Conference 7.286::digital

    Gradually reduce accrued vacation time? Sounds nice. It means that some
    people I know will have to take a lot more vacation than they had
    planned to in the next year. I'll have to take a minimum of 5 weeks.
    Some will have to take as much as 2 months worth of vacation or lose 
    it all. Productivity in some groups that have a lot of people who
    genenerally don't take all their vacation every year is going to
    suffer.
    
    			Alfred

    ref .0
    
    I have known of other corporations to force employees to take vacation
    time when the company was not doing well financially.  I believe that
    this was done since vacation time comes out of a different pot of
    money and makes the end of the quarter numbers look better on paper.
    
    Can you provide Digital's rationale for cutting back on time allowed to
    accrue?  1 Obvious benefit to Digital is that as you work here longer
    your vacation time in $$ value goes up as your salary goes up. So
    forcing use of vacation costs Digital less over time.
    
    

    Assuming that most people aren't going to let themselves max out on
    vacation time (since you don't get anything for it; would be different
    if the compnay bought it back from you), this now-confirmed rumor (I
    got the same mail a few minutes ago)means that I will have to do a lot
    more careful planning, and maybe make an occasional deal with my boss
    if I am going to go over by a day or two because of the dates I take my
    vacations (usually in November).  That's a nuisance.  Plus, I don't see
    that this actually changes anything other than getting a paper
    liability (accrued vacation time) off the books earlier - shuffles
    money from one column to another that is going to get spent one way or
    another anyhow, pleasing accountants at the expense of those of us who
    like to save up our vacation time for the occasional "big trip".  This
    is all assuming that most people aren't going to max out, that is.  It
    seems like a particular pain for the large number of foreign-born
    engineers I work with, a lot of whom don't take any days off at all for
    two years in order to take their entire vacation time to go home to
    visit their families (in India, etc.).  It often isn't cost effective
    for, say, one of our Indian engineers who has a wife and two kids, to
    pay four costly roundtrip airfares to Delhi every year to go visit the
    relatives for only two weeks, so the family goes home for a visit for a
    month every other year and saves half the airfare.
    
    /Charlotte

    I'm disappointed.  I've been trying, gradually, to accumulate vacation
    time so I could take a "real" vacation with my family in a few years 
    when my son is a bit older; perhaps take two months off, drive across
    the country, spend time in Maine, etc.  
    
    I hope Digital will revert to the old policy once the current
    financial panic is over...but I am not optimistic.
    
    Can anybody explain how this change in policy saves the company any
    money except by accounting blue smoke and mirrors?  Does it *really*
    save any money?  

    The reason for the change is simple:
    
    Employees are maxing out their allowed vacation as a hedge against
    TFSO.  Digital is taking big hits at one time from accrued vacation
    when employees are TFSO'd.  This change in policy smooths out the curve
    so that Digital doesn't take a big hit when you're fired.  
    
    The other benefit (for Digital) is that it will force Digital to "take
    the year off in 1993" -- kind of a year long shutdown.  I would guess
    that management expects 1993 to be a S-L-O-W year.  
    
    

    Policy changes shouldn't flip-flop around.  If this policy does change,
    then I would expect it to be for good.  Who really needs 2 months of
    vacation time anyway?  2X accrual promotes the workaholic attitude, in
    my opinion.
    
    If DEC needed to reduce the financial obligation, then just issue a
    directive that all employees must take a week of vacation during the
    next month.   100,000 vacation weeks times the average weekly salary,
    ..., I'll bet that's alot of money!!
    
    Mark

>    The other benefit (for Digital) is that it will force Digital to "take
>    the year off in 1993" -- kind of a year long shutdown.  I would guess
>    that management expects 1993 to be a S-L-O-W year.  

	I don't follow this - Digital will still incur all of the costs
	that would be incurred while the employee is working. But not
	getting any of the work. When an employee voluntarily defers
	taking earned vacation time, the employee is in effect floating
	the company a loan. It seems to me that Digital should be encouraging
	more of this rather than less. As Alfred mentioned earlier, what we 
	will likely see is some critical projects delayed, as the ICs working
	on them use up their accrued vacation time.

					Tom_K

> Does it *really* save any money?  

Actually, it seems like it costs the money in a very real sense, though
I'm an engineer, not a finance person.  If employees are really being
productive (read: w/Return On Investment), having them not take as
much vacation while the company is having rough time, or while they're
working on a critical items in their area, is better.  (Maybe everyone
working on Alpha should have taken an extra couple of weeks late in
the development cycle...)  Furthermore, if the company really has
a strategy such that employees are producing a positive ROI, that
employee's vacation should cost the company less in the future, since
the company should receive the revenue for the work done earlier
rather than later.  (Consider a week of vacation taken one year
later.  The company should be able to get return at the current
ROI on that additional revenue for 1 year, unlike the vacation
time which doesn't earn "interest".)  Since people's salaries tend
(sometimes, anyway) to go up over time, there is a somewhat counter-
balancing factor.  However, even so, if the company has a decent ROI,
this shouldn't be a problem.  (Of course, DEC's problem at the moment
is that it's ROI is negative, but that's the problem that really needs
fixing.)

This seems like yet another "short-term at the expense of long-term"
decision.  (There may be some accounting rules which are pushing
this, but it still seems very short-sighted.)

re .6:

>    If DEC needed to reduce the financial obligation, then just issue a
>    directive that all employees must take a week of vacation during the
>    next month.   100,000 vacation weeks times the average weekly salary,
>    ..., I'll bet that's alot of money!!

Huh?  Last I checked, we got paid for vacation.

Nobody's mentioned the other advantage to DEC.  A certain number of employees
already lose vacation time when they max out.  With the more restrictive
policy, more employees will max out and DEC will get more work out of them.

RE: .0

	I love it.. Memo's posted with no author and forwarding.. Isn't
	that against some policy?

	I have 8 weeks of accrued vacation time.. I get 4 a year.. That
	means in 1993, in order for me to get dowm to 4 weeks accrued, 
	I'll have to take off *2* MONTHS worth of time and then a 
	week a quarter after that, JUST to maintain my 4 weeks of 
	accrued time! Now if I could afford a vacation, that would
	be great, but what the hell am I going to do with 2 months
	off? Not to mention what my boss is going to think when I
	tell him I'm taking two months off next year!

						mike

    
    	Re: .7
    
    >                             When an employee voluntarily defers
    >    taking earned vacation time, the employee is in effect floating
    >    the company a loan. It seems to me that Digital should be encouraging
    >    more of this rather than less.
    
    	Exactly, its like the employee floating the company a loan, but
    what if the company doesn't want more of this type of loan sitting on
    its balance sheet?  The problem with this "loan" is that management
    doesn't have the traditional "loan approval" channels to manage the
    amount.  Lets say that you personally were in as shaky a financial
    situation as Digital is and that I had the unilateral ability to force
    you to owe me more money (in return, of course, for value received -
    not taking vacation time in this case).  You could look upon these
    loans as goodness or you could look upon them as a potential cash-hit
    for you that is out of your control.  "Out of your control" is not a
    phrase looked upon highly these days, thus (IMO) the change in rules to
    reign these loans in.
    
    							-craig

    ...seems like another in a string of odd policies that must make
    	sense on someones ledger somewhere.  
    
    	/John (perpetually at 320 hrs)

    Yes, Gerald, you get vacation pay.  That's the point.  If they pay you
    out of the "vacation bucket" instead of the "regular bucket", then it
    makes the balance sheet look better.  Companies that have a bad balance
    sheet will execute this kind of accounting maneuver.  Data General did
    this exact thing about a year ago.
    
    Mark

    .13 (on bad balance sheets, and DG as an example):
    
    Your mentioning Data General in this context is just ducky.  A former
    collegue whose wife worked there mentioned, a couple years ago, that
    there was at that time no little speculation among the employees about
    just how close to Chapter 11 their company was.  He claimed that in
    the same way people here spoke in hushed tones about rumors of "the
    L-word" (i.e., layoffs), so there people whispered about "the B-word"
    (i.e., bankruptcy).
    
    He left our group shortly after, and DG made it into the black for a
    quarter or two;  I haven't kept up with recent affairs there.  I must
    say, your comments inspire some emotions about our financial situation!
    
    Dick

    The note (don't remember its number) that listed the DELTA ideas for cost 
    reduction mentioned this as one of the proposals. It also stated that
    at the current time Digital does not "book" the accrued vacation time
    until its taken. (This is probably because its gets messy accruing it
    and then backing it out when the employees max out and lose it.) 
    
    So, the company doesn't have a "vacation bucket" on the books to take
    it from. Of course, the accountants may be planning on accruing it in 
    the future, or there may be a law coming that says they have to, like
    the one last year that said they *had* to start accruing all the "other" 
    retirement benefits, like medical insurance etc. that would be due to 
    retirees in future years, rather than accounting for it as it was paid.
    
    Marie_who_currently_has_310_hours_accrued

Re: a few back

The memo that I received at the end of a long forwarding chain included changes
to a few other areas of compensation (including overtime and standby pay to name
a couple), and was headed "This memorandum is from Jack Smith, Senior Vice
President of Operations".  (I've reduced the quoted header to mixed case from
all capital letters for ease of reading).

It seems odd that in a year when they want to turn the company around and make
it more productive, they're forcing any number of employees into a "use it or
lose it" vacation corner which is bound to reduce productivity in the near term
in a real and probably damaging way.

There was also a very good point made earlier about people saving up to take
longer vacations every other year.  Especially in the first five years at the
company, when the accrual rate is two weeks a year, having a ceiling of two
weeks makes it very hard to do anything in the way of a long vacation (and I
don't think going overseas for three weeks is all *that* long) for five full
years.  If they'd made the maximum a year and a half accrual, or even a year's
vacation plus 40 hours, it would have been more flexible and more attractive,
and at a cost that would likely have been worth it in terms of morale.  It
certainly isn't too late to review the policy change.

I assume that the policy will work the same if you reach the maximum accrual
amount -- you simply stop accumulating vacation time until you take some.  One
thing that was unclear, however, was if you have more than the one year maximum
on December 31, 1993, when January 1, 1994 dawns do you suddenly have only the
one year maximum, or do you retain what you had and cease accumulating until
you're down below the one year maximum.  Does anyone yet know what happens? 
(I'm unlikely to reach my one year maximum this year, so it's academic curiosity
for me, but not for several people I know.)

-- Andrew

    Re:  The base note for this topic
    
    I don't think it's been established that the information in the base
    note is authentic.  Would the noter who created this please let us know
    the source of the material?
    
    I just checked the on-line U.S. Personnel Policies & Procedures (vtx
    orangebook) and there has been no change there to the current policy
    (4.03) which allows accrual of vacation time up to two years maximum.
    
    	Bill

    	Re: .7
    
    >                             When an employee voluntarily defers
    >    taking earned vacation time, the employee is in effect floating
    >    the company a loan. It seems to me that Digital should be encouraging
    >    more of this rather than less.
    
No,  you are not floating the company a loan.  As far as accounting and
taxes go,  the VACATION money is already SPENT.  Each time we acrue
vacation hours,  Digital must record those hours IMMEDIATELY as an EXPENSE
and the money (on paper anyways) is put into a separate account to cover
the expected future pay-out.

When you take vacation,  Digital does *NOT* incur an EXPENSE for that
amount of vacation but simply transfer money from the vacation account to
you.  Therefore,  if everybody in the company took 1 extra week of vacation
this year,  Digital would have 1 LESS week worth of salaries to list as an
expense this year and that would be big bucks.

Garry

>No,  you are not floating the company a loan.  As far as accounting and
>taxes go,  the VACATION money is already SPENT.  Each time we acrue
>vacation hours,  Digital must record those hours IMMEDIATELY as an EXPENSE
>and the money (on paper anyways) is put into a separate account to cover
>the expected future pay-out.


	Say you owe me $10. You offer it to me with your left hand. I say,
	tell you what, how about you hang on to it for another week. You 
	say, OK, and transfer it to your right hand, so you will remember not 
	to spend it. But you still have the money, and I don't. I've floated
	you a loan.


						Tom_K

	RE: .17 I've seen a memo sent to all holders of the orangebook announcing
	the change. So it seems pretty official.

		Alfred

    If Digital wants either to smooth out payments that get made because it
    terminates a lot of people at once or to reduce the liability on its
    books, then a solution is simply to put the money into an escrow
    account as employees earn vacation time.  Then it is ready and waiting
    to be paid when an employee is terminated, and it balances the
    liability (with minor adjustments for salary increases) on the books.
    
    
    				-- edp

The TFSO stuff doesn't make much sense since it doesn't take effect 
until JANUARY, 1984.  The bulk of TFSO will be over by then (fingers
crossed).

I only wish that these pronouncements would be accompanied by an
explanation that would make these discussions unnecessary. 

    The DELTA memo several weeks ago stated that the reduction in allowed
    vacation accrual would have NO effect on the company's bottom line.  On
    the balance sheet of assets vs. liabilities, accrued vacation time
    apparently is counted as a liability and may have an effect (minor, I
    would think) on the company's ability to obtain financing.
    
    The current vacation accrual policy has been in effect for about 15
    years.  Before that, earned vacation credits were awarded each July 1
    covering the period from the previous July 1 (or fraction thereof for
    new hires).  The company recommended that vacation be taken before
    September 30 -- later with manager's approval.  However, any vacation
    credits not used before the following June 15 were LOST.  This would
    seem to have put the June 15-July 1 period into a no-vacation black 
    hole -- old credits were lost and new ones weren't awarded yet.  I
    don't remember how they dealt with that (manager's approval again, I
    think).  The present policy, under which vacation hours are awarded 
    weekly and can be taken as earned or accrued for two years, was seen as 
    enlightened and positive.  So I view the plan to return to a one-year 
    accrual as a definite step backward.
    
    Mac

    Maybe - naw, it could'nt be, but it was nice for a nanosecond - maybe
    someone is looking at the psychological health needs of those who still
    remain & encouraging a vacation to combat stress. I just got back from
    8 days of vacation and really had forgotten how recharging going on a
    real vacation is. Even if these lofty motives don't apply, perhaps DEC
    will benefit psychologically from many of us taking vacations?

    Yet again I'm glad I'm not in the US organisation.  Fortunately this
    sort of lunacy doesn't apply elsewhere.

	Regarding: Vacation- effective 1/1/94 you will only be able to
	accrue 1 time your vacation weeks per year. Presently you can
	accrue 2 times. 

I'm told that owed vacation time shows up on the books as a liability. 
Well I understand the financial aspects of this, it is a short sighted
policy to say the least.  First, it (thankfully) doesn't go into effect for
a year.  If we are in no better financial shape by then and something this
silly really makes a difference - we are REALLY in tough shape. 

We are also going to have a lot of vacations this year as people try to
spend down their vacation time in preparation of January 1994.  And this
just when we are loosing people and really need everyone to pull together 
and work us out of the hole.


MOST IMPORTANTLY, THIS NEW POLICY IS ANTI-FAMILY: 
                  ------------------------------

1) Most families are two career families today, out of necessity.  This
means that scheduling a family vacation gives the family some very
difficult choices.  Does the vacation get scheduled at a time that is hard
on the one person's project or on the other's?  Which career is the one to
"sacrifice."  Or, does the family wait until a later time despite the
consequences?  Or, does half the family take a vacation while the other
half works?  Aren't families are hard enough to keep together today without
this impediment? 

2) This policy eliminates a valuable "contingency" for working parents,
especially single parents.  What do you do if you just took your two weeks
vacation (because you can't save any extra AND have a two week vacation)
and your child gets sick?  Do you call in sick yourself?  Even the honest
people who wouldn't usually do that are faced with a choice between this
dishonesty and loosing pay.  A policy that makes an employee make this
choice is poorly considered at best and ethically bankrupt at worst. 

3) This policy discriminates against workers who are on foreign relocation.
Can you imagine trying to arrange a trip back from the US to see the folks
in Japan or India?  First of all, if you don't have 10 years with the
company, you either have to do the entire trip in two weeks (or three
weeks) or take time off without pay.  And after that, you have no vacation
time available for family emergencies.


Finally, in Europe it is already standard to loose vacation time if you
don't take it in a year, however, they get 5-6 weeks of vacation plus
holidays.  As a US employee we only get 4 weeks after 10 years of service.
Being able to save up vacation time in the US only partly makes up for this
discrepancy, and now we won't have that either! 

    "anti-family"?  Golly, the election is over.  Bush lost!

    Unfortunately, with the ouster of KO, this company no longer care a
    "tinkers dam" about you or your family....
    
    With this new policy, I will be taking quite a few lonely vacations,
    sitting home, doing nearly nothing... 'cause kids are in school, 'cept
    for spring break and such..., the wife works and has only two weeks
    during the summer to take vacation....., and I can't aford to do any
    type of major work on the house....
    
    Yup..... DEC don't care.... no more.....
    
    I know, there are those who would say that DEC shouldn't have to care
    about such things.... Your right..! BUT, DEC should no longer expect
    its' employees to care either.... IT IS A TWO WAY STREET!!!!
    
    Penny wise, pound foolish..!!!!!!
    
    Bob G.

    
    Questions:  What happens in this scenerio?  In my case, effective
    01-Jan-94 I will have reached my 10-year mark with DEC and will get
    that extra weeks' vacation.  If, on December 1993, I have my entire
    3 weeks vacation unused, but am leaving on 01-Jan-94 for a three week
    jaunt somewhere, do I  ... 
    
    1) loose that extra week before using it?  (since I'm then max'd 
       out)  
    
    and/or 
    
    2) loose the 1.xx days vacation I'm "earning" while on vacation? 
       (maybe if I requested three weeks advance pay this wouldn't
       an issue?)
    
    
    BTW, three cheers on the comments about the European's vacation
    time vs USA vacation time!  I, too, like to disappear for long
    periods of time.  For me a two-week vacation is hardly enough time...
    especially if you travel overseas (not only that, your cost-per-day
    is much higher).             
    
    As far as I'm concerned, it's just one more thing making DEC a
    less appealing place at which to work.
    
    ---Marlene                   
    

    
    
    Use the advance vacation -- that way you will have plenty of vacation
    when you come back.  You can use it to get over the next set of insane 
    policies they probally come out with while on vacation 1. 
    
    
    Ken 

    Re. 29
    
    There's no doubt in my mind that one of the reasons for policy changes
    such as this IS to make DEC a less appealing place to work , so that
    employees will leave voluntarily without the cost of a TFSO package.
    
    Another benefit to DEC of this change that no one has mentioned is that
    vacation acrrued at a lower salary rate will not be paid at a higher
    salary rate (assuming that people do occasionally get salary
    increases).  If I accrue vacation in 1992 at $20 an hour and take it in
    1994 when I am earning $22 dollars an hour, I am getting paid for the
    vacation at the higher salary rate.  This definitely costs the company
    money.
    
    I will need to take five weeks of vacation this year, and I personally
    don't give a damn how that sits with my management.  They made the
    policy change, let 'em live with the flippin' results.
    
    

    
    These are make or break times for Digital -- We are broke.
    
    This could bring in a few hundred million dollars...
    
    

I haven't a clue how I'm gonna make the 500 mile-a-month requirement
on my car this year if I'm forced to take 8 weeks vacation before Jan
'94 ....   :^) 

    re:.32
    How will this save DEC a few hundred mil?
    
    What it does is REQUIRE me to take EIGHT WEEKS off this year, in lieu
    of my usual 3 or so, so I'll do that much less work.  I'm pretty busy
    and involved in a lot of projects, so some of them are going to have to
    wait.
    
    It's going to make the company pay me lots of vacation time, and do
    lots less work, for the same net cash flow out the door.  Oh yes, the
    booking of the vacation accrual will shrink, but the cash-for-work
    equation will be very poor.  This is the LAST thing they should be
    doing at a time like this.
    
    Sometimes I think Jack has shorted the stock.  (smiley questionable)

    Gee, I am working on a $50M bid, I took Xmas Day off, worked the rest
    of the long weekend.. I am currently sitting somewhere around 10 weeks
    accrued. I have been told that I can take 3-4 days off this quarter,
    once our next project hurdle is over... 
    
