Conference 7.286::digital

    What I've heard is that there will be no package beyond what is
    legally required (4 weeks?  plus unused vacation time).
    
    NOC
    

    The rumor I heard is that this package will be just 1 week per year -
    as opposed to 4 weeks plus 1 week per year.  The same rumor mentioned
    that this will really be the last package offered.  
    
    Supposedly this tidbit came from corporate finance...
    Marci
    

    Isn't the 4 weeks the 4 week notice required by law? I thought the
    "package" was the 1 week for every year.
    
    Do you really think they would be stupid enough to eliminate the
    package? When you get the package you have to sign papers saying that
    you won't sue Digital. If Digital were to eliminate the package,
    knowing that a major layoff was coming wouldn't that be setting them up
    for a lot of law suits?
    
    Pat
    
    

    re - 1
    
    I'm not sure, but I thought the 4 week package that Digital offered is
    more than required by law. I thought the 4 week thing came into play
    for plants shutting down and it was used across the board for all
    employees...
    
    anyone seen the new fiscal calendr? it just displays the month of July!

    I think the 4 week thing depends on salary class. I think wage class
    4`s are 4 weeks because they ask that you be available for up to 4
    weeks if you resign from the company and 2 weeks if your a wage class
    2. I`m not sure about what is covered under the law.

    RE: .3  by ANGLIN::SEITZ 
    
    >If Digital were to eliminate the package, knowing that a major layoff
    >was coming wouldn't that be setting them up for a lot of law suits?
    
    What cause would anybody have for suing Digital?  
    

RE: .3

  >> Do you really think they would be stupid enough to eliminate the
  >> package?

	Based on some of the other recent decisions... draw your own conclusions.

Re: -1

Digital has set a precedent in that it has laid off people and given them 
a severance package.  When a TFSOee accepts the severance package he or she
signs an agreement whereby they promise not to bring a lawsuit against
Digital for unlawful termination or discrimination etc.

If Digital lays off people who put up with a lot more c%$# than the 
early TFSOs without a severance they will be discriminating against the 
latter TFSO's.  

If there is no severance package to lose who is going to be stupid enough 
to sign an agreement not to sue? 

Without a non-lawsuit agreement that spells class action suit to me.  Heck,
I'm sure someone who signed a non-lawsuit agreement could find a lawyer to 
file a suit anyway if there were enough bucks involved.

    
    From what I've heard the document isn't worth anything in court, you 
    can still sue.
    

    Re: 3215.6, there are any number of reasons for bringing suit against
    Digital.  The ones which are almost iornclad are discrimination based
    on either age, race, sex, etc.  In these cases, the individual has only
    to prove that discrimination may have occured, the corporation must
    then present conclusive evidence that discrimination did not occur. 
    This is the one case where you are guilty if you can't conclusively
    prove you are innocent.  (Example, the three oldest people in a group
    of twelve are transitioned, and on examination all 12 perform similarly
    and the only difference appears to be that the three older people make
    mor money as a result of tenure.)
    		
          

If there is no additional package but you are still required to sign
away right to sue, there is a simple solution: refuse to sign, and
they will have to keep you on!

I shoulda been a lawyer!

    Digital (and the rumor mill...) have been saying "this is the last
    package" for about 2 years now.  It keeps getting smaller, but it hasn't
    gone away yet.  Also, I believe that Digital's take on the 4 weeks thing
    was that the law could be interpreted to include mass layoffs such as
    those we have been doing.
    
    As far as I'm concerned, no tickee - no shirtee = no package - no
    signature!

If there's no package, even more resum�s will be out on the street.
Of course, this may be the intent.

    Fantasy.
    
    Digital only has to offer what the law requires.  The TFSO package
    is something Digital decided to offer.  They can STOP anytime they
    want.  Go ahead and take it to court.  Let's see, Digital can say
    "we have given XX,000 this package even as we were losing $3B.  Now
    because of continuing problems affecting the company we can no
    longer afford to offer it.  The viability of the company and its
    ability to support the XX,000 employees are at stake.  We will
    continue to pay the 4 weeks(whatever?) as required by law, as well as,
    work with the Unemployment Offices in the States where employees
    are affected.  
    
    Think about it.  The TFSO option has been degraded steadily since
    its initial offering.  Are there tons of lawsuits?  Are they
    being won?  Are they being settled?  At some point, if needs be,
    Digital will take its case to court and win.

