Conference 7.286::digital

    Someone told me that 1800 people were layed off in ZKO on Tuesday
    (yesterday) I find this hard to believe given I see nothing in here
    about it. Can anyone confirm or deny layoffs of a large number like
    this in ZKO? Perhaps projects with 1800 people in toto were cancelled
    and 1800 people are looking. DECwrite and DECchart were cited as
    specific cancellations..
    
    Tom
    

The mail that got circulated widely saying that 1800 people in ZK had been
'tapped' is plainly nonsense. ZK only houses 2800 in all and to leave more than
an entire building idle would be plain daft.

Yes there are project cuts, yes people are leaving, but NOT 1800 in one day
from ZK.

regards

Andy

    I certainly don't have any details, but December 7th, 1993 will be the
    52nd anniversary of Pearl Harbor and the 1st anniversary of a lot of
    tapping in TNSG.  The 1800 figure may wind up being close (I've heard
    1000-1500), but not just from ZKO -- TNSG is spread out further than
    just Spit Brook......
    
    As Ken Hobday said in another note, projects have been informed of
    their demise, but much still needs to be considered for continued
    customer satisfaction (whatever that is)......  :-(
    
    -- dg

Hi,
	To let you know, yes the 7th of Dec is the date for the next round.
I know as I am one of the selected, Our group here in MR4 is going away.


C.A

    
    
    	I've been finding that a lot of the memos/statements that are being
    retracted as of late are winding up being true. (i.e. the David Stone
    resignation being one of them....)
    
    
    	-B

    re .3
    
    	You  mean December 7th, 1992.  Not 1993, right?  :^) If it is 1993
    then for sure many more than 1800 people will have been tapped by
    then......

    I thought that 4 years ago VP George bush said September 7th. 
    was Pearl Harbor Day.

    Actually, I believe Spitbrook is closer to around 2300 after it lost a
    couple of hundred around serp time. Losing 1800 would leave little more
    than the grounds staff...
    
    Also, this is where are large number of people have busted their buts
    to get O/S's out the door for Alpha. TO let that collection of people
    go, (as thanks for a job well done) would be the death knell for DEC
    ever trying to hire another software engineer anywhere...
    
    q
    

	re .2:

>The mail that got circulated widely saying that 1800 people in ZK had been
>'tapped' is plainly nonsense. ZK only houses 2800 in all and to leave more than
>an entire building idle would be plain daft.

	So?

	/Tom

    Re .all
    
    Personally I hope the person who sent the mail saying 1800 people in
    ZKO were TFSOed gets fired not TFSOed. It was an extremely
    irresponsible thing to do.
    
    Dave

    Lighten up Smaug::Garrod! The memo was probably just black humor.
    
    Ken

Greetings,

Speaking of firing someone!!! There is a field service organization
that is loosing some number like 1/2 of its fse's because a mamoth
customer has decided to go self-maintenance. I was gabbing with an
engineer about this and he said that the cust. looked at the numbers
they were paying us and blab, blab, blab. I asked if the site had a 
service salesman and they did. Someone who is dedicated to the site 
but the person is never at the site! The salesperson "works at home."
Not a problem but the site lost half our buisness and the customer
has never (effectively) seen the salesperson! The question I ponder 
is, shouldn't this person get fired for some amount of incompetance!!
Or maybe in reverance for some past heroic deed the person should get
another site to ignore. 

Sorry for getting off the subject but with Dec. 7 looming it seems odd
that we are still shooting the grunts rather than some of the officers 
of situation.

Fred 

    For those who may not have seen it, the person who sent out that 1800
    person memo sent out a retraction to everyone who received the mail. 
    (What a job THAT must have been.)  He most humbly apologized, too.

    RE: .6, RE: .3
    
    I didn't mean that the layoffs were to occur in 1993 -- I just worded
    it differently -- look again.....

