Conference 7.286::digital

    I travel a fair bit, and morale seems pretty much the same 
    everywhere - there isn't any.  A few try to pick themselves,
    and occassionally a peer up, but it's short lived.  From
    most folks I've talked to, job security is the overwhelming
    issue.  Teachings from Maslow, pure and simple.  Many people
    say "Why should I go out of my way when I could be told to 
    hit the bricks tomorrow?"  People are astute enough to know 
    this is a catch 22, but most can't seem to pull themselves 
    out of it.  I think one big issue, aside from layoffs in 
    general, is the fact that we're letting some real talent go.
    The recent article in Time magazine (see note #2424) surely 
    hasn't done anything to HELP morale.  It merely serves to 
    confirm what many are saying - that the cuts have already 
    gone to the muscle - our brain just hasn't registered the 
    pain yet.
    
    I think there was a glimmer of hope when Bob Palmer announced 
    last week that he hopes to have the vast majority of layoffs 
    behind us by the end of June.  Unfortunately, and to no fault 
    of Bob's, that's still a far cry from the old days of "no 
    layoffs".  People are smart enough to know that those days are 
    gone forever, but as I heard one manager comment just this 
    afternoon "Company loyalty is a thing of the past."  Sad words 
    to hear indeed...

    Digital is not alone as far as bad morale and negative cash flow.  Lots
    of companies are in the same boat.  Most blame their managers.  Makes
    sense to me since managers tend to watch each other and match
    performance and decisions with their peers.  It's a lot easier to show
    you're doing your job as a manager when you can point to similar
    actions by peers in other companies.  
    
    If there is to be a turnaround, one must ask what will prompt it.
    Most people I know are assuming that good (in essence, non-negative)
    numbers at the end of Q4 will mean that we will finally get back to
    work.  It will be a time when groups can confidently commit to new
    products and will take off in new and profitable directions.  They
    pretty much expect it to be more or less spontaneous across the
    company.
    
    Outside of Digital, I have heard doubts expressed as to whether or not
    such a positive, spontaneous movement will occur.  Some I've talked to
    figure that even if Digital does well with Q4 numbers the surviving
    workforce will lack the enthusiasm and energy to drive the turnaround.
    That feelings have been hurt so badly that there will be no remaining
    loyalty to the company necessary for a real turnaround.  More, I've
    heard some say that Digital management is paralyzed and absolutely at a
    loss as to what to do to fix a broken company.
    
    I don't know who is right.  My tension level is the highest it has ever
    been here.  Like others, I'm doing my best to be prepared for whatever
    happens at Digital.  I'm putting in that extra amount of effort to try
    to create and take advantage of opportunity, even at personal expense,
    to help Digital and "do the right thing."
    
    I suppose the only bit of real wisdom I have to offer in these
    uncertain times is that we are making the same mistake that we made
    when times were good.  That is, we assume that things will be good/bad
    forever.  As a result, we tend to normally be unprepared.  Right now,
    companies like Intel and Microsoft seem invincible.  That's how Digital
    seemed back in the late 80's.  The mighty do fall.  New companies rise
    out of old ashes.  Even Wang, which will no longer make hardware now
    stands a chance of a rebirth after pretty much having hit bottom.
    
    The only certainty is that things will change.
    
    Steve

    Of course morale is bad but it should be. After all we have been
    through for someone not be be affected by what has happened 
    would indicate a state of denial.
    
    Morale can be improved if one or more of the following things happen 
    and I believe they will. The timetable for these events is still open
    however.
    
    1. We make a profit(what a 4th quarter concept).
    
    2. The employees are told that the layoffs have ended(not for a while).
    
    3. Real changes occur in our management structure that show Mr. Palmer
       understands DEC's problems and is really going to change
       things(perhaps starting in July).
    
    4. We start to get some good marketing which leads to good press
       about Alpha(its starting to trickle in now).
    
    5. IBM throws in the towel and gets out of the business(I can dream
       can't I?).
                                           

>    1. We make a profit(what a 4th quarter concept).

	This will help my morale only if I see evidence that I'll share
    	in that profit. Otherwise what does it mean to me? Security? I
    	think not. I believe that cuts will continue past the point of
    	just making a profit. In the 11+ years I've been here employees
    	get to share fully in the pain but only partially, when at all,
    	in the pleasure.
        
>    2. The employees are told that the layoffs have ended(not for a while).

	This would help. As long as I believe the management who says it.
    	Will I? I don't know. Trust takes a while to build back up.    

>    3. Real changes occur in our management structure that show Mr. Palmer
>       understands DEC's problems and is really going to change
>       things(perhaps starting in July).

	Real changes have taken place in upper management. Has it reached
    	you yet? It hasn't reached me. I'd settle for my management making
    	me believe that their management isn't going to change our
    	priorities on a daily basis and that funding is in place for a
    	whole year.

    	I already believe that Bob Palmer understands Digital's problems. I
    	already believe he is going to change things. The one thing I'm not
    	sure of is if he plans to make things better for employees. A
    	reorganization isn't the way to that. It's a way to fix other
    	problems.
>    4. We start to get some good marketing which leads to good press
>       about Alpha(its starting to trickle in now).

	Well, we can just about give up on that ever happening. :-) Call
    	me a cynic if you will but marketing is not one of our core
    	competencies.    

>    5. IBM throws in the towel and gets out of the business(I can dream
>       can't I?).

    	If IBM goes out of business Digital doesn't stand a chance. That
    	would scare me more then anything Digital's management could do.

    Perhaps the biggest change to working for DEC -- or any other company
    -- hasn't yet been mentioned.
    
    According to CNN, as well as any number of other sources, the vast
    majority of new jobs and rehires occurring because we are coming out of
    the recession are a new class of job. Contract jobs. Companies are 
    still hiring skilled, educated, experienced people -- but not as 
    permanent employees. The clear trend is to hire people for the
    period in which they are needed, pay them well, and then dismiss them
    once the need has been fulfilled or is past. People who might have been
    getting, so $20/hr as full-time, permanent employees at DEC are now
    making $40/hr as contract workers. Such a worker then pays his/her own
    health insurance, puts a bit into an IRA, and has no vacation or sick
    time, let alone any disability plan. The Lone Ranger rides again. 
    
    This creates an entirely new working society -- at least entirely new
    since the end of World War II. Companies can no longer afford -- or in
    many cases just don't want to pay for -- permanent employees who get a
    bundle of benefits and security along with a job. 
    
    I think that a lot of the low morale we are seeing now is a reflection
    of peoples' understanding this new reality of the work world. Are some
    companies taking advantage of things to treat employees more shabbily
    than is necessary? Certainly. Are there people at DEC pulling in big $$
    while doing nothing of value than anyone can discern while you or I
    struggle with making ends meet on 1/3 or 1/4 of that amount? Yes. 
    DEC still, on the whole, treats its people better than average. 
    But the gap between what employees expect from an employer and what 
    the employer can -- or will -- provide is huge, and adjusting to that 
    discrepancy is the biggest single hurdle a worker faces for the 
    forseeable future.
    
    Just my opinion --
    
    kbs
     
    

>The clear trend is to hire people for the
>    period in which they are needed, pay them well, and then dismiss them
>    once the need has been fulfilled or is past. People who might have been
>    getting, so $20/hr as full-time, permanent employees at DEC are now
>    making $40/hr as contract workers. Such a worker then pays his/her own
>    health insurance, puts a bit into an IRA, and has no vacation or sick
>    time, let alone any disability plan. The Lone Ranger rides again. 

