Conference 7.286::digital

    Are you really suprised that this happened?  After all that's happened
    already?
    
    Fed up as well, Ds.

re: .0,

>    "just kidding -- come back to work for us".

    	I hope the customer has a good sense of humor when assuming
    X's management finally realizes their mistake and begins to try
    to piece together the sales account from scratch and they tell
    the customer "just kidding -- come back to buy from us".

    				    -davo

    Do you think it might have been possible that X was initially
    identified to be laid off due to some bureaucratic oversigh or
    mistake that was later caught by X's manager who pleaded the case,
    won, and asked X to stay? I don't know the scenario here, I'm just
    asking and yes, someone should play the devil's advocate (with no 
    intention of labeling anyone as a "devil").  Was there more than one
    salesperson working with this customer (who already had good notes of
    customer needs, etc...).  
    
    I suppose it all depends on the reasons why X was asked to stay, but 
    if it was prefixed by a reasonable explanation and apology, then 
    accepting might have been considered more carefully.  I hope we didn't
    lose a valuable employee because of some fit of pride or unwillingness
    to forgive a mistake.  And I'm not saying that was the case... still
    working in a partial vacuum here.
    
    Dave
    
     

    RE: .-1
    
    While it is always possible that a mistake was made, the way the last
    cutback was handled, particularily for Sales Support, makes me think
    this was not an isolated incident.
    
    We had a very similiar situation on our office.  In this case, the
    person  was notified that he was to be laid off, then the next day told
    the decision was being reconsidered and that he had 4 weeks to find
    another job.  This guy was not a marginal performer and was one of the
    few people around having significant UNIX experience.
    
    He was later told that he could keep his old job -- this came 3 days
    BEFORE he was to have left.  Needless to say he experienced the same
    kind of stress that X did and, not surprisingly, refused and left
    Digital.
    
    This was a lose-lose situation.

    
    
    As I understand it (told only from X's perspective, of course), an
    entire sales support function just "went away".  Our customers who
    needed help in that area, well, I guess it's kind of undefined exactly
    where their support will come from.
    
    And, no, I don't believe there was any pride involved here.  Politics,
    maybe, but not pride.
    
    	GJD

    Many similar events happened around the company.  A good friend of mine
    was given the extra 4 weeks (after being told, "your out of here",
    "you're not, you're in Alpha", "you're not in Alpha, find a job in 4
    weeks").
    
    1 Day before he was to face his last at DEC, he found out in the
    cafeteria that he had 2 more weeks!  It seems personnel notified his
    management via voicemail but his manager was out of town, and did not
    let him know of the extension.
    
    This is a miserable way to treat someone, and if you gave them the
    4 + 2 week extensions because you "really didn't want to loose them"..
    then why blow it with unprofessional conduct?   (This person had offers
    in DEC and this behavior had an impact on his decision)
    
    Anyone that was "on the fence" about DEC would be glad to get out under
    these circumstances... 
                                                           

    re .0
    
    	> "just kidding..come back to work for us".
    
    	I doubt very much if this was ever the attitude of the people
    	involved. I think that this type of evaluation of the situation
    	is a result of your emotional involvement with the person
    	(> "has always been there, to support me, to hold me, to love me")
        to see the situation clearly.
    
    	I'm not defending the management or personnel involved in this
    	particular case... I couldn't possibly do that since I don't know
    	all the *facts* involved. I do think, however, that trying to
    	characterize the attitude of people who must hand out the pink
    	slips as being flippant, is unfair and serves no constructive 
    	purpose. 
    
    	The fact that someone obviously tried to continue your friends'
    	employment with DEC says something. To me it says that an oppor-
    	tunity arose somewhere where your friend could contribute. And
    	someone took the effort to extend her the opportunity to stay on.
    	Nothing more, nothing less. 
    
    	These are emotional times, but let's remember..this is business.
    
    	John

    My understanding of what happened is that the week of 10/7, 400 Sales
    Support people, along with a bunch of other field people, were
    rightsized out.
    
    The same day they were being rightsized, KO was meeting with the VMS
    Partners.  One of the Partners asked him who was going to support
    ALPHA, now that Sales Support was being rightsized.
    
    So KO had the rightsize put on hold, and instead they told the
    rightsized people they had 4 weeks to find a new job -- presumably any
    new jobs they found would be supporting Alpha.
    
    It's another example of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is
    doing.
    
    It's also an example of overcompensation.  With earlier "re-orgs,"
    (back in the early 80's) the company gave people X weeks to find a new
    job.  Many people never found new jobs.  In the mid-80s, there were
    people who had been re-orged out of a job years (and I mean this
    literally.  I met 2 people who had been without jobs for more than a
    year) before and were still just floating around collecting salaries and 
    doing nothing.  At the beginning of the current "rightsizing"
    (remembered COD I?), KO announced that there weren't going to be any
    "boat people." 
    
