Conference 7.286::digital

    I don't have a name for you but it sure would be interesting to see how
    many takers they would get if they threw that option out on the
    table.                                

    I know several (at least 18) who volunteered but I won`t share that
    information unless I contacted each one and asked which I do not have
    the time to do.

    I know of people who volunteered and were told "we are not taking
    volunteers."
    
    These people were put thru the "regular" process and were TFSO'd within
    corporate guidelines.  I think this will be the case in most of those
    who think they volunteered.
    
    I know of others who volunteered but are still here.
    
    -sandy
    

    and I know of several who actually did volunteer... as in stepping up
    to their (then) manager and saying "I'll go"... and were subsequently
    TFSO'd... 
    
    and on at least one occasion, the manager told me "He saved another
    person's job" by volunteering.
    
    tony
    (who will give the names to EDP, happily)

    From what I understand, nobody volunteered, but some "expressed
    interest"

    A TFSO is announced... an organization is selected to "participate". 
    An individual within that organization, who is known to be "looking" to
    leave and resume college education and/or other interests says to his
    manager: "I volunteer"... the individual is "selected"... and is
    subsequently TFSO'd <smiling as he leaves, everybody congratulating
    him>... the individual's manager later says "he saved someone else's
    job".
    
    I'd call that VOLUNTEERING.
    
    tony

    I know of a case where the manager went to a number of people in the
    unit (not all) and asked them if they wanted to be put on the list.
    If they said yes, they were added, and they did get TFSO'd.
    
    The manager also put their own name on the list, and was also TFSO'd.
    
    Before the 30 days was up however, upper mgmt realized they
    wanted/needed those people, and sent them letters withdrawing 
    the Involuntary seperation package and offered them the choice of
    	1) accepting a $10K bonus to come back, or
    	2) accepting a Voluntary seperation package 
    
    As I understand it, the terms for (2) were the same as the TFSO pkg.
    Only one person of the dozen or so involved accepted option 1.
    
    (BTW, the managers involved were only offered option 1, and I believe 
     they and DEC are now in the courts over the matter.)
    
    Dave

    What will you (EDP) do with the data?  How will you ensure it's
    accurate?
    
    Anyone with an axe to grind would be more than happy to send you
    "evidence" - how do you plan to ensure that such volunteering really
    took place and isn't just a figment of someone's imagination?
    
    Thanks,
    
    Steve

    In 1993 I was in a group that was asked if anyone wanted to volunteer.
    One did and was on his way shortly after.....smiling all the way to the
    bank.  The rest chose to stay.  This was in a headquarters group.  
    The higher up you go, the more fun it gets.  (---)
    
      

        Re: Volunteering, and possibly saving jobs of others, etc.

    In these later rounds, you are getting to the point that when the group
    does it's ladder you have clumps of equals.

    Say you have 10 people, and need to lay off 10%

    	You have 2 people that ladder to the top rung
    	you have one person on the second rung
    	you have 7 approximately equal (in talents needed) people on the
    			bottom rung

    Pick one of the "lower 7"
    
    At this point it becomes subjective, and what are the possible subjects
    		to rate by ?
    
    	Young vs old ?
    	Family vs single ?
    	High vs low in salary range ?
    	PC vs non PC (Polit Correctness)
    	Gets along vs does not ?
    	Harry says he'd (Carol says she'd) be ok if they were "separated" ?
    

    Re .8:
    
    > What will you (EDP) do with the data?
                        
    As .0 says, I have no immediate plans.  But if I don't collect it now,
    many of the people who remember who volunteered may be gone when we
    need this information.
    
    > How will you ensure it's accurate?

    It can be cross-checked with records, managers, the people themselves,
    and other witnesses.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    suppose a person gets involuntarily TFSO'd (aren't they all supposed to
    be that way?).  
    
    now, suppose that person had PREVIOUSLY walked up to his/her manager
    and volunteered (say, when the package was lucrative), but was turned
    down... 
    
