Conference 7.286::digital

    
    I heard 7 & 7.  7 Years to age and service.
    
    -Ed
    

    When is the question of the moment (say, if you have a crystal ball
    laying around)?
    

    This possibility floats through this conference at least once a
    quarter.  It seems less likely a possibility than ever before.  It
    appears to be an expensive program with limited payback for the
    corporation.  Given that, why would Bob Palmer - a person focused on the
    numbers, or the data, as it were - want to propose such a program when
    a TFSO is far more appealing?
     

re Note 2714.3 by ICS::DONNELLAN:

>     Given that, why would Bob Palmer - a person focused on the
>     numbers, or the data, as it were - want to propose such a program when
>     a TFSO is far more appealing?
  
        Well, there would appear to be some long-timers that are good
        at finding another position within the company when found "at
        risk" (possibly due to connections), and who would have a
        hard time finding a similar job outside a company (because of
        age and seniority).

        For them an SERP might be enough incentive to get some to
        leave.

        Bob

    
    Ditto. The government mandated demographic information I got last
    time the axe fell said most of the layoffs in the West hit people age
    35 and under.
    
    Of course, the law protects the old and discriminates against the
    young.
    
    -Ed_from_Generation_X
    
        

    > Of course, the law protects the old and discriminates against the   
    > young.
    
    And, of course, that's as it should be (I suppose I fit in the "old"
    category).
    
    I'm told, however, that the pool of people who could take advantage of
    such a package is quite small and therefore it's not worth the effort
    required (Federal red tape) to offer this kind of incentive to leave.  
    
    

    
>    Of course, the law protects the old and discriminates against the
>    young.
    
Oh yeah?? ;^)

FWIW, i heard January.

							- paul

    Please.
    
    what does SERP mean?
    
    thx,
    Jan.

    
    As usual, the old continue to rape the young through wealth
    redistribution mechanisms like Social Security and Prop 13 here in
    California.  The law that keeps us from laying off equitably is also
    responsible for much of the brain-drain we have at Digital.  
    
    You oldsters just wait till your children lose their jobs so that some
    slob whose mortgage is paid and who vested into a retirement plan
    can keep his job.  Wait till you see them in tears trying to pay their
    taxes and mortgages in a world where they can't stay with a company
    long enough to vest into a pension plan.
    
    GET OUT OF THE WORKFORCE OR CHANGE CAREERS IF YOU CAN AFFORD TO!!!
    YOU OWE IT TO YOUR YOUNGER SIBLINGS AND YOUR CHILDREN!!!
    
    Ok, I'll get off my soapbox...
    
    -Ed
    
       

        
    >what does SERP mean?

    Special Early retirement Plan. It was a voluntary early retirement
    package that included a number of incentives for people to retire
    early. A US only deal I believe though there have been similar deals
    in some other subsidiaries.

    			Alfred

    .9
    
    "Put away your soap box".  
    
    I think you'd better crawl under that soap box of your's Ed.  
    
    If younger people worked half as hard as we "Oldsters", turned
    up for work on time and knew half as much, I would be happy
    to stand aside for them. All too often they won't bother, don't 
    know how, and wouldn't put in the effort.  
    
                                              

RE: .9 and .12

     You're BOTH full of beans.  Stuff a sock in it and get back to the topic.

                                     Greg

    >You're BOTH full of beans.  Stuff a sock in it
    
    in this an expression?
    
    i like it.
    
    i like expressions. iam adding this to my vocaburalarly.
    
    \nasser

 
    >As usual, the old continue to rape the young through wealth
    >redistribution mechanisms like Social Security and Prop 13 here in
    >California.  The law that keeps us from laying off equitably is also
    >responsible for much of the brain-drain we have at Digital.  
    
    Hmmm ... Here's a perspective I have not yet seen expressed before.
     Can't say that I much care for it but ...

    Didn't Digital review the the collection of TFSO candidates and screen for
    discriminatory tallys?  (That includes the young and the old and probably
    has to meet EEO standards as well).


    >You oldsters just wait till your children lose their jobs so that some
    >slob whose mortgage is paid and who vested into a retirement plan
    >can keep his job.  Wait till you see them in tears trying to pay their
    >taxes and mortgages in a world where they can't stay with a company
    >long enough to vest into a pension plan.
    
    What? And the old timers didn't go through this possibility when they
    were young?

    GET OUT OF THE WORKFORCE OR CHANGE CAREERS IF YOU CAN AFFORD TO!!!
    YOU OWE IT TO YOUR YOUNGER SIBLINGS AND YOUR CHILDREN!!!
    
    Are you kidding? You can't possibly mean this can you? Did you forget
    the smiley's or are you just using this as bait to reel me in?
    Are you willing to practice what you preach?

    Very ammusing to say the least ...

    Doug.

