Conference 7.286::digital

    Companies institute policies for a variety of reasons.  I think the
    tone of the base note is simplistic and it is anecdotal.
    
    I have not noticed people sitting around...there is to much work to
    sit.  I have heard folks talk about the what if's...what if I stay,
    what if I leave.
    
    I know there are some folks that got jobs right away, but there are 
    folks out there that have been out of work for over two years.
    
    This process isn't easy...I personally think the company and the
    employees are trying hard to do what is right and get on to the
    business of making the best computers on the market.
    

    Truthfullness and honesty should be the absolute byword starting
    from "THE IVORY TOWER" down. We are all mature adults, we know things
    are bad out there. Let's be honest about impending lay offs, get a
    definite answer on early retirement, and really find out what we will
    producing/selling to bolster the company. Why do we have to be treated
    like "mushrooms"????? I do not like the "game playing" that is going
    on. If you are going to do it, then do it so I can get on with my life
    and carreer.
    
    	IMHO
    	John

    
    	Re .0
    	
    	For what it's worth dear noter.... There are GD few folks in
    	this neck of the woods that are finding jobs after DEC within
    	six months, many (many!) are still looking after a year.  College 
    	Grads with great experience.  See, around here we've had Prime, DG, 
    	Unisys, Wang, IBM, and many itty-bitty outfits putting people out 
    	on the street. 
    
    	I'm dammed glad I work for DEC, but if worse comes to worse, I'll
    	be glad it was DEC that let me go, just because of that "bonus".
     
                                           

    Just my little input: In most states (maybe every state,I don't know) a
    person who has been laid off is not eligible for unemployment until
    his/her compensation from the employer has run out. That means that a
    person who got the maximum buyout and can't find a job for whatever
    reason,can't collect unemployment for at least 77 weeks. Not
    surprisingly,states like that. States like that so much,that they just
    might offer some tax breaks to a company with a policy of decent
    packages.
    Don't get me wrong! I'm sure DEC isn't laying people off for tax
    breaks,this is still a people company. But,in my opinion,there is more
    than one reason for "generous" packages.
    
    Ken

    >Just what does Digital Equipment Corporation owe its employees?
    
    >I believe that it should all come down to 'a fair days work for a fair
    >days pay'.
    
    I think you have something backwards here, but assuming you meant to
    say that DEC owes its employees a fair day's pay for a fair day's work,
    I submit that it's not such a simple equation.  Many employees chose 
    to work for DEC, and continue to work for DEC, more because of the
    quality-of-[work]life than because so many hours equals so many
    dollars.  In the past year there has been some erosion in the non-$
    compensation areas, yet people continue to go the extra yardage when
    the effort is called for.  Right now, most people are working
    hard to turn things around, but if it ever gets down to "another day,
    another dollar" then we will have lost it completely.
    

"What does Digital owe its employees" in what sense?  Legally?  Morally?
There should be one answer to the former.  I'm sure there are as many
answers to the latter as there are opinions about morality (in other words,
this is the rathole variant of the question).

One thing that would make it fairly easy to answer the former would be if
Digital had some sort of basic "contract" that stated its requirements of
employees and what obligations it agreed to take upon itself if those
requirements were met.  In the last year or two, however, it seems as though
the company has moved away from such a position, by adding a proviso to the
Policy and Procedures that says they are only guidelines and are subject to
interpretation by management and should in no way be taken as legally
binding on the corporation.

I'm sure this was probably done at the behest of someone in the Legal Dept.
that was interested primarily in protecting the company from lawsuits.  But
it does have negative implications.  Personally i'd rather see the company
commit to a fairly simple contract with employees that states what the
general expectations for employees are, including those of managers to
their reports, and what the company will make a best effort to ensure as
compensation (salary, benefits, quality of worklife, etc.) when those
expectations are met.  To a large extent that will be market-driven.