    Now, suppose that person is a litigious sort, and is familiar with the
    legal system... and furthermore, doesn't mind "rocking" the boat.
    
    Seems to me that this person might, just might, consider going to some
    lawyer and suggest the possibility of a suit.
    
    

    If I were .0's manager I would probably take this as a
    threat.  No, I would certainly take this as a threat. 
    
    Carel
    
    

re: .13

>    If I were .0's manager I would probably take this as a
>    threat.  No, I would certainly take this as a threat. 
    
A threat to what?  The status quo?

Although Eric doesn't really have a reputation for being diplomatic,
and even though he's come close to infuriating me on more than one
occasion, I applaud him for his courage in standing up for what he believes
is right, especially in the current climate where it's easier than normal
for a boss to get rid of you for questionable reasons.  I certainly hope
that he has all of his ducks in a row, 'cause I'm sure that he isn't popular
with upper management at this point.  Personally, I'm a coward when it
comes to things like this, and the fact that I'm willing to post this note
at all is an indication of how my job has deteriorated to the point where
being terminated no longer seems like such a terrible thing.

    re: .14
    
    I'm not so sure courage is the right word at this point, Hal (no
    offense, Eric) as only an idiot would fire Eric for ANYTHING!  ;-)
    
    Now seriously....
    
    Eric - you say you have no immediate plans; do you have any long-term
    plans?  If I had information to give (which I don't), I personally
    would like to know how that information will be used.  I am concerned
    at the potential for damage caused to employees & managers for
    *perceived* violation of rules when those doing the perceiving may not
    be in a position to properly judge.
    
    Early on in my current position, I told my manager I felt I wasn't
    performing all that well and would understand if she TFSO'd me.  That
    didn't happen, but if I am selected at some point in the future, does
    that mean I volunteered?
    
    If I said to my boss (in front of others) that I wouldn't be devastated
    if I got TFOD'd; would that constitute my volunteering for it?
    
    Let's say I even formally volunteer - I send a note to my boss saying I
    wish to be TFSO'd.  Isn't is possible that a subsequent round of TFSOs
    (in which I'm included) could have been planned long before I said I
    was interested?  Perhaps I already fit the criteria and was in fact
    slated for it before anyone knew I was interested.
    
    It would seem that the opportunity for misunderstood data based on
    the likely misperceptions of those providing it to you would invalidate
    whatever you're ultimately planning on doing with the data.
    
    What are your thoughts?
    
    Steve

>    Do you know of anybody who took the TFSO package voluntarily during or
>    after August 1992, when the first purportedly involuntary terminations
>    were made? 

  The first involuntary TFSO's took place in late 1990 (Sept., I think). This
is etched in my mind because I had the misfortune to be in one of the groups
where these layoffs took place. So is there something different about the
TFSO's that took place after Aug. 1992, such that people who were "voluntarily"
TFSO'd before then are not relevant for this list?

The first involuntary TFSO was on Monday 5th November 1990, I remember it 
well because I got married on the Friday before and my wife was not sure if 
she would have a job to come back to after the honeymoon!

Thankfully her manager was kind hearted enough to 'hint' that she should 
not to worry just before the wedding.

Terry

    One way to secure your job, if that's REALLY important to you, could be
    to formally and vocally volunteer for the next round of cuts.
    
    FWIW,
    
    Bill

    March 1992 - UK - Volunteers asked for for Redundancy at Branch
    Customer Services Dept meeting - of approx 50, 7 were to go. If no
    volunteers or insufficient, choices would be made.
    
    (Ie: you're saving your chums jobs if YOU go??)
    
    I think we all volunteered - it was quite a fair package even for us
    lowly paid mortals - and I planned to emigrate (and here I am).
    