You seem to imply that this arrangement is a negative. I see it as a positive.

Take a sample case of someone making now $20 an hour and being able to pull
in $40/hr as a contractor.

At $20/hr that would work out to around 40K/year (20*2000).
At $40/hr that would work out to around 80K/year (40*2000).

Both case take into account about 2 weeks of vacation.

Now lets look at the bottom line for both cases

	40K				80K
Health	partially covered		-10K	(an estimate
						 for a good health
						 plan)
LDT	partially covered		-2K
Overhead none				-10K

Net	40K				58K

This is assuming that all health and other ins is fully covered
which is not the case here at DEC.

Both cases have little or not job security. In fact the contractor
probably has more since they know when thier contract ends and there
are legal implications in breaking a contract. A fully time employee
actually signs something indicating that there is not committment for 
employment.

The argument looks even better for someone earning $30 and hour 
as a full time employee with the possibility of $60-$80/hr 
as a contractor.

Long ride the Lone Ranger.

Just my two cents worth.
-- Eric

    re. .6 -
    
    Sounds fine -- assuming full employment.
    
    Now do the figures if you can find work only six months of the year;
    only three months of the year. Less than three months per year. Don't
    forget to pay your own social security. Unemployment. Tax yourself at
    the higher rate if you are lucky enough to earn more in a year as
    contractor than as permanent employee (if you make > $35K, tax rate
    goes from 15.5% to 30%; after a year of Clintonomics it's anyone's
    guess). Home office is no longer tax-deductible. Try finding health
    insurance or disability insurance as an individual. As a head of
    household who is self-employed (ex: Fallon HMO, central MA HMO with
    lower than average rates, charges $900/mo for husband and wife, no
    children, $1000 deductible; rates to increase approx. 35%/year). The
    world of the contractor is a cold one.
    
    
    kbs
    

    
    Couple of things:
    
    1. The WSJ had an article a couple of weeks ago on the contract
       workforce.  Not very nice.  For the most part, people
       (especially blue collar workers) are not even getting the same
       hourly rate as contractors that they were getting as full-time
       employees; let alone health or any other benefits.  Couple of
       examples in there about people going from ~$10 to about ~$6
       dollars per hour in addition to losing their benefits.
    
    2. The countervailing trend (at least I hope it's a trend) is that
       far sighted management realizes that they get exactly *no* loyalty
       from contractors; there are issues about them baling when something
       better comes along, there are instances of them suing their
       indirect as well as their direct employer if they get hurt.
       In the case of professionals, it may become extremely difficult
       to keep sensitive competitive information out of their
       hands, and, with no loyalty, nothing preventing them from 
       doing siginificant damage with that information.
    
    Glenn 

    
    
       I guess it is all how you put this into perspective.  Since all the
    new trends in DEC have started I sometimes find it difficult to become
    motivated.  Now, motivation to me means moral.  I need (as most people)
    to feel good about myself, my enviornment, and future to stay
    motivated.  Thus, if all the above are on the positive side (as in
    years past) then my motivation to get into work early, get going on
    task at hand, work issues and concerns, help provide solutions rather
    than problems then thats what DEC expects at least of me.
    
    Now, I have to stop and think of very near and dear friends who have
    been tapped by DEC to leave.  There are alot of them with the same
    skills set that I have who are still looking for jobs. I am fortunate
    to still be here.  When I place this value on it then my motivation
    and moral seep back into my existence.
    
    I can remember not to long ago when you met someone outside of DEC and
    you told them you worked for DIGITAL....The response varied, but they
    were always positive.  Now when you say you work for DEC they treat
    you like your family dog has died.  Their not sure what to say.
    If these people who may or may not be customers feel this way then
    how do you expect a true customer to feel. 
    
    I believe I mentioned something like this in a previous note.  DEC
    is not dieing!  It may be sick and need some nursing back to health.
    Bob Palmer is the doctor in charge.  However, we as Digital employees
    have always showed our values as more or less a family.  A good family
    will work through the adversities and pitch-in and help nurse back this
    company.  You must challenge yourselves first, your co-workers next to
    nurse DEC through this.  We cannot let the adversity stand in our way
    progress.  For those of us who have been around for a while..we've
    been there before and emerged.....It may be tougher this time but
    I believe we can do it again.  Don't focus on the negatives of press
    and rumors.  Focus on the positives, the little accomplishements you
    make very day is a step in the right direction.
    
    This is not meant to be a cheerleading note.  It is my opinion and
    simply that.  Stay focused, keep your motivation and moral will
    not be an issue.
    
    Bob Montville  

	Well, I have seen the moral lift abit since the first of
	the year.  Everyone in my building seems more positive,
	and optimistic.

	and really, the doom and gloomers are a bit boring after
	3 years...;')

	so on to spring and a moral boost.
	

    A vendor that I was talking to this morning said that 
    coming to MKO gave him a 'contact low' (as opposed to
    a contact high).  He's done work for DEC over the past
    year and was describing his journey from enthusiastic
    idea man to complacent vendor as all of his ideas were
    met with "oh ya, we know it's a problem, we had a meeting
    about that 6 months ago, didn't we?"
    
    Same as it ever was.

    i think we mean 'morale' and not moral.
    
    merriam webster

       Being involved in a very direct way in the procurement and use of
    Consultant and Contractor services, there is much to this way that is
    not very attractive, and as the non-permanent work force expands as it
    seems it will be doing, the problems get more intense.
    
       First of all, the majority of contract personnel do not remain
    employed on a full-time basis. Most have some slack time when they have
    not connected, and the hoped-for higher hourly rates must take them
    through these off-times. 
    
       Second, the typical contractor does not work on a one-on-one basis,
    but rather, through an agency who does the job hunting, paperwork,
    billing, collecting, etc. The contractor works for a set hourly price,
    gets some minimal bennies, but not the usual ones, and the agency gets
    a piece---usually 30%--of the fee charged to the end user such as
    Digital. So...that $75.00 per hour price is cut to $50.00 in the
    individual's pocket, and they have to pay for all of the bennies that
    they want...usually without getting group rates.
    
       Third, if someone is intending to become an "Independent
    Contractor". I.E.: have an office, work out of their home directly with
    various customers, bill directly, get BIG bucks, then you had BETTER
    get in touch with someone who really knows the legal aspects and what
    you can and cannot do. I.R.S. is getting really forceful on this, and
    many people who were deducting this and that are finding that the
    I.R.S. is dis-allowing things like home offices, equipment, business
    expenses, and many of the other 'perks' that have been traditionally
    helping these individuals. For instance, I believe that a "home office"
    must now be USED a certain percentage of the time or it does not
    qualify...so if you are out there working forty hours a week, you
    cannot in any way qualify as having a home office because you don't use
    it enough. BEST place to get this stuff clear and clean is to contact
    and sit down with the I.R.S. themselves and find out exactly what you
    are getting into.
    
      Fourth, I have never really felt that a contractor has the same
    COMPANY motiviation as a full-time worker does. Do contractors do good
    work?? Sure they do! No question about it! But I know a lot of old
    DECCIES wh do that EXTRA bit, and who spend their OWN time after hours
    fixing some bug, doing some special thing...which contractors don't
    have any reason to do. Somehow I think in the long run the entire
    economy will become a bit less motivated with all the full timers out.
    Why bust your tush when you only have 6 weeks to go on the
    project...and if youcan squeeze more HOURS out of it, you make more
    bucks. Full timers have a tendency to believe they'll be here next
    week, so they have some sort of motivation. Maybe even a promotion may
    be down the road for a full-timer??? There can be no "company family"
    with contract people either. It's more like hiring the kid next door to
    mow the lawn...he may be a good kid, but he isn't family!
    