I think one of the most common things that people seem to want is simply
"good management".  This means a certain level of fairness, consistency
and competence.  Maybe we should be benchmarking overall management
practices of well-managed companies to see how far short we're coming up
now, and what needs to be done to correct problems.  Examples of things
that i see management being knocked for in this conference are: lack of
communication, allowing local (in whatever sense) politics to take
precedence over the global needs of the company, setting unclear or
conflicting priorities, dragging out decision-making to the detriment of
employee morale and team spirit (with things like our famous "perpetual
reorganizations" and more time spent on redefining roles and organization
structures than on ensuring that necessary work gets done), etc.

Maybe we should look on these as quality problems and just grit our teeth
and try to address them using known quality techniques.  To some extent
the problems of Digital management are probably endemic to American
industry as a whole, so maybe we need to look at how the best non-American
companies work as well as how quality American firms work.

Is this rocket science?  I doubt it.
								- paul

re: .0, Dave

While I agree with the fact that it is unreasonable for people to be
"looking for" a decent package, etc., the fact that reasonable TFSO
arrangements are available from DEC is one of the few things that still
separates DEC from a lot of other companies letting people go these
days. In a life before DEC, I was once layed off with a statement of
"Your check for this week's pay will be in your mail at home next
week." Not even a handshake. I think the fact that DEC is willing to do
better than that has a lot to do with keeping people around. DEC
hasn't turned into Wang or DG yet.

-Jack

    re .0
    
>   I believe that it should all come down to 'a fair days work for a fair
>   days pay'.
    
    Gee, and I thought a lot of complaints in this conference had to do
    with short term thinking...  Now we're reducing it to one day at a
    time?
    
    Companies that expect to be around for the long run need to get
    considerably more from their employees than one days work at a time. 
    And vice-versa, of course.  But the kind of loyalty needed to build a
    company that will last is not bought with "a days pay", but with
    considerably dearer coin.
    
    /Dave

    Morally, I think DEC tends to owe more than a "fair day's pay
    for a fair day's work".  
    
    Your phrasing implies sympathy with the hire-em-fire-em
    attitudes which are more commonly seen in assembly-line
    jobs.  Along with that attitude goes ideas which treat
    workers as interchangeable cogs ("resources", as we
    say in the New DEC), and to which the workers quite
    reasonably react by doing precisely what their jobs
    require and nothing else.
    
    Me, I don't want to work like that.
    
    DEC in the past has been a place where people have been
    willing to put in more-than-necessary-effort, in part because
    they're nerds and dweebs (like me), but also because company
    culture implicitly promised that it would look after its
    employees.
    
    Fairly obviously, DEC can't afford "jobs for life" for all
    its employees - the economy is in such a parlous state that
    even politicians recognize it (sometimes).  And certainly,
    we got ridiculously fat in the '80s.    But to claim that
    DEC owes no more than "a fair day's pay for a fair day's
    work" would be a shameful about-face on the company's
    previously-espoused values.
    
    Now maybe I'm reading more into what you wrote than you
    intended.  But you certainly implied that DEC's responsibility
    to us workers should end as soon as we walk out of
    the factory gates, oops, I mean office doors.

    Hmm, .8 said what I wanted to say .9, only he
    said it much more succinctly.

    I agree with .6 and characterize this as a muddle sorting out legal,
    moral, short-term, long-term, etc. semantics around "owe".
    
    I'll concede that it's not within Digtal's ability to succeed in the
    marketplace.  That's too uncertain.
    
    What is within Digital's ability is honesty, consistency, and equity,
    the latter two being consequences of the first quality.

    In the beginning of industrial era workers were needed to work 12-14
    hours days. It took generations to improve the situation to the status
    where western world was some years ago.
    
    It seems to take a lot less to fall back now when world and
    technologies are radically changing again. We are already required
    to work considerably more than 8 hours a day while others are loosing
    their jobs. This is especially true in information technology indus-
    tries. And in this too, Japanese are giving the model. If we want to
    maintain our values in Digital and in western world in general, we 
    need to think really creatively, not only to copy Japanese models.
    In here we can see an analogy with what a western computer expert said 
    from Russians some years ago: "As long as they copy us, they will stay 
    behind us".
    
