Conference 7.286::digital

re: .0,

	You're kidding right?  Please, don't depress me!  I may decide
    not to bother returning from Xmas vacation.

				    -davo

    re.1
    
      And what sickens me are the projected "compensation increase
    projections" for 1991 averaging between 4.9%-6.8% for managers
    and F/A's.  All this in the face of a deepening recession forecast
    for our industry in 1991 and anticipated forced layoffs.  And let
    us not forget that many of us have realized a "compensation increase"
    of 3% over the last two years.
    
      As the stomach churns......

I would think that most of the readers of this conference are in positions
that are close to the following:

Sr. System
 Analyst	 75,000	30,000	48,729	 75,000	32,000	51,116	4.9%
System Analyst	 72,000	21,000	41,032	 75,000	21,000	43,359	5.1%
Sr. Programmer/
 analyst	 82,000	22,000	46,535	 87,000	22,000	47,804	4.9%
Programmer/
 analyst	100,000	15,000	36,946	105,000	12,000	38,988	5.7%

I'm sure that almost every reader is paid something in the 12K-105K range.

There's an oft-quoted simple answer if your pay is too low:



"Pay For Performance"

Lee

    PFP is B.U.N.K.!!!  There is much to much politics and favoritism in
    addition to Performance.
    
    If it only WERE true!  There probably wouldn't be so much dead-wood
    within the company that we are being forced to find and clean out.
    
    Mark
    

    >> PFP is BUNK!
    
    I agree, but there is nothing you can do about it except go to work for
    yourself.  How many times have I heard, "Charlie, you do outstanding
    work, but there is only so much of the pie.  Since you are already very
    well compensated, we know you will understand."
    
    Well, I'm not complaining about my salary - I feed my kids, etc.  I
    could be ALOT worse off.  But, I hate people trying to sell me a line
    of BULL when everybody knows it just isn't so, PFP that is.
    
    What I suggest is that all companies (all companies collaborate on
    salaries) simply declare that all employees will receive a cost of
    living increase equal to the government treasury bill rate ( a real
    indicator of inflation) PLUS a bonus determined beforehand by the
    employee and the manager.  This will result in two things: all them
    managers will have to work and earn their pay (note: no manager rat
    hole, 8-)) and the employees will have REAL targets to shoot for. 
    Their performance, efficiency, dedication, productivity, etc. will
    DIRECTLY impact their pocket.
    
    Comments?
    
    Charlie - who would prefer the bonus system

    re: -1
    
    I think you ought to clean out the BULL and the MANAGER RATHOLE, and
    send it along to CAPNET::IDEASCENTRAL, so that it will get a fair
    hearing before the compensation folks.  I sent them a suggestion which
    also advocated some form of bonus compensation for truly outstanding
    performers, and Corporate Compensation replied that they were pursuing
    several proposals along those lines with the Executive Committee.  So,
    there may be hope that things will change.  I did not address the idea
    of COL plus bonus, however, so your idea is really not the same.
    
    Such programs may not be put into effect until the current clouds clear
    from the earnings picture, but this is a great time to get the
    compensation folks to consider alternatives to the oft-violated PFP.

    I've been told that Digital participates in a salary comparison
    program with other companies on an annual basis. I've also been
    told that this years results indicated that Digital paid less
    then the competition. In the case of software job codes the
    difference was even more significant. I'm told that this is why
    we're getting raises at all next year. It is apparently a goal
    to have industry average compensation for Digital employees.

    A question I've asked but not had really answered is "isn't
    a goal of industry average compensation somewhat inconsistent
    with a goal of industry leading services and products?" I keep
    thinking of the old "you get what you pay for" adage.

    I am also reminded that there are things other then pay that
    keep people at Digital. At the same time I'm not so sure that
    Digital's other benefits are as industry average or leading as
    they once were. Anyone seen a study of health care benefits at
    different companies lately? Are we still up there in the average
    range?

