Conference 7.286::digital

    Wouln't it be easier to move Digital to Armonk?
    

    At one time it was thought Digital would OVERTAKE IBM. As it
    turns out, IBM seems poised to TAKEOVER Digital.

  U.S. News                          LIVE WIRE
 qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq
 Winifred Briney joins Digital (01-Oct)          Date: 01-Oct-1993
 qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq

                       Winifred Briney joins Digital
 
         Winifred S. Briney has joined Digital as marketing director for 
   the U.S. operations of Digital's Personal Computer Business Unit.  She  
   will report to Harry Copperman, U.S. vice president, sales and marketing, 
   Personal Computer Business Unit.
         Winifred will be responsible for U.S. marketing for the PC 
   Business Unit, including planning, channels strategy and product 
   positioning.  She will manage sales and marketing programs designed 
   for demand generation, training, tools, and communications.  
         Previously, Winifred spent 26 years with IBM, where she held a 
   series of senior positions including vice president, personal systems 
   product marketing, and vice president, personal systems marketing 
   support for the National Distribution Division.  Most recently, she 
   was vice president, marketing, for IBM's independent company, WFS 
   Workforce Solutions.  

re: .3

I thought this was a joke the first time I read it, as I was reading the
person's name as the older gentleman that does some food commercial on TV.

Bob

    Bob, you weren't the only one. I pictured a DVN with Mr. Brimley
    instead of the new guy speaking. Helped make a tough day a little
    easier.
    
    Now as someone mentioned, is this is a quiet acquisition of digital
    by IBM?
    
    Jim C.
    

RE: .5

Winifred is not a guy, but a woman.

But the vision of Wilfred remains...

- roger

I, too, saw Wilfred Brimley selling breakfast cereal.
(See title of note)

    
    i don't think we should make fun of a VP name for crying out loud !
    
    VP's are not hired for their name, but for what they can do !
    
    thank you very much.
    
    \nasser

    RE: -1
    
    "VP's are not hired for their name, but for what they can do!"
    
    Interesting concept when it comes to ex-IBMers...
    

    Because one is successful at IBM in the 70/80/90s makes them an asset
    to us today? Why?
    
    I'm sure they were good at what they did back then.................
    but we need new ideas from the people we have.
    
    Going the way of Wang?

    
    RE:  Nasser, take a pill
    
    gb

    re: .0 - So....what's left for Gullotti to do - or is this one of those
    "efficiency layers" we've all NOT heard so much about?
    

    .11
    
    >  Nasser, take a pill
    
    pill of what ?
    
    \nasser

    
    Frankly, I've had enough of the growth in the VP ranks.
    
    -Ed
    

    Then use the VMS "$RELEASE_VP" system service ....
    
    :-)
    

    do you think certain industries/business have more VP's than others 
    due to the inherent nature of their work?

    like for example a chicken farm should not need as many VP's as say high
    tech business?

    has a study been done to point the correlation between VP density
    and the type of business ?

    this should be interesting to see. my guess is that VP density (with
    units of number of VP's per one employee), this should be a fraction, 
    and should i would guess approach the limiting value of 1 as the
    business move to more advanced/higher technology areas. as the VP
    density approaches 0 from the right my guess is that business will be
    less advanced, less modern technology etc..
    
    i think it will be also interesting to see how VP density changes from
    time to time with changing time and socio-economic model, but that
    is asking for too much i suppose.                        

    just some thoughts on the subject...

    \nasser
    who_still_don't_kow_what_bill_to_take

Actually, what I would like to see is our revenue per VP number.  Are we 
really competetive, as compared to HP or Intel, in this very important metric?  
Should this be a consideration in downsizing?


Al

    Did anyone also take the time to review the VP (and P) salary changes
    in the recent Stock Proxy?  In one case (Demmer), a $60k bonus was paid
    for exemplary performance (cost reduction, etc.), in addition to a 17%
    base salary increase.  Hindle appeared to be the only VP without such a
    significant base increase.  
    	
    I had heard last year that executive compensation was going to be tied
    to performance, just as sales compensation was being adjusted.  I'm not
    aware of any field sales personnel getting "base" salary
    increases--just the "reward" of being able to achieve/exceed budget and
    make those "big" bucks.
    
    As a stock/stakeholder it doesn't matter to me if the execs make $25M, IF
    we are meeting performance objectives and ALL persons (down to the
    janitors) are receiving similar compensation for "exemplary"
    performance.  I guess by hiring more VPs we are increasing the odds of
    achieving those goals--right?!?

re: Nasser's "pill"

take a pill ==> take a chill pill ==>  chill out ==>  cool off ==> calm down

American slang can often be amusing.

Ray

    We are picking up all these sales types from IBM because their jobs
    have probably been deep sixed.  The really good ones are leaving for
    companies where they can continue to make big bucks.
    
    I can't see where they will help us, they already contributed to the
    demise of IBM.  Time to change the logo back to blue again?

    re.14 
    Ed,
      There is only one cure for you.WE(the noters) are going to promote
    you to be a VP of something.I'm not sure what-you decide and then we
    will send you a certificate which you can put on your wall.It will say
    something like -ED,Vice president,Internal Strategic Employee
    Communications Products Utilisation Marketing(US)-ie you are a good
    noter.I like this title-you won't be responsible for anything,you won't
    get fired when you screw up,we may even give you a raise.You'll get to
    travel to Europe and see lots of people and have an OPINION about
    everything.The only thing I warn you about is that you must NEVER,EVER
    say or do anything directive and the best means of defence is to latch
    onto the first weakness in any discussion and go on and on and on about
    it until the others give in.
    Yes,I think with this type of coaching,you will go far..,
    Seriously though,I entirely agree and,guess what,everybody I speak to
    entirely agrees-so how come we have so many VPs?I think the only way I
    can vote on this subject is either to try to get it raised at a
    shareholders meeting or to vote with my feet and sell my shares.

    When I started at the company over five years ago the org chart had me,
    of course at the bottom, I believe 8 counting supervisor from the top 
    with only two VPs between me and KO. Today, the leaner and meaner Digital 
    and of course I have moved to a new group, I have 1 supervisor, 1
    manager and only 3 VPs at last count and I am not sure if they sneaked
    one or two in since I checked, which is not very often.  Of course there 
    are a bunch of managers that are hanging around that I am not sure where 
    they belong but they are around...
    
    Many of the VPs being hired seems to be marketing and sales types, which 
    this company despirately needs but they may find that the reason
    DIGITAL does not have an affective marketing and sales organization
    (and I am not knocking anyone except the system) is because of the
    company does not want to spend money advertising in the main stream
    (example INTEL Inside comercials).  Digital also does not put a good
    unified front on when it comes to trade shows and trade rags, it is a free
    for all just look at the Marketing notes conference.  

    hi,
    
    do VP's use the same bathrooms as the rest of us or do they have their
    own executive ones like they do in the movies?
    
    i always wondered about this, since i don't know any VP on personal
    basis and don't know where they set to look i thought i ask this here 
    may be one knows.
    
    iam just curious to know that's all.
    
    thanks in advanced.
    
    \nasser

    nasser-in Europe they don't.Reminds me though.I used to work for NCR.In
    the London office they had 5 restaurants for different levels.Once I
    had some customers with me who wanted to go for a pee,so I showed them
    to the small room outside the conference room.When I was in there,a
    grey suited man came in,did the business and left.On the way out of the
    office that evening,it turns out that the grey suited man was a
    director who had made it his business to find out who I was and had
    informed security and reception and I was told off(in front of
    customers) for using the the executive bog.
    We have a long way to go...
    Anyway,we don't need special bogs for VPs because we don't have as many
    as you guys do... yet.
    

    Re .18
    
    Take the resulting salaries in the prospectus, and convert it to
    hourly, then compare it to your paycheck.   How many hours does it take
    BP to exceed your monthly (or even annual) salary ?
    
    Also, I think the VP you refered to was Strecker, Demmer didn't even
    make the top 5.
    
    Bill
    

    How many additional layers of management are we adding?  Many of
    us cringe when we see another VP announced; but if BP or his staff
    insist on new blood, I would feel a little easier if some of the
    new folks were from some company other than IBM.
    
    Over a period of months, as long-time Digital VPs departed, many of
    us applauded saying they were part of the problem and had gotten
    us into this mess.  Looking at the years of service some of these
    new VPs had with IBM, I don't think it's too great a leap to assume
    that they could be perceived as being part of IBM's problems.  Last time
    I looked, no one was accusing IBM of turning in a stellar perfor-
    mances the last few years.
    
    

    re: .16 -0 Right Nasser, I guess this here "chicken farm" is ripe for
    the pluckin' since we obviously have an identity problem. On one hand
    we are justifying more VPs because we are a hi tech company but on the
    other we are justifying large layoffs because we are a high tech
    company? Huh? Look at it again - twisted logic only works in the Puzzle
    palace.

    If these ex-IBMers are indeed going to help us in marketing then hire
    more of them!  Next time you're watching TV and see one of those IBM
    commercials scroll past, compare it to one of Digital's.  You should be
    able to get the drift even before you see on of ours (might be a long
    wait).
    
    cw

    
    
    	Just what we needed...another veep.
    
    	Heard on the news tonight that BP got a 20% raise in salary.
    	
    

        
    >	Heard on the news tonight that BP got a 20% raise in salary.

    His salary as CEO was $750,000 last fiscal year. The board of directors
    was very happy with his performance and so his salary was raised to
    $900,000.

    			Alfred

    	Couldn't we turn all the thermostats down to...say...50 degrees
    this winter, put the saved cash from the electric bill into a Christmas
    fund, and give the new VPs and BP new Porsches for holiday bonuses?!
    This small sacrifice by the employees would enable us to show our
    appreciation for all their hard work in bringing the company around.

    RE: .28  Yup, the IBM ads ain't bad.  
    
    
    
    Where are our ads again??????
    
    
    
    
    Mike

    
    >	Couldn't we turn all the thermostats down to...say...50 degrees
    >this winter, put the saved cash from the electric bill into a Christmas
    
    I don't know about ZKO but this would probably cost a fortune in NIO.
    There are few enough days as it is that we don't have to air condition
    the building. We have all these little space heaters, I mean computers,
    generating all that heat. Perhaps we can let the heat go up to say 90
    to 95 to save the same money. :-)
    
    			Alfred

    Now I know what the footprint of a CEO and VP feels like on my face.!
    
    I do hope he can make his ends meet now..! I wouldn't want him to
    suffer financially just because the company is sucking canal water!!
    
    NO ONE deserves $900k a year salary, NO ONE!!!
    
    Incredible!
    
    Under 40k and can't even *see* the other end, let alone try and keep'em 
    together. BUT, still working my butt off, in the hope that some day,
    someone will notice US worker-bees (the ones who really keep the
    company afloat! Forget the porche, I'd be happy with a new pickup
    truck! 
    
    8^{}....

    
    >Forget the porche, I'd be happy with a new pickup truck! 
    
    Reminds me of a VP joke:
    
    The VP of a building company says to one of his workers. "Hey forget
    what you're doing now.  Go round to my house and whitewash my porch."
    
    Hours later, the worker comes back.  "I finished it" he says.
    "But it wasn't a porch, it was a Ferrari..."
    
    %-)
    
    C
             

    By my calculations BPs weekly tax deductions exceed my weekly salary,
    before tax.  Gee! I guess I just don't work hard enough.

Well, if you think about it, $900K is less like a salary and more like winning
the lottery.  Maybe that will make you feel better?

Al

    Gee, there seems to be no money for raises (that, on avereage) exceede
    inflation, except ....
    

Salary under $30,000 and I recently had to take a second
job in order to save for a new car (mine is a 1988 Dodge Colt - no 
Porshe for me either - with 101,000miles and a transmission that is going fast!
Between BASIC living expenses, no vacations and a tight budget - we 
own a home (I guess my husband and I should be glad about that) but a new
car is out of the question!

I don't mind working hard for this company and doing my share - but when
I listened to Mr. Palmer's pay raise I felt as if a building fell on me!
I also say 950,000 is a little hard to swallow when I'm being asked to 
"be glad you have a job" - and "MAYBE next year you'll get a raise"!
To say I was disappointed , disillusioned, heartsick, and less and less a
valued employee.  All of his speeches on tightening our belts and sacrifice
has gone straight out the window for me.  I want an anwer to one question -
"HOW COME WE ARE THE ONLY ONES SACRIFICING -Mr. Palmer- I THOUGHT WE WERE ALL IN
THIS together?  All those DVN Broadcast I listened to - what were they worth - 
NOTHING! I admit I don't understand Big Business and average salaries of 
CEO's and maybe Mr. Palmer is worth that kind of raise - I just wish sometimes 
he understood what it feels like down in the trenches when we hear news 
like this.

Don't get me wrong - I know I will never make this kind of money and I will
never hold this kind of responsibility - but it would be nice to know that
I am valued - but for now - congratulations Bob - Your Board of Directors
must really value you.

    Let us not forget the (rumored) $6M bonus for FY93 performance.
    
    I'd be willing to bet BP's never bought a lottery ticket!!!
    
    Toodles.....JP

    

    why is this suddenly a new thing to allot of people? i mean this
    is the norm in companies in the US, did not the CEO of pepsi make like
    80 millions in one year in salary and other compensations? salaries
    of CEO's in big companies in the US are almost all over 1 million
    bucks. many makes 2 or 3 million bucks in salaries easily.

    i bet almost all VP's in big companies in the US make big bucks. it is not 
    a DEC thing. that is why there are so few VP's and so many non VP's 
    to go around. it is supply and demand thing.  VP's and CEO are more rare
    and so they are paid more , but since you are not rare and there are 
    tunes of coders and sales peoples around like us they pay us less.  

    it is all supply and demand.

    i hope this helps.

