Conference 7.286::digital

    
    Dave, I have to admit the same thought has crossed my mind.
    
    One thing is the current economic conditions in the Mass region. To my
    understanding it isn't the easyest place to jobhunt these days. You
    have to make the package quite attractive for people to take the
    significant chance. Now, if they were to offer here in the Washington
    DC area where it's still easy to find jobs I'd be more concerned...
    
    The other thing is that it seems, with my limited info, that the
    package is aimed at wage class 2 and other "low end" of the pay scale
    employees. Since I've never seen offical documentation of whose
    eligble and who isn't I can only go on the bits and pieces I've heard.
    Do you guys agree with this impression?
    
    -Ray
    

         When IBM was downgrading its ROLM facility here in Colorado
    Springs, it offered something like 2 year's salary + $25K + medical
    + education to each of their employees.  There may have been additional
    for longer-term folks, but this was the MINIMUM.  That kind of makes
    the alleged Digital package seem rather modest.
    
         If the package does what it was designed to do, Wall Street will
    very likely reward Digital with a nice rise in stock value.  Analysts
    seem willing to reward companies for taking difficult action during
    hard times.
    
         Yes, the Digital bottom line will suffer in the short term, but
    Digital prides itself in its ability to see the long term as well.
    
         Last, but not least, it will help in the good-will area.  It may
    not be a measurable quantity, but the good will of thousands of former
    Digital employees is a good thing to have.
    
                                      Greg

If it's perceived as stingy, the people the company wants to keep
will jump ship while other companies are still hiring.

M.

Because when you invested in Digital you invested in a company with
a strong ethical tradition including respect and consideration for
employees.  This tradition is responsible for some of us being here,
including myself.  If it changes it may remain a good investment,
but it may not remain attractive to the same kind of work force.
How that affects its future investment potential is speculative,
but something you may want to consider.

I'm assuming that the objective analysis is also relevant; that
would include a 5-10 year analysis of funds, benefits, community
response, public relations, capitol, payroll, etc., and be
reasonably complicated.  One can compute the "minimum" necessary
severance or the "affordably fair" severance and they will not
be the same.  Digital may have chosen the "fairest severance it
can reasonably afford" and that _may_ be more than what it could
"get away with" in legal and open market terms.

As both an employee and a _long term_ investor I'm hoping that
Digital is making the wisest strategic decision to accomodate
its short term financial difficulties.  I'm hoping that is hard-
nosed and realistic enough to reduce, restructure, and re-deploy
our workforce while still retaining the values and traditions
upon which the company is founded.  I believe such values find
their way into our products and services through the attitude,
morale, and effort of the workforce.  I'd rather we made 30
year workforce investments than 30 year land and building investments.
Both are called "assets" but since we are in the information
business I believe our human minds and bodies are considerably
more important than our capitol properties.

To those who leave I hope for the very best.  I hope the severance
package is "returned" to DEC one day.  Some of these folks will be
our customers; let's hope they speak well of us, and perhaps find
our offerings attractive to recommend and purchase.  To those who
remain we have a job to do; let's hope this is the beginning of
getting on with it.

- greg

	I can only guess, but I'd say that Ken had alot to do with the
	current implimentation of the severence plan. Alot of us have
	stuck with him thru the years, I think he just wants to pay back
	in some way the loyalty that some have given him.

	Good luck to those leaving.. I found out Friday that one was a
	friend of mine.. I'm glad I'm not in the same situation.

							mike

.5>	I can only guess, but I'd say that Ken had alot to do with the
.5>	current implimentation of the severence plan. Alot of us have
.5>	stuck with him thru the years, I think he just wants to pay back
.5>	in some way the loyalty that some have given him.

    I'd have to agree.  DEC is in my estimation the best thing since
    sliced pizza and beer .... and ... Ken has a lot to do with it.
    
    Jerry

     Here is the reason why I called this the ALLEGED severance package in
    1048.2:
    
<><><><><><><><>  T h e   V O G O N   N e w s   S e r v i c e  <><><><><><><><>

 Edition : 2021               Monday 12-Mar-1990            Circulation :  7996 

 Digital - Denies validity of job 'buyout' memo
	{The Nashua Telegraph, 9-Mar-90, p. 16}
   "Digital Equipment Corp. officials Thursday denied rumors floating around
 the company's New Hampshire and Massachusetts this week that a companywide
 early retirement program is in the offing.
   The rumors stem from a purported memo from an executive meeting leaked by a
 Digital employee to others in the company Monday.
   The report is "inaccurate and in no way represents any policy or
 announcement" by Digital management, said Rona Zlokower, the company's New
 Hampshire spokeswoman. The information apparently came "from an entry-level
 employee. That never came from management."
   Nikki Richardson, a Digital spokeswoman at company headquarters in Maynard,
 Mass., also stressed that the memo did not come from Digital management or
 represents an official management plan.
   "When we discussed the transition program at Salem, we said we'd analyze
 other transition plans such as the financial support option, and we are in the
 process of doing that," Richardson said earlier this week in response to
 rumors. "But we've announced no further programs."
   On Thursday, Richardson said the "memo," which has appeared on Digital's
 intra-company electronic mail network, "is manifestly incorrect in its
 details."
   Digital is the largest private employer in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.
 There are about 8,000 New Hampshire employees in Digital facilities from
 Bedford south to the border.
   The memo, a copy of which was obtained by The Telegraph, is similar to the
 package offered to about 700 workers - most of them at the Salem facility -
 last September. About 235 workers have taken advantage of the early
 retirement package since then, the company said.
   The memo does not give a target number of employees the company would
 attempt to eliminate through the "buyout," but it outlines a plan of offering
 pay and benefits on a sliding scale based on years of service.
   Central and eastern Massachusetts workers will be offered the package first,
 according to the memo, while New Hampshire workers will be offered the options
 by April.
   The memo lists a series of alternatives for employees without an immediate
 project assignment - "no job" in Digital parlance - and says they will be the
 first to receive the offer. Next will be those whose most recent performance
 review was poor.
   Employees would have five days to decide if they want the "buyout." If they
 decide to take it, the memo said, they would have 15 days to meet with their
 supervisor to work out a package.
   Those employees who fail to find another job will be reassigned to the
 Chelmsford, Mass., facility until the employee can find a new job, retrain for
 another job, or take the early retirement package, according to the memo.
   The memo said once a decision is made to look for another job, employees
 cannot change their mind and opt or the buyout package.
   Rumors of layoffs have been rampant around the company since a Digital
 spokesman said two weeks ago that the company may not post a profit for its
 third fiscal quarter that ends March 31. If that were to occur, it would be
 Digital's first unprofitable quarter in its 32-year history."

