Conference 7.286::digital

    I would suspect it's the same people who wrote/approved the new
    Orangebook Policy #2.11 "Change of Job Requirements"

    No one is skirting the issue, it is that it was decided last year that,
    in line with the HR downsizing and wave of shedding of "non-core"
    business, the Orangebook was outsourced.  
    
    The difficulties in finding the responsible person/organization that 
    honestly no-one in DIGITAL is reponsible for the maintenance and updates 
    to the Orangebook.
    
    I believe the HR company is in Worcester Mass, off rt20.  They use one
    of those new HR software packages. 
    
    Its name of the company SPAGS discount HR services company.
    
    
    Just kidding.
    
    Ira 
                 

To read the entire 2.11 text, do the following:

$ VTX ORANGEBOOK
Choose #5 Employment
Choose #1 Change of Job Requirements (2.11)

Below is the Philosophy, Policy, and Practice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  PHILOSOPHY:

  | There are times when the demands of our customers and/or our
  | business make it necessary for the Company to implement significant
  | changes in employees' job requirements.  We believe that employees
  | impacted by significant and permanent changes in job requirements
  | should be given reasonable time to adjust to those changes, and
  | reasonable support to find other positions if continued employment
  | in those jobs is not possible.

 POLICY:

  | From time to time circumstances will require the Company to change
  | work requirements.  Changes in job requirements may be the result
  | of externally imposed obligations, changes in the business, and/or
  | changes in the structure and needs of the organization.
  | Significant changes in an employee's job requirements may include,
  | but are not limited to:

  |    o   regularly assigned work schedule
  |    o   assigned shifts
  |    o   regularly assigned work location
  |    o   eligibility requirements for a job (such as testing for
  |        substance abuse)

  | Managers are expected to plan and operate their businesses so as
  | to minimize the number of such changes and to provide affected
  | employees with as much notice of these changes in job requirements
  | as possible.

  | Whenever appropriate, the Company will respond to these types of
  | job requirement changes by providing affected employees with the
  | option of staying in their position and complying with the new
  | requirements, or providing the employee with a reasonable amount of
  | time to seek other job opportunities within Digital.  This policy
  | seeks to define what is considered as "reasonable time and support"
  | based on the nature of the job requirement change.

  | At times business circumstances will dictate that it is not
  | feasible to provide an employee with the option of staying with
  | their current position.  In these cases, the Company will endeavor
  | to provide affected employees with a reasonable notice period and
  | support to seek other opportunities inside of Digital.

  | Employees engaged in looking for another position within Digital,
  | because of changes in their job requirements, are expected to make
  | a sincere good faith effort in identifying and accepting a position
  | that matches their skills and meets the needs of the business.


  PRACTICE:

  | The Company has categorized the types of job requirement changes
  | covered by this policy into two groupings of changes (e.g., Level 1
  | and Level 2 Job Requirement Changes) based on the complexity of the
  | change and/or on the anticipated impact to affected employees.

  | When a Digital organization determines that it is necessary to
  | initiate a significant job requirement change as reflected in this
  | policy, the employee's manager will:

  |     o   Identify the type of job requirement change to be initiated
  |         in order to make a Level 1 or Level 2 job requirement
  |         change determination.  If a change in job requirement is
  |         not specifically identified in this policy, contact the
  |         Human Resource Department for assistance in making a
  |         Level 1 or Level 2 job requirement change determination.

  |     o   Identify an appropriate process to implement the job
  |         requirement change covered by this policy.  This process
  |         should include a plan to provide affected employees with as
  |         much notice of the change as possible; and a process to
  |         select or identify affected employees in a fair, consistent
  |         manner which reflects the actual business requirements
  |         dictating the changes.

  |     o   Identify a process to obtain the necessary review and
  |         approval of any job requirement change covered by this
  |         policy.  Job requirement changes require the approval of a
  |         Vice President's Direct Report and his/her Personnel
  |         Manager.


There are more than 20 more VTX pages.

Mark

2.11 orangebook

So what am I missing?  Level 1 or Level 2 definitions involve change of
employment within the company.  A person is notified of business changes
and has a couple of weeks to find an internal transfer.  Or a person is
notified of business changes and the company intends to transfer this
person to another place within the company's owned domain.  If they
refuse, then they have a couple to four weeks to find an internal
job or be terminated.

How does this correlate to transferring employment to a company that
is not owned by Digital?

How does the deal to transfer writers to a company correlate to say,
the Quantum deal?  How is it differentiated?

Mark

>If they refuse, then they have a couple to four weeks to find an internal
>job or be terminated.
    
    Go back and read it again; they are terminated, but it falls into the
    class of 'considered to have voluntarily resigned' (ie no TFSO).
    
    2.11 explicitly does not cover things like sell-offs/out-sourcing, but 
    takes the same approach as .0; ergo I would suspect the people who had
    a hand in implimenting/validating this aspect of 2.11 were involved in 
    the defintion of the 'standard corporate practice' used in .0s case.
    
    Dave

So, the way the policy is worded, you do not have the option
of "not resigning".  They have defined "not accepting the offered
position" as being equivalent to handing in your resignation.

In effect, by saying "no", you are also saying "I resign".

Not saying that I agree with this policy, just saying what I
interperet it to mean.

Kevin

.5>
>    ergo I would suspect the people who had
>    a hand in implimenting/validating this aspect of 2.11 were involved in 
>    the defintion of the 'standard corporate practice' used in .0s case
---

  *WHO* are the people who implement/validate this?
  Are they the same people who can clarify/change it?

.6>

>In effect, by saying "no", you are also saying "I resign".
>
>Not saying that I agree with this policy, just saying what I
>interperet it to mean.
---

And this is the point:  THEIR DEFINTION may not agree with anyone
else's definition.  I do not interpret a "no" as "I resign."

It is precisely this lack of clarity of definition that causes
litigation in courtrooms to determine exactly who can define what.

I want to AVOID a test case and ensuing court case, with negative
publicity and the all that.  This can be done by CLEAR DEFINITION 
THAT NEEDS NO INTERPRETATION.

Apparently, Blue Cross and Blue Shield had a conflict of definition
with some of its people and the people's interpretation held up in court.

*WHO* (specifically) in this corporation is resposible for making 
this definition???  Why can't we get it in clear, unmistakable language?

Mark

>    ergo I would suspect the people who had
>    a hand in implimenting/validating this aspect of 2.11 were involved in 
>    the defintion of the 'standard corporate practice' used in .0s case


Also...  I understand "standard corporate practice" to involve those employees
beying transferred to another place *within* the company, or to a company
*owned* by Digital, or to a company that bought a piece of Digital (e.g.
Quantum).

It is this third point which closest resembles what Digital intend to 
do with writers.  There is a catch, though.  Digital isn't selling off
its documentation department.  It isn't even selling off, say, OpenVMS
documentation.  It is identifying employees in documentation for sale,
as a "service."  Digital, through my management, is acting as my employment
agent (without regard to my wishes, consent, or right of refusal).

I understand the Quantum deal sent the brains with the product.  And 
refusal to go meant termination.  Was it because Quantum offered a 
better package than did Digital?  We have no information let alone 
guarantees.  We're not being sold as a product set; we're being sold
as "commodities."  Is this the same as the Quantum deal or is it different?

And by the way, engineering is next.

Mark

re: .7


>Why can't we get it in clear, unmistakable language?

For the same reason no one will define 'solicitation'.

Bob

Regarding "clear, unmistakable language":
It is my understanding that in a contract, ambiguous language is interpreted
AGAINST the side that wrote the contract. Therefore, someone who could withstand
a long court case would have a good chance of winning, in my opinion. Digital is
probably counting on the fact that they can handle an extended legal case better
than employees.

DISCLAIMER: I am NOT a lawyer. Do NOT take this as legal advice.

Also note that someone who resigns is NOT eligible for unemployment. However, if
employment conditions substantially change, this is not considered a
resignation. I do not know what constitutes substantial change, although I
believe this does include relocation. But then, a new employer would have to be
very bad before I'd go on unemployment rather than move to them. I'd take the
new employeer and look for another job. (But I'm an engineer, so this doesn't
apply to me, yet.)

This topic came up in the HR communication meeting this morning here
in MRO.  Pat Fleming, the SES Group HR manager, said that if you
declined a transfer to a vendor you would be terminated for, in
effect, refusing to do your job.  Someone pointed out that this is a
different answer from what Georgina Girard gave last week, and they
(Pat and Georgina) said they would check on this practice.
	They mentioned "standard corporate practice" a few times.  I
asked exactly what is the corporate policy on layoffs, where is it
written down, and can I get a copy of it?  I've looked in VTX policies
under layoff, transition, and TFSO, and not found it.  Georgina said
she would let us know how to find it.
	Someone asked about unemployment benefits.  They said the
corporation cannot answer for the state.  I said "you can answer if
the corporation would contest our applications for unemployment."  Pat
said that's a good question and Georgina will ask the lawyers.


re .8:

> Also...  I understand "standard corporate practice" to involve those employees
> beying transferred to another place *within* the company, or to a company
> *owned* by Digital, or to a company that bought a piece of Digital (e.g.
> Quantum).

> It is this third point which closest resembles what Digital intend to 
> do with writers.  There is a catch, though.  Digital isn't selling off
> its documentation department.  It isn't even selling off, say, OpenVMS
> documentation.  It is identifying employees in documentation for sale,
> as a "service."  Digital, through my management, is acting as my employment
> agent (without regard to my wishes, consent, or right of refusal).


Mark, according to my uncle-the-lawyer, you are correct.  The kind of
involuntary transfer of employment that SES is planning would be legal
if (1) Digital were getting out of the documentation business
altogether, (2) Digital were selling a product line and everything
that supports it, or (3) Digital owned the vendor company.  Picking
and choosing which employees are "transitioned" with severance and
which are "terminated" without severance apparently amounts to an
unfair labor practice.  
	And FWIW, later in the meeting, one of the HR people defined
what happens to employees when work declines or goes away as being a
"transition."   Maybe they just don't have their terminology straight.

>Why can't we get it in clear, unmistakable language?

<set_mode>(sarcasm)
Because the ability to write clearly and well is merely a commodity
skill which our management is above acquiring.
<set_mode>(normal)


Pilar.

>(But I'm an engineer, so this doesn't apply to me, yet.)

I'm so glad you added that last little word.

This is a "Big industry" trend.  Programming is soon to be defined as a 
commodity, with more and more body shops sending their "employees" to 
companies who will pay for their programming services for a time.  It
will be a lot like a contracting agency, except that you won't get 
contract wages.  You may get paid what you get now, you may not.  You
will likely program at sites you like, and some you don't.  You may
have some travel, you may not.  You go where the agency/company places
you.  

I've heard ad nauseum how the industry is changing and this is largely
propaganda.  Of course, the industry is changing, but it doesn't have
to change for the worse.  Responding to change is good; responding poorly
to change is bad.