    \bye
    \nasser
    who_knows_this_simple_facts_without_even_having_studied_economy

    Sounds like it's a good thing today is National Depression Screening
    day here in the US, and what luck that Digital is participating!
    
    :-)

    Re. Bob Palmer's raise and Bonus
    
    I just have a question to BOD. What will happen if Digital loses
    big money in next 2 quarters?? The way it look now, Digital will
    be losing big way i first quarter. 2nd quarter will be a loss
    also. Are they going to cut salary of CEO and VPS?? It will be
    interesting. Did anyone notice that for employees who own digital
    stock didn't get Annual report. I have a 700+ stocks, I just received
    proxy from investor services but no Annual Report. 
    
    BSS
    
    

	I'll bite, and take \nasser seriously for a second:

>    why is this suddenly a new thing to allot of people?

	It's not new, but that doesn't mean we have to like it.

>    did not the CEO of pepsi make like
>    80 millions in one year in salary and other compensations? salaries
>    of CEO's in big companies in the US are almost all over 1 million
>    bucks. many makes 2 or 3 million bucks in salaries easily.

	1) Most CEOs who rake in the bucks like that do so because their
	company is making money. We aren't.

	2) When CEOs make that much money for poor performance, it generally
	causes an uproar. These uproars are usually local to the company or
	its heeadquarter's locale, though, so we don't see them.
	Westinghouse, for example, made big news in PIttsburgh last year or
	so for this very reason.

>    it is all supply and demand.

	I disagree. I think it is insensitivity on the part of senior
	management. To ask your best people (we got rid of the poor
	performers, right) to take average raises that (maybe) barely keep
	up with inflation, on a 15-month average review cycle, with eroding
	benefits, while taking *HUGE* pay raises and bonuses yourself,
	smacks of absurd arrogance to me. It's a kick in the teeth to those
	who have had to work harder with less to accomplish more, only to be
	told "sorry, there's no money for raises."

	It sure seems like this company is doing its best to drive the good
	people (i.e., those who can get jobs elsewhere) away.

	Roy

    re: .40
    
    >>   Let us not forget the (rumored) $6M bonus for FY93 performance.  
    
    According to the Boston Globe article this morning BP received *no*
    bonus for FY93. Take it for what it's worth.
    
    The first I heard of the increase was my wife screaming as she read the
    paper (and she's not a screamer) - something to the effect of how can
    they do this when so many people are being let go. I didn't have an
    answer for her.
    
    thorgan

    
    
       I'm somewhat of a history "buff". Does anyone else remember the
    French revolution?  ;^)
    
    
    
    

    
>Did anyone notice that for employees who own digital
>    stock didn't get Annual report. I have a 700+ stocks, I just received
>    proxy from investor services but no Annual Report. 
    
    I got one. It came Email which, frankly, I prefer. It's a good way of
    saving the company money. I don't need the glossy pictures and fancy
    paper. 
    
    		Alfred

  >  I got one. It came Email which, frankly, I prefer. It's a good way of
  >  saving the company money. I don't need the glossy pictures and fancy
  >  paper. 
    
     And the text is available using VTX IS, as well.

     This is the third consecutive year that the Annual Report has been 
     distributed to employees who are also stock holders.  SEC approval 
     was granted to do it this way.  And it makes sense financially.
     At about $7.00/per copy (including postage fee), annual savings 
     work out to "well more" than Bob Palmer's increase.

    ... as in "Do you know how many <socially desirable entities> you could
               buy for the price of a single B-1 bomber??"
    
    :-)
    

    RE:43
    
    >own 700+ shares
    
    I sure hope you live in a single story home and have soft flower
    beds under each window.  I say this anticipating very poor Q1
    results.  Digital stock will dip to an all-time low.  Do yourself
    a favor, turn over the stock you get through employee purchase
    every six months and take your 10 to 15% gain and run.

    I guess I have a slightly different view than most.  I really don't
    care what anyone makes.  That isn't my business, nor anyone else's, but
    the one getting paid and their employer.  That includes a CEO and VP's.

    Now I am concerned, Heck I'm down right upset and insulted, that we are
    terminating employees, and most of us see a 3 to 4% pay raise in
    almost 2 years, while pulling twice the work, AND a Senior person who
    is supposed to set an example and BE an example, gets 20%.

    If a 20% raise can be afforded, then we aren't hurting bad enough to 
    lay people off.  The 2 concepts do not match.  Something is wrong. 
    Either Digital is doing very well or (I better not speculate any
    further, I've probably already sealed my fate)...

    Jim Morton

I can understand (at least in principal) why people are getting exercised about
Palmer's raise, but I don't see it (at least in principal; not sure about the
interest) as all that inappropriate, if certain assumptions hold.

Namely ...

The BOD is interested in seeing Digital succeed as a company, and not go under.
By granting BP an increase, it is signaling its belief that the actions he has
taken (or caused to be taken) have been positive, and that Digital has improved
its position relative to the track that it was on prior to BP taking over. The
previous quarter's black ink (whether or not it is sustained into future
quarters) provides some evidence of this.

If the BOD is correct in its assessment, then its action seems appropriate. They
could gamble that Palmer would be happy to stay on without an increase, but if
he's helping the company, it's in the BOD's best interest to give him the
incentive to continue improving the company's position.

That people are still being laid off doesn't really change this equation, if by
reducing the headcount Digital's position is improved.

Note that in the above there are a lot of "if"s, and I'm not going to comment on
whether or not *I* think the BOD is correct, or if the actual *numbers* involved
seem appropriate to me. The point here is that I think the reactions people have
been taking miss the whole point. The BOD is not giving Palmer a raise because
there's enough money around for all of us to get raises. It's giving him a raise
because it believes his work has caused the company to make more (or lose less)
money, and it wants this improving trend to continue.

>If the BOD is correct in its assessment, then its action seems
>appropriate. They could gamble that Palmer would be happy to stay on
>without an increase, but if he's helping the company, it's in the BOD's
>best interest to give him the incentive to continue improving the
>company's position.

To borrow from the above, with alteration:

 "They could gamble that <employee> would be happy to stay on without
  an increase, but they are helping the company, it's in the company's
  bet interest to give <employee> the incentive to continue improving the
  company's position."

Now, does the same thing ring true for the employee in trenches? No way!
Most employees don't have the luxury of an execuitive salary that would
probably allow them to have a nice cushion between jobs... they live one
step ahead of the wolves, living paycheck to paycheck.

The 'incentive' for the worker-bee employee is "work your tail off and
maybe, just maybe, you won't get TFSOd".

I have said for a long time that there is a major disconnect between
those at the helm and those below decks. I seriously believe that there
are those in the upper eschelons that wonder why there is a morale
problem in the ranks... they cannot see the forest due to the trees, so
to speak. 

>That people are still being laid off doesn't really change this equation,
>if by reducing the headcount Digital's position is improved.

So, if we layoff more then the position will futher improve, BOD will
grant BP more $, right?

>It's giving him a raise because it believes his work has caused the
>company to make more (or lose less) money, and it wants this improving
>trend to continue.

Until the company announces the cessation of TFSOs, the resumtion of
normal, annual pay increases of decent size, the employees that make up
the bulk of this formerly great company will not be humming the same,
happy tune that the BOD seems to be hearing.

Lee

Couple of points of clarification ...

- I'm not intending to defend the BOD's action, but I am trying to point out 
  that a different frame of reference is in play for Palmer, since his sphere
  of influence is the overall performance of the company. To a large extent, 
  I'm playing devil's advocate here.

- Ultimately, the health of the company is measured by its profitability, not
  by the raises given to its employees. Obviously, it's better to have happy
  employees. However, playing devil's advocate, if the BOD were given the choice
  between happy employees and a company going under, or unhappy employees and
  a company making ends meet, which scenario will it prefer? 

The point I was intending to make was this: if the BOD thinks Palmer is
improving things, and if it wants him to continue improving things, then it
doesn't seem that out of line to provide him with the incentive to do so. If
Palmer is effective, and not given incentives, and goes elsewhere or otherwise
gets off-track, then the BOD has shot itself in its collective foot. If Palmer
has not improved things, and gets the raise anyway, then it's a waste of
compensation.

Are they right? *Has* he helped? *Is* DEC better off? I'm not going to comment
on these, and frankly, I'm not sure I even have a strong opinion on the
question. However, I do think that Palmer's performance should be evaluated more
on the first derivative (degree of improvement; change in direction; etc.) of
the company as a whole, than on any instantaneous absolute values of layoffs,
employee compensation, etc.

    Re:

>>question. However, I do think that Palmer's performance should be evaluated more
>>on the first derivative (degree of improvement; change in direction; etc.) of
>>the company as a whole, than on any instantaneous absolute values of layoffs,
>>employee compensation, etc.
>>

    Paul,  Why would we be laying off people if the company was improving
    that much, so as to warrent a 20% raise?  Call me blind, but I still
    see us hurting.  I still hear from my manager that we are hurting, I
    still hear from Corporate we are hurting, and that layoffs will
    continue till we get out of the bind.  Of course I also hear that we
    hope this next layoff will be the last, but... we'll see!

    It is not just the act of laying off vs the raise.  It is the message
    that we have problems, and the layoffs are the results of those
    problems.  Unfortunatly the layoffs are visible and affect all of us.

    Jim Morton

    It's bad enough to lay people off because of facilities closing but now
    we're laying people off for the sake of transfering jobs to other
    countries just to save a buck.

    According to today's New York Times, Digital's Board of Directors
    granted Bob Palmer the raise despite his not achieving his objectives
    for the first year.
    
    	This seems to be the key point: A 20% boost in salary after failing
    to make plan. If all is as reported.

    re .56

    I don't know how many times it takes to say this (but this note'll be
    the last): I'm NOT defending specific actions, I'm suggesting that
    people take a different perspective from the close-in focus that I've
    noticed. I never said a 20% raise, or any raise, was warranted. 

    I did say that I think drawing 1:1 comparisons along the lines of "the
    CEO got a 20% raise, why didn't we get 20% raises" misses the mark.
    Except for the symbolism of it, I have trouble seeing how much
    bottom-line impact Palmer's raise would have on the company's health. IF
    the raise causes Palmer to take action which improves the company's
    profitability, then IN THE LONG RUN, the company and its employees (at
    that time) will benefit from it. This SEEMS to be the position that the
    BOD is taking, based on the raise: they SEEM to believe Palmer is
    helping the company to recover, and want to encourage him, and to let
    the world (aka Wall Street) know that they think the changes he's
    introduced are positive.

    That's basically ALL I was trying to express.

    Another way of looking at the same thing: the BOD could choose to not
    reward Palmer until the turnaround in the company is undeniable and
    irrevokable. Or it could choose to reward him based on evidence that
    changes are occuring in the right directions.

    If the BOD takes the attitude that rewarding him based on "early
    returns" is a good course, this means that the rewards pretty much have
    to take place while the company is still "hurting" (but hopefully in
    less trouble than before). It APPEARS to me that this is what they're
    trying to do. (Others may interpret it as the old boy network at work.
    Maybe I'm more charitable than some.)

    (Addendum) - I also made reference to looking at Palmer's performance
    based on the first derivative [of the company's performance]. For those
    not familiar with calculus, this refers to the rate of change, not to
    the absolute value of some direct metric like profit or numbers of
    layoffs. If, for example, quarter-to-quarter results are still losses,
    but the losses are ever decreasing, then the first derivative - the
    rate of change - has become positive, and this can be seen as a
    positive sign. If the company is profitable, but the profits are
    smaller, then the rate of change has gone negative. It's the slope of
    the curve. It seems to me that this is a valid metric (though by no
    means the only one) by which a CEO may be evaluated.

    That explained, I said nothing about whether the raise everybody's so
    excited about was appropriate or justified based on actual evidence.
    I limited myself to speculating on the BOD's possible reasons.

Paul, I think there is no disagreeent with your observations here... we
are talking about a matter of appearance. I and others are hearing one
kind of message from the stratospheric corporate towers while down here
on ground level things are still pretty rough, and we are wondering just
exactly what reality is.



I set here at home reading the Sep. 27th 'Digital Today'... the headline
reads "Analysts respond favorably to Corporate Strategy Briefing".
The story goes on to tell how over 200 industry and finance analysts
were gathered for this annual meeting [*] "to convince this influential
audience of Digital's long-term viability and strength, as well as gain
their recommendations".

Those of us at the bottom are hopeful for a similar experience... but
the day-to-day decisions and events make it seem, at times, that the
description after the [*] above must have occured at some company other
than the one we are working for. Are you convinced of Digital's long-term
viability and strength? Has anyone tried to 'gain your recommendations'?

If we could bring back some old fasioned honesty, accountability and
leadership to displace the politics, entrenched failed policies/methods,
unfairness and incompetence that seems to be entrenched in some places we
would go a long way towards making things better again.

Let's hope that all of this goodness at the top makes its way clear to
the bottom (without getting stuck in the middle)... the sooner the
better!

Lee

Palmer has made an enormous impact since becoming CEO. He's produced
spectacular results in a very short timeframe. This means his market value has
gone up dramatically, probably more than that 20% he received, can you say the 
same?

Dave.

re.62:

Angus, if takes you 10 years to make $150K (even net) then you are seriously
underpaid!

Also your market value may have gone up but is Digital making use of the skills?
If so, then take it up with your manager, I'd back you as qualified as an
anomaly, especially on $15K a year!

Dave.