    The pendulum reached its extreme right (or left, depending on how you
    look at it) when it got back to KO that people were being escorted out
    with zero notice.  The most recent round of layoffs was in response to
    that -- the new policy was you absolutely were given 5 days notice to 
    pack your things and say goodby.  Made sense for the company, too, to
    allow ongoing projects to be transferred to someone.
    
    Eventually they will end up in the middle -- where they started from
    almost 10 years ago.  2 or 3 months to find a new job within the
    company.  The main thing they did wrong with that policy before was
    they didn't figure out what kind of talent they needed and where, and
    they didn't enforce the policy.

    re -.1                  
    
    You're absolutely correct - "...this is business." In this case, it's a
    process designed by a business, and implemented by the agents of the
    business that had a particularly pernicious outcome. It has nothing to
    do with the individuals concerned, it's merely an outcome of decisions
    taken by individuals who're paid to manage the business to the best of
    their abilities, and of the way in which people under their direction
    and supervision implemented them. The implementers focus isn't the
    individual to whom this is happening, it's their managers and their own
    internal policies and procedures. I'm sure any investigation of the
    incident would bear out the fact that all company policies and
    procedures were followed, to the letter. We're very good, as a company,
    at following these guidelines. 
    
    Too bad that the effect on the esteem  and self-worth of this one
    individual being "transitioned" (aka laid off) was so devastating. Too
    bad that there's noone in the system who's following some internal
    policies and procedures that have as their driving force the welfare
    and feelings of the person being "terminated", and not the legal
    exposure of the company.
    
    As one of the (for now!) survivors, your friend has my sympathies. As a
    DEC employee and representative of the company, I apologise for the way
    (s)he was treated.
    
    Regards,
    Alan
    

    
    	re .9
    
    	Getting laid off is not a pleasant experience, unless you want to
    	be laid off. And believe me, I know some *very* talented people
    	that would take the package in a heartbeat if it were offered to
    	them.
    
    	The people making the decisions to lay-off are not the same ones
    	that are deciding who gets laid off. That decision is made further
    	down the line. It took KO to realize that we might possibly be
    	losing some talent that could be retrained for Alpha. This was,
    	to my knowledge, the source of the flip-flopping and the reason
    	some people were given notice and then offered other jobs. I think
    	that .8 summarized it pretty accurately.
    
    	The pendulum has swung from both extremes and will hopefully land
    	in the middle. Then we as a company will have worked out issues
    	like how to help somebody keep their self-esteem while escorting
    	them out the door. Simply acting professional will accomplish that,
    	I believe.
    
    	John

    re 0
    
    No excuses, justifications for this callous treatment of your friend.
    Hope your friend gets a better job real soon and can say it all worked
    out well.
    
    
    Dave
     

    I am told that in today's local (Tampa) paper, there is an article that
    says IBM has laid off 20,000 employees to date, and has announced
    intentions to lay off another 20,000 over the coming year.  I haven't
    had a chance to read it yet, but two different people mentioned it.
    
    Big numbers.  I'm glad I'm not amoung them.
    
    tim
    

    Heard the same thing. They halted trading on IBM for a while because
    of it.

    This round of 'right sizing' in the field sales force had several
    differences from the first.
    
    As a response to feedback after the first round over the summer it was
    decided that the people at risk would be told before the official
    notification date.  This would give people a chance to look for other
    jobs and avoid suprises on 'the day'.  It was also decided that people
    would have 5 days after notification to solidify an offer for another
    position in the company.
    
    This process was followed for all except for those with 52xx
    (technical) job codes.  At the last minute (after some had already been
    notified) it was decided to give people with these job codes more time
    to find other jobs within Digital.  The extra time amounted to 5 weeks
    in total (4 weeks plus a week while the plan was worked out).
    
    At the end of this extra period of time it was decided to extend the
    period for an additional two weeks (till 11/22).
    
    There have been a lot of rumors about why this happened, but in the
    final analysis it represented an extra chance for those that wanted to
    take advantage.  I know of several that got jobs in the last week of
    the extra extension (and not with Alpha).
    
    I know that this series of events was communicated very differently in
    different areas and by different managers.  The rollercoaster for
    people caught up in this was very real and its unfortunate in some
    cases that managers may have contributed to the ride.
    
    Peter Dillard

    RE: .12
    
    I believe that IBM's announcement was that it has eliminated, rather
    than laid off, 20,000 people and that it would do the same to another
    20,000.
    
    Officially, at least, they have not deviated from their "no-layoff"
    policy.  The reductions will be accomplished by early retirements and
    other voluntary separations as well as their policy to fire low
    performers.
    
    Of course, it is the latter than is the closest to a
    layoff-in-sheeps-clothing.