    I believe that we have lost our values and we have not found the new
    ones and thus we do not know what to do.
    
    --Ritva
    

I don't view it so much an issue of "what does Digital owe it employees" as
what makes good business sense. My belief is that DIGITAL intends to continue
to be a major player in the computer industry for generations to come. Although
there is a current downturn that is very difficult to manage through, the
top management at DIGITAL believes that eventually DIGITAL will come out of this
a stronger and wiser company. It also believes that its most valuable asset
will continue to be its people.

Although we are currently oversized, eventually DIGITAL will have to start
hiring again if it continues to be a major player 10, 20, and 30 years from
now. In order to attract the most talented people in the future, it will be
necessary to demonstrate that DIGITAL values its employees in good and bad
times. When the top people of the year 2000 are all being courted by IBM, HP, and
DEC, it will be in DIGITAL's best interest to be able to stand on their
excellent record of treating people in a manner that will compare favorably
with the other major players.

    Digital owes us a true attempt at being the company our policies and
    procedures say we are.  On paper (or on-line) Digital sounds just like
    the kind of company I want to work for.  
    
    In reality, it seems that we are currently putting more and more
    distance between what we say and what we do.
    
    My two cents.

    Someone said that you cannot get unemployment.  I this true??  Anyone
    know for sure?
    
    Jolene

    
    	You cannot get unemployment immediately.  After your "package"
    	runs out, you can/will get unemployment.
    
    	FACT!
    

    Dave,
    
    Frankly I think most people have not struck on the importance of your
    topics title. Our perception of the answer to that question drives our
    efforts and turns us into what we are and what we contribute to the
    corporation. In a nutshell, measurements/rewards/punishment drive
    behavior. And in the last couple of years I have seen some pretty
    stupid actions performed by otherwise intelligent people based entirely
    on what they felt (real or otherwise) DEC would do (or not do) for
    them.
    
    And right now I don't think the vast majority of the people in this
    corporation have a clue of what to expect from DEC in the next
    six months, year, or whatever. So while we may view DEC from many
    different perspectives we must also realize that DEC doesn't owe us a
    single thing beyond what is required by law. Not lifetime employment.
    Not a package. Nothing. For better or worse. Times change.
    
    The wars rage on, and on, and on....
    
    Gene.

Somehow this thread reminds me of an old Tom Lehrer line:
	"Life is like a sewer - what you get out of it depends on what you
	 put into it."

This applies to both the company and the employee.

Yes, Digital owes its employees only what the law requires. Conversely, we owe
Digital 40 hrs per week of competent work, and we are free to look for another
job any time. Some people will always put in extra effort, no matter what the
company does, and some will put in the bare minimum (or less). But in general,
you get what you pay for.

A good "package" can help in the long run. While it might not make people work
harder, it could help keep people the company wants to keep from jumping ship
for the first rowboat that passes by, knowing, that should they get pushed
overboard to lighten the ship, at least they'll be given a rubber raft. After
all, you don't want the people manning the pumps to abandon ship.

And for those who want to go, well, if there are enough of us to man the pumps,
I'd say, give them their raft. For now, I'll just keep pumping. From down here
in the bilges, I don't see any islands to escape to. Just sharks.

    re - a bunch

    Maybe a sidebar to this note is "What do Digital employees owe
    themselves?".  And in retrospect I wonder if people aren't expecting DEC
    to make up for a lack of delivery by themselves to this question.

    For example, How many Digital workers of any age could find work at a
    comparable salary to the Salary they make now *if* they were only 31 years
    old again?  How many 31 year old Digital employees could make the same
    money they are making now if they lost their current job?  (I only ask
    this to remove any potential arguments over age discrimination, that's
    important but is masking a broader problem - do people have skills that
    are of value to others?).  Would this topic exist if the answer to these
    questions were "YES!".

