Conference 7.286::digital

    I'd say it's being handled like most other policies in Digital ... it's
    being left up to the discretion of individual managers.  As a former 
    manager of mine once explained ... every policy in this company is 
    deliberately worded so as to be subject to "interpretation".
    
    ... Bob
    

    I thikn it's all being done organization by organization. So there will
    be variance. I have a date here of Aug 17th as "official" notification
    day, but no one knows what the policies will be.

    I was TFSOed this morning.  I have a week to try to find another job,
    clear out my stuff, and say goodbyes.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    re .0:
    
    > somebody I know was treated the old way.  Can anybody point me to
    > the memo that said things would be different?
      
    Sounds like you're referring to the memo on layoffs in VMS referenced
    in notes 1948.189 and 1948.325.
    
     
    py

    RE .3
    
    Steve, I'm saddened by your news.  You had said it wasn't beyond the
    realm of the possible, but nevertheless I'm sure this is not good news. 
    But then, who knows, these things have a way of working out for the
    best.  
    
    Good luck.
    
    Jim
    

    re .0
    
    Yes, there was a memo specific to that topic setting a "new" company
    policy some months ago from a senior level.  I'm tempted to say it was
    Jack Smith, but I can't find the mail.
    
    Tony

    Re .4:
    
    Thanks, but that's not it.  There was a memo that specifically
    addressed the manner in which a person who was being laid off would be
    treated.
    
    
    				-- edp

    
    How long were you with the company, Steve?  How were your last PA's?
    
    Sorry to see you go, the best to you in the future.
    
    Mike

    Re .4 (Jim):
    
    Thanks for the kind thoughts.  No, it's definitely not good news at my
    age.  However, it was nothing personal; our whole group got hit.
    
    Re .8 (Mike):
    
    >How long were you with the company, Steve?  How were your last PA's?
    
    Well, I've been with the company 24+ years.  But until 17:00 Friday,
    I'm still with the company, and I'm still looking for a job inside.
                          
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Steve,
    
    If you have been with Digital for 24+ years, (I think you mentioned
    that you are 55 y.old), why didn't you take SERP?  At least you would
    have medical etc for the rest of your life.
    
    

Not to put words in his mouth, but maybe he *liked* his job?  I know I like my job,
even if I am stressed at the moment.

    I'm 54, with the company 20 yrs in September.
    The reason I didn't take SERP was because I couldn't afford it. I
    weighed alternatives to SERP and concluded that I had to bet that I
    would not be laid off. The alternatives were difficult. The bet is
    still open.
    I know one man very well who took SERP even though he LIKED his job,
    and was good at it. In his case -he too is 54- he decided that family
    health considerations demanded that he take SERP. In his assessment the
    probability of being laid off between June and his 55th birthday was
    too great and the risk too high -loss of all medical benefits.
    
    In that regard, I urge anybody who is 55 already to look into
    retirement considerations. I do not know but I am guessing that if one
    is facing a layoff, opting to retire immediately might be a much more
    attractive decision.
    
    				herb

    Re .10:
    
    >If you have been with Digital for 24+ years, (I think you mentioned
    >that you are 55 y.old), why didn't you take SERP?  At least you would
    >have medical etc for the rest of your life.      
    
    1) As pointed out in .11, I like(d) my job.
    
    2) After I get my TFSO package (if I don't find a job by Friday), I can
       retire anyway, to the point of getting a gold badge and having medical
       coverage as any other retiree would (the pension, of course, would
       be very small).
    
    3) The picture changed from when SERP was available.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

re .0

From your description it sounds like the person might have been fired instead
of handed 'the package'.  Another possibility could have been they received
the package and got upset and mgt felt it would be better for everyone if they
were shown the door now instead of Friday.

This is all pure speculation as I don't know who is involved.

Dave

    	The real questions are:
    
    	Does "DIGITAL ROT" or does the manager handling the layoff
    	rot?
    
    	Did Digital (or the manager) *really* screw up the layoff?  Or
    	is it someone's perception that the layoff was screwed up?
    
    	If the layoff really was screwed up, does that mean that
    	digital (or the manager) really ROTS?  

    I know of at least 2 people here in Colordo who got TFSO'd in January
    of 92 and they were still able to serp out at the end of May.  They got
    the benefits of both packages?  
    
    So Steve have you looked into this for your benefit. Taking the package
    and then retiring later!
    
    /Dan

    Re: .16 SERP was retroactive to January 1992 for people who retired
    before it was announced. They got whichever package paid them the most
    (SERP in most cases).
    
    I'm 57 years old and have 11 years with Digital. I turned down SERP
    because A. I like my job, B. I could not afford to retire on the SERP
    package, and C. the job market out there is bad and getting worse. I 
    think many people who took SERP are going to be very disillusioned (and 
    unemployed) over the months and years. I've heard of too many formerly
    high paid retirees forced to work at McDonald's or some such at $6.00 an 
    hour in order to survive. That is not my idea of a happy retirement.
    
    In addition, I'm hard of hearing, and wear hearing aids in both years.
    That has not been a problem in Digital, but few companies on the outside 
    will hire a 57-year old who can barely hear, no matter what their
    skills.
    
    Our group is facing downsizing. and I do not know what I will do if I 
    get the proverbial tap on the shoulder. 
    
    Bruce

    Re .16 (Dan):
    
    >So Steve have you looked into this for your benefit. Taking the package
    >and then retiring later!
    
    As a 55-year-old employee with more than 10 years at Digital (to put it
    mildly!) I can retire at any time, including when I get the TFSO
    package, should that be necessary.  However, because I didn't elect to
    SERP, I won't get the "+5 years" on the retirement income.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Not to be personal about this, but I would have thought that someone who
    worked for the corporation for 24 years, would have a bit more than
    hope for retirement that flippng burgers ?
                      
    Is this really true, that the SERP (presumably early retirement
    program) is a pittance ? In the UK one should aim for 2/3rds of
    final salary - is this the case in the US?               
                                              
    If not, why ?                               
                                              
    Winton                                    

>    Is this really true, that the SERP (presumably early retirement
>    program) is a pittance ? In the UK one should aim for 2/3rds of
>    final salary - is this the case in the US?               
 
	Winton, Early retirement in the UK is not directly related to pensions.
	It was the same deal that everyone else got, with government rules
	allowing you to put some of the lump sum into the pension.

	If you take early retirement here, you are highly unlikely to get full
	2/3rds pension unless you've done 40 years.

	For each year you retire early, you loose 4%, so retiring at 55 you'd
	loose 20% of the pension. As you've worked for 5 years less, you also
	loose 5/50th, thats another 20%.....leaving 60% of 2/3rds, an early 
	retirement package doesn't make that up.
	If you retire at 50, you get 40% less, and another 40% less........
	leaving 20% of 2/3rds. - definatley flipping hamburger time.

	It also assumes that at 60 you would have done 33.3 years on 50ths, or
	40 years on 60ths to get 2/3rds. Many people, due to starting pensions
	late, or moving jobs, will never accrue enough for a 2/3rds pension,
	which is the maximum allowed by law (not the minimum or average).

	and 2/3rds from digital is 2/3rds PENSIONABLE salary, which cuts out 
	the car (3,400, and supplemennt) and NIable (about 3,000) money, from
	the basic pay.

	So, say you were on 30,000, and had done 20 years at 50ths, and were 
	retiring at age 50.

	Pensionsble salary is 30,000, less 3,400 car, less 1,200 supplement
	(assuming level 9) less 3,000 NI = 22,400 pensionsble salary.
	20/50ths is  8,960
	you are retiring at 50, so you loose 40% (10x4%)
	That gives you a pension of 5376 a year.
	20 years money for leaving is 20+3+3 months at 25,400 is 55,000.
	55,000 at age 65 will only get you 5,500 a year pension. I have not 
	looked at annuities for age 50, but I doubt you'd be able to get as 
	much as 3,000 at 50.
	Assume 3,000, this gives a pension of 8376.............it could be
	much lower.

	If I remember my pensions figures, only something like 10% of the
	population ever retire on 2/3rds.
	My father-in-law who retired 3 years ago has nothing, just the basic 
	state pension - 58 quid a week. My father will be in the same position 
	when he retires next year. 
	

	Heather (pensions is my hobby-horse)

    Ref 2024.3
    
    Steve,    
    
    Are you at liberty to describe the details of th TFSO package ???
    Is it like the old one ???
    
    
    Good Luck..

Re: .21

>	For each year you retire early, you loose 4%, so retiring at 55 you'd
>	loose 20% of the pension. 

Isn't retirement at 65...? At least for one half of the population.

>       As you've worked for 5 years less, you also
>	loose 5/50th, thats another 20%.....

5/50 = 1/10 = 10% or is there something I missed?

Gavin

    Re .14:
    
    Wrong on both counts.
    
    
    Re .19:
    
    Digital screwed those 20 people -- they should have been treated with
    dignity.  If Digital won't treat employees with dignity, then Digital
    does not deserve to be treated with dignity in return.
    
    I received a copy of the memo I was looking for; I will place it in the
    next response.
    
    
    				-- edp

[headers removed]

Author:	DIANE VAILLANCOURT @WMO       
Date:	11-Sep-1991
Posted-date: 12-Sep-1991
Precedence: 1
Subject: TSFO III Guidelines                                                     



<Headers deleted>


Posted-date: 26-Aug-1991
Precedence: 1
Subject: COMMUNICATION PRIOR TO NOTIFICATION



    One of the "key" learnings that we have received from our TFSO Phase III
activity to date falls in two areas:

    .	 We need as much as possible to minimize the element of surprise on
    	 the part of employees who are notified of their involuntary 
    	 separation.

    .	 When employees are notified, we need to insure that this process
    	 is implemented with as much quality, care and dignity as possible.

    As such, we have taken action to "adjust" our policies to reflect the above 
learnings.  More specifically, we are recommending that groups who are 
implementing Phase III communicate as much as possible as often as possible 
with their organization from the decision to downsize up to the Cross Org. 
approved notification date.  This communication should follow a macro to micro 
approach where information is shared with the organization as decisions are 
made short of the actual notification of specific individuals.

    Additionally, we have added more specific guidance to groups relative to 
the process of notification which we believe demonstrates more sensitivity and 
care to those employees impacted.

    Attached, please find the "text" of the above referenced changes which will 
be integrated into the "Guide to Managing the U.S. Involuntary Separation 
Program" shortly.  As always, if there are any further questions or concerns, 
please do not hesitate to contact me, or any member of the U.S. Transition 
Program Office.

Regards,

Dave





*******************************************************************************

    As part of our communications process for TFSO Phase III, it is our policy 
NOT to pre-notify selected employees as to their selection for involuntary 
separation prior to their Cross-Org approved notification date.  However, 
timely and effective communication prior to notification, and appropriate 
sensitivity demonstrated during the notification process will greatly 
contribute to the quality, care and dignity with which we treat impacted 
employees.