    I know that for a lot of people security has been a big reason
    to stay with Digital for a long time. However with the buy outs,
    rumors of layoffs, and Ken Olsen telling people straight out that
    is they want security they should not expect it at Digital I see
    that reason going away.

    Now I still want to work at Digital (my wife keeps asking "Why?")
    but it seems that Digital is less interested in keeping people then
    they are is saving money. How are we going to make industry leading
    products and give industry leading service if we can't hold onto
    industry leading people?

    			Alfred

    When I was doing salary planning and sitting on salary committees, I
    know for a fact that we had a policy to compensate at the "average"
    level.  Perhaps that's why our performance is so average.
    
    All of this is particularly offensive when you sit here in Colorado
    Springs and read in the paper that HP's QUARTERLY profit-sharing
    checks will average over $800 bucks per person.  In addition, HP is
    also the best payer in the Springs.
    
    It is a little upsetting to realize that after 30 years in the computer
    business, and achieving the old Level 14 some years ago, that my 27
    year old son-in-law who drives a newspaper truck in Boston, makes more
    money that I do......and has much better bennies, and just qualified
    for six weeks vacation.
    
    I feel that Digital is, has been, and always will be cheap.

>    It is a little upsetting to realize that after 30 years in the computer
>    business, and achieving the old Level 14 some years ago, that my 27
>    year old son-in-law who drives a newspaper truck in Boston, makes more
>    money that I do......and has much better bennies, and just qualified
>    for six weeks vacation.

     Yeah, but I bet he has to belong to a nasty old union.

    Interesting problem... I wonder what the mathematical dynamics are of
    computing average compensation, when the participants in the average are
    striving to *be* average compensators. Does the average oscillate
    around a mean, or does a trend get established?
    
    For example, the survey results supposedly were that Digital was below
    average. However, that means that the average was lower because of
    that. So Digital is now going to adjust to be average, which will
    accordingly raise the average, which means that those that were at
    average will then be below... On the other hand, those that were at
    average before Digital fell below then became above average, and
    accordingly adjusted downwards, which futher reduces the average.
    
    Sheesh!

    re -2.  Yup, he's a Teamster.  But, I hardly think he thinks of
    himself as "having" to belong.  There are also Teamsters in our
    industry.  When I was the IBM service guy for Collins Radio in
    Cedar Rapids, Iowa, would you believe that all the key-punch operators
    were Teamsters?

re: .6,.7

Pay For Performance .NEQ. Raise Proportionate to Performance -- that's a
misconception that assumes everyone starts at an optimal level.

Pay For Performance does mean that relative standing in the work-group, in
terms of salary and job level, should be roughly equal to performance (plus
another ill-defined quality that i would call "value to group").  That's the
goal that the manager should have uppermost in his or her mind when doing a
salary plan.  What's unfortunate is that it may take several years of salary
planning to correct a situation where the initial state is not one of pay
equity (for performance/value).  Usually the players change before a viable
state can be reached--it's a moving target.
								paul

re .12:

I thought my sarcasm was self-evident.

    .11:
    
    Isn't your "other hand" a variant of the "Iron Law of Wages"?
    
    Dick

    
    >When I was the IBM service guy for Collins Radio in
    >Cedar Rapids, Iowa, would you believe that all the key-punch operators
    >were Teamsters?
    
    
    	So if someone breaks a nail, the whole place goes on strike
    	for better working conditions.
    
    	[Ahem.  Sorry.]
    							Shawn L.
    

    re .9 I work in shipping/receiving/warehousing. My job requires
    lifting, fork lift operation, data entry, and lots of other
    stuff. I could go to work for the Post Office, with less headaches,
    and realize an immediate raise of well over a dollar an hour. 
    Hell, I could go sweep floors, the lowest-level job in the shop,
    at the place my dad worked (union) and do likewise. 
    