    Oh, come on, even Akers admits that the "no layoff" policy is dead.
    
    Lots of the terminations at IBM have been involuntary.

    Re .15

    >I believe that IBM's announcement was that it has eliminated, rather
    >than laid off, 20,000 people and that it would do the same to another
    >20,000.
    
    Good God they eliminated 20,000 people! I knew that they had a
    reputation for being tough to work for but it is far worse than I ever
    imagined. Disposing of the bodies must have been a major logistical
    task. 

    Jamie.

     I also read that the rise in DEC share price yesterday (and in other
    top computing companies) was partly due to IBM's restructuring
    announcements - including the layoffs.
    We went up $2+ yesterday.
    
    'gail

    Akers has said that IBM has never 'laid off' people.  I belive he's
    denied recently that this is a policy.  My reading of reports are that
    there have been no 'lay offs' at IBM yet.  A number of people have been
    rewarded for leaving voluntarily.  A number of people have left under
    pressure but voluntarily (we have a job for you in No-name Idaho; we'll
    relocate you from NY to there - what do you mean, you're refusing your
    job with the IBM Corporation!).  And a number have been moved out of
    IBM when the division they worked for was sold (eg. typewriters).
    
    They have kept the fig leaf (as we did for a while) of not terminating
    people who accepted the optional jobs offered.
    
    Peter Dillard

    Your IBM quote does not say they are "laying off:.  In fact your quote
    of Akers is identical to a quote of Zereski from a memo 12 months ago.
    
    The point is not wether or not IBM is downsizing; they certainly are. 
    However the fig leaf of not "laying off" is still in place from my
    reading of all the industry press.  The quotes are that IBM is reducing
    jobs; Digital is laying off.
    
    I've heard the IBM term that you used but in my experience this is
    euphemistaically used for the typ of situations I described, eg. if you
    don't want that job in Greenland you can leave.
    
    This fig leaf may not seem like much to some but I've talked to a
    number of people for both in Digital and at IBM for whom this is a
    critical point.  Without the fig leaf there is no certain answer to the
    question "What do I need to do to keep my job?"
    
    Peter Dillard

    IBM has gone from a "policy of not laying-off people" to a "tradition
    of not laying-off people", rather like the weasel-words of another 
    company not too far fromour hearts.
    
    Apparently traditions are easier to change than policies
    
    John

    KO has said for years that there is no such policy.  I don't believe
    there has been a change.

    Well, the "there is no such policy" goes back to at least the late
    seventies.  They word "layoff" was carefully avoided then as well, and
    some low performers did lose their jobs.

    Sometimes when a low performer is let go, we call it "fired".  This has
    become so difficult to do at Digital (and IBM I suspect) that we are
    now forced to "lay off", "transition", "whatever_you_want_to_call_it"
    because we lacked the guts to fire dead wood years ago.
    
    
    Paula
    
    - Please I am not suggesting that everyone that was let go recently 
    was dead wood! 
    
     

    There is a trend in society today that IMHO contributed to the low
    (non-existent?) number of firings during the last decade....
    
    Can you say LAWSUIT?????

    From the 12/18 NY Times
    Page B1
    
    Story Titled -
    
    Hudson Valley Reels Under Impact of I.B.M. Cuts
    
    "Most everyone from county officials to IBM employees, acknowledges
    that consolidation is necessary for the company to remain competitive. 
    And they add that IBM's no-layoff policy has taken the sting our of the
    cutbacks, which are to be achieved primarily through early retirements
    and financial incentives."
    
    Peter Dillard
    

>>                     <<< Note 1681.28 by SUBWAY::DILLARD >>>
>>                          -< From the 12/18 NY Times >-

>>        cutbacks, which are to be achieved primarily through early retirements
>>    and financial incentives."
    
    	cue LENNARD ;-)

    From what I understand, my wife works at IBM and I attend college
    courses with IBM'ers, many positions are being lost at IBM due to a
    sell off of their business.  A case in point is the former IBM keyboard
    factory in Lexington. They have been spun off into their own company
    called Lexmark.  5000 people opted to "leave" IBM in order to work for
    nd manage this "new" company.  For sure their biggest customer is IBM,
    but now they also make keyboards and supplies for other vendors.  In
    this way IBM cut 5000 positions without anyone losing their job.
    
    Another tactic is to begin contracting out much of their administrative
    work.  This is true in the Boca Raton Office.  A agency provides most
    of the clerical support, except for senior level managers.  There
    distributed bays and pools of clerical resources scattered throughout
    the buildings.  

    
    
    Sounds to me that if the big wigs in IBM had allowed the keyboard
    amangement to "manage" the business IBM could have kept a valuable
    resource and gained market share in the OEM keyboard business.
    
    I guess it depends, how one looks at a situation.
    
    							Tom