    Well, 
    
    We just got outta meeting with our Distrct Manager and were told our
    group 1-800-DEC-SALE will heavily be affected.  Were told it wasn't
    tied to any revenue we helped bring in with the sales force, that it
    was directly tied to a headcount number.  Our selection criteria will
    be:
    
    1. What we had on our last two PA's.
    2. Time with the company-----the more time the better off we are.
    3. Skill set we have.
    
    Fortunately I might be better off than some because of time, but does
    this mean DEC can just not TFSO me this time, but wait until there are
    no monies and then get me good!  I have already been thru one TFSO and
    it ain't fun!  
    
    
    Waiting...
    
    Glenn

    With all the talk about getting back to core competencies etc. it seems
    rather illogical to have skill sets as the third criteria for evaluating
    people. Time at DEC is not a good measure of someone's capabilities or
    value to the company. Skill set and performance are the essential
    criteria for determining one's value. Length of service and productive
    service are not mutually inclusive. TFSOing people with valuable skills
    because they have less time at DEC is not going to solve this company's
    problems. After all they may be able to patch the hole in the bottom of
    the boat which is the real problem, not the size of the crew.
    

    The criteria for downsizing is:
    
    			skills to match need (based on current projects)
    			then last 2 performance ratings
    			and if there is still a "tie"
    			then years with company
    
    re -1  skills is the first "test".  DEC is not letting those needed
    parties go unless there is someone who is needed "more" for future
    work.
    
    -sandy
    

    re .16 and .17
    
    There is still no consistency between locations and no reason to expect
    it.  What is true for you at your location is ont necessarily true for
    the company as a whole.  
    
    Dick

    I for one would love to know what the "skills" are that are needed.
    Without these defined, this criteria is meaningless. If the skills were
    defined, we might be able to develop them. I think this is a mean trick
    to hide management incompetence. It makes it seem that the TSFO'ed
    person is deficient. If we are told what the skills are we will get the
    skills. Otherwise spare us the bogus criteria.
    
    peter (highly skilled in everything valuable)

The way in which it was explained by John Adams (head of End Systems
group in NaC) was this: the Big List is ordered by 

	(1) rating from last two reviews
	(2) time of service

That's it.  Nothing to do with skills or projects.

A manager can attempt to argue that a targeted individual ("X") 
should not be laid off, because X has unique critical skills,
and if X goes, then there's no-one left who can do a job
which needs doing.   A strong case must be documented -- this
case is closely scrutinized by Higher Powers (my term; I'm not
sure who does this) to make sure it's watertight.  Since, unlike
the above criteria, this one involves some element of judgement,
then DEC must ensure that there is no appearance of bias which
could provide material for a future discrimination suit.

If X gets a waiver, then the next person up the Big List
gets the axe instead.

This procedure is supposedly applicable across the
corporation, or at least across all of engineering.  (Sorry,
I don't pay too much attention to the process outside
of engineering, since it doesn't directly affect my
welfare).  The only place I can see where there's
room for local interpretation is (possibly) the exception
process, and even that seems doubtful.

re .19

> If we are told what the skills are we will get the
>   skills.

It's not about whether anyone's capable of acquiring new and
useful skills.  It's about whether getting rid of person X
would leave a hole which (a) must be filled (b) could not
be *immediately* filled by someone else.   That is to say, if
person X is the only person who already has skills in a 
certain area, and that area is absolutely vital, then getting
rid of X would leave the organization in a very bad way (even
worse than getting rid of someone else).

At least, that's the way I interpreted the message.

<The way in which it was explained by John Adams (head of End Systems
<group in NaC) was this: the Big List is ordered by 

	(1) rating from last two reviews
	(2) time of service

<That's it.  Nothing to do with skills or projects.
    
    That is not my understanding. My understanding is that some projects
    are going to be or already have been cancelled or retrenched. It is
    my understanding that only people in THOSE positions will be subjected
    to the criteria.
    
    	1) &
    	2) above
    
    So that, as an example, a person who is a 3 working in a position that
    is to be retained, faces much less personal jeopardy than a 1 person
    working on a project that is to be eliminated. (As a practical matter,
    I think it is quite likely that some/many of the 1s whose positions are
    to be eliminated will probably be able to find positions elsewhere in
    engineering.)
    