 Digital - May expand voluntary severance
 	{The Nashua Telegraph, 10-Mar-90, p. 1}
   "After weeks of rumors, Digital Equipment Corp. officials confirmed Friday
 that the company, which is reportedly facing its first losing fiscal quarter
 in its 32-year history, will soon attempt to cut its work force via a
 voluntary severance package.
   "The company made no formal announcement," said Digital spokesman Bradley
 Allen, "but I can confirm that, in fact, we're looking at expanding our
 voluntary severance program including a financial package.
   "We're in the process of finalizing the details now and informing our
 employees. There are no numbers, no timing, and frankly, some of it is still
 up on the wall" in the planning stages, Allen said Friday morning from company
 headquarters in Maynard, Mass.
   "We've already begun the process" of notifying employees, he added.
   The severance package will be offered "in the U.S." he said. He said he
 could not be more specific at this time but added "that obviously we have a
 large concentration of employees in New England."
   Jeff Gibson, another Digital spokesman, emphasized that no layoffs are
 planned, according to a report by the Dow Jones News Service.
   "We'll begin to notify people over the next several weeks, and it's likely
 to continue into the next quarter" Mark Steinkrauss, Digital's investor
 relations spokesman, said Friday.
   Steinkrauss told the Dow Jones service that the transition program may
 eventually be offered to between 5,000 and 8,000 of Digital's 125,900
 employees.
   Digital has more than 70,000 employees in the United States and is New
 Hampshire's largest employer with about 8,000.
   Rona Zlokower, Digital's New Hampshire spokeswoman, said "there will be some
 inconsistencies as some businesses will grow and others will shrink as we get
 into this program" of offering severance packages. "Employees will have a
 choice," she said, referring to the program offered to about 500 employees at
 the Salem facility in September. Some took transfers, others retraining and
 some the severance package.
   "We have the need to trim our workforce in some areas, but we also have some
 critical skill shortages," and the business analysis will attempt to
 "rebalance or workforce, so as we emerge from this economic slump, we will
 have people trained in critical areas and ready to grow with the business,"
 Zlokower said.
   Under the company's "transition program" first offered at the Salem
 facility in September, employees with less than two years service are expected
 to get a lump sum payment of 40 weeks pay and would be able to retain medical
 and dental benefits for a full year.
   Workers with greater tenure would get severance offers to a maximum of 104
 weeks of pay.
   The severance plan will only be offered "on a function-by-function basis,
 and site by site, and it is still only a U.S. phenomenon," said Steinkrauss.
   "We are looking at all transition programs on a business-by-business basis,"
 said Nikki Richardson, a Digital spokeswoman. "What is implemented will be
 based on the Salem model."
   Digital, the world's second-largest computer company behind International
 Business Machines Corp., saw its earnings fall 39 percent for the six months
 that ended Dec. 31.
   The company blames the drop on a lackluster computer market in the United
 States, which has forced other companies to make cutbacks as well.
   Digital also has reassigned hundreds of employees from manufacturing to
 sales.
   Laura Conigliaro, a Prudential-Bache securities analyst in New York told Dow
 Jones that the severance package could result in a fourth-quarter charge of
 $280 million in the current quarter."

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
        Please send subscription and backissue requests to CASEE::VNS

    Permission to copy material from this VNS is granted (per DIGITAL PP&P)
    provided that the message header for the issue and credit lines for the
    VNS correspondent and original source are retained in the copy.

<><><><><><><><>   VNS Edition : 2021      Monday 12-Mar-1990   <><><><><><><><>

    It's nice, but it isn't that generous.  IBM did a lot better.  You have
    to remember that the purpose is to encourage VOLUNTARY departures.  You
    wouldn't have three people take a six-month offer.  As it is, the Salem
    700 acceptance rate was disappointing, I'm sure.  Only 260 took it.
    
    I just hope that they will open the program to volunteers outside of
    the impacted organizations.

RE: .8
    
>    I just hope that they will open the program to volunteers outside of
>    the impacted organizations.

That will never and can never happen.  In many offices if such a
voluntary program were offered there would be a stampede of people
who would take it.

John

    	That may be...but wouldn't it open up a whole bunch of jobs
    in a varity of areas that the affected people could move into ?
    

    
    
    RE:  .0
    
    Could you post the number of the note that deals with the
    details of the severence program?
    
    Thank you!
    

    It's note 598. It has Retirement in the title. I don't think there is
    an official notice there but there are a number of rumours and
    speculation. If you integrate them I reckon you get a pretty good idea
    of what's offered.
    
    Dave

RE: .10
>    	That may be...but wouldn't it open up a whole bunch of jobs
>    in a varity of areas that the affected people could move into ?
    
There are already a whole bunch of jobs in Digital that are available.  The
problem is that Digital has built itself up like a colonial empire.  Almost
all the jobs that need to be eliminated are in one small area within New
England.  Almost all the jobs that are available are outside of New
England.  From some reason it is extremely difficult to get people to
move out of New England.

Also, the areas that would lose the most people are the direct revenue
generating positions.  The people who would take it would be the people
who knew they could find work quickly.  The resulting revenue hit would
be devestating.

We are actively recruiting externally in order to fill positions. The sad
part of this is that if Digital needs to eliminate X jobs and Digital is
going to hire Y employees from the outside then Digital is going to have
to get rid of (X+Y) people.  