Re:     <<< Note 2714.14 by STAR::ABBASI "only 57 days to graduate!" >>>

>    i like expressions. iam adding this to my vocaburalarly.
                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Now don't tell me *that* passed through a spell checker...  :-)  :-)

-  David

    It sure did.......
    
    The /nasser international *addition*...! 8^)
    
    Bob
    

    >> Ditto. The government mandated demographic information I got last
    >> time the axe fell said most of the layoffs in the West hit people age
    >> 35 and under.
    
    Are these the actual, "raw" numbers, or have they been adjusted
    to take into account that most of the people working for DEC
    are in the 35-and-under group to begin with?
    
    If you look at the "percentage of total population" figures for
    the layoffs, it's possible that it would flatten out (i.e., not
    be biased against younger employees).  Just speculation, but worth
    checking out, for anyone who's got the numbers.
    
    Chris

    Judging by the replies here, no one else has heard this rumor.  Is that
    correct?

    > Is that   correct?
    
    i heared a rumor saying that the rumor is correct.
    
    \nasser

I started the rumor saying that the rumor is correct.  :-)

    >I started the rumor saying that the rumor is correct.  :-)
    
    i wonder what rumor was that that made you start the rumor that the rumor 
    is correct ?
    
    \nasser
    

    I knew I could count on \nasser to bring clarity to the issue.
    
    

    Out of the four people TFSOed from our group, two were in their mid
    to late 50s, one in the mid 40s, and one under 35. Another one has
    since past away due to illness, and one left for greener DECpastures.
    Now those that remain are at various levels of stress induced
    burnout .... but I guess that's even further from the subject at
    hand. The two older ones turned down SERP and got screwed for wanting
    to stay employeed. Guess they should have taken the hint.
    
    Theo

    RE .9
    
    As a fellow member of the < 35 group, I have two suggestions.
    
    1) Chill out.
    
    2) Take responsibility for your own life. Contrary to the popular media
    myth, I don't believe that we are destined to fail just because we were
    born a few years too late. 
    
    It seems like many people's greatest aspiration is to belong to some
    kind of "victim group". Well, I choose not to participate.
    
    Russ
    

    
        Re: 2714.9  
    
        Nice phrases, that "rape the young" and "some slob".  Guess those 
        weren't passing grades in Diplomacy 101 and Maturity 1 back in 
        Charm School.
    
        I'd recommend not signing yourself up as a self-proclaimed spokesman 
        of the young or as a critic of the "oldsters".  Not enough maturity 
        (sometimed but not always acquired with age) to do either.  And 
        perhaps it would be better to keep your socio-economic biases out 
        of the discussion as well. 
    
        The chances of one the older folks stepping out of the way for 
        someone with those attitudes are minimal at best.
    
        Let's keep the discussion to contributions and value-added (or 
        value-subtracted) without regard to age, OK? 
    
    
        Older_in_age, young_in_spirit, and doing_my_share_as_IC_and_manager
        Peter
    
    
        We now resume our regularly-scheduled whining....

    
    re: .25
    
    Hear, hear.  I'm in the borderline area between boomer and buster
    (that means I was young enough to *like* the Partidge family,
    and old enough to realize disco sucked :-).
    
    I hate the media gobbledygook about being destined to fail
    because of some demographic blip.  Nonsense.  Individual
    effort will always make a difference.
    
    Glenn

    RE: .9
    
    What a load of crap.....blaming old people .
    
    Marc H.

    isn't it called displacement when you blame someone else ???
    (i slept sometimes in psych 101) :-)

Re .24:

People who were TFSOed after turning down SERP were offered SERP-level benefits,
rather than TFSO-level.
				/AHM

    
    	Huh? Re -.1, I hadn't heard this one!  I was TFSO'd last June and
    	had passed up SERP when it was available.  I managed to find a
    	job last June but had no knowledge that had I wanted to I could
    	have gotten the SERP benefits at that time.  That is what you
    	said yes?  Please elborate for us.
    
    			...

    re .30  That is not exactly true.  Some of the people that were offered
    SERP were already eligible for retirement (min. 55 + 10 yrs).  Any of
    those that were TSFO'd had to have the opportunity to retire.  You
    can't take away someones retirement just because they are no longer
    needed.  Those that were not eligible before SERP fell into the same
    category as any other TSFO candidate.

Re .32 

What you have said is not true.  Most of my organization TFSO'd last spring.
The 2 folkss who had elected not to SERP were TFSO'd just like everyone else.

SERP was a decision at a specific point in time.  If you chose to stay, then
you were not offered SERP when you were TFSO'd.

    
    I know of at least 2 people that were TFSO'd and then, when SERP came
    along, the benefits were better, so they were allowed to "un-TFSO" and
    SERP instead. 
    
    Strange, but true.
    
