Conference 7.286::digital

    Another way to look at this question is to reduce everyone's salary by
    10%, but then give them a chance to earn it back (and possibly make
    even more) by tying it to that particular group's profitability.  When
    I sold for Lanier, one of the things I liked about the company was that
    everyone's salary was linked to sales, even the CEO's.  It's not a
    panacea, but it could be a great motivator for Digital at this point in
    its history.  I would gladly take a pay cut if it was tied to an
    opportunity to earn more money based on performance.  One without the
    other does not make a lot of sense to me, because it would only prolong
    the agony.  We have to change and we must be clearer about where we are
    going.  We still lack that exciting vision that can energize the people
    who do the work.  If we have the vision, almost anything we do will
    work.
    

I believe that I have already taken several "paycuts" by being at Digital 
for these past few years.  I could get a job paying more outside, and stay 
because of othe reasons currently.  I would not take a further reduction in 
pay to keep more of the people we currently have on board.

We have way too many people, we need to be either 30% larger in revenue 
with solid earnings, or 20% smaller in headcount.  I don't see either 
happening very quickly.

I think dropping more than 20% of the current employees and refilling some 
of the slots with proven winners from other companies is the right thing to 
do.  Our hardware and marketing messages for Alpha AXP don't match, and 
there is nothing in the company getting more attention than that.  If we 
can't do a simple thing like that correct, we do not have the right people 
here.

Matt

    In a recent article in the WSJ, Peter Drucker speaks of the need to
    "reengineer" the business theory of every large organization which has
    been around for very long. Without this, any amount of
    'restructuring' and 'employee-downsizing' will only yield short-term
    results, he says.
    
    Couldn't agree more with him, especially in our context...
    
    Kumar  

    As long as there are large numbers of "senior" people collected 6
    figure and near 6 figure salaries for doing nothing that contributes to
    business, but only whiling away the days politicking and polishing
    their linkages in the Netowrk, I would not even consider such a thing.  
    I've already been paid anywhere from $7-10K less/year than my peers, who 
    are no more productive and don't do work of higher quality as far as I
    can determine.  
    
    If Digital can't get its act together and get rid of the excess
    employees who have consistently been and will always be the biggest
    drain on the company -- its bulging middle and senior "management," 
    then it deserves to go down.  If its products and services truly meet 
    customers needs, another company will rise to take its place.  Its 
    called survival of the fittest.

    I agree with all the previous replies. I have zero interest in saving
    somebody elses job. I want DEC to pay me exactly what DEC thinks I'm
    worth to them. If they think I'm paid too much then they should cut my
    salary. If I didn't like that I'd go to a company that thought I was
    worth more than DEC did. If I couldn't find such a company I'd
    obviously have an incorrect sense of my own value.
    
    DEC is not a charity nor do I or anybody else here do charitable work
    for DEC. I also agree that part of the HUGE G&A line on DEC's balance
    sheet is due to too many 6 figure high level managers that are not
    worth what they're paid.
    
    In my view the way to fix the problems is to Palmer to start getting
    his high level managers to "Walk the Talk". At present all I see is 
    the good ole boy network protecting each others arses.
    
    Dave

    No, I would not favor a 10% pay cut.
    
    Why?
    
    1) We have people who are productive and some who are not.  Those who
       aren't had better shape up or ship out.  I assume this company's
       senior management (Bob Palmer level) is working hard to identify
       which employees are contributing to the bottom line and which are
       not.  I'm certain their task is made even more difficult by the
       current defensiveness, which is inevitable when companies lay-off. 
    
    2) I've been a victim of Digital's salary planning process in the past.  
       I've been told too many times: "I can't give to you unless I take
       from someone else."  I once responded to an ad in a Boston paper. 
       The job discription looked just like what I did -- Rdb database 
       consultant.  The headhunter told me he couldn't send me on the
       interview because the company was Digital and the job was for a
       counter-part req for me.  I was an ISWS Spec 3 and the counter-part
       was for a Consultant I.  To my boss' credit, I was acknowledged as
       holding down a Consultant I's job and he did promote me to Spec 4
       with a plan to promote to Consulant I as soon as he could.  I've
       since taken a voluntary demotion to Spec 3 as an alternative to
       lay-off 2 years ago.  
    
