Conference 7.286::digital

    Tomorrow.
    

    4 weeks + 4 weeks (for every 10 year of service)
    
    This is what I heard

    Why don't they (the SLT) just shoot us (like the Chinese) and bill the
    next of kin for the bullets.
    
    	If this TFSO gets any smaller, the only people going to make any
    money on this deal is the lawyers.
    
    	the Greyhawk
    
    	PS - I'm on vacation so my normal notes activity has at least
    tripled. I'm bored stiff!!!!

     RE: .3   Like the Chinese
    
     To be precise, it's like the 'communist' Chinese - fyi.  
     It's the communist style that you have described in .3, not the
     people or race.  
    
     

This is not "better than nothing" from where i stand.  Specifically no one
should sign away their right to sue for better terms based on these figures.

:-(								- paul

Heard today in response to the latest "package" -

    "Let the litigations begin."

    re: .8 and "Let the litigations begin."
    
    The management at Digital is making a safe bet that they won't have to
    deal with lots of lawsuits. Reasons:
    
    1) Civil lawsuits can take years. Digital may not even exist anymore
       when some of these suits come up.
    
    2) Given the current U.S. trends in downsizing, there are a number of
       firms laying off people under more dubious circumstances than DEC.
       How many lawyers are going to take cases like ours on contingency?
       How many of us can afford lawyers if they don't?
    
    3) There are many who will take whatever package is offered, not
       because they need the money, or are afraid of Digital's legal
       beagles, but because they already have new jobs lined up, and
       the TFSO package is just gravy. 
    
    If you're going to put some effort into something, put it into 
    finding a new career after Digital. Unless you get TFSO'd under
    really egregious (and documented) conditions, there isn't much of
    a chance to sue Digital and get much out of it.
    
    Geoff

    what's to sue for?  for one, my efforts would be more profitably spent
    writing resumes.
    
    Is there a Xerox(TM) around here without a line?
    
    ed

While y'all are looking for lawyers and forming class action suits, do you
think you could take just a minute and tell me what sort of grounds you're
going to use in this thing?

If you get laid off, it's not like you didn't have sufficient warning to go
find another job. DEC's been doing this for three years or more. There's
nothing new here.

    Well, one thing comes to mind...
    
    That particular distribution would seem to discriminate against older
    workers. For the first time, the longer you have worked for Digital,
    the package provides _less_ per year of service. This package SUCKS. 
    
    My reaction is so strongly negative that I can't begin to post my 
    thoughts and feelings on it in a notes file. 

         <<< Note 3257.13 by CSOA1::LENNIG "Dave (N8JCX), MIG, @CYO" >>>

    
>    My reaction is so strongly negative that I can't begin to post my 
>    thoughts and feelings on it in a notes file. 


	That is one reaction. There is another. This is 100% better than
	what we had all heard before. Tat was that there would be NO
	package at all, 2 weeks plus your accrued vacation and a pat on
	the back.

	This isn't much better, but it IS better than nothing at all.

Jim

    Although it is unfortunate that the package is being cut substantially,
    I do not think it is wrong or unfair.
    
    Having only been with the company for two years, I could not believe
    that the large packages existed in these times. 
    
    Our CEO and BOD has to turn around this company - it will not happen
    giving 20,000 people 20 grand+.
    
    

RE:.15

If you dodn't believe the generosity of the 1994 packages, then you sure as heck
would not've believed the first package which let people out he door with up to
two years of salary!

    
    This latest package is an insult to anyone who has spent a lot of
    his/her career at Digital and has survived to date.  Where is the
    equity when an employee with 6 years is awarded 10 weeks and an
    employee with 25 years is awarded 12 weeks severance?  It seems
    that the "vacation committee" designed this one.  An employee with
    5 years gets 3 weeks of vacation, while an employee with 19 years
    gets 4 weeks.  Employees with 20+ years in the company are quickly
    approaching (if they haven't already reached) the point where age
    discrimination will be a major factor in them finding work elsewhere.
    An extra two weeks pay will not carry them over the hump.
    
    Lou
    
    
    

    re: .16
>If you dodn't believe the generosity of the 1994 packages, then you sure as heck
>would not've believed the first package which let people out he door with up to
>two years of salary!
    
    I agree the 'early' packages were overly generous.
    
    However, '1 week per year' is practically a (hmm; not sure what word to
    choose) industry/professional_job/white_collar/salaried standard package.
    
    Yes I'm sure folks can quote examples of those companies that did less
    than this, but I submit they are the exception rather than the rule.

    How many of those who wish to file law suits against Digital
    have a written contract where the company agrees to pay you
    a "package" upon termination?
    
    If you do have a contract then see a lawyer. If not then what ever the
    company gives you should be viewed as a gift.
    
    I don't understand at all what grounds a person has to sue a company
    just because you get laid-off in a work force reduction.
    
    Jim G.