    John

    Re: ...last few & 30
    
    Jeeze ... how consistantly random. The TFSOees that I spoke with
    said some small consideration was given but it wasn't as good as
    if they been SERPees.

re: .34

Perhaps they were in the 9-week period where they were still Digital employees,
and thus were eligible to SERP?

Bob

Re .31, .33, .35, .36:

I ran into my benefits consultant this morning, and she thought that I had .30
wrong (perhaps backwards).  I now have no faith that I got the facts straight in
.30.

.32 and .34 sound close to what I remember, but it's pointless for me to endorse
them unconditionally, since it's become apparent that I don't remember what
really happened.  All it seems reasonable to say is that in the USA, SERPable
people got some additional benefits retroactively for equity's sake (these are
people who've left the corporation).
				/AHM

    It's just possible that additional benefits given some TFSOed personnel
    were negotiated individually, and that SERP benefits were restored to
    them because the company decided it was cheaper than litigation.

    Oh, YAH? Why, you young whippersnappers are a mean, scurvy lot! You
    have some gall finding fault with your elders. We, who have worked 
    and slaved and suffered to make the world a better place for everyone
    and went through the _Depression_ and _Five Wars_ and worked and slaved
    and had to live on _five dollars_ a week, for a family of _ten_ and we
    _still_ managed to save 50 cents a week because we knew that better
    times were coming and that if we just kept on working hard and saving
    and playing by the rules we would succeed and then you whippersnappers
    came along, demanding everything like a _place to live_ and _clothing_
    and _food every day_ and even a _future_ and then you have the nerve 
    to say that we're old and feeble and selfish and vested and should 
    get out of the way for you younger 'X Generation' people and ... 
    er ... uhmm ... say, what were we talking about? Uhh ... can someone 
    help me find my hearing aid so I can call someone else in my group 
    to help me find my bifocals so I can drive over to the clinic and get 
    my blood pressure medicine?
    
             

    ? and the answer is?  It is just a rumor?

    
    If nothing 'concrete' by mid-December, then no SERP Q3 or Q4?

    so, when digital finally starts laying off management (who else is
    left?), don't ya'll reckon they will be "retired" rather than tfso'd?  
    
    (that's a trick question... remember, they take care of their own)
    
    t.

    There is a rumor (oh drat) that the BOD is contemplating a
    multiple offering for the next SERP. i.e. (7+7, and 5+5)
    
    /Bob

    re .43, do you mean that the rumor is that there will be different
    SERP's for different regions? WHy would anyone take the 5/5 option
    over the 7/7 option given the choice? Assume you meant some regions
    would get one plan, and other regions the other. I realize, in any
    case, this is *all* rumor.
    Bruce
    
    

    ref 2797.0 - 
    
    The rumor was that different packages would incorporate different
    features. the 7+7 would have benefits dissimilar to the 10+5,
    or 5+5 etc. My guess would be that the European plan would also 
    differ from the APA or US plan, etc.
    
    /Bob 

    Rumor has it that the BOD approved 2 different SERPs. A 5+5
    and a 7+7. However, which is to be offered and when the offer
    is to be extended, has not been learned.
    
    /Bob

    Are you talking about early retirement? What do 5+5 and 7+7 mean in
    terms of TFSO?

Ref. Note 2714.47 MUZICK::WARNER 
    
>    Are you talking about early retirement? What do 5+5 and 7+7 mean in
>    terms of TFSO?
              `````      
             Nothing
    
    
    Special Early Retirement Program = SERP
    Add the first number to your age + add the second to your time @ DEC
    
    
    This determines what/if you are entitled to re: retirement.
    
    /Bob
    

    
    
    	What would determine whether one got a 5+5 or a 7+7???  Anyone
    	want to guess(this is all conjecture anyway right?)?  Just
    	curious...

    What is the minimum age for this version of SERP?
    

    
    
       <<< Note 2714.50 by GUCCI::RWARRENFELTZ "Shine like a Beacon!" >>>
    
        What is the minimum age for this version of SERP?
    
    if its 7+7 then 48(+7)=55
    if its 5+5 then 50(+5)=55
    
    As for what would determine 'which' plan they (BOD) pick,
    I'd say that 2 factors play into the decision:
    
     1. How many elegible for each are likely to accept given the
    	desired headcount end-point model.
    
     2. What would the costs be in each case.
    
    That being said, they'll probably just tell everyone that
    the next TFSO pkg consists of a pad of post-its(TM), and
    a certificate for a frozen turkey at Pigly Wigly. That way
    it'll help ya decide....
    
    /Bob
    

    This rumor keeps popping up.  I suspect it is wishful thinking.  
    
    It is unclear to me why the BOD would approve such a plan.  Isn't it
    much more expensive than a layoff?  Doesn't it mean that we would have
    to take a big hit at the end of the quarter and therefore lose face on Wall
    Street?  Therefore, what's in it for them?  for the shareholders?
    