    The answer to this may not just depend on the lack of economic leadership
    we see today, or on the devaluation of skills in the job market (a certain
    result of same).  Maybe a good portion of this is due to a lack of real
    current day skills (and no, unfortunately, having designed the PDP-11 or
    Rainbow does not necessarily mean you have any current marketable skills)
    people possess.  

    How many Digital workers of any age take classes on a regular basis to
    prepare them to either do their current job better or understand the job
    that people under them or next to them do on a day to day basis?  How many
    actually have a goal for their next job and are working towards gaining
    the skills to perform it?  (A personal note: I've seen people who are
    almost constantly in training who don't seem to learn, or who are only
    after the piece of paper, and aren't really trying; this isn't what I
    mean)

    How many Digital managers could do the jobs of the people who work for
    them or even understand those jobs?  And yes, I realize this isn't an
    absolute requirement, in some cases it's expected (tech support is a good
    example); in some cases that is.

    And yes, a lot do, but are they the ones who are worried? 

    And these are all questions because methinks the answers are different for
    every person.  I realize many good people can end up in the wrong place at
    the wrong time with a good toolkit and still be out of work for a while. I
    also wonder where this "Digital owes me..." attitude comes from.

    And how about one last question to really stir things up?: 

    Does having participated in the development of a highly successful early
    product or technology, such as the PDP, DECnet or VAX, entitle a worker to
    an annuity benefit in perpetuity, regardless of current performance, and
    regardless of any perks they may have received along the way (e.g. Stock
    Options and Grants)?

    Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion.

    
    

    regarding the last three notes:
    
    These people have said all that can be said!  What the company "owes"
    its employees is nothing.  We can seeking a job at Digital, not the
    other way around.  Personally I think the packages are very generous of
    the company to help its people get back on their feet should they be
    TFSO'd.  Of course, those of us who have been fortunate enough to stay
    may think otherwise,but the ones who have been let go really appreciate
    it. 
    
    Regarding -.1
    Being at the "30" age I can speak from experience that what DEC pays
    its employees is very competitive.  Thats why most people want to stay
    where there at.  If you consider what we are doing (Sitting here
    voicing our opinions on the many notes files that we seemed to have
    created instead of being out in the field earning DEC some money), I
    think that ALL of us are paid very well.
    
    Rick
    

    I have to tell the person that wrote last input.  I did not come
    looking for a job at Digital,  they came after me and managed to
    talk me into the job.  I have never regreted going to work for
    DEC.  They have treated me good.
    
    I give DEC a good days work for a good days pay.  That is what I
    owe DEC.
    
    I would like to get another 10 years with DEC, so if they want
    to get rid of me, I want top dollar from them.
    
    Bob

re .22
I'm tempted to go absolutly ballistic in response to this... this...

Heck with it, I've got work to do.

    I find it amazing how unsophisticated most of the replies
    in this note really are!
    I think the only reply that hit the target is .14
    I don't know who he/she is but thank goodness the company
    has at least one person who understands how our business
    works!

    re.23
    
    Don't hold it back friend.  Let it all hang out.
    
    Maybe you could let us know what you do for DEC?
    
    Bob

    re .23
    Note he said "if they wanted to get rid of me", not "when I feel like
    leaving" or something to that effect. I'm not crazy about the
    attitude, but it's not as bad as some said here in the last week
    or so.

    As an employee AND a stockholder, DEC owes me the effort to run this
    company in the most efficient manner possible!
    
    In my opinion, they are not doing that!
    
    Can I leave?  Absolutely!
    
    Do I want to leave?  I don't know!  THAT IS THE PROBLEM, many of us
    simply do not know anymore.....

    
    
                        _ OWE _ =
    To be in debt to.
    
    To be obliged for.
    
    If a person has been compensated _OWE_ should not apply.
    
