Conference 7.286::digital

    the lack of replies to this topic is appropriate. i think that most
    folks are so sick of this that it just doesn't warrant discussion
    anymore. in talking with people around the corporation i really get a
    sense of "i just don't give a damn anymore" attitudes. i wonder if
    those at the top know just how devastating round after round after
    round after round after round.........

    Gene - Why do you think they care? (Those at the top) They have not seen it
    as enough of a business issue to change the approach & besides, layoffs 
    have become the chic' thing for American business. The only way being
    "devestating" is going to matter is when it becomes clear that it
    damages the future bottom line and they give it a rest....at least long
    enough to see if the cuts help. Why continue, assuming that they do any
    good? How can they even tell? See, now I'm going round and round....
    You're right, people are becoming dangerously desensitized; dangerous
    for any remaining company spirit. 

	You're both right, I too am getting sick and tired of this ongoing
        perpetual mode of downsizing. There may be good intentions, by
        walking a cautious walk and going slowly (with layoffs). But this walk
        has been going on for the last two years. I think everyone in the
	corporation is currently exhausted. If this continues into the next
	year, perhaps, no one will be able to walk or run (helping the 
	Corporation become profitable) again.
	
	I hope that's not the case.


                                RC

    re: .3
  >>    walking a cautious walk and going slowly (with layoffs). But this walk
  >>    has been going on for the last two years. I think everyone in the
    
    It's been longer than two years; see notes 598.79, .144, and .211
    And don't forget the salary freeze of Jul-Dec 89...
    
    	Dave

    or the salary/hiring freeze of July82-August83! - Ds. 
    						(hired 6/30/82)

    If this keeps up the corporation will end up being comprised only of 
    vp's, personnel people, third level managers and admin.

    Why do we need to keep talking about this?  What more is there to
    say?  Digital is hooked on the "transition" drug and is ill
    inclined to kick the habit.  I expect that "transitions" will
    continue indefinitely.
    
    					Steve

    If you look hard, there are some positive aspects.

    	- the package was continued rather than reduced again. I think this
    	  eliminates some of the uncertainty about how small the package
    	  could get. It also helps in the morale problem where better 
    	  qualified people get less transition money than less qualified
    	  people who were laid off in previous rounds.

    	- it appears that this will be the last major round. I do have
    	  my doubts though - 90,000 employees (~8000 layoffs ?) seems
    	  attainable, 85,000 or (~ 13,000 ?) seems more difficult given
    	  the amount in recent TSFO rounds.

    	- the decision was made and communicated early in the quarter. This
    	  also eliminates uncertainty.

    Peter
    	  

    re: .5,
    
    I didn't include the 6 month salary freeze back in 82 since Digital
    went into a growth period following it. However, if you look back at
    earlier notes in this conference, you can see that the discussions
    started back in the 1988 time-frame. I believe the first 'severance
    package' was offerred to some folk in Phoenix about that time, too.
    It started making the news in Sep 89 when a package was offerred to
    some Mass. folk (598.79), and the company acknowledged plans for
    further reductions. 598.144 (Mar 90) was a major salvo. 598.211 (sept 
    90) was the first "TFSO". And of course don't forget about all the
    "Career Opportunity Days" and "All hands on DEC" events throughout.
    
    Given the time-span involved, its not surprising there is so little
    reaction to the latest announcment. (1) they didn't change the package
    this time, so what's there to say [though it is still "interesting" to
    look back at old notes to see what the first ones were], and (2) after 
    this amount of time, most people have come to terms with the new reality 
    [I'm not saying this is "good"; living with a threat is not the same as 
    there being no threat in terms of peoples mental state]. For example I
    have made a concerted effort over the past years to prepare my financial 
    state for such an event (reducing debt, increasing savings, etc)...
    
    	Dave

    re .8
    
    I believe the package was reduced again, impacting longer service
    employees.  This time around, its one week for each year 0-15 years of
    service.  Last time, I believe it was one week for each year 0-10 years
    of service.  You can look for future reductions in future packages till
    we get to two weeks and out the door.

    re: .10
    
    No, it was 0-15 when this package was first announced. Most people
    seemed to react to the 9 to 7 reduction etc when it was announced;
    but those of us with more than 10 years did notice this change, too.

    My personal take: the announcement is just that, an announcement.  In
    other words the transition program is continuing in the same form as
    last quarter, same dollars, same terms.  No implication (for me) that
    this announcement is about more "layoffs" or any other changes.  Just 
    a statement that IF there are more terminations, they will be
    compensated in the same manner as previously.
    
    But then, I could be interpreting it incorrectly :-)
    
    Otto.

I found this in another notes conferance, and thought it mit
apply here






	    Food for thought....
    