      I think that the TIME article did more to INCREASE morale than it did
    to DECREASE it. It was sort of gratifying to see this article and the
    one in WSJ re-iterate what so many of us have been feeling and seeing
    for so long. It basically confirmed the fact that simply knocking off
    people until a number is reached is sort of questionable physics,
    especially when in the vast majority of cases those who are deciding
    who's to go are the ones that should be going themselves. It is hard
    for me to believe that if you have a problem, you give the requirement
    to FIX the problem to the very ones who have MADE the problem to begin
    with. Mid-level management is still pretty much what it was when the
    downsizing began, with some minor exceptions. Still MANY levels, not
    really understanding or even listening to the troops in the trenches. I
    cannot ever recall so much "change" as in the past 2-3 years, but
    things are either still pretty much the same or have actually gotten
    wrse. New "systems" have been designed and implemented...in many cases
    to "improve productivity" but those making the decisions to design and
    implement have never once asked the people who have to use these
    'improvements' about them before they were designed. Therefore, we have
    new systems and processes that take twice as long to get through, and
    whose results are loss of time and a less professional output. We have
    seemingly lost touch with higher level management. Oh, yes, there are
    various "communications" meetings where no communicating takes place.
    Nobody DARES to speak up, for fear the "TFSO Horseman" will strike them
    with his "Outplacer". Fresh ideas MAY be considered in a negative sense
    because amnagement simply cannot or will not try to change anything
    that has been put in place. It is not really getting better from where
    I sit. Review time comes and goes and no review---ooops...fergot to
    tell you that you've been put into a 24 month cycle. from the 15 month
    that you were in...
    
      What has to happen in Digital, and I'm really hoping that it does, is
    that somehow..SOMEHOW Management has to be able to convince the
    remaining people that we are VALUED again. It may not be possible for
    this to happen, but if and until it does, I really don't see how the
    situation can turn around. I think the message coming from the Senior
    Executive Team and Palmer himself is pointed in that direction, but I
    haven't seen a lot of evidence that mid-level management has figured it
    out yet..
    
      John Mc 

    re .3

    in the military if a unit receives 4-6% casualties it becomes
    ineffective and morale goes south.  For those people involved it never
    returns to where it was.  

    Some groups in DEC have seen as much as 50% casualties.

    For those of us here now it will never return anywhere near where it
    was.  Over time we'll show less of the effects.  

    What will change is that over time less of us will be here and others
    will take our place.  And then others theirs.

      This week's TIME has a couple of articles on the emerging corporate
    focus on eliminating permanent jobs and the comittments that go along
    with them and replacing them with temporary people. It seems that the
    majority of the so-called "jobs" that have been generated recently are
    in the 'temporary' category.
      The article goes on to state that the vast majority of those working
    in 'temporary' positions are rapidly becoming or already are members of
    a modern "under-class" of people who have no benefits, no security, no
    stability and no hope. Maybe I'm just ignorant or slow, but I cannot
    see a very bright future for a country or countries that reduces the
    majority of it's citizens to a modern-day version of serfdom, with no
    interest or obligation to form long-term relationships or provide these
    underclass individuals with basic needs. The article points out that
    MOST temporary workers don't earn much more than POVERTY wages, and 
    the stresses and uncertainty of continued employment take tremendous
    tolls on their mental stability. With this scenario, it seems that
    crime will accelerate on a pace never before heard of, and the work
    output will decrease in both quantity and quality. Even Slick's
    labor-bozo agreed that "you can't have your cake and eat it too" when
    it comes to business success and stability of employees. The article
    confirmed some of the things I mentioned in my previous reply, about
    contract people not having any real incentive, doing only what they
    HAVE to do, working the usual hours only, not having any interest in
    that "extra" thing, and having no sense of belonging. 
    
      Is this for real?? Is this the way we are headed?? If so, maybe thre
    really IS no hope!!
    
      John McD 

RE                    <<< Note 2426.15 by DELNI::JMCDONOUGH >>>
>      Is this for real?? Is this the way we are headed?? If so, maybe thre
>    really IS no hope!!

  This is nothing new. Keep in mind that over the last 12 years the pendulum
has swung away from the working class toward business. The theory was that
the working class would continue to thrive due to trickle down economics, but
as always, that didn't work.

  As this problem gets worse, we will probably see a 2nd "New Deal" that will
address this problem with nation health insurance, better unemployment benefits,
etc. just as we saw the 1st "New Deal" as a response to the last go around of
pro big business economics during the 20s and early 30s. 

  Things like single provider insurance and independent retirement plans should
go a long way toward solving some of these problems making it less necessary
for people to be full time employees of a single company.

  George

>      This week's TIME has a couple of articles on the emerging corporate
>    focus on eliminating permanent jobs and the comittments that go along
>    with them and replacing them with temporary people. It seems that the
>    majority of the so-called "jobs" that have been generated recently are
>    in the 'temporary' category.
>      The article goes on to state that the vast majority of those working
>    in 'temporary' positions are rapidly becoming or already are members of
>    a modern "under-class" of people who have no benefits, no security, no
>    stability and no hope. Maybe I'm just ignorant or slow, but I cannot
>    see a very bright future for a country or countries that reduces the
>    majority of it's citizens to a modern-day version of serfdom, with no
>    interest or obligation to form long-term relationships or provide these
>    underclass individuals with basic needs.

	My slant on this:

	Serfdom tied you to an "employer" for all your needs, food, shelter,
	health etc. etc, and you had to do whatever the "employer" said.
	
	Temporary work frees you from all ties, and gives more choice.

	The move from permanent to temporary has been happening for a long 
	while, many people prefer to work this way.

	It gives flexibility to the employer and worker.

	I don't see this as a change to an "under-class", just a different way
	of working in todays faster-changing environment.

	I wouldn't be surprised to see many companies go this way.

	Our own private pension schemes acitively support this way of working,
	where the pension is designed to move with you, and for you, not tied
	to an employer.
	The increase in avaiability and range of private health care - in 
	addition to the National Health service, gives you a range of additional
	options. 

	Heather
	

    re .17
    
>	The move from permanent to temporary has been happening for a long 
>	while, many people prefer to work this way.
    
    And very many don't.  Particularly those (currently in the majority,
    IMO) who do not have "in demand" skills.  Net result for them is a
    significant and probably long term, if not permanent, reduction in
    income and benefits.
    
    /Butch

>    And very many don't.  Particularly those (currently in the majority,
>    IMO) who do not have "in demand" skills.  Net result for them is a
>    significant and probably long term, if not permanent, reduction in
>    income and benefits.
 

	Let me think, benefits.........

		Permanent			Temporary

Health  	National Health			National Health
		A few companies provide		Pay and pick from a range
		private health at a cost.	of private health.

Pension		Government, and either/or	Government, and either/or
		Private pension, or		Private pension
		Company pension
		(company pensions are
		usually only provided
		by larger companies, and
		not always then)

Increases	once a year, if then		Negotiated during and/or at
						change of contract.....or change
						contract.

Taxes		PAYE taxes as-you-go		Tax breaks (car, dividends,
						clothes, tools, business loans,
						pay taxes in arrears, petrol..)