    3) No more across-the-board, wide, paint-brush approaches.  Too many
       manipulators took care of themselves.
    
                               Kurt
    

    I can't speak to the people who are single, independently working, etc.
    but most of us are married, and many of us have children, and
    compensation for us isn't an option.
    
    We do the best we can for our families.  We do the best we can for
    Digital.
    
    In turn, we expect Digital to do the best it can for its employees.
    
    Digital itself doesn't have many options.

    NO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    	There is a saying that applies here:
    
    		Do not throw stones if your ceiling is made of glass.
    
    	The learning here is:
    
    		1) If the company is interested in a leadership effort
                   to get better IT MUST start at the top.
    
                   Example: Lee Iacocca cut his salary to $ 1.00 per year
                            while Crysler was in trouble time.
    
    		   Question: How many of our top paid/top level managers
                             are willing to lead and cut their salaries
                             perks, benefits and 'sidelines' by whatever
                             percent they think is reasonable ?
    
    		

I feel that we have already been taking pay cuts in an effort to
save fellow employees jobs. The salary review trend has seen lower
participation rates, lower spend numbers, and longer periods, not
to mention salary freezes, and people taking lower SRIs to stay on.

The question is, *which* fellow employees' jobs have we been saving?

Cost cutting doesn't sustain profits anyway, and profits fund 
compensation. 

As for morale, job security for me, equates to family security. My morale
is directly tied to my family's well-being. I'm not doing this for me.

/Bob

    re .8
    
    If the ceiling is made of glass then by all means BREAK IT!
    
    But there are no glass ceilings at Digital, right folks?! 
    
    :-}
    
    	--Catherine--*
    
    
    P.S. If the company were very small (i.e. I knew the people who would stay
    on board) and long term prospects for everyone were good, I might
    accept a short term pay decrease to keep everyone, since I
    would likely need them soon. So, for a startup, yes.
        

    No! noone should be asked or should consider a paycut to save someone
    elses job.  Digital needs to get rid of anyone who is not doing their
    job or is not needed.  Who are these employees that would be saved?  I
    for one don't want to save someone making six figures, someone that has
    abused Digital, etc, etc.
    
    The idea of taking a paycut would never work anyway, unless EVERONE
    agreed to it.  Most folks haven't received an increase in over 2 years
    anyway, that's enough of a cut!

    DEC is not a charity (at least not yet) and I'm not one of Bush's
    Thousand Points Of Light.  I work for the money.  If they cut my pay by
    10% then they can only get 80% of my energy as I would have to work
    a part time job somewhere else to keep a roof over my families head.
    
    

    NO. i look around the office and STILL see people who are absolutely
    USELESS to our business goals. these are the very same people who have
    decided to tfso some VERY USEFULL and productive people. i'm to the
    point where i don't feel much like continuing to work for dec to pay
    those people's salaries. much less even think about a cut. no thanks.
    count me out.

    We discussed this notion in this conference a few months back, as I
    recall.
    
    It sounds no better now than it did then.
    
    -- Russ

re: .15

Sounds terrific!  As long as benefits remained intact, i'd volunteer for a
4/5ths work schedule anytime (and take the 20% salary cut).  If the last few
years should have taught us anything, it's that more time worked (as in >65
hours a week) does not equal more productivity or feeling of accomplishment.
It's too easy to get sucked into the committee/"virtual team"/"influencing"
game that is fostered by a mushy management structure and still end up not
achieving anything when all is said and done.
								- paul

    
    re: .10 and others
    
    Upon reading the replies, I have an opinion on what needs to happen.
    We don't all know each other, its alot easier to accept a bunch of
    folks somewhere else losing there jobs.  So why not give TOTAL
    control to the lowest level possible, put in some peer review, and
    allow each small group (where we all know each other) make a group
    decsion on what the group needs to do to be a 'profitable' group?
    