    			    ENTER HERE
    				\/
    			+-----------------+
    			| Do I have a Job | NO!    +-------------------+
    	+-------------->|   with DEC?	  |------->| Then why complain |
    	|		+-----------------+	   +-------------------+
    	|			| YES!
    	|			|
    	|		       \|/
    	|		+-----------------+
    +--------+	    YES!| Can I afford to |
    | Have a |<---------|    leave DEC?   |
    | bitch  |		+-----------------+
    +--------+			| NO!
    				|
    			       \|/
    			+-----------------+
    			|		  |
    			| Shhhhhhhhhh!!!  |
    			|		  |
    			+-----------------+
    			 
    

Note 2435.2 by GLDOA::MORRISON 
    
    >Gene - Why do you think they care? (Those at the top) They have not seen it
    >as enough of a business issue to change the approach & besides, layoffs 
    >have become the chic' thing for American business. The only way being
    
    one can always hope. tho i must atmine is about gone.

    	I realize this isn't the rumor note and that such rumors serve no
    purpose, but what the heck. This is a new rumor I just heard which goes
    with the new transition package. The rumor is that Q3 layoffs were
    pretty small and that to make BP's FY93 target, 15,000 employees will
    be hit in June to end the fiscal year on a high note...and then there
    won't be immediate plans for anymore layoffs for a while (never say
    never).
    	Personally, this number sounds a little ridiculous to me,
    particularly if Q3 shows improvement over Q2 and Q4 looks to be better
    than Q3. Also, a huge number like that would cripple our ability to do
    anything productive until Q2-Q3 of FY94. So it seems pretty
    unrealistic. Nevertheless, this is what I heard...

re: .15

I think BP has made a couple of statements regarding the number of
people that would be left after Q4.  The first had < 90K as the goal.
Assuming that meant 89999 (;-)) that would've required about 12-13K
people being cut loose at that point in time.  The sparse Q3 layoffs
may have reduced that number by a bit.  Meanwhile, i think BP made
another statement (when he was on the same platform with Gov. Weld)
that he was trying to save 85-95K jobs, which could mean that he was
sending up a trial balloon for a slightly lesser number of cuts.  He
must be under pressure from two sides in this argument: (1) just get
it over and declare a moratorium on layoffs for FY94 so people can
focus on work without this hanging over them, vs. (2) don't bring
the business to halt by cutting too many people all at once.  What a
choice! :^(

There has been a certain amount of unreality to the cuts so far this
year.  Groups are laying off people to meet their numbers and then
posting new reqs a few months later because they can't function.  I
bet these same groups that are trying to hire will be told to cut
yet again in the next few weeks.  Plus it seems like we've been
avoiding the reality that there are large numbers of HQ/management
cuts that have to be made if the goal is saving money and minimizing
the impact to productivity.  This can't be put off much longer if
the company's going to survive.  Overhead groups that make work for
themselves and everyone else are not a luxury we can afford anymore.

Add to that the fact that the CBUs are supposed to have all P&L
responsibility and that they make the decision on what engineering
projects (products) and sales resources will be funded for next FY.
This makes me feel as if the whole engineering product rationalization
that was done earlier this FY will become moot as the CBUs cut funds
for all but the most sure-fire products.  The downside to this is that
if the CBUs do err on the side of parsimony, there will be no way to
recover the engineering talent and investment in development that gets
flushed down the toilet.

Reality is about to hit (*KERSPLATTT!!*) soon.  It will be interesting
to see what happens.  But it could be REAL ugly too.
							- paul

    The overall number since at least late last summer or early
    fall has contined to be between 85,000 and 90,000 worldwide.
    This was cited by Jack Smith first as I recall and then
    reiterated by Bob Palmer on several occasions. The recent
    Profitability Directive has, finally, put a date to when
    "decisions reached" must be accomplished to get to the level
    of employment required. I read that as by the end of FY93
    (June 30). It isn't precisely clear that all the heads will
    have rolled by that date, but it is clear that by that date
    the decisions on which and where should be made. Palmer
    also stated that the "marketplace doesn't allow us to make
    any guarantee's" regarding the future with respect to layoffs
    and what-ever-we-call-them-this-week, however, he did express
    optimism that the bulk of this stuff will be over by FY94.
    Since we ended Q2 at around 102,000 folks, and knowing that
    there've been more cut from that figure in the past 13 weeks
    then it stands to reason that more will fall over Q4. Hopefully
    the Company will then get off that particular Merry-Go-Round
    and concentrate on getting profitable in other area's versus
    chopping people.
     In several discussions I've had over coffee etc with peers
    I think the attitude around the latest notice is mostly a
    "so what" attitude on the parts of many. People have become
    somewhat hardened by the continuing Downsizing, Rightsizing,
    Dumbsizing, you-pick-it-sizing that've existed for at least
    three years or so. Most would just be glad to see an end
    to it.
    
                    

    The next TFSO package:
    
    7 week base
    
    plus
    	|
    	|
    	|
    	|	
    	|
    	|	
    	|	
    	|
    	|
    	|	
    	|
    	|
    	|
    	|
       \ /
    
    One Mill brick per year of service.

    
    	I think you only get the brick if you have more than 10 years
    service.
    
    Joe

	Less than 10 years and the brick is thrown (at) to you..

	Over 10 years and it's handed to you and THEN you get whacked
	by a piece of lanolin soaked floor board.

							mike