    
    Re: 22        A ?
    
    Did they offer you a job for life ?
    
    
    As you can see.................
    Pro. DEC.
    
    Dan
     
             
    
    
    

    
       As a long time employee finishing up 24 years with DEC, I have seen
    a ton of changes and thousands of people come and go. I have an opinion
    concerning what I think DEC owes its "dedicated and loyal" employees.
      There are many of us who have attended 10 year, 15 year, and 20 year
    dinners and rapidly approaching 25 years. At each of those dinners I
    remember hearing Ken Olsen or Jack Smith tell us how it was people like 
    us who made Digital successful, and that we were appreciated. Jack
    Smith has frequently told one of his favorite stories about how he
    arrived in Westminster one Saturday morning at the end of a quarter
    in a blinding snowstorm. He was astounded to see the parking lot full
    and people buzzing like bees to "make the quarter" No doubt there were
    some there strictly because they were making extra money, but over the
    years that scene was repeated lots of times. People who worked in
    Westminster, Westfield, Springfield, the Mill to name a few all
    remember that we made a huge contribution to the success of DEC. 
    There are folks around who have doing a good job for this company for
    many years and I think that DEC owes them the same loyalty that they
    have shown the company. DEC should bend over backwards to see to it
    that those loyal and dedicated people are not the victims of what
    appears to be a helter-skelter, shoot-from-the-hip layoff policy. 
      Now this idea may not appeal to some of the more recently hired
    employees but long term service, dedication, and loyalty should
    mean something.
    
    My 2 cents.
    

re: .29,

>    Jack Smith has frequently told one of his favorite stories about how he
>    arrived in Westminster one Saturday morning at the end of a quarter
>    in a blinding snowstorm. He was astounded to see the parking lot full
>    and people buzzing like bees to "make the quarter" No doubt there were
>    some there strictly because they were making extra money, but over the
>    years that scene was repeated lots of times.

    	In the new digital it is apparently ok to be "there strictly because
    they were making extra money" just as it is ok for digital to transition
    people strictly in order to make extra money.  It's all just business
    after all, nothing personal right?  That's the American way...

    				    -davo

p.s.	...the American way to hell in a handbasket that is...

    If all it came down to was a fair day's work for a fair day's pay,
    I'd be contracting again and DEC would be paying me up to twice
    what I'm making for my services.
    
    Unfortunately the big reasons for being a Digital employee, 
    what they call a "permanent" job and good benefits,
    are dwindling.
    
    DEC benefits by getting loyal, tireless workers.
    What does DEC owe its employees?  Everything.
    
    Mark

A manager (not at DEC) once told me that it was pointless and dangerous to be
more loyal to your employer than he is to you.  (Interestingly, it was his way
of telling me that perhaps my loyalty to him was misplaced, but I still think
it's good advice.)

Right now, I'm not really sure how loyal DEC is to me.  Perhaps this explains my
on again/off again loyalty towards the company.

    
    Re: .29
    
    A story worth repeating.
    
    No one comes to work on a Saturday in a blinding snowstorm for 
    money.  They come because the company does the same thing for
    them when they need it.  That has nothing to do with pay.  What
    you describe is loyalty and you can't pay people to be loyal.
    You can only get that by treating them the right way.  If all
    Digital owes us is pay at the end of the day then the game comes
    down to sell what we do to the highest bidder.  It ain't personal.
    It's business.  Loyalty is personal.
    
    Digital ought to remember a simple saying: What goes around comes
    around. 
    
    Steve
    
    

    re .33
    
>    Digital ought to remember a simple saying: What goes around comes
>    around.
     
    There's another one that seems to be true more often than not
    in industry: "Nice guys finish last".
    I'd rather have DEC alive, than have it try to keep everyone
    happy while it slowly runs itself out of business - or taken
    over by someone far more bottom-line minded than what we
    have now.
    