>Also your market value may have gone up but is Digital making use of the skills?
    Last week I was off sick, with the flu. On Thursday I get a phone call
    at home: there's a panic on and they need my network/PC MS Access skills.
    Friday I come into work to help, even though I should have stayed off
    sick. Sunday I come into work to begin phase 1. This week I have been
    creating and sending off the P&L Territory MS Access databases. I've
    done this whilst doing my normal job; it appears we don't have enough 
    people with my skill set: something to do with TFSOing alot of them.
    These databases will provide the Territories and Palmer with the hard
    data they need to manage the business. In creating these databases I
    come across a little feature of SQL/Services and MS Access, which I
    have to sort out: I'm now manually creating the databases. Today I
    receive a call from a PC Specialist desparate to find out why her
    customers can't connect MS Access, via the ODB Rdb driver, to a Rdb/VMS
    database. I am one of a handful of people in the UK who knows how to
    de-bug inter-connectivity problems. 10 minutes and the problem is
    fixed.
    
    I doubt I am unusual in the above work I performed. I believe there are
    thousands of other Deccies who bust their butt like me. Where's my 20%
    pay rise?  Where is our reward? We see Palmer extoling the virtues of
    hardwork, team spirit, work together and we'll pull through. Then he
    gets slipped this little $150,000 pay rise. Yea, right: no more Sunday
    work for me.
    
>If so, then take it up with your manager, I'd back you as qualified as an
>anomaly,
    
    I will. Doubt I would get anywhere. You know as well as I that no
    details on anomolies or comparison criteria have been published.
    
    Angus

    RE: .65
    
    Palmer's new salary is $900k, not $999k.  20% raise on $750k = $150k.
    
    

So, BP got a 20% raise.  They added $150K to his $750K salary to get him
to $900K.  This is peanuts for the CEO of a major corporation.  Did he
deserve it?  IMO, I think so.

So what about us worker bees?  How come we don't get the 20% hikes for
the hard work we do?  It's a matter of sheer volume...there's a lot more
of us.  If you give 5% raises to 100 worker bees currently making
$30K/year, you've got the same $150K the board awarded BP.  I have no
objections to BP's raise.  The board saw things moving in the right
direction and chose to compensate him for what he's done so far.  Would
he have walked if not given a raise?  I don't think so, but if he did,
what would be the perception of Digital's immediate future by the rest of 
the world?  I think the board acted wisely.  Hey, even the stock went
up yesterday.

Lou

    Look, if Palmer wants a job outside Digital, he can easily get $1M+. If
    anyone who is not satisfied by the pay raises inspite of their
    hardwork, they ought to look outside and try to get that 20% raise. If
    that can't be done, that means your market value is not what you think
    it is. BOD wants to hang onto BP, and so give him a raise. If your
    manager feels the same way about you, he/she can do the same thing.
    
    Just remember that same BOD kicked out KO inspite of him being the
    founder and all that. Next year, BP may face the same fate if company
    is still in trouble. It all boils down to risk/reward, and
    supply/demand. If giving him 150K raise keeps him motivated to do the
    best he can for the company, that's fine by me. Other CEOs have made
    much more inspite of their lackluster performance. Atleast BP seems to
    be trying very hard. 

    Guess the folks who are upset are contrasting it to the action taken by
    the head of Digital Japan a few months back, when he and his staff took
    a cut in pay as a reaction to business conditions. That sent a clear
    message to the troops.

    re.: "trying very hard"
    
    AND WE'RE NOT... "trying very hard"..?
    
    I *really* don't care what *anyone* makes.. I just care when I've been
    told for the past four and one half years that I can't have a raise due
    to bad times, poor quarter end figures, etc... *Then* this kinda thing
    happens...
    
    I'd just be happy if my paycheck reflected cost of living...! BUT, now,
    it's like getting a pay cut every year, instead of a pay raise. Now,
    our brain dead government pins this new tax on us, costing me more
    money just to get to my job...
    
    I truly do not want to be wealthy (wouldn't want the burden), but being
    able to make bills and pay for upcoming college for the three kids
    would be nice...! I've had to dip into the college pool (which isn't
    deep to start with) to help with everyday expenses... AND trust me, I
    am by no means living outlandishly....
    
    So, when I write that I disapprove, it is just due to the fact that
    there isn't suppose to be any money for this kind of thing. BUT, VPs
    are getting bonus and now a raise for BP...
    
    WE DO HELP to make this company keep going! WE DO DESERVE a little bit
    of respect and recognition for our services! AND not "be glad you got a
    job"....
    
    Just my views!
    

    Heard yesterday on radio that Bob P. has been given a 20% raise. More
    layoffs to come.....
    
    Raj
    

    Normal buisness pratice.
    
    Marc H.

    Well how about when Lee Iacoca (sp?) took over.  Didn't he take the job
    with NO salary? and didn't get a raise for several years after?  He
    took a bankrupt company and turned it into a BIG money making one,
    even paid back the government loan "with interest" early.  Thats
    what "I" call turning a company around.
    
    Why did it happen?  Did their employees get raises?  No.  They took
    pay cuts to keep their jobs, but they wern't slapped in the face
    by the CEO and VPs getting huge raises and bonuses either.  Now they
    still have their job, work for a healthy company, and are getting
    raises again.
    
    I didn't get a raise either, but then I wasn't expecting one, same 
    story...few if any raises this year, etc.....but I can live with that, 
    IF it helps the company survive.
    
    It gets a little hard to swollow when you read a memo that says don't
    buy any office supplies, no external training, no employee rewards, 
    etc., etc., etc., and then read where a VP gets a $60K ***BONUS*** and
    the CEO gets a 20% raise EVEN THOUGH HE DIDN"T MAKE HIS GOALS!!!
    
    Where would we (the grunts) be if we didn't make our goals.
    

    Lets keep this in Note 2700....
    
    JP
    

    re: -1
    
    or not talk about it at all.........

    
    re .73
    
    	That's what the last forty-some replies have been discussing.

    Hey...we should be happy they just opened Cosmo's back up and
    we can order a pencils again!!!
    
    Personally I am having a hard time accepting that I have been
    asked to take on double the work load...asked to work weekends
    and nights..asked to accept the fact you won't get a raise for 2 years..
    and then to be happy you get a 3-4% raise.
    
    Maybe Bob deserves the 20% raise...but my opinion is it was
    very bad timing and will only add to the morale issues of
    the company.  I couldn't order a 59 cent pencil..and he can
    get a 20% raise!!!!   I'm having a hard time accepting that one!
    

    

    At Digital it's always easier to just throw money at the problem
    but it rarely accomplishes the desired effect..
    
    Digital has reorganized, laid off workers, cut benefits, hired new high 
    paid, high powered Executives and in all these bad times, the only
    thing the board can offer the folks at the top is money?
    
    I'm sorry that's not good enough for this stockholder...
    
    I could find work outside of Digital for more than I'm currently
    compensated but I continue to work here in the hopes that we can 
    turn this company around and become a major force in the industry.  
    
    I also labor under the delusion that if I work hard for this company 
    my LOYALTY will be rewarded. Standing by Digital in these times and 
    making it profitable again is not just a noble gesture, but one that 
    over the long haul will be rewarded when Digital begins to grow again.
    
    --begin personal rambling--
    
    This has not been one of those red letter years in my battle
    with personal compensation...Example:
    
    I usually cash out of my stock program every half year because
    15% return is usually a respectable return.  Never mind the that 
    the time before last buy, the "Alpha Chip flaw rumor" lost me 4 
    point on my sell transaction so I only netted 11%.  Never mind that I 
    convinced my wife that we were going to keep this last June's 
    buy of stock until after the "PROFIT" numbers were announced.
    Digital waited until the Day IBM announced the LARGEST SINGLE LOSS
    IN THE HISTORY OF THE COMPUTER INDUSTRY and IBM stock went 
    up 3 points and we went down three (go figure;-)
    -- I lost $400 betting on Digital and waiting for good news on that one.
    
    Which just illustrates the point:
    
    I as an employee I've been betting on Digital every day.  I do my job 
    and I look to my stock plan to convey that bonus if we do well or take 
    it in the ear if we do bad.
    
    Lately that hasn't been quite true...
    
    ---End Personal ramblings--------------
    
    
    I don't know any of the executives compensation plan -- it's truely
    none of my business, but as a stockholder, and an employee I believe
    that the executives of this company would better serve Digital's
    longterm goals if their compensation program was tied to the 
    value of Digital Stock and not to ever increasing cash salaries
    and cash bonuses -- You have to have some SKIN IN THE GAME in 
    order to expect best performance.
    
    Ownership is a miraculous thing and one of the proudest points of my 
    career was when my management team gave me 20 shares of stock (over 
    two years ago now) 10 now plus 10 if I continued my employment for 
    another year.  
    
    The amount wasn't the most important point.  The more important point 
    was the feeling of long term committement on both sides -- I was being 
    compensated over the long haul and would be better rewarded if the 
    company was successful and grew (because of me and others like me)  
    I still have the congratulatory letter framed in my library (call 
    me a sentimental gus;-)
    
    The compensation program at Digital is not what it was even a 
    year ago and we have to provide incentive to attract the best 
    talent for key positions,  but instead of giving Raises to VPs, 
    and managers, tie their personal wealth to company's performance 
    
    -- The only way to truely do this is by making them part owners 
    of the company, not raising their salaries in bad times.
    
    I wish success to everyone and as much compensation for their
    labors as they can get in an open market.  Digital should realize
    that many of it's best and brightest are still here (having survived
    a year of TFSOs) but tempted by the outside -- Encouraging ownership
    by an additional defered stock plan would be one way of solving that 
    problem both for Executives and our Individual contributors.
    
    John W.

    When I was in the Army, none of my NCOs (I'm the platoon sargeant) will
    eat unless the troops got their chow. And that goes for my officer too.
    This is call "taking care of your subordinates' welfare". It gains you
    respect that no rank get ever buy.
    
    If I were BP, and if my agenda is to turn this company around, then I
    will give up the raise, freeze 10% of top management's salary, to be
    with-held until the company makes 4Qs of profit. This act needs to be
    publicised however, so as to rally the employees, so that they will
    believe that I act first and foremost for the company. This is what I
    call leadership.
    
    The motto I live by, "Never ask anyone else to do something you
    wouldn't do yourself."
    
    ps: I DID NOT say BP doesn't deserve the raise. I'm just fantasizing.

    I think this entire discussion reflects the lack of any perspective
    that us "peons" have.  For a CEO of a multinational this size to get
    $950k these days (take a deep breath...), is almost highway robbery. 
    Try Roberto Gozuita's salary at Coca-Cola, about $76m with all his
    benefits, etc.  Now I admit that executive salaries in general are out
    of proportion, but this has no relation to BP's salary increase.
    
    I think that .68 said it best when it mentioned the fact of sheer
    volume of those of us in the trenches vs. executives.  Unfortunately
    supply and demand has dictated the salary equation.  If someone who
    does data entry thinks that he/she can take over BP's job of bringing
    a company of this size with all it's inherent problems back to
    profitability and restructuring this animal, well than why don't you
    take over for a day and see what you can do?
    
    And what do layoffs have to do with BP's salary increase?  As usual the
    Globe has everything wrong here in regards to DEC (that's one area in
    which I'll agree with Palmer's predecessor).  Remember that Palmer's #1
    job is profitability, period, and one of the methods that has been used
    to get us there is downsizing.  In other words he had a mandate from
    the BOD to implement cost reduction.  Now at what rate and how many
    people, and who should go is another topic for discussion.  But you
    must also remember that BP inherited a bloated organization with many
    positions and people in useless functions.  Whose fault was that?
    
    Which leads me to my last point.  There seems to be an unconscious loss
    of memory and history on the part of those complaining.  "Saint KO" was
    earning far more than $950k during the past few years while this
    company was being run into the ground.  I never saw any untoward
    remarks about this fact in this conference.  Did anybody have an
    observation about Jack Shields or any of the other executives of the
    "Ancien Regime" whose policies and lack of control got us into this
    situation?  Who was responsible for growing the headcount to
    disproportion?  Bob Palmer?  Give me a break.
    
    Yes, I know that KO was (one of)the founder of Digital, it was his
    vision, etc.  I grant you all of that.  But what is important now is
    repairing the damage, and creating an organization that does not
    operate under the golden rule of redundancy uber alles.  BP isn't there
    yet, he has a fair piece to go.  And I'm not so optimistic about FY'94
    as some other are, but at least he's trying to move in the right
    direction.  I can tell you that if our performance is not any better in
    '94 than '93 than BP will be out, and this discussion will be rendered
    moot.
    
    /d.c.

    
    re: Bob P's raise.
    
    I'm not angry, just terribly, terribly hurt.
    
    DFW

    	One profitable quarter does not a comeback make. BP has NOT
    demonstrated that he can make Digital profitable...only that he was
    able to cut costs enough to make one quarter barely appear in the
    black. Everyone has known for a while that Q1 would be bad. Suppose Q2
    and Q3 are no better? This is behavior to be rewarded?
    	I have no problem with our CEO making the kind of money that CEO's
    at other similar companies which are losing billions per year make. We
    should be competitive in that respect. However, giving him a 20% raise
    *NOW* shows that the upper echelon of this company has a warped
    perspective on reality.
    	Now, to follow in the previous "normal business practice" pattern,
    we're hearing rumors of 15k-30k people being laid off, justified, of
    course, by the bad Q1 performance. It just seems a little inconsistent
    to be quietly sipping champagne while the plane is sputtering on one
    engine.

    One good thing.  BPs raise/bonus was at least made public and the
    reasons for it were disclosed.  
    
    I realize disclosure was mandatory, but Digital does not, as a 
    policy, encourage disclosure of bonuses to managers nor the reasons 
    why they are rewarded.  With this minor firestorm, just imagine what 
    would have happened if news of other bonuses to management had been 
    disclosed while layoffs were happening.  It would be just like what 
    happened in the automobile industry a few years ago.  Digital knows 
    that, obviously.
    