    I recognize that it would help reduce the bloat in middle management
    ranks and that's a long term benefit.  I don't think Bob Palmer wants
    to take the short term hit for such a benefit when there are cheaper
    ways at this disposal.
    
    

    I've said it before, and I'll say it again... the SLT takes care of its
    own, and so do middle level managers... 
    
    If (read that *when*) a big hit is put on reducing the layers of middle
    management, I firmly believe they will be offered early retirement
    rather than the ever-declining TFSO.  It stands, then, that a new SERP
    will be offered.

    
    
    		re.-1 
    
    	That thought had crossed my mind.....I was afraid it was a 
    	personal problem till now.......!
    
    		What I want to know is what will be used to buy the
    	Golden Parachutes with after "squandering" that "one time"
    	charge for downsizing.  There must be a preferred way to
    	fund another SERP. Any guesses ??
    
    				Pablo
    
    	

>    	charge for downsizing.  There must be a preferred way to
>    	fund another SERP. Any guesses ??
    
	Preferred stock maybe?

    
    Re: .55
    
    BINGO!
    

    Re .56
    
    I agree too. It was precisely because I thought preferred stock would
    be used for something that was not good for the shareholders that I
    voted against authorizing common stock.
    
    I can't say for certain that proceeds from preferred stock would be
    used to featherbed deadwood. But at this point nothing from the SLT
    would surprise me. You never know maybe we need a fleet of BLACK
    limousines or something.
    
    Dave

    re last few
    
    the prefered stock method strikes me as the most likely. it just pains
    me to see how much money we have already paid out to get rid of people
    that should have been dismissed long ago. many are now gone that didn't
    want/deserve it. But many that were of no use to the company "took the
    money and ran". and DEC made that easy for them. 

    wonder if they'd consider 15+10.

SERP benefits are paid out of the retirement trust.  that money has already 
been paid into the trust and has been charged to income previously.  A
collegue has been monitoring the retirement program for the last few years.
Digital has not needed to make any payments into the trust because it is
over funded.  This is a result of conservative practices in the past regarding
the expected return on the invested funds.

Therefor, a plan heavy on retirement benefits and light on salary continuation
would reserve restructuring charge funds for other uses while reducing 
headcount in a way that has a more positive feel to it than TSFO.  Those 
who left during the first SERP, were optimistic and upbeat about the future.
they were being congratulated by their friends and had send off luncheons
attended by their managers.  By contrast, the TSFOs frequently slide out
the side egress.

I think there are many positive aspects to a SERP,

Fred

    Does anyone know how the pension funds are invested? What I really want
    to know is how closely tied is my pension to DECs futures. My fear is
    the pension fund is mostly in DEC stock and if this place continues
    to slide my pension may not be to valuable.
    
    And since I would be eligible for any SERP, I am more than mildy
    interested in pensions.

>     Does anyone know how the pension funds are invested? What I really want
>     to know is how closely tied is my pension to DECs futures. My fear is
>     the pension fund is mostly in DEC stock and if this place continues
>     to slide my pension may not be to valuable.
    
A complete disclosure of Digital's pension fund can be obtained for $8. It
contains more information than anyone would want to know, and makes very
interesting, if tedious, reading. It includes the actuarial projections on
which future pension payouts are based, the current capital in the fund, and
how that capital is invested.

As mentioned earlier, the fund's investments have done so well that the
current assets exceed the expected payouts by several hundred million dollars.
Digital is thus prohibited (by law) from contributing more to the fund, and
has not contributed for a few years.

As best I could tell, the assets are invested mostly in conservative equity
funds, government debt instruments, and a little real estate. From what this
layman could see, the fund managers have assumed only reasonable and necessary
risk, and no, I didn't see any DEC stock. There might, however, be some buried
in some of the mutual funds that the pension fund owns.

It would be interesting to hear the opinions of someone skilled in financial
analysis...

Bob

    I doubt the pension fund is "mostly" invested in DEC stock.  That 
    would be wildly irresponsible - now, obviously, but it would have 
    been wildly irresponsible even back in 1986 when DEC was flying high.
    Any competent fund manager isn't going to invest such that the
    collapse of one stock will have a significant impact on the fund.
    "Diversity" is one of the fundamental rules of fund management.
    

                                      :-)

    Anyone heard that all over 45 qualify?
    

    Haven't heard that one. Considering the number of employees who are
    45 or older, they'll have more administrivia than they ever saw
    processing those who accept. 
    
    But then, I always thought that was the plan - Drive off the old
    and replace them with the 'current low priced spread'.
    
    /Bob

>>    But then, I always thought that was the plan - Drive off the old
   
I resemble that remark!!

Bob

    Me too :')

    re: .67
    
    > and replace them with the 'current low priced spread'
    
    ....the problem with that logic is that we're hiring few people (or at
    least few "low priced" types). We're not replacing them with anyone.
    
