Conference 7.286::digital

    RE: .0
    
    You get back to the issue that this is an involuntary separation.  This
    is where DEC made its inital mistake.
    
    Legally, they should have offered it as voluntary.  Then come back with
    the involuntary plan.  The way it is now, if someone who was previously
    let go in an involuntary separation discovered about some
    "volunteering", DEC would have a nasty lawsuit to contend
    with...possibly an a class action with our numbers who have previously
    separated from the company.
    
    DEC can't turn back the clock and do it right the "first time" and they
    expose themselves if they want to "right" the situation now.
    
 

	RE: .1   Are you sure of this?  During the first TFSO two years
	ago, a first-level manager here was allowed to volunteer for the
	involuntary plan.  This was well-known by folks who were later
	tapped for either TFSO-II or TFSO-III, and thus could have made
	it a legality issue, and didn't.  Between TFSO-II and TFSO-III
	another organization co-located here had their voluntary program
	and several (between 3 & 20) first-level managers left.

	Thus the precedent has already been set of starting with a plan
	that was involuntary (with 'volunteers' allowed to take part)
	and being followed later by a voluntary plan, which has been
	followed by yet another involuntary plan.

    
    re.1 
    
     I think when you receive the tot. lump sump, Dec ask you to sign
    some legal document that you will not "sue" them ; Therefore
    they're covered. In addition, i know a few folks have gone happily
    with the package but yet their activities are still remaining.
    ........???

    RE.0  
    
    The "rumor" out here is that managers submitted names of folks based on
    the criteria of 1. business need 2. PA 3. others....these names were
    sent back to the "big" guys back east and was looked over by EEOC. 
    Latest I heard was the names have been sent back to the local districts
    and whether you want it or not - you get it!  Why would DEC do
    something that makes sense and give it to people who really want it. 
    We have had people ask for it and told it was not in the local mgrs
    hands to chose.
    
    This has been going on for TWO years!!  No wonder I'm stressed!!
    
    -Pat 

    Local management can always end-run the system if they have the guts. 
    This happened in my district (retrenchments Round Two).  Two people
    were known to be thinking about leaving (for personal reasons).  Those
    two got the package.  QED.

    Of course it helps if local management has some sense also.  I offered
    to take the place of a couple of people who were being TFSO'd that had
    similar skill sets and families that didn't want to leave....whereas
    I'm single and wouldn't _mind_ being paid to leave.

    RE: 2&3
    
    I relayed what our Organization has been told by our manager and our
    manager's manager.  There were those in our department who have asked
    to be laid off but the answer given by Management was "no volunteers."
    
    I obviously do not know what has transpired elsewhere and I was only
    relaying what I was told by our local management team.
    
    Ron
    

    For folks that want to leave or want to be laid off; Why don't you just
    send a note to Bob Palmer and tell him "I want to be let go by the
    company".  

    RE: .0
    
    I've got a great idea...let's auction packages off.  Instead of doing a
    private little swap with the person next to you let's create a real
    market.
    
    Here's how it would work...
    
    1)  Joe Blow gets a $50,000 package
    2)  Joe really wants to stick around so he puts his package  up for bid
    3)  Bill Blow wants to leave but can't get up the nerve or energy to
    	write a letter of resignation unless someone stuffs his pocket.
    4)  Bill tells Joe he'll trade him a job for the 50k
    5)  Now Mary comes in.  Mary has already written her letter and has a
    job offer from another company.
    6)  Mary decides that she'll "sell" her job to Joe for only 40k
    7)  Joe does business with Mary.  He gets to keep 10,000 and still has a
    	job.
    8)  We could even alter the Stock Quote program so that everyone in the 
    	company can keep up to date on just what a job is worth.
    
    What's wrong with this picture....
    
    1)  Joe was a poor performer and that's why he was getting the ax in
    the first place
    2)  Mary was on the way out the door anyway so why should DEC give her
    anything
    3)  Bill is sitting on the fence and can't make up his mind.  This "new
    market" would only get him to focus on how much he could get to leave,
    not on his current job.
    4)  If .0 were allowed, this "market" would crop up in one form or
    fashion.
    
    RE: Legality of voluntary on involuntary
                                     
    It seems to me that Digital should be able to get rid (call it whatever
    you want) of anyone at anytime for any reason.  The fact that the
    governments of the countries where Digital does business don't allow
    this is an impediment to doing business.
    