COMMUNICATION PRIOR TO NOTIFICATION
- - - -----------------------------------


    In order to reduce the element of surprise and to "cushion" the shock of 
notificaiton, we highly recommend and encourage organizations to communicate as 
fully as possible with their organizations, beginning with the decision to 
downsize through implementation, the following:


    -	 Business context for the downsizing
    -	 Sizing of those potentially impacted and not impacted
    -	 Functions within the organization impacted
    -	 Job types impacted
    -	 Selection criteria to be used to identify employees 
    -	 Available critical job opportunities that may be available within the 
    	 immediate or broader organization 
    -	 Generic timeline for the organization's transition program


    The above communication must NEVER get as specific as informing an 
individual employee that he/she will definitively be involuntarily separated 
UNTIL the day of nofication.  However, the above communicated in a timely and 
open manner at the organizational level will greatly reduce the element of 
surprise on the part of impacted employees and will allow employees to decided  
for themselves what action they feel is appropriate given the business context 
and information provided above and how they fit into the areas of risk.  It 
follows a macro to micro communication model in which information is shared 
with employees as decisions are made through the entire planning process up to 
and including individual employee notification on the approced notification 
date.







NOTIFICATION
- - - ------------

    Selected employees are NOT notified of their involuntary separation UNTIL 
their Cross Org. approved notification date.  

    The notification process is designed to occur over a one week period of 
time.  Selected employees should be notified on Monday or Tuesday of the week 
of their approved notification date with their "last day worked" being the 
Friday of the week of their approved nofication date.  This will allow 
employees with three to five days for:

    -	 Endings (saying goodbye)
    -	 Packing of personal belongings
    -	 Collecting information relative to TFSO

    Except on those very rare or extreme cases where it may be warranted, 
security escorts to the door are NOT to be used nor is security to be employed 
in "hovering" "standing guard" over selected employees as they pack personal 
belongings.

    Where access to PRIVALEGED system accounts is a concern to organizations 
from an information security viewpoint, it is acceptable to deactivate access 
to these accounts by selected employees AFTER notification occurs.  However, 
normal user accounts (i.e. VAXMAIL, or ALLIN1) should remain active through the 
entire week of notification and should not be deactivated until after the 
employee's last day of work (the Friday of the week of their notification).
    

******************************************************************************

(the following question and answer to be included in the Q's and A's for 
Managers notifying selected employees of their involuntary separation)

Q.  Am I able to look for a job for the remainder of this week?

A.  The decision to involuntarily separate you from the company was based 
    partly on the unlikelihood of a job match for you given the current 
    business climate and numbers and types of job openings within the company 
    that match your skills and background.  

    While I am CLEARLY NOT advising or recommending that you begin a job search 
    process within the company, if you feel that you are able to either 
    complete any job search activity you may or may not have already begun and 
    obtain a job offer by this Friday, then you will be allowed to accept it 
    before the close of business on Friday eliminating the neccessity to 
    involuntarily separate you from the company. 


    

    

                    DIGITAL CONFIDENTIAL Document


------------ End forwarded message

    To the best of my knowledge, Digital has violated this policy on these
    counts:
    
    	"Except on . . . extreme cases . . . security escorts to the
    	door are NOT to be used nor is security to be employed in
    	'hovering' 'standing' guard over selected employees as they
    	pack personal belongings."
    
    	"Where access to PRIVILEGED system accounts is a concern . . .
    	it is acceptable to deactivated access . . . AFTER notification
    	occurs."
    
    	"However, normal user accounts should remain active through
    	the entire week of notification . . . ."
    
    Digital does not trust us -- don't trust Digital!
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .22:
    
    >Are you at liberty to describe the details of th TFSO package ???
    >Is it like the old one ???
    
    Nobodsy said I couldn't.
    
    Basically, it's what's been stated elsewhere in this cionference.  One
    week to find a job if possible [still looking, folks!!!], followed by 9
    weeks mail-to-the-house paychecks, plus the "package," which consists
    of a year's pay (less 9 weeks), plus accrued vacation time (in my care,
    400 hours), plus personal holiday (well, Hallowe'en fell on a Saturday
    this year), and site holiday, less any outstanding advances and
    whatever I bargain for the used equipment I have at the house).  Also,
    one year's medical & dental insurance.
    
    >Good Luck..
    
    Thanks.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

re: .27

>     whatever I bargain for the used equipment I have at the house

That's a new "bennie" I hadn't heard of before.

Looks like they finally found a way to get around the IRS regulations
that prevented them from allowing employees to obtain equipment that
would normally be ground and crushed anyway.

-Jack

>>	For each year you retire early, you loose 4%, so retiring at 55 you'd
>>	loose 20% of the pension. 
>
>Isn't retirement at 65...? At least for one half of the population.

	Nope, Digital will let men and women retire between 60 and 65 
	without deducting anything for retiring early (ie 4% a year).

	Legally either sex can retire anytime after 50, and 45 in some 
	occupations (your pension will just be less-per-month).
	65 for men is just the age at which the state pay pensions.

	Digital even pays men the equivilent of the state pension (in addition 
	to Digitals) for the years between 60-65 if they retire in this period.

>       As you've worked for 5 years less, you also
>	loose 5/50th, thats another 20%.....

>5/50 = 1/10 = 10% or is there something I missed?

	Opps arithmetic let me down there..........

	Heather

A quick question (that has probably been asked before, but...)

With the 9 week pay, exactly when are you no longer considered an employee?
At notification time?  At the end of the week of notification?  At the end
of the nine weeks?  As soon as I hit EX on this note :-) :-)?

I ask because recently mail was sent around (against stated company policy
about legal matters) concerning a case against an employee who supposedly 
violated his employee agreement.  I am just curious as to when someone is
no longer an employee with repsect to that agreement (example, if you ARE
still an employee for those nine weeks, doesn't the agreement prevent you
from getting another job for those weeks [assuming computer related])?

-Joe

    You are still considered an employee (although persona non grata on
    Digital premises except to visit the DCU or Personnel) until the
    end of the 9 week period.  I don't know what the official position
    is on enforcement of the non-compete clause during that period, but
    I can't imagine Digital would do so unless there were other violations
    (such as leaking proprietary information).

    Re .31 (Joe):
    
>With the 9 week pay, exactly when are you no longer considered an employee?
>At notification time?  At the end of the week of notification?  At the end
>of the nine weeks?  As soon as I hit EX on this note :-) :-)?
    
    Well, at notification, you're dropped into a "twilight zone."  You
    astill keep your employee badge, and you can still use your  facilities
    (e.g., the network) until you leave, which, barring finding another
    job, will be at 17:00:00 on Friday of whatever week you were notified. 
    However, your company credit & telephone cards, and your magnetic
    access key card are confiscated at the time of announcement.  At the
    end of the week, you are in no way, shape, or form anything like an
    employee any more ... and _if_ you get a job offer after Friday at 5,
    tough: you _cannot_ be eligible for it.
    
    The 9 week pay period was put in place, I'm told, because of a
    Massachusetts law on age discrimination that says an older employee,
    who might have a tougher job finding a job, has to be notified 9 weeks
    before leaving the payroll to provide a better chance of locating a job
    before leaving; Digital apparently extended that to every employee, if
    that information's correct.
    
    With regards to employee agreements, I believe the wording of the
    agreement may state a time period after employment that the (ex)
    employee agrees to keep mum; but that's an educated guess: I joined the
    company so long ago that I can't remember the contents of whatever it
    was I signed back then.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    What is the rational behind not informing an employee of termination
    until the day of termination?  Is there a law somewhere that states it
    needs to be done this way?  When Boeing lays off they hand out warn
    notices to those employees who will be laid if they can't find another
    position within the company.  The warn notices go out 30-60 days in
    advance.  This seems to be a really fair way to do it.  Why can't
    Digital do it this way?
    
    Karen

    ref .-1
    i think it is because the goal is to reduce number of employees, if
    you give 30-60 days for them to move to a different part of company,
    you did not solve the 'problem'.
    
    this is what i think the reason is, based on my own private resoning, 
    i did not hear this any where, and iam under no distress to say this.
    
    thank you,
    /nasser

    re: .33
    
    In VMS our badges were confiscated during our notification meeting.
    For the remainder of the week we have to get a temporary badge from
    Security.

    Sounds like the old western "Branded", where Chuck Connors got his
    patches ripped from his uniform, got his sword broken, and was cast out
    of the fort.  Sounds like a real class act goiong on here ...
    
    Jerry

    When WSE was TFSOed, we were told explicitly that if we accepted a job
    with another company before the 9 weeks were up and DEC found out about
    it, we'd lose the financial package.  Also, that we could apply for
    unemployment benefits under California law at the end of the nine
    weeks, regardless of whether there was an additional lump sum payment.
    
    I had the idea that the nine weeks pay was a federal requirement for
    companies over a certain size, but I'm not certain of that.
    

Karen -

True, Boeing does that, and I'm not sure if it is because of a Washington
State Law - but also, at Boeing, employees can also be bumped by seniority -
in other words, if I have 9 years at Boeing, and you have 4, and I get a 
warning, I can say "I want Karen's job" - and then it's you looking for  a
job and I'm still at the Lazy B.

I know some groups have been told they are 'at risk' by their management,
or have been told that there will be terminations in the group.

It isn't the best way - to find out on Mondy and have til Friday, but I've
worked in other places where its just 'Good Bye' - you are told, they take
yer badge, you collect yer belongings, and you are gone.  No farewells.  No
chance for another job.

JD

    Can anyone tell me what happens if you are on STD (maternity) and you
    are chosen for the TFSO?  I know if you are on your unpaid leave, it is
    taken care of as if you were working, but on STD policy, it is not
    clear . . . 

    .40
    
    It used to be that you couldn't be laid off while on STD, HOWEVER,
    that has apparently changed.  During the first layoff a person from
    my group who was on medical STD was layed off.  My manager said that
    is perfectly legal.  Also heard from a Decie friend that had a DECie 
    friend who was on maternity leave at the time of the first layoff. 
    This person called her manager so inquire about her status, was told
    "you don't have anything to worry about" and was notified a few days
    later that she was in fact layed off.
    
    And the stories go on..probably you could try getting an answer from
    your local Personnel folks.
    
    Good Luck!!

re .39:

>job and I'm still at the Lazy B.

Do they really call it that?!


>I know some groups have been told they are 'at risk' by their management,
>or have been told that there will be terminations in the group.

According to .25, managers are supposed to do that.  It's certainly
happening in my neck of the woods.


