Conference 7.286::digital

    Don't always agree with you, but, this time I do. Why would we charge
    for the use of these areas? Sure doesn't make sense.
    
    Hope this isn't the "new" DEC under Palmer.
    
    Marc H.

    RE: .0
    
    I am an occasional reader (don't usually write) of this notes file.
    One thing seems very apparent to me:  That the writer of .0 wants
    Digital to provide a country club atmosphere for him to work in.
    I suggest that if you feel that a small charge for the use of a well
    equipped exercise room is an outrageous request, you should resign
    and try working for another company.  Then maybe you will see what
    it is like to work for corporations other than DEC.  Your notes
    clearly indicate that you are the worst example of the stereotypical
    spoiled Digital employee, whom we can do without.
    
    

I have never understood why the company should provide us with a gym, either
free or at a charge.  Most of us have jobs with no heavy lifting.  Why should
the company be obliged to provide us with artificial heavy lifting?

Personally, going down to a rank basement to walk on a treadmill at *work*
is just too filled with negative symbolism.

Beyond that, the outdoors is free.  Short of a tempest, there's no reason
why people can't take a walk out there if they want to, any day of the year.
(I walk 2 miles to the van every day and it can't get cold enough to keep
me from heating up half the way there.)

    re: -1
    
      Yes, shut them down and sell the equipment.  Please try to get a 
    fair price for the equipment although I'm sure some employees will
    make a case that Digital owes them a reduced price on it.
    
      Why, in what has presumably been a cost cutting atmosphere for so
    long have so many of these non core activities been allowed to survive?
    

    
    
    	RE .2 and .3
    
    	You guys miss the point if the centers *actually* do save the company
    	money on sick days.
    
    	I have a feeling that the justification for the wellness centers
    	in the first place was exactly what .0 cited from various studies.
    
    	However like many other things in this company no one ever followed
    	through and actually documented that it saved Digital any money at
    	all....
    
    	And so in times like this you have to be able prove in no uncertain
    	terms your worth it. If you haven't left a paper trail forget it.
    
    							Mike
    							---- 

I don't have access to a Wellness Center.  (Too bad, I need the exercise!)  8^)

However, if these centers exist, then I think they should be retained.   If there
is an incremental maintenance cost associated with their operation, then it 
is reasonable to expect the users of this facility to help share the cost of its
operation.

I would personally love the opportunity to join a Wellness Center, co-located
with my office, for a paultry $45/year.   

Who knows... it might even be so damn convenient that I might actually use it!  
8^)

Bob

    re: .0
    
    Maybe they want to get rid of it and this is the first step.  Charge
    for access and then when utilization drops, they can claim that the
    facility is being under-utilized and the space would be better used for
    something else.
    
    re: .1 - .4
    
    On one hand, we have DIGITAL complaining about the high cost of medical
    benefits and urging employees to live a healthy life-style, and then on
    the other hand, they go and make it harder for people to live a healthy
    life-style.  Doesn't make sense.
    
    Bob

>    Some pay for exercise, some pay for quitting smoking, and
>    some pay for maintenance of cholesterol and blood pressure levels
>    within nominal ranges.  Digital is not one of those intelligent
>    companies.
 
	I am really glad I don't work for a company like this, this smacks of
	nanny state and control.

	So I'm fit and healthy when I join the company.

	My doctor says I'm fit and heathly, but my blood pressure is below
	nominal limits, and so it my weight.

	Opps sorry, you don't fit our picture of a "PC"-type heathly person, 
	you're outside the nominal limits so we're going to cut your salary.

	And if I was to eat loads of fatty and sugary things, I could get my
	weight up past the lower limit, and my blood pressure up past
	the lower limits, and by drinking heavily I could keep my
	cholesterol down  - I could get diabetes, and my migraines would
	increase, I'm sure loads of alchohol would knock me for six, but I'm 
	within the nominal limits, so who cares if its good for me?

	Or due to getting a bit older, my blood pressure or cholestorol go up,
	or maybe my blood pressure is lower than the "healthy bands", or
	maybe my metabolism changes and my cholesterol increases so what
	happens
	
	Or I could have a left ventricular hypotrophe, with along with the
	high blood pressure that comes with this, this could tempt me into 
	exercising so I don't get a cut in pay, which would bring on a heafty
	heart attack and even kill me.

	sorry, pay cut for you, we don't think you're treating your body
	correctly - look, your outside the limits.

	BUT WHAT ABOUT THE QUALITY OF MY WORK?

	Heather

I use the exercise center at ZK two or three times a week. One of the reasons I
moved from Marlboro to ZK was because ZK had an exercise center. It's the thing
I like best about ZK.

A couple of months ago, the person who runs the center told me that only about
100 employees a week use the center. I wondered why the company bothered to
subsidize something that so few people use. At the time, I was afraid the
company would wise up and shut the center down.

I'm glad the fee is being instituted, and think it's completely appropriate.
It's a small price to pay ($45 a year) for something that would cost a lot more
on the outside. 

I actually think that, since people don't value things that are "free," more
employees might begin to use it now. We'll see.

Vicki Meagher

    re: .9
    
    Somebody 'runs' the center????  It's not just a room where you go and
    do your thing?  (I've never been in a Digital facility with a wellness
    center, so I have no idea what it's like).
    
    Bob

    	I agree with (.-1). I also use the center a lot, and I didn't like
    the idea of the fee for the reasons stated in .0. However, if the money
    is necessary to avoid having the close the place, I don't mind
    contributing. It's a small, yearly fee, and I certainly get my money's
    worth out of the place. It is also one of the things that brought me to
    the ZKO facility and keeps me here (as part of the overall package).

    
    Re: wellness center(s)
    
    Why don't we just call them gyms?  When I was in high school,
    my teachers never thought of calling my 7th period class a
    "wellness" class.  Guess gyms aren't PC.
    
    Glenn

    re: .2
    
    It's apparent you have no concept of what it's like to work for another
    corporation.  We are by no means "spoiled" at this company. 
    
    I personally know someone who was afraid to take the STEP away from
    DEC.
       
    The now get many thousands more a year to start.
    Got promoted in the first year.
    Get quarterly free work gatherings
    have the 401k plan
    get reimbursed for joining a gym a certain amount
    Have an automatic shoe shiner in the restrooms
    A private dining area in the facility for working or private lunches
    
    it goes on and on and on
    
    And....everyone can at least see a window from there office!  hahahaha.
    
    What it boils down is, we have a good company here, but it's doing the
    wrong thing by taking away benefits for the employees.  It's forcing
    the good workers to look elsewhere.  At least wait til we get back on
    our feet before implementing these changes.
                                               
    Just my opinion of course.

>>>    Somebody 'runs' the center????  It's not just a room where you go and
>>>    do your thing?  (I've never been in a Digital facility with a wellness
>>>    center, so I have no idea what it's like).

Yeah, someone manages the place. I believe she's a contract person. Some
overseer always seems to be on the premises.

The one in ZK is open from 7 to 4 Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and from 9 to
6 Tuesday and Thursday.

The center also has several classes at various hours, which cost employees
$2.50 or $3 per class.

I've heard that employees from other facilities can use the center (I suppose
it's true, but not sure). Everyone who uses it has to have a screening with
Health Services. And starting September 30, we'll have to show badges proving
that we've paid our $45.

Vicki Meagher

    We have an exercise center here in WMO and from what I've
    seen it gets some pretty heavy use. Sometime back (6-12 
    months) a series of charges to users was instituted. This
    works out to about $25.00 per quarter ($100.00 per year).
    A sizeable portion of this goes into purchasing equipment
    etc. from what I understand. I believe it's "run" if you
    will be Employee Activities but I'm not sure of that. There
    is someone on site every day from either a local Hospital
    or the "Y" who works with folks to devise exercise programs
    suited to whatever goals they have. One of the criteria to
    use it is being passed by the Health Services organization
    to do so. While I don't use the thing myself, (and probably
    should if you could see how my waistline continually explores
    new horizons) most of the people who do really enjoy it.
    
    	At first, the Charging resulted in some people dropping out
    but again, based on some folks I work with who use it, more
    have signed up to do so. 
    
    	I do not believe it is shortsighted of Digital to allow
    charges for such an activity at all. If you don't want to pay
    for it, then you don't have to use it, thus don't have to pay
    for it. IMO - these clearly fall into the "entitlement" types
    of things that have been spoken of in the past. Now the company
    could just as easily have said, "Trash them" outright instead
    it's continuing to offer them, but asking the users of them to
    help support the Wellness Centers or whatever. Seems pretty fair
    to me. Looking around at all sorts of other employee activities
    I see participants in many of those having to spend some money
    in order to do them. Some examples would be Golf, Bowling, Hockey
    leagues. So charging for these centers is, IMO, consistent with
    what's already done in similar things elsewhere in the Corporation. 
    
    	--  J  --
	

    The cafeteria is also a benefit, both to the employee and to Digital. 
    
    They charge for the food, whether you like it or not. :-)
    
    Mark

    
    .0 is right on this one. Companies need to do everything they can
    to encourage regular exercise from their employees. The many benifits
    are all nicely stated in the base note. I suspect many of you are are
    disagreeing with -edp because you enjoy it so much. 
    
    Neil

    re: .15
    
    I agree totally.  There is a huge imbalance in facilities in DIGITAL
    and the services offered.  Here in Stow, Mass. we have been on the higher end
    of service: nurses, aerobics, tennis courts, softball field. 
    Activities that require extensive support/monitoring should have user
    fees. Healthfit programs are clearly one are, IMHO. 
    
    The nurses are rapidly disappearing at many of the facilities - another
    'free' perk going away.  But ,any were not heavily utilized.
    
    I've been playing in the DEC Basketball league for 9 years now - we
    always pay a use fee of about $70/season, the other sports have similar
    fees.  DEC picks up part of the cost.  You do tend to value and take
    advantage of something when you pay for uniforms and to play.
    
    OVerall, I'd like to see employees having access to roughly equivalent
    decor, support, etc. in areas like cafeterias,  health awareness etc. 
    But location specific extras should be partially paid for by employees.
    
    I think the trouble is with the downsizing, the restructuring of
    benefits (LTD), the cost of healthcare, the less frequent raises, we
    lose perspective on rights versus privileges.  We have rights to being
    treated with respect, work in a healthful, safe environment and 
    provided the tools to properly do the job, the
    rest is privilege and should be at least a shared responsibility.
    
                                                                

    Those of us out in the field promise not to whine about your gyms if
    you'll leave our cars and award trips alone, OK?

    
    
    I just love the logic that the "Wellness center" is saving the company
    money.  Maybe there is hope for the company yet.  Let's see now, if
    each wellness center saves us say $100,000 a year then there is hope
    for an end to our financial crisis.  Could one of you math heavies
    out there figure out how many WC's we have to make to break even next
    year?
    