Security	none - unempoyment after	none - apart from that 
		2 years at very low rate,	negotiated in the contract.
		except for a few larger
		companies.

	I have seen 5 of my family go from permanent to temporary workering 
	over the last 2 years, and all of them prefer it. 2 were already 
	temporary workers.

	I'm not saying it's best for everyone, I have been a temorary worker,
	but I like to work on things which are not condusive to temporary/
	short-term working, which means I am now permanent.
	However, it's because of the work I like doing, rather than because
	of the benefits.

	Heather

    Lending institutions, particularly when considering mortgages, prefer
    to see "permanent" employment.  When applying for a car loan, I was
    contracting; the person taking my application was leery about my work
    history until told that I had a 5-year history with a previous 
    employer.  I plan to quickly re-finance my mortgage while I'm still a
    "permanent" DEC employee, just in case the "Fickle Finger of Fate" 
    points in my direction before the layoffs end.  I don't want to have
    to rebuild my stability image for X number of years before I can reduce
    my rate.
    
    /dlw

Heather, the point was that some of the workforce do not have skills which
are in demand outside of Digital. These people will find it difficult to 
secure contracts on the open market. Hence loss of income and benefits.

The benefits which you listed are also UK specific and do not consider the
situation on the continent or in America. To you it might seem like a good 
deal but not everybody can swing those health care or tax breaks you mentioned.

The point I'd make is that at a certain age in life contracting just
doesn't appeal. If you're an OINK or DOINK with few other responsibilities in
life it might work for you but if you're over 45 with dependants it could 
be an awful proposition. When you start looking at the later years of your
life those benefits will be needed.

The other aspect is that some people have given the best years of their lives
to Digital - and now when things are tight - they're getting dumped. A fact
of life in todays economic climate maybe, but it stinks.

- Paul

Translation of OINK and DOINK (just in case somebody wasn't aware of them)
OINK = One Income No Kids, DOINK = Double Income No Kids.

>    Lending institutions, particularly when considering mortgages, prefer
>    to see "permanent" employment.

	They may have been wary that you had been temporary for a short time,
	like they would here if you'd been working for a short time.
	Once you have a history of working for an employer, or a history
	of working temporarily, there's no difference.

	Both my husband, his brother-in-law, took out mortgages and car loans
	when temporary.

	Heather

>Heather, the point was that some of the workforce do not have skills which
>are in demand outside of Digital. These people will find it difficult to 
>secure contracts on the open market. Hence loss of income and benefits.

	To be quite truthful, If I had a skill that was only useful to one
	small section, or one company, I'd get myself some more skills PDQ.
	Permanent jobs are never that secure.

	My sister went from a permanent office job, to temporary gardening,
	she saw the need for it in her area, and taught herself the skills 
	needed, and did it.

	My husband went from a permanent prototype wireman (they were becoming 
	obsolete) to a temporary technical writer, to a handyman (when the
	defence cuts came in) to a temporary user writer, to a temporary
	project manager.........and so on.

	My brother went from a permanent glazer in the UK, to temporary
	handyman/fix-it in Canada.

	I went from permanent programmer in the UK, to temporary programmer in 
	the US, to permanent support manager in the Uk ..........

>The benefits which you listed are also UK specific and do not consider the
>situation on the continent or in America. To you it might seem like a good 
>deal but not everybody can swing those health care or tax breaks you mentioned.

	I have been in temporary emploment in the US, my brother is in Canada,
	I know many people in temporary employment on the continent and the UK.
	I don't know of any that can't swing at least one tax break, health care
	has to be factored in depending on the country - but I haven't found
	anywhere that I'd like to go that doesn't have some type of buyable
	health care insurance.

>The point I'd make is that at a certain age in life contracting just
>doesn't appeal. If you're an OINK or DOINK with few other responsibilities in
>life it might work for you but if you're over 45 with dependants it could 
>be an awful proposition. When you start looking at the later years of your
>life those benefits will be needed.

	I don't understand why.
	My dad became temporary at 40 (with a wife, 4 kids, and 2 elderly
	parents to support) - he was a chippy, and has gradually
	built up his skills as a cabinet maker - he's still doing this at 64.
	He enjoys it so much he'll probably keep going after he retires in July.
	(But be a bit more picky on the jobs he chooses)
	
>The other aspect is that some people have given the best years of their lives
>to Digital - and now when things are tight - they're getting dumped. A fact
>of life in todays economic climate maybe, but it stinks.

	I find this quite a dificult to understand where this fits.
	Firstly, we were talking general temporary trends, and now we are
	talking specific Digital redundancies.

	Oh well.  I was "dumped" as you call it, in the last major redundancy
	/recession wave in the UK 1981.
	I didn't, however, look at is as being dumped, or bemoan that I had
	worked their for x years, but as something that happened, that I had to 
	do something about.
	Which I did.
	
	Look at your skills, if they are niche ones, develop others, they
	don't have to be technical or difficult.
	Expect to change with the market.

	Heather	

    
    And yet another way to look at this...
    
    "Usually" a mortage company will call your employer when you are
    applying for a mortage, and ask the question:
    
    	"What is the probability of continued employment?"
    
    If you are self-employed, you can tell them that you "never" intend
    to fire yourself...your are the BEST worker you have ever seen...:-)
    
    
    

    There's a nice book (IMO) about job security in times like this. I'll
    quote the front page:
    
    From the author of How to work for a jerk
    _________________________________________
    
       IF YOU WANT GUARANTEES
          --- Buy A Toaster--
    
    How to survive and thrive in Corporate Change
    
    Robert M. Hochheiser
    
    
    /jan
    
    

    
    RE: 2nd new deal-Please, don't make me gag.  The first new deal is a
    big part of why the US is in the state that it is in.
    
    
    Mike

    re: .26
    
    You are aware that the national debt quadrupled during the Reagan/Bush
    administration. That means they (Reagan and Bush) over spent income by
    four times as much as *ALL* the Presidents we've ever had did, put
    together. 
    
    Question: Which is worse 1. Increase spending, reduce taxes, or 
                             2.Increase taxes, reduce spending? 
    
    Answer: Neither, but if you do one for a length of time, you have to do
    the other for a length of time to compensate. The ideal is to tax at
    the same rate as spending. Then The People pay more attention to 
    where *Their* money is going. 
    
    Marie
    
    

    There was no tax decrease during the Reagon years.  Things were done to
    the tax laws but they did not result in the government collecting less
    money.  See the Wall Street Journal today.  It shows that federal
    revenue as % of GNP has stayed very stable since 1960.  During the same
    time period, tax laws have changed dramatically.
    
    > The ideal is to tax at the same rate as spending.
    
    Wrong!  The ideal to to spend at the same rate as taxing.  Don't set
    taxing policy based on spending, set spending based on tax revenues.

re: .22

>	They may have been wary that you had been temporary for a short time,
>	like they would here if you'd been working for a short time.
>	Once you have a history of working for an employer, or a history
>	of working temporarily, there's no difference.

This is NOT the case in the U.S.  I have a friend who has been self-employed
for over 10 years and his tax returns showed constantly increasing income.
He had more trouble getting his mortgage than I've had getting my last three
put together.  From what I have heard, his case is not unique.

Bob

    The response to this note has been most gratifying.  My morale has
    improved just seeing that there were twenty some odd people out there
    that thought about what I had to say.
    
    RE: independent contracting
    I am a delivery person for N.I.S. (Network Integration Services) and
    our organization serves as a design/build entity in the marketplace.
    We are very much in the contracting game.  We do a lot of physical
    construction (cabling, pole lines, underground, etc.).  I work with and
    manage many independent contractors.
    