    I don't mind the hours I  am working, but I do object to someone
    telling me that I should stop working at getting DEC out of the
    *873@#*&, so as to take some time off. (so that the vacation escrow
    accounts can be artificially pulled down...)
    
    q
    

     The company may be counting on a lot of people losing their vacation time, 
     because they are too busy working and saving their jobs to actually take 
     the 8-10 weeks they have accrued.  After all, if you can take off for 2 
     months, who needs you when you come back?

     The lost vacation dollars may save the company $millions.  And even though
     some may say "class-action lawsuit", the company is giving people a whole
     year to use the vacation time, so they would probably be judged as
     being extremely fair and reasonable.

     By the way, I have 8 weeks accrued, and cannot see my way clear to
     using it all up.  I'm not sure what to do.

    I believe this change will end up costing Digital many millions, but
    it won't be obvious for a while.  The immediate impact is to cause
    schedule slips of a month or more for many current projects, as
    employees rush to use up the vacation time which would disappear
    come 1994.  Keep in mind that for a 10+ year employee who is at the
    8-week maximum now, that means they have to take 8 weeks of vacation
    in 1993, 4 to bring their total down to one year's worth, plus 4
    that they will earn in 1993.  This is 1/6 of the whole year!  I know
    of one time-critical project which is already projecting a 2-4
    week slip solely due to this policy change.
    
    The secondary effect will kick in in 1994, when employees start
    taking vacation days more often, during active project time, rather
    than saving up for a longer vacation at natural project breaks.  This
    will cause all project schedules to expand, costing Digital money.
    
    The tertiary effect has already been mentioned; that of making
    Digital a less attractive place to work.
    
    The upshot of this change, as well as those about on-call pay and
    overtime, is to enact a salary cut to nearly every Digital employee.
    And for what?  At most it seems that it will get us a one-time
    accounting blip, and I'm not sure it will even accomplish that.
    Unfortunately, absolutely no explanation accompanied the announcement.
    My management is as upset as I am, and I know that some push-back has
    already started up the management chain; to what end effect, I don't
    know.
    
    			Steve

    The bottom line is, the vacation policy change is another element in
    a series that converges onto one conclusion:  Employee benefits are
    being reduced.
    
    Given, Employee benefits are being reduced "for the benefit of" Digital
    Equipment Corporation...At a time of unprecedented financial crisis and
    chaos.
    
    There is a bigger picture here.  It is personal to me and each one
    of you.
    
    Personally, I disagree with this new policy because of the effects I
    foresee it having on me and my family.
    
    However, taking on a business perspective, I am sure that with the
    information the people on the Executive Committee have, this is a
    good and prudent business decision (remembering that decisions are
    based on "having all the information", and I choose to take as a
    given that the Executive Committee has all the information available
    to them to make this decision).  After all, we know what job Mr Smith,
    Mr Palmer and the other members are intending to get done:  Digital
    operating with a profit.
    
    On the other hand, you have a job to get done that transcends [but
    today is intertwined with] your job at Digital.  That job is to take
    care of "yourself" (to include one's immediate & in some cases,
    extended family) in this world.  *You* have to make business decisions
    *for your family* just as the folks in the Executive Committee must
    make business decisions *for Digital*.  Is it clear they are making,
    and will continue to make, _business_ decisions *for Digital*?  As an
    aside, I would hope, no, I would pray that a lot of time is being spent
    [by people who eventually report to the Executive Committee] on the
    "5-year plan" briefly but insightfully discussed by DECWET::ROARK in
    entry 2241.
    
    Perhaps by now, it has become crystal clear the business decisions made
    in this company are not necessarily good for you [and therefore your
    family, that responsibility that transcends Digital].  Nonetheless,
    those decisions must be made, and they are tough.  I am sure Mr Smith
    and Mr Palmer do not enjoy, do not laugh and smile, and some of the
    things they must do to save this company (yeah, that's what it's down
    to, friends).
    
    I have been with Digital for nearly 8 years, just a babe in the woods
    compared to many of you veterans out there. And, I understand
    committment to one's job and one's employer.  But in the last couple
    of years, I have begun to understand vertical alignment, and that my
    job comes after my family, not before.  If you do not believe that,
    then think about the probability of becoming (again?) part of this
    country's heart-breaking divorce statistics.  Yes, my heart goes
    out to you!
    
    As a manager or "one of the managed", you still get to think and
    decide!  Is that not exciting?  Think, is the erosion of employee
    benefits, this being just one, going to start [continue?] to
    negatively affect your ability to take care of your family?  Or, is
    it going to actually help you provide for your family, by [possibly]
    allowing you to continue working at Digital?
    
    Either decision could be right from your perspective.

    RE: .37
    
    >            Keep in mind that for a 10+ year employee who is at the
    >8-week maximum now, that means they have to take 8 weeks of vacation
    >in 1993, 4 to bring their total down to one year's worth, plus 4
    >that they will earn in 1993.  This is 1/6 of the whole year! 
    
    Actually, it is worst than that if you add in our 10 DIGITAL holidays
    ( which adds up to 2 weeks), and possibly taking another week of
    vacation just so that you are *below* your max (so you won't lose any
    days and can continue to accumlate), and you are up to 11 weeks;
    there are only 13 weeks in a quarter! Gosh, I'd think that under the
    current circumstances, they would consider raising the amount of vacation
    you can accumlate, not reduce it!
    
    Boy, and to think that I didn't take all four weeks last year (and am
    now up to 310 hours) just so that I could bill a couple of extra weeks
    and bring in a bit more revenue. Lately, I get the feeling that no matter
    what I do, I can't win!
    
    Deb

RE: .39

	I hear you.. I'm at 320 and I can't for the life of me figure
	out what the hell I'm going to do for 11 weeks. I really could
	use a LONG vacation but who can afford 11 weeks? Where do I go?
	Tell me where I can go in the Caribbean for 11 weeks and live on
	my current salary?

	Hey, let's change the mindset of this topic. Management seems to
	believe this is the right thing to do. Fine. Let's figure out
	where one can go for an affordable 11 week vacation. 

							mike

    Must be a lot of people at the 320 mark (me too)...
    
    Well, let's see, if I go on a 4 day work-week this year, that is, take
    a vacation day every week this year (except the weeks with a holiday),
    I should end up the year with about three weeks acrrued...
    
    	Dave

    I'm suprised everyone has missed the real savings with this
    and other recent Digital actions.  

    Digital will no longer have the expense of printing YOUR
    BENEFITS BOOK, the description of 'your' benefits can now be
    printed on the back of 'your' badge.

    	- Lee

    
    Re .42:
    
    Thanks for the first good chuckle of the day. (As in, "If I don't
    laugh, I'll cry.")
    
    Re .all:
    
    I'm maxed, too, and I figure I'll have to take 9-10 weeks vacation this
    year. I've let it roll off the top in the past, because of the 2x
    buffer, but when it's scarcer it's more precious, and I don't intend to
    squander it anymore.
    
    I also find it hard to stomach this change because of the complete lack
    of factual information on how it's going to help save the company. The
    biweekly paycheck fiasco comes to mind...
    
    It's time for us all to take a look at our accrued vacation, determine
    total vacation time that must be taken this year to draw down the
    account, AND INFORM OUR MANAGERS AND THEIR MANAGERS. We can moan here
    all day about ethics, forward thinking and family values, but in the
    end business realities will determine whether this was a good decision.
    

I wish the folkes that made this decision would offer an explanation as
to why it was done...

Lee

    re .35
    
    Relax, q, they can't legally make you go below 6 weeks. :-)

    
    
    Hey, I'm no accountant but it seems to me obvious why this was done.
    If you accept the assumption that we are overstaffed then it is
    appropriate to figure a way to get employees to work less hours next
    year.  There are undoubtably areas where this may cause hardship or
    even lose the company money but if we are in a TFSO mode, one would
    assume we have employee hours to burn.
    
    Sitting on the books is a figure for accrued employee vacations. 
    Reducing this figure is the same financially as reducing accounts
    payable or increasing accounts receivable.  It improves the net value
    of the company.                                          
    
    Let's assume that Digital starts to pull itself out of the hole by 
    Jan 1994 and no longer needs to continue the reduction in staff.
    The money put back in the kitty from the accumulated vacations will
    save a few jobs.
    
    Ken
    

    
    Hey, anyone want to "sell" me a couple of hundred vacation hours?!  :)
    
    
    
    
    ---Marlene
       (who's_planning_a_trip_to_New_Zealand_in_Jan_'94_&_will_probably_
        be_taking_some_no-pay_vacation_days...)
    
    

It's a way to reduce time to market.  See, they've noticed that
engineers take vacations >between< product development cycles.

By forcing you to take a vacation every year, quite obviously the
product development cycle length will be reduced to something
less than a year...

    One of my friends left Digital around the same time as I transferred to
    my current group in HLO, about seven years ago, and went to Data
    General.  In the time he has been there, they have changed their
    vacation time accrual scheme three times.  He took the last two weeks
    off because he had to use up the vacation time, even though he can't
    afford to go anyplace since his wife (a former DEC temp) is out of work
    right now, and spent it cleaning his garage and such.  I forget what
    their current accrual method is - it might be the same as the new DEC
    one.  It was all apaprently done for accounting reasons.  DG has been
    in tough financial shape for a long time and has gone through many
    rounds of bizarre buget-cutting exercises.  They do still have things
    like dry-cleaning pickup service on-site, and other wierd "benefits".
    
    I too would love to see an explanation of what this saves the company -
    I already know that it inconveniences me and many other people, and I
    might feel better about it if someone explained what wondrous good (if
    any!) this will accomplish.  But I'm an engineer, not an accountant.
    
    /Charlotte

I wonder if anyone has considered purchasing back vacation time for this year
only to help people through this transition.  I can not forsee myself using 6 
weeks of vacation this year and would gladly sell some back to the company at a 
reduced cost, maybe 50 or 75% of my salary.  Would this help DECs bottom line?
I know it would help mine!

gary

    	Not sure if this is a glitch or not, but if you're WC2 and put in
    for 8 hours of vacation time on the same day that you put in your 8-5
    hours, you'll receive a check for 48 hours of straight time. You can,
    in effect, sell back your vacation time at its full value this way.
    
    	I accidently did this, once upon a time, and that is what happened.
    I'm not sure if there is any similar mechanism for WC4 since you don't
    put hours worked on a WC4 time card.
    
    	Ray

	Today my manager forwarded to me the Jack Smith memorandum.
	Included in the section on vacation time is a statement to the effect 
	that it was hoped that employees understood the need for
	these changes in the context of the current business environment and
	the company's need to be competitive.

	No, I don't understand. I need a better explanation.

					Tom_K

    	There is one main thing that I don't understand about this. How
    does it save the company money ?
    
    	Every time I ask someone, I'm given an answer that tells me how it
    makes DEC look better on paper (i.e. reduces DEC's outstanding liability), 
    but that doesn't save money. If I get 4 weeks a year, take no vacation 
    this year, and 8 weeks next year, DEC still paid me for 8 weeks vacation 
    in two years time. The net result would seem to be the same.
    
    	The other thing I heard is that if you hold onto vacation time for 
    over a year, and get a raise, you'll be getting paid vacation time at
    your new wage rate for vacation that was accrued at a lesser rate. This
    may save the company money ONLY if the money that is put aside for your
    vacation cannot gain interest. If it can gain interest, it would seem
    to either be a wash, or possibly come out in DEC's favor.
    
    	I am more confused than angered at this decision, as I'm sure many
    people are. If it could be explained how the company saves money by
    doing this, many people would probably feel better about it (well,
    maybe some ;-). As someone else mentioned, the resulting project slips 
    would need to get factored into the minus side of the equation. What is 
    the potential plus side of the equation ?
    
    	Ray

    What effect does morale have on the budget?

    It seems to me that this is another one of those executive decisions
    that's going to do more to hurt morale then any good it will do for the
    budget.

    
    Gary

    
    Re .51:
    
    Exchanging your vacation time for cash is against company policy.
    (See "PAY IN LIEU OF VACATION".)
    
    PP&P section 4.03 (Vacation) is appended. Note that this DOES NOT
    REFLECT the change in allowed accrual, so the accrual numbers below
    should be halved.
    
    People should also remember that if you're coming up on a fifth, tenth
    or twentieth anniversary, you will get an instantaneous 40 hours added
    to your vacation account on the anniversary date. Don't forget to
    factor that in when you determine how much extra vacation you need to
    take this year.
    
    BTW, do any of you maxed-out people get notices to that effect (per
    policy; see VACATION ACCUMULATION)? I haven't.
    
    ---------------------
    

                                   Vacation


Policy

Annual paid vacation is granted to regular employees who work 20
hours or more per week.  Employees are encouraged to take their
annual accrued vacation time within a twelve month period.

ELIGIBILITY

All regular (R40) employees are eligible for paid vacation,
depending on their length of service.

Regular (R20-R39) and special work week employees also qualify for
paid vacation based on the number of hours that they are normally

scheduled to work each week and their length of service.  (For
further information see Policy 6.41, Special Work Weeks.)


YEAR OF SERVICE

| A period starting with the employee's hire, rehire, or employment
| service change date (whichever is later) or a coop service date,
| ending twelve months later is a year of service for vacation
| purposes.

VACATION ACCUMULATION

| Vacation hours begin to accumulate based on a year of service as
| defined above.  Employees may accrue vacation hours up to a
| maximum of twice their annual accrual.  Regular (R40) employees can
| accumulate vacation hours in accordance with the following
| schedule:


          YEARS OF SERVICE          MAXIMUM ACCUMULATION

            0 through 5                   160 hours
            6 through 10                  240 hours
            11 through 20                 320 hours
            21 and over                   400 hours

Regular (R20-R39) employees accumulate prorated vacation hours and
have a prorated maximum accumulation depending upon the number of
hours they are regularly scheduled to work each week.

Once the maximum is reached, the accrual ceases and the employee
forfeits any further accumulation of hours until vacation hours are
taken and available hours drop below the maximum.  Notification of
an employee approaching maximum hours is provided to the cost
center manager on the Monthly Cost Center Vacation Status Report.

VACATION SCHEDULE (R40) EMPLOYEES

| Less Than Five Years of Service - Employees earn the equivalent of
| 5/6 of a day for each full month of service, which would provide the
| employee with 80 hours of vacation per year of service.

| More Than Five Years of Service but Less Than Ten Years of Service -
| Employees earn the equivalent of 1-1/4 days for each full month of
| service, which would provide the employee with 120 hours of vacation
| per year of service.

| More Than Ten Years of Service but Less Than 20 Years of Service -
| Employees earn the equivalent of 1-2/3 days for each full month of
| service, which would provide the employee with 160 hours of vacation
| per year of service.


| More Than Twenty Years of Service - Employees earn the equivalent
| of 2-1/12 days for each full month of service, which would provide
| the employee with 200 hours of vacation per year of service.

SPECIAL VACATION CREDIT AT FIFTH, TENTH, AND TWENTIETH ANNIVERSARY

All regular (R40) employees on their 5th, 10th, and 20th
anniversaries of service will receive an additional 40 hours of
vacation.  The purpose of this special 40 hour vacation credit is
to enable employees to be immediately eligible for 120 hours
vacation upon completing five years of service, 160 hours vacation
upon completing ten years of service, and 200 hours of vacation
upon completing 20 years of service.
All regular (R20-R39) employees also receive additional hours of
vacation on their 5th, 10th and 20th anniversaries based on the
number of hours they are regularly scheduled to work each week.

VACATION PERIOD

An employee may take accumulated vacation at any time during the
year subject to supervisory approval.


PAY IN LIEU OF VACATION

Pay is not granted in lieu of vacation time except when an employee
terminates.

HOLIDAY DURING VACATION

When a Company holiday falls within an employee's vacation week,
the holiday is charged as a holiday and not as a vacation day.


CHANGE OF STATUS/VACATION ACCRUAL

From time to time employees will change from one regular status to
another (e.g., R40 to R32 or R20 to R25).  In these cases the
employee's maximum vacation accrual allowed under the new status
will also change.  In some instances the employee will have more
vacation hours accrued than the new status allows.  These employees
should generally take this accrued vacation before the change
occurs.  If this is not possible, the employee will receive all
earned vacation pay which is in excess of the new maximum
accumulation allowed.

TERMINATION

If an employee terminates employment, the employee receives all
earned vacation pay.

VACATION PAY ADMINISTRATION

Standard time reporting cards are automatically distributed by
Payroll to all employees for vacation reporting purposes.  When
vacation is taken, all employees must indicate on this card the
vacation hours they will take and have their supervisor approve the
vacation period.  In addition, it is the cost center manager's
responsibility to insure that all vacation hours taken by employees
are properly reported and to ensure the accuracy of the Monthly
Cost Center Vacation Status Report which lists calendar year-to-
date vacation hours taken and available.

With proper advance notification of one week, payroll will
distribute vacation pay prior to the start of the employee's
vacation.  Advance vacation pay is not given in less than full week
increments.
    

    I think layoffs are the key.  Digital is supposedly laying off
    folks who are in jobs which add little or no value to the company.  By
    definition, such jobs can "go away" without affecting the bottom line
    much.  In other words, for the people in these jobs the high cost and
    low value to Digital is the same every week they "work" whether or not 
    they actually come to work.  But, if they get laid off they can expect a 
    sum of cash to compensate for vacation time not taken.  This represents a 
    high cost to Digital (during times of layoff) that could have been avoided 
    had there been a lower limit to the amount of vacation.
    
    Aside from this, I agree that the policy change is seems pretty
    much break even.
    
    Steve

    RE: .55
    
    The Cost Center Manager receives a vacation accrual report each month,
    which flags employees who are close to maxing out.  It is then that
    CC Mgr's responsibility to inform the employee.  Of course, the
    employee also sees the accrual each week on her/his paystub.

    Clearly many of us at the max already will not be able to take the
    extra weeks during the next year to get down to the new minimum. 
    
    One way out of this is to be able to cash in the potential excess
    vacation time, as a one-time vehicle to quickly reduce those "excess"
    hours, and get those of us who need it down to the new minimum.
    
    So, I can't possibly take 2 months off, but I'll take a check for one
    of those in return for that much earned vacation time.
    
    Thorgan

    As a point of interest.
    
    I left Unysis with 16 years experience and 4 weeks vacation.  We were
    allowed to take one carry-over week without VP permission.  I can't
    remember how much seniority was required to get that "privilege".  Of 
    course Unysis was not a great company to work for, but all of this
    accrued vacation stuff is novel.
    
    Maybe someone else could add what their previous employer provided.
                                    

    I guess I don't understand the folks who say they cannot take the time
    off.  Of course you can, you simply stay home.  Or, take a vacation in
    another city and arrange for a job interview or two.  You might be able
    to realize a job search deduction sooner than you think.
    
    Clearly, Digital has decided that it is important for each of us to run
    down our vacation time in the next 12 months to a level sufficient to
    keep us from losing vacation days when they accrue; more important than
    it is for us to continue to work on a project, for instance.  The
    company only has our best interests at heart; after all, they have
    given us 12 months to get to the appropriate level.  And for those of
    us who are such workaholics (often stressful to our families), they are
    helping us by providing additional inducement to take our vacation time
    off.  We should all be pleased to work for such a well managed
    organization that puts the interests of its employees before project
    schedules and such.
    
    Of course, if all of us who are maxxed out decided to take all our
    accrued vacation time in June (and May, if necessary), we might not
    have any company to come back to in July.
    
    Sigh.......

    Why shouldn't DEC want you to lose vacation time?  Seems to me like a
    real money saver for the company.  And, as mentioned, less accurred
    vacation means smaller payoffs at termination time.
    
    Says I looking for ways to take 8-10 weeks off. :)

    I would like to correct one statement made in .57 - it is NOT the cost
    center managers, or any other managers responsibility to inform an
    employee that thay are about to max. out on vacation.  It is the
    employees responsibility.  Like most the rest, I am not happy about
    having to take up to 2 months of vacation this year, but if that is
    what I need to do to keep from losing vacation, so be it.   I'll be
    relaxed and have all my housework done this year for the first time in
    16 years.

    	Again, the net savings in making one take their vacation now vs.
    getting it added to the TFSO is $0. As I mentioned, if one had 8 weeks 
    coming, took 4 now, and got 4 weeks added to a TFSO, it's still 8 weeks
    total. The package is 4 weeks shorter, but then, DEC doesn't have the use
    of the 4 weeks worth of money that they paid you for vacation. 
    
