Conference 7.286::digital

This has been discussed before.

You should have been able to have been hired at your current salary and
level, and been promoted and/or had a salary adjustment after you had
proven yourself in the position.

/john

    	The answer is simple: Quit, change your name, get hired back
    at big bucks at the higher level. Everybody wins. DEC fills the
    job, you get what you should have gotten anyway, and the headhunter
    makes a nice buck. 

	I'm not totally clear on the salary being "X $K outside the range".

	If you mean your current salary is UNDER the lower limit for the
position's lowest level (x), then John is right about what should have
happened.  At your next scheduled salary review, you would have been adjusted
to at least the lower limit of the range.  I thought most hiring managers 
would jump at the chance to lower expenses for at least a few months!

	Perhaps it was the HIGHER positions salary that nuked the deal?  Could 
you possible clarify that point?

	And, not to say this happens often, but it does happen, some 
"background" noise from your current management chain to the hiring manager 
caused them to back off?

	>I'm not totally clear on the salary being "X $K outside the range".

	>If you mean your current salary is UNDER the lower limit for the
        >position's lowest level (x), then John is right about what should have
        >happened.  At your next scheduled salary review, you would have been 
        >adjusted to at least the lower limit of the range.  I thought most 
        >hiring managers would jump at the chance to lower expenses for at least
        >a few months!


       1. I was $4000 UNDER the range of the high-level (3 levels above my
          current level.) The cost center manager said he didn't have enough 
          "transfer money" to bring me in and move me up in 6 months (which
          I know is the requirement.) I find it a ridiculous policy that 
          the money is available for an outside candidate, when I am fully 
          qualified to fill the position.

      2. My current management SUPPORTED whatever my decision was: to leave or
         stay. There was no heat on anyone.

I know the alternatives... "If you're mad enough and dislike the company, then
you can always leave"...."There are plenty of people dieing to get in here"...

It's that kind of rederic I *feel* when discussing this with management or 
personnel. The actual reasons/answers I *get* are those like I listed in .0.

I think it's sad. The bottom line, for me, is that Digital does not promote 
from within as a policy. 

'nuff said :-( ....

    A corollary to this situation used to occur frequently in the field:
    
    Software specialists (some of whom were refused promotions) would
    quit DEC and work for a customer for a while, and then get hired
    back at a higher level.  This was about the only method available
    for presales specialists to get into sales, since the salary ranges
    were tremendously different.
    
    They remedied the situation by declaring that, if you quit DEC,
    you quit for life, unless you personally knew a DEC VP who would
    sign off on your rehiring.
    
    The legacies of our inflexible salary planning system have affected
    transfers and promotions for years now, but because of the rapid
    expansion of the company, upper management has always had ways to
    circumvent problems without revamping the system.  New job positions
    and outside hiring practices give managers a way to beat the salary
    planning policies, and as long as there are enough qualified people
    available to fill the positions.
    
    Somehow, given the current expansion trends, I doubt that the policies
    will be adjusted to favor internal transfer and promotion over outside
    hiring until such time that the DEC workforce has grown considerably.

    [GEOFF]

re .5:
    
>    They remedied the situation by declaring that, if you quit DEC,
>    you quit for life, unless you personally knew a DEC VP who would
>    sign off on your rehiring.

Is this actual policy? It doesn't make sense to treat the symptoms and not 
the cause. Also I'm quite sure the policy isn't applied 100% in Europe.
    
Re .the rest:

Does not sound like 'doing the right thing'. If the manager was any good 
they would have hired you and taken the flak upon themseleves. Also this 
policy is not applied 100% in Europe.

Dave.

    re .-1
    
    Don't know if its "official policy", but I saw a memo fly by in
    my electronic corporate junk mail a few months ago stating (I don't
    remember the actual wording) something to the effect of:
    
    Employees who have quit Digital and desire to return will not be
    considered for re-employment without:
    
    a.  a sign-off from the "appropriate VP"
    
              AND
    
    b.  there is a clear need for the skill set which cannot be adequately
        obtained from other candidates.
    
    2 cents worth--
    Jon

>>    They remedied the situation by declaring that, if you quit DEC,
>>    you quit for life, unless you personally knew a DEC VP who would
>>    sign off on your rehiring.
>
>Is this actual policy? It doesn't make sense to treat the symptoms and not 
>the cause. Also I'm quite sure the policy isn't applied 100% in Europe.