    But let's not stop there -  if we double the number the savings might
    even allow us to become profitable again...
    
    

    IF ITS THAT IMPORTANT TO PEOPLE JOIN A GYM AND GO AFTER OR BEFORE WORK
    AND PAY HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS LIKE EVERY ONE ELSE.THIS IS A REAL NON
    ISSUE IN THESE TROUBLED TIMES

    RE: .17
    	The responses thus far would seem to indicate that paying
    	to use these facilities is acceptable to many. 
    	I think Digital IS encouraging employees to exercise, by
        providing space for such activities and supporting, financially,
        at least a portion of those activities. While I absolutely do
        not have any figures to go on, I do know that Digital does 
        provide financial support to many of the leagues and so on
        which go on. 
    
        and I can't resist the temptation to say, perhaps "person X"
        disagrees with many of us because "person X" enjoys it so
        much as well. In reviewing all the replies thus far, (19)
    	I'm seeing a clear consensus that folks enjoy these but at
        the same time feel paying to support for them isn't all that 
        repugnant to them either.
    
    	--  J  --	 
                                                       

Right on -1.  Although with a sales force transitioning to commissions, sorta,
There's less and less reason for COE.

Its the same old reaction to something that used to be fully subsidized to one 
that is becoming partially subsidized.  Everyone (myself included) hates to
part with their hard earned cash.

To the base author, I agree with your point that the wellness center should
yield healthier employees.   But why should it escape the passing of cost
onto those that use it.

Since I have been here (almost 9 years), the cost of just about everything that
can be categorized as a benefit to an individual or the company has risen or 
has become less subsidized by the company.

	ie	health insurance
		dental
		LTD
		awards
		ESOP - disappeared
		Water coolers - disappeared
		Car plan personal charges
		Christmas parties
		etc, etc, etc.

The cost cutting or sharing will continue. 

    I worked at Texas Instruments in Dallas for 9 years before coming to
    DEC. They had a pretty decent separate facility, with locker rooms,
    men's and women's equipment areas, and aerobics rooms. I think they
    charged about $50 for individual employees, and $100 or so for
    families. When they built a brand new state-of-the-art facility up the
    road (primarily software engineering), they also built an additional
    gym, with outdoor pool. Now, TI is *not* known for the way it spoils its
    employees, nor were they in the greatest of financial health, but they
    really did a good job with that new site.

    The general consensus was that the fee was reasonable and justified to
    maintain the facility and equipment (maintaining a swimming pool can't
    be cheap; I imagine liability coverage for such a place has to be
    outrageous, too). Equivalent gyms in the area ranged from 2 to 10 times
    the price. So, the company was providing the benefit, but sort of on a
    copayment basis.

    My first job with Digital was a PSS contract at Surgikos, a Johnson &
    Johnson subsidiary in Arlington. They had a room set aside with
    treadmills, steppers, and some universal-gym-type equipment, and small
    locker rooms. I don't think they charged anything. This was a pretty
    minimal setup.

    On one hand, I think it is reasonable for those employees who take
    advantage of the benefit to carry some of the load. It is a subsidized
    benefit, not a free one. On the other hand, I agree with EDP that the
    financial benefits to the company are significant enough to justify
    making it free. If it costs the company a $45 investment to avoid $100
    (or $200 or $300) in expenses, that is sound business. The numbers
    are obviously not that simplistic, but you get the idea.

    I don't think anyone at DEC is so draconian as to penalize people for
    *not* practicing healthy habits (at least, not do it and live to see the
    next sunrise...). I am not so naive as to believe that no one would
    consider it, and in fact I have heard this topic come up on the radio
    before, particularly in the area of insurance eligibility. That is the
    extremist position that we must be on guard against. That way lies Big
    Brother and behavior regulation. But rewarding people for practicing
    good habits is a good idea, and pays for itself with reduced company
    expenses. Just so people don't get too fired up and go pulling muscles
    or tearing up knees. Naturally, a well-managed program should include
    getting out-of-shape people back into shape without injury.

    
    RE: .22
    
    Being in the minority here doesn't bother me a bit. I know he's right.
    I know that America has a real problem with attitudes regarding diet
    and exercise. I think anything a company can do to encourage a
    healthier lifestyle, we should do it (within reason, of course). I
    guess you and I just draw the line in a different place on what is
    reasonable. On the issue of "enjoying" disagreeing with .0 because he
    is who he is, I guess I'm just a little tired of folks yanking his
    chain. We look at a nodename::username at the top of a note and 
    conclude that the data in the note is bogus before we even read it.
    Maybe this note isn't a good example of that, but ya can't deny it
    happens. I know I do it.
    
    
    Neil
    

         I don't use our shape room here in Shrewsbury mostly because I run
    and using a treadmill would be boring. Besides they don't go fast
    enough ;-).. I'd definitely have to add one more point to the good
    reasoning behind having workout facilities. It gives the employee a
    chance to break away for XX minutes and clear his/her head. There's
    been many a day where I felt I was going to buckle under the pressure.
    Or have been grappling with problems. I'll hit the road put in my 5-8 miles
    and come back with a whole new outlook. Heck oftentimes while mulling
    a problem over in my mind ,while running, I've managed to solve my
    problem.
          From my perspective a person that exercises regularly has a much
    higher energy level than someone that doesn't. 
    
             Bob

    Re: .25
    
    You are correct. Although I certainly don't agree with EDP all the
    time, his comments here are correct.
    
    This discussion is similar to the HMO concept in health care. Its
    cheaper to move people to a healthy life style than to just treat
    the results.
    
    I did NOT join a gym when I first relocated to the Worcester area,
    as the cost was too high for me. The SHR facility provided a gym
    for my use, free of charge. That was the start of an exercise program
    that was a turning point for my health.....much better!
    
    I'm more productive at work, due to some extent to my better health.
    
    I'm afraid that , once again, DEC is making short term decisions that
    in the long run *COST* money.
    
    Marc H.

        In the greater Marlboro area alone, Digital spent hundreds of 
    thousands of dollars a few years ago to set up designated smoking 
    rooms with special ventilation in each building.  At most larger 
    or multi-building facilities, the amount of space dedicated to smoking
    rooms easily outclasses that dedicated to "wellness centers".
    
        So now, if you want to use facilities provided by the company to
    stay healthy, it's gonna cost ya.  And you'll do it on your own time.
    If you want to use facilities provided by Digital for smoking, it's 
    still free.  And I've heard a rumor that some people even spend more
    time in the smoking room than that allotted for their breaks.
    
    As usual, the wrong type of behavior is being rewarded at Digital.
    
    Rick
        

re: .28

The smoking rooms were created to allow non-smokers to work in a cleaner,
healthier environment.

It makes perfect sense.

Bob

    The smoking room analogy isn't a good one.  Smoking rooms were not set 
    up at Digital for the benefit of the smokers ... they were set up for
    the benefit of everyone else.
    
    $50/year is still a bargain for the use of exercise facilities ... just
    try joining a health club for that kind of money.
    
    Digital still spends money maintaining basketball courts, tennis
    courts, volleyball courts, etc. in the parking lots at many facilities. 
    If you really want to exercise at work, there are still alternatives
    which don't cost anything.
    
    ... Bob
    

    DEC should have wellness centers(gym) in every facility with a
    population over X amount of employees. This would be fair to all
    employees. A fee should be charged to use this center. If you work in a
    small facility that does not meet the criteria/population to house
    a gym then those employees should be allowed to join the nearest DEC-
    wellness center that they have access to.
    I work in the Mill and I don't have access to a wellness center. I do like
    most people and join a private wellness center(YMCA) for my excersise.
     
    I am curious as to those employees that have a "gym" available from
    7-4, are the excercising on Company time? And how many people have
    been injured while working out in this wellness center and have had to 
    miss time from work or visit a doctor due to the injuries they recieved
    while working out in the wellness center(especially during those
    aerobic classes of which more stress=body not mind related injuries
    occur than other forms of excercise.

    I don't smoke, and I consider the smoking rooms to be a GREAT benefit
    to me.  :-)
    
    I still remember the time when I worked in the Mill and shared an
    office cube with a smoker...
    
    Gee, I hope that they don't start charging me each time a smoker enters
    the room.  :-)

    I dont exercise, I dont like to do anything that requires bodily
    energy to be exerted, I like to be relaxed at all times. I dont thing our
    bodies was build for jumping up and downs and carrying weights, they
    are build vertically to make it easier to lay down and pull your feets up, 
    If GOD wanted us to exercise, our bodies would be more rounded like, not 
    vertically shaped !

    just my opinions,
    /Nasser

Not many employees at ZKO have used the fitness center, even though it's been
"free". So depriving employees of the "free" use of the center isn't going to
affect many people.

The vast majority of employees at ZKO are in software engineering, making at
least reasonable salaries, so that $45 a year is not an undue burden.

Vicki Meagher

Boy oh boy, the things some people will whine about...

Let's see...

Here in Tempe, we don't have a Wellness Center, never did.
The old Employees Activity Committee used subsidize $100
off the $300+ annual membership at the Health Club down the
street. But then when things got tight, that funding was 
discontinued.

The EAC used to also subsidize fees for local sports 
activities (softball, basketball, golf leagues, etc).
But then when things got tight, that was also discontinued.

Then we lost our cafeteria at the end of FY92. Now we have 
someone spin by for about 20 minutes at 9:30 each morning
with muffuns, cookies, salads, etc.

And this guy is complaining about $45 a year (less than 
12.5 cents-a-day) for his gym.

Some people's priorities are definitely screwed up.

Bob.

1.  Smoking rooms certainly are a benefit to smokers.  The benefit to non-
    smokers could have been acheived by simply banning smoking outright.

2.  Considering that I'm shelling out $70/MONTH to belong to a health club,
    I'd happily spend $45/year to have a fitness center at work.  Of course,
    such things simply don't exist at field offices.

3.  At two of my former jobs, we had outings, recreational facilities, etc.
    provided via employee associations to which one paid annual dues.  In one
    case, the employee-owned facilities included baseball/footbal fields, 
    tennis courts and day care.

\dave

For the record, I did not notice who the author of .0 was until later.

	The author of .3 -< shut 'em down >-

I get plenty of exercise without the company's involvement and eat plenty
of unhealthy food on the same principles.

    RE: 25 and 27
    
    	Folks - no offense was meant in .22, if it came across that way 
    	then my apologies for that. Now that's one  heckuva lot more 
    	than you normally see in notesfile situations such as this.
    
    	As I said, I couldn't resist the temptation to turn the
    	phrase around to show another perspective on why people
        may disagree. It was most assurredly not a smack at anyone
    	including the originator of the note itself. That's what
    	these things are for, to present an item, and open discussion
    	on it. In .17 (I think) the phrase went along the lines of
    	people disagreeing with the originator based on who it was,
    	what I was pointing out was the possibility of the originator
    	disagreeing for the same reasons. 
    