    I speak only of engineering as well.
    
    				herb

    and by the way...
    
    time of service can be used either way when your the one making
    the decisions....by that I mean so would see it as less time
    makes a person better than one who has more time...!!!!

re .22

Hmm, we were specifically told that <what you said> was NOT the
case.

That is to say, engineers get laid off regardless of project.
There is one Big List, ordered by rating/service-time, for
End Systems.

After the dust has cleared, we reassess who's-on-what, and 
move engineers around so as to ensure that the higher-priority
projects (most likely to bring in revenue, I assume) are
adequately staffed.

I came away with the impression that this was the corporate
methodology, not just End Systems, but I could be wrong there.

    Re .24
    
    What Dave Porter is saying is absolutely correct for NAC. The
    additional piece of information is the following. Once the list exists
    the only way to get people off of the list is to document that they
    have a skill set that the 'company' (could be a specific project) needs
    that could not be picked up by an engineer of the same job code (note
    not the same performance level) within 6 months. If you can document
    that somebody has a skill that couldn't be picked up within 6 months
    then you can't get that person off of the list and the next one gets
    axed instead.
    
    Dave P is dead right the list is cross organizational.
    
    Dave

    I don't think it's legal to make people redundant using these criteria
    in the UK. Am I right or wrong? I thought that the *job* had to be
    redundant not the *person*.
    
    Lisa.
    

    	By ranking time-of-service so highly, maybe they're trying to save
    money on the packages being given out. You have to pay these people
    less to boot them out the door. As we've seen, each round has a new,
    less attractive package. In VMS, we were told we would likely get hit
    again (after Dec. 7th) at the end of the fiscal year. I would expect
    the package at that point to be practically nothing. So they're saving
    that for the people who have been here the longest.

    re .24,.25

    Praps, my info isn't correct. Assuming that it isn't ...

    Do either of you have any info on how one rank orders -say- a prin. engr in
    Mike Thurk's organization against a prin. engr in 
    Dennis Roberson (nee David Stone)'s organization against a prin engr in
    Bill Demmer's organization?

    And given that a principal engineer in Dennis Roberson's org is 'higher
    ranked' (using whatever criteria) than some specific engineer in ...
    then that 'higher-ranked' engineer will not be laid off unless those
    'less valued' peers in the other two organizations have also and
    already selected?

    And lets suppose -for the moment- that Don Harbert is directed to
    eliminate 40 positions and Mike Thurk is directed to eliminate 30
    positions. Lets also assume that Don Harbert's 35th person is 'higher
    ranked' than the 31st person in Mike Thurk's group. One might
    reasonably conclude that Don Harbert's 35th person will get the job of
    Mike Thurk's 31st person who will be laid off.
    Is that your understanding? And suppose that Harbert's 35th person does
    not have the skill to do the job of Thurk's 31st person?
    If not how would this cross organizational assessment work?

    My hunch is that the reality may be somewhere between the understanding
    expressed in .22 and the understanding expressed in .24, .25 
    
    				herb

re .24

>>After the dust has cleared, we reassess who's-on-what, and 
>>move engineers around so as to ensure that the higher-priority
>>projects (most likely to bring in revenue, I assume) are
>>adequately staffed.

    How about engineers that cann't find any projects to match
    their skill sets?  Will they still be let go?  Or is DEC
    willing to provide re-training?
    
    Wendy

    With regards to laying off people X in VMS vs X in NAC, there is
    largely a consistent 20% headcount reduction all accross engineering.
    Hence law of averages are expected to apply, if you let o of 20% in one
    org and 20% in another then you don't need to cross ladder.
    
    I must also say I find it very disturbing how the NAC process is being
    handled. I am not there, but the process was explained to me. It is an
    entirely mechanical process, you find all the people with last two 3's
    on their reviews and then after time of service tie breakers, they go
    and then those with 2 and 3 are next then those with 3 and 2, etc.
    