This has been discussed before.  It is actual policy; you can look it up in the
P&P VTX database.

The fact that it's not 100% applied anywhere has also been discussed, as has the
assertion that it's not even legal in some countries, e.g. France.

/john

 >Is this actual policy? It doesn't make sense to treat the symptoms and not 
 >the cause. 
    
 It's funny(sad), how we're asked to strive for "excellence" and we have people
 who end up with perceptions as stated above. Treating the "symptoms" falls 
 short of solving the problem, more, it makes for less-than-happy employees.

 I hope someone in upper management monitors this file. I know the bottom line
 for a company is to make $, and the policies DEC has put in place with 
 reference to this discussion are in some way connected with that motive. I
 might like to help design a better plan, but at the rate I'm going, if I
 stay here at Digital, it'l be the year 3000 by the time I'm that level.....

 Thanks for the input folks.

 -BAP

    What about a women who quits the company for about 5 years to have
    and raise her kids, and then decides its time to go back to work
    and wants to work for Digital again.  According to that policy a
    good women employee who just wanted to have a family for a while
    could get shafted, and could probably find employment in another
    company more easily even if she did want to work for DEC again.
    I personally am not married nor have any near plans to have children
    but I enjoy working for DEC and would hate to see such a policy
    in tack when the time did come.

re .9:

> >Is this actual policy? It doesn't make sense to treat the symptoms and not 
> >the cause. 
>    
> It's funny(sad), how we're asked to strive for "excellence" and we have people
> who end up with perceptions as stated above. Treating the "symptoms" falls 
> short of solving the problem, more, it makes for less-than-happy employees.

Are you agreeing with me or not?

Dave (confused).

re .11:

>> >Is this actual policy? It doesn't make sense to treat the symptoms and not 
>> >the cause. 
>>    
>>It's funny(sad), how we're asked to strive for "excellence" and we have people
>> who end up with perceptions as stated above. Treating the "symptoms" falls 
>> short of solving the problem, more, it makes for less-than-happy employees.

>Are you agreeing with me or not?

Sorry for the confusion. What I meant to say there, was that upper management
tells *us* to strive for excellence, yet *they* will satisfy themselves by 
treating *symptoms* rathar than proposing or implementing *REAL* solutions to 
the problem, like a much more favorable policy for transfers, - ex: "whomever is
the most qualified for a position, in the opinion of the hiring manager, will 
get that position" and back it up by allowing them to use money slated for 
new hires when necessary. I'll admit here, I've never been a corporate 
executive, and don't know the "big" picture. But that solution (and I'm sure 
there are others...) seems pretty simple.

re: .10  I disagree totally with you. If *you* make the decision to take time 
         off to have children, it's *your* business, and you should be subject
         to the SAME rules as anyone. You should get the same fair treatment
         (or lack of it) in that circumstance as I would get if I decided to 
         quit working at DEC to go back to school. 

         ...besides, you can vent your "womens discrimination" problems in the 
         "womennotes" file. (I get about all I can take from reading that.)

    For both the man who wants to go back to school and the woman who
    wants to raise a family (or vice versa), I suggest a leave of absence,
    allowing you to rejoin the company without prejudice.
    
    This is not a statement of policy; this is a suggestion.  If the
    rules don't work this way, they should.

Re:
    < Note 334.5 by AUSTIN::UNLAND "Celibacy is not hereditary!" >

>    Software specialists (some of whom were refused promotions) would
>    quit DEC and work for a customer for a while, and then get hired
>    back at a higher level.  
    
    
    I don't know the intimate details, but one of my former SW Unit
    Managers left DEC to work for one of our customers for about 1-1/2
    years.  Then that firm hit upon hard times, and lots of people were
    laid off, and those still left probably had lots of uncertainty in
    their life.  That person then hired back into DEC as a consultant, no
    management this time around. Salary probably was not an issue - more
    likely job security was.
    
    I have no idea if the person mentioned above had to get VP approval,
    etc, to get back in.
    
    Al

    Could it be that some are confusing the "6-month" consultant rule?
    
    I've been told that if you quit, you must wait six months before
    you could be "re-hired" as a consultant. I've known of 1 exception
    to this, but it also was pushed way up before the person was
    "re-hired" in less than the six months. 
    
    FWIW, I've heard this from several managers, but have never researched
    it in the P & P manual so don't know if it's cast in concrete.
    