    Morale up, profit up, and productivity up.
    
    Could we come to a conclusion, with the individuals that would be
    "selected" in the room, on who would go and who would stay?
    
    Perhaps I'm dreaming, but I'd be willing to meet with my peers and
    either change (if I needed to) or leave, if I was part of the 
    decsion process.
    
    Oh, on the topic.... I'd do it if my group (team) did it.
    
    dennis
    

    Great this responds is what I was looking for, so far the NO'S are the
    higher percentage. Not that I agree with the no's. From reading there
    replys these are some of my observations. That upper level managers
    are making six figure salarys, and they seem to be unaccountable for
    the financial heath of digital. ( Hopeful Mr Palmer, has or will address
    this valid concern.) Secondly that most of the digital employes or a
    high percentage of the past TSFO candidates, and furture candidates are
    poor performers. If I remember back a few years after the first round
    of TSFO'S, a team of upper level VP'S and six figure managers went
    around the field/country telling us that the employes left where the
    best in class. Most be some inheritable problem that digital breeds
    poor performers. My hope was that if we could some how put this TSFO
    processes to rest for a period of time, that we could spend that period
    of time focusing on customer/hardware/software/network problems without
    the destraction of the TSFO process every quarter.
      

    
    re: .11 - One MAJOR problem I see VERY clearly in some cases, is that
    many of those sloted to TSFO are EXCELLENT employees, while several of
    those not set to go - SHOULD BE. THIS is what IS so IMMORAL & stupid
    about how this process is being handled. IT IS STILL HIGHLY POLITICAL &
    so it adds up to CRAP!

    I also say **NO** to pay cut....
    
    As someone else said, I am not doing this for me. I have a family and
    my family is growing older (teens (3 of them) ready for college soon).
    
    I have not received a pay increase in four years... "due to the
    companys' financial problems".... From the beginning of my 12 years
    here at digital, I have been tied up in the ever changing pay cycles.
    It seems I'd just be nearing a salary review, then the cycle changes. I
    think I've been considered for a pay increase maybe three times in the
    12 years... 
    
    If I'm to be cut, be done with it.. and let me get on with my life. I
    am a compationate person, but when it comes to the well-being of my
    family, it comes first.. I'll save my charitable giving for my church
    and the boy scouts, thank you..!!!
    
    Believe me, if I were single, I wouldn't be working in this industry. I
    would most likely be doing something much less stressful.
    
    NOPE, sorry, Digital can't have 10%, cause I need it for the family. As
    it is, I've volunteered to go on third shift to compansate for the lack
    of pay raises... The 15% shift differential helps keep the roof over
    the head...
    
    Give me the package, but don't cut my pay to keep me here.!!
    
    Bob G.
    

    
    I say NO also.  I really tired of getting great reviews and nice atta
    boys.  Still rubs me raw to know 40k bonuses were paid out to upper
    managers last year.  Nice example of sharing the pain for ya!

    It looks like we are subsidizing France!  For a 20% reduction in work,
    they take a 10% reduction in salary.  For a 40% reduction in work, 20%
    cut in salary.  At that rate, some jobs could be cut 100% in work
    (eliminated) for only a 50% reduction in salary.
    
    - Rick

    
    Digital is NEW and very defintely DIFFERENT.  This company is in the
    midst of selling off sites and people and outsourcing virtually
    everything it needs to support it's software and services goals.
    (come on, we even second sourced the Alpha chip to Japan- wait and see
    what the future brings of that!  "In Japan, we take everything that is
    the best in all the world and make it ours."  A slightly paraphrased
    quote from _Mr Baseball_)
    
    Digital doesn't care if you're a poor performer or not, if your
    FUNCTION is no_longer_needed, you are out the door- plain and simple.
    Oh, I'm sure this is a way to weed out the "last" of the poor
    performers (even though I tought they were all gone way back with the
    big bucks), but the key is YOUR FUNCTION.  If Digital can out source it
    and get it cheaper/equal/better and reduce it's headcount to make the
    funny money balance sheet lines look profitable, that's what is needed
    to make it profitable.
    