Some big companies are going to "outsourcing"; some are modifying their
stance on outsourcing because they blew it.  Outsourcing companies remove
a level of your freedom and choice

Engineering is next to follow this model.  The virtual corporation includes
a virtual workforce, expanding and contracting (no pun intended) by hiring
middleman vendor commodity companies to supply first documentation, but
soon programming.  And why not?  As a business model, it sounds fine.
But a business is run and managed by people, and this model may not 
help people who'd like to settle near their jobs.  But I keep getting told
this is not a reality in today's industry.  The reality is many jobs, many
moves, and highly mobile careers, with fewer and fewer benefits (after all
commodities are interchangable).  If you like this reality, you'll be
very happy.

Mark

    How naive of me....I thought things like indentured servitude and 
    debtors prisons were covered under the Emancipation Proclamation and
    civil law.  Without a written contract of ownwership of services,
    how does any company reserve the right to sell or transfer your 
    services to another company.  I wonder if they get 2 first round draft
    choices in exchange.
    
    Forcing a person to resign in lieu of accepting a transfer to another
    non-affiliated company without some sort of financial compensation HAS
    TO BE A VIOLATION OF SOME LABOR RELATIONS BOARD RULING OR POLICY.
       

    re .13 probably is. you got the $ to pursue in court? the assumption is
    no, and DEC's been right in that assumption more than not.
    
    re .12 you fail to mention the current "QC" movements whereby
    engineering productivity is measured "to assist scheduling"; what
    it means is you'll go to CodRTemps, take a code test, be
    measured based on LOC/minute and Defects/KLOC and placed (or not
    placed) accordingly.
    
    have a real nice day....
    
    
    bk

>    re .13 probably is. you got the $ to pursue in court? the assumption is
>    no, and DEC's been right in that assumption more than not.

Some lawyers will jump at the chance for either commission or glory.
I was told that there were several lawyers champing at the bit over 
the Blue Cross and Blue Shield issue.

It isn't the money, but the time and the hassle.  A friend of mine told
me about his daughter who went through it at BC&BS and it dragged over
a year, with BC&BS delaying proceedings, etc.  They got their compensation
with interest, even though they struck out on their own and found jobs
anyway.

DEC, to assume such a thing, (a) may be making a false assumption with as
many people to be affected, and (b) is unbelievable to be so cold-hearted
nasty over what could be a simple matter of dignity.  I hope their 
re-evaluate their odds and risks.

MM

>    re .12 you fail to mention the current "QC" movements whereby
>    engineering productivity is measured "to assist scheduling"; what
>    it means is you'll go to CodRTemps, take a code test, be
>    measured based on LOC/minute and Defects/KLOC and placed (or not
>    placed) accordingly.

  Hi,

  My name is H. Moss Moreover.  I'm a rich, eccentric executive, but 
  I'm just like you.  I started out like you,  I am one of you.  I
  wanted to have this little chat with you in my "infomercial" because,
  heck, I've got the money to do it, and I think I have something to say
  of interest to us all.

  Do you hear a giant sucking sound?  No, it isn't the manufacturing
  jobs going to Mexico, but it is a very similar sucking sound, isn't
  it?  It's all the technical jobs going to sweat shops, and it sucks in
  the same way.   Now just take a look at the following chart.  Isn't it
  impressive?

                               | 
                              _|
                          ___/ |
                         /     |
                        /      |
                    /\_/       |
                   /           |
                  /            |
              ___/             |
  ___________/_________________|
            / 

  Wait a minute.  Wait jes' a minute.  This chart is backwards.  Here
  let me turn it around for you.

  |
  |_
  | \___
  |     \
  |      \
  |       \_/\
  |           \
  |            \
  |             \___
  |_________________\__________
                     \

  There. That's right. The big brains in management have found yet
  another way to save money by selling your technical expertise by
  farming out migrant technical workers. And you know what else?  They
  get to keep their big paying jobs, bringing in the farmed out migrant
  technical programmers and writers and artists.  

  Now here's the good part.  What can you do about it?  Nothing!  That's
  what! They have lots of money and plenty of people who will work for
  less and less. They'll tell you that your pay has been bloated for
  years.  (But their's hasn't.)  They're pulling the rug from under you
  and having a good laugh.  And what do they care?  That's the funny part!
  They don't!
  
  That's all the time I have for today.  I jes' flew in from Washington
  and boy, are my ears tired.  Maybe I can rent me one of them aeroplanes
  next time from Frank Lorenzo.  Y'all come back now, y'hear?

>    it means is you'll go to CodRTemps, take a code test, be
>    measured based on LOC/minute and Defects/KLOC and placed (or not
>    placed) accordingly.

Whoopee... 

	1000000<I 0;
	$>$$

There, a million lines of bug-free C++ code as fast as the CPU can 
crank 'em out.  What's my salary increase?

I just received mail from HR (in response to a request) saying that we hope to 
have the answers to the questions brought up at the three meetings by the end 
of this week.

I said that we are anxiously looking forward to it.

Mark

    .16
    
    Thanks, I needed a good laugh today :-)
    
    

    
    Re.18, etc.
    
    Mark,
    
    Many, many of us are wondering about this very same thing.
    
    Thank you for continuing to try to get clarification on this issue.  
    
    Cindy

    I am not a lawyer.  But in my personal opinion, someone has given
    Digital bad advice.
    
    There's no question we are employees "at will," with a contractual
    agreement with Digital -- we work, they pay us  -- that either side can
    end at any time -- we by resignation, they by TFSO.
    
    We are talking about whether an employee is eligible for unemployment
    compensation.  Simply put, if an employee resigns, he or she is not
    eligible for unemployment compensation; if the company does it, he or
    she *is*.
    
    This kind of dispute crops up all the time.  In sports, for example,
    managers' contracts usually have language distinguishing between
    quitting and being fired.  In those cases there are usually hundreds of
    thousands of dollars involved; in our case; it's only hundreds of
    dollars a week.  But the principle is the same.
    
    At the risk of sounding like Professor Kingsfield, one party in a
    contract dispute cannot declare how the other party has acted,
    especially when there is money involved.
    
    I will not comment on what an employee should do if offered the
    choice of employment with an outsourcing vendor or termination.

Being the devil's advocate ..

Perhaps the vague language will not really pose a problem to Digital. What
could you gain if you won? Well, you might convince the court that you were,
in fact, entitled to a TFSO package. But then, you'd have to use part of that
package to pay the lawer, No? And given then current max package, it'll
probably pay for just about filling in the application form in the lawer's
office.

Please don't get me wrong. I do not envy those of you in this situation. I
have been exposed to similar 'deals' myself. Perhaps the best way out is to
join the 3rd party and move on from there.

>Per

    Before spending the money on an attorney I would go to the Department
    of Labor in your state and ask for their opinion.  It's free, if you do
    not mind working with the bureaucrats, and since you pay taxes for this
    service, go for it.

    There was an interesting article in a recent Sunday NY Times mag about
    attorneys and how they have no interest in 'the truth' or what's
    'right' or what's 'fair,' only in winning for their client or, barring
    that, getting the best deal possible for the client. So, speculating
    about what ought to happen on the grounds of what's fair or right, or
    even about what happened with BC/BS, is futile. You need your own legal
    advice, but you need to understand that the odds are on the side of the
    corporate lawyers (or they would have put a stop to SES' plans long
    ago; you can bet your paycheck they know all about the BC/BS case). 
    Fighting them would be an expensive, time-consuming, heart-breaking
    ordeal. Even if you won, you are unlikely to win enough to recompense
    you. The win would be for others like you later.

    What have you been... er, reading?

.24  Mary Utt

Tone down the cheeriness, Mary.

 >   [Lawyers] have no interest in 'the truth' or what's
 >   'right' or what's 'fair,' only in winning for their client or, barring
 >   that, getting the best deal possible for the client. 

I believe you as generalities go.  

 >   you need to understand that the odds are on the side of the
 >   corporate lawyers (or they would have put a stop to SES' plans long
 >   ago; you can bet your paycheck they know all about the BC/BS case). 

So?  

You know, perhaps lawyers have no interest in what is fair and right, but 
does SES/IDC management?  Does Sharon Keillor and Sue Gault and David Popp
and Pat Fleming and Georgina Girard and Kathy Richer have any interest in
what is fair and right?  Let's bring this into a more personal perspective.  
*People* make these decisions, not "corporations," not "lawyers," and not 
"management."  (And I'm sorry if I left names out of people responsible for
making these decision - I would include them if I knew them.)

Management, lawyers, "leaders", and the corporation is a depersonalized
entity.  But it is SPECIFIC people who have no interest in what is fair
and right.  

Do you have an interest in what is fair and right, Mary?  I do.

>    Even if you won, you are unlikely to win enough to recompense
>    you. The win would be for others like you later.

Generally, losers pay the bills.

Mark

If the affected parties decide to start a class action, count me in to 
contribute to the legal fund.

I remain in shock about how this is playing out.

- Scott

    Per, there are a couple of issues here.  One, as Mark keeps pointing
    out, is "fairness."  For me, fairness doesn't really enter into it.  In
    the DCU conference, someone was talking about fairness with regard to
    sincerity.  It is very easy to be sincere and totally disagree with
    someone else who is sincere.  I am willing to bet that (at least prior
    to the "communications meetings") SES management saw their own actions
    as exceedingly fair.  After all, from their perspective, they are
    "going out on a limb" to try and secure jobs for some people, so they
    won't be laid off.  To them, that's fair.  And if you don't like what
    they've done for you, it is also fair that you just quit (to them)!
    
    However, the other issue is not just the TFSO package.  It's the
    unemployment benefits when the TFSO package runs out.  (It took my
    brother eight months to find a new job; it took a friend five months;
    I'd get 10 weeks of TFSO.  Chances are good I'd need more than that to
    get me through while finding a new job.)  If the company claims we've 
    resigned, then we don't get unemployment benefits.  The HR response was 
    that Digital has been doing this for 13 years, so it's no big deal!  
    However, when Digital has done this before, it appears that it has been 
    with the sale of a product or service.  In the SES/IDC case, there is no 
    one service being sold, but a picking and choosing by unknown people as 
    to who "deserves" a job at a vendor, who "deserves" to stay in SES (maybe) 
    and who "deserves" to be TFSOd.
    
    None of this is fair - not much in life is.  I no longer expect it to be
    "fair."  I expect consistent treatment.  If Digital has been treating
    people like this for 13 years, and can PROVE that they have done this
    in an extremely similar situation (selling arbitrary segments of a service 
    as opposed to the whole service), then they will be behaving consistently.
    
    It is very possible that many would rather just go to the vendor.  But
    what if "the powers that be" choose vendors whose corporate ethics
    (some of you will scoff, I know!) are totally contrary to my morals and
    values?  I will not work there!  And I will not resign!  We won't have
    a clue as to the corporate ethics of the vendors for some time, since
    they haven't been chosen and approved yet.  But I'm not going to be a
    puppy dog who just wags her tail and follows because "Digital" tells me
    to.  I'm going to find out as much as I can about each vendor and
    conduct my own investigation.  I'm certainly not going to take it on
    blind faith that these are "swell" companies to work for!
    
    That said,  I am a very unlikely candidate for outsourcing, because I
    am not associated with a specific product.  That may mean that I'm a
    candidate for TFSO or I'm a candidate to be kept in SES.  I have no way
    of knowing.  To quote a friend, "It's a free-for-all."
    
    
    Good luck to everyone,
    Susan                                                        

    Hypothetically speaking, if a company has been engaged in a practice
    for many years, and that practice is judged to have been illegal all
    along, then that company has been breaking the law all along.