    This is a politically correct and happy process but fully idiotic which
    is easily demonstrated: A prin SW engineer with two 3's is considered
    equivalent to a SE II or SE I with two 3's. Not only this if a SE I has
    a 2 and 3, then a Principal ENgineer with two 3's goes first. Well
    isn't that stupid. I don't know about you but I want to know that the
    company is capable of facing the challenges of the tough competition
    and I don't trust higher performers down in the job codes over some of
    our fine Principals. The Prin ENg job code has some hefty demands and
    personnel is willing to insist that they should be thrown at like
    everyone else....
    
    Most of the NAC management blindly follows this process according to a
    group think socialistic mind set which I think is pathetic.
    
    People cite lawsuit prevention afor this method, but they are more
    interested in making people happy than restoring our competitiveness.
    In fact in the US, there are no such laws that are broken by applying a
    different process of valuing higher job code skill sets over lower
    ones, but this company has been buried in VOD for so long that it has
    forgetten the value of performance. If our competitiveness is not
    addressed, there will be more layoffs and while everyone will be so
    called happy with the process, they will all be unhappy without a job.
    
    Lets hope it won't get this bad, we can only hope.

	re .26:

>	I thought that the *job* had to be redundant not the *person*.

	Very likely you are correct - technically! But the people who
	run our great company (in the UK at least) are not "techies".

	This stipulation has always made me smile (faintly). How would
	we know if a job is redundant? Hardly any of the people I work
	with or meet have job definitions. Those who do, often understand
	perfectly well that the criteria for job continuation do not
	necessarily have much to do with what is on paper in the job plan.

	Digital has always worked (so far) despite its "organisation",
	rather than because of it. Success has come from people "doing
	the right thing" based on judgment and initiative. Under these
	circumstances, to talk about a specific job becoming redundant
	is often quite meaningless.

	/Tom

    All my job descriptions have included (after the pretty stuff)
    "...other tasks as assigned...".  Usually, 75% to 90% of the work falls
    in that category.  So, how do you make such a job "redundant"?
    
    Dick

    re: .30
    
    >> This is a politically correct and happy process but fully idiotic which
    >> is easily demonstrated: A prin SW engineer with two 3's is considered
    >> equivalent to a SE II or SE I with two 3's. Not only this if a SE I has
    >> a 2 and 3, then a Principal ENgineer with two 3's goes first. Well
    >> isn't that stupid.
    
    Well, yes and no.  Yes, because it may be legally prudent to follow
    a lockstep process, but in the end the company will hurt itself by
    not allowing for individual exceptional situations, thus losing some
    good people in the process.  And yes, more importantly, because folks
    who are unlucky enough to have been caught at this point in time with
    just a year or two at their current level may still be getting a "3",
    but may be otherwise excellent workers whom the company has caught
    at an inopportune time on their career path.
    
    But, no, because any fully-functional software engineering group needs
    performers at all levels who are doing a very good job at those levels;
    imagine an army with all officers, to make a potentially elitist
    analogy.  And, no, because many if not most principal engineers have
    little, if any, desire to do the kind of "real grunt work" expected from
    the folks currently at the I, II, or Senior levels, such as coding,
    building, testing, maintenance, and so on.  ("Incoming..." :-))
    
    Besides that, the company probably doesn't want to spend 70K + overhead
    on someone to do SE I level work.
    
    Fortunately, I don't have the burden of deciding who goes and who stays
    under the oppressive and suffocating rules that the tense and careful
    bureaucracy has whipped up.  I wouldn't be a manager on this farm for
    10x the salary I'm getting now.
    
    Chris

    I spoke with a close friend this morning who is having to lay some
    folks off....."toughest thing I've ever done", he said.
    
    
    
    "You ought to see what it's like on the receiving end",  I replied.
    

       Does anyone know what % they tax the TFSO package at?
                                   Denny

    ref: .35
    
    Along similar lines but in a broader sense, could someone please 
    summarize how accrued retirement benefits are handled.  U.S., 15 years,
    too young to retire.
    