    DEC is indeed 'cheap'. Then they have the gall to push raises out
    for six months, they've done it twice as I recall. There is no
    cost-of-living adjustment. My last raise, after 4 *years*, was
    too small to be called an insult. Way _below_ what the COL has
    gone up in that time. Incentive ? Zilch.

    re: .17
    
>I could go to work for the Post Office, with less headaches,
>    and realize an immediate raise of well over a dollar an hour. 
>    Hell, I could go sweep floors, the lowest-level job in the shop,
>    at the place my dad worked (union) and do likewise. 
    
>There is no
>    cost-of-living adjustment. My last raise, after 4 *years*, was
>    too small to be called an insult. Way _below_ what the COL has
>    gone up in that time. Incentive ? Zilch.
    
    Why on earth don't you  go?

>    Why on earth don't you  go?
    
    A lot of us stay because we are crazy. :-)
    
    			Alfred

    re .18 'Cause I ain't a quitter - I want to change things where
    I _am_, not walk/run away. (It's why I still live in Massachu-
    setts ;-) )

  RE: .19    A lot of us stay because we are crazy. :-)

  The Quakers have a saying (dating back to before the U.S. Civil War) that:

  "Everyone's crazy but me and thee, and sometimes I wonder about thee!"  8-)

.20>    I want to change things where I _am_, not walk/run away. 
    
    	So why are you complaining _here_ instead of where you _are_?
    
    	Instead of complaining, why don't you make those changes and
    	tell us how/what you did to make it better?  That would seem 
    	so much more valuable!
    
    	Joe Oppelt

    re .22 Joe, I'm scarcely in a position to change the salary 
    structure. I do hope those in a position to do so read this
    and take a hard look at DEC pay scales.

    re .22
    
    Why do you ASSUME that the complaint hasn't been made elsewhere?
    Why not here AND everywhere else that might be relevant, using this
    conference to gather support and allies, as well as vent frustration.
    (Not to run down the value of a place to vent - that can be extremely
    valuable, but so is sounding out others and gathering support.)  In
    an extended company, the notes file is a good way to extend contacts
    beyond the immediate area and gather the support needed to create the
    momentum for change.
    
    If the pay issue is company wide - seek a company wide forum for
    change!
    
    /Dave

    	I don't assume that the complaint hasn't been made elsewhere.
    	I just don't see any value in complaining about it here other
    	than to raise the level of hysteria regarding pay imbalances.

    	I think that many of the pay issues "documented" here are only
    	issues in the mind of the beholder.

    	We (in the USA anyway) work in an open and free market.  If pay
    	is better elsewhere, we are free to pursue that pay.  If a 
    	company can "get away" with "substandard" pay, more power to them!
    	It simply means that someone is willing to work at that substandard
    	pay rate, making it the true market rate.  If nobody is willing
    	to hire me at the pay rate I expect to get, then I have not set
    	a realistic market value for myself. If there is some other
    	aspect of my employment at a particular position that I find
    	valuable and unavailable elsewhere, then perhaps it will 
    	compensate for the substandard pay I may be offered.  If it does 
    	not compensate, then I'll pursue higher pay elsewhere.

    	Digital (and any employer) is a BUSINESS, not a social charity.
    	In business you try to acquire you materials at the lowest possible
    	cost.  Employees at Digital are a cost of doing business.  If
    	you are more valuable (as opposed to THINKING you are more
    	valuable) than the common human also capable of doing your job,
    	then it is up to you to prove that to your employer.  If you
    	fail to show that you are more valuable than the next guy, then
    	you deserve nothing more that what the next guy is making.  If
    	you succeed in proving your value, yet your employer fails to
    	act on that, then there is nothing stopping you from letting
    	your employer make a bad business decision in allowing you to go
    	to a competitor.

    	Joe Oppelt

    re .25:
    
    > I don't assume that the complaint hasn't been made elsewhere.
    > I just don't see any value in complaining about it here other
    > than to raise the level of hysteria regarding pay imbalances.
    
