Conference 7.286::digital

    From my understanding, you'll get the 40 hours.  If it puts you over
    200, you'll then stop accumulating new vacation until you get below
    200 hours.  Of course, I may be wrong...
    
    				-John

    
    I don't understand - how is this any different than the current
    scheme?

    re: -1
    
    Under the current scheme, you get the special vacation at the
    same time that your max accrual increases.  Therefore, you
    never ran into the problem of those 40 hours putting you over
    your maximum accrual.
    
    Rich

I suspect that if you're over 160 (e.g. at 170), you end up at 200 (not 210).

But I could be wrong.

/john

    
    re -1
    
    Good point, I think I'll take at least 40 hours vaca prior to my
    anniversary date. Just in case...

    
    	Now that's the ticket. Take 'em early, take 'em often. Otherwise
    You'll end up like the rest of us writing notes when we could be on
    the beach.
    
    	Got to fix that caps key...
    
    		the Greyhawk

    yup, I come 'round to 10 years (on this stint) in January..
    
    So I took lots of vacation to work on the house this summer.. from the
    looks of my pay stub, I may still have to take more to be comfortable
    below 160 at that point.. so I will!
    
    ...tom

    It used to be on your anniversary date not Jan 1, I think that is still
    that way?
    
    pete
    

    
    Yes it is on your anniversary date, however the big change over for the
    200 hours max accrual plan goes into effect Jan. 1996. So anyone with
    200 hours on Jan 1st will stop accrualling their weekly alloted
    vacation time. 

    It's accrual world, I guess...

    ...and some of us have significant anniversary dates in the first week
    of January (the 6th(20 years)).
    

From:	TLE::GRANIT::GRANIT::MRGATE::"NEMTS::SALES::A1::USBENFITS" "02-Dec-1995
0124 -0500"    2-DEC-1995 01:26:10.98
To:	@Distribution_List
Subj:	New Vacation Policy Effective 1/1/96                                   1

From:	NAME: U S Benefits
	FUNC: U.S. Personnel                   <USBENFITS@A1@SALES@AKO>
To:     See Below

 Beginning in 1996, Digital employees may accrue no more than five weeks
 vacation.  Based on a 40-hour work week, this means you can't carry
 more than 200* vacation hours at a time.

 We've received some questions recently about how the new policy may
 affect employees coming up to their 5th, 10th, or 20th anniversaries
 when they're eligible for an additional vacation week.  Those employees
 will receive an additional week of vacation if their accumulated
 vacation hours are below the maximum allowed.  Therefore the additional
 vacation hours you receive on your 5th, 10th, or 20th anniversary date
 will bring your total up to the allowed maximum only.

 For example, if you work 40 hours and have 180 hours of vacation
 accrued on the day before your fifth anniversary, you would receive 20
 additional hours to bring you to the maximum of 200.

 Check your most recent pay statement to see if you may be affected.  If
 you are, you may want to take additional vacation between now and your
 upcoming anniversary date.

 If you have questions about how the new policy will affect you,
 refer to the on-line Policy and Procedures Book $VTX ORANGEBOOK where
 the full text of the new policy will be available on January 1, or call
 the People Support Network (PSN) at DTN 592-7500 or 1-800-544-9944.

 * The maximum vacation accrual for R20-R39 employees is determined by
   multiplying hours regularly scheduled to work times 5.


Distribution:
This message was delivered to you utilizing the Readers Choice delivery
services.  You received this message because you are a U.S. Employee working
20-40 hours.  If you have questions regarding this message, please
contact the author.

To Distribution List:
...

    What happens to the excess vacations hours on Jan 1st?  I understand
    that I can't accreu any more until it drops below 200hrs but I presume
    that the excess over 200 will still be on the books.
    
    That means that if I were to leave Digital, I am entitiled to that
    portion..
    
    - Vikas

    ...errrr, I wouldn't count on it!!!   IT IS GONE!!!!


    IMHO, justme

    RE: .15
    
    Sorry, but memo after memo have been seen that says that any hours
    you have above 200 will remain on January 1st.  It is only additional
    hours that cease until you get below 200.
    
    				-John

    Hope this helps:            
    
    Example) On 12/31/95 you have 220 hours.  It will remain at 220 until
    you use vacations hours.  Say in June '96 you take a day off, 8 hours,
    your new balance is 212.  Next you take a week off in August, 40 hours,
    takes you to 172 hours and you again begin accruing vacation again until
    you reach 200 hours.  Any vacation hours you would have accrued when you
    are at 200 hours or more are lost forever.  Same thing if you are on a
    anniversary date and would get a week of vacation added, anything over
    the 200 hour limit is lost.
    