    	While I may not necessarily agree with the point of view expressed
    	in the original note, heck let's be honest, I don't agree with
    	it, I also don't think that some of the responses aimed back
    	at the originator were/are in good taste as well. Frankly some
    	of them have lacked what used to be called common decency and
    	courtesy. Each person is entitled to their own opinion some 
    	folks seem to think that if you don't agree then break out
    	the stake and get the matches ready. That isn't conducive to
    	a constructive discussion on any subject. Unfortunately as you
    	look through many notes the approach seems to be attack/kill 
    	the messenger versus read the message. 
    
    	My point about Consensus is that, most folks who had responded
    	to the original (up to .19) seemed to support the idea of paying 
    	something towards the cost of the Wellness Center. That it has 
        beneficial results to those who use it goes without question. Who 
        provides the financial support of it seems to be the point of the 
        discussion to hand. Some feel that Digital should pay, others express 
        a willingness to share that support. My opinion is that it should
    	be consistant with whatever else is done around similar things
    	which at present seems to be a co-pay arrangement in many cases.
    	Digital doesn't owe us a Wellness Center, or a Softball team,
    	or a Golf League or a Bowling League. What does clearly appear to 
    	be happening though is that Digital recognizes that there is value
    	in these in some way and it provides some level of support for
    	them all. The company no longer feels it should be the sole 
    	support of it.  
    
    	So, it really doesn't matter who authors a subject, how we all
    	conduct ourselves within the discussion does have some bearing
    	on where the subject goes. 
    
    		--  J  -- 

    
    I don't see the point of debating how we feel about this since
    a lot of it has to do with "we don't have one so why should they",
    etc.
    
    The base note contends that it will actually save Digital money.
    Whomever got agreement to set up the Wellness Center(s) should
    be responsible to track whatever data is necessary to show whether
    it saves money or not.  If it saves Digital money, then that's
    reason enough to do it.  The collateral benefits of better employee
    morale, etc. are gravy.  If it cost's more than it saves, then it's
    time to decide whether the collateral benefits make it worth
    continuing.   period.
    
    Steve
    

When my work site changed to SHR the Wellness center was staffed 40 hours a week
by someone from the local Y, and it was only open when it was staffed. When the
cost cutting measures started a few years ago it went down to 1 day a week, with
security doing video and audio monitoring and employees access the room via
key-card.  I believe that the SHR1 room is available 5x24 and the SHR3 room is
available 5x12.  So, accessability actually went up!  Though it used to be things
like aerobics instruction was free, but now you have to pay a fee for it.

I currently only use the room occaisionally when the weather is lousy.  Otherwise
I get plenty of exercise by biking (to work and on weekends) and from my karate
classes.

Rich

The smoking policy which Digital has adopted is for Digital's benefit.

>>          <<< Note 2096.30 by CUPTAY::BAILEY "Season of the Winch" >>>
>>                -< a couple of points to add to the discussion >-

>>    The smoking room analogy isn't a good one.  Smoking rooms were not set 
>>    up at Digital for the benefit of the smokers ... they were set up for
>>    the benefit of everyone else.

No,  if Digital just wanted to benefit everyone else,  it could have simply
banned smoking all together.  If you were a smoker and didn't like it,  you
could leave but instead Digital choose to spend money to make sure smokers
would stay with the company.

Garry

    HURRAH FOR NOTER .35!!!!!!!!  I think the people in the large DEC
    facilities out east shoud come out to the field sometime and see how
    the rest of Digital operates.  No DEC facility in the Mid-West that I
    am aware of has any of these PERKS.  No "Wellness Facility", few have
    cafeterias, no teams are company sponsored, actually even computer
    equipment is fought over.
    
    Perhaps an outing to a remote site (outside of New England) would cause
    these base noters to appreciate their country club they now have.
    
    Sorry, I just couldn't resist getting that off my chest.
    
    B.

    Wouldn't it be so much better if these decisions (like closing WCs or
    cafeterias) were consensus (sp?) based, instead of just forcing it on
    us ? We have excellent communication facilities and am sure it would be
    very easy to seek opinions/votes before making decisions which effects
    most of us.
    
    Sarma 

re: .44

Because, as my cost center manager always reminds us, this is not a
democracy.

re: "Country club"

BTW, does anyone know if Wang had to get rid of theirs? (country club)

re: the smoking room analogy

Another reason the analogy fails is that plenty of DIGITAL work gets done
in the smoking rooms. I doubt that much gets done in the wellness centers.
Sure - I know people often "think about" work related things when they
exercise, but they likely do that when they drive home, shop for groceries,
or wait to fall asleep at night, too. But it is quite common for those
who "spend more than their break time" in the smoking room to be actually
accomplishing real work at the same time - reviewing documents, writing
specifications, coding, desk checking, holding a meeting, even. There are
many other "real work" activities which can be done in a smoking room.
Now whether you think that's "correct" or not, or in line with the "intent"
of the smoking room "policies" is kinda immaterial. I have employees who smoke
and I personally couldn't care less if they do the bulk of their work in the
smoking room if that's where they feel most comfortable doing it, because
that's the most effective payback to DIGITAL.

re: .0

It sounds like a dumb move on DEC's part to me, too, Eric. But if it's true
that the other choice was to shut it down, I guess it's the lesser of two
evils.

-Jack

    All this nickel and dimeing the grunts to death reminds me of an old
    saying I first heard in the Navy about twenty years ago.
    
      "Why is everyone bitching about what color to paint the decks when
       we get to port? We got torpedoes off the port bow."
    
    BTW. I believe EDP is right about this one. 
    
    It's not a matter of cost. It's a matter of what we are focusing our 
    energies on to turn DEC around. Saving a nickel or dime here and there 
    never works when you are losing money and people like we are right now.
    
    You would think the folks making the nickel and dime decisions could
    find something better to do. Of course, that's just MHO.
    
    Gene.

re Note 2096.45 by MLTVAX::DELBALSO:

> re: "Country club"
> 
> BTW, does anyone know if Wang had to get rid of theirs? (country club)
  
        Sure they did -- several years ago.

        (But not before building a very nice swimming pool, which I
        enjoy each summer!  BTW -- the Wang Country Club was
        previously the Groton Country Club (privately owned) and is
        now again the Groton Country Club (this time municipally
        owned) -- anybody can join, whether from Groton or not.)

        Bob

    Although the value may not exceed a few millions of dollars, the
    fact that we scrap everything inside buildings that are closing
    instead of salvaging some value seems short sighted.  Brand new
    materials, such as stock tapes for data centers, furniture, office
    supplies, typewriters, is just sold as pennies/pound scrap or
    sent to incinerators.   WHY?   mwr
    

re Note 2096.48 by WMOIS::RAINVILLE:

>     Brand new
>     materials, such as stock tapes for data centers, furniture, office
>     supplies, typewriters, is just sold as pennies/pound scrap or
>     sent to incinerators.   WHY?   mwr
  
        I believe that we're trying to prevent illegal private profit
        from the disposal of the goods.

        Bob

    Illegal private profit?  Shouldn't office supplies and furniture
    be disbursed to facilities groups, new blank tapes to data centers,
    etc.?  Instead it's sent to be sold by the pound or incinerated.
    I think $.08/lb for a new IBM Selectric gets someone outside DEC
    a handy profit.  All legal of course.  mwr

>                      <<< Note 2096.43 by MAIL::HARRIS >>>
>                           -< JOIN THE REAL WORLD! >-

What makes you think you are in the 'real world'?

Perhaps YOU should come to New England and see that there really ISN'T a
country club.  In my group, computer equipment is fought over for example...
I suspect YOUR view of what goes on here is just as 'warped' as out view
of what goes on in the field.  We'll nevr know because I doubt either of
us could swing the funds to 'visit' the other side of the coin.

    And while you guys are fighting over computer equipment, others
    have been order to shred up-to-date and functioning equipment.  mwr

re: Mike, shredding useable goods

I think the Property Disposition Center is doing a pretty good job of trying to
recoup some of DEC's investment in capital goods rather than sending it to the
shredder. Having "visited" several times to make purchases myself, I've seen a
lot of the stuff which is sold to employees and much of it looks like it should
have gone to the shredder, but is being sold for re-use (that's not meant to be
a criticism.)

Unfortunately IRS regulations prevent the PDC from making used DIGITAL products
available as of now, as I understand it. But furnishings (and IBM selectrics)
seem to be available.

If some facilities/groups aren't disposing of goods through the PDC, I would
expect that's yet another instance of non-adherance to, or non-enforcement of
policy.

(How did we get onto this digression?)

-Jack

    #1 THE SMOKING ROOM ANALOGY
       Digital is going "beyond" what is legally required by offering a
    Designated Smoking Area.  When the federal law was passed in 1987-88, a
    number of Fortune 100's just banned smoking inside any facility
    altogether.  If someone wanted to smoke, go outside, in all kinds of
    weather.  At least Digital is proving space, ventilated, indoors which
    costs the company because we rent most facilities by the Square Foot-it
    doesn't matter if it's used for smoking or production!
    
    #2 WELLNESS CENTERS
       I believe this to be an entitlement or a privilege or an "extra" for
    the employees.  Digital doesn't "have " to provide this space at all. 
    I wish they did provide it at one of the 3-4 sites within my area MAA. 
    If they did, I would gladly pay for the convenience, etc.  As it is
    now, at lunch time, I go for a 2 mile walk at a nearby park, weather
    permitting.
    
    I just wish all the cry babies would wake up and realize we (the
    company and its employees) have a fight on our hands for survival.  I
    want to be able to work here for a long time.  If eliminating the free
    Wellness Centers saves any hard-working Digital employees their jobs,
    then I'm all for it!!!
    
    Ron

    I think the smoking rooms should be shut down.... They have done this
    in MANY other companys... they have done this at the city hall in
    Colorado Springs.... It has saved these facilities unbelieveable
    amounts of money in airhandling maintenance costs, and their portion of
    insurance.... 
    
    If the Wellness centers are being phased out or employee funded (which
    they should be).... I certainly think the smokers should pay for the
    privilege of using their smoking rooms.... 
    
    I know of a few cases where individuals spend most of the day in the
    smoking room.... using the company provided VT100 to log into notes and
    read mail. There are smoking rooms with coffee pots (which I'm told is
    the only FREE coffee in the building)....
    
    YES.., I think the company would be better served if they removed
    smoking rooms from the buildings all together.!
    
    IMHO..!
    
    Bob G.
    

    
>    YES.., I think the company would be better served if they removed
>    smoking rooms from the buildings all together.!
 
	So do I, I didn't want them in the first place, I don't think we should
	segregate people this way.

	Let people drink coffee at their desks if they want to, let people eat
	their lunch, let people wear aftershave/perfume and let people smoke.