    Steve

    re: .72
    
    When Iaccoca took over he did NOT tka eht job with no salary; he asked
    for (and received) $1.00.  But this isn't the whole story, he kept all
    of the normal stock options (which is WAY better than $1.00); it just
    wasn't publicized.
    
    For Palmer to get $150,000 is peanuts.  You'd better look at stock
    options tofind out where all the real money is at.  Same with the Coca
    Cola deal.  $76M???  Come on folks.  That ain't all cash.  There's a
    HUGE piece of that number that is stock options and even THAT portion
    is based on 'what-if' scenarios regarding the value of those options.
    
    The salary of a CEO is generally a very small portion of the payoff.

My $0.02 worth:

In reading over all of the previous replies on the subject 
of BP's raise, here is what I think (as well as feel).

a) A raise of this magnitude at this time is very demoralizing
to me and I guess, to many of the troops.A memo was circulating 
recently from the President of DEC Japan, that said that he and 
his upper management were taking pay cuts until profitability 
was restored. Granted, under BP we did return to profitability,
but for how long?

b) I think that the real meat in BP's accomplishment is yet to
come. The major accomplishment so far has been the reduction in
cost structure through chiefly downsizing the population. In
my opinion, any *monkey* could do that (this reference is 
intended to be analogous to the one on Wall Street about a 
stock picking monkey; no offense/disrespect to anyone is intended).

c) The new organizational structure in the company is yet to prove
that it can operate in a manner to grow the company again. The only
growth I have seen so far is in the number of VP's!

d) Somebody alluded to KO making more than 950K. Keep in mind that KO
worked for more than 30 years before making that kind of money. Also,
until a few years before (in mid 80's ) I remember that he was making
less than 800K and was thought to be one of the lowest paid CEO's in
the country.

e) I would have very much liked BP to have received his raise in
DEC stock. That would increase my faith in his management policies
and leadership (because it would be a demonstration of his faith in
the same).

Jay 

    I can't believe all this furore over whether BP has a salary of
    $750K or $900K. That's just his bingo money. His REAL compensation is
    in stock options. Look at the proxy, you'll see he has 345,000 stock
    options. Now a lot of those are tied to company performance (as they
    should be).
    
    The question I ask is why does Win Hindle have such a huge salary? He
    doesn't run a "line" or a major function. He has a higher salary than
    the CFO, the engineering VP etc.
    
    Dave

	I think everyone realizes that BP's increase is peanuts, but
	at a time when moral is so low in this Corporation, I think
	he missed a golden opportunity. Just think how much it would
	have done for Moral, if people had heard that BP had turned
	down a raise, saying that he want's to take the same medicine
	he's dishing out to everyone else. When you're making 750K
	/year (and I realize that this isn't tops). I certainly believe
	that the lack of the extra 20% wouldn't make or break him in 
	the next year. But, it may certainly break the back of this 
	Corporation (Moral Wise - Maybe its already too late). Which
	is more important?

	Moral is very, very important. People are whats very important
	to this corporation right now, their ideas, their willingness
	to work the extra hours, their faith in this Corporation.
	Technology alone will not pull us out.
	
	The second/third? largest Corporation in the World (Ford Motor Company) 
	believes in this. I see this demonstrated every day in my 
	dealings with them. Their CEO's speaches allude to this and
	the value they place on their employees. Its working for them,
	why can't the same concept work with us?

	Moral needs a boost, this would have been one way to do it.

	Rick

    Re: 61
    		"He (BP) has produced spectacular results..."
    
    	Wrong. He has produced results that are promising, and if that
    promise continues and comes to fruition then the 300,000 plus stock
    options granted to him will be generous compensation for a job well
    done, regardless of raising his pay 20% at this moment or cutting his
    pay 20% for that matter.
    
    	What BP does that is spectacular is to speak eloquently about
    Digital's situation and our return to profitably. No one could do this
    better. However, one of the key points that BP makes so eloquently and
    frequently is that he is accountable.
    	We still have many problems. Perhaps chief among them is poor
    morale; no, more accurately we must say DISMAL morale. He is
    accountable, therefore he must be accountable for this problem. Which
    makes the comments in .88 of this note, "Just think how much would have
    been done for morale if he had turned the pay raise down...", pretty
    damn thought provoking. Don't you think?
    
    	In addition, his goals for the year were not met; so the 20% pay raise
    is surprising to say the least.
    
	For Bob Palmer, this fiscal year is the critical time. He must now
    turn his words and ideas into long-term results. Those results will be
    the only acceptable criteria by which to rate his performance
    "spectacular." Here's hoping that your words are accurate next year at
    this time.

    For everyone's information, I have been sending Bob Palmer and the SLT
    some pertinent information that I have gathered from this notes file
    and other notes files that I look at on off hours. The information that
    I send to these people is only information that I think is very 
    important to the survival of this corporation.
    
    I had a 30 minute conversation with Susan Andrews, who is one of the
    people that Bob Palmer trusts. Susan called me and asked how things
    were going. We chatted for some time, then I asked her if I could
    mention two things that were on my mind and a lot of people around
    the corporation, she said ok. 
    
    	I started talking to her about the pay raise that BP recently got.
    I talked about the many stock options that he got also. I said that I
    thought that getting the stock options was the right way to give him
    incentive to get Digital on the right track. I did not think that he
    accepting the $200,000.00 raise was the right thing to do. He could
    have sent a message to everyone of the hard working people that some
    have not had a raise in maybe 18 months to 4 years. That he was biting
    the bullet also and doing this part. And lead by example. I cannot
    remember what Susan said to this.
    
    I also talked about the brain-drain that was leaving the company. She
    had agreed that the SLT and upper management was also worried about
    this.
    
    All is all it was a pleasant conversation. Susan also said that the
    notes and messages that I send to them is widely passed around to the
    SLT and senior management. She sees to it. It is also signed by BP.
    
    So, in closing it seems that BP and the SLT is listening. Hopefully
    something will come of this.
    
    Dave
    
    Have a great day!
    

    Re: 20% raise
    
    > I cannot remember what Susan said to this.
    
    Thank you for sharing that with us.
    

re. .86 et al.

>c) The new organizational structure in the company is yet to prove
>that it can operate in a manner to grow the company again. The only
>growth I have seen so far is in the number of VP's!

Getting all the VP's in line may be the first phase in reducing layers 
of middle management.  You know ... put in a support stucture for fewer
layers before the restucture happens.  (All I can do is speculate.)

If *we* know that the new Digital cannot support as many levels 
of management as the old DEC, surely Mr. Palmer already knows this.


.

    Just received a list of "upper management" (20 pages!)
    
    Greped for VP's, can't say this is all:
    
wc -l vp_list.txt
     125   vp_list.txt

          MANUFACTURING & LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT (MLM) - Ed B McDonough, VP
    Worldwide Manufacturing - Dan Jennings, VP
    Worldwide Logistics - Jim McCluney, VP
                  WORLDWIDE SALES AND MARKETING - Ed Lucente, VP
    Alpha AXP Program - Bud Enright, VP
    Communications - Charlie Holleran, VP
    Worldwide Corporate Sales Operations - Ron Bunker, VP
    Worldwide Channels - Dick Poulsen, VP
    Finance - Tony Wallace, VP
    Human Resources - Bob Mulkey, VP
    Law - Cary Armistead, VP
                          ENGINEERING - Bill Strecker, VP
    Shared Engineering Services Group - Sharon Keillor, VP
    Research - Sam Fuller, VP
    Semiconductors - Ed Caldwell, VP
    Computer Systems Group (CSG) - Bill Demmer, VP
      Digital Windows NT Program - Jesse Lipcon, VP and CCE
      OpenVMS Development - Don Harbert, VP
      Alpha & VAX Servers - Pauline Nist, VP
      Alpha Personal Systems - Willy Shih, VP
      Alpha AXP Systems Development - Don Harbert, VP (acting)
      UNIX Marketing - John O'Keefe, VP
    Networks - Larry Walker, VP
      Network Operating Systems Group - John Adams, VP and Vijay Thakur
    Groupware - Dennis Roberson, VP
    Information Systems Software - Rose Ann Giordano, VP (acting)
      Marketing - Rose Ann Giordano, VP
    Systems Engineering - Mahendra Patel, VP and CCE
      Digital Consulting Technology & Systems Engineering - Hans Gyllstrom, VP
    Product Marketing - Bob Jolls, VP
    Technical Director - Bob Supnik, VP and Senior CCE
          COMPONENTS AND PERIPHERALS BUSINESS UNIT - Larry Cabrinety, VP
    U.S. - Dennis Albano, VP
    Technical OEM Business (TOEM) - Dick Heaton, VP
    Commerical OEM Business (COEM) - Jim Willis, VP
               PERSONAL COMPUTER BUSINESS UNIT - Enrico Pesatori, VP
    Product Management and Product Development - Duane Dickhut, VP
    Business Strategy and Planning - Dick Fishburn, VP
    U.S. Sales and Marketing - Harry Copperman, VP
    Europe - Bernhard Auer, VP and General Manager
    Law - Tom Grilk, VP
                    STORAGE BUSINESS UNIT - Charlie Christ, VP
        COMMUNICATIONS, EDUCATION AND MEDIA (CEM) CBU - Paul Kozlowski, VP
    Communications - Mike Thurk, VP
      Publishing/Newspaper Group - Bob Farquhar, VP
      ValleyNet - Charlotte Frederick, VP
    U.S. - Al Hall, VP
         CONSUMER, PROCESS, AND TRANSPORTATION CBU (CPT) - John Klein, VP
    Consumer Packaged Goods (CPG) - Eli Lipcon, VP
    Utilities - Patti Foye, VP
    Retail/Wholesale - Abbott Weiss, VP
    U.S. - Roger Rose, VP
    Europe - Sergio Giacoletto, VP
           DISCRETE MANUFACTURING & DEFENSE (DMD) CBU - Frank McCabe, VP
    Automotive & General Discrete Industry Group Segment - Bob Sudkamp, VP
    U.S. - Tom Colatosti, VP
    Europe - Wolfgang Jaeger, VP
       FINANCIAL, PROFESSIONAL & PUBLIC SERVICES (FPPS) CBU - Bruce Ryan, VP
    U.S. - Bob Russell, VP
    Europe - Per-Olof Loof, VP
                     HEALTH INDUSTRIES CBU - Willow Shire, VP
    U.S. - Mike Howard, VP
        MULTIVENDOR CUSTOMER SERVICES (MCS) BUSINESS UNIT - John Rando, VP
    Hardware Product Services (HPS) Business Segment - Art O'Donnell, VP
    Software Product Services (SPS) Business Segment - David Creed, VP
    Operations - Peter Mercury, VP
    Sales and Marketing - Janet Wallace, VP
    Service Delivery and Engineering - Al Snyder, VP
    U.S. - John Paget, VP
    Europe - Gianni Messora, VP
    GIA - Don Herbener, VP
                      DIGITAL CONSULTING - Gresh Brebach, VP
    Strategic Services - Ron Bohlin, VP
    Integration Services - Rich Linting, VP
    Operations Management Services - Robert McNulty, VP
    Technology and Systems Engineering Group (TSEG) - Hans Gyllstrom, VP
    U.S. - Max Mayer, VP
    Europe - Herman Oggel, VP
    GIA - Kannankote Srikanth, VP
                  OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL - Tom Siekman, VP
    Worldwide Sales and Marketing Law Section - Cary Armistead, VP and 
    Business Law Section - Tom Grilk, VP and Assistant General Counsel
                           U.S. AREA - Russ Gullotti, VP
    Dennis Albano @DSG, U.S. Components and Peripherals VP
    Tom Colatosti @OFO, U.S. Discrete Manufacturing & Defense CBU VP
    Harry Copperman @OGO, U.S. PC Sales and Marketing VP
    Al Hall @COP, U.S. Communications, Education and Media CBU VP
    Mike Howard @MRO, U.S. Health Industries CBU VP
    Ed Kamins @MRO, U.S. Channels VP
    Max Mayer @MRO, U.S. Digital Consulting VP
    Tony Morris @DCO, U.S. Government Office VP
    John Paget @MRO, U.S. Multivendor Customer Services VP
    Roger Rose @ACI, U.S. Consumer, Process, and Transportation CBU VP
    Bob Russell @SCO, U.S. Financial, Professional & Public Services CBU VP
    		      U.S. Marketing VP, and
    Dave Spratt @MRO, U.S. Finance and Operations VP
    OPEN, U.S. Sales and Marketing VP
    John Paget @MRO, U.S. Multivendor Customer Services VP
      Frank Branca @OFO, Eastern Region VP
      Alan Croll @COP, Southern Region VP
      Mike Jackson @SCA, Central Region VP
      Willie Hooks @WRO, Western Region VP
    Max Mayer @MRO, U.S. Digital Consulting VP
      John Fischer @PCO, Outsourcing VP
      Malcolm Jones @WRO, Customer Engagement Process Program VP
      Bob Burke @OHF, U.S. Territory PSCs VP
    Al Hall @COP, U.S. Communications, Education and Media CBU VP
      Ruth Gaines @MEL, Digital Consulting VP
    Roger Rose @ACI, U.S. Consumer, Process, and Transportation CBU VP
      Ron Wolf @ALF, Digital Consulting VP
    Tom Colatosti @OFO, U.S. Discrete Manufacturing & Defense CBU VP
      Tony Morris @DCO, Defense Segment and Government Programs VP
    Bob Russell @SCO, U.S. Financial, Professional & Public Services CBU VP
    Mike Howard @MRO, U.S. Health Industries CBU VP
    OPEN, U.S. Sales and Marketing VP
      Rita Foley @NYO, Northeast RMC VP
      Robert Cartwright @COP, Mid-Atlantic RMC VP
      Frank Bowden @SCA, Southern RMC VP
      Dave Salmi @CPO, Central RMC VP
      Cecil Dye @WRO, Western RMC VP
    Dave Spratt @MRO, U.S. Finance and Operations VP
    Peter Smith, VP, Marketing, Sales and Business Operations - Europe
    Digital Consulting - Kannankote Srikanth, VP
    Multivendor Customer Services - Don Herbener, VP
    Finance - Bob Hult, VP
    

    re: morale
    
    Publicly the corporation is denying that there is a morale problem.
    Today in the Boston Globe (Sunday, Oct 10) there is a major piece on
    downsizing of American corporatations, in which it says "Digital
    officials deny there is a serious morale problem among workers, and
    insist that productivity remains high" (p. 23)
    
    Interesting (and depressing) reading. The article doesn't cite a source
    for the Digital statement. 
    
