Conference 7.286::digital

This isn't transition.  These are layoffs.  What did you expect?

	Hey, people these layoffs were announces quite some time ago. We've
	been speculating for weeks about how they would take place. What
	happened to the person in 1362.0 was several times listed in this
	conference as the likely way it would happen. Why are you surprised?

	Actually this is better then some of the suggested ways that this
	might happen. Sure it's not nice and it's not fun. Sure it's hard
	on the people it's happening to but surprise is out of order. Anger
	is probably a little late.

				Alfred

re:  <<< Note 1362.3 by CVG::THOMPSON "Semper Gumby" >>>

>Hey, people these layoffs were announces quite some time ago. We've
>been speculating for weeks about how they would take place.

    Announced? Hardly. There's been rumor abound in this conference and
    in the newspapers but hardly what I would call an official
    announcement.  Can someone please shed some light on this... were
    specific groups or individuals told to *expect* layoff after the
    first of the year (other than the PNO plant closure)? I would
    think DEC managers would know who was going to be selected for
    layoff sooner that just a few hours before notice was given.

    The entry in 1361.0 implied that the individual could retain
    employment with DEC if they could find a position before 5:00PM
    today. It's hard to get a new job nailed down in DEC in 4 weeks let
    alone a few hours!!

>What happened to the person in 1362.0 [sic] was several times listed
>in this conference as the likely way it would happen. Why are you
>surprised?

    Surprised doesn't quite cover my emotions at this point... For
    years I've received these Digital newsletters that come to my house
    extolling the virtues and programs of Digital Equipment Corporation
    that makes DEC such a great place to work- all kinds of programs to
    help the employee learn more or overcome problems that they face at
    work and at home. Not once have I been in need of any of these
    programs, I've been darn fortunate. I figured that all of that was
    what made Digital a special place to work.
    
    Now these high and lofty ideals of the employee as a valued asset
    are just floor sweepings to be emptied in the trash tonight at 5
    o'clock.

    Emotional? You bet. This isn't the Digital that I once knew.
    
>Actually this is better then some of the suggested ways that this
>might happen. Sure it's not nice and it's not fun. Sure it's hard
>on the people it's happening to but surprise is out of order. Anger
>is probably a little late.
    
    Yes these are hard times. Yes these kind of things [layoffs] are
    going on in other companies, BUT I THOUGHT AT LEAST DEC HAD SOME
    DECENCY AND RESPECT LEFT THAT SET IT APART FROM THE OTHER
    COMPANIES. I'm not bemoaning the layoff (in this note), I'm upset
    about delivery of the notice!
    
    I certainly hope that the person in 1361.0 gets the TFSO 'package'
    as the rumor mill has alluded to, maybe it can take the edge off of
    the sudden news.
    
    Of course, I could be all wrong... maybe everyone that was/is
    targeted for layoff gets more of a notice than a mere several hours.
    
    Lee

>    Announced? Hardly. There's been rumor abound in this conference and
>    in the newspapers but hardly what I would call an official
>    announcement.  Can someone please shed some light on this... were
>    specific groups or individuals told to *expect* layoff after the
>    first of the year (other than the PNO plant closure)? 

There was an official press release.  It was posted in Livewire.
Specific groups were told to expect layoffs.  It's been more than
a rumor for several weeks.

    My understanding of the short-notice idea is that we work in a
    sensitive environment where it would be beneficial to Digital and its
    security to remove the "laid-off" employee immediately. I believe the
    company compensates the employee to the same level as if it had given
    the required 2 or 4 week notice (depending on what is expected notice
    for a particular wage class).
    
    Digital is in a financial mess today, and I think we all have accepted
    the fact that layoffs are a must. I hope that through the ordeal we
    realize that part of the financial problems that Digital is facing
    today is a direct result of the company BENDING OVER BACKWARDS to
    protect employees. For example, the company did not need to offer an
    expensive severance package last year or now. It could immediately cut
    10,000 employees and almost immediately turn-around the income
    statement.
    
    I do not expect a rational reaction from people who lose their jobs
    (I know if I lost my job, the last thought that I would have on my mind
    is "Gee, its for the best of the company"). I do hope, however, that we
    keep in mind that the company has done everything in its power to
    resist layoffs and has used them begrudgingly as a last resort -- and
    yes this makes Digital a lot different from many other companies!!
                  

>    Digital is in a financial mess today, and I think we all have accepted
>    the fact that layoffs are a must.

	Not me. I still believe that management has not made a good case
	for layoffs but then they don't report to me. :-)

			Alfred

    Come off it .4!!!  NO ONE should be surprised if they get the tap on
    the shoulder.  This is called a Lay-Off.  This is how it's done.  She
    should consider herself lucky she wasn't escorted out of the building.
    
    I think they should stop this foolishness of giving people a few hours
    to get a job offer.  That'll turn into the damndest mess you've ever
    seen if they do that for everyone.
    
    Sounds like something only a wimp manager would think up...sorta
    transfers ultimate blame to the inidividual being laid off.

    Has anyone any 'officcial' idea as to whether this was an isolated
    incident or were 'n' people laid off yesterday? If so, what figure does
    'n' in fact represent?
    
    	- andy

    Approx. 2+ weeks ago, every employee was supposed to be told about the
    details of the layoff process.  If your management did not get you 
    together in a group or individually tell you about the process, you
    have been snookered by your management.  
    
    PS:  This is what I was told during our "understanding" session.
    
    Mark
    

I know for a fact that yesterday was the start of the "official"
layoffs.  I know of several people in my group (Product and Industry
Marketing) that were told they had until 5 PM to get their personal
stuff together and had their badges taken away.  50 percent of the
people that were laid off were offered other positions in the company. 
We were told on January 24th that there were indeed going to be layoffs
in our groupm but due to "complications" official notice did not come
until yesterday.  Needless to say productivity and moral were at an
all-time low last week and yesterday.  We were told every group in
Digital will be going through this process in the next 60-90 days.

/Joe

	I have heard a few rumors that they are planning to open up the layoff
	package company wide, so anyone who wants it could take it.  Has any
	one else heard this ???

	-Joe

    I think you may be confusing Layoffs and Redundancy deals. I've seen
    nothing to indicate that those laid off will in fact get any lump of
    money.
    
    	- andy

    
    
    Come off it yourself, .8!  Getting the tap on the shoulder per se
    is not the issue, but how it's done may well be.  The company 
    has definitely left us all with the impression that as the plans
    become more concrete that they will communicate those plans to
    those being affected letting them know what to expect.  Has
    ANY group in the company been told that their group will have
    layoffs but the specific persons who will go won't know until
    one day they get a tap on the shoulder and are told that as of
    5pm that day they are history?  Wake up!  A layoff is NO excuse
    for treating anyone like that.  Just imagine the morale problem
    Digital will have with those remaining who will witness that
    treatment.
    
    If on the other hand, and this is the scenario I would more likely
    expect, the company has instructed management to handle this so
    affected employees are fully informed and prepared for specifically
    what will happen to them, then they've got a legitimate gripe if
    one day they show up and get the bum's rush out the door.
    
    Contrary to the "this is how it's done" comment, tapping people on the
    shoulder without advance notice is only ONE way.  There are companies
    where persons are informed IN ADVANCE what their last day of work will
    be and helped to prepare themselves for it.
    
    Steve
    

    
    Re: .13
    
    More confusion it seems.
    
    First, technically it is being called "involuntary severance" although
    we all know that Digital's "involuntary severance" is everyone else's
    "layoff."
    
    Second, it has been communicated widely here that persons affected
    by this severance will receive a severance pay based on the formula
    from the last TFSO package so they would definitely be getting
    a "lump of money."
    
    Steve
    

    re: .11
    
    >> 50 percent of the
    >> people that were laid off were offered other positions in the company.
    
    
    How did they determine specifically which people in that "50%" would
    be offered other positions in the company?  Was it performance based?
    Was there a gang coin toss?  Was it based on shoe size?  The bottom
    line is, was it fair and equitable?
    
    Perhaps a better question would be, why wasn't everyone offered another
    position in the company, or why was ANYONE offered another position?
    Some people are "really gone", others are "gone but not really", having
    been given a specified period of time to come back in as an internal
    hire, others are in some other kind of limbo.
    
    Is it the case that not everyone is being treated the same way here?
    And if so, what are the specific criteria for the different kinds
    of treatments?  Is there a process here that will ensure that
    everyone will be treated fairly?  Or will some be treated "more
    fairly" than others?
    
    Since many of us have not been treated to any explanation of the
    layoff process(es?), we'd sure appreciate it some of you who know
    more details would let us know.
    
    Sorry to sound cynical, but my experiences (e.g., see the "Pomotion
    [sic] by Testing" note) have led me to be suspicious in matters such
    as these.
    
    Chris
    

We were told that every effort was made to find another position within
PIMG for those folks that were let go here.  If a position matched the
skills an individual had, then they were offered the position.  They
had to accept / decline the position by the end of the day.  I don't
know if everyone was treated "fairly" but I do know that it was a HUGE
learning experience for *everybody* around here.  One can only hope
that the process was fair for everyone.


/Joe

    I heard about the nine week thing a couple weeks ago.  Apparently, you
    go home for nine weeks on full pay, and then come back in to pick up
    your severance payment.  Sounds very generous to me.
    
    I don't think people can be given several days/weeks notice.  The
    impact on morale of the effected group would be devastating, plus
    there is the very real probably of isolated instances of electronic
    vandalism.

    re .11
    
>We were told every group in
>Digital will be going through this process in the next 60-90 days.
    
    If any one said exactly that then they were talking through their rear
    end.  The US arm of Digital might be thus affected, but not the rest of
    us.

    Involuntary severance = lay off= fired = gone = no job!!!

    No matter how nicely it is worded it all boils down to the same thing.
    Frankly I agree with a couple of the previous note. I am surprised that
    the person(s) getting the axe were given until 5:00 P.M.to do
    anything. In all the companies that i worked for that had lay offs
    while I was there it usually happened at 4:30 Friday afternoon with a pink
    slip wrapped around your time card. Your supervisor would then watch you 
    empty your locker/desk and verify that you had no company stuff (right 
    down to paper clips) in any box you walked out with. If you didn't get it
    done soon enough well tough luck - get a friend to do it for you next week.
    If you were a supervisor you may have gotten notice at noon to have your 
    desk/locker cleared before quitting time. Forget about trying to get 
    another job anywhere in the company. The whole point of the layoff is to 
    reduce total head count. Maybe at some time in the future, if business
    picks up, they will call you up and offer you a job -  not necessarily
    your old job at the old pay - but a job offer none the less. 
    Severance pay????? What do you think this is, Utopia??? 
    Severance pay was what you had coming to you for the hours you had worked 
    and vacation accrued. Some companies were "kind enough" to pay you for a 
    full forty hours regardless of the time of the day Friday you got your 
    notice. All three of these companies by the way were "UNION SHOPS".

    The only thing that made a layoff at those companies less brutal than
    what it sounds like was the attitude of the immediate supervisor. Most
    of the time they were truly sorry to be put in the position of having
    to tell someone they were out of work.

    Bottom line for Digital - They are being very sensitive to the needs
    of the employee, while trying to protect corporate assets and possibly
    confidential information that the employee may inadvertently remove
    with his/her personal effects.

    I am sorry it has happened, I hope that it does not happen to me, but
    if it does I will take any package that is bigger than 2 weeks pay and
    be happy for it. I may not take a job if the called and offered me one
    later on but neither would I hold a grudge for what has gone in the
    past.

    Can anyone clarify what Maggie might have meant when she said (in base
    note) "the layoff may be reversed by appeal" ?  Did she mean her layoff
    or layoff in general ?  Is there an appeals process that ex-employees
    can instigate?
    
    Carol

    re: .20  From what I was told, yes!!
    
    Chris D.

    re -1 ---- That's just prolonging the agony.  There's no appeal to a
    lay-off.
    
    For those that are so upset....two weeks ago, AMPEX in Colorado Springs
    laid off 240 people.  They were given 20 minutes notice and two weeks
    pay.  Stop Whining!

    
    Re: .24
    
    The coming layoffs are a fact of life.  No one likes it and no one
    wants it!  The fact that they are coming is no longer an issue. 
    Expecting Digital to manage this "layoff" in keeping with its
    traditional way of treating its employees with respect and dignity is
    NOT whining. Digital is NOT AMPEX!  It is not any other company.  It is
    Digital! This company has professed certain values all along and this
    above all is not the time to be expedient and prove that that has been
    b******* all along!  Digital has worked long and hard to win a
    reputation for being a VERY desirable place to work.  Mismanaging this
    severance process could result in all that being thrown out the window.
    Nothing is gained if we turn several thousand employees out the door
    feeling misused and abused.  The word will spread through communities
    and the industry in general.  It will not be in our best interests to
    tell people to stop 'whining' IF the layoff itself is NOT what upset
    them but rather a very callous and unconcerned manner of doing it. That
    will also result in a serious blow to the morale of the ones who remain
    watching it happen and coming to work every day thinking that "today it
    could happen to me" despite what they might be told.
    