    Bob

    re .36
    
    According to my TFSO manual (Rev. 1192-PC), I'm told the PC stands for
    Plant Closing since I'm at BTO, so this information may not apply to
    you...
    
    "If you are vested but not eligible to retire, your pension benefits
    will be handled as they are for normal termination:
    
    o If the present value of your accrued benefit amounts to less than
    $3500, you will receive a one-time payment approximately 4 to 6 months
    after your Termination Date; or
    
    o If the present value of your accrued benefit is $3500 or greater, you
    must wait until you are at least age 55 to begin collecting your
    benefit.
    
    For more information about your pension benefits, contact your local
    TFSO Administrator."
    
    
    I asked personnel here if there was an easy way to find out what was in
    my pension plan (< or > $3500) and they said that around the January
    timeframe that kind of information is normally sent out to all DECies.
    I didn't pursue it any further.
    
    I know from the past that pension information was sent out (I'm
    still trying to locate my last update) but I do remember that it
    mentioned "if you continue to work for DEC until age 65 and at your
    current salary...blah, blah, blah..." anyways, I don't remember it
    mentioning what the current balance was.
    
    Don

re: .37

I just looked at the last pension benefit statement I received.
It only tells you what you would get per month if you keep
working till age 65.  It does not say what the present value
is based on current years of service.

The present value would be based on your salary, years of
service, and current age (the younger you are, the lower the
present value).  A 'back of envelope' calculation I made for
myself says that my present value would be over $3500 when
I become vested in May, 1993.

    ref: .37 and .38
    
    What about some kind of roll-over to an IRA or some other plan?
    
    New question:  What about money in the SAVE plan (401K):
    	- amounts up to what's been put in.
    	- gains
    	- outstanding loan balances
    
    Bob

    re .39
    
    I'm not a tax accountant nor do I play one on tv.  8-)
    
    With that said, it was *highly* recommended that you roll the less than
    $3500 into some kind of retirement plan, otherwise you might take a hit
    at tax time.  Remember, if you have $3500 or more in your pension plan
    you can't touch the money unless you are eligible for retirement.
    
    Don

    re .39
    
    Your 401K SAVE plan accumulations are payable upon retirement, or upon
    termination of employment.  For a termination, the amount in the 401K
    is paid to you sometime after termination, I can't recall the exact
    number of days.   You must put the money into and IRA or some other
    qualified retirement plan, or you will pay 20% penalty to the feds.

    re 401K and other retirement distributions...
    
    Presently, you have 60 days in which to take a distribution and roll it
    over into a Rollover IRA to avoid getting hit for taxes. Starting Jan 1
    (I believe) a new rule is in place.  
    
    In order to avoid tax problems, you MUST arrange for the transfer to go
    DIRECTLY from the old to the new retirement account.  It MUST be a
    totally hands-off procedure; you CANNOT receive the money.  
    
    If you take the money, even if you turn it around within 60 days to a
    Rollover, the distributing source (Digital, in this case) MUST withold
    20% of the distribution for taxes.  Although you can get it back (not
    clear how, but the IRS assures us we can) it filing time, you are out
    the $$$ for a while.
    
    Dave
    

    ref:  401K
    
    By "20% penalty" I assume you mean 20% of any earnings and not 
    any penalty against funds put into the fund from payroll deductions.
    
    Since the contributions out of the paycheck were taken out before 
    taxes, I also assume that both original contributions and any 
    earnings are subject to taxes including some amount of witholdings.
    
    Finally, I've had loans against the 401K and have repaid them.  Is
    the interest that *I* paid back into *my* account considered the same
    as other earnings/gains?
    
    Bob

    It's been said before, I'll mention it again......do NOT rely on
    speculation in here or any answers given the people listed in the
    transition package.  I'm not saying people aren't trying to be helpful;
    bottomline, talk to a tax expert.....otherwise you could be in for a
    nasty surprise at tax time.
    
    Karen
    

    re .43, .44
    
    Of course, it is good advice to consult an "expert".  Just make sure
    that you spend your money on a lawyer, skilled in representing clients
    in tax court, and that you follow his advice to the letter.  Tax
    advisers, CPA's, accountants, notes writers, etc, are not recognized by
    the Federal courts as eligible to represent you in tax matters.
    