>It isn't the best way - to find out on Mondy and have til Friday, but I've
>worked in other places where its just 'Good Bye' - you are told, they take
>yer badge, you collect yer belongings, and you are gone.  No farewells.  No
>chance for another job.

For most people, notification on Monday with a requirement for a job
commitment by Friday to start the following Monday isn't a legitimate
chance for another job.  Unless you've already got something in the
works, or you're *very* well connected, there's no way for you to
get a job in a week.  But as Nasser pointed out in .35, the whole
point of this exercise is to reduce headcount.

    >   <<< Note 2024.26 by BEING::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>
     ..
        
   > Digital does not trust us -- don't trust Digital!
    
    
   > 				-- edp

    
        Trust you are actively looking for gainful employment with a 
    comment like that.
     

    .36
    
    Badges...you don't need no stinking badges.

    Re .45:
    
    I don't believe you can "lay off" an yone on LTD.  However, if he or
    she ever returns to work ....
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr. 
    

    Our reduction in force explicitly targeted people on LTD.  Your mileage
    may vary.
    
    Dick

.26>    To the best of my knowledge, Digital has violated this policy on these
.26>    counts:
    
    	Do you have real examples?  (I'm not looking for details, BTW,
    	just a yes/no.)  First-hand experience?  Or did it happen to
    	direct contacts?  (Friends, family, co-workers.)  Is it just
    	rumor/hearsay?
    
.26>    Digital does not trust us -- don't trust Digital!
    
    	Brave soul, you are, to say such in an open forum like this...

    .45
    
    Haven't heard anything either way.
    

    >> Re .45:
    
    >> I don't believe you can "lay off" an yone on LTD.  However, if he or
    >> she ever returns to work ....
    
    Not true, unless things have changed for the better (unlikely).  As was
    discussed somewhere else in this file, our office had someone on LTD
    TFSO'd last summer.  He never did return to work.
    
    
    
    

re: .47, Dick

>    Our reduction in force explicitly targeted people on LTD.

I'm not sure I understand how this can be the case. LTD is a "benefit" to
which I directly contribute via a weekly payroll deduction. Terminating
the benefit would seem to be a . . . well, er, you get the idea.

-Jack

    STD = "Short Term Disability"

    Before AIDS : STD = Sexually Transmitted Disease
    
    After  AIDS : STD = Sexually Transmitted Death

    	We had a meeting last Friday and our Unit Manager told us that our
    Office (small sales,service) was targeted for TFSO.  He told us the 
    "package" this time was:
    
    1. 9 weeks pay (supposedly federally mandated)
    
    2. 2 weeks pay years 2-9
    
    3. 3 weeks pay years 10-whatever
    
    4. NO medical or dental benefits 
    
    	Also, next time around 9 weeks pay and nothing else.
    
    
    Can anybody confirm this?  Any present TFSO'ers?
    
    DAF
    
    

re: .42

|>job and I'm still at the Lazy B.
|
|Do they really call it that?!
|

 Yes, indeed they do !

     RE: .34  I don't want this topic to get side tracked but really 
    Karen... is it wisperings of Freud or the Honorable Clarence Thomas
    that caused a somewhat offensive response, if you consider the
    terminalogy used in this topic....Uh...notes police...am I being
    unreasonable?
    
    >When Boeing lays off they hand out warn notices to those employees who
     will  be laid if they can't find another position within the company.
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
                       
    
     

    re: .57
    
    I didn't even notice the word 'off' missing from .34 until you made a
    big deal out of it.  If you have a problem with the wording of .34
    please send the author mail.
    
    BTW, there aren't any notes police.
    
    Bob

    re .58 (Bob):
    
    Must disagree.  In these dark times, anything that can bring a chuckle
    is worthwhile.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Re .48:
    
    It happened to a friend of mine whom I have spoken to directly.
    
    >> Digital does not trust us -- don't trust Digital!
    >
    > Brave soul, you are, to say such in an open forum like this...
    
    It's not a matter of bravery, just a simple evaluation of what a job at
    Digital is worth.  Right now, it's not worth much, so there's no reason
    not to speak out with criticism that might change things.
    
    
    				-- edp  

    re: .55 (SWAM2::FORD_DO)
    
    I believe the 3 weeks/year kicks in AFTER the 10th year of service
    (i.e., for years 11+).  The maximum total weeks of pay is 52 (including
    the initial 9 weeks but exclusive of unused vacation time).  To
    receive the lump sum (payment for all but vacation and the first 9
    weeks) you must sign an agreement not to sue Digital.
    
    Medical and dental benefits extend for the total number of weeks you
    are being paid for.
    
    I seriously doubt the BOD has decided on the details of the next
    package yet.

    Re .48:
    
    >> Digital does not trust us -- don't trust Digital!
    >
    > Brave soul, you are, to say such in an open forum like this...
    
    Naw, that's not bravery -- two people I know just wrote on a
    supervisor's board:
    
    	[name], YOU'RE A BUTT HEAD.  LAY ME OFF, DAMN IT!
    
    and added their names.
    
    
    				-- edp   

>    Naw, that's not bravery -- two people I know just wrote on a
>    supervisor's board:
>    
>    	[name], YOU'RE A BUTT HEAD.  LAY ME OFF, DAMN IT!
>    
>    and added their names.

Since TFSO is not supposed to be voluntary, this seems like a sure way for
them to retain their jobs.

    ... or get them fired for cause (insubordination) without any package.

	RE: .57....sharp eye and a sense of humor...off beat, but humor
	never the less and as Steve says (.59) in these dark days we 
	take our humor where we can find it!

        RE: .58
<    I didn't even notice the word 'off' missing from .34 until you made a
<    big deal out of it.  If you have a problem with the wording of .34
<    please send the author mail.
    
<   BTW, there aren't any notes police.    

	Sorry, Bob, but I disagree with you on both of these points.  I 
	don't like having people respond to me directly instead of through
	notes.  I have had two instances of these and on both occasions the
	women wrote things that were either acrimonious or an attempt to 
	discredit or intimidate me by her position in the company.  This is
	uncalled for and after talking to people who are Noters from way 
	back, I found out that certain conferences and people are "noted"
	(pun intended) for this type of rhetoric.  I certainly won't write
        anything to anyone offline that I wouldn't also put online.  (The
        exception is, of course, when it involves "advice" type stuff as 
        you would find in Human_Relations).  
	Second, as far as "notes police" are concerned, perhaps that's a 
	bit too strong, but I had a note I started regarding John Sims'
	leaving the company cut short by the moderator.  The rumor given
	to me by a fairly reliable source was put to rest by a young lady
	from the Office of the President who had personally chatted with
	Mr. Sims.  However, after that revelation was duly noted in the file, 
	people began expressing ancillary opinions which might have become
	politically unwise.  The file was shortly thereafter write-locked.
	Undoubtedly a wise move for people contending with frustration and 
	uncertainty using Notes to vent these feelings, might get carried 
	away.  

	But this is a digression, the heart of this note is how people should
	be treated when they are being asked to leave the company.  

	.59...Steve, what a person you must be!....you are being TSFO'ed,
	have a week to find another job and you still have your sense of 
	humor.  If I had a job to give, you'd get it!!!  BTW...how is your
	search coming?   VERY good luck and I hope you find something good.
                                           

>    It's not a matter of bravery, just a simple evaluation of what a job at
>    Digital is worth.  Right now, it's not worth much, so there's no reason
>    not to speak out with criticism that might change things.
    
    	OK, you want to make changes.  But you can't influence someone
    	and alienate them at the same time.  At least you can't influence
    	them in your favor...
    
    	As for the worth of a job at Digital, it is nothing more than a
    	judgement on the part of the person making the claim.  I judge my
    	own job to be very valuable to me, although of course that doesn't 
    	affect your job situation one bit.
    
    	Just a little anecdote.  When I was learning to play backgammon
    	from a very skilled player, those of us learning from him used
    	to claim that he was so good because he got alot of lucky rolls.
    	His reply to that was, "You make your own luck."  How true he
    	was, I've learned over the years!  I also believe the same wisdom
    	holds merit in our own lives as well.  You are what you think.
    	Your attitude affects and influences your life.  You, Eric, have 
    	more control over your job situation than you appear to indicate
    	-- if you want to have that control.  If you remain bitter about
    	being hurt, you will always feel hurt, and that hurt will control
    	your situation.  It means little to be wronged unless you retain
    	it in your life.
    
>    Naw, that's not bravery -- two people I know just wrote on a
>    supervisor's board:
>    
>    	[name], YOU'RE A BUTT HEAD.  LAY ME OFF, DAMN IT!
    
	Are you admiring them for doing this?  Are you saying this is
    	good?
    
    	If I were their supervisor I'd let them go for sure -- without
    	the benefit of a layoff package but rather in the form of a
    	firing.  DEC would be fully within guidelines to do so.

    .62
    
    I can understand and agree with everyone's frustation and anger.  I too
    am "at risk", However,  it seems to me that this kind of behavior can
    be not only detrimental to those involved but could filter down to
    affect all.  Point in case...remember that in Sales during the first
    "downsizing" those affected were allowed to keep their company car during
    the 9 week period and had the services of a Placement Agency available
    no charge.  Due to vandalism to company cars during that 9 week period,
    the keeping your car for 9 weeks package benefit was changed to a
    lump sum of money ( rumored to be $650 not much when you consider car,
    insurance, maintenance, etc.)  Might not be nil this go-around.
    
    Is making your opinion of a manager known worth the risk of termination
    especially during this economic time?
    
    Only my opinion..
    
    LAJ

    .67
    
    >>Might not be nil this time.
     
      Typo...meant to say "Might be nil this time."
    
    LAJ

It is naive to be more loyal to an employer than they are to you.

It is pointless to trust and employer more than they trust you.

It can be hurtful to take your job more seriously than your employer does.

It is dangerous to inform your employer where they stand on the above three
points.

The thing that the first three miss are that the employee is an equal 
participant in setting the loyalty, trust and credibility levels.

    Re .65:
    
        >.59...Steve, ... how is your
	>search coming? ...
    
    A couple of possible nibbles; no bites. 
    
    What the hey!  There's still one day more ...
    
    Thanks for the kind words.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr. 

    re:  Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    This is the wrong note for this reply, but I don't care anymore...
    
    I only "know" Steve through his notes that I've read in various
    conferences through the years, but I'd like to say that Steve's
    demeanor, attitude, and spirit throughout all of this has been
    not only admirable and remarkable, but also entirely consistent
    with the tone of his other notes that many of us have enjoyed
    through the years.
    
    I could only wish that if I had to face similar uncertainties
    ahead (which is still possible, if not probable), that I could
    do so with something approaching the class act that we've seen
    from Steve in the last couple of weeks.  (But I'm way too sarcastic
    and curmudgeonly to begin to wish for such a thing! :-))
    
    Best of luck, Steve, no matter what happens the rest of this week.
    