    John

>    There's another one that seems to be true more often than not
>    in industry: "Nice guys finish last".
 
	My experiance runs the other way around. I don't do business
	with companies that treat me badly. And companies that treat
	their employees badly seldom if ever treat their customers any
	better.

	Managers who treat their people poorly get poor performance in
	return. Managers who take care of thier people get taken care
	of by their people. 

				Alfred

    
    Re: .35
    

	>Managers who treat their people poorly get poor performance in
	>return. Managers who take care of thier people get taken care
	>of by their people. 
    
    Yes, and extended, you could say that companies that take care of
    their employees get taken care of by their employees.
    
    The number of employees is not the reason we are in this mess.  At
    most it is a symptom.  The root cause is that we cling desperately to
    old ways that aren't serving us well anymore.  That is dragging us down
    faster than having a few too many heads.
    
    Steve
    
    

    
    
Re: .36
    
    
>    The number of employees is not the reason we are in this mess.  At
>    most it is a symptom.  The root cause is that we cling desperately to
>    old ways that aren't serving us well anymore.  That is dragging us down
>    faster than having a few too many heads.
    
 I am interested in your thoughts on this.  Would you care to expand?

    
    

    
    Re: .37
    
    Certainly.
    
    I think that many people believe that if we simply get rid of 20,000
    people we'll be fat, happy, and competitive again.  It just ain't so.
    
    If we lay off 20,000 people and ....
    
    	o continue to dissatisfy our customers
    	o continue to be difficult to do business with
    	o continue to be technology rather than market oriented
    	o continue to follow the processes that brought about this mess
    	o continue to believe we're somehow unique
    	o continue to measure things that don't matter
    	o ....
    
    then we'll just go down the tubes 20,000 heads lighter.
    
    Steve
    

 
>	My experiance runs the other way around. I don't do business
>	with companies that treat me badly. And companies that treat
>	their employees badly seldom if ever treat their customers any
>	better.
    I've never seem a corrolation - and few are in a position to
    prove your statement. One would need to work for as many
    companies as one does business with - or at least a statistically
    substantial amount. I'll also say that anyone who has worked
    for that sort of number is not an average employee, and couldn't
    give a representative opinion.

>	Managers who treat their people poorly get poor performance in
>	return. Managers who take care of thier people get taken care
>	of by their people. 
    I agree, but if DEC refused to let employees go, the people would
    feel they were being treated poorly when asked to take a cut
    in pay, or something to the effect, to make up the difference.
    
    John

re: 1768.34

>> I'd rather have DEC alive, than have it try to keep everyone
>> happy while it slowly runs itself out of business

Who says the two have to be mutually exclusive?  Is there no way out
of this mess without continuing to value the asset that once made this
company great?  It seems to me that happy, appreciated, and motivatd
employees are what is needed to put this company back on its feet.
You don't get that from employees who are constantly in fear of
getting the golden handshake, as many DEC employees have been for 
going on two years now.

Rick

re: .40

>>> I'd rather have DEC alive, than have it try to keep everyone
>>> happy while it slowly runs itself out of business

>Who says the two have to be mutually exclusive?
    Show me any company the size of DEC that *hasn't* done this when
    faced with similar circumstances. In fact, not many have been
    as generous as DEC. Most defense, auto and other heavy manufacturers
    use massive layoffs - and they don't drag it out like DEC does.
    At least when it's over, it's over.
    
>It seems to me that happy, appreciated, and motivatd
>employees are what is needed to put this company back on its feet.
    I'm sorry, but that strikes me as a little naive. DEC's problems
    won't be solved by its employees running around hugging each other.
    This is a business, and making money should be the primary goal.
    
>You don't get that from employees who are constantly in fear of
>getting the golden handshake, as many DEC employees have been for 
>going on two years now.
    I agree DEC is doing this badly, just as the the ER is being handled
    badly. Someone needs to step up and make the hard decision and
    put an end to people's concerns. I don't like to be kept waiting
    like the rest of us.
    