    And all those who whine about how many poor performers are still here
    and how many make big bucks for nothing and how the good old boy
    network is still alive and well: toooo baad.  Those people got their
    foot in the door and took advantage of the situation and got to where
    they got to by "doing what it takes" and that is not always the right
    way, but that is survival of the fittest.  If maybe (global) you would
    just smile a little more and suck up a little more and learn when to
    insert you're foot into your mouth or not, you might be up there too-
    faced with which people to axe, which groups to slice, which products
    to crush, which services to flush (notice I haven't learnt yet, as
    well).  Then, if you made the wrong choices, well, you would just have 
    held onto your job a little longer before the doors closed on you and 
    everyone else.  (besides, most of those people occupying "useless" jobs 
    are not a fault of their own, but one of management as the position was 
    created when it was truly needed; now it is functionless and will be 
    gone soon enough)
    
    I am not here to save anyones job but my own, except for those who 
    request help from peer/superior persecution at which I will do my best
    to prove that person right, the persecurer(SP) wrong.  I will not die
    for Digital, nor will I cease to exist if Digital boots me out the
    door.  There is so much more to life than Digital, this is just what I
    do 8 hrs a day.
    
    Anyway, they've taken enough and they'll not get my free-willing
    support to help them out financially anymore, I have a family to
    provide for.  However, if they so deem it mandatory to institute a
    cross the board pay cut, there's nothing I can do about it except 2
    things: accept it, or leave.
    
    Reg.
    
    (If you really think your job is secure, thing about the business you're
    in and how easily it can be outsourced/farmed out and stop spending so
    much time equating you performance with those of others around you;
    when your function is not required, expect to leave on the next train
    bound for the future.)

    'All the myriad ways ...'
    
    One of the latest, and, in my opinion, most pernicious, ways of cutting
    costs is the 'your job has been rewritten' scam.
    
    You are told that your job has been 'redefined,' 'rewritten,'
    'releveled,' etc. This then gives DEC the freedom to:
    
    1. Make you take a 'new' job at whatever level and at whatever pay they
       want to offer (if any), or
    
    2. Force you out of the company without TFSO or any other benefit.
    
    Since you haven't been layed-off and since your job hasn't been -- in
    the finest sense of legal weaselese -- eliminated, you are history but
    have no recourse.
    
    DEC doesn't pay $ 60M a year for corporate legal staff for nothing.
    
    This method of "reducing pay" to save money is gathering steam for an
    apparent June/July "personnel reduction event."
    
    

    Cutting back on salary will accomplish nothing if we, as a company,
    don't know what we want to accomplish. Let me attempt to clarify this
    statement. The track records of other Fortune 50 companies that have
    "rightsized" in the past ten years has revealed something very
    interesting. Companies have focused on the easist part of reducing
    costs quickly....dumping people. However, this has been done prior to
    the company executives deciding and communicating where it's going, why
    it's going there and how it will get there.
    
    As a result of not addressing these issues, the companies involved never
    sought to understand what jobs and tasks were unnecessary, what were
    needed, what would be needed for the future and where the people are
    in the organization who can help get the firm where it needs to go.
    Consequently, each company still performed the same tasks as it did
    prior to the staff reductions. This meant that fewer people had
    to perform the both the same ol' value-less tasks and could devote
    less time to the tasks that the company eventually felt were important.
    
    To make a long story short, getting rid of people (and talent) prior
    to deciding what jobs and tasks need to be performed is technically
    known as bass-ackwards. Until there is a fundamental change in the
    still entrenched corporate-wide management that has held sway over 
    a Digital stock plunge from nearly $200 per share to the high $30's, 
    contributing 100% of my salary will make no difference, whatsoever.
    