    	Now if your value added was such that it was less than what DEC
    would normally have to pay for someone else (or nobody else if your job
    goes away), then the savings would be real if you were TFSO'd.
    
    	The other option would be if there were enough people abusing the
    system, such that they took time off, didn't report it, AND accrued and
    maintained a maximum 2x, AND added little to no value, reducing the
    allowable accruable vacation would also be a cost savings in the event
    they were TFSO'd.
    
    	Either case would be a sad state of affairs. Maybe that's why there 
    was no explanation as to HOW this would be a cost savings. I'd really
    like to believe that this is not the case. Any one else have a more 
    plausible explanation ?
    
    	Ray

    I don't believe anyone is happy about having the policy of vacation
    accural changing from 2 times to 1 time.  Bottom line is that the
    Executive Committee has made a policy change.  At least we have been
    given one year's notice which is more than fair.  All the complaining
    in the world won't change it.
    
    Comments of having Digital buy back vacation weeks is not realistic, so
    forget it.  Simply put, take time off or loose it.  

    In talking to people in my own group, and reading these replies, I see
    what I think could best be described as a backlash reaction to all of
    the things we've been surrounded with for so long.  
    
    Most of the people I work with have "lost" vacation time in the past,
    and have said little about it (myself included...I lost time throughout
    6mos while working on Decworld).  These same people are much less
    willing to make that "sacrifice" anymore.  We have all been made aware
    through a variety of means that the relationship between the Company
    and the Employees have changed, i.e. "It is a business relationship,
    the Company doesn't owe you anything beyond a paycheck", etc...
    
    Most of the people I know are starting to say, "You're right, and I
    don't owe YOU any more than the 40-50hrs that you pay me for."  I'm not
    sure where this is going to end, other than to say that I don't believe
    that DIGITAL will GAIN anything, wether or not they save some dollars
    on a balance sheet somewhere.  It is becomming more and more what I
    would describe as a union environment, without the union.  Soon we will
    have time clocks/cards at the entrance to each facility, and everything
    will be reduced to a binary situation, with no give and take or
    negotiation over anything.  People in my group typically work weekends
    in addition to their regular work week, and recieve NO compensation for
    this (they are WC4).  What will happen when this whole thing goes to
    the extreme, and people say "No.  I won't work this weekend unless you
    pay me to do so."  (Keep in mind there is no such thing as "Comp Time"
    in this corporation.)  In trade shows there is a phenomona known as a 
    "Trade Show GRAND SLAM".  This occurs when due to the shows that
    someone is supporting, the are on the road for every Digital holiday
    during a year.  People frequently accomplish this, and recieve nothing
    for the hours they work during those or any other weekend they work.
    
    I don't bring this up as a gripe.  People have done this willingly for
    many years now.  I mention it because I'm sure that this is not the
    ONLY group that does this, and if the Company/Employee relationship
    degrades to the point where a number of those people are no longer
    willing, what will the impact be?
    
    In light of all of the things this company is doing, Vacation accrual
    seems like such a trivial thing, with little or no real gain for the
    company, and a major loss in many of those "immeasurable" ways that 
    don't show up as a dollar figure anywhere.  Sad state of affairs.
    
    So how about you folks?  Are you now going to make it a point to take
    ALL of your vacation time, regardless of impact to product/work
    schedules?  (I know...What a ridiculous question...)
    

RE: .64

	So like I said, lets think of some low cost vacations. If
	we can't beat this, then lets join it and make due. 

						mike

    
    	Re: .63
    
 >       Again, the net savings in making one take their vacation now vs.
 >   getting it added to the TFSO is $0. As I mentioned, if one had 8 weeks
 >   coming, took 4 now, and got 4 weeks added to a TFSO, it's still 8 weeks
 >   total. The package is 4 weeks shorter, but then, DEC doesn't have the use
 >   of the 4 weeks worth of money that they paid you for vacation.
    
    	As you correctly pointed out, the net cash-flow effect of this new
    policy is zero.  That is not (imo) the reason this was put into effect,
    however.  Imagine a family with a large mortgage (balance greatly over
    $10,000 to make this example work) who isn't making ends meet each month
    and is slowly tapping into the family savings.  Now pretend that someone
    else came along and, for whatever reason, paid $10,000 to this family's
    bank as an extra payment to principle on the mortgage.  There are two
    ways of looking at this transaction:
    
    	1) From the monthly cash-flow view, the same monthly income is there
    and the same monthly bills have to be paid, so this $10,000 made
    absolutely no difference to the monthly cash-flow of the family.
    
    	2) From the balance sheet's bottom line, this family's net worth
    just went up by $10,000 since they have that much less in debt.
    
    This change in the vacation accrual policy is a #2 kind of effect since
    Digital's net worth will be made greater (skipping for a moment the very
    serious potential impact to product development cycles...) through a
    one-shot improvement and has no practical effect on the quarterly
    cash-flow situation.  If someone is looking for a cash-flow savings,
    then yes, this change makes absolutely no sense.
    
    	Caveat: I'm just trying to explain it; I'm certainly not defending
    it.
    
    							-craig

    
    re: 66
    
    Mike - if you hurry, you can still get one of those Virgin Atlantic
    plane tickets from Boston to London for $186 roundtrip!  And, since
    it's off-season in England, the prices are down for accomodations and
    such!
    
    

	Jack Smith's retirement was just announced on Livewire. I wonder
	whether he'll be getting paid for more than a year's accrued
	vacation...

	Roy

    re: .62
    
    Sorry - I was guilty of plugging a "responsibility" in where I should
    have plugged in an "is able to".  As a CC manager, I receive a report
    that indicates employees who are about to max out on vacation accrual.
    I consider it my responsibility to inform those employees.  Other
    CC managers of course can handle this differently.  As I observed
    in .57, our pay stubs DO contain this information every week.
    
    Regards,
    Leslie Klein

RE: .67

	Well, thanks.. But I've been to London 9+ times in my life..
	(Was in London during BOTH Royal Weddings!)  And I have
	relatives in Wimbledon, Merton, and a couple of other south
	west areas.. London is great, don't get me wrong.. I just
	want warmth, sun, bikini's, etc... You're not about to see
	many bikini's in the pubs.. so that rules out Ireland too.
	I've been there 20+ times. 3 times last year alone!

						mike

    re:67
    
    	In DEC's case, they may be reducing their liability, but they are
    also simultaneously reducing their cash. The change in net worth is
    $0. 
    
    	Another scenerio where DEC will gain is if people lose vacation
    time. Unfortunatly, as far as I can tell from what I've seen and read,
    this seems like where the most significant *actual* cost savings will 
    occur :-(
    
    	Ray

    
    	Re: .72
    
    >    In DEC's case, they may be reducing their liability, but they are
    >also simultaneously reducing their cash. The change in net worth is
    >$0.
    
    	Not so.  If Digital offered to buy-back the vacation time at the
    employees' full wage rate, then yes, it would be a "cash for less
    liability" swap that wouldn't effect the net worth of the company. 
    This isn't the case here, however.  Digital will pay someone who goes
    on extra-vacation just like they'd be paid if they were working, so
    what Digital is swapping is the very real (to the financial world) $$$
    liabilities for the less-tangible productivity loss of employees
    spending more time on vacation.  This is a one-shot improvement in the
    net worth of the company with an unknown long-term fallout in terms of
    product delivery schedules.
    
    							-craig

    From a balance sheet perspective, this must appear to be the greatest
    thing since sliced bread, but from an operational viewpoint the effects
    on the company will have to be monstronous. Does the corporation really
    expect the bulk of the employees to forfeit the vacation time?
    
    I doubt that anyone will reduce their accrued time before the latter
    part of the year (just in case of their TFSO) so what happens in 
    November when everyone goes on vacation? Can the company refuse to
    allow time off when that refusal will result in loss of vacation?
    How in H___ can we plan any business that needs resources during the
    coming Q2?

	I must say, I am struck by the volume of queries for justification
	and the lack of a response.  

	This file's an important avenue of communication.  I think the
	brass could use it to their own (and our) advantage by explaining
	the policy effectively.  It stands to reason, if people understand
	they are more likely to participate with positive intent.

	If as someone suggested they would like to discourage people
	from staying here, I think there are better ways to do it,
	because perhaps you are making it less attractive also to
	those you would like to stay.

	On the other hand, if policies are no more generous at other
	companies, I guess it doesn't make much difference. 

    I have been trying to anaylze this one, and I just don't get it. Here 
    are my premisses/assumptions:

    1.  Return to profitability is of paramount importance.  
    2.  Product time to market is critical for return to profitability.
    3.  Product time to market is facilitated by experienced people.
    4.  People with accrued vacation are experienced.
    5.  The new policy motivates people to take or loose accrued vacation.

    The only conclusion that I can come to is that under the new policy, 
    experienced people are motivated to take time off just when their 
    efforts are most needed to get products out so that we can return to
    profitability.  Huh?  

    	First of all, let me say that the proposed vacation accrual
    	policy doesn't really bother me all that much personally.  Same
    	for the attempted bi-monthly paychecks.  But follow me through
    	the following:
    
    	I was hired with the understanding that I could accrue vacation
    	at a certain rate.  I was hired with the understanding that I
    	would be paid weekly.  If I'm not mistaken, I got both of those
    	in writing.
    
    	Digital can change these (and other) items, I suppose, but it
    	goes against trust, honor, and things like that.  It may also
    	result in legal action.  (May result.)
    
    	Why pull back these things that were promised to so many when
    	they were hired?  Why not institute new policy for new hires 
    	and exempt existing employees under a grandfather clause?  New
    	employees cannot then say "Digital promised me X" like you and
    	I can say.  They will be accepting employment under new policy
    	terms that are clearly spelled out.
    
    	Granted, there isn't a whole lot of hiring going on at this time,
    	but someday there will be.  And certainly this doesn't take into
    	account the administration of tiered benefits based on hire date.
    
    	It is something to think about anyway...

    
    Isn't it just possible that with something like $1 billion in 
    vacation pay liability, Digital's creditors are requiring us to
    shed some of this "debt" as a condition of extending credit.
    
    Isn't it also conceivable that in the near future we may have to
    go to Wall Street again to float us some more cash; and this reduced
    financial liability at least won't be there to weigh unfavorably
    against our application, or even be considered as a pre-condition
    by the executive committee.
    
    Hey, you don't give me any reasons for these decisions, I can come
    up with plenty all by myself.
    
    

>    Isn't it just possible that with something like $1 billion in 
>    vacation pay liability, Digital's creditors are requiring us to

    Does anyone have any facts on this?  I cant believe it could
    be as high as $1 Billion.  I might believe 1/3 of that.
    bob

    Hey, if your not being told what the real reason is and you want to make
    up some more reasons how about these two.
    1.  Man power planning is alot more difficult to do when x number of
    	employees are sitting with a large number of potential days off
    	on the books.  If your planning on cutting employees to the bare
    	minimum it would help to limit the possible number of days any
    	one individual could take off in a year.
    2.  Maybe Mitsubishi (or anyone else) said,  "Clean up these areas of
    	concern and we'll pay xxx amount of dollars per share on a buy
    	out."
    
    Just another of an endless list of MAYBE'S.
                                               

    Interesting article in the January 1993 issue of MANAGEMENT REVIEW
    (an AMA publication) regarding a recent court case in California.
    Seems the California COurt of Appeals ruled that employees with big
    blocks of unused vacation time on the books can choose to convert their
    accumulated time into cash.  Although the legal issues are probably
    complex, what I got out of it was that if a company policy states that
    an employee is entitled to a certain amount of paid vacation days for
    so much time on the job, then that becomes part of the SALARY, which
    cannot be taken away once that amount has been earned even if the
    employee refuses to use that time.
    
    Anyone in California familiar with that case as I'm from the "other"
    coast?
    
    Mark
    

I believe Ray in .63 may have hit on the reason. I've seen memos in the past
several months "urging" people to insure they submit timecards for vacation.
It's my suspicion that there are pockets of abuse and Digital has decided to
fix the abuses of a few by punishing the many.

Terry

   > 	Granted, there isn't a whole lot of hiring going on at this time,
   > 	but someday there will be. 
    
       I wouldn't bet the farm on this!
       
                            Rich
    
    

>    Does anyone have any facts on this?  I cant believe it could
>    be as high as $1 Billion.  I might believe 1/3 of that.

	Well, let's do some math.

	I have no idea of what the average employee makes, or how much
	vacation time an average employee is sitting on. But say the average 
	employee makes $25,000 per year, and is sitting on 2 weeks of 
	"excess" vacation.

	$25,000 / 52 weeks ~= $480 per week.
	Times two weeks ~= $961 per employee.
	Times 80,000 employees ~= $76,923,100

					Tom_K

    
    
    low cost vacations,....
    
    find an old person who needs their apartment painting
    call up a summer camp/YMCA/kid home/Ronald McDonald house, do some
    fixing up
    build beds for people who don't have any
    volunteer time at local DAs office as a victim counselor
    get your boss to send you to training you wouldn't get otherwise
    take the greyhound to LA and back, its a kick
    
    
    there is a lot of stuff out there smart motivated Deccies can be doing,
    rather than wasting effort in here.

    re: .84
    
    Pretty close I would guess Tom.  But...lets look at the VP ranks.
    Lets use Jack Smith (since he just retired).
    
    I would guess he makes about 4 - 500K per year (senior VP), and he had
    over 25 years, so he gets what, 5 weeks vacation per year.
    
    5 (weeks) times $7,692. = $38,460. for just "1" guy.  Now how many
    VPs are left?  If there are 100 VPs, with 5 weeks "excess" vacation,
    all making $400K, now you have $3,846,000. bucks....just for VPs.
    
    
    
    
    

	That's why I used figures I thought might be close to "average".
	For every Jack Smith there are probably 10 or more folks making under
	the figures I used...

	But your reply raised the following thought - what if there are 
	still quite a few folks currently holding sinecure positions while 
	they are being eased out. Requiring them to take accrued vacation
	could result in a savings to the company.

					Tom_K

    It could be worse in that NO vacation at all could be carried over.
    Some companies do that. You get 3 weeks vacation per year and the max
    vacation you can take is 3 weeks period.
    
    Another "maybe". Maybe Digital is looking at selling out to a company
    that has the above requirement and Digital is looking out for your best
    interest suggesting you take your accrued vacation before you would
    loose it with the new company.
    
    I wonder what happened to the folks at the Greenville plant that was
    sold last year? Did they get paid for their accrued vacation or did
    they loose it or did they carry it over?
    

    In the U.K. you're only supposed to carry over 5 days from one
    (calendar) year to the next. Any more is "lost".
    
    In Engineering, people have been allowed to exceed this without losing
    any - this was because projects were on tight schedules and folk
    couldn't be spared (in theory anyway - only sometimes in practise).
    
    These exceptions are no longer allowed, so people have had to use up
    their spare vacation (in excess of 5 days) before last Dec 31st. Hence
    this (Reading Engineering) was a rather empty place the last couple of
    weeks of last year!
    
    Mind you, we do get a lot more vacation to begin with.
    
    D.

There was a widely-forwarded electronic mail memo originally sent out Oct.
30 entitled "SPEND SMART! 10/30/92: DELTA/BUS. PRACTICES STATUS REPORT"
which outlines various proposed cost reduction options, and for some their
benefits and estimated potential cost savings.  At that time, the potential
cost savings of the Vacation Reserve Reduction proposal was listed as
"N/A."  The reason given was "Since this reserve is currently not booked,
there is no P&L effect."

The individual listed as being responsible for development of this proposal 
was one George Potter.

Perhaps some would be interested in contacting Mr. Potter, perhaps to 
request a copy of his proposal or to discuss the proposal in more detail. 
If so, I have attached his elf entry: 

Common Name:   GEORGE POTTER
Search Surname:  POTTER  Search Given Name:  GEORGE,  GEORGE R  DTN:  244-6133
Intrnl Mail Addr:  AKO1-3/Q3  Location:  AKO  Node:  AKOCOA
Username:  GPOTTER  Org Unit:  CONTROLLER

    	So that George does not get a barrage of mail, I sent the following
    and will post the reply here.
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
            George,
    
            Your name was listed in the DIGITAL notes file as the person
    responsible for the development of the Vacation Reserve Reduction proposal. 
    Would it be possible to get a copy of the proposal ?
    
            Currently, there seems to be a lot of feelings about this ranging 
    from confusion to anger. Note 2302 in the DIGITAL notes file has a
    discussion going on about this. One of the themes that runs through many 
    of the notes is that people do not understand (short of people forfeiting 
    vacation and shortening the total package to a TFSO'd employee) how this 
    proposal will save the company money.
    
            On the other hand, it seems to have many negatives associated
    with it, such as schedule slips, morale problems, reduction of the cash 
    account, potential customer service/satisfaction issues, etc.)
    
            Many people seem to be on the fence with this issue. In other
    words, they would be for it and support it if they could understand where 
    the actual benefit comes from (or is supposed to come from.)
    
            If you would like, I could post the proposal in the appropriate
    DIGITAL note for you.
    
            Regards,
    
                    Ray
       
    

    FYI - other companies have done this before (IBM being the biggest),
    but they extended the time in which the excess vacation had to be used
    to 2 or 3 years (kinda like "old" versus "new" frequent flier miles,
    when that change took place).  Tracking new accrued vacation from some set
    date to insure that it didn't exceed 1 year's worth and also tracking
    old vacation time would certainly be harder, but would also spread out
    the impact of so much vacation time being taken in so short of a period
    (BTW - I have to take somewhere around 9 weeks worth this year also
    just to be under the limit on 1/1/94).

    	Since people didn't plan to take this much vacation, can't afford
    to really do anything during these "extra" weeks of vacation, and since
    these weeks provide a cushion in the event of a layoff, I'd really
    expect a lot of people to hold onto their vacation as long as possible
    and then use it up at the end of '93. That means November and December
    would be pretty dead around here, but Q2 is never a biggie anyway.

Re: several previous.

 One other possibility being floated around is that due to the continued
 weak economy and demand for manufactured goods (ie. BIG computers, etc.)
 a decision could be made to "force" vacation and shut-down operations 
 between holidays!  Like Memorial Day to Labor Day!  :) :) :)

 Attempts to have J. Smiths office confirm this have not been launched.

	I guess it's a liability they want to pay off now, in terms
	of lost productivity, rather than later, in terms of cold hard cash.

	Use that time, it may not be here 6 months from now.

This is not just a balance sheet transfer. I currently have about 6 weeks of
vacation saved up and will receive 4 weeks this year for a total of 10. I was
planning on taking 3 weeks of vacation this year and would have ended up with
7 weeks available as of 1/1/94. I do not want to lose my HARD EARNED vacation so
I will now be taking at least 6 weeks (probibliy 7) of vacation this year.
This means that I will work 3 - 4 fewer weeks this year. 

I am a software consultant in the field and bill over $5000 per week that I 
work. DEC will lose $15,000 to $20,000 in revenue from me alone due to this 
"accounting" change.

I tried to take a month off last year and my manager wouldn't let me (gave me
two weeks), I may just start taking Mondays.

I have not seen any "offical" notification of this change, maybe management was
not going to tell us until December 93 so that we wouldn't lose any billing this
year...

Dan Buckley, CT eis

    	re:97
    
    	This is one of the things that I took into consideration when
    someone else in here basically said that DEC is going to pay you whether
    you are here (working) or not (on vacation), so making you take vacation 
    is a cost savings.
    
    	I only see this as a cost savings if you use this to reduce the total 
    compensation to an employee that is TFSO'd, and/or the person is not 
    directly responsible, in some way, for bringing in revenue. In .97's case, 
    it's a double-whammy of reducing the cash account AND reducing revenue.
    
    	I have another speculation as to reasons for this (having to do
    with IRS regulations), but it is only speculation. It also has nothing to 
    do with "cost-savings". I have not yet received anything from George 
    Potter so no one can say for sure. 
    