    In a past life (before many years of night school) I was an independent
    contractor doing commercial and residential flooring. 
    
    All things considered, I greatly prefer working as a contractor under
    Digital's wing.  I like getting a paycheck every week. If we
    competitively bid a project and lose.  I still get that check.
    I still eat.
    As an independent, I would not have that luxury.
    
    The contracting business is a whores market. There is always someone
    who will underbid you.  It is backstabbing.  It is cutthroat.
    It is a constant struggle.
    If it is the intent of "big business" to turn the vast majority of us
    into free agents; the consequences will be catastrophic.
    
    ed

re .27

	Last time I checked the US Constitution, the Congress was 
	responsible for taxes and spending, not the Executive Branch. 
	So "they (Reagan and Bush)" did not "over spent income by four 
	times as much as *ALL* the Presidents we've ever had did, put 
	together", the Democratic Congress over spent income by four times 
	as much as *ALL* the Congresses we've ever had did, put together.

	Also, as noted, the *decreases* in tax *rates* during those years
	produced an *increase* in tax *revenues*, as Reagan predicted.

						Tom_K

    Thanks for clarifying that for her, Tom.
    
    
    

    Re: -.1 Tom_K
    
    Problem is, how do we get a few more voters to understand this???

	Such a discussion is beyond the scope of this conference.

					Tom_K

    re: .28
    You should not consider the debt as a % of GNP as a true indicator of
    what Reagan/Bush did to us. Look at the % of each tax dollar required
    to service that debt (and take out Social Security to really see it).
    Our children will be paying this mountain of debt into infinity, and
    we (baby boom generation and beyond) may never see a dime of Social
    Security because of it.
    re: .27
    Your right, the Democratic congress was responsible for a lot of the
    overspending during the Reagan/Bush years. But may I remind you, The
    president is the branch of government that approves the budget and signs
    it into law. The chief executive, whether in business or in government,
    is ultimately responsible for what goes on during his term in office.
    I think history will judge Reagan/Bush harshly on these points, as we
    the United States, rush headlong uncontrollably on our way to becoming
    a third world nation. But we can always look back and say we won the
    "Cold War". 

Please, enough of this President/Congress, Republican/Democrat bashing.


Thanks,

Bob - Co-moderator DIGITAL

  There's plenty of blame to go around for economics of the 80s. This is
probably not the right place for that type of debate. But there is a problem
for many if only temporary work is available. 

  The problem is that trickle down economics works for some people but not for
everyone. If you are fortunate enough to have a set of skills that is always in
demand and/or if you are good at selling yourself, you can probably always get
by. 

  The problem is that there is a need for specialists who will obtain a high
degree of training in a specific field which will be in demand only part of the
time. People who have specialized abilities are often the only ones who can step
in at a critical part of a large project and do work which will benefit many
for years to come, but on a time scale most of their work is done over a short
period followed by longer periods where they continue training or do ramp up
work for the next project. 

  If you require these people to work part time and only pay them for that
short stint of work, they will not be able to pay their rent the rest of the
time. They will then stop specializing, find work that pays by the month and get
by, but we all lose because as a society we lose our specialists. 

  Sure Heather and others can provide anecdotal accounts of how this uncle or
that brother in law got by ok, but in a complex society we need all types of
workers. Some can be justified by the month, and some can not. Trickle Down
Economics is great for short term low tech jobs and it's great for owners of
large companies, but it comes up short for a large part of the work force. 

  George 

    I forgot to add that the February 22, 1993 issue of FORTUNE
    International has some great reading on this...
    
    David
    

>>	They may have been wary that you had been temporary for a short time,
>>	like they would here if you'd been working for a short time.
>>	Once you have a history of working for an employer, or a history
>>	of working temporarily, there's no difference.
>
>This is NOT the case in the U.S.  I have a friend who has been self-employed
>for over 10 years and his tax returns showed constantly increasing income.
>He had more trouble getting his mortgage than I've had getting my last three
>put together.  From what I have heard, his case is not unique.


	I had a loan form through this morning, I only had to sign that I had
	had employment over the last 6 months, it specifically stated that
	it could be permanent ot temporary work.

	I belive that things will start to change, as more people become
	temporary workers - otherwise the lenders will have less and less
	people to make a profit out of - so lower profits - and that won't
	be acceptable.

	Heather

>  If you require these people to work part time and only pay them for that
>short stint of work, they will not be able to pay their rent the rest of the
>time. They will then stop specializing, find work that pays by the month and get
>by, but we all lose because as a society we lose our specialists. 


	The way it works is.............these people are in very short supply, 
	if you only want them for a short time, you pay more for them, or you 
	don't get them.

	The higher rate they charge for being specialists, enables to cover 
	for the times when their skills may not be required.

>  Sure Heather and others can provide anecdotal accounts of how this uncle or
>that brother in law got by ok, but in a complex society we need all types of
>workers. Some can be justified by the month, and some can not. Trickle Down
>Economics is great for short term low tech jobs and it's great for owners of
>large companies, but it comes up short for a large part of the work force. 


	Maybe you should go into Euro_contractors and tell them that as they are
	not short-term low-tech, they are coming up short.

	Even try offering them a permanent job at permanent salaries, and I bet
	you get very short shrift.

	Heather

	"The way it works is.............these people are in very short supply, 
	if you only want them for a short time, you pay more for them, or you 
	don't get them."

Only if the market is characterised by many buyers and few sellers. Which it
isn't so your assumption is wrong.

Contractor rates will be determined by the market for that specific skill 
set. In a market characterised by many sellers and very few buyers - the 
buyer will determine the market price not the seller. If the seller cannot 
cover his fixed costs he will exit the market in the long term. This is 
exactly what will happen, and has been happening to skilled labour which has 
been servicing the labour market over the past 12 to 24 months.

The current market for skilled people, specialists or generalists is top 
heavy at the moment. That is there are too many sellers and not enough 
buyers - and that's been true in the UK for the past few years. UK based
contractors aren't getting the rates they were 4 to 5 years ago and many 
people have been left without work.  

With more redundancies in the industry expected the contract market place
will become very price competitive. 

>	"The way it works is.............these people are in very short supply, 
>	if you only want them for a short time, you pay more for them, or you 
>	don't get them."

>Only if the market is characterised by many buyers and few sellers. Which it
>isn't so your assumption is wrong.


	There are many jobs available that can't be filled - because the
	specific skills are not available - these jobs are offered at a
	very high rate, there are more buyers than sellers.

	Its the standard type skills that tend to flood the market, where there
	are more sellers than buyers, but there are jobs.

	The people who tend to get them aren't just the people whith the best
	skill in that tool, but also those that are people who have the right 
	attitude to temporary working.

	As I said before, this is about adapting, if you find that you are in
	a whole host of people with the same skill set, and low demand, than 
	you should be developing your skills into another area.

	This shouldn't just apply to temporary work though, permnent jobs also
	work at supply and demand, and if there are loads of people with the 
	same skill set that go for a permanent job, them the salary tends to be
	lower.

	Digital itself is moving towards a skill-set compensation structure.
	The more skills you have that fit the requirements, the more you will 
	be paid.
	
	The market will always drive the salary or contract fee, it doesn't 
	make a difference if you are temporary or permanent.

	What we will have to get good at is looking at the shortages and gluts,
 	and developing the skills that are needed most. This won't be a one-off
	either, it will mean constant evolution.