    At this point, the management at all levels, is indebted to all of the
    associates for what has been foisted upon us. Once we have leaders who
    can lead, managers who can manage and directors who can direct, we can
    begin to discuss repaymemt of this indebtedness. Until then, I refuse
    to reach for my wallet. 
    

    As I read this string of notes, I'm reminded of the time (in a former
    life) when I worked for Southwestern Bell--then part of AT&T.  They
    made a big deal of the fact that no person had ever been laid off by
    the company.  
    
    The company is now well over 100 years old, so the no-layoff policy 
    even extended thru the Depression.  During the Depression, employees 
    took a pay cut, but worked the same number of hours.  The result was 
    that all jobs were saved.  Everybody sacrificed to save the company
    and, therefore, themselves.  It made sense.  And it worked.
    
    Today's situation is very different.
    
    First, people have already been laid off using, in many cases,
    extremely spurious selection criteria.  Do I really want to save the
    jobs of some of the remaining people?  After all, they have engaged in
    some very questionable management decisions.
    
    Second, the Depression was affecting everyone.  There was less of the
    "have" and the "have not" situation we face today.
    
    All things considered, I do not support the idea of group sacrifice to
    save the group.  At least not this group!
    
    Chet
                                                    

    Just needed to add my NO
    And keep your hands off my dough
    Cause if you cut my lousy pay
    I'll be outta here the next day.

re:.0, Sevic

>    WOULD YOU GIVE UP A PERCENTAGE OF YOUR SALARY TO
>    RETIRE THE TSFO PROCESS FOR A PERIOD OF 24 MONTHS.

Absolutely, positively, unequivocally, not. What possible good would buying
another 24 month delay be? Now, if you wanted to change it to -

    WOULD YOU GIVE UP A PERCENTAGE OF YOUR SALARY TO
    RETIRE THE TSFO PROCESS permanently and institute
    a guaranteed-job-for-life-policy?



 - I still wouldn't take the bait.

It's all been said. Sacrificing part of my remuneration isn't my responsibility
in terms of helping out the company or my fellow employee. Neither should DEC
be in the business of providing a welfare state.

-Jack

Several responses to this note have made reference to "unproductive", "useless",
etc. people.

If ALL such people were identified and released today, Digital's problem would
still not be solved.

IMHO, Digital's problem is longstanding and very ingrained.  It was lack of
qualified business leadership.  Not technical visionary leadership (God knows
we had that market cornered at one time), but solid and capable BUSINESS leaders
who know how to develop, manage and maintain a healthy corporation.

In closing, I believe that RP is capable of turning this company around and that
he is getting lieutenants who can make it happen.

P.S. No, I don't want to take a cut in pay to save someone's job nor do I want
     other to take a cut in pay to save mine.

    Re: .27
    
    If Finance runs the company, this can be depicted as short-term goodness 
    -- Minus 1 off the headcount and no TFSO expense.
    
    If the company ever hopes to recover and become competitive, which
    means productive people, this would be badness.  These types of
    financial games, which emanate from spreadsheet people, typically
    result in the wrong peoples' leaving.
    
                                  Kurt

    
    The best morale booster would be if we *REALLY WERE* doing the
    downsizing to improve the "Supply Chain".  As I see it, whether or not
    you get downsized depends on where you are in the "Food Chain".
    
    -Ed
    

    
    Nope.  Lowering headcount at DEC is necessary, even if it's
    you or me.  It's healthy.   As to improving morale, nothing
    but quarters in the black are going to work.  Let the normal
    process continue.  What survives (if anything) is what deserves
    to.  TFSO is NOT the end of the world - just a chance to change
    your life around, maybe for the better, maybe not.
    

    As to improving morale, nothing
    but quarters in the black are going to work. 

Do you think that a few quarters in the black will suffice to raise morale?

    What survives (if anything) is what deserves to.  

Do you think that the right set of people are being TFSO'd in order to
help Digital the most in the long run, or even the short run?