    John

    
    Re: .41
    
    >Show me any company the size of DEC that *hasn't* done this when
    >faced with similar circumstances. In fact, not many have been
    >as generous as DEC. Most defense, auto and other heavy manufacturers
    >use massive layoffs - and they don't drag it out like DEC does.
    
    That doesn't mean that massive layoffs are the wisest thing to do.
    If you are having trouble being competitive then just showing people
    to the door only looks good in the short run.  It does nothing to
    address the root cause of eroding competitiveness.  As you say
    auto, for example, has done this for years.  Did it prevent the
    eroding of their market to imports?
    
    >I'm sorry, but that strikes me as a little naive. DEC's problems
    >won't be solved by its employees running around hugging each other.
    
    Who's talking about running around hugging each other.  I don't hear
    people saying that at all.
    
    >This is a business, and making money should be the primary goal.
    
    No one is arguing against this point.  They're saying the model
    you support for achieving it is the path to Chapter 11.
    
    
    Steve
    

    Re: .42
    
>    That doesn't mean that massive layoffs are the wisest thing to do.
    I'm not saying it is. I'm asking if there are examples of companies
    the size of DEC getting through hard times without letting people
    go. I'll admit even that isn't proof it the wisest thing, but it
    certainly is proof that headcount reduction is a fact of life
    hard-hit companies must deal with.
    
>    Who's talking about running around hugging each other.  I don't hear
>    people saying that at all.
    I wasn't being literal, of course. I'm referring to the statement
    which implied that making employees happy and appreciated will
    solve our problems. A little naive, wouldn't you say?
    
>    No one is arguing against this point.  They're saying the model
>    you support for achieving it is the path to Chapter 11.
    As I would if DEC did nothing but push people out the door. It
    all has to be in conjunction with a solid plan to get DEC moving
    again.
    
    John

RE: Note 1768.43
>> I'm referring to the statement which implied that making employees 
>> happy and appreciated will solve our problems. A little naive, 
>> wouldn't you say?
   
Naive maybe, but I've been accused several times of never having become 
"Digitized", and from what I've seen I hope to never be.  And please,
if you're going to quote me, include the entire quote.  I said happy, 
appreciated, *AND* motivated.  Now for sure, having all three does not 
guarantee success for the company.  But the lack of any of the three 
increases the likelihood of failure (IMO). 

Rick

    
    Re: .43
    
    >I'm not saying it is. I'm asking if there are examples of companies
    >the size of DEC getting through hard times without letting people
    >go. I'll admit even that isn't proof it the wisest thing, but it
    >certainly is proof that headcount reduction is a fact of life
    >hard-hit companies must deal with.
    
    No, it is only proof that headcount reduction is what they choose to
    do about being hard hit.  It says nothing about whether there are 
    other ways to address the problem or whether it even helps.
    
    >I wasn't being literal, of course. I'm referring to the statement
    >which implied that making employees happy and appreciated will
    >solve our problems. A little naive, wouldn't you say?
    
    No, I wouldn't.  I think that is what you would like me to say.
    Certainly I'm not suggesting that making employees happy and
    appreciated by itself solves all problems, but it sure helps.
    
    >As I would if DEC did nothing but push people out the door. It
    >all has to be in conjunction with a solid plan to get DEC moving
    >again.
    
    Do you know what that plan is or if it even exists?  I've seen no
    evidence that there is one.
    
    Steve
    

One other thing;

RE: Note 1768.41
>> Show me any company the size of DEC that *hasn't* done this when
>> faced with similar circumstances. In fact, not many have been
>> as generous as DEC. Most defense, auto and other heavy manufacturers
>> use massive layoffs

Are you saying that the industries you mention should be used as a model
for what DEC should do now?  The American auto industry is struggling for
its very existence while the Japanese expand, so I don't know that I'd 
use them or their methods as a role model.

