
Latest Transition Package
         4 of 4
SPECXN::SCADDEN                                      20 lines  20-OCT-1992 17:38
                            -< "Best in class"??? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,

  Yep, it's no surprise that the severence compensation is smaller. However, 
as you know a major factor as to who gets seperated is supposed to be past 
performance (althought I've seen exceptions in some organizations).
Assuming the same trend in severence packages, and the fact that those with
high performance are supposed to be retained, an interesting trend seems to 
be developing.

    You know we've been exposed to a heavy dose of TQM and six-sigma the 
last three years. You remember that a founding principle is "best in class" 
and "world leaders". How did you like the statement in the announcement:
"...it compares favorably with seperation plans offered by other 
companies in our industry." Are decisions being made relative to severence 
with a mindset towards "best in class" and "world leaders" ?

Interesting.

    I find it depressing to think that one of the few areas where we are
    "Best in Class" is in severance packages.  Sigh.
    
    Chet

    What about  accrued vacation?
    
    Dean

    ...but not after Dec 31!

    re:  .6
    
    You accrue vacation time right up through the 
    9 wk period prior to lump sum. It is calculated to
    the DAY of actual departure.
    
    Hope this helps..
    

      re .6
    
    If your question on accrued vacation is if, as part of TFSO, that its
    paid on top of all the other entitlements.   My understanding is that
    so far it has been added on, therefore some people who saved vacation
    got a few extra weeks salary.
    
    I understand from a previous note that other companies do NOT do that
    and that any vacation must be taked during the 9 weeks notice.
    
    If that is correct, then I would assume that DEC will probably insist
    that this happens in the future ....... but not in this one.

re: .9

>    I understand from a previous note that other companies do NOT do that
>    and that any vacation must be taked during the 9 weeks notice.

Now, that would be just dandy, wouldn't it? "We have to pay you for 9 more
weeks, but you have 6 weeks of vacation coming, so that's 2/3 of the 9."

Somehow, it sounds like theft. But then again, it sounds like it might be
rational, too.

-Jack

    how come so many of us can see the obvious?
    
    Really now, does the Mass Commonwealth Law state that a company with
    x-number of people employed must give employees targeted for layoff 9
    weeks notice in advance?  Exactly how is this worded?  If it's a law
    that they must notify an employee 9 weeks in advance that their job is
    gone (take a hike), then I don't see why those in these other companies
    that got layedoff can't sue because they were forced to use vaca-time
    during their notification time?  It just doesn't sound right that a
    comapny could do that; however I have no idea how the law is exactly
    worded.
    
    Also, what's to stop an employee from taking x-weeks vacation time the
    day before they were to sign to paperwork to continue to look for a job
    within the company?  They give you 9 wks, you find a potential job in
    7 and you need 4 more weeks, you have 6 wks vaca time and decide to
    take 4 of it the day before you sign, you land the job inless than 4,
    are you still employed by DEC?
    
    Ogre.

    
    Re: .10
    
    > Now, that would be just dandy, wouldn't it? "We have to pay you
    > for 9 more weeks, but you have 6 weeks of vacation coming, so that's
    > 2/3 of the 9."

    > Somehow, it sounds like theft. But then again, it sounds like it might
    > be rational, too.
    
    "Theft", yeah, when you consider that the person who just before getting
    TFSOed used up all vacation time and still gets the nine weeks pay, BUT
    then again the entire package is lots more generous than it has to be
    so I think it works out on balance.
    
    Steve
    
    

    
    
    
      Given that Vacation time is viewed as "deferred compensation for
    time already worked",   I think it'd be tough to force people to
    use "last years salary"  to satisfy the notification requirement.
    
      I wouldn't be surprised to see Wang employees challenge this one
    in court and win.
    
    
    						-al

    Sorry to be vague.  I was wondering if 
    acrued vacation gets added to the "package?"
    Has it been in the past?  
    
    An employer has *no* legal obligation to pay off
    accrued vacation as part of termination.  It's just 
    the nice thing to do...
    