    	Ray
    

    Maybe the answer is that while your on that extended vacation your
    management can see if your really that valuable! :-)
    
    - Mike
    

I got the Holiday list yesterday - 

	Jan 1  - New Years
	May 31 - Memorial Day
	Jul 5  - Independance Day
	Sep 6  - Labor Day
	Nov 25 - Thanksgiving
	Nov 26 - Pepto Bismol Day
	Dec 24 - Christmas Eve
	Dec 27 - Christmas
	Dec 31 - New Years Eve
	Location Choice - Jan 18 - Martin Luther King Day in Western Area
	Personal Choice Day

Count 'em, there are 11

Larry

    
    	Yes.  There are 11, but next year (for those left), you only 
    	get 9.
    
    

    How about it, Upper Management: how does this help the company?
    
    

    re: -1
    
    Forget it.  This notes file is a rumor channel and a gripe channel.
    A conduit for the grapevine and scuttlebutt.  You will be constantly
    reminded that this is not a policy information channel.
    

>    Forget it.  This notes file is a rumor channel and a gripe channel.
>    A conduit for the grapevine and scuttlebutt.  You will be constantly
>    reminded that this is not a policy information channel.
    
Yes, I agree.   Why in the world would we want a communications channel in
place between management and the employees...especially a forum where you
can engage in dialog to refine ideas or directions.

That would be akin to tapping the collective intelligence of the 
corporation.

Besides, didn't the Gartner Group say that Digital needed better dialog
between management and employees?   Certainly they can't be right!

(Sigh)    Its a shame that we have the worlds largest private data network,
and a management team that's afraid to use it.

Bob

    .97

    How are you able to accrue more than two times your normal 4 weeks
    vacation? If you get 4 weeks a year then the max you can get is 8
    weeks. Your saying you will be at 10 weeks. I thought it maxed out at 2
    times your normal yearly allotment. It does for me anyway. 160 hours a
    year, 320 hours maximum.
    
    Ben 

    Re:
>>        <<< Note 2302.105 by ELMAGO::BENBACA "I've Got Three Knees!!" >>>
>>                                 -< 10 weeks? >-
>>
>>    .97
>>
>>    How are you able to accrue more than two times your normal 4 weeks
>>    vacation? If you get 4 weeks a year then the max you can get is 8
>>    weeks. Your saying you will be at 10 weeks. I thought it maxed out at 2
>>    times your normal yearly allotment. It does for me anyway. 160 hours a
>>    year, 320 hours maximum.
>>    
>>    Ben 
>>

    Ben, Dan may be over 20 years, therefore will get 5 weeks per year, X2
    and you have 10 years.

    Jim Morton

      <<< Note 2302.104 by SYORPD::DEEP "Bob Deep - SYO, DTN 256-5708" >>>

           re: .103 & .104
           
>    Forget it.  This notes file is a rumor channel and a gripe channel.
>    A conduit for the grapevine and scuttlebutt.  You will be constantly
>    reminded that this is not a policy information channel.

>(Sigh)    Its a shame that we have the worlds largest private data network,
>and a management team that's afraid to use it.

           I AGREE!  Looks like this policy change was done TOTALLY in a
           vacuum (like most others I've seen in past year)...  "minimum
           negative impact on employees" MY FOOT!!!
           
           "Mgmt" should be saying: "Let's take everything away from
           employees that we can, then maybe they won't want to work here
           anymore."
           
           Why not a compromise like following (has this been proposed
           already?  I didn't read all replies?):
           
           Years        Vacation weeks  Extra weeks allowed to accrue
           
           1-4          2               1
           5-9          3               1
           10-19        4               2
           20+          5               3
           
           I'd like to propose it to DELTA... any comments?
           
           Steve

re: .107 compromise accrual policy

It's a good idea to submit to delta, but for simplicity's sake
I'd suggest a simpler one.

	"Employees can accrue vacaction up to their annual
	limit plus 2 weeks."

Easy to understand and implement, provides greatest relative
benefit to those who need it most (those with only 2 weeks
vacation), most likely to be seen as consistent with finanical
goals.

- greg

    If I have understood all the discussion here, there may be a positive
    spin on this also.  This may buy the company more time to hang to all
    the people without incurring additional hits on the P&L.  The time that
    people will have to take vacation this year is time that has already
    been paid for on the P&L.  If these people had to be paid salary, then
    that would be an additional hit to the P&L.  Therefore, people can be
    retained on the books for a longer time without corresponding hits to
    the P&L.
    
    Does this make sense??

> 10 weeks...

Sorry I only have 12.5 years in... I was already planning on taking 3 weeks this
year to avoid maxing out so I would never really reach the 10 weeks.

My boss is on vacation this week, but will not be real happy when I tell him
that I am taking most of this vacation during ski season (Q3). I assume he was
counting on some revenue from me this quarter! :^) [Since I know he reads this
file].
Dan Buckley, CT eis

Re:                  <<< Note 2302.108 by NASZKO::ROBERT >>>

>Easy to understand and implement, provides greatest relative
>benefit to those who need it most (those with only 2 weeks
>vacation), most likely to be seen as consistent with finanical
>goals.

Seems to me that the newly announced policy is more "likely to be seen as 
consistent with financial goals".

Re: submitting to Delta -- what can be the benefit to Digital that makes it 
worthwhile submitting?

-  David

    Several companies I know about have a "vacation banking" option,
    where at the end of the year you are allowed to designate some amount
    of your vacation pay to be deposited into your 401K account.
    
    What would peoples reactions be to suggesting this option, either as a
    one-shot for this transition period, or even as a 'permanent' benefit?
    
    Dave

           Re: -1
           
>Re: submitting to Delta -- what can be the benefit to Digital that makes it 
>worthwhile submitting?

           I don't see the benefit explained in the policy change
           proposal, either... BUT I would see the benefit is that the
           people in this company still matter... whatever happened to
           way of showing appreciation?  (ie- Service Awards, Canobie
           Lake, disability coverage)  Can we afford the dumb turkeys?
           
           Steve

      First of all...let's go back to .43.......
    GUESS WHAT "they" are discussing currently??? Ya GOT it: Bi-weekly or
    even MONTHLY paychecks..(Hey! "They" can collect interest on that money
    for an additional 3 weeks!!)
    
      Second: Re .70: AMAZING! I have some hope still!! Leslie, you are an
    enigma around here...a Cost Center Manager who believes in
    RESPONSIBILITY?? Didn't think any were left!! Used to be that ALL did
    or they weren't around long...but that was back when.........
    
    
       It truely amazes me to think that there are still folks around
    Digital who really think that "they" give a good hoot for (ptui!!
    Yechh)"employees"! "Employees"(ptui!! yechh!!) are seemingly viewed as
    liabilities in today's climate rather than those ASSETS who---by their
    sweat, dedication and diligence---BUILT this corporation to the heights
    that it attained a couple of years ago. The Senior Management during
    those times was keenly aware of employee's feelings, needs and rewards.
    Nothing that they 'gave' to us did not get returned 100-fold. I am in a
    place where information is accessable such as how much Canobie and the
    annual turkeys actually cost, and the pittance that was saved by
    getting rid of them. 
      I am equally as amazed to read about those who "simply can't see"
    taking the vacation that they have earned. "They" must be having a
    chuckle seeing this, because I believe that's exactly what they had
    hoped would happen. When the announcement was made in one of our
    communications meetings with management, I tactfully inquired whether
    the corporation was planning on shutting down during the month of
    December, 1993, when 85% of employees would be out using up that last
    chunk that they would lose anyway.. Manager who had the floor has a
    good sense of humor and he laughed and said he'd have to look into that
    but it seemed to be a reasonable question.
    
      I know what I'm gonna do....Friday & Monday vac...work 4,...2-day
    weekend..work 4....Friday & Monday Vac.  Since I have to take a minimum
    of 39 days (and will probably try to get it down to around 140 accrued
    since it does add up fast over 10...) I expect that my garden this year
    will be great, I'll catch a lot of fish, my projects in the yard such
    as the 25 railroad ties that I currently have that will be turned into
    a retaining wall will be finished, and my dogs will love me more
    because of all the special attention and walks around the neighborhood
    that they'll get. Oh, yeah...and the Coors Brewery will increase their
    sales, since I expect with a fairly warm summer I'll consume more than
    the normal share of "Silver Bullets" filled with that "Colorado
    Kool-Aid"......
    
      John McD

    	I just submitted the following DELTA suggestion. At least maybe 
    I'll get an answer.
    
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
        A.  Opportunity or issue your idea addresses.
    
            The opportunity this idea addresses is a potential increase in
    	morale which translates into smoother operations and better 
    	productivity.
    
        B.  Describe proposed remedy and any support your idea needs in
    	order to succeed?
    
            The benefit to DEC from the Vacation Accrual Reduction needs to
    	be communicated to all employees.
    
        C.  Results you expect your idea to produce, or results your idea
    	has already produced.  Please by specific and quantitative as possible.
    
            Since there is no apparent cost savings associated with this
    	change, and many obvious negative effects, many employees (and/or stock
        holders) are concerned.
    
            Many employees, when concerned, feel a need to discuss the
    	issue of concern. This translates into lost productivity. If, in fact,
    	there is a benefit in making this change, and this was communicated,
    	morale would remain largely unaffected by this change and most
    	employees would be in support of this.
    
    
    4. If Digital may make or save money, reduce time to complete a process, 
    please estimate about how much you'd expect if your idea was fully
    implemented:
    
          Money:        $  > $500,000 / week
       or
          Time:  time for present process > 25k hours, % possibly saved > 100%
    
            The above assumes that 50,000 employees, making an average of $20
            per hour (benefits included), use a total of 30 minutes a week, of
            what would otherwise be productive time, discussing this change.
    
            This will obviously ramp down over time, but this is a conservative
            estimate of what it's costing to reduce the morale by not
    	    communicating the reason behind the change.
    

    Does anybody know the answers to the following questions:
    
    1, Does accrued vacation appear as a liability line on Digital's
       balance sheet?
    
    2, If it does is there some IRS regulation pending that is trying to
       get companies to account for it differently?
    
    3, If it doesn't appear as a liability is there some regulation pending
       that requires that it be carried as a liability?
    
    My opinion is that accrued vacation isn't carried as a liability but I
    don't know. I'd love to have facts. I'm fed up of receiving crap
    messages with no explanation as to how this marvellous change will help
    Digital.
    
    Let's hope this change dies like the 2 weeks pay idea (screw the
    employees by getting them to make an interest free loan to the company)
    and the no mileage reimbursement (make the employees pay out of their
    own pocket to conduct Digital business) did.
    
    I'm truly hoping that now Jack Smith is gone (or going) that this will
    be the last ridiculous policy that'll we'll see.
    
    Dave

        I hope I haven't figured this out, but I do see one way in which
        this change could benefit employees.

        When a company goes bankrupt, employees lose all accumulated
        vacation time.  Well, it isn't totally lost, but the employee
        becomes a unsecured creditor for the value of the vacation time. 
        So, Digital could be trying to say that they expect to go
        bankrupt in a year and they want to reduce the pain this will
        cause employees.  If you seriously believe this scenario, you
        should take all possible vacation in 1993--and the earlier the
        better.

        					B.J.

    	maybe I missed the explanation, but a person accumulating 4
    	weeks/year can have 10 weeks to have to deal with.  If you carry
    	7 weeks into the next year, for example, and if you will earn
    	an additional 4 weeks, you will have 11 weeks to deal with.
    	Such a person could have been planning to use a scattering of days
    	and weeks throughout the year so as not to lose any, but to still
    	come out at the ent of the year with 7-8 weeks.  Now he will
    	not only have to use the planned weeks, but enough other days/weeks
    	to ensure that he will only have 4 max at the end of 1993.

    
    
 >  do with "cost-savings". I have not yet received anything from George 
 >  Potter so no one can say for sure. 
    
 >    	Ray
 
    
    	Maybe he's on vacation. %^)

	I'm surprised no one has yet pointed out a source of lots of
	savings for the company.  A great many vacations are taken at
	least two weeks at a time, and a large percentage of the folks
	in this company only get two weeks/year (including me). Now suppose
	I want to take a two week vacation, so I accumulate the needed
	80 hours.  What are the odds that the weeks I want to take exactly
	coincide with when I get the time accumulated? Pretty low. At
	best I can take an occasional day off every 5 weeks (about how
	long it takes to get a day). On the average, if I want to take a
	two week vacation, the company is bound to get a forfeit of several
	hours per year.  Multiply that by 50-70k folks and it starts to
	get significant, probably several million $/year. And we thought
	the biweekly checks were a rip-off...:-(

    re .116
>             -< Does anybody have facts on if this is a LIABILITY >-
>
>    Does anybody know the answers to the following questions:
>    
>    1, Does accrued vacation appear as a liability line on Digital's
>       balance sheet?
>    

    Of course accrued vacation is a corporate liability.  Less than
    3 minutes time with VTX corporate financial infobase Chart of Accounts
    reveals account #3042 VACATIONS PAYABLE.  You can bet that this 
    liability account has a hefty balance.  It appears consolidated with 
    other accounts in the annual report's balance sheet under Current 
    Liabilities, as "Salaries, Wages, and Related Items", with an audited 
    balance of $551,727,000, over 1/2 a billion dollars!)

    Since DIGITAL is _extremely generous_ in paying its employees weekly,
    a relatively small percentage of that $.5 billion is actual wages
    payable.   Since DIGITAL is an outstanding example of institutionalized
    excellence where many employees are happy to stay, and since 
    until recently DIGITAL had not layed off _any_ employees, it has
    a relatively large percentage (compared with other corporations) of
    its employee population in seniority classes which accrue large
    amounts of vacation time.

    I would venture a guess that as high as 40% of the $.5 billion is
    accrued vacations payable, perhaps more.   Changing policy is a
    way to reduce a very significant, high-ranking liability without
    expending cash.

>    My opinion is that accrued vacation isn't carried as a liability but I
>    don't know.   I'd love to have facts. 

    Your opinion isn't worth much.  Take advantage of the resources
    DIGITAL pays good money to provide, and educate yourself before
    gifting the world with your opinion.  Facts are available to anyone
    who cares to take the trouble to avail himself.  

>   I'm fed up of receiving crap
>   messages with no explanation as to how this marvellous change will help
>   Digital.
    
    I'm fed up of people whining about something which ought to be obvious
    to any reasonable adult human being.  The "explanation" is so plain
    that management clearly (by its phrasing) felt that it was insulting to 
    state it.   I will state it (again) in their stead:

    (a)
    This policy change is a way to reduce a very significant, high-ranking 
    liability without expending cash.  Doing this strengthens DIGITAL 
    and saves jobs.

    (b)
    This policy change is a way to reduce a very significant, high-ranking 
    liability without expending cash.  Doing this strengthens DIGITAL 
    and saves jobs.

    (c)
    This policy change is a way to reduce a very significant, high-ranking 
    liability without expending cash.  Doing this strengthens DIGITAL 
    and saves jobs.

    The job you save may be YOUR OWN.   Do you understand yet?    

    re: .121
    
    Good example of a data communication impairment due to a protocol
    error.  Good message - poorly delivered.
    An "A" in accounting; a "D" in interpersonal relationships.
    
    The only reply out of 120 that just didn't sound right.
    

Re .121:

>>    1, Does accrued vacation appear as a liability line on Digital's
>>       balance sheet?
>>    
>
>    Of course accrued vacation is a corporate liability.

How do you interpret the following highlighted quote:

.90>There was a widely-forwarded electronic mail memo originally sent out Oct.
.90>30 entitled "SPEND SMART! 10/30/92: DELTA/BUS. PRACTICES STATUS REPORT"
.90>which outlines various proposed cost reduction options, and for some their
.90>benefits and estimated potential cost savings.  At that time, the potential
.90>cost savings of the Vacation Reserve Reduction proposal was listed as
.90>"N/A."  The reason given was "Since this reserve is currently not booked,
.90>there is no P&L effect."	  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
				  ******************************************
				/AHM/THX

    re: .121
    
    I. myself, am still amazed that forcing people to go on vacation can
    somehow add greater value to the company's bottom line than having
    them work at their jobs.
    
    Things must be worse than I thought.
    
    -joe tomkowitz

    
    Re .121
    
    Mr Carew,
    
    First I'd like to thank you for the facts contained in your reply. That
    was exactly what I asking for. More on that later. But first I'd like
    to address your delivery style. I found the tone of your reply
    personally insulting. I see from your nodename that you're in the CSC,
    I hope for Digital's sake that your external communication style is
    shall we say 'different' from that displayed in .121.
    
    I made it very clear that I didn't know the facts. I was using this
    very useful forum to try and obtain the facts. Yes I ventured an
    opinion but made it very clear it was an opinion and I didn't know the
    facts. The reason for the opinion was so I could pose the subsequent
    questions making an assumption (as it turns out a wrong assumption) on
    the answer to the first question.
    
Re:
    
>    Your opinion isn't worth much.  Take advantage of the resources
>    DIGITAL pays good money to provide, and educate yourself before
>    gifting the world with your opinion.  Facts are available to anyone
>    who cares to take the trouble to avail himself.  

    My opinion is worth no more and no less than your opinion. If I'd known
    how to access the VTX database I would have. Then I could have stated a
    fact and not an opinion. Facts are available to those who know where to
    look. I didn't.
    
Re:
    
>>   I'm fed up of receiving crap
>>   messages with no explanation as to how this marvellous change will help
>>   Digital.
>    
>    I'm fed up of people whining about something which ought to be obvious
>    to any reasonable adult human being.  The "explanation" is so plain
>    that management clearly (by its phrasing) felt that it was insulting to 
>    state it.   I will state it (again) in their stead:
    
    It is not at all obvious to me and it appears not obvious to a lot of
    other people as well. Again I don't appreciate being labelled an
    unreasonable human being for not knowing where to find a fact. I came
    here to find the fact and you have given it to me because you knew the
    source. Thanks for that.
    
    Regarding your specific points as to why you think this policy change
    is such a wonderful idea and clearly obvious to every life form above
    the level of an amoeba.
    

>    (a)
>    This policy change is a way to reduce a very significant, high-ranking 
>    liability without expending cash.  Doing this strengthens DIGITAL 
>    and saves jobs.

>    (b)
>    This policy change is a way to reduce a very significant, high-ranking 
>    liability without expending cash.  Doing this strengthens DIGITAL 
>    and saves jobs.
>
>    (c)
>    This policy change is a way to reduce a very significant, high-ranking 
>    liability without expending cash.  Doing this strengthens DIGITAL 
>    and saves jobs.
>
>    The job you save may be YOUR OWN.   Do you understand yet?    
    
    Yes you are dead right this policy change will by January 1st 1994
    significantly reduce this liability line. It will do by:
    
    	a) People takings LOTS of vacation this year they didn't want to
           take.
    
    	b) People losing their accrued vacation because:
    
    		i) They felt they'd be doing Digital more good by not
    		   taking vacation and earning revenue.
    		ii) Their personal situation didn't warrant a vacation
    		    this year. A lot of people like to take vacation
    		    in 4 week chunks.
    
    The one benefit you articulate is indeed a benefit if you look at it
    through an accountant's green eyeshades. But I'll lay a dime to a $ that
    the associated reduction in the REVENUE line on the income statement
    will do far more damage than any reduction in this LIABILITY line on
    the Balance Sheet. As you quite rightly point out changing this
    liability line is cash neutral. But reducing the Revenue line
    absolutely isn't cash neutral.
    
    Here's what I think this policy change will accomplish:
    
    a) It'll force people to take a LOT of vacation this year. Making the
       assumption that the employees left bring in more than they cost
       (I hope that is a true assumption, if it isn't the company is in
        dire straights and those employees should be laid off immediately)
       this policy change will have a direct negative impact on reported
       earnings albeit the balance sheet will look better. Good job too
       because the company will have to go to the debt market again to
       make up for the REVENUE-EXPENSE shortfall and at least its balance
       sheet will look better.
    
    b) This will have a very negative impact on employee morale. As you
       point out a lot of people only get 2 weeks vacation a year. A lot
       of thise people like to take 3 week vacations. It is hard to this
       if they can only carry over 2 weeks.
    
    c) The policy as stated is ill thought out and as many have stated does
       not clearly articulate the benefit of the policy change. People
       are left to try and figure out the benefit in forums such as this.
       A better policy change in my view would have been to put a cap of
       min (2*yearly accrual, 6 weeks) or maybe 4 weeks instead of 6 weeks
       on the carry over amount. I think this is fairer. It attacks the
       problem of those 10 year+ people running at the limit and maybe even
       the 5 year+ people as well. It also still allows everybody (ie not
       just the 10 year+ people) to save up their vacation for a decent
       length vacation.
    