    Here is one set of grounds on which employees might consider suing
    Digital.  First, know that the legal definition of fraud has four
    components:
    
    	A person (including corporations) makes a false statement.
    
    	The person knows the statement is false.
    
    	The person makes the statement with the intent of getting
    	another person to agree to something.
    
    	The other person agrees.
    
    Now apply this to a hypothetical set of facts:
    
    	After the early packages, Digital told employees that further
    	layoffs were involuntary.  This statement was false, because
    	many managers accepted volunteers.
    
    	Digital knew the statement was false, because its managers are
    	its agents, and the company knows what they know, and some of
    	the volunteers were openly stated as such, and this happened
    	repeatedly.
    
    	The statements were made with the intent of getting terminated
    	employees to accept packages and setting the terms of continuing
    	employment for the remaining employees -- who are at-will and
    	hence continually agree to work for Digital.
    
    	Many employees did accept the packages or did continue working
    	for Digital, some under the belief the packages were involuntary.
    
    Given that a lawyer could prove these things in court, an employee
    offered a later, lesser package can argue that if Digital had been
    honest, the employee could have volunteeered for one of the higher
    packages.  Yes, the employee has continued to receive pay beyond the
    package's termination, but with the higher package, the employee could
    have enjoyed more time off or additional income from another job.  The
    employee has lost out by believing Digital's statement that
    terminations were involuntary instead of taking one of the larger,
    earlier packages.
    
    In summary:  Digital lied to us, and it cost us money.
    
    
    				-- 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.

    
    	I had been working for the Mead Corporation when they closed
    	the plant in Leominster, Massachusetts in 1966.  At that time
    	we received one week pay for each year of service.  In my case
    	I received 10 weeks pay.  That was in 1966, 28 years ago. It
    	appears Digital is just catching up to where Mead was 28 years
    	ago.  Gee, I wish I had a PHD in Business from M.I.T. then I
    	too could come up with brilliant ideas like this.
    

    
      it seems to me that the grounds should be on the basis of 
      discrimination with respect to previous terminations (ie. today's 
      package versus the much more lucrative earlier ones).  
            
      once the company has established 'precedence' then you could argue 
      that you deserve the same considerations (assuming that the bank 
      isnt broke - but hey, weve got a healthy balance sheet, right?)
    
      how bout a 'Scratch & Win' game to determine package payouts.
      or perhaps try spinning your luck on the wheel of fortune?!
    
      
    

    complaining about this or evaluating legal options isn't going to do
    anyone any good. each of us simply has to decide if staying with
    Digital is worth the risk and effort for whatever rewards (real or
    perceived) may be left. Answering that question should give you a
    reasonable idea about where to focus your efforts.

    RE: .0:
    
    WHERE on VTX would the latest benefits for the TSFO package be posted?
    
    

    It will be posted officially tomorrow.
    
    

As predicted, there is a lot of what I would call hatred emerging towards
Digital.  Excellent, hard working people are going to be terminated with what
THEY interpret as unfair compensation, certainly inequitable compared to past
packages.  These people, and there are a lot, will get jobs with companies who
are/would be Digital customers.  And since the quality and skill level of many
of these people are high, they will get jobs with responsibility and authority.
They will influence or outright make buy decisions concerning IT systems.  And
when the competition is close, they will remember what Digital did to them,
rightly or wrongly, and will choose to do business with HP, Sun, IBM, anybody but
Digital.  Digital will lose sales because of this, and at critical times,
resulting in a continued, perhaps accellerated decay.

I wonder if the pundits have put the right amount of thought into this scenario?

Good luck to all who will be looking for jobs!

re: .26

I'm not sure I buy this argument.  Yes, there will be some former employees
that choose to "punish" their former employer by choosing not to buy
Digital Equipment.  But I think there will also be large numbers who will
try to push thier new employers to buy Digital because they are familiar with
the machines, OSs, etc.   I know a number of people who have left Digital
or who have been TSFOed who are now working for ISVs porting software to
Digital platforms, or for re-sellers of Digital equipment.  So at worst,
I expect the 'ill-will factor' will be compenstated by the 'familiarity'
factor.  JMHO.

	Steve

    RE: .26
    
    Maybe, maybe not. Yes, hatred is a first reaction. The second
    realization has to be that Digital has to do this to stay alive,
    and to still be in the business for us to have any influence 
    over buying or not buying.
    
    Some subset of this wave of people are very capable of making a life
    for themselves and won't need to channel hatred toward a previously
    loyal employer. I hope I can figure out how to be one of that subset. 
    
    Dave,
    
    PS: I need some jam 'cause I think I'm toast.

    re:-1
    
    	Here, here. We seem to have created a new standard for short-term
    thinking at old Digital. Sending 20-25,000 ex-employees into the
    marketplace with a bad taste in their mouths is tandemount to sales
    sucide.
    	Digital could always make a payout over time. Say 16 weeks this year
    and 12 weeks the folowing year for veterans of its success - or a stock
    kicker over time. Anything is better than telling those of us who have
    busted our butts over the past two years that we count *less* than the
    deadwood we got rid of in FY92.
    	I, for one, am hopping mad.
    
    		the Greyhawk

re: .25

>    It will be posted officially tomorrow.