    I'm not thinking only of the employees affected by this, but how the
    company can be affected by how it is perceived after the fact.
    Sometimes there are things to consider that can't easily be measured
    on the bottom line but can certainly affect it.
    
    Steve
    

    
    AMPEX employees were notified ahead of time that layoffs were about
    to happen, similar to what DIGITAL did. AMPEX also gave each laid off
    employee one week of pay for each year of service; not as good as
    DIGITAL, but better than just 2 weeks.
    
    I think there are a lot of scared people here at DIGITAL now. I hope
    management would just get it over with so the survivors can get
    back to work.
    
    - Greg
    

TSFO 3 is the "involuntary methodlogies" that provides for a
financial package that includes 13 weeks salary plus 3 weeks pay
per year of service with DEC beyond 2 years. The max is 77 weeks
of pay (about a 1 1/2 years if you were with DEC more than 20
years).

calvin

    
    Get back to work? Man, I'm so busy right now I don't even think about
    the layoffs.
    
    /prc...overloaded.

    Re: 1362.26
    
    >>    I think there are a lot of scared people here at DIGITAL now. I
    >>    hope management would just get it over with so the survivors can
    >>    get back to work.
    >>
    >>    - Greg
    
    Keep in mind that today's survivors can become tomorrows casualties.
     
    When I first came to Digital 12+ years ago, I was told this:
    
    	"Digital is a people oriented company."
    
    These words proved to be true time and time again. 
    
    Sadly, it's becoming more appropriate to say:
    
    	"Digital is a profit oriented company."
    
    Companies are in business to make profit but in this case I feel the
    benefits (short term profits) will be offset by the damage inflicted
    on the survivors.   
    
    - Gary (soon to be a casualty in Phoenix)
    

    
    Re: .29
    
    Amen.  It seems, however, that the profit is the only factor in the
    equation these days.  I'll be interested to see the comments of those
    who are just blowing this off as "that's the way things go" if they
    end up one of the casualties.
    
    Steve
    

I've just a couple of comments;

1. Digital IS trying to make it as painless as possible. The whole idea
   of a severance package is foreign to a layoff. As alot of others have
   said, usually its heres whats comin' to ya, thanks and goodbye.

2. Digital IS becoming a PROFIT oriented company, its easy being people
   oriented when you are making money hands over feet, but times they
   are a changin'.

3. As far as the survivors getting on with the work, that will last about
   a week until each friday when people will start hiding from their
   managers. Mondays, you will be surprised that you are still here and
   surprised at those who are not anylonger.

4. Preventing theft of data etc by waiting until the last moment to tell
   those to be let go, forget it. Those that would do such a thing will
   have done it prior to their being let go in anticipation.

- George

    RE: .30
    
    Some of us who are saying (or thinking, at least) "That's the way 
    it goes" are doing it because we've been through a layoff and let go
    elsewhere. Layoffs usually mean 2 weeks' pay in lieu of notice, 
    accrued vacation, clean out your desk by 5, and hit the want ads
    in Sunday's paper. Although the pain is greater initially with little
    or no notice, the suffering is over sooner and you can get on with 
    your life. It would be even better, in my opinion, if all papers
    were signed and checks issued before the person left that day.
    A clean break is easier in the long run. I've been there.
    
    Linda

    RE: .27 

	>TSFO 3 is the "involuntary methodlogies" that provides for a
	>financial package that includes 13 weeks salary plus 3 weeks pay
	>per year of service with DEC beyond 2 years. The max is 77 weeks
	>of pay (about a 1 1/2 years if you were with DEC more than 20
	>years).

	Correction:
	The financial "bridge" package includes:
		base of 13 weeks salary
		plus 3 weeks pay per year of service for years 2 - 10
		plus 4 weeks pay per year of service for years 10 - 20
		maxing out at 77 weeks

	

    I guess the way to do it is to work as though this is your last day...
    
    
    
    and someday you'll be right...
    

    This whole process is really showing the downside of having a Digital
    "culture" and Digital "family".  Not everyone feels that way, but many
    people have established close relationships with other employees
    through the network and notesfiles.  
    
    For single employees, or people who have relocated to work for DEC,
    this can often constitute their main social life and support system.
    Sure, everyone *should* have a broadbased support system in and out of
    DEC, but not everyone does.
    
    Legally DEC does not owe us more than any other company, but creating
    the kind of culture we have here raises a new set of issues, in my
    opinion.  The shock of being cut off from your main mode of
    communication with the people you have become close to through your
    work and work connections combined with loss of livelihood has a
    greater potential impact than losing a job in the traditional sense.
    
    For some people, it can have the impact of a divorce or being forced to
    leave college in the middle when your whole life is there.  In addition
    you are suddenly cut off from resources such as EAP which might have
    been able to help.  I hope we don't see extreme reactions such as
    suicide.
    
    I'm not saying that management should or should not change its policy
    because of these issues - that's not the point.  I think part of the
    mythology of the Digital 'culture' has been that it is safe to really
    get involved personally here because layoffs had never been a part of
    our tradition.  I think there are few other large companies who have
    ever had the culture that we have because they haven't had the network
    to develop it.
    
    
    Holly 

    I was alerted to this note in this conference through a mail message
    and was curious to see what others have to say. The complaints I've
    seen have been very critical of the process have but have offered no
    alternatives so far. Think about the alternatives. DEC has
    responsibilities to its employees, but it also has legal
    responsibilities (EEO, OSHA, etc) and internal responsibilities to
    protect itself from the potentially criminal and at least
    harmful activities of terminated employees who have access to DEC 
    resources and internal info and might seek a bitter revenge. I'm
    sure any proposal offered could have many holes shot through them.
    
    My wife is a personnel specialist and has been forced into laying off
    people at 2 different companies. They are never easy. For those who say
    DEC should be different in the way they handle things because they are
    an outstanding company, etc. etc.  I have to agree with the noter who
    says they have been bending over backwards to accomodate their
    employees.
    
    My only complaint is with what I've heard about how the layoff
    decisions are being allowed to flow down through the managerial ranks.
    If what I've heard is true, it sounds like only people at the lowest
    levels of the company will be released because of the de-centralized
    way it is taking place. This would not only be unfair, but also unfortunate
    because DEC would become even more top-heavy. I hope the rumors I've
    heard w.r.t. this are not true.
    
    Mitch
    

    PLEASE SEE NOTE 1366.1 FOR REAL FACTS ABOUT THIS ACTION.  MOST OF WHAT
    YOU SEE IN THIS NOTE IS NOT BASED ON FACTS.
    

    Huh?....We've all _seen_ the official notice in 1366.1 in LiveWire as
    well as in various other notes.  The real issue is the answer to the
    questions in 1366.0, IMHO anyway...
    
    Carol

    re: .18, .20, .23
    
    As I understand it, the nine weeks reflects a Massachusetts legal
    requirement that employees be given nine weeks notice (or nine weeks
    pay in lieu of notice) before a lay off.
    
    I would assume that .23 is correct, and that the way DEC handles this
    requirement is by giving 9 weeks pay (the legislated notice pay) and
    then N - 9 weeks pay, where N is determined by the years-of-service
    formula.  
    
    On the other hand, depending on how the legislation actually reads, it
    may be that N+9 weeks of pay will be due people in Massachusetts.
    
    
    Elliott

    A different prospective......
    I've been working in MFG here in the Mill.  Over the past year my
    group has virtually dissapeared through transition etc.  We have lived with
    the potential of being jobless for quite some time.  Many of the people
    that have left have been working here since the beginning.  
    Myself and DIGITAL has lost MANY GOOD employees/friends.  
    In my opinion this whole downsizing was done incorrectly.
    Digital should have first offered early retirement or the attractive
    TFSO to those close to retirement, because they deserved it.  Second
    they should have LAYED OFF poor performers or people with cronic
    work problems/written warnings etc.  I've seen so many good people
    take the package and get other jobs at other vendors...I'd feel no
    remorse the people who took such advantage of this  company. 
    
    People are scared and paralyzed by this, I've seen it for a long time.
    Many organizations other than MFG have not even been touched until
    now.  Many of the people who have been kept around because they were
    valued employees could now be receiving the worst deal of all.
    
    I feel very bad for those GOOD employees who are now getting the ax.
    I've seen many people very attached to this company leave with tears
    in their eyes...it breaks my heart.
    
    I wish those who must leave good luck!
    
    Mike            
    
    

    
    RE .35
    
    Holly - a good point, well made.
    
    Also, regarding the points about "people orientated" and "profit
    orientated" companies....
    Some seem to think that these are, in effect, the same thing.
    
    When Digital set out to make this company a good place to work for
    i.e. a company with many people-orientated, social and personal
    benefits, I don't believe that it was done out of the goodness of
    their heart. As I understand it, Japanese companies foster this 
    "corporate loyalty"  because they understand that long-term
    employees who are committed heart and soul to the corporation provide
    *the best workforce for generating profitable business*.
    
    I don't think the two are imcompatible.
    And through the *manner* in which the lay-offs are being handled, I
    suspect that the damage done to the "people" side of the business
    will impact the golden goal of improved profitability....
    
    That is, DEC will get less out of the people it has left, as well as
    having lost some major contributors.
    Not smart.
    
    'gail
    
    

    I find the degree of naivete in this note relative to "profit" just a
    little scary.  Profit is always first...it is owed to the owners of
    this Corporation, the stockholders.  Second is reasonable compensation
    to its employees.  Everything else is a distant third, or fourth......

    I've no "public" comment on the manner in which the layoffs were
    handled and any connection to Digital culture, etc.
    
    What bothers me is that we have been hiring all through this period of
    decreased revenues, I wouldn't even doubt that DEC has hired someone 
    today.  These hirings are typically the Unix and TP gurus that we
    "can't find internally", etc.  
    
    Somthing is terribly wrong with the personnel process and the way we
    run our business.  If a manager has the chutzpah to hire an external
    person during the same period that employees are getting pink slips,
    than he/she should be required to produce so much justification that it
    would choke a horse.
    
    --David (who supports a REAL hiring freeze instead of layoffs)

    re .41
    
>                     <<< Note 1362.41 by COOKIE::LENNARD >>>
>                     -< Profit is Not a Four-Letter Word >-
>
>    I find the degree of naivete in this note relative to "profit" just a
>    little scary.  Profit is always first...it is owed to the owners of
>    this Corporation, the stockholders.  Second is reasonable compensation
>    to its employees.  Everything else is a distant third, or fourth......
    
    Naivete is relative, and I feel your own statement is, at the very
    least, an extreme oversimplification of ONE point of view.
    
    Many successful companies do not put profit first.  They put
    providing service to their customers first, find that motivating and
    treating their employees well is key to providing service to their
    customers, and often see that profit follows nicely from that.
    
    Many companies also explicitly decide to trade profit for long term
    gains in market share, living on razor thin or no profits for long
    periods of time in expectation of future gain.  Not that they don't
    want to profit, eventually, but in their case market share is first.
    
    /Dave

Layoffs are the downside of America's social system. As one who lives the
other side of the Atlantic, I have to wonder what the company would be
doing if it had to operate under, say, French law...? It's difficult to
lay people off and you have to provide a legally-mandated minimum compensation.
In the event that you rehire, you *have* to rehire those you laid off first.
Notice periods in Europe tend to be much longer, as well; the order of three
months not being uncommon.

I feel very sorry for those on the receiving end of this. I was made
redundant once and had a company fold under me once; it's not a very
pleasant experience. Those who say you can get over it quickly have not
been through it.

Gavin

.44>    Many successful companies do not put profit first.  They put
.44>    providing service to their customers first, find that motivating and
.44>    treating their employees well is key to providing service to their
.44>    customers, and often see that profit follows nicely from that.
    
    		Name one.
        
.44>    Many companies also explicitly decide to trade profit for long term
.44>    gains in market share, living on razor thin or no profits for long
.44>    periods of time in expectation of future gain.  Not that they don't
.44>    want to profit, eventually, but in their case market share is first.
    
		Trading "profit for market share" is not the same as
    		trading profit for employee headcount preservation.  The
    		latter is what many people are calling for.
    
    	Joe Oppelt

    
    Re: .46
    
.44>    Many successful companies do not put profit first.  They put
.44>    providing service to their customers first, find that motivating and
.44>    treating their employees well is key to providing service to their
.44>    customers, and often see that profit follows nicely from that.
    
.46>		Name one.
    
        Will three do?  How about Motorola, Xerox, and Milliken.  All
        proponents of the put service to customers first philosophy.  Also
        all, by the way, having recently regained significant market
        share, growth, and competitive ability.
    
        Steve
    
    
    

    I heard a rumor that some people in Hudson, Ma. were laid off today.
    Can anyone verify this? Who was the effected group or groups?
    