I like reading these SES/IDC notes, if only for the quality of the writing.

:-)

Bruce

Well, <blush> I guess those are our commodity skills showing. Thanks for
noticing. Not many people do, lately.

Art

    re .31
    
    Yes, a bit like on line training.
    
    rww

re 29:

Right on, Susan!

>                                                        The HR response was 
>    that Digital has been doing this for 13 years, so it's no big deal!
...
>                                             If Digital has been treating
>    people like this for 13 years, and can PROVE that they have done this
>    in an extremely similar situation (selling arbitrary segments of a service 
>    as opposed to the whole service), then they will be behaving consistently.

Actually, this is why I've been trying to find the corporate policy on
"transitions."   There's no such thing in HR006, as far as I can tell.  My
uncle-the-lawyer told me a written policy would be one of the documents I'd
need for a class-action suit.  Not that I'm planning to file one, of course.


Pilar.

>Actually, this is why I've been trying to find the corporate policy on
>"transitions."   There's no such thing in HR006, as far as I can tell.  My
>uncle-the-lawyer told me a written policy would be one of the documents I'd
>need for a class-action suit.  Not that I'm planning to file one, of course.

Since "do the right thing" left with Ken Olsen, perhaps it is silly to hope
that all this will evaporate with a fair, true, right, and caring solution
for that minority who would choose not to go to the vendor but also not
resign.  We're supposed to get some answers by the "end of this week."
I'd prefer a simple solution; wouldn't just about anyone except perhaps
the [Sunday NY Times mag-unnamed] lawyers mentioned in .24?

Mark

    I don't know who, but someone once said,
    
    "Never confuse justice with law."

>    I don't know who, but someone once said,
>        "Never confuse justice with law."


Yes, I remember a TV court judge admonish an attorney or a client of
one saying, "This is not a court of justice; it is a court of law."

Now where are the Halls of Justice?  Oh, isn't that where the superheros
gather to fight for truth, justice, and the American way.  No wait, that
Superman's old motto (wonder what it is these days.  Clark?).  Well, 
they gather to fight the bad guys.  No wait.  Batman is a glorified
vigilante.  Nuts!  Where are the super-"heros" when you need one?

Mark

    I once had a judge, in a Superior Court, tell me - and I quote:
    
    'No matter how fair or just I think your request is, the law does not
    allow me to grant it.'
    
    There is a difference between law, justice, and fair is nowhere near
    either.  IMHO.
    
    rww

Now that that is ironed out, back to one of my questions:

Do the *people* (individuals) who make the decisions regarding this
issue care about what is fair, right, and true?

And just who are these individuals?

Mark

re: .38

>    I once had a judge, in a Superior Court, tell me - and I quote:
>    
>    'No matter how fair or just I think your request is, the law does not
>    allow me to grant it.'
>    
>    There is a difference between law, justice, and fair is nowhere near
>    either.  IMHO.

I'm not sure it's as bleak as that. The US, apart from Louisiana, is a
"Common Law" Country. Which means that the law is supposed to follow
what people see as fair and just. 

M

    re: .40
    
    No, not meant to be bleak.  Just demonstrating that the three are not 
    the same.  And do not *have* to relate to each other.
    
    They *could* be the same or nearly so.  After all, we elect the law
    makers.
    
    rww

Well, it is the end of the week.  They had "hoped" to get [definitive?] 
answers to these (and other) questions.

MM

From:	WECARE::GIRARD       21-OCT-1994 12:29:47.49
To:	JARETH::WURM,CUPTAY::SULLIVAN
CC:	PAT, GG
Subj:	Could either of you help us with the distribution of these questions?THX

	Here are the answers to questions we received from all our meetings.
Some of them are still in progress, and we will continue to work issues on
your behalf. -Pat and Georgina

Questions:

	1- Who can we influence around changes to Digital's standard practices
	  around termination rules?

	>>>We have been working with the legal department to understand
	   the policies regarding vendor employment. The written
	   documentation around such issues is located in both the 
	   TFSO ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act)
	   document and the Divestiture Committee guidelines. We are 
	   still working with Legal to break-out and truly understand 
	   the specific sections and helping them understand the impact 
	   as expressed by all of you. When we have a more complete answer, 
	   we will send it to you immediately.

	2- Regarding vendors:

	   - What is the vendor list and process? Can they reject us? What 
	     if there is a mismatch?

	   >>We should know the final vendor list within a week or two.
	     As we mentioned, the process as defined asks the vendor
	     to consider "transfer" of employment for a defined set
	     of employees;It is not set up as an interviewing process,
	     although normally a discussion with a vendor occurs for
	     each employee. If an agreement is reached with a vendor
	     and an employee does not accept the vendor's employment
	     offer, then the employee is "separated" from Digital.
	     (By the way, the language that we have used, "You 
	     voluntarily resign" is not quite accurate. Your termiation
	     form will be coded as a company separation for not
	     accepting an outside offer of employment.)

	   - Will Legal contest if Unemployment is given to people
	     who terminate by not accepting an offer of employment
	     with a vendor?

	   >>As you might expect, Legal cannot answer this question.
	     Each state has different rules and they look at each
	     case individually. Digital is asked, like any other
	     company to verify termination reason.

	   - Once a vendor is selected, how should people prepare?

	   >>You need to listen to the facts of what is being offered
	     and clearly understand the personal impact of your
	     decisions. You do not need to prepare a portfolio since
	     this is not an interviewing process.

	   - What will be the lead time when vendors are selected?

	   >>We expect the average lead time to be about a month after
	     negotiations with a vendor begin.

	3- What is the list of committees and who are the people on these
	  committees?

	   >>We have requested this list from the implementation team
	   leaders. We will forward this when it is received. However,
	   understand that the new Capability/Capacity center managers
	   will begin to assume much of the present committee work,
	   and an overall transition implementation team will be named.
	   The transfer of much of the present teams work is now being
	   planned.
 
Requests:

	- Would like a timeline as to decisions and plans as they are
	  developed.
	- Need clarification of what business we're in and what we would
	  be doing.
	- Need regular communications of facts as they are known; Don't
	  communicate ONLY what you can promise.
	- When comments are sent into committees, please acknowledge
	  receipt and help us understand use.

	>>We will pass these requests on to the new C/C managers and
	the transition group. We are personally committed to making
	sure communication is increased and interactive as we change
	our way of working within SES. 

>	     (By the way, the language that we have used, "You 
>	     voluntarily resign" is not quite accurate. Your termiation
>	     form will be coded as a company separation for not
>	     accepting an outside offer of employment.)

Is this the only new piece of information?

Anyway, thanks for working with the legal department.  If possible, some
of us would be willing to work with the legal department, too, to get
a clear understanding of the writs and precedences, etc., etc.

I'd still like to put some [accountable] names to the people who
make these definitions and put them into effect.

Mark

>	     (By the way, the language that we have used, "You 
>	     voluntarily resign" is not quite accurate. Your termiation
>	     form will be coded as a company separation for not
>	     accepting an outside offer of employment.)

This is still not clear to me.  Does this mean "a person gets fired for
refusing to become an employee of a totally different employer?"  Is this
a solid case of what? insubordination?

Please clarify how "not accepting an outside offer" constitutes grounds
for "company separation."

Mark

 ___             "Tell them to look it up in the Orange Book,         _
/__/|__           and we'll get back to them."                     __//| 
|__|/_/|__                                                       _/_|_|| 
|_|___|/_/|__                                                 __/_|___||  
|___|____|/_/|__           ~~?~~     .''''',                 /_|____|_|| 
|_|___|_____|/_/|_________/_o_o_\____|_o_o_|________________|_____|___||
|___|___|__|___|/__/___/___/___/___/___/___/___/___/___/_|_____|____|_||
|_|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|/
|___|___|___|___|_L_|_E_|_G_|_A_|_L_|___|_D_|_E_|_P_|_T_|___|___|___|__/|
|_|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|/|
|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|__/|
|_|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|/|
|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|__/|
|_|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|/


                     +------------+
                     |            |
                     |    HR      |
                     |            |
                     |            |
                     +------------+
                     

                      ------------------  
                    /                   \
                  /                      \
                 /         (rock)         \
                 \                       /
                   \                    /
                     ------------------/

    
    
    	"Hope is an orientation of the spirit, an orientation of the
    	 heart.  It is not the conviction that something will turn out
    	 well, but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless
    	 of how it turns out."
    					- Vaclav Havel

I forwarded 3447.45 just after I wrote it to Pat Fleming and Georgina
Girard.  I received mail after business hours yesterday from Georgina 
and have requested to post her electronic mail response to 3447.45.  
In brief, it says nothing about whether an employee will receive a 
TFSO package when terminated for "refusing to accept an offer from 
another employer."  It does say, "that Digital will no longer do this 
kind of work internally."

At the end, she said, "This is the clearest I can get."

I have asked if there is someone who can get clearer this morning in E-Mail.

Mark

From:	WECARE::GIRARD       24-OCT-1994 17:42:10.12
To:	TOKNOW::METCALFE
CC:	
Subj:	RE: Still trying to understand it clearly... please and thank you.

Mark, company separation means that you are let go from the company for
refusing to accept an offer from another employer...that Digital will no
longer do this kind of work internally....basically, there is no job left
at Digital, but the work is now with another company or vendor. 

This is the clearest I can get. -Georgina

Georgina,

In response:

Thank you.

(1) The position of the company on 4-October was "resignation."

(2) The position of the company on 21-October was "separation for not
	     accepting an outside offer of employment."

(3) Today's response includes "that Digital will no longer do this kind 
    of work internally"

(4) Company "separation" has specific Orangebook guidelines.

    - is the position of the company for this separation with "no TFSO
      support" a firing?  On what grounds?  It is highly improbable that
      not accepting an offer from an outside company is grounds for
      termination.  This is why I have asked repeatedly for the *name*
      of someone in the legal department to whom I can speak about 
      this and to get a clear definition of the legal grounds for this
      type of separation versus a TFSO-supported separation.  You have 
      not made it clear how employment status differs from the situation 
      of "no job left" (requiring a lay-off and TFSO) and "refusing to
      accept an offer from another employer" requiring company-initiated
      separation for "cause."

    - You have not defined the "cause" for separation beyond not accepting
      an offer from an outside company.

(5) What is not different in your response is that there is still much
    obfuscation of specific detail.  You cannot respond any differently,
    and this is the clearest you can get.  Is this because you are unable
    personally to communicate the specific detail, or have you been given 
    a directive as to what you can and cannot communicate?

(6) If the buck stops with you and Pat to define these matters, then why
    can't there be a clearly written statement as to the legal position
    and grounds for separation for refusing to accept an offer for employment
    from a company outside of Digital?  If the buck does not stop with you
    and Pat, then why can't we get the name of the person responsible for
    defining these matters?

Lastly, Pat said that "when we have a more complete answer, we will send it 
to you immediately."  Is Pat pursuing a complete answer?  This statement is
vague.  You will never get a complete answer unless it is pursued.

When can we expect a more complete answer?  What if there are follow-up
questions?  Who will give the complete answer?