Also, many (if not) all of the industries you mentioned are *unionized*, 
which means that employees go for every red cent they can get when things 
are good, refuse to do anything that's not in their contract at any time, 
and *expect* to get laid off when things are bad.  Is this what Digital
is going to be reduced to?  Such has never been the case in the relationship
between Digital and its employees.  The employees have always been willing
to go the extra mile to get the job done, willingly endure a wage or hiring 
freeze for the good of the company, etc.  Now we're reduced to the level 
of those other industries, where we know when things are bad the company 
may not be able to stand by us.  That's all well and good, and may be what's
necessary for Digital to survive in today's changing environment.  Just as 
long as Digital understands that the special relationship that has disappeared
may make it harder to recruit or hold onto talented employees when the economy
and/or computer industry turns around.

Just MHO...

Rick

    re .45
    
>    No, it is only proof that headcount reduction is what they choose to
>    do about being hard hit.  It says nothing about whether there are 
>    other ways to address the problem or whether it even helps.
    Why do we reduce headcount? To cut expenses, which are often too
    high if a company if losing revenue. It doesn't take a genius
    to know that removing people from the payroll will reduce
    expenses.
    
>    >I wasn't being literal, of course. I'm referring to the statement
>    >which implied that making employees happy and appreciated will
>    >solve our problems. A little naive, wouldn't you say?
    
>    No, I wouldn't.  I think that is what you would like me to say.
    Well...
    
>    Certainly I'm not suggesting that making employees happy and
>    appreciated by itself solves all problems, but it sure helps.
    What would you call someone suggesting it would then, other
    than naive?
    
>    >As I would if DEC did nothing but push people out the door. It
>    >all has to be in conjunction with a solid plan to get DEC moving
>    >again.
    
>    Do you know what that plan is or if it even exists?  I've seen no
>    evidence that there is one.
    I said *a* plan, not *that* plan, or *the* plan or my plan or
    your plan or...
    I'm saying reducing headcount is not the single solution.
    
    John

    re .46

>Are you saying that the industries you mention should be used as a model
>for what DEC should do now?
    No. I'm saying we are being far more generous (and light-handed)
    in how we reduce headcount. Other industries would have cut more
    most likely, and done it without "packages".
    
    >  The American auto industry is struggling for
>its very existence while the Japanese expand, so I don't know that I'd 
>use them or their methods as a role model.
    Our auto industry isn't subsidized either.

>long as Digital understands that the special relationship that has disappeared
>may make it harder to recruit or hold onto talented employees when the economy
>and/or computer industry turns around.
    DEC may not have the "job for life" image anymore, and if that turns
    off future or current employees, fine, they'll have a hard time finding
    a company that does have that image.
    
    John

     Re: .47
    
    >Why do we reduce headcount? To cut expenses, which are often too
    >high if a company if losing revenue. It doesn't take a genius
    >to know that removing people from the payroll will reduce
    >expenses.
    
    Yes expenses are an issue, but I am saying that they are only
    the symptom not the problem.  Those expenses seemed just fine when
    revenue was rolling in.  Now suddenly they're the enemy.  For sure
    if we let people go expenses go down, but that won't do a thing about
    the problem of why revenue is falling off.  Revenue is falling off
    because we aren't competitive.   Our lack of competitiveness is
    caused by the worn out old ways of doing things.  A symptom of that
    problem is the high expenses they are not the cause.
    
    Again, I'm not arguing for or against layoffs, but that DEC has bungled
    that so badly that many of us left have little or no confidence in the
    company.  So they've attempted to solve one problem and created a
    bigger one i.e. very low morale.  A lean workforce is of no use if
    their confidence and morale are broken.  What Digital has done is take
    an aspirin for a brain tumor.
     
    >I'm saying reducing headcount is not the single solution.
    
    Fine so am I, but I and others are saying that the way of going about
    the headcount reduction has created new problems that in the long run
    will be more trouble than the 'excessive' headcount was.
    
    Steve