I would propose that it is naieve to assume that there have been no lawsuits,
settlements or other legal activities going on behind the scenes.

It would be dumb to say the least that Digital would mention losses due to this
sort of action, and it would be dumb for the individuals involved to discuss it,
especially if Digital forced them to sign a gag order to settle out of court (if
I were DEC I would ask you to sign a gag order in exchange for settling), and it
would be a violation of attorney/client privilege for lawyers to discuss it if
any of these things were going on...

So you figure it out... are people suing or threatening to sue? Is digital
settling or gogin to court, and probably more importantly in such a risky sort
of area such as wrongful termination, are attorneys taking this sort of crap on
on a contingency basis (cause I don't think too many of us have the sort of
money to pay the retainer on a bet). Now I have no doubt that if there is
reasonable cause to believe you have been discriminated against any number of
ambulance chasers, organizations, and even the government will belly up to the
hundreds if not thousands of hours required.....

Who knows.... maybe someone will get some smart attorneys interested in a class
action suit, but can/wil many of us benefit much by it.... I doubt it.


mdw

    
    
    is it really a question as to whether this is discrimination?  not in
    my mind!  better people are being let go and are being compensated
    significantly less than some of the deadbeats that were let go a year
    or more ago.  it is clear discrimination.  now, i do not wish to say
    that digital set out to discriminate in this way but we have a legal
    system not a justice system...and so intent is quite often moot.
    
    mark
    

Hmm, I hope that "they" ARE discriminating when they lay
people off.

Unfortunately, I hear quite a few stories that suggest
they don't discriminate at all.   Doesn't matter how useful/useless
you might be...

I had heard that there is no legal requirement to continue with TFSO packages.
It has been, so far, a continuation of the generosity of the corporation to help
the people losing their jobs land more softly.

There is a business justification, though.  Think about 20k+ employees just
dumped without some sort of TFSO.  Most will be bitter and have an ax to grind
with this company, feeling cheated and treated unfairly after working hard to
help turn the corner.  Many will soon be in other companies, customers of
Digital, and will have influence over buy decision.  What do you think will
happen?  Can Digital afford to have so much poison in the customer base?

Believe me, I've worked with customers where bitter ex-deccies work, and they
can and DO influence buy decisions away from Digital.  I guess the bean counters
have done some sort of "investment analysis" to determine whether it is more
"cost-effective" to give the cash on the way out the door, or suffer sales loss
due to revenge-minded ex-employees.

    Anyone that thinks Digital "has to do something" like give 4 weeks or
    that there is a federal law mandating this is nuts.
    
    Digital only has to do what the local state laws require.  In Georgia 
    Digital can axe you and not pay your acrued vacation pay, or give you squat.
    
    Court cases involving IBM have upheld the rights of a company to change
    or eliminate separation terms.
    
    

    Had he been consulted (and were he still alive 8^(, Dr. Deming would
    have asked, "What is the cost of a disgruntled former employee?'
    
    Indeed, the power of a disgruntled former employee is formidible.
    Also, as Digital is trying to become a player in the PC and printer
    markets, the company is not just creating 20,000 potentially
    disgruntled former employees, but 20,000 potentially disgruntled
    anti-customers.
    
    this is one of Deming's "unknowable" figures which he said were vital
    for businesses to know.
    
    I guarantee you the bean counters have no idea how much this costs.
    
    (By the way, in no way do I intend this as a threat to be disgruntled.)

    PERSONALLY I CAN NOT IMAGINE A COMPANY NOT ANNOUNCING A CHANGE IN
    THE PACKAGE WITHOUT A FEW WEEKS NOTICE. THE NEW QUARTER IS LESS THAN
    A WEEK AWAY...AND CORP MUST ALREADY HAVE THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION.
    WHY NOT ANNOUNCE IT?
    I QUESS I GIVE DIGITAL MORE CREDIT THAN TO SPRING A SURPRISE NOW.
    
    CAROL
    

    You mean like the negative notice given on the salary freeze?
    
    				Steve

    re: .21
    
    Since Digital is still TFSOing people for Q4, they might wait until the
    begining of next quarter to announce any changes.