    If there are pay imbalances, it is worth airing.  Why not here,
    as well as elsewhere?  Do you assume the readers of this conference to
    be hysterics, or is this the normal reaction (which I have encountered
    several times) to new and undamped information channels?
    
    > We (in the USA anyway) work in an open and free market.
    
    Let's see...  Minimum wage law, the various EEO laws and regulations,
    specific government regulations regarding sellers to the government,
    state regulations in areas not superseded by the federal government,
    etc. ...  Where you been the last 20 years, Joe?
    
    > If pay is better elsewhere, we are free to pursue that pay.  
    
    I am, subject to conditions considerably more complex than that rather
    simplistic statement implies.  And it has been a factor in negotiating
    with my management at times - one which I have sometimes played to
    good effect.  Others are not so free, given the strange games that
    occur when trying to transfer pension and health benefits when
    transfering companies - think about it - if you are near (where near is
    about a decade) retirement, have a pre-existing illness, a sick spouse
    or children, etc.
    
    > If a company can "get away" with "substandard" pay, more power to them!
    
    See above.  Companies can certainly use the situations above to reduce
    payments to some people.  The argument as to whether they SHOULD is
    an interesting one, and ties into the next item.
    
   > Digital (and any employer) is a BUSINESS, not a social charity.
    
    Do companies have any obligations beyond profit?  Think about it VERY 
    carefully - or you will be savaged seriously, and Digital will be in
    SERIOUS trouble if you ever become a high level manager.
   
    > In business you try to acquire you materials at the lowest possible
    > cost.  
    
    Ignoring the natural resentment of being referred to as "material",
    over what period of time are you talking, and what market do you expect
    ot be in?  If you are in a market that demands high quality and good
    service, your statement is a road to quick ruin, unless you recognize
    that the market will pay high price for high quality, and possibly
    NOTHING for poor.  Better be sure you are paying the price that will
    get you materials of the necessary QUALITY to meet the market demands.
    Given Digital's recent performance...
    
    Also note that even in a given range, the lowest possible cost includes 
    such items as insuring reliable supply over the course of a presumably 
    long business relationship, improvements in the QUALITY of the product
    (and presumably the "materials"), assurance of being informed of new
    developments by the "material vendor" since the "vendor" considers your
    interests to be congruent, etc.
    
    /Dave

    	re .26

    	Dave, I think you failed to read alot of what I wrote in .25.

    	You mentioned in detail additional conditions beyond compensation
    	with respect to your job, and I thought I addressed all that.  It 
    	is up to you to weigh those factors against your offered salary.
    	If you find those conditions worth more than any additional salary
    	you can get elsewhere, then you choose to stay.  If not, you are
    	free to choose to go.

    	I don't understand your statement about my being savaged seriously
    	or DEC being at risk if I become a manager and believe that a
    	company should try to pay the lowest salary POSSIBLE.  Are managers 
    	not supposed to run their organizations like a business?  Please limit
    	your discussion to the topic at hand -- that of hiring and salary.
    	Sure companies have obligations other than profit.  But for any
    	company, the goal usually is to get the best possible labor at
    	the lowest POSSIBLE cost.  The lowest POSSIBLE cost may not
    	necessarily be the lowest absolute cost.  It is management's job
    	to weigh the higher salary demand of better quality labor vs
    	lower salaries for lower quality.  Companies have no obligation to 
    	cater to employees' personal situations.  I do not expect DEC to do 
    	that for me, nor for you or anybody else.  But if I can show that
    	I can provide a better quality than the rest of the workforce, I
    	would hope that some firm will recognize that value and offer
    	me more to lure me away from his competitors.  Or I would hope
    	that my current employer would recognize that value and entice
    	me to stay.  Personally I have been pleased with the way the
    	free market has worked for me so far...