	Just curious,
	Larry

    RE: -.23 Not even FUNCTION will protect you from the REAL motivator of
    cuts which is blind panic driven from the top to meet some mystical
    number, cutting valuable technical resources while the good ole boy
    political system saves the well connected management club - yet again!
    I personally know - not just of - but know many well qualified
    technical software support reps who have been told they are not funded
    and good luck finding a job, oh by the way, hope you can afford to
    relocate too! Even in networking tecnical expertise areas where we are
    supposed to "lead the world" with the best people, several just in my
    immediate district have just gotten the shaft! Given how our network
    capabilities are played to the press, this is equivalent to firing a
    bunch of AXP ALPHA engineers - totally brain dead! These folks are
    level 2 performers consistently, exceed budget - you name it. But what
    do you expect when given a number of folks to cut & you want to save
    your political buddies' butts & a few productive folks - you only have
    good workers to cut from. It's a sham. So, it's not function, it's
    still politics although un-needed function may fall prey as well. The
    thing to look for is who survives & NOT to assume only unnecessary
    baggage gets dumped - that is a lie. It is similar to something that
    happens in fly fishing. One can see lots of a kind of flies and assume
    the trout are biting on them, tie one on, and get no hits. The apparent
    target (of the fish) is only masking the true selection. The real
    target can often be surprising! Look closely & you'll see the pressure
    to cut skipping over many managers yet hitting those even in functional
    areas declared almost sacred to the company! Why? 

    I read the 1st 2 replies the answer is"NO" .Ive taken pay cuts in
    Medical care/company car etc,etc,etc... and for what. Theres still alot
    a dead wood out there.
    
    If anyone answers yes your saps IMHO.
    
    mike turro
    
    

	re .22:

>    At that rate, some jobs could be cut 100% in work
>    (eliminated) for only a 50% reduction in salary.

	That's nothing. I could name people who have had their work cut
	100% and had a big increase in salary. This happens all the time
	when someone too incompetent or lazy to do a good job in their
	current position gets promoted to a level where they don't have
	to do anything except go to meetings.

	/Tom

    
    Deadwood - what a rotten word. It tends to devalue the person rather
    than the position.  Just because Digital is unable to make use of the
    good people we have, doesn't make those people "useless." There are
    plenty of people with good skills and ideas to offer who may be at
    risk, who have nevertheless made significant contributions to this
    company. They deserve thanks, not derision.
    
    I bet lots of that "deadwood" is going to do wonderful things for other
    companies. That "deadwood" may end up being your next employer!
    
    
                   --Catherine--*
    
    
    P.S. I would be the first to admit that some folks job responsibilities
    seem pretty unnecessary at the moment. But some of these terms that
    get bandied about seem to get attached to the people rather than
    the job functions. 

    Other companies insensitively use the term "deadwood" with the
    understanding that during times of layoff you let go of "bad" workers.
    When they eliminate jobs, they force new training on their good workers
    for other jobs.  Note that other companies judge individuals as "good"
    or "bad" ("deadwood") when it comes to layoffs.  This is a bit 
    insensitive because it takes away the choice people have in their training 
    and doesn't show respect for their diverse skill sets.
    
    At Digital, we value all kinds of diversity, including the competence
    challenged.  So, our separations are done by restructuring organizations, 
    rewriting charters and redefining jobs to match new visions.  We do this 
    while still recognizing the individual as the company's most valueable
    asset.  Sometimes management needs to make the tough decisions when it 
    comes to liquidating valued company assets and eliminating jobs that no 
    longer match changing group charters.  Those who unfortunately hold jobs 
    that no longer fit group charters cannot be forced into other jobs that 
    don't fit their skill sets.  So, they become eligible to volunteer for 
    separation.  
    
    :^(
    
    Steve

    
    
    	If you ask me, (I know you did'nt!) anyone who answers yes, 
    	is probably on the hit list......

    Not necessarily.  If I was on the hit list (and I may well be, since the
    "communications" function is being "re-engineered" in half or so), I
    would still say no.  TFSO me and get it over with.

    
    Reduce the inequity outlined below and you may not have to give up part 
    of your salary to save fellow employees. 
    