    
    
    I agree with .16. It seems to me that the discrimination is in not 
    having let people take the package when they offered the first one many
    years ago (5 years ago maybe?).  I remember the people who walked away
    with over 100K in their pockets after having contributed ZERO to the
    company in years. THe deadest of the deadbeats got the really BIG
    bucks. Sounds like discrimination since at the time, they were mostly
    older, senior, most useless managers. 
    So we gave out the bucks on a sliding scale. THe more useless you
    were, the more money you got. Sounds like discrimination against
    performers...
    or maybe discrimination against anyone stupid enough to stick it
    out...
     :-(

    Re -.1
    
    No discrimination, just the good old boys network.  Give your buddy a
    good package and when it's your turn, you can count on him to help you
    find something.
    
    Jean (whose turn has come too)
    

    Wait until 18 of July, then they will offer us a new
    company and perhaps another package...
    
    Volker

>           Sounds like discrimination since at the time, they were mostly
>    older, senior, most useless managers. 

Since the very first TFSO, there's been a lot of grumbling in here about
how management was unscathed.  So which is it?

    Q1 packages (if any) are not likely formulated yet and certainly will
    not be announced until Q4 results are in.  Affordability will be
    assessed based on how many folks left in Q4, how much cash we have, how
    expenses are tracking, how revenues are tracking, etc.  If nothing
    else, they have been consistent in stating that the packages are
    dependent on results and current/future prospects...
    
    Also, since Q3 the pattern has been to not publicly "announce" the
    terms.  People find out if/when they are hit.  To my knowledge, there
    has not been a TFSO announcement/memo since winter...

    re: -2
    
    as i recall, the very first tfso was "managers only" so a large
    percentage of those folks that took that package were managers.
    since then, the packages have become less attractive and the number
    of affected managers "seems" to have abated considerably...although i
    have no hard data to confirm this.  for managers it has become somewhat
    of a case of the wolves sheparding the sheep.  that is , they're the
    ones making the decisions as to who goes/stays and so we can be sure
    that there has been alot of 'you wash my back and i'll wash yours.'
    going on in those meetings.  this, of course, is altered in the cases
    wherein a manager wanted to get the package.  in those cases, even
    though the rest of us could *not* volunteer, managers could make their
    wishes known at these meetings and in all cases i know of (~5) they
    were given the package.  i wish the whole thing would be voluntary. 
    that would surely be the best way to reach the headcount goals the
    quickest.  i have heard the arguments against this...the key point
    being that the best people would likely leave...and while i agree that
    they may happen, if anyone believes that the way things are currently
    being handled is keeping the good folks;  they're sadly mistaken.
    
    my $.02,
    mark
    

    
    re: .20 (Steve)
    
    Too true. And when you add in access to the internet, it gets
    even better (or worse, depending on your viewpoint). I predict
    some *really* interesting technical discussions on comp.sys.dec 
    around October or so. People who know where the (technical)
    bodies are buried could cause real havoc, I suspect.
    
    Glenn (who is not now, and never has been disgruntled)

>>                      <<< Note 3215.29 by AZTECH::RANCE >>>
                         -< tfso I was managers only >-

    >>re: -2
    
>>    as i recall, the very first tfso was "managers only" so a large

Not so, at least in NY.  I'm aware of only ONE sales/support manager who
got TFSO'd, and he ASKED for it.

    .24
    It's overgeneralizing to say that all those who left under the first
    few packages were the most useless.  I know some good people who left
    at that time.
    
    KO (whose values were somewhat different than the current leadership,
    IMO) was still around then, and I think the company hoped it wouldn't need 
    to sever more employees than could be shed through a couple of lucrative 
    voluntary packages.
    
    As time went on, and the company's crisis got worse instead of better,
    there was no choice but to reduce the size of the packages.  DEC just
    couldn't afford the big-buck sendoff anymore.
    
    Today's smaller buyouts have nothing to do with discrimination against
    employees who stuck it out.  It has to do with the realities of a
    5-year period in which a light has yet to appear at the end of the
    tunnel.
    
    Let's not forget that the people leaving now had a job here for 3-5
    more years than those who good the larger packages.  From what I've
    been reading in the papers, many of those who left earlier have had
    considerable trouble finding work.
    
    It's been very tough, but continued employment is worth something.
    

    RE: .16  by AZTECH::RANCE 
    
    >better people are being let go and are being compensated significantly
    >less than some of the deadbeats that were let go a year or more ago.  
    
    You appear to be laboring under a misconception that "better people"
    can expect to be compensated accordingly.
    