    One of the more serious problems we have is that we have so few new
    folks, with new ideas and lots of energy. We need to get a better mix
    of experience levels, and soon.
    
    Thorgan

If the ships already overloaded, you have to unload something before you can 
load something new.  (Simply an analogy ... I'm not calling anyone cargo!)  8-)

Bob

    Maybe true in some fields but not in Clerical.  I've been here 20yrs
    and make about the same or less as some who have been here 5yrs or less. 
    
    I hadn't heard the age of 45, heard 48, I WOULD go if it's 45!

Does anyone know whether the SERPers who have been rehired are still
collecting their early retirement pensions and bonuses as well as once
again collecting salaries?  Talk about "retiring on the job"!

Why does this bother me so much?

-steve-

    My guess is that most folks that retired took the money in one lump
    sum, rather than as a monthly payment. At least it seemed to me that
    was the way to do it.
    
    There was a restriction in the SERP offer, but it was time limited, so
    a retiree can get rehired, if a job ever opens up after a waiting
    period. I dont see that as bad, one assumes if a person gets rehired
    they earn the new wages, and they surely earned the retirement. 

    
    thought i'd spend my lunch time catching up on the latest
    opinions re: the dvn and re-org rumors.
    
    i've heard several people say we are about to be offered
    another early retirement program.
    
    has anyone out there heard any details?
    
    
    'curious'

    
    
    I heard that the people who are eligible have already been identified
    and will be contacted by mail.
    
    
    Mike

    
    re: .76
    
    where did you hear that, Mike?
    Is there another conference where this rumor is being discussed?

    
    
    I heard it from someone in the office, let me say that this is strictly
    rumor and I don not know the source of her information.
    
    
    Mike

    Each day I run home and rip open the mailbox and am disappointed.
    Rumors still fly about, but alas, no letter today.

    I hear been told about it (the pension buyout package) from fellow 
    employees to the person doing my taxes.  People keep giving me a 
    formula, I don't know where it comes from but it has my mouth watering.
    
    Keeping my fingers crossed.

    A pension buyout package and an early retirement option are not the
    same thing as far as I know. A buyout means that for a certain sum
    you agree to give up your retirement--you sell it back to the company.
    SERP offered an enhanced retirement package by adding some years to
    your calculated length of time at Digital, and some years to your age
    calculation. This is what most early retirement packages do. I have
    heard no recent rumors of another SERP.
    
    I have heard through the rumor mill that the Board considered and
    tabled a buyout package. Who knows if this is true, or what its being
    tabled means for its eventual fate?? Not I.
    
    Bruce
    
     

        Re:                    <<< Note 2714.81 by AKOCOA::MACDONALD >>>
        
        The following is my personal judgment and opinion:

        If the  company  needs to reduce its employee base it owes it to
        the stockholders and  employees  to do so in the least costly way
        that ensures that we retain necessary skills and competencies.
        
        SERP is one of the least controllable and most expensive options,
        so I believe the likelyhood of seing SERP again is zilch!
        
        I would also add that  a  straight, voluntary buyout is almost as
        unlikely for exactly the same reason.
        
        I'd suggest not wasting any more  time  on  this  subject  unless
        someone who really knows something has anything to contribute.
        
        Anker

    re: -1
    so...explain to me, please, just how retiring a person is so much more
    costly than laying them off with a package?
    
    the retirement is already FUNDED... how does using it constitute a
    higher cost?
    
    tony

    
    In one case I know of, Digital should TFSO or fire a certain former
    IBM salesperson who got a golden parachute from big blue and has sold
    nothing for Digital in the year I have known him.  I've seem him
    salivating over possible SERPs or buyouts for months now.
    
    Enough of this nonsense.  It's time the "Good old boys" got theirs!
    
    -Ed_from_generation_x
    

               
   > the retirement is already FUNDED... how does using it constitute a
   > higher cost?
   
    I, for one, don't like the idea of people with "pseudo-seniority"
    dipping into a pension plan that might not be around in 30+ years.
    
    This is similar to the argument we X-gen folks have about social
    security.  I don't like the company putting more strain on a pension
    plan that was designed for people working till retirement age instead
    of pulling fully vested benes out at a much younger age.
     
    JMHO.
    
    -Ed
    

TFSO can be targeted at the employees whose skills are needed least.
SERP can't.

    
    Looks good on paper, Gerald.
    
    
    I for one, would love to be bought out of the retirement program and
    invest on my own.
    
    
    Mike

    
    I would go better better that Mike.  I want bought out of the federal one.
    
    "Social Security"
    
    Gary

    Re: 2714.80 
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    < I hear been told about it (the pension buyout package) from fellow 
    < employees to the person doing my taxes.  People keep giving me a 
    < formula, I don't know where it comes from but it has my mouth watering.
    
    What's the formula?
    