    Thanks,
    Mark
    
    

    re .47
    
    Thanks, I'd have had to go back to my pile of business mags.  The
    TQM (Total Quality Management) approach being implemented here in TP
    and the over-group TNSG also makes the assumption that QUALITY comes 
    first, and profits will follow as a result of high quality.  So you can 
    add at least part of Digital to the list of companies.  Note that part
    of the quality process includes methods to make sure you really
    understand what your customers want - no sense having the highest
    quality grozzle when your customer really wants narndle bolts.  The
    quality methodology is also heavily dependent on well trained, highly
    motivated employees.
    
    re .46
    
>		Trading "profit for market share" is not the same as
>    		trading profit for employee headcount preservation.  The
>    		latter is what many people are calling for.
    
    I was attempting to illustrate the point that profit is not always the
    primary goal/motivator of a company.  And even there, some companies
    HAVE traded profit for employee headcount preservation, recognizing
    that holding onto trained people through a temporary downturn can lead
    to greater long-term profitability by allowing the company to respond
    more quickly when the economy turns back up.  If you really want, I can
    probably dig up the several articles in Fortune magazine and Business
    week on this topic.
    
    /Dave

    	But we're no longer in a TEMPORARY downturn.
    
    	DEC (K O in particular) was advocating EXACTLY what you describe.
    	Actually, DEC knew it was in trouble two years ago.  Ken has
    	been successful in getting DEC to hold on to the employees for
    	these past two years.  But it has become obvious even to him that
    	the downturn is no longer temporary.  While we had over-hired
    	in the expectation that we would grow, that growth will just not
    	happen in the near future.  Our growth cannot accommodate our
    	excess headcount.
    
    	Joe Oppelt

re: .43

>    "We are a public Corporation.  Sockholders invested in our Corporation
>    for profit.

I thought this whole topic was about those left holding the sock.

- greg

    re .50:
    
    Since I'm feeling in a nit-picky mood, are we in a PERMANENT downturn?
    
    The various tradeoffs for profit do assume competent managers are
    directors.  Of course, if we don't have those, NO strategy, INCLUDING
    layoffs, will return the company to health.  One of the more
    interesting Fortune magazine articles in the past year or so dealt with
    the track record of companies that "down-sized".  Basic conclusion was
    that downsizing was often the best predictor of more downsizing.  It
    is frequently touted as the solution to a cost problem which is, in
    fact, a serious managerial problem.  In some of the cases cited, the
    companies were in even more serious trouble after layoffs than before.
    
    /Dave

re: .50

>    	Actually, DEC knew it was in trouble two years ago.  Ken has
>    	been successful in getting DEC to hold on to the employees for
>    	these past two years.

Well, I've remained silent on this subject (for my own reasons) for about
as long as I can, but eventually things draw one out again.

Joe, this response is not meant as an attack of you. You simply stated
something that triggered me. As Dave (I seem to recall) said a few replies back,
we should have been in _full_ support of REAL hiring freezes for a long time.
This file is rife with comments from noters over several years (myself included)
which proposed _exactly_ that - **REAL** HIRING FREEZES. They never happened!
No - we needed these UNIX heavys and these TP gurus and whothehellknowswhatelse.
(No offense meant to any particular specialty).

Bullcrap!

A good management approach would have been - "Fine, you need someone who knows
grimlets. Scour the company for him/her and we'll go all out [including relo,
which is cheaper than a TFSO in many cases] to bring that person here. And if
you can't find a person internally, then we'll sacrifice this other opening
to get that person, or we'll agree not to replace so-and-so who's leaving
next week, or we'll get our sister organization to not open a req for someone
who's leaving, or we'll [gasp] get rid of Joe Schmoe who's not been carrying
his weight, or . . . ". I could go on and on. There are so many ways to solve
resource problems without adding to overall headcount that I couldn't shake
a stick at all of them if I stood here all night. All that it requires is some
competent, creative, management techniques. That's what we apparently lacked.
So now we suffer. Pitiful.

So instead we just kept hiring people. Charming. Oh, I can hear all the
responses now (as a matter of fact, I can guess who they'll come from!).

"But if we hadn't hired these n000 people [I'm not sure what 'n' is over the
past few years but I know it's larger than x, 'x' being the number we expect
to rid ourselves of this calendar year] we wouldn't have been able to finish
project foo which is (or will be) critical to our strategy for the next 2
years!"

  Yeah? How 'bout if _you_ had tried to do something creative to get those
people WITHOUT increasing corporate headcount (see above).

  Isn't it interesting how organizations are now being able to identify
"redundancies"? Gosh! Wonder why they couldn't have done that over the
past three years instead of just upping the headcount?

So, you're right, Joe. We saw the writing on the wall a few years ago. And
we pretended to have hiring freezes hoping that we wouldn't have to ever
get to layoffs. And the odds were against us and we blew it bigtime, because
we never _REALLY_ had a hiring freeze at all. It was all just mental
self-gratification.

Like I said to another noter or two recently, I no longer get up in the
morning and say "Gee, what a great day it is!" How 'bout the rest of you?

-Jack

Regarding my last (.53), I just had a brilliant idea for DELTA_IDEAS!

Before you can get a req OK'ed for an external hire, you've personally
got to identify a slot that's opening up somewhere else in the corporation
which is not going to be filled! No matter how far away or how long it
takes!

If it weren't for the following, I'd send the damn suggestion in -

	1) It would probably be claimed that the administrative costs
	   of doing this are prohibitive
	2) It would probably revitalize some recruiters' positions that
	   were going away
	3) The thought that we are still opening reqs for external hires
	   at a time like this is too obscene to entertain

-Jack

    I've been writing for years that growth, market share, and profits are
    the consequences of concern for the customer.  I'm happy to see that
    I've got company now.
    
    This company is never, ever, going to need as many people as it once
    had to assemble larger components from smaller components, or putting
    finished goods into boxes, etc.  Never.  The entire nature of how
    computer systems are created has fundamentally changed.
    
    This company needs and will continue to need for a long time, UNIX
    wizards, PC wizards, and folks with technical backgrounds in industries
    where we compete, not merely take orders.  I make no apologies for the
    lack of long-range planning that EIS needed these skill sets years ago.
    
    All the recent hiring I've seen was to obtain desparately needed skills
    in order to compete.  These new hires are going to enable the rest of
    us to have jobs in 1992.

    About real freezes and needing expertise...

    I basically agree with Pat. But I also think that there were many people
    we've hired over the past 5 years or so who did have the skills we later
    went looking for, or would have learned them given the opportunity.

    Take me, for example. ;-) People look at me as a VAX/VMS (i.e., UNIX and
    IBM PC bigot) sort of guy, but I did device drivers on the first version
    of UNIX available outside of Bell Labs. (Brian Kernighan made the
    distribution tape for us.)  And I spent my own hard-earned dollars on a
    laptop to use for work.

    We have a way of pigeon-holing people, looking at them as "whatever the
    last problem is you solved, that's what you do best, so we're going to
    keep you doing exactly the same thing..." ignoring or discrediting their
    other experiences or professional judgement. There are _very_ smart
    people, with _very_ good judgement around DEC who aren't used to their
    full potential because they're viewed as widget-X-techno-weenies, or whose
    counsel is over-ruled by management to reach some short-term goal.

    I've been a manager at DEC. Need a resource who knows something? Who
    just did something like that? <-- That's your answer.

    We are sorely lacking in our ability to effectively manage our resource
    pool. Matrix management is fine for decision making, but you can't
    assemble a resource out of cross-functional consensus that you need to
    find one!

    /Peters

re:         <<< Note 1362.55 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY "God is their co-pilot" >>>
    
>    All the recent hiring I've seen was to obtain desparately needed skills
>    in order to compete.  These new hires are going to enable the rest of
>    us to have jobs in 1992.

Well Pat, you have just born out my prediction in .53, having given the exact
response to the approach I proposed. You weren't #1 on my list of persons
expected to come up with the response, but you were in the top ten! :^)

I'd just deign to mention that your last sentence above may be a little bit
brusque.

It seems very clear that some relatively large number of "the rest of us"
are, in fact, going to be losing our jobs as a result of these new hires,
since, as I mentioned, more have been brought in than will be leaving. We
can argue till the cows come home about how we added 2x people and only will
lose x people whereas we might have lost 7x people if it weren't for the
efforts of the 2x that were hired. That's all conjecture. The facts are
2x (or 3x or 4x) hired and x to be out of work. There is no science which
provides the numbers in the "whatif" scenario. And I can perceive ways that
the work the new hires are doing could have otherwise been accomplished
_WITHOUT_ increasing overall corporate headcount. See .53 or .54 for starters.

Not your fault, as you note, but the problem was that _NO ONE_ took it upon
themselves to keep headcount down _AT ALL COSTS_! Not even KEN! (Sorry Ken,
never lashed out at you like that before. Musta lost my head for a minute.)

But since you brought it up, Pat, would you be willing to say goodbye to DEC
by virtue of some of the maverick hiring that's been going on for the past
several years?

Still in friendship (I hope),
-Jack

re .57:

Somewhere around 1984 I was doing outside consulting to Ed Services in Bedford.
The project that my colleague and I did was called CITES (Computerized
Internal Training - Educational Services [or some such nonsense]).  It was an
automated, distributed (planned), database system for tracking Digital
employees' skills.  It was able to administer the post-test for any Ed Service
course and update the employee's skill levels to those defined for the course.
There were, of course, ways to assign skills to an employee without forcing them
to take all of the post-tests...

A major goal of the entire project was to be able to provide a query capability
which could find all employees, anywhere in the company, who had a skill set
which matched or exceeded the query's parameters.

I joined Digital in late 1987 and have taken a few courses through Ed Services.
I have not heard anything about CITES in the 3+ years I have been here...

Even if it be turned on today (it would need some work still), CITES could not
save anyone's job in the near future.  However, it could help the company in
the long term to find the right resources within the company to do the job.
It would only be necessary to look outside the company when the search comes
up empty, or better yet, when all of the potential candidates are happily
employed... 8~)

Hoping that the dust could get brushed off some good ideas...

Dave

    It's not conjecture that the way computers are manufactured have
    changed, it's not conjecture that derivatives of MS-DOS and UNIX will
    dominate the computer industry for at least the next five years.

    It was the people who _denied_ that fundamental "never-return-to-1987"
    changes were happening in the our industry, these are the people who
    got us into this mess.

    It is the people who have changed with the times or new people we've
    hired that our going to get us out of the mess.

    Since you made it personal, the Pat Sweeney model 1985, who wrote in
    Pascal, wrote only for VMS and DECnet, and used "SMG" routines, showed
    third parties who to create multi-threaded server applications before
    it was cool.  Get rid of that guy.

    The Pat Sweeney model 1991, who uses MOTIF, C and Trellis, writes for
    VMS and UNIX, is "image capable", and shows end-users how they can
    commit Digital to the success of their far-reaching information system
    implementations.  Keep that guy.
    
    One manager with a critical need to fill can't be blamed for years of
    expectations that things would return to 1987.  People got comfortable
    with the skills sets that were "right" for 1985 and didn't worry about
    what skills were needed in the 1990's.

    That anonymous entity, "the corporation", gave _zero_ guidance on this
    critical point.  The last thing in the world wee ought to do is make
    new employees feel less than welcome.

    
>  Someone told me long ago to "get as close to the revenue
>as possible."  That means align yourself with the hot new products that are
>generating the main revenue for the company or the future products that are
>expected to be the future revenue sources. People who stay with out-of-date
>products will soon be out of date themselves, and as we have seen, out of a job.
    
    Tell this to all the people in HPS that worked long and hard
    on the "hot new product" namely the VAX 9000 that are now being layed
    off.I don'y recall this project as being an "out of date product".
    
    
                                            Rich
    
    
    

    Well it was my note about the constant new hiring that generated the
    new aspect of this debate so here is $.02 more.
    
    The need for people with mumblefrats skills is real,no argument. 
    However since I've come out to the field my impression is that is a
    ring of cats chasing their tails, in other words I've seen strategies
    like "quick throw a Unix guru at this customer" or "throw a TP guru at
    this account", and ad nauseum.  In my area, the discrete industries, if
    it were up to my I'd staff sales support with as many mfg. engineers
    from internal as possible.  Of course we'd have to provide training in
    new skills, but it isn't just the skills that can make you an effective
    consultant and deliver good sales support, it's the "experience set"
    that you possess, and that my friends cannot be picked up by hiring
    someone off the street.  I've found that the approach to a customer's 
    business problem can be more important that the amount of knowledge of
    mumblefrats skill.  The field and the internal world are not connected
    at all, and that's a damn shame.
    
    In reference to Ed. Services training (CITES?), the problem that I see
    with these retraining programs is that they send a person through x
    weeks of training and when that person exits the program he or she
    forgets everything they've learned.  What is needed is a program that
    can integrate formal training with OJT, a "co-op DEC training program",
    if you will.  
    
    --David (who still supports a hiring freeze)

    RE: .65
    
    < Turn "IDEA" lightbulb on>
    
    Sounds like DSU (Digital Service University) - a retraining/reskilling
    program that permits individuals currently involved with "traditional
    break/fix" service environments (declining business) to transition into
    newer projet/customer oriented delivery environments (growing
    business).
    