    So with the facts you've given me I think even less of this policy
    change than I did before.
    
    Dave
    
    PS Just in case you think I'm upset because this policy change will
       affect me I'm not, it won't. I get 4 weeks per year and currently
       have less than 4 weeks on the book and will take about 4 weeks this
       year thus still ending up with less than 4 weeks on the book. 
    

    Re .-1
    
    I just realized I stated something incorrectly in my last reply.
    
    Because it now appears accrued vacation is a liability vacation pay is
    therefore not an expense because it comes out of the cash and liability
    accounts rather than the cash and expense accounts.
    
    Therefore when an employee takes a vacation he is not generating an
    expense. This is good as long as his absence is not losing a greater
    amount of current or future revenue.
    
    So even though this policy change is not going to have as bad an impact
    as I first thought I still believe it'll have a negative impact on
    employee morale and hence on the company.
    
    Dave

    Don't get overly concerned over the internal balance sheet effects.
    
    The idea is that Pat's balance sheet holds an asset of X weeks of
    vacation. (and reflected on Digital's balance sheet as a liability
    under salaries, wages, and related items)  (By the way, this non-cash
    asset doesn't earn interest for Pat, or does Digital pay out interest
    for it).
    
    Should I for any reason fail to use up my vacation time, then Pat's
    balance sheet is reduced on the asset side, and Digital's balance sheet
    is reduced on the liability side in equal amounts with no cash effect.
    
    Is Digital richer? Sure.
    Is Pat poorer? Sure.
    
    There's no free lunch.  It's an transfer of intanglible wealth from the
    employees to their employer.

In Engineering, at least, this policy change is going to cause a lot of people 
to take a lot more vacation over the next year than they would have otherwise. 
I personally will be taking at least 6 weeks where I normally would have taken 
3.  Several important projects in my department are already re-figuring their 
schedules with a several-week slip because of this policy change.

I can't see how the balance sheet window dressing can possibly make up for 
the loss in productivity.

--PSW 

    
    Considering that the memo highlighting the changes was sent to us as
    "advance notification", we may be able to make a representation asking
    them to reconsider. How can we do this ?
    
    They did rescind the "virtual office" idea for mileage, bi-weekly
    paycheck policy proposal, etc.
    
    The proposed vacation accrual policy is very hard on people who tend to
    take longer vacations once in two years (especially for those like me who
    have roots abroad), is going to extend the duration of several projects
    this year as people are busy "using up" accumulated vacations, and will
    virtually be chaotic at the end of this year as everybody will be taking
    vacation to bring it under the impending new limit.
    
    I wish more effort is spent in revenue generation and not on making it
    look good on paper.
    
    /P.B.

    My manager has told his group that our groups commitments are being 
    re examined in light of this new policy. Since we've had a 20% cut
    because of TFSO we were running pretty tight already. I have to assume
    that upper management knew that this policy change would have a serious
    effect on productivity. So I have to assume that this is a desired
    goal. Or at least overcome by some other benefit that they haven't seen
    fit to tell us about.

    The other option is that who ever made the decision didn't know what
    they were doing and had enough clout to scare anyone from explaining
    things. Take your pick.

    Either way management has effectively asked me to take 2-3 weeks more
    vacation then I had planned to. Being a good corporate citizen that's
    just what I'm going to do.
    
    			Alfred

    
    It seems apparent that the corporation can no longer afford us.
    The fact that it needs us cannot be considered in the master (disaster) 
    plan.
    

>    re examined in light of this new policy. Since we've had a 20% cut
>    because of TFSO we were running pretty tight already. 

Of course, this will help muddy the waters a bit.  When people go looking
for a reason that things did not get done, there will be two: TFSO and the
vacation policy.  Finger pointing only works if there is someone to
point at :-) :-)

Stupid question time...

Since accrued vacation time is an unpaid liability on the company's books,
I believe that any accrued time "lost" as a result of this policy must be
paid to the employee, just as if the employee was downsized or resigned.

In other words, if employee X has 160 hours of accrued vacation time on Dec
31, 1993 (which must be reduced to 80 hours by Jan 1, 1994), Digital must pay
the employee for the "reduced" 80 hours.

This seems like a tremendous "cash flow" burden to Digital.  After all,
unpaid accrued vacation time is the same as a "loan" by the employee to
Digital (Digital has use of the money until the vacation time is used).

FWIW.
Rick

    No, the liability for accrued vacation time is a matter of personnel
    policy and subject to change (within the applicable law, of course)
    without the consent of the employee.  This is not a contractual
    obligation to the employee.

    The vacation time "lost" (because the employee doesn't use it up in
    accord with the policy) is really "lost" to the employee.

    re . 119
    
    Maybe he's hiding or living under an assumed name.

    A manager at my location today told his employees that the
    administrative board was reviewing the change in vacation policy.  I
    don't know why, but the possible actions I can think of are:
    
    a)  Changing the time frame over which the policy is implemented
    b)  Retracting the policy change
    
    If the policy change is in fact being reviewed, you might not want to
    hurry to use up your vacation.   Could be that management might
    conclude that the policy change would do the company more harm than
    good.  
    
    
    

>    No, the liability for accrued vacation time is a matter of personnel
>    policy and subject to change (within the applicable law, of course)
>    without the consent of the employee.  This is not a contractual
>    obligation to the employee.

Why then, if an employee leaves the company (for whatever reason), does the
person receive payment for unused vacation time?  I'm not sure I understand
the difference between the 2 scenarios...

Rick

    |If the policy change is in fact being reviewed, you might not want to
    |hurry to use up your vacation.   Could be that management might
    |conclude that the policy change would do the company more harm than
    |good.  
    
    On the other hand, they may decide to make the policy effective
    EARLIER, like Q1FY94.  I'd be inclined to work the accrued amount down
    some, if necessary.  Tis better to use it than lose it.

    re: .137  Why does the person receive unused vacation pay at
    termination?
    
    Because the personnel policies are written that way, basically.
    
    The maximum accumulated vacation time could be an infinite number of
    weeks if the policy were written that way. 

    I am going to go out on a limb here.  If the company can change the
    policy concerning the vacation accrual, then why can't they change the
    policy that says that we can't get pay in lieu of vacation?  If we were
    able to get pay in lieu of vacation then this would be a win/win
    scenario.  The company gets to reduce its liability AND keep up
    productivity while the employee gets paid for what he/she earned.  Can
    anybody explain to me why this wasn't done in the first place?
    
    			Russell

    well i've done my fair share of trying to change things. mostly for
    naught. therefore, if they wanna enforce the new vaction stuff, fine,
    so be it. I will schedule an 18 hole round of golf every Wen. afternoon
    all summer long.

    i have a simple solution to this dilemma that iam surprised no one
    have even mentioned before which is to give any DECeee the choice of
    getting DEC stocks in exchange of the vacation time !

    simple, the DECeee dont not have to take the long time off during
    the year because of the new rule, and they stay here and work
    on their projects and they are happy too for getting the DEC stocks
    in place of the vacation.

    DEC is happy, the DECeees are happy, and every one is happy !

    here you go, i really that for every problem there is a solution , we
    just need to stick our heads together to find it.

    thank you,
    \nasser

re: .139

I'm not sure i'm following all the legalisms in this discussion, Patrick,
but i get the feeling the counter-argument to what you're saying is that
vacation time already accrued can't be made to magically go away when an
arbitrary date passes by.

Hence, if you had 12 weeks accrued and on Jan. 1, 1994, the maximum that
you could accrue was reduced to 8 weeks, the company could not negate the
excess 4 weeks that you had already accrued beyond the new maximum--they
would have to pay you cash for that to clear the slate.  So this would
say that vacation time already accrued is previously earned compensation
and not treatable in the same way as capping future accrual.

Can anyone else confirm or refute this interpretation?
								- paul

    re: .141, .144
    
    Back in .112 I observed that a number of companies I am aware of
    permit deposit of 'excess vacation' into your 401K (ie SAVE) plan.
    
    I know of no company that does this via stock shares; I assume there
    is some reason for targetting tax-deferred 401K plans for this sort
    of option. If, as an earlier note indicates, this policy decision
    is being reviewed, I hope that some option like this is considered.
    
    	Dave

    ref .144

    >re: .141
    >
    >Accepting what you have written as serious and not silly, the point

    I have known Gene Haag for sometimes, and i have not seen him say
    silly things , i think this is not too nice to say that on a fellow DECeee,
    Gene is a OK dude really plus and i cant see for the life in my what is so 
    silly but what he said ?

>Note 2302.141  Vacation Accrual to be reduced from 2 to 1 years time  141 of 145
>HAAG::HAAG "Network Consultant, Minneapolis."         4 lines  11-JAN-1993 21:07
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    well i've done my fair share of trying to change things. mostly for
>    naught. therefore, if they wanna enforce the new vaction stuff, fine,
>    so be it. I will schedule an 18 hole round of golf every Wen. afternoon
>    all summer long.
      
    

    
    
    	If accrued vacation time is a liability, then "unaccrued" vacation
    	(i.e. vacation time which has been taken, but has not yet been
    	earned) must be an asset!!!
    
    	The proper course of action to restore the company to financial
    	health would then seem to be for everyone to take the rest of
    	the year off as "borrowed" paid vacation.  This would cause large
    	sums to appear on the coporate books under accounts receivable,
    	which in turn would change the bottom line from red to black.
    
    	I strongly suspect that the fallacy above has also somehow crept
    	into the proposed new vacation policy . . . .
    
    
    	Frank

    Since the company has discontinued the EPP payroll deduction option
    for new purchases, what if DEC allowed you to purchase (or pay down 
    the outstanding payroll deduction balance) with excess vacation $$$?
    
    Wouldn't this:
    
    	- reduce the corporation's 'vacation liability'
    
    	- return cash to the corporation???
    		( I know, its taking money from the left pocket and putting
    		it in the right pocket, but it might make the balance sheet
    		look better???)
    
    	- give employees an easy way to purchase DEC product (lets leave 
    	the discussion of the relative value of what is offered for another
    	note please?)
    
    	- and possibly boost morale by giving us another option than
    	'use it or lose it'
    	

    re: .143
    
    My point in contrasting the cash payment for vacation at termination
    with the new policy for maximum accrual is that the rules can change.
    
    That change (within applicable law) can be arbitrary and, yes, unfair.
    A lot of the discussion revolves around what other recouse or appeal
    there is or isn't.
    
    My position is that it is a transfer of intangible wealth from the
    employee to the employer.  If the bottom line of the company rises, the
    bottom line of the employee has fallen.  That's not a legalism but a
    reality that there is no free lunch.
    
    re: .142
    
    Accepting what you have written as serious and not silly, the point
    becomes where does the cash come from to buy the stock?  Digital can't
    print new stock to give employees like play money.  All stock and stock
    options are purchased by Digital for cash.

    Aside from the financials, the impact to the available work force is
    not as great as has been implied.  I, also, felt that my district would
    have a great exposure equivalent to having up to 10 people out on
    vacation all year long.  We jumped to this conclusion and urged the
    portfolio to reconsider any planned TFSO's in light of this hidden
    reduction in force.
    
    When our year end vacation reports came in we did a real analysis.  We
    compared what amount of vacation would have to taken this year to get
    everyone down to the 1 year accrual rate by next January.  While the
    results varied greatly person by person, the overall average netted out
    to an additional 1.2 weeks per employee over what they actually took
    the previous year.  Once we realized this we all believed that that it
    was truly managable without implementing forced or dictated vacations.  
    
    None of us believe that being paid for unused vacation is an option
    being considered.  
    
    Joe Pflanz 

    
    I agree with the estimate of a little over a week per employee.  It
    would appear to be consistent with the $ figure for accrued vacations.
    
    The only scenario I see that concerns me is that through poor
    communications or lack of confidence, employees hold on to their
    vacation until late in 93 hoping for a $ payment, a reversal of policy,
    or just as a hedge against TFSO, or just through procrastination so
    that in December we have so many employees trying to pick up their
    vacation that it impacts our ability to do business.  
    
    Is there any hope that vacations will be planned well enough to avoid
    this??
    
    Ken

    Joe --
    
    Most of the employees I worth with have been accruing vacation for the
    last two years as a buffer against TFSO.  I suspect that your numbers
    may not be typical.  What is the average length of service of employees
    in your office?  Offices with long-service employees are likely to be
    impacted more severely.  I have five-plus years of service, and would
    have taken two weeks of vacation this year to keep my accured vacation
    at the six week maximum.  Instead, I will be taking five weeks of
    vacation -- an additional three weeks, and I only have five years of
    service.   I can easily see how ten and twenty year employees will be
    forced to take a large part of the year off.  Unless you subscribe to
    the notion that long-service employees are no longer productive and are
    not needed (a notion I do NOT subscribe to), this has to impact the
    company's ability to sell and deliver products and services.  
    
    My personal guess is that management has written 1993 off and wants
    employees to take vacation this year so that we'll have a more
    productive 1994.  This is the only logical explanation I can come up
    with.

    Well, I'm going to take my vacation when I was going to take my
    vacation anyhow before this annoying idea was sprung on me: in
    November, like I always do.  And since I've already booked some of it
    and it is NOT refundable, I'm not moving it around to satisfy someone's
    spreadsheet.  Sorry, it would cost me a lot to do so.  The affect of
    the change for me is that I am going to end up taking vacation days
    earlier in the year than I wanted to the following year so that I end
    up sitting right at my maximum in November.  That may make life easier
    for me around Passover when it would be useful to have the extra time
    off to take care of the holiday necessities, but I don't really like
    being told that I HAVE to do things this way.  Anyhow, not being a
    spreadsheet guru myself, it still seems to me that, at least for as
    long as I keep my job here, the company pays me for 52 weeks a year
    (well, 53 weeks last fiscal year, right?), whether I take all of my
    accrued vacation time or none of it, and whether I take sick days or
    not.  The only difference occurs if I get laid off or leave, when I
    would be paid for the vacation days I hadn't taken yet.  Other than
    that I cost DEC the same each year!  That is, apart from the "valuable"
    code I produce when I am at work (when I am not trying to warm up after
    hoofing it here in a blizzard, ugh!)...  Guess I'd make a lousy
    beancounter; I have the wrong attitude on life!
    
    /Charlotte
                                                                           

  Re, .121 - well, I found account #3042 on page 330 of 787 in the chart
 of accounts, but this is surely not what you are saying it is.  Note the next
 account, #3043, holidays payable.  Under GAAP, a CURRENT liability cannot
 occur unless incurred in the past and not yet paid for.  These accounts
 are just like wages payable, and are for vacations, holidays, work already
 over with, but not yet paid.  DEC's payroll each Thursday is for the
 previous week, and the liability is reduced (along with the cash asset)
 only when these paychecks are cashed.

  The #3042 vacations payable is certainly bundled into wages, etc, on the
 consolidated balance sheet, but it only represents vacation checks for
 vacations taken, but not yet cashed.  Vacations not yet taken would not
 be 'payable', because you can't pay them, nor are they a 'current' liability.
 You never see, 'pensions payable', just a 'net present value of unfunded
 future pension liabilities', which is required by SFAS 106.  The 'Wages,
 etc.' $550 million seems a big number, but is less than a month's payroll
 and is surely not large enough to contain all accrued vacation time as well.
 I do not believe there is any financial accounting standard requiring a
 company to list a liability for vacation time accrued but not yet taken,
 and I asked an accountant I know at another company, and he said
 they have no item in the balance sheet for this.  If there were, it would
 have to have a note indicating what assumptions the number is estimated
 under - what the employees will be making in the future, when the vacation
 is taken, what percentage will expire unused, and at what interest rate
 this non-current liability is discounted, like note D in DEC's consolidated
 balance sheet regarding pensions, where they figure when they guess you
 will retire, when you will die, and the discount rate of future liabilities
 (now 8.5%).

  I can't find anything on DEC's balance sheet for this.  Are you an
 accountant ?  What makes you so sure of this ?  It certainly isn't normal
 to put FUTURE liabilities on a balance sheet, which is a snapshot of the
 present, not indicating future prospects.  We put nothing on the balance
 sheet for contracts we've signed requiring us to pay in the future, and
 receive future assets.

> accountant ?  What makes you so sure of this ?  It certainly isn't normal
> to put FUTURE liabilities on a balance sheet, which is a snapshot of the
> present, not indicating future prospects.  We put nothing on the balance


	I thought the law was just changed, and this has to happen with medical
	coverage now.

	Maybe Digital is being good, and has now decided to show the vaccation,
	so wants to show a low number?


	Heather

	Well I thought it best to read all 150+ replies before adding my
    	$0.02 worth.  Having done so, here goes.

	Firstly, I'm a Finance Mgr. Though I do not have any direct info
	as to the why of this decision and the info I have is probably
	3rd of 4th hand, I believe it has a good deal of credibility.

	BTW, I'm one of those who will likly need to take a large
	amount of vacation, about 10 weeks.  The group that I support
	is looking at approximately a 50% increase in vacation time
	during CY93, compared to CY92; a scheduling and E/R nightmare
	in the making.
    
	The need for the change is brought about by the need for
	for our Fin Stmnt to "fairly respresent the financial condition
	of the company".

	My understanding is

	1.  This is a US issue, not European or GIA related

	2.  Since the current vacation policy has been in effect, we
	    have not accrued the earned but unused vacation liability
	    or recognized the related expense.

	3.  Though our Bal Sht has not reflected this liability its "fairness"
	    has not been adversely impacted as we also had some sort of
	    inventory(field, spare parts, intransit, etc) of approx the same
	    $ value, which was not reflected on our on Bal Sht.  Thus
	    we have a wash.  Our Income Stmnts may have been overstated,
	    by the amount of earned but unused vacation for each year, but
	    w/in each fiscal year, the amount was probably deemed immaterial.

	4.  The $ amount at issue is approx $100M, in aggregate.  Keep in mind
	    that is's taken us about 15 yrs to ge to this point.

	5.  Apparently we've now gotten a handle on this inventory and are
	    now reflecting it in our Fin Stmnts.  Thus we now have a
	    fairness issue.

	6.  Options to DEC are(IMHO):
	    a) recognize the liabilty; unfortunately the the other side to
	       the accounting entry would be a recognition of the expense
	       and a resulting hit to the P&L;  that's a $100M hit in one
	       fell swoop.
	    b) eliminate the liability   


	What follows is pure speculation on my part.

	WHY NOT RECOGNIZE THE LIABILITY (aka recognize the expense)?

	We've just announced Q2 earnings, a $74M loss from Operations; a big
	improvement over Q1's $260M loss from Operations.  I'm guessing that
	there is a goal among Sr. Mgmt to breakeven or be marginally
	profitable, from Operations, for the full FY.  Achieving this will be
	a monumental accomplishment, even w/out the $100M P&L hit.  With an
	added $100M hit to the P&L, acheiving this would be an order of
	magnitude higher than monumental.


	IF WE MUST ELIMINATE THE LIABILITY, WHY MUST WE DO IT SO QUICKLY?

	Once the decision was made to eliminate the liability, I'm guessing
	that Coopers, our auditing firm, pushed us to do so a quickly as
	possible.  The next 2 quarters may well be the 2 most critical
	quarters in a very long time, maybe even the company's lifetime.
	We just cannot afford to cram that much employee time off, at such
	a critical time, in such a short period.  Mgmt probably pushed Coopers
	to let us go beyond FY93 but were unable to get them to go beyond
	FY94.  Mgmt prob did not want to adversly impact FY94's  Q3 & Q4, so
	they elected Dec 31, 1993 as the end point.


	I have a feeling that Mgmt was really boxed in on this one.

	As I was reading the many replies, I liked some of the ideas for
	alternative treatment; exchanging the accrued vacation in payment
	for a system or in exchange for stock (its up 6 1/8 as of 12:45).
	Then I began thinking of the accounting treatment of such a
	transaction.