    Chris

    Any company worth its salt (do we have salt anymore?...) needs to
    listen to its edp's and its Lennard's (who SERPed out, alas) and
    its others who are trying to tell us where we're going astray,
    even if it isn't always a flowery message.
    
    If they really didn't care anymore, why would they bother taking
    the risks that they've taken here for so long?  We may not always
    be pleased by the tone or the particular wording (I thought "rots"
    was an interesting, dramatic touch, carefully calculated to scrape
    nails across the chalkboard :-)), but we would be seriously amiss
    to ignore the facts and the messages.
    
    There's a lot of important, perceptional stuff here.  I wouldn't
    want to inhibit them or silence them, unless we truly want a "good
    news only" conference and company.
    
    Chris

>       <<< Note 2024.60 by BEING::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>
>
>    It's not a matter of bravery, just a simple evaluation of what a job at
>    Digital is worth.  Right now, it's not worth much, so there's no reason
>    not to speak out with criticism that might change things. <--------|
    									|
    Perhaps you can explain how your criticism "Digital Rots While It   |
    Screws Up Layoffs" "might change things"? --------------------------|
    
    RE: .72 -- Here, here!  Steve, I've read lots of your notes and,
    thought I haven't had an opportunity to work with you (even indirectly,
    to my knowledge), I sure hate so see you go.  Good luck with your
    future.  I'm certain you will endeavor.
    
-Andy

    Steve,  My stay at Digital is but a fraction of yours.  I began with a
    "nifty" sense of humor and a real ability (I think) to find the good in
    all people and situations.  I'll admit that both my humor and my
    "Polyanna" attitude towards life have been strained to the max... ok...
    occasionally non existant anymore.  Your consistanly unwaivering
    ability to provide insight, gentle "redirection" and keep things in
    perspective in the greater scheme in life is a tribute to your belief
    in yourself and some other attribute that we ought to teach over here
    in ME&ST.  I'll bet the vendor that owns Positive Power and Influence
    could use you BIGTIME!  My you find the job that keeps your soul (and
    the rest of you, singing)  Your notes have been like quasars in the
    midst of this frequent "black hole!"  Thanks for sharing yourself with
    us.
    
    Lorelei
    

    Re .66:
    
    > But you can't influence someone and alienate them at the same time. 
    > At least you can't influence them in your favor...
    
    Bull.  Digital management JUST DOES NOT GET IT.  They haven't figured
    out how to look at the long term, they have't figured out how to invest
    in technology for the future and keep Digital's technology up to date,
    and they haven't figured out that the way they treat employees will be
    paid back to Digital in kind.  What Digital management needs now is a
    big bonk on the head; they need to see in a big way that the way they
    treat employees is going to have an immediate effect on the way
    employees treat Digital.
    
    > You, Eric, have more control over your job situation than you
    > appear to indicate -- if you want to have that control.
    
    You misunderstand.  I'm not complaining about my position.  I have all
    the control I need on the local level -- I can stay or go as I please. 
    Since my groups needs me, for a project that Digital needs, my job is
    secure.  But if I choose, I can leave immediately -- I have no debt and
    enough savings to last four years without a change in lifestyle.  I
    said "local level" because I have given up on Digital at a larger level
    -- the corporation has no sensibility about long-term strategy, valuing
    employees, or even just doing a good job.  That's dead, and it is going
    to stay dead until there is a big shock to get it going again.
    
    > If you remain bitter about being hurt, you will always feel hurt, and
    > that hurt will control your situation.
    
    Oh, I see why you misunderstand how much control I have.  It's not ME
    I'm complaining about; it's a friend of mine who was laid off and was
    treated in violation of policy.
    
    > 	If I were their supervisor I'd let them go for sure -- without
    > 	the benefit of a layoff package but rather in the form of a
    >	firing.
    
    Digital can't afford that.  This is a friendly group anyway (unlike
    most of the others I have observed in Digital); pranks like that are
    one way the supervisor (who was quite cheerful about it) knows they are
    part of the group.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .75:
    
    > Perhaps you can explain how your criticism "Digital Rots While It
    > Screws Up Layoffs" "might change things"?
    
    Sure, no problem.  Here's how it works:
    
    	Digital screws employees.
    	Employees are justifiably angry.
    	Employees make noise (see title).
    	Manager hears noise.
    	Manager thinks "Employees angry.  Angry employees not work good.
    		How make employees work good, not angry?".
    	Manager think "We not screw employees.  We treat employees good.".
    
    Of course, this presumes there is a manager in Digital with a
    functioning neuron or two, which means this line of argument is a very
    shaky proposition.
    
    
    				-- edp

    RE .77
    
    >> What Digital management needs now is a big bonk on the head;
    
    Calvin & Hobbes cartoon strip today....
    
    part 1.
    
    Calvin sitting with hands folded behind a box/store front type set up
    the sign reads...A SWIFT KICK IN THE BUTT $1.00
    
    part 2.
    
    Hobbes walks up and asks "How's Business ?" Calvin answers "Terrible."
    
    part 3.
    
    Hobbes replies very smuggly "That's hard to believe" and Calvins states
    "I can't understand it."
    
    part 4.
    
    Calvin continues...."Everybody I know needs what I'm selling !"

    Any chance you can scan that into an image file for those of us not in
    the USA?
    
    	- andy

    
    We sure handle things in a wierd way.
    
    Guys who left 30 June still exist in ELF.
    
    One other that I used to deal with SERP'ed, but his account still
    takes mail.
    
    My Group, including our manager were "done away with", including Cost
    Center 30th June, due to new -re-organization from 1-July
    
    However as the new organisation had, and is still not defined, we were
    requested to continue with the work we were doing, however we could
    look for new position within Digital, or external until things became
    clearer.
    
    I got a whole bunch of envelopes in the in-tray which I don't want to
    open, however checking my bank account, salary got paid...
    I aam not even going to ask which Cost Center..
    
    Perhaps this could go on for years!
    
    :-)
    N.
    

    	re .79
    
    	Typical edp bait-and-switch style.

.77>    > But you can't influence someone and alienate them at the same time. 
.77>    > At least you can't influence them in your favor...
.77>    
.77>    Bull.  Digital management JUST DOES NOT GET IT.   ...
.77>    ... What Digital management needs now is a
.77>    big bonk on the head; they need to see in a big way that the way they
.77>    treat employees is going to have an immediate effect on the way
.77>    employees treat Digital.
    
    	I'll repeat myself.  You have a valid message, but you are not
    	going to get people (especially the ones who need to hear the
    	message) to listen to you by attacking them like you are.  No
    	one wants to listen to someone whine, or attack them, or scold
    	them.  (I'm not necessarily saying you are doing all these things,
    	BTW.)  And in particular, no one wants to hear such things
    	presented in such a manner from subordinates.
    
.77>    Oh, I see why you misunderstand how much control I have.  It's not ME
.77>    I'm complaining about; it's a friend of mine who was laid off and was
.77>    treated in violation of policy.
    
    	Great.  So let you friend fight his/her own battles.  Your approach
    	to the situation certainly isn't helping any! 
    
    	You are seeing only the logical side of the issue and ignoring
    	the human side of presenting the logical argument in a manner
    	that will be received by the intended audience.
    
    	Of course, I expect you'll tell me that the friend is already
    	gone, and therefore cannot fight the battle.  Understood.  It
    	makes me wonder, though, why *YOU* are alienating/attacking
    	management in this way.  You say you won't be affectd by TFSO.
    	You say you aren't hanging onto hurt because you have not been 
    	hurt (or at least implied as much.)
    
    	Perhaps your aim is to simply foment discontent among those of
    	us who remain...

>    1	Digital screws employees.
>    2	Employees are justifiably angry.
>    3	Employees make noise (see title).
>    4	Manager hears noise.
>    5	Manager thinks "Employees angry.  Angry employees not work good.
>    		How make employees work good, not angry?".
>    6	Manager think "We not screw employees.  We treat employees good.".
>    
    	I added the numbers myself.  I think the scenario falters at
    	step 5.
    
    	Step 4A should be added:  Manager sees this noise as being dangerously
    				 	unhealthy to the group/company.
    
    	Step 5 should read:	  Manager advises noisemaker that his 
    					actions are viewed by management
    					as being unacceptable.
    
    	Step 6 should read:	  Manager gives a warning to noisemaker,
    					or if the noisemaker has already
    					been warned but persists, manager
    					fires worker.
    
    	Again, Eric, your message is important.  Your presentation of
    	said message is not going to get you the results you seek.

Re: bonk on head (big variety):

This started with the removal of Ken.  Think about it.  The primary reason why
companies get into management trouble is that the managers cannot see the forest
for the trees.  They deal with old friends, etc. They cannot make the hard
choices.  Worse, they cannot even see the problems - the proverbial frog
in the boiling pot.  Warm it up slow......

So, step 1: remove the CEO and bring in someone who holds little or no
allegiance to anything.  No VMS loyalty, nothing.  Just one goal - return Digital
to profitable status.  This was bonk #1.

Bonk #2 - n....  Starting at the VP level on down, people better get their
act together lest they fall prey to the bonkers.

Charlie

    Re .77:
    
    > But if I choose, I can leave immediately -- I have no debt and
    > enough savings to last four years without a change in lifestyle.
    
    Wow! I could need just that in these tough times!
    Mind sharing your recipe ?   :-)
    
    Helmut

.89:

I can't speak for edp, but my recipe was simple:

Save.

Obviously difficult to do if you choose to have a family, or if you choose to
spend your money on things like eletronic toys, summer cottages, boats, fast
cars, etc.  The trick is if you're making more than, say, $30K/year, live as
if you're making $30K/year, and put the balance in the bank.

Ok, so that's obvious.

More to the subject of layoffs:

I just saw layoffs come and go around VMS.  I think 18 people were hit.  I don't
know all the names, but it looks as if there was only one person in the group
that was management, and then, I'm not sure about that one.  Someone else
correct me, but I think there was only 1.

It seems quite apparent that the goal, at least around the VMS organization, was
to increase the management to grunt ratio.  This doesn't bode well.

RE: .89

I know the simple way to achieve this, put saving as your #1 priority and
spending only as a last resort.  I know this is contrary to what you see
in our current society but it is the only way I know to do it starting out.

Now if you marry into money are get a large inheritance, it does give a
jump start to the process.  But ever THE Donald found out you can spent
all you earn and have nothing left :-)

Lee G.