John

	Your formula fails to take into account that most, hopefully ALL of the
"Y" people are going to be directly responsible for product or services revenue
generation.  The "X" number, one hopes, consists of those who are now in an
"idle" position, whether voluntary or involuntary.  True, we should try to move
as many "X's" as possible to "Y"-targeted slots, but the bare fact is, we need
as many revenue producers as possible right now.  If internal people refuse to
adapt to that role, then externals will.

	Hopefully, the only places allowed to hire outside now are the field
unit, district, region, and DCC operations.

    .13 - you are right on about the "New England" problem, but I think it
    is only fair to comment that most people now come from two-job families
    and are simply not in a position to pull up roots.  But, it is also a
    form of elitism in senior Digital manglement that says you only get
    good people in New England.  We shoulda moved West ten years ago.
    
    You have to also remember that the housing market has collapsed here as
    well making people even less able to move.
    
    As for me, I'm ready to move West with about 15 (OK, 20) minutes notice
    for the right job, but can't find anything.  O well.

    re:.0  Your concern is very valid.  Some of the responses, suggest that
    an equitable settlement will buy us good will and support for the
    future.  I suggest that even an overwhelming offer, will not succed in
    providing future good will and support from our former employees.
    
    Twice in my career, I have been layed-off.  The first time, was in
    1969, LBJ had just moved most of our aerospace industry from California
    to Texas and Aerojet informed me that my services would not be required
    after 13 years as an exceptionally rated employee.  I got eight weeks
    pay, a sincere effort to help me find a job on the outside(a COD type
    event with other aerospace firms in the US, and resume prep, etc.).  I
    found my own job with Hughes Tool Co. - Aircraft Division and relocated
    400 miles south.  I would leave Digital in a minute, if Aerojet offered
    a position to me that was close to what I have now, and I would
    relocate to wherever they thought I should go.  I had two elementary
    school children and all the acoutriments at that time and it was a very
    trying time for me.  The company was great - always doing the right
    thing for their employees.
    
    Last year, I was informed by First Interstate Services Co., that my
    services would no longer be required, since all data processing was
    being transferred to the individual banks.  Our company was going
    away and I would receive a generous severance package.  I did.  I got
    almost 4 months on the payroll to actively seek a job, while doing my
    shut down tasks.  I got a six month salary continuation.  A $12,000
    package was provided with an Out-placement Agency to assist me in 
    finding a new job.  I got my PC, pictures on the walls of my office,
    books for my library, etc. and to cap it all off, I got a bonus
    lump-sum payment of 15% of my annual salary.  Let's put it this way,
    even with the more liberal buy-out, Digital is a much nicer place to
    work and contribute.
    
    I believe the severance is far too generous.  It seems like there is 
    some kind of New Englanditis that has infected a good many people. 
    Housing markets come and go - in Sacramento, my house was on the market
    for 1 year without an offer, since 31,000 people were laid-off by
    Aerojet in that year.  In Los Angeles last year, maybe 2,000 people
    were laid-off by First Interstate and my home appreciated about 18%
    during that time(it has more than doubled in 6 years), but I'm not
    looking to return.  I bank now at Wells-Fargo.  It was an easy
    transition from the bank, but they did not treat me as I wanted to
    be treated in the six years I worked for them. 
    
    What buys you future customers from former employees is the way you
    treat them from day-to-day, not what you pay them at the end.  Give
    more credit to people - they understand the business problems and 
    most are very fair and realistic.  If you have shared with them over
    the years in an honest, straight-forward relationship they will
    understand a fair and honest buy-out.  That's the longest way I could
    find to say I think we were much too generous.
                                      D.A.M. 

Re: all

I sit on the other side of the coin as I am a transition employee. Have
been since last August and I haven't been sitting on my butt doing nothing 
but collect paychecks. So stop generalizing about everyone who is in 
transition being that way - you aren't being fair. I have been working on a 
All hands on DEC Project that is generating new sales leads for the 
company. I am also the volunteer coordinator for the Digital Senior 
Classic( No I am not a golfer so there is no personal interest in doing 
it). I will probably be doing the volunteer function at the tournament even
after I have received my golden handshake.

I have also been diligently looking for a position( I can't relocate for 
personal reasons). My problem is I am skilled in something called business 
process. All my positions in 8 1/2 years in DEC have involved business 
processes. I outgrew my last position by training an assistant too well and 
then being caught in the numbers game when headcount reductions cropped up.
Oh by the way, up till last August I averaged in excess of 60 hours a week 
for the entire duration of my time at DEC. Oh by the way #2, I showed US 
Area CS management where we were loosing 10-20 Million dollars a year. I 
personally took on fixing several of the problems that resulted in about 
$4m increase in annual revenues. So far Corporate managment has not taken 
on fixing the rest to recoup the lost revenue. 

Lastly, I have built up a standard of living based on my career here at 
DEC, it is highly unlikely that I will find a position out there due to the 
depressed job market especially for business skilled people as opposed to 
technical skilled which there will always be a good market for. I do not 
know at this time what I will do career wise, I am having an early midlife 
career change forced on me. Also I was building on a pension plan for 
retirement - all that will be gone and I will be forced to start all over 
again ie 2 weeks vacation instead of 3, no turkey, no pension, no stock 
plan, leaving friends and coworkers etc. No matter how good the severance 
plan, it does not replace all thew losses in any way.