	When we issue stock, we Credit Common Stock and Debit typically Cash
	or alternatively some other Asset or Liability.  Unfortunately, in the
	case of the Liability, it must already be on the books.  Therefore,
	we would have to recognize the Liability and associated Expense first
	and then eliminate the Liability and issue the stock.

	The puchase of a system with the vacation time is similarly impacted.
	The Liability must already be on the books.

	I could see only one avenue and it is extremely questionable in its
	acceptablity by Coopers, the AICPA, the SEC, etc., issue stock and
	create a new asset Employee Goodwill, and amortize this new asset
	over a specified period.

	What I regret most about this issue is the casual manner in which
	mangement has apparently dealt with the communication.  They had
	to have known it would be a volatile issue with employees.  I would
	have felt a lot better receiving a candid communication as to why
	this change at this time in this time frame, what other alternatives
	were considered, why they were eliminated and this alternative chosen.

	I don't blame Palmer & his reports.  I blame the next 2 levels of
	mgmt.  Too many damn strategists & not enough tacticians.

>>	    Though our Bal Sht has not reflected this liability its "fairness"
>>	    has not been adversely impacted as we also had some sort of
>>	    inventory(field, spare parts, intransit, etc) of approx the same
>>	    $ value, which was not reflected on our on Bal Sht.  Thus
>>          we have a wash.
    
    I am not an accountant or finance expert by any means but I find it
    hard to believe that our auditors would have allowed us to do this.
    
    Doesn't "fairness" mean to "accurately reflect the state of the
    company" rather than just coming up with the same bottom line for
    assets and liabilities?  If so, it seems unlikely that you can exchange
    money due employees for excess inventory just because they happen to
    have the same approximate dollar value and still have a "fair"
    financial statement. 
    

    
    
      re -.2
    
      I know nothing about finance,  but I have to wonder about the
    explanation that we are driven to do this by out auditors.
    
      Lots of companies have similar vacation policies,  and I have
    to assume that with all the "bencmarking"  that goes on,  many
    (if not most)  of them account (or don't account)  for the liability
    in the same way DEC does.    I can understand the need to conform
    to various accounting standards (like FAS106),  but this seems
    different - if it were an "auditor"  issue,  then all companies,
    great and small,  competitive and uncompetitive would be under the
    same pressure to change their vacation  policies in order to "fairly"
    represent their position,  yet it seems that it is mainly companies
    who are in trouble (Wasn't DG cited earlier)  that take these kinds
    of measures?  (And it was "sold" as a competitiveness issue,  not
    a "accounting rules"  issue.)
    
      Lastly,  why is this necessary "In order to be competitive"?  
    Lots of companies are "competitive"  and even thrive  without 
    having to raid the employee compensation kitty.   I really don't
    see how this change makes us any more 'competitive',  and I find it
    difficult to believe that auditors selectively chose digital  
    as the only one in the industry who must suddenly change the way
    they present vacation information.  (and it seems _really_  unlikely
    that auditors would have ever accepted offsetting one "unreported 
    slush fund" (inventory?)  with another dissimilar one (vacation.)
    
      Finally,  why realize this expense _now_?  Typically companies
    who are  in financial trouble tend to push out expenditures, rather
    than taking them early.  (or take everything _Very_  early in one
    huge loss like we did with the FAS106 changes).  I don't see why
    taking a productivity loss now (when we hopefully have the big losses
    behind us,  but have yet to "reap the rewards" or restructuring).
    
    
    						-al
    

    
    
      One other thought...  In reference to an earlier assertion that
    the New vacation policy would reduce the cost of TFSO,  2 things
    occur to me:
    
      1)  The plan takes effect after the majority of the people getting
    	TFSO'd  will have left.
    
      2)  TFSO packages are currently paid out of the money set aside
    	for restructuring.  It would seem to me that it would be desirable
    	to pay these "vacation bills"  out of the "restructuring kitty"
    	(which has already been set aside and accounted for)  rather than
    	out of the "current operations",  since the restructuring
    	activities don't seem to have to be accounted for on the 
    	balance sheet, once the money has been initially set aside.
    
    

    
    Re .155:
    
    ...However, we do thank you for taking the time to pose a somewhat
    rational and educated theory -- especially in view of the lack of
    same from those who propose.
    

    
    I too, thank the author of reply .155 but also shudder to think that
    our corporation's policy decisions are driven by an unelected "board" 
    of paid accountants.
    Regrettably, it is credible.
    

Does anyone know for certain what will happen to accrued vacation in excess of
1 year's earnings if this policy is implemented?

I've been in discussions where it's been said that we can "lose" it, with no
reimbursement, on Jan. 1 and that we will begin the new year with one year's
accrued vacation.  Is this possible?

Seems to me we should have options, one of which can be to leave it on the
books.  Some people, earning 2 weeks per year, may have already booked more
than 2 weeks vacation in 1994.

Gerry

    
    Well, it is at least nice to know that after 155 replies, that someone
    has an idea why this is being implemented.  Too bad this was not
    explained originally.
    
    Thanks again #155.
    
    Linda

    
    
       I just had another thought - give that "unpaid wages"  generally
    are given first priority over any other creditors,  could the
    large amount of potential liability have an effect on our bond
    rating (And thus the interest rate that DEC must pay to borrow?  
    (This change comes shortly after we issued a large number of bonds.)
    
    
    						-al
    
    

    
    Watch the Gullotti DVN at 2:00 today. Indications are that all
    employees will be able to accrue 5 weeks, and that all will have three
    years to use up the excess.
    

    FYI - I was talking with someone in the Toronto office. He said this
    vacation accrual policy was implemented there recently (I forgot to ask
    when). Instead of getting almost the year's notice the US was given, 
    they were told in September to take their vacation time or they'd lose 
    it the following January.
    
    Lisa

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+TM                                                   ----------- 
|d|i|g|i|t|a|l|                   Worldwide News                      LIVE WIRE
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                                                     ----------- 

                        Vacation Accrual Policy reconsidered 

  In mid-December, Digital's Executive Committee decided to change the 
  vacation policy to reduce the maximum amount of vacation time an employee 
  could accrue from twice the annual rate of accrual to once the annual rate.
  As originally drafted, employees would have one year to reduce their unused 
  vacation to the lowered maximum.  That decision was communicated to managers
  and Personnel professionals in advance of the formal change to ensure that 
  all employees received the maximum possible notice.

  The Senior Management Team received numerous comments about this change and 
  has reconsidered and reversed the original decision.

  Many employees indicated that proposed changes would negatively affect 
  their ability to meet personal obligations.  Given those concerns, Digital 
  will revise the policy to establish a five-week maximum on unused vacation 
  for all employees, regardless of their years of service.  This will enable 


  all employees to plan their vacation time so that they can attend to their
  personal and family needs, such as parental leave, elder care, etc.

  Employees will also have three years to reduce their current unused vacation
  time to the new maximum.  Therefore, the change in policy establishing a
  five-week maximum becomes effective in January 1996.  This provision is in
  response to many employee requests that the change be implemented in a way
  that will not disrupt their ability to get their work done.  It will
  enable groups to complete key projects and maintain productivity with an
  adequate level of staffing.

  At the end of the three years, employees who still have excess unused
  vacation time over the new maximum will not be able to accrue additional
  vacation.  However, they will not lose any of their excess accrued and
  unused vacation time.                                                More   -->
 Many employees have asked why these changes are necessary.  There are three
  major reasons for these changes to the vacation accrual policy:

    o  This change will bring Digital policy in line with current industry
       practice and policy for managing vacation accrual.

    o  The Senior Management Team wants and expects that employees will take
       the vacation time they have earned.  Time off from work is one
       important way to maintain balance and perspective, and to manage the
       pressure that comes from working in our competitive industry.

    o  Accrued vacation is an expense to the company.  Digital's review of
       this policy is a part of a continuing effort to reduce expenses.

  This policy will form the standard for the company worldwide.  Managers in
  other countries are expected to apply this standard as appropriate and to
  the extent permitted by local laws.
 

re: .166

>  At the end of the three years, employees who still have excess unused
>  vacation time over the new maximum will not be able to accrue additional
>  vacation.  However, they will not lose any of their excess accrued and
>  unused vacation time.                                                

This addresses what i was asking in .143 (and obviously avoids some potential
legal stickiness).
								paul

    RE: Revised Vacation Policy...
    
    Well done!  And what a relief.

    Gee, it almost looks like an increase in benefits.

    Well a bit more information in the revised policy. But I still fail to
    understand one thing. It says:
    
    "Accrued vacation is an expense to the company"
    
    That I don't understand at all. From all the discussion so far we have
    determined it could be one of the following:
    
    	a) A liability
    	b) An expense when taken?
    
    But for the life of me I can't see how it could be an expense when not
    taken.
    
    Please can somebody explain.
    
    Dave
    
    PS That's 3 for 3 on stupid policies that were reversed after airing
       them in this notesfile.
    
    		1) Employees don't get reimbursed for using their cars to
    		   to conduct company business through interplant travel.
    		2) Employees float an interest free loan to the company
    		   through biweekly paychecks.
    		3) Employees get shafted on their accrued vacation
    

    re:.170
    
    Er....four for four.
    
    There was also the reversal of the "no more company car" policy a few
    years ago,right?
    
    Ken

    What's scary about this is that it's one more decision that was made
    before all the facts were gathered (such as the personal effect on the
    people and the reduction of productivity for this year).  Quite
    contrary to the statement of "all discussions on a decision will take
    place prior to the decision being made, and once it is made, no changes
    will occur" that came out in October (although I for one am quite happy
    this one was reversed - squeezing 9 weeks of vacation into this year
    would have been tough).

RE: .149

We also did an analysis in our group, and the average exposure is 4 weeks per 
employee here.

--PSW

RE: .172

At least uppermost management is now making decisions and taking action.  That 
is a positive step, even if the actions taken aren't always completely correct 
the first time around.

--PSW

>At least uppermost management is now making decisions and taking action.  That 
>is a positive step, even if the actions taken aren't always completely correct 
>the first time around.

It is a shame that a 'we changed it for our employees' spin is being put on the
reversal.  Bottom line is DEC would have been shooting themselves in the foot.

    Well I was going to respond to .156, .157 and .158, but I guess it's
    pretty much a moot point now.  Thank goodness.  I was not looking
    forward to 10 weeks of vacation.
    
    To .170
    
    the actual accounting entries would be 
    
    	Debit	Vacation Expense	as an employee earns/accrues vacation
    	Credit  Vacation Payable	recognizing the Company's future
    					obligation to pay the vacation time
    
    	Debit	Vacation Payable	when an employee takes vacation
    	Credit	Cash			when the company issues the vacation
    					check
    
    

    re: .176

    That wasn't the problem.  The real problem was whether or not the
    vacation accrual liability  is or is not externally reported to
    investors on the balance sheet.  If it's not disclosed, then it's no
    big deal.

    Or as accountants would say is it or is it not a monetary liability...

    It is.  Read on:

    "6. An employer shall accrue a liability for employees compensation for
    future absences [PS:defined as vacations, illness, holidays in para. 1]
    if all of the following of following conditions are met:

    a. The employers obligation relating to employees' rights to receive
    compensation for future absences is attributable to employees'
    services already rendered,

    b. The obligation relates to rights that vest or accumulate,

    c. Payment of the compensation is probable,

    d. The amount can be reasonably estimated.

    If an employer meets conditions (a), (b) and (c) and does not accrue a
    liability because condition (d) is not met, that fact shall be
    disclosed."

    Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 43 ACCOUNTING FOR
    COMPENSATED ABSENCES November 1980

    As an "old-timer" I'm comfortable with the *new implementation!*  I
    right now regularly loose a few hours here and there.  I run at 320
    hours available vacation all the time!  I can't ever imagine being in a
    financial condition to spend 8 consecutive weeks traveling - nor would
    I really want to take that much consecutive time off from this
    industry!  I'd feel like technology had passed me by, when I returned! 
    8>)
    
    I am pleased that I now have 3 years to get down to the 5 weeks, as I
    was looking at taking 9 weeks off in CY1993 to get down to 5 weeks
    (which would have been my allowed accurable anyway!) and I was
    concerned about trying to manage my customer commitments during those 9
    weeks!
    
    The fact that I statistically can accrue a smaller percentage than
    other employees who have less years of service doesn't matter to me!  I
    also have more GOOD memories of Digital and more OLD friends who are
    now gone and more gray hairs and older children and lots of other
    *differences* that are just "the way life is!"
    
    BTW, oldtimer = 20 years (start date = July, 1993) Am I the oldest one
    left?  Some days I feel like it!!!  8>)
    
    Best Regards to all!
    Maryann Hodges
    Kennedy Space Center
    

    Oops!  Re last:  start date = July, 1973!  20 year anniversary = July,
    1993.
    
    Senility sets in?
    
    MAH
    

    I started 13-Mar-73, and I know there are a few older than that still
    with us.

    I still haven't seen a decent explanation why the original or amended
    changes are good for the company. I still see the current policy as a
    major cut in my benefits. I've never had the money for a two-week
    vacation, either, but maybe I was looking forward after 20 years to
    just taking a summer off to be home with my kids.

    The modification strikes me as a face-saving semi-retraction. I just
    don't get it, and I'm still burning...

    	I actually received a mail message from George Potter (owner of
    this proposals implementation), but all it did was tell me that a change 
    and an explanation appeared in Livewire. After reading the Livewire entry, 
    I still do not understand where the savings was, or is, supposed to come 
    from.

    	I just don't understand the need to try and sugar-coat and/or hide
    this sort of thing. If it's really a savings, explaining where the
    savings comes from would only serve to gain employee support for
    something that nobody really wants to do. If, in fact, there is no
    savings, they should simply leave off that part. Tacking that part on
    there without an explanation does more harm than good.

    	Although I like the revised policy better than its predecessor, the
    bottom line is still a reduction in employee benefits that has been
    passed off as a cost savings; a cost savings that no one has been able 
    to explain (officially) in nearly 200 replies.
    
    	I know it probably wasn't intended this way, but I can't help but
    be reminded of a practical joke I play once in a great while. When
    going out to eat with friends (and splitting the bill), and someone asks 
    what the bill came to, I tell them a figure twice as high as the actual 
    bill. After they see the actual bill, they are happy to pay a bill that
    is half the size ;-)
    	
    	Ray

    
    This is NOT a cost savings.  The same number of vacation hours will
    have to be paid, no matter how or when the employee takes them. 
    
    What this is, is a way to realize the costs more closely to when they
    are incurred, thus matching them in the years that the're actually
    earned, and not in the years when someone decides to take them.  The
    end result is a "liability" is removed from the books as accrued
    vacation is a liability that Digital must pay.
    
    
    The real reason behind this is that the company wants to make FY93 look
    as good  as possible when we close the books this year.  Financial
    analysts look at ratios between assets and liabilities, thus if you can
    reduce the liabilities (of which accrued vacation is one) you can make
    the books look better.
     
    
    Yes, it is smoke-and-mirrors to some extent, however  it's also a
    legitimate way to closer match the expenses incurred by the company
    with the expenditure of cash.
    
    
    -bill
    

    One way to explain it it in accounting terms...
    
    Every week they pay us, they put money into an account titled "Vacation
    Hours accured".  (Or something like that), as people's vacation hours
    accumulate, so does this account.  This account is a liability, not an
    asset, because it is owed to the Employees.  By reducing the number of
    max hours, it will significantly decrease the balance in this account,
    and make DEC look better on paper.  
    
    You may not think the account is very big, but just stop and think how
    many people in this company are at or almost at max for vacation time. 
    All that money is sitting in a liability account on Digital's books.  If
    they decrease the amount of time each person can accumulate, it will
    decrease the liability, and make their books look better in the end.
    
    I hope that explained it a little better.
    
    Anne Marie
    
                      

    I once had it explained to me this way:
    
    Say person x makes $52K/yr. (for easy division) and accumulates
    vacation leave.  That person defers it @$1000/week.  The person then
    gets an annual increase of 10% (I know, dream on...).  They now receive
    $1100/week.  They take vacation "earned" at $1000/week and "spend" it at
    $1100/week.  Therefore the company has paid them $100 more for a
    non-productive week (vacation) than they "earned" it at.  Multiply that
    by many, many employees and it can be seen as a loss.  So basically
    they want us to spend it as earned, without inflation.
    
    Does this make sense?  It sort of did to me.
    
    Otto.

	OK, so in addition to keeping track of the number of vacation
	hours you accumulate, keep track of the rate of pay associated
	with each hour. When you take vacation, you get paid for it 
	at the rate in effect when those hours were earned (and you must take
	them on a "first-in, first-out" basis). 

	Most folks don't get raises so frequently so as to make the 
	bookkeeping a problem (after all, we're a computer company, 
	this ought to be a cinch), it eliminates the problem of "vacation 
	pay inflation", gives folks the incentive to take vacation in 
	the same year they earn it, but still allows some flexibility 
	to those who need to take vacation in big chunks.

				Tom_K
	

Bottom line is that this policy will limit the liability of accrued vacation
time by reducing the amount that can be outstanding at any one time.

For example, if everyone were to skew their vacation usage into FY93 just a 
little, it might have a positive affect on the books in Q4.  (Read:  Make the 
stock go up.)

Obviously, it is not the only problem, or even one of the biggest, but it is
a controllable liability, and shame on us (Digital) if we don't control it.

The fact that the policy change was modified to accomodate our concerns shows
that management IS listening.   A decision was made which, upon further review,
was shown to be less than optimal.  We pointed it out as a poor decision, and 
offered sound financial reasons why it was poor.  The end result is that the
policy was modified.

The modified policy will still achieve the goals of limiting the outstanding
liability, while accomodating both the need for individuals to accumulate 
enough vacation time to visit family overseas, etc., and the need to take our
time reducing the existing backlog so that we don't impact revenue and product
schedules.

A nice resolution, IMHO.  

Bob

    	Unless I missed something, there is also an account called Cash.
    When the employee takes their vacation, it will be paid from Cash (or
    some other similar asset account.) As was said multiple times already,
    you may be reducing a Liability, but you're also reducing the amount of
    Cash.
    
    	Ray

    RE: .186  That makes sense to me!  But maybe "making sense" is too much
    to ask for!!! :-)

    re:185?
    
    	Again, until you take your vacation, DEC has your money. To my
    knowledge, they can use that money to earn interest. Assuming the
    average raise anymore is 3-4% per year, you can get better interest
    than that in a bank. 
    
    	Ray

If you weren't on vacation, getting paid from the vacation pot, you'd be on 
regular salary, being paid from the salary pot.   Same cash, but different! 8^)

Do not try to apply logic to an accounting problem... You'll hurt yourself.
Accounting practices are completely illogical.

The only thing to remember is that the financial community likes to see the 
cash come from the vacation pot, rather than the salary pot.  (You and I know
its the same cash, but they don't see it that way.)

It the financial analysts' understanding of our situation that make the stock 
go up, so you'll have to bear with their logic flaws.

Bob

        Re: .186

>	OK, so in addition to keeping track of the number of vacation
>	hours you accumulate, keep track of the rate of pay associated
>	with each hour. When you take vacation, you get paid for it 
>	at the rate in effect when those hours were earned (and you must take
>	them on a "first-in, first-out" basis). 

        The time period between raises doesn't depend on the number of
        hours of vacation you take.

        Suppose you are paid $1/week one year and $2/week the next year,
        and take four weeks of vacation over the two years.  Under the
        current system you will get paid $156 (52*$1+52*$2) no matter
        when you take your vacation.

        Under the system proposed in .186, you get paid $156 if you take
        two week of vacation each year, but $154 (52*$1+50*$2+2*$1) if
        you delay your from the first year to the second year.  So, not
        only does Digital work done earlier, they pay the employee less
        for the same number of work weeks.

        					B.J.

	That's a feature. 

	As I said, it gives an incentive to take vacation in the year that
	it was accrued...

				Tom_K

    To all of you who say vacation is accrued on the books. I've been
    asking around people who should know and the answer I've been getting
    from at least 2 different sources is.
    
    1, Today vacation is not accrued as a liability. Implication is that
       whether you are working or on vacation the salary expense to the
       company for that period is identical. In other words it makes no
       difference to the balance sheet or income statement whether you take
       your vacation immediately or hold ob to it.
    