    The issue is who gets to stay on and who doesn't, i.e. Management at   
    higher salaries or Individual Contributors, generally at lower
    salaries. 
    
    I'm sure some managers leave the company, but not at the same
    percentage as Individual Contributors. This is what I see, a high      
    number of Ex-Managers find new positions than IC. These are positions  
    not open or available earlier within Digital. Interesting, isn't it?
    
    FYI: From what I've been told, the reason managers stay is because
    `they made the company what it is today'....enough said.
    
    This one-way approach troubles me, I.E. a manager and their direct
    reports have their positions eliminated. The reason for this was to
    reduce headcount, redundancy and expenses. The reality is the job      
    functions went away, but only the middle managers stayed with the    
    higher salaries. Personally I wouldn't wish anyone lose their job. I   
    have a family too. The problem is the negative financial impact it has 
    to Digital's employee base with the replication of this DEC-think over 
    and over.
    
    My observations - Ed

    "Competence challenged"! That's great, Steve! Thanks.
    
    
    

    I vote no & I got my 2 weeks notice today to go find a job & pay
    relocation for the privlige to bet my butt & those of my family on the
    potential success of the new venture. I have a fair amount of network
    expertise but apparently those "family jewels" of DEC's network
    capability are overstocked in some areas & logic certainly does not
    apply in the selection for layoff of many of those I know who were
    notified today.  I am not DEADWOOD & you overestimate DEC & those that
    run this process if you think so, much less many of your fellow
    employees. I may find a job inside & take or may not, but the issue of
    this flawed process will not change. Good luck to all who remain.

    I was 'invited' to find another job in DEC two years ago.  I did.  I
    went from Development Engineer to Warehouser with approximately a 30 %
    pay cut.  I adjusted... emotionally and financially, at least I kept
    a job.
    
    I suggested BEFORE being 'invited' to find another job that there be an
    across the board 5 % pay cut for all DEC employees to eliminate the
    need to have layoffs at all.  At the time it made sense... that a 5 %
    pay cut for all would do the job, now I know it wouldn't have been
    nearly enough.
    
    I would be willing to give up ANOTHER 5 % on top of the 30 % cut I have
    already had to stop the layoffs.  So the answer is yes.
    
    Jeff

    Raises, if you do get one are low and so far apart it's like not getting
    one at all. I wonder if management gets them in the same timeframe
    as individual contributors? I can't take a pay cut. I am lucky I have
    something in the back to draw on every week the way things are now.
    After awhile I'll be stuck. Nothing to take out to make up the balance
    and pay my bills.
    
                          Ed
    
    

    I'll vote no to the pay cut issue.
    
    Money isn't the problem here, management of resources IS the problem. 
    To suggest a pay cut in this climate is tantamount to raising taxes
    instead of cutting spending.  It misses the point entirely.
    
    Digital is re-organizing and the new model simply doesn't require
    as many people as the old model did.  But those people that are
    required will be paid what they are worth, or they won't stay around.
    
    cw

    
    
    In regard to the events of the past couple of days, isn't this 
    question now moot?
    
    Just an observation.
    
    Don

    re .40> TFSO me and get it over with.
    
    hear, hear.

    	No.
    
    	Digital is not in the business of hiring people.  It is not in
    	the business of "saving jobs".
    
    	If digitat identifies unnecessary positions (though that is a 
    	debatable point for all the folks TFSOd) then those positions
    	should be eliminated.
    
    	"Well, if we just eliminate the holiday turkeys and Canobie
    	Lake and <fill in any benefits you don't use> then we can 'save'
    	x-many jobs."
    
    	Bull.  TFSO useless or duplicate jobs and pay those who remain
    	what they are truly worth.  Instead of having 100,000 employees
    	with watered-down pay and benefits (and thereby watered-down
    	levels of satisfaction and loyalty) lets have 80,000 employees
    	with full pay and good benefits -- maybe even higher-than-avarage
    	compensation -- and high levels of job satisfaction and loyalty.
    