I suggest to all of you who think that all of us transition employees are 
getting something for nothing to stop and re-examine your own position in 
life and see what the impact would be if you all of a sudden didn't have a 
job/income. Don't condemm me till you have walked in my shoes and can 
empathize with my situation.


al flood

    RE: .17
    
    Al,
    
    	I commend you for your attitude and participation in various
    activities during your trying period (All Hand on DEC, tournament,
    etc.).  Don't feel as though everyone is labeling you because you
    are in transition.  For those of us who can *really* see both sides
    can appreciate your circumstances...I understand yours.  You appear
    to have the right attitude, so whatever comes your way, I'm sure
    it will fall into place for you.  I know it's difficult, but it's
    bad all over right now, and what really surprises me is that we
    all knew it was coming, but it was 'ignored', until the numbers stopped
    playing the right beat.  I knew this was coming a year and a half ago,
    unfortunately, my position restricted my influence for any corporate
    direction.  Just wanted to let you know that we all aren't out here
    'labeling' those in transition...some of us do understand.  I also
    understand that there is 'unfairness' in the offerings and 'abuse' by
    some of the participants, NOT ALL.  I've seen some 'excellent' people
    depart with the package and unfortunately, it's more costly for DEC
    than I think DEC realizes initially.  I can recall days at DEC where
    'budget' was only a word with no meaning, so that area has taken on
    a new identity.  It's good for the company that it finally happened,
    however, the 'cover ups' for several years have not helped the
    acceptance.  I wish you luck in any and all your pursuits...keep
    up your activity initiative and attitude...You may just end up
    being better off down the road!  
    
    ps - DEC is a good company and given the circumstances today, at
         least the corporation is helping to give people some form of
         a 'jump start'....I think we all owe thanks for that corporate
         judgement.
    
    Good luck!
    
    Geo
    

    
     Nothing is generous about a severence package. The more they offer
    the better for those who are getting it. We are talking about peoples
    jobs here. I had an experience of coming out of Saudi Arabia a few
    years back. I was all set up to get married in a month and settle on a
    house within two weeks. Upon stepping foot in my US office I was
    informed that I was layed off. No compensation, no nothing. Two days
    later I checked into my doctors office with chest pains. STRESS, gee
    i wonder why? All those years of service in that company, overseas,
    poof! Gone. Nada, zilch.
    
     Therefor I KNOW about severence in the BAD way. Good luck to those
    seeking employment. I feel sorry for those who see this package as
    too generous.
    
    -Mike Z.
    

    RE .17
    
    Well said - I wish you the best, however things turn out. I'd
    like to point out one discrepancy in what you wrote, however. YOu
    commented that when and if you leave DEC you will be forced to start
    over, and included mention of things such as vacation and PENSION. Your
    pension with Digital will still be there for you -- it does not go away
    because you leave the company. It simply stops growing when your
    employment with Digital ends.
    
    Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying, but this seemed an
    important point to mention.
    
    Again, best wishes,
    

         There are some misconceptions about the situation, as I see it.
    Since this is NOT a lay-off, by Colorado rules those who take it may
    not be able to get unemployment.  Even if they are able to get it, it
    will not begin until the pay-equivalence period ends (i.e. they get 40
    weeks severamce pay - unemployment begins 41 weeks after they leave DEC).
    That is pushed out by any vacation time they have accrued at the point of
    leaving.
    
         In effect, the severance pay is replacing unemployment
    compensation for those who are not able to find replacement employment
    immediately.  Of course, it is more money than unemployment and it
    lasts longer than the standard 6-month period.  The medical coverage
    could be life-saving for some (it would be ASTOUNDINGLY expensive to
    handle on your own).
    
         The package reflects the good nature of DEC, but is in NO WAY
    unnecessarily generous.  It allows for a decent period of job-searching
    and prevents some bankruptcies.  It will certainly keep the good will
    of many employees who already have good thoughts about DEC.
    
                                     Greg

    I don't know about in the US, but in Australia if I was given x months
    pay right now, x/2 months would be given straight back to the tax man.
    Suddenly things don't look so bright.
    
    Michael

    re:.17  Al, my sincere concern for you and yours cannot be expressed in
    this notes file.  You would need to know me, to understand.  Maybe,
    someday we may both enjoy that privilege.  Please read .16 again.  I
    did not suggest anything about "transition" employees, except to say
    that many do not give them enough credit.  You have some serious
    problems, I know since I have been in your shoes on two previous
    occassions.  My comments are about the generosity of the severance
    package, not the people receiving the package.  It is interesting to
    see that you are not as concerned with the package as to what we the
    remaining people think of you.  Believe me, I have the greatest regard
    for you and the others with your problem.  But, the package is still
    too generous from a business point of view.  From the human side we all
    have a responsibility to you.
    
    While I would love to return to Aerojet, I recognize my lay-off as one
    of the most positive situations in my life.  I am a much stronger
    person and my compassion for my fellow man has increased beyond belief.
    While it may be hard for you to see the positives right now, I strongly
    believe that they will be there for you.  Probably not the same as
    mine, but just as important for you.  If I can help you, please contact
    me by E-Mail.
    
    Daryl

    RE: .25
    
         Considering what they offered less than a year ago, I would guess
    that what you have listed there is NOT the whole story.
    
                                         Greg

    If a layoff come, the layoff package would very possible not as
    generous as the voluntary package. The catch is that this 'voluntary'
    package is not offer to everyone, it is offer to selective groups.
    So for the people that are not offered the voluntary package this time
    will be affected if 2nd round of involuntary attrition come.
    
    BTW, 2 years salary may seems very generous but if you have work
    for the company for 20 years, and you are close to age 50, and the
    only computer you know is VAX/VMS, do you think you have much chance
    to find a job now?  If not, would you mind changing your career to work
    in the super market or hamberger store?

I too am a stockholder, so I am concerned by the fall in value of my
investment over the past several months.  Being in the UK I also get burned
when there are adverse changes in the pound/dollar exchange rate.  I do not
believe that reducing the benefits of the voluntary severance plan would
have any substantial effect on either.

That said, I believe that a company should take account of what it owes to
its employees.  Unfortunately I believe that the US does not mandate this
by law, as is the case in the Federal Republic of Germany.  As in the UK, 
there are far too many companies in the US that, when hard times come, just 
show the door to employees they don't have a need to keep.  I do not want
Digital to ever be seen or thought to be (or likely to be) that sort of
company.  If it did, there might well be people who will leave while the
going is good so that they have some control over their destiny; rather 
than wait until the door is opened, even if they are people that the door
may never be opened for. 