    Looks like someone in Customer Service management could see the
    changing business requirement coming, valued current employees (big
    investment in knowledge and expertise), and put a transition plan in
    effect.  This effort won't happen over night, but must happen if we
    expect to service and support customers from now on. 
    Customers/Accounts expect this from digital.
    
    <Turn IDEA lightbulb off>
    
    Just my .02 - There are areas where digital is trying to do the right
    thing.
    
    
    

    I think a lot of DECies saw what was coming, but when you have
    management at the "highest" level openly ridiculing clear industry
    trends what can you do?  We were criminally, desparately, ill-prepared
    for what is happening, and I'd like to see our Board of Directors clean
    house....or even a new BOD.
    
    What's really scary is that it has only been six months or so since I
    was still hearing about us returning "to former levels of
    profitability".  It ain't gonna happen.  We are 2-3 years behind the
    industry power-curve, and have missed major market opportunities.
    
    I'm afraid that I agree that lay-offs beget lay-offs.  Look at all our
    former competition.  I heard a PBU manager make an impassioned speech
    over a year ago that we were exactly tracking Wang and DG.  How right
    he was!
    
    On managing our resource pool...what pool???  what management???
    
    On modern skills.  I'm waiting anxiously for my "new" VT220 to arrive
    from back East.  I'm a service product manager running a $68M business
    and have NO modern computer tools at my disposal.
                                                             
    I feel better now.......no I don't, I'm sick at heart.

re: .60

Of course it's not conjecture as to how we do business or what our business
consists of. It _is_ conjecture to say that we'd be far worse off than we are
if we hadn't brought in thousands of new people in the past several years.
You can't prove it and neither can I. That's what makes it conjecture,
especially in the face of compelling arguments that indicate there may have
been other ways to solve our resource problems than by maverick hiring.

I recognize full well the value of the efforts of people such as yourself
and others who have adapted to the changes in technology and how we do business.
I'd be a fool not to do so. But my point precisely was that we have the ability
to make those valued changes with people we have in the company already, just
like you've demonstrated - we didn't need to hire thousands of new people to
make that happen. How many more people within the company might have jumped
at the chance to do something similar to yourself but didn't have the oppor-
tunity? I can name over half a dozen internal people that I would have loved
to have offered some challenging engineering opportunities to, and who would
have loved to have accepted them, if it weren't for the fact that we couldn't
get the right approvals for a lousy internal transfer because of some stupid
funny-money funding issue or a relo problem or somebody's idea that they
didn't want to allow that person to take that opportunity. Then, too, of
course, after all, there _WAS_ a "hiring freeze" going on. Sure! While
every other politically well connected group, or those with charismatic
enough (and, yes, selfish enough) management, was getting some trumped up
VP to sign a handful of req's every other week to bring people in from the
outside!

I don't have any desire to make new hires feel uncomfortable. We're all
in this together. But those of us who are going to be forced out against
their will, through no fault of their own, are in this with us too! I'm
not talking of those who refused to grow. I'm not talking of those who
are poor performers. I'm talking of those who are still doing what they
understand to be meaningful work and those who've been restrained from
growth because of petty bean counter games. Why is it reasonable to make
them feel the ultimate discomfort?

Of course management in areas where the writing was on the wall had a duty
get the message across and to help their excess people move on to new
tasks and paths. These should probably be the people who see the door first,
but I doubt that they will, as the politically well connected ones have already
moved on to other areas out of harm's way.

However I _do_ believe that one manager with a critical need to fill is just as
blameworthy as all of the vice presidents (we got a buhzillion of 'em, doncha
know - and aren't they all just a great bunch o' guys?) who approved req's for
external hires all the time we had a "hiring freeze" going on. Tell me, why is
it that when someone has a resource problem, a critical need, they take fifteen
minutes to cut a req and pass it on to personnel and kneel before their
favorite VP to get an approval, instead of trying to do something responsible
and creative to solve the problem? I'd guess because the latter would require
possibly making some phone calls, doing some research, talking to some potential
inside candidates, you know, sort of,  . . . expending effort. Much easier the
first way. And let's not forget that bringing in someone new may be _faster_
than "wasting time" trying to find the right internal match.

How much was that saved time worth in relation to someone's life being ruined
who's now facing a layoff?

So let's hear it for our req signing VP's - they sure know how to run a
business, don't they?

-Jack

At last someone finally hit it on the head. Three cheers. It is too bad
our management cannot come up with simple/logical solutions. Which they 
are getting payed big bucks for to do the right thing for the company.

I think it is about time that upper management becomes accountable for what
they do/do not do to get this company back on track. Like no extra perks
until this company gets back on track. You can bet your **** that they 
would do something.  We the grunts are already busting ours. As people
leave we are getting more work to do. Need I say more.

Dave

    Bravo .68, Bravo!!  Let's see, it's Friday...isn't it about time for
    the announcement of this week's new V.P.???  You know, the new senior
    VP of Cabinet Color Coordination.....or was that last week's??

    If all you people moaning in this notes file would get to work maybe
    we can save this company!!!!!

                       <<< Note 1362.71 by AUNTB::GOOD >>>
                                  -< enough >-

    If all you people moaning in this notes file would get to work maybe
    we can save this company!!!!!


<SET FLAME: HIGH>

Back off, tiger! Some of us are already on transition and our
full time job IS to look for work. Some of us are even
volunteering for All Hands On DEC to help out while we wait for
that interview that just might land us a job with DEC.

<SET FLAME OFF>

calvin hoe

    re .72
    
    If anyone needs work just go to sales.  That seems to be the place alot
    of the dead weight in this company is landing.  Several yankees have
    landed down here and beefed up our sales force.  Problem is we don't
    see any increase in sales.  Our installation team is bored.  My comment
    in .70 was meant more as a joke, but I'm not sorry is I offended.

... to be placed SOMEWHERE in the text is:

			:>) = smiley face   :>)

	Also, notice the time stamps on some of the notes, how
many are between 1200 and 1300, or 1700 and 0800.  That's the
local time of the conference host when it was written, and repre-
sents "off-time" at that site.  Anyway, since we can't have "water
coolers" anymore, noting just takes the place of the "water cooler
meeting"  :>)

    Re .74
    
    Agreed!
    
    I just won't to say - I'm a Field Engineer  with 13 years of working
    on DEC gear under my belt - everything from KL's Pdp15's ,11's VAX's.
    
    I live out here on the front line and have plenty of work to do.  I
    work on equipment designed by a superb engineering group - our 
    software is well written and our support team is outstanding.  There
    are a lot of good people in this company and I know everything is
    going to work out fine in the long run.  If there is a weakness in
    our company it is our sales force.  I live with these guys out here
    and I know many could not sale groceries if they were cashiers in a
    check out lane.
    
    Hang in there folks everthing is going to work out just fine.  Remember
    1982 was bleak to but we survived.

    RE: .73
    
    
    I know people who would KILL to get into sales and can't.  So, even
    telling people to go to sales isn't the cure.  I'm in Houston, and 
    people in the field in Houston can't move into sales, and their isn't
    any relocation cost, just a cost center change.
    
    Gale

re: .76

>    telling people to go to sales isn't the cure.  . . . . 
>    people in the field in Houston can't move into sales, and their isn't
>    any relocation cost, just a cost center change.

PotP?

But I betcha with a VP approval they can get a req signed to _HIRE_ a sales
person from outside, huh?

-Jack

For all you folks that are totally against hiring from outside, I can see your
point.  I have a problem seeing everythng in black and white, though, and can't
justify not doing something in California simply because there is a problem 
back east.  

I work closely with an engineering group that has had open req's for months, 
some with relo, and simply can not get people to move to the valley.  We need 
people with CAD/CAE/EDA experience and a solid knowledge of C and UNIX.  
Should I not build a product because I can not hire people with the proper 
skills and no one seems willing to move out here?  

I am part of the Digital Customer Center (DCC) that works with engineering 
customers.  We have openings today.  The person needs the same basic skills as 
above with the additional factor of the necessary people skills to work 
closely with customers.  Again, we have approved req's, possible relo, and no 
requests.  The info is in US_JOBS, and the jobs ntes conference.  I have even 
sent mail to managers of people that have the right skills that may be 
planning to lay folks off.  The hiring manager has talked to countless (O.K., 
countable but a high number of ) trying to find people to fill the needs, or 
even for pointers of places to look.

Back to the basic question, should I not do salable work because I can't find 
people internally?

Matt

From my persepctive, we DON'T NEED MORE SALES PEOPLE. What we do need are more 
administrative and TECHNICAL people to be able to figure out how to put 
together a reasonable solution for a customer. Between technical 
configurations, licensing issues, quotes, and the written proposal, there 
ain't time to breath. The business is out there. The question is: Do we have 
enough time, within the scope of our poor sales process and administrative
information systems, to bring in all the business before July 1!

Jim

Sales Support

    Jim:


    I would hope so. However, I agree with all the red-tape a sales support
    person has to go through, to help a sales person. I wish that all the
    "administration stuff" could be handled via a administration person.
    Heck this week I spent 6 hours writing a cover letter and statement of
    work that COULD have been spent out with a sales person, or could have
    been spent with ME working of a Request for information on Imaging.  If
    the districts could see (and change) the fact that that sales support 
    people function as secretary's too many time, while secretary's are 
    reading paperback books {qualifier: at times}, then maybe more sales 
    could come in.
    
    I don't know how to fix the problem, but if someone would ask me, I'd
    sure help them WADE through the symptoms of the problem to get to the
    root of the problem, so we could get a plan to fix it.

    I am a recent COD candidate that took part in the COD II in MRO. I got
    20 job interviews lined up before I went to the open house. I got a 
    great job in St. Louis. When I went to Sales training in MKO, I was
    told a good sales person can keep 2-3 sales support people busy all the
    time. Is this a true statement????
    
    Dave
    

    And a bad sales person can keep 5-10 sales support people busy all the
    time.

    Selling the products and services of Digital Equipment Corporation has
    become a matter of attrition and tedium in many respects.

    My take on "sales" and "sales support" they will sell anything to a
    customer whether he needs it or not. This comes from 10 years of
    working in the field.I have been involved in too many "erector set"
    installations. Wrong parts, wrong options, wrong systems and wrong
    sales advice. I would like to know what and how they are selling,
    just to meet their "numbers" seems to me. So what if the end user
    or customer can't use it "I made my budget for this quarter" is the
    response I have received from some "sales" gurus. With this kind of
    infant mentality you don't have to wonder why some customers are turned
    off by DEC.
    

  Back to the original subject: A year ago I read that a local high-tech com-
pany which had layoffs set up a facility with phones and secretaries for use
by people who had been laid off, to look for jobs. It appears that DEC is not
going to do this. Why? I realize it would be a security risk to allow laid-off
or "in limbo" DEC employees to circulate freely or access Easynet, but there
are ways around it. My understanding is that the other company sealed off a
wing of a plant for use by laid-off employees.
  For some people, it's no problem using home as a base for job hunting after
being laid off. For some, it's a problem (too many distractions, etc.). And
not having the use of a printer or secretary at work means you have to buy a
printer for your home computer, or a typewriter, so you can write cover letters
and update your resume. 

    re .78
    
    If you can find people able and willing to work on your project, but
    unwilling to move to where you are, why not let them stay where they
    are now and do the work there?
    
    In the past I have had my permanent office in a completely different
    state than the rest of my cost center.  The payroll department is
    flexible enough to handle this, and apply the proper taxes, provided
    that they are told what the situation is.  (Their default assumption is
    that every cc has a location, and everybody in that cc works at that
    location.)

    re: .85
    
    I would guess that the problem is less administrative than delivery. 
    If you're doing project work on a customer project, presumable you're
    going to be on-site at least part-time and at the customer's beck and
    call full time.
    
    Mary

    Tell me about it .85!!  My CC has people in Mass, NH, Washington State,
    California, and Colorado.  I'm the only member in CO.  So far this year
    I have been unable to get a desk calendar, and Travel won't acknowledge
    my existence.  I Know how "The Man Without a Country" felt.

    
    RE 1362.78
    In the months that the REQ's have been open have you considered
    training an existing engineer ? I bet by now a good engineer could
    have been up to speed. I also can't understand why the DCC's would
    be hiring from the outside. I hear that, as part of COD (Career
    Oportunity Days - A program to get engineers into the field) they got
    too many engineers from back east to move to the field and now may need
    to down size some of the field organizations (such as DCC's). Are you
    saying that the wrong engineers were relocated from the east coast to
    the west coast ? I do not think it is as easy as saying it is a problem
    back east, I think there will be some down sizing on the west coast
    too. I am sure your DCC did not over hire as part of COD but I hear that
    some DCC did. 
    
    I think at some point we need to, read Jack's lips. "NO MORE HIRING!"
    We can't keep doing business as usual. The skills you listed seem like
    common skills and skills that can be learned. Some work may be needed
    to find engineers who have them or who want to learn them. Unix and C
    are the skills of the 90's, I am sure people want to learn them. I do
    not know much about CAD/CAE/EDA but I am sure they are skill that can
    be learned without too much trouble. 
     