    	Let's increase compensation through stock ownership, options,
    	resurrect ESOP, match 401K with stock.  Make us all accountable
    	to ourselves!  And use payroll savings gleaned through TFSO to
    	do it.

re: .49

>				Instead of having 100,000 employees
>    	with watered-down pay and benefits (and thereby watered-down
>    	levels of satisfaction and loyalty) lets have 80,000 employees
>    	with full pay and good benefits -- maybe even higher-than-avarage
>    	compensation -- and high levels of job satisfaction and loyalty.
    
OK.  But what about 70000 employees with watered-down pay and benefits?
That seems more likely to be where we're heading... ;^)
								-paul

    I agree 100% with you, Joe.  Could you find some way to express that in
    spreadsheet terminology so the decision makers could see it on their
    spreadsheets?
    
                                Kurt

    	You can't factor common sense into a spreadsheet.

	The spreadsheet idea is good in principle.

	If only it were as simple as

	"Either

		$N divided among 100,000 employees

	Or

		$N divided among 70,000 employees"

	on the basis of which it looks good for the second option:
	each employee gets an extra 43% salary and benefits.

	Unfortunately, in removing the "surplus" 30,000 employees,
	the company is not in the position of a surgeon diagnosing
	and removing an appendix (an apparently functionless organ).

	Instead, it is a lot more like bombarding a human body with
	ionizing radiation, which sleets through the body and damages
	or destroys cells at random. Many of these cells may be
	replaceable. Some might even be obnoxious fat cells.
	But I think we are all familiar with the health effects of even
	small quantities of ionizing radiation.

	Under the circumstances, I feel the company should be asking
	itself "Do you feel lucky?"

	The $N to be divided among the 70,000 / 50,000 / 30,000 survivors
	will come from a profitable business based on selling WHAT? I
	know one profitable business my part of the company has implicitly
	rejected - based on redundancy choices. It is my business, CASE
	tools. Who knows what effect that rejection will have on the
	bottom line? Stick around and see.

	/Tom

Read in PC Week last week that in order to control costs for next fiscal 
year, Microsoft has set a budget of $20 per employee per month for 
events/t-shirts/etc. for morale building purposes.

    
    Our morale booster is
    
    "Your just lucky to have a job!!"
    
    
    	I knew that.

    Re: .54 (Microsoft Benefits for Morale)
    
    I used to work for a small company that made boards (data acquisition,
    image processing, et al.) for IBM-PC's, VAXen, et al.
    
    We had 1) A paid company picnic that included things such as going to
    Riverside Park BUT also had things like an open bar (mind you not to
    get sloshed out of your gord (sp) but it was still nice to know even if
    I wanted a beer EVERYTHING that day would be free), 2) a christmas
    dinner where you choose your entree (at DEC each year I get mail saying
    come to the Christmas feast, $25/person...), we had various toys given
    out now and then including a calculator (like what you get here for
    your 10-20 anniversary (8-()), T-shirts, hats once.  Finally,
    Thanksgiving included a $50 gift certificate to a local supermarket,
    and Christmas was preceded by a bonus (in my youth as a part-time I
    still got three-figures and ~$2000 was the norm).
    
    I'm not saying DEC can or should afford to do these things, but they
    were great morale boosters.
    
    George
    

    The gimmicks/gifts you were given were nice but I don't think they are
    key to DEC morale.  DEC employees need the feeling that the company is
    going places (GOOD places) and that we are valued employees, (rather than
    baggage to be TFSO'd at the next possible opportunity).  Those two
    things would make a major difference.
    
    I expect to give DEC a days work for a days pay... but I am damm tired
    of the feeling that the managers spend most of their time trying to
    figure out how to get rid of us. 
    
    If DEC doesn't stop this downward spiral pretty damm soon I wonder if 
    DEC can pull out of this dive.
    
    For the most part I am surrounded by DEC peers who do a good days job.
    I wonder why all this effort 'isn't helping'.
    
    The trinkets are nice... but we need goals and the feeling we are
    valued more.
    
    Jeff