    
    > It's been very tough, but continued employment is worth something.
    
    yeah, and so is 50 or 60 or 70 weeks of paid vacation!  seriously,
    even if it turned out that ALL of the people who got that package
    had quite considerable difficulty finding a job...they still had
    *many* weeks of paid vacation.  what is that worth?
    
    mark
    

    .34 you seem to think that 50 or 60 or 70 weeks paid vacation was great
    for the first people who got the  package.  Well let me tell you, you
    obviously have not know people who took any of the packages and
    certainly not lived with them after the fact.
    
    Let me tell you the emotional distress of leaving Digital via a package
    is NOT WORTH IT.
    
    My husband, got the first package.  He was NOT a DEADBEAT, NOT a
    MANAGER, NOT a POOR performer and DID NOT ENJOY his departure from DEC
    (as it was known!)  HIS JOB went AWAY!  He had a job 3 weeks before he left
    and it took him almost 2 years to adjust to the pain, loss and heartache of
    leaving his friends "and family" and DEC Culture behind.  Never mind the
    cut in pay and starting all over again at the bottom with a new employer.
    He worked for the company for 16 1/2 years. For the most part all of his
    career.
    
    I've had a manager who SERPed and another who TFSOed recently and their
    emotional adjustment to the loss of DEC culture is greatly felt.
    
    SO, before you judge and think the grass is greener and these people
    have it easy, let me tell you money does not buy everything.  

    
    	:-1
    
    		True, but it beats whatever is in second place.
    
    	;-)
    
    			the Greyhawk

re: -2

my comment was meant to be judgement-free.  i will speak for myself.  i would
have taken 50,60 and even 70 weeks of pay to leave in a heartbeat...and i'd
take whatever lumps come with that.  i felt that way at the time of the first
TFSO and and i feel that way now.  i well-understand that your mileage may vary.

mark

    
    ....it has been notedthat  there is life after DEC......people are 
    still breathing,eating, and even having babies...
    
    horNet
    

    re .31
    
    The 'very first' TFSO was only available to certain organizations.  No
    field based organization were elegible.
    
    The first layoffs in field sales/support were actually the second
    'package'.
    
    There have been a lot more than ONE sales/support manager TFSO'd from
    the NY office since this began in the field.
    
    Peter Dillard

    
    
    
    the few people I know who got the first TFSO packaage (4 of them) were
    all managers here in the CSC. 
    
    Two of them took a few years off of work to go back to school. THe other two
    opened up their own businesses (which I guess you can do with over One
    Hundred Thousand Dollars AFTER taxes). (I know this to be fact since I
    bought a house from one of them who went back home to  Texas, and since
    I have been in contact with another). 
    
     At least for these folks, the TFSO was a GIFT.  
    Had this 'gift' been offered to all employees, there would be no one
    left no doubt. 'Losing your job' with only enough money to get by
    for 4 weeks is not easy, but walking away with the opportunity and the
    cash in hand (a years salary +) to start all over again in life and do
    whatever you choose to do is tough for me to look at as a bad thing... 

re: -1

that is entirely consistent with my view of things.  however, given that we both
work in the same building and know many of the same people...perhaps that should
not surprise me.

mark

    my experience with acquaintances (neighbors, co-workers, etc)
    being TFSO'd is that the ones that had marketable skills got
    jobs quickly. The ones that spent years being elements of the
    management matrix are having a tough time of it.

Has anyone retained any of the the original TFSO package announcements
offered over the past 4 years ... if so can you post them here.
Phil

I wouldn't be a bit surprised but that you could find them all right in this
conference.
-Jack

RE:                  <<< Note 3215.43 by DASPHB::PBAXTER >>>
     
>>Has anyone retained any of the the original TFSO package announcements
>>offered over the past 4 years ... if so can you post them here.

     I was just looking for that yesterday.  598.132 has a non-official 
     description of the package, but I didn't look any further for the
     official one.

                                  Greg

598.211 has the official announcement of the second package.

	Today on VTX Livewire the Westfield Plant outsourcing and closing
references a TFSO package to be offered (after Q4FY94). If they get it don't 
we all get it (it being TFSO) when we get IT.

	Lee

    
    
    
    re .46
    
    
    I read the note you mentioned. It talked about 77 weeks of pay being
    the
    max anyone was going to get...but that wasn't the interesting part...
    
    the next note states something to the affect of how INSULTING this
    package is (the 2nd package) as compared to the first package and said
    that there was a DRASTIC reduction from the 1st to the 2nd package....
    
    ah yes. the first package was when we gave skillions of dollars to any
    manager who had been useless for over 10 years. 
    