    Dean

    re .14
    
    I don't believe that.  Vacation is yours, and if you haven't used it
    you shouldn't just lose it because you've been too busy working.  In
    Australia you must be paid out for your unused vacation by law.

    
    re: .14
    
    There have been many class action suits, disputes, labor actions on
    this question.  In general, they all were resolved in favor of the
    workers.  It is very common for employees to become creditors in a
    bankruptcy/dissolution because of unpaid vacation.

re: .14, Dean

What's happened in DEC to date with all other severance packages is that
you get any accrued vacation _Added to_ the lump sum which is calculated
based on years of service. You also continue to accrue vacation, which
is part of that additive, up until the end of the 9 weeks.

-Jack

    Corporate Personnel Policies and Procedures section 6.01 cites
    "VACATION PAY
    	Employees who terminate from the Company must receive all
        accrued vacation pay."
    
    There are no further stipulations on that particular sentence 
    even though in other portions of that policy discussion around
    Company Separation (TFSO or otherwise) is clearly spelled out.
    
    All prior packages gave the vacation pay ON TOP of whatever else
    the package had in it. They also paid for unused Personal Holiday's.
    
    

One reason there is a limit on accrued vacation it is a corporate
liability. It shows up on the company balance sheet. Some companies
(like Wang) have reduced the maximum employees are allowed to save
and have had unpaid (unless you use vacation) plant closings to
encourage employees to use vacation time. This helps their balance
sheet and reduces their debt.

Bottom line, they have to pay it.

Dick (who_is_maxed_out_just_in_case)

   Re: Digital not obligated to pay accrued vacation pay
   
   In Ohio they are.  Ohio treats vacation as salary due you upon
   termination.  There was a test case for this back in the late 1970s. 
   It involved a man who resigned giving 4 weeks notice, then
   immediately took his 4 weeks vacation.  The company withheld his
   vacation pay.  The courts decided they owed him the money.

    
    Correct, but I don't think anyone is denying that they must pay it now,
    the thinking question was if its possible to change the rules ( not the law)
    and that could be to Set_Max=n on the amount of vacation one can
    accrue.
    
    I don;t think that doing that would break laws.
    
    As pointed out in previous reply it is expensive to carry a lot of
    vacation for 100k+ employees.
    
    

   ...is this:

   The ship is sinking fast with a couple of holes at the bottom through which
   water is rushing in at enormous volumes. The captain and crew think that the
   right strategy is throw things and people overboard and hope that somehow
   it will stop the ship from sinking. Sorry it doesn't work that way. 

   The holes need to be closed. The ship did not start sinking because of the
   weight of the ship. It may have started with a tiny hole and because of the
   weight of the ship the hole became bigger and more in number. And having
   hundreds of first officers doesn't help either. ;-)

   Let's hope the captain sees the holes and closes them soon instead of
   constantly worrying about when and who to throw overboard and what size
   life jacket to give them.

   Nari

    re: .22
    
    ... except that we need to keep the ship afloat long enough to patch
    those holes in the hull. That means throwing some of the weight
    overboard. See, the captain works for the owners. The owners want the
    ship that they paid for saved. Those thrown overboard do get (small
    [and shrinking]) lifeboats (TFSO).

    Re: .21
    
    Different companies, IBM among them, now force their employees to take
    all their year's vacation in that year, and also set a time limit as
    to when previously acrued vacation had to be used up.  Another tactic
    is to close facilities (NOT manufacturing, but engineering, etc.) for
    one or two weeks a year (Christmas and 4th of July, for instance), thus
    forcing the employees to take vacation or not get paid.  This
    definately limits the books liability line.

    RE:.22
    
    	Spoken like somebody who has yet to be thrown overboard.  If it's
    you in the water you'll be looking for a life boat too.
    
    Joe

    RE: 23 - except that some of the people getting tossed overboard
    	     are also Part Owners of the ship, plus, in some cases,
             the folks who fix holes are getting tossed as well, based
             on the decisions of some of the bazillion first officers
    	     who are making sure their floatation vests fit well.
    
    

    re.22
    
    	Stuff the hole with some people, 
    
    	maybe that will slow the leak!
    
    	It's been done in the past and worked.
    buzz

> <<< Note 2171.13 by MUDHWK::LAWLER "Employee says 15000 analysts must go!" >>>
>    
>      Given that Vacation time is viewed as "deferred compensation for
>    time already worked",   I think it'd be tough to force people to
>    use "last years salary"  to satisfy the notification requirement.
>    
>      I wouldn't be surprised to see Wang employees challenge this one
>    in court and win.