>
>I just saw layoffs come and go around VMS.  I think 18 people were hit.  I don't
>know all the names, but it looks as if there was only one person in the group
>that was management, 


It was rumored that the day after the layoffs, a meeting was held to let people
know who had actually gone.  After that, 'they' introduced the 4? new hires
that were starting.  Several people were royally 'disturbed' (and rightly so)!

    Re .86:
    
    > I'll repeat myself.
    
    Then I'll repeat myself:  Bull.  Your statement is a trite aphorism
    unsupported by evidence.  First, Digital had a chance to learn the nice
    way:  Because of the way people were treated previously, the new policy
    was developed.  But did Digital obey the policy?  No.  So, the nice way
    having failed, Digital now needs this lesson beaten into its head. 
    Second, I have witnessed people change when criticized, so I know your
    statement is false.
    
    > So let you friend fight his/her own battles.
    
    Oh, yeah, that's a brilliant idea, they've got a lot of power now.
    
    >  	You are seeing only the logical side of the issue and ignoring
    >	the human side of presenting the logical argument in a manner
    >	that will be received by the intended audience.
    
    How amusing, when it is obviously the case that *Digital* is ignoring
    the human side.
    
    > . . .  why *YOU* are alienating/attacking	management in this way.
    
    And even more amusing -- don't you understand the human side of wanting
    to see friends treated well?
    
    >  	Perhaps your aim is to simply foment discontent among those of
    >	us who remain...

    Oh, well, far be it from me to prevent people from being content with
    massive layoffs, a stock price one-fifth of its former value, a company
    with no long-range plan (and short-range plans that are vague and
    constantly changing), and management that does not care about its
    employees.  Oh, you are all as happy as peas in a pod, and if anything
    happens to change that, it's all my fault.  Imagine that, you're
    perfectly happy with a company in the dumps, and I'm going to ruin it
    for you.  Darn.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .87:
    
    Well, that's a risk I'm willing to take for the sake of getting the
    message out.  Is anybody else willing to say what needs to be said?
    
    
    Re .89:
    
    > Mind sharing your recipe ?   :-)

    Use credit cards like debit cards (don't charge anything you cannot pay
    for in full).  Don't borrow any money.  Put money in savings.
    
    Seriously, most people do not realize how much borrowing costs.  If you
    pay the minimum on your credit cards, you are effectively paying about
    twice the purchase price for everything you buy.  That means you can
    only buy half as much as somebody who doesn't borrow.  It might take a
    little longer to save enough money to buy something, but once you get
    ahead of the game, you stay there.
    
    
    				-- edp

   >> Second, I have witnessed people change when criticized, so I know your
   >> statement is false.

EDP, have you ever read a book on how to deal with people?

No, you say?  Well that's great, and because you want to influence 
management and truely make a difference in other's lives, I highly recommend 
"How to Win Friends and Influence People".

Here's a little bit to grab your curiousity - I know you'll just love it!

Chapter 1 - "Fundamental Techniques in Handling People"
1. Don't criticize, condemn, or complain.
...

Enjoy!
DMR

    Actually, I like: "You can catch more flies with honey than with
    vinegar."
    
    Or, perhaps more appropriately: If you scream your ideas (no matter how
    logical or correct) at people, they will not listen.  In fact, they
    will behave as if you are wrong.  Persuasion requires tactics designed
    to persuade, not just the posession and utterance of a truth.
    
    Al
    

    I have worked at about 80 companies doing consulting for Digital in 
    the last 2 1/2 years in the New England area.  Colleges, hospitals,
    the government, utilities, private companies, banks, etc.  Those of
    you who think Digital is lousy place/company to work for should go
    take a  look at what the other choices are.  I have yet to come 
    across a company that I would leave DEC for.  I could never have 
    realized how good we have it until I actually got to see the grass
    on the other side of the fence, it is NOT greener.
    
    Brad.
    

>    Actually, I like: "You can catch more flies with honey than with
>    vinegar."

diversion:

    "But if you pull their wings off, they will eat whatever you give them"

					K. Bundy (Married With Children)

    
>    Or, perhaps more appropriately: If you scream your ideas (no matter how
>    logical or correct) at people, they will not listen.  In fact, they
>    will behave as if you are wrong.  

Well, there certainly seems to be ample evidence of that here :-).

  Will there be free outplacement service with this TFSO? So far I haven't
heard anything.
  Thanks for the info about potentially losing our key cards on notification
day. I hadn't thought of that.

    Re. .97
    
    Brad, you're one of the most level headed people I ever had the
    pleasure to work with. I'm glad you're still w/ DEC, and hope you
    retire when YOU want to. (A few decades from now!)
    
    /l

    I expect to be layed off shortly as >I've been on "excess" for quite
    some months. I've applied for numerous jobs in the corp. that I
    qualified for. One in particular I had interviewed for was an excellant
    fit. 
     What I'm interested in finding out is, what would you do if you were
    told "you're not young enough for this job" ? I'm in late 40's and 
    been with dec 12 years. It was a real let-down.

    >>What I'm interested in finding out is, what would you do if you were
    >>told "you're not young enough for this job" ? I'm in late 40's and 
    >>been with dec 12 years. It was a real let-down.
    
    I can see why this would be a real let-down.. Not something one expects
    to hear..
    
    Wouldnt that be considered age discrimination?.. Isn't that illegal?  
    
    Suz

Re: .-2

Who said it and is it in writing?  If you can prove your case, the person on
the other end is in *real* trouble.  Blatant illegal age discrimination.
Of course, this assumes that the position wasn't for modeling children's
clothes! :-).  For someone to say something like this is pure nonsense.  They
need to find another job.

    I was quite able to do the job. Plenty of experience. I think his idea
    of his organization was of young people! The person that filled the
    slot was 20 years younger than I am. There were no witnesses if that's
    what you mean. My word vs. his!!

I would still make a formal complaint through the appropriate channels.
Let him/her lie if they want to.

    Yup, I'd push too.  Whether it is in writing or not.  If you have the
    experience, were told that you were too old, and they hired the younger
    person; I should think that they would have to prove their case. Not
    you having to prove yours.  IMHO.
    
    Dave

    Re: 107
    
    Don't want to nit, but SERPers were allowed to keep medical coverage
    until age 65; this is what convinced 2 in my group to take it even
    though they were disappointed in the cash-out.
    
    K
    

    Re .79:
    
    > It was a "prank"?  Then it was (to use a kindly word) disingenuous of
    > you to offer their message as an example of bravery.

    You think it was "disingenuous"?  Then it was (to use a kindly word)
    foolish of you to suggest so.  "Prank" and "brave" are not mutually
    exclusive.                        
    
    
    				-- edp

    Just how many companies do you think actually give their employees
    any type of package upon laying off?  A VERY SMALL NUMBER!!  Most
    companies give you your accued vacation time (they have to by law) and
    an escort to the front door.  That's it.  My mother-in-law's company is
    laying off everyone (because the company is consolidating all their
    businesses into one area (west coast), moving their manufacturing
    overseas) and after 12+ years she got 4 weeks of pay.  Fortunately
    for her she was going to retire this year anyways but 250+ people are
    out of jobs.  Because the company is small the layoff will never make
    the Boston Globe but it will impact many lives.  How many more
    companies will we allow this to happen to?
    
    Come people, how many more jobs are we going to allow to move out of
    this country?
    
    I would love to have a bumper sticker made for my car that reads:
    
    			NO JOB?  NO MONEY?  NO FOOD?
    
    			   "EAT YOUR IMPORTS"
    
    Need I say more!  Who should really take the blame for the economy? 
    All of us for allowing the jobs to be taken away from us by supporting
    imported products.
    
    Enough said!

    RE .110
    
    How incredibly simplistic ... it's sad to think that people still
    believe this way.
    
    Tell me something Lynn ... do you use Digital computers?  Do you
    believe that all Digital products are produced here in the U.S.?  How
    can you tell what is and what isn't?  Do you drive an American car? 
    Are you sure?  Just because it says Chrysler, Ford, or GM on it doesn't
    mean it was produced in this country.  Do you eat McDonald's
    hamburgers?  Do you know where the beef comes from?  Chances are it
    wasn't from cows raised in the U.S.
    
    So tell me ... how do you NOT support imports?  And why blame the
    consumer because some major corporation's BoD decides to move their
    manufacturing operations from, say, North Carolina to Taiwan?  Would
    you not work for a company that does this?  If so, then you'd better
    start looking for another job.
    
    ... Bob
    

    "More than one-third of Taiwan's notorious trade surplus with the
    United States comes from U.S. corporations making or buying things
    there, then selling or using them back in the United States. The same
    corporate sourcing practice accounts for a substantial share of the
    U.S. trade imbalance with Singapore, South Korea, and Mexico-- raising
    a question as to whom complaints about trade imbalances should be
    directed."
    
                                Robert B. Reich
                                "Who Is Us?"
                                Harvard Business Review (Jan-Feb, 1990)
                                pp. 53-64. reprint #90111

    re -.1                    
                               
    Pathetic - why shouldn't Mexicans have work if they'll do it cheaper ?
    That the FREE MARKET for you.                           
    
    If you want to change the system, then change it, but don't fall for
    the national interest line - the national interest is the interest of
    those running the country, and the ONES running the country are first
    and foremost capitalists - who don't care about you or mexicans.   
                               
    If you want to stop jobs being lost, unionise yourselfs and work with
    the mexican workers to stop Digital (and anyone else) messing up
    peoples lives by chopping and changing for a few dollats extra profit.
                                                                        
      Winton                                                        

	I always thought that unions were the "International
	mumblehood of Amalgamated Framblefixers". So why aren't
	the unions organizing in more countries? I've often thought
	that the best way to fix a trade deficit to a country would be
	to export our 50 best union organizers to that country :-) 


					Tom_K

    
    	re .113
    
    	>If you want to stop jobs being lost, unionise yourselfs....
    
    	You're kidding, right?

    RE: .111
    
    Of course I know Digital computers are mostly comprised of foreign
    components as well as most others things we all buy on a daily basis! 
    There is no simply, easy solution but things have to start changing
    soon or the old U.S.A. will be nothing more than a bunch of Very
    Wealthy and Very Poor people and most of us will be in the middle
    paying for both life styles.  That's what is sad!!
    
    If I have a choice of buying imports or buying Made in the USA I think
    you can guess my choice.
    
    I'm also very sure that if you would end up losing your job because it
    was moving Overseas you would think differently as I would.  I would
    resent the fact that some person was getting my job just because they
    would get paid less.  For all that matters, why don't you take a big
    cut in pay so we can reduce the cost of our computers and operating
    costs.  But of course, you don't deserve a cut in pay!!  Only other
    people deserve it!!
    
    I boycott as much as I can and will continue to do so.  But unless
    everyone  does this, I suppose it is a futile attempt but I feel I am
    dong something about it rather than just accepting the situation.
    