    Hi 
    
    
    Eligibility formula 
    
    Age + Years with the company + 5 = 65 + (must = age 65 to qualify)
    
    Retirement package formula:
    
    Salary x .015 = X
    
    9X =Y 
    
    55 - age = A
    
    (Yrs w/dec) + A  = Z
    
    Z x Y = buyout entitled
    
    Regards,
    
    Ali
     

This is a great formula... The closer one gets to "retirement age" the smaller
the buyout...

	-Stephanie

re: .91

For grins, I ran my own situation through your formula.

Suffice it to say that I could invest the result and live off the interest 
alone for the rest of my life. 

"If it's to good to be true"...

The only formula I'd believe is 

present value of
	(your vested pension) * (numbers of years they expect you to collect it)

+ some optional incentive to get you to accept the offer.

Ray

    The buyout may seem like a good deal, but I suspect it is an even
    better one for Digital.  Take your current benefit statement -
    projected monthly income when you retire at age 65 - multilpy it by
    twelve and then by 14 (the projected age of death) and you begin to see
    that the cost of the buyout is cheap compared to the company's
    liability when you retire.   So this could be a plan that works well
    for both employee and company.  Plus, it removes relatively high
    salaried people from the payroll and enables Digital to hire in younger
    folks for less money.  Other than the one time charge for the cost of
    the program, it may be a very attractive deal for Digital.

    
    Yup -- never mind "invest", I could put it in a *DCU savings account*
    and be better off than I am now! (And, I'd be a Relationship Member
    to boot!!)
    

re: .95

>-< formula_is_bogus .OR. where-do-I-sign >-

Yup, he qualifies. Anyone who uses ".OR." instead of "|" has been around
a while...   :-)

<<< Note 2714.94 by ICS::DONNELLAN >>>
-< Is there a flaw in this logic? >-

>    for both employee and company.  Plus, it removes relatively high
>    salaried people from the payroll and enables Digital to hire in younger
>    folks for less money.  Other than the one time charge for the cost of

The only flaw is that this is only good if the higher salaried people were
not earning the extra money.  That is not always a given, in spite of what
many would like one to think.  Furthermore, many more experienced people
may cost the same but do a better job.  Not everybody chases money only.

Lew

    Hi
    
    The only thing wrong with the formula is when you subtract you age
    from 55 because the older you are the less you get, I got this formula
    from some one here , I think all of this is wishful thinking.
    
       
    Regards,
    
    Ali  

re: -1

	the older you are the less you get may be correct if the metrics
	was based on age and EPD - estimated point of departure :-(

	Two folks one 50yrs and one 55yrs assuming EPD remained fixed at
	say 80yrs (?) then the person 50yrs old will need more $$$ 
	to reach the 80yr target of EPD.

	Thus the older you are the less you get/need to reach 80yrs?

	just a guess

	Anyway all this mean's a hill-a-beans if medical coverage isn't there.

	dick	

RE: .90

If the following lines have either sign reversed, then it makes some sense.
  
    55 - age = A
    
    (Yrs w/dec) + A  = Z
    
OR, if the first line is
    age - 55 = A 

The BIG question on a 'buy out', is, will you be able to 'roll' the proceeds
into an IRA or some other tax deffered system.

No matter how much your current salary is, 20 years service and 50+ years of
age would generate a considerable hit if it is considered current income.

I glad I'm too busy to have time to worry 'bout it.

Fred

    using the formula in .91:
    I've been with Dec for 12 years and am 53
    My wife has been with DEC 14 years in is 50
    I make about 3k more per year than she
    her "buy out" calculates to $29000 more than mine.
    
    we'd take it!
    tony

re: .96

> Yup, he qualifies. Anyone who uses ".OR." instead of "|" has been around
> a while...   :-)

Don't you mean "||"?  ;^)}

John

re: .94

>    The buyout may seem like a good deal, but I suspect it is an even
>    better one for Digital.  Take your current benefit statement -
>    projected monthly income when you retire at age 65 - multilpy it by
>    twelve and then by 14 (the projected age of death) and you begin to see
>    that the cost of the buyout is cheap compared to the company's
>    liability when you retire.

In my case, this bogus buyout would be approximately twice the company's 
liability.  Plus, I'd get it in one lump sum, rather than monthly!  So 
where do I sign? 8^)

Ray

    
    Re .96:
    
    I actually agonized over the choice of ".OR." vs "|" (or "||"); my
    decision reflected the assumption that no only software weenies read
    this conference :-)
     

    My calculations show certain relationships:
    
    Y = salary * .015 * 9  =  salary * .135  ( or salary / 7.4 )
    Z = service + 55 - age = 55 - ( age - service ) = 55 - age_at_hire
    
    thus offering = (55 - age_at_hire) * salary / 7.4
    
    For me, age_at_hire was 30, so offering = 15 * salary / 7.4, or 
    
    				*** 2.05 * salary ***
    
    Note, that years of service disappear in this casting of the formula!
    Note also, that 3% interest on 2.05*salary, fixed (not increasing with
    inflation) is 6% of salary.
    