    2, The auditors have told Digital that accrued vacation is today an
       UNSTATED liability and since it is a real liability it ought to
       appear on the balance sheet under LIABILITIES. My guess here is
       that someone read FASB 43 that Pat Sweeney posted in an earlier
       reply and realized that Digital was in violation of it.
       The auditors said that this liability better appear on the balance
       sheet as soon as possible. I haven'y yet determined whether the
       auditors put any timeframe on doing this.
    
    3, Given that Digital has been told to get this unstated liability onto
       the balance sheet this would generate an equivalent expense. Knee
       jerk reaction was to come out with some hair brained policy that
       got this liability down to a small level come January 1994 ie make
       people take their vacation or lose it. Maybe so it could be put on the
       balance sheet at the end of FY94.
    
    4, And this is my theory. When people are TFSOed accrued vacation is a
       real expense. Get these people to take vacation before they are
       TFSOed.
    
    I will continue to try and get a definitive answer as to whether
    Digital currently carries accrued vacation as a liability. I now feel
    90% confident it doesn't but don't have a definitive answer yet.
    
    Dave

I have what I believe to be a simple question:  "How much does the 'new' 
policy change things?"

Here's a comparison of the policies:

  'Age' group |           Vacation Policy:  Max accrual (weeks)
              |   "Classic"           "Overturned"              "New"
  ============|======================================================
      0-5     |       4                     2                     5
      5-10    |       6                     3                     5
     10-20    |       8                     4                     5
     20-up    |       10                    5                     5


If I knew the demographics of US-based employees (i.e., how many are in 
each 'age' group), I could do a first approximation of the differences 
among these policies.

Note that the 0-5 year group get to accrue *more* than they used to.  Also, 
although there's a big hit to the 20 and over crowd, there can't be enough 
of us left to matter.

I don't believe that this particular demographic data would be especially 
sensitive, and therefore restricted.  Does anyone have it? 

I would not be pleased to find out that we've all gone through a bunch of 
turmoil for a small return.

Ray

    re:-1
    
    >>Also, although there's a big hit to the over 20 folks, there can't be
    enough of us left to matter.
    
    If there is even one person left with more than 20 years, and you can
    bet there are quite a few of us, then it should matter. I am fast 
    approaching the 25 year mark and over those years I have know thousands
    of very dedicated people who made a lot of personal sacrifices to see
    to it that DEC was successful. Granted, along the way there were
    rewards for those people in terms earning a living, praise and even
    some additional benefits as time went on.  This latest policy may
    not cause anyone to throw in the towel and quit but I do think it is
    a slap in the face to a lot of the folks who made DEC prosper for many
    good years. If anything these folks should be the ones for which the
    company has the most respect and the benefits packages should reflect
    that.  I understand that there will still be a dinner to "honor" the
    25 and 30 year people, how honored will they really feel? Since I 
    normally use most of my vacation time every year it won't change my
    plans much, but it does say something about how the company feels
    about long term employees, no matter how many dinners they give.
    20 years at DEC and a token will get you on the subway.
    
    Paul
    

re: .-1

If it wasn't clear, I'm one of the "20-plus" group, and therefore among 
those hardest hit by this "new" policy.  By "matter", I meant "materially
affect the total number of weeks". 

I was not pleased to have my 20-year dinner canceled.  I will have to take 
a minimum of two month's vacation for each of the next three years to
satisfy the "new" policy, which *does* represent a change in my plans.  
(Assuming, of course, that I'm still here.)

If there were some sort of at-least-plausible official justification for 
the "new" policy, I might not feel better about it, but at least I'd 
understand why.

Ray

    
RE: .197
    
    Well, I've read all these replies, the original proposal and the new
    revised proposal.  I personally believe this change is purely a supply
    and demand issue.  Quite frankly, there is more supply (of people) than
    demand (especially at DEC).  Therefore, employers can now
    reduce/eliminate/cost-shift employee benefits with little or no fear of
    mass exodus.  Also any employee attrition due to such cuts fits with 
    current company strategy in the human resource area.  
    
    I base my opinion on the following information.  First, an Oct. Spend
    Smart memo which indicated this change saved DEC $0.  Second, the first 
    reason given in the latest "explanation".  The applicable excerpts
    follow.  I believe no clear explanation of cost savings has been
    offered simply because one does not exist.
    
    Your mileage may vary...
    
    
>    o  This change will bring Digital policy in line with current industry
>       practice and policy for managing vacation accrual.


>     			 POTENTIAL 
>     TITLE		 SAVINGS       
>                     	                                                     
>     	
>     c.	Vacation 	 N/A	   
>       	Reserve		 	   
>       	Reduction
>
>           c.  Vacation Reserve Reduction
>        
>               Reduce allowable vacation reserve policy to 1x annually 
>               earned amount from the current 2x.  Since this reserve is
>               currently not booked, there is no P&L effect.
        

    Uh Ray,could you explain exactly how you will be taking "a minimum two
    months vacation over each of the next three years"? I too,am one of
    those 20+ people you speak of and I'd like to do that too.
    
    Ken

    
    	2 year employee		2.5 x annual vacation accrual
       20 year employee		 1  x annual vacation accrual
    
    It appears more like valuing indifference to me.
    If a multi-billion dollar multi-national corporation can't even
    figure out how to devise a fair vacation accrual plan, what chance
    does it have to figure out how to recover from the tail-spin it's in?
    

    RE: .200 
    
    >	2 year employee		2.5 x annual vacation accrual
    
    But who have we hired in the last two years?
    

RE: .201

	Some college hires, some new VP's, etc...

						mike

        Re: .202
        
        I don't expect that the new VPs from outside are limited to two
        weeks of vacation per year.  Saying `we would like you to manage
        an important part of our corporation--we'll give you $100,000
        and TWO weeks of vacation per year' doesn't seem the right
        approach for attracting qualified VPs.

        Of course, two weeks vacation doesn't make sense for hiring
        experienced technical people either (or hiring outside the United
        States either, but vacation policy is company specific), but
        that won't matter until Digital recovers some more.

        The two-week limit for the first five years hasn't always been
        followed.  Several years ago asked a newly-hired but experienced
        employee how he managed to take so much vacation and was told
        that he had made a deal with his manager before accepting the
        job.  I didn't count the number of vacation days he took so I
        don't know the size of the deal.

        					B.J.

    >and TWO weeks of vacation per year doesn't seem the right
    >approach for attracting VPs.
    
    The new VP we hired from Zentih Data Systems took their market share from
    5% to less than 2% in the three years he was there (InfoWorld), and
    left them with one of the lowest customer satisfaction indexes in the
    industry (PCMag).  So maybe it is just the two weeks... ;-)
    

Re: .204

Maybe the person has 'hidden talents'.



(That's what I was told once when DEC hired in some loser at 30% more than I
was making, to do a job that had about 50% of the responsibility.)

Lee

re .204

	Hopefully, he will have learned from his mistakes, and won't
	repeat them here...

				Tom_K

re: .199

>    Uh Ray,could you explain exactly how you will be taking "a minimum two
>    months vacation over each of the next three years"? I too,am one of
>    those 20+ people you speak of and I'd like to do that too.

Sure, it goes something like this.  The new policy essentially says that we 
20+ folk must take all our vacation every year, since we may not accrue
more than one year's worth.  Since I've got nine weeks accrued, in the next
three years I need to take 15 + 9 weeks, or an average of 8 weeks per year.

Ray_in_the_middle_of_three_weeks_off

    Pardon me for not reading the last 207 notes, but...
    
    The mail message I got said they changed the policy, and instead of
    having a max of 2 x accrual rate (I *think* this right), they we're
    going to max it out at 200 hours.  This is all from memory [flaky],
    especially since I'm on the ADEG distribution list...
    
    --- Gavin

    RE:.208

    	This is true according to the memos I've seen.  What has happened is
    if your a short time employee your benefit was over doubled and for
    long term employees it was cut (depending on years of service) up to 
    in half.  Yes when it goes into effect the new limit will be 200 hours.

    Joe

    Sorry Ray,but I think your figures are a bit off. 20+ employees get 5
    weeks vacation accrual per year. I still don't think there's any way
    you or I could take "a minimum of two months vacation per year for the
    next three years"
    
    Ken

	Actually, if you start with 9 weeks now, and accrue at 5 weeks per
	year, taking 8 weeks per year over the next 3 years will put you at
	zero weeks accrued on Jan 1, 1996:

		Start	Taken	Accrued	Finish
	1993	9   -	8   +	5   =  6
	1994	6   -   8   +   5   =  3
	1995    3   -   8   +   5   =  0
	1996    0

	Further, in 1995 you'll have to time your vacations around when you
	accrue the hours - you can't just take off January and February.

	Of course, this doesn't take personal days into account. 8^)

	Bottom line: if you have 9 years now, and don't want to lose any
	come January 1996, and are accruing at 5 weeks per year, you need to
	take 9 (current total) + 15 (accrued over next 3 years) - 5 (amount
	you can still have on 1/1/96) = 19 weeks over the next 3 years. Then
	you'll have to take vacation at the rate of 5 weeks per year to
	avoid losing any.

	Roy

Then, you could always take 1 vacation day a week.  That would use 10 weeks a 
year, and you could enjoy a 3 day weekend every weekend.

Bob

RE: .212

	I thought of that.. But then I realized that I'd come into 5 days
	of work for 4 days. I'd probably end up working late on those 4
	days, negating the vacation day.. Naaaaaa, I don't think so..

							mike

    I guess my problem was with the "at least two months vacation" part.
    This somehow implies that a minimum of nine weeks could be taken every
    year for three years.(there are around 4.3 weeks in a month so two
    months is closer to nine weeks)
    
    Ken

    someone in this note it probably definitively explains it and I had
    made an assumption but I finally read the vtx policy and it is not
    clear whether
    
    on 1-jan-1996 if a person has 6 weeks they automatically adjust back to
    5 weeks or stay with 6
    
    in either case no accrual until under 5 weeks but if 6 weeks then 2
    weeks vac would put them at 4 and they would start accrual else if the
    other conclusion is the case they would just lose the time down to 5
    weeks and of course still have to take a vacation before accrueing
    again.
    
    A 10 yr+ employee with 7-8 weeks on books could choose to simply let
    the weeks sit in the bank and not accrue but always have them.
    
    of course on termination after 1/1/96 max would be 5 weeks pay.
    
    but it is not clear in orange book.
    
    bill

re: .215

Seems clear to me.  But then again, **BEGIN DISCLAIMER** I can't speak for
the company **END DISCLAIMER**. 

On 1-Jan-1996, the new maximum is 5 weeks.  If you are at or over the 
maximum, you will no longer accrue vacation time until such time as you 
take vacation time and are below the maximum. 

So, I'd answer your questions this way (but see my disclaimer above):
    
>    on 1-jan-1996 if a person has 6 weeks they automatically adjust back to
>    5 weeks or stay with 6

You still have six.  But you no longer accrue any vacation time.
    
>    A 10 yr+ employee with 7-8 weeks on books could choose to simply let
>    the weeks sit in the bank and not accrue but always have them.

You probably could.  But you'd have to not take any vacation time at all.  
And you'd lose any future vacation time.  Sounds like it isn't worth the 
price (unless you're planning to be laid off real soon).

Ray

    Has this new policy ever been announced officially to employees? (I
    have received no official communication about vacation accrual.)
    
    If not, how can the policy be considered official?
    
    Mac

    	It's now in the "Orange Book", that makes it official. See also Note 
    2616.*.
    
    	Similar to the g'ummint, i.e. ignorance of the law is no excuse.
    
    Phil

    
    Re: .217
    
    > Has this new policy ever been announced officially to employees?
    
    I don't mean to be make fun here, but I don't see how you missed it.
    When the policy was announced and described there was a flurry of
    activity in several notesfiles etc. about it.
    
    Steve
    

    Re .218:
    
    The "Orange Book" contains wording that makes it _not_ binding as a
    statement of employee benefits.  Digital can't have it both ways.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Don't rely on the "Orange Book" for anything.  From very painful
    experience I have found that: 1) the book is not a contract between
    company and employee.  They can change anything they want and they can
    deny anything they want.  2) The hard-copy and the on-line copy of the
    Orange Book are not up-to-date and even *if* the company was bound by
    what was in the book you can never be sure as to whether the info you
    read is current.
    
    Bennie and policies change whenever the company want to change them. 
    No notice is required and often it is not given.  Those that make the
    rule do so to ensure their advantage.  They don't "owe" us anything and
    they know it.
    
    Whether Digital can or can't have it both ways is something I can't
    answer.  I just know that they have legally protected themselves by the
    disclaimer that the contents of the Orange Book are not binding on the
    corporation.  Somehow they do seem binding on the employee.  As has
    been said many times, this is not a democracy.
    
    Marv_who_spent_2mins_reading_and_3mins_writing_this_note
    
    

    I thought that after all the hullabaloo over the change, they switched
    to some scheme that gives us 3 years to get our 'excess' reduced,
    without loosing any time. If we in fact stop acruing after Jan 94, then
    Ive got to use up 5 excess, plus the 5 I get this year, before Jan.
    
    Does someone REALLY understand how this works?

    re: Note 2302.222 by DEMOAX::GINGER
    
    I believe the original policy stated that, at a specified date, you would
    lose accrued time over your maximum allowed (which was based on years
    of service). The modified policy (and the latest I'm aware of) states
    that, on Jan 1, 1994, if you're at or over your maximum allowed (which
    is 5 weeks for everyone, regardless of years of service), you only stop
    accruing vacation time. You don't lose the accrued time over the maximum.
    
    Ken....
    

re Note 2302.221 by POWDML::MACINTYRE:

>     As has
>     been said many times, this is not a democracy.
  
        The issue isn't whether Digital is a democracy (government by
        the consent of the governed) but whether Digital is "governed
        by law" (i.e., policy) or "by men" (i.e., management's
        personal interpretation at the time).

        Bob

    
.223>  ... The modified policy (and the latest I'm aware of) states
.223>  that, on Jan 1, 1994, if you're at or over your maximum allowed (which
.223>  is 5 weeks for everyone, regardless of years of service), you only stop
.223>  accruing vacation time. You don't lose the accrued time over the maximum.
    
    .166 (The VTX update from 15-Jan) says that the five-week cap will not
    be in force until Jan-1996.
    

    Ray,
    	thanks for the answer which is my interpretation but apparently
    many believe that the excess weeks will be dropped and many as you saw
    (represented by 1, I am using Neilson rules) still think it is 1/1/94.
    
    	interesting that something like this couldn't have been clarified
    by DEC with an example or more precise wording.
    
    Bill

    Time to revisit this policy decision now that
    	* Digital is making money
    	* Trying to avoid brain-drain by actually increasing benefits
          (up to 2% matching SAVE, for example)?
    	* Digital is trying to hire and TFSO's have supposedly wound down
    	  (i.e. Digital is no longer getting burned by TFSOers with large
    	  vacation accumulations)
    ?
    
    As is, I see Digital effectively shutting down this summer due to a
    large number of folks burning off serious vacation time, which could
    lead to some financial difficulties circa Q4'95/Q1'96 earnings.
    Assuming it was a wise move at one point, is it still wise today?
    Kratz 
                  

    
    	Current personnel rumour is that the Vacation policy is being
    revisited ala "use or lose" effective 1 Jan 96.
    
    	One strongly advanced idea is to gradiate the hours max'ed by
    year; ie: 1996 keep 300 hours, 1997 260, 1998 220. You get the
    picture.
    
    	Expect an announcement this summer, or so....
    
    		the Greyhawk

    
    For the life of me, I can't see why this makes sense anymore.
    
    One could argue that while TFSO was our core competency, it made
    sense to limit the effective package by cutting back on accumulated
    vacation time.
    
    Is there another "good" reason why there should still be such a
    restrictive cap? What would it really cost to put things back the way
    they were before?
    

Although I like the idea as proposed in .228, and I for one need it badly
since I need to take at least 7 MORE weeks off by the end of the year, I
suspect the answer still will come back the same. 

The issue is funny-money.  Accurred vacation is shown on the books as a 
LIABILITY.  Consider 40,000 (US) Digits, each with a 100 "extra" hours on the 
books, and each with an average salary of $50K.  Don't ask if these are
realistic - I certainly don't know - but numbers are numbers.  This equates
to a liability of $100M, and we all know that Finance HATES liabilities.
The funds are committed so that is NOT the issue.  Showing liabilities on 
one's books IS.

/mj

    Their was plenty of time to prepare for the Jan 1, 96  change.  I
    believe 2 or was it 3 years to get things in line.  If one could not
    manage to bring down the hours in that amount of time then it is their
    own fault, not Digitals.
    
     

    I'm not sure the issue is who's at fault for procrastinating in
    bringing down their vacation time.  After all, accumulated vacation
    is a nice backup in case of TFSO, and folks (rightfully) should
    put their own financial interests ahead of Digital's.  Rather, the
    issue is what happens to Digital's short term Q1FY96 performance when
    all these folks that have not trimmed down suddenly take some serious
    time off this summer.  If this company is truly focused on the short term
    quarter-to-quarter performance (which it seems to be), I would think
    there needs to be yet another extension (or elimination of the policy)
    real soon, else this policy is going to be a bain to financial
    reporting come the fall.   Kratz

    besides... there have not been two or three years to prepare... the
    original policy change announcement was a far cry from the current plan
    of 200 hour limit.
    
    tony

From:	NEMTS::NEMTS::MRGATE::"SALES::A1::RESOURCE.HUMAN"  8-MAY-1995 15:39:34.61
To:	@Distribution_List
Subj:	Vacation Accrual                                                       1

From:	NAME: US Human Resources            
	FUNC:                                 
	TEL:                                  <RESOURCE.HUMAN AT A1 at SALES at AKO>
To:     See Below

 ************************************************************************   
 TO: 		All U.S. Managers
 FROM:		Dick Farrahar
 SUBJECT: 	VACATION ACCRUAL - Effective January 1, 1996
 
 **********************************REMINDER******************************
  
 In January 1993, an announcement was made that the U.S. Vacation Policy  
 would change on January 1, 1996.   Under the changed policy, employees 
 will be allowed to accrue a maximum of 5 weeks (200 hours) of unused 
 vacation, regardless of years of service. Employees who are above this 
 maximum on January 1, 1996 will not lose any accrued vacation hours.  
 However, they  will not accrue any additional vacation hours until they 
 are below the 5 week maximum. 
 
 The effective date of this policy was pushed out for 3 years to give 
 employees every opportunity to use their excess vacation hours.  As we 
 made this decision, we wanted to encourage employees to take the 
 vacation time they have earned. Time off from work is one important way 
 to maintain balance and perspective, and to manage the pressure that 
 comes from working in our competitive industry.  A few of the other 
 reasons for the January 1, 1996 change are:
  
     
 o Accrued vacation is an expense to the company. Digital's review of  
    this policy is a part of a continuing effort to reduce expenses and 
    sustain profitability.
 
 o Digital's Policy was not in line with industry practice and policy for 
    managing vacation accrual.
 
 
 Vacation reports (PR2603.OBP) for your cost center will help you to 
 identify employees who are likely to be impacted by this change.  You 
 may want to meet with them to encourage them to plan, and take vacation 
 time between now and the end of the year so that they will continue to 
 accrue vacation hours once the new calendar year begins.  In order to 
 maintain accurate records,  please ensure employees submit time cards 
 for all hours taken. 
 
 You may read the details on the revised Vacation Policy in the Personnel 
 Policies and Procedures Manual Section 4.03, available online (VTX 
 ORANGEBOOK.)
 
This message was delivered to you utilizing the Readers Choice delivery
services.  If you have questions regarding this message, please contact
the author(s) of the memo.



To Distribution List:

[deleted]

    
    	I'm one of the people who have to use about 9 weeks vacation this
    year.  Now I've no problem with that part of the change the part that
    bothers me is 5 weeks for everybody.  This is a slap in the face for
    long term employees.  A new employee gets a benefit over doubled and a
    long term employee gets the same benefit cut in half.  Those with 5 &
    10 years get it cut in different degrees.  I would have preferred to
    see one year for everybody.

    Joe  

>    	I'm one of the people who have to use about 9 weeks vacation this year. 