	Heather

>	Let people drink coffee at their desks if they want to, let people eat
>	their lunch, let people wear aftershave/perfume and let people smoke.
    
    Here in Germany, in a recent messagen we were recently informed by
    Facilities that we should NOT eat lunch at our desks (for reasons
    of hygiene amongst others).
    
    Yet, it is still allowed for people to wander around the office
    smoking, even into the offices of non-smoking colleagues.
    
    Go figure it.
    

    RE: .56
    
    NO... What I meant by doing away with smoking rooms is.... Do away with
    smoking in the building all together... NO SMOKING ON COMPANY PROPERTY.
    
    I am a NON-SMOKER who spent to many days in the hospital due to second
    hand smoke (proven and documented). 
    
    There is no reason the company should have to fund smoking rooms, with
    special air handlers... Besides.....
    
    If the company is going to charge a fee for "healthful things", but
    they continue to fund for "unhealthful things", how can they justify
    this.?
    
    My vote is for banning smoking in all company areas and charging a fee
    for the use of the wellness centers..!
    
    As stated earlier, the company would save money in facility maintenance
    (this is a proven fact). The company would even save money in insurance
    costs, due to the elimination of a potential cause of fire and such.
    
    Just an opinion!
    
    Bob G.
    

    Back to .0... A couple of months ago I raised the issue of cost/benefit
    at a meeting of the ZKO wellness center steering committee  (see
    meeting minutes in WECARE::ZKO_WELLNESS_PROGRAM).  The Personnel
    representative present (Matt Sepe) said it was a good point, but that
    there are no studies that show definitively that companies with wellness
    programs are saving money.  
    
    If anyone finds such a study, please bring it to the attention of the 
    steering committee!  News articles and anecdotal evidence are not going
    to help. 
    
    					Val

    
>    If the company is going to charge a fee for "healthful things", but
>    they continue to fund for "unhealthful things", how can they justify
>    this.?
 

	My point exactly, don't fund the smoking rooms, let people smoke where 
	they want, its much too stressful to try to stop people smoking, or
	segregate them into one area.
	And don't fund the wellness centres (gym I presume) let it be
	self-funding (or with sports and social club-type funds) or close it 
	down - I suppose it could then be made a smoke-free room for those
	who want that.
    

	Heather

    
    As I respond to this note on a VT100; I have been in New England for
    10 years and I have yet been assigned to a facility that had any of the 
    perks I keep hearing about except for the cafe (and most of those
    places
    I wouldn't consider it a perk; a health crisis yes, but not a perk).
    
    bc

    Our office in Brussels is a non-smoking building. Anyone who wants to
    smoke has to go and stand in the corridor outside. It's blazing hot in
    the summer, and freezing cold in the winter. There's certainly no such
    thing as a terminal there. We do get free coffee though!
    
    If making employees pay a small sum for the gym saves even one person's
    real job, then how, in all honesty, can anyone complain?
    
    "Wellness", are far as I'm aware, does not exist as a word. I think
    it's supposed to mean "health" or "wellbeing". Why you don't use a
    perfectly good word like "gym". I don't know.
    
    Laurie.

re: .59, Bob G.

>   The company would even save money in insurance
>   costs, due to the elimination of a potential cause of fire and such.

I could be wrong, of course, but I don't really think fire insurance premiums
are lowered just because business places are designated non-smoking.

-Jack

    Reply to .56,61
    
    Heather:
    
    I know that you are not in the USA and maybe you aren't aware that
    their is a Federal Law, circa 1987-1988 prohibiting smoking in the
    workplace.  Like a few notes in this string have mentioned, other
    companies have not even allowed smoking inside their facilities. 
    Digital has gone the extra mile (and expense) and have set up
    Designated Smoking Areas in most facilities, using up in some cases
    valuable square footage that could be revenue generating.
    
    I would not be surpirsed to see that DSA's are eliminated in the
    future, and sorry, but if you want to smoke, go outside!
    
    Ron

    The stupidity of some of the comments here amazes me.  Apparently, many
    people do not understand basic economics.  First, I have not stated
    that charging for the wellness center is an "outrageous request".  It
    is just short-sighted and stupid.  Second, implementing a charge will
    not increase the number of participants.  Third, THERE IS NO COST FOR
    DIGITAL TO PASS ON TO EMPLOYEES.
    
    Operating the Wellness Center is NOT a COST for Digital; it is a
    SAVINGS.  It provides the company a financial benefit by reducing sick
    pay, increasing work produced, and reducing health care costs.  So if
    you think the company should pass the "cost" on to employees, then
    Digital owes the people who exercise some money.
    
    Deciding whether to charge employees based upon whether the charge is
    "reasonable" or whether employees can afford to pay it is NOT AN
    INTELLIGENT DECISION.  The proper way for Digital to make a decision is
    to consider the alternatives and the effect they will have on Digital. 
    Here are two choices:  Do not charge.  Consequence:  Digital pays for
    the Wellness Center and reaps benefits in reduced sick pay, increased
    productivity, and reduced health care costs.  Charge $45/year. 
    Consequence:  Wellness Center operation costs are reduced by a few
    thousand dollars, but Digital has increased sick pay, decreased
    productivity, and increased health care costs.
    
    Those are the factors Digital should have considered, but failed to.
    
    
    				-- edp

    
>    I would not be surpirsed to see that DSA's are eliminated in the
>    future, and sorry, but if you want to smoke, go outside!
 
	My dislike is against "nanny state" type impositions on people, I
	don't want to smoke as I am, and have always been, a non-smoker.

	I see no reason why I should put extra stress on someone by forcing
	them to stop, or smoke in specific areas or outside.
	In the instances that this causes somone a problem, I'm sure we can 
	sort it out by being adults, not by manifacturing more laws.

	Heather   

>    Operating the Wellness Center is NOT a COST for Digital; it is a
>    SAVINGS.  It provides the company a financial benefit by reducing sick
>    pay, increasing work produced, and reducing health care costs.  So if
 

  	So why are sports injury clinics such a growing business and so 
	difficult to get an appointment in?

	Ifg people didn't do so much sport, there'd be less injuries, less 
	claims on health care, and less time off work.

	Heather

    
    Re: .66
    
    > The stupidity of some of the comments here amazes me.
    
    Really.  Perhaps you'd care to provide the DATA that proves
    your following statement:
    
    >Operating the Wellness Center is NOT a COST for Digital; it is a
    >SAVINGS.  It provides the company a financial benefit by reducing sick
    >pay, increasing work produced, and reducing health care costs.  So if
    >you think the company should pass the "cost" on to employees, then
    >Digital owes the people who exercise some money.
    
    
    It happens that and in my gut and based on anecdotal evidence,
    I agree with you on this one, but since you say that it's a fact,
    then where's the proof.  Do you know of a study done at Digital
    that clearly shows that Wellness Centers have saved Digital money
    on sick pay, health care costs, and in improved productivity?
    
    Remember, of course, that one reply has already stated that no
    such study or data exists.
    
    Steve
    
    
    
    

re:59

I think all zealots should be banned as there is "solid" evidence that their
inflexiblity will cost the corporation millions...

What's next, sexual habits?

Insert half-smiley.

	Bob Cohen

    I feel strongly that an individual should be responsible for
    maintaining there own health.  When times are good, having Digital
    make this easier makes sense.  Times are not good and there is no
    reason to expect them to improve in the near future. If you believe
    exercising is important for your health please go take a walk.  
    The satisfaction of realizing how much you are benifiting Digital with
    your good health and how little it is costing the company will
    undoubtably decrease the probability of stress related illnesses.

    re: -.66
    
    When NRO opened their wellness center 5-6 years ago, I was paying a
    yearly fee.  Who are you to say that operating the Wellness Center is
    NOT a cost for Digital?  Who do you think purchases the equipment?  Who
    do you think pays for the personnel to operate the centers (where
    applicable)?  If these folks weren't there when I joined I would not
    have learned to operate the equipment properly and injury free.
    
    I've been with Digital 23 years, and the few years I went to the
    wellness center (before changing to a facility that does not have one)
    did not impact how many sick days I took off!  When I left NRO to go to
    LKG they DID reimbursement me.
    
    We did without "wellness centers" for almost the first 20 I was with
    the company.  It's nice to have them, wish they were in every facility,
    but the company does not OWE us that luxury.
    
    

 >	I see no reason why I should put extra stress on someone by forcing
 > 	them to stop, or smoke in specific areas or outside.
 > 	In the instances that this causes somone a problem, I'm sure we can 
 > 	sort it out by being adults, not by manifacturing more laws.

    This reads as though the "instances" of people smoking in the office
    space causing trouble/dissention were a rarity. History shows otherwise.
    I doubt that there is an office (in the US anyway) where someone could
    light up in their office without causing annoyance to somebody - and
    attempting to resolve each of these on a 1:1 basis would create both
    animosity and wasted time, even in the absence of any claims of
    second-hand smoke health risk.

    It's a very touchy issue (witness the origin of SOAPBOX), and the
    current solution is probably the best mix.

    the smoking laws are just another way to discriminate.  I smoke and I
    will never go to a smoking room.  I'm a responsible enough adult to
    know that my smoke may bother someone, so i make every effort not to
    impose my habits on others.  Even before smoking rooms, I never smoked
    inside, i always went outside (rain, snow or sunshine- as long as I was
    outside).  I'm also responsible enough to know that I can't take 10
    smoke breaks a day, usually 1 in the am, a couple at lunch and 1 in the
    pm. (outside of work I more than make up for it 8^) .)  I opt for
    closing down the smoking rooms also as they do allow for people to
    spend more time there when it's raining than if they were outside
    (remember, I'm a smoker and I know this).
    
    The gyms: close them down unless DEC can provide that type of service
    to every site or comprable discounts for those in remote locations for
    external gyms.
    
    Free Coffee??!!?!  Maybe in Brussels (and other European areas, too?)
    but I never heard of that perk here in the US.  If I can't have free
    coffee, than I don't think anybody should.  Afterall, they got rid of
    our spring water and newspaper subscriptions.
    
    Look, either perks for all or none.  I'm tired of empire builders who
    think they're god's gift to creation and feel like there sites can have
    anything it wants.  How do they get thses things approved?
    
    Reg.

    What is "wellness" supposed to mean, anyway? 
    
    Presumably it is the opposite of "sickness". They call it a Wellness
    center instead of a fitness center to imply that exercise makes you
    sick less often. But evidence to that effect is anecdotal. For example:
    
    Last year I exercised at the ZK wellness center more often, and was 
    absent due to illness more often. I have not been there for six months, 
    and haven't been sick since! I may be less fit, but am still healthy.
    
    Can running on a treadmill cure the common cold?     