    

    .93
    
    ok, so we have only 125 VP's, and we are like 90,000 DECeees now, so
    that is one VP to oversee 720 Deceees! 
    
    or only 0.001389 of a VP for each one DECeee.
    
    \nasser
    
    
    
    

    re .93
    
    frankly, that's depressing. i speak from personnal experience in that i
    recognize several names on the list that i have asked, politely and
    diplomatically, for help to pursue/close business over the years. and
    didn't get so much as a reply. of any kind.

    I'll agree that more stock options would have shown a willingness on
    BP's part to trust in the future, but if I were him I'd only believe in
    the present.
    
    One thing that most of you should keep inmind and that is that at least
    half of '93 was still judged to be KO's year.  The real heat on BP is
    now.
    
    /d.c.

re: .93

Every time one of those lists such as this comes out, people seem to
ignore the fact that many names and titles are duplicated in different
sections.

re: .94

Yeah, when I read that Globe article I practically spat out my coffee
in disgust.  We're getting as bad as the U.S. Government in terms of
absurd denials.
							- paul

    re: .93, .98
    
    Oops! blush!
    
    Yes, some are in there up to three times.
    
    Sorry for the confusion!

    FWIW, I get 96 uniq names in the list

    Win Hindle doesn't appear to be on the list. I thought he was a VP.
    
    I believe G Shingles is still a VP. Though his successor, my country
    manager, does not appear to be on the list; or any country manager come
    to that. There is a whole wodge of management reporting to these people
    and NOT to the people on the list. A brief chat with a collegue seems
    to indicate further missing VPs; whom I do not know.
    
    Angus

   Taking a page from BP's and SLT's current Supply Chain thing, wouldn't it
   be the easiest and most "rational" thing to just walk around and talk
   to employees no holds barred. Why do we need an elaborate supply chain,
   notes to some employee to Some Manager to BP to SLT? The easiest thing would
   be to just visit a couple of facilities during the lunch hour and join 
   employees in an informal chat. You can get a good feel for what the employee
   morale is, if they even give a s**t about it.

   Nari

    We're forgetting one of the primary rules concerning rumors -- rumors
    generally don't become truth until they are officially denied.  <sigh>
    ;'(
    
    Steve

    
    Just re'd an announcement of another VP.
    
    
    Mike

    
    Re: The 20% raise
    
    		I'd call that a slap in the face.
    

    .106  COMET::MYERS
    
    > Re: The 20% raise

    >                I'd call that a slap in the face.

    gee wheeze, i'd love to be slapped on the face like this anytimne.
    i mean give me 20% raise and slap me not once but twice , i don;t care.

    like, people get slapped on the face for much less things than this.
    if getting 20% raise is a slap on the face, i don't know what 
    the world is getting to. 

    \nasser
    who wants to be slapped in the face with 20% raise!

    Re: .107:
    
       I think he means a slap in the face, individually to each and every
    employee in the US.  You can have two if you like, \nasser.
    
       BP missed a golden opportunity to seriously improve morale here. 
    (Of course, there would still be a topic here where people would be
    discussing the fact that $150k is relatively trivial in comparison to
    his stock options, but I for one would take it as at least a token of
    understanding of how the company is really doing.)
    
       I don't want to end up a conspiracy theorist, but it's becoming
    harder and harder to believe that moves like this aren't part of a
    dedicated effort to make people want to leave the company.
    
    					-mjg

    BP can't refuse the $150K raise.  He'd have to give a reason.  What
    would it be?  Digital isn't making money?  Employee morale is in the
    gutter?  I'm not worth it?  All those messages, regardless of the
    truth, send a message to the outside world that contrasts the message
    Digital wants to send.  It would PROVE that higher ups are doing stupid
    things.  
    
    Such things are of utmost importance to management.  I don't know how 
    Digital management has responded to Digital Japan's management
    response, but I hardly expect that they will have applauded it.  If
    anything, I expect there has been sharp resistance to any manager that
    publicly admits that any manager at Digital is doing stupid things.
    
    Steve

    
    Sure he can refuse an increase.  The reason could be that he wants to
    continue to do whats best for the corporation and taking a 20% increase 
    at this time would not be in the best interest of the corporation.
    
    
    
    Mike

    Robert Townsend, when faced with a similar situation, refused a raise
    and asked that it be distributed amongst the members of his group.  Tom
    Peters also felt taht this was an important, perhaps critical thing for
    managers to do when the circumstances warranted it.
    
    Remember the uproar at GM when raises were given to senior executives
    while the rank and file were being laid off or asked to sacrifice
    benefits until the company recovered?

    re: .108
    
    look at 1664.125
    
    
    fred deady

    re: .110, .111:
    
    I don't think either of those would be acceptable.  Remember,
    officially Digital is about to hit good times!  We posted a profit in
    Q4 and would like investors to believe that we've turned around and
    will continue making a profit.  At least we aren't saying we're NOT
    going to be making a profit every quarter from here on, presumably so
    that SOMEone, SOMEwhere will think we're going to make money soon.
    Refusing a raise when Digital is supposedly making money now and 
    morale is supposedly improving pretty much pops that bubble.  It 
    could also make the statement that Digital employees should take
    a pay cut.  Not a good message to send if you are concerned about
    a brain drain ...
    
    It was well-publicized that Chrysler was in trouble when Iaccoca
    took $1 to manage.  Digital, on the other hand, is NOT supposed to
    be in trouble right now, according to what it seems to be telling
    the press.  Sure, it might boost morale to have BP take only $1 for
    a salary, but that would be ADMITTING to the press that Digital is
    in trouble!  That's apparently NOT the message that Digital wants
    to send to the Press!
    
    As for GM, it is my impression that there are persons in positions of 
    power at Digital who strongly feel that GM's problem was that it TOLD 
    about the bonuses given during time of layoff -- NOT that the bonuses 
    were given.  Problem here is that bonuses to BP MUST be disclosed.  I 
    think it's a pretty safe bet that even this "bonus" would be kept 
    secret at Digital if it was possible.
                                      
    Steve

                     <<< Note 2700.113 by NACAD::SHERMAN >>>


	I really and truly don't believe that anyone turning down a 
	raise would be indicating to the world that Digital is in Trouble. 
	It could be offered as a token (symbolic gesture on the part of 
	management) that we're all pulling together. When morale is 
	high, people are at their most productive peaks, all going in 
	the same direction, steering the same course. Right, now we need
	a strong message "saying we're all in this together".

        I believe that BP deserves a raise, he's starting doing what the board
	requested him to do , but, right now, Morale really needs a 
	boast, this would be one way to accomplish that.

	 When we're out of this
        and making money again, I'd vote to double, triple his salary!

	my 2 cents again,

	Rick

    The Org Chart posted earlier is extremely out of date (circa 1992). Why
    anyone bothers researching how many of anything we have with data that
    old is beyond me???? Entire organizations listed there don't even exist
    anymore.

    	Oh, come on people! Bob Palmer could absolutely have refused the raise.
    That can't be debated intelligently. The only thing open to discussion is
    whether he should have,  or not!                         
    
    	In a very real sense, the replies of this note prove that he should
    have. Afterall, we noters are a very representable lot when compared to 
    Digital as a whole; if not we are all wasting our time in her ( that is
    in hits notesfil.) Bob just missd a proverbial "Golden Opportunity" 
    here. No big deal, for there will be other opportunitys.( But a finite
    number to be sure.)
    
    (Please excuse any typos in this note, my com. line is pretty noisy
    tonigt. )
    
         

    What is the problem here? Obviously the BOD felt Mr. Palmer deserved it
    so if anyone has heartburn over this they should direct it to the BOD.
    The majority of notes seem to feel Mr. Palmer should turn down his
    raise and then say how "I haven't gotten a raise" which seems to
    indicate to me that those making such statements would gladly take a
    raise regardless of company profitability. "Palmer doesn't deserve a 
    raise, but I certainly do". He is the person chosen to be the bad guy,
    to make the decisions on where to cut costs and people. That is not a
    pleasant job for anyone and I don't believe for one second that Mr.
    Palmer enjoys doing that knowing how it affects so many lives. It takes
    a unique person to fill that role. Anyone who has had to lay off people
    knows the emotional toll it takes. And let's put it in perspective, his
    raise is a lot less than what the baseball players will make for the
    World Series shares this year. It seems to be an acknowledgement that
    he is on the right track and I think even CEO's deserve a pat on the 
    back every once in awhile.

 Digital - Amid layoffs, Digital gives Palmer 20% raise
	{The Boston Globe, 7-Oct-93, p. 81}
   At a time when it is laying off thousands of employees, Digital Equipment
 Corp. has given chief executive Robert B. Palmer a 20% pay raise.
   Since taking the helm in October of 1992, Palmer has directed a turnaround
 of the struggling computer maker, shepherding new products to market and
 slashing costs, including layoffs of 20,000 in the past year.  Analysts credit
 Palmer for helping lift Digital out of deep losses, but say its too soon to
 tell whether he can sustain the recovery.
   Asked about Palmer's pay raise amid massive employee layoffs, Jim Chiafery,
 a Digital investor relations executive, said the cuts have been "painful."
 But, "Our focus isn't downsizing,  As Bob has said, our goal is to get
 competitive and preserve 85,000 to 90,000 remaining jobs."
   Digital's board is hedging its bets.  It awarded Palmer, 53, a $900,000
 salary for the fiscal year that began in July, according to recently released
 proxy material.  That's up from a salary of $750,000, which had been in effect
 since he took over as chief executive.
   But Palmer received no bonus in 1993, and the Maynard computer maker
 indicated a 1994 bonus may depend on whether he can continue to improve the
 company's fortunes.  Prior to his arrival, Digital had lost $3.5 billion over
 three years.
   Palmer has made progress in stemming the losses as he worked to renew
 Digital's competitiveness, build a strong management team and focus the
 company on its customers, said William J. Milton Jr., an analyst for the New
 York investment firm Brown Brothers Harriman.
   "When I look at what other CEOs get, I think this guy is grossly underpaid,"
 he said.
   Despite his success, Milton said the board was taking a "wait-and-see
 attitude" on Palmer's bonus.  "This has been a remarkable turnaround to date,
 but can it be sustained?"
   Digital's four-member compensation committee noted in a proxy for the
 company's Nov. 4 annual meeting in Boston that "financial objectives and
 performance targets" that were set out before Palmer took over "were not
 achieved."
   Chiafery declined to specify the company's performance targets.
   Palmer's 1994 bonus - if there is one - will be decided by the compensation
 committee at a later date.  "The year is not over," Chiafery said.
   Digital has reported only one profitable quarter under Palmer's leadership -
 in the final quarter of fiscal 1993 when it earned $113 million.  But the
 company has enjoyed three consecutive quarters of better year-over-year
 results, reversing 17 consecutive quarters of decline, analysts said.
    

    re -1
    
    I have refrained from entering comments on this for obvious reasons. 
    However,  I believe there is a serious problem here that should be
    blatantly obvious even to the casual observer.
    
    Is BP doing a good job?  Yes, I believe he is.  Unfortunately, due to
    the mess he inherited much of what he has had to do has been painful
    for a lot of people.  Of all the layoffs that have occurred, I'm sure 
    some people deserved it; I am equally certain that some people
    didn't, and lost their job not due to any fault of their own, but due
    to lousy management. 
    
    Does BP deserve a raise?  I'm sure he does.  Just as a lot of other
    people that work for this company do.  A lot of people across the
    entire spectrum of this company are giving 110% every day.  And yes, a
    number of people haven't received raises in quite some time.
    
    What is really at issue here is the judgement and sensitivity of both
    the BOD and BP.  Clearly, they exhibited poor judgement in timing BP's
    raise, and displayed little regard whatsoever to how the employees
    would receive the news.  Would it have been a financial hardship on BP
    to have waited another quarter or two, to show that the company has
    really finally turned around?  Given that employee morale is finally on
    the mend, wouldn't it have been worth it?  Personally, I think this
    will set back efforts to improve morale, which will only hamper efforts
    to get this company charging again.
    
    Just this morning, in the Business Day section of the N.Y. Times, there
    is an article covering Labor Secretary Robert Reich's speech to a group
    of investment managers.  He is urging them to "look beyond the numbers"
    when valuing a company's stock, including how they treat their
    employees.
    
    It's time for management in this company to lead by example.  No wonder
    the Japanese are such formidable competitors, this would never happen
    at a Japanese company.  Something like this is purely an American
    management problem.
    
    I hope the message intended by the BOD and BP is that performers will
    be rewarded.  The onus is on them.  I hope they realize it.

    reply .119 is really in response to reply .117

Company		Sales	Profit	Mkt. Value	CEO Salary
		$Mil.	$Mil.	$Mil.		$ Thous.