    Ed Braunstein

    COD was not a program to "get engineers into the field".  It was a
    program to shift people into the areas that needed and were budgeted
    for people.  Primarily these were 'revenue' producing groups.  The
    people needed were in some cases engineers but in many cases people
    with other skills.
    
    DCCs need people with specific skills, once again not necessarily
    engineering skills.  There are many skills that can be found in people
    that work for DEC (and are willing to move) but some are difficult. 
    How many people do we have in the company that are experts in capital
    markets, global custody systems, security trading and portfolio mgmt. 
    In my district (banks) we turn to the DCC for these types of skills to
    help us understand the customer's requirements and propose the best
    solution.
    
    Peter Dillard

    RE; .89
    
    How about training.  When I was searching for a job I came across a lot
    of managers who were looking to spend $0 for training.  They were
    looking for people who were already burnt out in their last positions
    and wanted to put them right back into a similar position.
    
    It seems some managers will keep open a req for months looking for the
    perfect person for the job rather than spend that time training someone
    who would be challenged and motivated in that position.
    
    I was even told that in HLO the managers would rather hire someone from
    outside the company who worked in the semi-conductor business than to
    take a DEC employee and train them.  At the time I was applying for a
    production supervisor position.  I had over 5 years experience as a
    supervisor in DEC, so I had the admistration nowhow, but not the
    semi-conductor.  I could'n even get an exploritory interview.
    
    So I guess what I am saying is people are trainable.
    
    Dave

re:                      <<< Note 1362.89 by SUBWAY::DILLARD >>>

>    How many people do we have in the company that are experts in capital
>    markets, global custody systems, security trading and portfolio mgmt. [?]

Maybe the more appropriate question is "How many people do we _need_ in
the company . . . ?" etc. Does a district need to have a full time devoted
resource to help you understand your customer's requirements, or do you
basically need the services of a corporate consulting resource on
occasion to help you define a solution. I would expect that after some
number of forays into the area you gain a certain amount of expertise
of your own and the need for the consultant lessens. Like others said,
it's called "training".

At least that's how it works in most parts of the company. That's how it
worked when I was running my business.

Though, to be honest, my question is genuine. Perhaps there are nuances
here that I don't fully understand.

-Jack

re: my .-1

When I said "corporate consulting resource" I wasn't necessarily referring to
one of those high powered types that gets their name in the annual report
because they're right up there with the VP's. While that caliber of person is
not out of the question for what I was suggesting, I simply meant someone who
could act as a corporate resource on a consulting basis (i.e. help people in
districts all over the company). E.G. Maybe a specialist in Chicago who can
help out the guys in NYC on portfolio management, or someone in Atlanta who
can lend some expertise to the LA office in some other area, etc.

-Jack

    Many of these industry-focus or application-focus experts who have been
    in Digital for years were "valued" by Digital for older skills: data
    base, networking, operating systems, etc.

    As a consequence of being associated with a big account (ie Dupont,
    General Electric, Citibank) over a long period of time, the software
    specialist or software consultant acquired collateral skills in the
    industry or application area he or she was called most often to work
    in.

    Miracle of miracles...  The knowledge acquisition process created
    Digital employees with skills and experiences that were now "valued" by
    the installed-base and potential customers as well beyond the systems
    programming and network management.  In some cases this process was
    accidental, in my case it was deliberate. In 1982 I entered an MBA
    program, in 1988 I was back at NYU as a adjunct prof.

    When your dealing with people with 10-plus years experience in narrow
    but important fields of expertise, the employer has to be lucky (ie the
    employee started to get ready for 1990 in 1980) or hire from the
    outside, or simply run away when the customer has a business problem
    rather than an order.   

re: .46, .47, .49

From "The Leader's New Work: Building Learning Organizations" by Peter
M. Senge (MIT Sloan School of Management), in the _Sloan Management Review_
Fall 1990.

	"A Shell study showed that, according to former planning director
	Arie de Geus, 'a full one-third of the Fortune 500 industrials
	listed in 1970 had vanished by 1983.'"


	"Authored almost forty years earlier [1940s] by president Robert
	Wood Johnson, Johnson & Johnson's credo states that permanent
	success is possible only when modern industry realizes that:

	o  service to its customers comes first;

	o  service to its employees and management comes second;

	o  service to the community comes third; and

	o  service to its stockholders, last.

	Such statements might seem like motherhood and apple pie to
	those who have not seen the way a clear sense of purpose and
	values can affect key business decisions."


Elliott

Re: "more sales reps"

YUCK!  This was the worst idea of FY'90, and we're now paying for it in FY'91.
We took people out of internal groups and then put them through six months
of intensive training, than send them out to whatever district and then 
"acquaint" them to the reality of having to make the required budget/certs.
What made some people think that you could poof-> convert someone into an 
instant sales rep?

It seems to me what the field needs is people in sales support who can "speak
the customer's language", if it's a mfg. customer than send someone who has 
experience in mfg. engineering, and so on and so forth.  In other words it's 
the matching of "experience sets" that is as important as skill sets.

Re:.78

I'm in the eastern half of the same DCC, and it seems to me that there is more
frequency of consultants working remotely from their CC's.  Now the jury is 
still out on remote management, but it can be done IMHO.

The skills that you are looking for can be acquired internally, I can point you
in the direction of several engineers in my old group who know Unix and C.  
No need to spend overhead in hiring from outside.

--David

Coincidentally I just received a mail message to a far reaching (as in
"other than my organization") distribution list. I haven't the time or
the interest to chase after the author for permission to repost it,
but, in effect, what it says, is that for this particular organization
in question, effective immediately, all hiring is stopped. There is to
be no further hiring in this particular organization worldwide.

The message originated today. One wouldn't think that such a message was
even necessary, but then ya never can tell about some people, can ya?

Disgusted,
-Jack

    re .92 -
    
    The organization you are describing is the DCC.  They provide support
    accross geographies for a specific industry (ie. help people in
    districts all over the company).
    
    Peter Dillard

  The following is from Livewire Worldwide News; "Win Hindle predicts positive
future for Digital (Part II)":
  "So we have to do what we're doing -- remove unnecessary work; retrain the
people; or in the case where they are not capable of being retrained, then
offer them a graceful exit from the company."
  If you turn this around, what he is saying is that Digital employees are laid
off, it is partly because "they are not capable of being retrained". This 
doesn't square with my perception of what is happening with the layoffs. This
memo was directed to Digital Europe. Maybe the layoffs are being handled dif-
ferently in Europe and this statement is specific to Europe. Or maybe Win
Hindle thinks this is what is happening in the U.S. 
  I would like to hear from people who know people who were laid off. Were
these people offered retraining before being laid off? If so, how far in ad-
vance were they offered training, and were there strings attached, such as a
requirement to move more than 100 miles away?

re: Marge's .97

In case any of you were waiting for my response, I replied to Marge offline.

Suffice it to say that further info in the memo lead me to believe that it
was external hiring that was being alluded to, while it wasn't specifically
stated one way or the other. I choose not to divulge anything further here
because a) I should never have received the memo to begin with, and it's
certainly not my place to air its details, and b) some of the details might
somehow prove newsworthy and I'd rather not be associated with having
further disseminated them.

-Jack

    re .99
    I read that three times thinking I must be misinterpreting somehow...I
    can't believe he would make such a statement.  Who decides which of us
    is to be considered "not capable of being retrained"?  What criteria is
    that decision based upon?  Being laid off would be bad enough without
    adding insult to injury!
    

Sorry I didn't reply earlier, I have been traveling...

RE .85 Concerning letting people stay where they are...

We have some people on the East coast, but that organization can only do so 
much when the customers are on the West coast and everywhere inbetween.  As 
was mentioned in .86, customers expect some major part of th resource to be 
local.  I also have found distributed engineering groups are not as effective 
as co-located groups.  If there is critical mass in one place the problem is 
diminished, but an engineering team works much better when they are within 
holloring distance.  Yes, I am very aware the posibilities of the Easynet, but 
some sharing is done by looking over a persons shoulder and giving guidance.  
When a project is parsable, then geographical distribution causes less 
problems.

re .88

I would train an existing engineer if I had one to train!  There are not 
enough people out here that work for Digital that I can train!  One of the 
groups I work in has 9 people, 7 of which are COD.  We am still trying to hire 
more people!  As you may know, COD III was shut down with almost no notice.  I 
have not heard from anyone that "too many" engineers were moved to the field.  
I am certainly not saying the wrong engineers were moved, simply not enough to 
do the revenue work we can bring in.

>    I think at some point we need to, read Jack's lips. "NO MORE HIRING!"
>    We can't keep doing business as usual. The skills you listed seem like
>    common skills and skills that can be learned. Some work may be needed
>    to find engineers who have them or who want to learn them. Unix and C
>    are the skills of the 90's, I am sure people want to learn them. I do
>    not know much about CAD/CAE/EDA but I am sure they are skill that can
>    be learned without too much trouble. 


I think reading Jack's lips " NO MORE HIRING" is as short sighted as the 
management that got us into this mess.  He was in charge then, and he is in 
charge now.  We will do whatever it takes to bring him revenue in spite of his 
rules.  

I never said the skills we seek are rare, only that they are rare in Digital 
in California, and that we can not get people to move with Digital out here.  
I know part of the problem is that as a New England headquartered company we 
do not pay very well, and that some people believe the name alone should make 
people want to work here.  I wonder how many of those people see Digital as 
many of the folks out here do:  1) A company that we studied as an historical 
case study in engineering.  2) Are you part of Western Digital?  3)  Ar you 
still in business?  4) You make workstations now?  ...

re .90
Yes we are willing to do training.  We have some people that have been given 
several months of training.  The COD program makes some training available, 
but we still need to have a 80% utilization rate.  That simply translates to 
880% of a persons time (based on a 40 hour work week) spent working specific 
customer issues.  That means mail, notes, training, meetings are all time away 
from utilized time.  We make up for that by having some people working more 
than an 80% utilization.  It is hard to make up for 7/9ths of a team, however.

re .91   I agree some consulting can be done with a traveling team.  Some must 
be local to show that we do have the resources available.  Otherwise it looks 
like the pidgeon approach:  I fly in, I s*** all over everything, then I fly 
out.  I am saying that as a 3 year pidgeon.

Re .95  from Cherson:

Please point me to some people willing to move out here!!


Take care,

Matt Haley

    Its been some time since I have felt compelled to write. I would like to
    add my two cents to this current discussion as both a DEC employee and
    a shareholder.
    
    First of all, as someone said earlier, DEC is a company whose product
    line and strategies are in transition.  And while I agree that profit
    should not be the prime motivator for business policy, I do think we
    need to begin to understand the fundamentals of a market driven
    economy.
    
    Yesterday, our people were part of the process to manufacture computers
    and related products. Increasingly, OUR people are our product. 
    
    The market is commodity driven. Price/performance is more valued than 
    product innovation. One might even argue that we have gotten to this
    juncture because the technology is far more mature than our customers
    ability to absorb or exploit it. (If you don't believe this, walk
    around any major corporation and see how PC's and workstations are
    actually being used and for what purpose.) Also, as the industrial base 
    of the economy shrinks, the service base of the economy is growing. This 
    important customer population does not intrinsically value technology
    (an automotive manufacturer versus most banks) beyond how it affects 
    the way in which they can improve business performance. Not only 
    do they NOT want to understand technology or product specifications, 
    they DO WANT those who would vie for their business to
    understand it well enough so that they can "make it happen" with the
    technology.
    
    Our only real differentiation in a commodity oriented 
    market is our people. The people who know how to make the technology work 
    for the customer. Sad to say, there are very few of them that we can
    find.
    
    As a DCC employee for an industry segment, we have a great demand for 
    people with business skills related to the industry. I am frequently
    told by customers and third party partners how surprised they are that
    Digital understands their business and can assist them with evaluating
    the current state of their technology deployment and make cogent
    recommendations about the retooling process to realign technology with
    achieving business goals. Not only must we understand the business and
    the trends impacting it. We must be cognizant of the customers own
    unique talents and limitations, of their need to "differentiate" their 
    product. We spend a lot of time "coaching" our supporters. Developing
    relationships. Working with endusers and the customers customer.  It is
    time consuming and people oriented.
    
    Our DCC is desperately in need of people who can provide this type of 
    guidance and nurturance to the customers and to the sales force. Ours is 
    one of the DCC segments supporting the Financial industry across the US.
    
    I and some of my colleagues attended the COD days. We interviewed dozens
    of people and culled through hundreds of resumes. Many interviwees
    told us they were simply not interested in moving out of the New England 
    area. (We had 3 locations to fill positions for, NY, LA and Chicago).
    Some told us they were/could not travel as a normal part of their job.
    In all we made over a dozen offers. In the end, we hired 3 excellent
    people who are making significant contributions considering they are
    new to this. We feel, in time, they will make superb business 
    consultants and solutions architects. However their apprenticeship is a 
    minimum of 24 months.  
    