The bottom line of ALL these questions is the fair treatment of Digital
employees.  If for whatever reason, a Digital employee feels that there
is no "fit" between them and the vendor, they should not be "forced" to
transfer their employment to the vendor but rather continue to be a
Digital employee, which the company may then determine that there is
no work for this Digital employee and sever the employment agreement
with the customary TFSO package, just like any other laid off Digital
Employee.  This is clear, it treats people with dignity, and cares for
their welfare if there is no "fit" for them with the "selected" outside
employer.  It is fair and right, and my opinion is that very few would
opt for the TFSO, and fewer would squalk about the injustice of SES's Future
State Plans.

I am prepared to take this issue as far as I have to, to see that the issue
is addressed and resolved in accordance with the law and with fair treatment
for all Digital employees.  What saddens me is that I feel it was a small
and unnecessary issue to begin with, but has turned out to be something
unnecessarily confrontational.  I have no personal animosity nor 
vindictiveness towards you or anyone else in SES Management.  However,
*people* make these decisions and define the "standard practices of
the corporation" (which was never produced in written form).  People 
can do what is right and fair by and to other people.

Mark

>[...] Digital will no longer do this kind of work internally

In the case at hand, this statement is obviously and patently false!!!

Only *some* writers are being transferred to vendors, others are staying.
Some writers will continue to write at Digital, while the rest will write
for vendors.

If the entire business of SES ceased to exist or all writing was vended,
then this would be true.  If all of SES was sold to a vendor, then this
would be true.  But this is not the case!

You have to come up with a better reason than that!

-Mike

Georgina says that she and Pat are "still working for everyone's behalf
in trying to get more discussions open on these issues."

Meanwhile, I have been referred to John Murphy (Worldwide H/R) as one who 
"likely can give you the clarification you desire."

I have sent initial E-mail.  I am not sure how well I stated the issue,
but was assured that he was aware of these issue, but I referenced this 
note string (3447.*) for details just in case I wasn't clear in my E-Mail.

Mark

    
    Thanks, Mark.  Much appreciated.
    
    Cindy

John Murphy's secretary called me and set up a telephone appointment.
I'll be speaking with him this week regarding this issue.

Mark

    Information from a friend who did some research:
    
    The National Labor Relation Board main number is 617-565-6700, and
    you can ask to speak with the Duty Info Officer.
    
    The Massachusetts Department of Labor & Industries is 617-727-3464,
                      Department of Labor Relations is    617-727-8229 (info)
                                                          617-727-3505 (main)
    The NH State Department of Labor is                   603-271-6172
    
    Regarding the last entry, you can speak directly with Labor Inspector
    Ellery Hathorn, who is the officer in charge of Employee Leasing.

    Info from the NLRB is that if we decline employment with the vendor
    we are entitled to unemployment, although we might have to file a
    claim. The NLRB duty officer recommended that NH employees contact
    the State Department of Labor (the NLRB is actually responsible
    for issues involving organized labor, and we do not have that yet at
    Digital).  When you call, ask to speak with a Labor Inspector. 
    
    Some information has been obtained from the NH Department of Labor:
    
    o The "vending" or "outsourcing" that SES is talking about is now
      legally called "employee leasing," and the New England states have
      laws and licensing structures in place to regulate this new
      process. (It's interesting that SES hasn't used this term.)

    o A company licensed to operate as an employee lease vendor in NH
      must provide the employee with certain items. 

    o We are entitled by law to see the contract between Digital and the
      vendor.

    o Maine, NH, and Massachusetts have similar licensing laws.

    o If you resign from Digital you are *not* eligible for NH
      unemployment.  However, if you do NOT resign, and Digital
      improperly records your termination as a resignation, you have
      recourse through the courts, because resignation is considered
      VOLUNTARY under the law. 

    o Regardless of whether you resign or are terminated because your 
      "work is no longer being done," you are entitled to any severance
      compensation or package that has been *regularly given* in the
      absence of firing "for cause" (defined as stealing, fighting,
      revealing company secrets etc).  Termination for "insubordination
      because you declined outplacement" would be a legal precedent and
      would have to be determined in a court of law.

    
    "Employee leasing"!
    
    Now there's a term you can really warm up to.
    

Well, I'll tell you the truth. The light at the end of my tunnel got a bit
dimmer last night, after the "communication" at the Sheraton Tara.

Mr. Demmer got up first, introduced Mr. Pesatori, then sat back down. 

Mr. Pesatori talked for almost an hour about "the new Digital" - in fact,
he got visibly perturbed when a questioner insinuated that it was
business as usual.  Mr. Pesatori commented that he (Mr. Pesatori)
"...didn't speak English so well, maybe that's why you didn't understand
what I was saying. This is a new Digital." In general, he spoke
comfortably of quarterly results and annual results, showing a solid
footing with the financials. He emphasized the positives.  "Tremendous
accomplishment" was a phrase he used a couple of times. I felt pretty
good after his talk;  felt kind of proud that I was part of the
turnaround, and looked forward to the good changes coming to ensure a
complete turnaround. I was *trying* to feel good.

When he finished, he sat where Mr. Demmer had been sitting (two rows in
front of me) for just a few minutes. Within Mr. Demmer's first two slides
Mr. Pesatori got up impatiently, spoke with a suit carrying a planner,
and slipped out the side door.

The slides were -um- familiar, if you've ever skimmed prolix monthly
status reports. Kind of like wordy Mission and Vision Statements, you
know? SES people will know what I mean. I found my tide of enthusiasm
ebbing.

When the next question period arrived, someone asked about the SES Future
State, asked Mr. Demmer if he thought that was the best solution to
delivering quality product information to customers; commented that
everyone he spoke with, including writers and engineers, thought it was a
bad idea. Mr. Demmer got an enigmatic half-smile on his face and said,
"Well, I, for one, am totally convinced that the plan to preserve our
architectural talents and go to the outside for the [mundane] work is a
good plan. At least I'm convinced. I'm totally supportive of the plan."
...  "We're just not so sure that we're on track with the implementation,
and ... have to look at that."

The last of my enthusiasm yielded to coriolis and blurped down the drain.
That was the end of the meeting for me. I left. 

If someone were looking for hope, they might find it in Mr. Demmer's
interestingly cryptic phrases "At least I'm convinced,"  and "not so sure
we're on track with the implementation" - read into that whatever you
wish.

Art

>When the next question period arrived, someone asked about the SES Future
>State, asked Mr. Demmer if he thought that was the best solution to
>delivering quality product information to customers; commented that
>everyone he spoke with, including writers and engineers, thought it was a
>bad idea. Mr. Demmer got an enigmatic half-smile on his face and said,
>"Well, I, for one, am totally convinced that the plan to preserve our
>architectural talents and go to the outside for the [mundane] work is a
>good plan. At least I'm convinced. I'm totally supportive of the plan."
>...  "We're just not so sure that we're on track with the implementation,
>and ... have to look at that."

Mr. Demmer,
  It wasn't me.  I wasn't there.  However, I could have asked the same 
question because I am unconvinced about the plan to preserve the 
architectural talents, but you're the Veep and I'm the commodity.  At least, 
that's what >they've< called me.  
  Good luck with your search for the proper implementation track.  Perhaps 
if management was a bit more sure of the track, the architectural talents 
wouldn't be manning the lifeboats ("in droves") and getting out (like they 
are right now), and management could be keeping their best "commodities" 
instead of trying to decide what to do with what is left.
  Someone wiser than I once said that the journey is every bit as important
as the destination.  Digital will have a reduced workforce.  But the
implementation has caused and is causing Digital's >best< to seek (and in 
many cases, find) employment elsewhere.

Sincerely,

Mark Metcalfe

4-NOV-1994 1:30 pm

  I just spoke with John Murphy, Head of Corporate Human Resources. He
  will be setting up a meeting, which I will attend next week.

  At the meeting will be John Murphy, myself, and Bob Brintz who is
  coordinating the disposition of employees affected by outsourcing. 
  Bob is an attorney who was recently in the law office at Digital
  until he accepted this position.  John said that they intend to make
  a presentation when the formal process is defined.  John then went
  to describe the process:

    1. A proposal is drafted for "selling a piece of the business" in
       which they identify the work to be sold and the employees involved
       in the sale. 

    2. The proposal is then sent for approval of the "Disposition
       Committee."   

    3. Once approved, and potential buyers are identified,
       negotiations begin between Digital and the buyers.  

    4. During the negotiation period, it is considered a "quiet
       period" where potentially affected employees are prohibited from
       transferring within the company.

  I asked John Murphy if Digital was planning to get out of the
  business of technical writing?  He said that he didn't know.

  I asked him how Digital could sell off "a piece of the business"
  since I am a technical writer and writing is my business and yet
  there are many writers who have been identified as staying at
  Digital doing the exact thing I do.  In fact, those who have been
  identified are within the very same OpenVMS group. He said that we
  might better address these in the upcoming meeting. (Next week, I
  think.  At least, we'll be setting up the time on Monday.)

  John Murphy did say that in past sell-offs there have been
  "exceptions" for some employees who simply could not go to the 
  other company.   John said that he cannot give a broad
  generalization but that there have been exceptions which have been
  determined on the merits of a case.  In one case, a person was
  physically challenged and could not  go to the company to whom he
  was sold.  

  I asked him whether there were other mitigating circumstances that
  could be cause for an exception.  I asked if a person felt that they
  could not work for the other company because they felt threatened
  (despite a claim of equal opportunity) because of their gender, or
  if there were philosophical differences -- whatever the reason, if
  there was not a "fit" -- did he think it was fair to fire that
  person when the company has made a practice of granting TFSO money
  to employees who no longer have work at Digital.   (He said that
  Digital makes no determination as to who gets unemployment benefits,
  but does make the determination about TFSO benefits.)

  John said that each case would be examined on its merits.  (I
  wondered who determines the merit? Which prompted my question about
  getting a handle on defining what some exceptions might be.)

  I said it is certainly in the best interest of Digital and the
  employee lease company for employees to go cheerfully.  I also said
  that  I perceive this to be a modification in policy that can have
  major [positive] ramifications [by giving people the freedom to
  choose without feeling intimidated into choice between an employer
  who is not of their choosing and being fired.]

  John Murphy said that we could discuss these issues at the meeting
  with Bob Brintz.  I thanked him for his time.

  Watch this space.

  Mark

Mark,

I appreciate the way you're taking the point on these issues. We all know
that it's easier to sink down in the foxhole and hide, hoping the
artillery won't hit you. We also know that battles have never been won
from the foxhole.

A lot of people are behind you. Count me as one who is WITH you.

Art

>  I perceive this to be a modification in policy that can have
>  major [positive] ramifications [by giving people the freedom to
>  choose without feeling intimidated into choice between an employer
>  who is not of their choosing and being fired.]

This should have read as follows:

  I perceive [the resolution to] this [issue] to be a modification in policy 
  that can have major [positive] ramifications [by giving people the freedom 
  to choose without feeling intimidated into choice between an employer
  who is not of their choosing and being fired.]

Funny how we know exactly what we mean when we write it.

Mark

P.S.  .60  Thanks

Mark,

I want to go public and say how much I appreciate your efforts.  As far as
I can tell, you are one of the few "working for everyone's behalf..."
Art Hebert is another.  You guys are my heros.

Sue

My meeting with John Murphy and Bob Brintz is scheduled for later
this week at ZKO.