The interesting thing is that when the "unofficial" announcement hit the
net on Monday, it promised publicity on Tuesday. Now, Thursday is targetted.
I expect it's having a "spin" treatment.

-Jack

    Re:. 26
    
    It's already going on.  I've seen an ex-engineering manager from
    Spitbrook sounding off in the comp.sys.dec newsgroup and I peronally know 
    of a number ( >1) of ex-DEC folk who will do anything they can to spoil a 
    sale.....
    
    -Dave.
    

Re .27, .28

Your position is certainly supportable.  I have had experience working with
ex- DECies, and some are only concerned with the best solution for their current
company, and if that's Digital, so be it.

I have also worked with bitter ex-DECies who did everything possible to NOT
buy Digital.  We are now giving such people a LOT of ammunition for FUD, which
can turn the decision away from us.

The familiarity factor continues to shrink, as the perception is that OVMS is a
"dead" OS (according to many customers' perception, which is not being
effectively countered by Digital), OSF/1 is just another UNIX (also perception)
and WindowsNT is not really exploding and may be threatened by Chicago.  And,
hardware is hardware..."don't give me 64 bit, highest clock-speeds, etc., just
solve my business problems in a cost effective manner!"

I just wonder what the ratio is of non-bitter to bitter ex-employees.  And I have
a gut feeling that of the 20,000 or so soon-to-be ex-employees, a higher
percentage will be of the bitter variety, and possibly more able to get jobs of
authority and responsibility.

I also have no statistics on this.  But SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE must have built some
sort of decision model including these factors, to set the current TFSO package.

Yeah, right, I know...

re .32:

An aside for a moment: if OSF/1 isn't just another UNIX, what is it? 
I'd been hoping that that's exactly what it was.

And is Windows NT exploding?  How?

Thanks for any enlightenment, and sorry to divert the thread,
Nick

    re: .28
>>    Maybe, maybe not. Yes, hatred is a first reaction. The second
>>    realization has to be that Digital has to do this to stay alive,
    
    I do not believe this for one minute.

re: .33

>An aside for a moment: if OSF/1 isn't just another UNIX, what is it? 
>I'd been hoping that that's exactly what it was.

DEC OSF/1 is more standards conformant than other Unixes, performance leader,
more stable, new releases have come out when promised, supports both BSD
and SysV applications,  and is fully 64-bit.  We need to get the word
out -- we really do have a better Unix, finally.

	Steve

    
    	Unfortunately, it does not solve the problem of shipping Alpha
    boxes on time.
    
    		the Greyhawk

re Note 3257.28 by BUDDIE::KORNS:

        Hmm, an interesting concept:  "previously loyal employer".

        (Is that anything like a previously faithful spouse or a
        previously patriotic citizen or a previously honest
        business person?)

        Bob

    What is a "previously loyal employer"?
    
    
    
    spoiler >>
    
    
    
    
    Sounds almost Cujo_esque to me.

Re: .31

That former engineering manager left voluntarily, as far as I know.  I consider
his postings to be in poor taste.

						Steve

           New one doesn't sound "fair" to me.  6 yrs of service or 14
           yrs of service = same amount... was this thing called TFSO
           ever fair anyhow?  I guess if it was also voluntary, that may
           have made a difference.
           
           Steve

    RE:40
    
    Not fair is right. After 28 yrs. I'd get 2 wks more than someone with
    6 yrs.???? Almost like telling you you were crazy for staying with the
    company longer than 15 yrs.
    
    I look at it this way, another day more added to my pension plan, thats
    all I to look forward to.

    
    
    >Almost like telling you you were crazy for staying with the
    > company longer than 15 yrs.
    
    that is exactly the message i get...and probably exactly how you feel.
    in retrospect, having left 13 years ago doesn;t appear all that bad,
    does it?
    
    

U.S. News                                  LIVE WIRE
Resumption of U.S. Transition Program for ...               Date: 21-Jul-1994
Page   1 of 1  
             Resumption of U.S. Transition Program for Q1, FY'95
   
         (The following message to U.S. employees is from Dick Farrahar, 
   vice president, Human Resources)
   
         We have concluded a thorough review of the Q4, FY'94 U.S. 
   Transition Program, in keeping with our normal business practice. Based 
   on the results of that review, we have decided to resume the U.S. 
   Transition Program for Q1 FY95 commencing on Thursday, July 21.  At the 
   end of Q1, the program will be thoroughly reviewed in the context of 
   Digital's business goals and the worldwide restructuring effort. Based 
   on that assessment, a decision will be made regarding the program in Q2.
         The financial support package offered during Q4, FY'94 has been 
   revised in two ways: the formula has been reduced; and all separation 
   payments based on years of service will be made on a weekly basis. 
         U.S. employees selected for transition in Q1, FY'95 will receive:
 
         o Four weeks of continuous pay, plus additional weekly TFSO 
   payments as follows:
   
         Service                   Additional TFSO weekly payments
   
         less than six years of service          4 weeks
   
         six or more years of service            6 weeks
         but less than 15;
   
         15 or more years of service             8 weeks
   
         o Continuation of medical, dental and life insurance coverage for 
   a period represented by the total payments;
     
         o Formal outplacement assistance for a period of six months.
   
