T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
2211.1 | | CVG::THOMPSON | Radical Centralist | Mon Nov 09 1992 15:39 | 5 |
| I believe that personnel has to do audits regularly. For one thing
they have to make sure the EEOC information is there. The various
government people want to look at that from time to time.
Alfred
|
2211.2 | it dont think it would hurt to start early | STAR::ABBASI | Nobel price winner, expected 2034 | Mon Nov 09 1992 15:59 | 18 |
| .0
I think you should be highly suspect and completely paranoid of this.
I would. I get paranoid and start shacking just passing by the personal
dept.
back to your audit, if it comes out to nothing, and hopefully it will,
all what you've done is got an early start of the practice of being
paranoid if the real thing does happen, then you can help your
other colleagues who were not wise enough to practice early like you
did, but either way you wont lose anything by starting it right
now.
good luck,
/nasser
|
2211.3 | | FORTSC::CHABAN | Pray for Peter Pumpkinhead! | Mon Nov 09 1992 16:07 | 7 |
|
Moments like this make me want to give you a big wet kiss, Nasser.
;-)
-Ed
|
2211.4 | | PEEVAX::QUODLING | OLIVER is the Solution! | Mon Nov 09 1992 17:57 | 7 |
| re .0
don't be paranoid. It's an incompetent, in the first place, personel
organization, now trying to justify their existence, by looking busy...
q
|
2211.5 | Just for G.P.'s | GUIDUK::FARLEE | Insufficient Virtual...um...er... | Mon Nov 09 1992 18:04 | 4 |
| On the other hand,
regardless of the audit, the way thhings stand,
being paranoid is a perfectly reasonable response.
Kevin
|
2211.6 | | MR4DEC::GREEN | Vote Perot. | Mon Nov 09 1992 22:26 | 3 |
|
Don't worry, Ed, but if they ask you to fill out an applicationDEC,
then you can start worrying.
|
2211.7 | same old thing | SA1794::ROGERSM | | Tue Nov 10 1992 08:31 | 1 |
| paranoia is the norm in DEC these days....
|
2211.8 | | SGOUTL::BELDIN_R | Alls well that ends: 60 days | Tue Nov 10 1992 08:59 | 15 |
| Ed,
Ok, the audit shows there was no application form. At the time you
applied for work in Digital, you had no access to Digital files nor
could you have misfiled the information. Send a request for action by
the responsible psa and/or your hiring manager because you found out
(independently of their audit which you conveniently ignore) that this
document was removed from your file and are highly incensed at this
irregularity. Put them on the defensive.
In the meantime, update your resum�, just in case.
(just fooling)
Dick
|
2211.9 | vent | AUDIBL::BOOTH | | Tue Nov 10 1992 09:00 | 8 |
| I seems to me that you have a concern that should be expressed to your manager or
to your personnel rep. You need more information. Direct your questions to the
people chartered to answer them. Being paranoid is a result of a guessing whats
going to happen...find out for certain.
norm
|
2211.10 | Probably nothing but confusion... | WHOS01::BOWERS | Dave Bowers @WHO | Tue Nov 10 1992 11:15 | 12 |
| During my first year with DEC, personnel requested additional copies of
my resum� twice and at least one extra application. They kept syaing
they couldn't find them.
Somewhere around my 2nd anniversary, I got a call from a recruiter in
DEC personnel asking if I was "still interested in working for
Digital". It seems that all those resum�s and apps. were being filed
in the "applicant" file instead of the "employee" file, and this guy
had been assigned to follow up on old applications to see if he could
find some candidates (without paying an agency fee).
\dave
|
2211.11 | | SPECXN::BLEY | | Tue Nov 10 1992 11:59 | 9 |
|
No application you say,......
Are you sure you have been going to work at the right place all
this time? Maybe you don't really work for Digital!!!
|
2211.12 | Hope your memory is better than mine! | POBOX::GREENE | | Tue Nov 10 1992 13:56 | 13 |
| No need to be paranoid, as long as you fill in the application
correctly.
I recall some wording on the application to the effect of
'misrepresentation of information provided could be grounds for
dismissal'.
As long as what you what you write on the application matches 100% of
what you would have written on it 3 years ago, I'd say you're golden!
hth,
Kevin
|
2211.13 | | ECADSR::SHERMAN | Steve ECADSR::Sherman DTN 223-3326 MLO5-2/26a | Tue Nov 10 1992 15:26 | 5 |
| One can only wonder what would happen if the "missing" application
turned up and there were significant differences with the "replacement"
application ...
Steve
|
2211.14 | typical personnel snafu | LIOVAX::MERRILL | NY's got the ways and means | Tue Nov 10 1992 23:07 | 11 |
| RE: the last few
A year or so ago, NYC personnel sent out request to many of us "old
timers" who'd been with DEC 15 years or so. What they wanted was for us
to fill out job applications cause they "lost track" of the
originals!!!
Needless to say, I don't think anyone did anything other than what
I did with it - put it in the circular file!!!
Marc
|
2211.15 | | CSOADM::ROTH | Kick out the jams! | Tue Nov 10 1992 23:19 | 10 |
| I doubt there is any legal basis for someone to again fill out a job
application.
In light of current layoffs, if your performance warrants your retention
I hardly see the point of having an application.
I'd prefer a signed statement in my file from someone in personnel saying that
they screwed up and lost it...
Lee
|
2211.16 | | HGOVC::GUSTAFSON | as far away as possible! | Wed Nov 11 1992 01:37 | 4 |
| In the meantime, you might want to check your passport file...
...and your mothers passport file ;^}
|
2211.17 | | AIMHI::BOWLES | | Wed Nov 11 1992 12:41 | 15 |
| I seem to recall some new regulations which went into effect 4-5 years
ago. I think they were designed to prevent illegal aliens from
getting jobs. One of the requirements for employment was proof of
citizenship. The company was subject to inspections and heavy fines
if they didn't have these records on file. I remember that several of
the people who worked for me were required to produce proof of
citizenship. There was also some sort of "grandfather" (should that
now read grandperson?) clause for those hired before the effective date
of the regulations.
Who knows? This might be the cause of the "audit" of your records. In
any event, the advice is correct: first go to your manager. If not
satisfied with the answer, then go to your PSA.
Chet
|
2211.18 | | GLDOA::JWYSOCKI | Hungry like the Wolf | Wed Nov 11 1992 16:52 | 6 |
|
That form is referred to as an I9, and is not part of the job
application per se, just an addendum. I recently had to fill one out
for a place that I moonlight at, I've been there on-and-off for over 2
years and I never remember even *filling out* an *application*, let
alone any other paperwork....
|
2211.19 | Don't worry... | TLE::KLEIN | | Wed Nov 11 1992 17:35 | 11 |
| Don't worry - lost employment applications/audits occurred long before
"TFSO" became a dreaded acronym at Digital. People who think it is a
seedy plot by Personnel to look busy when they're not haven't looked
recently at how few people there really are in Personnel and how
overworked those few are doing work that we really need to have them
doing. I'm certain the audits would not be done without some legal
requirement that forces them.
Of course, you *should* worry if you recall falsifying your original
employment application but cannot remember exact details of *how* you
falsified it :-}
|
2211.20 | anyone else? | UNYEM::JAMESS | | Fri Nov 13 1992 10:01 | 4 |
| I know I've never filled out an application for employment at
Digital. I don't think it is that uncommon.
Steve J.
|