    I don't have a high enough salary to consider 6% of it to be a survival
    budget.
    
    Perhaps someone can poke holes in my algebra.  I hope so, for the sake
    of someone planning to retire on this offer alone.
    
    /rich

    My calculations .-1 , just before lunch, failed arithmetic (but not 
    algebra, yet,  nor did they lead to wrong conclusions)
       
    offering = (55 - age_at_hire) * salary / 7.4
    I joined at age 30
    
    offering = salary * (55-30)/7.4 =  salary * 3.375
    
    So 6% (after taxes, aggressive; certainly not DCU) * 3.375 = .202 *salary
    
    
    	This is much closer to what I have, for a long time, estimated
    my Digital Pension as being:  20% to 25% of final salary.  Fixed.  With
    inflation eating away at it, put off retirement as long as possible,
    and also develop other income sources.  
    
    Sorry about the earlier arithmetic error,
    
    Rich

    I don't know if this is always true but I have been told several times
    that no matter how attractive an "early retirement package" is it can't
    beat staying on the job (provided you *can*) and retiring at normal
    age. I guess it might be put another way too: "There is always a reason
    why a SERP is offered in the first place and it's hardly ever for the
    employee's benefit" Cynical,huh?
    
    Ken

	Sure, you'll generally do better by staying on (raise your average
	yearly salary, for one thing), but an early retirement plan can give
	you opportunities, such as changing careers or going into business
	for yourself, that you couldn't have taken without the backup of the
	early retirement.

	The bottom line is that every person will view it differently.

	Roy

       Re last 2 (.108/09)
    
       It's all in what you want and what you are expecting. The first
    SERP, (And realistically, probably the ONLY one, no matter how much we
    wish for another..) had some options depending on where you were in
    your age group.
    
       **Some took a lump sum payment and rolled it into an IRA and went to
    another job.  However, with MEDICAL covered, they had a disttinct
    advantage with being hired by a new employer..."Also...I do NOT require
    medical coverage if you hire me...I already am covered."
    
       **Some took a monthly payment for life...medical covered again.
    
       **Some took the monthly payment and still got another job. 
    
       I agree that circumstances must be pretty secure for MOST to take a
    monthly check, but some would be in a good position to do so..
    (Independently wealthy, lottery winners, etc...)
    
    
      After almost 4 years of TFSO-AXE haning over our heads, it makes
    circumstances change significantly for a lot of people as well...
    
    JM
      

    The other aspect to early retirement, for men, is what it does to life
    expectancy.
    
    Gerontology research in the UK, where standard retirement for men is at
    65, found the following, empirical facts.
    
    Men retiring at 65 live to about  68
                    64                69
                    63                70
                    65 - n            68 + n
    
    The researchers came to the conclusion that the earlier you retire the
    more likely you'll find something active (physically and/or mentally)
    to fill the time.  And you'll pursue this activity unhindered by the
    concept of stopping at 65.
    
    They also looked at the effect of women stopping their paid employment
    early -- they could find no associated change in life expectancy.

So if I retire at age 67 I'll already be dead?

Paul

Only in you live(d) in the UK.

    ...which might be preferable to living there, anyway.
    
    					:^]

Where's \nasser when we need him ...

    The following entry has been contributed by a member of our community
    who wishes to remain anonymous.  If you wish to contact the author by
    mail, please send your message to QUARK::MODERATOR, specifying the
    conference name and note number. Your message will be forwarded with
    your name attached  unless you request otherwise.

				Steve






    I would like to float what I heard in the hallway this AM by you
    for an annonymous submission for the Digital notesfile.
    
       	THE FORMULA FOR THE POSSIBLE UPCOMING TOTAL BUYOUT:
    
        		
       	YEARLY SALARY x (0.015) x (years of service + 5) x 9 = $$$
    
    
    This formula was just heard last night.  Combined with someone
    wanting to give notice in another place and being told by manager
    to just hold off for awhile, this strongly adds up to something 
    going down in Q4.  
    
    This formula does not allow for retirement medical coverage and 
    looks like it is not aimed at any specific age group.  
    

>>      YEARLY SALARY x (0.015) x (years of service + 5) x 9 = $$$

I'm suspicious of any variant of this formula that has separate terms
for the (0.015) and the x 9.  Why don't they just multiply the two numbers
together to simplify it (as in this example):

      YEARLY SALARY x (0.135) x (years of service + 5) = $$$

I'll believe it when I see it.

-steve-

>>    
>>       	THE FORMULA FOR THE POSSIBLE UPCOMING TOTAL BUYOUT:
>>    
>>        		
>>       	YEARLY SALARY x (0.015) x (years of service + 5) x 9 = $$$

What this boils down to is that anybody with about 10 years of service gets
about 2 years salary.