Thanks for the offline kudos, too, from those who sent mail.


At issue is obtaining a clear definition of corporate policy within 
the corporation's own established practice of providing TFSO support
for those affected employees who no longer have work at Digital.

This definition has been challenged by SES management, which intends
to fire those who refuse to accept an offer to join an employee leasing 
company.  

Attempts to clarify and justify this position have failed with 
vague, obfuscatory, and irrelevant answers.  The definition of 
the disposition of an affected employee has changed over the weeks
of attempted clarification.

It would be a fair question of John Murphy to ask me what I want 
to accomplish from pursuing this issue.  I'll state it up front for
all to see:

  An employee who is identified as a candidate for transfer to an
  employee leasing company should have the option to refuse the offer
  without threat of termination, separation, forced resignation, or
  firing.  This leaves the person an employee of Digital, at which point
  it may be determined that there is no work for this person.  This
  Digital employee should be treated as any other Digital employee 
  affected by downsizing, rightsizing, and layoff and receive a TFSO
  financial assistance package as has been established by corporate
  practice.

It really is as simple as that.  How many people will opt for TFSO
versus the employee leasing company?  My guess is not too many.  But
for those few who, *for whatever reason*, find it unreasonable to 
work for the "vendor", the dignity of choice and the welfare of dedicated
Digital employees is GOOD BUSINESS PRACTICE as well as a matter of
moral responsibility.

Mark

    Mark, I admire your efforts, but there is one point that I cannot agree
    with. Not, all the best commondities are seeking to leave Digital. Some
    of us, and I like to think I am one of the best, have chosen to
    continue our investment in this company. Maybe I am foolish, maybe I
    am hoping for some last minute shred of common sense to prevail, I
    don't really know. What I know is that I am not ready to walk away from
    my investment in digital or their investment in me. They may be ready
    to release me or cut me lose. When that happens, I'll deal with it.
    For now, I am working on an exciting product, learning new tools and
    a new technology, and I hope contributing to it.
    
    Fran Sullivan
     

.58> (Mark Metcalfe)

>Digital will have a reduced workforce.  But the
>implementation has caused and is causing Digital's >best< to seek (and in 
>many cases, find) employment elsewhere.

.64 (Fran Sullivan)

>    Mark, I admire your efforts, but there is one point that I cannot agree
>    with. Not, all the best commondities are seeking to leave Digital. 
>    of us, and I like to think I am one of the best, have chosen to
>    continue our investment in this company. Maybe I am foolish, maybe I
>    am hoping for some last minute shred of common sense to prevail, I
>    don't really know. What I know is that I am not ready to walk away from
>    my investment in digital or their investment in me. They may be ready
>    to release me or cut me lose. When that happens, I'll deal with it.
>    For now, I am working on an exciting product, learning new tools and
>    a new technology, and I hope contributing to it.

Congratulations Fran.  I sincerely hope your faith in "the company" serves
to reward you.  I do wonder what "last minute shred of common sense" means,
though.  Will you intend to make an impact on those who are not operating
with common sense?  How will you ensure that your investment will be sound?
What can you do or suggest for Digital to employ common sense?

Do you think negatively impacting morale is in Digital's best interest and
protecting your investment?  (I'm in the ESPP, too, by the way and I've
given 8 years of service to Digital.  You're not the only investor, here.)

Perhaps you are not seeking employment elsewhere (contrary to the advise of
many of our overseers in management) and you are one of Digital's best.  I 
should have said "some of Digital's best."  We've already lost [some of]
Digital's best.

Mark

Someone pointed me to note 1504.0 and it was eerie reading.  Change the 
names to currently recognized names.

Mark

Meeting minutes, from my perspective.  Asterisks indicate what I think
are important points.

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
  John Murphy, Head of Corporate Human Resources, Bob Brintz, who is in
  charge of designing the outsourcing model, and myself, Digital
  writer, met in the Forrester Conference room at 8:30 on November 10,
  1994.

  John Murphy introduced Bob and asked him to describe the perspective
  of the corporation regarding these issues.

  Bob began by describing the outsourcing model in terms of "business
  needs and professionalism" and said that the purpose of a TFSO
* package is "to bridge employment" for an affected employee.  He also
* said that there were different ways for the corporation to bridge
* employment: TFSO, or an employment transfer.

* Both TFSO and employment transfers are involuntary. ("Resignation
  is clearly not involuntary" and should never have been an issue. 
  John Murphy speculated that the analogy must have been drawn for 
  refusal to take an internal transfer which results in a termination
  without package.)

  I asked about a person's recourse if they are involuntarily
  separated for refusing to transfer their employment to an employee
  leasing company; it is my understanding that such a person would
  also lose unemployment benefits.

  John Murphy stated that it is the business of each State to
  determine unemployment benefits.  Often the State may view a
  separation as any other separation, but it may also view the offer
  of employment that has been turned down to be reason to disqualify
  someone from receiving unemployment benefits.  He reiterated that
  this was up to how each State wanted to handle the situation; some
  are very protective of unemployment benefits, even if Digital wanted
  the separated employee to have the unemployment benefits.

  Bob Brintz described Digital as "historically [being] deeply
  concerned with the welfare of its employees" and cited the
  diminishing TFSO packages over time, as the ability of the
* corporation to pay also diminished.  He said that Digital is "not
* required by law to provide any severance."  He reminded me several
  times that the intent of the TFSO is to "bridge employee to their
  next employment."

  In the decision to sell a piece of the business, John Murphy said
* that Digital may outsource the work, or in some cases the employees
* who make up the key/critical asset being sold.  Often they "obtain
* an offer from a vendor to acquire its employees."   Digital then
  tries "to arrange situations where they seek to sell the business
  and 'transfer employment'."

  I thanked them for their explanations and brought up that 
  individual contributors perceive this to be handled in a
  condescending, parental, or intimidating way.  I said that the way
  the policy is currently worded, it is intimidating ("Go or get
  fired" [my words]).  I made the case that there may be some reason
  an employee simply cannot find it in good conscience to transfer
  their employment to the other company. But the policy is to cut that
  person loose without any bridge whatsoever is not treating these
  people with the dignity of choice and the financial ("bridge") they
  may need to find the next job.  People refusing a transfer to an
  outside company are Digital employees and should be treated as
  Digital employees whose work is no longer available at Digital; that
  is, provided with a TFSO package.

  Bob described the "philosophical view of the TFSO" as follows:

* o  "The company has negotiated a job for an employee so one does not
*     need a bridge."  

  o  "Employees are critical to the deal and Digital needs to make its
     best efforts to deliver the employees."  If the vendor saw that
     Digital was giving employees the option between transferring and
*    receiving a monetary package, negotiation for the sale of critical 
*    assets (employees in this case) would be nearly impossible
*    because Digital might be unable to deliver on the negotiated
*    assets.  The policy on outsourcing is "Digital's best effort to 
*    deliver to the vendor according to a negotiated agreement."

* o  (This reason is coupled with the one about about a negotiated
*    deal for assets.) If employees know the dates of transfer they will
     be out "testing the waters" to see if they can find a job at or
     around the same time as the transfer.  If they had the option, then
     they would take the monetary package.  (I interjected: like many 
     others have done already with their TFSO packages, which was 
     acknowledged.)

  John Murphy is part of the "Disposition Committee" which is at the
  "30,000 foot level" in the company where they make recommendations
  on the various "spins" on the business (such as, employees wanting
  to break off and form their own company, joint ventures, and the
  outsourcing that SES is experiencing).  He said that "he wished he
  could be more optimistic," but the reasons Bob Brintz cited places
  Digital in a sensitive position of negotiations between Digital and
  the vendor, and Digital and its employees.

  I talked with them about the rift between individual contributors
  and SES management and said that it has gotten worse and not better.
  An "us versus them" mentality has occurred and communication has
  been poor and uninformative.

  Bob Brintz acknowledged the constraints under which SES management is
  working and stated that in many cases they (including the
  negotiators) simply did not know how things would shake out.  He
* stated that "providing information [regarding details of
* negotiations] that they know may likely change may create
* expectations" in people that they simply cannot deliver.  

  Bob assured me that in past cases of negotiated transfer of
  employment, the terms have been favorable, the acceptance rate of
  negotiated employees has been extremely high (near 100%) and most
  provide equal compensation and benefits or better.  He assured me
  that they investigate a company for climate (EEOC compliant) so that
  there are no problems with race, creed, sexual issues involving
  gender or orientation, etc.

  Finally, I asked what piece of the business was Digital planning on
  selling, since I (for example) am a writer and not clearly defined
  in a "piece of business."  John said that employees are identified
  as "mission critical to take this business forward."

  ----------------------------------------------------------------

  I went into the meeting with no expectations of changing the policy.
  If I had any hopes, it was to communicate the position into which
  this policy places people.  I would also like to hope that a
  recommendation to modify the policy could be made to the Disposition
  Committee to assure employees that: if the negotiated transfer was
  something a person felt unable to comply with, that they would not
  be left without the "bridge" that demonstrated Digital's concern for
  its employees.  I share John Murphy's wish to be optimistic.

  The meeting was non-confrontational and cordial.  I voiced once
  again the concerns of many of the individual contributors in SES.

  They assured me that they understood the concerns and that they
  would attempt to work on bringing the chasm closer together and 
  communicating better what it would be like to work for the vendor.
  (I mentioned that Pat Fleming asked an SES audience if they would
  prefer to get TFSOed or work for a vendor, and the response was that
  we had no basis for an answer.  We knew what TFSO meant.  We did not
  know what working for a vendor meant beyond vague descriptions of
  what kinds of compensation and benefits are being negotiated.)

  Where do we go from here?  Well, at the "30,000 foot level" is there
  anywhere else to go?  I mentioned the "exceptions" to the policy and
  they said that these would be "extraordinary cases."

  --------------------------------------------------------------------

  Lastly, John Murphy asked me to stay for a moment.  I have hesitated
  to reveal this part because it could easily be a referendum on me,
  personally, but upon reflection, it deals with every one of you.

  John Murphy produced a substantial stack of paper and told me that
  these were my Notes contributions over the past year.  Someone had
  anonymously sent the package to Robert Palmer.  Mr. Murphy gets
  everything that goes to the CEO.  (I suspect this is prudent and
  part of his job description to ensure that the CEO is presented with
  matters that require his attention.)

  He spoke with my manager who confirmed that I have never had a
  problem with getting my work done and indeed have a full workload.
  He said that he was informing me that the package was sent to Robert
  Palmer just to let me know.

  I told him that I knew I was very prolific and can dash off 50 lines
  in a matter of minutes, but that my work record shows good and often
  exemplary work.  I told him that I'd stack my record against whoever
  the anonymous person could be.  

  He assured me that he was not condemning nor disciplining me for my
  notes participation because my work record was "clean;" and that if
  it wasn't I'd be having a different conversation right then.  He
  said this is not a "high school" and the important thing is that
  people are producing quality work.  He further said that Notes in
  general may be becoming "more restrictive" in the future.

  I am confident in the work I produce and Mr. Murphy said my work
  record is "clean."  I said that "if you tell me that this stack of
  paper means something in spite of my work, then we have an issue. 
  If not, then I presume that it wouldn't matter if the stack was so
  high (motion with hand)."