	Heather

re: .40

Heather,

I'm talking about the U.S. and you are talking about the U.K.  They are
obviously different.

Bob

  The problem is that not all people are the same and not all jobs are the
same. Some people thrive in a dog eat dog type of environment where they are
required to scrounge around for work, others do not. 

  Now you may say, "tough luck, if you're not good at beating the bushes
looking for work, that's your problem, not ours". But the thing is that it is
our problem because under the contractor system, some talented people spend
time beating the the bushes looking for jobs when they should be working and
others who are bad at looking for jobs never find productive work. 

  What that means is that the productive work doesn't get done, or it gets done
by someone who is better selling himself than by someone who is better at
doing the actually work. 

  One contractor once told me that he spent almost half of his time going
around looking for work and the other half actually doing something productive.
If we as a nation are going to organize things so that our best people are only
doing what they do best 50% of the time, then some other nation that finds a
way to keep people doing what they do best 90% of the time is going to out
produce us. 

  Having a nation of part time workers is just not efficient,
  George

>re: .40
>
>Heather,
>
>I'm talking about the U.S. and you are talking about the U.K.  They are
>obviously different.

Bob, my first paragrapgh was how it is in the UK, my second paragrapgh is how
     I see it going in the US - The UK used to be like the US in this matter, 
     until more and more people started to go temporary.


	Heather	

    ICL (Britain's only large computer company, currently Japanese owned)
    is apparently moving towards a "goal" of 70% contract, 30% permanent.
    
    The 30% will include the folk mentioned a few replies back, who do the
    negotiation with vendors (and presumably the other 70%) and other jobs
    where you do need long-term "loyalty" to the company.
    
    This from "a usually reliable source" at ICL.
    
    Dave.

    Hopefully the last two won't start throwing fish at each other...
    
    Paul

    .49
    
    hi Paul,
    
    why you think they'll throw fish at each others?
    
    thanks,
    \nasser

>	Heather,
>
>	UK isn't it this country with more than 3 million unemployed people?
>        Where one out of 10 people you cross in the street is chasing
>	for a job. Probably high demand, low offer for temporary workers!

	This makes a market for temporary workers, as the overhead of permanent
	employees is costly.

	A temporary worker will cost the employer half or less than that of a 
	permanent worker, and the temporary worker will still get more money 
	then the permanent worker.

	Heather

    
>    why you think they'll throw fish at each others?
    
 
	The French think their fish market is being undermined by cheap imports.

	So they set fire to British fish being imported to France.

	They kidnap two British fishery inspectors.

	They board a British ship moored in a French port, with grappling hooks,
	and set fire to its flag.

	They then blockade St. Peter Port in Guernsey, and refuse to abide by 
	the fishing agreements of the two countries.

	They are breaking EEC, and French law, and the French authorities do 
	diddlysquat.

	Heather 

	
>	I'm not nationalist enough to enter in a France/England rathole about
>	fish.

	It's not nationalist to me, but personal, I have a lot of friends
	in the fishing business - in Plymouth, Devon.

	Still, I don't suppose this conference is the right place for this 
	debate!

>	If your system of employers paying less and employees being paid
>	more could work I vote for you as European Finance minister when
>	the post will exist, hopefully very soon.

	It does work, it's the government that takes a big slice from employer 
	and employee.
	With temporary working, the government takes nothing from the employer,
	and the temporary worker also ends up paying less to the government
	than the permanent employee.

	So, the employer, and temporary employee gain, the government loose.
	.................so no salary for the European Finance minister!

	Heather

Re .54

Firms will normally hire part-time/temporary workers through agents who
in turn hire other firms (the part-time/temporary worker) to do the work. 
If they didn't then one of those parties would have to provide a contract of 
employment (even though it's temporary) and pay their dues, that is national 
insurance contributions and taxes owed for the period of employment. So it 
still doesn't work the way you think.

The practice in Europe has been that a contractor will register a firm, or
buy one and name himself Director. Then all he has to pay is national 
insurance contributions (as employer and employee), company tax (on the 
profit that the company makes), VAT (which the company can normally claim
back) and employee tax. Most contractors will also pay themselves a Directors
dividend (it's the only way of taking money out of the company which isn't
subject to personnel tax) such that the company makes a loss or zero profit. 
The directors dividend is also subject to taxation.

The UK taxman over the past 2-3 years has realised what these 1 man companys
are - a tax fiddle since the contractor will normally expense everything 
(even vacations) to reduce profit - and has been working to close the loophole.

The Government gets it's money in the end - whichever way you look at it. 

Oh yes, I forgot something else - the agents cut.

Agents will normally take 25% of what the firm will pay. I've known one
agent who took 15% and another who took 44% - both were rare cases.

>Firms will normally hire part-time/temporary workers through agents who
>in turn hire other firms (the part-time/temporary worker) to do the work. 

	Yes, I know.

>So it 
>still doesn't work the way you think.

	Yes it does.

>The practice in Europe has been that a contractor will register a firm, or
>buy one and name himself Director. Then all he has to pay is national 
>insurance contributions (as employer and employee), company tax (on the 
>profit that the company makes), VAT (which the company can normally claim
>back) and employee tax. Most contractors will also pay themselves a Directors
>dividend (it's the only way of taking money out of the company which isn't
>subject to personnel tax) such that the company makes a loss or zero profit. 
>The directors dividend is also subject to taxation.

   I know but the dividend is not subject to NI, employees or employers.

   There is also the deal with the company car - where you can claim everything
   for a small monthly payment - much better than any company car scheme I have
   ever seen.
	
>The UK taxman over the past 2-3 years has realised what these 1 man companys
>are - a tax fiddle since the contractor will normally expense everything 
>(even vacations) to reduce profit - and has been working to close the loophole.

	The expensed items are also NI as well as tax-free.

>The Government gets it's money in the end - whichever way you look at it. 

So, how do they get the employers and employees NI from the dividend, and NI and
taxes from the expense, car VAT etc.,? 

The don't get it from the original employer, and they get much less from the 
temporary employee.
 
	Heather

>Oh yes, I forgot something else - the agents cut.
>
>Agents will normally take 25% of what the firm will pay. I've known one
>agent who took 15% and another who took 44% - both were rare cases.

	Digital UK works on a maximum margin of 16%, and has agreements with 
	the agents that this is the MAXIMUM they will take.

	This also helps to finance the temporary workers cash-flow.

	I did take this into account when giving orriginal estimates.

	Heather

Re .51
	"A temporary worker will cost the employer half or less than that of 
	a  permanent worker, and the temporary worker will still get more 
	money than the permanent worker."

So you're saying that the employer has the option of paying, say 30,000 UK 
pounds to a permie or 15,000 UK pounds to a temporary and the temporary will 
still be better off than the permie ?

The weekly rate in the UK - to the agent - is about 25 UK pounds an hour
but can go as high as 30-35 UK pounds for senior people or project managers.
I'm talking about skilled professionals in the computer industry - just
to qualify that statement - not carpenters.

For comparative analysis use a years contract and a years permanent employment
with 20 days annual vacation, 10 days public holidays (you can vary those
values dependant upon country) and 40 hour weeks. 

So the employer will pay 46,000 UK pounds to the agent (of which the 
contractor will receive 34,500 UK pounds) or 30,000 UK pounds for a permie 
(and that's being generous !). So if you're statement were correct the employer 
would have to pay out an additional 62,000 UK pounds in benefits to the 
permie or incur costs equal to that sum !!!!. No way.