    Consider that while we are debating our layoff, there are
    superbly qualified candidates who have just been layed off from firms
    such as Goldman Sachs, Chase Manhattan in NY and Security Pacific in LA. 
    Hiring  some of these people would greatly improve our ability  to go
    after business. It is frustrating not to be able to hire peole from the
    outside when there are not willing, capable candidates from the inside.
    
    And yes, customers want to know that the resources, the expertise is
    close to them. West Coast companies, for example, are relunctant to
    develop meaningful business relationships with a company they perceive
    as  an "EAST COAST Company." (That is a paraphrase from Charles Schwab
    Manager) In Chicago, customers want to know that the support and
    expertise is close by. (Imagine if you were told that your lawyer would
    have to fly in from NY or ayou could only see a doctor in Boston).
    
    A major component of our business is designing trading room solutions
    and though we have the products and can sell them, we do not have nearly 
    enough people to implement and support them. These are complex systems
    integration projects involving many different technologies and products. 
    Our metrics drive certs behaviour but the customer tends to pay only upon
    implementation.
    
    The crux is that, we have a resource deployment problem. Its not that we 
    have too many employees. Rather its that we don't have enough employees 
    with the right mix of skills in proximity to our customers to satisfy
    the market we are creating for our new business line, systems
    integration.
    
    As one who has been through a layoff before, (as a MIS manager whose systems
    were being ultimately blamed for the layoffs)  the negative effects on 
    the remaining staff can be greater than to those leaving if it is not
    handled correctly and quickly. I have watched people b*tch and moan and
    basically become less productive over the past 18 months. Rumour and 
    speculation are the enemies here. Let's just get it over with and start to 
    rebuild our company.
    
    
    Carol                                                             
    
    

    Could it be that lay offs are over and done with?  Seems odd that since
    this note started no one else has been affected.  Perhaps theres' been
    a change in plan.....?

    It's hard to be sure nobody else has been affected.  Maybe now they
    take away your network access while you're being told you're laid off.
        John Sauter

    re: .104 (I think)
    
    It is also quite possible that layoff activity is taking place in
    spurts.
    
    In this geography, I have heard of little (if any) layoff actions in
    the Sales and EIS arenas.  We _have_ had persistent management-level
    whisperings of "wait until March".
    
    I am not saying this to claim that there is necessarily some truth to
    the timeframe above, but rather that different organizations may be
    operating under different clocks.
    
    Or, simply put, "your mileage may vary".
    
    FWIW
    
    -- Russ

    In our organization, we got a memo from our VP saying that we
    would be affected by down-sizing and a plan was being put in
    place. He thought the plan would be submitted and approved early
    in Q4. He said he was not sure of details (such as how many) but
    would pass information on as quickly as he had it. He also indicated
    that other groups in the company may be a little ahead of us or
    behind us as far as a plan being approved.
    
    Sounds like we are just in a planning lull. The waves of down-sizing
    should start soon.
    
    I wish 

    
    I can't really speak for my overall group. All I know is we just filled
    two reqs. Things are tight here as it is. I'm just keeping my fingers
    crossed and getting my work done.
    
    /prc

    Re: .104 - .108
    
    I wouldn't plan on relaxing any time soon ! (IMHO)
    
    Opinions aside, I can provide some concrete information as follows:
    
    I am in the Finance organization (specifically Credit & Collections) in
    the Great Lakes District.  Yesterday (2/25) the District Finance
    Manager call a quick "Organizational Update" meeting.  Since I work in
    a remote site, I couldn't attend on such short notice.  I called the
    Finance Manager later and asked the fateful question, 
    
    "What's up; anything Earthshaking ?"  
    
    The answer was that he had announced that the U.S. Finance Organization
    (both Field & U.S. HQ) will face a staff reduction of 100 people. 
    There has not yet been an allocation of that 100 people to specific
    Regions/Districts - that is in the works.  The reduction will take
    place at the end of March.  I assume that means on March 29, 100
    shoulders will be tapped.  I don't have any other details, and I won't
    speculate, but a final observation is that I believe 100 people is
    about a 10% workforce reduction for the U.S. Finance organization.
    
    SOOO ... the end is not sight, and while I may well end up being one of
    the 100 mentioned above, I would be VERY concerned if DEC thought it
    had already done all the necessary downsizing.
    
    (Whether the downsizing will remove the right people, and whether those
    who remain will be given the right tools to handle an increased work
    load is a totally different matter !)
    
    Best Regards & Good Luck to All,
    Phil

    And we here in the Ohio Valley District have been told that on Friday
    (3/1) information on the EIS downsizing will be communicated.
    
    One interesting "rumor" heard from more than one source: At one point
    it was being considered to offer a voluntary package to all '3's, but 
    was scrapped due to concern of the possible business impact.
    
    Dave

    Here in Houston, we were supposed to "hear" last Friday. It was delayed
    because of "legal" reasons is what I was told. Now supposed to hear
    this next week sometime.  
    
    Again, this is all second hand, but from reliable sources (I had to
    "hear" it from Compaq employee's, who have an internal ear to the
    field)
    
    Gale
    
    

    Here in Florida, last week we were given a consistent message that
    there would be a 'voluntary severance' package in the works in the near
    future.  A consistent message is rare enough in the field, as was
    demonstrated just this past monday, when the message was reversed
    completely - no severance or layoff in the works at all.
    
    Sounds a lot like the bi-weekly paycheck mis-message nonsense.
    
    It's no wonder the company is being mismanaged (IMHO) into bancruptcy. 
    There's no sign whatsoever that there's anybody in charge.
    
    tim
    

    We've been told that layoffs will likely occur next week in order
    to complete the process by the end of the quarter.
    
    Mark.

    
    The Clonmel plant is to merge with Galway. Clonmel's future as a
    digital plant is very shaky.
    
    A severence plan has been announced for Ayr (Scotland) plant which
    is to downsize by 5-10% from current headcount of 1410. Downsizing
    is selective by group. The package is 9months plus a month for 
    every continuous year's employment.
    
    Don H.
    

       Heard on the news this morning that GM (General Motors)
    is offering their employees $75,000.00 to resign.That's
    all they said but I'm sure some benefits are included with this deal.
    Now that's a nice  "Voluntary Severance Package".

    and an admittedly "shaky" rumour that Ed Services is to attrit (can i
    use that word as a verb?) 135 employees.
    
    i hope it *is* just a rumour.
    
    tony

      <<< Note 1362.116 by FSTTOO::BEAN "Attila the Hun was a LIBERAL!" >>>

< attrit (can i use that word as a verb?) 135 employees.
    

Well, there's precedence ... the Army is into "attritting" (?) the enemy
of late ... but defenders of the English language are sobbing gently into
their beers!

    Attrit is a recent example of the DNUREG, that is, a noun used as a
    verb.  The use of a dnureg is most common among highly intelligent
    people who are forced to communicate daily with those of limited
    vocabulary; why ask them to remember two words when one will do?
    
    				:-)
    
    Dave

    RE: .118
    
    >Attrit is a recent example of the DNUREG, that is, a noun used as a verb. 
    
    All nouns can be verbed.
    				;-)

    
    >> DNUREG
    
    ...reminds me of the European History professor who gave a two-hour
    lecture one April 1st on the famous Viking explorer, Loof Lirpa.
    

    Now I don't feel so stupid about dnuregging ...
    
    Steve

    ...NO, you may not attrit nothing you flutz, unless:
    
       - You are certified card-carrying yuppie.
    
       - You have an MBA from HAAAVAAAARD.
    
       - You work for the U.S. Guv'mint.
    
       - You don't know no better.
    
                           Attrit This!!!!!

    So, where do I yuppiecard myself?  ;)
    
    Steve

    .....well, first you go to your local BMW dealer..................

    
    .....and then you get a Barbour jacket, a Landrover, and a coupla
    labradors......
    

    Jeez, talk about a rathole!
    
    >    All nouns can be verbed.
    
    But, but, but...isn't the word VERB a NOUN that you've 'verbed' into a
    verb?
    
    Recursive: (adj) see Recursive.
    
    :-)
    
    tim
    

    >Jeez, talk about a rathole!
    >
    >>    All nouns can be verbed.
    >
    >But, but, but...isn't the word VERB a NOUN that you've 'verbed' into a
    >verb?
    
    	err, yes.  the author did it deliberately.
    	it's called a "joke".
    

    
    ...or, in other words, the author "joked."
    

    Re: .129
    
    What about the Sloane Rangers?
    
    Bruce

    I just heard that the Cupertino facility has begun
    their downsizing today. The number I heard was 154
    who will find out between today and Friday.
    
    Apparently the USM plan is done?  Anybody else in
    US manufacturing hearing anything?
    
    Mark 
    

    We've also heard about Cupertino.  A second wave there is rumored to
    involve just as many people.
    
    Tempe is rumored to do the same next month.  Another rumor for Tempe
    involves closing a Colorado Springs facility.
    
    Looks like U.S. Manufacturing is a thing of the past as DEC migrates
    to being a Rt. 495 company again.
    
    Mike

    Mike  (.133),
    
    That rumor you heard on Tempe, did you hear that it's
    only the manufacturing side of TFO or does that include
    the field side as well?
    

===============================================================================
AT&T COMPUTER UNIT STAFF TOLD TO SEEK JOBS ELSEWHERE

	  "AT&T Computer Unit Staff Told to Seek Jobs Elsewhere"
	  (The Wall Street Journal, 3/12/91)

AT&T, pursuing its bid for NCR, has sent notices to several hundred
employees at its Computer Systems unit in the past month telling them that
they must find jobs elsewhere in the company within two months or face
termination.  AT&T Chairman Robert E. Allen has said he will turn AT&T's
computer business and work force over to NCR managers to do with as they see
fit if a merger is completed.  Last weekend, AT&T said it was prepared to
increase its bid for NCR to $6.8 billion from $6.12 billion, but the Dayton,
Ohio, company balked at holding merger talks.  Recently, AT&T began offering
cash awards to some of its employees who remain with the company at least
until a merger is completed with NCR.  But other workers, some with as many as
24 years of service at AT&T, are being offered two months pay as severance for
leaving.  AT&T has also offered some employees $5,000 to $6,000 in cash if they
sign a form, agreeing not to sue the company over their termination after they
leave.  An AT&T spokesman confirmed that the company had sent letters notifying
"several hundred" employees that they were "surplus and will be off the
payroll at the end of May" if they don't find another job within AT&T.

------- End of Forwarded Message

>    That rumor you heard on Tempe, did you hear that it's
>    only the manufacturing side of TFO or does that include
>    the field side as well?
    
    Both.  I'd suspect the numbers in Manufacturing would be greater.
    
    What a coincidence to find out that Jack Smith is visiting there today!
    
    Mike

This message is for those of us from the US Country organization
that are on transition from TSFO2.

The Employee Resource Center (ERC) will go away after the last
week of this quarter (Q3 FY91). I received the word directly from
my ERC manager yesterday at Parker Street (PKO) over lunch.

What does that mean? You should get the hot job leads nailed down
SOON. You will no longer get help in looking for work like flying
out to Mass or else where.

calvin

    > Attrit is a recent example of the DNUREG, that is, a noun used as a
    > verb.
    
    "Leverage" is another, one of the most pervasive and one of the most
    heinous (in this industry, anyway).
    
    Mac.

    So.. I guess the US mfg. restructuring/plant closing/layoff
    plan which was supposedly to be done by March 15 hasn't  
    been decided on yet?  Damn I just wish they'd get this
    over with.  Anybody? Anything?
    
    Mark
    
                                                   
    
    

    I heard yesterday, that 140 people in Hudson were tapped on the
    shoulder and turned in their badges.
    
    Nancy

>    I heard yesterday, that 140 people in Hudson were tapped on the
>    shoulder and turned in their badges.
>    
>    Nancy

    I believe this number is greatly exaggerated. I have asked my management 
    for the actual numbers.  When they tell me I will post them.  But I
    wish people wouldn't put unconfirmed numbers in here.

    -Bruce (who works in Hudson)

    I have a copy of a memo from HLO dated yesterday that says:
    "approximately sixty employees in Massachusetts were notified"

>    I have a copy of a memo from HLO dated yesterday that says:
>    "approximately sixty employees in Massachusetts were notified"

    That memo says 60 SCIT(SemiConductor and Interconnect Technology)
    people working in MA. SCIT in MA consists of people in Hudson(HLO),
    Franklin(FXO) and Andover(APO). Actual Hudson number is closer to 30,
    but I still haven't  gotten the absolute official number.

    -Bruce

    I guess they couldn't build the new plant fast enough.

    Does anyone back East know the number of layoffs as of today!  I'm
    talking all people.  Field, Mfg, Eng...... Ie; DEC!  We all know how
    they said 5000.  Well...........  How many have "actually" been
    relieved of their positions?  It sure would let us survivors know
    so we could breath a little easier for another year of so.  Down
    here in Texas I sure don't here much of whats going on in the 
    company!
    