  So, the anonymous person can rest assured that his package arrived
  and received due attention.  And since it was anonymous, this is the
  only way I know to let them know how it turned out.

  Mark Metcalfe

First of all, I want to say, "Thank you" - for your efforts for trying to
provide fair representation on the behalf of your peers -- for your humor, for
your openness, for your courage to say what many of us feel too intimidated to
say for ourselves.

Second, I am *appalled* that someone had nothing better to do with his/her time
than to collect your notes and send them to Mr. Palmer.  It disgusts me, simply
and plainly. In my view, it is just backstabbing to do something like that
without first talking with the person involved. If someone is concerned with
your noting, he/she has a responsibility, imho, to speak with you. Not run
behind your back, like a thief, and whine to a higher authority. Bleah. I just
cannot have any respect for such a person. 

Mark, although I have never met you, I have a lot of respect for what you've
been attempting to do...clarify the messages that affect the fates of your
peers. Sometimes, I feel as if no one else really cares anymore, other than my
brothers and sisters who are walking in my shoes today.

joan

>>Second, I am *appalled* that someone had nothing better to do with his/her
>>time than to collect your notes and send them to Mr. Palmer.  It disgusts me,
>>simply and plainly. 

It does not take that long if you are using the right tool and the right
commands.

But, I agree.  I had started to enter a rather long reply to Mark's note but
thought better of it. 

It is a little unclear if John Murphy was himself implying that Mark was not
getting his work done because of your "noting" or if the person who sent the
package added a little note of their own saying "this person should be doing
real work".   

Who paied for the paper that all those notes were printed on anyway? Fire 
that person for mis-use of Digital resources!

bjm

>Second, I am *appalled* that someone had nothing better to do with his/her
>time than to collect your notes and send them to Mr. Palmer.
                           
This probably happens more often than you think.  Not just at DEC.

Someone I know who left last year after nearly 20 years with DEC, a prolific
writer in this and other conferences and now on Internet discussion groups,
was called up to the CEO's office at his new employer last week, where he
was handed an envelope containing everything he had written in the past year
on one particular newsgroup.  The secretary said not to worry about it;
someone had anonymously mailed it to the CEO and was just trying to get him
in trouble, and it had not been given to the CEO or to his management.

/john

Yes, I know it happens often. Never fails to turn my stomach though. 

joan

Hi, Mark,

I have to write again and thank you for your courage.  I hope everyone reads
your minutes, especially the end, very carefully because THERE IS SOMEONE
OUT THERE.  Well, now we know, don't we?

Sue

RE: previous

This type of behavior happens more often than people realize.  When
management is unhappy with an employee, it is common for them to go to
notes and look at what is written and *WHEN* it is written.

If it is not written during business hours, you will hear little about
it.  If written during working hours, then it could be used against
you...

I am aware of a couple managers who have done this to employees.  Quite
often it is done when the manager is in disagreement with the worker,
but does not have anything else to go on.  In general these managers
tend to have weaker management skills...

	- mark

Mark, I admire your bravery.

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Mark's Notes contribution's being
reported was not anonymous at all.  The fact that it was brought up and the way
it was brought to Mark's attention could easily have been a planned tactic
of intimidation.

Remember, an individual contributor's job is to write software well, fix broken
computers, write excellent documentation, answer phones and find resources with
a professional and courteous attitude, assemble systems and component with ever-
decreasing numbers of defects, etc.  But a senior executive's job is to move
factories and organizations aroud like chess pieces and squeeze pennies out of 
everything.  

Our business's (indeed most, if not all business's) highest costs are labor-
related.  The money involved for an IC is hundreds of dollars per week, but for 
someone in a senior position, it's thousands in salary and millions in 
responsibility.

Get in their way while they're trying to sell you like a disk drive factory and
I wouldn't be surprised to find that they'll use what they can to intimidate 
you.  

You have your record of excellence and productivity on your side.  Thanks for
working so hard for others.

Bruce

    re: .67
    
    Perhaps I am being naive, and I admit I'm not conversant in law, but
    something keeps bothering me about the apparent assumption that by
    working for Digital I have granted them some implicit right to 'sell'
    me (ie negotiate for the transfer of my employment to another company).
    
    On the one hand I can see that a company would want the ability to sell
    off parts of its business (and the employees working therein), but is
    there something express or implied in my 'employment contract' that
    grants them the right to do this "for" me? It was a mutual decision
    when I became a Digital employee (ie we both saw benefit to entering
    into an employee/employer relationship), and the terms are clear that
    either party can terminate that relationship, but that doesn't imply
    that I agree to them acting on my behalf in negotiating such an
    agreement with another party. Something doesn't seem "right" here...
    
    Dave

    
    Serfing USA?
    

John Murphy says that the "critical assets" of projects (in this case,
employees) will be sold to vendors, but the SES plan has already stated that
the employees critical to projects will be retained by Digital and the rest
transferred to vendors

Which is it?!?!?

-Mike

    
    Right! How can you have only "commodity skills" and yet be a "critical
    asset"?
    

    We're like toilets...critical commodities!

re: .67

That was pretty grim reading.  It sounds as if the rules are being invented
(or redefined) as we go along, dependent on whatever needs to be justified
at any given time.  I realize that this lack of dependability, consistency
and trust is supposed to characterize our '90s employment reality-in-process,
that we're all supposed to treat our careers as contract work, etc., but then
i also frequently see management status reports where the loss of critical
talent due to people voluntarily leaving is highlighted as a big problem.
Don't they see any connection?

>					 He further said that Notes in
>  general may be becoming "more restrictive" in the future.

Surprised this didn't happen last year.  It's bound to come eventually.

- paul

 >>> i also frequently see management status reports where the loss of critical
 >>> talent due to people voluntarily leaving is highlighted as a big problem.
 >>> Don't they see any connection?

     I'm glad that you pointed out that inconsistency.  I thought that I was
     going crazy all by myself.

 >>> >					 He further said that Notes in
 >>> >  general may be becoming "more restrictive" in the future.
 >>> 
 >>> Surprised this didn't happen last year.  It's bound to come eventually.

     Don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen in any dramatic way.  As
     with Ken Olsen elsewhere in this conference, reports of the demise of 
     Notes have been greately exaggerated in the past ... and will be in the
     future.

 While we're on the subject of missing important points ... what happened to 
 ESDP, DCD, TNPubs, and, maybe, a few smaller groups in the base note's title? 
 We were part of IDC and are part of SES.  Contrary to popular opinion, we're 
 just as viable a part as the descendants of CUP ... just as likely to be out-
 sourced or TFSO'ed.  Most of us aren't as vocal because:

     o  Some of us (ESDP/DCD) fell on tough buisness times before it hit CUP.
        We tightened our belts long ago.  We don't like it, but we've learned
        to live with it because it appears to be necessary and practical.

     o  Many of us feel as if those who were once part of CUP/CUIP believed
        us to be illegitimate children ... second-class citizens of IDC.
        I'm sure that most of our colleagues didn't really feel that way,
        but many did not seem to recognize that IDC <> CUP/CUIP.

 Perhaps, if all of us had turned our efforts toward working with changing 
 conditions rather than trying to preserve/live in a past that was gone, IDC
 might not have looked like a bunch of "commodity writers."

 Guess what?  It's still going on.  Now, some of us are trying to preserve IDC 
 even though it's history.  I went to a meeting about the results of the
 out-sourcing pilots last week.  One of my colleagues asked whether engineering
 would have veto power ... if our clients wanted any particular project to stay
 in house, would it stay in-house.  I asked what right clients have to tell us 
 how to run our business.  They can refuse to do business with you, but that's
 all.  If they go elsewhere and don't get what they need, that's their problem.
 If we fail without their business, that's our problem.  The two are somewhat
 related, but they aren't cause-and-effect.

 We need to behave like professionals if we are to be treated like 
 professionals.  Isn't it about time that we respect ourselves and our skills? 
 WE are the information specialists.  We don't tell the engineers how to design
 hardware or software.  Most of us don't know how to do that.  Engineers can't 
 tell us how to design information.  Most of them don't know how to do that.
 We all need to work together ... each doing what she or he is best at ... each
 respecting the other's skills.  

 I applaud Mark for his stand on his principles.  I'm not sure that I under- 
 stand those principles, but one needs to be true to what one believes in.
 I want to stay with the company.  I'm focusing my energies in that direction.
 If I am asked to leave, I must leave.  If I'm not given a package, I'll have 
 to do without.  If I'm asked to bo to a vendor, I WILL CHOOSE WHETHER I GO TO 
 A VENDOR and accept the consequences of my decision.

 Is it fair?  That depends upon your definition of fair.  It may or may not 
 be equitable, but neither are a lot of other things.  Do what you must Mark.
 Stand by your beliefs.  Just don't fry your spirit, will, heart, and body in
 the crusade.  If this effort fails, there's always a future effort that will 
 succeed.

 Terry

> I applaud Mark for his stand on his principles.  I'm not sure that I under-
> stand those principles, but one needs to be true to what one believes in.
> I want to stay with the company.  I'm focusing my energies in that direction.
> If I am asked to leave, I must leave.  If I'm not given a package, I'll have
> to do without.  If I'm asked to bo to a vendor, I WILL CHOOSE WHETHER I GO TO
> A VENDOR and accept the consequences of my decision.
>
> Is it fair?  That depends upon your definition of fair. 

Fair treatment for all Digital employment is the principle, as I have
stated before, Terry.  Dignity and welfare for people.

How about this working definition of "fair"?  Treating a Digital employee
the same as any other Digital employee.  Would this be a "reasonable"
definition?

In this case, it is treating a Digital employee for whom Digital identifies
as having no work and has made it a practice to provide a severance package
for such an employee upon severance.

The "go or get fired" policy doesn't do this.  By definition, it isn't fair.

> Do what you must Mark.
> Stand by your beliefs.  Just don't fry your spirit, will, heart, and body in
> the crusade.  If this effort fails, there's always a future effort that will
> succeed.

I'm not hopeful for the outcome.  I understand the business reasons for 
the go or get fired policy.  It comes down to how people are valued, and
while every effort may be made to accomdate people, there is a primary
driving force to the policy.  In contention is whether this is the best plan
of action for the company, for the employee leasing company, and for the
individual contributor.

It won't fry my spirit, will, or heart.  This is not to say that this hasn't
been a bit of pressure to pursue this, and I'm sure that some people think
I've tilted at windmills, or worse (as in the case of my anonymous friend).
If I'm "fried" otherwise, let it be in full view.  I am only a commodity
as long as I accept their label on me.  And that goes for every one of you.

I asked someone else before, what do you (generic) intend to do to help
the corporation, to protect your investment, and to create a work climate
where you can be happy and productive?  

Mark

Terry,

You seem to forget that we - engineering and SES - are all working for the
same company.  You're point would be valid if SES and engineering were two
independent companies - but they're not.  If SES fails, it will hurt the
company, which in turn will hurt engineering.  If engineering fails, it will
hurt the company, which in turn will hurt SES.  Another thing you seem to
forget is that without engineering, there is no real need for SES.  Our
fates are intertwined.  It is essential for SES and engineering to work
TOGETHER.