    	There used to be a time when companies (or parts of companies)
    tried to attract new, talented people. All companies describe a pretty
    similar set of benefits and salary for a given position...but show
    *some* people something substantial like the ZKO Wellness Center, and
    you'll turn heads. This could be the deciding point for those
    individuals to come here to work...all other things aside.
    	Many companies provided some such "luxury" for this reason, to
    attract and keep good people...even if they lost a little money in the
    process. I agree with EDP that I don't think this ends up costing the
    company anything as long as a significant number of people use it. I,
    for one, am much healthier than when I started working in ZKO (1 sick
    day in the last 3 1/2 years), probably the best shape of my life and it
    wouldn't be true if the Wellness Center wasn't here.
    	I'd like to know more about what the fee is expected to pay for. It
    seems too little to be of any real benefit.

    # 1 I have to agree with Reg, its these local empire builders that are
    giving everyone associated a bad name.  I think a tighter control over
    their expenditures is warranted and maybe an audit should be in order. 
    I'm sure disallowing a few of these expenditures is one method of
    stopping the excesses.
    
    # 2 I would like to know the 'study' EDP refers to about Wellness
    Centers.  If anyone knows of its availibility, would you please post
    it?
    

re .66 >> The stupidity of some of the comments here amazes me.

I, and presumably others reading this string, share the same opinion of the base note.

Bob.

    
    Re: .74
    
    >The gyms: close them down unless DEC can provide that type of service
    >to every site or comprable discounts for those in remote locations for
    >external gyms.
    
    I see what you're driving at of course, but try looking at it another
    way.
    
    What IF there were data to prove that where there are wellness centers
    that Digital actually saves money and shows greater productivity directly
    related to the wellness center.  Then, from the company view at least,
    it's not a perk but a wise thing to do for the benefit of the company.
    Then it would be a 'cost savings measure' wisely implemented only where
    it saves Digital money and not something that Digital 'owed' to everyone
    or no one.  No?
    
    Of course, this would all depend on having data which it seems we
    don't.
    
    fwiw,
    Steve
    

>  	So why are sports injury clinics such a growing business and so 
>	difficult to get an appointment in?
>
>	Ifg people didn't do so much sport, there'd be less injuries, less 
>	claims on health care, and less time off work.

So how many of these injuries were incurred in the Wellness center?

>
>    I think the smoking rooms should be shut down.... They have done this
>    in MANY other companys... they have done this at the city hall in
>    Colorado Springs.... It has saved these facilities unbelieveable
>    amounts of money in airhandling maintenance costs, and their portion of
>    insurance.... 

How much money do you expect this to save Digital (if any)?  The fact that
other companies have saved money does not mean Digital will. The fact that
other companies have prohibited smoking entirely does not mean that Digital
should.
    
>    I know of a few cases where individuals spend most of the day in the
>    smoking room.... using the company provided VT100 to log into notes and
>    read mail. There are smoking rooms with coffee pots (which I'm told is
>    the only FREE coffee in the building)....

There are people that make excessive trips to the coffee pot.  Surely that
should be a good reason to ban coffee.  

    Waxing philosophical, I think we have to look at this, as well as other 
    reductions from several viewpoints:
    
         1.  The individual's viewpoint
         2.  DEC's viewpoint
         3.  The financial, or quantitaive viewpoint
         4.  The quality-of-life viewpoint
         5.  The short term viewpoint
         6.  etc...
         
    Individually, what this does, in effect, is reduce my income.  $45 is a 
    paltry amount, but you  can  discuss health care in general, & the fact 
    that the employee is paying more for less, effectively reducing income.  
    Of course, the alternative [no job] kinda stinks!  So, individuals have 
    to decide whether they want to work  for  DEC,  or  get  a  better deal 
    elsewhere.
    
    DEC's  viewpoint  might  be  reduce  expense & increase  profit.    Two 
    different things, both impacting net performance.  By making  a fitness 
    center self-sustaining,  it's removed from consideration.  HOWEVER, the 
    finances [which are  black  &  white] are seperate from the intangibles 
    [which are gray].  I think people who exercise are more productive, and 
    I  suspect  there  are  many  "scientific"  studies  to  back that  up.  
    However, I also suspect that only a small  subset of the DEC population 
    takes advantage of the center.  Probably those people that want to work 
    out would do so anyway, regardless of an on-site fitness center.  Is it 
    worthwhile to do a "study?"  Who knows...
    
    So-is it a stupid decision?  If you use it,  yes.  If not, no.  Depends 
    on your situation.

    Re .68:
    
    > 	Ifg people didn't do so much sport, there'd be less injuries, less 
    >	claims on health care, and less time off work.

    Obviously _while_ exercising there is an increased risk of injury or
    heart attack, but this is compensated for by decreased problems while
    _not_ exercising -- people who exercise live longer on average.
    
    
    Re .69:
    
    > Perhaps you'd care to provide the DATA that proves your following
    > statement:
    
    I gave data when I initiated this topic.  The savings from me alone
    would cover the $45/year charge for two dozen other employees, just
    considering the sick leave saved, let alone health care costs and other
    effects.  The dramatic drop in my sick leave (from 5-10 days per year
    to .25) might not be typical, but it doesn't take many such atypical
    changes to cover ALL the receipts Digital will get from people paying
    the charge.
    
    
    				-- edp

    The fact that there has not been a study conducted to determine
    whether or not, and if so how much, Digital saves by encouraging a
    healthier lifestyle does not mean its not true.  There have been more
    than enough research to prove that exercise, a good diet and such are
    beneficial to one's health.  If a study is conducted at ZKO would you
    say that a study should also be done at MKO?
    
    Digital doesn't owe us a LifeCenter/gym.  However, if it choose to do
    so it would reasonably be considered an investment in worker health. 
    Charging a fee is not outrageous but it does show that corporate
    management is not enlightened enough to recognize a good way to improve
    productivity when they see it.  In these days of skyrocketing
    healthcare and insurance costs, encouraging employees to lead healthier
    lives is just good business.
    
    edp and I agree as often as the Red Sox win the World Series but this
    time I agree with his basic message that discouraging rather than
    encouraging exercise and healthy lifestyles is a mistake.
    
    Marv
    
    
    

For all you people who think exercise is so wonderful, cuts down on sick time,
makes happier and more productive employees, etc.:

Do you think the company should take a more active role in encouraging
employees to participate in the ZKO gym? 

It's been free until now, and hardly any employees use it. Should the company
have been more aggressive in promoting its use?

Vicki Meagher
One of the 100 or so employees who actually use the center

    
    Re: .83
    
    >I gave data when I initiated this topic.  The savings from me alone
    >would cover the $45/year charge for two dozen other employees, just
    >considering the sick leave saved, let alone health care costs and other
    >effects.  The dramatic drop in my sick leave (from 5-10 days per year
    >to .25) might not be typical, but it doesn't take many such atypical
    >changes to cover ALL the receipts Digital will get from people paying
    >the charge.
    
    OK, I don't dispute that you experienced the changes that you
    describe, but I doubt that you can conclusively prove that the Wellness
    Center by itself was the cause of the change, and even if you could
    prove it for your specific case, that doesn't translate into the
    Wellness Center does this over enough cases to be saving Digital
    money.  Perhaps it does, but this doesn't make the case is my only
    point.
    
    Steve
    

    
    Re: .84
    
    >The fact that there has not been a study conducted to determine
    >whether or not, and if so how much, Digital saves by encouraging a
    >healthier lifestyle does not mean its not true.  There have been more
    >than enough research to prove that exercise, a good diet and such are
    >beneficial to one's health.  If a study is conducted at ZKO would you
    >say that a study should also be done at MKO?
    
    You're right it doesn't mean it's not true and what you go on to say
    is also widely true, but that's not the point.  The point is don't argue
    a case on a point that you can't defend.  If you were arguing the point
    that keeping a Wellness Center saves Digital money, what would you do
    when you were asked for the figures that proved it?  Just because it is
    widely true doesn't mean that Digital would experience those savings.
    Any manager being asked to approve it based on the cost savings would
    want to see the evidence or at least projection of cost savings.  No?
    
    Steve
    
    
    

    If DEC will force me to join the Walloons center, that I will SUE 
    DEC !

    I come to work to relax in an environment conducive to harmonies
    feelings , in a soft and flawless stream, I dont come to work to sweat 
    and to perspirate !

    what we need is more elevator music type of atmosphere, not more GYMS
    and running around!

    I see them every lunch hour, jumbing up and down and running around the
    vacinities, so many of them, they are even hazadrous(sp?) to traffic 
    control and pedestrians crossings too.

    I think every one should play chess instead, no one breaks a leg
    playing chess, and you dont sweat too.
    
    just my 2 cents offcourse.
    /Nasser

>    I see them every lunch hour, jumbing up and down and running around the
>    vacinities, so many of them, they are even hazadrous(sp?) to traffic 
>    control and pedestrians crossings too.
    
    Running is bad for one. It hurts the legs and back. I don't know why
    people do it.
    
>    I think every one should play chess instead, no one breaks a leg
>    playing chess, and you dont sweat too.
    
    If you don't sweat when you play chess your opponent is too easy. :-)
    
    		Alfred

    I'm on the Wellness Center committee as an employee representative.
    
    A few years ago, when we were looking to pick a provider of WC
    services, we got presentations from several providers.  Some of them
    included literature which referenced studies of pay-back, such as
    an internal study by Blue Cross.  There seemed to be three such
    studies each of the providers would mention.
    
    I got the impression that there was, at that time (1988?), no hard
    conclusive data, due no doubt to the the "fuzzy" nature of wellness
    (what counts as a cold?) and the expense of recording detailed
    wellness information other than officially reported sick days.
    
    		-John Bishop

    .88 looks to me like one of that author's more clever chain jerkings.
    
    I am astonished that the moderators continue to let him play his cute
    little games.
    
    Could it be that the moderators have concluded that the subjects that
    Mr Abbasi choses to mock, don't deserve anything more than his
    mockery?
    
    I think that for a man who professes not to understand English spelling
    very much, his "misspellings" are almost diabolically clever.
    
    				herb

    I've worked for Digital for 15 years, at 4 sites, in 3 states, and have
    yet to work in one that provides a wellness center. Boy do I feel
    deprived! :) I think our facility has an exercise room, with rubber
    mats, lockers and showers; I believe aerobics are offered there after
    hours, for a fee.
    
    I've always accepted it as MY responsibility to look out for my
    physical well being. Whether it be a balanced diet, or the level of
    exercise that I choose to participate in. If there was an activity
    that met my interests and schedule, and I thought the fee was
    reasonable, I would sign up. If jogging at lunch fit my schedule, I
    would do that.
    
    I may stay up late watching a ball game and be tired the next day; If I
    don't exercise regularly, I may have less energy when I come to work.
    Those are my choices. I own the consequences if I choose to ignore  
    them.
    
    While many of us are seeing our co-workers TFSO'd, I have a real hard
    time reading about how unfair it is to have to begin paying to use a
    wellness center. 
    