    The strange bit was though that having volunteered, I was not entitled
    to Social Security. At least that's what I and the Social Security
    agreed(me being TOO honest again). Then when my papers came through,
    oddity number 1: Involuntary Retrenchment. OI!! I bloody volunteered!
    Now how does that look to my next employer when I say I volunteered and
    took the package for good planned reasons, and my papers say I was
    retrenched involuntarily. AND I should have been entitled to the Dole
    after all but too late.
    
    Oddity number 2: I had been promoted and was performing in the role of
    resource controller. But my papers read - Customer Service Engineer -
    which I had been before. So what do I put on my C.V. the truth - or
    this amended version of the truth?
    
    I volunteered for redundancy having been working as resource
    controller, but Sir, if you talk to my previous employer he'll say I
    was an engineer he retrenched. Hmmmm!
    
    However, the good bit is, they effectively paid for me to 'take a year 
    off' during which I went to college, learnt programming, got a job 
    programming, and waited for my South African immigration papers, and paid 
    for my transfer here. I worked for another company in Software support
    for the first year while I got established, and now I'm back, 
    and they're paying my wages again - albeit back as a Customer Service 
    Engineer again.
    
    Keep smiling....(-8-)
    

The first TFSO in the U.S. occured Jun 28, 1990. My wife was one
of those on that date. This happened in CXO.

re: .10, Bill

>    Say you have 10 people, and need to lay off 10%
>    	You have 2 people that ladder to the top rung
>    	you have one person on the second rung
>    	you have 7 approximately equal (in talents needed) people on the
>    			bottom rung

If you end up with granularity like that (70% lumped together without
any distinction), it's pretty good evidence that insufficient effort
was applied to the laddering exercise. Assuming that you have a good
level of confidence in the percentage of the hit, the area of the ladder
affected (i.e. the waterline) is where the highest degree of attention
needs to be paid in order to afford the finest granularity.

-Jack

    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

==============================================================================

Eric, while I think I understand your motivation for taking these steps and 
collecting names, I'd like to give you a word of caution.

Not that long ago, I was a manager who had to select people for TFSO.  It was
an extremely painful, anguishing process.  We were told no volunteers.  The 
first round, two of my staff knew they were likely "candidates" and both 
started talking about how much they wanted the package and *sounded* like 
volunteers.  They were on the list, and they saw the handwriting on the wall.
One really did want it, because she wanted to move away.  But that did not 
factor into my decision making.  After that round, another staff member told
me that the other "victim" had talked about volunteering and wanting the 
package so people would think she wasn't on the list because her skills were
in question.  So, if you get their names from someone, guess what?  They 
weren't volunteers!

During the second round, two staff members came forward and volunteered because
they wanted to stay home with their children.  We had already done preliminary 
laddering, and one was on the list whether she wanted to be or not.  Do you 
think I would be so cruel as to ever let her know that?  As far as she knows, 
I was doing her a big favor.  And she was a good worker.  Now I only had 
*damn* good workers left!  The second person from that TFSO was truly a 
volunteer, and you'll probably get her name from someone.  As I said, I only
had damn good workers left, and it was a case of "one potato, two potato" as 
far as skills went - as far as past performance evaluations went, too.  But 
there were rumors of major funding cuts, and most of her projects were part 
of the rumors, so that's the criteria I used.  No other project cuts affecting
my staff had been announced or rumored.  Could I have kept her and cut someone
else, moving folks to fill in projects?  Yup.  But she wanted it, some of her
work was going away, and I was told in no uncertain terms that I had to cut
people.  

And for the record, with all the management bashing that goes on in this
notefile, I thought you might like to know that I spent many sleepless nights
and hours of crying over all this prior to, during, and immediately following
the two TFSOs.  It affects most managers that way!  And totally contrary to
popular belief, managers are not all paid "big bucks" to make these decisions.
Many managers are quite poorly paid at Digital!  I stepped down from management
after that, because I knew deadwood elsewhere were being kept while I had to
lay off damn good workers!