Apple		7087	530	3064		1127	 
Dell		2014	102	 673		 539
Digital Equip. 13931  -2310    	5413		 738
H-P	       16410    881    18487		 563
Intel	     	5844   1067    26465		1351
IBM	       64523  -6865    25197		  NA
Microsoft       2759	708    20197		 285
SGI		 867   -118	2576		 695
SUN 		3589	173	2671		 996

Source, Business Week, October 11th 1993

    If anything, this chart serves to illustrate how misleading the CEO
    Salary numbers can be in terms of overall compensation: just look at the
    line for Microsoft...

    All this in a time when our sales force has just been handed a 20% pay
    cut (some even 30%!!!) unless they have been blessed with a reasonable
    budget.  The operative word is REASONABLE.
    
    Like they say, 'timing is everything'
    
    cw

What? What? Nobody busting Bob's humps for getting a 20% raise putting him
up to $900,000 a year salary??? I've been told for 8 years "The Days Of The
Double Digit Increases Are Over".

Yah. Right. If he were any kind of man he'd ask for a cut - and not take a 
raise - as a sign of good faith. 

Skatin' on thin Q1 numbers as it is.

    Nothing will change, so why beat a dead horse?  Bob doesn't care what
    we think about his raise, or he would not have taken it...nor do his
    senior executives .. I mean do we see any of thme responding to our
    cries of outrage/concern?  Nope.  And I seriously doubt they ever will
    for that matter.
    
    So, carry on troops...perhaps we'll meet in the unemployment line
    someday,
    and wouldn't it be nice if BP was standing there too....;)
    
    Just a dream.
    
    
    Back to reality.
    
    Deb

    RE: .125
    
    >>What? What? Nobody busting Bob's humps for getting a 20% raise putting him
    >>up to $900,000 a year salary??? I've been told for 8 years
    >>"The Days Of The Double Digit Increases Are Over".
    
    Where have you been during the last 100 or so replies?
    
    
    Joyce

    
    >Where have you been during the last 100 or so replies?
    
    .125 was moved here from a topic of it's own. A number of people, who
    apparently do read here often or don't use NEXT UNSEEN, have missed
    this topic and started new base notes on the subject of BPs raise.
    Perhaps the topic needs a title change?
    
    			Alfred

re: 127

The title has already been changed.

Bob

    I heard on hte news today that Sun Microsystems announced yesterday
    (The San Jose Mercury News had to have something to report ;-} that the
    executive committee (like our SLT) were all taking pay cuts to help the
    company through these hard times.
    
    Larry
    

    Lets be careful about the "Sales has been given a 20% pay cut."
    
    For the 80/20 plan:
    
    Its only a 20% paycut if you sell ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.  If you make your
    budget you get 100% of your base pay.  If you sell 50% of your budget
    you get 90% of your base pay (10% cut?).  If you go over your budget
    you get bonus pay like nothing DEC has ever offered before.
    
    In addition there are quarterly incentive plans for selling particular
    items.  (something like $100/seat for workstations Q1 & Q2??)  Let me
    tell you it does make one try to bring in that 200 seat order!
    
    I do understand the stress for our Sales force, as budgets in many
    cases have been set quite higher than some expected.  Also this remains
    a very difficult period in the early days of alpha systems.  A fast box
    and FORTRAN is not what it was in the early days of the VAX 11/780.  But
    hopefully this compensation program will soon become VERY REWARDING to
    our Sales professionals  (It can't happen too soon to please me!).
    
    All I can do is strain to help them get/close the sales.
    
    Frank
    

Salary increases are still being given in this company. It's true that
spend numbers are not double digit and the length of time between raises
is longer than I like but ...

Why should BP not take his raise? Has he not done his job?
Has he not done it well? Did he not meet his commitments?  Is his
boss (the BOD) or the investors unhappy with his performance?

Why should BP be treated differently from everyone else? Pay raises are
determined by personal performance, not corporate performance. Pay scales
are determined by the industry norms. Is BP's salary higher than the
norm for a CEO?

How many people in this file who deplore the BP raise are willing to deny their 
own raises until the company is financially healthier?

    
    1 quarter of profit does not a succcess make.

    The problem with the tone of the replies here is that there is a clear
    indication of spite and irresponsibility.  The former in relation to
    jealousy of *anyone's* double digit raise and salary (BP's in this
    case).  The latter in relation to a feeling noblesse oblige, I work for
    Digital therefore I deserve such and such.
    
    Your salary and your career development are your personal
    responsibility, and no one else's.  I am about behind in salary
    in comparison to consultants working for independent firms, and I don't
    like that fact.  But it's my responsibility to do something about it,
    and it's an issue for me and my manager.
    
    >1 quarter of profit does not a succcess make.
     
    I think that he is doing as good a job as can be expected at this time,
    especially with the garbage that he inherited.
    
    /d.c.

    
    >Your salary and your career development are your personal
    >responsibility, and no one else's.  I am about behind in salary
    
    So there is nothing your boss can or should do to help you? And there
    is nothing he/she can do to slow you down? Interesting.
    
    			Alfred

	Re. .129

From: clarinews@clarinet.com (UPI)
Subject: Sun Micro chief takes 36 percent pay cut
Copyright: 1993 by UPI, R
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 93 15:47:45 PDT

	MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. (UPI) -- Scott McNealy, chief executive officer
of Sun Microsystems Inc., has taken a 36 percent pay cut at his own
request at a time when the value of the company's stock have plunged.
	Sun's board reduced McNealy's salary for the fiscal year ended June
30 to $400,000 and his bonus was cut 43 percent to $251,304, according
to the company's recently filed proxy statement.
	The Sun board also increased McNealy's stock options to 60,000 at an
exercise price of $28.25, more than double his 29,000 options last year.
	Those options are valueless currently, since Sun's stock closed
Wednesday at $21.625, off 75 cents amid a sell-off in computer issues
spurred by a lower-than-expected ``book-to-bill'' semiconductor report
released by a trade group late Tuesday.
	Sun's shares fell from a peak of $41 following the release of
disappointing earnings. Sun's profits for the fiscal year ended June 30
were off 10 percent to $156.7 million.
	Since 1991, McNealy's salary and bonus has been reduced by about 59
percent.
	Other computer companies have also reduced executive salaries
recently. Apple Computer Corp. announced a 5 percent executive pay cut
in July after it posted a quarterly loss of $188 million.
	International Business Machines Corp. cut the salary of former CEO
John Akers by 17 percent to $1.3 million before ousting him earlier this
year. Big Blue offered new CEO Louis Gerstner a $5 million signing
bonus, a guaranteed $2 million annual salary and a $1.3 million bonus.
	Sun, of Mountain View, Calif., dominates the booming market for
workstations, the more powerful cousins of personal computers. The
lucrative field has grown as users such as engineers and architects
require more and more cmoputing power to solve more complex problems.
	Sun previously reported earnings of $76.1 million on sales of $1.26
billion in its fourth quarter ended June 30.

    >So there is nothing your boss can or should do to help you? And there
    >is nothing he/she can do to slow you down? Interesting.
    
    Omission,thanks.  Yes, I meant to add that it is also an issue between
    you and your manager.
    
    /d.c.

Top 5 compensated executive officers:

Robert B. palmer .....1993   $738,469

Hindle................1993   $458,662
                      1992    455,008
                      1991    455,008

Poulsen...............1993    392,662
                      1992    298,856
                      1991    284,188

Strecker..............1993    357,704
                      1992    305,019
                      1991    281,941

Streul ...............1993    296,617
                      1992    202,429
                      1991    182,000

Poulsen 92-92 about 30% raise.

Streul 91-92 10%, 92-93 just short of 50% !!!!!

Anybody know what these guys are getting this year?

This whole think stinks to high heaven. We're all in the same boat after all
(aren't we?). Either we all get 0 or all a raise/reduction based on performance.
But then again we're all equal but some are more equal than others.



/Paul.

    
    The irony of Bob's raise is not lost on the outside world.
    
    I just received a letter from an in-law in CT. Enclosed was a clipping
    from the NY Times announcing the raise, with the following phrases
    highlighted: 
    
    	"...20-percent raise... Mr. Palmer will earn $900,000 this
    	fical year... [financial objectives and performance targets]
    	were not achieved".
    
    The note said, "Thought you guys might like to see this if you hadn't
    already." [SNORT] "Some guys can do a poor job and still get
    a 20% raise!"
    
    I am *so* looking forward to the next family party... think I'll leave
    my brand new 20-year wristwatch at home.
    

    I don't have the time to read through 138 replies... but just in case
    someone didn't set the record straight already... Winnie Briney is not
    a vice president.  
    
    Rgds,
    
    Marcia Landingham
    US Sales & Marketing, PCBU

    As far as I'm concerned, the *real* issue here is NOT that BP got a
    raise, but that he got a 20% raise, despite not meeting his metrics,
    while the spend number for the unwashed masses is 4.2%, and that's for
    the top performers.  Let's just say my raise was UNDER 5%...  and as a
    WCII, I am already at the bottom of the heap salary-wise...
    
    RHIP!
    
    Marina - whose ANNUAL salary would be just so much pocket change for BP

 <<< Note 2700.131 by 11SRUS::FYFE "United We Stand America - 800 283-6871" >>>

>Why should BP be treated differently from everyone else?

I think this is where the dissatisfaction arises -- some senior executives
ARE being treated differently from everybody else.

>Pay raises are
>determined by personal performance, not corporate performance.

Not on the planet I live and work on.  I have been told that my performance
was above average, but the spend plan is only <mumble>%, and I'm kind of high
in my salary range, and other people in the six neighboring states are
doing similar work, etc, etc... that measly <mumble> has to get divvied up so
many ways that nobody is happy.

We DO NOT pay for personal performance, where I work.

    i guess i wouldn't mind BP getting 20% raise if the company wasn't doing
    so poorly and the 20% bump being larger than the total of my raises in
    7+ years. percentage wise that is. so yes, i do mind. i mind a lot.

    
    
    	If I was the board of directors I'd let no executive have
    	any excuses regarding the performance of the company; i.e.
    	if it is doing excellent why not give'em an extraordinary
    	salary, but if the company is performing bad paying
    	them nothing or in a worse case  firing them immediateley?!
    	Upper management must be held responsible in any case!
    

    Re: .118
    
    > ... "When I look at what other CEOs get, I think this guy is grossly
    > underpaid,"  he said.
    
    It is reported that most Americans think they are being overpaid, too.
    
    Steve
    

  > i guess i wouldn't mind BP getting 20% raise if the company wasn't doing
  > so poorly 

   Are we basing BP salary actions on his performance or the companies 
   performance? Should we base your salary actions on your performance
   or the companies performance?

   Should we measure BP against the companies performance based soley on profit
   and loss or on the change in performance of the company since he has taken 
   over?
     
  > and the 20% bump being larger than the total of my raises in
  > 7+ years. percentage wise that is. so yes, i do mind. i mind a lot.
   
   Percentage wise or total dollars wise?


   > 	If I was the board of directors I'd let no executive have
   > 	any excuses regarding the performance of the company; i.e.
   > 	if it is doing excellent why not give'em an extraordinary
   > 	salary, but if the company is performing bad paying
   > 	them nothing or in a worse case  firing them immediateley?!
   > 	Upper management must be held responsible in any case!
    
    And how many executives do you think would line up for the job of
    bringing a company in death-spiral  back to profitability
    given this criteria?


  >>Pay raises are
  >>determined by personal performance, not corporate performance.

  >Not on the planet I live and work on.  I have been told that my performance
  >was above average, but the spend plan is only <mumble>%, and I'm kind of high
  >in my salary range, and other people in the six neighboring states are
  >doing similar work, etc, etc... that measly <mumble> has to get divvied up so
  >many ways that nobody is happy.

  In practical terms though, unless scheduled for a promotion to
  the next range, being high in a salary range makes it more difficult to
  to schedule a higher than average percentage.
  However, I think most would be happy to be near the top of their salary 
  range.
  
  Question: Should Digitals Executive positions be given salary scales based on 
            average industry salaries of similar positions in other corporate
            structures? 

    RE: .145
    	Your remarks are based on two major misconceptions:
    
    	1. Bob Palmer's personal performance versus the companies
    performance.
    
    	- The reality is that these are the same animal.
    
    	2. If our CEO's salary is not raised, we would not be able to find
    a top executive to turn the company around.
    
    	- The reality is that our CEO's stock options are fantastic and
    make salary absolutely IRRELEVANT when we get turned around.

  >RE: .145
  >  	Your remarks are based on two major misconceptions:
  >  
  >  	1. Bob Palmer's personal performance versus the companies
  >  performance.
  >  
  >  	- The reality is that these are the same animal.
  >

   Not that I agree with the above statement but ...

   OK. Has the performance of the company declined or improved under BPs watch?
  
  
>    	2. If our CEO's salary is not raised, we would not be able to find
>    a top executive to turn the company around.
>    
>    	- The reality is that our CEO's stock options are fantastic and
>    make salary absolutely IRRELEVANT when we get turned around.


     That is not what I said or meant; and for the sake of discussion you
     can lump in the stock options with his salary since it is all
     a form of compensation. Not to many people in this string have
     indicated that the 20% increase in cash salary as IRRELEVANT.

     It is not whether the CEO gets a raise, but how his success is
     measured that I take issue with here. BP could certainly live
     well without a raise. I'm looking for the reason why he shouldn't
     get one. So far no one has provide any substantial arguments
     either way. Sure has been alot of emotional content though.
    
     Doug.

    
      rep: .147> reason BP sould not receive the raise he got..
    
    		Sure you were given a reason!! 
    
    		Cause other hard working employees arn't
    		getting a raise. And if they are, it isn't
    		nearly equalivent to the % he recieved.
    