    In an earlier reply, someone asked about the 220 hours if they leave, I
    think you would then get your balance.  But if it was July '96 when you
    left and our example balance is 212, that would be all you got.  Not
    the balance plus any hours lost by being over 200 hours.

    	Working in a small office, it's not always possible to take enough
    vacation to get below the ceiling. My 20th anniversary occurred in
    February, and I had accrued 198 hours at the time, with a week
    scheduled and confirmed for the week after the anniversary date. At the
    instant of my anniversary, the computer looked at the hours I had and
    gave me 2 instead of 40 hours which I had worked for and which Digital
    had contracted with me for on the day I agreed to work for "them."
    	Since nobody seems capable of over-riding the payroll computer's
    decision, now, during my 20th anniversary year, I will not receive the
    other 38 hours. In contrast, I received the award, but several weeks
    late. But, hey, what's the big deal?
    	

        

>    	Working in a small office, it's not always possible to take enough
>    vacation to get below the ceiling. My 20th anniversary occurred in
    
    I have much sympathy of the issues of taking time in a smaller operation
    where each person's presence each day has such a big impact.

    
>    	Since nobody seems capable of over-riding the payroll computer's
>    decision, now, during my 20th anniversary year, I will not receive the
>    other 38 hours. In contrast, I received the award, but several weeks
>    late. But, hey, what's the big deal?
    
    However you lose me on this one.  The computer is just following
    company policy.  A policy, fair or not, which has been communicated for
    at least a year before implementation and whose implications employees
    were encouraged to plan for.  For example, your particular issue was
    discussed in 4153.12 over 5 months ago.
    
>    vacation to get below the ceiling. My 20th anniversary occurred in
>    February, and I had accrued 198 hours at the time, with a week
>    scheduled and confirmed for the week after the anniversary date. At the
 
    Had you explicitly discussed with your management that you'd go over
    the 200 hour limit right before the vacation or had they only agreed
    for you to have that week off without knowing the specifics of your
    vacation situation?  If you had an agreement with your local management
    about that planned week I would think your local management can think
    of a way to help you out here.                                    

    Greg                                      
     	
                                           

    
    	Like putting in for a week of vacation and taking it 2 weeks
    	later, if that is a better time to do it.
    

    	My point is that now, since I've taken my accrued vacation total
    below 160 hours, I'm no longer elligible for the remaining hours. It
    seems to me that the corporation has, in effect, taken those hours out
    of my pocket and put them into its own, so to speak.
    	I understand this 200 hour ceiling was announced a long time ago, 
    and that we were "encouraged" to plan for it, but experience has shown
    that what's encouraged isn't always what's meant (or possible). 
    	I hesitated before entering .18, not wanting to appear as if I'm
    whining about being shafted, but realized after a while that if that's
    what it seems I'm doing, it's only a perception from someone else's
    perspective. Actually, I'm hoping this entry may stimulate corporate
    thought which will result in this not happening to someone else.
    

Knowing that you would have rec'd an additional 40 hours on your  
anniversary, you should have adjusted your accumulated hours beforehand to 
allow for the lump sum hours to be credited to your account.  Since you 
did not, you are in the same boat as others who were at the limit when the 
change came about.  you simply don't get any more than 200 hours, PERIOD.

I know a few people who were at the 400 hour limit just prior to Jan 96 and 
they took as much time as possible to get themselves down below 200 hours 
so they wouldn't loose any time.  Now they take an occasional Friday off 
just to stay under the 200 hour limit.

If you elected not to, it is your fault, not the Company's that you "lost" 
38 hours of vacation.

    
    	Not to mention that the current vacation policy was announced
    	over 2 years ago.
    

re Note 4153.21 by NWD002::SCHWENKEN_FR:

>     	I hesitated before entering .18, not wanting to appear as if I'm
>     whining about being shafted, 

        Well, you may be whining, but I agree 100% that you have been
        shafted.

        The special lump-sum vacation accrual to given to recognize
        major milestones should be treated at least a little bit
        differently than the weekly accrual (the notion that you had
        to spend this special gift of time off *before* it is granted
        simply boggles the mind!).

        Bob

    
    	Well, he had TEN years' notice that he would be receiving an
    	extra week, and 2 years' notice that he would have to be be-
    	low 200 hours total accrued.
    

re Note 4153.25 by BUSY::SLABOUNTY:

>     	Well, he had TEN years' notice that he would be receiving an
>     	extra week, and 2 years' notice that he would have to be be-
>     	low 200 hours total accrued.
  