I want Digital to have people working for it that do not have to fear a 
layoff, so that they can direct 100% of their energies to helping Digital 
be successful.  Knowing that if the crunch comes there is a generous plan 
to cushion the blow means that it's something you don't have to worry 
about, and is a big morale booster.

jb

    
    re .0
    	Mr. Garrod's compassion totally overwhelms me.
    
    re .28
    	Thank you, sir.
    
    I will probably take the package and enjoy my two years "vacation",
    looking for a job that will pay me somewhere near 1/2 what I am 
    earning now.  The job market in Phoenix is somewhat less than robust.
    FWIW-the taxes will probably eat up 25-40% of the "vacation" pay.
    
    Harold_in_Phoenix_AZ_USA

Re: .29

>    FWIW-the taxes will probably eat up 25-40% of the "vacation" pay.
    
But aren't you already paying 25%-40% in taxes?  You might even save money
by getting a two year lump sum payment: you may not have to pay as much for
social security (this depends on how much you're making).

It sounds like your best bet will be to take the money and find a job outside
of Pheonix.

				-- Bob

    re .30
    Yes, I am already paying around 25% in taxes now (fed,state,fica).
    The buyout package IS a lump sum and will more than likely put me in a 
    higher bracket.  I will not know for sure until probably next week.
    
    As for leaving Phoenix-there are a few reasons which I feel are cause
    enough to stay here and endure.  Please don't think I am crying. I
    guess the only thing I don't like about the whole thing is having 
    to do something which I think is necessary under the circumstances,
    but the decision was forced upon me.  I have been there before and
    have made it and feel I can this time also.
    
    Regards,
    
    Harold
    

    re.29 & .31
    	Have you thought about FORWARD AVERAGING?
    	
    	That is what I intend doing with my retirement lump sum.
    
    George

    re: .13 & .15....a small area within New England as the prime area to
    be affected.
    
    It is interesting that Digital has chosen the Phoenix and Colorado
    facilities and folks to publically identify as offered the package 
    instead of local sites.
    
    Mark
    

    RE: .33
    
         It ain't over yet.
    
                                       Greg

re .32:

If you're talking about income averaging on your Federal income tax,
that disappeared under the Tax Simplification Act.

    RE .35
    I believe if you look more closely you will find that a person who is
    50 years of age by  <some date>,1986 does have forward averaging
    available.  I just don't know where to find it so I will find a 
    person who is in the tax business to help me out.
    
    re .32
    As regards my lack of knowledge (see re .35) where exactly did you find
    this info and what exactly are your circumstances if I am not treading
    on personal toes.
    
    Thanks.
    
    Harold_who_has_about_15_weeks_to_go

    
    A severance package has been offered at the Westfield, Ma. Facility.
    The number is reletively small (60 or so) so this news is not likely
    to make the CNN World Report...
    
    But as they say... stay tuned for further details, there may be
    a "round 2, round 3 etc."
    
    Carl
    
    

    	One employee in S.W. Florida - not a wage class two employee - was
    offered and took the package. Two other employees want it very badly
    but are in Sales and Field Service, which has not been offered the
    package. Both have very close to twenty years with DEC, and can't wait
    two leave. It would open up two jobs and I'm sure that two people
    from N.E. would move down considering the amount of resumes that are
    received every time it snows up there.
    
    	Offer the package with even fewer benifits to EVERYBODY and I'm
    sure the slots for people who would like to relocate would open up. DEC
    is offering training to the people and with the new products most of
    the knowledge you used to have to have as an engineer is not needed anyway.
    
    	The people in situtations of working households can stay and
    retrain for the jobs that are left open. Or keep their houses. One of 
    our people just sold his house up there and made a lot of money in the
    deal.
    
    	It does seem that digital is a N.E. Company. Little things
    like no advertising, and no marketing of it's products - at least in
    Florida. People down here think that we are a watch repair company. 
    At least those that are not for the N.E.
    
    	Buy the way DEC doesn't listen to ideas that save money any better
    down here. If DEC would offer me two years pay I'd be gone, and I would
    also be DEC competition when I went into business for myself. I bet the 
    offer as it stands right now could empty the entire DEC office if it
    was offered to us. More internal jobs open ....
    	 

    re .35 and my own .36
    My apologies to Mr. Sacks.  I was confusing lump sum pension payout and
    lump sum severance which, I believe, must be treated as ordinary
    income.
    (This reply entered after removing foot from hyperactive mouth.)

    RE  .38
    
    There are others in the field that would take the money and run. I
    agree that by opening up the program will create slots in the wonderful
    south. However, to reduce the benifits any would remove the
    attractiveness of creating a slot for a Nor'easter to come south.
    
    Has anyone heard if the program will be offered to field folks?
    

RE: .40

I think that it is highly unlikely that such a program will be offered to
field folks.  I does not make sense to get rid of field employees to that
corporate employees can take there place.  First of all it is a lot cheaper
to get rid of a corporate employee than it is to get rid of a field
employee, transfer someone to take his place, and then train the new
person to fill the job.  Second, the revenue drain during the transition
would be devestating.  Finally, I would bet that the participation rate
of field employees in such a program would be extremely high.

John

	It wouldn't make sense to offer Field folks the buyout when
	we've just spent a large sum of money moving people out to the
	Field, now would it?

							mike

    The Field is the hottest internal job market so it wouldn't make sense.
    I don't believe you'll see a corporate wide buyout either.  DEC would
    shoot themselves in the foot if they did.
    
    Do you think all the PhD's in the Bay area that make 6 figures would
    think twice about leaving?  They could write their own ticket anywhere!
    
    Mike

I agree with .38 I think that if the company really needs to trim the 4,000
to 6,000 people from its employee ranks they are going to have to expand
the severance package. I know that in the CSC here is Colorado Springs there
are people who would consider taking the package if it were offered.