    		Many of us NEED the extra money just to survive
    		in todays economy. Does he?

>   OK. Has the performance of the company declined or improved under BPs watch?

	Financial goals were *NOT* met. Period.

	Whether performance has declined or improved is not (quite) the
	issue. That's like saying, "Did this software engineer write code?
	OK, give her a 20% raise." That's clearly not good enough, and the
	performance of the company (and thus Palmer) was clearly not good
	enough to warrant a 20% raise. The fact that his raise was more than
	4x the average amount (percentage-wise) available for the workers
	who are waiting an average of 18 months between salary reviews
	simply makes the underserved raise more obscene.

	Roy

    > rep: .147> reason BP sould not receive the raise he got..
    >
    >		Sure you were given a reason!! 
    >
    >		Cause other hard working employees arn't
    >		getting a raise. And if they are, it isn't
    >		nearly equalivent to the % he recieved.
    
    Digital continues to give raises to its employees with an average lead time
    of 18 months (guestimate) based on well documented (if not well published) 
    set of guidelines. Some folks will get pay raises this year, some will not.
    Are you suggesting that BP should not get a raise until everyone else in the
    corporation get one (perhaps within a 12 month period no less)? 

    >Many of us NEED the extra money just to survive in todays economy. Does he?
    
    Although I don't disagree with this statement I don't see how this should 
    affect corporate policy. Should everyone's salary be based on need?
    Should we penalize success in this company?

    
    >	Financial goals were *NOT* met. Period.
    >
    >	Whether performance has declined or improved is not (quite) the
    >	issue. That's like saying, "Did this software engineer write code?
    >	OK, give her a 20% raise." That's clearly not good enough, and the
    >	performance of the company (and thus Palmer) was clearly not good
    >	enough to warrant a 20% raise. 

    BP did not just 'write code'.

    When I make commitments they are based on assumtions. Come review time 
    my performance is determined based on what I accomplished and what
    assumptions were/were not accurate. It is not black and white as you have
    stated it to be.

    The board, given BP's goals against assumptions, evaluated his performance
    and plainly feel that he did a pretty good job and rewarded him for it.

    The line "and the performance of the company (and thus Palmer) was 
    clearly not good enough to warrant a 20% raise." is an indication that
    you feel that the CEO salary should be tied to the 'profits' of the
    company. This is where I think we disagree.

    I think a CEO, moving a company forward $300m a quarter should 
    be rewarded, whether the company moved from -$500m to -$200m
    or from $200m to $500m. The results are the same; Improved (but 
    not necessarily good) finacial performance.

    >   The fact that his raise was more than
    >	4x the average amount (percentage-wise) available for the workers
    >	who are waiting an average of 18 months between salary reviews
    >	simply makes the underserved raise more obscene.

    The key word is average. The above average, the achivers, are not waiting
    18 months to get a raise (or at least they shouldn't be, unless they are 
    near the top of their range). I'm sure there are some 9-12 month raises
    out there as well as some 21-24 month raises (and some double-digit raises
    as well). Not that the handling of executive salary actions is in any way 
    related to the corporate Salary Management System but that's a topic for
    another note. 

re .150 and others by 11srus::fyfe

The issue here is not whether he deserve (or not) a raise, nor the size of
it. And yes, BP did not just write code, he is the CEO for heaven's sake.

He is the leader, the general of the troops. Here we are, wounded,
bleeding, zonked and all, we are need a morale boost. The corporation need
a rallying call from no less than the CEO. To do that, the leader need to
to demonstrate that he is indeed one of us, who shares in our pain, and
strive for the same glory. If he wants to lead a charge, let us be all on
the same footing. To holler for "Charge!" from his gleaming Porche while
the troops are doing the best their little feet can carry them will soon
have everyone dropping off by the way. 

Now, never once did I say the general doesn't deserve to have a horse.

    Hi,
    
    Maybe stupid of me to ask but what does the acronym C.E.O.
    mean?
    
    thx
    Jan.

    re: .150

    I don't know company you work for, but top performers here are pushed
    out 18 months (at best) and are in the 4-5% range for increases. 

    Bob Palmer was rewarded for mediocrity. He hasn't turned the company
    around, he got rid of enough headcount costs to show a profit for
    one quarter. 

    You have to walk on water these days (the rank and file that is) to get
    your top rating and meager 5%.  I agree with the people who've already 
    stated that Palmer had a golden opportunity to boost morale by refusing 
    the raise (or even deferring it). That would have showed us that he 
    was concerned with the morale in this company is an important issue.

    Look at Sun, they're having problems and the CEO requests a decrease in
    compensation! Now that would do wonders around here. Let the VPs be 
    personally accountable for the profitability of this company.
    Pay for performance, isn't that how the worker bees are paid (in
    theory)? 
    
    Gail
     

    RE:  .147
    
    The following can be said without emotion:
    
    1. Digital's performance has shown improvement and promise under Bob
    Palmer, but Digital has not been turned around. The objectives have not
    been met.
    
    2. BP's salary increase has shown to be controversial in light of the
    poor morale and continued cutbacks. However, when considering what Bob
    Palmer will earn in total if he can make us successful, $200K is noise
    in the system. His stock options are worth $millions. Therefore, if
    improving morale adds significantly to the success of this company,
    then refusing the salary increase would have been prudent.
            

Excerpt from LIVEWIRE TFSO resumption announcement today:
 
>       Digital announced that the U.S. Transition Program for Q2 begins
> today.  According to Dick Farrahar, vice president, Human Resources, "The 
> package that will be offered during Q2 includes reduced cash payments, but 
> still compares favorably with separation plans offered by other companies 
> in our industry.  The revision reflects current business conditions, the 
> company's current financial performance, and our intent to manage transition 
> activity within the limits of existing restructuring funds."

This announcement, after hearing of BPs raise makes for a 1-2 punch right
in the gut. An immeasurable amount of restoration of company morale could
have been achieved if BP would had just said 'NO' (or even "I'll take a
cut until things get better").

Employees in the trenches have long been waiting for significant signs
that Digital is changing course for the better. The message for
today would seem to be: "Business as usual."

Lee

    	It can't mean much anymore to be addressed as "Corporate VP".
    	I guess if you have a large mass of VP's under the president
    	it should leave the impression that this is a clean company
    	with few layers.  Except, every time you read a "welcome a
    	new VP/employee" announcement, it reads that the new VP will
    	report to such and such VP who reports to another VP.  There
    	should be levels of VP, like "Consultant VP", or "Junior VP".
    	Then you'd always know who reports to who.

    	The CEO's pay is back to the level that the previous CEO's was
    	when he left.  It took thirty five years for him to get there.
    	

    Agreed, within digital the status of being a VP is approaching what
    the rest of us already are
    
    
    
    Peons
    
    I found it rather ironic that a late issue of VNS news had a VP
    announcement, corporate audit or some such thing, directly below 
    the new transition announcement. On livewire they are on different
    levels. Whether it was planned this way or not I liked the juxta-
    position that the expat VNS staff provided. A story within a story.
    
     

I pull out Wordwide, then U.S. news. If I miss a day (like vacation or unable
to log in from home) you could get news orders of Worldwide-US-Worldwide-US, or
Worldwide-Worldwide-US-US depending on what I pulled to date. I don't have/take
the time to put things in any particular order.

Trace_who_spends_a_long_time_Sunday_typing_in_next_week's_VNS

    Does BP's raise remind anyone else of Marie Antoinette?
    

    Re: .159 & .160:
    
    VP => Venerable Peon

    Re a recent reply...
    
    Yes!  
    DM.  The employees have no bread.
    BP.  Let them eat Cake!
    
        DM = district manager, BP= well you know.
    
    We have a loss this quarter, no wonder, after the juggling of costs to
    make the last quarter profitable, so the CEO could look good.  
    
    I would bet that if the Board of directors knew the state of morale in 
    the company, they would TFSO a lot of VP's and perhaps the CEO.
    
    The foot soldiers do not count, just make sure the Generals and the
    King have enough.  
    
    I have had one pay raise in the last 4 years.  I do not expect another
    soon unless the sky falls in.
    
    Dave

 Sun Microsystems - Top executives take pay cuts
	{The Wall Street Journal, 14-Oct-93, p. B6}
   Sun Microsystems CEO Scott McNealy and the rest of the company's top
 executives have taken pay cuts as the result of a new compensation plan - 
 instituted at Mr. McNealy's request - that links their compensation more
 closely to the company's performance.  The executives will now get more stock
 options and less cash.  Mr. McNealy's salary for the fiscal year ended June 30
 was slashed 27% to $400,000 from $550,000.  His bonus was cut 43%, to
 $251,304 from $445,763.  He received 60,000 stock options, but they aren't
 worth a penny right now: the exercise price is $28.25 and the stock's recent
 trading range is about $22 a share.  The cuts in salary and bonus don't quite
 match the roughly 47% hit investors have taken since January.  Mr. McNealy
 isn't taking the pay cut out of any sense of solidarity with investors.  "He's
 not feeling guilty about the company's performance, said Marty Coleman, a
 spokeswoman. 

	(I like this part best:)

  She said Mr. McNealy recommended changing the compensation plan
 "because of a philosophy that executives should be paid based on the
 performance of the company.  The best way to do that is with stock options.
 We think stockholders like that."


Moe
    

re .-1

>                Mr. McNealy's salary for the fiscal year ended June 30
> was slashed 27% to $400,000 from $550,000.

550K-400K = BP's raise...

/harley

I just got a mail about Bob Palmer's Q2 Employee Forum DVN. The
last paragraph gives an overview of what he will discuss. I quote:

"......and Bob's comments about his recent salary increase."

Book your seats now, this is going to be a packed DVN. I just hope
he gets given as hard a time as he has in this notesfile.

Maybe somebody could represent us noters in here and put forward
some of the points made in this string. Any takers?



/Paul. 

RE:<<< Note 2700.167 by BERN02::OREILLY "There's a fish on top of Shandon swears he's Elvis." >>>
   
>>               -< Bob's going to explain his raise !! >-

     You've GOT to be kidding.  Where are Bob's advisors?  I have never heard
of a more DOOMED, no-win agenda item in all my days.  What can he possibly say
that wouldn't come across as a self-serving smokescreen?

     In the vast majority of cases, I would love to hear justifications of
seemingly senseless actions by various members of management.  In this case,
however, there does not appear to be anything to say.  The damage is done and
I don't think words will help.

     I will be impressed if he doesn't make it worse.

                                   Greg 

.168> What can he possibly say that wouldn't come across as a self-serving
.168> smokescreen?
    
    How about this?
    
    	"I think I deserve it. But then, I think we all deserve it.
        Hindsight being 20/20, I've come to realize how detrimental
        my acceptance of this raise has been to the morale of this
        company. You all deserve better than that. So, I'm putting
        it back in the pot until we turn four consecutive quarters
        of profit and we can afford to give everyone an annual
        salary adjustment that truly rewards your efforts to turn
        DEC around."
    
        "And, I'm earmarking the $150K specifically for office
        supplies."
    
    
    Hey, it's *my* dream...
    

    
    
    How 'bout:
    
    
    It wasn't my idea.... the Devi...ah, er ah, the Board of Directors
     MADE me accept it....
    
    or Things were going great for 3 months and all looked good....
    
      ah, I know that you all are evaluated every 6 to 12 month and
      raises even at longer intervals, but I... er the Board....
    
    
    
    

    re .169
    
     You belong in damage control Mr. Bill.
    
    "office supplies" that would crack the populace up. Have you sought a
    career in public relations?
    
    -Mike Z.

    I have to voice my agreement with the previous noters who said that BP
    missed a GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY, not only to boost employee morale, but to
    win many a convert of Digital Employees, with longer terms of service
    than my own (4 years) by refusing the pay raise.    

    Just read an interesting article about Jerry Stead, NCR's new chief
    executive, here are a few excerpts:
    
    	A - NCR will be leaner and customer focused and have about 8100 fewer
    employees than its current 51,000.
    
    	B - "If such change generates anger and frustration, it is the
    responsibility of top managers to focus that anger externally and not
    only get new customers but to delight them."
    
    	C- In many companies top management has confused empowerment with
    abdication of leadership. Our job as leaders is to provide a strategic
    framework.
    
    	D- People are the only sustainable competitive advantage any company
    has. People available in the organization are the most awesome power
    any organization has.
    
    	E- Stead said starting this year, top managers- including him- will
    tie half of their compensation to improvements in employee and customer
    satisfaction. NCR will measure employee attitude through quarterly
    surveys.           
    
       
	For NCR and Mr. Stead the proof will be in the pudding, of course.
    But here is how, in my humble opinion, the key elements from the above
    excerpts play at Digital:
    
    	A. Reduce employees - We at Digital have already "jumped it, skied
    	it, and surfed it!"
    
    	B. Cause anger and frustration - It has and it will. Top management
    	should be accountable.
    
    	C. Leadership - This raises a question.
    
    	D. People power - The power of our noters on the education
   	reimbursement issue proves this, no question.
    
    	E. Top managers pay - "Pay tied to customer AND EMPLOYEE
    	satisfaction!" - What a concept! And food for thought if BP is
    	still looking for ideas on the issue for Monday's DVN.         
       

    read reply 141, the guy has it, it applies to BP as well. You see, we
    have this semi random salary planning, if you are low in a range and do
    well, as most of the people do, there are more chances to get increase.
    If you are high and still do a lot, you get zero or next to it.

    BP is low in his range ( newly promoted) , nobody in his range did
    better, so naturally he got nice increase. 

    There is nothing more to it, and please keep the nasty comments to
    yourself, it is the system. 