Now check out the difference between 34,500 UK pounds as a contractor or
30,000 UK pounds as a permie. Consider too that the permie will get paid sick 
leave, training, maternity leave etc. as adiitional benefits which the 
contractor won't get. Not much of a marginal benefit either way. If as a 
permie you are earning a salary around 20,000 UK pounds contracting looks
more appealing but then contract rates drop according to experience.

Re .57 (I think)

What's the current national insurance contribution in the UK Heather ?

re: .52

 >So they set fire to British fish being imported to France.

I doubt I'd eat flammable fish either.  

Al

>>	"A temporary worker will cost the employer half or less than that of 
>>	a  permanent worker, and the temporary worker will still get more 
>>	money than the permanent worker."

>So you're saying that the employer has the option of paying, say 30,000 UK 
>pounds to a permie or 15,000 UK pounds to a temporary and the temporary will 
>still be better off than the permie ?

	No I am not, what I am saying that if an employee costs a company
	30,000, they are probably paying them 10-15,000 gross.

	They could pay the agent 23,000 - it would save the company
	money, and the tempory person would get more net, than the permanent 
	one.


>So the employer will pay 46,000 UK pounds to the agent (of which the 
>contractor will receive 34,500 UK pounds) or 30,000 UK pounds for a permie 
>(and that's being generous !). So if you're statement were correct the employer 

	That's where your figures break down, a 30,000 permie costs the company
	60-90,000.
	I have seen calculations, depending on the company, of anywhere 
	between 2 and 3 times the gross salary, as the costs to the company of a
	permanent employee.

>What's the current national insurance contribution in the UK Heather ?

	employees is about 9%,    maximum employee pays a year us 1333.80
	employers is 10.5%, no maximum.

	Heather

    
    
    I'm curious as to how do the French know they were British fish?  Does
    EEC bureacracy specify identity cards for cod or would they simply
    be recognised by their Anglais `sang-froid'?
    
    Colin

	"That's where your figures break down..."

You seem to have a problem reading Heather. What I'd written was;

	"... if you're statement were correct the employer would have to 
	pay out an additional 62,000 UK pounds in benefits to the permie 
	or incur costs equal to that sum !!!!. No way."

Which you maintain is the case. Ok. Perhaps then you could enlighten us all 
as to what these costs are. As you've seen figures which support your claim 
I'm sure you'll have no problem to quantify the various costs involved.

Start with say, Salary	30,000 and go on from there.

    Actually, they don't -- apparently (TV News report, may not be
    accurate), they did burn some which turned out to be French (i.e.,
    caught by French trawlers).
    
    D.

    
     This string is getting excellent.  A debate about whether it is
    better to be mistreated as a temp as opposed to mistreated as a
    permanent worker, interspersed with a debate about the nationality
    of burning fish !  I feel better already - have we discovered a
    cure for 'DECression' in humor ?
    

    ave you not noticed that French fish ave a pencil thin mustache ?
    
    and they taste best hot with ognions...
    
    British fish is best smoked and cold.... (salmon, haddock etc)
    
    Paul
    (Scottish)

    
    
>    I'm curious as to how do the French know they were British fish? 

	Becuase thay are being unloaded from the britsh trawlers ion the port
	Because they are coming off the UK ferry in UK lorries

	Heather

> Start with say, Salary	30,000 and go on from there.

	The cost of admin of the car sceme is approx 26,000,000, thats about
	5,000 for everyone in the UK (whether they have a car or not)

	I'm not sure of the personnel costs, but I would guess at twice or
	three times that.

	Then there is the costs of running the payroll system, paying everyone,
	handling the queries, the tax office, the P11d's, the P60's (and we 
	pay 3 weeks in advance too, so there's interest)

	Then there's  10% pension, + 3.5% rebate   = 13.5%
	plus the administrative costs to Hogg Robinson for running the 
	pensions scheme, and paying the financial advisors.
 	
	Then there's 10.5% NI

	And minimum 30% on 10% if you're in the share scheme
 
	and health insurance, and the occupational nurse and doctor

	And redundancy

	And holidays

	And sick

	And maternity (we give above the legal standard, so pay more than we 
		       can reclaim, and temporary replacement - we allow more 
		       than the minimum time off)	

	And paternity leave

	And 5-year dos
	and 10-year dos
	and christmas dos

	And initial training, and subsequent training

	That's it off the top of my haed, there's probably more

	Heathert

>	Thank you Heather for all these numbers but what is the age of
>	the captain of the British ferry?

	Older than his teeth, but not as old as his finger nails.

	Heather

You're really hooked on this, aren't you Heather ? Ok. Let's take a look 
at the catch.

From the figures you've guessed at (and a little bit fishy they were too) we 
have cost to the firm of a permie:

		Salary		30,000
		Car	 	 5,000
		Personnel	10,000
		Pension		 4,500
		NI		 3,150
		Health Ins	 1,000
		Training	 9,000
				------
				62,650

Add an additional 30,000 for the occupational nurse, the doctor and Hogg
Robinson to give us a round 92,000. That's two times the cost of our temporary
at 46,000.

The permie nets - let's say @35% taxes (all inclusive) - net = 19,500.

The temporary nets - let's say with outgoings of 21,000 - net = 25,000.

		Agents Cut	 7,360	(to use your 16%)
		Tax @35%	13,524
				------
				20,884		

And that doesn't include what the temporary must pay for his own car, training,
private pension plan, insurances (Oh, don't forget third party indemnity 
policies which are expensive), the accountant, lawyer etc. 

So is the temporary that much better off than a permie or the company that
much better off with temps as opposed to permies ?

>So is the temporary that much better off than a permie or the company that
>much better off with temps as opposed to permies ?


	My basic rule of thumb is.........


	Ask a temporary who is getting 39,000 into their company (thats if
	you take your 46,000 less 7,000 agents fee) if they would work as a 
	permanent for 30,000 gross................

	I have asked, and was told they wouldn't take that big a cut in pay.

	Heather 

>And that doesn't include what the temporary must pay for his own car, training,
>private pension plan, insurances (Oh, don't forget third party indemnity 
>policies which are expensive), the accountant, lawyer etc. 

	And being permanent, I still have to pay for my car, my pension, 
	insurances. I also pay for a 3rd party indemnity insurance.

	I have not required the services of a Lawyer, neither has my
	husband who's been contracting 16 years.

	You don't have to pay for an accountant anymore, the government is 
	trying to encourage 1-person and small companies, and have abolished 
	this requirement from April 5th.

	Heather

    
    You know, the job market for temp fish is not as bad as I first
    thought.  There were a trawlerload of jobs in the paper last night.
    
    Just a few examples:
    

		Temp Fish Work Opportunities

    	Lamprey Lampoonist:  Must be able to come up with one fish tail
        a minute.  Tolerance a must, it's a reel can of worms working here.

	Sturgeon General:  Oversee implementation of National health
        scheme.  Must be Non-smoked.

        Electric Eels needed as temporary power workers.  We're looking
        for a few bright sparks to work on a current project.

	Piano Tuna needed in Albacore. Earn six squid an hour.

	Fred's Dogfish & Catfish Grooming needs scale polisher. 
        "Our bark is worse than your bait".
 
	Jackson Pollock Painting Service - a new look for only a few
        clams.

	OK Coral Ranch needs trigger fish - must have own sea horse.

        Fish & Chips!  Digital needs one worker to replace four - suit
        octopus.