Garry

    .116�    I would like to float what I heard in the hallway this AM by you
     
    
    Can there be a more reliable source of information? Well,maybe the
    men's room.
    
    Ken

            .119

    > Can there be a more reliable source of information? Well,maybe the
    >    men's room.

    funny you must say that, we here in ZKO, they put little blackboards
    and white chalk in the mens rooms (i dont know about the ladies
    powder rooms, i never been in one), any way, many times i read
    many interesting informations and rumors about DEC in them. most
    are funny things.

    speaking of which, do other DEC facilitates men's room have
    those little blackboards in them or is it just ZKO? i dont remember
    seeing them in LKG when i worked there. i think it is a good idea
    to give all DECeees such an opportunity to write down their inner 
    thoughts out and share it with others.

    \nasser

       
       NOW we know where all of that marvelous information comes from,
    /nasser!!!
    
    
       Anyhow..the last enetered 'formula' is about what was floating
    around here for the past few weeks, and then the rumor arose that the
    BOD had "tabled" the idea. 
    
       While there is ALWAYS the 'possiblity' that something like this
    could be coming, I would DOUBT that many people would spring for it.
    The way it was 'presented' when the original rumor emerged made the
    acceptance of this contingent on giving up all vested retirement
    rights, and the money paid would be taxable. Anyone close to
    chronological retirement who had any sort of significant investment in
    it would not be very smart to take something like this. 
    
       Now...on the other hand....if this was a TRUE retirement, and
    medical was part of it, and the lump-sum could be rolled into an
    IRA???? Yeah! I think there would be a LOT of interest on the part of
    any eligible person....
    
       I'd be eligible..but the no-medical, surrender vesting plan is a
    joke, in my opinion.... The first 3 or 4 straight 'buy-out' packages
    were almost as good, and no issue of surrendering vested pension
    benefits was involved..
    
       JM

    
    Re:19
    
    >Can there be a more reliable source of information? Well,maybe the
    >men's room.
    
    You may have said that in jest. But remember these days men's room 
    is about the only place in the company where people know what they 
    are doing. So if you hear something in the men's room consider it
    reliable.

    
    The reason for the 0.015 being separate might be that this is
    the factor used in our pension calculation.  In plain english,
    the buyout would be:
    
      Digital will add 5 years to your years in service for the
      purpose of calculating your pension.  In order to encourage
      you to retire early, Digital will pay you 9 years of pension
      using the new pension calculation as a lump sum.
    
      If you've been with Digital for		you'd receive
    
    			2.4 years		  1 x salary
    			5.9 years		1.5 x salary
    			9.8 years		  2 x salary
    		       17.2 years		  3 x salary
    

    No activity in here the last three or so weeks -- any more SERP
    (whatever you want to call it) rumors?
    

>>    From Palmer on Monday while he praised the Rdb Engineers at ZKO:
>>    
>>       "The current program will be continued without change until 
>>    		the end of June."

     Was he referring to SERP or TFSO?  As far as I know, no SERP program
     currently exists.

                                      Greg

>>    From Palmer on Monday while he praised the Rdb Engineers at ZKO:
>>
>>       "The current program will be continued without change until
>>              the end of June."

>     Was he referring to SERP or TFSO?  As far as I know, no SERP program
>     currently exists.

I which case he was telling the truth.....

Dave

    He was referring to TFSO (I was there).
    
    michael

It just proves that DECcies can't handle acronyms longer than 3 letters.

    I sent a mail message to Bob Palmer and asked if there was any truth
    to any of the buy-out rumors....haven't heard back but IF I do I'll let
    you know what he says!  
    
    Pat

    
    
      Well,  according to the april 18th NLJ,  recent court decisions
    require a company to respond honestly to questions from erisa 
    covered plan members about changes under 'serious consideration'...
    
    

    How about it Mr. Palmer. You have~ 10,000 people that will jump out the
    window of you institute another SERP. I'm waiting!

    I don't know whythismethod hasn't been explored more vigorously.  The
    money that we have all invested in the retirement fund is in fact ours,
    therefore it makes sense that if most of us will be gone in the short
    term, we should be allowed to access it.
    
    A possible solution:  TFSO plus whatever you have invested in the
    pension fund.  Not a great idea, but then you can reinvest it any way
    you like without having to risk Digital's going out of business before
    you can collect.
    
    

    
    Hah!
    
    I'm being let go just six months before I vest into the plan.  
    
    Another case of Digital screwing the young.
    
    I personally know of one former IBMer here at DEC waiting for SERP (and
    selling nothing!) so he can have two pensions and steal from me and my 
    Generation X brothers via social security.
    
    -Ed

    
    Re: .133
    >The money that we have all invested in the retirement fund is in fact
    >ours,          ^^^^^^^
    
    Is that really true? Then, how come one often hears about Corporations
    raiding the pension funds and getting away with it.