    My comments (not speculation) about the 20% were based on a recently
    enacted law.  And, it is a witholding of 20% of the TOTAL distribution,
    not of the earnings.  I will enter here a quote from the Nov 1992
    Kiplingers Personal Finance Magazine, page 116, which provides a fair
    synopsis of the effects of the law in laypeople terminology.  Or you
    can read the law, which I did; it is a great cure for insomnia.
    
    "...Starting in January, a 20% witholding tax will apply to plan
    distributions that go directly to employees who retire, quit, or lose
    their jobs.  Even if no tax is due - and none would be if the money was
    rolled over into an IRA within 60 days - 20% will be witheld for the
    Internal Revenue Service."
    
    Read the article and follow my advice or ignore my advice; it is of
    little consequence to me personally.  I am just trying to help some of
    our unfortunate brothers and sisters avoid getting SEVERELY
    inconvenienced at a time when that is the LAST thing they need.
    
    As always, FWIW
    
    Dave

    re .43
    
    A 401K plan is, for tax purposes, treated like a seperate "person" from
    you. The interest that you pay to your 401K on a loan against your 401K
    balance is considered earnings by your 401K and will be taxed as such
    when you finally take distributions from that plan.
    
    Now, that's just the way it is today. Of course, by the time you take
    distributions, Congress may, yet again, change the laws around 401K
    plans and all of the above might be meaningless.
    
    FWIW,
    Dave

Today's "Dilbert" comic strip is particularly apropros.  I don't have it in
front of me, but it has "the boss" saying "We've decided to try to use humor
to relieve the tensions caused by corporate downsizing".  The last panel has
this exchange between the boss and an employee:  "Knock knock".  "Who's there?"
"Not you anymore".

			Steve

re .47:

I said it before and I'll say it again.  The guy who draws Dilbert *has to*
work for DEC.

	ELF *does* reveal that two persons by the name of Scott Adams
	work for Digital.

					Tom_K

    I wish I had seen the paper earlier.  I would have come into work
    early and taped an enlarged copy of the cartoon to the doors of
    Personnel here...
    
    ...took them over a week to get back to me about setting up an
    appointment to have an advanced meeting about the consequences of
    the layoff...4:30 pm on the Friday before Pearl Harbor Day does not
    impress me.
    
    
    Outta here on Friday.
    
    B.
    

    	I happened to run across something interesting today while
    	using ELf.  All the TFSO'd people are now in a group called
    	'central group'.  I did a search of everyone in that group
    	and came up with a list.  However, in that list is Demmer,
    	Christ, McCabe, and some other V.P.s which I'm sure are still
    	with us.  But, if you want to know if someones gone, it appears
    	their new group is 'central' for the next 9 weeks.

re .51:

I don't think it's true that *all* the TFSO'd people are in Central Group.
There are some people who said in notesfiles that they were being TFSO'd
who are not listed in Central Group.  BTW, there are 124 people
listed as being in Central Group whose location is listed as ZKO.

    Believe it or not, Bill Strecker and Charlie Christ are shown in the
    Central Group ! !   What's goin' on ?

re .53:

Just as .51 said.  Maybe it's camouflage.  Fuller and Roberson are there too.

    Central Group may be the name of the unit for those who are taking over
    managing the 9 business units as defined as Palmer.
    
    IMO,
    Nancy

    
    	Not all of the 9 business unit managers are in the central group.

    I found that the names of those TFSO'd in our location, and some
    others, are shown as being in "U.S. Area Management", rather than in
    "Central Group".  This seems to be more related to Customer Services
    type groups.
    
    Perhaps each division has a different grouping for this purpose.
    
    Lee

When I was given the package on December 7, my personnel person told me that
I had that week to talk to her in the local office; after that, my personnel
folder would be tranferred to a "central group" Back East that handles all the
laid-off employess during their "transition" period and I would have to call
there for personnel issues.

/Mark