        See, even you can't get it right -- he had to be at or below
        160 hours in order to receive his gift week.

        Bob

    
    	I didn't try and make a novel out of my last reply because I
    	didn't think I had to.  I know how this works, and I am fac-
    	ing a similar situation this October when my 10-year annivers-
    	ary occurs.
    
    	I have about 195 hours saved right now, 2 weeks planned for the
    	summer, and about 44 hours will be accrued between now and then.
    	Between now and 06/17 [vacation week 1] I will have accrued an-
    	other 7 hours or so, and will have to take a day off before then
    	or I will go over 200 hours.
    
    	So, as it looks right now, the extra 40 hours dumped on me in
    	October will bring me from right around 160 to right around the
    	limit of 200.  So to be safe I will very probably take a day or
    	2 off.
    
    	This is not difficult.
    

    I guess my question WRT your 20th would be:
    
    Did you attempt to take or schedule sufficient vacation to keep you
    below the 200 hour maximum?  If so, was the vacation time disallowed by
    your management?  Was your management even aware that you needed to
    take vacation time to avoid losing time due to this policy?  
    
    If the answer to the above are "NO" then I empathize, but the other
    folks here are correct - we've all known for a LONG time that the
    company had imposed this stupid policy, and we need to keep taking time
    off REGARDLESS of the effect on deadlines, productivity, or whatever.
    
    If the answer to the above were "YES" then I suspect there may be
    grounds for some type of action to recover the time you were denied
    despite having attempted to stay within the corporate guidelines.  So,
    did you not take the time or did management deny you the time?
    
    Myself, I just keep taking every other Friday off and will all
    summer...  Ain't NO way I'm going over 200 hours again...

    Settle down, re-read .21, then, for those who still don't understand:
    
    I don't expect to recover the lost time. The nature of working in a
    small, under-staffed location in the middle of nowhere assures the need
    for sacrifices...that's not the issue. I'd just like it if the
    policy-makers were capable of taking into consideration the possibility
    that not all sites are like Maynard. That's all.

    
>    for sacrifices...that's not the issue. I'd just like it if the
>    policy-makers were capable of taking into consideration the possibility
>    that not all sites are like Maynard. That's all.
    
    What do you believe you corporate should do to be fairer to those in
    small offices?
                                                  
    Greg
     

    "He who proposes, ..."  Why don't you try to find someone that can 
    take action?  Steve Lionel is doing just that with the "VTX PAK"
    problem.  I presume that you are not the first one to run into this.
    
    Mark

    re .28
    
    If your management asked you to forego your vacation plans then you
    also should have a right to ask your management for a mechanism to
    preserve your rightful vacation. ["Sure boss, but there will be a week
    that I'll give you a regular working timesheet but I'll be gone
    somewhere else using my lost accrual - OK?"].
    
    The corporation provides a central (?) system for managing vacation
    accrual based on a fairly limited set of rules. One of the reasons we
    also have more direct management is to apply these rules fairly - with
    a little twist periodically to account for reality.
    
    Is this "right thinking" or am I in my own little world here?
    
    r
    
    

In response to .30,
        
>    What do you believe you corporate should do to be fairer to those in
>    small offices?
                                                  
	An understanding of the constraints of a small/remote office
environment would help when formulating new policy or changing those now in
existence. Perhaps a visit to an office like Boise for a month (while NOT on
expenses), and working with a few of the remote engineers here (who are up 
to a thousand road miles from the office) would provide some enlightenment.
    
    Also, the last paragraph in .24 is significant, and points up the
    limited horizons which exist. 
        

    
>	An understanding of the constraints of a small/remote office
> environment would help when formulating new policy or changing those now in
> existence. Perhaps a visit to an office like Boise for a month (while NOT on
> expenses), and working with a few of the remote engineers here (who are up 
> to a thousand road miles from the office) would provide some enlightenment.
  
    I still don't know what considerations these should be.  To me the
    obvious ones, as suggested by many replies, are you and your *local* 
    management arranging a vacation schedule and a time card submission
    schedule that works.

    The second response is to the fact the Digital took "something away" when
    they changed the policy to 200 hours.  (BTW - the same issue existed at
    the old higher vacation limit).  Digital did take something away and
    that always creates a sense of loss.  However I wonder what I would
    consider a "good and fair" solution.