It is all too common around here for people embrace the continually-eroding
status quo and attempt to find solace in it.  And the way it is done is to
adopt a detached, selfless attitude (ie.  the "contractor's mentality").
One cannot be a victim if one doesn't recognize one's involvement in the
larger picture.  It is called "denial".

While this method of self-preservation might on the surface appear to work,
it leads to a demoralized, demotivated workforce.  No one is willing to pass
judgement or admit failure, no one is willing to be accountable, and
therefore there's no reason to change.  No one cares.  There is no reason to
care.

A company cannot become an industry leader, let alone pull out of a downward
slide, with a bunch of uninvolved, uninspired zombies.  Management
recognizes this as a problem and promises to "engage" and "empower"
employees in interesting work.  Yet their actions and words do not support
this.  Any real power to make changes is removed farther and farther from
the individual.

I applaud Mark's efforts to restore value and fairness to our employment.
He and we deserve better than stonewalling and run-arounds.  The company
needs this type of input.

This organization needs the inventiveness and involvement of individuals in
examining our organization's direction and management needs to value the
individuals' input.  It's easy just to write it off as tree hugging.  But
it's just as easy to view the sweeping organizational changes as "flailing"
because they don't know what else to do.  Individual employees have a right
to be treated fairly and the ideas of involved employees have the right be
be heard and considered - that would go a long way to patch the rift between
employees and mgmt.  THEN together we can get down to the business of making
money...

-Mike

Thank you all for your online and offline support.  I took last Friday off;
had planned it for a while, but it came at an especially opportune time.

In one month, I'll turn 35.  One month from tomorrow marks my 8th anniversary
at Digital.  What little information we have is that the outsourcing effort
is targeted for December, so it is unlikely that the numbers marking my
birth and my anniversary here at DEC will continue beyond these.

The issue has been one of fairness.  

I know life isn't fair, but when people have the opportunity to be fair, 
it is a responsibility.  The Corporation doesn't set policy, folks.  People do.
Committees don't make decisions.  People on those committees share equal 
responsibility for the decisions that come from them.  When the corporation
or a committee makes a decision, remember that it is people who comprise
these entities.  It is all too easy to hide, share, or deflect responsibility
for a decision when it comes from these entities.

Fairness can be defined as treating others as you would like to be treated.  
You don't have to be a religious zealot to appreciate or agree with a basic 
tenet of humanity.

I know life isn't fair, and I roll with the punches as well as anyone.
But there are principles that say we don't have to be the one delivering
the punches.  

If someone is making a business decision that affects me, I want to hear 
it straight from them: a person or group of persons just like you and me.
There are few things in life I would claim as a right, but I think I deserve
to face the person whose decision affects my dignity and welfare.

What's in it for me?  That's the real funny part.  Nothing.  I'm slated for
the employee leasing company, and I'll go to feed my family.  I'm no longer
looking to stay at Digital, or become a writer/adjunct to engineering.  I
have had a wonderful time at Digital, and do not intend to allow these 
occurences to dampen the friendships and relationships I've cultivated
over these last 8 years. 

I know life isn't fair, but it is way too short to spend energy on unimportant
things.  Perhaps some of you have felt this issue was unimportant.  I'll
take that chance and be responsible for my decision to pursue it.  Thank you
to all of you who have made this pursuit worth the effort.

Mark

    Thank you, Mark, for being consistent in the face of inconsistency, for
    having the courage to speak up for what you believe to be right, and
    for communicating so frequently with the community at large.
    
    In an earlier note, I said that I didn't care about "fairness" as much
    as I care about consistency.  Is this behavior consistent with past
    behavior?  Well, consistency is part of your definition of fairness,
    Mark, so I guess I *am* concerned with fairness, after all!
    
    Mark, we were told that SES hoped to identify the vendors by this time. 
    Have you heard anything yet?
    
    
    Susan

>    Mark, we were told that SES hoped to identify the vendors by this time. 
>    Have you heard anything yet?

Funny, I'm not the first person to be informed on such issues.

However, I suspect that Bob Brintz would know more.  I believe he's
set up shop here at ZKO.

John Murphy mentioned a potential vendor's name in our meeting but I
did not write it down; neither did I recognize the name to repeat it
in my minutes.  Still, I believe Bob is spearheading the "negotiations"
and if so, knows who the potential employee leasing companies are.
However, I would submit that if negotations are not complete with
all the potential ELCs, that none of them will be identified.
Both John and Bob seemed to indicate that the problem of communication
needs to be addressed, including presenting more information about what
it would be like to work for an ELC.

Mark

 >>> SES <- IDC <- CUIP <- CUP, ESDP,TNpubs,DCD,etc.

     Thank you, Mark.  (I'm assuming that you changed the title.)

 >>> You seem to forget that we - engineering and SES - are all working for the
 >>> same company.  You're point would be valid if SES and engineering were two
 >>> independent companies - but they're not.  If SES fails, it will hurt the
 >>> company, which in turn will hurt engineering. If engineering fails, it will
 >>> hurt the company, which in turn will hurt SES.  Another thing you seem to
 >>> forget is that without engineering, there is no real need for SES.  Our
 >>> fates are intertwined.  It is essential for SES and engineering to work
 >>> TOGETHER.

     Mike, I had to read my reply a few times before I was able to figure out 
     your reference.  Was it my statement about not letting engineering tell
     us how to run our business?  Obviously, I didn't express the point that 
     I was trying to make.

     I've been with the company for a bit over 11 years ... 4 years as an 
     Instructional Designer ... the remainder as a DCD/IDC/SES Infrastructure
     Systems Manager.  During most of that time, I've seen little of what I 
     would call cooperation between our clients (engineering, sales & services, 
     or whoever) and us.  What I have seen is:

         o  The client has an information problem.

         o  The client thinks s/he has a solution to that information problem.

         o  The client presents the potential solution.  (We may or may not
            hear the original problem.)

         o  We "solve the client's solution" whether it address the original 
            problem or not.

 Even when we know the client's original problem, we seldom question the 
 client's "solution."  We usually don't even consider the possibility of
 alternative solutions.  We don't make waves.  We might lose a few bucks in 
 the short run if we did.

 I'd like to blame management (business coaches) for making thoughtless 
 committments like that ... but I can't.  I know of individual contributors 
 who bring in projects ... through long-time contacts, a real ability to 
 sell, being at the right place at the right time ... who do exactly the 
 same thing.

 This all looks like a lack of self-respect to me.  Who has a better 
 understanding of documentation and training ... engineers, managers, sales
 and marketing people ... or the information professionals whose job it 
 is to understand how people process, use, and assimilate information.  
 Maybe the real answer is that we don't perceive ourselves as professionals.
 In that case, we hardly deserve to be treated as professionals.

 Hmmm ... I've been flaming again.  OK, never questioning orders, less than
 adequate budgets, and scope creep aren't the rule ... but, neither are they
 the exception.  I suspect that our clients (a superset of engineering) can 
 cope with the demise of SES more readily than SES can cope with the demise 
 our clients.  I'd prefer not trying either alternative.  I'd like to be 
 here for the next reorg.  (They seem to happen about once every 2 - 2.5 
 years in the part of the company that I've worked in.)

 Terry

> I suspect that our clients (a superset of engineering) can 
> cope with the demise of SES more readily than SES can cope with the demise 
> our clients.

The truth is, we are all expendable.  There is no arguing this.
Engineering is just as easily outsourced as documentation.
Demises occur for varying reasons, too.  

The focus of this notes string has been fair (and consistent) application of
company policy for all Digital employees affected by "downsizing."

What we have is a statement of company intent, incuding reasons for
that intent by people in authority.  We also have information from 
state boards of labor.  People who are to be affected by company intent
will each determine whether these two authorities are at odds and act 
according to their conscience.

At least (I think) people have enough information to make an informed 
decision, (although it would still be a valuable exercise for the company
to take it upon themselves to provide information to employees, such
as what working for an employee leasing company may be like).

Mark

    re: .88
    
<	The truth is, we are all expendable.  There is no arguing this.
<	Engineering is just as easily outsourced as documentation.
<	Demises occur for varying reasons, too.  
    
    Gimme a break!  How many engineers have been canned?
    
    tony

><	The truth is, we are all expendable.  There is no arguing this.
><	Engineering is just as easily outsourced as documentation.
><	Demises occur for varying reasons, too.  
>    
>    Gimme a break!  How many engineers have been canned?

Tony, 
  I don't know if you're an engineer with a case of impervious deniability
or not an engineer who is tired of seeing others canned while engineering
seems to keep their staffing.  Canning doesn't happen all at the same time 
and in the same frequency.  If outsourcing is successful for documentation,
and there is no reason why it can't be (unless market demand for permanent
documentation people is greater), then it is an easy transition to coding
professionals.  I hold a bachelor's degree in computer science.  In college,
one takes numerous programming courses.  Some languages are more adept at
accomplishing things than others.  Check out the internet: there are plenty
of contract programming jobs.  I know someone right now who is strictly a
contract programmer.  
  The trend in time past was a mostly-permanent work force with a few
contractors making big bucks when they found work.  The good ones made
a pile.  Today, the work force is significantly mixed with contract and
permanent writers.  The price for contracting has dwindled because of this.
And the price for permanent jobs is also shrinking due to market pressure.
  Is engineering really any different?  Writers program in the English
Language.  We have to employ logic to organize information and progressively
disclose it (in book format) or make it immediately available when and where
wanted (online help).
  The engineering work force has changed and continues to change towards
the mix I described for writers.  The greater mix is here to stay and the
engineering community is catching up.  Smart companies learn from the 
mistakes of other companies, instead of repeating the failures of their
competitors.  Some companies are swinging the pendulum back away from
mostly contracting (outsourcing) because it saw talent come and go.
  I don't know how many engineers went to Oracle, but you can include them
in the number of people who no longer work for Digital.  Expendability
has its price.

Mark

    
        RE:  .89
    
        <    Gimme a break!  How many engineers have been canned?
    
        Do Manufacturing engineers count?  If so, lots; more to come.
        Is that enough of a break?
    
        You'll probably hear from the Design engineers too, and 
        from Software engineers, and ...
    
    
        RE:  .88  about all being expendable
    
        Yup, true and sad.  My prediction is that it will take the 
        U.S. marketplace about 10 to 15 years to find out why all 
        the contracting and outsourcing is less effective and less 
        productive than mutual employee/company loyalty.  But for 
        a long time yet that's what we'll see more of.
    
        Makes one wonder what identity any such company will have?
    
    
        Peter
    

    
.89> Gimme a break!  How many engineers have been canned?
    
    If you mean "how may engineers have been pushed out the door and
    invited back as contractors", the answer may well be "none" -- for now.
    
    But I am convinced that it's coming. Anyone who thinks the SES Future
    State is a good plan could be easily convinced that it will also "work"
    for engineering. With the recent DEC accouting change that removes
    contractors from the denominator of the revenue-per-employee equation,
    it is all but inevitable. Dumb, indicative of future-be-damned short
    term thinking, but inevitable.
    
    I wish more engineers would wake up to what's going on here and start
    screaming, before the doc brain-drain is complete and the engineering
    brain-drain drastically increases its pace.
    

Lots of engineers have been canned.  Many more have walked voluntarily.
I heard Don Harbert cite a total annualized attrition rate of 20% in
Engineering.