    Alan ---  Waiting for the smoke to clear----  

re Note 1362.145 by HSOMAI::SKIEST:

>     It sure would let us survivors know
>     so we could breath a little easier for another year of so.  Down
>     here in Texas I sure don't here much of whats going on in the 
>     company!
  
        Well, I don't know about breathing easier.  We here in TNSG
        just received a memo from David Stone indicating that there
        would be some involuntary reductions, to be expected early in
        Q4.

        Bob

  It's almost a sure thing that there will be another round of layoffs in Q4.
  Someone asked in here why we didn't get any replies from people who had been
laid off. The reason is simple: your VAX account is shut down while you are be-
ing notified. I don't know what happens if you have work-related files in your
account that others need to access. People are "supposed" to store these files
in group accounts, but many don't.

    The "normal" location for a notes file is in NOTES$LIBRARY: but there
    are no rules against putting it elsewhere.  There are also no rules
    against putting notes files on personal workstations, but that's
    certainly as risky these days as putting files in personal directories.
    
    One possible failsafe strategy is to have a co-moderator shadow the
    notes file.  (See LESLIE::PAN for details.)  Even if you don't maintain
    a complete copy of the conference, shadowing the last month's, or even
    last week's activity is better than losing all of the conference when
    the host moderator get the package without warning.
    
    --Simon
    

    In the unfortunate situation where an account needs to be "shutdown",
    most responsible system managers would "disuser" the account (if it is
    a VMS account), not necessarily remove it or delete files.  Just as you
    might disable access during a long planned absence. 
    
    ih

    No matter how few have to leave, there's that feeling of loss.  Ever 
    notice that even if you are in a large family, and one of you is off 
    visiting a friend or relative for a month -- you find yourself looking 
    for him/her?  (Especially if it's a child?) 
    oo
    ^
    ~
    
    N
    

    In 1366.62 a question was:  Can a person who has been laid off come 
    beyond the lobby as a vendor rep?
    
    Someone here who took the VOLUNTARY package has come in our plant as 
    a vendor rep.  I don't know if that is the case for involuntary 
    separation, though.  
    
    He's got a better job now than the one he left.
    
    ;)

    
    re. 146  
    
       Have you heard any more information on TNSG layoffs? What transition
    package , if any, would be offered in Q4? Number of people? Are
    software engineers still immune? 
    
    clay

    Just yesterday, our groups had a meeting where the ISP was discussed. 
    The following points were made:
    
    1)  There was NO indication of a follow-on separation package to TFS03.
    2)  The current (TFSO3) package is slated to expire at Quarter End, and
    to comply with (MASS.) law, nine weeks notice is required (without pay
    in lieu of notification), and that means notification must be made by
    APril 28 to comply with the law.
    3)  The company may delay notification until the last day, but will be
    required to "pay in lieu of notification".  I suppose that means pay an
    amount equal to the full nine weeks, less weeks notification.
    
    I asked the personnel rep how many folks had left (total of all three
    packages).  She stated that as of last week the figure was something
    less than 4,200 total.
    
    In view of the widly published target of 6000-6500 less employees, I
    would speculate that there WILL be a fourth package... and as
    historical evidence shows, it will be less generous than the previous
    ones.
    
    tony

    Re .153
    
    NO-ONE is immune.

    because we are all what?
    
    
    
    buz

    re: .154
    
>    In view of the widly published target of 6000-6500 less employees, I
>    would speculate that there WILL be a fourth package... and as
>    historical evidence shows, it will be less generous than the previous
>    ones.
    
    Not necessarily.  The cuts can also come from the field before the end
    of the month.  Strong circumstantial evidence indicates that more
    layoffs are likely to occur within that time frame, at least in my
    geography.
    
    -- Russ Pavlicek
       Landover, MD

    The Q3 earnings news will come as supreme irony to the hundreds
    of newly-ordained "street people" that we're going to create
    next week, particularly Monday and Tuesday, if all of the reports
    from multiple sources are accurate.  But check your local listings...
    
    Chris

       The rumor from personnel here is that TSFO4 is 2 weeks pay. PERIOD!
    
                                   JL

    RE: .159 That's probably about as reliable as the rumor that last
    quarters results were bad.

    			Alfred

re Note 1362.155 by YUPPY::DAVIESA:

>     NO-ONE is immune.

        Unless, of course, you meet the following criteria:

        1) you work for David Stone's organization (TNSG)

        2) you play chess, go, AND bridge

        3) you read science fiction.

        Bob
        (who does neither chess, go, nor bridge, and thus is in
        Stone's "dump 'em" category.)

    re 161
    
    is go the same as fish
    
    
    buz

Re .162:

Not unless fish is played with stones of black and white on a 19x19 grid,
preferably mounted above a box large enough to hold the loser's severed head.
				/AHM

    re: .161
    
    I qualify on everything except Bridge.  Any Bridge players in ZKO
    willing to start a class for beginners?
        John Sauter

    Hey, I qualify too!  But the last time I actually played bridge was
    in high school, and I wasn't very good at it then!  I wonder where
    my GO set got itself to?  The SF books are in the basement.  In a
    previous life I played chess at lunch-time.  On a summer job we used to
    play whist with a tarot deck...
    
    Clearly there is a need for keeping oneself current in job-related
    skills.  Sounds like it would be deductable on federal income tax.

re .161:

Huh?  What do chess, go, bridge and science fiction have to do with Stone?

        I can just see it--a manager in TNSG has lay off n people.
        The manager calls his reports in one at a time and asks them
        about the games that they play and the books they read, and
        the first n people to answer incorrectly are gone.

        					B.J.

re: .166

From a Datamation interview March 15, 1991

  Stone has a set of criteria that he uses to judge whether someone would
make a good software engineer. "You run a spatial relations test," he 
says, noting that a sort of Japanese origami project would be useful. 
"Doing software is a lot like visualizing," he explains.
  "Then you find out whether they play any ... chess, go or bridge. If
they don't do any of these, dump'em," he quips. "If they do all three of
them, then they're pretty good. If they also read science fiction, then
they're a shoo-in."
  How did he arrive at these criteria? Simple: "I do all of the above."

I read plenty of science fiction, mostly in the form of software group long-
range plans and business forecasts.

--PSW

    Apparently the poor grunts putting in too many hours on Digital's
    behalf to even think about card games would be eliminated as well...
    
    luckily you can still read science fiction at hours when other 
    people are sleeping.

    But ...  I'm usually programming when other people are sleeping.
    
    Steve

    Gads,
    
    no wonder it takes so long to get products out the door.
    
    Other companies are employing kids who are good at shooting aliens
    and solving problems quickly. We continue to play large intricate
    games which often never have an end.
    
    I'm glad David Stone is creating an organisation in his image. I'm
    sure however that he would find winning at go very difficult if his
    opponent could move twice as fast as him (i.e his oppenent was given
    two moves to each of his one), or the board allowed n players instead
    of the even handed two. We need people who have the skills he asks,
    we also need people who are responsive and reactive now.

    Judges chapter 7
    
    ``4 And the Lord said unto Gideon, The people are yet too many; bring
    them down unto the water, and I will try them for thee there: and it
    shall be, that of whom I say unto thee, This shall go with thee, the
    same shall go with thee; and of whomsoever I say unto thee, This shall
    not go with thee, the same shall not go.
    
    ``5 So he brought down the people unto the water: and the Lord said
    unto Gideon, Every one that lappeth of the water with his tongue, as a
    dog lappeth, him shalt thou set by himself; likewise every one that
    boweth down upon his knees to drink.
    
    ``6 And the number of them that lappeth, putting their hand to their
    mouth, were three hundred men: but all the rest of the people bowed
    down upon their knees to drink water.
    
    ``7 And the Lord said unto Gideon, By the three hundred men that
    lappeth will I save you, and deliver the Midianites into thine hand:
    and let all the other people go every man unto his place.''
        John Sauter
    

re: .173,

	...maybe someone closer to heaven here at DEC has been
    misinterpreting the word "lappeth" to mean laptop computing...


				;^)

    ...in which case it's no wonder we haven't had laptops until
    recently!

				    -davo

    re: .169 Nah - those are sheer fantasy,.
    
    	- andy

    re. base note title
    
    From my point of view, this has been the most non-instant layoff I've
    ever heard of or experienced.
    
    	Don

    "Instant" is the way layoffs are most places - we have gotten really
    spoiled by the friendlier environment here at DEC (or formerly here,
    maybe?).  When I got laid off by competitor X, I had worked over the
    weekend installing a new version of the operating system at a customer
    site, finished up about 3 AM Monday morning.  When I arrived in my
    office at about 11 am Monday, there was a pink slip on my chair!  That
    meant I was to collect my "personal stuff" out of my desk (some office
    plants) and report to the security desk to be kicked out of the
    building.  I made a stop enroute to call my carpool and beg it to pick
    me up at lunchtime (I think I had taken a bus in) with my stuff so I
    wouldn't have to kick around the lobby all afternoon feeling miserable
    until the normal pickup time.  That's what layoffs are usually like.
    (Don't even ask me what hiking down to the unemployment office every
    week after that for three months was like.)  DEC has managed to be a
    good deal more humanitarian than that, mostly.
    
    /Charlotte

	Two people no longer in the San Diego office confirmed to me
	that the TFSO4 is 9 weeks plus a certain number of weeks for
	each year after some number of years.  They were from the EIS
	org. and told that they were let go due to their performace and
	revenue projections.

	Dan

RE:<<< Note 1362.178 by AIWEST::ARVIDSON "Just look at the size of those tomatos, Jack!" >>>

>	Two people no longer in the San Diego office confirmed to me
>	that the TFSO4 is 9 weeks plus a certain number of weeks for
>	each year after some number of years.  They were from the EIS
>	org. and told that they were let go due to their performace and
>	revenue projections.
    
         I would be surprised to hear that TFSO4 was that generous, however
    we are still in TFSO3.  The 9-week part is the period you stay on the
    "employed" roles, but are out of your office.  The base is still 13
    weeks according to my sources.
    
                                      Greg

    
    Re: .178
    
    The word here in NH is that TFSO3 is still in force and that
    there is no end date set yet for it.  According to information
    here no TFSO4 package exists at least for now.
    
    Steve
    

    In this morning's VOGON news, there is a big article on how 
    DEC intends to layoff roughly 7,200 in the next twelve
    months.

   I usually don't put my own stuff from VNS in here, but since I had a typo
    in the article, I decided to pop the corrected one in before someone
    else put the wrong one here. The correction'll also be in Tuesday's
    VNS. The current employment number in Monday's VNS article is 166,800
    instead of 116,800. It's corrected in this version.

						Trace

 Digital - 7,200 at Digital face new layoffs
	{The Boston Globe, 15-Jun-91, p. 1}
	[This is the entire article - TT]
   With no upturn in business in sight, computer giant Digital Equipment Corp.
 of Maynard said yesterday it will begin a new round of layoffs that could cut
 its work force by roughly 7,200, or 6 per cent, in the next 12 months.
   Digital, Massachusetts' second-largest employer, said the specific number
 and timing of layoffs had not been decided and would depend on whether sales
 rebound in the fiscal year that begins June 30. It could not say how many of
 its 29,000 Bay State employees may lose their jobs.
   "There will be further work force reductions," said Dallas Kirk, Digital's
 director of public relations. If business conditions do not improve, the cuts
 "could be roughly the same size" as the 7,200 jobs Digital will have
 eliminated in the fiscal year that ends June 29, Kirk said.
   The pending layoffs at Digital were disclosed a month after Prime Computer
 Inc., a Natick-based computer and software vendor, said it will dismiss at
 least 800 workers in 1991. Rumors are also swirling that Wang Laboratories
 Inc. of Lowell will soon dismiss thousands of employees. Frank Ryan, a Wang
 vice president, said layoffs were being studied, though a final decision had
 not been made.
   Taken together, it is clear that the Massachusetts minicomputer industry is
 still being battered by recessions in the United States and other key computer
 markets, as well as a shift by customers to smaller computers. What's more,
 despite predictions of imminent economic recovery by economists, the state's
 big computer makers say they have seen no signs of improvement.
   "We haven't seen any substantial indications of an economic upturn in the
 United States or Europe," said Mark Steinkrauss, Digital's director of
 investor relations.
   For the first nine months of its fiscal year, Digital's profits fell 23
 percent to $253.9 million on sales that rose just 4 percent to $9.97 billion.
   Wall Street analysts said it was next to impossible for Digital's sales to
 increase quickly enough to stave off more pink slips. "There is no way around
 it," said Robert Herwick of Hambrecht & Quist Inc. in San Francisco. "Revenues
 won't pick up until fiscal 1993," added David Wu of S.G. Warburg in New York.
   That's when Wu expects Digital to begin selling large numbers of a new
 computer line that combines its popular VAX software with hardware that it
 [said? - TT] will eventually be 10 times faster than current VAX models. The
 new line, codenamed Alpha, is Digital's bid to halt the loss of sales to
 rivals that have exploited the low cost and high speed of the Unix software
 system and a computer design known as reduced instruction set computing, or
 RISC.
   Digital has been cutting its payroll since October 1989, when it initiated
 voluntary severance programs accepted by about 5,550 employees. Last January
 it resorted to layoffs, the first in its 33-year history. Since then another
 4,650 employees have left, Steinkrauss said.
   Though Digital has eliminated about 10,200 jobs, total employment has only
 fallen by 9,000 because it continues to hire in selected areas. Steinkrauss
 said the worldwide work force - excluding additions resulting from its
 acquisition of a German computer company - will number about 116,800 by the
 end of this month, from from a peak of 125,800 in fiscal 1989.
   The company is also slashing nonpayroll costs. It has restricted employee
 travel and consolidated plants and office space. Steinkrauss said Digital has
 moved out of 5 million square feet of space out of a total of 44.2 million
 square feet.
   Analysts said Digital has been particularly hurt by disappointing sales of
 its biggest computers, the VAX 9000 mainframes. While they had estimated that
 the company would ship $1 billion to $1.5 billion of the machines in their
 first full year on the market, actual sales have come in under $500 million.
 That shortfall alone leaves Digital with about 5,000 more people than it can
 afford, analysts said.
   Other product lines are struggling too, including the company's
 bread-and-butter VAX 6000 minicomputers. One bright spot: Its Unix-based
 engineering workstations are selling strongly. Unfortunately, these machines
 carry much thinner profit margins than Digital's bigger systems.
   Analysts say Digital will likely take a big charge against its fiscal
 fourth-quarter earnings to cover the expense of additional layoffs. They don't
 know how big the charge will be, but they think it will be less than the $500
 million Digital took in fiscal 1990.