The way the package is being offered, it seems to me, could possible force out
of the company people who would otherwise want to stay, or who are senior,
experienced persons. Conversely, there are people who will be left in the
company who are less senior, less experienced, and who would otherwise prefer
to be working somewhere else.

The bottom line is that I think the package should be offered everywhere
within DEC. Let the people leave who want to, relocate the rest.

    re: .44
    
    >The bottom line is that I think the package should be offered
    >everywhere within DEC. Let the people leave who want to, relocate the 
    >rest.
    
    Absolutely not.  The idea is not just to trim a randomly chosen x 
    thousand employees from the payroll.  You want to trim only those who are 
    not needed, and preferably only the lowest performers.
    
    If you offer incentives to leave to everyone, you will lose only the
    best employees.  Those who know that can get jobs elsewhere, and they
    are likely to be the top performers, will take the money and go.
    
    The way it is being done is the most sensible, i.e. identify those
    functions which need to reduce their workforce, then target voluntary
    severance to the lowest performers.  It may sound mercenary, but if you
    are going to do a "reduction in force" (the popular euphemism), that is
    the right way to go about it.
    
    Al
    

                 <<< Note 1048.44 by CSC32::M_KOREN "Mark K" >>>
                           -< Why not for everyone? >-
    
>The bottom line is that I think the package should be offered everywhere
>within DEC. Let the people leave who want to, relocate the rest.
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
         They can do that now.  Everyone has the option to quit whenever
    they like.  The foolish thing would be for Digital to pay needed
    employees to leave the company.
    
                                     Greg
         
    

    Freeze the salaries of "needed employees"
    
    Provide a severance package at substantial cost to the corporation to
    the "unneeded employees"
    
    ...sounds like a sensible long-term compensation strategy to me

    RE:  <<< Note 1048.47 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY "Patrick Sweeney in New York" >>>
       
    >               -< What's wrong with this picture >-

    >Freeze the salaries of "needed employees"
                       ^
         This sentence | is what's wrong with the picture.
    
                                        Greg

        <<< Note 1048.45 by ALOSWS::KOZAKIEWICZ "Shoes for industry" >>>

    re: .45
    
>    Absolutely not.  The idea is not just to trim a randomly chosen x 
>    thousand employees from the payroll.  You want to trim only those who are 
>    not needed, and preferably only the lowest performers.
>                                        _________________   
>    functions which need to reduce their workforce, then target voluntary
>    severance to the lowest performers.  It may sound mercenary, but if you
>                     __________________
>    are going to do a "reduction in force" (the popular euphemism), that is
>    the right way to go about it.
    
< FLAME ON >    

Unless you have a coporate policy statement that says dump lowest 
performers and are willing to print that statement here for us all to see,
then I suggest you stop your generic babbling! I know of employees who are 
good to excellent workers who are caught in the severance bind. Sometimes 
things like politics come into decisions. Remember the good ol boys, well 
there is a good old girls network out there too. These networks don't 
always make decisions to benefit the company, sometimes the decisions are 
made to protect their buddies. 

I may have to go out on the outside job market to find a new position 
because of this severance program. If you want to find out what kind of 
work I have done for DEC in the past, then come see me and I will show you
some P.A.'s that defy your statements. If you want to see the hours I have 
worked for this company, then ask Security to see the sign out books at 
PKO3, IND, YWO and CHM. If you would like to know what being a workaholic 
for this company has done to me, I will give you my doctors name so you can 
review my medical records. Don't make my life more difficult by propagating
B**LSH*T about all employees being offered severance being low performers. 
I don't need your kind of cheap talk to hurt me finding another life 
sustaining job. DEC is doing a workforce balancing. That means that all 
groups are expected to priortize their tasks and determine the minimum 
people to perform those tasks as well as skill sets needed. A STAR may just 
have the wrong skills for the mission of the new group - that doesn't make 
him or her a low performer. 
<flame off>

al

    re. -1
    
       I think if you reread .45, you will see that it does not say
    that the severance package targets poor performers. It simply said
    when trimming headcount (generically) it is preferable to target
    the lowest performers. The author can correct me if I misinterpreted
    .45.
    
                               Steve J.

    A true story......
    
    Some years ago British Airways decided they needed to severely reduce
    their workforce. They offered a voluntary severance package to
    everybody, and nearly 30% of employees took the offer.
    
    At that time, everyone agreed that they had lost their best performers
    and most skilled employees.
    
    .........
    
    
           ........ Since then, they have consistently increased their
    profitability, growth and performance and can rightfully claim to be
    the World's No. 1 Airline.
    
    I wonder what they did right?
    
    JK

    There used to be a saying -  that there's no such thing as a poor
    learner, only poor teachers.
    
    In these times at Digital, consider this - perhaps there is no such
    thing as poor performers, only poor managers.
    
    People do tend to live up to expectations. Think about this as you
    reread reply .52.

    re: .51

    Yes, thank you, that is basically what I said.  If you look at the well
    managed companies who have undertaken this sort of thing (GE comes to
    mind, though I don't want to engage in GE vs DEC argument...) they
    first identify the unnecessary functions and then stack rank the
    employees within - cutting from the bottom and redeploying those at the
    top.

    re: .50

    If you would look through the 40 jillion severance/layoff/salary
    freeze/redeployment topics in here, I'm sure you find a fairly recent
    entry that described a plan (at CXO or Phoenix perhaps?) that is taking 
    job title, seniority _and last PA_ into account in determing which 
    individuals are to be offered the severance package.
    
    Otherwise, if you can interpret what I said as reflecting negatively
    upon you in particular, I suggest that you have a vivid imagination.
    
    Al
    

    re .51, .52
    
    Sometimes a "star performer", "skilled professional", etc., etc.
    (insert your own descriptive personnel jargon) WHEN INSUFFICIENTLY
    MOTIVATED is not as valuable as an "average" performer that slogs away
    until the job gets done.
    
    Some things in this company depend on "hotshots".  But the care and
    feeding of "hot shots" can be quite difficult, and requires constant
    attention.  And talented managers.  "Hot shots" that are bogged down in
    red tape, have their hands tied by ineffective and slow-moving,
    slow-thinking management, become liabilities instead of assets.
    