    

    Alas,  I can't *afford* to boycott many things as Lynn described;
    I must purchase any brand that will allow me to stretch my dollar.
    Personally, I think unions led the way to this sorry mess we have. At
    the turn of the century unions saved the lives of women and children
    who were working in "sweat shops" and endangering their health in
    doing so.  It's been a loooong time since any generations have had
    to work in sweat shops.  Some unions and their leaders called the
    shots and controlled much of what happened for better than 3 decades,
    now many will have to pay the piper.
    
    I would like to "Buy American"; but in many cases I simply can't
    afford to.  So now I drive my GM designed Geo Metro that was built
    in Canada by Suzuki (insert feeble smiley here, I don't know how to
    make one).
    
    Karen
    

>      <<< Note 2024.116 by MCIS5::MATTHEWS "Lynn Matthews...UPO1-4/C5" >>>
>                               -< IT IS SAD!!!! >-

>    If I have a choice of buying imports or buying Made in the USA I think
>    you can guess my choice.
    
>    I'm also very sure that if you would end up losing your job because it
>    was moving Overseas you would think differently as I would.  I would
>    resent the fact that some person was getting my job just because they
>    would get paid less.  For all that matters, why don't you take a big
>    cut in pay so we can reduce the cost of our computers and operating
>    costs.  But of course, you don't deserve a cut in pay!!  Only other
>    people deserve it!!
 
First of all, I find all these "Buy American" campaigns rather offensive.
After all, they decrease the job security of people like me who don't
work in the US. I come from a country which makes more computers per
head of population than anywhere else in the world (Scotland), but the
unemployment is pretty high there and doesn't need to go any higher via
"Buy America" campaigns or anything else.

If you have a "Buy American" campaign, then other countries will likewise
promote their national produce, and you won't really be any further forward.
In fact you may be worse off, because your market will be less competitive -
this will result in higher prices and inflation.

I live on a European salary. If more Americans lived on this sort of a
salary, it would make American products more competitive. But when you're
one of the highest paying countries in the world, it's not much of a surprise
when someone undercuts you. Such are the realities of free market capitalism.
Or would you prefer state controlled communism ?

Craig

    re Buy American and .118 - spot on -

    In fact your Buy American campaign is even more ludricous than that of
    Fidel Castro, Josef Stalin's or Adolf Hitlers... at least 50 years ago
    the world was a lot less intertwined.
                                                     
    You have to face reality, that if you want a return to Autarky, you'll
    be following the footsteps of the Khmer Rouge. For an economy to
    survive, it needs to compete effectively at the same level as anyone
    else - therefore if it has to rely on export substitution, its costs
    for production will be higher, and so will decline relatively to the
    rest of the world.                   
                                                  
    Second point, lets say, you succeed in your campaign to keep the jobs
    in the US - well, if that is to work on a capitalist basis, your wages
    will have to be reduced to that of the average world-wide - which would
    be that of the Mexican labour anyway - and to do that would either
    require massive unemployment to drive wages down, or lots of stupid
    people volunteering to work 3 times hardeer for a 1/10 of the dollars.
                                         
    In effect developing countries workforces act in the same way as mass
    unemployement - a reservoir of labour to drive labour costs down
                                         
    the only way, is to organise workers in all countries to refuse to
    allow wage levels to be driven down - THIS DOES NOT HARM YOU,AS LONG AS
    THE EFFECT IS INTERNATIONAL BECAUSE IT HARMS THE *PROFIT RATE* OF 
    THE EMPLOYERS EQUALLY.
                                         
    Winton

       I don't understand world economics very well, but I'm quite sure your
    claim that the US is the highest paying country in the world is very
    wrong.  I think based on per capita income, the US comes in around 15th.
    Also, the buy American campaign came about (I think) due the the demise
    of our clothing industry.  If I understand it correctly, US made
    clothing can't be afforded by the average citizen in other countries
    due to being heavily tariffed/taxed (whichever) not solely because of
    labor costs.  On the flip, foreign made clothing can be had quite
    cheaply here in the US (albeit less quality) because of the "free
    market".  I guess some markets are free'er than others?
        And what about the movement in Europe to have more open trade
    between countries?  To the average American, you guys look like you're 
    getting TFSO'd a helluva lot better than we are.  The packages are much 
    better there than here.  What about your benefits?  Vacation is double
    and sometimes triple ours.  Methinks our perceptions of each others
    economies could bare some enlightening...
    
    Scott
       

    BTW mod's, sorry about the rathole...

    Needless to add that as another European I find this "buy national"
    campaigns rather stupid and outdated in a world with a "global
    economy". In France these campaigns are driven by the right as well
    as left wing extremests. Neither of those parties 
    (in any place of the world)
    has any kind of positive track record with respect to people's
    well beeing.
    Needless to add as well what would happen to DEC (U.S employees included)
    if these campaigns had any success all over the globe...
    
    The solution to fix the negative side-effects of "global economy" would
    be to introduce some sort of "global workers, consumers interest
    representation". Unions or whatever the "workers representation bodies"
    are called in various parts of the world have developped (or not)
    quite differently. In some countries they totally lost influence, (U.K
    perhaps ?)
    in some they forgot that they were to represent workers and not
    necessarily the "workers" political party.....(as in france)
    Germany seems to come out the best with strong but totally
    unpolitical "unions" .
    
    As the EEC drives towards a "economically united Europe", it also
    drives (less visible and fast) also towards a "socially
    united Europe" favoring euro-wide workers representation.
    
    However, in todays political and economic turmoil we "westerners"
    (Western Europe, U.S) should no expect fantastic social progress
    until at least eastern Europe (including the ex-USSR) is somewhat
    economically in line with the still richer west. Like it or not,
    since the artificial iron curtain broke down, NOTHING (aside WW III)
    is going to prevent this. Unlike the "third world" which has
    the right to progress as well and to be supported in this effort
    but will always be "a little behind", Eastern Europe will catch-up.
    One can only hope that the common level to be reached in ? years
    will be higher than our todays (western) level.
    
    I tend to believe that any "workers representation body" having that
    in mind would be able to represent workers interest visavis
    international company management. My conviction is also that
    such representation is in the best interest of the company as well,
    where a mature and  representative "worker's council" would yield
    money saving, motivation preserving... win-win solutions in any
    social negotiations even or rather most of all in a company's
    difficult or crisis situation.
    ................
    perhaps reducing as well the time and disk-space waisted by people
    who write into this conference out of frustration and fear... :-)
    
    Sorry for having got a little "carried away" and off the base note.
    /fred
      
     
    

    re: "third world"
    Having said that "they'll always be a little behind", I realize
    that this might be offending to the concerned people.
    What I actually ment is that given the true, general difference
    in culture and education it'll take more than one or two...
    generations to catchup. This difference does not exist between
    western and eastern Europe, U.S etc..
    
    It could be however that a "paradigm shift" in the western culture
    a la "back to green preserved mother earth" helps to level
    out the difference a little faster than we believe today.
    /fred
    

    Into the hole a little deeper:
    
    This "Buy American" campaign has gotten a little skewed, in my opinion.
    I believe it all came about with unfair trade wars.  Why are we
    tarriffed so high on our exports while the country we're dealing with
    gets to import realtively cheaply?  Because "someone" thought that
    America was so wealthy we could afford to cut these corrupt deals.
    Now we're diing.  
    
    I buy American because in many case it is cheaper and in others it
    allows for the company to be able to afford the export rights.  We
    don't many "Made In Amercia" companies left, but those that do get my
    money.  And all the stuff we own that breaks down?  I repair it. Why?
    because it's cheaper than new and it still works (once fixed) and I
    don't care what anyone thinks my cars look like.  8^)
    
    Reg.

Buy American.

How do you know what you are buying is really 'American'?

When this wave was fashionable, earlier this year, there was a study done
on cars, and percentage of components that were US made.  Make yer head swim.,

What's more American - a Honda built in Ohio, using 80% U.S. made parts, or
a Ford taurus, built in Mexio using 10% U.S. components?   Most people look at
the brand name and say "SAVE AMERICAN JOBS, BUY THE FORD!"  When in reality,
they don't have a clue.

I saw a car earlier the year plastered with Buy American stickers.  Talking
to the owner, I had him look at the id plate on the car.  Yep.  The car
was built in Canada.  He was dumbfounded "But its a Ford, not a foreign car.."
was the answer.

Take a good look at some labels.   Notice that many clothing items are made
with U.S.A Cotton, for example   - but in the fine print, it will say "Assembled
in COsta Rica..."

Open your eyes.  We are in a GLOBAL economy.   Consumer goods come from all
over.   And the parts of the goods come from multiple places.

Ever study computer boards for PC's?  Look at the chips.  You may have Texas made
chips, along with some from Indonesia, Malaysia, etc.....

And what about Foreign companies that own US subsids' or companies?  Like
Honda, Toyota, etc. - car companies that employ U.S. citizens to make a high
quality product.   Some of our major movie studios and recording studios are
owned by the Japanese - do you not watch those movies or listen to those 
songs?

Digital owns foreign subsids' and companies.  Digital pays your paycheck.  Is it
okay for U.S. companies to have a presence in these countries, but not for
foreign companies to have a prescence here?

And how many consumers are willing to pay more for U.S. (totally) made products -
instead of buying less expensive foreign made products.  Assuming quality is
even.

There are many reasons for jobs leaving the U.S.  But blaming foreign countries
and yelling "BUY AMERICAN" is a simplistic approach to the problems.  Instead
of making investments in capital, the 1980's saw companies instead doing
takeovers and mega-mergers.   There are many other factors.  

JD

    re saving US jobs
    
    There is one and only one way to save US jobs.
    
    All US employees in every company must demonstrate daily that they can
    do whatever they were hired to do better and faster and cheaper than
    anyone else in the world.  All US managers have to prepare for their
    organizations to be the best, fastest, and most cost effective of their
    class in the world.
    
    Whether you believe in capitalism or not, competition is here to stay
    and every person in the world is competing with every other person. 
    Every factory is competing with every other factory in the world making
    similar goods.  Every country is competing with every other country to
    be the host for companies which are making and spending money.
    
    fwiw,
    
    Dick

re: .116

>    I'm also very sure that if you would end up losing your job because it
>    was moving Overseas you would think differently as I would.  I would
>    resent the fact that some person was getting my job just because they
>    would get paid less.  For all that matters, why don't you take a big
>    cut in pay so we can reduce the cost of our computers and operating
>    costs.  But of course, you don't deserve a cut in pay!!  Only other
>    people deserve it!!