    	You created an impressive "list" of factors that you used to
    	counter my claim that we are in a free market for jobs.  Have
    	ANY of them prevented you from pursuing ANY job you might have
    	wanted to pursue?  We (in the USA) are in the most open market
    	anywhere in the world.  Free market reigns, and no laws stop
    	you from looking practically anywhere you want for your employment.  

    	You mentioned minimum wage laws.  I guess you missed my title
    	to .25.   Also I think we'd both agree that minimum wage laws do
    	not come into play for anyone participating in this conference.

    	I lost you entirely on your last paragraph.  Sorry I can't 
    	comment on it.

    	And, by the way, Yes, I *DO* assume that SOME of the readers 
    	and writers of this conference are getting hysterical, and are 
    	fanning hysteria.

    	Joe Oppelt

RE: .27

Joe, I do not know about you, but when my manager and I talk about
salaries, she has a chart that she must use that defines what % can
be output.  There IS no negotiations, ie. this is not a free market.
Yes, I can go outside the company and find another job and negotiate
a new salary.  But once you are an employee, you have no way to do
the same thing.  FWIW, I also think that the company loses too.  If
you have a bad year, does your salary go down?

Back to the subject, the rules of the game make staying with one
company for an extended period much more attractive than changing jobs
every year.  Things like pension vesting and accrued vacation are all
based on length of service with a company.  I also think that a company
can not afford to have huge turnover in its personnel and survive. So
the real result is that the company tries to balance salaries verses
turnover.  At the present time, the company is looking to lose people
therfore, it can also offer less in the way of salary increases.  The
down side is that the folks that can find new jobs the easiest are also
the ones that the company can not afford to lose.  I don't have any
answers unfortunately, just many observations.

Lee G.

    	Lee, you are correct.  Not too many people (if any) get to
    	negotiate at salary time here at DEC.  But my understanding of 
    	the salary process is that each job has a pay range that has
    	been set based on similar pay ranges at competitors.  I'd
    	almost expect to be presented with the same ranges if I were to
    	jump ship, and I tend to take with a grain of salt reports
    	of huge increases if I were to move.

    	What I understand to happen here at DEC is that a person gets
    	positioned within the range for his job by his job performance.
    	So a 1 is positioned closer to the top of his range, and a 2
    	a little lower, and a 3 lower than that, etc.  So I *DO* have
    	some control over my raise, and I have found this to be the case
    	in my own personal experience.  And if I don't like the range for
    	my position, I have the option of shooting for a promotion and
    	the higher pay range that goes with it.

    	You are also correct in your observation of other factors besides
    	pay.  I have been here 7 years, and I have accumulated some of
    	those intangibles.  I have had opportunities to accept more
    	money at other companies, but I saw those other things to be
    	more valuable than the difference in pay I could have gained.
    	One other intangible I found more valuable was JOB SECURITY.
    	Now even in today's turmoil, with the specter of downsizing
    	facing us all, I still see job security as a valuable aspect
    	of my current job.  DEC is not the only company downsizing, so
    	chances are I would be at equal risk of getting transitioned
    	elsewhere as here.  One of the offers I rejected was with a
    	startup firm.  They are still in business 2 years later, and
    	perhaps I could be making 25% more today if I had taken it.  But 
    	I think the stability at DEC is greater that what I might have 
    	faced at a startup firm, and I believed that my responsibility
    	to my family could be better served at DEC.  How much is stability
    	worth?

    	Another factor is the fact that I currently like what I am doing.
    	Chances are that I would not like a new job as much as I like
    	my current one.  It would take a huge amount of money to compensate
    	for the loss of a job that I enjoy.

    	Money is not everything.  And that is exactly why people who
    	were offered some healthy transition packages still opted to
    	stay here.