    "Average" managers prefer less "temperamental", more even-keel, stable
    employees that they can rely on with little guidance or intervention. 
    They don't have to worry about things getting out of hand, or losing
    focus when the work becomes less-than-thrilling.
    
    In a time when the company seems to be maturing, stabilizing, and
    pretty much leaving the "fast track", it makes sense that "star
    performers" have "seemingly" become less attractive.
    
    I don't pretend to know what is on the collective mind of the company,
    but I could be convinced that in this scenario, "star performers"
    aren't as valuable as one would tend to assume.
    
    All we can do is speculate - I don't think we'll ever really know.
    
    Jim
    

         The Colorado Springs Gazette-Telegraph did a story on the people
    who took the IBM severance package here back in July.  The main thrust
    was about what the people were doing since they left IBM (Rolm
    Division).  For reference, the severance package included 2 years
    salary, a $25,000 bonus, medical and life insurance for one year.
    In reference to taxes, here is a piece of the article:
    
         "Under state and federal tax laws for large, one-time payments, 25
    percent was lopped off the top of each severance check.  Under that
    formula, employees making $30,000 a year actually walked away from IBM
    with $63,750.  Those who earned $37,500 or more saw taxes claim the
    entire $25,000 bonus severance payment."
    
         "The windfall pushed employees from the 28 percent to the 33
    percent income-tax bracket for 1989.  Unmarried workers who earned more
    than $10,000 a year and married employees paid at least $25,000 will be
    taxed at the maximum rate for 1989."
    
         "A lot of them had their eyes opened," McIver said.  "A lot of
    them didn't think a third of it would be gone.  They had to do some
    revisions because they had already gone out and bought their new car,
    in their mind."
    
         There was also this comment in the article:
    
         "Fewer than 100 of the 400 departing IBM workers found similar
    jobs with Colorado Springs companies, said Nancy Casados, who monitored
    the dispersal of employees for IBM during the year-long shutdown. 
    Those with technical skills found new jobs more easily than
    administrators, she said."
    
                                       GB

    Yes, thank you, that is basically what I said.  If you look at the well
    managed companies who have undertaken this sort of thing (GE comes to
    mind, though I don't want to engage in GE vs DEC argument...) they
    first identify the unnecessary functions and then stack rank the
    employees within - cutting from the bottom and redeploying those at the
    top.


Al,

     I understand what your saying, after thinking about what you wrote I would
amend what I said. I think that instead of saying that the package should be
made available to every PERSON, the package should be made available across
all functions, then perform the above ranking of employees. This way you
would weed out the lowest and/or unnecessary performers. I am NOT implying that
the people who are being offered the plan are necessarily poor performers.

I do feel that the current plan will force good, valuable employees out of the
company while leaving employess who would prefer to leave given the chance.
They are making the first cut through the ranks based on function when I think
it should be done by employee, then by function if necessary. Get rid of poor
performing employees first, most likely you could retrain your best employees
to fill in empty spots in needed functions.



							Mark K.
							CSC/CS

    Re last several
    
    For an interesting comparison, read "The IBM Lesson" by D. Quinn Mills.
    It offers an interesting story of the IBM work balancing and
    redeployment efforts a few years ago.
    

Hmmmm...

	I was undecided whether to post this reply here or under the DELTA
	note (1057) ... here won I suppose.

	Listening to NPR Monday morning, I heard an interesting story about
	Auto Manufacturing in the U.S., and how it appears as though the
	big three will soon be GM, Ford, and Honda.  There was a good deal
	of focus around the plant in CA where the Toyota Corolla and Geo
	(was it Metro or Prizm?--it doesn't matter) were produced.

        The point of the report was:  the plant was in big trouble until it
        was taken over by Japanese management.  The plant is now more
        productive than it has ever been, the morale is higher than it has
        ever been, even the Auto Worker's Union skepticism has vanished.
        Yes, the plant is a joint venture between Toyota and GM, but the
        plant's management is Japanese.

	GM was hoping to learn, from this experience, how the Japanese
	utilize high technology but there are now fewer robots in this
	plant than in most auto plants.  What GM is learning is that its
	management style is MOST of the problem, not its lack of use of
	technology.  GM's management treated the people as part of the
	assembly process, not as people.  Now, they WISH it was a
	technology issue because having to reform an entire management
	culture and mind set is indeed a bitter pill to swallow.

        So now my main point:  in my humble opinion this is an example, not
        of auto industry woes, but of management woes prevalent throughout
        the US, and, dare I say, right here at good ol' DEC.  I am appalled
        when I read about people in the trenches having to be
        "transitioned" while we have so much cash in the bank, and managers
        (like those apparently responsible for implementing DELTA) go
        unpunished.

        I really believe its time that we truly scrutinize just WHO ought
        to be offered this plan, and just how much it will REALLY save. 
        Most people in the trenches don't have huge salaries and get
        options...  Again, in my humble opinion, there are too many VP's in
        this outfit, and too many layers of management between me and KO. 
        Lets quit clowning ourselves folks ... we has met the enemy and
        they is us!  Its time people begin demanding good (and responsible)
        management ... something that's been missing around here for a long
        time.

	If this is not the case in the part of the company where you work,
	I'd love to hear about it.  Its been a long time since anyone has
	told me about management "doing the right thing". 

later...
 jim

    It is my understanding (from information gathered from someone who has
    implemented "The Package) individuals CANNOT be targeted to receive
    severance.  You cannot selectively recruit employees, based on their
    performance, to accept the package.  Only WORK can be targeted.  So, if
    a particular group has to reduce its headcount by 10% say, the manager
    must offer the entire group the package and the first 10 out of a
    hundred that accept it go.  You cannot selectively pick employees to
    receive the offer.  It would be highly illegal, and open the door for
    lawsuit.  In fact, according to my sources, anyone who has received a 5
    or 4 rating on his/her performance evaluatin, is not entitled to be
    offered the severance package.  The company's feeling is that they
    should be dealt with more appropriately (let go?) I would presume?
    