         The U.S. Transition Program will continue to be managed and 
   implemented by individual businesses.  Business unit transition plans 
   will be reviewed by the Cross-Organization Committee on a 
   business-by-business basis.  














                       FOR DIGITAL INTERNAL USE ONLY
 
    

    I wish they had addressed vacation time.  I want to make sure that
    vacation time is not counted in the six weeks.  I know this has been
    discussed before in this notes file but it really didn't have closure
    ie. is it possible for the company to give you six weeks of serverance
    if you have six weeks of vacation and not give you any more.

    
    For example, I've been here for about 5 years.  Does this mean I get:
    
    	4 weeks pay + 4 weeks pay = 8 weeks pay
    
    if I were to get TFSOed (i.e., chopped -- I grow weary of Digital's
    trite overuse of business euphemisms embedded in acronyms)?
    
    If so, how is this much different from the last going away package?
    
    Thanks,
    
    Dennis
    

    RE:45
    
    If it were the last package, and you have been here for 5 years, you
    would have gotten 1 week for every year of service, plus the 4 weeks.
    In your case, you would have gotten 9 weeks, plus any vacation time
    you had left.
    

What happens with the money in a pension plan? I assume that you don't get
anything out of it until age 60 or whatever it is.

Perry

    I believe the philosophy is not that you should be compensated for 
    staying with the Company for N years. That is why you got a salary.
    The idea is to give you a chance to get another job before the money
    (that is: YOUR money) runs out.
    
    I am not saying that I am for or against this package.
    
    Al
    
    PS: If I had 28 years I would see if I did not fall in a special class
        that they had forgotten to mention
     
    
     

    
    re: .-2  Thanks; so it ends up that I forgoe one week of pay for having
    not been given goahead to "pursue other opportunities".
    
    re: .-1  I'm interested in what happens to my pension plan too.  I am
    now vested in the pension plan; does this mean that if I get chopped
    and find another job, will I get my pension payment from Digital when
    I reach the age of retirement?
    
    Thanks again,
    
    Dennis
    

>    I believe the philosophy is not that you should be compensated for 
>    staying with the Company for N years. That is why you got a salary.
>    The idea is to give you a chance to get another job before the money
>    (that is: YOUR money) runs out.

Unfortunately, morale, loyalty, good long-term planning/accountability,
and a lot of other attributes do not go hand-in-hand with treating
long-term employees effectively as contractors.  There are few, if
any, successful examples of companies that try to do long-term (e.g.
knowledge-based) work using nothing but (or even primarily) contractors
(at least as far as I know).

There was a time when Digital paid salaries somewhat below competitors.
One argument used by management was that "long-term commitment by
the company, and a 'full employment' policy" were effectively a form
of compensation.  In effect, the company is trading "long term goodwill"
to get over a short term hump (much the way the stock market has viewed
our stock lately...).  There are very real limits to how well such
a short term cost-focused strategy will be successful.

    RE .47
    
    Your pension plan is unaffected by your separation plan.  They are two
    entirely separate plans in place which to some degree kick in when you
    officially separate from the company.  You get your TFSO package +
    unused accrued vacation time as it reads on your latest pay stub.  That
    is the short term package.  
    
    For the long term you still always receive your vested pension at the
    prescribed time you decide to "officially" retire and ease into those
    Autumn years of one's life.  For most people that's a ways down the 
    road (the 55+ zone as they say).  You usually receive a statement once
    a year from Digital outlining what you would receive in retirement if 
    your retired at your current rate of pay, including Social Security.
    Again the big message here is your pension is but a small piece to your
    overall retirement moneys available to you upon your hanging up
    the spurs.  The rest is your personal investment strategy (IRA and
    401K, savings, and whatever you've stuffed into the mattress).
    
    Short term:  TFSO get's you what you need to survive on a day-to day
    basis until your next job.
    
    Long term: Pension, savings, investments gets you onto that cruise ship
    to Hawaii with the your wife/husband for your retirement.
    
    Mav

    Each new package has matched whatever IBM was giving.  Is that the case
    here?  IBM started out much lower than what we were offering, we then
    changed our package to match theirs ... is this still true?
    
    just wondering

    It is standard (for every company I have worked for T.I., WANG) for the
    severance package to get smaller as the unprofitable years continue.  It
    is unfortunate, but Digital is not at all unusual in this regard.  This
    is the norm.

    re .51
    
    I  believe that one item which may be overlooked is that is you are
    TFSO'd (or leave the company for any other reason) before you reach the
    age of 55, you can NOT take the lump sum pension settlement option. 
    You must select one of the periodic payment methods.
    