    
    						Warren
    

re Gil Davis & Warren Kemerer

You could have looked it up just as well as I could, rather than babble the
stuff in the two previous notes.  The policy is that employees who terminate
will not be rehired.  Some VPs insist that the policy be more strictly
enforced than others.  Some countries do not permit the policy to be applied.

INTERNAL USE ONLY
Rehiring Of Former Employees

Generally, employees who terminate from the Company will not be 
considered for rehire.  A decision to rehire an employee may only 
occur after a careful review of the individual's previous company 
record and with the approval of two successive levels of 
management.  In addition, reference checks with previous Digital 
supervisors should be carried out to determine if the rehired 
employee will meet the requirements of the new position.  Rehiring 
someone into a senior management position (i.e. direct report to a 
group/area manager) requires the additional approval of the 
appropriate Management and Personnel Management Committee member.  
When a former employee is rehired, that employee receives no credit 
for prior service except as provided under the terms of the Pension 
Plan.  Rehired employees are issued their former badge numbers.

    re: .17
    
    Thanks for posting the statement.  It looks like one of those
    carefully crafted statements that are, in fact, total NOPs for
    most purposes.  Any smart hiring manager SHOULD check the credentials
    of a candidate, and the fact that a potential re-hire's record can
    be checked easily simply makes it that much more convenient to do
    so.  I can't think of a recent Engineering hiring decision that
    I've participated in that didn't involve at least two management levels
    (assuming the supervisor is part of management).  It says nothing
    about VPs, though some may be enforcing a stricter policy.  So this
    is not a particularly restrictive policy as stated.
    
    I would certainly hope that any decision involving hiring a
    senior manager (or any top level person - consulting engineer, for
    instance) from outside would go through a serious review at a very
    high level, and not just for a re-hire either.  Several years back
    when another company was going through some troubles and some high
    level people were being looked at, review up to the VP level was
    required "so we didn't hire their problems as well as their people".
    (I was in a Mfg Staff meeting for a presentation and they didn't
    kick me out while discussing this - its nice to be inconspicuous
    sometimes.)
    
/Dave

    The policy has been around for some time. None the less people
    do still get re-hired. I was re-hired about 5.5 years ago. My
    supervisor was re-hired twice (the last time was a lot longer
    ago then my 5 years). Getting back in was not easy though. No
    one mentioned the policy to me during the 1.5 year I was trying
    to get back in. Though they did tell me I wouldn't get credit
    for anything but pension (and they were wrong there as I never
    saw any pension credit :-( )
    
    At one time it was very common for SWS people to leave for a few
    months and come back with big raises. Even if the policy did not
    exist, I wouldn't recommend trying that today. DEC has people beating
    the doors down to get in here. It would be nice if policies made
    it a bit easier to keep people once they got in though.
    
    The guy who wrote "In Search Of Excellence" claims that the prime
    use of policy is to justify bad decisions. That seems to be the
    case with many of our policies regarding raises, promotions, and
    extra incentives (RE: extra effort, retaining extra good people).
    There are still lots of good reasons to stay here (as there were
    when I worked so hard to get back in) and other companies screw
    up in many of the same ways. Some people in "management and personal"
    seem to regard this as a valid reason not to fix these raw deals.
    Who are these people? Can we get them to go to work for someone
    else?
    
    		Alfred

  There have been restrictions on rehiring former DEC employees for
a long time but they were tightened about 2 years ago. Apparently
this tighter policy didn't get into the P&P manual, but it requires
that rehires be approved by a senior vice president. And there are
some senior VP's that hardly ever approve rehires.
  I think the no-rehire policy is unfair and discriminatory. A more
reasonable policy would be to allow rehires but prohibit the hiring
manager from paying a higher salary than the person would have been
paid if he/she had stayed with the company. This would prevent peo-
ple from leaving and coming back for the purpose of getting a big
raise. 

>     A more
>reasonable policy would be to allow rehires but prohibit the hiring
>manager from paying a higher salary than the person would have been
>paid if he/she had stayed with the company. This would prevent peo-
>ple from leaving and coming back for the purpose of getting a big
>raise. 

    More is a relative term. While your idea may be more fair then
    not letting people back at all, I don't think it is fair at all.
    To give an example, I was gone from DEC for 2.5 years. How do you
    know what I would have been making if I hadn't left? Do you assume
    I got 1s or 5s on my review? Do you assume I stayed at the same
    job or do you assume I got promoted? Do you assume that what I
    learned while I was away is worth the same, less, or more then
    what I would have learned if I had stayed? In short, there is no
    way in the world of being fair in determining what I'd have been
    making if I'd stayed.
    