    A gift. A good ole boy GIFT.
    
    I do know of some folks who purposly went to mgt and requested IN
    WRITING to be given that first package (which wasn't 'offered' but was
    bestowed behind closed doors) just so that if/when the time came, they
    would sue DEC for discrimination. 
    

    The 1st TFSO was for a MAX of 104 weeks pay.

    
    
    
    This is from 598.220. 
    Dates 5-sept-1990, it's kind of a timely observation:
    
    
    >So, the result is one that clearly seems unjust (from at least one
    >perspective).
    >That is, the first and most generous package was offered to those whom
    >Digital
    >deemed most expendable or least "valuable" given its business needs. A
    >less
    >generous second package will be offered to the next most expendable or
    >next
    >least valuable people. And if future packages are offered, they will be
    >even
    >less generous and will go to those who were presumably more "valuable"
    >than
    >people in the previous offerings.
    
    
    
    

    
    
    
    from 598.223. This one addresses one of the questions that came up:
    
                              -< Whats really  going on? >-
    
    >    It did seen very unfair here (GSO) when the first package was
    >    directed at
    >    managment personal only and now the second package (the lesser one)
    >    is to offer out to others. I guess the most valuable people are the
    >    ones that actualy do the work. But the worker's pay doesn't reflect
    >    that value. Something smells like a fish to me.
    
    

    
    RE: .47  I believe because it is an entire plant closing they must
             offer something under Mass.? law as compared with TFSO'ing
             people at various locations where they may have little or
             no requirements.
    
                       Mark

    
    I don't know about anyone else, but to be honest, I would have been
    devastated to have received one of the first packages.  I didn't
    believe people who said it would get worse and the packages smaller
    (can you say denial?).  I absolutely adored DEC and didn't ever ever
    want to leave.  No matter how much money.
    
    In hindsight, I can see how they did indeed luck out financially, but
    for me the emotional toll would have been very high had I been severed
    before the possibility was even a reality to me.  It's taken me a few years
    to get to the point where it would be okay if it happens.
    Of course the way things have gone have made that a lot easier.
    
    -Susan

    re .50
    
    If I read it right:
    
    The most valuable get the least...

here is the the case for blatant descrimination, in a nutshell:


   This is from 598.220. 
    Dates 5-sept-1990, it's kind of a timely observation:
    
    
    >So, the result is one that clearly seems unjust (from at least one
    >perspective).
    >That is, the first and most generous package was offered to those whom
    >Digital
    >deemed most expendable or least "valuable" given its business needs. A
    >less
    >generous second package will be offered to the next most expendable or
    >next
    >least valuable people. And if future packages are offered, they will be
    >even
    >less generous and will go to those who were presumably more "valuable"
    >than
    >people in the previous offerings.

    About TFSO I and II...
    
    I cannot agree more.... those are GIFTS!!!!  One guy bought an
    Infinity 45 with it!!! He alaso landed with a great job across
    the street from the MRO complex!
    
    Remember the program in '89, '90 where corporate folks were 
    relocated to the field (all expenses paid, including selling/buying
    of homes??). One such individual not only got that GIFT, then got
    TFSO II package!!! Asides from winning the lottery, I can't figure 
    out what might be better??
    
    I for one (provided I have dozens of yrs of service!!) would WELCOME
    a chance to start over, change to another career whatever with some
    financial safety net beneath me.  That is what the TFSO package
    allows one to do.  Of course with current "slimmed-down" package
    that safety net is really not there anymore.
    
    ref the lady back there bemoaning about her husband's agony in leaving
    Digital... remember each of us is a FULL person with other
    mission/goals in life.  Being a Digital employee is only one aspect of
    being a human being.  It is NOT one's entire life!!! and life moves
    on... at least he has a good parachute to jump with (16+ YOS, right??)
    
    

    Is the Engineering to Education program still around? This was the
    proram that gave you a safety net to go into teaching?

No.  It was cancelled last year.  VTX EEP spells it out.

    About TFSO I and II...
    
>    Remember the program in '89, '90 where corporate folks were 
>    relocated to the field (all expenses paid, including selling/buying
>    of homes??). One such individual not only got that GIFT, then got
>    TFSO II package!!! Asides from winning the lottery, I can't figure 
>    out what might be better??