    Jim
    

    Note this significant change in the Q1 TFSO from all prior ones.  There
    will be NO lump sum payments; just continued weekly paychecks for the
    period of weeks eligible (8,10, or 12).  Undoubtedly a
    cash-flow/retention strategy.  
    
    I too am concerned about vacation time not being mentioned in Dick
    Farahar's official Q1 TFSO announcement memo.  However, I recall it not
    being mentioned in Q3 either (and I don't think there ever was a Q4
    memo...).  Also, the payment of vacation time to employees upon
    termination is specifically spelled out in the orangebook and benefits
    policies.  So, in the absence of clarification, I'll assume vacation
    time is still payable upon termination.  
    
    I'd ask my trusty Personnel Consultant (one of the few...) but she just
    left for a dream job in the real world...!!

RE:                   <<< Note 3257.55 by BRAT::CARLTON >>>
     
>>    Note this significant change in the Q1 TFSO from all prior ones.  There
>>    will be NO lump sum payments; just continued weekly paychecks for the
>>    period of weeks eligible (8,10, or 12).

          Good catch.  I didn't notice that one.

                                     Greg

    
    		re.-1 
    	NOT just a cash flow problem; but it's my understanding that
    this state [New Mexico] does not view "lump sums" as continued
    income , there-by allowing the unemployment benefits to begin 
    after the period of "continuous pay" ends. This was discussed
    in a Communications Meeting last week with Mgmt. here in ABO.
    
    					Pablo
    

    
    I don't see how they could not pay you for your vacation on the books. 
    After all it is an already earned benefit.
    
    
    Mike

    As an aside... has anyone heard how the ex-IBM employees are doing in
    their class action suit against the IRS?  They are asserting their
    severance should be considered a settlement from IBM instead of income
    because they signed a document that says they will not sue IBM.  I see
    their point but I don't think the IRS will want to give back all the
    tax money from down sizing that has recently occurred.

    RE: several earlier replies

	To anyone who might think they would want to stick it to Digital in
	the next phase of their career, who do you think you'd be hurting?

	The main effect would likely be on those who were lucky (or unlucky,
	depending) enough to be left behind, most of whom had nothing to do
	or say about the way you were treated. So before you take out your
	understandable frustrations on Digital, take some time to consider.
	There's doubtless been lots of inequities (to say the least) in	what
	has happened over the past several years, but taking revenge on	the 	
	company won't do anything to improve that reality.

    Sincerely, whether I survive the next 12 months or not...

    re -.1:
    
    I think your attitude is very good and you are correct.  BUT, reality
    is that there are a lot of former employees on the street.  And there
    will be more.  And a significant percentage (at least of those to whom
    I've talked) are ACTIVELY competing with the company.  Not necessarily
    "sticking it" to anybody, but if you're an independent contractor you
    may be competing for some of the same business Digital wants.  And you
    can make a real good case for "all the good people are gone at Digital"
    or any other FUD you want to dispense to get the business.
    
    I've heard a number of stories (most nth-hand) but interesting - about
    former employees who've been successful at getting business - in some
    cases I believe it was business this company wanted.  And I KNOW of
    cases where former employees were/are in a position to help steer
    business and have deliberately gone elsewhere.  I have gotten phone
    calls from former employees who needed consulting at their new employer
    - WANTING THE PHONE NUMBER OF OTHER FORMER EMPLOYEES SO THEY COULD HIRE
    THEM FOR THE CONSULTING!  
    
    An often unstated, but I believe real, goal of someone who perceives
    they were unfairly treated in their termination is "I want to someday
    have BPs replacement look out the window of the tower and say - Boy, we
    SURE screwed up blowing that guy out the door! and then turning and
    shutting off the lights for the last time."
    
    I'd LIKE to think I'm mature enough not to work against a former
    employer but I'm enough of a realist to know there'd be a small grain
    of satisfaction in wounding the management that damaged me.

    rep .60
    
    	Tell that to your family!  The ones who you've been saying that
    	you're working as hard as you can, but it never seems to be
    	enough!  these are the prople who depend upon you for the main
    	source of your income.  I know that I can't survive on $185.00
    	per week if I get the axe.
    
    	No smiley face here!!

    Well from what I've seen so far from this company, we don't have to
    worry about ex-employees.  We have seen the enemy and they are us!
    This company has done more to shoot itself in the foot then any amount
    of ex-employees ever will!
    
    - Mike
    

Question:

	Is it true that a 1 year employee would get 4 + 4 weeks !

	Under the old plan I think it would have been 4 + 1 week

	Seems like a big increase for employees with < 5 years employ?

	

    The following reply 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 ROWLET::AINSLEY, specifying the
    conference name and note number. Your message will be forwarded with
    your name attached  unless you request otherwise.