Final thought:  Why is this anonymous?  It should be obvious, but might not
be.  I wasn't supposed to consider volunteers and in one case I did.  Others
lead people to believe that they were volunteers to keep their images from 
being tarnished.  And one truly believes she volunteered, even though she 
didn't.  I'd like to leave them with that small shred of dignity.

re Note 3372.22 by anonymous:

> And for the record, with all the management bashing that goes on in this
> notefile, I thought you might like to know that I spent many sleepless nights
> and hours of crying over all this prior to, during, and immediately following
> the two TFSOs.  It affects most managers that way!  And totally contrary to
> popular belief, managers are not all paid "big bucks" to make these decisions.
> Many managers are quite poorly paid at Digital!  

        I don't think the "management bashing" in this conference was
        directed at people like yourself.  Rather, it was directed at
        those above you, perhaps several levels.  The perception is
        that the upper-level managers simply dictated percentage
        reductions in staffing, without regard to project or business
        needs (or customers!), and that the lower-level managers like
        yourself were as much victims as those laid off (although
        victims in a different way, obviously!).

        The perception is also that during the past fiscal year,
        especially, upper management put off the downsizing of their
        organizations so that when the Q3 disaster struck they
        directed their organizations to make major cuts with
        excessive haste -- and excessive pain, and excessive
        disruption to those who were still expected to deliver work.

        Bob

    
    	re: .13
    
    	THAT sounds like a threat!
    
    	/john

I'm not so sure.  Its been my experience when I pushed the 'are you 
threatening me' angle I've had something to be threatened with.

When I've made threats and had them named so I've always renamed them
to promises.  They're much more effective, but only if you can back
them up.

I don't feel threatened by Eric's post and wouldn't even if I was his
manager.  Its just a request for information.  If I'm threatened by
his possessing INFORMATION then I'm back to my first point as having
something to feel threatened ABOUT.  If I just plain didn't want people
to have information I'd think I was born a few centuries too late...

I can't speak for edp, but if we did screw up somewhere shouldn't we
make it right ?

Scott

    re: .25
    
    Yes - if Digital has made errors, they should be corrected to whatever
    extent that is possible.  But this is a large "if".  What may be
    perceived to be errors may in fact not be errors (see the anonymous
    manager's letter).
    
    If EDP wants to take the time to interview each TFSO'd employee and
    his/her manager & group about the decision process for the purpose of
    clearing the confusion around 'volunteers' that really weren't, and
    correcting mistakes that actually were made - then perhaps I'll
    agree with your assessment that he's got "the guts to pursue something".
    
    Since even he apparently doesn't yet know what he wants to do with the
    information, I'm not quite sure how to characterize his actions.
    
    Steve  
    

    Re .15:
    
    > Eric - you say you have no immediate plans; do you have any long-term
    > plans?
    
    I explained in another note how Digital's actions in regard to TFSO
    could be legally construed as fraud.  I'm not planning such litigation,
    but it was suggested to me that I should collect the information now
    because if it disappears, we might not have the option of collecting it
    later.
    
    > I am concerned at the potential for damage caused to employees &
    > managers for *perceived* violation of rules when those doing the
    > perceiving may not be in a position to properly judge.
    
    I expect that any lawsuit would demonstrate a corporate-wide pattern,
    so there wouldn't be a focus on particular low-level managers.
    
    > Isn't is possible that a subsequent round of TFSOs (in which I'm
    > included) could have been planned long before I said I was interested
    
    Sure, that could just be coincidence.  But some of the reports I am
    receiving involve situations where one person volunteered specifically
    to save another, or where the manager stated that is what happened, or
    where somebody actually complained to Personnel to get the package.
                                                                       
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .16:
    
    I thought I had tracked down an announcement in August 1992 that
    layoffs would henceforth be involuntary, but maybe there was something
    before that?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

Before acting in haste, walk a mile in the moccasins of one who has to
determine who stays and who goes.  