					Steve

	Well, the 40 or so technical services people under SES in LKG
	and TAY have just been transfered to CNS.  Maybe this will save
	some of the writers from this....
	/robin

    
    What is CNS? Who made the decision to do this? (I may want to send them
    a letter of congratuations.)
    

>	Well, the 40 or so technical services people under SES in LKG
>	and TAY have just been transfered to CNS.  Maybe this will save
>	some of the writers from this....

More detail, pretty please with sugar on top!

    CNS = Computing and Network Services. 

    
    
    	Facilility Operations.
    
    		- Data Comm
    		- Networks
    		- Backups ( Operator Support )
    		- Site System Management

    I have read in this conference that Digital has changed one of its key
    metrics from revenues per person to revenues per *employee*.  In other
    words, the more more employees you can turn into contractors, the
    better the metric looks.
    
    I wonder what kind of behavior that metric will drive?

��                  <<< Note 3447.99 by TNPUBS::JONG "Steve" >>>
��                              -< No one is safe >-

��    I have read in this conference that Digital has changed one of its key
��    metrics from revenues per person to revenues per *employee*.  In other
��    words, the more more employees you can turn into contractors, the
��    better the metric looks.

    I don't believe there has ever been a metric called 'revenues
    per person', or even 'revenue per person'.  

>    I don't believe there has ever been a metric called 'revenues
>    per person', or even 'revenue per person'.  

Perhaps you are correct.  I think it has always been calculated
per employee, but Steve's observation stands, notwithstanding the
semantical nit.  By not counting the contractors in the figure, it
*appears* that we have improved our bottom line, when in fact, it
is smoke and mirrors (regardless of actual improvements or not).

Mark

21-OCT-1994 (Mail from Georgina Girard)

>	1- Who can we influence around changes to Digital's standard practices
>	  around termination rules?
>
>	>>>We have been working with the legal department to understand
>	   the policies regarding vendor employment. The written
>	   documentation around such issues is located in both the 
>	   TFSO ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act)
>	   document and the Divestiture Committee guidelines. We are 
>	   still working with Legal to break-out and truly understand 
>	   the specific sections and helping them understand the impact 
>	   as expressed by all of you. When we have a more complete answer, 
>	   we will send it to you immediately.

Is the complete answer contained in the minutes of my meeting with John
Murphy, Head of Corporate Human Relations on 10-NOV-1994 (see note 3447.67)?

Or can we expect that working with the legal department has been happening
asynchronously to my own investigation into the matter?

If the latter, can we have a progress report?

-----------------------------------------------

>	2- Regarding vendors:
>
>	   - What is the vendor list and process? Can they reject us? What 
>	     if there is a mismatch?
>
>	   >>We should know the final vendor list within a week or two.
>                ...

Ron Stokes also thought he would have a vendor list by "mid-november."
Both are now past.  Can we have a progress report, please?

-----------------------------------------------
>Requests:
>
>	- Would like a timeline as to decisions and plans as they are
>	  developed.
>	- Need clarification of what business we're in and what we would
>	  be doing.
>	- Need regular communications of facts as they are known; Don't
>	  communicate ONLY what you can promise.
>	- When comments are sent into committees, please acknowledge
>	  receipt and help us understand use.
>
>	>>We will pass these requests on to the new C/C managers and
>	the transition group. We are personally committed to making
>	sure communication is increased and interactive as we change
>	our way of working within SES. 

Can we have a progress report on these efforts?

Please and thank you.

Mark

>    I have read in this conference that Digital has changed one of its key
>    metrics from revenues per person to revenues per *employee*.  In other
>    words, the more more employees you can turn into contractors, the
>    better the metric looks.


Just following the old adage...

	"When all else fails, lower your standards."


-Mike

From:	WECARE::GIRARD       28-NOV-1994 16:05:35.98
To:	TOKNOW::METCALFE
CC:	
Subj:	RE: FYI; please and thank you

Mark,
	The result of our dialogue with Legal is complete and, as you noted,
should have been evident from your meeting with John Murphy and Bob Brintz.
	I believe that we are close to vendor selection. I will forward
your request for information on this and other matters to Sue Gault. She
has the responsibility for continuing communications to the organization.
You may want to send future requests directly to her. -Georgina

---------------------------------------------------------

From:	WECARE::GIRARD       28-NOV-1994 16:09:49.87
To:	TOKNOW::METCALFE
CC:	
Subj:	RE: FYI; please and thank you

Yes, you can post this. 

��        <<< Note 3447.100 by LEEL::LINDQUIST "Pit heat is dry heat." >>>

����                  <<< Note 3447.99 by TNPUBS::JONG "Steve" >>>
����                              -< No one is safe >-

����    I have read in this conference that Digital has changed one of its key
����    metrics from revenues per person to revenues per *employee*.  In other
����    words, the more more employees you can turn into contractors, the
����    better the metric looks.

��    I don't believe there has ever been a metric called 'revenues
��    per person', or even 'revenue per person'.  


    Suprisingly enough, a memo posted in this very conference
    (#3553.0) uses the phrase revenue per person.

    The more they outsource, the better this metric will look.
    However, if you have the same person doing the same work from the same
    location, are things really getting better?

I have hidden 3447.107 just a few minutes ago.  I was informed that in
the opinion of at least one manager, it contained company sensitive
information.  As soon as I found out this opinion, I opened this
notes conference and hid the note.  I do not know when this manager
first saw the note, so I cannot say why it wasn't hidden before I
took action to hide it myself, four days after the fact.  (I was out 
on a vacation day yesterday.)

There is a matter of contention regarding the sensitivity of the
information that we hope to have worked out in the near future.

Mark

>.108   6-DEC-1994
>
>There is a matter of contention regarding the sensitivity of the
>information that we hope to have worked out in the near future.

    The -um difference of opinion has been resolved.  Without knowing
    all the details myself, the opinion that was not in my favor did
    not prevail and I have been cleared of the contention.   No
    doubt, there remains a difference of opinion regarding the value
    of this form of communication through Notes.  

    As a reminder, 3447.* dealt with one issue, as far as I was
    concerned: the "go or get fired" policy.  I understood the issue
    better after my meeting with John Murphy and Bob Brintz (see my
    minutes in note .67), even though I still thought the best thing
    was a policy that put people ahead of "business decision" on the
    premise that people first is the best business decision (see notes
    .82 & .84) a company can make.

    I appreciate John Murphy's candidness in my brief contacts,
    especially his acknowledgment of the communications problem that
    exists between the SES individual contributors and our management. 
    To be fair, management *is* saddled with providing "the right
    amount" of information, and I believe most ICs understood this
    well enough.  Knowing and revealing that "right amount" is
    sometimes a difficult balancing act.

    Still, I am reminded of the axiom that says, "of all the words of
    tongue or pen, these are the worst: `it might have been'."  I
    would have preferred to see things unfold a bit differently than
    they had.  I am sorry to see so many top-notch people find
    "greener pastures" but I do not blame them.

    While we all can say we would do some things differently, I have
    not found this pursuit of an answer fruitless despite the answer
    and the consequences endured by pursuing it.  Choose your poet,
    Solomon or the Byrds, but there is a time for everything under the
    sun, and it is time for me to move on, too.  I am part of the
    "outsourcing" (never liked that jargon) program commencing in
    January.  I spoke with the president of the new company, (purely
    by happenstance, to discuss a few things not related to the
    contention), and we parted after 40 minutes with kind words for
    each other.  I was privileged by the opportunity and came away
    feeling personally valued, which can help to bridge some
    differences in compensation for the time being.

    I like to think I am a forward-looker.  Scars are only reminders
    of the lessons we learn.  Thank you all for your support during
    this time.  It was always appreciated and gave me reason to
    continue.  I do not view myself as an instigator, nor
    trouble-maker, nor insurrectionist, nor saboteur, but instead a
    Reflector of the questions and thoughts of many of my colleagues.
    (In fact, I took pains to sanitize the issue in 3447 from
    emotionalism and subjectivity.)  I find it sad that it placed me
    at odds.  Nevertheless, 1995 is an occasion for new beginnings. I
    wish you the best of new beginnings.  You may "see" me around from
    time to time after the new year depending on whether my services
    are sold back to Digital, which I expect is part of the plan for
    the immediate future, anyway.  Happy and prosperous New Year to
    you.

    Mark Metcalfe
    Commodity #196796

    Thank you for your persistence and courage, Mark.
    There are those of us who admire you.

	Best wishes for the coming year, Mark.  I continue to 
	admire the clarity of your thought and the integrity 
	of your actions.  During this entire process, you've
	exhibited not only leadership but a true sense of
	compassion for your fellow workers.  Those are
	qualities that can't be bought or sold.

	Ron

    All the best, Mark.  Count me among those who admire and respect you
    for your courage, compassion, and perseverence.  "The employee leasing
    company" is lucky to have you, in my opinion!  --Susan

    
		Thanks, Mark.

		John MacNeil

    I'm so glad we had this time together...
    (Boy, is Carol Burnett old or what!?)
    (Pardon me my verbosity.)

    My last day at Sykes Enterprises, Inc. as a leased employee to 
    Digital is April 7, 1995.  I have accepted an offer elsewhere.
    Thanks for the good times, folks.

    I have worked for Sykes since January 1, 1995 and wish them the
    best of luck in their endeavors in the Boston area.  They are a
    good bunch of people who hired a bunch of people from SES who were
    disgruntled because they were forced to go or get fired. 
    Unfortunately for Sykes, some people transferred their anger at
    SES to SEI.  This was not the case with me.  My reasons for
    leaving extend to before my transfer of employment.

    I had worked for Digital since December of 1986; six and half
    years of fun and enjoyment which isn't bad out of the eight years
    I was employed by DEC, I suppose.  I started out supporting VAX
    DOCUMENT (watch the tomatoes) by writing the Tag Translator's
    Guide and helping the other writers on getting the V1.0 docs out
    the door.  After this, I moved over to CASE tools and won the
    Award of Distinction from the Society of Technical Communications
    for the Guide to DEC/Test Manager; a project where I had to wrest
    control of the documentation (gingerly) from the development
    group.  (Vindication for doing it my way.)  I worked on DEC's bid
    at an OO repository (COHESION Framework, aka IPSE) which slowly
    disintegrated.  (I did a lot of fire fighting during this
    project.)  Then I moved over to OpenVMS while it was still VMS and
    had five supervisors for around 40 writers.  I wrestled the DCL
    Dictionary into submission, took on more responsibilities with
    online help, and wrote for a couple of projects on a small team of 
    excellent engineers.  As verbose as this is, it is the abbreviated
    version of my career at DEC.

    The lessons learned throughout this time is that "do the right
    thing" is the correct philosophy and that integrity does count for
    much.  Some people are giants in my eyes largely because of their
    integrity and some people have disappointed me by their lack of
    spine or scruples.  I think that's as close as I'll get to
    pointing a finger.

    Prioritize your life and constantly examine those priorities. 
    Determine what is important and what is simply nagging and put the
    nagging in the place it deserves.

    I'll be accessible on the Internet after April 17.  Some of you
    will be getting mail from me then.  Till then, drop by to say
    adios, sayonara, auf wiedersehen, au revoire, or goodbye.

    Mark