Wang is in Chapter 11, and debts incurred before declaring chapter
are subject to review by the Court or the Receiver before being paid.
Employee claims (salary, vacation, and unreimbursed business expenses)
are "debts."
I'd be surprised if Wang employees ever see much of their accrued vacation
time payoff.  (Recall that the company advised their employees to cash
their paychecks quickly right before Chapter 11 was declared.)

- tom]

    A friend of mine who left Wang last summer was advised to take all his
    accrued vacation before he left, because once Wang filed Chapter 11, he
    would have to stand in line behind the other creditors to collect his
    vacation pay.  He just took the time off while it was still worth
    something!
    
    KB
    

    
    
      However,  all debts are not created equal...
    
      Employee wages are generally given priority over other creditors
    in bankruptcy proceedings.
    
      It may be some time before they collect, but I'd venture to say
    that wages will be paid before bankers  get repaid...
    
      But again,  the question isn't whether the employees will get 
    paid,  but rather can the company use compensation which has been
    _EARNED_ in the past   to satisfy _future_  payroll committments
    under the plant closing (or whatever )  notification laws.
    
    
    						-al
    

   .23, .25

   The owners also are disappointed that people are lined up on the deck
   for about 13 more months. Guess what! They must be kidding themselves
   if they think that the cooking will get done, the decks cleaned properly
   when nobody knows whose turn is next. I don't know about you, but I haven't
   heard much about how we are going to get the holes fixed yet. All we seem
   to have done is formed hole-fixing task forces and sent weekly updates
   that discussed 

  "Strategic and Tactical Approaches to Hole-Fixing as
   done in Best-in-Class World Leaders in the Shipping Business as
   embodied in the Total Quality Management Approach Towards Six-Sigma Hole
   Fixing through Total Employee Empowerment" 

   Nari

    ...Back to the topic at hand ie: vacation time...  Has anyone but me
    noticed that the new package announced on VTX LIVEWIRE has numbers that
    seem to indicate DEC is nibling at setting a vacation time precedent?
    Note that the announcement says that there will be a maximum of 52
    weeks pay under the program.  However, if you add the initial 10 weeks
    (for the first 10 years of service) plus 34 more weeks (2 each for
    years 11 - 27) you come to 44 weeks of total pay, 8 short of the 52
    week maximum.  I infer that the remaining 8 weeks might be a "cap" on
    accrued vacation pay that can be taken in addition to the severance. 
    Those with 20 or more years of service receive 5 weeks
    vacation time per year and can accrue/carry up to 10 weeks total. One
    would think that a 20+ year employee should be able to walk out with 54
    weeks vs. 52 weeks of total pay under TFSO. Either this is an oversight
    (possible) or a "test-crack" in the limitation of vacation time payable
    upon termination (more likely?).  Once tested to a small degree (and
    approved, accepted, not challenged, whatever...) then expansion of the
    concept for future application is only a matter of degree, not priciple
    or policy.
    
    Courtesy of a lone-wolf in Finance who wishes this company would REALLY
    value it's people instead of simply saying that it does (while
    cost-cutting us into oblivion...)
    
    Comments?                        
    
    

    If I remember correctly, all the previous plans had some cap on the
    total compensation.
    
    Bob

    Re: .32
    
    >> However, if you add the initial 10 weeks
    >> (for the first 10 years of service) plus 34 more weeks (2 each for
    >> years 11 - 27) you come to 44 weeks of total pay, 8 short of the 52
    >> week maximum. 
    
    	You're forgetting the flat 9 weeks that everyone gets anyway.  That
    makes 19 weeks for the first 10 years of service, plus 34 = 53, which
    they would then reduce to 52.
    
    -Tom
    

    The cap should only be on the severance pay.  Vacation is yours anyway;
    it is the severance pay which is special.

    Anyone heard anything another SERP package?
    

    YES!  8*)

    I hear that it's time once again to play that olde' Beach Boy's record.
    
    		entitled: "SERPIN' USA"
    

    Digital Cuts Severance Pay
    
    Albuquerque Journal, Saturday, October 24, 1992
    
    Maynard, Mass. - Digital Equipment Corporation has
    trimmed severance pay for idled employees, a move
    designed to save money as the company lays off up 
    to 25,000 workers.
     Digital is expected to lay off the employees over
    the next two years.  In the fiscal quarter ended Sept.
    26, Digital cut 5,300 jobs, bringing its worldwide
    work force to about 108,500.
     Under the new severance package, employees with
    up to 10 years of company service will receive nine
    weeks of pay plus one week of pay for every year
    of service, a Digital spokeswoman said.  Before,
    those workers would have received two weeks of 
    pay for each year on the job.
     Employees with 11 or more years of service will 
    receive the nine weeks of continued pay, a 
    lump-sum payment of 10 weeks pay, and an
    additional two weeks pay for every year of
    service beyond 10 years.
    