There is just so much variable information that it would be nearly impossible
to get it straight, even if one person's perception was that they volunteeered
to save another.  Thank you, anonymous manager, for that understanding.

And the person who thought a way to secure one's job is by applying
reverse psychology and volunteer - I was thinking the same thing.
You start to play these games, you can "volunteer" but it could mean
NOTHING except in your own mind.

Litigate truly unfair circumstances, but make sure they are real and
not imagined because it wastes time, money, effort, dignity, and perhaps
a good reputation.

MM

    FWIW, nothing entered in this note or notesfile could be 
    considered an affidavit. Nothing is notarized.
    
    fm

    Re .30:
    
    > Before acting in haste, . . .
    
    Acting in haste?  Has somebody filed a suit already?  Please let me
    know; I'd like to get in touch with them.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

>    > Before acting in haste, . . .
>    
>    Acting in haste? 

Sorry.  Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could have been.  Permit me to
rephrase:

Before acting, walk a mile in the moccasins of one who has to
determine who stays and who goes.  

>Has somebody filed a suit already?  Please let me know; I'd like to get 
>in touch with them.

I don't know of anyone, and I would first ask if they wanted you to contact
them, anyway, if I did know of anyone.

Mark (wearing rubber gloves so no fingerprints can be left behind)

Re: .20

I thought the June TFSO was voluntary, it was here in ALF.

Terry

    RE: 34
    
    If it was voluntary, I'm truely miffed. I volunteered and I'm still
    here. 

	Terry was referring to Note .20 which mentioned the June *1990* TFSO.
And yes, Terry, that one was "voluntary", in a way.

	I worked in Greenville, S.C. Manufacturing at that point.  The people 
identified as having jobs that were redundant were given the choice of taking 
the Transition Financial Support Option package (which, for those into nostalgia,
*started* at 40 weeks of pay with additional for time in service) or going 
into a special "transition" cost center.  Their job at that point became finding 
a new job (the assumption was with Digital).  If I remember the sequence of events
correctly, there was one more "voluntary" round with a slightly reduced package.  
Those who had stayed on in "transition" were offered the choice of this lesser 
or the choice of staying on for a while longer (with the understanding that if an 
"involuntary round came up they would have to take the package, even if it was 
siginificantly less than the one they were first offered.)  

	The next round a few months later was involuntary.

	So the voluntary part was not whether or not you were on the list, but 
whether or not you took the package or stuck it out and tried to find another 
job within DEC.  (At least at Greenville.  I heard rumours that other sites opened
it up for "pure" volunteers.  (I also remember hearing about a site that had so 
many volunteer that they had to retrench and not allow them to volunteer. :-) ))
 
Tracey 

    To add/clarify to .37
    
    I was also worked at a manufacturing facility during 1990. I recall
    being called into a meeting twice over a couple of quarters regarding
    the request for volunteers for the 1st and 2nd packages.
    
    Our facility had a 'number' that it had to reduce by. Most
    organizations/functions within the facility each had their own 'number'
    that they had to contribute to reach that 'number'.
    
    The way it worked in our organization was that we were called into a
    meeting, basically told "you (~50 people or so) are part of an impacted
    work group, your group needs to reduce by ~15 people; we will be
    accepting volunteers to reach that number, and if that number is not
    achieved by volunteers, the selection process will take place". Note,
    there were people that were part of an organization that had impacted
    work groups that were not eligible for volunteering or selection if
    the function they performed was deemed critical. I recall some verbage
    that if too many people volunteered within an organization, the
    selection process would 'disqualify' those with better P.A.'s, time in
    job, etc. to get to the right number.
    