No, I wouldn't feel as you do. Any company exists to 1) make a profit and
2) keep the doors open. Period. If they can get the labor done for less
than I'm willing to work, then I either accept a lower salary or I don't
work for that company. Would you be upset if you were replaced by another
American who was willing to work for 1/2 your salary, or is it somehow
different when you're replaced by a "foreigner"? As far as taking a cut in pay,
I don't have to since DEC is willing to pay me my current salary. They
may decide in the future to cut my pay, at which point I will decide 
whether to work for that salary or leave. Pretty simple. The problems arise
when we have wage supports (i.e. minimum wage) and unequal trade laws.
Don't confuse the issues. We should address those things that impose
on free trade, not the fundamentals of free market dynamics.


re: .119

>    the only way, is to organise workers in all countries to refuse to
>    allow wage levels to be driven down - THIS DOES NOT HARM YOU

The only way to do this is if companies are not able to attract the number
of workers they need at the price they want to pay. They will be forced
to increase the salaries or go out of business. On the other hand, if
you try to impose minimum wage laws on a global scale, you're asking
for trouble. 


re: .122

Yes, the US is a "rich" country, and yes the eastern block countries
are struggling economically. But just because they are "free" now does not
necessarily mean we're all going to suffer financially because of it.
It's not up to them whether we keep our wealth, it's up to us.


Dave

    re .126;
    
    You've said it all.  In a global economy, the jobs will go where the
    unit cost of production is lowest*.  The U.S. can't afford to get there
    via low hourly wages and, therefore, MUST do it via efficiency and
    productivity.
    
    \dave
    
    * (Actually, you have to include transporation costs in the equation,
    but if you're really selling globally, any place with reasonable access
    to transport should be a near wash.)

So should Digital contract out work to prisoners?  They work real cheap.

    If they work "better", why not?

    
    I'll throw in my lot with the folks who admit to not
    understanding the nitty gritty of international trade, GATT
    details, the cross-country flow of labor, etc.  However,
    there are a couple of points that seem logical to me:
    
      o A country needs a broad middle class.  The more people
        who can afford middle-class lifestyles, the better
        the economy will be.  The more people in the middle
        class, the better the social programs for the underclass
        will be (they have to be funded somehow).  The more people in
        the middle class, the better for a country's infrastructure
        (they pay the taxes that fix the highways, bridges, etc.)
        The more people in the middle class, the more stable the
        political structure will be (If I have a 3-bedroom house
        in the suburbs, it's pretty unlikely I'll be burning down
        the neighborhood.  More importantly, if people have a *fair
        shot* at getting into the middle class, they'll be less
        likely to do the same.)
    
      o The problem, of course, is how to get (or keep) a middle class.
        I don't think you can do it with a service-driven economy.  I
        also don't think you can do it by taking away middle class
        manufacturing jobs (like building typewriters at Smith-Corona) 
        and shipping them off to Mexico.  BTW, SC was *profitable* here
        in the US.  But the logic was, it could be *more* profitable
        by getting workers who are happy with $.50/hour.
    
    re: wage rates vis a vis other countries.  This gets really
    interesting.  I just read that BMW is locating a plant here
    in the US.  They layed off (3000?) German workers to relocate
    to South Carolina.  Can anyone verify this?  My source
    was not authoritative.
    
    Glenn
                                                        

    
    Re: .129
    
    > So should Digital contract out work to prisoners?  They work
    > real cheap.
    
    I don't think you get the point that .126 is making.  It may seem
    on the face of it that sending jobs overseas is unethical, but
    facts is facts. U.S. companies have seen their ability to compete
    steadily eroded since the middle of the 1960's.  It's only
    been the last five or six years that it has come to actually
    stare most of in the face, but people like Deming have known about
    it for a long time and their warnings have been falling on deaf
    ears.  Now what they told us is coming to pass and WE STILL REFUSE
    TO HEAR IT!
    
    I don't like the fact that Digital might send jobs overseas, but
    to make you and me feel comfy what else is a company to do?  Plod
    along and lose the entire company and ALL the jobs because of
    refusing to face facts?  THERE IS NO MORE U.S. ECONOMY.  There is
    now only a global economy and consumers can get equal or better
    quality from companies in other countries who are operating more
    efficiently and cheaply.  Neither Digital nor any other U.S. company
    is to blame for that.  The rest of the world simply got fed up with
    eating mush and living in dirt floor huts.  They want what you and
    I got; they are willing to work hard for it; and they satisfy our
    customers if we won't!  None of them are doing anything that you or
    I wouldn't do if we were in their shoes.
    
    I sit here wondering how long it is going to take us to get this
    point.  It is so simple, but we spend so much energy refusing to
    see it.
    
    Steve
    

re .133:

>    > So should Digital contract out work to prisoners?  They work
>    > real cheap.
>    
>    I don't think you get the point that .126 is making.

I do understand .126's point.  I was asking what the limits should be, if any.
I don't think it's a black-or-white issue.  Let me give an even more extreme
value than prisoner labor.  There have been, and may still be, regimes that
employ slave laborers, i.e. people who are imprisoned and forced to work
because of their origins or beliefs.  I doubt if anybody who participates
in this conference thinks it would be OK for DEC to contract out work to
be performed by these slave laborers to benefit these regimes.  Some
noters think it's OK for prisoners (those who've committed crimes) to
get paid small sums to work for us.  Probably most of us think it's OK
for DEC to hire workers in third-world countries at the prevailing wages
in those countries.  What if child labor is legal in those countries?
What if there are no laws to protect workers against hazards?  Does DEC
have a moral obligation that goes beyond its legal obligations?

Re: .-1

	DEC better have moral obligations beyond their legal ones.  As the saying
goes, a fence is built to keep honest people out. 

    I've been following this particular note since its inception and
    it appears that it went from a discussion on Layoffs to the
    world economic structure, Buy Americanism and somehow is now
    chatting about farming work out to Prisoners etc.
    
    	To get back to the basic note for a moment, Digital has embarked
    over the past two-three years on a downsizing effort to reduce the
    overall headcount. It SHOULD be looking hard at work that is perhaps
    redundant or perhaps non-value add. These are things that any and
    all companies should be looking at. It is painful to see friends
    who've you've worked with for many years depart as part of that effort.
    It's also painful, daily, to keep wondering whether "I'm next". 
    Part of the many things that are being said in the News Media about
    DEC is that it is seriously 'demoralized', and frankly, worrying about
    whether the shoe is gonna drop on your head for two-three years does
    have a demoralizing effect. It also has a paralyzing effect to some
    who are sincerely worried that they might not be here to finish what
    they start, or worse, are afraid to start something for fear it'll
    cause them to not be here. Thus, one of the things that Digital now
    faces is continued efforts to downsize or rightsize or whatever-size
    we're calling it now, while also working to restore morale and turn
    profitable. Unfortunately, the effort to downsize has depended on
    the right people making the right decisions and handling it in an
    appropriate manner. Now, in some cases, perhaps the wrong people have
    made some wrong decisions for some wrong reasons and handled that
    inappropriately. Thus "Digital Rots because it screws up layoffs"
    statements get made. Did it screwup layoffs in general or in specific
    cases? I can't think of two people who'd be happy if they get/got
    laid off, I surely wouldn't be. Because of the long term this has
    taken I finally had to make a decision, go home every night and
    worry about a layoff, or go home every night and remember that
    there was a life before Digital, and if necessary there will be
    a life after Digital. I'd prefer to remain at Digital and keep
    my 13 plus years of service and benefits etc. So, I can put my
    best efforts out and try and help to turn the corporation around
    however I can. That's my decision. It's Digital's decision as to
    whether they need me or not. If not, then presently they are offering
    more than "accurred Vacation time and see you later" chum. I think the
    company will rebound and I would certainly like to help it do so. But,
    ultimately as I say, that decision may be made elsewhere for me. 
    
    As to BUY AMERICAN, I subscribe to the same theory that someone 
    tossed out when Lee Iaccoca (sp?) was upset over the unfair trade
    restrictions with Japan. In essense "Be Competitive with Japan
    and I'll buy it" Overprice your products and give it with shoddy
    effort and performance and naturally I'm going to look someplace
    else. Here's what I mean. I had a 1986 Ford Escort, bought brand new
    from a local (Central Mass) Dealership. My wife had a 1985 Honda 
    Accord, also purchased from a dealer here in Mass. My four cylinder
    Escort Wagon cost about 11K, her Honda ran her about 10K. My
    Escort started literally falling apart within Six months, and
    I'm not talking minor things here, I'm talking major repairs
    yes covered under warranty, but talk to me on the Interstate when
    the sonofagun is dead in the breakdown lane about warranties.
    By Major repairs I'm talking things like, HeadGasket needed 
    replacement (which should last at least 80-100K and we're
    talking 8K Miles here) and the rear hatch lock that broke 
    for no known reason and I had to wait a month for the replacement
    part. Electronically movable mirrors that don't. Timing belt that
    decides NAW. Now I probably got a lemon, true, and yes they
    did fix everything on warranty (did I talk about the leaking
    windshield). This nonsense when on for three years with that car
    and was the major contributing reason why, after years of nothing
    but Fords I'll never buy another Ford Product. Also one reason
    why I may think about Non-US Products. (I did buy a DODGE Van
    though). Meanwhile remember my wife's 85 Honda, guess what has
    124,000 miles on it and still runs fine, with normal maintenance
    and regular servicing, and which the mechanic figures should run
    at least another 40-50K????
    
    Hiring Prisoners? Hey folks, Prisoners have RIGHTS, didn't you
    know? They don't HAVE to work if they don't want to. Working in
    the Prison is a Priviledge! Prison has become one of those "Social
    Programs" someone talked about a few replies back that are supported
    by the Tax Paying public. Granted there are unpleasant aspects of
    it but overall in some cases Prison is a laugh. Having a Neighbor
    who's a guard at one has certainly educated me on how 'tough' some
    of them have it.
     
    a rather longwinded 2 cents worth I guess
    
    J 
    
     

Is this CARBUFFS?  My notebook said it was DIGITAL.

    what CARBUFFS means please?
    thanks,
    /Nasser
    I spelled checked

    RE: 137
    No, this is DIgital, my example in .136 was just that
    an example to the BUY AMERICAN statements. As I'd said
    it was a longwinded 2 cents worth and was in response
    to the orignal topic of LAYOFFS, which had somehow gone
    down quite a few side trails.
    
    J

    re .135
    
    Sorry, I disagree.  Part of the mess we're in is because our favorite
    president is such a nice person that he finds it hard to hold his
    subordinate managers' feet to the fire.  We had blatant immorality in
    the ranks, in the form of expense padding, make-work, and subliminal
    insubordination.  It was tolerated until the evidence was undeniable.
    