    Bob - Co-moderator DIGITAL

================================================================================

Though I have not done any sort of exhaustive survey or research I have 
noticed that almost all the people I have heard of getting laid off this
spring were over 10 years with the company, a lot over 15 year, and a few
over 20 years. Has anyone else noticed a trend toward laying off those 
with longer time at digital? Does this have any implication toward age
discrimination?

Thoughts? Anyone collected any actual statistics?

    I would agree, being one of those who got 'tapped' in May.  I got 20
    years in.
    
    I would also state that the mentality used to select those individuals
    was NOT based on anything other than 'good-ole-boy' stays. I have been
    cited on many occasion for fighting the system as I see it as something
    that needs to change to make the company better.  I call em as I see
    em, and that pi$$ed a log of management on my old organization off.
    Well TOUGH!  It needed to be said, and I said it!  
    
    The other reason for my belief's are that I was (at the time of
    tapping) working on a LAN service offer.......you know, the thing that
    Rando say's was core to the service business.....I was the 'netware'
    trained process engineer.........Guess WHAT  three of the four process
    engineers (totals about 48+years experience) were 'tapped'....and guess
    what else? The project was re-staffed and continued after we left.
    
    What a company! (said in Smirnof's accent)
    
    chet

Part of the problem here is that we're starting to run out of people
with lesser amounts of seniority. (The had greater amounts of
juniority?). Hiring slowed in many groups in the late 1980s. By the
early 1990s the influx of new people had dramatically slowed. It's
inevitable that the number of years would start to shift higher and
higher. 

There are a number of procedures involved in the TFSO procedures to
help ensure, in the US anyway, that we do not have a disproportionate
number of people in any group (age, sex, job code level) among the
departed. 

That said, I have grieved at the talent and character we've lost in
the recent layoffs. We've jettisoned many of the people I would rely
on if I wanted to bring a business out of troubled times. 

        If Digital were to lay me off, I would take as many of my customers
    with me to my new employer, not to be spiteful but to be an asset to my
    new employer.
    
                               Steve J.

    .68
    I think there is something in the paperwork that you signed when you
    started here that you can`t take them with you and you can`t bring them
    with you.

    so let DEC sue .68 for the small change they gave him when they
    laid him off to punish him further for any customer loyalty he
    may have earned in spite of DEC. Sounds typical....

The first package was selectively administered. You could volunteer
_if_ you were in a targetted organization. (That was the formal
line. I heard stories about people -- mostly connected upper mgmt
types -- sound familiar? -- who lobbied for eligibility). All those
in "critical" /non-targetted organizations could only watch balefully
from the sidelines as various employees got set up to be _their_own_
bosses (no more of this "can't get a 1 performance rating but you can
be a ""high-2" for *them*.)

The second package, slightly lower but for all intents and purposes
equivalent, was voluntary if you did so within a two week period.
(When I got the word the real time was effectively little more than a
week). Once the window closed it was shut. Yet more stories began
to surface about those with -- you guessed it -- connections who
could take advantage of the system.

All subsequent packages have been "involuntary".  Guess I just don't
have the "skills" to play the game.

Why should I want to change an un-ending round of scapegoating
and wage freezes/single-percentage increases, and victimization?
I have my nerve don't I?

    re .69
       How could Digital stop any customer from signing a maintenance 
    agreement with a third party vendor? ..... They can't. A customer can
    do whatever they want with their business.
    
                                     Steve J.
    

>> Part of the problem here is that we're starting to run out of people
>> with lesser amounts of seniority. (The had greater amounts of
>> juniority?). Hiring slowed in many groups in the late 1980s.
    
    I think that if you look at the actual figures for employee
    population year-by-year, you'll see that there was an immense
    hiring binge in the late 1980's, particularly in 1986 and for
    a few years after that, gradually tapering off as the light
    dawned (or should I say dimmed?).
    
    It was such a "pig in the snake" that I'd venture that half
    of the employees have been here less than ten years.  And yet,
    even a casual reading of "goodbye" notes would tend to indicate
    that *far* more than half of the TFSO's are from the 10+ year group.
    
    In fact, the anonymous note a few back commenting on this effect
    looks almost word-for-word like a note I'd entered into another
    conference a month or so ago.  At least I'm not the only one who's
    noticed.
    
    Chris

    RE: .61

      I hear what you are saying about becoming a competitor of Digital,
      and can't disagree. Once you work somewhere else, you are free to do
      as you wish within the boundaries of business ethics (if that's not
      an oxymoron) and any agreements you may have signed with your former
      employer.

    RE: .62

      Maybe I misunderstood you. It sounds like you could justify trying to
      steer business away from the Digital only because of harm done to you
      and yours by the company? This is really more likely to hurt folks
      like yourself who still happen to be with the company. Despite what
      some say, many are still here not because they're part of an "old boy
      network", but because they were lucky enough (for now) to be someplace
      that's somehow sheltered from the seemingly chaotic restructuring, and
      random axing (not to preclude the idea a higher-up in our organization
      might be part of an OBN, though that's not our fault). I wouldn't make
      light of the hardship people may experience, but do you really think
      a stab at the company will hit only the management targets many seem
      to hold responsible for our current problems?