    I have also heard that there will be a new "SERPIN USA" package
    out this year. Again, rumor has it that the package will be 48-7-7.
    Anyone hear?
    

What does 48-7-7 mean??

thanks

    Starting at age 48 plus 7 years to your age plus 7 years to your
    time at DEC.
    

So if I am 44 now, I lose out.

Thanks 

    
    re .40
    
    That, or similar rumour has been floating since last May, tho it seems
    to have found a new "boost" in the last week.
    
    I guess its possible, anything is possible, but from a legal position
    DEc would have to 'retrofit' it to cover anyone who was layed off since
    the last SERP and would have made the latest criteria.   That would be
    very difficult from an administration perspective.
    
    Also if I remember, SERP had a much higher cost from a medical
    insurance perspective, so I see no reason for DEC to increase the costs
    of layoffs ............... but again, anything can happen.
    
     

    What is the current "Rumors DeJure" about the areas to be affected by
    these upcoming cuts? Any dates, or just Merry Christmas?
    
    ses

    re: .42
    
    I'm beginning to sense a squeeze at Digital.  Hiring freeze means less
    of the younger types since there will be fewer college hires.  Dropping
    the SERP age means less of the older types.  Lessee ... hardly anybody 
    over 48 and hardly anybody under, say, 26.  What ramifications might
    narrowing the age spectrum have on Digital?  Hmmm ...
    
    A few years from now:
    
    "I'm here to interview."
    
    "Ah, I see.  You seem to be a young fellow.  Too young, perhaps.  Your
    birthdate suggests you are only 35.  I'm afraid you may be too young to
    fit into the Digital culture.  We're looking for the best; someone with a 
    little more experience.  And, with so many layed-off and able workers to 
    choose from ..."
    
    "There must be a typo.  May I see that?  ...  That's the problem.  The
    birthdate is wrong.  I'm really 39."
    
    "Oh, that's different.  Well, the problem is that you are really too
    old for the position here.  We're looking for someone that is ready to
    make a long-term commitment to the company.  At your age, you'd be
    eligible to SERP within only a few years ..."
    
    ;^}
    
    Steve

    RE: .46  by ECADSR::SHERMAN 
    
    >I'm beginning to sense a squeeze at Digital.  Hiring freeze means less
    >of the younger types since there will be fewer college hires.  ...
    
    It is my understanding that we are continuing to recruit college hires.
    

    re .46
    
    Tell them,, you are 70 years of age, and you will get a job on the
    Board of Directors...
    
    q
    

    As was asked previously - any nore news on whose going to get hit this
    time and what will the criteria be.. I heard today of someone who got
    TFSO'd, this week, in Merrimack NH.
            
    
    I guess I dont' have to ask when cause it looks like its started
    already.

>>                      <<< Note 2171.49 by CSC32::R_CLOW >>>
>>                               -< Any new news? >-

>>    I guess I dont' have to ask when cause it looks like its started
>>    already.

I know of someone that has CSC32:: in their VAXmail address that today
is their last day at CX03.  :-(  Don't worry, the last name is not Clow.

    Can anyone verify if the package published in VTX in October has
    changed. Rumor mill has it reduced to 0 for 0-2yrs and then one week
    for every year 2-whatever. The nine weeks is still there. 
    Thanks.

	RE: .51 It's unlikely that it will change before December 7th. I
	believe that these plans are setup and announced to cover a particular
	time period. Changing things before the end of the time period is
	unlikely if only because of possible legal ramifications.

			Alfred

     The TFSO package which was announced in VTX is "guaranteed" to the end
of Q2.

                                      Greg 

What was the official package?  I couldn't find it in the current VTX.

Ed..

    re .54:
    
    See note 1948.705.
    
    
    py

    Anybody got details on the TFSO package for next quarter?

	Isn't it a $.50 coupon for Hardys and a bus token?

	(from a recent joke circulated around the net)

							mike