    Top management positions are positions of trust.  If the top man loses
    his trust in a subordinate, he needn't wait for evidence of
    wrong-doing.  He doesn't need to be pleasant about it.  He needs to say
    bluntly, "I don't trust you any more.  Please have your resignation on
    my desk by the end of the week.  Make it effective in 30 days."
    
    Misguided talk about morality confuses the issues.  Your morality and
    mine are different.  That's what valuing diversity is all about.  But
    business is business.  The responsibility of the top management makes
    personal moral restraints a liability.
    
    Now, the fact of the matter is that I would rather have the moral
    manager as a friend and the amoral manager as a boss.  We can't have
    everything in this life.
    
    regards,
    
    Dick

Dick,

	Your statement makes me think that you believe business acumen and 
morality are mutually exclusive.  Not so.  Ken was relieved beacuse he could not
do what was (morally) needed.  Implying moral constraints in no way precludes
profits.  

Charlie

    Charley,
    
    Not mutually exclusive, but definitely not the same.  "Amoral" means
    "no moral judgement made".  And that's what I want to see.  A company
    run by good business sense, including looking out for the long run
    consequences of decisions.  This will eliminate the "short run"
    behavior that many consider immoral.  
    
    I'll grant that the "soft hearted" issue is not really morality, but it
    often gets confused with it.
    
    Dick

Dick,

	I agree that we want good judgement in our business decisions; however,
there is no such thing as amoral, whether it is defined in Webster's or otherwise.
Morality is a relative thing from man's point of view; however, without some
morals we have anarchy.  For example, wouldn't it be a good business decision
to hire hit men and take out xxxx's sales force?  It's stretching it, but I hope
you see my point.

	As far as business decisions, I would hope EVERY VP who is making TFSO
decisions, etc. is aware of the heartache, misery, and worry they are causing.
I do not envy them - it may not even be their fault.  But the decisions still
need to be made.  Morality aside, we need to pray for these people.

Charlie

    NO, we don't want hit men taking out xxxx's sales force.  How quickly
    we forget, xxxx is buying our Greenville facility!  We have hired hit
    men but they are offing our own people not someone elses'.  As far a
    VP's are concerned, I have no doubt that they can with clear conscience
    and noble desires, offer up any number of workabees as a sacrifice; no
    self-sacrifice.
    
    DAR

    
    Back to Layoffs?
    
    What is the IDEAL to handle this unsavory task?
    
    Who is the Benchmark in handling layoffs and how do they do it?
    
    JN

    Maybe we need a role model.  Who's "Best In Class" for layoffs?
    
    Chet

    Companies who have to have major restructuring and layoffs aren't
    likely to be considered world class because they have obviously missed
    a market, business opportunity, etc.  One way *NOT* to do it is to
    spread it out over a long period of time *OR* offer people incentives
    to quit.  Those who quit are those with the most valuable skill sets
    and are the ones you should want as a basis to start over.  We've tried
    what five different ways and we still don't seem to get it right.
    
    Dave

    REPLY -.1
    
    I don't know if this is the ideal way, but at my previous employer,
    they gave us a 60 day notice that our department was being eliminated. 
    You continued to report to work to do your daily tasks, but, at ANY
    TIME, you could go on ANY job interview, within the company or outside,
    at your expense.  You were allowed to utilized company PC's to do your
    resume', company stationery, plus they provided job displacement
    services.  This was during the 60 day period.
    
    I was offered a relo pkg to our Main office out of state, but I just
    had a newborn and my wife and I felt we didn't want to move so far
    away.  
    
    After 45 days, I was offered the Digital job.  I still received pay
    through the 60 day period plus 2 weeks /yr of service.  Looking back I
    realize I probably should have taken the relo offer with the prospects
    here, but one can always second guess.
    
    The difference...at my former employer, they were up front and honest
    and told you right away, 60 days and your job is gone.  Plus they
    offered the various support I previously mentioned.  We all know here
    how it feels to "not knowing" if your going to be selected. 
    
    By the way, I felt safe at my previous employer and I fell relatively
    safe at DEC.  Is that an Omen?!?
    
    Ron
    way, I felt I was safe at my former job and I feel "safef" at DEC.  Is 

    I'll have to admit that I feel fortunate that we were given firm notice
    that we ould close by March 31.  There is no confusion or beating of
    breasts here.  We all know where we stand and what the terms are.
    It's bound to be rougher on those who must wait without knowing. 
    
    Like Dave said, any company that gets to practice layoffs is probably
    going to miss out on Malcolm Baldridge awards, so we're stuck with
    inexperience.  Since each of us has our own agenda, its unrealistic to
    think we can all be pleased by whatever process.  Its also unrealistic
    to think that a company that has never known discipline is going to
    learn it for this "exercise".
    
    peace,
    
    Dick
    

    
    I work at a customer site where they are currently reducing headcount
    also.  Here's how they do it:
    
    	If your job (or group) is being eliminated, you are given a 60 day
    warning notice (I guesss required by law).  During the 60 day period,
    personnel works with you to help you locate another job within the
    company if they need your skills or outside if they don't.  People with
    seniority have bumping rights for other jobs.
    
    	If you still haven't located anything in a month, you are given a
    30 day warning.  The above support continues until 5 days when you are
    given a final warning notice.
    
    	As you might guess there is quite a bit of change between the 60
    and 30 day warnings (due to bumping).  I don't think there is any money
    involved at the end of the process (except for the obvious - vacation,
    retirement, etc.).  The interesting thing is that the people don't seem
    to be too upset.  They know what the reasons are, they know the process
    and they are supported by personnel.  They don't LIKE it of course, but
    the local press makes more noise than the employees.
    
    JN
    
    	(BTW they are a Fortune 50 company with increasing profits - just
    conservatively predicting their future.  Hardly what you might call
    losers.)
    

Jerry,

You point a rosier picture of that company then reality dictates.  We both
know the working conditions. No denying they are growing, and profitable.

But they aren't exactly a 'people' company, are they.

Also, being that part of that company is defense-related, layoffs are a normal
thing.  

Regards,

JD

    If you want a benchmark for separations, I'd guess the U.S. Congress
    treats involuntarily separated members about as good as can be. :-)
    
    John H.

    Just another European view on the "BUY AMERICAN" stuff.
    
    I have felt that the discussion in the States about the economic
    situation is quite funny:
    
    America is very upset when countries like Japan has import restrictions
    but want to use them for its own import.
    
    America was one of the countries that pushed hardest for GATT, but is
    now one of countries in the world with the highest import tolls.
    
    America praised the global economy view when they benefitted on it, now
    they hate it when other countries are better at it than themselfes.
    
    America destroyed its own export potential during the eighties with the
    economic politic driven by Reagan, that caused the dollar to skyrocket
    against other currencies. This made american goods expensive and other
    countries inexpensive. Result? America lost big parts of its export 
    markets, and it's much harder to win a market back than to maintain it.
    
    Much of America's problem has been that it's never been necessary to
    really be efficient, since the pure mass of the economy has been
    enough. Let's face it, outside the States you have never been connected
    with the word "Quality" but with the word "Quantity". If America wish
    to succeed again it must become more productive, because (as said
    earlier) you will not be able to compete with the low-wage countries of
    the East.
    
    But still, which is something often forgotten by Americans, USA is
    still the engine of the world economy. Japan may be the steering wheel,
    but without the States, the whole world are in trouble.
    
    My advice is that the US, should realise that they cannot live on what
    they've done in the past. USA must become more productive and realise
    that other countries may be better than you at certain things, but
    still you are the best at many areas. How come that most of the world's
    "high-tech" is produced in the States and not in Japan? The US is in a
    situation that Sweden had about 15 years ago. You have a lot of old and
    inefficient industry that you either have to modernize or dispose of,
    this means a couple of "lean" years but I'm convinced that if the
    American people really puts their soul into it, America "will rise
    again". 
    
    Paul.
    
    
    
    	
                                        

    re : -.153
    
    Well, this conference would be more quite anyway... :-)
    
    P.

    This discussion has really gone off into the weeds.  If you want to
    discuss 'what is an import', 'why the U.S. is inconsistent in its
    support of free trade', etc., please do it in another conference.
    
    Bob - Co-moderator DIGITAL

    
    Back to the original topic; I have just heard a this from someone who
    is currently in the DBM outplacement classes.  He was talking with a
    person also in the course who had his cost center changed and when 
    asked about it by a fellow employee, he checked it out and found out
    he had been placed in the TSFO cost center and was then two weeks into
    his nine week notice.  He swears his manager never told him he was
    TSFO'ed.  The source of this is reliable and given to skepticism.
    
    If this is true and at this point, like Thomas, I don't believe what 
    I can't "touch" anymore; what the hell has happened to this company.
    

    re .157
    
    It had to happen, sooner or later.  Managers were probably told to
    inform employees personally, but because the person was away in a class
    or otherwise unavailable, the manager never did so.  The other parts of
    the machinery just kept on clunking along, assuming that the manager
    was doing his part.
    
    Not surprised, but disgusted,
    
    Dick

    While trying to move some other notes, I inadvertently got part ot this
    string.  I put everything back where it belonged, but it appears that a
    NOTES bug may have gotten a few of the replies.
    
    I apologize for the mistake.
    
    Bob - Co-moderator DIGITAL

    RE: .17  by CUPMK::SLOANE 
    
    >I'm 57 years old and have 11 years with Digital. I turned down SERP
    >because A. I like my job, B. I could not afford to retire on the SERP
    >package, and C. the job market out there is bad and getting worse. I 
    >think many people who took SERP are going to be very disillusioned (and 
    >unemployed) over the months and years. I've heard of too many formerly
    >high paid retirees forced to work at McDonald's or some such at $6.00 an 
    >hour in order to survive. That is not my idea of a happy retirement.
    
    >In addition, I'm hard of hearing, and wear hearing aids in both years.
    >That has not been a problem in Digital, but few companies on the outside 
    >will hire a 57-year old who can barely hear, no matter what their
    >skills.
    
    >Our group is facing downsizing. and I do not know what I will do if I 
    >get the proverbial tap on the shoulder. 
    
    Sadly, Bruce is going to have to find what to do now.  He got tapped a
    couple of weeks ago.  He was one of the charter members of our group
    when it was formed and had a lot of experience.  It didn't seem to
    matter in the end.  
    

>    <<< Note 2024.154 by SCAACT::AINSLEY "Less than 150 kts is TOO slow" >>>
>                             -< Moderator mess-up >-
>
>    While trying to move some other notes, I inadvertently got part ot this
>    string.  I put everything back where it belonged, but it appears that a
>    NOTES bug may have gotten a few of the replies.
  The reply numbers were altered during this foul-up, such that the cross-
references to replies no longer match. Can you create a conversion table
matching the new reply-numbers to the old, and post it here?

    No.  Some of the replies are missing.
    
    Bob