I'm puzzled...  The most  anyone could accrue is 2 years worth of vacation, so
if you're a 20+ year employee the most vacation you could have outstanding is
10 weeks (anything beyond that you lose).  Since you only need to get down to
200 hours by year's end, that would mean at the MOST you'd have to burn 5 weeks
if you were maxed out. Sicne there is also another 7+ months left in the year,
that would be another 3 weeks you'd earn between now and the end, putting you
at having to burn at most 8 weeks, not 9.

Did I miss something?

-mark

    Re .236
    
    If he's got his max of 10 weeks on the books, and will accrue another
    5 weeks this year, that's a total of 15 weeks vacaction that he will
    have this year. To get down to the 6 week limit, he's got to take 9
    weeks of vacation this year -- the 5 that he is going to accrue plus
    the 4 weeks he will have over the max allowed -- otherwise he is going
    to lose vacation.
    
    I'm in a similar situation where I have 5 weeks on the books now, and
    I will accrue 4 weeks this year, so I plan to take 4-5 weeks vacation
    this year to get me to something like 3 to 3 1/2 weeks by the beginning
    of the year.
    
    

    
    Re .236:
    
    Well, .235 did say "9 weeks of vacation this year", not "9 weeks of
    vacation between now and 31-Dec."
    
    Actually, if a bloodied 20-year veteran walked into 1995 maxed out, and
    felt the need for a one-week buffer to avoid losing any more accrual
    on 01-Jan-96, he might have to take as many as 11 weeks this year.
    
    .234 says it all. We lost this benefit, and the "human resources" who've
    stuck it out longer than anyone else have received the cruelest slap in
    the face, because:
    
      o  vacation time appears in a financial report column that is
         unfavored by bean counters;
    
      o  Digital desires to be just another mediocre computer company,
         rather than an industry leader.
    
    But, hey, that decision was made in our darkest hour, when human
    resources were a dime a dozen and Digital wasn't interested in spending
    the dimes. Now that we're turning a profit, now that we've laid off so
    many people that there are $1000 finder's fees floating around to get
    some of them back, now that our CEO has demonstrated the political
    correctness of actual bidirectional communication with the grunts in
    their chosen medium, maybe things will change.
    

    Yes, you missed something!  B-)
    
    Worst case is you own 400 hours right now!  You need to get to 160 (my
    goal so I continue to accrue after the first of the year!)  So that is
    6 weeks PLUS the remainder of the 5 weeks that would be earned this year!
    The remainder of this year would amount to about 3 weeks so that is how
    you get to 9 weeks.  I've taken LOTS of vacation over the last 2 years
    in anticipation of this ruling, but I still have to take 1 week in
    June, 3 weeks in August, 1 week in October, 3 days at Thanksgiving, 2
    weeks at Christmas, tomorrow (and a couple of other random days!) to
    get down to a viable number by 1 January.
    
    I work for SI and I've been billable 1800 hours per year since July of
    1991 (which was before the ruling went into effect!)  Get out your
    calculator/spread sheet/abacus/other favorite computing device and tell
    me how I was supposed to use 5 weeks/vacation per year, bill 1800 hours
    per year, allow myself some amount of training so I continue to have
    value for Digital, Customer & industry AND use up that 200 hour
    backlog!  It's been a challenge!  There were weeks when I recorded 40
    hours billable (or more) AND took 8 hours of vacation . . . . and no, I
    didn't get paid for 48 hours!
    
    In all honesty, my plans for this year probably wouldn't change even if
    the ruling were reversed at this point!  BUT I wouldn't have to worry
    about taking another week's vacation in Q3, just to stay below the
    limit!
    
    Maryann
    

    re .236,
    
    	If you were maxed out at 10 weeks on Jan 1, 1995. To get down to
    5 weeks (200 hrs). You have to take the 5 weeks extra you have, plus
    the 5 weeks you will receive in '95. For a total of 10 weeks.
    	I personally think people have had plenty of time to reduced there
    vacation time. Most people I know waited until this year. When they
    could have taken an extra week or two last year.
    	I also think that 200 hours is a low limit for employees with more
    then 10 years of service. It should be a graduated scale.
    
    0  -   4 years of service can save 4 weeks
    5  -   9 years of service can save 5 weeks
    10 -  14 years of service can save 6 weeks
    15 -  19 years of service can save 7 weeks
    20+      years of service can save 8 weeks
    
    Ron

I think what he's saying is that the 20+ year employee gets a maximum of 
200 hours (or 1 year's worth of vacation).  yet...

the 5 year employee gets the same 200 hours, i.e. he's allowed to accrue 2 
1/2 years worth of vacation.   ....at least that's the complaint 
frequenting conversation in the DAS cafeteria.

The junior employee is allowed to accrue vacation beyond his seniority 
limit while the senior employee is penalized by being held to 1 year's 
accrual.

From the Orangebook:


 Effective January 1996, the Vacation Policy will be revised to
 establish a 5 week maximum on unused vacation for all employees,
 regardless of their years of service.

 As with the current policy, accrual vacation hours will stop when
 the maximum is reached.  It will resume when vacation hours are
 taken and unused hours drop below the maximum.
 



Everyone, regardless of their seniority, well be allowed 5 weeks of 
vacation.  Only the rate of accrual changes.  This is a slap in the face of 
senior employees.  Junior employee vacation accrual limits should be set at 
those employees' yearly limits to return equity to the policy.

    I'm not pleased with the change either but I don't see employees being
    placed in a situation where you have to use your vacation instead of
    accumulate it (regardless of years of service) as a penalty.  Vacation
    is not intended as a safety net for possible layoffs.  Take vacation
    and enjoy it.  I have to take 5 weeks between now and the end of the
    year and I am going to enjoy every day of it.
                                                               

Re: .238

>>      o  Digital desires to be just another mediocre computer company,
>>         rather than an industry leader.

If Digital were making a move to be an industry leader in terms of vacation, it
would give us more vacation time, not let us hang onto more of the vacation
time we already get.  How many folks, when they interview, ask how much
vacation you can accumulate untaken?  How many ask how much vacation you get
per year?

						Brian

    While Farrahar's memo is interesting, he should realize that employees
    actually had an incentive over these last two years to hang onto
    accumulated vacation for two very good reasons:
    	1) The TFSO benefits shrunk to the point where reimburement for
           accumulated vacation time became a significant portion of
           the financial seperation "crutch" (and in some cases may have
           exceeded Digital's portion of the package).
    	2) The rate of TFSO's skyrocketed during those two years.  I
    	   believe in this last year alone we went from @90k to @60k,
           the vast majority of those TFSOs rather than sales of units. 
    
    Not to mention that as TFSO's ran rampant, increased workload made
    it easy to forgo vacation.  But now, as folks near the cutoff, it
    makes sense to do some serious unloading, which I believe will
    occur.  Perhaps this will affect Q196 finances; perhaps it won't.
    But if the beancounters and Human Resources are smart, they
    should rightfully be getting nervous.  Kratz

	As someone who took 6 weeks of vacation time last year and have
	to take 6.5 this year, I take a little exception to those who
	say "Well, you should have prepared better!" I have 7 weeks on
	the books right now. Taking vacation for me is expensive. I 
	don't have a house to spend time on, I don't have a family to
	take places. I basically have to either go someplace or sit
	in front of the tube and watch Oprah. If I go someplace, it
	costs money that I really can't afford because I want other
	things right now, like savings and a new car. I can't afford
	to go back to Martinique or on a cruise like I did last year.

	So, unless you have 6+ weeks on the books and have to take 6+
	weeks this year, don't gimme the "you should have's". It's not
	as easy as you think to take alot of vacation time. (granted, I
	can think of worse situations to be in, but right now, this is a 
	pain in the ass having to take alot of time off)

							mike

    
    	re: last many -
    
    	So why don't you work four day weeks for the next several months?
    
    	Since the first fiscal quarter is slow anyway, its summer in the
    	North, and the kids could use the quality time, just sit down
    	with your manager and work it out.
    
    	Vacation is not for the TFSO safety net, its for the employees'
    	mental health. Stop working yourself to death - go smell some
    	flowers :-)
    
    
    		the Greyhawk

    
.247> Vacation is not for the TFSO safety net, its for the employees'
.247> mental health.
    
    This statement assumes that reinforcement of a threadbare TFSO safety
    net has no connection with an employee's mental health.
    
    I can personally attest to the fallacy of that assumption.
    

    re: previous...
    
    The reason for the flat 200 is because of the outcry that occurred with
    the _original_ plan (see .0); the rationale was that people wanted to be
    able to plan 'long'ish trips, but short-timers wouldn't be able to.
    
    Similarly, the original plan was objected to on the basis that long-
    timers would have to take a lot of time off to get below the limit; 
    therefore the revised plan wasn't to take effect until 1996.
    
    Ironic, eh?
    	Dave

At the risk of sounding like a bleeding heart, I'd like make a suggestion
to those who have to "use it or lose it" and don't have anything better/more
affordable to do than watch TV.

Volunteer.

re: Note 2302.230 by NPSS::JOHNSON "Mike J., Network Products Support" >>>

                     -< Vacation is a Corporate LIABILITY >-

>The issue is funny-money.  Accurred vacation is shown on the books as a 
>LIABILITY.  Consider 40,000 (US) Digits, each with a 100 "extra" hours on the 
>books, and each with an average salary of $50K.  Don't ask if these are
>realistic - I certainly don't know - but numbers are numbers.  This equates
>to a liability of $100M, and we all know that Finance HATES liabilities.
>The funds are committed so that is NOT the issue.  Showing liabilities on 
>one's books IS.

      I guess I am not destined to be an accountant. I cannot understand
      why we can  accrue  the  liability,  "accrued  vacation",  without
      concurrently  accrueing an ofsetting asset, "allowance for accrued
      vacation",  which  would  mean  that  vacation  expense  would  be
      recognized on a week-by-week basis, just as it is earned. It looks
      to me like this would result in a completely zero  effect  on  the
      bottom  line.   Of course, if salaries increase, vacation might be
      paid at a higher rate, but that could be recognized as an  expense
      at  the  time  of  a  salary increase.  And cash flow shouldn't be
      affected because dollars paid for hours worked  are  the  same  as
      dollars paid for vacation taken.
      
      

    It's a bean-counter-only issue.  Whether I take all or none of my
    vacation time this year, DEC is going to pay me for the same number of
    weeks of time.  The only time the unused vacation time, if you have
    any, costs the company anything extra is when you leave (voluntarily or
    otherwise).  So it looks like a big liability on the books when the
    company is growing smaller.
    
    I can't imagine not taking vacation time.  I mean, I love my job (most
    of the time) and I love the people I work with (most of the time), but
    I have lots of other things I like to do or need to do that I do not
    usually get time for unless I take a few days off.  One of my friends,
    married to a real nose-to-the-grindstone DECcie, is dragging him off
    for seven weeks of camping this summer.  She says it takes him at least
    two weeks to get into "leisure mode", and no, she isn't letting him
    bring along his notebook computer (well, maybe, if he is willing to
    carry it and its batteries in HIS pack).
    
    
    /Charlotte

-< Vacation Accrual to be reduced from 2 to 1 years time >-

...but only for senior employees,  Every one else can accrue up to 2 1/2 
times their yearly accrual rate as long as it doesn't exceed the 20+ year 
employee's yearly accrual limit.

    
    
    Or else the person who has all the time and doesn't know what to do can 
    work for a temp agency and earn even more extra money.
    
    
    Mike

I'm mostly a read-only noter, but I just have to make a comment on this
one! 

I cannot believe the phrase "have to take vacation" days!!  Sounds like an
oxymoron!!

If you can't afford  to take a trip or don't have anyone to go somewhere
with, read a book, clean a closet, take an aerobics class, rent "Gone With
The Wind" (or some other epic that takes too long to watch it in ordinary
time), or volunteer to drive senior citizens to their appointments!   

Vacation isn't a penance!  Enjoy some time away!  Refresh your soul and
relax your body.  When you come back, tell everyone else how much fun you
had on your days off and encourage them to use some of the vacation hours
that they "have to use up"!

Re: .247
    
>    	So why don't you work four day weeks for the next several months?
    
    Not enough weeks. Some of those will have to be three day weeks.
    
    If you've "rung the bell" and have 400 hours of accrual, you have to
    burn off 25 days, then 14 more (approx.) days of normal accrual, and
    also count the 7 remaining Digital holidays, and your personal day if 
    you haven't taken it yet, then a few more to get below 200 hours so that 
    you don't lose anything come 1-JAN-1996. 
    
    Call it 48 days, minimum.

>>-< Vacation Accrual to be reduced from 2 to 1 years time >-
>>
>>...but only for senior employees,  Every one else can accrue up to 2 1/2 
>>times their yearly accrual rate as long as it doesn't exceed the 20+ year 
>>employee's yearly accrual limit.

No, the original version of the plan, as reported in .0, was exactly as stated:
to have employees accrue exactly one year's worth of vacation time, no matter
how much or how little that was.  It was later changed to be five weeks,
regardless of seniority, after protests were lodged.

						Brian

There is no equity in the current plan.  Maximum accrual should be one 
year's worth period.

You're due 2 weeks a year, that's all you deserve, not 5 weeks (2 1/2 years 
worth).

If the corporation's worried about the financial liabilities, then the 
folks with 2, 3, and 4 week yearly accrual rates should be limited to one 
year's worth, 5 weeks.

re: .239    
    
>    I work for SI and I've been billable 1800 hours per year since July of
>    1991 (which was before the ruling went into effect!)  Get out your
>    calculator/spread sheet/abacus/other favorite computing device and tell
>    me how I was supposed to use 5 weeks/vacation per year, bill 1800 hours
>    per year, allow myself some amount of training so I continue to have
>    value for Digital, Customer & industry AND use up that 200 hour
>    backlog!  It's been a challenge!  There were weeks when I recorded 40
>    hours billable (or more) AND took 8 hours of vacation . . . . and no, I
>    didn't get paid for 48 hours!
    
    Maryann,

This issue has come up several times, but no one seems to address it directly.
I guess those of us in delivery are being ignored again, but I'd sure like to
see an answer in here.  A real answer, not another one of those "just take 
your vacation time; it's good for you" responses.  I'm on my third year of 
1800 billable hours with the same customer, along with five other Digits. We 
will take our vacation time this year and we won't bill 1800 hours.  So just 
how does this save Digital money?  Since we're all senior (at least 10 yrs),
the time is considerable.

			SQ

    re .258
    
    I heartily agree. We should tolerate no favoritism or prejudices masked
    as traditions, no relics of a tradesman caste system where longevity is
    mistaken for competence; we should value differences enough to know
    that such differences exist only either to irritiate us or provide us
    simple answers to complex problems; we should all draw the same
    benefits, at the same salary; we should all be neutered and undergo
    plastic surgery to bring us up to acceptable standards. We should all
    memorize at least one major work of literat - oh, sorry, wrong book....

>> There is no equity in the current plan.  Maximum accrual should be one 
>> year's worth period.
>> 
>> You're due 2 weeks a year, that's all you deserve, not 5 weeks (2 1/2 years 
>> worth).

One problem with only accruing one year's worth is that you can't take it all
at once very easily.  If you take your full vacation at the beginning of June
one year, you'll be at your max by the beginning of June the next year, and so
will lose vacation accrual if you wait until August for your vacation.  This is
somewhat less of a big deal for people with larger amounts of vacation who are
less likely to take it all at once, but is critical for people with two weeks
vacation.

Regardless, it still would be nice for everybody to be able to take all their
vacation in one chunk, if so desired, and this is now not easily managed for
people who actually get five weeks vacation per year.  Perhaps management could
have made it six weeks (max vacation plus a week buffer)?

						Brian

    
    re: .258
    
    1800 billable hours is great. But doesn't a full year (52 weeks) have
    2080 hours?
    
    Could the remainder be vacation time?
    
    		the Greyhawk

    Yes, a full year is 2080 hours.  2 weeks of Digital holidays (US) + 4
    weeks of training (we have to stay skilled to stay billable) and a week
    miscellaneous (can't expect customer to pay for out attendance at the
    latest re-org/closing the office/unplugging the network meeting!) -
    oops, *NO* vacation time in this equation!
    
    MAH
    

    
    	-1
    
    	In THAT case, I'd take the vacation for sure. If it's going to
    impact managements' numbers, my bet is it will get their attention
    too. After all, vacation is not a privledge, it's a right...
    
    	And the impact might be a lot of fun to watch :-)
    
    		the Greyhawk

	Life would be alot easier if they'd just let us take cash or
	stock in trade for vacation time. 

							mike

    
    RE: .265
    
    Thank You!  I agree 100%!
    
    

Re: 263

4 WEEKS of training per YEAR???

Maybe the delivery organization has changed radically since I left it two 
years ago, but at that time, we were averaging a week every other year!

Yes, there was lots of lip-service about "you really should take training,
and we fully support it", but it always really came down to "Just schedule
it any time when it won't impact income."  When you're on a multi-year
project, that's kind of hard to find.

I guess it comes down to priorities and what you're willing to buck
the metrics over.  

Kevin

New policies, currently being finalised, will require
all employees to spend their salaries on a regular
basis.  No employee will be permitted to have savings
greater than 5 weeks worth of income.   If this limit
is exceeded, salary accrual will be frozen until the
employee is below the limit.

If you get 2 weeks vacation per year and you take that 2 weeks in June, 
it'll be next June before you have accumulated another 2 weeks.  Where do 
you see someone loosing it in January?

When all I got was 2 weeks I managed my vacation so that I could take 
those 2 weeks in the summer.

When I reached 3 weeks, I managed my vacation so that I could take at least 
3 weeks every summer.

Why, then, does the current generation have to accrue vacation beyond two 
weeks just to be able to take those 2 weeks?  

The current policy revision discriminates against those employees with long 
service.

Re: .269

I assume you are replying to my .261?  Apologies if this is not correct.

>> If you get 2 weeks vacation per year and you take that 2 weeks in June, 
>> it'll be next June before you have accumulated another 2 weeks.  Where do 
>> you see someone loosing it in January?

I re-checked my note and saw no mention of January.  I said that it will be
June when you have accumulated another two weeks.

If you are limited to one year accumulation, and this year you want to take
vacation in August rather than June, you stop accumulating in June because you
are at the limit.  So you have no vacation accumulation from June until August.

>> The current policy revision discriminates against those employees with long 
>> service.

No question it does; I was simply commenting why I felt that the proposed
one-year accumulation (from the original policy change and from your
commentary) was unreasonable.

Frankly, I think the original policy, two year's accumulation, is just fine.
The financial folks, however, do not.

						Brian

re: .267

>4 WEEKS of training per YEAR???
>
>Maybe the delivery organization has changed radically since I left it two 
>years ago, but at that time, we were averaging a week every other year!

Yes, things have changed; we're being PUSHED to take the training.  Probably
too many complaints about "experts" who get sent out with a manual in shrink
wrap for a product they've never seen before.  In fact, one week/qtr counts
as "real" utilization.  Now if we could just get newer equipment....

And don't forget, when you're adding up all those hours in a year, some 
people get sick or have emergencies that are not vacation/holiday/admin time.
A year can get very short real fast.

			SQ

    I can't believe that people shout discrimination because they've been
    here more than 5 years!  GET A LIFE!
    
    Mark

    there you go, giving me a bad "name" again.  8-)

    gosh Brad, where did you get a nodename like DYPSS1?  :-)
    
    Mark

    I don't think it's descrimination, it's just plain bean counter
    unfairness........Look at it this way, I have twenty years in,
    I earn five weeks a year. That's all I can acru.  Someone else just
    started and earns two weeks per year, but they can acru 2.5 times
    their annual rate.  (and oh by the way, they probably make more
    money than I do after twenty years, but that's another story!)
    
    If the acrual rate was frozen it would make much more sense. ie:
    you can acru one times your annual acrual rate.....period!
    
    chet

    
    RE .246
    
    Hey Mike, If you've been looking for something to do with all your
    vacation time, come on up to BundyVille, I've got a house that needs
    painting, a barn that needs painting/fixing, wood to chop, lawns to
    mow, why I'll bet I could keep you busy for 5 or 6 weeks!
    
    (Free housing and all the beer you can drink!!)
    
    .mike.

RE: .276

	Gee, and to think that the house is already in my name! :)

							mike