    The most reasonable policy is to pay people what they are worth
    regardless of whether it means a 2% raise or a 20% raise.
    
    			Alfred

Re .19:

>Though they did tell me I wouldn't get credit
>    for anything but pension (and they were wrong there as I never
>    saw any pension credit :-( )

Maybe you didn't look hard enough.  Or maybe you are being screwed out of
what is rightfully owed to you.  My officemate claims he has read in
Consumer Reports that Federal Law guarantees that if you were away for less
time than you had worked for DEC that you are entitled to all of your
pension time.  Even if this does not describe your situation, you may be
entitled to some or all of the time because of state laws, or the terms of
Digital's pension plan.

I suggest you start correcting the situation now.  From what I have seen of
others' experiences, the longer you let something like this go on, the
harder it is to get it corrected.
				/AHM

    re .20
    
    Oh GREAT!  An inconsistent policy with no particular details
    applied at the whim of management. The EEO training I had a few
    years back pointed out this type of policy as being the lawsuit
    equivalent of walking down an alley in the bad part of town with
    $100 bills hanging out of your pockets.  I hope whichever VP who
    downchecks the wrong person has made sure DEC is obligated to handle
    the legal fees.

    /Dave

    The way I understood the re-hire/pension question, is: if you quit
    and in the future are rehired, you do NOT get the accrued pension
    time, if you cashed out of the pension plan.  If you had over a
    certain amount when quitting (I think it is something like $5000),
    then you can not cash out, and if rehired it goes back into effect.
    
    That's how it was explained to me when I left on a leave of absence.
    If I didn't return after the leave, I could cash out if it was under
    "x", if it was over it would stay in the pension fund.  And if rehired
    it would reflect accordingly.  Luckily, I found another job within
    Digital, within the 90 days LOA.
    

    My experience has shown that the situation you are describing is
    NOT a Digital policy, but rather, the result of a decision made
    by the particular management structure involved. I have worked in
    groups where transferring employees HAVE been granted increases
    and promotions of more than one level, specifically where the job
    families are different and the responsibilities/duties dissimilar.
    In software engineering, for example, a cc mgr and his group mgr
    are free to make decisions regarding salary plan exceptions - that
    does NOT constitute a DEC policy.
    
    -Jack
    

    re ~.16-~.24

    Frankly I'm kind of at a loss as to why DEC would have a policy
    (written or otherwise) that would prevent rehiring former employees. If
    an employee feels that he/she can get a better job elsewhere they
    should go for it.  If that person later wants to change jobs and
    considers DEC as a prospective employer I think they would make a
    BETTER employee. They have SEEN firsthand that the grass ISN"T greener.
    These people would seem like a great advertisement to junior employees
    that might be induced to leave by claims from headhunters. 
    
    As far as a returning employee getting a big raise -- if DEC is
    staying current with the market there shouldn't be any problem.
    If the pay is significantly less than other companies are providing
    then this is a problem and it needs to be corrected, not ignored.
    Don't shoot the messenger for bringing bad news.  
    
    We've got people out here in never never land getting pressure from
    outside companies (raises in the 30 - 60% range) and personnel just
    got through telling us that despite the huge profits, raises wouldn't
    be larger than normal because inflation was low!

    I think y'all out East went through this a while back -- it takes
    trends a while to get out to the hinterlands.
    
    Dave P

    I know of several people who have been rehired back into DEC.  From
    what I understand, it usually isn't a problem unless you would go
    to a competitor.  (like if I left and went to work for Apollo, I
    could probably never come back)
    
    Other than that, it's up to the hiring manager.  If they really
    want someone, it can be done.
    
    
    -bill
    

    re .27:
    
    Not even then.  I know a number of people who have gone from DEC
    to a competitor and then come back.  People with varied competitive
    experience are VALUABLE.    

re .20

But what if, in the intervening time period, you acquired new skills that 
weren't in the the line of your old job.  Like going back to school, or 
learning management or writing techniques.

Now, you are a better <whatever> than you were x years ago AND you have 
other skills to be considered.

That certainly deserves more compensation [if it's useful in the job slot 
you're going for].

Let the free market rule!