    So as to the lowest performers getting "The Package" as we so fondly
    refer to it here, that's nonsense!
    
    Just my $.02!
    

    RE: .61
    
         The reason why 5 performers are not eligible is that it is
    illogical to pay someone to leave who is about to be fired anyway.
    The same logic, to a lesser degree, goes for the 4 performers.
    
                                       GB

	Then the qualification for inclusion in a separation offer should be
that an employee is NOT on verbal or written warning, if we want to make the
best effort to avoid suits over a PA's ambiguity/unfairness/etc.

  Re: < Note 1048.60 by HYSTER::DELISLE >

  Can you provide some clarification as to why it is "highly illegal"
  to target individual employees with a severance package?  If the
  severance offer was entirely voluntary (i.e., the employee could
  refuse it and keep his or her job), would that make it legal?

  JP

    RE: .64  by MYCRFT::PARODI
    
>  Can you provide some clarification as to why it is "highly illegal"
>  to target individual employees with a severance package?  
    
    In an article on pg. 20 of today's Boston Globe, there is an article
    about "downsizing" and how it affects older workers.  It mentions that
    "...these plans could be in some jeapordy ... if a bill working its way
    through Congress passes.  The House and Senate each have versions of a
    bill that would overcome last year's Supreme Court ruling that age
    discrimination rules do not apply to early retirement programs.  But
    Congre has apparently not stopped at correcting the age discrimination
    problem ...  The bills also contain several additional provisions that
    would apply to early retirement programs.  The Senate version would
    require employers to reimburse each employee for eight hours of
    attorney fees -- so a lawyer could review the plan.  Companies would
    also have to disclose lists of the employees who are eligible or
    ineligible for the plan, and accurately predict the success of the
    incentive.  Also, THE COMPANY WOULD HAVE TO APPLY THESE AND OTHER NEW
    RULES TO PLANS ANNOUNCED AFTER JUNE 1989 [emphasis added] -- even
    though the plans may have been completed."
    

	RE: several past replies 4's and 5's cannot get severance

	If I undestand this right... 
	Those who are doing their current jobs adiquately to excellently
	can be offered money to leave the company.  However, those who are
	not doing their current jobs properly can keep those jobs for as long
	as they can hang on to them.
	And to do otherwise is illogical?

    RE: .66
    
         Don't try to make it sound better than it is for the 4's and 5's.
    First off, they must bust their butts in a SET period of time to
    improve to 3 level or lose their jobs.  A 5-level employee is on his
    last legs.  Once they make it to the 3 level, they may be offered the
    severance package and get some cash before they leave the company
    (assuming they are put on transition).  If they don't make it to 3 level 
    in time, they get the boot with no severance package at all.
    
                                       GB

    re: .60
    
    Given that 1069.1 is at least the second reference to performance as
    a primary criterea for eligibility that I've seen in here, I'd like to
    know who's got the straight poop and who's blowing smoke?
    
    Al
    

    
    re .52 - British Airways experience
    
    I had the good fortune to be in BA in '83. Had even better fortune
    to be senior. General offer came out to senior management -  "the
    money's here if you want it" -- don't know for how long".
    
    I took the money, left within weeks, started on more money with new 
    company the day after I left BA (wasn't DEC!). Lots of others stayed
    'cos we were 40-ish, & the outside world was unknown to many, & 
    threatening.    
    
    BA did cut back heavily, but not all by voluntary redundancy. Hiring
    freezes, new work procedures, re-orgs etc all cut headcount.
    
    THAT WAS NOT THE END OF THE STORY.
    
    New management went on a bust for Customer Service in a way that
    I have not seen uniformly here. Result was that within 5 years
    headcounts grew substantially, especially in direct customer contact
    positions. Upshot was that costs rose, but that customer satisfaction/
    perception/ revenues increased more -- net result greater profit.
                            
    Some good people had taken the money & left BA. They rejoined later,
    'cos the company valued their skills more than they worried about
    the fact they had paid the same staff to go earlier -- different needs at
    different times.                     
    
    Not sure than are too many direct lessons for DEC in the BA story
    -- other than the truism for any company that customer satisfaction is
    a more powerful determinant of long-term growth/profit than
    over-zealous cost control applied in a bureaucratic way.
                      
    (oh, & as an afterthought industry-leading product is almost certainly
    much less important to survival than industry-leading customer support)
              
    To all those who may leave because it is the better of two undesirable
    options, my sympathies & good luck in the future. It's an unpleasant
    & emotional situation that deserves all the financial support possible.
                
    Colin

            <<< Note 1048.65 by TOPDOC::AHERN "Dennis the Menace" >>>

[Re: legislation now being considered by Congress to regulate early retirement
plans]
>    incentive.  Also, THE COMPANY WOULD HAVE TO APPLY THESE AND OTHER NEW
>    RULES TO PLANS ANNOUNCED AFTER JUNE 1989 [emphasis added] -- even
>    though the plans may have been completed."
  This sounds like an "ex post facto" law (making something illegal after the
fact) and I don't think the U.S. Supreme Court would allow it. It wouldn't
apply to DEC's plan anyway because it is not an "early retirement" plan.   

    re: .70
    
    The Constitutional prohibitions against the passage of ex post facto
    laws (Art. I, Sec. 9 (3), 10 (1)) apply only to criminal laws.  Calder v.
    Bull, 3 Dall. 386 (1798).

>fact) and I don't think the U.S. Supreme Court would allow it. It wouldn't
>apply to DEC's plan anyway because it is not an "early retirement" plan.   



When it's applied to people in the 55 - 65 (or over) age groups, it seems
to me an argument could be made that it is, in FACT, 'early retirement.

Betty

    I am leaving DEC at the end of June, taking advantage of the "package"
    and getting my pension in a lump sum.  I have 10+ years and am 55+
    years of age.  This is not 'late' retirement.