    	Joe Oppelt

Having managers that are open and treat my group as responsible adults,
they showed us a representation (or the real thing I can't say) of the
chart that they used for salary planning.  One of the things that
struck me was that if I am a 2 performer but am in the 60-100 percent
of my range, I would get the same increase as a 3 performer, ie. ZERO.
Now granted if I did become a 1 performer, I could get an increase at
least in line with the inflation rate.  Also, 80% of the people were
mandated to fall into the 2's and 3's.  So where is the incentive to
perform??

I posed this question to my manager, and her answer was the same as
yours - work to get promoted!


Companies in general have an advantage over the individual in that they
can and do exchange salary information between companies. (This was one
of my wife's main functions when she worked in Personnel for a large
hi-tech company.)  The companies then can set their own ranges any way
they want.  We as individuals do not have access to this information.
I would be less critical of the system if the industry wide figures were
made available to back up statements like Pay for Performance.  Until
that day (and I am not holding my breathe waiting), the other benefits
of the job may still be able to hold me even when I know that there are
other jobs out there that pay better.

Lee G.

    re .25.....now you did it, you made me mad!!!  Employees are definitely
    not "a cost of doing business".  It's that kind of neanderthal-like
    thinking that has got the U.S. auto business, and most other heavy
    manufacturing in this country on it's knees.
    
    Employees, and their relative happiness and morale, are overwhelmingly
    the most important aspect of any business.  Ignore that at your peril.

    re: .31
    
    Silly me, I thought that CUSTOMERS were overwhelmingly the most
    important aspect of any business.  I would contend that forgetting that
    fact is the kind of thinking that got the complacent American auto 
    manufacturers and their self-serving labor unions into the trouble 
    they're in today.
    
    Customers.  Ignore them at your peril.
    
    Al
    

    
    While the employees are the most important part of a business, and 
    customers too are the most important part of a business, there is
    another part that is the most important- namely the owners, or
    shareholders, who expect to see value from their investment.   

    re: employees/customers/shareholders are the most important...
    
    Any attempt to hold up ONE of those three as "most important" tends
    to obscure the fact that they are all important AND closely related.
    If employees are not well trained and motivated, the customer's needs
    will not be met and the customer will buy products and services from
    somebody else.  If the customer buys products and services from
    somebody else, our revenue and growth figures will disappoint our
    shareholders, who will take their money elsewhere.  With less
    investment money and falling revenues, the company tends to skimp on
    training and various motivational factors (like pay, benefits,
    security, and new development projects), leading to...
    
    /Dave

    I know it sounds reactionary, but some of us who taught school before
    coming to DEC still look at our checks and think we died and went to
    heaven.
    
    I know two wrongs don't make a right...and I too am in debt and would
    love to be paid what I think I'm worth.
    
    The difference is that at DEC I appear to be able to move towards that
    goal based on my own efforts.
    
    Holly

Just my 2 cents worth..

First I dislike being thought of as a material, I am not a piece of sheet 
metal that can be cut and bent to any specification you need.  I am a person,
a HUMAN being; one that has wants, and needs.  I can't be stacked in the corner
like some object to be forgotten!

Second, Low Wages and poor working conditions were the reason unions came about
in the first place.  I mean if you make my cube any smaller, and my increases
smaller, eventually you'll push me over the edge.

I have a big problem coming about the end of this school year.  My wife who
teaches special ed for the state of New York, just might be getting laid off.
Well maybe if I lived in Kansas where the cost of housing, food, oil, gas etc...
is cheaper, I might be able to manage, but not in New York.  I might even
consider getting a side job if worse comes to worse. 

Well Unfortunately, I work for EIS.  A kind of Youll be working here for the
next six months situation.  Sometimes these situation are close to home, and
sometimes they are far away.  I'm expected to go to a customer site 70 miles
from my home, in bad (to say the least) traffic and not even get any
compensation whatever.  And don't give me you took the job, you should have
known crap.  I did'nt think or was I told that I'd be traveling to Upstate
New York!  Where is the justice or humanity that every person deserves...


	- Mike