    	I have to say that BP's explanation of why he got the raise on his
    recent DVN broadcast certainly got a lot of laughs where I was watching
    it! He even referred to discussions in this NOTEs conference on the
    topic. Anyway, he thinks he deserved it and attempts to convince you,
    the audience, that he deserves at least that much. He even has a visual
    aid (and it's in color too!). He seemed to miss the point about most of
    the complaints though.

    re: .174
    
    	If you are correct about the "semi random salary planning", then in
    order to lead this company in a new direction Bob Palmer must change
    such a poor method of salary planning. In that case Bob has
    missed a good opportunity to lead us in a positive change. 
    
    	If you are not correct, and we have a reasonable salary planning system
    then we should pay for performance. Further, if things are as reported
    and Bob Palmer did not achieve his performance objectives, then his 20%
    raise was too high.
    
    	In either case, the wisdom behind the pay raise is certainly open
    to question as we can conclude from the remarks in this note.
    Furthermore, given the state of the morale in Digital, negative
    comments which you call "nasty" should not be surprising.
                 
    

    	I just watched BP's DVN broadcast tonight and what I get out of his
    explanation of why he got such a large raise was because everybody else
    made more than him.  Not that he did a good job and deserved it, not
    that he met all his goals.  He got it because the committee decided they 
    wanted their CEO to be closer to the CEO's salaries that BP sighted in 
    his talk.  

    Joe

    
    
    re: Pay Raise
    
    There's an old saying that is very true:
    
    If you want to COMMAND respect then you MUST BE WORTHY of it.
    
    The same can be said about the pay issue.
    
    
    dave
    

    
    
 Worldwide News                                              LIVE WIRE
 
 Text of Bob Palmer's Q2 Employee Forum ...                  Date: 15-Nov-1993
 
                                                              Screen  6 of 60

   And one of the things that we have, as you probably
   know, is an extensive notes file.  You can look in there and see
   what is on employees' minds.  I saw that, when the Board of Directors
   increased my salary, there was a lot of information in there and
   people were saying, 'Why is it that this guy makes that much money?'
   And I thought that rather than wait until somebody might ask that
   question, I would just answer that question up front so that you know
   how it feels.

    Executive compensation

                                                              Screen  7 of 60
         We have a slide here that talks about compensation in the computer
   industry for last year.  The slide shows the compensation of a number
   of chief executive officers, and it starts with the highest, which in
   this case is Eckhardt Pfeiffer at Compaq.  You can see that in cash
   compensation (this does not have anything to do with options), Eckhardt
   made $2.8 million dollars, Jim Unruh at Unisys made $1.8 million, Hewlett-
   Packard's John Young made $1.6 million, John Sculley at Apple made $1.65
   million, John Akers at IBM made $1.3 million.  And way over here we have
   Bob Palmer at $738,000 dollars.

         It's interesting to me when you look at the data, it doesn't look
   as outrageous, although it's a handsome sum of money.  I admit that.

                                                              Screen  8 of 60
   It happens that just recently the Board hired an external compensation
   specialist to look at all of the salaries of the Senior Leadership Team,
   and we have a Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors.  I'm not
   on it.  They independently see [if we] are paying a competitive rate for
   all of our vice presidents and top level management.  And of course it
   is my responsibility to see that we are paying a competitive rate for
   all employees in the various markets in which we do business.  The
   compensation specialist recommended that they adjust my salary to at
   least within 10% of what Ken [Olsen] made during his last year as
   president of this enterprise.  And that was done, and I hope that helps
   with some explanation.

                                                              Screen  9 of 60
         It's interesting to me, by the way, looking at these salaries:
   Apple Computer here at more than twice of this number -- they only have
   14,000 employees in the whole company.  The relative complexities of
   these enterprises is not really comparable.  But anyway, I'm quite
   pleased with my own remuneration, and I hope you are.  We intend to pay
   in Digital for performance, so the issue is to make sure that all
   employees are well-remunerated and we are competitive with our external
   competition.

    Thanks, I feel so much better now.
    

    >But anyway, I'm quite pleased with my own remuneration, and 
    >I hope you are. 
    	
    	To me, this reads like a very clear "blahblahblah, and the
   	horse you rode in on..."
    
    					andrew

    
    RE. -1
    
    	DITTO!
    

>   pleased with my own remuneration, and I hope you are.  We intend to pay
>   in Digital for performance, so the issue is to make sure that all
>   employees are well-remunerated and we are competitive with our external
>   competition.


	Over a year ago I heard that S/W engineers were not being paid in
	amounts that are competitive with our external competition. I haven't
	seen any effort to correct that situation. Is it just my group that
	isn't seeing fast (<18 months) and large (>5%) raises in effort to
	catch up?

			Alfred

    
    Well my last increase was 3.9% after 21 months, Alfred.  That's after 8
    years of 2 performance.
    
    Mike

    Remind me go out and gather statistics on the salaries of 5 counterparts 
    in my field at other companies, create a full color chart showing how 
    I'm underpaid compared to them, and take that into my next salary review.
    
    
        It seems to work...
    
    
    Bob, You're doing a difficult job and I don't begrudge you your 
    due compensation for doing it, but everyone in this company is being
    asked to sacrafice but it appears that the ones doing the majority of
    the sacificing are the ones pulling the oars.
    

.179>   And one of the things that we have, as you probably
.179>   know, is an extensive notes file.  You can look in there and see
.179>   what is on employees' minds.  I saw that, when the Board of Directors
.179>   increased my salary, there was a lot of information in there and
.179>   people were saying, 'Why is it that this guy makes that much money?'
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
.179>   And I thought that rather than wait until somebody might ask that
.179>   question, I would just answer that question up front so that you know
.179>   how it feels.

No Mr. Palmer, most people here (in this notes file) have not been saying
that... what we have been saying is that we have been told by company
action and words that Digital's profit picture does not look good- belt
tightening, layoffs, etc. are the rule for nearly everyone.

Morale is very, very low and your acceptance of this raise at this time
gives the impression to some that you are, at best, indifferent towards
the employees of this company.

Lee

    I notice he didn't mention the president of...Sun? who took a
    pay *cut* because the company was not doing well....
    

    He also didn't mention the head of Digital Japan, who ordered
    a pay cut for himself and all other managers...
    
    					andrew

    
    If he can turn this around, he's earned every penny.  If not, not.
    
    It's like athletes in sports.  I never felt, when buying a Celtics
    ticketfor $25 that I begrudged Larry Bird his millions, because the
    performance was worth it.
    
    BP, like LB for the Celts, lives on the hot seat.  If he can't return
    us to steady profitability over the next year, the Board of Directors
    will start to grumble.  You cannot hold this position long if you
    don't perform.  In the meantime, he should be paid well, IMHO.  This
    from somebody who is long overdue for a raise or promotion or
    something, but knows he won't get one in this environment.
    

                                                              Screen  7 of 60
   "     We have a slide here that talks about compensation in the computer
   industry for last year.  The slide shows the compensation of a number
   of chief executive officers, and it starts with the highest, which in
   this case is Eckhardt Pfeiffer at Compaq.  You can see that in cash
   compensation (this does not have anything to do with options), Eckhardt"
                ^
		+------ what does the chart look like with options?
 
   made $2.8 million dollars, Jim Unruh at Unisys made $1.8 million, Hewlett-
   Packard's John Young made $1.6 million, John Sculley at Apple made $1.65
   million, John Akers at IBM made $1.3 million.  And way over here we have
   Bob Palmer at $738,000 dollars."

        "It's interesting to me when you look at the data, it doesn't look
   as outrageous, although it's a handsome sum of money.  I admit that."

	fred deady

    
    
    	Remember his comparison to surgery? How after surgery theres
    	pain during the healing process. 
    
    
    	Wheres his pain? Or was that a $150,000 pain killer???

Did anyone notice that about 5 or 6 of those highly compensated CEO's are now 
no longer with their respective corporations ???????????

Yeah let them eat cake...

sigh..

dave

    read .177 and BPs answer, yes , once again I'm right. He is low in a
    range, so there is a pressure to increase the salary unless he does
    really badly which is not the case. So, "performance" is just a check
    of item, and then position in a range is everything. 
    This is why I call it "semi random", others position in a range has
    more impact then actual performance.

    Apart discussion of BPs salary, which simply amuses me, the sums of
    money discussed are simply beyond my imagination, the salary planning
    rules we have cripple DEC . This powerful management tool is not
    aligned with business goals. Leaving salary planning to accidental
    distribution of salaries in a range is yet another example of our
    managements' fear for making decisions and taking responsibility. 
    It is always safe to let the "system" decide.

    I gotta point this out ...  The job of high-level managers is to avoid
    doing anything stupid.  The rest of us have to do lots of smart things.
    High-level managers have to prove they do nothing stupid.  One way they
    can do that is to point to their peers.  That's what BP did, IMO.  
    
    Unfortunately, while this is acceptable to and for high-level managers,
    it does not work with others who are accustomed to having to show a
    return on the investment (that we do lots of smart things) as proof.  
    Otherwise, many of us would be generating colorful charts and using 
    them to convince our bosses to give us big raises based on what our 
    peers are getting in other companies.  (Like I could see anybody 
    getting a good response ...  "Nice slide.  Hope it impresses your
    new employer ...")
    
    By the way, from what I understand this is a REAL issue with many of
    the talented folk here at Digital.  That is, salary-wise, a lot of us
    (including moi) aren't making what headhunters tell us is the going
    rate outside for our talents.  I expect a number of folk regard those
    of us that remain as, um, unwise for not jumping ship for higher
    salaries.  I like where I'm at, the folks I work with and the work I'm
    doing.  But, this kind of thing does add a lot of pressure to already
    sagging morale among individual contributors.
    
    Steve

        Data point.
        
        My wife  was  tfso'd in June to make space for a middle manager
        who then brought  in  a  buddy as a supervisor.  The management
        layer doubled, while the  worker bees were halved, since two of
        my wife's co-workers quit the  group  having  seen an excellent
        performer dumped for political reasons.
        
        She floated her resume and was  immediately  snapped  up  by  a
        high-tech company for close to 10k more  than she was making at
        dec.    Same  job,  same responsibilities.  System manager/user
        support.
        
        Andy

    I once had a boss whose philosopy was to give you a raise before he
    fired you.  That way you lost a better job.
 
    Just maybe... 

						AJ

    Geez, when I said things like that to my parents they just sort of
    stared at me and said "just because other people get things doesn't
    mean you get them too..."
    
    Personally, if this were pay for performance, I think Bob's base salary
    is fine. However, his incentives should reflect what the company is
    trying to accomplish. In support of this, stock options seem the best
    answer. Since Bob's performance is measured by Wall Street, enhancing
    and MAINTAINING stock value should be on his goal sheet. If I have my
    info correct, he should get options for say $30/share excersisable only
    when the stock stays about $50 for a full year. If the shares dropped
    below $50 anytime during the year it went over $50, the clock is reset
    and he has to wait for $50 price again.
    
    This gives him a tidy profit when he can sell and discourages quick
    fixes to any problems the company is having.
    
    In order to focus long term growth, he should get $5/share options
    exercisable 5 years after the stock hits $60/share. In his role as CEO,
    he would get pay for performance with this strategy...

    
    Well perhaps if you had written it in a manner where it didn't appear
    that you were scolding people, it may have come off a little better.
    
    
    
    Mike

    Scott,
    
    Look around your company today and not 1987.
    
    TFSO and early retirement have left us with troops who are mostly in 
    their mid-thirties to early forties.
    
    As I see it, those are the people who are going to peak in this
    business over the next 10-15 years.  That also says to me that the 
    folks who are left here at Digital today represent some of the best 
    people in our industry and Digital's best hope of ever recovering and 
    growing new market shares.
    share.
    
    What' is Digital doing to encourage these industry Mover and Shakers
    of the Next 10-15 years to keep them loyal to Digital?
    
    Your "AGGRAVATION FACTOR" is rising and has already crossed the 
    "LOYATY" access for many of our best technologists and salespeople
    today.  
    
    Many of us are short-timers (7-10)years with Digital and quite 
    frankly don't enjoy the thought of Job hopping just because the 
    problems get sticky during the transition. We thought we were 
    building a career here at Digital and as long as we made money
    for the company, we would be left alone to be mutually beneficially
    to both Digital and ourselves. 
    
    It's not the just money either, most folks in this business can earn
    wages anywhere.  It's the building a company, providing unique solutions, 
    and being proud of where you work that has kept most folks in my
    age group here.  
    
    I'm sad to say that the "AGRAVATION FACTOR" and not TFSO has taken
    it's toll on many around me, many whom I considered not only the best 
    but destined for some marked place in the industry -- They have left 
    to continue their careers with other companies -- to great success
    already.
    
    The rest of us left at Digital wonder if we should leave Digital, 
    just when Digital needs us the most and are torn.  
    
    We are torn by loyalty to our current company and our feduciary 
    responsiblity to our families and livelyhoods.  Even in the worst
    of situations Digital should not be making our best and brightest
    worry about these types of decisions on a regular basis.  
    
    Lately it seems that with every stock-drop, VP raise, reorganization, 
    and new non-product announcement we feel the need for career
    introspection.
    
    I'm tired of being angry, tired of being worried, and tired of being
    tired.  I should not have to leave Digital to furthur my career, 
    just as I'm breaking into my stride...
    
    John Wisniewski

    Re: .200
    
    Scott, I think you're one of those readers that still just "don't get
    the point" here it is again as follows...
    
    BP missed a golden opportunity to weld the ranks together by refusing
    the pay raise until better times are seen ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE
    COMPANY.
    
    There is no argument whether or not the raise was deserved.  The issue
    is timing!  The timing was (and still is) incredibly insensitive. 
    Count this as a missed opportunity for single-handedly raising morale
    in this company.
    
    cw