    Kevin

	I'm sorry but there are a lot of people (yes EVEN Digital
	employees :-) ), smoking and non-smoking alike who are not
	thoughtful, responsible and considerate of others like the
	person who said he was always conscious of NOT inflicting 
	cigarette smoke on fellow employees.

	I agree with Heather that IN PRINCIPLE it is wrong to enforce 
	rules on people, BUT it is a fact that there are a number of 
	people (a recent study showed the figure to be at LEAST 6/10)
	who suffer from alergies, asthma and other bronchial type
	trouble as a direct result of being around smokers.  
	(The figure goes up to 9/10 where the environment is such as a 
	pub or club where smoke is even more prolific.)  Is it right
	that they should have the smoking of others enforced on them?

	I always AVOID places in my social life where smoking is allowed 
	and don't think it is fair if I have no choice at work where I 
	spend such a large chunk of my time.   My local pub has installed 
	a system of powerful air filters which work wonderfully so I can go 
	in there (and this may be a viable alternative in the work place).  
	However I think there are a few people unaware of the problems 
	smoking can cause a great number of people and who would be 
	horrified at the sound of my coughing when I have been in contact 
	with smoking (Camille eat your heart out!!!).

	I have worked at Digital in an area where four smokers sat in the 
	next work pod - all jolly nice people, but they virtually 
	chain-smoked and it never occurred to them that it was a problem.  
	They often used to come round to this pod (where none of us smoked 
	and two of us actually have asthmatic-type reactions to smoke) and 
	blew smoke all over us, despite polite (and eventually sarcastic) 
	requests not to.

	Conversely there was someone who worked in the group I was in 
	before, who bought an air purifier/filter and set it up on her 
	desk so as not to cause distress to others (one of the 
	responsible ones).

	Now I spend a lot of time answering phones becuase the smokers 
	tend to drift down to the smoking room en masse, but I'd rather
	have that than the smoking.

	A program shown recently on National "No Smoking" day stated that 
	more days medical sickness from work are caused directly and 
	indirectly by smoking than any other factor (apparently in the
	non-medical stakes boredom with job counts for a higher rate!!)

	If a person wants to smoke I have no objection at all as long
	as that person does NOT insist on inflicting their smoking on
	me, in which case I feel I have a right to ask them not to.
	My asking them not to smoke around me is going to be far less 
	harmful to them, than them smoking is to me. (I'm sure the
	grammar went haywire there!)

	BTW it is a FACT that many insurance companies in the UK DO  
	offer lower premiums for buildings insurance where smoking is 
	banned entirely from the site.  A high proportion (maybe the
	majority - I don't remember the figures) of office fires are 
	started by matches and cigarette ends in wastebaskets (the other
	biggy is electrical faults).

	Cathy

    In ref to the gym at ZKO, I remember calling a few years ago to ask if
    it was open to DEC employees from other sites.  The answer I recieved:
    NO!  Supposedly they have a listing of all authorized personnel (ZKO
    type) that can use it and one has to use their badge to gain access and
    if you're not on the list, too bad.  This gym is for ZKO employees only
    and if you want to work out go find someplace else or fight (yes, fight
    I was told) with my own site management to have one installed at my
    site.
    
    Now, maybe that "law" has changed and with the large pecentage of
    people who live and work (for DEC) around the Nashua, NH area and if
    this was such a great gym I would expect DEC to do the right thing and
    open to all who make use of it.
    
    Limiting it to ZKO is just another example of empire building and
    management gone screwy.
    
    Like I said, maybe I'm wrong now, I haven't called back in a long time
    to find out who can use the gym, but if it's still for ZKO only
    employees, CLOSE IT DOWN.
    
    Reg.
    
    (I may smoke and be a little over weight, but I still find my own way
    to do what I can afford to do on my own to attempt to maintain my
    health.  BTW: I'm rarely sick and if one looks at my sick time record
    one would expect it to be high but in a double income family w/kids,
    not all sick time becomes an employee's and long term illnesses of other
    family members eventually leading to death does not mean all sick time
    is used by sick employees) Reports and stattistics can be used to show
    anything they want.  I know many people who work out faithfully and
    always seem to be "sick".

    
     I just called the GYM/Wellness center in Westminster(WMO) Ma. and
     for $8.00 a month ANY DEC employee from any site can join this
     Ctr. Hours are Mon-Wed-Fri 5:30 AM - 5:30 PM and Tue-Thur
     6:30 AM - 2:00 PM . You are also required to take a Evaluation test 
     which is comprised of a Stress Test,Flexibility Test,Body Composition.
     This evaluation is provided by the Ctr.
    
    
    
    

    I would like the people who think Digital should "pass the cost" of the
    Wellness Center on to employees to tell me whether they think Digital
    should charge for parking, thus passing the cost of parking lots on to
    employees.  Why not charge for office supplies, office rental, or
    Personnel services?
    
    
    Re .86:
    
    > OK, I don't dispute that you experienced the changes that you
    > describe, but I doubt that you can conclusively prove that the Wellness
    > Center by itself was the cause of the change, . . .
    
    We now know of two employees whose sick leave dropped to less than one
    day per year.  That alone is enough to pay the $45/year charge for half
    the employees who use the Wellness Center.  Would you like to bet that
    I can find enough other employees whose sick leave dropped to cover the
    remaining half?
    
    If Digital were really concerned about whether money were saved by
    using the Wellness Center, the solution is simple.  Count the number of
    sick days used by each employee in the several years before they used
    the Wellness Center (or started exercising elsewhere) and count the
    number in each year after.  That's a simple study which Digital could
    perform.  If Digital shared just 10% of the savings with me, I would
    get about a hundred dollars a year.
    
    I know for a fact that I saved this corporation more than four thousand
    dollars, and Digital is now charging me $45/year for that.  That is not
    an intelligent decision.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .92:
    
    > . . . I have a real hard time reading about how unfair it is to have
    > to begin paying to use a wellness center. 
    
    You have a VERY hard time reading that because IT IS NOT WRITTEN
    ANYWHERE IN THIS TOPIC.  Do you understand English?  I have quite
    clearly written that the decision was a BAD decision by management
    because it COSTS the corporation MONEY, not because it is unfair to
    anybody.  I have never, ever said that charging employees money to use
    the Wellness Center is in any way unfair.  It is just stupid.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .94:
    
    The ZKO Wellness Center is no longer restricted to ZKO or TTB employees
    only.  Paying the $45 charge entitles a person to use all the Wellness
    Centers in Southern New Hampshire.  I don't know if this "membership"
    is open to ALL employees.
    
    This presents another interesting question.  Once an employee has paid
    $45 to use the Wellness Center for a year, they could claim the right
    to use it even after they are terminated or resign.
    
    
    				-- edp

    	I believe the rules changed at the ZKO Wellness Center a while ago
    and that now any employee can use it. We've also been told that once we
    pay our fee, we're free to use the Wellness Centers at other sites
    should the occasion arise.
    	By the way, regarding the comment a few back that people inclined
    to workout will do it anyway, with or without a company-sponsored gym,
    that may be somewhat true. However, my previous "workout" (if you could
    call it that) was getting me nowhere. In fact, I had put on quite a bit
    of weight and accumulated a body fat percentage that I couldn't
    believe. Having the convenience of the center right here where I
    work...and somebody who works there and really knows her stuff (Phd and
    former triathelete), I am able to do much more of what I really need.
    It makes a big difference.

    	Re: .98
    
    	I know that people who SERPed can still use it. One such person is
    a regular when I'm there. I'm not sure about TFSOed people.

    
    Re: .96
    
    >We now know of two employees whose sick leave dropped to less than one
    >day per year.  That alone is enough to pay the $45/year charge for half
    >the employees who use the Wellness Center.  Would you like to bet that
    >I can find enough other employees whose sick leave dropped to cover the
    >remaining half?
    
    EDP, You're ignoring the most important part of my point.  These facts
    *could* be coincidental.  Without a controlled study, you have no way
    of knowing whether there might have been other factors which led to the
    drop in sick leave by yourself and the others you mentioned.
    
    Steve
    

    Re .97:
    
    >                                                    I have quite
    > clearly written that the decision was a BAD decision by management
    
    Yes, I understand English, and I do compliment you on your ability to
    articulate your opinions. There are other authors in this topic, who
    aren't as succinct as you, that gave me the impression that the issue
    is unfair. Silly of me to consider other peoples' opinions. ^)
    
    BTW, I haven't taken a sick day in almost 2 years; without benefit of a
    wellness center. Pill versus placebo?
    
    Eric, I've got a proposal: How about if you give up the use of the
    wellness center for a year, and I begin going to a gym/fitness
    center/health club (at my expense) for a year, and we report back on
    any measurable changes in our sick time.
    
    Kevin

    
    
    presuming both of you are still here in a year, and we are still here
    to read the study...hope this is the case.
    
    

    in light of the previous reply .1, maybe the reduced sicktime is also a
    factor in determining who goes and who stays (not from managewments
    end, but the employee's viewpoint)?
    
    Knowing that ZKO is open to all DEC and it's just about on my way home,
    I think I'll check it out.  Wait a minute: didn't someone post the
    hours and none of them reflect after hour activity?  Guess I should
    call first?  If so, then my point remains: even though it may be open
    to all DEC, it is STILL not available for the time frame I could use it
    in.  What a tcatic to keep the membership down and insure that only
    mostly ZKO employees would benefit from this.  I might be mistaken, but
    I tought I read it's only open until 4 or 5 pm? and it opens at 7 or 8?
    
    Reg.

re .85

At one time the the exercise facilities did encourage people to use them with a
reward system for regular use.  You got points for exercising and at certain
point levels you got various things (t-shirt, shorts, sweat pants, sweatshirt,
gym bag, etc.) the money ran out before most people got to the end of the list,
but it was an incentive to people.

re .96

Parking lots are VERY expensive, and they encourage an activity that is hazardous
to the environment.  If people were aware of the real cost of driving their
single occupancy vehicle (personal car) to work every day they might consider
other, less costly, methods of commuting.  But our society has always payed for
this expense.  In some communities in California there are restrictions on the
number of employees per parking space (has to be greater than 1) to encourage
use of public transportation or other, less expensive, means of commuting.

Rich

    re .102
    
    <Eric, I've got a proposal: How about if you give up the use of the
    <wellness center for a year, and I begin going to a gym/fitness
    <center/health club (at my expense) for a year, and we report back on
    <any measurable changes in our sick time.


    Not a valid experiment of course, since each subject would know the
    null hypothesis and would have a vested interest in whether the null
    hypothesis would 'win' or 'lose'.
    My hypothesis would be that POBOX::GREENE would report to have
    been at least as sick with exercise as without, and that ????::EDP
    would report (again) having been sicker without than he had been with. 

    re .96
    <I know for a fact that I saved this corporation more than four thousand
    <dollars, and Digital is now charging me $45/year for that.  That is not
    <an intelligent decision.