    I do not agree that Digital is just hitting the people who have been
    hear 10+ years.
    
    As a member of the late marketing development program, there were about
    50 people who got tapped ages 21-24. - Between 5 months and 1.5 years
    with the company.
    
    They were the nations top college graduates and were told that they
    were being trained to eventually improve Digital's marketing problems.   
    
    It just seems like they are going after the old because there are more
    old.
        

    
    	Mr. London is correct. It has nothing to do with age, seniority,
    skills, or politics. The layoffs have a focus on organizations. If
    senior management can not actually articulate what an organization
    within their organization does, it is history.
    	Often, after the fact, management realizes it made a mistake and
    recreates the old group.
    	The fact is Digital is an old company (in our industry) with more
    baggage than most. It needs to catch the next train which is pulling
    out of the station as we speak, and it must get rid of a lot of
    baggage, or it is going to miss that train. And if we miss this one,
    we are finished. (For those of you confused - the Train is 64Bits
    long).
    	Senior management doesn't have a clue what is in any of the bags it
    is dropping. It simply relies on other managers to tell them. If the
    manager isn't sure, or properly articulate, it is gone.
    	My advice to you dear reader, is you better have your own butt
    covered, cause no one else is....
    	Your deal............
    
    		the Greyhawk
    

    hey greyhawk........this is Digital.......you should watch out
    for what you are saying!!!!!!!!!
    
    
    You used the terms managenment and stupidity in the same sentence....
    
    THAT'S REDUNDANT!
    
    chet

A memo was sent by our HR that if you had more less than $3500.00 
in the plan you would be recieving it as a lump sum, no choice.
If you had over $3500.00 you would stay in the plan and recieve
your pension when you reach the proper age.  Wonder where they
came up with that figure?

    How can they TFSO someone with umpteen years experience???
    
    This sounds like a good argument for keeping all these old-timers till
    you ask the question:" Umpteen years of experience in something we
    need today?". And: "Do you need umpteen years of experience to do a
    quality job?".  Let us not fool ourselves: It is OUR job to keep our
    market value up.
    
    So let's talk about all these managers that would not know what they
    needed for job skills if it hit them in the face. Sounds like a good
    way to continue some of the sub-threads.
    
    Al
     

    I am surprised that 'old-timers' (no disrespect) are being carted out
    first.  Ignoring the REAL issues (what skills, what business need, and
    so on), paying off people with more years costs more.
    
    Many big stodgy UK companies have a policy of last in, first out
    specifically to keep costs down (again, regardless of skills and other
    factors).
    
    I am more worried about my perception that women are being carted out
    faster than men.
    
    Martin

    
    This idea of laying off all the old-timers and woman is nonsense!
    I was TFSO'D in mid June and with my package it contained a break down
    or 1050 people in my org. with a break down of the # of people in
    specific job codes. and also another sheet breaking down all 1050
    by age. And it put all the TFSO people in there respected place.
    and it was across the board as 'plain as day' for me it came down to 
    my job code. and there were 5 or 6 of us and we were all performance
    level 2 (or better) and it came down to seniority me another TFSO'er
    had only 7 years while the other 3 or 4 had 8,10,12,12 years in DEC.
    
    
    Bill
    

    re: .72 --
    
    Digital certainly cannot stop a customer from going third party. 
    However, they can sue you personally and/or your TPM-employer (should
    that be the case) for using your customer-base knowledge, which gives
    them an "unfair advantage" in negotiation.  The fact that you would
    know the companies, names, system population and perhaps even contract
    $$ amounts, and would give such information to your new employer, could
    be considered an unfair advantage.  It absolutely would be considered a
    breach of the "non-disclosure" document all of us signs upon coming
    into Digital.  I don't recall the wording very well, but I believe that
    this document bars you, even after you leave Digital, no matter the
    circumstances, from disclosing "Digital proprietary, confidential or
    internal" information to others.  Customer data is considered
    confidential.
    
    Not agreeing with the above, just stating what I believe to be true. 
    Take care in what you do when/if you leave.  A friend of mine *was*
    sued by a (non-computer-industry) company when he left and most of his
    customers (voluntarily, without any coercion or unfair advantage used)
    followed him.  His previous employer lost the suit, but it was a major
    hassle for a while.
    
    M.

Re: the previous discussions about whether unused vacation is included in
addition to the TFSO benefits, and whether the unused vacation is paid in
lump sum or on a weekly basis.

What happens if you simply resign, having found another job outside Digital,
and have a substantial amount of accrued vacation time.  In this case, you're
not subject to the rules of the TFSO program.  As I understand it, because
of the policy currently on the books, you'd get your accrued vacation time in
a lump sum (somebody correct me if I'm wrong on this).