    What a tease.  Read about it in the Wall Street Journal or the Dow
    Jones News Service, 
    
    Jack Smith, very indirectly I add, said that as many as 9,000 or 10,000
    employees would cut.
    
    Smith is quoted in the Wall Street Journal. Osterhoff in the New York
    Times. Dallas Kirk, director of public relations for Digital is quoted
    in the Boston Globe.
                        
    Smith's piece is probably the defining story.

    When I wrote 183 in was in response to 181, not 182.
    
    LIVE WIRE doesn't know anything about this.  (That's how "Employee
    Communications" informs the employees about "important information"
    via Videotex, by the way)
    
    What this means is that the earlier restructuring plans, the earlier
    charge against earnings was not bold enough and didn't do the job.
    
    Fasten your seat belts for another six months of agony.

    If the BoD is serious about making the company better run and more
    efficient, and I'm not convinced that it is, then they will start
    the next round of layoffs by dropping enough VPs and other high level
    managers to "lose" at least a layer of management. Perhaps give them
    a test. Ask each manager what their budget is and how much their
    current level of spending is going to be over/under that. Anyone who
    is off by >10% against what the financial people say gets to find
    a new job. Rumors are flying about managers who in the last month
    have found that their budgets for next year are millions less then
    their current level of spending. How does this happen? Didn't they
    check their current spending before buying off on a new budget?

    All last year I kept hearing talk about DEC's billion dollar problem.
    Defined as having 10,000 employees making over $100,000 a year. If
    that was true I want to know how it's changed. If that many people
    are making that much money then I suspect our problem is not to many
    sales/support/manufacturing people but too many people pushing too
    much paper for big bucks.

    			Alfred

RE: the Boston Globe article about the upcoming 7,200 layoffs


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SET MODE/MAJOR_SARCASTIC <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
    
    It's sooooo nice to hear about these things from public sources.  
    It is just so wonderful to know that management's concern for what
    the average Joe-on-the-street thinks about Digital is equal to that
    of its own employees.  And how fun it is for those great many employees 
    that don't live in the Boston area and don't read the Globe--what 
    a wonderful surprise.  A superb benchmark for dissemination by rumor.

    Just remember, these public announcements are preferred to any
    direct management<-->employee communication (either before or after 
    the press release) because of management's altruistic quest for true
    egalitarianism, and not because they are spineless, limp-wristed, 
    panty-wastes!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SET MODE/SERIOUS <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


                                 Someone who's more ticked off about
                                 not being told anything than the
                                 actual situation,

				 Dave

    re: field people don't get the Globe
    
    True, but many (most?) of us get Digital Review which also covers the
    story this week.
    
    $SET MODE/SARCASM=ON
    
    Oh, you mean Digital Review _ISN'T_ the official publication for
    company business?
    
    $SET MODE/SARCASM=OFF
    
    It will be interesting to see if Digital Toady (yes, I meant to spell it
    that way) carries an "official" account of how the axe will fall (and,
    no, I'm not holding my breath...).
    
    -- Russ

Re: .186

The $100,000 per employee number is probably the loaded cost which includes 
salary, fringe benefits, office space, telephone, equipment, part of a 
manager's time, etc. When looked at in that context, its more reasonable.
It's also probably an average or "ballpark" figure...

    .189  He wasn't talking about the per employee cost,he was 
    saying that there are over 10,000 people in the company that
    have a salary over $100K.

    RE: .189 I was talking about just salary. I suspect that the number
    of people we have with a loaded cost over $100,000 is several times
    the number of people with a salary that high. 
    
    		Alfred

	... (annual salary X 2 = loaded cost for resource) the last time
I looked.  That is what the District Finance person used to figure margin
return.

    	What kind of training do i need to make 100k.
    
    	Frank

The average field specialist and or software engineer has a loaded cost that
is close to, if not above the $100K mark. Herein lies part of our problem...

q

       <<< Note 1362.194 by BUNYIP::QUODLING "Cooooiiiieee, cobber..." >>>

=> The average field specialist and or software engineer has a loaded cost that
=> is close to, if not above the $100K mark. Herein lies part of our problem...

So, are you implying that the people in the field are overpaid? Having been a 
manager internally and now a field person, I would say that the loaded cost of 
employees is pretty consistent across the corporate and field organizations I 
have been exposed to.

My opinion is that the loaded costs of field people may be on the low side in 
many cases because they don't have all of the tools they need to do what is 
asked of them...

Regards,

Jim

    
    Re : several
    
    
    Comments about "read it in the Review or in Digital Today" are
    meaningless to many DEC staff, who are separated by thousands of miles
    from the nearest copy of those journals.
    
    Many of us (but by no means all) can find WSJ -- almost none see the
    Globe.
    
    That's why Notes are so useful ...............
    
    Colin (in darkest Europe)

    to a few --  having a loaded cost of 100K does not imply - AT ALL -
    that you pull down 100K. It means the Corporation's total costs for you
    including tax, FICA, insurance, pension, kleenex, post-its (oh nooooo!)
    come to about 100K on average.  As a sales rep III (senior) I have a
    loaded cost of about 150K according to what I've been told. There is NO
    WAY that I come close to taking that one home!! Would'nt it be nice!

re .196

No, I agree that People in the field (and in engineering) are underpaid, but
then the corporation has always cried poor at Salary times, even in times of
economic prosperity.

What I meant was that they loaded cost is too high, because there is little or
no concerted planning for the implementation/financiing of those load factors.


q

    Your 'loaded' cost also includes supporting all of digital everywhere,
    all the office buildings, all the overhead etc...
    
    Brad.

re .-1

All of the VP's....

q

    re: .192/.194/.200
    
    this loaded cost also covers management....in most cases....so...
    
    1 sales rep/field eng/soft eng may support others that "count beans"
    or "push paper"
    
    NOW I'm not saying this is all bad...BUT...when there aren't anymore
    revenue producers to support these people, what then???
    

  
  Re .-1
  
  It's obvious, isn't it ? The game's over and the "loaded-costs" have won !
  
  Frank

    
    I'd like to know how Personnel has been hit by the layoffs.

    RE: .205
        .206
    
         WHAT ABOUT PERSONNEL YOU SAY?
    
    	HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
        HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HHA
        HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
        HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
    
        THAT IS A LAUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    

    Ripley's Believe It or Not....
    
    The Washington DC Personnel staff has been 'downsized'! I know of at
    least 3 personnel consultants who were offered the package. We have 2
    now. 
    
    clc

Most are gone !

Lloyd

re: #208 - After 3 of the 5 DC area recruiters were let go 2 weeks ago, the
2 remaining recruiters fled to Atlanta, on Digital's dollar, where they spent
the next week learning how to cope.  Of course all the open reqs in 
DC/Maryland/Virginia went implicitly on hold because there was nobody to forward
resumes to managers with openings--and so, many of the folks who were "at risk"
couldn't find new Digital jobs because of the bottleneck.

One of my colleagues--a talented engineer who just moved his wife and daughter
here from Mass on Labor day--is usually slow to anger.  But last Friday he
arrived at the recruiters' office, urged (he is also a large guy) them to take
a seat, showed them his resume, and told them it was their job to help him
find a new job.  Fast.  May just have worked: he has 2 interviews today.

Elaine, Landover, MD

Personnel is overhead.  Overhead is not a safe place to be.  I know there have
been heavy cuts in personnel, and I'm sure there will be more when (if) the
layoffs end.  If we ever start hiring, personnel will grow again.

  
  Re .211 (Gerald)

> Personnel is overhead.  Overhead is not a safe place to be.

  Maybe. There again VPs are overhead, directors are overhead, several
  layers of management are overhead. I would question your second sentence.
  I think the word "Personnel" could be replaced by "Field Service", "EIS",
  "Manufacturing" or whatever you want as far as pleb levels are concerned
  but the amount of true overhead that will be lost will be the same.

  Frank

RE: .212
>  Maybe. There again VPs are overhead, directors are overhead, several
>  layers of management are overhead. I would question your second sentence.
>  I think the word "Personnel" could be replaced by "Field Service", "EIS",
>  "Manufacturing" or whatever you want as far as pleb levels are concerned
>  but the amount of true overhead that will be lost will be the same.

I respectfully disagree.  I believe .211 is right on is saying that
Personnel is "overhead" moreso than the other organizations you cite.
Just like Facilities, and others.  That's not to say they aren't NECESSARY.
But they are not profit centers and their direct deliverables are not
things that customers pay for directly.

And if you think belive that .211's statement ("Overhead is not a safe
place to be.") is incorrect, I cannot fathom your reasoning.  

I suspect that every person working in an overhead function, no matter
how vital it may be to the company, is probably keeping a very good 
watch for bad news creeping up on them.

K.

    	I've been hearing rumors about massive layoffs next week and
    Personnel being very hard hit (I've heard numbers from 20-50% of all
    Personnel). Even if the rumors turn out to be false as they often do,
    I'd still be looking over my shoulder.

  
  Re .213 (K.)
  
  > And if you think belive that .211's statement ("Overhead is not a safe
  > place to be.") is incorrect, I cannot fathom your reasoning.          
  
  It all depends on who is defining "overhead". I was merely stating that
  I view vice-presidents, blah-directors and certain layers of management
  as non-contributors or, in your words, "not profit centers and their
  direct deliverables are not things that customers pay for directly"
  but they seem to be in a very safe place instead, hence my comment.
  
  Yes, Personnel (and Facilities and others) are viewed as overhead and
  so are very likely to be in the firing line (as far as the lower levels
  are concerned) I wasn't disputing that point at all. On the other hand,
  I will openly apologise for doubting our illustrious leaders if many
  [any?] of the VPs, etc., are "given the package" (waved bye-bye without
  being replaced by another member of the in-crowd). [ This apology will 
  probably be preceded by a flock of pigs flying in close formation, bringing
  news of a dramatic drop of temperature in the satanic regions. ]
  
  Frank

Yeah, I agree that VP's and such probably are safe.  As safe as they've
ever been.  We all know (Jack Shields, eg) that there doesn't need to be
a TFSO program for VP's to go bye-bye via some lucrative "package."

But be careful about that flying pigs stuff - ALL-IN-1's done a pretty good
job of demonstrating take-off and landing techniques.  :^)

Still, it may be a long time before we see those middle-to-upper managers
disappear like so many of our co-workers.   :^(

K.

re .216:

Speaking of Jack Shields, I understand that his compensation package at Prime
is nothing to sneeze at.  Leaving DEC was very profitable for him.

    I am interested in how consistent this TFSO III (US) has been.  If someone
    is "tapped" ... and they are receiving their 9-week pay prior to lump
    sum ... have any of these people been allowed to accept other positions
    within the company?  
    
    cj
    

    re: .218
    
    From different people I've spoken with on this subject (largely
    EIS/PSS):
    
    When you're "tapped", you're gone.  Only option is if you happen to
    have an offer on the table at the time of the "tap".  If you accept that
    offer _on that day_, you can stay.
    
    The local difference that I'm aware of is that certain managers will
    occasionally bend the rules and "strongly suggest" to you that you get
    an offer on the table by the dreaded date.  Other managers will simply
    inform you that you are history when the time comes (i.e., no warning).
    
    I've yet to hear of an instance where a person was "tapped" and
    survived without the benefit of a pending job offer.
    
    -- Russ