    I wonder just how much money the Corporation has lost in time
    squandered by people (present company excluded, of course) jousting
    with certain NOTES terrorists (pceoc).
    Rather more than $45.00 (per annum, per terrorist) I'd hazard,
    indeed, _plausibly_ (at least), more that $4000.

    				herb

    ref .107

    >NOTES terrorists (pceoc).

    Hi,

    what is a NOTES terrorists do? I mean what they look like and how
    can we apprehend them?

    thank you,
    /nasser

    
    
    Nasser,
    
      There definately into correcting spelling errors and granatomical
    sin tax.
    
    Ken/
    

re .96:

>    We now know of two employees whose sick leave dropped to less than one
>    day per year.  That alone is enough to pay the $45/year charge for half
>    the employees who use the Wellness Center.  Would you like to bet that
>    I can find enough other employees whose sick leave dropped to cover the
>    remaining half?

There's a flaw in your reasoning.  The $45 annual fee clearly doesn't
pay for the cost of the Wellness Center.  You should be comparing the
savings to the actual cost, not to the token fees.

    Folks, I find to believe in this period of layoffs and company
    difficulties so much company time and effort is expended on complaining
    about $45.00 a year.  If you use the facility daily for 12 months of
    the year it come out to less than .$20 per day.
    
    And please spare me the "priciple of the thing" rationale.
    
    BD

    This has nothing to do with gyms or health facilities, but I think it
    has all the world to do with "short sighted decision", which is the
    topic of this note.
    
    I got tapped on Monday this week, being presented the news by my
    boss's boss, who flew into MKO from California to deliver the news
    to me.  During our meeting, I presented a recent memo written by
    a former VP-now-serped-but-rehired-as-a-consultant for this industry
    who stated that "this group should not be disbanded, they are
    profitable and this is a targetted growth industry".  I was told
    that this VP "understands why this must be done".

    I asked for further clarification; ie, as a services group, we have
    the industry expertise and business contacts with 3rd party vendors,
    allowing Digital to be the "prime", or Systems Integrator for various
    major opportunities.  (Current revenue potential of the opportunities
    *now* in the pipeline is a healthy 8-digit number with no decimal
    points).  I was told that the local account teams will now have the
    responsibility to close those sales.  I told him that the biggest
    reason we were involved (and obtaining the dreaded "expense relief")
    was because the local account teams *fully realize* that they don't
    have the industry expertise *or* the business contacts.  His response
    was that "they will just have to learn quickly".  In sending mail to
    the account teams to advise them of our demise, several indicated that
    they will just have to no-bid current opportunities, as they feel
    that if they win the bid, there is no way to deliver a solution without
    the promised help from our group.

    Pressing further, I asked about another case, where Digital has teamed
    up with another large multinational company as the "primary sub-
    contractor" for a $30M-$40M opportunity.  "Opportunity" is not the
    correct word here, as that indicates "possibility", whereas this
    one is signed, sealed, and only need to be presented and delivered.
    In this case, I stated, there is no "local account team" to roll it
    back to, since our group has been handling this ourselves.  His
    statement really caused me to think: "Digital just may have to tell
    <large-multinational-company> that we made a mistake and are not able
    to work with them on this project".

    I've known for a long time that Digital today is clearly not the same
    Digital that I joined 11 years ago, but statements like these, and
    the passing up of "easy money" in this manner causes me to stop and
    wonder just how many steps backwards we are taking these days?

    When first presented with the TFSO news, I was afraid and started the
    internal job search, so far to no avail.  But having been given this
    view of Digital's current business practices and thought processes,
    I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't a blessing in disguise.  Surely
    there is another company out there who realizes the lucrative business
    that "Systems Integration" can be, and is willing to go after that
    revenue in a growth industry.

    For what it's worth, at least until 5pm this Friday,
    Jon

    re last 2, it's interesting as more information comes in.  In talking
    with several people who took the SERP (15-20 years with Digital), they
    cannot believe how people are being so poorly treated, within a company
    that supposedly prides itself on how it treats its employees.  All
    these people were happy to get SERP, since they see Digital in a death
    spiral that appears to only be recoverable via a miracle.  They are
    even ashamed to admit they used to work for Digital.  That's a big
    statement to make when one has devoted that much time to a company.
    
    Jon

    It's not so funny, but I had lunch the other day with a group of people
    (Deccies) who were saying that Digital's idea of SI was a bunch of PCs
    tied together with Pathworks.  I kept my mouth shut as I didn't believe
    what I was hearing.  Given the past few responses, I now fear that the
    statement was 100% correct.
    
    Bob

    re .115
    
    I'll tell you about poor treatment. At least your manager was
    professional enough to inform you in person. In my group 5 people were
    informed they were TFSOed by VOICEMAIL! Our manager never had the
    decency to follow up that initial message with a face to face
    conversation. Instead he made two subsequent phone calls to inform us
    when our meeting with personnel would be. Very professional eh?
    

    where was the manager and where were the people
    when the call was made?
                          buzz

    re: 118
    
    Doesn't matter ... that type of news should be face to facte regardless
    of the distance required to travel.  If it is too far, why was that
    person their manager in the first place?  Distance is not excuse and
    that manager should be fired (not to be read as TSFO).

    
    Re: .117
    
    Poor yes, but as one reply said the manager should be fired,
    I wouldn't be so quick to assume that the manager is uncaring.
    
    Digital, IMO, has not done the greatest job in training and developing
    people who end up in supervisory positions.  This manager may have been
    so uncomfortable with having to deliver this message that he couldn't
    deal with doing it face to face.  He himself may have been given his
    marching orders for delivering the bad news without the proper amount
    of support and training that *HE* needed to be able to handle this
    unpleasant task.  The manager of the group that I was just reorganized
    out of left the company and remarked in conversation that the most
    unpleasant task he had in 11 years with Digital was having to lay
    people off.
    
    fwiw,
    Steve
    

    re. past few
    The manager sits about 20 feet from the people he called! He made the
    calls extremely early on Monday morning guarenteeing that those people
    wouldn't be at their desks. They all eventually came in and got their
    messages. He walked past them several times but never acknowledged
    them!
    Class act, no?

    like it's really easy to lay people off!  It comes with the job, either
    you know how to handle it or you don't- regardless of which it is- you
    just do it and you do it face to face and if you both cry- so what?
    Maybe it's the manager's fault the org is too heavy, maybe it's not;
    but thet manager did reach an agreement with someone that some people
    from that org had to go.  The manager should have been brave and human
    enough to face them.  However, I don't believe it is grounds for
    dismissal, but those tfso'd employees deserve an apology and and
    opportunity to discuss this with their manager.  
    
    Reg.

    > and you do it face to face and if you both cry- so what?
    
     This reminds me of the Cheers episode where "Norm" is hired to be the
    "coporate killer" and ends up feeling worse than the people he just
    fired.

    
    Re: .122
    
    Yup, they deserve an apology, but that doesn't mean that most
    of the blame lies at the manager's feet or that he could
    just be 'brave' and tough it out.  Some of us have the
    ability to do that without help and some do not.  Managers
    are people just like us and not all are blessed with all
    the skills and experience to handle all aspects of their
    jobs with training and support.  If they don't get it, then
    that is Digital's failing and not theirs.  Sure the
    treatment those employees got was shabby, but the root
    cause of the problem may not have lain with the manager
    himself.  If he made the calls very early in the morning
    and later walked past them without acknowledging them
    then the guy was crying out for help himself and apparently
    wasn't getting it.  That man was suffering over it too.
    
    Steve
    

    
    And just to make one thing very clear by early I mean well before 8:15
    starting time. Just so nobody gets the idea that we're a tardy bunch
    who deserved to be let go! :^)
    
    re .120
    
    There's really no excuse whatsoever. Laying someone off is probably the
    most difficult thing a manager is ever called upon to do. But then
    again that's what they get paid for isn't it? It's an ugly part of the
    job but part  of their responsibility nonetheless. The employee
    deserves the respect of a face to face conversation no matter how
    painful it is for that manager. Where would we be if everone avoided
    the parts of their jobs that they didn't like? 
    "Presenting makes me nervous so I'll just hand out these slides."
    "I can't stand debugging so code so we'll just call this routine done."
    "I don't like talking on the phone so I just won't return that call."
    

    RE: past few
    
    I think it is a terrible situation and I DO agree that the manager
    involved should have been fired for not personally telling these
    individuals their fates.
    
    If and when you become a manager and earn those greenbacks, you also
    have those additional responsibilities that may or may not be 'liked',
    'pleasant' or whatever.
    
    In this case, the manager clearly did not do his job.  In light of the
    situation within the Corporation, I believe his neglect is a firing
    offense!

     I didn't read this whole string, so bear with me. ;^) 
     
     My gripe with the institution of a fee is that you don't 
     really get very much for your money. I'm not into weights, 
     so the only attraction for the is the aerobic equipment, which 
     consists of two treadmills (which have a 15 minute time limit, which 
     isn't long enough to break a sweat, much less get any aerobic 
     benefit) plus a few (6?) bikes and three rowing machines. 
     
     Personally, if I could have say, an uninterrupted 30-40 minutes 
     (guaranteed) on the treadmills, 3 times a week, I'd gladly pay 
     the $45.  At least then I would feel I was getting some value for 
     my money. 
     
     Granted, a "real" health club would cost much more, but the level 
     of service you get is also much greater. 
     
     
    Tom
    
    ---
    Dictated with Dragon Dictate.
    

    
    This discussion hits upon an important issue for Digital management,
    for Digital ICs, for industry in general, and for society as a
    whole.  The issue is individual responsibility.  If one does not
    recognize in oneself the capacity to live up to the responsibility
    (however onerous) of one's position, a person of integrity should
    voluntarily leave that position.
    
    Glenn

Getting back to the rathole 8^)...

The manager who TFSO'd (God, its a verb now!) his people by voicemail should be
reprimanded, and the whole situation elevated to insure that it will never 
happen again in this company.   That's one of the most hideous examples of
bad management I've ever heard of.

It reflects badly on him, and his whole chain of command.

In our area, the managers spent a considerable amount of time being trained 
for this unpleasant task.   I don;t know if that was a local initiative or
not, but it should be a corporate requirement.

Termination notice should be face to face.   If you can't do it alone, bring
HR in to help you.

Bob

    Re: .124
    
    Disagree Steve. If the ~manager~ couldn't tell the people to their
    face, then the manager isn't a manager. Should be relieved of his/her
    duties.
    
    Sure, training is needed, but, lets not make it an excuse. Managers
    are paid to manage...if they can't, then they are not doing their job.
    Period.
    
    Marc H.
    
    
    p.s. Still ride the BMW?