I took the cod package in January of 1990 and have been working as a consultant
at customer sites ever since... I was relocated 75 miles and most of the
closing costs of my condo purshase were paid by dec. Many of the people that
moved via cod were later laid-off when DEC changed the rules. The original
plan was no-cost to the new cost center for two years and after 1 year the
game changed to full cost and anyone that wasn't a superstar/didn't adjust 
well to the field was canned...

At the time I could have asked for the package as my datacenter (nr04) was
being merged into the westminster dc. I computed my package as something like
50 - 60 weeks of pay (13 weeks plus x weeks for 1-5 years service plus 4 weeks
per year for 6 - 10 years service). I decided to take the job in CT because
I enjoyed working for DEC, the job sounded interesting, we were at the start
of a ressession, i was 9.5 years and not quite fully vested and my weekend
commute to VT would stay the same.
    
Dan "still here" Buckley, CT dc and VMS Partner

>                 i was 9.5 years and not quite fully vested               

Didn't full vesting at 5 years begin before COD?

Hi everyone,

up until the 30th June 1994 the formula in Germany was:

Package = Your age * no. of years with Digital * average monthly salary
          -------------------------------------------------------------
				34

There were extra payments for dependent children (3,000 DM per child) and 
for people over 50 and 55 years of age. The package isn't net - the first 
24,000 DM are tax free and the rest is at half your normal income tax rate.

Important (or dangerous) people were allowed to leave immediately with 
salary being paid until end of "legal" employment e.g. if someone who had 
been with us for 10 years (had 6 months notice) and if he/she had left 
yesterday he/she would still be paid until 31st December 94.

The whole point of giving someone a package and getting them to sign a
"Aufhebungsvertrag" (revocation contract) is that on paper that person 
has resigned from Digital and NOT that that person's been fired by Digital.
You therefore have no right to sue Digital and you have to wait (I think 
it's 3 months) before you can claim unemployment benefit.

Mitch

� You therefore have no right to sue Digital and you have to wait (I think 
� it's 3 months) before you can claim unemployment benefit.

I think you have to wait only if the revocation contract did not obey the usual
termination rules, e.g. terminate not by the end of the quarter, or with less
notice than required by law/contract.

Unfortunately, the most important sentence was your first one:

� up until the 30th June 1994 the formula in Germany was:

German management has cancelled the package yesterday as of immediate. :-(
Discussion is going on whether this complies with German rules.

Hans.

    AS OF TODAY...PERSONNEL SAYS THERE IS A PACKAGE BUT IT IS NOT IN
    OFFICIAL YET, THUS WE CAN NOT GET DETAILS. ANYONE ONE KNOW ANYTHING?
    
    CAROL
    

	as long as a 'new' package is not officially announced then the
	'old' package is still in effect...

	denny

    
    
    I ran into a guy over the weekend who got the 2nd package (as a
    manager) from manufacturing.
     
    A year and a half salary. 
    A year medical coverage.
    Job hunting assistance. 
    
    He opened up his own small business and said he's never been
    happier....
    
    ...poor guy...

    Yeah, I had been with the company 3 years when I was offered TFSO1.
    
    I would have received 43 weeks pay, one year health benes, one year 
    in a job hunting assistance resource.  All from a company that gave
    me 1/2 my MBA scott free.  I remember thinking this was an awesome
    company, and also watching people crying at the fact that DEC had
    the audacity to even offer a VOLUNTARY severance package.
    
    The "Dec-for-life" theme ran very deep with those folks.  Most of
    them are now gone, having been identified for TFSO 3 or 4.
    
    It was really bizarre.  It really was.

    The eight weeks minimum is a risky approach.
    
    I believe that Mass. state law requires a minimum
    of eight weeks.  
    
    So if the best that some might get is what the law
    requires, will everyone sign the termination papers waiving the
    right to sue?  Is Digital encouraging nuisance lawsuits?
    Surely this would cost the company more than the "savings"
    from a reduced package.

    RE: .68  by VIA::HAMNQVIST 
    
    >SHOULD YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ,GIVE A YELL. 
    
    Can we YELL anyway, even if we don't have any questions?
    

    Hi,
    
    Does anyone know if people will be able to volunteer?
    
    
    Thanks

    Don't think they will allow it!
    
    Since all of them so far, have been on a non-volunteer basis, this
    would open up for questions/litigations of why its allow now and not
    back when 'I' would have gotten 104 weeks!
    
    parrot trooper!