			Personals

        Insecure crab needs complimentary shrimp.

	Improve your job prospects!  Join our School of Fish today - apply
        to the University of Whales.


		        Entertainment Section

	Whelk Orchestra seeks Bass.

	Get into Showbiz! - Dancing Salmon wanted for Can-Can.

	Elizabethan costumier needs cod-pieces.

	Stunt fish wanted for fire scene in new TV movie about
        Anglo-French cod war.  Suit sardines in oil.

    
    

|>    I'm curious as to how do the French know they were British fish? 
|Becuase thay are being unloaded from the britsh trawlers ion the port

I thought it was the umbrellas that gave 'em away.

    
     After wading through this mess, I can see that there'll be a MASS
    influx of unemployed U.S. workers cramming into England with the way
    they do things there...
      However, the U.S. is a BIT different...
    
      Up to the last year, the Temp (I.E. Independent Contractor) business
    in the Computer Programming and S/W Engineering area (for example..)
    was pretty decent for the simple reason that there was abot a 10%
    shortfall of available talent...so a good or even mediocre but
    hard-working individual could usually get a contract fairly easily.
    Labor and tax laws were lax or nebulous enuff so all those 'business
    related deductions' could be slipped in without too much scrutiny by
    the authorities... So,....a "Gypsy worker" could usually have
    'permanent' employment, make about 40% more gross than the doo-bee in
    the same sort of permanent job, and absorb the additional costs by
    having the ability to deduct a lot of stuff that the permie could not.
    Net income was a fair amount MORE than the permie...
    
      However, "Uncle" ain't totally stupid, albeit a bit slow
    sometimes...and the IRS finally realized that here was a "cash cow"
    that has not been MILKED very well...so some changes that were actually
    put into effect about 6 years ago are NOW being enforced a little, and
    it's a GIVEN that they'll be more stringently enforced as time goes on.
    Fer instance: It was always fairly easy to deduct a "home office"
    expense and the related peripherals...came to a fairly healthy sum. Now
    the Government is requiring the individual to PROVE that the office is
    actually being USED as such...and it must be proven that the usage is
    more than 50% of the time.... So...Independent contractor can either
    forget the deduction, or forget working over 50% of the time...
    
      Some of the other things that the IRS has in the cooler are the
    relationship rules... I.E.: If a company treats a contractor in the
    same manner as a full-time employee, then UNCLE sez there ain't no
    difference...the contractor IS an employee, and the company has to take
    out tax, social security, offer bennies etc..etc... How long will the
    companies see a benefit in hiring contractors when they have to ante up
    the same way...
    
      Another thing....now that IBM, Digital and dozens of other companies
    are shedding DROVES of computer people, the market will shrink...more
    bodies to fill the available jobs, more competition on dollars, lower
    fees, harder to get work, less money... This sure isn't rocket
    science...if there are 10,000 jobs and 8,000 people to fill them, the
    bucks will be there....if there are 10,000 jobs and 20,000 people to
    fill them, the hiring entities can play a price game and the worker
    will have to compete...no more high rollers, no more exclusives, no
    more 'sure thing' jobs. This is EXACTLY what the various articles on
    the trends are saying. The more temporary jobs that are generated, the
    less the overall work will pay... Working conditions deteriorate,
    worker treatment deteriorates...attitudes of hiring companies is to
    treat people like fixtures, forget about human aspects, and dump the
    body when it's either used up or burnt out. No reason to get concerned,
    because the lobby's full of more bodies to plug into the holes.  As a
    PERMIE, I have a JOB...I work at the JOB...if it takes me till 8:00
    some nights to do something, I stay till 8:00. If I was a temp, i'd be
    outa here at 5:00....no pay--no work. No incentive, no future, no
    'extra' effort because this is just a way-station. The TIME articles
    point out that LOYALTY and EXTRA because of a feeling of belonging are
    BIG pieces of successful companies...
    
      Another and very important thing is the idea of ROOTS and Community
    values. A nation of "gypsie-like" workers who must be 'portable' and be
    able to move to the work will further deteriorate the sense of
    stability in communities and families. A sense of "family" in a company
    has and is a big piece of the success of most companies. How many of
    the companies that have begun to use this 'get the workers out'
    attitude have REALLY been successful?? According to the TIME, U.S.
    News, Fortune, Wall St. Journal and others who've written on this
    subject, it just doesn't work in the long term. Short term bottom-line
    'gains' are realized, but these are usually one-shot deals and the
    corporate bottomline goes down pretty dramatically over a year or so.
    
    
      Just for the heck of it...take a look at Digital's CASH balance and
    STOCK prices when 'downsizing' began 3 + years ago....now look at those
    numbers today....
    
    
       JM

    re .76 - temp vs. perm is a red herring.  Computer hw/sw/svc revenues
    worldwide are flat, profits down, employment declining.  Used to be
    you could get fat contracts as a temp, or opt for security and bennies
    as a perm.  Now you get tough contracts/fierce competition as a temp,
    or layoffs/pay cuts/reduced bennies as a perm.
    
    I sea no porpoise in the comparison - it's a boss's market now.  Your
    objection to the trend of the note seems an artificial crab...
    
    :-)

Re: .60

     AH!  You don't like flammable fish you'd rather eat them Japanese
     syle - raw.

Re: general fishy string

     If you want to know what a true obscenity is, it is anyone, 
     anywhere wantonly destroying or wasting food for any reason when 
     there are people in the world starving.

     As a vegetarian I strongly object to fishing anyway, but agree
     that I can't force this view on other people or yank away their
     only means of livlihood.  However having killed the fish I am
     disgusted that they are then wasted by so-called "adults" operating
     outside the law.  It is nothing to do with nationality, I would
     be as appalled whoever was doing this, particularly when the 
     authorities of the country are not seen to be enforcing the law.

     After all taking over a Royal Naval vessel going about its lawful
     duties in British or International waters and threatening the 
     crew with knives is actually an act of war.

Re: .48

     Stating the number of unemployed in a country is not a good way
     of establishing the job situation.  You need to monitor
     the unemployment figures as a percentage of the potential working
     population, which fluctuates (usually in an steadily upward trend)
     from year to year.  Thus there may be more unemployed people now
     than at any time before, but compared to the number who are in the
     market for a job, the percentage is fairly stable over a number of
     years.

Cathy

    ...acts of war.
    
    I have to agree that it is ABSOLUTELY disgracefull that RN personnel
    should be so harased and sequestered.
    
    However, the last time Britain and France were at war against each
    other was the early 1800's (if you exempt the sinking of the French
    Warships in the Med in 1940, which was absolutely shocking, but
    probably necessary to stop the ships falling into then enemy hands). It
    is therefore hard to picture the incident as an act of war - especially
    since those two countries are working together (or trying to) to
    integrate in a common market - thay are also both NATO members...
    
    Paul

...but it's an excellent example of British parochialism.

>...but it's an excellent example of British parochialism.

	It is the French fishermen that are breaking the EEC and French-UK 
	legal agreements.

	It was the French that borded the British boats with grapling hooks,
	knives and burnt the flag.

	It was the French fishermen that kidnapped the two fisheries inspectors
 	from Guernsey.

	The French ministers have condemmned the French fishermens action, but 
	have not yet managed to stop it.

	If Britian can find a legal way to stop it, how is it British 
	parochialism?
	

	Heather

Enough of the fish stories and country bashing.  Kindly stick to a discussion
of this topic or it will be write-locked.

Thanks,

Bob - Co-moderator DIGITAL