    While the original topic has turned somewhat in this note,
    I can speak from personal experience around the delivery of
    "hard" or "difficult" messages, up to and including termination
    of employment due to Performance Issues. I have NOT however
    had the unpleasant experience of telling someone that they've
    been "laid off" or TFSO'd. Otherwise I've had to deliver as I
    say, all of the other Hard Messages that one associates with
    the work enviroment, whether it's warnings, or as I said
    a termination.
    
      It's a very, very unpleasant time for the Manager as well as
    the Person involved. The receipient naturally feels it more, however,
    a Manager with any humanity at all also goes through some levels
    of pain in the process as well. When I've had to do those types of
    things, then I've done so face-to-face, One-On-One basis. It is
    not easy to do, but, I think if a person understands that delivery
    of those messages comes along with the turf, as much as telling
    someone they've performed well or given them their increase or
    whatever. 
    
       From what's been described in the past few responses, that
    Manager needs development in how to handle confrontational types
    of things. As someone noted also, I'm sure that there was quite
    a bit of personal pain and distress for the Manager as unless you're
    a complete Moron you know inside that's not the way to handle such
    a thing, but it is perhaps the "easiest" way at the moment. It was
    most assuredly handled inappropriately. 
    
      Presently, (THANK GOD) I am working in an individual contributor
    catagory, having realized that if you've taken a People Responsible
    Role then there comes a point when you absolutely need a break from
    it from time to time. If you don't, then you begin to experience
    what could be termed "Burnout" in that area. When you reach that
    point then you're doing no one, be it the employee's you support,
    yourself and your family, or the Corporation any good at all.
    
      While Digital could train its Manager's better, I also subscribe
    to what Harry Truman believed "If you can't stand the heat, get out
    of the Kitchen" and "The Buck Stops Here". From everything that's
    been said in the past dozen or so responses, I'm inclined to think
    in this case it's a combination of the wrong person in a slot to
    have to give those messages as well as more development for people
    who have to give them. It isn't easy no matter but it should be
    handled in an appropriate manner.
    
    Just another .02 cents worth
    
      --  J  --
     

>>>     Personally, if I could have say, an uninterrupted 30-40 minutes 
>>>     (guaranteed) on the treadmills, 3 times a week, I'd gladly pay 
>>>     the $45.  At least then I would feel I was getting some value for 
>>>     my money. 

Try 10 o'clock, practically any day. You'll probably be the only person there
doing anything. 
     
By the way, I just turned over my $45 fee, and was told that I'm the 80th
employee who's paid up so far.

And as for the manager who fired people over the phone: a manager who can't
talk to someone personally in this situation is equivalent to a software
engineer who won't use computers. The person should get another job.

Vicki Meagher

    
    Hmmm, the red light on my phone is blinking right now...
    
    Could someone pick it up for me? I dn't think I can stand the suspense.
    

 I love it ...  A manager who lays his people off from afar.
 
 Coincidently, I too have just been "tapped".   Only I was supposed to stay
 on one extra week in order to help properly transition my current project
 (Integrator's Workbench -- A Windows and TeamLinks toolkit) to a new
 development and support group in Turin, Italy.
 
 I had the trip all planned, low cost non-refundable tickets purchased,
 hotel reservations made, the folks in Turin had cleared their calenders,
 you get the picture.  One final glorious do-it-for-Digital assignment.
 
 Monday morning, I'm told that the trip is off.   Why ???   Because I must
 be notified of my demise face-to-face in person.   Can't use the phone or
 a FAX or e-mail ... Had to be here and in person.
 
 So, now a project is in jeopardy, the trans-Atlantic plane tix got eaten
 and I'm outta here tomorrow.
 
 At least, they had the courtesy to kill me in person.
 
 Bob Hunt

    I agree with people's shock at being laid off by voice-mail, but I
    think we are expecting too much around here just because we know we are
    still at good-old-Digital.  Years ago, two employers before I came to
    DEC, I got laid off by one of our competitors.  I had been required to
    work at a customer site over the weekend installing a new version of
    the operating system, which took until about 3 AM on Monday morning. 
    Then I went home and crashed.  When I got in to my office about 11 AM
    that morning, there was a pink slip on my chair.  Boy, was I mad!!!!!
    (I'm pretty sure I've told this tale in this file before, too.)
    
    Just to top it all off, too, my wondrous ex-manager managed to mess up
    filing the termination paperwork, which caused a big delay in my
    unemployment payments (which I needed because all I got was my
    accumulated vacation time, which was two weeks) because the original
    paperwork came through saying I had quit, which would have made me
    ineligible.  I'm not saying the redtape was filed wrong on purpose, but
    I wasn't the only person this happened to - the company laid off one
    third of their staff across the board the day I got nailed.
    
    So, it could be a lot worse around here.  It could also be a lot better
    - let's all try to put aside our uncertainty and help return this
    company to profitability quickly.
    
    /Charlotte
        

    re firing the manager
    
    I feel sorry for the poor guy!  He was apparently in a panic about the
    first really tough confrontation with his people.  He did the best he
    could under the circumstances, even if that was lousy.
    
    The one I want to get is the person responsible for recruiting or
    promoting this person into a management position without really knowing
    whether he could do the job well.  It seems that we made a lot of
    really bad judgement calls about who should be a manager in the past,
    and now we're living with the consequences.
    
    Every person who hires or promotes someone should be accountable for
    his or her "batting average".  If, of twenty such decisions, only one
    turns out to be a flop, maybe we can live with that.  But there should
    be some accountability for results.  We haven't got there yet.
    
    Dick

    
    Gee, I guess I took this string in a somewhat different direction than
    the basenote. 
    Well, anyway, FWIW, apparently there are people at Digital who still
    believe in doing the right thing and believe it or not management does
    read notes!
    I received a phone call from a DEC VP who was extremely professional,
    polite and apologetic. He offered his sincere regrets that the incident
    was handled in the manner in which it was handled and tomorrow I and
    the others involved will meet in a face to face with our manager and
    his manager for what I can only assume will be an apology and a chance
    to clear the air. The VP will also drop in on the meeting. 
    Can't really ask for much else. 
    Ciao DEC. It's been a great 8 years. 8 out of 8 1/2 isn't bad! :^)
    

        Re .138

    	I'm pleasantly impressed.
    Jim Morton

    Who ever the VP is ... thanks!!   The managers at the bottom end of the
    chain of command, for the most part, are trying to do the right thing. 
    It is nice to know that there are folks at the other end of the chain
    doing the same thing.
    
    Thanks again. 
    
    Chuck

    Could have been worse......when I worked for Texas Instruments, some of
    the layoffs at the larger facilities were so big (2,000 from a campus of
    10,000 in one day), they had to "herd" the employees in groups in and out
    of the cafeterias.  The 1st group was notified to report to the
    cafeteria via the badge security guard screening badges at the front
    door.  When you entered, you were locked in a screening area, while you
    laid your badge on a glass camera lens.  The remote security guard
    would then unlock the building entrance for you.  On this day, he would
    either direct you to your office of the cafeteria.  Personnel was in
    the cafeteria with a "canned" speech, including separation benefits,
    and then you were walked to your desk to get your stuff, and then
    escorted out of the building......
    
    Your severance pay followed.....
    
    pretty impersonal........
    
    Steve
    

    I'm also glad a VP took note; I got busy after reading the original
    note, but I was going to add an entry that I knew there were definite
    guidelines set out as to "how" the TFSO's were to be handled.  A
    friend who was TFSO'd last summer was contacted at home by a VP who
    was concerned when he became aware that the policy was not being
    implemented as spelled out in the package that was sent to management.
    
    My friend had known this VP from earlier days in her career.  She
    spelled out some of the things that had made her exit so painful and
    made suggestions for how future TFSO's could be handled.  I've
    personally seen changes made from the July 1991 TFSO to how it is
    being handled now.
    
    Hopefully, we will see more pushing from the top down to other levels
    of management; we've got to move away from the notion that just because
    someone might be technically competent, it follows that they would make
    a good manager.
    
    Karen
    
    PS:  I'm glad someone is paying attention to this conference!
    

    RE: .139
    
    I'd be impressed if you got your job back.
    
    Marc H.

re: .143 >I'd be impressed if you got your job back.
    
I wouldn't.   If the job was redundant (which is why we are releasing good
people in the first place, remember) then there is no justification for
bringing them back simply because a local manager screwed up the process.

My $.02

Bob

    
    re. .143
    
    Marc, 
    
    This may sound like false bravado but I don't want my job back.
    To say this has been a nightmare these past few weeks/months would be
    an understatement. I am truly relieved as I sit here knowing that one
    chapter has closed on my life and I can turn the page and begin anew. 
    
    DEC has been a good place for me for many years but people grow, change
    evolve. I have changed. DEC has changed/is changing. I have my future 
    ahead of me and it will be a good one. 
    
    I wish you all well. I wish Digital well. And YES I wish my manager
    well because HE IS a decent person who is in a lousy position. 
    (if there is blame it is one step up the chain of command).
    
    Best wishes once again to you all.
    
    			-charlie safdie

    RE: .141
    
    Your description of TI sounded like what happened to me . I was layed
    off in 1974 from TI in attleboro. Part of a large wave of people.
    
    Marc H.

	To return to the subject of the base note:

	Wellness Centers are indeed benefits to those who work
	at facilities that have them, no question about it.

	The question then arises as to why Digital chooses to provide
	such a benefit. If it is because Digital really and truly
	believes that it benefits from a fit employee population,
	than it would seem that erecting further barriers to participation
	is counter-productive, and one would wonder why, instead of merely
	erecting these barriers, the place isn't simply removed.
	If the company *really* believes in a fit employee populace,
	they might well mandate a time for each group to report for
	their daily exercise. I hear some companies in Japan do this
	sort of thing, and understand they appear to be making money.


						Tom_K

    Doesn't DEC get a better rate on health & life insurance plans by
    providing the wellness centers ? I doubt that they do it for any reason 
    other than a monetary benefit to the company. Now that most HMO's offer 
    discounts to health club memberships, I can see most DEC wellness centers
    closing in the future.

    Jim

    	Not to stir up this debate again (gee, I'd never do that!), but I
    think we now have conclusive evidence that regular exercise, such as in
    the Wellness Center in ZKO, *does* benefit Digital and is worth the
    investment. Healthsource N.H., an HMO here that I happen to belong to,
    has started offering money to members who regularly exercise in any one
    of a number of health clubs (where they can verify the workout
    schedule). If you work out at least 10 times per month for 6
    consecutive months, they'll send you a check for $100. So you can make
    $200/year plus additional prizes. Not bad.
    	Now think about this. This is an insurance company paying its
    members to exercise regularly. Insurance companies don't even like to
    pay on valid claims! So there must be more than sufficient evidence to
    them that long-term, this will save them money.
    	I wouldn't be at all surprised to start seeing other health plans
    offer similar deals.