So, why should there be any difference on whether and how accrued vacation
time is paid on termination, regardless of the reason behind the termination.
It's an earned benefit, and there is a standing Digital policy on how that
benefit is to be handled in cases of termination.  (Notwithstanding Digital
requiring you to agree in writing to take ALL severance, including accrued
vacation, on a weekly basis, in order for you to be able to receive both the
TFSO and vacation severance benefits).  The weekly payment of the TFSO
benefits shouldn't surprise anyone, BTW.  In fact, from what I hear about our
current borrowing ability, cash flow, etc., it's probably the only way
Digital is able to provide the package it has.

Other than lack of trust/confidence, what difference does it make whether it's
doled out weekly or provided as a lump sum? If I don't need it for weekly
expenses, say, because I have other income, and I want it as a lump in order
to make some major purchase, is waiting to accumulate it over n weeks that
big a deal?

-Jack

Notice an important tidbit from the already-published Q4 Results:

>         The company took a restructuring charge of $1.2 billion in the 
>   quarter to be used for workforce reductions of approximately 20,000 and 
>   the elimination of approximately 10 million square feet of space.....
>...These actions do not include 
>   workforce or facility reductions that may result from divestments in 
>   which Digital may engage.

This answers the much-debated question of 20,000 NOT including the people
lost due to selling off parts of the co.
    

    RE .79
    
    I believe that the $3500.00 cutoff is not set by Digital. A friend
    explained how they figured out that amount - he works for an insurance
    company and it has to do with figuring out how much they would need to
    keep in the fund to be able to actually pay you something later. There
    is a formula that they use to figure that out. I don't remember the
    details.
    
    Ruth-Ellen

    RE:.85

    	It's my understanding (but I'm not positive) that you can't file
    for unemployment benefits until the weekly payments stop.  So with the
    new TFSO package they keep you hanging for 12 weeks instead of 4.  They
    spend less money (12 weeks instead of 12 weeks plus whatever they have
    to pay into unemployment for the extra 8 weeks).

    Joe

    "They" also remove themselves from the possiblility of the class-action
    suit (a la IBM) where the former employees insist that their lump sum
    payments were a pay-off for not suing for wrongful discharge and
    therefore should be taxed as they were.  I don't know that this is the
    reason they made the change to continuous pay (it's probably a
    combination of reasons), but I do know that some ex-Digital employees
    have joined that class-action suit to regain some of the money that
    went for taxes. 
    
    
    Susan

    Oops - that should have said, "...should not have been taxed as they
    were."
    
    When I was a supervisor and had to TFSO people (or, as HR so kindly put
    it at the time, "involuntarily separate" them - reminds me of death
    and dismemberment insurance!), I remember thinking, "There's no way I'd
    sign any of this paperwork without having my lawyer read it first!" 
    And I still feel that way.
    
    
    Susan

    I`m looking for a lawyer as it is and I`m still employeed here! I
    suspect that unemployment will be soon and I will NOT sign any forms
    waving my rights to sue. 

    RE: .89
    
    >> "They" also remove themselves from the possibility of the
    >> class-action suit...
    
    Susan,
    
    Are you saying they no longer make you sign away your rights to sue
    in order to get the full TFSO payments?
    

    I doubt that they no longer ask to sign away rights (lots of people
    will be able to let us know for sure soon - myself included!).  I'm
    saying that if they give us continuous pay rather than a lump sum, none
    of us can argue that the lump sum was a buy-out for not suing and
    therefore not taxable as income (but as a settlement).  It would be
    clear that it would be taxable as income, because we'd be on the
    payroll for the duration of the package.  (I talked to one person who
    said that if they win the suit, he expects at least $3K taken as taxes
    to be returned.)
    
    
    Susan

    It's also questionable whether Digital can make you sign as a condition
    of receiving the continuous pay.
    
    Digital is a Massachusetts based company, which I think requires
    8 weeks of severance pay for layoffs.  Maybe someone else can confirm
    this, and whether that dictates layoff policies in other states?
    
    So if they have to pay anyway, what's the inducement to sign?

>                     <<< Note 3257.93 by VAXUUM::FARINA >>>
>    therefore not taxable as income (but as a settlement).  It would be
>    clear that it would be taxable as income, because we'd be on the
>    payroll for the duration of the package.  (I talked to one person who
    
    I don't see why this is clear.  You are on the payroll for four weeks,
    and then you are not on the payroll and receive the TFSO payment in N
    weekly installments instead of as a lump sum.

��    I`m looking for a lawyer as it is and I`m still employeed here! I
��    suspect that unemployment will be soon and I will NOT sign any forms
��    waving my rights to sue. 

    ...or to spell.

    Nobody said I haad to knooow how to spel in the frst plase:').

    Is the TSFO the same for the UK as it is for the US???
    
    

    No. I believe it is something like 3 mo. + 1 mo./year of service.
    
    There are discussion of it in the ROCKS::UK_DIGITAL conference.
    
    Dave