    The question I have is how do we stand compared to other firms?  For
    example, when I worked for AT&T vacation was use it or lose it; there
    was no accrual past January (an allowance for winter vacations).  On
    the other hand my Dad worked at the Post Office which appeared to allow
    unlimited accrual of vacation.

    Allowing vacation accrual gains employee satisfaction from some
    employees and costs the firm in a number of ways (cash, balance sheet,
    and employee peace of mind {according to some}). As an employee and
    stockholder I hope we've come to a fair middle ground of those two
    conflicting positions.  Given my (limited) knowledge of other
    alternatives I'd guess we're still in pretty good shape from an
    employee viewpoint; however the change form the original very liberal
    policy makes it feel like we're getting the short end of the stick.

    Greg        
               
      
               

    what about cutting a check for the ten year veteran to show good faith
    and not have him/her worry about loosing yet another benefit?
    
    nah, makes too much sense.
    
    chet

   If I read .18 correctly, a week's vacation was scheduled coincident
   with the 1-week anniversary bonus. What should be at issue here is
   the brain-dead (read rip-off) manner in which the formula is applied.

   The current formula is: 

     ((vacation_hours_available + hours_accrued)maximized to 200)
        - vacation_hours_submitted_this_pay_period


    This forces .18 to get down to 160 hours before his anniversary/vacation
    week in order to receive his anniversary bonus; with 160 hours remaining
    after the whole mess. A simple change to the order of the formula would
    seem more fair; allowing 200 hours available after the whole mess.

     Something like:

     (vacation_hours_available + hours_accrued
       - vacation_hours_submitted_this_pay_period)
          maximized to 200

-john.

    
    	You could say the same thing about a weekly accrual if you're
    	at your limit ... that "you have to use it before you receive
    	it".  It's just on a bigger scale than that.
    
    	You know the policy, so you plan accordingly.
    	

    
    	RE: .36
    
    	Since he's been here for 10 years, he should be well aware of
    	the formula/method.
    

I've been here for almost ten years.  I assume that if I have 170 hours of
vacation time saved, and I got a forty-hour bonus, I would get thirty of those
and lose ten.

What I gather from this is that I have to be at or below 160 hours in order to
get *any* of the forty?  Ridiculous if true.

Paul

    
    	No, no, no ... you receive whatever portion of the accrual that
    	your limit allows you to receive.
    
    	So you'd get 30 and lose 10.
    
    	The original poster was at 198 when he got the extra 40, so he
    	lost most of it [38 hours].
    

    
  >  	The original poster was at 198 when he got the extra 40, so he
  >  	lost most of it [38 hours].
    
	Yes, but did he not also put in for 40 hours vacation in the same week?
   I argue that he should have been left with 198. In fact, he would have been
   left with 158. I've been here 24 years, and was not aware of this until it
   happened to me, albeit with only 3.85 hours... Is this formula documented
   somewhere? You're right; rules is rules, but this hardly seems fair or
   intuitive. I'm curious how much the company pockets each week from this
   little accounting nuance.  :^)

-john.

    
    	Lost vacation time doesn't easily equate to a standard "profit"
    	for the company, so it's hard to say.  Obviously, there's some
    	sort of a gain for the company when an employee loses vacation
    	time that [s]he normally should have received, but it's more
    	like "perceived profit" in having the employee here instead of
    	somewhere else.
    
    	I also agree that the formula/method could be better ... some-
    	one had suggested a "choice formula" to either add accrual or
    	subtract use based on proximity to the min/max, respectively.
    

>   left with 158. I've been here 24 years, and was not aware of this until it
>   happened to me, albeit with only 3.85 hours... Is this formula documented

I have been here over 23 years and I knew of the proposed change nearly 2 
years prior to the actual change.  I got so many mail messages on the 
forthcoming change that it seemed a bit ridiculous.  Now I see why so many 
messages were sent out.  SOME PEOPLE, OBVIOUSLY, NEVER BOTHERED TO READ ANY 
OF THEM.

We all knew about what was about to happen.  Only the folks with a few 
weeks worth of vacation accrual (you've been here a while) were effected.  
2-weekers didn't get effected 'cause they couldn't accrue more than 160 
hours, anyways)

The only gripe I have with the policy is that the 3 year employee can accrue 
as much vacation time as I can.  The ONLY difference is the rate at which I 
can accrue that time vs. the "new" employee.

There's not too much "balance" in the new plan but it allows the company to 
"save" and, thus, pay management's salaries w/o cutting so deeply into the 
bottom line.