    Ken Slattery

         And without SOME Gov't. restrictions I'm sure we could count on
    the big corp.'s to do the right thing, huh?  And I'm sure _all_ the
    people who are being TFSO'd are poor performers too.  And _all_ of those
    who are riding fence aren't doing their jobs either.  Yeah right....
    
         That's the problem with generalizing.  It's so.....so, general.
    
    Scott

RE: .10

>
And without SOME Gov't. restrictions I'm sure we could count on
>    the big corp.'s to do the right thing, huh?

What is the right thing?

In my book it is to run the company in a manner that maximizes long term 
profit (shareholder value).  If a company feels the best way to do that is
by abusing workers it is wrong and will go out of business.  I have more 
faith in the marketplace to "make" a company "do the right thing" than the
government.

This is the age old debate of personal responsibility versus having the
government look out for you.

>And I'm sure _all_ the
>    people who are being TFSO'd are poor performers too.  And _all_ of those
>    who are riding fence aren't doing their jobs either.  Yeah right....

I never said this.  I created an example (maybe on the far end of the
spectrum) to illustrate how things would get out of control if .0 actually
happened.

Some further thoughts...

1) .0 actually combines the worse parts of a voluntary and involuntary
program...  The people that can get jobs will end up with the package (these
are the most marketable and presumably most valuable to Digital).  This is
the same thing that would happen in a voluntary program.  On top of this a
new barter system is created that adds value to nothing.

2)  Digital management has decided that an involuntary plan is the best
approach (I agree with that).  You can argue that management is wrong but 
it is counterproductive to turn an involuntary plan into a voluntary one
when management specifically created an involuntary one.

>That's the problem with generalizing.  It's so.....so, general.

What's the alternative?  

Digital senior management has to make some general decisions that must be
implemented by local management in a less general manner.  Actually, the 
government regulations that I dislike take much of the "non-general" local
authority away.



Ken Slattery

    I personally know few people volunteered for the package. Some
    got it, some didn't.  It really depends on the managers.  I
    have never heard of swapping.  I personally doubt it could
    happen.     

    We had a Consultant, who was a former Sales Support unit manager
    volunteer and take the first field TFSO package and was hired back
    as a contract Tech Writer within a couple of months and is still
    working here.  Her husband is an sales unit manager for one of the
    Corporate Accounts in this same office (When he was made a manager
    she gave up her SS manager position to avoid conflicts).

	Mike

.11> >And without SOME Gov't. restrictions I'm sure we could count on
.11> >    the big corp.'s to do the right thing, huh?

.11> What is the right thing?

.11> In my book it is to run the company in a manner that maximizes long term 
.11> profit (shareholder value).  If a company feels the best way to do that is
.11> by abusing workers it is wrong and will go out of business.  I have more 
.11> faith in the marketplace to "make" a company "do the right thing" than the
.11> government.
    
    Problem is that the company is an abstract entity that really can't
    *do* anything right or wrong.  It is the people who work for the
    company, as managers and employees, that do the right thing (or not).
    
    So the "right thing" is to work to maximize financial results, but if
    some individual or manager doesn't see it that way and starts to act
    according to their limited personal perspective it can cause damage. 
    Sure, in the long run they will be identified and corrective measures
    taken, but if the damage is a wrongful cost to some individual it may
    not be possible to un-do it.
    
    Thus it is necessary and appropriate to have some restrictions and
    regulations in place to attempt to minimize the probability and
    occurance of harm.  The corporate management structure should do this
    with individual employees and managers, but as some other discussions
    of morality in business have recently noted this cannot be assumed to
    value individuals so it seems also appropriate to have external legal
    and governmental oversight and review to some extent.
    

    Ken,
    
         I just re-read may note and I'm sure it came off a bit more harsh
    than I really meant it.  The point I was trying to make is that we all
    (me included) have to get beyond making judgements on others work without
    some real substance on which to base it.  That's what bugs me the most
    about generalizations.  Also, I didn't mean to imply that you did mean
    that _all_ employees were [insert either case].  Maybe I'm becoming to
    cynical to even write rational responses. :-)
    
    Scott
    

    add. to -1,
    
        However I do agree with .14's assessment of "the right thing".
    
    Scott