.68 has been deleted - it was a memo posted without the author's permission.

					Steve

    
    
    re: -1 missing author's permission.
    
    is this a courtesy or someone's view of what the P&P manual says?
    
    i always thought that anythig i get in my vms mail box is my property 
    thereafter and so i am free to forward it to whomever i please
    (company confidential stuff not withstanding).  i would also have
    thought that this same logic maps well to notes conference.  am i
    mistaken??
    
    mark
    

re Note 3215.75 by AZTECH::RANCE:

>     i would also have
>     thought that this same logic maps well to notes conference.  am i
>     mistaken??
  
        It doesn't.  You are.  Specifically prohibited by written
        policy.

        Bob

    
    
    so my mail is my mail and with that i may do what i please?
    yet, notes are different.  is that what you;re saying?  i just
    would like to be clear on this.
    
    

re Note 3215.77 by AZTECH::RANCE:

>     so my mail is my mail and with that i may do what i please?
>     yet, notes are different.  is that what you;re saying?  i just
>     would like to be clear on this.
  
        If you receive mail from another you may not post it in a
        notes conference without the author's permission.

        Bob

		Digital Equipment Corporation
                      PERSONNEL                       Section 6.54
               POLICIES AND PROCEDURES                Effective 01-DEC-90

                Proper Use of Digital Computers, Systems and
                                   Networks


RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONTENT OF MESSAGES SENT OR POSTED ON NETWORK

Messages mailed or posted over the Digital network are the
responsibility of the original author.  Posting these materials in a
notesfile/conference without the explicit permission of the author is
prohibited and is a violation of this policy.

When forwarding messages or posting them to conferences, removal or
falsification of the original message header (which indicates the
author) is prohibited.

| This policy covers all messages addressed to individuals and
| organizations.  It is not intended to restrict the distribution of
| general announcements, course listings, etc., or messages originally
| posted on external bulletin boards such as Usenet news groups.

��When forwarding messages or posting them to conferences, removal or
��falsification of the original message header (which indicates the
��author) is prohibited.

    It seems to me that the moderators of this conference violate
    this policy every time they post an anonymous note.

    But of course these policies are just guidelines, subject to
    capricious enforcement, and broad employee interpretation.

Re: .80

We do so with the author's permission.  This action has been approved of
in the past by Corporate Personnel; the requirement is that at least one
moderator be able to identify the author of the anonymous note.

				Steve

��We do so with the author's permission.  This action has been approved of
��in the past by Corporate Personnel; the requirement is that at least one
��moderator be able to identify the author of the anonymous note.

    It seems rather pointless to have a policy with an explicit
    statement of what cannot be done, and then have that pinnacle
    of cariciousness 'corporate personnel' approve a group of
    individuals' actions which routinely violate the policy.

    Good stuff for wrongful discharge lawsuits!

>We do so with the author's permission.  This action has been approved of
>in the past by Corporate Personnel; the requirement is that at least one
>moderator be able to identify the author of the anonymous note.

To whom?

-steve-

    I made a mistake, but .. a byte for byte extract of my illegally
    cross-posted message is apparently legally posted as note #3257.5
    
    >Per

No, it's not legal... I hadn't picked up on that.  Thanks for the pointer.

			Steve

    Hi,
    
    	Pardon my (French...) ignorance, but can somebody tell me what the
    acronym TFSO stands for? Got the flavor but not the exact meaning.
    Would approciate. 
    	Pascal

    transition financial support option

    Time For Shipping Out

I heard it was "Thanks for shoving off" from some other.

    Tough Fluck Sucker, Outtahere!

    Actually, the acronym TSFO would make a lot more sense than TFSO. 
    Think about it.

    Two, Four, Six... (you're) 
    OUT!

    totally futile separation obscenity

    The Flying Saucer Option

Truth
Frightens
Some
Officers

    "Termination with Finacial Support Option".
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To get PGP, FTP /pub/unix/security/crypt/pgp23A.zip from ftp.funet.fi.
For FTP access, mail "help" message to DECWRL::FTPmail or open Upsar::Gateways.

    Overheard in the hallway:
    
         The Fortunate Start Over!
    
    

    Thanks For the Send-Off!
    
    

	Isn't there already 10 notes with the "hidden" meanings behind
	TFSO?

						mike

    Actually, the proper term is no longer TFSO.  It's ISP.
    

    ISP==Idiots_for Staying Put?