    The options were the same as described in .37, with the addition of
    relocation funding. I.E., TMP would cover relocation funding if an
    open personnel requisition did not provide for it, and you were
    selected for a position and met relocation guidelines.
    
    hth,
    
    Kevin

    When I worked in Salem (NIO) we were told that as a manufacturing site
    we would send our work else where. This occured in very late 88 because
    I was relocated to N.J. where I was born. Been here since April 89.
    Start date in NYO was 03/20/89 with a pretty good relo package. I won`t
    go back to N.E. except to visit once or twice a year. I turned down a
    VERY good package then and I only had 5 years in.

    From the Live Wire entry in 1618.1, it seems the first (completely?)
    involuntary package was offered in January, 1991.  So let's make that
    the cut-off date.  Actually, I'll collect anything; right now it's just
    going on a growing stack of paper.  However, people who did volunteer
    after January, 1991, are of particular interest.
    
    Also, thanks to all those who have already sent information.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

edp ...

	Will you share the information that you are collecting with those 
	of us who will request it from you ???

	Phil

    Re .41:
    
    Sure, if anybody has a use for it the information, I'll make it
    available.  I'd rather not do it for idle curiosity though; at this
    point I'm just piling the papers in a stack, not organizing them or
    keeping them on-line.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

         I'd have volunteered back in '92 when the package was
    	worth something if they'd have let me. But I had to wait
    	around for the SLT & Co. to shut the plant down instead.
    	Ohhh, to be TFSO'd twice in a lifetime..................
    
		As you can see it's been a long few days to ponder
	how and why it was even worth the effort of so many people
	to thwart Eriks'attempts to put together some concerned
	employees for whatever purposes . The world we note in is
	faceless, sometimes easily mis-read or interpreted. If his
	attempts placed fear in the hearts of some mis-guided souls
	amongst us, then I suggest they must face the enemy within
	themselves,not in this notesfile. As has been mentioned here
	before, any employee consortium would be without true power
	to create change of any kind. The fabled "Employee Empowerment"
	came and went in but a blink of the eye, like so many worthy
	causes before it-find out how Harley Davidson turned it's
	ship around so fast. That was pure employee involvement.
	Enough's enough already. Good luck Eric, I hope you find
	peace at the end of your chosen trek. It can be rewarding
	to take on Goliath , whether you win or not is a different story.
	Today is just as good a day to die as any other.............
	I depart this notes file with a little something from the
	late sixties or early seventies, it matters not to me which.
	Any inaccuracies are mine alone, memory having to serve me
	as well as it can. Thanks for the insights to all. Have a nice
	life.

			Bueno-Bye,

			 Pablo




			Two Hangmen
		( Jackson Browne,circa '60's)

	As I rode into Tombstone on my horse;his name was Mack,
	I realized there was something going on behind my back.
	It seems the folks were up in arms,a man now had to die.
	For believing things that didn't fit the laws they'd set aside.

	The mans name was Ima Freak, the best that I could see.
	He was the executioner, a Hangman just like me.
	I guess that he'd found loopholes from working with his rope.
	He'd hung the wrong man many times, so now he'd turned to hope.
	
	He talked to all the people from his scaffold in the square.
	He told them of the things he'd found, but they didn't seem to care.
	He said the laws were obsolete, a change they should demand.
	But the people only turned away, they couldn't understand.

	The Sheriffs name was Uncle Sam, he swore he'd right this wrong.
	He'd make the hangman shut his mouth, if it took him all year long.
	He finally arrested Freak, and then they sent for me.
	To hang a fellow Hangman from a fellow hangmans' tree.

	It didn't take them long to try him in their court of law.
	He was guilty then of thinking; a crime much worse than all.
	They sentenced him to die, so his seed of thought can't spread,
	And infect the little children. Yes, that's what the law had said.

	The hangin' day came 'round and he walked up to the noose.
	I pulled the lever but before he fell I cut him loose.
	They called it all conspiracy, said that I had to die.
	So to close our mouths and kill our minds,they hung us side by side.

	And now we're two Hangmen hangin' from a tree.
	That don't bother me at all.......
	Two Hangmen hangin' from a tree......and that don't bother me,
			at all.